Sorry but that's wrong - there is a legally binding agreement that you must sign before publishing on the app store - in fact several - and that's where these rules are enforced.Originally Posted by ByteMyAscii
App guidelines are different and whilst this contravenes those too, its not the same thing.
From the Developer App Store Review Guidelines:
Sure it says guidelines but you have to agree to them and are restricted by them making them rules by any other name.3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services: Apps that operate across multiple platforms may allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they have acquired in your app on other platforms or your web site, including consumable items in multiplatform games, provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app. You must not directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods must not discourage use of in-app purchase.
Didn't the iPhone launch with native apps only? I'm fairly sure it did. Developers wanted to develop apps for iOS and it took a good while before Apple decided to provide the tools to do so, as well as the App Store for them to sell those apps. They went with the somewhat limited market standard split of 70/30 as well as made sure the apps being developed were also suitably vetted for the Apple customers.
Considering the whole Apple platform is designed to protect consumer data, Apple had to go with the walled garden approach, the other option was side loading apps and all of the problems that causes. The developers wanted that ecosystem to become available to them, Apple relented. I guess the alternative is Apple simply boot every single developer off the iOS platform and invest heavily in developing their own apps going forward.
I mean it's not as though Epic have changed the market standards here for closed system storefronts is it? Steam, Sony, Microsoft etc haven't adjusted their developer / platform split to the 88/12 split (?) Epic have gone with for the EGS, they're quite happy to do what they've been doing and to let the consumer decide. I'm pretty sure Apple, unless forced by the courts, will keep things as they are. Why change something that isn't broken? It's really only companies that want a larger percentage or the ability to redirect users to outside payment methods to bypass the 70/30 split that are against the current system. Epic, Spotify etc are only really interested in making more money, nothing about this benefits the consumers because they'll unlikely charge less once they've gotten their own way.
Inb4 Epic Store on iOS (without the pesky user reviews of course).
This can work if you price it like VAT - Below a certain value of income, your company doesn't incur VAT. Above that threshold, you do.
That allows small, new developers to get their stuff started and it only gets charged once it's selling enough to be considered successful. They'll still pay all the other starting fees, devkit costs and so on, I imagine, thus funding any walled ecosystem checks needed.
_______________________________________________________________________
Ooft, you mean Apple might give something gratis and out the goodness of their hearts
Even in a walled garden, seeds must be sown and nurtured to grow, before they can be harvested...Ooft, you mean Apple might give something gratis and out the goodness of their hearts
_______________________________________________________________________
and look how lacking it was in terms of features/apps on release... so like I said the iPhone needed the developers as much as the developers needed iOS. Hell if it wasn't iOS I'm sure there would have been another mobile platform they'd have moved over to. Also remember how many 'small companies' apple has purchased to bolster the apps on iOS....
And to be fair if it wasn't for facebook/instagram/google's need for user data they could have done exactly the same thing they did with MS and blocked non 'official' apps (which they weren't developing) from getting to things like youtube etc, which in turn screwed over windows mobile. I'm pretty sure if android came out first or was quicker being released, google might not have been so willing to support iOS.
Lets be honest, do you really think the other big brand stores are going to try and change the status quo, they're all enjoying the free money from 30% fees, now I'll not say epic isn't trying to be a bit self serving but they are at least trying to improve the split for developers, the ones doing the majority, if not all, all of the work on the apps that apple and the others get a rather large cut of the profits from.I mean it's not as though Epic have changed the market standards here for closed system storefronts is it? Steam, Sony, Microsoft etc haven't adjusted their developer / platform split to the 88/12 split (?) Epic have gone with for the EGS, they're quite happy to do what they've been doing and to let the consumer decide. I'm pretty sure Apple, unless forced by the courts, will keep things as they are. Why change something that isn't broken? It's really only companies that want a larger percentage or the ability to redirect users to outside payment methods to bypass the 70/30 split that are against the current system. Epic, Spotify etc are only really interested in making more money, nothing about this benefits the consumers because they'll unlikely charge less once they've gotten their own way.
Like I said earlier, 30% for a small app with smaller profits is a huge chunk to lose and while fortnite makes more money and isn't going to be 'struggling' that 30% soon adds up in terms of 'lost' income... now the difference is the small app can't afford to fight for a change in the percentages, epic can.
