Apple under fire for their Idiotic decision to charge 27% for 3rd party payments

[darknessblade]

9 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

I get what you're saying, but i dont agree.

 

 

 

There are different stores for phones too. Its basically the same thing, the only difference is that apple has their own store on their device, but my point  is you *do* have a choice, developers and users, nobody needs to choose apple.

Kinda the same thing as consoles, you cant use the xbox store on nintendo switch or playstation…

 

And the "30%" cut is neither ok for Steam, apple, nintendo, etc, imo, so what do we do about it, only point at apple?

 

The main reason they start with apple is because its a closed platform.

with 1 sole owner at the top

---

while android is open-source, with no dictator at the top saying what is and isn't allowed.

 

on android Dating apps could easily send customers to their website, to have them pay there. Giving android/google 0% of said purchase. and are they getting booted from the appstore? NO they are not.

and in the rare chance they are, users can just sideload said app.

 

This is not allowed on IOS [Remember what Epic games did with fortnite?] they got booted from the appstore for building in a 100% 3rd party payment method. that circumvents apple payments system

Which is also proof that it is possible.

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, HenrySalayne said:

Just the other day somebody tried to explain to me that nobody needs Windows and an iPad can completely substitute a Surface tablet.

I'm totally fine if somebody changes their opinion based on new facts but with this particular topic everyone is just illogically changing the story every single time it fits their tale.

 

There are alternatives to Windows. Mac OS for example. And Windows and Mac OS can be considered "open" compared to iOS. Why should iOS get a special treatment? Why should it get an extra category just so Apples inexcusable shenanigans are excused? I don't get it. Either we apply the same rules to all OSs or we just don't have this conversation at all.

 

All in all, what Apple does here, it's just another brick in the wall.

Then, when we're at that point, who the fuck are banks to decide I need a locked bootloader or not? Eh? Where do we stop then? It's literally because of this shit that I had to swap to iOS. I could use LineageOS, but apps whining over unlocked bootloader was so annoying I just couldn't be bothered with it or god forbid had to jerk around with god damn Magisk and god knows what else.

 

Then again I can't just forget my desktop PC somewhere and have all my personal and financial info stolen. Phone, much more likely. Installing OS on desktop or laptop is also infinitely easier compared to fuckery you have to go through with phones to a point it's often simply not worth the effort. So I can perfectly understand why they aren't treated the same and I don't expect them to be treated the same.

 

Also no, MacOS is not a replacement for Windows and neither is Linux. Just because they are somewhat similar they aren't the same at all. If you're into gaming, you can just forget everything that's not Windows. MacOS fits into this narrow niche of creators and sunday web surfers where it has all the features for that, but beyond that it's rather useless. And same for Linux, it's for this narrow niche group of geeks and sunday web surfers for which it works fine. But for everyone else it's just too fiddly and unnecessarily overcomplicated.

 

I used to say I'd never own anything Apple. But I hated Google's shit so much I decided despite all my principles I'll make a CHOICE and NOT use Android anymore and went with iOS (iPhone) well knowing most of limitations or restrictions. I learned some more along the way, but it's been 3 years and I'm still here and more than ever I appreciate how all of it works. Because it works so flawlessly and reliably. Last time I checked, this works in reverse too. If you're all so fed up with Apple, then buy an Android phone. Isn't it how everyone always screeches "vote with your wallet"? Suddenly that just doesn't apply because it's Apple and for Apple we need to have harsh treatment and separate set of rules because "Apple". Because if suddenly no one was buying iPhones anymore, do you think Apple would start questioning their operations? Saying "but people don't know better" is a bit silly argument, because most people who argue access to app stores, to alternate ROM'0s and sideloading are the loud minority. The actual silent majority doesn't give a shit about any of that. Seeing from all the kicking and screaming, most people don't seem to give a shit about software support either for as long as they get best specs paper can still carry and they'll be happiest people in the world even if they don't get a single software update for their phone. It seems to me people whining over these 30% are just the loud minority and nothing else.

[WereCat]

23 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

bla

It seems to me people whining over these 30% are just the loud minority and nothing else.

