You have to think (given the contract they signed) that Epic are not necessarily hoping to win this case, but to use it to build public pressure on Apple and their App Store policies to get them to change it.
I think that this it the prime reason for the case.
Now we are seeing reports that there are hundreds of developers wanting to join the Coalition for App Fairness,
If they win then IMHO, we can all say goodbye to free apps, $0.99c apps etc. Apple would have to charge what it cost them to host and deliver each and every copy of the app plus a handling fee plus a few % profit. The barrier to entry would be a lot higher but we'd have to thank Epic for making a lot of devs simply give up. i.e. the ones not in it for the money.
Disclaimer. I have good number of apps on my phone but none are paid apps. Most are related to EV charging, route planning and railway/bus times. I use many to buy things like train tickets and I don't pay Apple even $0.00000001 for doing so. This whole model will drastically change if Epic and its cronies win.
I wonder if any of those on Epic's side have considered that they might fall foul of the 'be careful what you wish for' rule. They might end up worse off than they are are present.
Why dont someone sue Epic over the rights to make and sell V-Bucks? Its only a single 64 bit value stored on every account.
I mean they are selling colored hats and dance moves that have no advanteges in gameplay for exorbitant amounts of real money to children (and their parents)
Epic should not be allowed to create a monopoly on V-Bucks, and competition would give the players much better prices and value for money.
likewise Everybody should be able to create and sell colored hats and dance lessons. They should give the power to the people and players and not be so evil...
Why dont someone sue Epic over the rights to make and sell V-Bucks? Its only a single 64 bit value stored on every account.
I mean they are selling colored hats and dance moves that have no advanteges in gameplay for exorbitant amounts of real money to children (and their parents)
Epic should not be allowed to create a monopoly on V-Bucks, and competition would give the players much better prices and value for money.
likewise Everybody should be able to create and sell colored hats and dance lessons. They should give the power to the people and players and not be so evil...
Most of the items they sell are culturally misappropriation or outright copyright infringement. Making it all the more obvious they wouldn’t know the value other parties bring to the party.
Do as I say not as I do. Epic has its own in-game store that sells ‘digital useless garbage’ that is not even open to 3rd parties... which means they get 100% of all proceeds. Sweeney is a weasel ... Enslaved to his (deep pocketed) Chinese state-owned backers. Parents should open a class action suit to sue for refunding of the money spent on things like costumes for characters and other valueless crap that Epic deliberately preys on young kids to buy with their parent’s credit cards.
I think Apple’s fees are high, but it’s difficult to sympathize with Epic.
Right now Apple's fee structure favours the small developer, because all developers pay almost NOTHING (only that $99 annual developer fee) until they start selling products, through that 15% to 30% fee. Would you prefer that there be an upfront fee of $1000 per developer for the Xcode tools and developer accounts and services, even before a single product is sold? That would be great for big companies like Epic but bad for the million developers who would have to pay $1000 each just to join the table.
Basically Epic doesn't want to be subsidizing the small developer (who include their competitors) any more. Understandable. But every one of the 200 million socialists in the US should be outraged at Epic.
I think if you're offering a free app, then the $99 fee is appropriate. If you're developing an app that you will charge for, then $1000 is not that much if that meant that you can control the purchase of the app yourself (ie., through your own payment systems which typically costs 3% and not 30% of the App Store). Developing a pay-for app is a business and there are costs to start a business or a new project in an existing business. A Mac computer is way more than $1000, which is needed to develop apps. Add to that the cost of an iPhone if you're developing iOS apps.
The cost of starting a business isn't $99 so it's appropriate for a free app. I think $1000 is a great starting point to get the dev tools and marketing and distribution. The payment system should be the devs choice -- stick with App Store (30%) or go it alone (3% by most CC systems). Either way, Apple got their $1000 to allow you to market your app on their store, at least until there are other options to market and distribute your app outside the App Store. The current investigations against Apple for being a monopoly will tell us soon if that is an option.
You have to think (given the contract they signed) that Epic are not necessarily hoping to win this case, but to use it to build public pressure on Apple and their App Store policies to get them to change it.
Contracts are not valid nor enforceable if they are deemed illegal. Perhaps Epic is hoping to demonstrate some aspect of the contract or the operation of the store is illegal (perhaps based on monopolistic practices). That said, I would agree they are likely trying to bring developer pressure to bear against Apple.
It would be interesting to see the finances of the App Store. Clearly there are data center costs (hardware, electricity, maintenance), app review costs, et all. With many free apps, is Apple making money from the store? losing money? breaking even? Does Apple break this information out in their financial statements?
There are those that incorrectly associate Apple charging the 30% fee to the 3% fee charged by most credit card processors, that is incorrect and leads to wild ass assumptions of Apple conducting "highway robbery" and making tons of money. As OctoMonkey points out that Apple has Data Center cost to mention just a few of the overhead costs they incur. That 30% fee is what Apple feels is appropriate to cover their cost and to generate a profit. Apple doesn't have any obligation to explain and justify every line item expense on their P&L.
