Facebook follows Fortnite and blames Apple for hurting small businesses

[Bombastinator]

10 minutes ago, Kisai said:

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

 

 

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

 

 

So probably not true. Percentage may get pushed way down then.  Steam doesn’t do a lot of app cleaning or vetting though.  They only even removed a bunch of stuff because it was clearly malware, and even then they had to be forced to.  They still take a hefty chunk of charges.  I don’t know what their cut is. 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

Then don't have IAP.

I don't know what's worse, the fact people are defending apple on such an obvious issue of monopolistic control or that people think that is a legitimate argument.

 

1 hour ago, RorzNZ said:

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. 

So your argument has gone from , epic earns enough to not worry about this problem, to Epic wouldn't have a problem if they didn't have an app.  I don't even know where to start with that. Neither are fair nor reasonable expectations.

Quote

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. 
 

Moot means it is irrelevant to the situation.   It is not moot, people are conflating the need for apple to have a fee for running the app store with apple having the right to carry out a monopoly by controlling what an app does and how a developer can charge for in app content. 

 

Those are very very very different things.

 

Quote

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. 

 

Absolutely it is about ethics,  apple is being unethical demanding a cut of in-app purchases.  They have no more right to do that ethically than the bank does charging retail a cut of their profit with every transaction.  (befoer anyone says it, chargine 0.6% transaction fee is not demanding a cut of retail profit).

 

Quote

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.

Just because they sell the phone doesn't give them the right to control who does what in the apps they make.  By that logic it would be perfectly reasonable for Microsoft to only allow windows software to be purchased through tthe MS store.  It their product solely they make it and ship it, they can make it a condition of the sale.   NOPE, that's just BS from top to bottom.

 

Quote

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%.

I think people are using the fact that facebook and Epic are shit companies as an excuse to defend apples shit behavior.

 

Quote

 

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.

If it was for the initial purchase only and didn't apply to in-app and sub service transactions inside of those apps it would be fine.   But as I have tried to point out several times,  by forcing it on every transaction after the initial sale is extortion.

 

Basically apple need to get their greedy paws of in-app purchases and service subs.  Especially while they do not allow an alternative for developers to sell to the iphone market.

 

[Blade of Grass]

5 hours ago, ACEHACK said:

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?

You can have a website a no IAP, just can’t push users to the website. 
 

Amazon doesn’t pay any fees (and neither do any of the ticket services) because Apple doesn’t charge for physical good purchases. Why Facebook is claiming they have to pay 30% is beyond me. 

[Bombastinator]

Re IAP

Im not saying the argument is legitimate.  It is one you have made for other things though.  It would need to be defined as a different situation.

 

re argument flip.

depends on definition of terms.  In this case “update”. Situationally the update was more than a bug fix. it added a feature that is not allowed under the terms of the agreement.  Something google apparently didn’t even catch until they were told to look. (At which point they also banned it) So a fundamental change rather than an update perhaps.

 

re: moot

it does mean that but it also means arguable.  Goes back to the original moot which was a periodic ancient tribal meeting. Apparently not a very useful one.  I offer this very description as an example of a moot point. 
 

re: ethics

it might be about ethics. Part of it depends on how much work Apple is putting in to vet stuff and how much that costs.  It might be gouging.  Only might though.  Courts are handy for finding out these sorts of things. 
 

re: can’t equate the two

i equate my phone with a computer all the time.   I use it like one. It’s more powerful computationally by orders of magnitude than previous desktop computers I have owned.  It’s more powerful than some mainframe computers I have been a user of.  It is very short on I/o and the whole “you can’t use any OS but ours and we’re going to put work into keeping you from doing it” thing may change the equation a bit. The fact that they are selling the phone is not what gives them that ability.  It is the controlling of the App Store. Could be a monopoly argument there.  I don’t know. 

re: shit behavior

I can only agree “two wrongs does not make a right”

I am curious where that 30% standard came from.

 

re: initial payment

same as other statement. It might be. An unknown.  
 

re: summation

It comes down I think to how greedy those paws are.  

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

re: can’t equate the two

i equate my phone with a computer all the time.   I use it like one. It’s more powerful computationally by orders of magnitude than previous desktop computers I have owned.  It’s more powerful than some mainframe computers I have been a user of.  It is very short on I/o and the whole “you can’t use any OS but ours and we’re going to put work into keeping you from doing it” thing may change the equation a bit. The fact that they are selling the phone is not what gives them that ability.  It is the controlling of the App Store. Could be a monopoly argument there.  I don’t know. 

 

I think when you basically have half the market and you tightly control what OS and software the device runs it is a monopoly.

 

14 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

re: shit behavior

I can only agree “two wrongs does not make a right”

I am curious where that 30% standard came from.

for retail its a reasonable figure as most stores charge something like it, However for charging as a transaction fee (which is all it is for in-app and subs) it's overpriced considering mastercard and visa are less than 2%.    Does steam charge 30% and force all in app purchases to go through it?

