osmartormenajr

WandaDave said:

I'm not at all suggesting Apple distrubute applications for free, it just needs to be proportonate. I appriciate it's not cheap to provide the tools and infrastructure to deliver applications, but Apple have decided to keep that ecosystem closed (for possibly the right reasons on security). Bear in mind though, Apple typically host the binaries but in a lot of cases other content is side loaded (e.g. game assets, Netflix video) and support for multiplayer Fortnite is handled by Epic - they pay for the infrastructure. 

Qualcomm, you could argue that they do prop up the value of the iphone. Without a modem, the smartphone wouldn't be very smart.  I am not supportive of the QCM model either, but i do see their stance as similar. QCM were seeking a value as a percentage of the overal device not their sole contribution. Apple are doing a similar thing.

Btw, Epic charge a 5% royalty after the first $1M of gross revenue. I assume they have similar investment in the tooling costs.

I beg to disagree. Without a Qualcomm modem, you could get an Intel one. Even without Qualcomm IP, most smartphones would still be smart, just lacking some LTE optimizations. Some of Qualcomm IP was deemed standard essential, with Qualcomm's blessing, and that made it subject to FRAND, which Qualcomm was clearly abusing—if not outright breaking.

But really, that's a false equivalency altogether. Just as the comparison of costs associated with distribution of downloadable content (bought by a lesser fraction of users) versus the download of a multi-gigabyte app (which most people may have sampled, even if for a few minutes/hours)!

Now, try and compare the value Apple offers, for a 30% cut, to the value Epic offers, for a 5% cut. On one side, there is a multitude of applications, platforms, and market within your reach, limited only by your capacity to execute an idea, or solution, for macOS, iPadOS, iOS, tvOS and watchOS. On the other side, you can spend a few hours designing a "badass" item for a game, that soon enough, will be replaced by the next "cool" thing, probably from another vendor...

WandaDave said:

Thinking back to the Apple vs. Qualcomm dispute.

Apple was upset that QCM charged a royalty rate based on the selling price of the end devide rather than just the modem component provided by QCM.
Here we have Apple charging a 30% royalty for content, irrespective of how much they have contributed in the development of the application. In the QCM instance, Apple had the choice to use a different modem supplier, developers on IOS don't have a choice.

What's different in these two cases ?

Since it's your first post, I'll disable my 'troll alert' to try and respond.

Have you ever developed any piece of software? I'm an Engineer by education, and Professor by profession. I am an ok C and FORTRAN programmer (yeah, I know, a lot of people will say: Yuck!), due to specific needs from my area. But in my work for High Performance Computing (HPC) I've always used Intel MKL, which is a library Intel spent money making, and distribute for Intel platforms, for free, if you are in Academia, or an Open Source Developer, of for a license fee, if you are a for profit developer.

In my license is stated that, if I made an app, and distributed it for profit, using Intel MKL, I'd liable to missing license fees, and other damages. That's because I'm abusing my free license. Intel invested making it (and also profited from CPU sales), and if I am to make money based on their work, they want some of it. That's fair, isn't it? I'd still be writing code ,if I had to remake what MKL offers from scratch! And probably would not achieve the same performance.

Apple has a similar stance. It does provides all the tools needed for developing, in any of its platforms. And they are not cheap to make. Nor does an annual $99 fee cover costs. Apple also distributes the app, which is not a small expanse. Go to AWS and get a price quotation of server bandwidth? If your app has GBs of size, and is downloaded by millions of people, like Fortnite was, you'd have to pay tens of thousands of dollars, just for the distribution.

Apple makes nothing from Fortnite, because it is free. Although there are high costs distributing it. But Epic makes its bread from IAP. Should Apple host a multi-million raking app for free? Just because it is a trillion company? The work Epic stands on, on Apple developed APIs, has no aggregated value? And distribution costs?

Qualcomm is another matter altogether. Their contribution was solely on device communications, and nowhere else. No App, or any other function of the device, or even its design, was being propped up by Qualcomm IP. Same IP is being used in various white box Androids. It was it's own firmware, running on its own baseband chip, which was made by a third party, with licenses paid for. Qualcomm wanted to be paid twice, by the same aggregated value, in what became infamously known as double dipping.

If Qualcomm case had any legs to stand, it would not have settled promptly, as it did. Epic, won't be much different, I'd expect.

If Zuck’s FB really want to know what’s hurting everybody, including small business owners, during the global pandemic, that will be the most popular social media platform doing sh*t to curb the spread of misinformation. That is really killing people!

No apps from Facebook on my devices, for more years than I care to remember now. Couldn’t be happier with the decision!

ArianneFeldry said:

How would consumers not win? Say Epic wins and they get the fee reduced, the ability for direct payments, or more hopefully, we get full sideloading on iOS. For the first situation we could get cheaper apps...

Sorry, I know it isn’t proper to respond without reading the full post. But I do have to ask: Born yesterday?

While I do think that the percentage number could be up to debate, I have no doubt that, except for limited time discounts, the developer will undoubtedly pocket the extra cash. No app purchase will be a single dime less!

I feel for developers. Even though I have no stake, I can’t quite dismiss their argument that 30% is too high. Even though it would be hard to get a “right number”.

As dor Fortnite being out of the App Store, well, let’s just say it isn’t the worst that happened in 2020. It ultimately means nothing at all!

And yes, the fact that Epic actions were as planned and rehearsed as an Apple Event, really imparts a sleazy air around the whole thing. And that is a shame, even though I’ve never been into Fortnite, I still remember fondly the Infinity Blade saga! Ah, and yes, they were on stage with Apple, fawning at each other like newlyweds...