You have to think (given the contract they signed) that Epic are not necessarily hoping to win this case, but to use it to build public pressure on Apple and their App Store policies to get them to change it.
Contracts are not valid nor enforceable if they are deemed illegal. Perhaps Epic is hoping to demonstrate some aspect of the contract or the operation of the store is illegal (perhaps based on monopolistic practices). That said, I would agree they are likely trying to bring developer pressure to bear against Apple.
It would be interesting to see the finances of the App Store. Clearly there are data center costs (hardware, electricity, maintenance), app review costs, et all. With many free apps, is Apple making money from the store? losing money? breaking even? Does Apple break this information out in their financial statements?
I think Apple’s fees are high, but it’s difficult to sympathize with Epic.
Right now Apple's fee structure favours the small developer, because all developers pay almost NOTHING (only that $99 annual developer fee) until they start selling products, through that 15% to 30% fee. Would you prefer that there be an upfront fee of $1000 per developer for the Xcode tools and developer accounts and services, even before a single product is sold? That would be great for big companies like Epic but bad for the million developers who would have to pay $1000 each just to join the table.
Basically Epic doesn't want to be subsidizing the small developer (who include their competitors) any more. Understandable. But every one of the 200 million socialists in the US should be outraged at Epic.
I think if you're offering a free app, then the $99 fee is appropriate. If you're developing an app that you will charge for, then $1000 is not that much if that meant that you can control the purchase of the app yourself (ie., through your own payment systems which typically costs 3% and not 30% of the App Store). Developing a pay-for app is a business and there are costs to start a business or a new project in an existing business. A Mac computer is way more than $1000, which is needed to develop apps. Add to that the cost of an iPhone if you're developing iOS apps.
The cost of starting a business isn't $99 so it's appropriate for a free app. I think $1000 is a great starting point to get the dev tools and marketing and distribution. The payment system should be the devs choice -- stick with App Store (30%) or go it alone (3% by most CC systems). Either way, Apple got their $1000 to allow you to market your app on their store, at least until there are other options to market and distribute your app outside the App Store. The current investigations against Apple for being a monopoly will tell us soon if that is an option.
The only reason my $1000 price keeps Apple at the same revenue level is because EVERYONE pays up for the services they are getting, including the people who distribute free software. Under your proposal the App Store would no longer generate as much revenue for Apple because the majority of developers would pick the cheaper option. I have to conclude that you are against Apple maintaining its current revenue stream from the App Store.
There are cases where companies have shut down a line of business when their profits are gutted by some law. Why should Apple be any different? If the App Store is gutted of its profit by the courts, why would Apple bother having a Third Party App Store? Do you want Apple to give up on that store? Apple would do fine with no Third Party App Store, and the proof of that is that the iPhone was originally released without any such store, and it did just fine. Would you be happy or sad if Apple decided to shut that store down?
I am not a lawyer, but I haven’t seen one of their arguments yet where I’m even remotely like “oh ok, yeah, I kinda see their point”. as another commenter noted; are they even trying to win? How could they possibly think they will?
I did read a long document Epic submitted to the court, I think it was the original filing. And I do try my best to see things from every side. I didn't find their case very convincing. I felt that Epic was arguing that Apple has no right to control the App Store. But they didn't say who should control it. They just hate the status quo. I think they want the courts to decide what's fair and what the rules should be. I did write a pro-Epic post about a month ago just for the challenge, and as I recall I got some compliments and no criticism for my post. You can read my case and its feedback here: https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/217620/epic-says-apple-no-longer-plans-to-disable-sign-in-with-apple/p1 but let me just re-post the main paragraph here. This is what I thought Epic Software should say to the court:
In short, Epic wants phones to function like computers. As Tim Sweeney tweeted, the founding principles of general purpose computers were to give full control of the computer to the user, not to the hardware manufacturer or operating system manufacturer. Nobody at either IBM, or Microsoft, or Apple (all of which wrote operating systems for PCs) ever tried to stop anyone from running anything on their own PC hardware. There was nothing to jailbreak because all computers were delivered, essentially, jailbroken. As time progressed the dangers of malicious software increased but the defenses available to users increased in parallel. These days there are numerous different mechanisms to keep computers safe, including (a) anti-virus software; (b) firewalls; (c) file permissions; (d) digital signatures; (e) online license validation; (f) SSL-protected websites; and (g) curated app stores. Each of these defense mechanisms is mature and effective. All of these defense mechanisms put security in the hands of the user except for the last one, "(g) curated app stores." It's this one, and only this one, that introduces a sinister danger into society, not unlike the dangers in Orwell's book "1984." Because this is the only mechanism that puts your security and privacy in the hands of another person. Who is this person, and how does this person decide what you may do and what you may not do? And to whom is this person accountable, if anyone? There are several countries in the world where the government curates everything that users see and touch. We won't mention which countries here but that should be obvious to the courts. In these countries the curation has gone amok. Users are under constant scrutiny; users try to access remote data but are blocked by Great Firewalls; users do not know what the criteria of their own government's monitoring are. This curation of software in some countries has led, and is still leading, to brutal dictatorial rule. Do we want or need this sort of UNCHECKED control of our online freedoms, and all that in the hands of unaccountable private citizens? Although censorship by private companies is legal in America, it goes against the guiding principles of the Constitution. This is not just a censorship of a company's employees, which Epic would not object to, but it's a censorship of all people who use a phone. Traditional phone companies, which are private companies like Apple (and also publicly traded), have never been allowed to censor or monitor individual phone calls in America. Voice and data are just two forms of the same thing: data. "Smart phones" are the new telephones. Telephone companies may not legally monitor or curate anyone's telephone calls, and for the same reasons as that, Epic asks the court to place an injunction on Apple from being able to block or monitor any data or speech that occurs on their phones too.