Do the other stores force you to use a specific payment processor for micro transactions? I'm not 100% on it but if you can pick a different payment processor to use for payments you pick the one that is 'best value' which can make a significant difference.... mind you consoles have their own issues in as much you need to pay to get online multiplayer, even if it's p2p....
As to other companies such as epic and spotify making more money, well lets consider spotify for a second...apple has a directly competing product that essentially does not have the 30% fee, now I have a vague recollection of this being changed but not sure about it, but would you call it anticompetitive to charge a directly competing service the 30% which not only impacts their profits but indirectly the ability to compete in the market due to that lower income (spotify is constantly struggling to be profitable).... and then throw in rules where you can't even direct people from within your app to your website to get the price without the 30% fee on top.
I guess microsoft should restrict all software sales outside of their store for windows. I'm sure that would go down well. After all, don't they deserve it for making the platform that allows access to all of it's users?
Ttaskmaster (19-08-2020)
Yet why has apple twice called them guidelines, and that it should have been reviewed first.From the Developer App Store Review Guidelines:
Sure it says guidelines but you have to agree to them and are restricted by them making them rules by any other name.3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services: Apps that operate across multiple platforms may allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they have acquired in your app on other platforms or your web site, including consumable items in multiplatform games, provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app. You must not directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods must not discourage use of in-app purchase.
You don't review something that is infringing the agreement.
It is infringing the agreement, or it is not.
And it is made clear that it is not.
If there is room to review infringements to the guidelines, then they clearly are not a black or white rule, but a grey area open to interpret as apple see fit, and few have the means to fight when apple unfairly block it.
Guidelines are a suggestion, simple as that.
And an app should not be removed for not following them.
I get what you're saying, but I don't see it that way.
But first, to clarify, I didn't say Fortnite's success depended on Apple. It's that a large part of that segment of the Fortnite market did.
To clarify what I mean .... how many users would buy an Apple device in order to use Fortnite in it, especially given there are other routes to access it? My bet would be - not many.
No doubt, some Apple & Fortnite users would have accessed Fortnite a different way had it not been available on Apple, but my contention (based on quite a few Apple users I know) is that they are Apple users First and foremost, and Fortnite comes in a distant second.
Only those absolutely set on playing Fortnight would go out and buy a different hardware platform to play it if it had not been available on Apple. But for a large percentage of gamers that aren't gamers, and Fortniters, above all else, they'll only go for Fortnite if it's available on the platform they use.
I'm in that camp. While not a Fortniter, there isn't a game in existence important enough to me to get me to buy into a hardware platform just to get access to a game. If it's available for hardware I already have, and it appeals to me, great. If it isn't available, I'll play something else.
That is the market segment I'm talking about, that Fortnite owe entirely to their product being available on Apple hardware/platform. They didn't have to develop an Apple version. Some Apple users no doubt either would have played on other hardwarevthey already had, or would have bought something else if determined enough to play Fortnite. But a very large proportion of people playing games, including Fortnite, aren't hardcore gamers.
Which brings me back to an Apple version being developed to enable access to those users. Fortnite developers knew what they were signing up to, and did it willingly .... and are now bitching about it.
Moving in, small developers are a different case. Yes, it cab be argued that 30% is a lot, but it's still better to have 70% of sales via Apple than 0% of it. See my book-writing and Amazon publishing example for a comparison.
If my book is good enough, it may well sell in the thousands, maybe tens of thousands for something really good but without that Amazon platform I have to rely either on getting picked up by a major publisher, or selling myself. The odds of the First are frankly a long shot even if my book is very good indeed, and the sales achievable doing it myself are probably not much more than friends and family .... who expect to be given a copy anyway.
Apple, and Amazon, platforms enable access but are insufficient on their own to guarantee success in a market that small app developers and unknown authors are very unlikely to access at all without them.
Selling via these platforms requires a focussed and realistic business model. Famous authors sell books because of their name. They don't need such platform sales. The rest do.
A lesson learned from PeterB about dignity in adversity, so Peter, In Memorium, "Onwards and Upwards".
It's kind of a chicken and egg situation.... do you totally ignore a large portion of your players or do you agree to really poor t&c's just to keep your players happy.
