Facebook follows Fortnite and blames Apple for hurting small businesses

[Bombastinator]

“For at least the next year” ooohh. So a standard “special introductory offer” then except longer than is common.  Not an actual statement like they’re pretending it is. 

 

good spin, but it doesn’t change the actual trajectory.

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, GDRRiley said:

facebook is being so stupid but not surprised by these actions.

apple, microsoft, sony and google all need to lower their cut from 30% (cus guess what it is almost industry wide that 30% is the cut from these stores)

30% is pretty high.  It could possibly be justified but I doubt it.  There are similar cuts taken in other segments.  Traditionally actors agents get 10%.  Fine artist (not illustrators, different industry) agents take 50% though.   Both are actually reasonable. Illustrators have agents too.  Their cut is defined by the AIGA (I don’t know what it is.  Might actually be 30%. I don’t remember)

 

1 hour ago, GDRRiley said:

thing is, they are only complaining about apple and google. they aren't complaining about Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo who all have as tight of a box as apple

, just as acting agent cuts are defined by SAG. What it sounds like content creators need is a guild like SAG or AIGA.  Dues will be paid by the way.  Can’t run a guild with BS and good wishes.

[GDRRiley]

8 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

30% is pretty high.  It could possibly be justified but I doubt it.

thing is, they are only complaining about apple and google. they aren't complaining about Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo who all have as tight of a box as apple

[Kisai]

5 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

Mainly the part where Apple refuses to allow other means of installing apps outside of the app store, which is stupid.

No, that's desired, because otherwise it becomes a security nightmare like the PC and Android.

 

5 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

Fortnite could just start their own hosting service, but it would be difficult because of Apples walled garden of an app store.

 

There is nothing stopping Epic from following the rules. Nobody needs to play Fortnite to live, and nobody needs to own an iPhone to live. 

 

Like I see Epic's mindset here. "Let's weaponize the fanbase to make Apple allow us to make more money".

 

A 30% cut is standard for a purchase on all platforms stores. That sounds like collusion, not a monopoly. Ever take a look outside at gas station prices and notice how seemingly they all find the same price? They legally can not do this. They just don't want to lose customers or money, so if the station across the street lowers their gas price by 1 cent, they will also do so, otherwise customers who aren't loyal to their brand will just go across the street because it's cheaper. There's also loyalty cards which make things even harder to determine which price is cheaper. Oil companies have been merging left and right to eliminate cheaper competition that has lower costs and that's another way they keep their own prices high.

 

Epic clearly can't buy Apple, Google, Sony, Microsoft, or Valve, and it's own store really is awful. Poor Epic, having to compete with Steam and Microsoft, and not being able to get it's own store on the consoles or mobile devices /s

 

If you can't set a price that benefits you for the IAP, then you are doing something phenomenally wrong and shouldn't have IAP's at all.

 

Apple users spent 34m on Fortnite on the Apple store, while Android only spent 2m in July. What does that tell you about Android?

 

 

https://sensortower.com/blog/fortnite-revenue-300-million

 

Does Apple really care that they're not getting Fortnite transaction fees? Probably not. Likewise Fortnite players likely have more than one device to play on, and if they are forced to dump their iphone to play on the PC, that might actually be a preferable experience. They just won't get to play it in the back seat of a car.

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

No, that's desired, because otherwise it becomes a security nightmare like the PC and Android.

 

There is nothing stopping Epic from following the rules. Nobody needs to play Fortnite to live, and nobody needs to own an iPhone to live. 

 

Like I see Epic's mindset here. "Let's weaponize the fanbase to make Apple allow us to make more money".

 

A 30% cut is standard for a purchase on all platforms stores. That sounds like collusion, not a monopoly. Ever take a look outside at gas station prices and notice how seemingly they all find the same price? They legally can not do this. They just don't want to lose customers or money, so if the station across the street lowers their gas price by 1 cent, they will also do so, otherwise customers who aren't loyal to their brand will just go across the street because it's cheaper. There's also loyalty cards which make things even harder to determine which price is cheaper. Oil companies have been merging left and right to eliminate cheaper competition that has lower costs and that's another way they keep their own prices high.