 

 

You know the most amusing thing in this thread is the fact people are advocating for being charge 30%.  Please charge me 30% for a transaction that visa will only charge 1.6%.  What's wrong with people?

 

 

[Bombastinator]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I think when you basically have half the market and you tightly control what OS and software the device runs it is a monopoly.

 

for retail its a reasonable figure as most stores charge something like it, However for charging as a transaction fee (which is all it is for in-app and subs) it's overpriced considering mastercard and visa are less than 2%.    Does steam charge 30% and force all in app purchases to go through it?

 

 

You know the most amusing thing in this thread is the fact people are advocating for being charge 30%.  Please charge me 30% for a transaction that visa will only charge 1.6%.  What's wrong with people?

 

 

The people doing it are attempting to be...fair?
 

Credit cards are a can of worms filled example.  There’s a special history there.  Has to do with US government regulation specific to credit cards and some other things.  There are others that could be used though.   I don’t mind the lawsuit.  Forcing Apple to justify its 30% seems useful.  I don’t know that it isn’t yet.   My suspicion is that Apple is the most likely to get away with it.  They do more to vet apps in their store than basically anyone else.  Google’s position is weaker.  Suing Apple over Google is a strange act which makes me think it may be a move less straight than is being claimed. 

[Kisai]

30 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Absolutely it is about ethics,  apple is being unethical demanding a cut of in-app purchases.  They have no more right to do that ethically than the bank does charging retail a cut of their profit with every transaction.  (befoer anyone says it, chargine 0.6% transaction fee is not demanding a cut of retail profit).

 

Do you have a bank account? Did you know that bank accounts often have one of three things:

a) A free checking account, but you must keep $250-$10000 in it that doesn't collect interest, and you get nickel-and-dime'd if you use your debit card more than once a month.

b) A Premium checking account, which costs like $25/mo and lets you write unlimited checks, or some fixed number of debit transactions

c) A savings account that you are charged for any debit transactions on, and still need to have $250-$10000 in to not be charged fees.

 

From the Premier account page:

 

That's BMO-Harris, which is available in the US and the only bank that Canadians can actually use to avoid paypal exchange fees since it's a real US-based bank unlike TD and RBC. The Free account actually was free and then they started charging money for statements, but if you set it to paperless, it's free. It's also all you need to deal with paypal.

 

This is the Canadian BMO site with no free checking. You have to let BMO sit on $3000-$6000 of your money to avoid being fee'd to death.

 

Now take a close look at the bottom. You are charged to access your own money from non-BMO ATM's. Regardless of how much you need. They want you to use the Interac (debit card) system and never withdraw money from any ATM that isn't theirs. BTW, if you go to a third party ATM, they add a fee on top, so your $20 withdrawal ends up costing you like $25. Do you think the banks actually charge each other that much? Doubtful.

 

This is part of what makes banking in Canada a pain in the ass, and banking in the US an even bigger pain in the ass. So something can be assumed here in regards to ApplePay. 

1) Apple is large enough to make individual agreements with banks to allow credit/debit card processing at a lower bulk rate, perhaps even zero-rating it in their favor (at least on US-based Visa/MC/Amex.) For any other payment it goes through their own payments processor.

2) Apple doesn't have agreements in place for a lot of countries that their phone is sold in, so what do you think happens when someone wants to purchase in those countries? https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207957 , eg India, Chile, Argentina. 

 

I sincerely doubt Epic or Steam are big enough to have leverage over the banks, they likely just use one payment processor, and they get a bulk discount.  So if Epic is taking a 12% cut on sales on their platform, that's likely at the level that they still make money on it, which if they can, so can Apple, Google, Valve, GoG, Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft.

 

But it's not a crime to charge a fee.

 

Anti-trust stuff deals with things like product tying (eg Microsoft IE being pushed as the only web browser available on Windows 98 and later, and Microsoft making efforts to prevent other browsers gaining a foothold.) Microsoft ultimately failed to maintain their lead with MSIE because the way MSIE was embedded into the OS left it vulnerable to exploits, where as Edge and later Edge Chromium does not, and is updated the same way Chrome and Firefox are (eg obnoxiously at every launch.) Where Apple could be guilty of this is when they release their own apps that then "duplicate" functionality found in other apps already on the store and then they deny those apps from being updated, or de-list them.

 

Apple is not going to come out with a Fortnite clone, hate to say it. So that doesn't work here.

 

I think some people are grasping at straws for what Apple's position is. Apple has terms and conditions that apply to developers, Epic willingly broke those terms and Apple removed the app. Nothing malicious on the part of Apple.