I don't recall anyone responding with any arguments against this proposal. Does this argument hold water with you?
I did not read your entire case in the link you posted or the feedback. I'll respond to the main paragraph that you re-posted above.
The problem with your entire argument is that ANY mobile phone manufacturer, not just Apple, would be prohibited from creating products with curating capabilities that would maximize profits. If I started up company XYZ LLC to create a smart phone with its own operating system and app store, then under your legal arguments, my start-up would be prohibited from adding features or hardware that would lead to curating and I would not be able to leverage those features to maximize profits for my company.
So if profit maximization through curation and total control over what a user can or cannot do with the mobile phone is not possible then what incentive would I have to create Company XYZ LLC to develop new mobile phone technologies and features? Indeed, if such rules were in place in 2003-2004, would Apple even been incentivized to create the iPhone in the first place? What about the early 1990s when Blackberry was still in its infancy?
Finally, your comparison between the traditional landline phone companies (AT&T, Verizon, etc.) and Apple is untenable on the basis that Apple only controls the "client" part of the client-server telecom infrastructure whereas the traditional landline phone companies controls the server infrastructure. Because Apple only offers clients in the form of mobile handsets, it cannot do any censorship on clients that are NOT owned by Apple whereas the traditional phone companies do have censorship control over ALL clients that use their networks. Ergo, it follows that if consumers are not satisfied with the censorship capabilities of the Apple mobile handsets, they are free to use mobile handsets by other manufacturers that are not encumbered with such censorship capabilities. Indeed, if Epic so strongly believes that the Apple mobile handsets are not consumer-friendly, they should start up a mobile handsets division to offer alternatives that are presumably more to Epic's liking.
Precisely because the option of manufacturing and their own mobile handsets is available to Epic to compete with the Apple mobile handsets, your entire argument becomes null and void. They should follow Andy Rubin's famous tweet from October 2010 regarding the definition of "open":
the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make" - Andy Rubin tweet, October 18, 2010
I don't recall anyone responding with any arguments against this proposal. Does this argument hold water with you?
My 2¢: Epic's vision and Apple's model are at odds here. Google's (and Amazon's) environments are more open. You can do pretty much whatever you want within them.
Apple's is indeed "curated." But that's the thing: yes you are restricted within Apple's environment. That just happens to be what many (most?) of us WANT it to be. Indeed, it's a feature not a bug.
As someone who's whole environment (work) was ravaged (RAVAGED) by ransomware recently, I personally welcome Apple's security measures.
But.
If I feel like they've become more obtrusive than I'm willing to tolerate, I am indeed free to go elsewhere. No one is forcing me to buy and use Apple products. There are most definitely alternatives out there.
I don't recall anyone responding with any arguments against this proposal. Does this argument hold water with you?
My 2¢: Epic's vision and Apple's model are at odds here. Google's (and Amazon's) environments are more open. You can do pretty much whatever you want within them.
Apple's is indeed "curated." But that's the thing: yes you are restricted within Apple's environment. That just happens to be what many (most?) of us WANT it to be. Indeed, it's a feature not a bug.
As someone who's whole environment (work) was ravaged (RAVAGED) by ransomware recently, I personally welcome Apple's security measures.
But.
If I feel like they've become more obtrusive than I'm willing to tolerate, I am indeed free to go elsewhere. No one is forcing me to buy and use Apple products. There are most definitely alternatives out there.
And that is where Epic will fail.
I concur that Epic may indeed fail in the court of public opinion, but that doesn't mean they will fail in a court of law. The law isn't dealing with common sense, it deals with precedents, laws and constitutions.
I am not a lawyer, but I haven’t seen one of their arguments yet where I’m even remotely like “oh ok, yeah, I kinda see their point”. as another commenter noted; are they even trying to win? How could they possibly think they will?
