Apple Announces App Store Small Business Program

> 30% is a case for antitrust given how big Apple App Store today is. 15% seems reasonable, 10% would be ideal.

Not it isn't a case for anti-trust. 70/30 split whether people on here like it or not is a standard agreement for these types of business relationship.

https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut...

The judge in the case agreed.

> Judge says the 30% rate is the industry rate— references Steam, Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo have the same rate.

https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/09/28/judge-so-far-not-...

Apple are effectively an affialite for your app i.e. they drive traffic to your app through their store.

Most affiliate style relationships the affiliate will receive 30% of whatever is made. It not only these companies it in almost every industry. e.g. Gambling Affiliate deals typically have 30% of whatever the customer loses on the site.

I really do not like Apple. I don't like the app store policies. But 30% is not a case for anything.

>> 30% is a case for antitrust given how big Apple App Store today is. 15% seems reasonable, 10% would be ideal.

> Not it isn't. 70/30 split whether people on here like it or not is a standard agreement for these types of business relationship.

Huh? They didn't say "standard", they said "reasonable" and "ideal".

> Apple are effectively an affialite for your app i.e. they drive traffic to your app through their store.

The problem is that they charge that fee no matter where the customers come from, and you can't opt out either.

> Huh? They didn't say "standard", they said "reasonable" and "ideal".

I should have clarified. They was saying it (the 30%) was a case for antitrust.

> The problem is that they charge that fee no matter where the customers come from, and you can't opt out either.

Can they come from anywhere other than the actual store?

In any event that is a different issue.

Apple is not affiliate, it's a gatekeeper. Affiliate increase discovery to something that was already reachable through other means. If you already know me and trust me, you still can't install my app without paying the gatekeeping fee. Apple does play the role of a payment gateway where the standard fee is around 3%, so they definitely are entitled to that much.

This may also be applicable to Steam, Sony and others.

> Can they come from anywhere other than the actual store?

If I have a link on my site that takes a customer directly to the store page, and they buy it, then Apple did nothing at all to earn an "affiliate" level payout. They didn't drive any traffic. Or if the customer puts in the exact app name and buys it.

> In any event that is a different issue.

It's very relevant to whether 30% is reasonable. Apple acts as a legitimate affiliate some of the time, but they forcibly take that fee all of the time.

It's only standard as Apple was first through the gate with this scheme for online marketplaces. They got to copy the split from brick-and-mortar (without the accompanying costs like restocking) and everyone else followed suit.

Apple was not first through the gate. This fee structure has been in place at least since Nintendo in the 80s.

> If I have a link on my site that takes a customer directly to the store page, and they buy it, then Apple did nothing at all to earn an "affiliate" level payout. They didn't drive any traffic.

The store provides you visibility through promotion on the store page, being listed in search and taking payment for the purchase.

This would be no different than if a boxed piece of software was in a brick and mortar retailer and you told your customers you could by it at those stores.

In a brick and mortar retailer they display your product in your store and people come in, take the box and go to the checkout.

Conceptually the process is exactly the same. The only difference is that it is happening over the internet.

> Or if the customer puts in the exact app name and buys it.

The user is still using the store to buy the app. It would be no different than a boxed piece of software being on display in brick and mortar retailer. The customer may only go in there to pick up the game and nothing else. They are still buying through apple.

> It's very relevant to whether 30% is reasonable. Apple acts as a legitimate affiliate some of the time, but they forcibly take that fee all of the time.

No it isn't. You are conflating the issues of them having absolute control over the app store and whether 30% is reasonable. 30% is reasonable because that is the standard rate in most of these relationships.

If it wasn't reasonable people wouldn't publish with Steam, Gog, Nintendo (nintendo lowered the rate if you look at the IGN link to 30% to match other stores).

Also if it wasn't financially viable with the 30% fee (which has been there since 2011) then people wouldn't publish apps there.

> The store provides you visibility through promotion on the store page, being listed in search and taking payment for the purchase.