 

Where Apple could be slapped on the wrist for is not having clear rules about how Subscriptions and IAP's work in apps. Apple could release a template app that shows exactly how they want it to work. If you've ever paid for a IAP on a game on the iPhone/iPad you'd know that it's all native UI stuff and is different from how it looks on Android, even in the same game. 

 

 

(That's from the show BTW, that's the first screen in the game. Basically the joke is Homer got charged $300 for a free game by launching it.)

 

The Simpsons Tapped out, requires an update every two weeks in order for it's events to cycle, and will refuse to operate without being the current version. I imagine the "bandwidth" requirements of hosting TSTO updates every few weeks at 2.2GB for a full download (I stopped playing it on the iPad when the iPad ran out of space) is far more than Fortnite (8GB) which I have no idea how big it's updates are, as I'm not willing to subject myself to that game. I don't know if Fortnite operates if the version becomes stale.

 

 

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

The people doing it are attempting to be...fair?
 

Credit cards are a can of worms filled example.  There’s a special history there.  Has to do with US government regulation specific to credit cards and some other things.  There are others that could be used though.   I don’t mind the lawsuit.  Forcing Apple to justify its 30% seems useful.  I don’t know that it isn’t yet.   My suspicion is that Apple is the most likely to get away with it.  They do more to vet apps in their store than basically anyone else.  Google’s position is weaker.  Suing Apple over Google is a strange act which makes me think it may be a move less straight than is being claimed. 

Oh, I agree apple are likey to win this, it is in the US after all.  monopolies are government granted over there.

 

3 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Do you have a bank account? Did you know that bank accounts often have one of three things:

a) A free checking account, but you must keep $250-$10000 in it that doesn't collect interest, and you get nickel-and-dime'd if you use your debit card more than once a month.

b) A Premium checking account, which costs like $25/mo and lets you write unlimited checks, or some fixed number of debit transactions

c) A savings account that you are charged for any debit transactions on, and still need to have $250-$10000 in to not be charged fees.

 

From the Premier account page:

 

That's BMO-Harris, which is available in the US and the only bank that Canadians can actually use to avoid paypal exchange fees since it's a real US-based bank unlike TD and RBC. The Free account actually was free and then they started charging money for statements, but if you set it to paperless, it's free. It's also all you need to deal with paypal.

 

This is the Canadian BMO site with no free checking. You have to let BMO sit on $3000-$6000 of your money to avoid being fee'd to death.

 

Now take a close look at the bottom. You are charged to access your own money from non-BMO ATM's. Regardless of how much you need. They want you to use the Interac (debit card) system and never withdraw money from any ATM that isn't theirs. BTW, if you go to a third party ATM, they add a fee on top, so your $20 withdrawal ends up costing you like $25. Do you think the banks actually charge each other that much? Doubtful.

 

This is part of what makes banking in Canada a pain in the ass, and banking in the US an even bigger pain in the ass. So something can be assumed here in regards to ApplePay. 

1) Apple is large enough to make individual agreements with banks to allow credit/debit card processing at a lower bulk rate, perhaps even zero-rating it in their favor (at least on US-based Visa/MC/Amex.) For any other payment it goes through their own payments processor.

2) Apple doesn't have agreements in place for a lot of countries that their phone is sold in, so what do you think happens when someone wants to purchase in those countries? https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207957 , eg India, Chile, Argentina. 

 

I sincerely doubt Epic or Steam are big enough to have leverage over the banks, they likely just use one payment processor, and they get a bulk discount.  So if Epic is taking a 12% cut on sales on their platform, that's likely at the level that they still make money on it, which if they can, so can Apple, Google, Valve, GoG, Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft.

 

But it's not a crime to charge a fee.

 

Anti-trust stuff deals with things like product tying (eg Microsoft IE being pushed as the only web browser available on Windows 98 and later, and Microsoft making efforts to prevent other browsers gaining a foothold.) Microsoft ultimately failed to maintain their lead with MSIE because the way MSIE was embedded into the OS left it vulnerable to exploits, where as Edge and later Edge Chromium does not, and is updated the same way Chrome and Firefox are (eg obnoxiously at every launch.) Where Apple could be guilty of this is when they release their own apps that then "duplicate" functionality found in other apps already on the store and then they deny those apps from being updated, or de-list them.

 

Apple is not going to come out with a Fortnite clone, hate to say it. So that doesn't work here.

 

I think some people are grasping at straws for what Apple's position is. Apple has terms and conditions that apply to developers, Epic willingly broke those terms and Apple removed the app. Nothing malicious on the part of Apple.

 

Where Apple could be slapped on the wrist for is not having clear rules about how Subscriptions and IAP's work in apps. Apple could release a template app that shows exactly how they want it to work. If you've ever paid for a IAP on a game on the iPhone/iPad you'd know that it's all native UI stuff and is different from how it looks on Android, even in the same game. 

 

 

(That's from the show BTW, that's the first screen in the game. Basically the joke is Homer got charged $300 for a free game by launching it.)