If the iPhone wasn't a popular platform, epic would have likely have just ignored it, they're ignoring linux (anticheat is the issue I think) andchromebooks but support other major desktop os's, including os-x, for example. The problem is to keep their own customers happy they need to support the most popular operating systems in each sector and that is iOS and Android.
They have no choice but to sign up for the t&c's, and this is a big issue in this case (there is no alternative so anti competitive etc) but doesn't mean they can't dislike them and in all honesty I wouldn't be surprised if during this trial epic bring up discussions with apple about altering their pay structure in the same way Amazon got a 'special deal' but was rejected. I would also put money on any other company in epic's position fighting the t&c's which are unfair on their business, in fact several have gone down the 'legal' route in the EU etc (spotify springs to mind).
I just don't buy the "keep users happy" argument, though. It's more like "expand our userbase and make more dosh". I also don't buy the "no choice" argument. Sure they had a choice - let Apple customers come to them on other platforms.
Apple have been pretty much a closed system their entire existence. It's not like this is anything new, or caught Epic by surprise. They knew what they were signing up for when they signed up for it. It's a bit like signing up for a golf club membership and then expecting a discount and a rule change because you want to play to play on Monday and Monday is designated seniors-only. So, why join in the first place.
The same logic works in reverse too .... I haven't bought into the Apple universe (since 1979)because I regard the hardware as over-priced and overly restrictive, and I can't run certain things (*) I either need, or want badly enough to preclude a platform that won't run them.
(*) Such as Scrivener, and the Legacy software I use for genealogy.
A lesson learned from PeterB about dignity in adversity, so Peter, In Memorium, "Onwards and Upwards".
There is a term used for Apple users which refers to their 'brand loyalty'... you even said it yourself most are unlikely to move platform and the majority of apple users seem to be 'younger' or 'bandwagon' types which are also the same demographic which fortnite targets.
This wasn't epic being caught out, it was completely planned (they even had video's in fortnite), this was epic 'proving a point' during the current government enquiries into the anticompetitive nature of iOS and it's store policies.
As to the golf analogy... because there is no other golf club and it's the only one you can join, you basically don't have any other option but to join because you want to play golf
I don't run any Apple hardware either (have got an ipod old nano I don't use and keep toying with an iPad but then saying no because I like 'freedom' in how I use things) primarily because it's pointless due to the majority of my software being windows based and utilising cuda....
It's more like there are other golf clubs, but I like the clubhouse at this one.There is a term used for Apple users which refers to their 'brand loyalty'... you even said it yourself most are unlikely to move platform and the majority of apple users seem to be 'younger' or 'bandwagon' types which are also the same demographic which fortnite targets.
This wasn't epic being caught out, it was completely planned (they even had video's in fortnite), this was epic 'proving a point' during the current government enquiries into the anticompetitive nature of iOS and it's store policies.
As to the golf analogy... because there is no other golf club and it's the only one you can join, you basically don't have any other option but to join because you want to play golf
I don't run any Apple hardware either (have got an ipod old nano I don't use and keep toying with an iPad but then saying no because I like 'freedom' in how I use things) primarily because it's pointless due to the majority of my software being windows based and utilising cuda....
But golf analogies aside (not least 'cos I don't play golf) .... exactly. Apple have a dedicated segment of the market many of whom buy hardware because it's Apple. I don't remember using brand loyalty as a phrase, but it's not so much about that as Epic wanting to make money, and expand their userbase, from Apple users and now, having done it, are whining it's somehow "unfair", like ANY (*) of these big companies give a flying f... ummm, fig, about fairness. They get a sniff of market power (whether so-called monopoly, duopoly or even oligopoly) and they milk it for all they can.
(*) Oh okay, there might be a very, very few with some form of social conscience, a bit like Co-operative societies are in the retail world. But very few indeed. I can't think of any in the tech world.
A lesson learned from PeterB about dignity in adversity, so Peter, In Memorium, "Onwards and Upwards".
Were business law as simple as you want it to be there would not be a million lawyers poring over contracts every day.
Only terms that are deemed to be legal can be legally binding. Should Epic, in good faith, believe the App Store terms are not legal they are 'entitled' to not abide by them. By raising the legal challenge Epic are formally declaring they believe the App Store Ts&Cs are illegal.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote