Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

jlc1978

macrumors 603
Aug 14, 2009
5,488
4,271
I fail to see the hypocrisy here….

I am not arguing the specifics, just the point that many of Epic's behaviors to protect their revenue stream is the same as Apple's, in terms of limiting access and charging various fees, even if you don't use their store, or especially if you don't.

Oddly enough, one reason Epic doesn't allow the sale of Fortnight items via 3rd parties is to avoid scammers - sounds like a familiar argument to me.

How doesn’t consumers benefit from cheaper games? Is it not better to pay 30$ for a game instead of 60$?

I was responding to the OP's statement about developers pocketing the money and that I'd prefer the windfall economic rent go to consumers in the form of lower prices.
As demonstrated Epic doesn’t practice any of the anti competitive practices that Apple does…

Sure they do, just in different markets. They aren't the victim they claim to be; they're the same wine under a different label when it comes to protecting revenue streams.

Does Apple need to redo some of its practices? Probably, and in ways that benefit consumers, developers and Apple's bottom line. Epic seems to want free access to Apple's user base while making millions of of that access. That is not a reasonable thing to expect Apple to do.
 

Jensend

macrumors 65816
Dec 19, 2008
1,388
1,605
You honestly don't know what you're talking about.

You're making the following assumption (correct me if I'm wrong):

Assumption: Apps are mostly only using the Apple frameworks and apis that Apple needed to make to create iOS and its own apps.

That assumption is WAAAAAAAAY wrong.

You truly don't understand that apple spends an incredible amount of developer time and money on fully optional convenience features for devs. These have nothing to do with the OS or Apple's apps. Apps make HEAVY use of these to do all kinds of semi-invisible things that make app development way easier (and apps way more functional) than even 5y ago.

Apple does this part of the work because they are reaping very good profits on the extra money invested in that development!

So Apple does do X and Y, but there's a Z, and that Z is HUGE and completely different from X and Y.

Z lets developers with almost zero effort do concurrency, operate correctly in different regions with different number and date formats, different language directions, lets apps background sensibly without losing data, offer low-networking modes, do crypto work, animations, and literally 1,000 other features.

Features that devs just don't have the expertise or the YEARS to implement without Apple's convenience apis.

It's naive beyond belief to assume Apple could slash its revenue and would then not correspondingly slash its budget on these convenience features.

In fact Apple (Android does this too) is CONSTANTLY growing and shrinking its team of devs doing this work. They tune the profitability margins. It's a trade-off that benefits us as users of the phones/apps, Apple in making its optimized profit, and developers who before this model basically made nothing at all for WAY more work.

15 years ago it was insanely harder to write an app that did 1/10th what current apps do. Things that you probably don't even realize apps do, things which take INSANE amounts of time and expertise, time and expertise which 95% of the app developers out there making your favourite apps simply don't have.

--

Here's a little eye-opener to give you perspecitve. This is one of those developer convenience features that is very, very tiny...

(This also happens to be relatively new in the past few years and is something that you just don't get on other platforms.)

Ask a dev friend how to deal with something as trivial as dates. Say, find a date 6 days from another date.

You think that's as easy as adding 6*24*60*60 seconds to the first timestamp? Oh poor child no. No, no, no.

Look into the complexity of dates and calendars and it will turn your crap white. It used to be absurdly difficult to do it well. (For ONE locale! Look into the differences between locales and your white crap will scuttle under the bed and cry.)

If you needed to have consistent date manipulation it was a nightmare. It took absurd amounts of research and a ton of coding to do the simplest thing (say make this appointment repeating every Wed at 5pm, THAT is far more difficult than you can imagine, it goes well beyond simply checking for leap days, especially if you want it to be robust).

Apple recently gave us a convenience api that makes NONE of that knowledge or expertise necessary. It took a ton of their time, but now we just say, essentially 'give me a date one week from this date' or '1pm on the second weekday of the month 6mo from now for the user's current calendar locale'. I cannot stress how difficult that would be to do properly with custom code (you would almost certainly drop in a library built by somebody else's volunteer work, which probably would be full of bugs, possibly be insecure, likely have little or no documentation, or worse, wrong documentation, wouldn't have the same locale abilities, and perhaps would only have a non-commercial license. Actually you'd have to spend quite a few hours determinign which of 5 different public libraries might have the right balance of those trade-offs. Honestly this process of finding and using third party frameworks is FRAUGHT.). Like I said... 👻💩

Aside, don't take my word for it, check out what Paul Hudson from HackingWithSwift has to say:



(And if you're interested in learning Swift and building an app, believe me it's the PERFECT time for it, because Apple has made it so incredibly easy. And Paul's Hacking With Swift is a wonderful place to start, even if you couldn't tell the difference between a Double and an Int, and have never done any programming in your life. Check out his "Unwrap" app which is a fun teaching tool for many of the very earliest programming concepts. If you find it fun, which you might!, his 100 Days of Swift course will get you building an app that actually does something within a few hours. It truly is miraculously more easy now!)

