Epic Games to Charge 12% Fee for App Sales From Alternative iPhone Store

[Arsenikdote]

And this is only in the EU? Or are you comparing World wide distribution compared to EU. Plus your 0.1%. Where did that come from? Based on your logic, I should have 100,000 apps on my phone.

I am not sure if you are intentionally or not missing the point. The general idea is that the Epic App Store will have dramatically less people in it. If you move your app to a different store with less people using it you make less revenue. Getting a larger chunk of a much smaller revenue number is worse than getting a smaller chunk of a much larger revenue number. The same principle is why businesses go get funding to build their business. They give up an ownership percentage, but in doing so make multiples more money because of the same principal.

Also, the number of apps on your phone has nothing to do with this. In my pretend scenario, with pretend numbers, you can decide for yourself how many apps people on average install. If you want to use a number where you end up with 100,000 apps on your phone, great. But you could also pick a different more reasonable number.

 

[maxxodd]

Can I set up an alternative, alternative App Store in the Epic Alternative App Store, not pay them anything and charge 10%? I'm pretty sure we'll get into a "There's Something about Mary" eight minute abs situation in no time.

 

[AppliedMicro]

You charge a 12% for folks that utlize your app store, a friggin app store. You didn't create and maintain the phone, operating system, ecosystem etc, just a friggin app store. Get a life Epic

Apple charge a 30% for folks that sell digital content on an app they (not Apple) created. Apple didn't create Epic's games, they didn't license Spotify's music, and they're not paying their hosting and bandwidth costs. Or payment processing.

Apple are charging 30% for friggin' payment processing. Get a life Apple!

 

[dypeterc]

You'll have to elaborate on how Epic are being hypocritical because from what I'm seeing

(1) the 12% fee is less than the 15% or 30% fee Apple charges;

(2) they're allowing app developers to use their own payment processing method, something Apple doesn't allow ("there are no fees for apps that offer in-game purchases and use their own payment processing method.");

(3) they're not blocking app developers from advertising alternative payment methods, something Apple doesn't allow

What service is Epic providing to charge 12%?

 

[Bornee35]

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.

So you're saying if you don't like the Terms and Conditions you should move on to a different platform? Oh how the turn tables.

 

[AppliedMicro]

When a dev uses their own payment processor, and it's a scam app, where does the consumer go?

To his/her payment instrument issuer/provider, for a chargeback.
Where do you, when you order something from a scam website?

The customer can choose to stick with Epic and their trusted payment processing.

 

[roar08]

Apple seems to profit enormously from their platform, even if they were to receive $0 in App Store revenue.

Then vote with your wallet and don't contribute to their margins.

 

[Arsenikdote]

Apple are charging 30% for friggin' payment processing. Get a life Apple!

Whether or not you think 30% is a fair number or if the platform should be more open or not....that is an extremely reductionist statement completely devaluing the marketing and reach that Apple's platform and devices have let alone any other benefits such as tools, etc...

Fine to believe the value of what they provide should be different than today, but to ignore elements of what is being provided devalues your statement since it appears intentionally or unintentionally misinformed.

 

[roar08]

Apple is also offering access to every iOS user. Epic will only have access to a relatively tiny set of users (remember folks, it’s not consumers who want more app stores, so they are going to be resistant to installing them unless forced by app developers. App developers would be wise to keep their apps in the store that consumers want to shop in else those users might just switch to alternative apps).

This is a very salient point. And if you think about it, if 12% is the ante then it's only 3% to get all the benefits of the App Store.

 

[AppliedMicro]

What service is Epic providing to charge 12%?

Transaction processing, tax handling, distribution/content delivery and - presumably - marketing.

 

[sw1tcher]

Apple is in the experiences business.
Epic is in the whine business.

The Apple experience 😂

macOS Sonoma 14.4: Reasons Not to Upgrade [Updated]

Update: Apple has released macOS 14.4.1, which fixes three bugs mentioned in this article. Click the link to learn what they are. Since Apple...

www.macrumors.com

 

[pacalis]

To his/her payment instrument issuer/provider, for a chargeback.
Where do you, when you order something from a scam website?

Yup, this often takes hours and often involves a 90 day investigation that might not go in your favor.

I'll give you credit. Together we just proved the point that by the nature of design, the EPIC store will necessarily be less secure than Apple.

 

[AppliedMicro]

30% is a fair number or if the platform should be more open or not....that is an extremely reductionist statement completely devaluing the marketing and reach that Apple's platform and devices have

It admittedly is - but it was a rebuttal to another "extremely reductionist" statement.

We should, however, not ignore the compensation that Apple receives from selling devices - and neither the value it receives from the rich ecosystem of third-party apps the help sell their iPhones to consumers in the first place.

 

[mrochester]

This is a very salient point. And if you think about it, if 12% is the ante then it's only 3% to get all the benefits of the App Store.

Makes the App Store look cheap.

 

[SanderEvers]

I can't wait to not install Chinese (Tencent) spyware on my iPhone.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Together we just proved the point that by the nature of design, the EPIC store will necessarily be less secure than Apple.

Not at all.

Epic can create a more secure store by more carefully picking (curating) the apps they let in and vetting their developers.

 

[Abazigal]

I think the bigger question is what is Epic offering for a 12% cut? We know Apple is offering the development tools, entire ecosystem, constant relevance through new products, etc.... Epic is creating a store on that foundation and then offering what? Nothing.

My suspicion is - basically nothing. It's easier to charge less, when you are also doing less for that money.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2024...ocs-reveal-epic-ceos-anger-at-steams-30-fees/

It's also interesting that Tim Sweeney wants to sue Valve for also charging 30% for their steam App Store, despite windows being open and therefore allowing the installation of multiple different app stores. By this logic, he should be able to woo developers over by charging a lower cut, yet numbers suggest that Steam remains more popular overall.