These are the devs and publishers that have no other option, not people that buy iPhones and other Apple devices. This is not about you, me or Jeff over there.

 

People/customers couldn't give a damn about how big of a cut which store takes. They give a damn about paying the least amount possible for what they want.

This is about devs/publishers having an option to have their own payment system or store. Obviously they will also release their app on the Apple app store but then it's up to the consumer whether they want to buy it there or there.

 

And they will either buy it where it's cheaper or more convenient, that's the only change for you as a consumer. Or is having to make a choice too much of a headache? 

[Mark Kaine]

7 minutes ago, darknessblade said:

The main reason they start with apple is because its a closed platform.

with 1 sole owner at the top

yeah, thats the difference, i was just pointing out users have a choice here, and thats not to use closed platforms (and many do make that choice)

 

i think going after the 30% isnt going to change that, and forcing apple (but not nintendo, sony, etc) just isnt going to fly (with any of those) what i think would be better is force apple to allow sideloading, without the ridicolous "$100" fee… (of course that also comes with issues, what about other closed platforms, and apple users outright saying they dont want sideloading, it would still be a better approach, perhaps)

 

[HenrySalayne]

3 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Suddenly that just doesn't apply because it's Apple and for Apple we need to have harsh treatment and separate set of rules because "Apple". Because if suddenly no one was buying iPhones anymore, do you think Apple would start questioning their operations? Saying "but people don't know better" is a bit silly argument, because most people who argue access to app stores, to alternate ROM'0s and sideloading are the loud minority. The actual silent majority doesn't give a shit about any of that. Seeing from all the kicking and screaming, most people don't seem to give a shit about software support either for as long as they get best specs paper can still carry and they'll be happiest people in the world even if they don't get a single software update for their phone. It seems to me people whining over these 30% are just the loud minority and nothing else.

What separate set of rules? The reason everybody is upset with Apple is certainly not that it's Apple. Apple denies every single solution that would allow revenue to not pass through their hands. Sideloading? No. Third-party app stores? No. Even hints or links in apps to direct costumers to the homepage of a service? Certainly no! Any clues about how much of the payment Apple is receiving? NEVER! They not only take as much as they can get, they also prevent costumers to be educated about this fact.

This is the problem. It's not for security or any other reason but profit. And this is not profit earned, this is profit enforced. Nobody chooses the app store because it's the best but because there are no alternatives.

Phones and tablets are not novelty devices (such as game consoles) but PCs and it's important manufacturers don't build walls around their ecosystems to lock out any competition and have full control over all revenue streams and what costumers can do with their device. That's the key element of this discussion. If Microsoft releases Windows 12 and the only way to install software will be the official store, I guarantee you I will raise my pitchfork and complain about it.

 

[RejZoR]

23 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

What separate set of rules? The reason everybody is upset with Apple is certainly not that it's Apple. Apple denies every single solution that would allow revenue to not pass through their hands. Sideloading? No. Third-party app stores? No. Even hints or links in apps to direct costumers to the homepage of a service? Certainly no! Any clues about how much of the payment Apple is receiving? NEVER! They not only take as much as they can get, they also prevent costumers to be educated about this fact.

This is the problem. It's not for security or any other reason but profit. And this is not profit earned, this is profit enforced. Nobody chooses the app store because it's the best but because there are no alternatives.

Phones and tablets are not novelty devices (such as game consoles) but PCs and it's important manufacturers don't build walls around their ecosystems to lock out any competition and have full control over all revenue streams and what costumers can do with their device. That's the key element of this discussion. If Microsoft releases Windows 12 and the only way to install software will be the official store, I guarantee you I will raise my pitchfork and complain about it.

 

Is it? I don't recall anyone whining so god damn endlessly because you can't use Steam on Xbox. Or on PlayStation. Where is this "openness" there? Oh it's THEIR console. Well, so is iOS/iPhone Apple's.

 

Since when are consoles suddenly "novelty" items but phones also suddenly aren't because beforementioned arbitrary rules you all apply around.

 

It's really funny how you all demand shit to bypass Apple entirely. Try placing yourself in Apple's shoes. Would you just wave away all the income while everyone freely uses your servers to deliver apps to users? I think you'd suddenly be playing a different tune... Waving around "but muh Apple makes billion" could just as well be understood as you're just jelous as f**k.

