Press F for Fortnite - Apple AND GOOGLE remove Fortnite from the App Store - Epic Sues Apple

[mr moose]

11 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

 

I don't see your issue with the 30%, it's not outlandish, it's about industry standard and far better than places like Twitch or YouTube which take 50 and 45%. 

 

I don't see why you can't grasp that when people are talking about the 30% they are only talking about it applying to transactions for content that apple have not created, hosted, sold, is unavoidable (no other market) and is post sale of the device/app.  

 

You can only compare that 30% to youtube if youtube are preventing that creator from using another service like patreon (financial payment system outside of youtube), twitch (allows financial payments outside of twitch) or vimeo (not sure but seeing as you can post petreon content their it is also flexible).    So no, when apple don't permit you to use external payment systems and the others do you cannot compare them.

 

 

 

 

 

[Lord Vile]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

I don't see why you can't grasp that when people are talking about the 30% they are only talking about it applying to transactions for content that apple have not created, hosted, sold, is unavoidable (no other market) and is post sale of the device/app.  

 

You can only compare that 30% to youtube if youtube are preventing that creator from using another service like patreon (financial payment system outside of youtube), twitch (allows financial payments outside of twitch) or vimeo (not sure but seeing as you can post petreon content their it is also flexible).    So no, when apple don't permit you to use external payment systems and the others do you cannot compare them.

 

 

 

 

 

Play store does it too? They’re allowing you access to their platform which costs money to run. Unless you think servers run on hopes and dreams. And with most of the apps running off ads which Apple doesn’t take a few from and are free to download they make money off of literally nothing else on the App Store. 
 

You could apply Patreon to devs on the App Store too... nothing’s stopping a decent going to patreon and giving out free in game items to people who donate. BTW they also take a cut of 5% plus VAT plus another 5% + $0.1 on every transaction.  for Also nothing is stopping devs putting software on other platforms which would be both of your points countered. 
 

^ says I can. 

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

Play store does it too? 
 

Oh well that makes it alright then .  As I said, compare like for like, not like against something different.

 

Quote

You could apply Patreon to devs on the App Store too... nothing’s stopping a decent going to patreon and giving out free in game items to people who donate. BTW they also take a cut of 5% plus VAT plus another 5% + $0.1 on every transaction.  for Also nothing is stopping devs putting software on other platforms which would be both of your points countered. 
 

^ says I can. 

So patreon only take 5% while apple take 30% and you think this is an argument validating it being a standard cut? EDIT: not to mention patreon is optional, unlike the apple tax for in-apps...

 

I'd like to see any ios app adopt a patreon like system that apple wouldn't shut down.

[Lord Vile]

Just now, mr moose said:

Oh well that makes it alright then .  As I said, compare like for like, not like against something different.

Sony’s store is 30%. Steam is around the same. 30% is about the going rate. 

Just now, mr moose said:

 

So patreon only take 5% while apple take 30% and you think this is an argument validating it being a standard cut?

Well patreon actually do nothing except act as a transfer between PayPal and the user base. They might run a couple of server. They’re also charging 5% at both ends, VAT on one and adding $0.1 a transaction onto the charge so it works out a fair bit higher than 5%
 

Just now, mr moose said:

 

I'd like to see any ios app adopt a patreon like system that apple wouldn't shut down.

It’s not against TOS to have a patreon afaik

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Sony’s store is 30%. Steam is around the same. 30% is about the going rate. 

Well patreon actually do nothing except act as a transfer between PayPal and the user base. They might run a couple of server. They’re also charging 5% at both ends, VAT on one and adding $0.1 a transaction onto the charge so it works out a fair bit higher than 5%
 

It’s not against TOS to have a patreon afaik

You are still missing the point (intentionally I might add), you tried to compare the in-app 30% charge to youtube.  The difference is you can't avoid the 30% charge from apple but you can use 3rd party transaction service in youtube.  (also it costs nothing to use youtube and sell your wares from your own store, or use an third party store like bandcamp or bigcartell etc.)

 

In app transactions are nothing more than a transaction, why are you still pretending they warrant 30% when the industry standard for a transaction fee is on average 2%?

