Apple just kicked Fortnite off the App Store

It's not Apple vs. Fortnite. It's actually Apple vs. Users. Apple has been taking us for a ride this whole time. We pay damn much and buy the phone. It is the user's property from then on. What the user install's and uninstall's from his phone should be his decision. Taking a cut of say, 3%, to keep the app store running is forgivable. But 30% digging into users pocket is unpardonable. Apple is no longer the underdog that it was 40 years ago, and some fanboys pretending it to be is despicable. It's a monopoly and the only thing it cares is it's profitability. Despite all the sugarcoated lies Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google have been saying to the senate, they are a monopoly. Stop letting them deceive us. Let's take the power back. Stop enabling such deception. Death of a country is determined by it's governance. Death of a society is determined by it's culture and greedy monopolies. The way we can claim our power is by raising awareness to the point that the powers that are will take note and take action.

What monopoly? Nobody is forcing you to buy Apple and enter into their rotten walled garden. If you "pay damn much and buy the phone", you are doing it of your own volition.

"Take the power back" by not continuing to give them your money.

The android ecosystem and OEM's lack of support for older phones (for one) is something that is 'forcing' me to enter their walled garden. I can't, also as a customer, ignore that Apple has done a lot of things very well, but that doesn't at all stop me from also complaining about their bad practices.

Take the money back and go where? Live in a hut? It's such enabling behaviors that embolden these elitists to lord over our lives. You can't let anyone be a gatekeeper to technology and progress. This applies to every major tech player. And this is the time that we need to make our voices heard.

Uninformed consumers will normalize the abusive behavior and pricing by buying the product. Mocking and complaining about unacceptable business practices is everyone's right and responsibility.

Personally I think the best option if we could move away from iOS and Android to a pure Linux phone like Librem5. I don't think it's there yet though. Seems like Vavle have had some success in supporting gaming on Linux so having a better alternative seems possible.

Don't you think these things may have some relationship to each other? All the work Apple does has to be paid for somehow; and realistically, in a for-profit company like Apple, has to be paid for in a way that will generate not just barely enough to pay for itself, but has to be paid for in a way that will generate lots of profits.

Google makes money off of advertising. Apple makes money, in part, off of taxing apps. If Apple can't tax apps, then suddenly their business model isn't nearly as appealing, and they start needing to make changes to keep things profitable -- things like maybe selling more of your data, or "encouraging" you to upgrade by not supporting older phones as well.

This whole discussion always makes me angry because right now I have a choice: I can choose to buy a product supported by app taxes, or I can choose to buy a product supported by spying on me. If Apple is forced to allow other app stores, and thus forced to look for other business models to remain profitable, I may not have that choice any more.

If Fortnite doesn't like it, why don't they just charge 50% more for the app on iOS? If people complain, just show them the math, so they know that it's the Apple Tax making things more expensive. I'm happy to pay 30% more for apps.

Found a company. Bring it to success. Build an ecosystem around it . Your voice will be heard, then.

> It is the user's property from then on

I guess that's what's going to change more and more in our future. Just like apps/programs, movies, books, music tracks were our properties.

By all means, yes, mock away and raise awareness. That's good, it helps.

But I know too many people who are very vocal about how Apple is bad and how they should be stopped, and yet these people keep buying a new iThing every year.

Most people already lease phones, to them it wouldn't be that big of a change to just say you can only rent them

afaik google kicked them out of the store too.

https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2020/8/13/21368079/for...

I understand where your arguments come from, and I do agree to the fundamental economics of it.

It all holds well too, until you realise, however, that Apple is sitting on 200 billion dollars in cash.

Also: Epic did actually give an option to pay less for their microtransactions if you paid them directly, and were about to refund people for their transactions in the past month for the Apple tax itself. Their rebellion is the main reason Apple retaliated like this.

Do you think defending bad practices and stereotyping is going to change anything?

The reason I, and I assume many others, have less of a problem with that is that you can fairly easily still download and play fortnite without the Play Store. As far as I know that’s not an option on iOS outside of jailbreaking your phone.

Take the money back and go to Android.

Mister Gotcha [1] is ever relevant.

[1] https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/

Back in the late 90s no one forced you to use Windows and Microsoft Office. You could just live without a PC.

I like the 30% cut for the App Store. It provides them incentive to promote & sell apps, and make sure the App Store is a smooth experience for users, & a profitable one for developers. It’s certainly healthy, if on the high side. But I’d sure rather have a healthy app ecosystem than an unhealthy one. The problem with them experimenting with lowering the rate is once its lowered, imagine the fuss which would ensue if they then raised it.

It's App Store policy and payment handling within apps, not so much about being to install it. I don't like to see trillion new payment providers, I also don't like to see monopolies. It's a very long and big discussion.

But I do wonder, can and _would_ you do payments in a non store app with their own payment provider? E.g. the fortnite you have downloaded and installed outside of the play store?

care to bring in some statistics? In what part of the world? I havent't found numbers, and my anecdotal experience is opposite

They already have an incentive to promote and sell apps: if the ecosystem has more/better apps, then more people will want to buy an iPhone/iPad.