 

Don't like consoles, buy a competing console. Don't like that either, buy a PC. Don't like that either, buy a phone. Don't like Android, buy iPhone. Don't like iPhone? Buy Android. It's actually whole lot choices...

[BuckGup]

21 hours ago, darknessblade said:

Because steam is a windows app/store, of which it is 1 of many potential ones.

 

While Apple is the sole owner, regulator, and enforcer on THEIR, platform

 

Not forgetting do you think that if a game dev has a game and does not want to sell their app/game trough steam, that they have no other option?

they can just sell it trough the many other stores "EPIC games, GOG games, even their own website"

and then they do not have to give Steam a single dime, because they did not sell trough STEAM.

 

if they do it trough their own website, they get 100% of all the profit. made from sales, not having to give a single time to anyone.

 

I agree with you but I am conflicted as you can jailbreak an iPhone and not use any of the Apple ecosystem while still using ONLY Apple products. But I think since jailbreaking is against Apples ToS it wouldn't be considered so what you said still may be true

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

Is it? I don't recall anyone whining so god damn endlessly because you can't use Steam on Xbox. Or on PlayStation. Where is this "openness" there? Oh it's THEIR console. Well, so is iOS/iPhone Apple's.

 

Apple and Nintendo are in the same boat. They build their own hardware and operating system. License it to nobody. And because they refuse to either license the OS or sanction some kind of Software Emulator that can run on a Windows PC, it creates a situation where the iOS or Nintendo device have exclusivity to their respective Apple or Nintendo software.

 

In Apple's case, there are always alternatives, they're just never as good as Apple's software, and options that are better are on a full sized desktop anyway. Nintendo however, will never license anyone to play their games, and anyone who has previously developed games for their consoles will never get away with shipping an emulator for a Nintendo system just to avoid having to rewrite the game for another system.

 

As I've said in another thread. It would be in Nintendo's best interests in getting their older, first party, games onto the PC or Mac (eg via Steam) because they're just routinely leaving money on the table by letting the pirates collect and redistribute the games that Nintendo won't, that are over 15 years (two console generations) old. Apple on the other hand has no reason or interest to port their own software to the PC because they continue to update those software programs to run on their existing software. Unlike Nintendo.

 

But people on the Windows PC, or Android Phone have options, they just don't have a legitimate way of running Apple-exclusive software. Even if you own a Mac, you don't automatically get to run iOS software. However you can run Android software on a Windows PC, or Linux software on a Windows PC, it's just not straight-forward, and isn't any easier than having an actual Android or Linux device.

 

Ultimately, if Microsoft makes it easier to just run Android software on Windows, that will remove a substantial portion Android's user-base who don't like Android phone hardware, but have to use a "phone" for some reason for something other than making phone calls. Like many mobile-only versions of software exist out there, and as a Desktop Windows user, I'm not interested in very many of them, but for the few that I do, I don't have an Android phone, and am not going to buy one just to play some P2W BS gacha/lootbox game. If it's on iOS I might try it, but I would rather not keep these on the phone because they waste a lot of the bandwidth and flash wear being updated when not being used.

 

 

[Mark Kaine]

41 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Apple and Nintendo are in the same boat. They build their own hardware and operating system. License it to nobody. And because they refuse to either license the OS or sanction some kind of Software Emulator that can run on a Windows PC, it creates a situation where the iOS or Nintendo device have exclusivity to their respective Apple or Nintendo software.

… and Sony (with few exceptions ), and Xbox (whos software runs on pc, but still the same eccosystem obviously … ) but now you're talking about a different "problem" i see no reason  for anyone to support 3rd party OS's… where would that end…?

 

As I already hinted at, the issue here is as long "walled gardens" are allowed companies will do it… Apple, Nintendo, Sony… everyone who wants to basically.

 

So the question should really be is there a "right to sideload" and should companies be allowed to make it unnecessarily / artificially difficult?

