Search Unity

  1. Megacity Metro Demo now available. Download now.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Unity support for visionOS is now available. Learn more in our blog post.
    Dismiss Notice

Apple drops app store fees to 15% for developers earning less than 1 million...

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Meltdown, Nov 19, 2020.

  1. Meltdown

    Meltdown

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    Posts:
    5,816
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2020
    NotaNaN, Stardog, gavriloP and 7 others like this.
  2. MadeFromPolygons

    MadeFromPolygons

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2013
    Posts:
    3,967
    This is why I kept saying that despite the fact its mostly a marketing move, I stand behind epic in their choice to fight apple. Its only us who ends up benefiting when monopolies in our industry are challenged.

    Competition (and sometimes competitors ligitation against one another) is often good for the little guys!

    EDIT: I also love the fact that apple basically said "Ok epic, you want lower fees, we will lower it for everyone except you and companies like you. Your move."

    Meanwhile unity is busy making snow-angels sitting on top of a mountain of cash from going public and eating popcorn.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2020
    NotaNaN, Kiwasi, Meltdown and 5 others like this.
  3. elbows

    elbows

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Posts:
    2,502
    Its not just Epic driving that change, its various governments increasing their scrutiny of these practices and making Apple feel the heat/see the writing on the wall. Apple are trying to pre-empt that stuff by moving first, hoping that it will be enough. The likes of the moves made by Epic do contribute to this atmosphere though, I'm not trying to suggest it isn't a factor at all, but its not the only one.
     
  4. Joe-Censored

    Joe-Censored

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Posts:
    11,847
    This move doesn't address the core issue of iDevices being a defacto closed ecosystem where alternative app stores are purposely made impractical, creating a monopoly on app stores for the platform.

    Since the Apple App Store doesn't actually compete against any other store, I wouldn't expect any other stores to follow in their footsteps simply to remain competitive. Maybe Google will though if the price change from Apple is to dodge some legal argument, since Google is facing similar scrutiny.
     
  5. Antypodish

    Antypodish

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2014
    Posts:
    10,754
    What about Steam 30% cut? Is this going to share same fate, as mobile market npw? I am sure Epic will poke its pick in that nest too.
     
    MadeFromPolygons likes this.
  6. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
    The question is if that's actually a problem. The question is first if there's any standing, legal or otherwise, in calling a sub-section (iDevices) of a market (smartphones) a "market" of its own (I've never heard a justification for this). And depending on if that's yes or no, 1) Is the closed ecosystem of a market anti-competitive (and what does anti-competitive mean in this context--anti-competitive for app developers, or for people who want to make their own app stores?), or 2) Is the closed ecosystem of a minority player in a market anti-competitive?

    I personally lean towards "no" and "no."
     
  7. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
    Something else kind of interesting about this is how things vary between Apple and Steam. Apple has taken measures to reduce expenses for smaller developers, while Steam has done the opposite (reduced the cut for games with larger sales, typically more expensive games by bigger developers).

    Ironically, this might be due to the closed ecosystem. We're all aware of how many publishers have tried to make their own PC launchers. The fact that Steam has to compete with such might mean that they have to make more concessions on the high end to keep AAAs available, while Apple doesn't have to do that. Thus in Apple's case, the big guys can subsidize the "indies."
     
    Meltdown, NotaNaN and Joe-Censored like this.
  8. koirat

    koirat

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Posts:
    2,068
    I wonder how much will apple lose $ on this decision.
    It might not be a problem for them since it might be the case that most profit is made by a big companies anyway.
     
  9. Joe-Censored

    Joe-Censored

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Posts:
    11,847
    US law (where the case is filed) doesn't require a monopoly to be a total monopoly over a market segment. A company is in violation if they are positioned where they can exercise monopolistic power to keep out competition. In this case keeping out competing app stores.

    The Microsoft case is a good example. They were found to be a monopoly, forcing computer manufacturers to not allow competing internet browsers on their computers running Windows. This was even though Microsoft did not have a total monopoly on computer operating systems, since you could just buy a Mac and Apple didn't give a damn what Microsoft said as far as installed browsers. But Microsoft was able to wield monopolistic power regardless.

    edit: link, which coincidentally even mentions the Microsoft case
    https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/com...ws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2020
    Kiwasi and EternalAmbiguity like this.
  10. Joe-Censored

    Joe-Censored

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Posts:
    11,847
    Yeah the same thing occurred to me as well. On PC, many AAA companies have just created their own stores. EA has Origin, Blizzard has their own, etc. So Steam has to compete. They have to entice these AAA companies to post on Steam, where they won't get 100% of the money, but they can potentially make that up and then some just because of Steam's wide install base.

    Apple and Google though currently don't have to worry about any software developer creating their own alternative to their stores. It just isn't practical to get average smartphone users to enable dev options, click through scary warnings, etc.
     