Back on topic...

Now the calendar convenciences were to be fair a relatively tiny amount of effort for apple. Probably not much more than 1,000 dev hours to design, implement, unit test, document, and prepare WWDC presentations for. So, likely this TEENY feature cost Apple no more than half a developer year, say in the ballpark of $50k (though probably that's low, because a large part of the design and architecture of even such a simple feature would be done by a very senior architect who makes a WHOLE lot more than $100k a year).

But hoo baby, does it save so much grief from app developers. So much so, that we all quit using our own brittle logic or external frameworks and just use Calendar.current to add/modify/construct dates and date components.

And most importantly this is nowhere near required to make an app work well in the AppStore. This is an invisible convenience that makes developers lives TONS easier and very slightly improves quality of apps.

And EVERY YEAR Apple puts many convenience features like this that probably have 10-20x that amount of effort. Usually one or two a year which have 100-200x that effort (like Async/Await).

If you don't believe this. If you don't get some inkling of the sheer scope of this work. I encourage you to watch some WWDC videos from the past year. Come back here and report at exactly 3pm on the second weekday of next month as measured in Manila. 🤣
I don't have time for a full reply right now, but I did watch this Tom Scott video just a couple weeks ago that describes some of the complications with time.

And as someone who has written a small amount of code that deals with addresses—that's another area that's extremely convoluted.

But I did my coding using open source tools that call open source libraries and use some APIs of a closed source OS.
 

jimmy_john

macrumors member
Jun 28, 2023
72
81
No real apps use swift, only student projects, so apple would have the moral ground if they wanted to take 30% of those.

I haven't run into a developer still using Objective-C for iOS in years. A few lazy ones have ancient apps on it still, but nothing new is using it.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: macfacts

Jensend

macrumors 65816
Dec 19, 2008
1,388
1,605
Lol, wut.

You're going to have to explain what you consider a small developer to be. Becuase no small developer is ever going to pay that CTF unless they choose that model (by which they get to use the core tech and keep all their revenue) AND they suddenly get VERY popular and make a TON more money.
This guy:
 

Mrkevinfinnerty

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2022
1,713
5,114
So it looks like in the end is a win for Epic. I wonder if the EU would have even imposed rules for Apple to follow if Epic did not sue in the first place.


Said it several times on here, Sweeney knew exactly what he was doing.

For those who think Epic lost, watch the video of Merrick Garland quoting some of the emails that were used as evidence in the Epic trial as he announced the antitrust suit.


 

kiv.atso

macrumors member
Feb 28, 2021
84
86
because free app is an express lane to exposure and user base which you can latch onto later with a paid app or add-ons. If you are developing a paid app from the get go it means you probably have that marketing money ready to be spent on ads and promotion. General rules is you need 7 times the money for marketing then you need for an app but in case for instant mobile apps that can easily ramp up to 77:1 ratio.
Exposure 🙈
I’d rather work for big tech company with good salary rather then for exposure. Thanks but no thanks
 

kiv.atso

macrumors member
Feb 28, 2021
84
86
Have you seriously never done anything out of the kindness of your own to other people? Or do you always take payment for doing anything ?
What kindness has to do with business? What kindness has to do with bills? Can electricity company be kind and give me a free pass? Can I live rent free and get a house for free out of kindness? Can I???! No!

However, I do donate each month for the cause I believe in. But I’m not going to work for free or for “exposure”. F#%k that.
 

kiv.atso

macrumors member
Feb 28, 2021
84
86
That’s fine but there should be more stores, and Apple shouldn’t be able to set the business terms for the others.
Why others who have nothing to do with apple platform development should be entitled to exploit it?
 

kiv.atso

macrumors member
Feb 28, 2021
84
86
People have been saying things like:

"Who would want to put their app on an alternate App store? They may pay a bit less sales commission, but they will have a fraction of the audience"

So I have a question based on this statement/logic.......

Are Apple going to try and tell developers that if they DARE to place an app onto an alternate app store, then they will be banned from offering that app also on the Apple app store?

If I'm a developer, I'd want my app to be available on as many app stores as possible would I not?