Only the first two are affiliate behavior, and they don't apply to every purchase, and you can't opt out.

> They are still buying through apple.

Right. But that's just facilitating a transaction, which is usually not a 30% cut.

> 30% is reasonable because that is the standard rate in most of these relationships.

Again, standard and reasonable are different things. And again, the problem is you can't choose the type of relationship.

> If it wasn't reasonable people wouldn't publish with Steam, Gog, Nintendo (nintendo lowered the rate if you look at the IGN link to 30% to match other stores).

People get pressured into unreasonable rates all the time...

> Also if it wasn't financially viable with the 30% fee (which has been there since 2011) then people wouldn't publish apps there.

It's always going to be viable for someone to publish. Even with a 90% fee. But surely we can agree that 90% would not be reasonable, even if it was standard?

> whether people on here like it or not is a standard agreement for these types of business relationship.

Not seeking a cut of almost every transaction going through your OS just because you built the foundations and gatekeep the door was standard too.

> Only the first two are affiliate behavior, and they don't apply to every purchase, and you can't opt out.

What is and isn't affiliate behaviour isn't important. They are acting like an affiliate I said. It is close enough.

> Right. But that's just facilitating a transaction, which is usually not a 30% cut.

Yes it is a 30% cut. We have already established it is on other stores.

> Again, standard and reasonable are different things. And again, the problem is you can't choose the type of relationship.

You can choose not to do business with Apple.

> People get pressured into unreasonable rates all the time...

These aren't unreasonable rates though. If they were unreasonable people would not publish there. End of. I don't understand how people can say something is unreasonable when there are lots of people using it and making money just fine. So for a lot of people they obviously think it is reasonable.

> Again, standard and reasonable are different things. And again, the problem is you can't choose the type of relationship.

You can. You can not deal with the app store.

> It's always going to be viable for someone to publish. Even with a 90% fee. But surely we can agree that 90% would not be reasonable, even if it was standard?

No we cannot agree. Firstly 90% is not viable to anyone, nobody would agree to that and people wouldn't publish on the app store. So to start your premise is completely absurd.

Pretend for a moment Apple did raise it tomorrow to 90% cut to them. The vast majority of would just pull their apps and Apple would have to lower the rate again. Every company chooses 30% because it is what everyone else does because it is more or less fair to both parties. Now if another player releases a new phone with a store and they have a better market rate and a decent market share then Apple will lower their rates (like Nintendo did).

> It is close enough.

It's really not. The difference is the part that actually motivates you to pay an affiliate.

> We have already established it is on other stores.

When you look at other services that are just doing payment/download, it's far cheaper than 30%.

> You can choose not to do business with Apple.

That doesn't disagree with what I said, which is that you can't choose the type of relationship with Apple.

> You can. You can not deal with the app store.

"Take it or leave it" is the opposite of choosing the type of relationship. I'm so confused by your response here.

> No we cannot agree. Firstly 90% is not viable to anyone, nobody would agree to that and people wouldn't publish on the app store. So to start your premise is completely absurd.

It's not absurd. People still made apps when the market was a lot smaller. People make apps for android. If revenue is greater than cost, then apps will get made. And a cut like that would remove a lot of competition, so the actual drop in pay wouldn't be as extreme.

But okay, what if I said 75% instead? If you get 3x the market share while getting paid 25% of gross revenue, you actually make more money than if you were paid 70% on 1x market share. So there would absolutely be viable apps for some developers. But at the same time, if Apple took a 75% cut that would be unreasonable.

> The vast majority of would just pull their apps and Apple would have to lower the rate again.

They wouldn't if Apple was really committed. The app already exists, removing it would mean less money.

> Now if another player releases a new phone with a store and they have a better market rate and a decent market share then Apple will lower their rates (like Nintendo did).

Even with a better rate, Android's app payment market is smaller. It wouldn't do enough to make the apps there significantly better, and the number of people willing to switch off iphone for the marginal difference wouldn't do anything.