They've explicitly stated this in their marketing: "There's an app for that."

We already do it over the internet, there are many players as payment gateway. To secure it, the payment systems need to improve and have proper notifications, 2FA etc. and not rely on benevolence and whims of the monopolies.

The lawsuit is about app distribution on iOS as well as the 30% cut.

There won't be anymore than what the web already has. Stripe or Paypal would likely be popular choices. Payment processors are required by law to be PCI compliant, though that doesn't guarantee they are.

Yes I would do payments in a non app store app with their own payment provider if I felt I trusted the app. It's no different than paying on any website (there's no Apple review process for websites).

I'm sorry, but that overrated comic strip is not relevant at all.

It shows three situations, two of which depict normal progress ("there is this useful thing that has flaws because nobody has cared enough to fix those flaws, let's try"; Mr. Gotcha's burn is out of line), and one depicts standard corporate behavior ("a brand is willfully behaving in several ways that the society knows is abusive, and fans of that brand are willfully blind towards that)"; Mr. Gotcha's burn is very much deserved).

In short, one of these things is not like the others.

Yes, sure, make your voice heard, fight against the abuses, that can only help.

But at the same time, do not pretend that there are not any alternatives. Yes, perhaps those alternatives are not as convenient, but choosing them over the "wrong" choice should be an equal part of the fight.

And "Live in a hut"? Please do not be overly maudlin. We are talking consumer electronics here - something that is still considered luxury - not fundamental philosophies of life or economic models of society.

I am sorry if my post came across as defending Apple, I certainly did not mean to do that.

I was merely trying to point out that people tend to put too much emphasis in being safely vocal (online, where you're sitting safely in your own home) against bad behavior, and not enough emphasis in actually not rewarding said bad behavior. For many, the latter option is not even present in their mind anymore.

30% of subscriptions/coin purchases is too much. Possibly warranted for actual app sales due to the review process, but after the app is sold 30% of every subsequent payment is a protection racket.

I have to disagree with you there. How exactly is discussing a problem being "wilfully blind towards that"? You argue that they are supporting Apple despite this problem - but what is the alternative? Android? They have many other problems themselves, many of which overlap with those of Apple. Not use a phone? Not easily possible if you want to participate in society.

Even if you go the route of sacrificing your social life for these principles nothing will change - you are just a single lost sale amongst billions. Having people talk about the problems might actually spark change. What does pointing out this alleged "hypocrisy" achieve, besides making yourself feel smarter/superior?

Agreed. Do you remember Jobs talked about computers being the bicycle of the mind ... ?

Not so much when you're slapping 30%, kicking back, and resting your feet up on the table.

10% is a normal'ish partner cut for providing a platform for others to transact on (ignoring money transfers services).

30% is laughable, long term.

Not even a "one more thing" cut to 29%, lol, ever!

> We pay damn much and buy the phone. It is the user's property from then on.

Sure, the App Store and its services however are not the user's property.

Right, but Apple prohibits the installation of apps that are not from their app store.

>Taking a cut of say, 3%, to keep the app store running is forgivable. But 30% digging into users pocket is unpardonable.

What makes you think that 3% cut is enough?

> Back in the late 90s no one forced you to use Windows and Microsoft Office. You could just live without a PC.

This was not unusual in the late 90s.

> 3% to keep the app store running is forgivable

Payment processing alone would cost Apple that much. You easily lose 1.5%-2% in payment fees and another 2% in handling fraud and customer support queries about payments.

For example, if a payment for an app is $1.99, Apple now takes $0.60. If a customer calls support to ask a question about the purchase it can cost anywhere from $15 to $30 in call center fees, so it takes 50 purchases to make good on that. If you lower that to a $0.06 take apple would have to make 500 sales for every phone call to support.

People don't realise good customer support is very expensive.

> talking consumer electronics here - something that is still considered luxury

I disagree. A smartphone is a necessity in this current era. If for example your government requires you to install a Covid tracing app, what choice do you have besides Apple and Android (both of which removed Fortnite)?

To reach a good balance you don't use rebellion, you don't need to take action. If you want to fight greed, start with yourself and then maybe your peers.

Accept what is and don't buy stuff you don't need. Hopefully we learn this before something worse than covid destroys all.

Also it's very hard task to keep a good eco system running, both Google and Apple do their best here. Most organisations crumble from the inside at their size.

Hey, actually several companies reached a size where they have the stability to offer the same service to most part of the world and it allows us to communicate basically free. We also have gadgets that is super duper advanced in our pockets. Embrace that give them some slack. Lead them by example and create a counter culture that takes all the good parts and makes them better. You got a silver plate of goodies, anyone in the past would trade that spot with you in an instance.

If we disregard the app purchase (which few complain about) and focus on in-app purchases now. E.g. for buying fortnite hats or netflix subscriptions, where the in-app purchase is NOT processed by apple, surely that can't give rise to any kind of added costs for apple (customer support, transaction costs)?

If you already downloaded if from outside the app store, why do you need to use an in-app payment provider?