 

Epic clearly can't buy Apple, Google, Sony, Microsoft, or Valve, and it's own store really is awful. Poor Epic, having to compete with Steam and Microsoft, and not being able to get it's own store on the consoles or mobile devices /s

 

If you can't set a price that benefits you for the IAP, then you are doing something phenomenally wrong and shouldn't have IAP's at all.

 

Apple users spent 34m on Fortnite on the Apple store, while Android only spent 2m in July. What does that tell you about Android?

 

 

https://sensortower.com/blog/fortnite-revenue-300-million

 

Does Apple really care that they're not getting Fortnite transaction fees? Probably not. Likewise Fortnite players likely have more than one device to play on, and if they are forced to dump their iphone to play on the PC, that might actually be a preferable experience. They just won't get to play it in the back seat of a car.

Collusion is just as much an antitrust violation as monopoly is.  It’s really hard to even regulate though depending on how communication takes place.  There are ways to end run anti trust and do things not so far from it. Doesn’t make it not a conceptual violation though.  That was the origional problem with “trusts” and why it’s even called anti-trust.  Google and apple together control the market of smart phone app sales. A duopoly.  What epic might want to do is what the Hollywood stars did in the early 1900s.  Form a guild.  They’re going to need a bunch of other makers just as large though.  The drivers of SAG were Charlie chaplain and this huge female star whose name I forget.  There were a bunch of smaller ones behind them, but there were more than two studios. Something like 20.   I don’t know if Apple and google could be taken down that way.   They have really heavy control.  MLB had similar more extreme problems.  It survived the bush league thing, but it took some pretty scary activity by politicians to keep it together.  I’m wondering if what is going on is an attempt to make the current administration step over the line to defined Apple/google in ways administrations have in times past for use as extra national leverage.   

[Trik'Stari]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

No, that's desired, because otherwise it becomes a security nightmare like the PC and Android.

Preferable to the nightmarish hellscape created by the majority of users being dependent upon the manufacture to protect them because they know little to nothing about how the device they are using actually works, and can't be bothered to learn.

 

Couldn't tell you the last time I had an issue with security on my PC, and I've never had one on my phone, mainly because I don't install sketchy stuff and actually pay attention to what I am doing. But apparently that's too much to ask?

 

If this were a car discussion, you would be arguing that your GPS should only take you to approved locations because you might get robbed or mugged going to anywhere that's not approved.

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, GDRRiley said:

thing is, they are only complaining about apple and google. they aren't complaining about Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo who all have as tight of a box as apple

Several  differences:

1) Sony/microsoft/Nintendo make 3 companies not two. 
2) Sony/microsoft/Nintendo are a different market even though fortnight could operate in both. 
3) I don’t know what or how the “cut” works there or if there is a previous legislative history.   There could be one, and it might be considered applicable or not, and it might fall in  Epic’s favor or against it.

[GDRRiley]

4 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Several  differences:

1) Sony/microsoft/Nintendo make 3 companies not two. 
2) Sony/microsoft/Nintendo are a different market even though fortnight could operate in both. 
3) I don’t know what or how the “cut” works there or if there is a previous legislative history.   There could be one, and it might be considered applicable or not, and it might fall in  Epic’s favor or against it.

i forgot Nintendo earlier

I wouldn't say phones are all that different from game consoles, fixed OS and hardware, gate keepers to the platform.

same way it works on every platform. they take a section of the sale price keep it then pass the rest on

[soldier_ph]

lol what Facebook wants to be the good guy for a change. Another thing I didn't expect to happen in 2020 in the Tech World.

[Bombastinator]

23 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Preferable to the nightmarish hellscape created by the majority of users being dependent upon the manufacture to protect them because they know little to nothing about how the device they are using actually works, and can't be bothered to learn.

 

Couldn't tell you the last time I had an issue with security on my PC, and I've never had one on my phone, mainly because I don't install sketchy stuff and actually pay attention to what I am doing. But apparently that's too much to ask?