> When you look at other services that are just doing payment/download, it's far cheaper than 30%.

Except if you look at the link that compares all similar stores. It is around about 30% except for EPIC. EPIC can afford such a low rate because they are flush with cash from Fortnite and Unreal Engine dominates the professional game engine market. EPIC are trying to buy their way into the market, if it works then steam and other game stores will have to lower their rates.

> It's not absurd. People still made apps when the market was a lot smaller. People make apps for android. If revenue is greater than cost, then apps will get made. And a cut like that would remove a lot of competition, so the actual drop in pay wouldn't be as extreme.

We weren't talking about market. We were talking about the revenue split.

It was never 90% rate. Apple has had the 30% rate since 2011. Npbody had a problem with the 30% rate back then. Why is it suddenly such an issue?

> But okay, what if I said 75% instead? If you get 3x the market share while getting paid 25% of gross revenue, you actually make more money than if you were paid 70% on 1x market share. So there would absolutely be viable apps for some developers. But at the same time, if Apple took a 75% cut that would be unreasonable.

If people were happy with the arrangement then it is fine. So yes. However nobody would release anything to the app store back in 2011 if it was that high (70% to apple).

> They wouldn't if Apple was really committed. The app already exists, removing it would mean less money.

If everyone did it all at the same time as a protest. Apple would have to respond and everyone certainly would.

> Even with a better rate, Android's app payment market is smaller. It wouldn't do enough to make the apps there significantly better, and the number of people willing to switch off iphone for the marginal difference wouldn't do anything.

So you are saying paying the 30% on the App store is worth it as you get a larger paying market. Which is what makes the 30% reasonable because it is worth it.

You can make transactions through the web browser. So that isn't technically true.

> Except if you look at the link that compares all similar stores. It is around about 30% except for EPIC.

Your list is companies being paid an affiliate rate. If I start linking companies that don't do affiliate stuff, they charge a lot less.

Which is to say that 30% could be a reasonable amount if you had any choice in the matter of what services you want to purchase from apple.

> It was never 90% rate. Apple has had the 30% rate since 2011.

All that matters is revenue vs. cost.

Apple's app store brings in about 80 billion a year right now.

In 2013 it was 10 billion.

People made apps in 2013, even though 70% of 10 billion is less than 10% of 80 billion.

They'd make apps for 10% of 80 billion and they'd definitely make apps for 25% of 80 billion.

> If everyone did it all at the same time as a protest. Apple would have to respond and everyone certainly would.

Everyone standing up and refusing those billions of dollars in solidarity is more outlandish than anything I've said.

> So you are saying paying the 30% on the App store is worth it as you get a larger paying market. Which is what makes the 30% reasonable because it is worth it.

It's much easier for a fee to be "worth it" than to be "reasonable".

If an airline started charging a fee of $5 for "Breathable air or whatever, screw you.", it would still be worth buying a ticket, but the fee would not be reasonable.

I said almost, not every and we both know they try their best to make it obtuse as possible to pay in a browser because your app isn't even allowed to allude to it.

My personal comparison is between the HumbleBundle store and the HumbleBundle payments widget.

The rake on the former, where HumbleBundle brings the customer? 25%

The rake on the latter, where the game dev embeds the widget on their own website & HB handles the payments infrastructure for them? 5%

For App devs able to drive customer engagement directly themselves, Apple is effectively taking an extra ~20% of profit for themselves. Apple is treating every sale as if they were the ones delivering the customer. For $1 shovelware Apps this seems fair enough. For franchises where the Dev has an already established customer base through their own marketing efforts it seems completely egregious.

The anti-competitive and illegal behavior that Apple is doing is preventing alternative app stores from being on the IPhone.

This actions prevents other app stores from undercutting apple's prices.

Epic's app store, for example, would take 12%, instead of 30%. This would help consumers if they were allowed to use it.

> Your list is companies being paid an affiliate rate. If I start linking companies that don't do affiliate stuff, they charge a lot less.