Think of Shark Tank, Dragons Den etc... You want your product to be available in as many stores as possible to reach as many potential customers as possible. That's just common sense isn't it?

Are Apple going to try and punish you for doing that?
Nobody prevents you from having your product on Google or Microsoft store. Am I missing something?
 

Sophisticatednut

macrumors 68020
May 2, 2021
2,379
2,160
Scandinavia
Show me your license for iOS or macOS then. I can show you licenses for all of my Windows versions all the way back to 98. It hasn't been enforce by any court because what, exactly, would the complaint be? Your honor, I didn't pay for the OS on the device that I purchased but I want to say that I own it...?
Sure that’s easy considering the law considers goods sold what digital content is sales of goods and not as a license:

Consumer Sales Act (2022:260)

1 § This Act contains provisions on the protection of consumers in the purchase of goods where the buyer is a consumer and the seller is a trader.

'goods' means movable object, with or without digital parts,

'goods with digital elements' means movable goods that are integrated or interconnected with a digital conponents or service in such a way that the absence of the digital objects or service prevents the sold goods from being used as intended.
Scope of the law

Section 3 This Act applies to the purchase of goods sold by a trader to a consumer.
When purchasing a product with digital components, the digital content or digital service is included in the purchase of the product, unless otherwise stipulated in the purchase contract. It also applies in cases where the digital content or digital service is provided by someone other than the trader.

Section 4 In addition to what is stated in section 3, for a product with digital elements to be delivered, it is required that the digital content or digital service has been provided to the consumer. If the digital content or digital service is to be supplied continuously over a period of time, delivery is deemed to have taken place when the supply has commenced.

The Digital content provided with the goods composed of digital elements is considered supplied when the consumer is given access or access to the content or to a means suitable for accessing or downloading it.
The Digital services included with the goods containing digital elements is considered deliverd when it is made available to the consumer.

Contract terms that deviate from the law

Section 10 Contract terms which, in comparison with the provisions of this Act, are detrimental to the consumer are ineffective against him, unless otherwise provided by law.


Section 2: In addition to what follows from Section 1, the goods shall:


  1. be suitable for the purposes for which goods of the same kind are generally used,
  2. correspond to the quality and the trader’s description of a sample or model that has been made available to the consumer before the purchase,
  3. have the quantity and characteristics and other features regarding durability, functionality, compatibility, safety, and other features that are normally present in goods of the same kind and which the consumer can reasonably expect considering the nature of the goods,
  4. correspond to such information about the goods’ characteristics and other features or use that the trader or someone in a previous sales link or on behalf of the trader has provided in the marketing of the goods or otherwise before the purchase, and
  5. be accompanied by the packaging and other accessories as well as instructions for installation, assembly, use, storage, and maintenance that the consumer can reasonably expect.

Section 3: Before the purchase, the trader shall inform the consumer about such conditions relating to the goods’ characteristics or use that the trader knows or should know and that the consumer can reasonably expect to be informed about, provided that the information can be assumed to affect the purchase.

Source Swedish consumer protection laws and contract law
 

Sophisticatednut

macrumors 68020
May 2, 2021
2,379
2,160
Scandinavia
You realize that the cut they take from the Epic store is completely separate from the cut they take for using Unreal, right? 😂

Thank you for making my point that devs have to pay for the code they use. And that's a completely separate issue from the 'gatekeeping' of a storefront.
Have to? There’s a lot of other code such as the crossplay service you don’t pay anything for. You can use unity or your own engine as well.
Each company has a different payment model.

Epic is charging just to be in the store, even if you DON'T use their code (again seems very reasonable to me!). Epic is waiving UE fees when they get more fees through the store (seems reasonable to me).
If you had a free Unreal engine game you would pay no licensing fee as well.
Apple is charging one fee to be in the store plus use their CoreTechnology, the sort-of equivalent of fully-optional convenience code like UE (seems reasonable to me). They waive that fee in many cases, even in many cases where Apple will make zero dollars, while the devs will make quite a lot (seems even more reasonable).

Epic is crying bloody murder that Apple gets to charge for the same things they do (seems 💯 hypocritical to me).
Epic gives you a choice, Apple forces you to use all their services irrespective of you need them or not.
Lol, wut.

You're going to have to explain what you consider a small developer to be. Becuase no small developer is ever going to pay that CTF unless they choose that model (by which they get to use the core tech and keep all their revenue) AND they suddenly get VERY popular and make a TON more money.
100 developers or less. Getting a million or so downloads isn’t that hard for sought after applications. The free plugin uBlocker origin would like get millions
I am not arguing the specifics, just the point that many of Epic's behaviors to protect their revenue stream is the same as Apple's, in terms of limiting access and charging various fees, even if you don't use their store, or especially if you don't.
But again you can use their store without sharing your revenue. In every case it’s always optional to use a 88/12 split or to keep 100%.

