Epic Sues After Apple Removes Fortnite from App Store
- Paul Thurrott
- Aug 13, 2020
-
129
UPDATE:Ā Google also later removed Fortnite from its Google Play Store so Epic launched a similar lawsuit against the search giant as well. –Paul
Apple removed Fortnite from its app store after Epic implemented its own in-app payment system, bypassing Appleās unfair 30 percent vig. Clearly prepared for this eventuality, Epic quickly sued Apple for abusing its monopoly power.
Windows Intelligence In Your Inbox
Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday ā and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!
"*" indicates required fields
āToday, Epic Games took the unfortunate step of violating the App Store guidelines that are applied equally to every developer and designed to keep the store safe for our users,ā an Apple statement reads. āAs a result[,] their Fortnite app has been removed from the store. Epic enabled a feature in its app which was not reviewed or approved by Apple, and they did so with the express intent of violating the App Store guidelines regarding in-app payments that apply to every developer who sells digital goods or services.ā
Epicās response is, well, epic.
āThis case concerns Appleās use of a series of anti-competitive restraints and monopolistic practices in markets for the distribution of software applications (āappsā) to users of mobile computing devices like smartphones and tablets, and the processing of consumersā payments for digital content used within iOS mobile apps (āin-app contentā),ā the Epic lawsuit explains. āApple imposes unreasonable and unlawful restraints to completely monopolize both markets and prevent software developers from reaching the over one billion users of its mobile devices (e.g., iPhone and iPad) unless they go through a single store controlled by Apple, the App Store, where Apple exacts an oppressive 30 percent tax on the sale of every app. Apple also requires software developers who wish to sell digital in-app content to those consumers to use a single payment processing option offered by Apple, In-App Purchase, which likewise carries a 30 percent tax.ā
Epic compares the situation on iOS to that on the Mac, where users are free to download apps from any source and, at most, incur a 3 percent charge for credit card processing fees. ā[Thatās] a full ten times lower than the exorbitant 30 percent fees Apple applies to its mobile device in-app purchases,ā Epic adds.
Epic says it brought the suit to end Appleās āunfair and anti-competitiveā business practices, which Apple uses to āunlawfully maintain its monopoly in two distinct, multibillion-dollar markets: The iOS App Distribution Market, and the iOS In-App Payment Processing Market.ā
Epic is not seeking any monetary compensation for the injuries it says it has suffered, nor is it seeking favorable treatment, as Apple gives certain large companies like Amazon that complained about its practices in the past. It simply wants fair competition in ātwo key markets that directly affect hundreds of millions of consumers and tens of thousands, if not more, of third-party app developers.ā
Bravo, Epic. Bravo.
Conversation 129 comments
-
ronh
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">"Bravo, Epic. Bravo."</span></p>
-
lvthunder
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>The iOS App Distribution Market and iOS In-App Payment Processing Market aren't legally definable markets. They are going to be really pissed when they lose this case. This is like saying you have to go through WalMart to get access to WalMart's customers.</p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561278">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>No it isn't. </p><p><br></p><p>Walmart doesn't charge an additional 27 percent on credit card purchases at its stores.</p>
-
anoldamigauser
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561282">In reply to paul-thurrott:</a></em></blockquote><p>No, Walmart squeezes manufacturers on the wholesale price they will pay to place the item in their stores. Which is also a crappy business model which benefits one side over the other.</p>
-
bart
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561310">In reply to AnOldAmigaUser:</a></em></blockquote><p>But you can go to a different store, who might squeeze manufacturers less, to get those same products you can buy at Walmart. You have choice.</p>
-
david_romero_hernand
Log in to Reply<blockquote><a href="#561282"><em>In reply to paul-thurrott:</em></a><em> </em>Hi Paul. I am not sure how Walmart works in USA, but in Mexico it is not just the 3% of purchases by plastic. You need to pay based in the place in the store. You need to price the product like Walmart says, you can not choose how much your product cost. To mention some rules. A question, if you invest money to make a platform, how much control do you deserve of that platform?</blockquote><p><br></p>
-
skolvikings
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561282">In reply to paul-thurrott:</a></em></blockquote><p>But Walmart has a profit markup. In fact, I suspect itās much higher than 30% in some product categories.</p><p><br></p><p>A manufacturer canāt sell their products in Walmart or Target or any other store and expect to get the full price paid by the customer. Thatās absurd.</p>
-
jgraebner
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561338">In reply to Skolvikings:</a></em></blockquote><p>That's true, but the key difference is that the manufacturer can choose to reject those terms and instead sell their products through other retailers or even direct-to-consumer. The App Store is the only way to reach iOS users, which gives Apple an unreasonable amount of control over the way that other companies, some of whom are directly competing with Apple, are able to run their businesses.</p><p><br></p><p>If iOS had a much smaller market share, this situation might be fine. The problem is that it is essentially impossible for most software or service companies to survive in the mobile marketplace without supporting iOS. Walmart actually does come close to having the same market power and their business practices have been pretty closely scrutinized as well.</p><p><br></p>
-
lvthunder
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561282">In reply to paul-thurrott:</a></em></blockquote><p>No they just charge 50% to carry your product in the store.</p>
-
navarac
Log in to Reply<p>This made my day after the vitriol from some people on a previous post.</p><p>I shall just sit quietly and read any Apple users' comment and see if any of them defend Apple. I don't hold my breath :)</p><p>EDIT: Interestingly this made the General Media (BBC News)</p>
-
colin79666
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>Now they are playing 1980-fortnite. Great play on the Apple 1984 ad the distopian world Orwell depicted. This was well planned and executed. Apple are sadly becoming Microsoft of the 90s in their behaviour. </p><p><br></p><p>Apple's arrogance looks to be catching up with them. </p><p><br></p><p>Nineteen eighty-fortnite:</p><p><img src=""><a href="https://youtu.be/euiSHuaw6Q4" target="_blank">https://youtu.be/euiSHuaw6Q4</a></p><p><br></p><p>Odd. Nothing about this story in the Apple News app…</p>
-
anoldamigauser
