[cf_]

I really wish there was a third party - the customer - actually represented in this trial. Apple and Epic arguing over what is best for the customer, while clearly they are having their own interests in mind, screams for the actual customers to be represented.

The whole argument about them promoting an app „for free“ is a bit ridiculous. They clearly knew the amount of commission they were going to earn from pushing that app through their App Store - so please admit that you clearly didn‘t do this out of the good of your hearts.

The same goes for the portrayal of „look how much money they made through us“ - yes - and look at how much money they made you along the way. I mean if Epic made 600 million, than you made about 260 million - from the very same people that paid you for the hardware.

I think if the App Store is such a tremendous value, why don‘t you ask users to pay for access to that App Store directly. Let‘s see how valuable everybody thinks the App Store is when they actually have to pay an access fee directly to Apple.

[tobyhinloopen]

Meanwhile the Apple AppStore is terrible for finding anything. It’s just a horrible list of most downloaded apps and a search bar, and even the search feature is bad.

For every other purpose like getting proper recommendations, you have to consult the internet.

Imagine having a “we think you will like these games because you played...” feature that works as well as Spotify’s or Steam’s recommendation engine. That will be a game changer for everyone, both consumers and developers.

I hope Apple will be forced to allow 3rd party stores, so we can get an Epic Games Store app, or a Steam Games Store app on our mobile devices.

The only thing worse than having multiple game launchers like we have on PC is having only one, and you cannot bypass it, and it’s awful, and it still asks for 30%.

I want multiple stores. Or I want Apple to seriously rethink their shitty store app. Preferably both.

[tuatoru]

Yes!

Good grief, Amazon is terrible for finding things, but the Apple App Store is several degrees worse. I do a search for an app that is in a top apps list, and it doesn't show up in the search results. WTF?

The whole App Store experience shows major contempt for your customers, Apple. That sound in the distance is chickens coming home to roost.

[encom]

I have just given up on the Apple app store entirely at this point. It feels like 99% of it is pure garbage, and a significant portion of that garbage is trying to trick me with in-app-purchases.

Every time I think "I bet there's an app for that", I go away disappointed.

It sounds so hollow when the Supreme Leader of Apple brags about their store having 10.000.000.000 apps. Sure you do, and maybe 20 of them aren't total crap.

[canofbars]

The real problem here is that companies are forced to accept apples terms. Because apple controls every level of the stack, to opt out of the App store ToS you have to opt out of the store, the OS, and the hardware.

If there was a way to install apps outside of the store this would not be an issue. Most users and developers would still use the app store since it provides value but devs who feel that they can supply their own marketing and payment processing can do it themselves.

[applecrazy]

> devs who feel that they can supply their own marketing and payment processing can do it themselves.

The issue I have with that is that then a ton of companies think it's a good idea to ship a crappy "launcher" that needs to run on startup, taking up resources in the background while providing little to no added functionality. We can see that with PC games; it used to be just Steam, but now there's the Epic Games Launcher, Origin, GoG, and a bunch of more obscure launchers that need to be installed to play particular games.

[simion314]

And this is a good thing, competition between this stores is good for the users, some users got free games, some developers got better deals.

The "needs to launch on startup" is FALSE , you can have this launchers set no to start at all and you launch the game and the launcher will start if needed (not all Steam games need Steam in background).

FYI GOG launcher is optional, you can just download the game from the website with a browser and then install it as in old times.

Competition is good and except the Epic drama I did not see anyone complaining the GOG, HumbleBundle, itch.io or downloading from Patreon is a bad thing for PC. I expect though if Apple blocks all launchers on the new OSX for ARM then an army of people will say that downloading a small game directly from Patron is too complicated and insecure for the average Apple user mind.

[danielheath]

It's not a good thing that I need 6 stores installed to play the games I've bought, each with their own updater pulling several gigabytes a week off the net just to keep the store app up-to-date.

I'd be interested to see whether any jurisdiction would hand down a consumer mandate for unbundling the DRM component from the storefront app; the former only updates occasionally.