You can use Xcode, unity or frost engine etc or whatever tools at your disposal. unreal Engine isn’t required.
Oddly enough, one reason Epic doesn't allow the sale of Fortnight items via 3rd parties is to avoid scammers - sounds like a familiar argument to me.
That’s just users reselling their items, just like with counter strike or TF2 skins and items.
Sure they do, just in different markets. They aren't the victim they claim to be; they're the same wine under a different label when it comes to protecting revenue streams.

Does Apple need to redo some of its practices? Probably, and in ways that benefit consumers, developers and Apple's bottom line. Epic seems to want free access to Apple's user base while making millions of of that access. That is not a reasonable thing to expect Apple to do.

What kindness has to do with business? What kindness has to do with bills? Can electricity company be kind and give me a free pass? Can I live rent free and get a house for free out of kindness? Can I???! No!

However, I do donate each month for the cause I believe in. But I’m not going to work for free or for “exposure”. F#%k that.
That might be you, yet there’s millions upon millions of applications, software, models etc provided for free because the person who made it thinks it’s a good thing to do.

Just like all the different browser addons for Firefox or chrome. That’s the reason almost nothing exists for safari as it cost more than just their spare time they spend on it.
 

Atomicow

macrumors newbie
Mar 21, 2024
5
12
How long will it take epic to start paying for exclusivity deals like they do on PC. Day 1?
 

Jensend

macrumors 65816
Dec 19, 2008
1,388
1,605
Apple is charging one fee to be in the store plus use their CoreTechnology, the sort-of equivalent of fully-optional convenience code like UE (seems reasonable to me). They waive that fee in many cases, even in many cases where Apple will make zero dollars, while the devs will make quite a lot (seems even more reasonable).

Epic is crying bloody murder that Apple gets to charge for the same things they do (seems 💯 hypocritical to me).

I am not arguing the specifics, just the point that many of Epic's behaviors to protect their revenue stream is the same as Apple's, in terms of limiting access and charging various fees, even if you don't use their store, or especially if you don't.

Apple is a gatekeeper. Epic is not.

Companies have to meet their customers where they are.

If a bank wants to make an app to reach their customers, and doesn't like Apple's policies, they can't realistically just tell their customers "too bad you're on iOS, you'll just have to get an Android phone"

If a game developer want to make a game, they can choose between a variety of engines or make their own. Not using the Unreal Engine does not prevent any developer from reaching any particular gamer. Epic does not have control of any gaming platform*.

*I mean, I suppose you could call Fortnite itself a platform of a sort, but even there, anyone who has a device that can play Fortnite can also play games that aren't Fortnite on that same device. There is not a subset of the population that can only play content that is within Fortnite.
 

Piggie

macrumors G3
Feb 23, 2010
9,117
4,016
Nobody prevents you from having your product on Google or Microsoft store. Am I missing something?

I honestly don't know the answer to my question, and if Apple will act like a small spoiled child yet again.

So, let's say we jump forward 6 months......

I have an app I wish to be available to as many people as possible. And I'd like to be able to (with their agreement) have some possible contact with customers so I can deal with support, help, suggestions etc with them if needed.

So I upload my app on the Apple App store (apple take their 30%)

Then I also want to put my same app on the Epic, Sony, Msoft, whatever else app store.
And these people may only want 5%, 10%, 20% cut from me.
I may even decide I can price my app lower on these other stores and still maintain the amount I get paid as they take a smaller cut of the sale

Looking into the future, will Apple allow this?
Or will they try and blacklist my App from their app store, unless I either take my app off other stores, or mess my my chosen pricing on whatever store I have also chosen?
 

dwaite

macrumors 65816
Jun 11, 2008
1,227
1,008
Before Apple fans get confused again and start calling Epic hypocritical: the key difference is that Epic is not a gatekeeper and does not have complete control over game distribution. If developers don't like these terms they're free to use web distribution or alternative stores. That's how competition in a free and open market works.
Thats what Apple has launched in the EU. So not a gatekeeper anymore?
 

dwaite

macrumors 65816
Jun 11, 2008
1,227
1,008
It’s going to be interesting to see whether developers prefer paying 15/30% to Apple and have access to the entire iOS user base or pay Epic 12% to access a far smaller set of users.

I suspect the Apple App Store will continue to be the most profitable place for developers to be.
The "old deal" requires exclusivity to the App Store.