I did read a long document Epic submitted to the court, I think it was the original filing. And I do try my best to see things from every side. I didn't find their case very convincing. I felt that Epic was arguing that Apple has no right to control the App Store. But they didn't say who should control it. They just hate the status quo. I think they want the courts to decide what's fair and what the rules should be. I did write a pro-Epic post about a month ago just for the challenge, and as I recall I got some compliments and no criticism for my post. You can read my case and its feedback here: https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/217620/epic-says-apple-no-longer-plans-to-disable-sign-in-with-apple/p1 but let me just re-post the main paragraph here. This is what I thought Epic Software should say to the court:
In short, Epic wants phones to function like computers. As Tim Sweeney tweeted, the founding principles of general purpose computers were to give full control of the computer to the user, not to the hardware manufacturer or operating system manufacturer. Nobody at either IBM, or Microsoft, or Apple (all of which wrote operating systems for PCs) ever tried to stop anyone from running anything on their own PC hardware. There was nothing to jailbreak because all computers were delivered, essentially, jailbroken. As time progressed the dangers of malicious software increased but the defenses available to users increased in parallel. These days there are numerous different mechanisms to keep computers safe, including (a) anti-virus software; (b) firewalls; (c) file permissions; (d) digital signatures; (e) online license validation; (f) SSL-protected websites; and (g) curated app stores. Each of these defense mechanisms is mature and effective. All of these defense mechanisms put security in the hands of the user except for the last one, "(g) curated app stores." It's this one, and only this one, that introduces a sinister danger into society, not unlike the dangers in Orwell's book "1984." Because this is the only mechanism that puts your security and privacy in the hands of another person. Who is this person, and how does this person decide what you may do and what you may not do? And to whom is this person accountable, if anyone? There are several countries in the world where the government curates everything that users see and touch. We won't mention which countries here but that should be obvious to the courts. In these countries the curation has gone amok. Users are under constant scrutiny; users try to access remote data but are blocked by Great Firewalls; users do not know what the criteria of their own government's monitoring are. This curation of software in some countries has led, and is still leading, to brutal dictatorial rule. Do we want or need this sort of UNCHECKED control of our online freedoms, and all that in the hands of unaccountable private citizens? Although censorship by private companies is legal in America, it goes against the guiding principles of the Constitution. This is not just a censorship of a company's employees, which Epic would not object to, but it's a censorship of all people who use a phone. Traditional phone companies, which are private companies like Apple (and also publicly traded), have never been allowed to censor or monitor individual phone calls in America. Voice and data are just two forms of the same thing: data. "Smart phones" are the new telephones. Telephone companies may not legally monitor or curate anyone's telephone calls, and for the same reasons as that, Epic asks the court to place an injunction on Apple from being able to block or monitor any data or speech that occurs on their phones too.
I don't recall anyone responding with any arguments against this proposal. Does this argument hold water with you?
I did not read your entire case in the link you posted or the feedback. I'll respond to the main paragraph that you re-posted above.
The problem with your entire argument is that ANY mobile phone manufacturer, not just Apple, would be prohibited from creating products with curating capabilities that would maximize profits. If I started up company XYZ LLC to create a smart phone with its own operating system and app store, then under your legal arguments, my start-up would be prohibited from adding features or hardware that would lead to curating and I would not be able to leverage those features to maximize profits for my company.
That isn't a "problem" with my point, rather that is indeed the entire actual point I was making. That's the exact argument. You might not agree with the argument (neither do I, I was making it as an exercise) but that's the entire point. That's the argument Epic should make. They should argue to the court that no company, including Apple, has the right to restrict or monitor users on this platform, just as no other company can enforce restrictions on PCs. The comparison between PC and smartphone is intentional and identical. Nobody can force a PC user to run a specific operating system, and neither should a smartphone manufacturer be allowed to make hardware that is restricted either.
There are Supreme Court precedents to back this up. For example, Kodak was trying to build cameras that wouldn't load anyone else's film, (just as Apple won't allow others' operating systems on iPhones) but the Supreme Court made Kodak's practice illegal. It's an old court case but Epic should use this in court to back their case.
The remainder of your argument is that because Apple has competitors in the handset business, Apple should not be stopped from monitoring and restricting people because users are free to choose a different company. That would be like saying if wireless telephone companies (eg, Verizon) have competitors (eg, AT&T), they could be allowed to monitor and restrict the content of people's wireless telephone calls. Do you really believe that? You think that Verizon should be able to log, record and use the content of their users' telephone calls, just because Verizon has competition?
You have to wonder about a counter suit against Epic, brought by developers of free apps — I mean, I just bought a new car. I’ve downloaded three free apps that greatly enhance the operation of my car. This isn’t some tiny developer — it’s a major international corporation.
If Epic blows up Apple's App Store business model, there are going to be some seriously pissed-off corporate players. I really don’t think Epic has thought this thing through.
