It's not Apple vs. Fortnite. It's actually Apple vs. Users. Apple has been taking us for a ride this whole time. We pay damn much and buy the phone. It is the user's property from then on. What the user install's and uninstall's from his phone should be his decision. Taking a cut of say, 3%, to keep the app store running is forgivable. But 30% digging into users pocket is unpardonable.
Apple is no longer the underdog that it was 40 years ago, and some fanboys pretending it to be is despicable. It's a monopoly and the only thing it cares is it's profitability.
Despite all the sugarcoated lies Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google have been saying to the senate, they are a monopoly. Stop letting them deceive us.
Let's take the power back. Stop enabling such deception. Death of a country is determined by it's governance. Death of a society is determined by it's culture and greedy monopolies.
The way we can claim our power is by raising awareness to the point that the powers that are will take note and take action.
> It's actually Apple vs. Users. Apple has been taking us for a ride this whole time.
Oh please. Nobody who actually uses Apple feels that way. Though I agree they should allow a way to sideload apps.
One of the downsides of being primarily an iOS dev is not being able to participate in activities like game-jams because there's no way to casually share my stuff with other users.
> Taking a cut of say, 3%, to keep the app store running is forgivable. But 30%
Do you know how much Google, Microsoft, Steam and Epic themselves take from sales on their stores?
Apple protects its users better than the other major players. Their privacy and accessibility features alone are unparalleled, and they do a lot to curtail scummy developer practices. The entities which Apple protects users from are often the ones crying foul.
> the magnitude of this is not immediately apparent unless you’ve worked in an agency / freelanced building iOS applications. You have no idea how many user-hostile and abusive things I’ve seen blown completely out of the water with the golden phrase "Apple won’t allow that". It wins arguments in favour of the user instantly and permanently.
> I’ve run up against Apple’s capricious review process more times than I can count, so I’ve got more reason than most to complain about it. But it’s impossible for me to argue that these rules don’t help the user when I’ve personally seen it happen so many times. It’s a double-edged sword to be sure, and I believe the best way of balancing things in favour of the end-user is to be more open than Apple is, but there are undeniable benefits to the user with the current system.
I'm fine with Apple taking 30%, 50%, or 90% of revenue on the App Store. Running the App Store isn't free, and Apple is the party best positioned to assess their own costs. However, the App Store should not be the only way to install software on my phone.
Critically, if I was able to sideload apps, Apple wouldn't charge 90%, because then no developer would ever use the store. A central repository of curated, vetted apps is a key selling point for the iPhone. Apple will want to maintain that feature, as they should, but they have to put in the work to compete.
Google also kicked Epic out but no body is talking about that not even Epic. Maybe because Statistically Android users are less likely to pay for apps and services than iOS users. So clearly iOS is where the money is and nothing wrong in Apple trying to protect that.
> It's not Apple vs. Fortnite. It's actually Apple vs. Users.
This would suggest that Apple is shooting itself in the foot—which is exactly the opposite of antitrust policy. Put simply: Apple’s behavior seems to be hurting itself and benefiting competitors (Samsung/Google) which, broadly speaking, would seem like an uphill battle for anyone arguing to open up the iOS ecosystem.
It is interesting that we criticise monopoly in one form (apple), but encourage it in another ("It is the user's property"). If we go down the logical road of "why monopoly is bad" it is because property may not be utilised in the most effective way for the common good, all property is monopoly.
I wonder if auction based app store costs are a possible solution to the increasing developer frustration with Apple? Self Assessed Licenses Sold via Auction across many marketplaces may help combat monopoly.
I can see Apple (with their privacy angle) moving towards facilitating users selling their data/data unions. Perhaps some other radical-liberalism ideas could come through too.
I like the 30% cut for the App Store. It provides them incentive to promote & sell apps, and make sure the App Store is a smooth experience for users, & a profitable one for developers. It’s certainly healthy, if on the high side. But I’d sure rather have a healthy app ecosystem than an unhealthy one.
The problem with them experimenting with lowering the rate is once its lowered, imagine the fuss which would ensue if they then raised it.
What nonsense. As an Apple customer, the App store is the number one reason I use them - I dont want malware or scummy developers on my phone and I am happy with Apple charging a fee to developers in this manner.
It's not like anyone going to switch phones because your app is not on there. Your app is just one of many other apps I use on my phone.
Developers are very much looking at this the wrong way - the 30% fee is the price developers must pay to access Apples customers.
