I think it's a bit disingenuous to imply that the example in question^1 is less extreme than Amazon allowing sellers to directly link to discounted options directly on their listings.
The app in question was built, packaged, distributed, installed and runs on Apple funded SDKs after all.
Its splitting hairs to break this down into who compiled the code. The “source” of both experiences is maintained by the developer/seller. In one case it’s some configuration and the other case it’s Apple platform bitcode
To extend your simile, in this case Epic appears to have accepted a booth in a marketplace where there is significant foot traffic, easy access and well tested distribution channels. They are quite content selling their wares there yet do not want to pay the asking price and are actively telling people to go to their own marketplace on the other side of town.
Doesn't sound like a vendor I would want in my market either.
> in this case Epic appears to have accepted a booth in a marketplace where there is significant foot traffic, easy access and well tested distribution channels.
No, and again, these moving goal posts make this conversation more and more meaningless.
Epic wants to sell their currency outside of the app store. They're not allowed to do so by Apple's TOS. This is the same as Amazon saying a website cannot sell to users on the Seller's personal site if the buyer owns an Amazon account. It's just monopoly garbage.
If it were possible to buy from _either_ the App Store or Epic's store, Epic would certainly ablige and just include a 30% upcharge. Of course, nobody would use it (as has been proven over and over again), but they would absolutely include it.
That seller almost certainly signed a contract with amazon saying that they would give amazon most-favored nation status with regards to product prices. So they could absolutely say such a thing, but in the end they couldn't contractually offer anything at a cheaper rate than what they list it for on amazon.
No, that's definitely not identical - no one, including Apple, is asserting that the fact that Fortnite users could by the same thing cheaper directly was a contract violation, the contentious issue was only that this cheaper price was being advertised on the iOS app.
Right. Just as with Amazon. You don’t necessarily see Amazon with the lowest price for an item (the most favored nation thing may happen but I don’t know that that’s standard SOP for everything on the store, eg PlayStation may have discounts through other channels and for certain types of vendors they view as fungible without a brand they may not care at all). But you don’t see advertising for the cheaper option on the Amazon page.
Regardless of the behavior of selecting "Epic direct payment," this is a flagrant violation of App Store rules.
I agree, it seems sensical to allow an app to mention that buying direct from their website might be cheaper than going through in-app purchases. It might even be reasonable to open that link automatically.
I do think that it's reasonable to restrict third party payment processors, though. It's inconvenient, dangerous, and provides little in the way of antifraud measures if you're dealing with every app's purchase processor (assuming they don't all just use Stripe).
I actually think Apple's, "only our payment system can be used," system is reasonable. The percentage is maybe steep and would be better served by a progressive scale. But I also don't think Apple should be able to prevent an app from advertising their own payment system out of the app.
> Regardless of the behavior of selecting "Epic direct payment," this is a flagrant violation of App Store rules.
Yep, because they needed to flagrantly violate the rules if they thought the rules were not something that would stand up to legal scrutiny. The US court systems (particularly on the civil side) try not to rule on hypotheticals. They want to be discussing actual damages. Because of that, flagrantly violating the app store rules (to then get taken off the store) is the first step towards getting a judge to rule on if they were legal in the first place.
But they already allow third party payment processors in physical goods retail apps e.g the Amazon app for example (and many other much smaller retailers). Is fraud a much bigger concern in digital only apps? Why should I trust a small retailer with an app over a big development house like EA?
The fraud aspect is either a mistake or there are people intentionally promoting a particular agenda. As you rightfully pointed out, online payments have been done for decades outside of the App Store and fraud has never been a dealbreaker (turns out banks and card networks give you a lot of recourse against it even for debit cards).
Rules that many believe are unjust, hence this making it to court.
>I do think that it's reasonable to restrict third party payment processors, though. It's inconvenient
Paying for goods has never been easier especially with all the payment app integrations like paypal, cash app, venmo, etc.
I want choice and I want Apple to compete by being a better product not by being the only game in town. If Apple opened up they would gain me as a customer.