 

I think there definitely should be a right to sideload, but currently its more a grey area in many cases, with all the issues that come with that. (not to mention Apples weird "fee") 

 

 

[HenrySalayne]

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

It's really funny how you all demand shit to bypass Apple entirely.

Nobody said that.

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Try placing yourself in Apple's shoes. Would you just wave away all the income while everyone freely uses your servers to deliver apps to users? I think you'd suddenly be playing a different tune... Waving around "but muh Apple makes billion" could just as well be understood as you're just jelous as f**k.

Maybe you could explain to me why Apple should get 30% off a Netflix subscription. The costumer bought the device, the costumer is paying for the internet connection, Netflix is paying the licence fees and for the servers, yet Apple, just because the costumer downloaded the app from the store (and they had no choice!) gets almost a third of the revenue. I don't see any balance here, just one party filling their pockets with money without doing anything to deserve it. Is Apple offering tools to develop the app? Totally! Is it worth 30% of all revenue? I strongly doubt that.

I don't understand how people still defend this kind of behaviour. It doesn't make any sense.

And just ignore the fact that Apple is also a content provider and a direct competitor to Netflix...

BTW, is Microsoft getting 30% of the cut if I buy stuff in the iTunes app? If somebody knows, please tell me! And how does Microsoft makes money? I can download Visual Studio for free.

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Is it? I don't recall anyone whining so god damn endlessly because you can't use Steam on Xbox. Or on PlayStation. Where is this "openness" there? Oh it's THEIR console. Well, so is iOS/iPhone Apple's.

I don't need sideloading on my printer or on my reflow station. They serve one particular purpose.

PCs (and that includes phones and tablets) are universal devices. It's quite simple to distinguish between these categories. If you bought a game console you don't expect it to manage your e-mail accounts, but you expect it from a PC.

[AudiTTFan]

3 hours ago, RejZoR said:

everyone freely uses your servers to deliver apps to users

HAHAHA WHAT

Apple charges $99 a year already for every user of the App Store SDK (which rises to $299/year if the app is made exclusively for a company's employees.) So while hosting it is (possibly, but even then I don't know) free, creating it and then maintaining it so people still want to use it comes at a cost, especially for small-time app studios with multiple developers

[RejZoR]

23 minutes ago, AudiTTFan said:

HAHAHA WHAT

Apple charges $99 a year already for every user of the App Store SDK (which rises to $299/year if the app is made exclusively for a company's employees.) So while hosting it is (possibly, but even then I don't know) free, creating it and then maintaining it so people still want to use it comes at a cost, especially for small-time app studios with multiple developers

That's participation fee, so you actually come with intention to make something quality that will make money. Not like GooglePlay where every dick can submit every possible trash because it's one time tiny fee that no one gives a shit about even if their low effort tanks entirely. If you have to spend 10x as much, you reevaluate your intentions.

[darknessblade]

4 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Is it? I don't recall anyone whining so god damn endlessly because you can't use Steam on Xbox. Or on PlayStation. Where is this "openness" there? Oh it's THEIR console. Well, so is iOS/iPhone Apple's.

 

Since when are consoles suddenly "novelty" items but phones also suddenly aren't because beforementioned arbitrary rules you all apply around.

 

It's really funny how you all demand shit to bypass Apple entirely. Try placing yourself in Apple's shoes. Would you just wave away all the income while everyone freely uses your servers to deliver apps to users? I think you'd suddenly be playing a different tune... Waving around "but muh Apple makes billion" could just as well be understood as you're just jelous as f**k.

 

Don't like consoles, buy a competing console. Don't like that either, buy a PC. Don't like that either, buy a phone. Don't like Android, buy iPhone. Don't like iPhone? Buy Android. It's actually whole lot choices...

"It's really funny how you all demand shit to bypass Apple entirely. Try placing yourself in Apple's shoes. "

 

Shouldn't this apply to you as well. since you created mods/tools for games to use features the devs did not intend to be used for THEIR GAMES? 

 

 

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, HenrySalayne said:

I don't need sideloading on my printer or on my reflow station. They serve one particular purpose.

PCs (and that includes phones and tablets) are universal devices. It's quite simple to distinguish between these categories. If you bought a game console you don't expect it to manage your e-mail accounts, but you expect it from a PC.