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561285">In reply to colin79666:</a></em></blockquote><p>That was great.</p>
-
olditpro2000
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561285">In reply to colin79666:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>This….was pretty good.</p>
-
travishill
Log in to Reply<p>Perhaps Apple's cut should be lower- but honestly this whole thing doesn't seem much different than the ~25-30% that you have to give up to be on Playstation / Xbox console stores – you have to certify with them (and give them their cut) to sell on disc as well…</p>
-
IanYates82
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561288">In reply to travishill:</a></em></blockquote><p>It's similar, although Epic's own CEO (Tim Sweeney) says he sees the difference between phone vs console due to consoles being sold at a loss – the crazy powerful hardware is sold cheap and is deliberately subsidised with game sales. Thus the whole ecosystem is in on the gig – consoles are sold to users where the cost is borne by the console maker *and* the game sales.</p><p><br></p><p>Phones are more general purpose devices which are most certainly sold at a profit before any of the software from app stores gets involved.</p><p><br></p><p>The whole reason (at least the one stated publicly) Sweeney did the Epic game store on the PC was to avoid Steam getting their 30% cut since Epic made it a 12% cut instead. He says both Steam and Epic really just make a launcher and happen to provide a convenient way to buy the games which doesn't warrant 30% – the PC users have already paid the PC manufacturer, who has paid Microsoft – those other companies are making a profit. </p><p>That's quite similar to Google and the phone makers where there's a hardware party and an OS party. Apple being in tighter control – owning both the hardware AND the *only* means of distribution – makes it more egregious, where they want the cut available to consoles without the deliberate loss leading. Having it both ways isn't consumer friendly.</p>
-
jedwards87
Log in to Reply<p>Google has the same unfair 30% and Epic will be battling them too as they added the same means to get around using Google Pay unless Google decides to fold. But of course you make this about Apple only. I am not surprised. Oh and it wasn't a trap that Apple fell for…lol. Apple had to choice but to remove the app.</p>
-
navarac
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561293">In reply to jedwards87:</a></em></blockquote><p><span style="background-color: rgb(24, 26, 27); color: rgb(192, 186, 178); –darkreader-inline-bgcolor:#131516; –darkreader-inline-color:#bcb6ad;" data-darkreader-inline-bgcolor="" data-darkreader-inline-color="">It is only about Apple. Android allows developers to point users to other payment options.</span></p>
-
jgraebner
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561293">In reply to jedwards87:</a></em></blockquote><p>Android also allows installation of applications from sources other than the Play Store. For a long time, the most prominent app that bypassed the Play Store was, in fact, Fortnite. Google did make a deal with them a while back to finally bring it to their store.</p><p><br></p><p>I would imagine that Epic wouldn't be fighting Apple on this at all if it were possible for them to just distribute the game on iOS themselves.</p>
-
curtisspendlove
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561360">In reply to jgraebner:</a></em></blockquote><p><em>I would imagine that Epic wouldn't be fighting Apple on this at all if it were possible for them to just distribute the game on iOS themselves.</em></p><p><br></p><p>Correct me if Iām wrong, but Iām reasonably confident that Epic have their own game store available on Android. Or maybe they are still working on it. I canāt remember the details behind their side-load fiasco. </p><p><br></p><p>I wonder how many people use it though. I actively tell anyone I know who uses Android not to use 3rd party app stores without telling me because the security risk is too high. </p><p><br></p><p>I still feel like this is phase one of a multi-phase initiative to launch their own app stores on more platforms. </p><p><br></p><p>After all…they have a bunch of exclusive deals with game developers to be the only store offering their games for various timeframes. </p><p><br></p><p>Seems…a bit…ironic. No? </p>
-
dftf
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561293">In reply to jedwards87:</a></em></blockquote><p>I imagine that every store does the same 30%: Google Play, Nintendo, Xbox, Sony. Apple is by-far though the most-profitable of them all, hence why it is the subject of the current focus, exactly the same as how people would focus on Microsoft for bundling Internet Explorer, Works (or a trial version of Microsoft Office) on Windows, but the same-focus never applied to Apple with either Safari or Apple Works (later iWork) preinstalled.</p><p><br></p><p>You go-after the biggest target.</p>
-
cavalier_eternal
Log in to Reply<p>The outcome of this one will be interesting and not just for the legal outcome. Epic could have sued Apple without going through the process of getting their game removed from the store. By making a public spectacle out of they are appear to be going for trial by public opinion as well. </p>
-
wdc2
Log in to Reply<p>In replay to</p><p><em>Paul:</em></p><p><em>"No it isn't.</em></p><p><em>Walmart doesn't charge an additional 27 percent on credit card purchases at its stores."</em></p><p>Walmart as any other store does charge for the stuff you bought, on top of their base price for which they've bought it from the supplier.</p><p>They can charge 3% or 30% because it's their store, they've built it, don't like it go shop somewhere else, don't tell us in our house that we cannot charge 30%</p>
-
bart
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561296">In reply to wdc2:</a></em></blockquote><p>"…go shop somewhere else…" You hit the nail on the head. You can't get iOS apps anywhere else, but in the App Store. Walmart products are also available in other supermarkets.</p>
-
lbj
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561311">In reply to Bart:</a></em></blockquote><p>But you can get Fortnite on everything from Nintendo Switch to PC to Android. It is not iOS exclusive. So it is like a Walmart product and you can get it elsewhere. </p><p><br></p><p>Again if you want to sell the product in Wholefoods, Walmart and Publix then you need to agree with the terms of each retailer.</p>
-
bart
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561315">In reply to LBJ:</a></em></blockquote><p>I see your point, but you are not comparing it right. </p><p>Lets say I buy a cereal (an app) I can purchase at different shops (platforms). Once I bought it, I have paid the shop (Apple in this instance). Now I can maybe win a prize (in app purchase), that is written on the back of the cereal. Can the shop turn around and say, you bought that cereal at my shop, I need a 30% cut of the prize? No. It is a direct transaction between me and the producer of the cereal (game developer)</p><p><br></p><p>Gets a bit complicated, but you see my point? :)</p>
-
curtisspendlove