[simion314]

Better to have the option of 5 stores that you can launch when and if you want then only have a Windows/Apple Store that will have more expensive games, will censor stuff based on "american values", will DRM shit so you can't say swap a .dll with something that works better(some old games that work bad on Win10 can be fixed by using a different directx.dll), you could not mod the games - basically you are telling PC people that a console is the best thing because it has 1 small advantage but it fucks you in 12 different ways(more expensive stuff and no freedom)

[Gorbzel]

Simply put, none of the things you’ve said are better are actually better.

Launcher apps are garbage, but you just move right past that to one single game that can be downloaded directly out of hundreds that can’t.

[phepranto]

I find it hard to believe that all stores combined patch a single gigabyte in a week, let alone every store patching multiple gigabytes. The size of the stores and their patches are negligible compared to installing any modern game.

[TeMPOraL]

Competition is good for the customer when the goods are commodities. Media - books, songs, videogames - are mostly non-substitutable goods: if you want to watch Star Wars, you won't settle for an episode of Friends instead. As soon as exclusive releases are allowed, customer benefits from competition evaporate.

[tasssko]

the commenter is right and you have missed the point. There is no competition in this space. You can only get Fortnite from the Epic Games Launcher.

[AnthonyMouse]

But the Epic Games Launcher is free and doesn't preclude you from using any other launcher/store for anything else, so how does that harm competition?

By contrast, if I want iMessage on my phone, Epic has to distribute Fortnight to me though Apple.

[Fnoord]

The irony is that Epic pays companies a sack of money to have exclusive right for a title, to have it temporarily only available on EGS. I don't like to be bound to any launcher or store. Apple doesn't force you to only use their own launcher; only on their own platform, or if you use their platform to complete the sale (which sounds as odd as it is).

[pjmlp]

If I want a store competition I go to shopping mall.

The only store that has a place on my devices is the OS vendor store.

[harpratap]

No one's stopping you from using only Apple store. Why force your choice on other consumers? Let people decide what's best for them

[pjmlp]

They have the choice to buy other brands.

[rhn_mk1]

The GoG launcher doesn't fit here as an example; it's entirely optional.

[Crosseye_Jack]

Unless you want to play online.

Some of the titles on the store allow peer to peer connection multiplayer which doesn’t have any drm checks. But most titles that use servers to simplify matchmaking or connection with other players have a check that validates that gog galaxy is logged into an account that has purchased the game.

[thaumasiotes]

No, GoG Galaxy is not entirely optional. It is required to run many newer games, and can be required even if you're not trying to play multiplayer.

I don't understand how this is supposed to be compatible with GoG's marketing as "the DRM-free home for games".

[speeder]

What game requires GoG Galaxy?

EDIT: even googled it, found out Darkest Dungeon by default install a version that does need GoG Galaxy, but the DRM-free version is available on GoG site too, just need to choose that downloader instead. But that was it. Didn't found any other obvious complaints of GoG Galaxy being required.

[thaumasiotes]

Northgard requires Galaxy for single-player content. It's not subtle about it.

Your response says more about what you can tell with a quick google search than anything else.

I'm fascinated that I've been complaining about this here on HN for months, and the only response I ever get -- which comes up every time -- is "what are you talking about, that's not true". This isn't a matter of opinion. It's not even difficult to check. And yet, there are so many people whose worldview apparently rests on the opposite of the facts.

[vbezhenar]

If you don't like their launchers, don't use their apps, it's simple as that. They're free to create a software in a way they feel appropriate. You're free to use or not to use that software.

[DonaldPShimoda]

If you don't like the App Store, don't use an iPhone, it's simple as that. They're free to manage their platform in a way they feel appropriate. You're free to use or not use that platform.

---

I'm not necessarily saying I think Apple is in the right, but your argument doesn't hold because it works equally well when applied at a higher level, which runs counter to your point.

