Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

macrumors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

881–890 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

#881

Post by HenryBemis »

paulgb wrote: post #873
renaudg wrote: post #858

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"if Apple was OK with displaying a 30% Apple tax on checkout" Do you know any store that adds a line showing their margin on the customer receipt ?

I've seen gas stations list two prices, one if you pay with cash and one if with credit. It's not quite what you asked for, but it's an example of passing optional margin related to the choice of payment on to the customer. (Incidentally credit card companies, like Apple, really hate it; I think some states have exceptions in their laws to disallow contracting out of it?)

I remember 15y-20y ago when it was becoming a trend to fuel your own car, some gas stations had two prices. One for "self service" and one "served". I believe that majority of people were trying to avoid tipping the attendant (imagine tipping £€1 for a £€10 fill, that's 10% tip).

Re: Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

#882

Post by vr46 »

paulgb wrote: post #869
vr46 wrote: post #861

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word "tax", when referring to Apple's fees, is a loaded and partial term. The fact that it's clear and understood and factored into the price makes it easy to complain about, but no casual customer to my knowledge has ever seriously asked what proportion of their peppermint tea and scones pays for a café's rent - overheads are overheads and margins are margins. Both companies are invoking consumers and value in t…

If a company like Spotify sells subscriptions both in the app and on the web, they have to charge 43% more to the in-app purchaser to get the same revenue, even though the user gets exactly the same experience. I would call that a tax (informally; I know it strictly doesn't meet the definition) and as a customer I would like to know about it.

As a Spotify subscriber, I don’t really care, because it’s their job to handle their overheads, in the same way that John Lewis on Oxford Street pays different rent to John Lewis in Kingston (probably) but the prices stay the same. Cost of doing business is a thing. Capex and Opex are well-understood by businesses, or should be.

If the Spotify web store is more profitable than the Spotify iOS store, because Apple wants ITS CUSTOMERS to get the same deal and Spotify wants those customers, then this is good and fair for customers at the point of purchase.

Re: Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

#884

Post by boudin »

gwd wrote: post #821
boudin wrote: post #819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mayo comparison doesn't hold. People go to multiple shop. Apple only allows one shop. It's definitely the first step of a fight. It's hard to know what the end game is for Epic, but there's several possibilities I can think of: - moving towards gettibg their own app store, they did this move on computers already. Apple and google start to get under scrutiny for their monoply. - being on one platforn using their g…

> The mayo comparison doesn't hold. People go to multiple shop. Apple only allows one shop. It would hold up if you said Costco or Sam's Club instead of Walmart. People who pay for a Sam's Club membership do a large amount of their shopping at Sam's Club. Sure they could go to other stores, but that's significantly limited. Also, people can play Fortnite on their laptop or their Android tablet.

There's no walmart or sam's club where i live so I don't really know what you're talking about, but to buy one product i definitely have multiple choice, i don't have to join a club or something. On my computer it's kinda the same, i can install software from several sources. I buy games from several sources., i don't need to buy a new computer...

Re: Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

#885

Post by Okawari »

DangerousPie wrote: post #871
paulgb wrote: post #869

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a company like Spotify sells subscriptions both in the app and on the web, they have to charge 43% more to the in-app purchaser to get the same revenue, even though the user gets exactly the same experience. I would call that a tax (informally; I know it strictly doesn't meet the definition) and as a customer I would like to know about it.

If a company sells coffee both in a shop and on the street it would have to charge 43% more to the in-shop purchaser to get the same revenue, even though the user gets exactly the same experience. Would you call that a tax or would you call that rent?

If there was only one entity owning all the houses, and to operate a business you needed space, then the terms rent and tax would be practically interchangeable

Re: Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

#886

Post by AsyncAwait »

vr46 wrote: post #882
paulgb wrote: post #869

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a company like Spotify sells subscriptions both in the app and on the web, they have to charge 43% more to the in-app purchaser to get the same revenue, even though the user gets exactly the same experience. I would call that a tax (informally; I know it strictly doesn't meet the definition) and as a customer I would like to know about it.

As a Spotify subscriber, I don’t really care, because it’s their job to handle their overheads, in the same way that John Lewis on Oxford Street pays different rent to John Lewis in Kingston (probably) but the prices stay the same. Cost of doing business is a thing. Capex and Opex are well-understood by businesses, or should be. If the Spotify web store is more profitable than the Spotify iOS store, because Apple wan…

> this is good and fair for customers at the point of purchase.

I think it is widely accepted in commerce that a deal is only fair if both parties have the relevant information.

If customers know they're paying more because of Apple's fees and are comfortable with it because they feel they get adequate benefits in return, that's fair.

If they are unaware of this however, am not sure how the deal can be considered fair, since not all parties have the relevant information to make an informed purchase.

