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

US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

macrumors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

951–960 of 1001 posts

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#951

Post by SllX »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #946
SllX wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not that difficult to follow. As I recall, and feel free to correct me on the chronology if I get something out of order, it went something like this: - Epic pushed an update to Fortnite at some point to the App Store that would allow them to issue an update from the server side to enable a flag to offer Epic’s own payment processor where you could buy in-game currency from them instead of IAP. They then issued…

> So how can Epic now argue that they have standing for harm caused by Apple’s plan for compliance that affect the way they do business with developers in their developer program when they are no longer in Apple’s developer program? Maybe they want to be the competing payment processor for third party developers who are in Apple's developer program, but don't have the resources to litigate against Apple themselves.

Eh well, that’s an angle for standing I suppose, but it’s a bit hard to argue a harm against a service they don’t actually offer. It’s especially hard to argue it before a Judge that already ruled that even under California’s anti-steering law, Apple has a right to collect their commission (that 12 or 27% after the 3 percentage point discount payment processing discount). Apple’s argument would then also be easy: Epic can offer payment processing if they want, that’s between developers and Epic, but Apple is still going to collect their commission no matter what deal Epic does with iPhone developers.

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#952

Post by SLJ7 »

rustcleaner wrote: post #875
SLJ7 wrote: post #768

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple specifically forbids developers from mentioning the 30% cut in their apps. That means either the users pay more, the developers lose money, or they do what Netflix did and just force the user to figure out how to sign up (because you can't direct people to the site either). Apple has completely draconian rules that very specifically leave users in the dark about how app store revenue works. They are in no way t…

What would happen if a few big boys like Netflix pulled their apps from Apple in protest? Like using Apple's policies to indirectly attack Apple through its users.

It's not worthwhile for Netflix. They already have people signing up through the website because that's the only way you can sign up now. So they're not giving a cut to Apple at all. If anyone looks up "why can't you sign up for Netflix on the iPhone", they'll find out about Apple's policies. If Netflix pulled their app, they'd be hurting users more than anything, and they'd look like the greedy company who tried to bully Apple. This issue already isn't one-sided; just look at the Reddit or MacRumors comments on any article about sideloading or alternative payment methods. There are a whole lot of Apple apologists who completely support what Apple is doing. So ultimately, the only way this will be fixed is if the government cracks down on them, and even then, it might need to be every individual government.

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#953

Post by throwaway290 »

ric2b wrote: post #641
throwaway290 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most famous Epic game is (or was until this legal battle) played on iOS more than on any other platform, that's in Epic's own complaint. So who built iOS? Why so many people use it? How come they are willing to pay for games instead of pirating them? Looks like whoever developed iOS and all the hardware it runs on and the ecosystem that makes it appealing for rich users is actually providing Epic a ton of value a…

I don't get where the equivalence of "iPhone user" and "rich person" comes from. It's $1000, most people have acess to that kind of money, even if they need to finance it and even if it is a terrible financial decision for them to buy one, many still do.

> It's $1000, most people have acess to that kind of money

"Most people" don't. I maybe do but it's at least half of my monthly income after tax & rent

Worldwide, iPhone user = rich person (and also almost any American = rich person). By being on App Store, Epic had access to those users. Then they lost millions of users after Epic left App Store. You reap what you sow.

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#954

Post by throwaway290 »

m000 wrote: post #631
throwaway290 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most famous Epic game is (or was until this legal battle) played on iOS more than on any other platform, that's in Epic's own complaint. So who built iOS? Why so many people use it? How come they are willing to pay for games instead of pirating them? Looks like whoever developed iOS and all the hardware it runs on and the ecosystem that makes it appealing for rich users is actually providing Epic a ton of value a…

What you describe is the epitome of gatekeeping. Epic developed a cross-platform game that runs on half a dozen platforms. The appeal of the game is exactly because of that. And you claim that Epic should pay 30% to Apple, because "we are friends with rich people". Not to mention that the "is actually providing Epic a ton of value and profit" claim is completely bollocks. Can you point to any iOS-exclusive games that…

> And you claim that Epic should pay 30% to Apple, because "we are friends with rich people".

What?

> "is actually providing Epic a ton of value and profit" claim is completely bollocks

If it was true Epic wouldn't be clamouring so hard for App Store presence and iOS users. Epic is the first to admit that App Store provides a ton of value and profit. The whole rigamarole is Epic wanting it but paying less or nothing for it.

> there's (comparatively) very little money in iOS gaming.