[canofbars]

>If you don't like the App Store, don't use an iPhone

This is not the main issue, its on the other end. If you are a developer, and you don't like the App Store, you have no options. You can't publish on an alt store because those are not allowed. So your only option is to not provide services to 50% of your customers and thats assuming the google play store doesn't have the same issue you are avoiding.

A real world example of this is vape companies provide an app which lets you do things like lock your vape so kids can't use it. Apple said those apps are not allowed on the app store. The vape company has no options, they just can't sell products to apple users now.

The problem is these tech companies hold way to much power. It would be like if 2 landlords owned literally every single block of land in the entire country. Now normally it would be fair for the landlord to pick which types of businesses to rent out to but when both options say your business isn't accepted and the only alternative is to build your own island in the ocean and create a civilisation on it so you can open your store then something is seriously wrong.

[jbverschoor]

Same for Nintendo, PS, Xbox, Android. And the other 'appstores' - steam, epic, etc

Quite frankly, the lockdown of the OS and rejection of this is one of the primary reasons I'm on iPhone.

[Lev1a]

That's not so simple with the hypocrite named Epic who preach about competition being better for all while buying exclusive distribution rights from devs/publishers on PC, sometimes even for games that had been long announced to be coming out on Steam and/or were crowdfunded on that and other premises.

Case in point: "Satisfactory". I was pretty excited about the game when it was first shown, then found later

* it would be removed from Steam,

* I'd have to get an account for another store,

* use a store made by some incompetents who couldn't implement basic functionality like a "shopping cart" even months after release (does it have one by now?)

* give part of my money through Epic to fucking Tencent and install a piece of Chinese spyware on my PC in order to run it. Also no implicit Linux support because no Proton and because Sweeney loves to bend over for Microsoft exclusively.

[jfim]

You can buy it on Steam now: https://store.steampowered.com/app/526870/Satisfactory/

[Fnoord]

Sure, years later.

Compare to Iron Harvest, for example.

You could invest in the development via Kickstarter. Which boils down to making the project happen (due to lack of otherwise investors aka due to crowdfunding). Now, basically right after release, you can buy the game from Steam, too, but you pay full price for it (in contrast to the crowdfunders).

Contrast this to EGS. Stuff gets released on Steam many months later, say 6 months or a year, due to EGS getting the sack of money for being the sole distributor. Then, they release for full price on Steam. Why would I pay full price for a 6-12 month old game? I won't.

[Lev1a]

After they had held the game hostage for a year my excitement for the game was very much gone and I didn't buy it in the end.

[drexlspivey]

That argument is pretty rich coming from epic considering that they sign exclusive deals for games pretty aggressively for their Epic games store.

[AnthonyMouse]

When has a developer ever been forced into an exclusive deal? They get paid extra for that. It's pro-competitive, because it's what allows new stores to get off the ground, meanwhile nothing stops you from using Epic's store and Steam and five others at the same time. The biggest problem with Apple's store isn't what they allow into it, it's that people can't use it and any other store at the same time.

[tssva]

Android allows installation of apps outside of the Google Play store but Epic is pursuing the same path against Google.

[Kuinox]

Yes, for a different reason. Epics wanted a deal with oneplus for to have epic store preinstalled on their device, and google pressured oneplus to cancel the deal.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368395/fortnite-epic-ga...

[tssva]

Although brought up in the lawsuit it is not a basis for any of the counts in the lawsuit. The counts in the lawsuit all go to the same conduct they are accusing Apple of.

[colejohnson66]

Didn’t Epic initially go around the Play Store and require you to download an installer from their website? And then it turned out that it was a good malware vector? That’s what I fear will happen if we get alternate stores: lax security leading to malware.

[ac29]

Yes, it had a bug that could lead to a different malicious application being able to install its own APKs: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/112630336

[Kuinox]

Make it that you must sign the binaries. Google distribute/manage the keys, but are not allowed to veto legal things.