 

The Simpsons Tapped out, requires an update every two weeks in order for it's events to cycle, and will refuse to operate without being the current version. I imagine the "bandwidth" requirements of hosting TSTO updates every few weeks at 2.2GB for a full download (I stopped playing it on the iPad when the iPad ran out of space) is far more than Fortnite (8GB) which I have no idea how big it's updates are, as I'm not willing to subject myself to that game. I don't know if Fortnite operates if the version becomes stale.

 

 

My god you put a lot of work into that reply.  I'm sorry it doesn't address the issue. 

 

Apple charges 30% to buy something from inside an app.  They are literally charging 30% for a transaction service that they will not permit you to do outside of their ecosystem.  That is anti trust and extortion.  PERIOD.

 

 

 

 

[Kisai]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

My god you put a lot of work into that reply.  I'm sorry it doesn't address the issue. 

 

Apple charges 30% to buy something from inside an app.  They are literally charging 30% for a transaction service that they will not permit you to do outside of their ecosystem.  That is anti trust and extortion.  PERIOD.

 

So? You are either using their system, or you're not. If you downloaded the game and the v-bucks or whatever the heck it's called was only purchasable from their website when you login, then that puts it in exactly the same position that pretty much all MMO games operate. The only games that use Apple's IAP system exclusively on Apple are games that do not have any other means. Why do you think all these stupid prepaid cards exist?

That's for kids/teens to impulse buy at 7-11 without their parents knowing.

 

Really, Epic could have just straight up deleted the IAP from the mobile games.

[Roswell]

18 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Oh, I agree apple are likey to win this, it is in the US after all.  monopolies are government granted over there.

 

My god you put a lot of work into that reply.  I'm sorry it doesn't address the issue. 

 

Apple charges 30% to buy something from inside an app.  They are literally charging 30% for a transaction service that they will not permit you to do outside of their ecosystem.  That is anti trust and extortion.  PERIOD.

 

 

 

 

You’re throwing words around that make no sense given the context. And yes, they will win the lawsuit because the suit itself is a baseless publicity stunt. Epic is trying to leverage their user base for a better deal and Apple called their bluff because... well it’s Apple and they don’t care.
 

They’re allowed to be the exclusive app publisher on their own device. That’s not a monopoly, lol. With your logic, Nintendo, Roku, Sony and everyone else should also be prosecuted into oblivion for monopolizing their own hardware!
 

They’re also allowed to charge whatever they want as a publishing fee. It’s not extortion, nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. If someone doesn’t want to submit an app, they don’t have to.

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, Kisai said:

So? You are either using their system, or you're not. If you downloaded the game and the v-bucks or whatever the heck it's called was only purchasable from their website when you login, then that puts it in exactly the same position that pretty much all MMO games operate. The only games that use Apple's IAP system exclusively on Apple are games that do not have any other means. Why do you think all these stupid prepaid cards exist?

 

That's for kids/teens to impulse buy at 7-11 without their parents knowing.

 

Really, Epic could have just straight up deleted the IAP from the mobile games.

 

It's like you are intentional ignoring the elephant in the room.  Developers have NO CHOICE over using the system.  It's suffer losing 30% per in-app to apple or lose half the mobile market. 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Vitamanic said:

You’re throwing words around that make no sense given the context. And yes, they will win the lawsuit because the suit itself is a baseless publicity stunt. Epic is trying to 
 

They’re allowed to be the exclusive app publisher on their own device. That’s not a monopoly, lol. With your logic, Nintendo, Roku, Sony and everyone else should also be prosecuted into oblivion for monopolizing their own hardware!
 

They’re also allowed to charge whatever they want as a publishing fee. It’s not extortion, nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. If someone doesn’t want to submit an app, they don’t have to.

It's not their device,  it is a phone.  Let's apply your logic to widows,  It's Microsoft's software so they can be in exclusive control of the software and payment fees.  Windows is not a monopoly.  He see how ridiculous that argument is.  Just because apple make a phone doesn't mean they have absolute control over who can write an app for it or how much everyone has to pay.

 

 

Again, you are literally arguing for them to charge you 30% for a transaction fee when visa will do it for less than 2%.

 

Apple really have suckered a lot of people in with their marketing.

[Roswell]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

It's not their device,  it is a phone.  Let's apply your logic to widows,  It's Microsoft's software so they can be in exclusive control of the software and payment fees.  Windows is not a monopoly.  He see how ridiculous that argument is.  Just because apple make a phone doesn't mean they have absolute control over who can write an app for it or how much everyone has to pay.

 

 

Again, you are literally arguing for them to charge you 30% for a transaction fee when visa will do it for less than 2%.

 

Apple really have suckered a lot of people in with their marketing.

You really don’t even understand the basics of business... It absolutely is their product. They make it and people buy it. People don’t have some kind of human right to publish to it. If Apple wants it to be closed, it’s closed.