At this point it's just like any software on your computer, you can pay outside of it, and use a code or similar to indicate you paid for it.

It's only a matter of convenience to want to pay in-app. It can also be a lock-in strategy from the developer - and this is what this whole thread is about.

In-app purchases are processed by apple as well.

Because its the sort of above most transaction fees of most payment providers in the world.

But Apple can ask whatever they want. They can't block side-loading though. That's the uncompetitive part.

You can run your store and pick whatever terms you like. You can't use your marketshare in hardware sales to bundle a forced store.

Imagine Tesla charging you 30% of any grocery shopping (i.e. would refuse to open the doors if the store didn't share 30% of its gross revenue).

I mean, its literally, textbook anti-competitive. The App Store as a store isn't competing fairly, on its own merits.

Also keep in mind, that this whole getting raped with transaction fees is a 'america-only' thing. This is much better regulated in the rest of the world.

Specifically the costs are fixed, so anything that is a percentage is just fucking nonsense. It doesn't cost more to charge 5 euro's than it does to charge 1 euro. It uses the same electricity, the same personel costs. There is a point where its get more expensive because of risk management, but thats above 100 euro per transaction.

Percentages on transactions are generally only allowed when its a loan. Which is why Americans are always buying things with credit cards ("loaning the money"). Most people pay for things with their own money, not with a loan. (i.e. direct bank transfer). And those transactions have a fixed transaction costs. Worst case 1 euro (low-volume, your personal webshop) all the way down to 5 euro cent (high-volume, i.e. the supermarket).

So explain to me where the hell you get your 3% from? You just sound like an already boiled frog saying 'are you sure we can survive in cold water?'

In their profit reports I am told that the 30% is not profit it just maintains the app store. I read that from some jailbreakers, they seemed legit since it was talking about how apple locks it down too much. It was in the earnings report, so they didn't have a reason to lie (I think). I wonder if they cook the numbers or something to lie about it.

Pro tip: having different opinion than yours does not make someone "uninformed". It may, or may not be true.

No, in-app purchases are forced to BE proccessed by Apple.

Epic would like to proccess these themselves. They dont want apple to turn on their economic output. When you charge money for the work others do -- that's like communism.

It is interesting that we criticise monopoly in one form (apple), but encourage it in another ("It is the user's property"). If we go down the logical road of "why monopoly is bad" it is because property may not be utilised in the most effective way for the common good, all property is monopoly.

I wonder if auction based app store costs are a possible solution to the increasing developer frustration with Apple? Self Assessed Licenses Sold via Auction across many marketplaces may help combat monopoly.

I can see Apple (with their privacy angle) moving towards facilitating users selling their data/data unions. Perhaps some other radical-liberalism ideas could come through too.

https://www.radicalxchange.org/concepts/

https://blog.radicalxchange.org/blog/posts/millennials-zoome...

No, not when they are angered by apps NOT doing that (e.g. Epic in this case, or netflix/spotify charging for subscriptions outside, etc).

This discussion is about Epic charging for in-app things outside of Apple's control. So apple can't use the argument that they have costs (support, payment) for those transactions.

Would you also support ditching all the free apps from the App Store?

Nobody knows because there are no market forces to determine what the cut should be. Nobody can distribute apps other than Apple, they just declare that they want/need 30% and everybody else has to pay it.

Even people living in actual huts have smartphones now. Seriously.

You can't meaningfully participate in society without access to the Internet, especially during a pandemic.

Carrier subsidized devices are the norm in North America.

Same in Sweden, if you can't afford to, or don't want to spend the cash for a >1000$ phone. You can lock yourself in for 12-24 months on a provider with a raised monthly fee. Very common in my experience.

Not trying to debate, just having an idea: the percentage versus fix cost is coming from the tax system. You don't pay a fix dollar tax per citizen, but a percentage of your income. I can see private companies doing the same.

Epic disagrees as they've just filed a lawsuit vs google as well:

https://twitter.com/Slasher/status/1294073105376333825

I don't want side-loading apps on iPhone. The moment you allow side-loading you can no longer trust the apps on a phone. Is it really facebook or was facebook removed and replaced with something else.

Not all property is monopoly. I own my phone but no one has to use my phone to make calls, there are other sources of phones and places to make a call. If I lived in a town where I was the only person with a phone and was charging people to use it then that would be a monopoly. It's about demand as well as supply. There is no demand to use my phone specifically over any other phone.

Less of a problem != no problem.

Don't side load then.

According to the article [1] - App store made 11.5 Billion $ revenue in 2017. That's like 30 million dollars per day. I'm not even going to argue that you need such money to maintain a static binary distribution platform.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/01/06/apples-ap...

What happens if you get picked up by the police, and your stuff is confiscated, and you get it back, how do you trust your apps on your phone if side-loading is allowed?

You can't. You can't know if whatsapp was replaced with whatsapp that syphon your data.

"Don't side load then." is a poor argument.

I welcome anyone to try to live a month in Sweden without a smartphone and a credit card from a major bank, just to demonstrate how incredible dependent society has made citizen on being customers to those companies.

