Apple just kicked Fortnite off the App Store

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.

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?

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.

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.

In that sense, its worth it to me.

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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

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%.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

>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..

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.

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.