What monopoly? Nobody is forcing you to buy Apple and enter into their rotten walled garden. If you "pay damn much and buy the phone", you are doing it of your own volition.
"Take the power back" by not continuing to give them your money.
In their profit reports I am told that the 30% is not profit it just maintains the app store. I read that from some jailbreakers, they seemed legit since it was talking about how apple locks it down too much. It was in the earnings report, so they didn't have a reason to lie (I think). I wonder if they cook the numbers or something to lie about it.
To reach a good balance you don't use rebellion, you don't need to take action. If you want to fight greed, start with yourself and then maybe your peers.
Accept what is and don't buy stuff you don't need. Hopefully we learn this before something worse than covid destroys all.
Also it's very hard task to keep a good eco system running, both Google and Apple do their best here. Most organisations crumble from the inside at their size.
Hey, actually several companies reached a size where they have the stability to offer the same service to most part of the world and it allows us to communicate basically free. We also have gadgets that is super duper advanced in our pockets. Embrace that give them some slack. Lead them by example and create a counter culture that takes all the good parts and makes them better. You got a silver plate of goodies, anyone in the past would trade that spot with you in an instance.
Payment processing alone would cost Apple that much. You easily lose 1.5%-2% in payment fees and another 2% in handling fraud and customer support queries about payments.
For example, if a payment for an app is $1.99, Apple now takes $0.60. If a customer calls support to ask a question about the purchase it can cost anywhere from $15 to $30 in call center fees, so it takes 50 purchases to make good on that. If you lower that to a $0.06 take apple would have to make 500 sales for every phone call to support.
People don't realise good customer support is very expensive.
You could argue about Apple's rights, or citizens' free speech rights, or consumer rights, under existing law. It would be an interesting discussion because I think it's a lot more complicated an issue that most people appreciate.
But really why not talk about how we think things should work on platforms like iOS? What should the law be? What protects essential human rights, encourages creativity, and allows business to function to some extent?
Personally, I would argue that consumers should have a legal right to install whatever software they wish on a product they have purchased, including onto the bundled operating system. I don't think it should be permissible for a company like Apple (or Microsoft or whoever) to sell me a gadget and then use various sorts of locks to try to keep me from putting whatever apps or app stores or services I like on it.
Does anyone have any argument for why this right would be a bad thing? People would get bad software on their phones, but last I checked, this is happening already, including on iOS. Apple would lose some margin, but last I checked, their investment in creating and maintaining iOS has been handsomely rewarded and would surely continue to be.
I like the parody, but it's not really equivalent.
The original Apple parody was to convince consumers to switch from one platform (PC) to a different platform (Mac).
Now, maybe you believe Apple, in the form of iOS, has become Big Brother. Fine, in that case, Epic should provide its own gaming platform.
But Epic isn't trying to destroy Big Brother here. It still wants to run on Big Brother's platform. It just doesn't want to give up any revenue to do so.
If I go to the App Store on my phone, and go to my "Purchased" list, Fortnite is still listed there. I wasn't up to date, and clicking on "update" gives the message:
"Fortnite" No Longer Available. The developer has removed this app from the App Store.
Interesting wording. I wonder if they only have one message for pulled-by-Apple vs pulled-by-dev?
Through iOS devices Apple has created a market of users they are the very protective gatekeeper for.
Windows PC user market. Not locked down. Though MS has a store you have Steam, EGS, GOG, Origin, UBS etc for games alone. Let alone productivity apps.
Android market. Not locked down. Though google play store is the gorilla other stores exist. I like F-Droid.
EPICS Unreal game engine? Doesn't have a locked down market of users. It would lock the business into a payment scheme though.
Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo consoles. I fear they are similar in terms of gatekeepering to users and should be subject to whatever outcome Apple is. They seem a bit more open to begin with though so are likely to be less affected. It also makes them not the prime offender, though offenders all the same.
Ultimately, want to sell to an Apple iOS user? One choice.
Separately then, is this anti-competitive or simply smart business? I'd answer : Why not both? The business wants to make money and until the law steps in, they will do it.
I want to start reading "Evil Geniuses: The Unmaking of America: A Recent History", which covers the now failed anti-trust system in the United States, but I am worried for my blood pressure, as it covers many other ways in which our government almost exclusively works for its corporate owners.
We may think of how Europe deals with big business as extreme and radical, but it's only because we got so far away from the reasonable middle ground of big money and citizenry coexisting without f---ing each other over.
