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

[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. 

[Lord Vile]

38 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

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?

OS belongs to apple and the software is only licensed not sold. 

 

Because $100 is gonna pay for server space for the whole year. 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Lord Vile said:

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

That's exactly what os being argued, it basically has boiled down to "they made the phone they can have the money" 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Vile said:

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. 

Apple did not creaste the consumers of the app, the app atracted the consumers, it was solely the work of the app that made people want to buy it.  Don;t confuse the ios user base with the value an app creates for itself within that market.  

 

1 hour ago, Lord Vile said:

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. 

Then apple need to disallow free apps or increase the yearly developer fee to cover that.  If you had bothered to read anything I have posted over the last few days on this you would know that I don't expect them to run the store for no compensation.  You are again being dishonest, dishonest in your replies and dishonest in your representation of what others are saying.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Vile said:

No just you

Proof you have nothing of value to add to the discussion.  It is just going round in circles because no one can rebut the issues being raised. 

[Lord Vile]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

That's exactly what os being argued, it basically has boiled down to "they made the phone they can have the money" 

They made the phone, they own the OS and they license the software.

Quote

 

Apple did not creaste the consumers of the app, the app atracted the consumers, it was solely the work of the app that made people want to buy it.  Don;t confuse the ios user base with the value an app creates for itself within that market.  

Kinda did, they market the apps in the first place and don't you remember "there's an app for that". Plus they run and maintain the platform. Unless you think Sony and Microsoft shouldn't get a cut from sales on their stores, I mean they don't attract the consumers of the games at all. 

Quote

 

Then apple need to disallow free apps or increase the yearly developer fee to cover that.  If you had bothered to read anything I have posted over the last few days on this you would know that I don't expect them to run the store for no compensation.  You are again being dishonest, dishonest in your replies and dishonest in your representation of what others are saying.

Yes based on your responses you do. Sure they can disallow free apps which means developers AND apple get a worse deal than the current one. Do you remember when Freemium wasn't a thing on the app store and every cost about 80p-£5 to download and noone downloaded anything because fuck paying £5 for a mobile game.

Quote

 

Proof you have nothing of value to add to the discussion.  It is just going round in circles because no one can rebut the issues being raised. 

No you're just ignoring everyone and don't understand how the real world works. 

[AldiPrayogi]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

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

Tbh I kinda agree with what Luke said in the last WAN show regarding Floatplane, let Floatplane charge more if you're taking 30% off. Because it seems like Apple is shifting the 'blame' to developers now by not letting the devs to even have the option to charge what Apple is taking for the sake of maintaining that 'user experience'. You can't have your cake and eat it too Apple (or I guess they have been lol), choose which one. Either let the devs charge more and let your user base decide to keep using your service, or let users install whatever they want on their phone OR at least make your cut reasonable. 

[Tech_Dreamer]

 

#MeIRL

[suicidalfranco]

3 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

OS belongs to apple and the software is only licensed not sold. 

 

Because $100 is gonna pay for server space for the whole year. 

the license to use the OS belongs to the consumer who bought the device, and it's his property and up to him to decide what to do with it.

 

yes. If it doesn't then it's on Apple for not pricing it correctly.