[colejohnson66]

That serves no purpose. If Google can’t veto any signature requests, it’s no different than having no signature at all; You’ll just have signed malware.

[Kuinox]

They must have a valid reason, not "they don't use our payment processing"

[gigatexal]

I see this argument everywhere and it makes no sense. The ToS is up to the owner of the platform. It's the same reason I don't use Facebook: I think the company and what they do with my data is diametrically opposed to my way of thinking so I voted to leave by deleting my account.

Developer's do have a choice: abide by the ToS and enjoy the trappings of a user base that tends to spend more on applications be they subscriptions or one-offs than Android or vote with your wallets and don't abide by it but to cry foul and try to usurp one's will on the company that built the platform makes no sense.

Some counter arguments:

If the ToS of the app store are likened to the tax laws in the USA then failing to abide the law that requires taxes to be paid is the same thing here as Epic using their own payments system to subvert the iOS tax of 30%.

The game is like a car that drives on a road. The car is Epic's Fortnite. The road is a toll road. The road was built by Apple. Many cars can drive on this road but must pay a fee. (The analogy isn't 1:1 but work with me a bit).

After years of investment in the iPhone and building the ecosystem around it the AppStore is just one way to monetize that. A 30% cut might sound high but they did spend tens(hundreds?) of billions in R&D and this is just one way, among many, that the iPhone is being monetized, this is just a return on investment on top of the sales price of the phone.

All of the arguments I have heard from those in the Epic camp strike me as temper tantrums thrown by children.

[realusername]

> The ToS is up to the owner of the platform

When there's only two companies fully controlling the next era of computing platforms, there's some argument that they have way too much power in their hand.

> The game is like a car that drives on a road. The car is Epic's Fortnite. The road is a toll road. The road was built by Apple. Many cars can drive on this road but must pay a fee. (The analogy isn't 1:1 but work with me a bit).

Except the phone isn't owned by Apple, and that's why every analogy similar to this one fails.

[danbolt]

We better start launching apps for Pinephones and asking MNT Research to make a phone, then.

[canofbars]

The simple solution to this is a law requiring that all general purpose computing devices (Lets define this as something that the user can install and run programs on) must provide a feature to run unauthenticated 3rd party software. Android, Windows and Linux already allow this and macOS used to.

IMO this should extend to game consoles too. You should be able to run homebrew games and tools on a console.

[wrsh07]

I agree with this completely. (And also don't think the current laws support Epic)

However, I am curious about what happens when you force xbox to run unauthenticated 3rd party software. The reason why consoles can be priced the way they are (very low, usually taking losses) is because the company makes it back on game sales.

So what happens? Microsoft is in a solid position with its "stream to system" upcoming hardware, but I think this will force console prices to go up.

As soon as you can run anything on a console, the creators of the console no longer have the same LTV per customer (gamers will buy from cheaper app stores). Additionally, you'll have new demand for consoles for eg deep learning applications on xbox (this increases the value of a console)

I think this is fundamentally bad for the console ecosystem, although I think Microsoft (and its console division) will be fine because of their investments in "x cloud"

[lawtalkinghuman]

BonziBuddy for iOS is what the world is crying out for.

[danbolt]

I feel like this would be an easier sell for me if there didn't exist any competitor devices wherein you could run unauthenticated 3rd party software. As a consumer you have the option to purchase those devices instead or even consider reverse-engineering the locked-down product.

> IMO this should extend to game consoles too. You should be able to run homebrew games and tools on a console.

That argument there appeals to me emotionally a lot more though, I will admit! It's easy to admire Commodore 64 programmers before my time, or when I wrote Xbox 360 games using XNA in university.

[realusername]

That's exactly what I will do myself, in a few weeks I will receive my Pinephone and will port my existing personal finance app onto it.

But legal changes also need to come from above as well to ensure a fair computing market. I'm doing it more as a symbolic protest than any hope I will contribute towards that.