To everyone that is supporting Apple's position, let me run this hypothetical by you:
You buy a Nespresso machine on Amazon. Some amount of the purchase price goes to Amazon for facilitating the transaction and delivering it to you, some goes to Nespresso for actually making the device. Cool. Then you get a pod subscription from Nespresso – let's say there is a touch screen on the coffee machine itself where you enter your details to subscribe. Now, Nespresso ships pods to your house every month. Amazon then says that because the machine was originally bought on Amazon, they are entitled to a 30% cut of that ongoing subscription price, even though the subscription is neither facilitated nor fulfilled by Amazon.
I think we can all agree that would be ridiculous.
One of the biggest hurdles in trying to take antitrust action against Apple, I suspect, will be in proving that App Store policies cause harm to consumers rather than developers. There seem to be HN-favored narratives of "iOS users would rise up against the walled garden if they only understood" and "iOS users are too stupid and sheeplike to understand and rise up," but there is a more prosaic narrative of "iOS users like having one place to go that offers hundreds of thousands applications that are, by the standards of just fifteen years ago, dirt cheap."
Epic is implicitly making the case that consumers are harmed by having to pay $9.99 instead of $7.99 for in-game tchotchkes, but even as someone who's grown pretty skeptical of Apple's approach to the App Store in recent years, that strikes me as a reach. They were manifestly not losing money under the existing pricing agreement, and their fight here sure seems to be "we don't want to share that much revenue with Apple" rather than something akin to Hey's "Apple's revenue share materially harms our business". In-app purchase policies are arguably where Apple's policies are at their worst, but I have serious doubts whether Epic Games is a great standard-bearer to line up behind in a fight for fair business practices.
Simple question to whoever is honestly defending Apple: What if Windows prevented people from installing anything on their computer except from the Microsoft Store. Then Microsoft forced every app to use their payment system and then charged an excessive 30% fee for each transaction. Would you think that's an abusive and illegal practice?
Fortnite is not really the hill I have seen this battle take place. For example Apple also rejected the satirical app of a Pulitzer winning journalist (it does not make their app good but suggests that the content was probably not just a fart joke).
Still, people should be able to install whatever they want on their phones, without Apple playing walled garden.
It is not good for devs getting squeezed by the platform owners, it is not good for people being able to install whatever they want, and quite frankly it is not good for freedom of speech either.
I am not including Google here since their policy is a bit more defendable, you can sideload apps without too much trouble, I even believe that Epic uses that mechanism to do not have to pay the 30%.
I'm tired of this kind of bullshit. I can't buy books on the kindle app, I can't play Apple music on my google mini, I can't install the PAX app for my vape on iOS, and now that. Yet there isn't enough abuse from Apple to make us switch to another platform. Without regulation this situation will never be fixed.
I think they fixed the PAX issue btw. :) might depend on country.
If you can’t get that to work, I was able to side load it but it was a pain in the ass. You need to get an IPA (which you can only get by decrypting the app on a jailbroken device), then you need to bundle it in a shim Xcode app that you sign with a 24 hour certificate and deploy to your device in developer mode.
... the developer on Thursday implemented its own in-app payment system that bypassed Apple’s standard 30 percent fee.
...1,000 V-bucks, which is roughly equivalent to $10 in-game Fortnite currency, now costs just $7.99 if you use Epic direct payment instead of the standard Apple payment processing. Normally, that amount of currency costs $9.99. Epic says, in this case, customers keep the extra savings, not the company. That cast the new arrangement as a pro-consumer move instead of a greedy power play.
My math skills aren't the best but it seems like epic is still pocketing almost an extra dollar there than previously (almost 10%), indicating that this is move motivated by financial gain (if not greed). Of course Apple stands out as the bigger case of "highway robbery".
I am somewhat curious on how much apple spends on maintaining the app store and how much of that %30 is net profit.
Wow, I would have hoped for better support from the HN community. Instead there are apologists after apologists. So what if Epic is big. Really, seriously shouldn't we have had alternative app stores available form the official ones. Why is this even a point of debate? All the time we hear stories of people one of our own getting fucked by these app stores and their lordship and now that we have an opportunity to make some noise, this is the response? Fuck that. Maybe we deserve these lords.
Fuck your security and fuck your walled gardens. Fucking no alternative browser allowed. Fuck that, fuck you apple and fuck you google. Fuck your monopoly and chokehold on the devs.
It’s scary to see people come to Apple’s defense, and to talk about justifications. Our conversations should be about what is good for the consumer, not what is good for Apple.