I did not read your entire case in the link you posted or the feedback. I'll respond to the main paragraph that you re-posted above.
The problem with your entire argument is that ANY mobile phone manufacturer, not just Apple, would be prohibited from creating products with curating capabilities that would maximize profits. If I started up company XYZ LLC to create a smart phone with its own operating system and app store, then under your legal arguments, my start-up would be prohibited from adding features or hardware that would lead to curating and I would not be able to leverage those features to maximize profits for my company.
That isn't a "problem" with my point, rather that is indeed the entire actual point I was making. That's the exact argument. You might not agree with the argument (neither do I, I was making it as an exercise) but that's the entire point. That's the argument Epic should make. They should argue to the court that no company, including Apple, has the right to restrict or monitor users on this platform, just as no other company can enforce restrictions on PCs. The comparison between PC and smartphone is intentional and identical. Nobody can force a PC user to run a specific operating system, and neither should a smartphone manufacturer be allowed to make hardware that is restricted either.
There are Supreme Court precedents to back this up. For example, Kodak was trying to build cameras that wouldn't load anyone else's film, (just as Apple won't allow others' operating systems on iPhones) but the Supreme Court made Kodak's practice illegal. It's an old court case but Epic should use this in court to back their case.
The remainder of your argument is that because Apple has competitors in the handset business, Apple should not be stopped from monitoring and restricting people because users are free to choose a different company. That would be like saying if wireless telephone companies (eg, Verizon) have competitors (eg, AT&T), they could be allowed to monitor and restrict the content of people's wireless telephone calls. Do you really believe that? You think that Verizon should be able to log, record and use the content of their users' telephone calls, just because Verizon has competition?
Epic cannot make the argument you're advocating because they are in effect asking the court to prohibit ANY company from enforcing ANY restrictions on ANY manufactured product. No court would take such argument seriously and no lawyer of any caliber (except maybe ambulance chasers) would make such an argument. The comparison between the PC and the mobile phone is invalid simply because anyone can manufacture a PC that is restricted to only a single operating system and that can restrict the software that may be loaded onto the PC. In fact, there have been many manufacturers like these in the past including, but not limited to, Apple, Amiga, NeXT, DEC, Cray Supercomputers, etc.
I will give you the example of a start-up company XYZ LLC. This company wants to manufacture a computer that has a microchip that allows only a specific operating system with a specific license to be loaded on the PC. The operating system is highly restrictive in the third party software that can be loaded onto the PC. You are proposing that Epic should argue that such a start-up should be prohibited from manufacturing the PC with those restrictions and/or should be forced to remove the restrictions. Why would you or Epic think that such an argument would be taken seriously by a court?
As for my argument regarding Apple and handset competitors, you have created a straw man by talking about wireless telephone companies. You and I both know that wireless telephone companies are NOT the same as handset manufacturers in any competitive sense; in fact, I had already mentioned the client-server comparison with the handset-wireless network set-up. The handset manufacturers provide the clients. The wireless companies run the servers. On the client side, anyone can choose from a HUGE number of competing clients. On the server slide, there are only THREE wireless networks available. Two very different markets. Let's not be intellectually dishonest here by conflating the market for mobile handsets with the market for wireless network service.
I'm beginning to think that Apple's strategy is flawed. They could have simply tried to respond to Epic's lawsuit by saying "Apple has no legal obligation to accept any software from Epic. We don't like them and will no longer accept anything from them."
If Apple argued that way, they would lose instantly. You forget the
customers' point of view.
Tens of thousands, or maybe hundreds of thousands or maybe more customers
might have chosen an Android device over an iOS device if Fortnite was not
available on iOS. By simply saying we do not accept software from Epic anymore,
all those customers would sue Apple and would win. None of the generic terms
and conditions that customers accept when setting up their devices would help
Apple in such a case.
BTW, the same would happen if Apple threw out WeChat from their App
Store in countries whose governments do not forbid WeChat. If customers bought iPhones
which they use for contact to their Chinese customers, and if all of a sudden, they
were forced to buy an additional Android device they would sue Apple. Depending
on the country, a government could even force Apple to allow other App Stores to
defend its citizen’s interests.
LOL. I hope one day I do stuff so well that my efforts appear so natural as to be taken for granted.
If my electronic engineering days taught me anything: it's f/loads harder to make a platform than it is to make an app.
Exactly! The Game itself is far less difficult to create than the entire OS, Development Frameworks, Development Environment, etc., that you need to even have the game load.
I think Apple’s fees are high, but it’s difficult to sympathize with Epic.
Right now Apple's fee structure favours the small developer, because all developers pay almost NOTHING (only that $99 annual developer fee) until they start selling products, through that 15% to 30% fee. Would you prefer that there be an upfront fee of $1000 per developer for the Xcode tools and developer accounts and services, even before a single product is sold? That would be great for big companies like Epic but bad for the million developers who would have to pay $1000 each just to join the table.