 

You are being very dishonest with your arguments. comparing things that aren't comparable and ignoring very important conditions.

 

I have said multiple times in this thread (and the other two threads), any service that does NOT offer an alternative method of payment and charges higher than normal fees for a simple transaction is bad.  So far instead of rebutting this fact you have just continued to say the same thing over and over. 

 

 

 

[Kisai]

50 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Sony’s store is 30%. Steam is around the same. 30% is about the going rate. 

Well patreon actually do nothing except act as a transfer between PayPal and the user base. They might run a couple of server. They’re also charging 5% at both ends, VAT on one and adding $0.1 a transaction onto the charge so it works out a fair bit higher than 5%
 

It’s not against TOS to have a patreon afaik

The argument you are looking for is "Patreon is not a store, it's a subscription"

[mr moose]

23 minutes ago, Kisai said:

The argument you are looking for is "Patreon is not a store, it's a subscription"

It's not a subscription, its a payment service.  It effectively gives content creators (of any ilk) the ability to sell their product independently. It provides a transaction service and subscription service with business tools for 5% per transaction.  

 

 

 

 

[Kisai]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It's not a subscription, its a payment service.  It effectively gives content creators (of any ilk) the ability to sell their product independently. It provides a transaction service and subscription service with business tools for 5% per transaction.  

 

 

 

 

No, it isn't. You're charged $x/mo or $x/per update, and you can select whatever tier you want. There is no tracking of any sales, and if you decide to cancel your subscription, you lose 100% access to everything.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/19/18272636/patreon-service-tiers-lite-pro-premium-jack-conte-

platform-sustainable

Just FYI, everyone hates Patreon because they increasingly try to erode the creators rights while paying them less.

Quote

That might mean a price increase for many new users. Patreon Lite takes the same financial cut as Patreon’s existing service:

a flat 5 percent fee, plus the cost of payment processing.

 

Pro and Premium are more expensive:

Pro has an 8 percent commission, and

Premium has a 12 percent one, with a minimum fee of $300 per month.

 

Importantly, however, these changes don’t apply to existing users. People who started using Patreon before the split — a group Patreon refers to as “founding creators” — will be automatically enrolled in Pro at their old 5 percent rate. They also won’t be affected by a new way of calculating payment processing fees, although they can choose to opt into that system.

So it's 5% PLUS the cost of processing. So offering $1 tiers nets you pretty much nothing since you lose like %40 of it. 

 

There is nothing you can buy on Patreon, so it's not a store.

 

 

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Kisai said:

No, it isn't. You're charged $x/mo or $x/per update, and you can select whatever tier you want. There is no tracking of any sales, and if you decide to cancel your subscription, you lose 100% access to everything.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/19/18272636/patreon-service-tiers-lite-pro-premium-jack-conte-

platform-sustainable

Just FYI, everyone hates Patreon because they increasingly try to erode the creators rights while paying them less.

So it's 5% PLUS the cost of processing. So offering $1 tiers nets you pretty much nothing since you lose like %40 of it. 

 

There is nothing you can buy on Patreon, so it's not a store.

 

 

tell yourself whatever you want, its not a subscription and their fees are superior to apples especially given the service they provide. 

 

 

 

 

[Kisai]

13 minutes ago, mr moose said:

tell yourself whatever you want, its not a subscription and their fees are superior to apples especially given the service they provide. 

 

 

 

 

That 12% fee is MORE than the epic store. Because that's 12% + payment processing.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Kisai said:

That 12% fee is MORE than the epic store. Because that's 12% + payment processing.

I see you conveniently ignored that is was a comparison to apples 30% for little more than hosting a simple transaction.  

[Kisai]

Just now, mr moose said:

I see you conveniently ignored that is was a comparison to apples 30% for little more than hosting a simple transaction.  

It's very close to Apple's 15% for subscriptions, so think about it. 12%+ the 2.9 to 3.9% processing fee + 30 cents per transaction. If you want to make an argument for Apple charging too much you can't compare different services as though they were the same, seeing how much you were arguing that IAP shouldn't be 30% before.