    NotaNaN and EternalAmbiguity like this.
  11. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
    I think the problem in Microsoft's case wasn't their "ability" to wield monopolistic power, but the fact that they were actually doing so. There's something wrong (legally) with using that power to hinder other players in the market, not with that power itself. Saying "Apple is effectively a monopoly" doesn't mean anything. Saying "Apple is effectively a monopoly and that hurts developers" does mean something (though not very much without substantiation).
     
    Joe-Censored likes this.
  12. Joe-Censored

    Joe-Censored

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Posts:
    11,847
    But Apple and Google are actually doing so. Try to start a competing app store on mobile. You're locked out on purpose. Not going to work.

    In this case Apple and Google didn't need to strong arm any other companies, instead in this case they build it right in as a feature of the operating system. Even Microsoft didn't try to go that far.
     
    Kiwasi likes this.
  13. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    They already are with their competing store. One of their core selling points for developers is their lower percentage.

    I'd like to echo that it's not just Epic, and they didn't even start it.

    If you consider the current industry climate, with the current scrutiny potentially leading towards government-imposed regulation, Apple are likely to be saving a lot of money by getting in first while the ball is still in their court.

    But they're not?

    Google doesn't stop people from making competing stores. You can do whatever you want with their OS, which they give away for free. If a device vendor chooses to use their unmodified version they show security warnings about installing software they haven't somehow vetted just like any other decently security conscious OS does these days, but - see Samsung among others - you do not have to use that version.

    When it comes to Apple people subtly but importantly change the argument to them having a monopoly not across "mobile devices" (which is demonstrably untrue, see: Google) but instead on their own devices. The same is true of every noteworthy game console, for starters, and if we're going to use that argument in one place keep in mind that it should be applied equally to all.

    - - -

    Back on topic, regardless of the reasons I think this is a good change, and I'm hopeful that others make similar changes. The majority of profit is made by those at the top end, but even at the entry level it doesn't take a lot of income for a developer's digital distribution costs to be covered in an established system. So I don't think it'd hurt the distributors, but it'd make the startup phase that little bit easier for people who want to get into game / software / digital content development.

    Given that so many development tools are now also affordable or free (hi Unity!) stuff like this means that the early success of a digital business can be more and more based on the creativity and quality of what they're doing, rather than access to truckloads of cash. Cash will always help, but not needing it is great.
     
    NotaNaN and EternalAmbiguity like this.
  14. Joe-Censored

    Joe-Censored

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Posts:
    11,847
    Yes but the Microsoft case is important here. Nothing stopped the user from installing a competing browser themselves, but Microsoft was still found at fault for using their actions against competing browsers. In your work around though, if you want to enter the mobile app store market you have to also enter the smartphone manufacturing market, and supply your own modified version of the OS which disables what Google has done. That seems like a much more significant barrier to entry than what US courts have already ruled against in the Microsoft case.

    Imagine if the courts ruled that what Microsoft was doing was fine to Netscape, because Netscape can simply enter the computer manufacturing market themselves as a means of distributing their browser to customers.
     
  15. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    That's not even remotely true.*

    There are a bunch of 3rd party app stores which can be installed on any Android device, except where the manufacturer - not Google - has blocked them. There are security warnings, but those are a good thing.

    I do agree that the MS case is still relevant, and am interested to see what legislators think on the matter, but it's fair to say that the context has changed quite dramatically in the nearly two decades since.

    * Each word there is a link to a different 3rd party app store.
     
    NotaNaN and Joe-Censored like this.
  16. Neto_Kokku

    Neto_Kokku

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2018
    Posts:
    1,751
    The case against Google's store has less weight due to Android allowing side-loading. Some manufacturers even operate their own stores, which come pre-installed on their devices, like Samsung and Huawei. Of course, it's not failproof: Microsoft got themselves in hot water by merely having their browser being the default pre-installed option, and Google is being put through similar motions in Europe with default search engine shenanigans.
     
    Joe-Censored likes this.
  17. Joe-Censored

    Joe-Censored

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Posts:
    11,847
    I just simply disagree with this line of thinking, that because alternative app stores haven't entirely been made non-existent and there are technical ways to accomplish an install, that it makes the case against Google any weaker. Look at how the FTC describes what the court found in the Microsoft case.

    So the primary precedent setting case the court will be looking at for guidance found that just by using their position to cut off the "lowest-cost means" of competing with Microsoft made them an illegal monopoly. Requiring competing app stores to side load certainly sounds like it fits that description to me. Since most normies will hit cancel as soon as they see a security warning, it obviously is far more costly, as far as advertising dollars per new customer, than if Google was not forcing this process.
     
  18. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    Sure, but Windows as an operating system wouldn't have been any weaker, in the context of 20 years ago, for not including a built-in web browser application.