I totally agree with the first part of your post about netflix (as an example) thats why you should be able to sideload apps… no one gets an unmerited fee and  users can use the apps they want. 

But that second part? You're comparing consoles with printers, etc? Thats not even close to be the same thing , even though i would definitely advocate for sideloading (ink cartridges) on that too - there is simply no reason to say a gaming console (which at heart is a pc anyway) can rightfully avoid sideloading, while Apple totally cant, because you can "write emails"… which you definitely should be able to do on a console as well, as long it has a bowser, and if it doesnt then you should be allowed to sideload one of your choice …!

 

 

There is really no distinction between a pc, a phone and a gaming console that justifies to treat them any different, just because a gaming console is slightly more specialized doesnt mean it doesnt have the capabilities for more and the user should have the option to use these capabilities at the fullest. 

 

 

The question really is (again) do we think there should be a right to sideload or not?

in my opinion without sideloading option this will just lead to nothing… 

 

So Apple reduces their cut to 20% and the "fee" (for whatever) to $50… awesome, except that changes nothing, they still have an iron grip on their platform and developers will still complain how "unfair" it is…

 

Sideloading though?  Apple will change their tune quickly about fees and cuts on their own store… 

 

 

[Kisai]

6 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

… and Sony (with few exceptions ), and Xbox (whos software runs on pc, but still the same eccosystem obviously … ) but now you're talking about a different "problem" i see no reason  for anyone to support 3rd party OS's… where would that end…?

The difference is that Sony and Microsoft's hardware are off-the-shelf hardware that you can make a reasonable approximation of, and PC ports are reasonably viable, and you can use their controllers on the PC without a lot of hassle. Both Microsoft and Sony have virtual hardware (eg PSNow) that you can play today. Nintendo does not have virtual NES/Famicom, SNES, N64, gamecubes, wii, wii U's, DS, DSi, 3DS that you can play on the PC, hell you can't even play them on on anything.

 

What you get on the Wii/WiiU/Switch are a few games that run on a special-purpose emulator-for-that-game, and the N64 games are actually "recompiled" for the switch in a way, as any N64 game you play on the Switch is actually much higher visual fidelity particle effects and textures used in UI's. Meanwhile, Dolphin exists and plays GC/Wii/WiiU games much better than the original consoles, so it's not like Nintendo can claim it's impossible. It's very likely they have all the source code for everything produced since the GBA, since the big Nintendo Leak proved they still have source code kicking around for GBA and N64 games. There is just no will by Nintendo to expand the user base, just like Apple. Either you want the thing on their platform, and you buy their platform, or you do without.

 

As much as it pisses me off to re-buy Mario Kart 8, Smash, again, because I already own it on the Wii U and the 3DS, I held off buying the Switch primarily because I was hoping Nintendo would release a 4K unit. But I gave up when they announced the OLED model. Nintendo has no interest in listening to demand. You buy what underpowered hardware they have, or do without.

 

6 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

As I already hinted at, the issue here is as long "walled gardens" are allowed companies will do it… Apple, Nintendo, Sony… everyone who wants to basically.

 

So the question should really be is there a "right to sideload" and should companies be allowed to make it unnecessarily / artificially difficult?

 

I think there definitely should be a right to sideload, but currently its more a grey area in many cases, with all the issues that come with that. (not to mention Apples weird "fee") 

 

 

I feel there should be a right to sideload where:

1) I compiled the software myself

2) I signed the certificate myself using my "developer SDK"

and

3) Apple, Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony, etc have the right to fingerprint this program and block everyone else using it if I have not paid for the distribution rights. Sideloading is for my personal use only, is not permitted to look/explore/probe the filesystem, memory, USB devices or network.

 

If I wish to compile VLC or a bitcoin miner or basically anything that is open source, where I can make trivial edits to the binary so it passes the fingerprint test, it would still get denied at the network level to avoid people being able to push unsigned update binaries by getting launchers signed. If you want network access, the software needs a full review by the device manufacturer that your software is what it says it is, and must pull updates through the device's own update system, not download binary patches itself.