I listed like for like companies.

> In 2013 it was 10 billion.

> People made apps in 2013, even though 70% of 10 billion is less than 10% of 80 billion.

> They'd make apps for 10% of 80 billion and they'd definitely make apps for 25% of 80 billion.

I don't think you understand how percentages work. You are comparing the total amount of revenue available to the revenue share per purchase. That just isn't a valid way of comparing the two.

> Everyone standing up and refusing those billions of dollars in solidarity is more outlandish than anything I've said.

If they raised the rate soo high that it was unreasonable then yes the would be a mass exodus.

> It's much easier for a fee to be "worth it" than to be "reasonable".

Now you are just playing semantics. I think we will leave this here.

That all might be all true. But people willingly sign up to it.

> The anti-competitive and illegal behavior that Apple is doing is preventing alternative app stores from being on the IPhone.

And that has nothing to do with the revenue share.

> This actions prevents other app stores from undercutting apple's prices.

Sure. But it doesn't mean the revenue share they currently have is unfair.

Other companies have a similar revenue share on their platforms on open platforms. So that suggests to me that it is fair.

> Epic's app store, for example, would take 12%, instead of 30%. This would help consumers if they were allowed to use it.

Would it? It will help developers but it wouldn't necessarily reduce the prices for the games because the market price for a AAA game is still what £50? The devs would make more money per unit sold I would suspect.

> doesn't mean the revenue share they currently have is unfair.

Sure it does. That is because competition is being prevented.

> Other companies have a similar revenue share

Except for epic! They charge 12%. So that is one specific example right there, that would reduce the fee below the current fee that Apple charges.

All I need is a singular example to prove my point. And we have that example. Epic's app store is being prevented, and they charge less money.

> It will help developers but it wouldn't necessarily reduce the prices

Even if you are willing to ignore basic economic theory completely by saying it would have no effect on price, giving more money to developers indirectly helps consumers even if prices stay exactly the same.

It helps them because more resources can be spent on the game to make it better.

And to go even further, even if such benefits don't exist, it is still better to give the money to the people who made the game, who I think deserve that money more than Apple.

> Sure it does. That is because competition is being prevented.

No it doesn't. The 30/70 split for revenue share is a standard thing across industries. This includes other industries that aren't related to IT at all.

> Except for epic! They charge 12%. So that is one specific example right there, that would reduce the fee below the current fee that Apple charges.

Epic are trying to buy their way into the market. They are flush with cash from fortnite and unreal engine. Once they wedge themselves in it will raise their take I would wager.

Every other player is at 30%. Nintendo have lowered it to 30% to be inline with others.

Every brainlet brings up EPIC as a gotcha, ignoring the fact that EPIC are buying their way into the market. Which is very important thing to consider.

> All I need is a singular example to prove my point. And we have that example. Epic's app store is being prevented, and they charge less money.

A singular example where a company is buying it way into the market is not representative of the whole. There were banks that had interest rates of 16% back in the 1970s. That doesn't mean that the other banks should have offered that or that it is fair (those banks with high interests rates would always collapse).

So no that isn't true.

> Even if you are willing to ignore basic economic theory completely by saying it would have no effect on price, giving more money to developers indirectly helps consumers even if prices stay exactly the same.

I am not ignoring basic economic theory. You are. If people buy a triple A game for £50 or £60 in the sufficient numbers then the prices won't be lowered.

As for developers getting more money helps consumer. Absolute nonsense. The company will pocket the cash. You are living in fantasy land if you think anything else.

> It helps them because more resources can be spent on the game to make it better.

That is good for developers by not necessarily for consumers. And no it won't be spent on making the game better.

> And to go even further, even if such benefits don't exist, it is still better to give the money to the people who made the game, who I think deserve that money more than Apple.

Apple deserve the money because the devs agreed to put their software on their store and the stipulation (until now) is that Apple got 30% of the purchase.

> Epic are trying to buy their way into the market.