    The same can't be said of Android and its built-in app store. Delivery of applications to a device is fundamental functionality today. If Google didn't supply something then:
    - The devices would be significantly less functional for non-technical users.
    - The devices would also be less secure, because there wouldn't be a sensible default for something that has huge security implications.
    - People would actually be more locked in to Google applications, becuase they wouldn't have easy access to alternatives which Google happily distributes for free!

    That's pretty biased language, there. You're acting as if Google are actively holding the door so that it's only just open. In reality, this is a company who made an operating system and then gave it away, including to competitors. Also keep in mind that putting Google Play on a non-Google Android device is a far more involved process than putting a 3rd party store on a stock Android device, too.

    There's plenty of room for criticism of Google, but in this particular case what exactly do you think they could do differently without making things less open or less secure?
     
  19. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
    (angrypenguin already responded, but in addition to that) Something else I alluded to with my first post: You're talking about competing stores, not people developing apps. Apple's actions may have an effect on people trying to create their own app stores, but if the developers-of-actual-apps are not inhibited by it (and are in fact benefited, due to Apple's ability to subsidize smaller developers), will the law care? Should it care?
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2020
  20. Kiwasi

    Kiwasi

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16,860
    I might be missing something here. I just installed Windows the other day on a new machine. IExprorer (or edge or whatever they call it these days) is still the default search engine. Bing is still the default search provider. Surely there was more to the case than just being default? Or has the law changed since then?
     
  21. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    And these days its even harder to change the default, because web browsers can no longer change that setting themselves.

    As for your question, I think it's the context that has probably changed? No expert on this, though. Back then computers had fewer resources and connection speeds were much slower, so people were less likely to install multiple browsers. And it wasn't just bundled by default, it also couldn't be removed.

    Plus, in the mean time, web browsers have pretty much become a fundamental, expected and arguably essential part of a device's core functionality. How would most people download their preferred other web browser if there wasn't a system default one for them to do it with? And MS aren't the only game in town any more, people are now regularly browsing on hardware that MS don't effectively have a monopoly on in the first place.

    Edit: Refreshing myself on this via Wikipedia. There had been prior cases in the early 90s which the IE thing sort of grew out of. This was back in the days where an OS was basically just a compatibility and usability layer, it didn't really do much else on its own. In those earlier cases MS had argued that they were fully committed to OS development and weren't competing in other areas of software, but they argued that they should be able to add new "features" to Windows. The IE thing partly grew out of the debate of whether or not IE was a "feature" of Windows, or a separate product masquerading as such in order to skirt the earlier agreements. So, yet another massive change in context.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2020
    NotaNaN, Kiwasi and EternalAmbiguity like this.
  22. Neto_Kokku

    Neto_Kokku

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2018
    Posts:
    1,751
    Back then operating systems and computers were not "always online" as they are now, there actually were commercial web browsers, and software was still mostly sold on physical media. Microsoft bundling a free browser in Windows was seen as an unfair attack on the companies that made paid-for browsers, and that Microsoft could use bundling against other software categories in the future.

    As accessing the internet became more and more common and necessary, as people came to obtain software primarily via the internet, and as commercial browsers died out, having a bundled browser became less of an issue. Case in point: Chrome became the most used browser on Windows, by far, even though Windows had IE/Edge as a default and people have to download it themselves.

    Even then, until very recently there were editions of Windows which prompted users for which browser they would like to install sold in Europe. There's also an Windows 10 "N" edition, sold mostly also in Europe, which doesn't have a built-in media player, the result of a similar lawsuit from companies which make media player software.

    So, these kinds of things aren't set in stone, and such legal decisions depend on companies contesting other companies in court.
     
  23. Joe-Censored

    Joe-Censored

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Posts:
    11,847
    I focused on the competing stores angle, because that's the core of Epic's legal arguments. Apple and Google, as alleged by Epic, have set up app store monopolies. Those monopolies make them gate keepers to app developers for sales and delivery of apps as well as in app purchases in violation of US law (as alleged by Epic).

    Here's the actual complaint against Google.
    https://www.scribd.com/document/472400240/Epic-Games-complaint-against-Google-over-Fortnite

    On Apple subsidizing smaller developers, what subsidy? Being charged less doesn't make it a subsidy.
     
  24. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
    I agree that's what Epic's argument is, though I'll point out that all of their marketing related to this is about the other aspect - about Apple affecting actual app developers. Anyway, my point was that that's a distinction we should consider.

    It's a subsidy in the same way that government benefits are (supposed to be) subsidized by the rich with higher tax brackets. Higher taxes on higher earners allows for lower taxes for lower earners (Link: "The data demonstrates that the U.S. individual income tax continues to be very progressive, borne primarily by the highest income earners").
     
    Joe-Censored likes this.