 

If this were a car discussion, you would be arguing that your GPS should only take you to approved locations because you might get robbed or mugged going to anywhere that's not approved.

Re: nightmarish hellscape:

so like automobiles or televisions or more or less anything bought at a grocery store or anything that is put in a trash can then?

 

re security:

ive got a weird ass thing atm regarding bitdefender and a -1011 error.  I can’t tell if it’s updating and my connection sucks or if the updates never actually happened and I’ve been hacked.  It’s just not well defined atm.  There is a posted fix but it’s quite involved.  
 

re: GPS.  The easy way to do that is look for Starbucks locations.  They do all the work for you.

[Bombastinator]

4 minutes ago, soldier_ph said:

lol what Facebook wants to be the good guy for a change. Another thing I didn't expect to happen in 2020 in the Tech World.

They want to be viewed that way anyway.  The whole 1 year extendable introductory offer thing means they don’t mind looking like one, but they don’t want to exactly own it either. 

[PlayStation 2]

corporations calling corporations bad

[ACEHACK]

the problem is not the 30% on apple, the problem is as Luke said for floatplane, you have to use apple pay, and cant redirect them to a website, and you cant say if you get from our website its cheaper than apple pay, and you cant have a website store and not a in app purchase. 

 

so here is the question how does amazon netflix or i dont know any stock market app get away from this. cause think about it, there is no way in hell amazon would pay 30% to apple, so is Netflix, hulu and many other apps.  so what is apple just forcing the little guys?

 

now admittedly i haven't read the entire TOS yet but here is the link if you want. 

https://developer.apple.com/terms/

https://developer.apple.com/app-store/guidelines/

https://www.apple.com/ios/app-store/principles-practices/#mn_p

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

Fortnite still makes over a million a day from the Apple app with the tax. 

Are we trying to argue that the amount your business earns is justification for not treating everyone the same? 

2 hours ago, GDRRiley said:

thing is, they are only complaining about apple and google. they aren't complaining about Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo who all have as tight of a box as apple

I complain about everyone.  I would complain about MS in this thread except they don't try to take a cut from every purchase/service I use in windows.

[Kisai]

41 minutes ago, ACEHACK said:

the problem is not the 30% on apple, the problem is as Luke said for floatplane, you have to use apple pay, and cant redirect them to a website, and you cant say if you get from our website its cheaper than apple pay, and you cant have a website store and not a in app purchase. 

So? Just use Apple Pay and set the price at what doesn't lose you money. Or you are doing something wrong and shouldn't use the IAP service.

 

Like it's been pointed out time and time again, the way you dodge the app store fees/IAP is to not use the app store. It does not take an idiot to see that. However if all the customers are on the app store, then you are willingly not accepting that money, and this is an argument that is seen time and time again when Disney wouldn't put their films on disc, or on streaming networks, hence people just go pirate it if they really want it, or they watch other things that are more convenient. You will survive without watching Disney and Marvel films. 

 

If you are a content creator and you are unwilling to put your content on the stores/services where the customers are, then you are the fool. It doesn't matter if you think it's unethical to put it on that platform, look how well that has worked in the past (hint, it never works.)

 

If you are okay with never having the customers from that platform, then just walk away from it. I will buy my games on Steam even if they are on GOG or Epic, because that's where I prefer to spend my money. If a game I want to play (eg PSO2 or FFXIV) costs more to play on Steam, for some reason, then I 'm probably going to just not play it.

 

(PSO2 is microsoft-exclusive, and FFXIV has a Steam version, and you have to have a separate license for the steam version even if you have a PC version, since my PC version is from V1.0 from 2010 before it was ever put on the steam store, I'm not going to bother with the "steam" version, and likewise the steam and mac versions of FFXIV are just the Windows PC version with a slightly tweaked launcher to work on those platforms.)

 

Quote

so here is the question how does amazon netflix or i dont know any stock market app get away from this. cause think about it, there is no way in hell amazon would pay 30% to apple, so is Netflix, hulu and many other apps.  so what is apple just forcing the little guys?