According to whom? Epic filed a lawsuit because they were losing ungodly money after millions of iOS based gamers stopped playing Fortnite. What did they expect, users will start buy gaming consoles just for this? Sorry but that's ludicrous, there's plenty of other good games on iOS. Many of them also don't try to leech money off you or your kids like Fortnite.

> Can you point to any iOS-exclusive games that matter out there?

That's true of any big game, most games are released for multiple platforms because it'd be stupid not to do it if you can.

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#957

Post by enos_feedler »

Gabrys1 wrote: post #347
zamadatix wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You're charging too much" seems unlikely to be the actual argument presented though. Something along the lines of the scare message, still not actually allowing it to be handled via in app flow like a first party payment, and intentionally making a 3rd party choice potentially impossible to compete vs a 1st party choice by arguably hiding part of the processing fee margin in the overall fee would be the kinds of arg…

I think the percentage charged is very relevant though. And the fact the developer is to hide the fee and not list it on the receipt (subscription: $10, Apple tax: $3) And the fact you cannot charge less for the same service if you sold it outside the platform (as you'd like to do as you didn't need to collect the Apple tax).

Is it still enforced/rule that you can't charge a lower price for a subscription outside the app store? Perhaps thats why streaming services like netflix and max still charge the same price but spend that "Apple tax" to pay other kinds of distributers/promoters like american express, mobile carriers, etc. to offer promotions, bundles or discounts. I think this is how the largest players in the app/subscription market are trying to penetrate the apple tax fortress.

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#958

Post by lynx23 »

dingaling wrote: post #877
lynx23 wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"They are not your friend, they do not care about you" I beg to differ. As a blind user relying on accessibility, Apple was actually the first company that decided that accessibility should be an inherent part of the OS, not just an expensive add-on. Since the iPhone, blind users can just buy the product and turn speech output on, without having to install expensive extra software as was the case with Windows, for in…

"...in 1988, the company added the first accessibility support program for Windows by incorporating work developed at the TRACE Center, a research and development center on accessible technology at the University of Wisconsin. Known then as Access Utility for Windows 2.0, the program improved the accessibility of Windows for people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have limited dexterity" https://www.afb.org/aw/1…

I wasn't implying Windows never had an Accessibility API. However, it took Microsoft until around 2010 until they actually added their own built-in screen reader, Narrator. Before that, the API was there, but if you wanted a capable screen reader, chances were high that you would pay a relatively high price for it. These days, Narrator is even almost useable, although I dont know any blind users who actually use it on a daily basis.

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#959

Post by tcmart14 »

georgeecollins wrote: post #934
dlubarov wrote: post #918

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's useful to separate these scenarios - 1. A user knows they want to install a certain app; they do so using the app store since that's the only method Apple allows. 2. A user discovers an app while browsing the App Store, but Apple isn't involved beyond that. 3. A user discovers an app through Apple's marketing, e.g. from WWDC. With (1), it feels very unfair for Apple to charge 30% just to essentially get…

Even with case (3) there are many companies that would love to be the store / portal that you discover and new purchase apps through (with all the security and testing Apple requires) for less then a 30% cut. But Apple won't let them. It's clearly a price set without competition. Keep in mind Apple sells advertising in the App Store. They make $ beyond just the 30%. Disclosure: I am APPL shareholder and sometimes app…

I'd be really skeptical that there exists companies who would love to be the portal for a smaller cut then Apple. At least longer term. I can see someone, just to get their platform off the ground, trying undercut for a little while. But 30% is sort of like an industry standard. Google takes 30%. There are alternative app stores for Google, but really how prevalent are they and are they really worth mentioning. Nintendo takes 30%. Steam I believe takes 30% [1]. So even in markets where alternative app stores/portals can exist, 30% is still pretty much 'industry standard.' Gog is 30%. Microsoft store is 30%. Playstation is 30%.

[1] https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut...

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#960

Post by sosborn »

bubblethink wrote: post #848
judge2020 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add, I'm not sure what legal basis there is for "you're charging too much". My only guess is filing against Apple and Google jointly for being a duopoly, but Epic has made it extremely hard to do something like this because of their existing jury trial against Google which gives a lot of concessions to third-party app stores in terms of functionality.

The legal basis is that Apple is not privy to the transaction that happens outside. Purely on a data privacy basis, Apple cannot force a vendor to tell Apple what it does outside of Apple property. So any link tax that Apple wants to impose would have to be a fixed cost, and not a percentage of what happens in a different universe.

Have you ever looked into the world of retail space leasing? It’s quite common for retailers to be charged a percentage of gross sales per month.

(Not defending anything here)

Post reply on HN