Just a few weeks ago there were a bit of news where you could not sign up for a corona test unless you had the bank verififed identification smartphone app installed. When the local government in charge of testing was interviewed, they said that for people without the app they would help them install it. Problem solved.

Some luxury products are very different to other luxury products.

Apple is against freedom like since the beginning, I don't understand how anybody can use any of their products.

> It's actually Apple vs. Users. Apple has been taking us for a ride this whole time.

Oh please. Nobody who actually uses Apple feels that way. Though I agree they should allow a way to sideload apps.

One of the downsides of being primarily an iOS dev is not being able to participate in activities like game-jams because there's no way to casually share my stuff with other users.

> Taking a cut of say, 3%, to keep the app store running is forgivable. But 30%

Do you know how much Google, Microsoft, Steam and Epic themselves take from sales on their stores?

Apple protects its users better than the other major players. Their privacy and accessibility features alone are unparalleled, and they do a lot to curtail scummy developer practices. The entities which Apple protects users from are often the ones crying foul.

See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24154647 and similar comments:

> the magnitude of this is not immediately apparent unless you’ve worked in an agency / freelanced building iOS applications. You have no idea how many user-hostile and abusive things I’ve seen blown completely out of the water with the golden phrase "Apple won’t allow that". It wins arguments in favour of the user instantly and permanently.

> I’ve run up against Apple’s capricious review process more times than I can count, so I’ve got more reason than most to complain about it. But it’s impossible for me to argue that these rules don’t help the user when I’ve personally seen it happen so many times. It’s a double-edged sword to be sure, and I believe the best way of balancing things in favour of the end-user is to be more open than Apple is, but there are undeniable benefits to the user with the current system.

Because their products are often very good in many ways and their policies protect users from many unscrupulous developers and companies.

True, but you are free to install only free apps, or no apps, or only your own apps pushed directly onto the phone. In fact you are free to fully operate without iCloud/AppStore (if I'm not mistaken)

> It's not Apple vs. Fortnite. It's actually Apple vs. Users.

This would suggest that Apple is shooting itself in the foot—which is exactly the opposite of antitrust policy. Put simply: Apple’s behavior seems to be hurting itself and benefiting competitors (Samsung/Google) which, broadly speaking, would seem like an uphill battle for anyone arguing to open up the iOS ecosystem.

To side-load an app on an iPhone you need to sign it with a developer certificate (and apple will actually do it for you). You can only run the app if you trust said certificate (you will get a prompt saying something like going in the settings, tapping on the developer name and then tapping "Trust". You would then need to confirm using your passcode/faceid/touchid). It's not like anyone can put apps on your phone and being able to launch them without any friction.

How would they side load apps if the phone is locked?

> Because its the sort of above most transaction fees of most payment providers in the world.

They're not just a payment provider though. They offer infrastructure, promotion, a huge locked-in userbase with the means to pay for software, etc

Easier said than done

Buying a general-purpose computing device to run a handful of built-in applications is not really fully operating it.

That "many of which overlap with those of Apple" needs to be more specific. I can only think examples, where Apple and Android phone manufacturers are clearly different. Like forcing to use specific app store: Samsung has Google Play and own thing, modern Huawei (models without google) have support for several app stores. Moreover, there are several "feature phone" manufacturers, phones without iOS or Android. But if you are single lost sale amongst billions, maybe market is voting and doing it differently, than you. Apple products are often more appliances, than real general use computers. They never hide their philosphy "Apple knows best". Many people like that; buying Apple products exactly because limited choices.

> it all holds well too, until you realise, however, that Apple is sitting on 200 billion dollars in cash.

how does that negate the given points? These 200b is an indicator of a healthy business that can survive major downturns for a long period of time, which should be much more appealing that an open credit line and piles of debt in accounting tables, so much prevalent in the industry nowadays.

>You don't pay a fix dollar tax per citizen, but a percentage of your income

Yeah, the government has a monopoly on that.

> I can see private companies doing the same.

You must be American then. This is where all this friction comes from. Corporations aren't people, nor should they be government.

This is not because the people who work there are bad people or something, but because they are legally binded to do whatever maximizes profits. They are by definition not operating in the common good (they are not supposed to!). There is no democratic oversight.

You can imagine companies doing the same. As a European, i can't. It's a problem. And its fake innovation anyway. Where is the America that did real research and real innovation? That put people on the moon? These days all you guys are good for is 'bussiness model innovations'. Ways to cheat, extort or externalize the costs. Quality of life is just going downhill the more of these type of products one uses. Technology is regressing.

> All the work Apple does has to be paid for somehow

How about the money they make selling iPhones?

Google also kicked Epic out but no body is talking about that not even Epic. Maybe because Statistically Android users are less likely to pay for apps and services than iOS users. So clearly iOS is where the money is and nothing wrong in Apple trying to protect that.

iOS Appstore users pay, android users dont. iOS is where the money is which is why everyone is up in Arms. Android is the ugly poor mans cousin of mobile phones where inspite of being the largest the app ecosystem remains small. I see why Apple is trying to protect their Ecosystem and so does android.