Some of the arguments are that Apple’s closed ecosystem allows them to offer better products and security.
I don’t really buy that. If it was true my day job wouldn’t have me so worried about iOS and MacOS security. Exploits wouldn’t be so cheap for iOS right now too..
Imagine if Microsoft did this on PCs. a) prohibiting the installation of non-windows store software (sideloading) and b) insisting that all purchases done via apps give them a 30% cut. I think this is a ridiculous practice on the behalf of Apple.
I wonder if this would all go away if Apple had a blessed 3rd party payment processing sdk and the ability to sell in app upgrades (which a lot of developers have wanted for nearly the entire existence of the App Store)
this would allow them to not have to remove the restriction about mentioning outside of the app payment options, which I actually think prevents a lot of abuse and businesses really care about having control over their payments processor like using Stripe, say, to avoid the 30% cut)
Really this comes down to those two issues, I see it over and over again.
I know as an aside a lot of people want to be able to also ship binaries outside the App Store. The reality I have found talking to quite a few app developers that sell on the App Store, very few (I can recount one out of 13) actually want to be able to sell their app outside the App Store and ship a binary outside the App Store. I know some on HN want this and I get it, but I think reality is different from ideals on that particular issue. Though I think it has merit I also think it’s not a requirement to make nearly all parties involved happy with an outcome that would dramatically improve things for developers in respect to issues with the App store
[+] [-] dang|5 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24146987&p=2
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24146987&p=3
[+] [-] hijklmno|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Razengan|5 years ago|reply
Oh please. Nobody who actually uses Apple feels that way. Though I agree they should allow a way to sideload apps.
One of the downsides of being primarily an iOS dev is not being able to participate in activities like game-jams because there's no way to casually share my stuff with other users.
> Taking a cut of say, 3%, to keep the app store running is forgivable. But 30%
Do you know how much Google, Microsoft, Steam and Epic themselves take from sales on their stores?
Apple protects its users better than the other major players. Their privacy and accessibility features alone are unparalleled, and they do a lot to curtail scummy developer practices. The entities which Apple protects users from are often the ones crying foul.
See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24154647 and similar comments:
> the magnitude of this is not immediately apparent unless you’ve worked in an agency / freelanced building iOS applications. You have no idea how many user-hostile and abusive things I’ve seen blown completely out of the water with the golden phrase "Apple won’t allow that". It wins arguments in favour of the user instantly and permanently.
> I’ve run up against Apple’s capricious review process more times than I can count, so I’ve got more reason than most to complain about it. But it’s impossible for me to argue that these rules don’t help the user when I’ve personally seen it happen so many times. It’s a double-edged sword to be sure, and I believe the best way of balancing things in favour of the end-user is to be more open than Apple is, but there are undeniable benefits to the user with the current system.
[+] [-] Wowfunhappy|5 years ago|reply
Critically, if I was able to sideload apps, Apple wouldn't charge 90%, because then no developer would ever use the store. A central repository of curated, vetted apps is a key selling point for the iPhone. Apple will want to maintain that feature, as they should, but they have to put in the work to compete.
[+] [-] mobilemidget|5 years ago|reply
https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2020/8/13/21368079/for...
[+] [-] hrktb|5 years ago|reply
I guess that's what's going to change more and more in our future. Just like apps/programs, movies, books, music tracks were our properties.
[+] [-] pankajdoharey|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vogre|5 years ago|reply
What makes you think that 3% cut is enough?
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] CrazyCatDog|5 years ago|reply
This would suggest that Apple is shooting itself in the foot—which is exactly the opposite of antitrust policy. Put simply: Apple’s behavior seems to be hurting itself and benefiting competitors (Samsung/Google) which, broadly speaking, would seem like an uphill battle for anyone arguing to open up the iOS ecosystem.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rimliu|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dutch3000|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] TLightful|5 years ago|reply
Not so much when you're slapping 30%, kicking back, and resting your feet up on the table.
[+] [-] longtermdd|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mapcars|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] fsewe20|5 years ago|reply
I wonder if auction based app store costs are a possible solution to the increasing developer frustration with Apple? Self Assessed Licenses Sold via Auction across many marketplaces may help combat monopoly.
I can see Apple (with their privacy angle) moving towards facilitating users selling their data/data unions. Perhaps some other radical-liberalism ideas could come through too.
https://www.radicalxchange.org/concepts/
https://blog.radicalxchange.org/blog/posts/millennials-zoome...
