
Apple says Epic is ‘putting the entire App Store model at risk’ - screpy
https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/21/21377660/apple-fortnite-epic-antitrust-lawsuit-in-app-purchases-special-deal
======
dang
The underlying story (Apple's response to Epic's lawsuit) was discussed
yesterday:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24238096](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24238096).

------
allears
If some other business is "putting your business model at risk," isn't that
called competition? Since when is Apple's business model sacred? I don't think
Sweeney is some kind of good guy, butI know for sure Apple is a predatory
bully who would love to own the world, just like some other giant tech
companies we could all name.

~~~
manquer
Well Apple is not saying it is putting their business model at risk ( it does
and it should) they are saying their philosophy to user security is at risk .
i.e. if Epic wins in court apple has a tough choice, either reduce their own
rates substantially and / or allow alternative stores .

For all apple's flaws, having single app store is better for user security as
you know who to trust, it also gives conveniently makes Apple monopoly that
they exploit to make 50B+ a year.

The question is will Apple sacrifice revenu for user security or is security
and privacy are only there when it makes Apple money.

~~~
jtdev
I don’t want .msi like installers for iOS apps scattered across the web... I
know this is an unpopular opinion among techies, but I quite like the garden
that Apple has walled off.

~~~
manquer
The problem here is not the walling itself , it is lack of regulations over
what they can, they cannot do. Which allows walled gardens to kick out apps
they don't like, impose all sorts of rules, and charge outrageously

Developers associate the freedom of open standards and protocol to these
abuses. In the early GNU years, the same philosophy applied to source
availability. Closed source does make similar abuse fare more easier.

Abuses can be prevented with well built regulation. Developers do not like to
get into governance and policy so they want to solve it technically, Open
Source or open protocols and standards etc, sometimes that opens up avenues
vulnerabilities in design, which devs generally are tech savy enough to be
immune to and come up with even more tech like https, adblockers hardware keys
etc.

This cat and mouse game leaves rest of the population far behind and
vulnerable, sometimes you just have to do governance than look for pure tech
solutions.

------
bohuim
I literally use Apple devices for everything except my gaming desktop, but I
can't defend for Apple in this case, and for the game streaming block.

It's like if Apple built houses, it would make no sense for them to force
house owners to only buy furniture/services from Apple verified entities and
take 30% of the cut. The most it should be able to do is just provide a list
of services it thinks are safe to use.

I would ask why can't Apple just allow other app stores, and just say any apps
not from "the" app store may not be secure. But ultimately it's probably just
because Apple doesn't want to let go of the ridiculous 30% cut, since if other
app stores had a lower cut, why would developers release on the official app
store.

~~~
solipsism
Google does exactly that for Android. You can sideload anything you want.
Doesn't get them any sympathy around here, though.

------
altdatathrow
Why can I order takeout though restaurant apps on my iphone and Apple doesn’t
take a cut? Does the 30% only apply to digital goods/services that can be
delivered or accessed through device?

~~~
JMTQp8lwXL
Perhaps apps could actually ship you something IRL, and give the digital item
away 'for free'.

Example: Wordpress sends you a letter with an activation code. Then it's a
physical good you're paying for.

Kind of like how people sell coupons on eBay, but you aren't paying for the
coupon, but for the lister's time/effort to list it.

Apple's fee is draconian and people are happy to manage these things via plain
web applications. There is nothing special about apps. If anything, with all
the extra special access they get (contacts, camera, gyroscope) they're a
liability.

~~~
threatofrain
People could also simply signup over the web and login through iOS. Far less
hassle than physically shipping people digital goods.

~~~
JMTQp8lwXL
Apple is not letting apps do that anymore. You can have payment through your
web app, but you must also permit payment via the iOS app, where Apple gets
30%.

~~~
threatofrain
Apple requires that apps provide a way to signup, but Apple has no say over
whether you already have a paying account with Microsoft. Apple wouldn't even
know.