 

However allowing even small amounts of sideloading requires a large amount of attention to filesystem, memory, USB, and network. Which is things that Desktop PC's can reasonably do at a negligible performance cost, but gaming devices don't do because they are expensive in processing costs.

 

Hence the best case scenario are App stores being split into "One time purchase up front" and "Free" stores, where the latter permits more (potentially crappy) software without a developer license, but also requires a third party certificate generated by a partner that certifies that they have verified that the software binary will not:

- Violate copyrights, licenses or trademarks of others (good grief there is so much of this garbage on google play)

- Download additional binaries, patches or native machine code from outside the store.

- Duplicate software already in the store (I'm looking at forks/popular-program-with-the-serials-number-filed-off) of existing programs

 

That third party certificate also isn't free, you would be charged every time the software has to be reviewed manually (triggered by binary compression, encryption, obfuscation, DRM, or known bad-actor libraries.) Play nice, using known safe libraries and game engines and the store will let your corporate and hobby software pass. Try to be clever to sneak malicious code in, and good bye forever.

 

[Arvids]

Something that nobody seems to remember/know is that the bigger issue with that 30% cut is the fact that at least Apple (not sure about Google) in the contract demands that your price be the same across all platforms. Meaning either you raise your price 30% FOR EVERYONE regardless of what other platforms charge as their transaction fee or you eat 30% loss for the Apple's store compared to other ways of getting paid. And that applies for across your whole business. Have a desktop app and use Stripe to process those payments? By Apple's contract  the price of that should be exactly the same as for the iOS store. 

It was discussed on one of the WAN shows.

 

There is a chance my memory is playing tricks on me, since that WAN show was probably around a year ago or so. If memory serves me right, it was the reason why they could not just put in Apple pay in the iOS app and have prices be 30% higher if user chooses to pay via Apple pay instead of going to the website and paying there via a different payment provider.

[Kisai]

2 hours ago, Arvids said:

Something that nobody seems to remember/know is that the bigger issue with that 30% cut is the fact that at least Apple (not sure about Google) in the contract demands that your price be the same across all platforms. Meaning either you raise your price 30% FOR EVERYONE regardless of what other platforms charge as their transaction fee or you eat 30% loss for the Apple's store compared to other ways of getting paid. And that applies for across your whole business. Have a desktop app and use Stripe to process those payments? By Apple's contract  the price of that should be exactly the same as for the iOS store. 

It was discussed on one of the WAN shows.

 

There is a chance my memory is playing tricks on me, since that WAN show was probably around a year ago or so. If memory serves me right, it was the reason why they could not just put in Apple pay in the iOS app and have prices be 30% higher if user chooses to pay via Apple pay instead of going to the website and paying there via a different payment provider.

Because you're legally not permitted to do price discrimination this way.

https://marcomm.mccarthy.ca/pubs/usch4.htm#:~:text=Price discrimination occurs whenever there,sales crosses a state line.

 

Quote

What is the Legal Definition of Price Discrimination?

Price discrimination occurs whenever there are two (or more) sales, at roughly the same time, of goods of "like grade and quality" to different customers at different prices.

 

The federal law on price discrimination applies only when one of the discriminatory sales crosses a state line. The law does not apply to discrimination on export sales (though foreign competition law might apply). It does apply to sales of products imported into the United States.

 

Price discrimination cannot occur unless a business situation meets the above definition. In other words, there must be two different sales at different prices. So discriminating against a would-be buyer by refusing to sell to it at all does not violate the Robinson-Patman Act. (In some limited circumstances, however, refusal to deal may violate the Sherman Act, discussed above.)

 

Basically, you can not charge two different customers in the same state different prices for the same item (Eg a game on iOS and a game on Android, and a game on Steam that use the same Unity engine and assets, is exactly the same on all three platforms, and only differ by what store they are on and what OS the Unity Engine has been compiled for.) These differences are trivial, with the main performance differences coming from the device they are operated on.

 

This also applies to books, movies, music, and so forth.

Quote

As a general rule, price discrimination is illegal

• if an injury to competition is likely to result from the price discrimination,
• and if the different prices are not justified by differences in cost to the seller (in the manufacture, sale, or delivery of the goods),
• and if the seller is unable to justify that the lower price is a good faith effort to meet an equally low price offered by one of its competitors.