 

Easy, you don't put the store in the game or service. If you try to use Netflix it will tell you to create a free trial and forward you to the website. That's where you put your credit card info in. If your subscription expires, then you're just denied the service. There's no opportunity to buy it on the iPhone any more than there is to buy it on the smartTV, or the cableTV box.

 

Perhaps there was an arrangement somewhere that Netflix is allowed to get away with this because it's integral to making the AppleTV software useful, unlike the kind of integrations you see on the cheapy android devices cable companies have been using, where you can search for a title and get the results from all the "TV" apps on the device and be asked to subscribe to them when you try to watch, which kinda makes it rubbish and use-unfriendly.

 

 

But let's be serious for a moment and look at the bigger picture. What is the transaction fee for Visa/Mastercard/Amex?

Amex is known for costing the most, and is the one that is often omitted from sketchy stores. 

http://blog.unibulmerchantservices.com/how-much-does-it-cost-you-to-accept-american-express-cards/

Lots of fees with the average being 3.5% just for the transaction itself, never mind the other fees required to access the network.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Express#.22Boston_Fee_Party.22

Quote

Aside from some holdouts including Neiman Marcus (which continued exclusivity until 2011), the practice largely ended in 1991.^[31] A group of restaurants in Boston stopped accepting American Express while accepting and encouraging the use of Visa and Mastercard, including some that were exclusive to American Express. The rationale was due to far lower fees as compared with American Express' fees at the time (which were about 4% for each transaction versus around 1.2% at the time for Visa and Mastercard).

 

The revolt, known as the "Boston Fee Party" (alluding to the Boston Tea Party), spread to over 250 restaurants across the United States, including restaurants in other cities such as New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles. Visa offered to pay the Fee Party's legal bills, and Discover Card was able to increase their acceptance among Boston restaurants by 375%. Kenneth Chenault, then head of Travel Related Services prior to becoming American Express CEO, cut fees to bring these restaurants back into the fold.^[32] American Express then shifted its focus from exclusivity to broadening acceptance, adding mainstream merchants like Walmart to the American Express network.

Epic ain't Discover card. Facebook ain't Discover card.

 

In the end, while the Boston Fee party was able to twist AMEX's arm, the anti-trust action later for charging more than Visa/MC did nothing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_v._American_Express_Co.

Quote

The Court issued its 5-4 decision on June 25, 2018, affirming the Appeals Court's ruling, and that the American Express steering provisions did not violate antitrust law. The majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, and Gorsuch, found that the petitioners had not shown any harm of the steering provisions that otherwise would not have occurred if no steering provisions were in place, nor have the provisions stifled competition in the market. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, taking issue with how the rule of reason had been applied for this case throughout its judicial history.

 

So there you have the precedents. It's not illegal to charge more, or even the same as your competition. If you want to see the "app stores" fee costs go down, you need to the largest money makers on those stores to withdraw their IAP from their apps, and since Apple isn't even dependent on app store sales, it's unlikely to change anything, just hurt the app developers. Good luck getting Candy Crush on board.

 

Or... we can all sit around and wait for regulations on IAP to address the gambling nature in these games to end them.

[ACEHACK]

31 minutes ago, Kisai said:

So? Just use Apple Pay and set the price at what doesn't lose you money. Or you are doing something wrong and shouldn't use the IAP service.

 

Like it's been pointed out time and time again, the way you dodge the app store fees/IAP is to not use the app store. It does not take an idiot to see that. However if all the customers are on the app store, then you are willingly not accepting that money, and this is an argument that is seen time and time again when Disney wouldn't put their films on disc, or on streaming networks, hence people just go pirate it if they really want it, or they watch other things that are more convenient. You will survive without watching Disney and Marvel films. 

 

If you are a content creator and you are unwilling to put your content on the stores/services where the customers are, then you are the fool. It doesn't matter if you think it's unethical to put it on that platform, look how well that has worked in the past (hint, it never works.)

 

If you are okay with never having the customers from that platform, then just walk away from it. I will buy my games on Steam even if they are on GOG or Epic, because that's where I prefer to spend my money. If a game I want to play (eg PSO2 or FFXIV) costs more to play on Steam, for some reason, then I 'm probably going to just not play it.

