←back to thread

830 points todsacerdoti | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
pja ◴[] No.25136113[source]
I’m seeing a lot of positive comments on HN about this: to me it seems to be purely a cynical piece of PR on Apple’s part.

They hope to significantly reduce the pressure on politicians to take a close look at their App store practices by significantly reducing the absolute number of developers suffering the full impact whilst taking the minimum possible hit to their revenue. This has nothing to do with “doing the right thing” or “accelerating innovation” and everything to do with limiting the number of outraged letters to senators from devs, the number of newspaper interviews with prominent indie developers & so on.

Indie devs have an outsize PR impact relative to their revenue contribution, so buy them off with a smaller revenue tax that delivers outsize returns if it prevents the 30% house rake on the majority of Apple’s App Store income coming under scrutiny.

Apple / Google’s 30% take is the anti-competitive elephant in the room here, not a few crumbs thrown to small developers.

replies(33): >>25136142 #>>25136180 #>>25136192 #>>25136194 #>>25136229 #>>25136254 #>>25136310 #>>25136326 #>>25136369 #>>25136392 #>>25136896 #>>25136921 #>>25136932 #>>25136947 #>>25137067 #>>25137364 #>>25137458 #>>25137537 #>>25137558 #>>25137578 #>>25137627 #>>25137982 #>>25138093 #>>25138809 #>>25139232 #>>25139847 #>>25140155 #>>25140160 #>>25140313 #>>25140614 #>>25140958 #>>25141658 #>>25141813 #
danShumway ◴[] No.25137364[source]
This news doesn't mean people shouldn't continue to put pressure on Apple and legislators to address the core issue (app store competition), but it's still really good news for small developers.

It should also solidly put down all of the arguments we were seeing about whether indie devs and lawsuits putting pressure on Apple and legislators are at all worthwhile. A drop in app fees by 15% is a substantial win, and the reason that drop happened is because Apple is now scared of critics, bad PR, and how that might impact future legislation against them.

The number of hot takes I was seeing about how the Apple/Epic fight benefited literally no one and it was just two companies arguing about who got to take all the money... it's very clear from this program that the overall pressure on Apple has been making a difference.

It's not so large a difference that devs should now stop fighting for better terms, but it's positive to see Apple at least partially show signs of cracking, or at least acknowledge on some level that they're frightened about the potential outcome of this fight. And there are a lot of small devs who are going to be making a lot more money just because of this minor victory.

replies(3): >>25137969 #>>25138758 #>>25140456 #
enos_feedler ◴[] No.25138758[source]
Solidly? Not really. Still believe the Epic and Apple fight is all about Tim Sweeney being a greedy business man. Zero proof this 15% reduction has anything to do with pressure from that legal battle. Apple has made rev share changes in the past unprovoked (like 15% for sustained subs). How long do you think this change was in the works for? If this change was a response that’s great. But I would bet in that case Apple did it to take wind out of Epic’s sails around standing up for little devs. Apple just showed they cared about them in a single change. Will Epic back away now? Fat chance.
replies(4): >>25138802 #>>25138862 #>>25138997 #>>25139993 #
whywhywhywhy ◴[] No.25138997[source]
>is all about Tim Sweeney being a greedy business man

Tim Sweeney provides one of the most advanced game engine technologies in the world completely for free for all revenue under 1 million. After 1 million you pay 5% on revenue over that, if your game makes $1,200,000 you pay Tim Sweeney $10,000.

If you make 2 games and both games equally make 600K you pay Sweeney nothing.

It's definitely a business but not sure "greedy" describes this.

replies(4): >>25139115 #>>25139513 #>>25139527 #>>25139997 #
enos_feedler ◴[] No.25139513{3}[source]
The greed comes from how he puts his users and shareholders in harm’s way in an effort to reduce his bill with Apple.
replies(1): >>25139832 #
dlubarov ◴[] No.25139832{4}[source]
Tim Sweeney is Epic's majority shareholder, so if you believe his actions were harmful to shareholders, doesn't that contract your stance that he was motivated by greed?
replies(2): >>25140006 #>>25140097 #
zepto ◴[] No.25140006{5}[source]
More than 90% of Epic is owned by Sweeney and TenCent. No other shareholders are significant.

TenCent controls Epic’s access to the Chinese market.

Together, they decided to put Epic’s customers in harms way.

replies(1): >>25140125 #
enos_feedler ◴[] No.25140125{6}[source]
Agreed. But those aren’t the only shareholders. They took action that will ultimately damage the others (when this whole thing plays out). Do you think every shareholder is in agreement with this move?
replies(1): >>25140152 #
1. zepto ◴[] No.25140152{7}[source]
No, I just don’t think the potential harm to minority shareholders is a good argument for Sweeney’s greed which can be evaluated in other ways.

I don’t think Epic will prevail, but I respect the investors right to make a bet on Sweeney if they so choose. They can sell their stake if they like.

Not so the customers, who Epic could clearly have protected but chose not to for publicity reasons alone.