 

Mastercard, VISA and American Express also forbid price discrimination between their payment types (eg you can not surcharge for using AMEX over VISA) yet, these card interchange networks routinely prohibit using acquirers with lower fees in other countries (such in the case in Europe where everyone uses Euro.)

 

So it's not a simple thing to demand that a store that sells worldwide to lower their fees, at best you can demand that they support -all- domestic payment card systems, but trying to get them to lower the payment processing fee is basically asking them to subsidize certain countries with higher interchange fees (and likely lower quality of life.) Something that can be done with digital goods, but not physical goods. Of course you can charge $90 for a game in Canada, and $80 for a game in the US, but then the converted price from Mexico is like $20.

 

When a steam sales happens, usually that sale price is applied on ALL store platforms the game is available by legal requirement. So by proxy, various platforms that support "sale" prices get the benefit of such sales as well, at least from big publishers. Square-Enix typically does this. Though Square-Enix also tends to put things on Epic's store exclusively for a year before it gets to Steam.

 

What would make things fair(er) across the board would be a requirement that digital stores make the commission rate visible on the store listing. So customers who really give that much of a care to support the developer, can pick the store where the developer gets the lowest commission. You didn't think Epic offering lower commissions would translate to lower prices did you?

 

 

[Mark Kaine]

13 hours ago, Kisai said:

However allowing even small amounts of sideloading requires a large amount of attention to filesystem, memory, USB, and network. Which is things that Desktop PC's can reasonably do at a negligible performance cost, but gaming devices don't do because they are expensive in processing costs.

 

What… i don't think you understand what "sideloading" means, none of that and especially no licenses are *necessary* either the program runs or it doesn't… thats exactly how it works on android and pc (and some other platforms)

 

i get it thats not something *you* want, and neither does Apple (Sony, etc) but thats the question Im asking, should these companies be allowed to dictate how users use their devices or not…?  Your "solution" to that seems to be to make things even more needlessly complicated. No you shouldnt have to ask for "permission", it should be your right to run whatever you want and *of course* also be able to share whatever you want, just how it is on other plaforms. 

[Kisai]

16 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

What… i don't think you understand what "sideloading" means, none of that and especially no licenses are *necessary* either the program runs or it doesn't… thats exactly how it works on android and pc (and some other platforms)

 

i get it thats not something *you* want, and neither does Apple (Sony, etc) but thats the question Im asking, should these companies be allowed to dictate how users use their devices or not…?  Your "solution" to that seems to be to make things even more needlessly complicated. No you shouldnt have to ask for "permission", it should be your right to run whatever you want and *of course* also be able to share whatever you want, just how it is on other plaforms. 

If you enable sideloading, you're also enabling tampering with the OS, which means the OS and other software can't trust you won't tamper with them.

 

Think about why certain games aren't available on the PC, but are available on consoles. Cheaters are rampant on modified consoles and PC games. PC games have to retrofit performance-harming anti-cheat software because a small amount of players want to ruin a large amount of players gaming experience. 

 

That is what sideloading on a mobile device and console entails.

 

As I've said in another thread, arguments for sideloading are really about piracy and cheating. If you can not eliminate the potential for pirated software and cheating, then that is not a better option than the iOS status quo.

[Mark Kaine]

25 minutes ago, Kisai said:

If you enable sideloading, you're also enabling tampering with the OS, which means the OS and other software can't trust you won't tamper with them.

 

Doesnt seem to be a big problem on android, if at all. So debunked already ?

 

 

26 minutes ago, Kisai said:

As I've said in another thread, arguments for sideloading are really about piracy and cheating. If you can not eliminate the potential for pirated software and cheating, then that is not a better option than the iOS status quo.

While these  are likely "side" effects of sideloading , its really not grounds to dismiss the whole concept, as seen on pc and android, it doesnt seem to impact their bottom line at all. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kisai]

4 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

Doesnt seem to be a big problem on android, if at all. So debunked already ?