It's perhaps less important because software can still be installed on Android without Google Play. Don't forget that Apple has already cut special deals with Amazon, so the extortionate 30% is negotiable, if one is big enough to fight.

I think it's closer to: Apple is the important target. If they win that suit, they automatically win against Google.

IMO the fact that both processors kicked them off strengthens their case, because it's a strong argument in favour of oligopoly.

Their review system is totally random, and that's what makes it painful. There's easy way to trick them for some things, so I wouldn't consider this as an actual proper safety net. It does give the impression of safety to the end user though, I guess that's the intent.

Apple uses techniques from totalitarian regimes. They decide, judge and control everything. There's no freedom at all. You can only use what Apple decide you can use. But it does provide some kind of safety, or at least a feeling of safety (there will always be security flaws). After, is it a good thing?

> they do a lot to curtail scummy developer practices.

Which is excellent. Apple taking a cut for apps I have no problem with. They have support, I trust them with privacy/security and so on. That costs money.

The interesting discussion is how much apple can claim to own a part of profits made in the apps, by selling content (in-app purchases).

On one hand: if a game is free for a trial, and you can unlock the full game I think that should count as an app purchase (the alternative would be to not have in-app upgrades and just have 2 apps, which was a worse situation).

But on the other hand: if I buy a recipe app for $10 and then recipes for $1 a piece which I could also buy on the corresponding website, then I don't think apple should have a cut at all.

People who still don’t understand why people pay for Apple products really lack basic piece of wisdom, making their opinion less valuable. Yet they still boast about this particular misunderstanding of theirs.

It's too long since I entered these contracts, is it loaned/leased ?

Where I am the loan would be on the purchasing money, so technically you own the device, but would have to pay your carrier the remaining price + some penalty if you needed to stop the contract, or give back the device + penalty if you are not in a position to pay. The device stays with you after the loan/contract period is done.

There is still the carrier lockin, so you can't change carrier willy-nilly before the loan is paid, but that wouldn't stop you from selling your phone to someone else using the same carrier for instance.

Users will still call apple if there is a problem. They will not understand the difference between Epic handling some of the payments and apple handling all the other ones. Customer support cost will not go down.

I agree with you somehow. 30% sounds too high. 10% is much more reasonable. Imagine you selling a house and the realtor getting 30% of it. Crazy high.

What nonsense. As an Apple customer, the App store is the number one reason I use them - I dont want malware or scummy developers on my phone and I am happy with Apple charging a fee to developers in this manner.

It's not like anyone going to switch phones because your app is not on there. Your app is just one of many other apps I use on my phone.

Developers are very much looking at this the wrong way - the 30% fee is the price developers must pay to access Apples customers.

Epic filed a suit against Google too.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368363/epic-google-fort...

> if I buy a recipe app for $10 and then recipes for $1 a piece which I could also buy on the corresponding website, then I don't think apple should have a cut at all.

Ah that sounds like a fair point at first, but it could be argued that you gained access to those sales because of Apple.

More importantly, they're processing payments for you, and every payment processor out there takes a cut, one way or the other.

As an Apple customer the review system is working very well for me. No malicious apps have got through the process and onto my phone yet.

In that sense, its worth it to me.

Maybe because historically the developer industry has shown that some bad actors can ruin it for everyone? That maybe the App store review process is to benefit ME, as an Apple customer? I WANT a curated App store, simply because I? CANT trust any random app downloaded onto my phone. I pay Apple for that service.

Apple App Store customers are NOT blind sheeple afraid of freedom; I am NOT interested in having a phone that can run any and all software! The industry has proven it cant be trusted, so I pay Apple to gatekeep that for me.

If you still dont get that, I dont know what to tell you...

I meant the case in the topic where they are not processing the payments.

I did get access to a market/users via the store but I still don’t think that makes Apple eligible for a cut of sales in all apps that they don’t process.

Privacy would be one area where Android/Google is generally much worse than Apple. If you care about privacy you would not buy an Android phone, but then if you care about open systems you shouldn't buy an iPhone. Now your hands are already tied.

The linked comic talks about underpaid factory workers in China - every company that sells smartphones suffers from this to some extend because tracking down supply chains many links in becomes very difficult. It is not so easy to determine with 100% certainty where the guy that sold you the refined metal for the CPU chip got his unrefined metal from. Apple has actually made big efforts in attempting to eradicate slave/child labor [1] - so if you care about human rights of labourers in third world countries you should probably buy an iPhone.

None of this is black and white, both Google and Apple have tons of problems. If you say "don't buy Apple if you don't support walled gardens", then someone else will say "don't buy Google if you don't support extensive privacy invasion". There is no correct choice - you can only fight the specific problems.

[1] https://www.voanews.com/archive/apple-wins-global-award-effo...

When I buy a hat on Amazon Apple gets no cut and I understand that Amazon gets my customer service call if there is something wrong with my transaction.