So then you agree that what they offer is cheaper, and that this cheaper option is being prevent by Apple. Cool. Glad you agree!

> ignoring the fact that EPIC are buying their way into the market. Which is very important thing to consider.

Cheaper is cheaper. Thats all that I care about. I care about the end result of lower fees.

> it is not representative of the whole.

It is representative of Apple actions unfairly causing prices to be higher for this specific competitor is being kept out though!

All I need is a single example, to show that Apple's actions have prevented a lower priced option from competing.

> Once they wedge themselves in it will raise their take I would wager.

Even so, that still means that prices are lower for this previous period of time! Thats still lower pricing, for a period of time.

> The company will pocket the cash. You are living in fantasy land if you think anything else.

Even if we agree that this is the case, I would still prefer this to Apple receiving any of the money.

I would still rather the game companies receive all of the money, even if they pocketed it, because I want more money to go to game devs, and less to go to Apple.

> Apple deserve the money because the devs agreed to put their software on their store

Nope! Because their actions are illegally anti-competitive, and Apple has significant market power.

Regardless if game devs agreed to the contract, the contract can still be illegally anti-competitive. And the law can be used against Apple on that.

And even further more, I still want any and all actions to be taken, through whatever means possible, whether they be through the existing laws/court system, or that is through changing the law to retroactively target Apple and its employees, or if it through game devs working together to oppose apple, so as to make the game companies get more of the money, and for Apple to receive less of it, no matter how it happens.

> So then you agree that what they offer is cheaper, and that this cheaper option is being prevent by Apple. Cool. Glad you agree!

Nope. Not at all. It isn't cheaper to the consumer. You keep on conflating revenue share between who owns the store and the dev, with the amount the customer pays at the checkout.

> Cheaper is cheaper. Thats all that I care about. I care about the end result of lower fees.

That won't be the end result as I have already explained.

> It is representative of Apple actions unfairly causing prices to be higher for this specific competitor is being kept out though!

No it isn't. Prices aren't higher. You keep on conflating the price to the end user with the revenue share. They are not the same thing.

Even on revenue split everyone except for EPIC (which are buying their way in) are about the same in their respective stores.

> All I need is a single example, to show that Apple's actions have prevented a lower priced option from competing.

You are the not the arbiter of what is a valid example. I've already explained why in a previous comment why one example isn't representative of a whole, you chose to ignore it. That is on you and not I.

> Nope! Because their actions are illegally anti-competitive, and Apple has significant market power.

If* it is proven so in court than I may agree with you. IIRC the case is still ongoing. Your opinion isn't a fact. Google have significant market power, Steam has it, Microsoft has it (to a lesser extent). You keep on pretending that there is only one phone manufacturer on the market. All of this is nonsense.

> Regardless if game devs agreed to the contract, the contract can still be illegally anti-competitive. And the law can be used against Apple on that.

We will see if that is the case in court.

> And even further more, I still want any and all actions to be taken, through whatever means possible, whether they be through the existing laws/court system, or that is through changing the law to retroactively target Apple and its employees, or if it through game devs working together to oppose apple, so as to make the game companies get more of the money, and for Apple to receive less of it, no matter how it happens.

You want the market to be legislated because you don't like Apple. How foolish.

If people argued from the fact that there should be able to sideload applications. Then I maybe inclined to agree with you.

I suspect the conversation from here on out will be a waste of time because you keep on selectively ignoring caveats to your arguments.

> You keep on conflating the price to the end user with the revenue share.

So then the game devs get more revenue share for the specific example of the Epic Game store. Great. Glad you agree.

> everyone except for EPIC

So epic gives a larger revenue share to game devs. Great. And Apple's actions are preventing this revenue share increase to game developers, for that game store, at the very least.

> You are the not the arbiter of what is a valid example.

What? Even you agree that epic is giving game developers a large revenue share. That is an example right there, that exists.