 

Again, with your logic, Nintendo should be litigated against because they’re not letting randos sideload apps and games and make third party cartridges by official means. It doesn’t make sense, nobody is entitled access to a device that they didn’t create.

[Bombastinator]

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Oh, I agree apple are likey to win this, it is in the US after all.  monopolies are government granted over there.

 

My god you put a lot of work into that reply.  I'm sorry it doesn't address the issue. 

 

Apple charges 30% to buy something from inside an app.  They are literally charging 30% for a transaction service that they will not permit you to do outside of their ecosystem.  That is anti trust and extortion.  PERIOD.

 

 

 

 

Re: government granted monopoly. 

I think you may be thinking of the British monarchy with that one, except I don’t think even they invented it.  They did use it quite extensively.  The british East India company tea monopoly figures quite prominently in US revolutionary history. 
the US invented anti trust law in the late 1920s. It did used to be a minimum of three competing Systems’s that was changed to two by a judge who felt not that the law was not correct but that it was written poorly.  I personally think there is a special place in hell waiting for him. There are protected monopolies in the US.  They are rare, and generally are things like power companies and train lines.  They have a special name and special and very heavy regulation.  There have been instances where unregulated monopolies have existed.  The most famous one was “Ma Bell“.  It no longer exists.  Major League Baseball the other famous outlier also has a very sordid and corrupt history. It got its comeuppance at the hand of the players u ion in the 1960’s.  Both predated antitrust law. 

[Kisai]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

 

It's like you are intentional ignoring the elephant in the room.  Developers have NO CHOICE over using the system.  It's suffer losing 30% per in-app to apple or lose half the mobile market. 

No. (I know we've had this exact same argument in the other thread)

 

Developers have a choice it's either:

a) Follow Apple's ToS and have app on the store, that includes whatever mechanism for buying the app, subscription, IAP's, etc.

or

b) Follow Apple's ToS and have no microtransactions

c) Don't use Apple's store.

 

There's no "Apple is charging too much" here. Apple can charge whatever they want as long as they charge it to everyone. Petrol stations don't charge white cars 30% more than black cars. Your debit card doesn't charge you 30% more for buying at 7-11 than Circle-K. 

 

As far as the user is concerned there is no cost to them, personally, regardless of how they pay. This is entirely on the developer's end to negotiate with their payment processor. If Apple doesn't want to negotiate with Epic's strongarm tactics, then Epic can take it's ball and go home.

 

As it is, there is a common refrain from retailers that credit card/debit cards cost too much and they would prefer cash, because they get to keep the entire transaction fee worth of profit that they added into their price so they don't lose money on card fees. Likewise many (utility) companies that have their own "apps" want you to not use Apple Pay, and would rather you connect your bank to their app so they don't get charged fees at all. 

 

In BC, BC Hydro (and Fortis, which is the gas company) will only accept bill payment via your bank. You can not pay with a credit card at all. Federal taxes, you can not pay with a credit card at all. It's not unheard off for an established monopoly to dictate their payment terms, because you have no choice. If you want to pay with a credit card to any of these, you will be charged the transaction commission via a third party. That is no different from what Apple is doing. They are acting as a payment intermediary.

 

I can not go to another power company, I can not go to another country if I don't want to give these companies my banking info. Meanwhile. Telus, Shaw, (which are the internet/mobile companies here) will accept credit cards, but put the banking info infront of your face first. Screw those companies, If I do not get a benefit for paying with my bank info, then I will not pay with my bank info.

 

And this is how I see this with Epic. If Epic says "get 26% more vbucks if you buy directly on our website instead of (apple pay, google pay, physical cards from 7-11, etc) that might convince me to do that, if I actually played that game, but really, a sucker and their money are soon parted, it costs Epic exactly zero to create vbucks out of thin air, and it costs apple more to service the downloads for fortnite. What Epic is quite literately asking for is to get 100% of the transaction by removing ApplePay as an option, so they may net get 96% of the fee rather than 70%.

 

Like really, what does Epic hope to accomplish. A Boston Fee party by a few large app store residents? If Apple turned around and decided to lower the fee to 28% will that appease anyone?

 

 

[HenrySalayne]

8 hours ago, Kisai said:

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.

You are arguing with a free and self-regulating market, but the App Store isn't like that. You aren't allowed to adjust your pricing to a fair and sustainable level. You are not allowed to add the fees to your price and you have to use the same price across all platforms despite the fact they are taking 30% of the revenue (not the profit!). And here lays the problem. You can either subsidize the App Store (selling your service with a loss and making up for it on other markets) or inflate the market price by a flat 30%. Both practices are bad for the costumer and it's at least questionable if not illegal to subsidize one market.

