"Theft" is relative, but more importantly that Epic cannot process their own payments using their own payment system. Lose 3% as typical payment systems charge or 30% that Apple charges.
Epic is free to process their own payments for free, just not using IAP.
I just want to point out today that one must be careful mathematically comparing a retailer's cut to its markup. If a retailer marked up the price of a wholesaler's product by 100%, (which is a common value for retailers) that would mean the retailer's "cut" of the final purchase price is 50%. Notice that a "100% markup" is equal to a "50% cut" of the sale price. The numbers "50%" and "100%" look different but they represent the same share for wholesaler and retailer.
In Apple's case a 30% "cut" is equal to a markup of 42.8% over what the wholesaler (game developer) gets. That's because 3/7=42.8.
I can't understand why Epic's lawyers are talking about "30%" when they could be talking about "42.8%."
Apple "could" adjust the guidelines for a two tiered setup i) Use Apple's tools, Maps, Purchase/InApp payment model etc - 30% or ii) Do it yourself and have no access to Apples "frameworks" and distribute it all yourself - 5% (or some "royalty" fee) In not advocating that the 30% is fair or unfair. Apple "could" take the moral higher ground in this.. The key would be to determine what would be in the "package" that you get for 30%. Just my 10 cents..
Not sure I (as customer) like the idea. I don't want to investigate whether the payment goes through "safe" payment gateway, or through some cheap implementation. This is the huge advantage of the Apple's app store. Do you remember the HomeDepot leak, the Equifax leak, the Capital One leak..... If the app store is going to contain apps that are paid through different payment gateway, then the store will suffer, because there will be customers like me, that will just stop spending money. I don't have time to investigate policies, to read about different payment providers.... I will do it only if it is really necessary - and games like Fortnite, and Roblox are really low in the importance charts. Sorry kids..
I agree - don't get me wrong in saying that this will result in some dubious apps making their way to the customer - The alternative to that mentioned is to charge a higher amount (like a % of revenue - like Unreal Engine does - for the Apple Developer Program)...
The majority of developers like the AppStore - but over the years, I think the value of the 30% has shrunk significantly - Nowadays you are up against so many titles that discovery means Marketting budgets are out of reach of most devs.
The judge is obviously not an Apple fan. How else would you explain the reasonable decision to declare that Epic has a case against Apple and that it should be heard by a jury. Oh, BTW, the jury also won't be made up of Apple fans. There is this thing called jury selection.
One point that I never see mentioned is that you can’t easily run Epic software on an iPhone without also running Apple code. Apple has spent and continues to spend a lot of resources on iOS, and basically anyone who runs third-party software on their iPhone is also using Apple software (which the user has licensed but does not own) for free. So isn’t the use of iOS worth something, and doesn’t Apple have a right to determine how they are compensated if you want to buy and use their products, including their software, which you did not purchase?
Apple "could" adjust the guidelines for a two tiered setup i) Use Apple's tools, Maps, Purchase/InApp payment model etc - 30% or ii) Do it yourself and have no access to Apples "frameworks" and distribute it all yourself - 5% (or some "royalty" fee) In not advocating that the 30% is fair or unfair. Apple "could" take the moral higher ground in this.. The key would be to determine what would be in the "package" that you get for 30%. Just my 10 cents..
This isn't really about the money.... for either side. It's about control of the platform. iOS is a closed platform. As are console platforms from Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, etc. So, either it is acceptable to have a closed platform whereby the platform owner gets to establish the rules or it isn't. EPIC's case is ridiculous in that they are going after Apple specifically rather than the consoles because they arbitrarily decided that it's okay for the consoles to have a closed platform by not for mobile devices. Why do they get to decide? Apple has established trust from their user base for their payment system and for their ability to curate a safe app selection. As an iOS user, that's what I want. I don't want to have to worry about different payment systems for apps on my mobile device. I don't want to have to rely on the security or privacy standards of a company like Facebook (who's an advocate for EPIC in this battle) who's already demonstrated they can't be trusted.
The judge is obviously not an Apple fan. How else would you explain the reasonable decision to declare that Epic has a case against Apple and that it should be heard by a jury. Oh, BTW, the jury also won't be made up of Apple fans. There is this thing called jury selection.
I’m not sure where I read this (either here or Ars Technica), but Apple wants a jury trial and Epic does not.
It’s pretty much exactly what the judge says here. Apple wants to establish the foundation for the case law that will govern its role as a “platform utility” — this case is narrow, but it probably is useful nonetheless. Judges are supposed to make decisions based on established law. Jury trials are an important part of that foundation.
Epic, on the other hand, wants none of that. They want to skip ahead and just have the court issue a short-lived, summary judgment based on weak precedents that don’t properly apply. They overestimate their own importance — they don’t see that their case is an exception, and not really relevant to the future legal structure that will govern the behavior of platform utilities and the array of millions of developers and users that rely on them.
Jewelry stores charge 1000% markup. So far, they've been allowed.
It may surprise you that all middle-men charge for their services.
Organic foods have markups between 50% and 100%. Walgreen's have markups of 60% for named brands over generic. Just the cost of the active ingredients in generic drugs is 600,000% markup.
Comments
If a retailer marked up the price of a wholesaler's product by 100%, (which is a common value for retailers) that would mean the retailer's "cut" of the final purchase price is 50%. Notice that a "100% markup" is equal to a "50% cut" of the sale price. The numbers "50%" and "100%" look different but they represent the same share for wholesaler and retailer.
In Apple's case a 30% "cut" is equal to a markup of 42.8% over what the wholesaler (game developer) gets. That's because 3/7=42.8.
I can't understand why Epic's lawyers are talking about "30%" when they could be talking about "42.8%."
I wonder what Epic's share of the retail price is when they sell Fortnite as a DVD in a company like Amazon or Walmart. https://www.amazon.com/s?k=fortnite+playstation&ref=nb_sb_noss_2 <==
The majority of developers like the AppStore - but over the years, I think the value of the 30% has shrunk significantly - Nowadays you are up against so many titles that discovery means Marketting budgets are out of reach of most devs.
It’s pretty much exactly what the judge says here. Apple wants to establish the foundation for the case law that will govern its role as a “platform utility” — this case is narrow, but it probably is useful nonetheless. Judges are supposed to make decisions based on established law. Jury trials are an important part of that foundation.
Epic, on the other hand, wants none of that. They want to skip ahead and just have the court issue a short-lived, summary judgment based on weak precedents that don’t properly apply. They overestimate their own importance — they don’t see that their case is an exception, and not really relevant to the future legal structure that will govern the behavior of platform utilities and the array of millions of developers and users that rely on them.
It may surprise you that all middle-men charge for their services.
Organic foods have markups between 50% and 100%. Walgreen's have markups of 60% for named brands over generic. Just the cost of the active ingredients in generic drugs is 600,000% markup.
30% theft. HAHAHA