If I buy a hat in the Epic store (and pay to epic) I don’t see why it would be very different.

Should it matter if I make the purchase in Safari or in another app?

Also: let’s forget the apps for a while. Assume I buy a navigation app for $10 on the App Store and then I visit a website and purchase gps maps for 3 countries to use in the app, for $100 each. Apple isn’t involved in that transaction. Should they claim a cut of the $300 because I can use the maps in the app?

Many people buy Apple hardware because that's where most of the apps are, especially the iPad. I purchased an iPad for my kids for precisely this reason, and regarding the actual software that Apple provides, I am not at all impressed (e.g. app store is a mess, app approvals for kids is very broken). I am also aware that this extortionate 30% transaction cost is likely being passed on to me.

If I could get all the games and educational apps we use on the iPad on another platform, I would ditch Apple in a heartbeat.

Side loading on Android does not require a certificate. What people are suggesting is allowing side loading something like fortnite to by-pass the App Store, like what is possible on Android.

Side loading is not the same as installing apps as a developer for testing.

2nd, sure you need a passcode etc to accept the install, this every-now-n-then gets by passed.

What if they can bypass a locked phone?

What percentage do Microsoft, Google, Sony, Nintendo, Steam and Epic take?

Payment processors take a cut in the range of 1-3%.

It wasn't supposed to negate his points, I said I agree to them too.

The issue is that Apple would be still be comfortably profitable at a much lower and less predatory level of Apple-tax-rate. They are fundamentally not entitled to the profits of the companies who have to be on their market. The value they provide to the developers and customers collectively for simply hosting and reviewing these apps is not 30%. As other commenters have pointed out, they are willing to pay a portion of this extra 30% if and only if it goes to the people who build the applications. It's not a supply-demand mismatch issue, it's overreach and exploitation.

On the other hand, I don't quite get what your point is about Apple being a healthy business or them not accumulating debt (which is arguably wrong, Apple has ~91,807,000,000 USD in long-term debt (out of 142B USD in non-current liabilities)). I don't think that is relevant here, let alone discounts my point about the excessive profits they've accumulated.

There’s a difference between financing a phone and leasing it. A carrier subsidy is effectively a loan that you can use to buy the phone (which you then own).

Then side loading is the least of your problems.

If the police has had your phone it is compromised. End of story. Throw it in the river...

You don't have to side load anything. If you think it's worth paying 30% for the Apple review process etc. You're free to do so. Just let others make their own decisions.

That you know off. The security is provided by the operating system, not the review process. The last layer, and that's the most efficient one, which exists on most systems is you by choosing what you install (most because some phones/computers manufacturers adds pre-installed crapwares)

I can tell you that across all my devices I don't think any malicious apps made its way there neither (as for you with your ios device, I will never be entirely sure). And this, without apple random reviews.

I understand that you understand the difference between Apple, Epic, the payment processor, the credit card provider and your bank. I can assure you most people do not. I've worked in customer service. They will just call Apple.

So if I use windows does that mean that every app dev must pay 30% to Ms because you can argue that I am using their apps thanks to Microsoft. And hey, why don't we also pay Intel or and, who did the processors?

But what if an Apple customer wants to deal with a developer directly? Apple wont allow me to do that even though I own the device.

That's my bugbear with Apple, If I own a iPhone I should be able to install software from any source - even if it is risky.

Presumably that's what the other poster colloquially (and incorrectly) meant by "lease", as opposed to "rent"

> So if I use windows does that mean that every app dev must pay 30% to Ms because you can argue that I am using their apps thanks to Microsoft.

How does the Windows Store and Xbox Marketplace work?

What about Epic's own games store?

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/apps/windows

https://www.xbox.com/en-US/microsoft-store

https://epicgames.com

That's not leasing. It's a financing agreement.

Microsoft does allow the installation of apps from any source, and they can handle payments independently from Microsoft, Windows Store is not the only app distribution method on Windows.

Believe me, we got it.

All developers are scummy and trying to make a living without paying 30% of your earnings to the platform is just too much to ask.

Even though YOU purchased the device YOU don't want to be able to run any and all applications, even when YOU might really really want to, full stop. Apple should own what YOU can do on your device, and since YOU said it, EVERYONE should just agree to it.

Find me a US payment process that takes 1% for credit cards

Not on Windows, but on the Xbox the official store is certainly the only app distribution method. The iPhone/iPad actually have a lot in common with the Xbox/Playstation/Nintendo: they are devices that come bundled with a locked down operating systems that only allow the user to buy apps from a first party store. You can argue phones are more general purpose than gaming consoles - but with current consoles containing video players/photo viewers/web browsers/etc that is not exactly true either.

Windows/Android are different because the operating system itself is the product. People don't necessarily buy a Google phone or a Microsoft desktop, but they can still buy and run the operating system separately from the physical product.

The question is: if Apple should be forced to open up the iPhone ecosystem, why shouldn't Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo be forced to open up their systems for third party stores? Why are they allowed to take a mandatory cut from anyone that wants to publish on their platform, but Apple is not? To me it seems like a double standard if only Apple is forced to open up, but Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo are not.