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561322">In reply to Bart:</a></em></blockquote><p><em>Can the shop turn around and say, you bought that cereal at my shop, I need a 30% cut of the prize? No. It is a direct transaction between me and the producer of the cereal (game developer)</em></p><p><br></p><p>Except…in this case you entered into a deal with the shop to use their infrastructure to provide the prize to the end winner of the prize. So as a shop I would definitely ask for something in return. Otherwise Iām using my assets to serve your relationship with your customer and getting nothing in return. </p><p><br></p><p>If I do this a lot, I lose money, and my uncle (who loaned me the money to start my shop) isnāt going to be very happy wi the my business sense.</p><p><br></p><p>As an aside, Appleās insistence on comparing a digital goods store to a physical goods store is one of the main problems I have with their defensive explanation of their actions. It is very loosely comparable. </p><p><br></p><p>A more apt comparison would be to compare to the model countless conpanies use to sell and distribute Mac or Windows software. It skips entirely the āmiddle groundā we went through when the internet was starting to come to age. Shareware distribution, etc. </p>
-
bart
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561401">In reply to curtisspendlove:</a></em></blockquote><p>"Except…in this case you entered into a deal with the shop to use their infrastructure to provide the prize to the end winner of the prize. So as a shop I would definitely ask for something in return. Otherwise Iām using my assets to serve your relationship with your customer and getting nothing in return."</p><p>Yes, you are right, and you gave the shop the fair share when you purchased the app from the Store.</p>
-
lbj
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561322">In reply to Bart:</a></em></blockquote><p>I grasp your analogy but I am not sure that is right either. The cereal with the prize competition is present in advance at the time of sale and winning the prize is like accessing a closed level of the game, ie no charge.</p><p><br></p><p>Another analogy is DRM laden printer cartridges, you buy the app (printer) but due to DRM you have to buy an official ink cartridge at an inflated price (the IAP). But this is allowed in the US because of DRM protections. You can get a third party cartridge and that may or may not work, this is like jail breaking the OS to side load what you want. If you donāt want to use the DRM laden printer of the initial</p><p> choice you may switch printer brand but that means getting the new printer (app again on another platform).</p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
-
shameer_mulji
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561311">In reply to Bart:</a></em></blockquote><p>They're called iOS apps for a reason => they can only be run on iOS. Epic still has the option of distributing their service on Android, Mac, Windows, Linux. Just like cereal companies can distribute their products at a multitude of big box stores.</p>
-
skolvikings
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561311">In reply to Bart:</a></em></blockquote><p>So you can buy a hammer at Walmart or Home Depot right? Last I checked, nearly every app I use is on both the iOS App Store as well as the Google Play Store. A good majority are also on the Amazon App Store. You do have choices. Donāt like Appleās policies or prices, switch to a different platform. </p>
-
lvthunder
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561311">In reply to Bart:</a></em></blockquote><p>Sure you can. Build a web app. Convince iOS users to switch.</p>
-
bart
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561373">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>Love you thinking, but it isn't viable yet</p>
-
lbj
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561296">In reply to wdc2:</a></em></blockquote><p>I agree with wdc2.</p><p><br></p><p>An App store purchase of the App itself is like buying merchandise from a physical store. The retailer marks up the item markedly compared to the supplier's cost, this is how they pay for their infrastructure and overheads (store, staff, energy, taxes, etc.). Now the mark up varies based on the retailer type and is probably lowest for groceries and highest for clothing and beauty. 30% is the chosen mark up for Apple and Google to cover the costs of the store, security, development, etc.</p><p><br></p><p>An In-App purchase (IAP) is closer to the credit card 3% fee analogy if we regard IAP as merely a fiscal transaction and a mere payment method. However, creating a new third party sale within the retailers infrastructure is more like a opening a dedicated concession stand within a department store or shopping mall rather than a transaction fee. The concession holder has to come to an additional agreement with the department store/mall owner. The concession stand sales have to cover this cost. I have no idea what the charges for that are but I am sure that the charges levied for the concession stand sales will be higher than a simple MasterCard 3% fee.</p><p><br></p><p>What EPIC did here is set up a concession store without permission. This would be like having products sold in Best Buy but then creating concession within Best Buy where you sell those same products at a lower price and without reference to Best Buy and then being surprised when asked to leave the store and having all prior arrangements terminated. </p><p><br></p><p>I cannot see how this can generate a successful legal case against Apple/Google. </p>
-
SvenJ
Log in to Reply<blockquote><a href="#561296"><em>In reply to wdc2:</em></a><em> </em>What if you bought a generator at Walmart. From that day forward you could only get gas for it at Walmart, and Walmart got 30% of every gallon you bought? That's how in app purchases work. You buy a game, Apple gets 30%. You buy an outfit for your character in the game, Apple gets 30%. With a real generator you could get you gas anywhere. Not so with in app purchases. Don't know if Apple is hosting the outfits, guns, golf clubs, you can buy or not, but you can't get them outside the game/store/process. </blockquote><blockquote>Subscriptions are a bit different. Lets say you buy an Apple TV at Walmart. Then you subscribe to Netflix for $10/month to watch on that Apple TV. Should Walmart get $3 of that every month? Apple does, when you subscribe to Netflix, YouTube Premium, Hulu, buy a book from Amazon, etc. from the app on an iPhone*. Every month. In this case you can subscribe to those service outside Apple and make use of them on your iPhone, but Apple does not allow that to be advertised, in the app. </blockquote><blockquote><br></blockquote><p>*some of those subscriptions aren't possible because the services don't allow purchase/subscription in the app to avoid the fee, like Kindle. Others just charge you the 30% Apple is going to skim, like Google. Check the price of YouTube premium from within the YouTube app and via Safari. about 30% different.</p><p><br></p>
-
bart
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561320">In reply to SvenJ:</a></em></blockquote><p>I like your analogy better. Mine sucks :)</p>
-
skolvikings