 

[mr moose]

Just now, Kisai said:

It's very close to Apple's 15% for subscriptions, so think about it. 12%+ the 2.9 to 3.9% processing fee + 30 cents per transaction. If you want to make an argument for Apple charging too much you can't compare different services as though they were the same, seeing how much you were arguing that IAP shouldn't be 30% before.

 

And apple give you all the features of the patreon premium?  NO THEY DON"T.  you are literally comparing a premium service with business tools and subscription service to a transaction only fee.   What apple offer in app is more akin to the 5% patreon charge.

[Kisai]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

And apple give you all the features of the patreon premium?  NO THEY DON"T.  you are literally comparing a premium service with business tools and subscription service to a transaction only fee.   What apple offer in app is more akin to the 5% patreon charge.

Why don't you actually read things. Ask people who actually put their content on Patreon what they think of this fee structure (they hate it and see it as Patreon scope-creep to increase their rates.)  Those higher tiers are more equal to Apple's music/books/app commissions than "just a payment processor", You're having Patreon do work for you for that tier, just like Apple does.

 

Apple is not just "the payment processor" in any case. If a customer was acquired through the service, then Apple is entitled to the commission. End point. Epic doesn't want to offer subscriptions to take advantage of the lower subscription rate so screw them.

 

[mr moose]

Just now, Kisai said:

Why don't you actually read things. Ask people who actually put their content on Patreon what they think of this fee structure (they hate it and see it as Patreon scope-creep to increase their rates.)  Those higher tiers are more equal to Apple's music/books/app commissions than "just a payment processor", You're having Patreon do work for you for that tier, just like Apple does.

subjective opinion means nothing.   It is the last resort of an argument that has nothing substantial to support it.

Just now, Kisai said:

Apple is not just "the payment processor" in any case. If a customer was acquired through the service, then Apple is entitled to the commission. End point. Epic doesn't want to offer subscriptions to take advantage of the lower subscription rate so screw them.

 

If you are going to claim in-app transaction are more than just the transaction then you need to explain or show what more there is to it, you can't just claim it is more because "apple deserve it".  That is the whole problem with every argument so far in these threads, it all just returns to "apple deserve it"  there is no legitimate argument to support that opinion, it's just an opinion.

[Lord Vile]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

subjective opinion means nothing.   It is the last resort of an argument that has nothing substantial to support it.

How was that subjective?

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

If you are going to claim in-app transaction are more than just the transaction then you need to explain or show what more there is to it, you can't just claim it is more because "apple deserve it".  That is the whole problem with every argument so far in these threads, it all just returns to "apple deserve it"  there is no legitimate argument to support that opinion, it's just an opinion.

They literally host the App store, the OS it's on and make the devices the OS is installed on. I really don't see how apple literally build all of the infrastructure and attracting a massive userbase and then not deserve a cut of what's sold on it. It would be like asking a shop to charge the same amount as that they bough it for because they didn't make the cake or whatever they just bought it in, makes no sense. 

[yolosnail]

2 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

How was that subjective?

They literally host the App store, the OS it's on and make the devices the OS is installed on. I really don't see how apple literally build all of the infrastructure and attracting a massive userbase and then not deserve a cut of what's sold on it. It would be like asking a shop to charge the same amount as that they bough it for because they didn't make the cake or whatever they just bought it in, makes no sense. 

The issue is they're demanding a cut of things sold on things that were sold on their platform.

Apple had absolutely no part in that sale, they aren't hosting it, they didn't initiate the sale, the mere fact that the sale is happening on their device is enough for them to want a cut.

 

Imagine if you bought a car, and because you went through a drive thru BMW wanted a cut from McDonalds. That wouldn't sound fair would it?

[AldiPrayogi]

I kinda want to see how Apple would react if all of the paid apps devs just said nope and decided to pull all their apps off of the store

[mr moose]

20 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

How was that subjective?

Dictionary?

Subjective meaning, of personal taste or feelings.  Saying "They deserve it" without reasoning or qualifiers are feelings not facts. ergo, it's subjective.