[gigatexal]

It is owned by Apple in that they own the OS. If I wanted full autonomy I’d root my phone. The whole appeal of the phone is the secure cohesive experience not the hodge-podge setup of the PC for example. It’s much more of a console in that sense.

[realusername]

> The whole appeal of the phone is the secure cohesive experience not the hodge-podge setup of the PC for example

I doubt non-tech people even know about the walled-garden or the anti-competitive practices of both companies, they just buy their device based on features, screen and camera and that's it. Just have a look at a mainstream phone review video on YouTube, only those points will be detailed.

To consumers it's clearly the next area of computing. Smartphones are even fully replacing computers in developing markets. To developers however, it's an unhealthy market owned by two uncountable companies where they could be banned from at any point very easily.

There's multiple angles where the current situation is an issue, there's the anti competitive nature of the market where an increasing chunk of the economy is based on but there's also the limited propriety rights of the owners of the phone.

[gigatexal]

I’m no iOS dev but I work in the tech field and am well into the ecosystem of Apple but also follow the company both in podcasts and online and am fully aware of the walled garden and it’s a feature for me it a bug.

Also, I get the sense that people are trying to impose OSS-isms on Apple when they both have no power to and also Apple has no reason to abide.

[tasssko]

A better analogy is the game is like a ride at a theme park. The theme park was built by Apple. Many companies can make games/rides for the theme park but must pay a share of revenue from each customer going on rides. You can go on a ride at the theme park but you pay an entrance fee for the theme park and you pay to go on the rides.

[krtkush]

But what if there are only 2 theme parks in the world and ride makers have no option but to comply with whatever rules these 2 theme parks come up with?

[gigatexal]

In this world, yes. There are only two that have risen to the top because the market (you and me and everyone else) voted with our wallets to create them.

[arvinsim]

Are theme parks essential to your daily life?

Because that what smartphones has become.

[gigatexal]

Bruv, it's an analogy... people are so pedantic smh

[tasssko]

Fortnite essential to daily life?

Actually nothing on my phone is essential to daily life.

[realusername]

That's the same issue with this analogy, unlike the theme park, the phone owner isn't Apple, there is no way around it.

Additionally, maybe we should have higher standards for technology which a good chunk of the world economy is relying on rather than applying some entertainment standards.

[harpratap]

You absolutely cannot live without Whatsapp/wechat in certain countries, you have no option. It's the same for developers, there's no way you can thrive without catering to iOS.

And you examples for taxes and roads are socialist services. The rates on tolls and taxes are decided by people elected representatives. Apple decided the rates on their own, not by Government mandate.

[jjcon]

> Let‘s see how valuable everybody thinks the App Store is when they actually have to pay an access fee directly to Apple

They do, it’s called buying an iphone

[hnra]

I bought an iPhone despite the App Store, so I don't think that logic really holds.

[wruza]

We all sometimes buy products that are of partial value for us, but that doesn't break the logic for those who value an entire product. Problems arise only when we try to sit on two different chairs at the same time.

Right now I am experimenting with an android phone, and its hardware is not bad (very good) for its 0.3x price of an actual iphone with similar specs. It also allows all that "control over the device" that everyone wants here. But after an iphone I don't really feel that I'm finally free. It is a constant fight for privacy, for being adfree, for apps that do not abuse permissions and/or "cloudness", etc. I wait for a new iphone because I got nothing out of promises of a freedom that android users around told me with an excitement. It is basically the same brick, but with a jerky scroll and an ability to install ads and low-functional spyware after hours of searching and comparison.

[AlphaSite]

I don’t know if what you’re saying holds generally. I don’t know if people buy it for the AppStore, but I strongly suspect that most people don’t buy it despite the App Store.

[morsch]

They might resent the app store more if they knew Apple gets 30%. Which is why nobody is supposed to tell.

[chipotle_coyote]

The 30% cut was literally announced on stage by Steve Jobs when they introduced the App Store in 2008, and again when in-app purchases were introduced in (I think) 2009. It's been in public coverage for years. They talk about it regularly; remember, Apple's position has been to say, loudly and repeatedly, that this is just a terrific deal for everybody. The fees are not secret.