Basically Epic doesn't want to be subsidizing the small developer (who include their competitors) any more. Understandable. But every one of the 200 million socialists in the US should be outraged at Epic.
To put it into perspective, at NeXT our platform was $795 per User, $4995 per Developer just for 3rd party OEM applications. WebObjects went from basic $499 for WOF 4.0 Base, to $2499 for D'OLE [Distributed OLE], to $49,999 for EOF Enterprise and WOF Enterprise. EOF itself was $25,000 per seat. All of these were per seat. One Developer is a seat.
And by the way, the Enterprise Package included 3 Support Instances, per year. To get a Dedicated Systems Engineer was an additional $50k per seat, per year. To have full access like Merrill Lynch required > $7 million per year, and that was for Internal Corporate Applications only. We weren't licensing Merrill Lynch the right to sell 3rd party OEM applications with that kind of support, only to support internal developed apps for their own Corporate Infrastructure.
The App Store is separate from Enterprise Relations at Apple and the required investment, including hardware and other partner tiers.
EPIC is getting a steal with the 15% off of profits and having their distribution, testing and not having to develop their own Suite for Application Development.
I think Apple’s fees are high, but it’s difficult to sympathize with Epic.
Right now Apple's fee structure favours the small developer, because all developers pay almost NOTHING (only that $99 annual developer fee) until they start selling products, through that 15% to 30% fee. Would you prefer that there be an upfront fee of $1000 per developer for the Xcode tools and developer accounts and services, even before a single product is sold? That would be great for big companies like Epic but bad for the million developers who would have to pay $1000 each just to join the table.
Basically Epic doesn't want to be subsidizing the small developer (who include their competitors) any more. Understandable. But every one of the 200 million socialists in the US should be outraged at Epic.
I think if you're offering a free app, then the $99 fee is appropriate. If you're developing an app that you will charge for, then $1000 is not that much if that meant that you can control the purchase of the app yourself (ie., through your own payment systems which typically costs 3% and not 30% of the App Store). Developing a pay-for app is a business and there are costs to start a business or a new project in an existing business. A Mac computer is way more than $1000, which is needed to develop apps. Add to that the cost of an iPhone if you're developing iOS apps.
The cost of starting a business isn't $99 so it's appropriate for a free app. I think $1000 is a great starting point to get the dev tools and marketing and distribution. The payment system should be the devs choice -- stick with App Store (30%) or go it alone (3% by most CC systems). Either way, Apple got their $1000 to allow you to market your app on their store, at least until there are other options to market and distribute your app outside the App Store. The current investigations against Apple for being a monopoly will tell us soon if that is an option.
Typically, it does not cost a developer just 3% of sales, if they were to use their own payment system, instead of using Apple's iTunes. The 3% is just what they have to pay the CC companies and processing fees. What about the cost of hosting a payment system outside the Apple App Store? Just like all those that thinks it only cost Apple 3% to process an app sales through iTunes, they forget that the payment system itself cost Apple something to maintain.
Developers that don't want to pay Apple 30% of sales would have to set up and maintain their own secure server, to accept and process CC or PayPal payments. Or maybe there are companies that offer this kind of service. I can't imagine that it's not going to cost anything for a developer to set up their own payment system. What? Are they going to only accept checks in the mail?
Then there's the logistics of how to you activate the app that a customer paid for, from outside of the Apple App Store. The app has to be available in the Apple App Store. There's no other way for your customers to get an iOS app into their iDevice. Will all the downloads use the same password? If so, then what prevents a customer from sharing the password with others? Which means that each download must have it's own serial number and unique password, which must be emailed to the customer after payment. How much time is that going to add to developing an app and the time it takes to process a payment and email the unique password?
What about refunds? Or what happens if the payment don't go through? What if customers don't want to use a CC or don't have one or don't want to give their CC info to a developer for a $1.99 purchase? Will the developer offer gift cards, like with Apple iTunes? Time is not free, if you're a developer trying to make money selling software.
Will the customer have to pay for each download of the same app, for all their iDevices? If not, then it will require providing several passwords to the paying customers that will be using the same purchased app on more than one iDevices. What if a customer iDevice crashes and is reset to factory? What if a paying customer buy a new iDevice? How much time will the developer have to spend to provide customers that already paid for an app months or years ago, to have it working again after a factory reset or want to have it on another iDevice they already own or purchased later or transferred to a new iDevice that replaces their old one, if each download requires a unique password to activate? Apple's 30% takes care of all of this with iTunes.
It might only cost big developers like Epic, Spotify or MS just 3% to process payments for apps sales because they already have a secure payment system in place that most of their customers trust. But it's going to cost the average small and medium size developers way more than just 3% of sales. I'm willing to bet that for those developers that don't already have a payment system in place and must use Apple's iTunes, 30% of sales is a bargain. Even if one don't include the benefit of having access to Apple customers on their iOS platform.
