Tim, Daniel Ek, Elon, etc. Just get off my iPhone App Store already! Enjoy the donut and stop whining about the hole ‘coz without Apple, you wouldn’t even have a donut!
Don’t see you (Tim) passing (all) the savings to your gamers through your own payment app - giving them a 10% discount while you keep 20% more?! Joke!
Stop using the ‘Monopoly’ or ‘Free Speech’ excuse. GREED is oozing out of your ears.
How about if I say I don’t want to pay for additional Fortnite accessories, Spotify subscription or a Twitter blue check mark after the initial purchase/payment. You’d say, we’re not charities or whatever. Yeah, Exactly!
How am I supposed to be able to get 90% of the profits if Apple insists on getting 30%?
Use your own tech, market to get customers and use the internet. It’s quite simple actually. Partner with Apple to do it the easy way and pay a percentage. 30% for over a million a year and 15% for less than that and for subscription that stay for a 2nd year +
Well, using the railroad metaphore wasn’t very clever. Because what happened in europe - tracks and railway stations are separated from the train operators now in many european countries. Do you want to sell tickets in the railways station for your trains? Feel free to do so, but pay the rent for the place. Do you want to use the rails for your trains? You can do so, but you have to pay the fees for using this infrastructure… and the owner is still in control over what can and cannot happen…
Tim, Daniel Ek, Elon, etc. Just get off my iPhone App Store already! Enjoy the donut and stop whining about the hole ‘coz without Apple, you wouldn’t even have a donut!
Don’t see you (Tim) passing (all) the savings to your gamers through your own payment app - giving them a 10% discount while you keep 20% more?! Joke!
Stop using the ‘Monopoly’ or ‘Free Speech’ excuse. GREED is oozing out of your ears.
How about if I say I don’t want to pay for additional Fortnite accessories, Spotify subscription or a Twitter blue check mark after the initial purchase/payment. You’d say, we’re not charities or whatever. Yeah, Exactly!
Indeed! Exactly! But how about we extend your argument outward? Should Apple pay full tax rates all over the world? Isn’t it the exact same argument? Countries or US states are not running charities for big companies right? They have expenses right? Like schools and police stations? If they don’t have tax company revenue how will they pay for these?
apple should win the epic case in a big way and then shrewd cunning lawyers should use apples arguments against them in order to force them to pay full tax rates.
II don't agree with the way Epic Games started this, but I do feel their sentiment. Taking 30% of someone's business in order to sell on their platform is like doing the same in order to make a MacOS or Windows 11 app. It does seem unfair.
This has been beaten to a dead horse. Imagine you're the owner of a shopping mall. Are you going to allow your tenants to operate stores in your mall for free and not pay any rent?
So, when physical games are sold in stores don’t the stores get to make money for providing the structure for customers? As an artist, I have sold books and art in galleries that take always 30%. Why? Because it’s their store. They staff it, set up the displays, do the transactions for hundreds more customers than I could ever see standing on a street corner trying to sell one at a time. These guys have made millions, if not billions of dollars because of Apple’s store and customer base. Without the App Store they would be stuck making a living selling their crappy software at stores in the mall. Oh and paying the store 30% too
Foolishness. There is a point where continued harassment snd frivolous lawsuits will be punishable as crimes themselves.
Epic tried to get one over on everyone snd lost. Now is time to accept that the world doesn’t always reward you just because you’re loud.
You don’t steer Apple products or sales commissions. Apple does. They have the right to charge money to cover their overhead just like any store.
It’s as if epic wants to try to be a pain so that apple buys them in order to. Shut them up. But apple doesn’t have to do that. Any competent judge will do so for them.
If comixology and Twitter can direct users to browser to avoid paying apple, so can epic. But epic wants to use apples system to do things his way. Not going to happen.