Re: Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

#887

Post by xphilter »

Hammershaft wrote: post #206
xphilter wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, what is the difference between the App Store and Target? Why should a third party (or court) have any control in what the retailer sells?

Target might exist alongside several other competing retailers on the same block. The friction for a customer to leave and shop at a competing retailer is low. To extend this analogy, The Apple store exists in a company town, and the friction for a customer to leave 'Appletown' shop at competing retailers in 'AndroidLand' is intentionally as high as possible [1]. This is not an argument as for what (if any) kind of c…

You lost me. I just switched carriers from T-Mobile to ATT last week. I had an easy chance to switch to Android (I didn’t) but the cost to me would have been close to nil—other than time. All my apps are agnostic to iOS/Android (same for the 3 other people on my family plan). So just like I’d have to spend time learning the Layout of a Walmart if I left target, I’d have time costs to switch to Android.

And the example you gave of the Kindle still doesn’t make me question the App Store market: if kindle had a kiosk in a target to sell ebooks, I bet target would demand a cut too.

If what you’re after is data portability then solve for that. I’d rather have a law that covers all digital companies rather than devolve the App Store into some unregulated flee market.

Re: Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

#888

Post by paulgb »

vr46 wrote: post #882
paulgb wrote: post #869

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a company like Spotify sells subscriptions both in the app and on the web, they have to charge 43% more to the in-app purchaser to get the same revenue, even though the user gets exactly the same experience. I would call that a tax (informally; I know it strictly doesn't meet the definition) and as a customer I would like to know about it.

As a Spotify subscriber, I don’t really care, because it’s their job to handle their overheads, in the same way that John Lewis on Oxford Street pays different rent to John Lewis in Kingston (probably) but the prices stay the same. Cost of doing business is a thing. Capex and Opex are well-understood by businesses, or should be. If the Spotify web store is more profitable than the Spotify iOS store, because Apple wan…

That's a valid opinion about what Spotify should do, but the fact is for a time Spotify did pass some of the fee on to iOS customers by charging a higher price for IAP.

The question is, should Spotify be able to tell customers that they are getting a higher fee because they are making the purchase on an iOS device?

To me, it requires massive contortions of logic to believe that customers are better off not having this disclosed.

Re: Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

#889

Post by AsyncAwait »

abc-xyz wrote: post #860
AsyncAwait wrote: post #841

I don't think Epic is doing anything but trying to pocket more for themselves, yet I also think that the comments here overstate how "aware" average people are about Apple's restrictions, tax etc. I don't think most people would consider direct payment to reputable companies like Epic to be a particular security risk. I don't think most realize why they can't subscribe to Spotify from their iPhones, they think it's s…

> All the comments saying "just buy an Android" ignore the simple fact that you buying an Android does not change the fact that a significant portion of the market is elsewhere. All the comments saying “just allow side-loading apps/third-party stores and let people decide themselves” ignore the fact that by doing so then iOS will end up with the same virus/malware issues that you see on Windows and Android. Suddenly…

> All the comments saying “just allow side-loading apps/third-party stores and let people decide themselves” ignore the fact that by doing so then iOS will end up with the same virus/malware issues that you see on Windows and Android.

Why? Who is forcing YOU to sideload?

There's no reason why the default couldn't be status quo and you'd only opt in into sideloading, this way the users who want the walled garden still get it and the users who want to sideload can optionally opt into that.

Why is it always an either/or?

As for Android, I'm pretty confident in saying that F-Droid, which is a 3rd party store, is generally safer than even the Play Store.

Android's problem is the lax review of apps even on the Play Store, lack of updates soon after purchase etc. Most users on Android don't even have sideloading enabled, that's not a huge vector.

Re: Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

#890

Post by xphilter »

gambiting wrote: post #164
xphilter wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, what is the difference between the App Store and Target? Why should a third party (or court) have any control in what the retailer sells?

They shouldn't, but it's not about that. Apple can sell whatever they like or don't on the Apple Store, that's fine. The problem is that they sell consumers a "general computing" device, and then enforcing that every single transaction on said device goes through them. They are not only processing those transactions, not only taking a cut, but also deciding which ones are ok and which ones aren't. Meaning, that if yo…

So there should be a law that says any computing device must be free to load any software? So PS4 must play XBox games? Printers must accept any ink cartridge? Apple Watch should allow any android app? What’s the distinction? (I’m not trying to be obtuse). I buy iPhone specifically for the walled garden. I don’t want to have to worry about malware etc like I do on my PCs/MacBook.

And again—-going back to the Walmart/Target analogy, if you wanted to enter into a business deal with a third party in a Walmart, Walmart would demand a cut too.

Post reply on HN