Also, remember that in practice, the vast majority of people downloading applications on Android are doing so through Google Play, which charges the same 30% fee for both apps and in-app purchases. If people resent Apple more than Google in this context, it's probably more to do with the companies' respective public images than concrete reality.

I suspect you're remembering recent news about Apple preventing Facebook from putting a notice in the Facebook iOS app about Apple taking 30% of the cut from event tickets purchased through the app. While that was arguably a bad move on Apple's part from a PR standpoint -- lately they've been seriously violating the First Rule of Holes[1] -- there's little indication it's a change in policy.

[1] When you're in one, stop digging.

[virgilp]

I don't understand your point. You seem to know that Apple denied an application that was merely stating the "widely known" fact that Apple takes 30% cut; yet you brush that off as irrelevant and "little indication that it's a change in policy"... what policy? The policy of NOT letting users know that Apple takes a cut?

[gsich]

The niche tech audience knows that. Apple blocked apps that showed a "30% goes to Apple" or similar. So yes, they don't want ordinary people to know.

[seventhtiger]

Just add a billing item "30% Apple Fee" and you'll know their true feelings.

[lawtalkinghuman]

The app store: now with the usability of US sales taxes.

[ac29]

Not really, US local sales taxes are added after sale to the advertised price and can change from one side of a street to the other. App store fees are included in the price and the same everywhere.

[toxik]

Definitely there are more lemons on Apple’s App Store these days, but it’s still the case that fragmentation in the kingdom of the fruits is so much lower that producing a decent app is just easier than on the Google stack.

[baq]

Me too more or less, I’ve got an iPhone because it mostly just works and I can expect to get 5 years of life out of it, which makes it more affordable than most android phones, flagship or not. (My last Android was a nexus 5x.)

[valuearb]

You bought a phone whose major customer value is it’s walled garden, but you don’t want a walled garden? That doesn’t seem right.

[rimliu]

It is like vaccination: "look, there is no smallpox or measles, why do we need a vaccination for?"

[wruza]

I actually like it the way it is now. You don't hear our arguments, you only want to be represented in that court without us. But conscious apple users are not all pro-sideload.

if the App Store is such a tremendous value, why don‘t you ask users to pay for access to that App Store directly

Because the value is not in the appstore itself, but in an inability to push uncontrolled spy/trick/crap-ware through side channels, so that thieves and con artists have no way to trick or force a user out of safety.

[jpambrun]

That's not very fair. The main value of the App store is that it is the only store.

Let other store on iOS, then we will see which one provide the best value.

[thaumasiotes]

> I really wish there was a third party - the customer - actually represented in this trial.

Isn't this the entire concept of amicus briefs?

[glenstein]

>I think if the App Store is such a tremendous value, why don‘t you ask users to pay for access to that App Store directly. Let‘s see how valuable everybody thinks the App Store is when they actually have to pay an access fee directly to Apple.

Right. If the problem is that people are insufficiently appreciative of having access 'for free' and should therefore leave complaints unstated and unaddressed, Apple can fix that by imposing a fee, so they can no longer use "for free" as something to hold against app-store users to short-circuit complaints.

[tylorr]

> Let‘s see how valuable everybody thinks the App Store is when they actually have to pay an access fee directly to Apple

Many apps compensate for the apple fees by increasing the IAP prices. So they already do but may not be aware of it I guess.

[colejohnson66]

I’m partial to Apple in this case, but one of the arguments against Apple is that those higher costs harm consumers by making them pay more than they can somewhere else.

[dep_b]

260 million earned by Apple by charging the 30% commission on 116 million users means Apple received US$2.24 per user and then has to deduct all costs of running the App Store before a profit remains. And this is just for Fortnite, a profitable game.

All of the games and apps that are either not profitable or are free also need to be paid from the money earned on whales like Fortnite.