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561320">In reply to SvenJ:</a></em></blockquote><p>If Walmart sold a generator where I could only buy the fuel from them at a high mark up, and assuming that bothered me, I wouldnāt expect the government to go after Walmart, Iād just buy a different generator from a different store. ?āāļø</p>
-
curtisspendlove
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561320">In reply to SvenJ:</a></em></blockquote><p><em>What if you bought a generator at Walmart. From that day forward you could only get gas for it at Walmart, and Walmart got 30% of every gallon you bought?</em></p><p><br></p><p>Walmart could very well come up with their own brand of generator and fuel. </p><p><br></p><p>If they could convince me that their generator and fuel are worth the extra cost to me, itās my choice, no?</p><p><br></p><p>Maybe it is more secure. Or their generator is easier to use. Maybe it is more efficient at higher or lower temperatures or altitudes. Or maybe it just has a fancy color and lightning icon on it that I like. Or maybe I just like walking around with a Walmart t-shirt and baseball cap on. Flaunting my fancy Walmart generator to my neighbors. </p><p><br></p><p>Should the government be able to come in and tell Walmart they canāt build their own brand and charge for it?</p><p><br></p><p>BTW, you do realize that the price you pay for every gallon of gas you pump into your car (at least in the US) gets split up into portions. A (very small) portion goes as overhead to the store, the rest goes as taxes to local and regional government. The store is taking a percentage for being the middle-man so that the fuel company doesnāt have to setup gas stations everywhere and so the end-customer doesnāt have to order fuel by the semi-truck-full direct from the refiner. </p><p><br></p><p>The only reason a gas station doesnāt do a 30% markup is because the store across the street would do 29%, which would lead them to do 28%. And this cycle continues until we get to the current, very minuscule, markups customers will pay. And this is why gas stations try to get you into the store so they can sell you a king size Kit Kat and a 2 for $3 bottles of Coke (which has a much higher markup). You should see the markup on a soda fountain. ;)</p>
-
lbj
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561320">In reply to SvenJ:</a></em></blockquote><p>Again I am not sure that the generator and fuel analogy works either. This is assuming the app is an open platform that can move between OSes, like a generator can source fuel from anywhere this is not the case and the app requires the OS infrastructure to run.</p><p><br></p><p>This is more like buying a car and the adding specifications to the vehicle after the fact. So for example buying a Telsa and adding autopilot later, you cannot side load autopilot, you have to buy it from Tesla and Tesla take the money. Or you have a BMW and you want to add an eFunction to the BMW ConnectedDrive platform, you cannot add that yourself but you have to buy it in a BMW store or dealership. In either case you can modify the car but youād need to either go official or crack the carās secure platform. Again like jail breaking.</p>
-
skolvikings
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561451">In reply to LBJ:</a></em></blockquote><p>Great analogies with the printers and Tesla/BMW. </p>
-
bart
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>See, this is the level of consistency we are craving on Windows 10. Apple being complete *ssholes in this instance.</p><p><br></p><p>Just sayin.</p>
-
tripleplayed
Log in to Reply<p>I like it. I like it a lot. </p>
-
olditpro2000
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>Apple's main problem with the App Store is consistency.</p><p><br></p><p>Some apps aren't subject to rule XYZ because they are "reader" apps. Of course the definition of "reader" has amounted to "whatever Apple wants to classify" as such.</p><p><br></p><p>Some developers aren't subject to the 30% cut because they negotiated a deal with Apple. Of course not ALL developers can do so, only chosen ones.</p><p><br></p><p>Apple is certainly allowed to decide what to sell on their store, based on a set of rules they define. Apple can certainly choose to take a cut of the sales at an amount they see fit, regardless of if we think it's too much. However, those rules and the cut taken should apply to ALL developers.</p><p><br></p><p>When Apple started changing the rules for a select few within (I believe) the past 5 years is when their App Store policy problems began. Things are starting to unravel as more of these stories of inconsistency have come to light. If I were an Apple developer, I'd be beyond tired of reading their boilerplate "<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">App Store guidelines that are applied equally to every developer" when I KNOW this is patently false.</span></p>
-
curtisspendlove
Log in to Reply<p>If Apple is required to change how the App Store works, Iām willing to bet theyāll make the following change. </p><p><br></p><p>You can choose to either:</p><p><br></p><ul><li> Use the App Store, including Apple handling payment processing and distribution of your app (and accept Appleās cut, though theyāll probably have to prove the cost is fair or lower it)</li><li>Use the App Store as a stub, essentially listing your app in the store but they shell out to your payment gateway and you also have to distribute yourself (provide a download link for the bits)</li></ul><p><br></p><p>Iāve been incredibly curious to know what the download transfer cost of a popular free app is to Apple. </p><p><br></p><p>Currently, the paid apps in the store are subsidizing all the other ones. Seems like this would be a far more fair way to handle it. </p>
-
MikeCerm
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561336">In reply to curtisspendlove:</a></em></blockquote><p>My understanding is that the cost is negligible. Apple has peering agreements with ISPs, so they don't pay for bandwidth.</p>
-
curtisspendlove
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561361">In reply to MikeCerm:</a></em></blockquote><p>All the more reason it would hurt to have to implement your own payment and distribution system. </p><p><br></p><p>For the average Joe, bandwidth isnāt exactly cheap. </p><p><br></p><p>However, I expect the ultimate goal here for Epic is to try to crack iOS open to 3rd party App Stores so they can get their horse in the race. </p><p><br></p><p>Beneficial for Epic, sure. For most everyone else, not so much. </p>
-
lvthunder
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561361">In reply to MikeCerm:</a></em></blockquote><p>You're kidding right. Facebook sending out updates every other week costs nothing. I don't believe that for a second. Apple is not an ISP so I don't know how they could make a peering agreement.</p><p><br></p><p>Also I'm sure all the servers in the data center that host the app store is all free as well.</p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyIt’s sad and tragic to me that any thinking person, when confronted by the facts of this situation, would repeatedly rush to the defense of the most successful company on earth that is clearly abusing its market dominance as it races to a $2 trillion valuation.
