Most active commenters
  • Razengan(3)
  • alkonaut(3)
  • brianwawok(3)

←back to thread

Apple just kicked Fortnite off the App Store

(www.theverge.com)
1704 points ardit33 | 19 comments | 13 Aug 20 19:03 UTC | HN request time: 1.712s | source | bottom
Show context
hijklmno ◴[14 Aug 20 07:03 UTC] No.24154700[source]▶
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.
replies(24): >>24154744 #>>24154887 #>>24154969 #>>24154990 #>>24155082 #>>24155248 #>>24155280 #>>24155320 #>>24155360 #>>24155416 #>>24155483 #>>24155499 #>>24155506 #>>24155550 #>>24155568 #>>24155740 #>>24155744 #>>24155802 #>>24155817 #>>24155828 #>>24156004 #>>24156124 #>>24159323 #>>24165693 #
Razengan ◴[14 Aug 20 09:43 UTC] No.24155817[source]▶
> 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.

replies(6): >>24155935 #>>24156051 #>>24156057 #>>24168586 #>>24173331 #>>24174639 #
alkonaut ◴[14 Aug 20 10:17 UTC] No.24156057[source]▶
> 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.

replies(3): >>24156108 #>>24156135 #>>24157679 #
1. Razengan ◴[14 Aug 20 10:31 UTC] No.24156135[source]▶
> 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.

replies(4): >>24156199 #>>24156390 #>>24156616 #>>24162214 #
2. alkonaut ◴[14 Aug 20 10:39 UTC] No.24156199[source]▶
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.

3. TechBro8615 ◴[14 Aug 20 11:06 UTC] No.24156390[source]▶
Payment processors take a cut in the range of 1-3%.
replies(1): >>24157608 #
4. kwanbix ◴[14 Aug 20 11:42 UTC] No.24156616[source]▶
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?
replies(1): >>24156794 #
5. Razengan ◴[14 Aug 20 12:06 UTC] No.24156794[source]▶
> 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

replies(1): >>24157067 #
6. dessant ◴[14 Aug 20 12:35 UTC] No.24157067{3}[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>24157642 #
7. brianwawok ◴[14 Aug 20 13:24 UTC] No.24157608[source]▶
Find me a US payment process that takes 1% for credit cards
replies(2): >>24158214 #>>24159388 #
8. mytherin ◴[14 Aug 20 13:27 UTC] No.24157642{4}[source]▶
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?

replies(2): >>24158411 #>>24161629 #
9. TechBro8615 ◴[14 Aug 20 14:14 UTC] No.24158214{3}[source]▶
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%.

replies(1): >>24158932 #
10. ◴[14 Aug 20 14:32 UTC] No.24158411{5}[source]▶
11. SyneRyder ◴[14 Aug 20 15:11 UTC] No.24158932{4}[source]▶
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

replies(1): >>24163687 #
12. 15155 ◴[14 Aug 20 15:43 UTC] No.24159388{3}[source]▶
https://www.helcim.com/us/pricing/ is 1.9% with no volume.
replies(1): >>24163696 #
13. kwanbix ◴[14 Aug 20 18:40 UTC] No.24161629{5}[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>24164474 #
14. 8note ◴[14 Aug 20 19:27 UTC] No.24162214[source]▶
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

replies(2): >>24163454 #>>24253402 #
15. alkonaut ◴[14 Aug 20 21:22 UTC] No.24163454[source]▶
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.

16. brianwawok ◴[14 Aug 20 21:47 UTC] No.24163687{5}[source]▶
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.
17. brianwawok ◴[14 Aug 20 21:48 UTC] No.24163696{4}[source]▶
Please change the dropdown to say Online
18. zeroimpl ◴[14 Aug 20 23:26 UTC] No.24164474{6}[source]▶
I would prefer if businesses didn’t sell products at a loss. It just leads to dumb situations all over the place.
19. bickeringyokel ◴[23 Aug 20 17:13 UTC] No.24253402[source]▶
Stores pay a hefty sum of rent to the mall, not sure thats a reasonable comparison.