 

 

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

You really don’t even understand the basics of business... It absolutely is their product. They make it and people buy it. People don’t have some kind of human right to publish to it. If Apple wants it to be closed, it’s closed.

 

Again, with your logic, Nintendo should be litigated against because they’re not letting randos sideload apps and games and make third party cartridges by official means. It doesn’t make sense, nobody is entitled access to a device that they didn’t create.

I see you avoided the windows example.  Once a product is sold to the consumer it is the consumers product,  and apple trying to retain control over who can and can't install an app is.  The problem here is you want to be charged 30% for a transaction fee.  What's wrong with letting the app developer set up their own payment service and use visa for a 1.6% fee?

 

 

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

Re: government granted monopoly. 

I think you may be thinking of the British monarchy with that one, except I don’t think even they invented it.  They did use it quite extensively.  The british East India company tea monopoly figures quite prominently in US revolutionary history. 
the US invented anti trust law in the late 1920s. It did used to be a minimum of three competing Systems’s that was changed to two by a judge who felt not that the law was not correct but that it was written poorly.  I personally think there is a special place in hell waiting for him. There are protected monopolies in the US.  They are rare, and generally are things like power companies and train lines.  They have a special name and special and very heavy regulation.  There have been instances where unregulated monopolies have existed.  The most famous one was “Ma Bell“.  It no longer exists.  Major League Baseball the other famous outlier also has a very sordid and corrupt history. It got its comeuppance at the hand of the players u ion in the 1960’s.  Both predated antitrust law. 

No, I am thinking explicitly the US government,  ISP are the biggest one that springs to mind with cable and all that BS.

 

Just now, Kisai said:

No. (I know we've had this exact same argument in the other thread)

 

Developers have a choice it's either:

a) Follow Apple's ToS and have app on the store, that includes whatever mechanism for buying the app, subscription, IAP's, etc.

or

b) Follow Apple's ToS and have no microtransactions

c) Don't use Apple's store.

 

That's not an option, do it our way and give us 30% or nothing is not an option.  Being allowed to choose between apples 30% and setting up your own in-app payment system is having an option.

 

This really isn't that complicated.  My hat is off to the apple marketing department who have you guys hook line and sinker.  Take my money take my money, I don't want options. /S

 

 

 

[Kisai]

Just now, HenrySalayne said:

You are arguing with a free and self-regulating market, but the App Store isn't like that. You aren't allowed to adjust your pricing to a fair and sustainable level. You are not allowed to add the fees to your price and you have to use the same price across all platforms despite the fact they are taking 30% of the revenue (not the profit!). And here lays the problem. You can either subsidize the App Store (selling your service with a loss and making up for it on other markets) or inflate the market price by a flat 30%. Both practices are bad for the costumer and it's at least questionable if not illegal to subsidize one market.

 

 

If producing a service costs you 9.99, then you should be able to charge 9.99 on all stores regardless of the comission. If you can't do this then one or both things are true:

a) You're not using the subscription fee/IAP for it's intended purpose

b) You're underpricing your service on purpose.

 

If Floatplane can't use Apple Pay because it takes 30%, then they shouldn't have it on the app store, or the app should only work with if you have an existing account that you subscribed to before hand, like every subscription app. 

 

Where I think the floatplane developers screwed up here was submitting the app to the store with any IAP mechanism. It's a subscription, if netflix and spotify won't do it, then neither should floatplane.

[Roswell]

Just now, mr moose said:

I see you avoided the windows example.  Once a product is sold to the consumer it is the consumers product,  and apple trying to retain control over who can and can't install an app is.  The problem here is you want to be charged 30% for a transaction fee.  What's wrong with letting the app developer set up their own payment service and use visa for a 1.6% fee?

I ignored your Microsoft example because it wasn’t a coherent thought.

 

Again, it’s obvious that you’re not grasping how the laws work. You’re conflating consumer law with antitrust law with monopoly law and so on... It’s a mess. 
 

Yes, consumers have the right to tinker and alter their device all they want. If they want to hack about and make an alternative App Store, they’re free to do so and Apple will let them.

 

However, none of that remotely means that developers magically become entitled to Apple’s publishing platform and get to set their own rules. That’s not included with the phone. Get it? Apple is also free to lock down the phone all they want, it’s their device.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

I ignored your Microsoft example because it wasn’t a coherent thought.

 

Righto.  pick and choose.  At this point you are suffering cognitive bias.

 

Good day.

[Kisai]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I see you avoided the windows example.  Once a product is sold to the consumer it is the consumers product,  and apple trying to retain control over who can and can't install an app is.  The problem here is you want to be charged 30% for a transaction fee.  What's wrong with letting the app developer set up their own payment service and use visa for a 1.6% fee?

Because mobile users don't want to give their payment card information to 1000 different apps. Ever use any of cloud-services junk out there? They want you to do this. See Dropbox.