-
TEAMSWITCHER
Log in to Reply<blockquote><a href="#561508"><em>In reply to paul-thurrott:</em></a></blockquote><p><br></p><p>It's entirely posible that a perfectly reasonable judge will come to the conclusion that Apple has every right to profit from the ecosystem they created. Android sells a load of smartphones (and a few tablets) and there are also PC versions of the exact same game. Apple is far from a monopoly.</p>
-
jim_vernon
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561671">In reply to TEAMSWITCHER:</a></em></blockquote><p>"Apple is far from a monopoly."</p><p><br></p><p>Given the non-trivial cost for the average user to switch platforms, Apple does effectively have a monopoly on iOS users.</p>
-
dftf
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561336">In reply to curtisspendlove:</a></em></blockquote><p>If I were Apple I'd say that developers can choose to host an app themselves, but it has to be done on a mac (so get a sale in) and you have to install software made by Apple that will make the hosting secure (it will handle the encryption and certificate-signing to ensure it's not been tampered with).</p><p><br></p><p>Then when a user downloads an app, Apple simply requests the download from your server, and for payments, they can all be done directly with the vendor, either via credit or debit-card, or a method like PayPal, but Apple inform the user that all support for refunds or cancelling subscriptions has to be done with the vendor directly.</p><p><br></p><p>(Though that last part might be tricky as certainly in UK law when you buy something from a shop they are legally responsible for things like warranty, refunds and replacements, and cannot ask you to go to the vendor directly. So this would be region-specific).</p>
-
davidblouin
Log in to Reply<p>Google just remove Fortnite from itās app store.</p><p><br></p><p>Waiting for that lawsuit and a 1984-esque video…</p>
-
curtisspendlove
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561348">In reply to davidblouin:</a></em></blockquote><p>Naw. We only hate Apple around here. ;)</p><p><br></p><p>BTW Epic are not angels in the App Store race. If you donāt believe me, feel free to look up the shade thrown their way about the Epic Game Store. </p><p><br></p>
-
jgraebner
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561348">In reply to davidblouin:</a></em></blockquote><p>They did, in fact, file a similar suite against Google this afternoon.</p>
-
davidblouin
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561393">In reply to jgraebner:</a></em></blockquote><p>Thanks for the info jgraebner !</p>
-
red.radar
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561348">In reply to davidblouin:</a></em></blockquote><p>Wont happen because you can sideload on Android. So Android customers can go to Epic's website and download the apk directly and install. There is no case of capturing and interference on Android. </p>
-
curtisspendlove
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561398">In reply to red.radar:</a></em></blockquote><p><em>Wont happen because you can sideload on Android. So Android customers can go to Epic's website and download the apk directly and install. There is no case of capturing and interference on Android.</em></p><p><br></p><p>Might want to look at the Verge. ;)</p><p><br></p><p>Google also explicitly states (but only for games, oddly enough) that games using the Play Store have to use Googleās payment gateway. Which, interestingly enough also runs on the 30% rate. </p><p><br></p><p>Oh, but again, I forget we only hate on Apple around here. </p>
-
BrianEricFord
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561398">In reply to red.radar:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>Whoops. It happened. Sort of puts Epics tantrum in perspective.</p>
-
olditpro2000
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561348">In reply to davidblouin:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>Lawsuit just hit.</p>
-
davidblouin
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561399">In reply to OldITPro2000:</a></em></blockquote><p>Thanks for the info OldITPro2000</p>
-
davidblouin
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em>In reply to curtisspendlove & red.radar:</em></blockquote><p>Not everyone knows or care to know about sideloading guys…</p>
-
JH_Radio
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>Hey Paul, a typo…<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Apple removed Fortnite form… You meant from I'm sure. </span></p>
-
shmuelie
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>The fact that Epic isn't suing Google who also removed them from the store says a lot. Honestly, Epic has always hated app stores that aren't theirs (see there hate of the Microsoft/Windows App store when it was NEVER a threat to their profits). They saw a good PR move and took it. If Epic actually cared about this there are more ways they could hurt Apple without needing to go to court (stop supporting Unreal on iOS for example).</p>
-
retcable
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561384">In reply to Shmuelie:</a></em></blockquote><p>Ah, but Epic has now filed suit against Google as well. This is not just all about Apple any more. Epic pulled the exact same stunt on Google that they did on Apple, was banned from the Play Store and Epic has now filed suit against Google. </p>
-
prifici
Log in to Reply<p>I'm not a huge fan of Epic but, well played. This was definitely executed to draw attention and there's nothing groups like the EU like more than punishing US companies.</p>
-
wright_is
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561386">In reply to prifici:</a></em></blockquote><p>I agree with the first part of your statement, but the EU doesn't like punishing US companies, in particular, they enjoying punishing companies that restrict customer choice or disadvantage customers, regardless of where they come from. Just look at Philips (a Dutch company) that got slapped with large fines for a CRT cartel a couple of years back.</p>
-
sandy
Log in to Reply<p>Some of the comments here saying Company XYZ does similar things are assuming that it's legal in those other cases; maybe it isn't either (I'm not a lawyer, but the abuses large retailers have inflicted on smaller suppliers shouldn't be legal).</p><p><br></p><p>Abusing dominance in a market has got many companies in trouble with competition regulators, Microsoft in the '90s, and hopefully Apple now.</p><p><br></p><p>Like other previously struggling companies who are now huge, Apple has failed to relax their restrictions and if they don't do so now, they'll be forced to.</p>
-
red.radar
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>The subtle nuance that makes this interesting is that IOS customers cannot be served by any other platform but the App Store. Their devices can only run applications that are delivered from the App store. So it makes the customer Captive. The comparisons to general retail are not valid because Walmart doesn't capture a customer and prevent them from shopping at other stores. </p><p><br></p><p>When mobile devices were a luxury non necessary good this was ok. However, now that mobile devices are commoditized and somewhat necessary in this modern era, Apple is going to be subjected to some common sense fair market regulations. And its because the digital platform causes a capturing effect that opens things up for abuse. </p><p><br></p><p>Sure… you can say the consumer can go to android. But that means the developer has to give access to an android device at a cost. The customer is still captive. Not to mention the Sunk Costs an iOS user may have. Platform switching because of already purchased Apps, Content and Accessories that do not work on any other device make it very cost prohibitive to leave. </p><p><br></p><p>The change is simple. Apple can create a paradigm to allow sideloading harmonizing iOS to function like a Mac. Then Apple doesn't have to change a thing about its store. Furthermore this means these developers can carry the distribution and marketing costs themselves to reach iOS customers…which is what that 30% supposedly gets you….supposedly. </p>
-
jedwards87
Log in to Reply<p>I guess Google just fell for it too right Paul ? Oh, and Google is being sued too. </p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyGuys. I can’t control the passage of time. I wrote this article hours before the Google thing happened. So I’ve updated this and written more.