20 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

They literally host the App store, the OS it's on and make the devices the OS is installed on. I really don't see how apple literally build all of the infrastructure and attracting a massive userbase and then not deserve a cut of what's sold on it. It would be like asking a shop to charge the same amount as that they bough it for because they didn't make the cake or whatever they just bought it in, makes no sense. 

As pointed out too many ties for it to be a reasonable discussion anymore,  apple did not create the app, they did not market and create a user base, they did not add any value to the app that made the consumer base want to buy in-app products.  Apple have ZERO right to a cut of that.  They are entitled only to a fee for the sale of the app or a service fee for hosting the app and a reasonable fee for any transactions they might provide.   Everything else they want is just GREED.

 

 

This discussion is just getting stupid now.

 

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, AldiPrayogi said:

I kinda want to see how Apple would react if all of the paid apps devs just said nope and decided to pull all their apps off of the store

It would be funny and justice all in the one shot, too bad that'll never happen.

[Lord Vile]

18 minutes ago, yolosnail said:

The issue is they're demanding a cut of things sold on things that were sold on their platform.

Apple had absolutely no part in that sale, they aren't hosting it, they didn't initiate the sale, the mere fact that the sale is happening on their device is enough for them to want a cut.

 

Imagine if you bought a car, and because you went through a drive thru BMW wanted a cut from McDonalds. That wouldn't sound fair would it?

Incorrect analogy. Like it's not comparable at all. 

 

They host the app on the store and the software is on their device. 

[Lord Vile]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Dictionary?

Subjective meaning, of personal taste or feelings.  Saying "They deserve it" without reasoning or qualifiers are feelings not facts. ergo, it's subjective.

Would be great if that's what was being argued.

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

As pointed out too many ties for it to be a reasonable discussion anymore,  apple did not create the app, they did not market and create a user base, they did not add any value to the app that made the consumer base want to buy in-app products.  Apple have ZERO right to a cut of that.  They are entitled only to a fee for the sale of the app or a service fee for hosting the app and a reasonable fee for any transactions they might provide.   Everything else they want is just GREED.

Um yes they did create the user base, it's called everyone on iOS because that's the userbase that an apps userbase is part of. 

What sale? The vast majority of apps are free so you expect them to run an app store for no compensation? That's not how business works. 

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

 

This discussion is just getting stupid now.

 

No just you

[suicidalfranco]

19 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Incorrect analogy. Like it's not comparable at all. 

 

They host the app on the store and the software is on their device. 

they host the app: and that should be covered by the 100$/year dev fee

the software is on their device: The device belongs to the user not apple, or did i miss something and Apple pays people to use them?

[yolosnail]

30 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Incorrect analogy. Like it's not comparable at all. 

 

They host the app on the store and the software is on their device. 

It's not incorrect at all.

 

Once the user has downloaded the app (ie. purchased the car), Apple no longer hosts the app and it is stored on the user's device (the car is no longer owned by BMW), if the user then wants to purchase something in the app (purchase a salad from McDonalds), Apple (BMW) has absolutely no right to ask for a cut.

 

If Apple wants to take cut of the initial purchase, I have no issue. In that case they actually are hosting the app, and providing a discovery platform. The same way a car dealership has a showroom and facilitates a sale, they deserve a cut.

 

But once you have downloaded the app, that purely between you and the dev, not you, then Apple, then the dev. 

[Lord Vile]

26 minutes ago, yolosnail said:

It's not incorrect at all.

 

Once the user has downloaded the app (ie. purchased the car), Apple no longer hosts the app and it is stored on the user's device (the car is no longer owned by BMW), if the user then wants to purchase something in the app (purchase a salad from McDonalds), Apple (BMW) has absolutely no right to ask for a cut.

 

If Apple wants to take cut of the initial purchase, I have no issue. In that case they actually are hosting the app, and providing a discovery platform. The same way a car dealership has a showroom and facilitates a sale, they deserve a cut.

 

But once you have downloaded the app, that purely between you and the dev, not you, then Apple, then the dev. 

Still is incorrect. The BMW would be the phone because that's what you're buying from apple. You need an example where the "app" is free. 

 

Apps from apps like for example fortnite are free to download so sure they can make a profit on a cut of nothing. 

 

Still on Apples OS and hardware and the software is licensed through them.