 

(PSO2 is microsoft-exclusive, and FFXIV has a Steam version, and you have to have a separate license for the steam version even if you have a PC version, since my PC version is from V1.0 from 2010 before it was ever put on the steam store, I'm not going to bother with the "steam" version, and likewise the steam and mac versions of FFXIV are just the Windows PC version with a slightly tweaked launcher to work on those platforms.)

 

 

Easy, you don't put the store in the game or service. If you try to use Netflix it will tell you to create a free trial and forward you to the website. That's where you put your credit card info in. If your subscription expires, then you're just denied the service. There's no opportunity to buy it on the iPhone any more than there is to buy it on the smartTV, or the cableTV box.

 

Perhaps there was an arrangement somewhere that Netflix is allowed to get away with this because it's integral to making the AppleTV software useful, unlike the kind of integrations you see on the cheapy android devices cable companies have been using, where you can search for a title and get the results from all the "TV" apps on the device and be asked to subscribe to them when you try to watch, which kinda makes it rubbish and use-unfriendly.

 

 

But let's be serious for a moment and look at the bigger picture. What is the transaction fee for Visa/Mastercard/Amex?

Amex is known for costing the most, and is the one that is often omitted from sketchy stores. 

http://blog.unibulmerchantservices.com/how-much-does-it-cost-you-to-accept-american-express-cards/

Lots of fees with the average being 3.5% just for the transaction itself, never mind the other fees required to access the network.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Express#.22Boston_Fee_Party.22

Epic ain't Discover card. Facebook ain't Discover card.

 

In the end, while the Boston Fee party was able to twist AMEX's arm, the anti-trust action later for charging more than Visa/MC did nothing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_v._American_Express_Co.

 

So there you have the precedents. It's not illegal to charge more, or even the same as your competition. If you want to see the "app stores" fee costs go down, you need to the largest money makers on those stores to withdraw their IAP from their apps, and since Apple isn't even dependent on app store sales, it's unlikely to change anything, just hurt the app developers. Good luck getting Candy Crush on board.

 

Or... we can all sit around and wait for regulations on IAP to address the gambling nature in these games to end them.

i was just saying that luke on wan show said for floatplane apple  wouldn't allow for the app to not have a in app purchase. and its not just floatplane look at that hey mail.

https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/16/apple-threatens-to-remove-hey-from-app-store/

so while what your saying would be correct in theory its not in execution. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Are we trying to argue that the amount your business earns is justification for not treating everyone the same? 

That’s probably the rationale why Spotify and Netflix have a seperate subscription to be fair. 
 

But this is still pretty clearly a money grab from both Epic and FB. Epic broke the t&s of the App Store and now sueing to try and get their way, they are themselves trying to be treated differently.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

That’s probably the rationale why Spotify and Netflix have a seperate subscription to be fair. 
 

But this is still pretty clearly a money grab from both Epic and FB. Epic broke the t&s of the App Store and now sueing to try and get their way, they are themselves trying to be treated differently.

It's epic's product and epic's service, how can it be a money grab to want the in app business to be 100% internal?

 

If apple want to charge a fee foe hosting apps in their store then fine, but insisting a cut from in-app and subs is the real money grab here.

 

besides, you still didn't answer the question,  why is their revenue a dictating factor of how monopolistic a retail business is permitted to be? 

 

 

[Bombastinator]

The thing to remember about fortnight is that it isn’t just a big name app.  It’s a dying big name app.  Their player base is getting smaller not bigger. There seems to be an arc to game popularity.  Shareholders are starting to ask where the buckets of cash the thing used to produce regularly are, and “it’s just not there anymore” is not something the executive want to say because then it will be a race between the investors to pull stakes and put them in something on the rise.   The lawsuit is a delaying tactic.   It may force Apple and Google to reveal what their actual costs are for app safety stuff.  Apple is going to have much higher ones per app than google.  It’s real possible that Apple May win this suit but google may lose. 

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It's epic's product and epic's service, how can it be a money grab to want the in app business to be 100% internal?