So, when physical games are sold in stores don’t the stores get to make money for providing the structure for customers? As an artist, I have sold books and art in galleries that take always 30%. Why? Because it’s their store. They staff it, set up the displays, do the transactions for hundreds more customers than I could ever see standing on a street corner trying to sell one at a time. These guys have made millions, if not billions of dollars because of Apple’s store and customer base. Without the App Store they would be stuck making a living selling their crappy software at stores in the mall. Oh and paying the store 30% too
Actually back in the day, when software was sold in stores, the fees were a lot higher than 30%, and if you were an independent software developer, good luck getting your software in stores!
Sweeney explains that he wants to see app distribution opened up, allowing customers to download apps directly from developers' websites. He also wants to ensure that Apple cannot earn a commission from any revenue generated by apps after the initial purchase price from the App Store.
I want to ensure that game companies cannot earn any revenue from apps after the initial purchase from the store.
A fee for using the game company's servers? Sure; that's a subscription that can theoretically be used with multiple games. A fee for an "expansion pack" that provides extra levels or mods? I suppose so, as long as it enhances the user experience. A fee for tilting the competitive landscape or changing an animation sequence in the game? Hell no.
This argument from Mr Sweeney is dangerous nonsense.
Gosh. Doesn't he have anything better to do as a CEO than this non-sense? Either he's disillusional or someone promises him a private jet and a big-ass mansion.
II don't agree with the way Epic Games started this, but I do feel their sentiment. Taking 30% of someone's business in order to sell on their platform is like doing the same in order to make a MacOS or Windows 11 app. It does seem unfair.
Don't ever start a business. If you do, hire someone that knows how to run it.
It's not Apple taking away 30% of someone business, in order to sell on Apple platform. It's the business adding a 30% cost to doing business, with the hope of making more money selling on Apple platform. There's is no 30% added cost to the business if the business don't make a sale. And the sale price should take into account the 30% commission. In other words, the customer pays the cost of the commission, along with all the other expense in creating, marketing and selling the product.
You don't think Walmart is making at least 30% of the retail sale price of an Xbox game? Or a brick and mortar book store is making at least 30% of the cover price of a book?
And also, maybe the cost of adding a 30% cost to your business because of the cost of marketing in a better store, can easily be made up by an increase in sales. What's better for your business, maybe only selling 100 of your product in a small local store most consumers would never shop at but having to pay only a 10% commission on each sale. Or maybe selling 10,000 of your product in a big name international store that many consumers shop at but having to pay a 30% commission? That 30% commission also pays for the access to a lot more customers, that might buy your product. No different than a shopping mall with a lot of foot traffic, charges more in rent, than a mall with much less foot traffic.
Sure you can pay 0% commission by selling your product locally, door to door. But isn't it better to make $1 profit on each sale and having sales of 10,000 in a store with a 30% commission, than to make $3 profit on each sale but only having sales of 1000 selling door to door, with no commission cost? Ever hear of ... it often better to have a small piece of a large pie, than to have a large piece of a small pie?
II don't agree with the way Epic Games started this, but I do feel their sentiment. Taking 30% of someone's business in order to sell on their platform is like doing the same in order to make a MacOS or Windows 11 app. It does seem unfair.
Don't ever start a business. If you do, hire someone that knows how to run it.
It's not Apple taking away 30% of someone business, in order to sell on Apple platform. It's the business adding a 30% cost to doing business, with the hope of making more money selling on Apple platform. There's is no 30% added cost to the business if the business don't make a sale. And the sale price should take into account the 30% commission. In other words, the customer pays the cost of the commission, along with all the other expense in creating, marketing and selling the product.
You don't think Walmart is making at least 30% of the retail sale price of an Xbox game? Or a brick and mortar book store is making at least 30% of the cover price of a book?