> isn't representative of a whole

Its representative of at least one example though! So that means that Apple is preventing at least 1 competing app store that would have a better revenue share, for game developers. That single example, is an example of harm done to game developers.

> If* it is proven so in court than I may agree with you.

So then your previous statement about who "deserves" the money could be invalid.

> You keep on pretending that there is only one phone manufacturer

Anti-competitive practices do not require a literal singular monopoly, for them to be illegal. Instead, all that is required is them having significant market power. Which Apple clearly has.

> Your opinion isn't a fact.

Ok, then your opinion, of Apple "deserving" anything is also not a fact, because the court case could prove that the actions are anti-competitive.

You cannot at all say that Apple "deserves" this money, if the courts prove their actions to be anti-competitive.

> You want the market to be legislated because you don't like Apple.

No, it is because philosophically I want game devs to get more of the revenue split. Why? Because they developed the game.

> If people argued from the fact that there should be able to sideload applications.

What? Thats basically what this is about. Allowing other competing app stores on the platform.

> So then the game devs get more revenue share for the specific example of the Epic Game store. Great. Glad you agree.

No I don't. How disingenous. The claim was that it would reduce the cost. There is no guarantee this will happen.

> So epic gives a larger revenue share to game devs. Great. And Apple's actions are preventing this revenue share increase to game developers, for that game store, at the very least.

At the moment they do. But they won't in the future. You need to actually see EPIC's stance on this. If you read some of the interviews of the guy that runs it (I can't remember his name now) you would come to the same conclusion as I have.

All you are doing is thinking short term. I am thinking long term. So in the long-term there it won't benefit anyone except for EPIC.

> Its representative of at least one example though! So that means that Apple is preventing at least 1 competing app store that would have a better revenue share, for game developers.

You keep on reframing (dishonestly) the subject. When I originally replied to this thread I was specifically debunking the 30/70 split as being unreasonable as it simply isn't true as it something that exists outside of the IT industry. It just a split that people over the course of time have decided is reasonable. Maybe it is vestigial remnant of the past, but it is still seen as reasonable in similar types of relationships. To say otherwise (despite your protests) is a nonsense.

Also EPIC are buying their way in. They won't be able to keep it up forever (sooner or later people will stop buying skins on fortnite). Which means they will have to up their take at some point. If you don't think this will happen you are simply foolish.

> That single example, is an example of harm done to game developers.

The way the term harm is used these days is disgraceful.

> So then your previous statement about who "deserves" the money could be invalid.

No. The operative word in there is if.

> Anti-competitive practices do not require a literal singular monopoly, for them to be illegal. Instead, all that is required is them having significant market power. Which Apple clearly has.

That hasn't been decided by anyone. So you cannot claim that.

>Ok, then your opinion, of Apple "deserving" anything is also not a fact, because the court case could prove that the actions are anti-competitive.

Because something can be decided in the future doesn't mean it can be considered anti-competitive. This is a nonsense.

> You cannot at all say that Apple "deserves" this money, if the courts prove their actions to be anti-competitive.

Yes I can. If you want to be on the App Store, the agreement until recently was that it is a 30/70 split. That was the agreement between them and the app publisher. They are owed that money because that was what was in the agreement.

> No, it is because philosophically I want game devs to get more of the revenue split. Why? Because they developed the game.

I doubt that is the case. You wouldn't be supporting EPIC if that was the case. EPIC want a sea of launchers and return us to the days of game publishers which Steam btw broke that bullshit (for PC at least).

> What? Thats basically what this is about. Allowing other competing app stores on the platform.

No it isn't. It is about one large company EPIC trying to force another large company's hand (Apple) and trying to convince you that it is for your benefit. Both companies are doing PR and you are stupid enough to fall for the BS.

If EPIC wins. Do you know what will happen? There will be two dominate app stores. One owned by EPIC where 99% of the money taken through it will be for fortnite skins the Apple one. There will be others and nobody will use them because most normies will just use whatever is already on the phone. Independent devs will still get most of their revenue from Apple's store and nothing will change for them.