You can scroll through the comments to get a better sensing, but here's a few snippets.

Sure, you also get a lot less. Community features suck, there's nothing like Steam Workshop, etc. The value of the platform is a whole lot more than just making the game available for purchase.

Given how long it's been since Sweeney had to think about actually being a game developer, it doesn't surprise me he's that out of touch.

Steam gained a natural monopoly by having good services. Everyone thought they'd lose money in Russia due to how rampant piracy is, but they didn't. They literally offered a better service than free stuff.

Epic can and did launch their own store. I don't get how Sweeney is doing anything other than whining about not being able to sell Epic games on Steam without paying the platform fee. He doesn't care about the "little guy" at all.

And unsurprisingly the user experience on Steam is much better than (my now a little bit dated) experience on Epic. You could probably make an argument that steam could charge a bit less, or that developers could charge more. I could certainly see an argument that Steam should offer a discount to smaller devs rather than larger.

But from a consumer standpoint I am very happy to go through Steam, which has been stable, relatively secure (considering it is literally a loader you install on your system that can bypass much of your security, well designed, and reliable. Yes, they are profitable, which is great in that I don't worry whether they will go out of business any time soon and take my library with them.

Finally, that he wants Steam to start cutting prices so that he can use it to pressure Apple is uh, something.. since if you are Steam you have to assume he is saying the same thing to Apple about Steam, and will continue to play them against each other if they start to play that game. Let's bid ourselves into insolvency for the sake of other companies is quite the pitch.

AHAHAHAHAHA

Tim? Wanting to tear down walled gardens? **** no.
He doesn't want to pay anyone. That's it, that's all. If he were serious about being anti-monopoly, he'd have a fully functional Linux store already. He'd be denouncing Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo for their 30% walled gardens too. So why doesn't he? Because he's a fraud.

The simple fact that it happens to be good for consumers is a by-product. Even he agrees that the current 12% of the EGS is unsustainable. People say that Steam's 30% cut is "robbery" but I don't see anyone else supporting Linux like Steam does, support VR like Steam does, support Remote Play Together like Steam does... all those for free to the users. And for Linux support, developers basically don't need to do much, just let Steam handle Proton and boom, you now have access to the millions of gamers on Linux.

Tim Sweeny is a hack. He declared PC dead while Valve worked to save it. He hates Linux, despite Windows being a monopoly. So sorry if I have 0 sympathy for that hack.

If everyone is thinking 30% is fair, and that is less than they’ve ever paid, then maybe that’s fair. Or maybe it should be a sliding target (percentage is reduced somewhat on very high prices items) based on the price of the game?

A properly run online store has many costs, including:

• support and moderation
• maintenance of said platform
• marketing
• hosting & bandwidth
• legal (even higher when Epic is involved 😓)

On a PC, software developers and publishers can sell their game from any site, but if they choose to sell on platforms like Steam, it is because they feel it is beneficial. For example, visibility and people probably trust it as a source? To use a platform for your own benefit and then **** on it because you doing get 100% is just terrible business attitude.

Somebody wake me when Epic contributes 1/10th what Valve has to open source (the Unreal engine isn't) and just general ease of use--play your games wherever you are!--and they do it without Tencent bankrolling the whole thing in a bald effort to "disrupt" and control the whole PC game industry. Ya know, like Saudi money in Uber, which is destroying public transportation and legacy taxi service. It's just capitalism, right?

You all get the idea. Epic is not doing any of this to empower developers.

 

[kiv.atso]

Apple charge a 30% for folks that sell digital content on an app they (not Apple) created. Apple didn't create Epic's games, they didn't license Spotify's music, and they're not paying their hosting and bandwidth costs. Or payment processing.

Apple are charging 30% for friggin' payment processing. Get a life Apple!

If a company develops successful platform it’s entitled to charge a fee from those using it. Users pay for devices and services, developers pay for using tools and access to user base. This is why charging a fee for IAP or external payment processing is legitimate.

Apple is entitled to get a cut for bringing a new user to the developer. But if a user subscribes to a developer’s service without being redirected from within the app then Apple is not entitled for a cut.

It’s very easy to understand.

 

[pacalis]

The Apple experience 😂

I don't mean to overly defend the current moment with Apple. It's not trending well.

But that also doesn't mean the Europeans and EPIC have it right.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Makes the App Store look cheap.

Thankfully, competition can settle that question.

 

[AdonisSMU]

So what younhave is Epic wanted Apple to have to let them in so they could get a slice of the pie. Great i just love going through middlemen for app purchases.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I think the bigger question is what is Epic offering for a 12% cut? We know Apple is offering the development tools, entire ecosystem, constant relevance through new products, etc.... Epic is creating a store on that foundation and then offering what? Nothing.

Hmmm the unreal engine? One of the best SDK on the market currently for developing a game?

 

[yabeweb]

If a company develops successful platform it’s entitled to charge a fee from those using it. Users pay for devices and services, developers pay for using tools and access to user base. This is why charging a fee for IAP or external payment processing is legitimate.

Apple is entitled to get a cut for bringing a new user to the developer. But if a user subscribes to a developer’s service without being redirected from within the app then Apple is not entitled for a cut.

It’s very easy to understand.

I am not against Apple making money from their own platform, I am not against the platform to be more open ( just like the Mac is open to other store and outside app purchases ) it’s very easy to understand too.

 

[sleepybear723]

Ding ding ding, we found the reason Epic and others lobbied the EU for this legislation. They want their cut.

Who knew running an app store costs money?

 

[vipergts2207]

Then vote with your wallet and don't contribute to their margins.

Like Google and Samsung are any better? They're bad too, just in different ways. Not to mention I'm not about to upend my digital life.