Perhaps all hardware that is sold should be open and customisable, and I should be able to install a fresh OS on any piece of hardware I buy. That makes sense to me, but then that doesn't actually solve the problem at all. People will still buy an iPhone and use iOS, so now the OS itself needs to be open in some way. How do you write any of this in law at all?

On one hand, I get where you're coming from.

On the other hand, if they offer a recipe app for free (because it contains no recipes, and let's face it, that's how you get quick user interest), then purchase recipes for $1.x each to cover the amortised app creation cost, you're basically just sidestepping the app store cut by any other name.

Can't speak for others, but Steam gets 30%

Source: https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18120577/valve-steam-gam...

> I dont want malware or scummy developers on my phone

Despite what many folks say, the App Store review process doesn't protect from bad developer behavior. See the various controversies surrounding social media apps that used many shady tracking techniques. And those apps are among the most popular... you'd think they would be "reviewed" more thoroughly!

Does steam take any cut of in-game purchases for free to play games? I don't think they do, so that is a difference to consider.

But I provided a range to absolve myself of the culpability of a citation. :)

Jokes aside, I'm sure you can find processors charging < 2% for customers with high volume. But you're right, it's certainly not standard. Maybe 2-4% is a more accurate range.

Point stands that it's a lot lower than 30%.

In Canada all the major carriers are pushing leasing for the newest phones.

You can still finance the phone at a subsidized rate but the deals are with leasing.

Telus has "bring it back". You pay 0$ upfront for the phone, but do pay an additional recurring monthly fee for the phone.

After 2 years you bring the phone back. If u want to keep it you have to pay for the remaining cost of the device.

If I just financed it, lower end or older phones would be $0 upfront, but high end phones be paying $500 as an example upfront on top of the financed recurring fees.

Rogers has "upfront edge" where you pay 0$ upfront for a top end device. You have to return at 2 years.

Bell does the same thing with "device return options Lower upfront costs. The choice is yours: at the end of the 2-year term, you have the option to return your smartphone in good working condition, upgrade if you wish, or keep it and pay back the Device Return Option deferral amount.

Very much leasing.

Interesting. I am in Ontario and I hadn't noticed this trend before.

Thats when you pay your own way on distribution.

Microsoft takes 5%.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsofts-windows-10-sweetene...

Not even for high volume. Stripe's standard rate is just 1.4% for domestic cards in the UK (1.75% in Australia) and 2.9% for international sales.

https://stripe.com/en-gb/pricing

https://stripe.com/en-au/pricing

I'm fine with Apple taking 30%, 50%, or 90% of revenue on the App Store. Running the App Store isn't free, and Apple is the party best positioned to assess their own costs. However, the App Store should not be the only way to install software on my phone.

Critically, if I was able to sideload apps, Apple wouldn't charge 90%, because then no developer would ever use the store. A central repository of curated, vetted apps is a key selling point for the iPhone. Apple will want to maintain that feature, as they should, but they have to put in the work to compete.

https://www.helcim.com/us/pricing/ is 1.9% with no volume.

Google takes 30% (and have also kicked Fortnite off it's store).

And Epic takes 15%, (some of which goes to Epic's 40% owner Tencent).

What would a future perfect review system look like?

How well do Apple, Google, Microsoft perform against that perfect system? What resources do they dedicate to the task?

There's apparently some ways for malware to avoid detection. So yet another arms race whackamole.

Frankly, as a noob consumer, it's exhausting. It definitely impacts my spending.

FWIW, one of my besties worked on an audit tool which runs apps in a sandbox, screening for malware and whatnot. My impression was that it was a lot of effort for little reward.

In conclusion, sorry for braindump, thank you for reading this far:

Freemium will be sidelined into its own wasteland. Like that recent piece about journalism: "truth is expensive, lies are free."

The difference here is that Microsoft/Sony loose money to sell as many machines as possible to generate a viable market for the gaming studios (and obviously for them).

On an iPhone, apple has made plenty of money already.

In any case, the main thing here is not the 30% that they charge when you buy the software, is that they want to keep getting 30% for the services and such, which is crazy.

Do stores pay a percentage of each sale to the mall?

That seems directly comparable. The store wouldn't have any sales without the mall's infrastructure so it seems like they would be owed a cut of everything that happens in the store

> They are fundamentally not entitled to the profits of the companies who have to be on their market.

that's not how markets work. Apple is absolutely entitled to charge whatever amount of money they wish, firstly because other companies engage into trade with Apple voluntarily and no one is forcing companies into App Store, they enter it because they know they are going to make money there, and secondly because if Apple is not entitled to this money by their right of ownership of the platform that millions of customers find outstanding, everyone else is even less entitled to own and dispose of these earnings.

It is also up to Apple shareholders to decide what is comfortably profitable.

As for the debt that you mention, accounting doesn't work that way either. Their total long-term and current operational debt as of 2020 can be paid in full, by the half of their immediately available disposable cash. This IS a prime example of a healthy business.

This is the crux of it. People aren’t applying second order thinking.