It's a joke that so many people think that Apple's 30% cut only goes toward covering the 3% that is paid to the CC companies. And even more of a joke to think that if a developer were allowed to set up their own payment system, they will make 27% more on each sale, after covering the 3% CC transaction fee. If anything, most developers will lose sales because many potential customers are not going to trust unknown developers websites, with their CC info, for a one time purchase that will probably be less than $5.
Comments
I mean they are selling colored hats and dance moves that have no advanteges in gameplay for exorbitant amounts of real money to children (and their parents)
Epic should not be allowed to create a monopoly on V-Bucks, and competition would give the players much better prices and value for money.
likewise Everybody should be able to create and sell colored hats and dance lessons. They should give the power to the people and players and not be so evil...
The cost of starting a business isn't $99 so it's appropriate for a free app. I think $1000 is a great starting point to get the dev tools and marketing and distribution. The payment system should be the devs choice -- stick with App Store (30%) or go it alone (3% by most CC systems). Either way, Apple got their $1000 to allow you to market your app on their store, at least until there are other options to market and distribute your app outside the App Store. The current investigations against Apple for being a monopoly will tell us soon if that is an option.
It would be interesting to see the finances of the App Store. Clearly there are data center costs (hardware, electricity, maintenance), app review costs, et all. With many free apps, is Apple making money from the store? losing money? breaking even? Does Apple break this information out in their financial statements?
There are cases where companies have shut down a line of business when their profits are gutted by some law. Why should Apple be any different? If the App Store is gutted of its profit by the courts, why would Apple bother having a Third Party App Store? Do you want Apple to give up on that store? Apple would do fine with no Third Party App Store, and the proof of that is that the iPhone was originally released without any such store, and it did just fine. Would you be happy or sad if Apple decided to shut that store down?
I did not read your entire case in the link you posted or the feedback. I'll respond to the main paragraph that you re-posted above.
The problem with your entire argument is that ANY mobile phone manufacturer, not just Apple, would be prohibited from creating products with curating capabilities that would maximize profits. If I started up company XYZ LLC to create a smart phone with its own operating system and app store, then under your legal arguments, my start-up would be prohibited from adding features or hardware that would lead to curating and I would not be able to leverage those features to maximize profits for my company.
So if profit maximization through curation and total control over what a user can or cannot do with the mobile phone is not possible then what incentive would I have to create Company XYZ LLC to develop new mobile phone technologies and features? Indeed, if such rules were in place in 2003-2004, would Apple even been incentivized to create the iPhone in the first place? What about the early 1990s when Blackberry was still in its infancy?
Finally, your comparison between the traditional landline phone companies (AT&T, Verizon, etc.) and Apple is untenable on the basis that Apple only controls the "client" part of the client-server telecom infrastructure whereas the traditional landline phone companies controls the server infrastructure. Because Apple only offers clients in the form of mobile handsets, it cannot do any censorship on clients that are NOT owned by Apple whereas the traditional phone companies do have censorship control over ALL clients that use their networks. Ergo, it follows that if consumers are not satisfied with the censorship capabilities of the Apple mobile handsets, they are free to use mobile handsets by other manufacturers that are not encumbered with such censorship capabilities. Indeed, if Epic so strongly believes that the Apple mobile handsets are not consumer-friendly, they should start up a mobile handsets division to offer alternatives that are presumably more to Epic's liking.
Precisely because the option of manufacturing and their own mobile handsets is available to Epic to compete with the Apple mobile handsets, your entire argument becomes null and void. They should follow Andy Rubin's famous tweet from October 2010 regarding the definition of "open":
the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make"
- Andy Rubin tweet, October 18, 2010
Apple's is indeed "curated." But that's the thing: yes you are restricted within Apple's environment. That just happens to be what many (most?) of us WANT it to be. Indeed, it's a feature not a bug.
As someone who's whole environment (work) was ravaged (RAVAGED) by ransomware recently, I personally welcome Apple's security measures.
But.
If I feel like they've become more obtrusive than I'm willing to tolerate, I am indeed free to go elsewhere. No one is forcing me to buy and use Apple products. There are most definitely alternatives out there.
And that is where Epic will fail.
That isn't a "problem" with my point, rather that is indeed the entire actual point I was making. That's the exact argument. You might not agree with the argument (neither do I, I was making it as an exercise) but that's the entire point. That's the argument Epic should make. They should argue to the court that no company, including Apple, has the right to restrict or monitor users on this platform, just as no other company can enforce restrictions on PCs. The comparison between PC and smartphone is intentional and identical. Nobody can force a PC user to run a specific operating system, and neither should a smartphone manufacturer be allowed to make hardware that is restricted either.