 

Web:

And here's dropbox's web version, btw it defaults to Yearly which has a lower 12.99/mo for the Plus service. 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That's not an option, do it our way and give us 30% or nothing is not an option.  Being allowed to choose between apples 30% and setting up your own in-app payment system is having an option.

 

No, the option is take it or leave it. That's business, and clearly it only suits one-time-purchases and Apple takes all the payment risks with it.

 

You're arguing from the same angle that "I want to sell my porn app on iOS" does, Apple doesn't want to deal with that kind of thing, so they just won't let you. Apple wants to be able to review any content that is shown on the iPhone, and if you gate it in a way to disguise what the app is for, then of course you're going to get stonewalled.

 

Floatplane shows you even less than Netflix does on the website. I have no idea what's on floatplane. At least Netflix I can do this:

https://www.netflix.com/ca/browse/genre/839338

 

 

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

This really isn't that complicated.  My hat is off to the apple marketing department who have you guys hook line and sinker.  Take my money take my money, I don't want options. /S

This is a really bad faith argument you've been presenting. "The fees are too damn high", fine, go somewhere else when. If enough apps do it, maybe Apple will lower it, but as it is 30% is exactly what the competition is charging so you have no where to go unless you want to build your own platform. Which is what floatplane did. If you want to use floatplane and support the content, then use the website and not the app.

 

[Bombastinator]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I see you avoided the windows example.  Once a product is sold to the consumer it is the consumers product,  and apple trying to retain control over who can and can't install an app is.  The problem here is you want to be charged 30% for a transaction fee.  What's wrong with letting the app developer set up their own payment service and use visa for a 1.6% fee?

 

 

No, I am thinking explicitly the US government,  ISP are the biggest one that springs to mind with cable and all that BS.

 

 

That's not an option, do it our way and give us 30% or nothing is not an option.  Being allowed to choose between apples 30% and setting up your own in-app payment system is having an option.

 

This really isn't that complicated.  My hat is off to the apple marketing department who have you guys hook line and sinker.  Take my money take my money, I don't want options. /S

 

 

 

Re: ISPs 

Ah. So conflation then.  Some small thing sometimes is suddenly everywhere always.

 

 Telecoms are regularly threatened with Utility status during DFL administrations (I don’t know what their current ancronym is) generally procedures are started to have them broken up.  The problem is GOP administrations generally ignore such behavior so what the companies generally do is cause delays in the process hoping a GOP administration will come to power and collapse the suit against it.   It’s a problem.  One it seems Elon Musk is going to fix with starlink.  One of the reasons I like the man. That and it seems he makes good cars.  Pity I can’t afford one at the moment. I fear for my Volkswagen.  It is reaching toward EOL at less than 70k miles.  
 

So your statement that “the US government” supports monopolies is only ever occasionally and partially correct for very specific types of business.  We do have one such administration at the moment.  It may be why the Epic Lawsuit is happening.   They might be hoping the administration pulls a stupid they can use against them.  

[HenrySalayne]

56 minutes ago, Kisai said:

If producing a service costs you 9.99, then you should be able to charge 9.99 on all stores regardless of the comission. If you can't do this then one or both things are true:

a) You're not using the subscription fee/IAP for it's intended purpose

b) You're underpricing your service on purpose.

No. Think about it like this: there is a country A with a sales tax of 5% and a country B with a sales tax of 30%. Now country B is forcing you to use the same price (with included sales tax) as country A despite the higher sales tax. (e. g. in both countries consumers have to pay an amount X, in country A with a included sales tax of 5% in country B with a included sales tax of 30%) This is not a free economy, this is a controlled economy. The people of country B get a benefit at the cost of the people of country A. And it gets even worse considering there might be a state-owned company in country B which doesn't have to pay the 30% sales tax at all. That's the current situation with Apple.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Kisai said:

Because mobile users don't want to give their payment card information to 1000 different apps. Ever use any of cloud-services junk out there? They want you to do this. See

You don't get to decide what other users want or don;t want and your opinion on want you or others might want doesn't change the fact it is extortion (pay us or miss out on half the market)).   Just because you like it doesn't mean it isn't ethical. 

 

1 minute ago, Kisai said:

 

No, the option is take it or leave it. That's business, and clearly it only suits one-time-purchases and Apple takes all the payment risks with it.

 

That's not an option.  And there is no way apple takes any risks,  something goes wrong and wither the user or the developer or both are left with nothing.  Don;t even try to pretend that apple take any risks here.

1 minute ago, Kisai said:

You're arguing from the same angle that "I want to sell my porn app on iOS" does, Apple doesn't want to deal with that kind of thing, so they just won't let you. Apple wants to be able to review any content that is shown on the iPhone, and if you gate it in a way to disguise what the app is for, then of course you're going to get stonewalled.