Yes, Google fell for it too. That happened later.
-
jgraebner
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561366">In reply to Hawaiianteg:</a></em></blockquote><p>You are correct and I did misremember the circumstances by which they brought the game to the Play Store. In fact, Google did pull the app today for the same reason Apple did and Epic has sued them as well.</p><p><br></p><p>I stand corrected.</p>
-
tallguyse
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>And Epic sues Google too!</p><p><br></p><p>Iām going to set up a table in my local Best Buy and sell games I bought off eBay. If they try to kick me out, Iāll sue!</p>
-
wright_is
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561400">In reply to TallGuySE:</a></em></blockquote><p>A little bit different. If you sell through Best Buy and then advertise an offer that you are doing a discount on consumalbes from your own webiste, Best Buy can't do anything and their customers are also free to chose to come to you directly.</p>
-
skolvikings
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561461">In reply to wright_is:</a></em></blockquote><p>Sure they can. Best Buy can negotiate any terms they want, including taking a cut from your scenario, and if the vendor doesnāt come to an agreement, they donāt get to sell through Best Buy stores. </p>
-
jwpear
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>What's the solution to this? Is the end goal to simply allow side-loading of apps or alternate app stores? Or is it to get Apple to lower their cut?</p><p><br></p><p>As a user, I have no desire to side load apps on my phone. It's too important and I don't trust them. I envision the wild west mess that is Windows. That may be overblown, but it's my perception. I guess that's why I'm an iPhone user rather than Android.</p><p><br></p><p>Putting aside the hardware, how does Apple make money to support iOS development? How do they support their store, if they were to continue to provide their own app store?</p><p><br></p><p>Do they charge more for hardware? Feels like we're already at extreme prices unless we truly reach the utopia of a single device that can be used for both mobile and desktop activities. I have the sense Apple may very well be able to pull this off; whereas, Microsoft failed. This is also bound to make dev support more costly as it means more devices and features to support.</p><p><br></p><p>Do they start charging for iOS versions? I doubt many people will be willing to pay to upgrade their OS on a device that they're keeping maybe 3-4 years. As a dev, now I will need to target more versions for longer periods of time. That's not free.</p><p><br></p><p>Do they take a larger percentage of the initial app sales? App prices go up or devs take less on the initial purchase. I suspect most would simply make their app free and then charge for features to work around this.</p><p><br></p><p>Do they raise the price of the developer program? As a dev, I've never been found of this method of monetizing on any platform. </p><p><br></p><p>Do they add advertising to iOS or within apps? Please no. I'd rather pay more for the device, OS, or app than see that.</p><p><br></p><p>Not trying to defend Apple's current practices. I do agree they need to be changed. I'm just wondering out loud how this is resolved without some reasonable method to offset cost of the OS development.</p>
-
wright_is
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561402">In reply to jwpear:</a></em></blockquote><p>If you already have your own payment system that takes 2-3%, why would you agree to pay Apple 30%? This about the freedom to choose. Either Apple and Google should bring their rates down to an acceptable level or they should allow alternative payment methods.</p><p>For the initial sale, fine. For in-app purchases, which don't even touch Apple's servers? (apart from the payment, obviously)</p>
-
retcable
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561402">In reply to jwpear:</a></em></blockquote><p>The solution the pundits want is to let people install anything they want onto their phones, any time/anywhere, from any source, reputable and curated or not, preferably not, and Apple & Google having no say in the matter at all. NO say as to the safety or security of their customers or their data, the wild west if you will, just like it has always been in the Windows world. All those asking for this never seem to mention the resulting situation we have endured for ages with malware, adware, viruses, worms, identity theft, personal data and info harvesting, etc etc etc are all a result of this wide-open free for all. I am perfectly happy with both Google and Apple doing what they can to help keep their customers' data safe from harm, I do not think that is a bad thing at all.</p>
-
red.radar
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561465">In reply to retcable:</a></em></blockquote><p>Itās not like malware doesnāt exist in the App Stores … so I am not certain the problem statement changes by allowing side loading. You can still prevent malware through user education. Itās not like the Windows situation is that bad . I donāt run aftermarket antivirus software and I havenāt been victim to a virus or malware in 15 years </p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyThe dictators thank you for your blindly trusting support.
-
madthinus
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561402">In reply to jwpear:</a></em></blockquote><p>The goal is two fold. Allow App developers to process their own payments, and secondly, to lower the processing fee to align the percentage to that of all goods and services for comparable services. </p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyHere’s the reasonable outcome, since side-loading isn’t happening. Lower Apple fees, with no fees on subscriptions, for those that wish to use Apple billing. No more preventing app developers from communicating with their own customers. No more blocking of third party payment methods.
Even writing that seems ridiculous since it’s all so obvious.
-
curtisspendlove
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561366">In reply to Hawaiianteg:</a></em></blockquote><p><em>Google made no deal with Epic. What did happen is Epic realized even though they could bypass the store they publicly stated that google disadvantages any app not in the App Store so Epic caved and went to the play store.</em></p><p><br></p><p>And, letās not forget that little security snafu with Epicās original Fortnite installer:</p><p><br></p><p>9to5google.com/2018/08/24/google-found-security-flaw-fortnite-play-store/amp/</p><p><br></p><p>To be fair, I think 30% is probably a bit too high. But to call it draconian and demonize Apple or Google and ask for the government to set these prices is unlikely to be beneficial in the long-term. </p><p><br></p><p>There are clear benefits for having the platform vendors handle this sort of security. Their reputation is on the line, after all. </p>
-
dftf
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561420">In reply to curtisspendlove:</a></em></blockquote><p>30% is only in the first year, then it drops to 15%. An easy move would be to simply make it 15% in the first year also. They could implement that immediately.</p><p><br></p><p>But there is still the issue of the inconsistency on which apps they apply fees to. Spotify they do take a 15% cut, but Netflix and Amazon Prime, no. I'm surprised they don't just enforce 15% on everything</p>
-
redstar92
Log in to Reply<p>Hate Epic but installing epic game store on my pc after this š Sweeney FTW :)</p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplySame.