I don't think Apple should be allowed to charge a cut from a subscription app for example. Just because I can watch Netflix on my iPhone doesn't mean it's wrong that I can download a $0 app, and then pay Netflix for the content without Apple seeing one cent from it.

I am Eastern European, if that matters.

Take an interesting case like a subscription fee for content, not just an app cut.

No one is angry about cuts from app prices (or prices that are effectively upgrades of an app e.g. from trial to full).

What I'm angry about is when apple wants X% of the price of content whhen they don't produce the content, they don't process the transaction. All they do is host the store where the $0 client app sits. I don't think it makes sense.

Revenue is not profit. I am not saying I believe them but it was in their earnings report. I think maybe it doesn't turn profit the same way that movies lose money.

Why are Android users trying to make demands? You are never going to be Apple users.

Heck, do one better and install Ubuntu mobile.

A few of us see the road of fragmentation and shady businesses and currently trust one company, Apple.

That's not uncommon. But normally the mall isn't the only mall in town.

I consider Amazon and the Apple App store to be not like stores or malls but like streets or cities. They are the market, not in the market, and if someone wants to enter the market they have to pay Apple/Amazon for the privilege. They bought/built the street and now instead of charging a cut they are charging a tax.

Yah I was talking about the US. You cannot find 2% in the US either. Our fees are much much much higher than UK or AU.

Please change the dropdown to say Online

I would prefer if businesses didn’t sell products at a loss. It just leads to dumb situations all over the place.

Or recycle it. Don’t pollute the rivers!

But what app couldn’t be either a subscription or be unlocked via in app purchase?

The dominant ios business model for apps currently is a basic version free to download, bigger functionality unlocked via in app purchase. Up front app costs are fading.

uh. they banned a video game. death of a country? dramatic much?

Agreed. So the current model of “take a cut of everything” makes it very simple because they don’t need to differentiate between unlocking a full version of a game and buying a monthly subscription to music.

The first I think is obviously right the second is insane (and in between there are an infinite number of cases).

I don’t think the status quo is acceptable though.

I have always considered Apple making a "Phone" with more computing capabilities, while Google was trying to a PC down to a Phone size.

And in the case I agree the Phone should not be able to side load Apps. It is locked precisely because it is a Phone. And there would be 100x fewer support calls just because of that . Remember there are 1 Billion iPhone users. I can bet 900M of them dont even know what HN or programming.

I am wondering if Apple shoudl allow iPad to side load App, given iPad is more like PC working in Tablet form factor. And release an iPad Nano.

I mean if customer really think they should have side load Apps they would buy the Nano.

( That is of course ignoring the complexity of line up )

Personally I dont want the hassle of supporting people side loading apps and then calling for help. I would much rather Apple keep it the current way.

And I have no problem with Games being charged 30% cut.

But for some reason I think Apps and other Services should be charged 15% of less. Given Apple already split the Apps and Gaming Section in the App Store. I dont see this would be a problem.

Make sure it's still signed by Facebook. Whatever good that will do for your privacy. Next question.

30% is like paying govt taxes... with which govts builds roads, infrastructure, what not. None of the app stores (including many of the alt app stores) needs that much.

>Apple protects its users better than the other major players.

If "other major players" are the baseline, then nothing is going to improve. They all stink.

For example, think why apple made it super easy to approve auto renewing payments but made it so hard to unsubscribe (which is hidden deep in settings).. if that's not dark UX then I don't know what is? Lots of scammy apps make use of this. Do they get removed from the app store inspite of all their negative reviews and customer complaints? mostly not.. best case, takes months..

With 3% payment gateways, paypal etc made/makes profitable business.

30% of revenue is like taxes, you can build infrastructure for a country.

Also remember they take $99 / year / dev account just to open up access to their app store.. so add that into their revenue..

"I agree they should allow a way to sideload apps"

I think this sentence means you agree with the comment you're replying to. That's basically all Apple needs to do, if you can install apps in a way that doesn't involve Apples store then they can do and charge whatever they want with it.

The only reason people have a problem with Apples 30% cut and review restrictions is because there's no other option.

Great, you assumed I'm user of one particular mobile OS.

Well, at least you included "currently" in your remark.

> Do you know how much Google, Microsoft, Steam and Epic themselves take from sales on their stores?

Nice job of misinformation right there! Apple should send you a check for that one! Let me quote you the article we are commenting on:

> Apple has removed Epic Games’ battle royale game Fortnite from the App Store after the developer on Thursday implemented its own in-app payment system that bypassed Apple’s standard 30 percent fee

How many of the one you named did the same? Weird how it's 0 right?

Okay now let bring something you said yourself, how many of them block side loading, which is a great way to bypass this? Again 0.

A fee for a service is perfectly fine, you are the only one trying to argue anything about this. What we are arguing is that Apple is forcing people to pay that fee, even though there's perfectly valid alternative that can be done, and that this practice is wrong. None of the company you are citing does that.

Stores pay a hefty sum of rent to the mall, not sure thats a reasonable comparison.