I'm okay with Apple's vision of intermediating my digital relationships with
regards to the iOS platform, most especially for summarizing all ongoing app
subscriptions.

~~~
aetherson
"Requires a way to sign up" undersells this. This forces apps like Hey to use
the app store payment system even when they want to have their users do
payment entirely outside the app store and download the app afterward.

~~~
threatofrain
And there's nothing stopping you from having a paying account with Hey where
you didn't signup via the Apple platform. Hey is also free to charge some
customers more than others. Customers get to choose whether they want Apple to
intermediate financial relationships that ultimately involves a digital good
being supported by the iOS platform.

Where there was one choice now there are two — the choice to deal directly
with Hey or to have Apple intermediate.

------
ArkVark
I'm a developer who sells on Steam. With a 12% commission instead of 30%, my
actual profits would be about 50% higher and I would invest more money into
post-release updates and support, and pay my staff bonuses.

People are generally supportive of gamedev workers getting better deals and
paid more - let me tell you the quickest way that could happen is if all these
platform commissions were lowered.

~~~
je42
If you sell on steam you could also, not sell there and sell directly to you
customers, right ?

Could you host your own webstore and implement a cheap key system. That way
you need to a lot less for the transactions.

~~~
ArkVark
There are many things you can do like that - that basically just represent
increased overhead and non-game activities.

If you follow all of that logically enough - you start to wonder, why even
work in game development?

Indie development right now is basically a mirage, because the only people
making sustainably good profits are those with access to lower commissions by
owning their own platforms or by getting better deals from platform owners due
to their size. There is a huge survivor bias.

I am only still operational because I am in Ukraine. It would be impossible in
a 1st world country.

~~~
solipsism
> the only people making sustainably good profits are those with access to
> lower commissions by owning their own platforms

What are some examples of this? What do you mean by "platform"?

~~~
ArkVark
Ubisoft - Blizzard - Valve - CDPR - Microsoft - Sony - EA - Paradox

All publish their own games and either own their own platforms or are big
enough to negotiate lower commissions from other platforms.

------
Udik
I have been thinking lately that the app stores, the food delivery apps and
others, are reproducing on a b2b scale what happened with the industrial
revolution, when factory owners became effectively monopolists of the job
market and, in a framework without rules, forced everyone to work on the terms
most profitable to them.

Perhaps then what we miss now is the possibility to unionize businesses with
respect to the tech/ internet giants. Form providers unions (e.g. restaurants,
app developers, etc.). Force every single web or internet store to provide a
switch to allow each provider to stop and restart their sales/ deliveries at
will and display messages explaining why. Organise coordinated strikes in
which those businesses halt their sales en masse until their demands have been
met.

~~~
solipsism
Good luck picketing, pressuring scabs, leveraging local politics. I'm not
convinced this model could possibly work at the global scale.

~~~
Udik
True, it's not the same as masses of workers picketing factories. Not
everything transfers from one case to the other. But the fact is that today
app developers, or restaurants, are as fungible as factory workers used to be
in the nineteenth century. Don't like the pay and the hours? F.. off then,
there's the queue at the gates of the factory of people trying to be hired for
the day. You can look for a job somewhere else (I'm sorry if the factories are
all mine here).

Granted, it might not work. But it could be tried, and it would need to be
enforced by regulation as workers right were. Where's the right to strike and
to let the reasons for the strike be known, in these environments? Can I force
Apple to stop and restart the sales of my app at will, without consequences?
Can I inform my customers of the reasons I did it? Can the restaurants of a
city organize and stop deliveries in a coordinated way for a week?

------
drivingmenuts
I would definitely like to see other App Stores, so that the low-dollar,
shifty shovelware apps get moved out of the Apple App Store. It would allow
Apple to focus on the true nest-in-class apps that follow the design cues and
security guidelines to make usable, truly secure apps on their platform.