And also, maybe the cost of adding a 30% cost to your business because of the cost of marketing in a better store, can easily be made up by an increase in sales. What's better for your business, maybe only selling 100 of your product in a small local store most consumers would never shop at but having to pay only a 10% commission on each sale. Or maybe selling 10,000 of your product in a big name international store that many consumers shop at but having to pay a 30% commission? That 30% commission also pays for the access to a lot more customers, that might buy your product. No different than a shopping mall with a lot of foot traffic, charges more in rent, than a mall with much less foot traffic.
Sure you can pay 0% commission by selling your product locally, door to door. But isn't it better to make $1 profit on each sale and having sales of 10,000 in a store with a 30% commission, than to make $3 profit on each sale but only having sales of 1000 selling door to door, with no commission cost? Ever hear of ... it often better to have a small piece of a large pie, than to have a large piece of a small pie?
Thanks, this is exactly how I would have responded. Sweeney’s position is basically that Apple’s value-add for the services they provide, including building and maintaining a secure hardware and software platform that allows his game to run, software development and testing tools, app screening, placement of his apps in the App Store that provides near global coverage, and app distribution and updates over the lifetime of the product is worth nothing, zero, zilch. That makes no sense on any planet, not even on Planet Sweeney. What’s he willing to give away for free when it costs him copious amounts of money and resources to make and maintain?
My thoughts on what should be regulated and what should be voluntary good behavior by Apple:
Apple should stop rent-seeking and any government regulation should narrowly target this and nothing else. There are a couple significant sources of rent seeking on the App Store: (1) Apple shouldn't require more than transaction fees from direct competitors to its first party services. (2) Non-platform content like eBooks or audio books shouldn't require more than a transaction fee.
Apple should introduce a creator-content level of App Store IAP fees when there are three parties involved. These creators are similar to small developers that Apple only takes 15% from anyway. Apple could ultimately take 15% from these transactions and allow the app developer to take another 15% for a 30% total fee.
The 30% fee is perfectly reasonable for games. Epic Games has nothing of merit to complain about when it comes to Fortnite.
Any place the agency model is traditionally used should be exempt from incompatible fees, but generally that is just non-platform content that is covered by the first bullet point.
The iPhone should not allow side-loading for security reasons, but Apple should voluntarily allow iPad (or at least iPad Pro) to side-load since it is marketed as a general purpose computer. It should allow open source software and complex workflows. With the direction that iPad is trending each release this feels inevitable. I don't think side-load should be required through any regulation since it is too blunt an instrument.
Apple should allow game streaming because it essentially transforms the iPhone in to an input peripheral for another device (even if that device is a cloud server). This shouldn't be limited much like Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony doesn't restrict Apple from adding game controller support to iOS. There should be no expectation of content moderating for this class of app if it is listed for adult maturity levels. I think it is fair not to allow such an app in the game category of the App Store since it's not a game and it might dominate rankings essentially providing free advertising. It could be placed in a utility or entertainment category. Despite Apple previously saying the opposite, I don't think Apple should allow games in the games category that are just a thin wrapper around single-game streaming. Fortunately Microsoft opted not to do this. The games category should be for native games only.
Apple should do whatever it takes to avoid streaming video services from sending you to a web page even if it means not taking more then a transaction fee. This burns good will from consumers that are increasingly aware that Apple is requiring this. It may be considered rent-seeking since Apple offers a first-party service that doesn't require fees although this is fuzzy since the actual content content is typically different. It is not commonplace to charge these fees on non-phone platforms and the medium is non-platform content.
1. Rent seeking (15-30% commissions on first year subscriptions and one time purchases). Would any business outside of a billion dollar competitor turn down the chance to have app do 70% of the work and only ask for 15-30% of the profit? The App Store is a store that they spend billions developing and maintaining as as for profit entity. They give 100s of thousands of developers opportunity they would not have if Apple closed the store. To be able to develop an amazing product with features requiring no mom and pop could afford to develop on their own using tools you only pay $8.25 a month to access. Then have it reviewed, placed on a world platform to sell in over 100 countries and have access to 1.5 billion users overnight that trust Apple enough to store their credit cards for immediate purchases. Then Apple handle the support and accounting. The host the Apps and provide security and develop updates that give you access to new innovations every year.