-
Truffles
Log in to Reply<p>Waiting for Epic's Playstation and XBox court cases regarding not allowing 3rd party payment processors…</p>
-
dftf
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561422">In reply to Truffles:</a></em></blockquote><p>Apple's lawyers would bring-up such comparisons in court and ask for them to be considered, so changes may occur far-wider.</p><p><br></p><p>Apple is simply the target here as it is the largest app marketplace and the most-profitable, similar to now Microsoft had antitrust investigations in the 90s and 2000s as it was the biggest OS, browser and office-suite by use.</p>
-
wright_is
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561422">In reply to Truffles:</a></em></blockquote><p>Epic explicitly states that they don't find this so egregious, because the consoles are sold below cost and the money recouped partly on the game sales. Maybe if Apple started selling the iPhones at cost, Epic would move on?</p>
-
BrianEricFord
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561550">In reply to wright_is:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>epic has made over a billion dollars on iOS alone, selling items through a single game in just over two years. At some point, we should probably stop letting them pretend to be the little guy.</p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyMicrosoft’s not a little guy and Apple’s policies are unfair to them too. Kudos to Epic for doing the right thing, even though it will cost them. Microsoft should have this level of respect for doing the right thing.
-
BrianEricFord
Log in to Reply<p>I have a serious question: Epic claims that ā but for Apple and Googleās 30% fee for all transactions on their respective stores ā they would pass on a 30% savings to their customers.</p><p><br></p><p>In other words, if there were no fee on a $10 purchase, Epic would sell that $10 item for $7 rather than keeping the price at $10 and pocketing the $3.</p><p><br></p><p>If thatās true, on all of the platforms where they are able to distribute Fortnite unhindered by fees, have they historically sold items for 30% cheaper? If not, why not?</p><p><br></p><p>I suspect claims of altruism are likely made because they sound good, rather than because theyāre true.</p><p><br></p><p>Also, both Apple and Google should ban apps from selling in-game currency for real-world money. Itās scammy as hell. </p>
-
wright_is
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561426">In reply to BrianEricFord:</a></em></blockquote><p>I believe that Apple's rules also state they can't charge less outside the App Store for an item. So either the companies are taking a 30% bath on every App Store transaction or those buying outside the store are forced to pay 30% more than they should for the item.</p><p>The interesting thing will be to see what happens to transaction prices, if Apple are brought to task.</p>
-
irfaanwahid
Log in to Reply<p>I don't understand something here.. Epic and others are complaining how Apple is unfair and charging 30% Apple tax for distribution. What do they expect, so Apple built this giant platform, through its smart marketing and great platform gained 1+ billion userbase, were first in mobile space to to create an App Store back then which most dev today leverage and make money, all that hard work and ecosystem they built over a decade should now be given to developers for free?</p><p><br></p><p>Everything Apple does has premium element to it, whether good or bad is subjective, but their devices are all considered premium hence even for App Store 30% is a premium. </p><p><br></p><p>Apple is now in a position that it has built over several years where Dev wants them more than ever.</p><p><br></p><p>I am not an Apple fanboy but Apple is a business, I believe they are allowed to make money just like anyone. Every other big/small dev company is allowed to go out there and create an ecosystem as Apple/Google has done, they stop none. </p>
-
Calibr21
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561430">In reply to irfaanwahid:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>Apple and Google should allow users to install Apps outside of the store and not disadvantage them in anyway beyond an initial warning popup.</p><p><br></p><p>Apple should also not charge 30% for App store purchases if they have a competing service. So Spotify / Netflix should not get charged 30 or even 15%. </p>
-
codymesh
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561430">In reply to irfaanwahid:</a></em></blockquote><p>why should Apple get 30% of a purchase inside of someone else's service?</p>
-
irfaanwahid
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561488">In reply to codymesh:</a></em></blockquote><p>Put simply, it's their business, that's how they want to make money. They built it over the years. It's not even about right wrong, they maybe wrong.. my point is, they are a company and want to make money from all ends. </p>
-
jim_vernon
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561534">In reply to irfaanwahid:</a></em></blockquote><p>"That's how they want to make money" is not a particularly convincing argument to excuse bad behavior.</p>
-
Greg Green
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561743">In reply to Jim_Vernon:</a></em></blockquote><p>If a restaurant wants to charge $30 for a small salad and wonāt let you bring in a sack lunch to eat, will you sue them for ābadā behavior?</p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyGuys. No. We collectively need to get past this complete lack of understand of the situation.
Apple is a dominant tech giant that is behaving anti-competitively to give its own products and services an unfair advantage in an ecosystem of 1 billion people that it controls. It’s not like “a restaurant” in any way… and that I have to even mention that is, I mean, duh. The rules are different for Apple and for any other company that controls a market that large.