They could market it as Trusted by Apple and if you’re not in the Apple App
Store, you don’t get that mark. Heck, make it such that software not from the
Apple store doesn’t get the digital signature that allows apps to start up
with one touch. Require user consent before starting a non-approved app.

~~~
scarface74
I would absolutely love to see this. All ad supported games and games with in
app consumables get kicked off the App Store and are forced to use a
ghettoized third party store. The only games allowed on the App Store are pay
up front and demos with a one time fee to unlock all content like Nintendo’s
games.

Then charge 10% for all the apps that are on the App Store at most.

------
compsciphd
I wonder if apple could have their cake and eat it too.

i.e. if you don't want to pay their normal rates, you can get lower rates, but
you are not discoverable in the app store. i.e. you are in the app store,
there is a way for companies to directly link to it, and open in store (or
perhaps itunes, and perhaps only itunes if apple really wants to make it
difficult). So you lose all the advertising value of the app store, but you
get to pay apple lower rates.

For companies like Epic with fortnite, perhaps that would be a reasonable
tradeoff, but I'd imagine its not a tradeoff most app makers would be willing
to make.

I wonder how much revenue apple would lose from apps that are willing to opt
out of discoverability.

------
neximo64
Finally, it's only 'at risk' of Apple putting some more effort into the poor
experience that it is so far to get an app and ability to explore and find
apps that aren't in the top 200.

------
IdontRememberIt
Are companies allowed to have openly written the "Apple fee" in the
description? App price: 10$, Apple Fee:3$: Total: 13$

------
throwbackThurs
My main gripe with apple is their tactics around subscription fees.

You can't direct your customers to sign-up via your website, circumventing
apple to receive a 30% discount. Ultimately the customer suffers. They should
have consumer awareness and choice, it's their right.

Then they give Netflix special sweetheart treatment, why?

I find these examples both deceptive and anti-competitive.

~~~
scarface74
Every company gives better deals to large companies than consumers. This is no
different than any other industry. A starving singer discovered at a night
club is not going to get the same deal from a label as Beyonce or Taylor
Swift.

------
t0mmyb0y
Just commenting on the title. Good for them.

------
maydemir
Apple has some rules. Epic Games has accepted this. Now, when Epic suddenly
makes an illegal move, it is very normal to remove it from the AppStore.

If Apple accepts this, it has to apply it for all apps. This means a very
serious loss of income.

So I mean, I know Apple charges a lot of commission. But Apple has to apply
his own rules too.

~~~
throwaway189262
Because 30% is an extraordinary amount of money. Apple is user-hostile on this
too, not sure why their users would ever defend it. Think of it this way,
every time you buy something on the store you're paying 30% of your money to
Apple. You're paying 30% of your money to Apple for the right to install the
app on your phone

You are allowed to charge more to make up for the fees. But you cannot tell
your users this. If you say "sign up on our website to save" you will be
banned from the store. Tons of people pay 30% more for subscriptions because
they bought them through apple store.

I'm tired of all the locked down bullshit and you should be too. It's my
device, I should be able to install whatever I want

~~~
hprotagonist
no one bitches when it’s sony or microsoft charging 30%, which xbox and
playstation certainly do for IAPs.

~~~
manquer
It not the starting of price of 30%, the problem is Apple will not adjust it
one bit for anybody[1]. Microsoft or Sony will happily negotiate with AAA
developer, none of the top devs will pay close to 30%.

You think Naughty Dog or Bethesda will pay 30% _and also_ do exclusive
releases etc? Sometimes MS or Sony will even pay developers to support their
platform, there is always room to negotiate unlike Apple.

[1] Streaming services being the exception in virtual goods, if Apple charges
Hulu or Prime 30%, the studios which also license content to Apple TV will not
be happy. It could get Apple TV locked out or deals will become expensive.

Back catalogue is really, really valuable in Music and TV, Michael Jackson
ownership of ATV is famous example of this Syndication and streaming now is
where the money is Apple cannot afford to antagonize the content industry .