If companies use apple to find customers and use their technology to develop products they should pay the commission. If not they already don’t.
2. creator-content level of App Store IAP fees when there are three parties involved. I like this idea.
3. Agreed. Epic just wants to steal Apple’s pie instead of baking their own.
4. Not clear on this point
5. iPad is another portable device that is highly targeted. I believe the iPad will become a dual boot device of some kind. It will provide the security of IOS but be able to open Mac compatible programs in a version of Rosetta for iPad.
6. On Game Streaming. It’s kind of like Target spending millions to build and promote a new website, then allowing Walmart to display links to buy the products from them instead.
7.I disagree on this one. I believe the key comes down to where are the customers deciding to buy. If Apple is supplying the customer via their marketing or platform access, they deserve their cut. On the other hand, if the developer is heavily marketing their products and driving traffic to themselves and signing the customers up on their own platform , they own the customer experience and Apple gets not cut.
II don't agree with the way Epic Games started this, but I do feel their sentiment. Taking 30% of someone's business in order to sell on their platform is like doing the same in order to make a MacOS or Windows 11 app. It does seem unfair.
You realise that percentage is going to someone else regardless services are not free it pays for a multitude of things infact it would probably be higher
Here are many many ways Apple can collect from app developers of Epic ever does manage to win in court. Apple could simply limit the audience of each paid app in the App Store. You want your app to be found in searches by 10,000 people worldwide? That's free. You want everyone in the App Store to be able to find your app? That's 30% of any resulting sales. You want your paid app to be able to utilize iOS API libraries? No longer free; 30%. We can slice the value Apple provides a whole bunch of ways.
Comments
Make developers pivot to a more sane model of making a product lots of people feel is worth a reasonable price.
apple should win the epic case in a big way and then shrewd cunning lawyers should use apples arguments against them in order to force them to pay full tax rates.
A fee for using the game company's servers? Sure; that's a subscription that can theoretically be used with multiple games. A fee for an "expansion pack" that provides extra levels or mods? I suppose so, as long as it enhances the user experience. A fee for tilting the competitive landscape or changing an animation sequence in the game? Hell no.
This argument from Mr Sweeney is dangerous nonsense.
It's not Apple taking away 30% of someone business, in order to sell on Apple platform. It's the business adding a 30% cost to doing business, with the hope of making more money selling on Apple platform. There's is no 30% added cost to the business if the business don't make a sale. And the sale price should take into account the 30% commission. In other words, the customer pays the cost of the commission, along with all the other expense in creating, marketing and selling the product.
You don't think Walmart is making at least 30% of the retail sale price of an Xbox game? Or a brick and mortar book store is making at least 30% of the cover price of a book?
And also, maybe the cost of adding a 30% cost to your business because of the cost of marketing in a better store, can easily be made up by an increase in sales. What's better for your business, maybe only selling 100 of your product in a small local store most consumers would never shop at but having to pay only a 10% commission on each sale. Or maybe selling 10,000 of your product in a big name international store that many consumers shop at but having to pay a 30% commission? That 30% commission also pays for the access to a lot more customers, that might buy your product. No different than a shopping mall with a lot of foot traffic, charges more in rent, than a mall with much less foot traffic.
Sure you can pay 0% commission by selling your product locally, door to door. But isn't it better to make $1 profit on each sale and having sales of 10,000 in a store with a 30% commission, than to make $3 profit on each sale but only having sales of 1000 selling door to door, with no commission cost? Ever hear of ... it often better to have a small piece of a large pie, than to have a large piece of a small pie?
5. iPad is another portable device that is highly targeted. I believe the iPad will become a dual boot device of some kind. It will provide the security of IOS but be able to open Mac compatible programs in a version of Rosetta for iPad.