[+] [-] mojuba|5 years ago|reply
Sure, the App Store and its services however are not the user's property.
[+] [-] tommymachine|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jalfresi|5 years ago|reply
It's not like anyone going to switch phones because your app is not on there. Your app is just one of many other apps I use on my phone.
Developers are very much looking at this the wrong way - the 30% fee is the price developers must pay to access Apples customers.
[+] [-] pferde|5 years ago|reply
"Take the power back" by not continuing to give them your money.
[+] [-] Waterfall|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] isodude|5 years ago|reply
Accept what is and don't buy stuff you don't need. Hopefully we learn this before something worse than covid destroys all.
Also it's very hard task to keep a good eco system running, both Google and Apple do their best here. Most organisations crumble from the inside at their size.
Hey, actually several companies reached a size where they have the stability to offer the same service to most part of the world and it allows us to communicate basically free. We also have gadgets that is super duper advanced in our pockets. Embrace that give them some slack. Lead them by example and create a counter culture that takes all the good parts and makes them better. You got a silver plate of goodies, anyone in the past would trade that spot with you in an instance.
[+] [-] speleding|5 years ago|reply
Payment processing alone would cost Apple that much. You easily lose 1.5%-2% in payment fees and another 2% in handling fraud and customer support queries about payments.
For example, if a payment for an app is $1.99, Apple now takes $0.60. If a customer calls support to ask a question about the purchase it can cost anywhere from $15 to $30 in call center fees, so it takes 50 purchases to make good on that. If you lower that to a $0.06 take apple would have to make 500 sales for every phone call to support.
People don't realise good customer support is very expensive.
[+] [-] mapgrep|5 years ago|reply
But really why not talk about how we think things should work on platforms like iOS? What should the law be? What protects essential human rights, encourages creativity, and allows business to function to some extent?
Personally, I would argue that consumers should have a legal right to install whatever software they wish on a product they have purchased, including onto the bundled operating system. I don't think it should be permissible for a company like Apple (or Microsoft or whoever) to sell me a gadget and then use various sorts of locks to try to keep me from putting whatever apps or app stores or services I like on it.
Does anyone have any argument for why this right would be a bad thing? People would get bad software on their phones, but last I checked, this is happening already, including on iOS. Apple would lose some margin, but last I checked, their investment in creating and maintaining iOS has been handsomely rewarded and would surely continue to be.
[+] [-] andreasley|5 years ago|reply
[1] https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-complaint-734589783.pdf
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euiSHuaw6Q4
[+] [-] ulfw|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] js2|5 years ago|reply
The original Apple parody was to convince consumers to switch from one platform (PC) to a different platform (Mac).
Now, maybe you believe Apple, in the form of iOS, has become Big Brother. Fine, in that case, Epic should provide its own gaming platform.
But Epic isn't trying to destroy Big Brother here. It still wants to run on Big Brother's platform. It just doesn't want to give up any revenue to do so.
Shrug.
[+] [-] etaioinshrdlu|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cordite|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrspeaker|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CarbyAu|5 years ago|reply
Through iOS devices Apple has created a market of users they are the very protective gatekeeper for.
Windows PC user market. Not locked down. Though MS has a store you have Steam, EGS, GOG, Origin, UBS etc for games alone. Let alone productivity apps.
Android market. Not locked down. Though google play store is the gorilla other stores exist. I like F-Droid.
EPICS Unreal game engine? Doesn't have a locked down market of users. It would lock the business into a payment scheme though.
Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo consoles. I fear they are similar in terms of gatekeepering to users and should be subject to whatever outcome Apple is. They seem a bit more open to begin with though so are likely to be less affected. It also makes them not the prime offender, though offenders all the same.
Ultimately, want to sell to an Apple iOS user? One choice.
Separately then, is this anti-competitive or simply smart business? I'd answer : Why not both? The business wants to make money and until the law steps in, they will do it.
[+] [-] papito|5 years ago|reply
We may think of how Europe deals with big business as extreme and radical, but it's only because we got so far away from the reasonable middle ground of big money and citizenry coexisting without f---ing each other over.
[+] [-] fastball|5 years ago|reply
You buy a Nespresso machine on Amazon. Some amount of the purchase price goes to Amazon for facilitating the transaction and delivering it to you, some goes to Nespresso for actually making the device. Cool. Then you get a pod subscription from Nespresso – let's say there is a touch screen on the coffee machine itself where you enter your details to subscribe. Now, Nespresso ships pods to your house every month. Amazon then says that because the machine was originally bought on Amazon, they are entitled to a 30% cut of that ongoing subscription price, even though the subscription is neither facilitated nor fulfilled by Amazon.