-
wright_is
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561430">In reply to irfaanwahid:</a></em></blockquote><p>Apple was the power behind Handigo, the Nokia Store and other platforms in the late 90s and early 2000s? I never knew that.</p><p>What exactly is the 30% transaction cost to Apple for an app turning on access to additional in-game currency? The currency is stored on Apple's servers and transferred down the pipe to the user. They receive a transaction token to say the transaction was successful and the item/currency/whatever is created in the app locally. Yes, those tokens are so big and heavy, I'm sure it costs Apple $30 to download a transaction token for a $99 box of money in a game from their servers to the user. I bet they employ real wheelbarrows, gold plated mind, to carry the virtual currency from their virtual safe to the server and it is transferred with a Securicor armed escort… Oh, wait.</p>
-
Calibr21
Log in to Reply<p>Good to see all that Fortnite money being put to good use.</p>
-
avidfan451
Log in to Reply<p>Thoughts now that Google also removed Fortnite from the Play Store, and Epic has filed suit against them, as well? Starting to look like this isnāt just about Apple…</p>
-
navarac
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561443">In reply to avidfan451:</a></em></blockquote><p>It's all about the greed of platforms and their wish to extract money for not doing anything apart from shaking down others.</p>
-
lvthunder
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561454">In reply to navarac:</a></em></blockquote><p>No it's not. It's more about keeping users safe.</p>
-
wright_is
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561588">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>Not doing too hot a job of it then, are they? </p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyLOL
-
rob_segal
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561443">In reply to avidfan451:</a></em></blockquote><p>At least, there are alternative ways to install an app on Android other than the Play Store.</p>
-
wright_is
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>Epic's 1984-esque video parodying the original Apple 1984 advert is very well done and absolute genius. Regardless of which side you fall in this argument, it is a brilliant piece of work.</p><p>https://twitter.com/FNBR_DE/status/1294154395077287936</p>
-
dftf
Log in to Reply<p>To answer the often-cited claim: "Apple was the first App Store"</p><p><br></p><p>"Handango" launched in 2003 for Symbian, 2004 for Pocket PC and Palm OS, 2005 for BlackBerry and 2006 for S60. "Nokia Download!", launched in 2006, was an app store for S40 and S60 devices (later rebranded "Ovi Store" then later "Nokia Store"). Many Linux distros also had an "app store" since the 90s or 2000s. The Apple App Store launched July 2008, so all these examples predate it. (Didn't the original Sony PSP, released in 2005, also have a built-in store?)</p><p><br></p><p>Apple may have <em>popularised </em>the idea, or were the first to "do it right", but that's not the same as being the literal first.</p>
-
dftf
Log in to Reply<p> Okay, so reading the comments on here some thoughts:</p><p><br></p><p>APPLE ISN'T THE UNDERDOG NOW: many people seem to react passionately to criticism of Apple like we're still in the 90s where they were doing badly. Perspective: Apple currently has the third-largest market-cap (behind only an oil-giant and Microsoft) and is the 11th biggest company by-revenue (or 3rd, counting only US-owned companies, behind Walmart and ExxonMobil); the iPod was the biggest-seller in that product-category (didn't see many with a Creative Zen or Sony Walkman; Microsoft Zune was DOA); they make more-profit on their iPhones that most-other phone makers on their models (i.e. Apple have a larger-margin); the App Store makes more-money than any rival (Google Play or a games-console store; as-in compared, not combined) and its online-services continue to grow.</p><p><br></p><p>APPLE IS THE "FALL-GUY" HERE, BUT THAT'S THE WAY IT GOES: sure, Google Play, and the stores on the Xbox, PlayStation and Nintendo consoles, all also charge a 30% cut, but Apple will be the focus as it's the most-profitable, so that's always where the focus goes. In the 90s and 2000s, anti-trusts looked at how Microsoft unfairly-bundled Windows on PCs, and how Windows came with preinstalled apps like Outlook Express, Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player and Microsoft Works. You didn't hear similar-complaints of how mac computers only came with macOS, or how macOS came bundled with Mail.app, Safari, QuickTime or Apple Works (later iWork) respectively. Same thing now.</p><p><br></p><p>BYPASSABILITY: the only way to bypass the Apple App Store is to be an enterprise customer and enrol iPhones or iPads into a MDM solution, such as VMWare Airwatch or Microsoft InTune, then you can self-sign apps and do sideloading. For everyday users, there is no option, other than to use a "web-app" version, which often offer a poorer-experience, or can't run offline. Android allows manual-download and install of .APK files, and video-game consoles (at-least currently) let users buy optical-disc versions from a variety of stores, or second-hand. Windows, macOS and Linux all allow manual installs of apps, or even "portable versions" which need no install. So again, more-focus will be on Apple as its clearly the most-restrictive. (The only thing I can think of that would be as-restrictive as Apple would be apps you can download onto Smart TVs, where again there is one store).</p><p><br></p><p>CHANGES APPLE COULD EASILY MAKE: stop asking for 30% in the first year, and just charge 15%. Makes no-sense to me why it needs to be 30% in year one, if it is then 15% every year after that. Also, fix some of the inconsistencies: I can't see why for apps like Spotify they take a 30%/15% cut, when similar streaming-apps, like Netflix, they don't. Or if you buy a personal Office365 subscription via the App Store, Apple take the 30%/15% cut, yet enterprise customers never pay a cut. If they charged the same-cut for every purchase or subscription, at-least this would reduce grounds for arguments.</p>
-
bkkcanuck
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561509">In reply to dftf:</a></em></blockquote><p>If they release the source code anyone can install the app on their own phone.</p>
-
dhr2018
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561594">In reply to pecosbob04:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>Saudi Aramco, I think.</p>
-
wright_is
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561590">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>Who is taking about making it a charity?</p><p>People just want a fair deal and 30% is by no stretch of the imagination fair. </p>
-
dftf
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561594">In reply to pecosbob04:</a></em></blockquote><p>According to the Wikipedia article titled "List of wealthiest organizations", Saudi Aramco has a market-cap of $2.1 trillion, then Microsoft at $1.47 trillion, then Apple at $1.44 trillion</p>
-
bkkcanuck
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561625">In reply to dftf:</a></em></blockquote><p>Apple currently has a market cap of $1.95 trillion — unless Saudi Aramco has gone up recently it was under the Apple valuation. </p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplySo they’re equally big then. Thanks for this amazing data point.
-
bkkcanuck
Log in to Reply<p>What I cannot get past is that in the beginning the iPhone came out and it did not have any facility for third party development – and they could have kept it that way and that would not have been violating the law. Many companies make things that are closed environments (a long history). Then they allowed 3rd party developers to make apps and sell them on the app store with a 70%/30% split and that somehow violates the law according to Epic. Apple is in no way a monopoly by the definitions of current US law so I think this suit will have any chance in the courts. I suspect though that Epic already knows that they are playing to a different audience, hoping to have things forced to change for them. </p>
-
wright_is
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561590">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>No, no one is talking about the Apple App Store (and Google's) should be a charity, but on the other hand 30% for doing "nothing" (i.e. in-app purchases and subscriptions) is excessive.</p><p>An in-app purchase is creating something on the device using code that is already there. It doesn't cost Apple anything to transfer the in-app purchase from their servers to the device, it is simply a transaction token.</p>
-
dftf
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#561684">In reply to pecosbob04:</a></em></blockquote><p>You could update it if you fancy… Wikipedia is there for everyone to edit :)</p>