 

They don’t want to pay the excess 30% on in-app purchases as per the terms and conditions plain and simple. 

 

Quote

 

If apple want to charge a fee foe hosting apps in their store then fine, but insisting a cut from in-app and subs is the real money grab here.

 

 

Quote

besides, you still didn't answer the question,  why is their revenue a dictating factor of how monopolistic a retail business is permitted to be? 

 

 

No one really cares about a small app company that has a few users. I’m guessing that Amazon, Netflix etc all pay a cut to avoid the subscription fee (or in app or whatever), if that cut is greater due to the number of users than the 30% from Apple Pay, it makes sense to allow them to use their own system. 
 

Another way would be app support for the device. The App Store is a large selling point of an iDevice. iPads would be a lot worse without Netflix or an iPhone without  Facebook etc, the amount of customers they would lose would be greater than the money lost by not taking the 30%. 
 

I suppose in these regards it would make some sense.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, RorzNZ said:

They don’t want to pay the excess 30% on in-app purchases as per the terms and conditions plain and simple. 

Not wanting to pay compulsory fees on internal business is not a money grab.  

 

1 minute ago, RorzNZ said:

 

No one really cares about a small app company that has a few users. I’m guessing that Amazon, Netflix etc all pay a cut to avoid the subscription fee (or in app or whatever), if that cut is greater due to the number of users than the 30% from Apple Pay, it makes sense to allow them to use their own system. 
 

Still doesn't mean that Epic revenue should be used to determine the ethics of apple.

1 minute ago, RorzNZ said:

Another way would be app support for the device. The App Store is a large selling point of an iDevice. iPads would be a lot worse without Netflix or an iPhone without  Facebook etc, the amount of customers they would lose would be greater than the money lost by not taking the 30%. 
 

I suppose in these regards it would make some sense.

If apple want to charge a yearly fee for app store hosting or put a per purchase on each app for hosting then that is fine, but forcing app developers to handover percentages of in app and external business is a money grab. 

 

It would be literally the same as best buy Insisting you only can only buy your software from them after selling you a computer and then demanding that the software company give them a 30% of any ongoing product revenue on top of the sale.  That is BS, retailers have a markup once per sale, they DO NOT force companies to pay them a markup on every private transaction after the fact.

 

 

People need to realize that there are two separate issues here, No one is saying apple should charge a percentage for the initial sale of an app, that is fine,  what people are saying is that apple are not entitled to a cut from internal app business PERIOD.

[Kisai]

38 minutes ago, mr moose said:

People need to realize that there are two separate issues here, No one is saying apple should charge a percentage for the initial sale of an app, that is fine,  what people are saying is that apple are not entitled to a cut from internal app business PERIOD.

Then don't have IAP.

[Bombastinator]

5 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Then don't have IAP.

I don’t think it’s about entitlement.  I think it’s about costs for initial app launch and maintenance cost being higher than what a small new app can afford to pay, so the big stuff (like fortnight) subsidizes the small stuff.  At least that’s the argument I would like to see Apple make.  The problem is it’s got to be true.  30% seems to be this “what the market will bear” standard, and I don’t know where the standard comes from.

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Not wanting to pay compulsory fees on internal business is not a money grab.  

 

It wouldn’t be if they simply didn’t publish their app, but updating it, then suing when it got removed it. They know what they are doing. 

51 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Still doesn't mean that Epic revenue should be used to determine the ethics of apple.

If apple want to charge a yearly fee for app store hosting or put a per purchase on each app for hosting then that is fine, but forcing app developers to handover percentages of in app and external business is a money grab. 

 

 

This is moot (I don’t know what that word really means excuse me), they do charge for hosting on the App Store, it’s in the developer fee. 
 

it’s also not really ethics, it’s part of their t&s. Epic agree to this cut when they publish their app. They then changed their app against this condition and their app got removed. 

 

51 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It would be literally the same as best buy Insisting you only can only buy your software from them after selling you a computer and then demanding that the software company give them a 30% of any ongoing product revenue on top of the sale.  That is BS, retailers have a markup once per sale, they DO NOT force companies to pay them a markup on every private transaction after the fact.