 

It's not their place to decide that.  If I want to make a porn app then the only thing that should dictate where and when I can sell it is state law regarding sales to minors.    Apple are not the fucking moral police, they are not considering your best interests and I am gobsmacked that anyone would even think they are doing this for you. 

1 minute ago, Kisai said:

This is a really bad faith argument you've been presenting. "The fees are too damn high", fine, go somewhere else when.

For the fucking millionth time, THERE IS NO WHERE ELSE TO GO,  you want half the mobile market you have to pay those fees.  That is the very definition of a monopolized market and antitrust.

 

1 minute ago, Kisai said:

If enough apps do it, maybe Apple will lower it, but as it is 30% is exactly what the competition is charging so you have no where to go unless you want to build your own platform. Which is what floatplane did. If you want to use floatplane and support the content, then use the website and not the app.

 

It's like you are arguing a monopoly doesn't exist by highlighting the result of a monopoly.   no apps can leave the store because there isn't an alternative.

 

 

 

[Kisai]

Just now, HenrySalayne said:

No. Think about it like this: there is a country A with a sales tax of 5% and a country B with a sales tax of 30%. Now country B is forcing you to use the same price as country A despite the higher sales tax. This is not a free economy, this is a controlled economy. The people of country B get a benefit at the cost of the people of country A. And it gets even worse considering there might be a state-owned company in country B which doesn't have to pay the 30% sales tax at all. That's the current situation with Apple.

Not at all. Look at Australia. Australia requires you to list the price with VAT included. This has a lot of fun repercussions with auction sites when the seller is outside the country. The winning price has to be the final price exclusive of shipping.

 

Businesses move their HQ to lower tax states/cities/countries entirely to avoid paying high taxes or laws that target them unfairly. Quite honestly take a look at how many businesses are HQ'd in Delaware,  https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/delaware-corporation.asp even though they have little or no presence.

Quote

• Delaware corporations are companies that are legally registered in the state of Delaware but can conduct business anywhere.
• Roughly half of the companies listed on the S&P 500 are incorporated in Delaware because it is perceived as being business-friendly.
• Delaware especially appeals to financial firms due to usury laws which give banks and credit card companies the freedom to charge high-interest rates on loans.

Take note of that third point.

 

This is from LAST YEAR:

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/344071/Apple_is_being_sued_by_iOS_devs_over_profitkilling_App_Store_fees.php

Quote

Apple is being sued by a group of iOS developers for pushing "profit-killing" commissions and fees onto App Store devs. 

California-based developers Donald R. Cameron and Pure Sweat Basketball Inc. filed the class-action complaint against Apple, and take issue with the company's minimum pricing mandates, 30 percent commission rate, and annual $99 developer fee.

The lawsuit alleges the use of such fees puts Apple in direct violation of federal antitrust laws and California's unfair competition laws, and seeks to end the iPhone makers "abusive monopoly" on the distribution of iOS apps and related products. 

Go read the complaint.

https://www.hbsslaw.com/uploads/case_downloads/apple-dev/2019-06-04-complaint-apple-developers.pdf

 

Quote

3. Further, Apple’s market power has allowed it to charge developers a supracompetitive 30% commission on the sale of paid apps and in-app products for almost 11 years now, despite the inevitable accrual of experience and economies of scale. Additionally, it collects a $99 annual fee from all developers who wish (and must) sell their products through the App Store. Apple also dictates minimum and greater price points, which prevent developers from offering paid products at less than $.99 or at price points ending in anything other than $.99. And so, while Apple is fond of pointing to impressive-sounding sales numbers and dollars earned by developers, nonetheless, its exorbitant fee for distribution (or retail sales) services, coupled with its $99 annual fee and pricing mandates, have cut unlawfully into what would have been developers’ earnings in a competitive landscape.

4. Also, Apple’s overly expensive 30% commission, its $99 annual developer fee, and its pricing mandate have depressed output of paid app and in-app-product transactions. The consumer apps marketplace, which gives rise to the sale of Apple’s distribution or retail-sales services to iOS developers, resoundingly favors low-priced or free apps.5 Developers and would-be developers, who can only earn 70% on the dollar on each paid app or product, in addition to paying $99 annually to gain entry to the App Store, undoubtedly think very hard about whether to spend the effort, time, and energy that is required to design and program an app or related product, bring it to market in the single store available, and hope to recoup costs and make a reasonable profit. For many, the calculus makes no economic sense. This process, which is ongoing, leads to less output in sales, and ergo, distribution transactions.

 

So the entire complaint here is "Apple charges too much" Boo hoo. Ever ask a retailer how much it costs to lease the property? Each of these apps are essentially leasing space on the iOS app store that is 30% of gross earnings, plus a $99 annual fee to hold their space. 

 

IMO an argument can be made that the price is too damn high, but that has to be swung at not just Apple, but Google, Valve, Epic, GoG, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo as well, otherwise it's just targeting Apple for being the biggest kid in the sandbox.