It's a massive problem for multiplayer games. Or have you not seen a dude with a dozen cell phones before. Or just google "auto-farming bot mobile"

 

That's just one random thing I picked off youtube.

 

4 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

 

While these  are likely "side" effects of sideloading , its really not grounds to dismiss the whole concept, as seen on pc and android, it doesnt seem to impact their bottom line at all. 

 

If you call destroying the game economies not affecting their bottom line.

 

Bots and hacks are a problem for -all- PC games and one of the leading reasons why console players don't want to play with PC players and vice versa.

 

Again. You can not just hand wave "sideloading did nothing wrong", the fact is if you even open the door slightly, every possible malicious thing out there will try to use it, and use the sideloading excuse. Malware developers and pirates are the ones pushing for sideloading being de-facto features.

 

What I proposed a few posts back was "you can have your sideloading, if it's virtualized away from the OS and not permitted to communicate with the public internet.

[HenrySalayne]

6 hours ago, Kisai said:

Because you're legally not permitted to do price discrimination this way.

https://marcomm.mccarthy.ca/pubs/usch4.htm#:~:text=Price discrimination occurs whenever there,sales crosses a state line.

OK, this is wild claim. Could you please explain to me why a game can be free on the Epic store while it costs full price on Steam? This must be illegal then.

6 hours ago, Kisai said:

and if the different prices are not justified by differences in cost to the seller (in the manufacture, sale, or delivery of the goods),

If Apple takes 30% delivery fees, this seems to fit perfectly.

 

5 hours ago, Kisai said:

As I've said in another thread, arguments for sideloading are really about piracy and cheating. If you can not eliminate the potential for pirated software and cheating, then that is not a better option than the iOS status quo.

Only conclusion from this one is to shut down the internet for good. Or money. Or knives. "It can be used for evil so we don't have it at all".

[pas008]

On 2/15/2022 at 2:15 AM, RejZoR said:

It's not even remotely the same. iPhone is Apple's, iOS is Apple's, App Store is Apple's... It's all Apple's and yet somehow everyone finds it outrageous that they charge fees. Everyone should just be a charity based on your arbitrary rules.

no the iphone/ipad is the one who bought it

windows is microsofts

so they can make sure all apps created have to go through their store? its their platform right?

and they get 30% irony

apple is so great with innovation, lets see what else they take from someone else and you can be like cool apple so great

while they profited from using others to get there(windows/creative/and many other), but the will do whatever they can to block(sue countersue) others from doing what they do along with always taking from everyone

 

[HRD]

9 hours ago, Arvids said:

Something that nobody seems to remember/know is that the bigger issue with that 30% cut is the fact that at least Apple (not sure about Google) in the contract demands that your price be the same across all platforms. Meaning either you raise your price 30% FOR EVERYONE regardless of what other platforms charge as their transaction fee or you eat 30% loss for the Apple's store compared to other ways of getting paid. And that applies for across your whole business.

7 hours ago, Kisai said:

Because you're legally not permitted to do price discrimination this way.

https://marcomm.mccarthy.ca/pubs/usch4.htm#:~:text=Price discrimination occurs whenever there,sales crosses a state line.

This is not true

“Apple does not require price parity; that is, developers are free to price their in-app content on apps downloaded from the App Store higher than the same content sold through other platforms.”
“Although, the Court notes that some platform owners require price parity among other platforms, such that prices are universal amongst each platform.”

 

epic v apple

[HRD]

5 minutes ago, pas008 said:

no the iphone/ipad is the one who bought it

windows is microsofts

so they can make sure all apps created have to go through their store? its their platform right?

and they get 30% irony

apple is so great with innovation, lets see what else they take from someone else and you can be like cool apple so great

while they profited from using others to get there(windows/creative/and many other), but the will do whatever they can to block(sue countersue) others from doing what they do along with always taking from everyone

If Microsoft made a laptop or a phone which doesn’t allow sideloading and was clear about it. So people are buying it knowing that it doesn’t allow sideloading and it succeeds it is ok. Microsoft tried that BTW and failed (windows rt only allowed software from the Microsoft store with 30% commission) because people did not like it or buy it not because it was illegal to prevent sideloading.