They now want Apple to serve 116 millions of users updates that usually run into the hundreds of megabytes for games without paying more than US$100 a year.

Epic runs it's own game store on 12% commission, but most of those games are paid and games are the biggest earners in any App Store, so only the most profitable category.

[andy_ppp]

But Apple’s costs are tiny compared to their margins, this isn’t logical as Apple can’t lose money on anything in the App Store, they didn’t invest in making the games did they? They are rent seeking to juice up their profits, it’s a great scam but I’d rather they concentrate on selling more hardware than ripping off developers.

[dep_b]

If Epic itself cannot do it for less than 12% selling only the best earning category and serving barely any free games when they're trying to _prove_ that it can be done for less than 30% apparently running an App Store isn't as trivial as most people at HN make it appear to be.

Also the 30% "rent seeking" happens on any platform Epic is on except the PC and Mac. They tried to go around the Google Play Store and pivoted on that decision.

I would like to see the % go down, I think they can run it for 20% without much trouble but when the kickback on titles goes down the price of the hardware goes up. So you can have a "cheap" Playstation with expensive games or an expensive Playstation with cheaper games.

[andy_ppp]

>>> Epic itself cannot do it for less than 12%

What makes you think this? How do you know they cannot do an App Store for less than 12%? Also there is such a thing as economies of scale - the app store probably sells many times more things than the Epic version.

You seem to mistakenly think the cost of selling X items on an App Store has a cost that is "cost of app store per thing" * "number of things sold". This isn't true, the cost of the App Store is fixed and has almost NOTHING to do with number of things sold.

I just think using your market dominance to squeeze developers who provide services for your users is kind of sick. Apple should be providing the App Store for free and thanking developers for selling so many phones, not ripping people off.

[dep_b]

> What makes you think this? How do you know they cannot do an App Store for less than 12%?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_Store "Epic Games had settled on a 12% revenue cut for titles published through the store"

> This isn't true, the cost of the App Store is fixed and has almost NOTHING to do with number of things sold.

OK so you say the whole % of sale model is completely wrong and people should just pay a fixed fee to be in the App Store? Explain it to Epic please.

https://www.epicgames.com/store/en-US/product/tony-hawks-pro...

45 euro means they cash roughly 5.40 on the sale of this item at 12%. The item is a game comparable in size so has comparable hosting fees as Fortnite in the iOS App Store. Yet charge more than twice as much to host it, not changing the fee even if they have more than 117 million people that buy it.

So what's really fair to you?

-------

Can't reply anymore, so I'll update here instead:

It's fairly simple. Fortnite and Tony Hawk are comparable AAA game titles, with the same amount of updates, same download size, etcetera. Yet Epic manages to milk the double out of each sale of Tony Hawk because of it's retail price. But retail price has _nothing_ to do with the cost Epic has to distribute Tony Hawk (as you argumented so well).

Epic pays a bit more than 2 bucks to Apple to host their AAA title, but couldn't turn a profit on it's own store if it had to distribute Tony Hawk for the same amount of money.

[andy_ppp]

I am tempted to give up but let's maybe explain one more time:

1) The value that Epic have decided to charge for an App Store has nothing to do with the costs of running an App Store.

2) I said no such thing about a fixed fee - I said your mental model for understand the costs of selling something on an App Store is mistaken. Once the store exists your costs are largely fixed, I don't need to explain it to Epic - they do not represent my views and they can charge what they want on their app store.

3) Why do you think hosting costs loads of money - it's virtually free at the scale of Epic or Apple? It has nothing to do with the charges and each sale.

4) I explained what I think is fair for Apple - be grateful for the huge developer community and stop trying to charge people for content built outside of each app (i.e. you can't buy books on the amazon app or audible due to this stupid profiteering). You can't even purchase Netflix from the Netflix app due to Apple wanting a cut.

Anyway, I think I've tried to explain why you're not correct about the maths on the value/costs App Stores create for Apple and running them like a protection racket due to market dominance is ethically wrong.