Per Apple's new deal terms, you can be in Epic's store and Apple's at the same time; you pay a core technology fee for each install either way.

A commercial game with up-front costs probably would want to be in both stores; Epic might cut larger developers a better deal for exclusivity.

Freemium apps would likely try to stay in Apple's store, at least until their conversion looks like they'd do better under the new terms.
 

vladi

macrumors 6502a
Jan 30, 2010
961
576
Exposure 🙈
I’d rather work for big tech company with good salary rather then for exposure. Thanks but no thanks
Sure, Im with you 100%. The only time I would make a widely available free app is to build my portfolio showcase in certain area such as UI or IA. Unfortunately there are tons of younguns who keep getting into app business with some valid and wild ideas only to see themselves crash and burn over for not having additional millions to market and maintain their app. I've made demo pitches for dozens of startups and very few of them thought about b2b while most of them wanted to be next Steve Jobs on the rise. Only one company has survived.
 

jlc1978

macrumors 603
Aug 14, 2009
5,488
4,271
But again you can use their store without sharing your revenue. In every case it’s always optional to use a 88/12 split or to keep 100%.

The no cut is for in app purchases; so to do that a developer would need a freemium model where the game is free to download but requires in app purchases to get more features. If you sell the game via Epic you have the split although in app purchases appear to still be free via a third party processor.

It will be interesting to see what Epic does if developers offer freemium games to use their store and get access to their user base without paying a cent; and if they allow from day 1 free apps that are limited until you make an IAP via a 3rd party processor.

You can use Xcode, unity or frost engine etc or whatever tools at your disposal. unreal Engine isn’t required.

True, but my point was Epic wants a cut if you use their engine, just like Apple if you want too use resources they created. In Epic's case, a forever cut of your revenue no matter how you sell it.

That’s just users reselling their items, just like with counter strike or TF2 skins and items.

Still, Epic is setting rules to access to its FN storefront to protect their revenue and complaining when Apple does the same with theirs. Epic is preventing developers from creating items independently and selling them via Epic.
 

kiv.atso

macrumors member
Feb 28, 2021
84
86
It’s so ironic that can be this insanely blind, why do you think free apps exist? Why does open source software exist?
I never rely on open source projects because I can’t be sure how long it would be supported and I view it as a risk in my own projects. 100% Apple SDK only
 
Last edited:

kiv.atso

macrumors member
Feb 28, 2021
84
86
Sure, Im with you 100%. The only time I would make a widely available free app is to build my portfolio showcase in certain area such as UI or IA. Unfortunately there are tons of younguns who keep getting into app business with some valid and wild ideas only to see themselves crash and burn over for not having additional millions to market and maintain their app. I've made demo pitches for dozens of startups and very few of them thought about b2b while most of them wanted to be next Steve Jobs on the rise. Only one company has survived.
So true. And I fully agree that free apps is a great way to showcase your knowledge.
 

kiv.atso

macrumors member
Feb 28, 2021
84
86
I honestly don't know the answer to my question, and if Apple will act like a small spoiled child yet again.

So, let's say we jump forward 6 months......

I have an app I wish to be available to as many people as possible. And I'd like to be able to (with their agreement) have some possible contact with customers so I can deal with support, help, suggestions etc with them if needed.

So I upload my app on the Apple App store (apple take their 30%)

Then I also want to put my same app on the Epic, Sony, Msoft, whatever else app store.
And these people may only want 5%, 10%, 20% cut from me.
I may even decide I can price my app lower on these other stores and still maintain the amount I get paid as they take a smaller cut of the sale

Looking into the future, will Apple allow this?
Or will they try and blacklist my App from their app store, unless I either take my app off other stores, or mess my my chosen pricing on whatever store I have also chosen?
What Epic has to do with platforms developed by Apple? Did they invest in Apple SDK development or payed Apple engineer’s salaries? So why some people think it’s fair for some shady company that has nothing to do with Apple to exploit their platform? It’s insane and unreasonable. Smells like racketeering
 

Abazigal

Contributor
Jul 18, 2011
19,589
22,045
Singapore
Does anyone know whether the 12% fee charged by Epic includes the typical 3% payment processing fee, or are the developers expected to manage that on their own?

Else, this actually works out to 15%, which is in line with what Apple is charging small developers, and the Epic games store famously isn't profitable (it's really being propped up by Fortnite money). So I find it a bit weird that people are pointing to a seemingly unprofitable and unsustainable business model, expect Apple to ape that, and then act all shocked and outraged when Apple doesn't.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.