There are Supreme Court precedents to back this up. For example, Kodak was trying to build cameras that wouldn't load anyone else's film, (just as Apple won't allow others' operating systems on iPhones) but the Supreme Court made Kodak's practice illegal. It's an old court case but Epic should use this in court to back their case.
The remainder of your argument is that because Apple has competitors in the handset business, Apple should not be stopped from monitoring and restricting people because users are free to choose a different company. That would be like saying if wireless telephone companies (eg, Verizon) have competitors (eg, AT&T), they could be allowed to monitor and restrict the content of people's wireless telephone calls. Do you really believe that? You think that Verizon should be able to log, record and use the content of their users' telephone calls, just because Verizon has competition?
If Epic blows up Apple's App Store business model, there are going to be some seriously pissed-off corporate players. I really don’t think Epic has thought this thing through.
I will give you the example of a start-up company XYZ LLC. This company wants to manufacture a computer that has a microchip that allows only a specific operating system with a specific license to be loaded on the PC. The operating system is highly restrictive in the third party software that can be loaded onto the PC. You are proposing that Epic should argue that such a start-up should be prohibited from manufacturing the PC with those restrictions and/or should be forced to remove the restrictions. Why would you or Epic think that such an argument would be taken seriously by a court?
As for my argument regarding Apple and handset competitors, you have created a straw man by talking about wireless telephone companies. You and I both know that wireless telephone companies are NOT the same as handset manufacturers in any competitive sense; in fact, I had already mentioned the client-server comparison with the handset-wireless network set-up. The handset manufacturers provide the clients. The wireless companies run the servers. On the client side, anyone can choose from a HUGE number of competing clients. On the server slide, there are only THREE wireless networks available. Two very different markets. Let's not be intellectually dishonest here by conflating the market for mobile handsets with the market for wireless network service.
If Apple argued that way, they would lose instantly. You forget the customers' point of view.
Tens of thousands, or maybe hundreds of thousands or maybe more customers might have chosen an Android device over an iOS device if Fortnite was not available on iOS. By simply saying we do not accept software from Epic anymore, all those customers would sue Apple and would win. None of the generic terms and conditions that customers accept when setting up their devices would help Apple in such a case.
BTW, the same would happen if Apple threw out WeChat from their App Store in countries whose governments do not forbid WeChat. If customers bought iPhones which they use for contact to their Chinese customers, and if all of a sudden, they were forced to buy an additional Android device they would sue Apple. Depending on the country, a government could even force Apple to allow other App Stores to defend its citizen’s interests.
Exactly! The Game itself is far less difficult to create than the entire OS, Development Frameworks, Development Environment, etc., that you need to even have the game load.
Developers that don't want to pay Apple 30% of sales would have to set up and maintain their own secure server, to accept and process CC or PayPal payments. Or maybe there are companies that offer this kind of service. I can't imagine that it's not going to cost anything for a developer to set up their own payment system. What? Are they going to only accept checks in the mail?
Then there's the logistics of how to you activate the app that a customer paid for, from outside of the Apple App Store. The app has to be available in the Apple App Store. There's no other way for your customers to get an iOS app into their iDevice. Will all the downloads use the same password? If so, then what prevents a customer from sharing the password with others? Which means that each download must have it's own serial number and unique password, which must be emailed to the customer after payment. How much time is that going to add to developing an app and the time it takes to process a payment and email the unique password?
What about refunds? Or what happens if the payment don't go through? What if customers don't want to use a CC or don't have one or don't want to give their CC info to a developer for a $1.99 purchase? Will the developer offer gift cards, like with Apple iTunes? Time is not free, if you're a developer trying to make money selling software.
Will the customer have to pay for each download of the same app, for all their iDevices? If not, then it will require providing several passwords to the paying customers that will be using the same purchased app on more than one iDevices. What if a customer iDevice crashes and is reset to factory? What if a paying customer buy a new iDevice? How much time will the developer have to spend to provide customers that already paid for an app months or years ago, to have it working again after a factory reset or want to have it on another iDevice they already own or purchased later or transferred to a new iDevice that replaces their old one, if each download requires a unique password to activate? Apple's 30% takes care of all of this with iTunes.
It might only cost big developers like Epic, Spotify or MS just 3% to process payments for apps sales because they already have a secure payment system in place that most of their customers trust. But it's going to cost the average small and medium size developers way more than just 3% of sales. I'm willing to bet that for those developers that don't already have a payment system in place and must use Apple's iTunes, 30% of sales is a bargain. Even if one don't include the benefit of having access to Apple customers on their iOS platform.
It's a joke that so many people think that Apple's 30% cut only goes toward covering the 3% that is paid to the CC companies. And even more of a joke to think that if a developer were allowed to set up their own payment system, they will make 27% more on each sale, after covering the 3% CC transaction fee. If anything, most developers will lose sales because many potential customers are not going to trust unknown developers websites, with their CC info, for a one time purchase that will probably be less than $5.