I think we can all agree that would be ridiculous.
That is what Apple is doing.
[+] [-] chipotle_coyote|5 years ago|reply
Epic is implicitly making the case that consumers are harmed by having to pay $9.99 instead of $7.99 for in-game tchotchkes, but even as someone who's grown pretty skeptical of Apple's approach to the App Store in recent years, that strikes me as a reach. They were manifestly not losing money under the existing pricing agreement, and their fight here sure seems to be "we don't want to share that much revenue with Apple" rather than something akin to Hey's "Apple's revenue share materially harms our business". In-app purchase policies are arguably where Apple's policies are at their worst, but I have serious doubts whether Epic Games is a great standard-bearer to line up behind in a fight for fair business practices.
[+] [-] binthere|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whiddershins|5 years ago|reply
And I want that setting to work exactly as you imagine.
And then everything else problematic about this debate would disappear.
[+] [-] rndmze|5 years ago|reply
Fortnite is not really the hill I have seen this battle take place. For example Apple also rejected the satirical app of a Pulitzer winning journalist (it does not make their app good but suggests that the content was probably not just a fart joke).
Still, people should be able to install whatever they want on their phones, without Apple playing walled garden.
It is not good for devs getting squeezed by the platform owners, it is not good for people being able to install whatever they want, and quite frankly it is not good for freedom of speech either.
I am not including Google here since their policy is a bit more defendable, you can sideload apps without too much trouble, I even believe that Epic uses that mechanism to do not have to pay the 30%.
[+] [-] ccktlmazeltov|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TechBro8615|5 years ago|reply
If you can’t get that to work, I was able to side load it but it was a pain in the ass. You need to get an IPA (which you can only get by decrypting the app on a jailbroken device), then you need to bundle it in a shim Xcode app that you sign with a 24 hour certificate and deploy to your device in developer mode.
[+] [-] sealthedeal|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bdibs|5 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24147486
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24146902
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24143346
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24148548
[+] [-] jaeming|5 years ago|reply
...1,000 V-bucks, which is roughly equivalent to $10 in-game Fortnite currency, now costs just $7.99 if you use Epic direct payment instead of the standard Apple payment processing. Normally, that amount of currency costs $9.99. Epic says, in this case, customers keep the extra savings, not the company. That cast the new arrangement as a pro-consumer move instead of a greedy power play.
My math skills aren't the best but it seems like epic is still pocketing almost an extra dollar there than previously (almost 10%), indicating that this is move motivated by financial gain (if not greed). Of course Apple stands out as the bigger case of "highway robbery".
I am somewhat curious on how much apple spends on maintaining the app store and how much of that %30 is net profit.
[+] [-] dang|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway140820|5 years ago|reply
Wow, I would have hoped for better support from the HN community. Instead there are apologists after apologists. So what if Epic is big. Really, seriously shouldn't we have had alternative app stores available form the official ones. Why is this even a point of debate? All the time we hear stories of people one of our own getting fucked by these app stores and their lordship and now that we have an opportunity to make some noise, this is the response? Fuck that. Maybe we deserve these lords.
Fuck your security and fuck your walled gardens. Fucking no alternative browser allowed. Fuck that, fuck you apple and fuck you google. Fuck your monopoly and chokehold on the devs.
[+] [-] fsociety|5 years ago|reply
Some of the arguments are that Apple’s closed ecosystem allows them to offer better products and security.
I don’t really buy that. If it was true my day job wouldn’t have me so worried about iOS and MacOS security. Exploits wouldn’t be so cheap for iOS right now too..
[+] [-] lordleft|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] no_wizard|5 years ago|reply
this would allow them to not have to remove the restriction about mentioning outside of the app payment options, which I actually think prevents a lot of abuse and businesses really care about having control over their payments processor like using Stripe, say, to avoid the 30% cut)
Really this comes down to those two issues, I see it over and over again.
I know as an aside a lot of people want to be able to also ship binaries outside the App Store. The reality I have found talking to quite a few app developers that sell on the App Store, very few (I can recount one out of 13) actually want to be able to sell their app outside the App Store and ship a binary outside the App Store. I know some on HN want this and I get it, but I think reality is different from ideals on that particular issue. Though I think it has merit I also think it’s not a requirement to make nearly all parties involved happy with an outcome that would dramatically improve things for developers in respect to issues with the App store