 

I don’t think you can equate the two. Apple makes the device and sells it. You can only officially get apps through the App Store, it’s not really a monopoly because it’s a feature of the phone - the competition is supposed to be Android. However the market has changed a lot, and it might be time to rethink that. You can’t really compare a phone and a computer though.

51 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

People need to realize that there are two separate issues here, No one is saying apple should charge a percentage for the initial sale of an app, that is fine,  what people are saying is that apple are not entitled to a cut from internal app business PERIOD.

I think what hinders this for many people is:

- the fact that it’s FB and Epic sueing

- taking a cut when using Apple Pay (or Google or Microsoft pay?) is a standard, as is the 30%.

If there was a price breakdown of that 30%, that would make more sense. It’s not hosting, it’s on a per-transaction basis. If it was like the 5% or so, like for payWave, that would make more sense.

[Kisai]

Just now, Bombastinator said:

I don’t think it’s about entitlement.  I think it’s about costs for initial app launch and maintenance cost being higher than what a small new app can afford to pay, so the big stuff (like fortnight) subsidizes the small stuff.  At least that’s the argument I would like to see Apple make.  The problem is it’s got to be true.  30% seems to be this “what the market will bear” standard, and I don’t know where the standard comes from.

Nah. Not at all. Steam is doing just fine without IAP's. There is a lot of needless microtransaction DLC things, but they are one-time-purchases. And this stuff is already in the game, so it's not like you're physically downloading anything after-the-fact.

 

https://store.steampowered.com/dlc/921590/DISSIDIA_FINAL_FANTASY_NT_Free_Edition/

149 DLC items totaling $1089.55

 

versus FFXIV on steam:

Notice you don't purchase the service on steam? That included 30 days is not renewable through steam.

 

Steam is no longer involved with the game once you download it.

 

Where as the App stores, be it Apple or Google or Sony or Nintendo, require all purchases to go through their store if you use their payment system. For a small developer who isn't operating a server for the game to connect to, they have no mechanism for controlling a subscription or IAP's themselves, so having Apple do it, makes sense, because they're not going to get their software users to each hand over a credit card. Like forget that. I'm don't even want Google or Microsoft to have my credit card in the first place. 

 

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/microsoft-office-and-the-mac-app-store-ad2293a8-f5aa-4652-ae3f-83dda906d748

 

Quote

What version of Office is available from the Mac App Store?

The Office apps available from the Mac App Store provide the very latest version of Office on the Mac. Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Outlook require a Microsoft 365 subscription to activate. OneNote and OneDrive do not require a Microsoft 365 subscription, but some premium features may require a Microsoft 365 subscription.

 

...

 

 How do I cancel my Microsoft 365 free trial that I purchased through the Mac App Store? 

To cancel your Microsoft 365 free trial that you purchased through the Mac or iOS App Store, follow the instructions on this page: View, change, or cancel your subscriptions. 

This link redirects to the App Store, so please open this link on a Mac, iPad or iPhone. 

 

Should Apple be taking a cut of Microsoft's office 365 business if the user buys it on the Apple platform? Nah, it's likely that there is an agreement in place otherwise Office wouldn't be on the Mac, and wouldn't have mobile apps either. Consider that iTunes is on Microsoft's App store for Windows and Microsoft certainly isn't taking any cuts from iTunes.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53500593

 

Quote

The Analysis Group compared Apple's App Store to 37 other digital and e-commerce marketplaces.

It found the firm's standard demand of a 30% cut of sales was in line with what Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Samsung took.

But there were some exceptions. The group said:

• Epic Games video games marketplace takes a 12% share
• Freelance work platforms including TaskRabbit and Upwork take between 5% and 20%
• Amazon Prime Video takes a 50% share of purchase and rental sales
• Kobo's audio book platform takes a 55% to 68% cut
• Chinese app stores often charge 50% or more

The study also suggested that developers and publishers got a smaller share from offline "bricks-and-mortar" channels, where stores and other intermediaries typically take:

• a 55% share of video games sales
• a 50% share of newspaper sales
• a 60% share of magazine sales