~~~
scarface74
Sure. Apple negotiates with indy game developers all of the time for exclusive
releases via Apple Arcade and they pay them an up front fee.

 _Streaming services being the exception in virtual goods, if Apple charges
Hulu or Prime 30%, the studios which also license content to Apple TV will not
be happy. It could get Apple TV locked out or deals will become expensive._

One has nothing to do with the other. The studios deal with Apple TV because
Apple gives them a boatload of money to produce shows for AppleTV. The studios
also license content to be sold via iTunes. This was the case before the
iPhone was released.

Apple doesn’t pay for syndication rights for older TV shows but for one or two
exceptions.

No third party is counting on syndication. Not Netflix or Apple. All of the
studios are taking their ball and going home. That’s why there is such a push
for original content.

~~~
manquer
Apple Arcade explicitly forbids _any_ in-purchases or ads. So not sure if we
can compare a subscription service to a marketplace like App Store.

In Arcade of course Apple is paying money _now_ to get enough content on the
platform to make subscribers come, same MS did with Windows phone etc. Market
place always need boosting either on supply or demand side to get started, it
is unlikely Apple or anyone else starting a market place will _continue_ to
pay once the market is large enough.

Xbox/ PS keep paying since they know that marquee games are reason many times
one the console is bought. For android and iOS market to be considered as one
market there should be that level of competition at least.

While streaming has reduced privacy to large extent, the streaming business
model whether subscription or micro-purchases (rent/ buy or song / album etc)
have been always a threat to studios. Everyone is rushing to do original
content yes , Netflix, Prime and Apple are already able to produce similar
quantity and quality to studio in new content or will soon enough, however
streaming companies cannot compete with the back catalogue for next 20-30
years.

Disney+ and is pulling out of other streaming services today. 5 years from
now, Netflix may be ready to multiples than they were paying, just for non
exclusive access to that back catalogue of Disney.

Disney will not care whether Prime or Netflix is also showing older disney
back catalogues as long they have enough people paying for disney+ , where
newer and some exclusive content is available. Their ownership of Disney+
means they can always negotiate from a position of strength. Studios are
distribution companies first, content producers second. If you control
distribution you control the price.

While the studios are taking the ball home today, I am not sure they will not
be back later . I am not saying any of this why Apple is why they charge
differently for streaming, just that the industry is in flux currently.

P.S. Had Jobs been alive, things would have turned out differently, I think
Apple would have likely acquired Disney, it is a good fit, Jobs owned
substantial stake in both.

~~~
scarface74
_Apple Arcade explicitly forbids any in-purchases or ads. So not sure if we
can compare a subscription service to a marketplace like App Store._

This is a good thing. I hope Apple Arcade completely turns people against
games with in app purchases and ads. Just like Netflix has turned people
against ads and encouraged people to pay for content. This may also make room
for non slimy indy developers.

 _it is unlikely Apple or anyone else starting a market place will continue to
pay once the market is large enough_

If the market grows large enough that developers can convince people to pay
for content one time and no ads or in game purchases - that sounds like a win.

------
anupamchugh
I just read the barrage of email exchanges between Epic Games CEO and Apple
before the incident took place. It's clear that Sweeney was acting as a self-
entitled guy--asking for an under the table deal in a rather immature way.
Apple's strong response to the lawsuit by putting out the facts only goes on
to show how Epic Games' PR stunt was a lame effort. It'll hurt them in the
long run. I'm on Apple's side.

~~~
jsnell
Those emails were purely grandstanding on both sides. Neither side was trying
to convince the other. Epic knew that Apple would drop them from the store,
Apple knew that Epic would try to get dropped and then sue. The real audience
was the public.

~~~
anupamchugh
True. In hindsight, Apple played a smart move by letting the legal team
respond to Sweeney's emails. They perhaps saw this coming from a mile.