The only people that is likely to get any benefit out of this if they win is EPIC and it won't be the indie dev hacker. You are foolish to think otherwise.

Anyway this deffo will be last reply to you are you seem to be disingenous.

> No I don't. How disingenous. The claim was that it would reduce the cost.

But you agree that it would increase the developer split. Thats good enough for me. Glad you agree that it would increase the developer revenue split.

> At the moment they do.

Ok, and it is still a good thing, that in the moment, for a certain period of time, that developers would get a better revenue split. Thats still good.

> it won't benefit anyone except for EPIC.

I would still rather that a game developer get more of the money that their game makes. Thats still good.

> Also EPIC are buying their way in.

Ok. Even so. That means that in the mean time, developers could benefit from Epic buying their way in. Thats still good.

> That was the agreement between them and the app publisher.

But the agreement could be illegally anti-competitive. Therefore your argument would not be valid in that case.

> They are owed that money

You have no basis for claiming this to be the case, because the lawsuit could still find the arrangement to be illegal, and also the law could be changed later.

> . EPIC want a sea of launchers

If a game company wants to have their own launcher, that should be their right to do so. I would be happy that they get a larger cut, from having their own launcher.

> It is about one large company EPIC trying to force another large company's hand

The precendent that is set would allow other app stores to be on the IPhone as well. Even if you think Epic is doing it for its own benefits, the precent set would allow other game developers or app stores, to be on the IPhone. That helps those groups.

> There will be two dominate app stores.

I still prefer 2 app stores to 1 app store. Also, it would allow a 3rd and 4th or 4th app store to be in the Iphone, if anyone wanted to do that.

> it won't be the indie dev hacker

Well, it would help any indie dev hacker that is now allowed to be on the IPhone, without being forced to go through apple. Those people would benefit.

I really shouldn't reply but I really can't leave this unaddressed.

> But you agree that it would increase the developer split. Thats good enough for me. Glad you agree that it would increase the developer revenue split.

I never agreed. Please don't put words into my mouth. It is soo disingenous. I haven't done it to you so don't do it to me.

As for the rest of the points. You aren't accepting the reality of the situation. It will benefit nobody other than EPIC which have a money printer called fortnite. EPIC doesn't care about other developers it cares about itself,. Nobody will benefit from this in the long run other than EPIC and the other huge companies. But you keep on talking about the theorectical benefits, it is the same sort of mental masturbation that GPL zealots engage it. It is mostly pointless and doesn't address reality.

Also your concern trolling for the devs is cute. I imagine the vast number of developers are fine with the current revenue splits on storesm, unless you prove otherwise all you are doing is concern trolling to avoid the real issue.

As for future court rulings about "anti-competitive" practices. We will see. You and I don't know what will happen.

The 70/30 split which I was originally replying to is not anti-competitive or unfair. It is a normaly split and I will keep on re-iterating this because people on here because they are ignorant think it is unfair when it is perfectly normal.

As for app stores. More app stores won't benefit the consumer or the developers in the long run as I don't think the vast majority of Apple users will use anything other than the official App Store. You can claim theorectically it will be better but in practice that won't be the case. It will be a pyrrhic victory at best.

> Nobody will benefit from this in the long run

Even if you think it is only a short term benefit, that is still a good thing that the benefit would exist in the short term. Great. Glad you agree that there would be at the very least, a short term benefit.

> More app stores won't benefit the consumer or the developers in the long run

Even a short term benefit is still a benefit and is still a very good thing! Glad you agree that there is a short term benefit.

> Glad you agree that there would be at the very least, a short term benefit.

Never agreed. You are obviously trolling. Goodbye.

> Never agreed.

You agreed that "EPIC is buying their way in" to the market.

Buying their way into the market helps developers in the short term at the very least, which is a good thing.

So you agree that they were "buying their way in" to the market, in the short term. Great! Glad you think that.

This results in developers getting more money, in the short term, at the very least.