> It's inconvenient, dangerous, and provides little in the way of antifraud measures
The major card networks have rules that give customers recourse in case of fraud or missing/faulty goods regardless of the processor and card type. Some countries have laws that strengthen these protections even more, though it's usually limited to credit cards.
The "antifraud" narrative about how the App Store is so much better at fraud protection is annoying (especially considering how many scam apps there are).
> I actually think Apple's, "only our payment system can be used," system is reasonable. ....
But I also don't think Apple should be able to prevent an app from advertising their own payment system out of the app.
As opposed to Apple forcing you to go through their gated options? When better payment, ad, search, email, browser, etc, etc, options exist?
Apples OS is decent and their options are "solid"... but for each of their offerings, there are better options and their options aren't worth the 30% tax.
Tons of companies have better payment options and should be allowed to use them without anti-competitive restrictions placed by Apple.
No, but considering iOS is roughly 50% or more of the mobile market in the U.S, U.K, Japan, etc. any developer choosing to forgo iOS is essentially shitting away half the market in some very lucrative places.
This is the crux of the matter, for most developers. Its why Apple is the target and not Google, despite having remarkably similar structure for this. The one exception is around having alternative App Stores (if I recall correctly this is totally blessed by Google, see Amazon Appstore App For Android[0], though I don't think any alternative store that has been created this way has thrived, cautionary tale of whether consumers will care about alternative app stores). Its otherwise the same, as far as I can tell[1] structurally.
I think the happy medium everyone should be striving for is just third party payment APIs that are blessed by the platform. This isn't about distribution (I don't think Epic cares if it's hosted on the App Store, Google Play, or not). It's all about payment processing.
If Apple and Google had a blessed Payment API that let developers use alternative payment processors, this would go away I imagine. I know some users want more freedom, but this lawsuit really isn't about user freedom, it's about payments (and if users do get more freedom, e.g. able to install apps in alternative ways, it's a side effect of this, not the goal of the lawsuit)
I wonder if Apple is forced to cut their fees in payments if they'll raise the developer fees to compensate, tiered based on size of the org.
They forced people to use subpar options within their environment - just like Microsoft forced IE to be used on theirs.
If you want to reach millions of customers, you are restricted to the Apple Payment options... even when better options exist. Same for Ad and other subpar options.
Why? Because they are better options? No... because Apple FORCES you to use those options.
"but you don't have to develop for Apple" is a copout that ignores the anti-competitive and monopolistic behavior Apple is using to force people into subpar options for a 30% gateway tax.
Similarly, others can't put good browsers onto Apple because of restrictions... why? because webkit is the REQUIRED base... despite the fact that its restrictions mean you can't use webapps as real alternatives because of limitations with controllers, bluetooth, etc.
Google can make better alternatives to Safari? Firefox can? Microsoft can? doesn't matter... Apple FORCES you to use their subpar options because if there was real competition, they wouldn't get a 30% tax.
Spread that decision to email clients and all other corners of the Apple "ecosystem" and you have a company using monopolistic practices to limit competition to increase prices.
"but don't do business on their platform" doesn't change the fact that they are using monopolistic practices to fleece their customers.
I don't like EA and think they are an equally horrible company - and should be judged equally poorly for many bad practices... but EA (and netflix, steam, etc) should have the ability to not use Apples gated options and not pay for a service that isn't worth 30% - especially when they can host their own payment and ad services.
Stop with the bad arguments to defend a company using monopolistic practices to fleece their customers.
From the article: "The question was in relation to Apple's App Store anti-steering policy, which forbids apps from telling iOS users that they can purchase virtual goods or subscriptions cheaper elsewhere. [US Judge] Gonzalez Rogers was questioning why allowing this to be conveyed to App Store customers would be bad..."
It's not so much about offering choice (implying the choice multiple app stores on iOS), as it is allowing users to be directed off iOS for purchases.
This judge does actually seem to be looking for middle-ground between the parties.
That Apple's trying to control the narrative, that you can't even tell people what $ of their payment is going to Apple, is a problem; this is a problem with food ordering-delivery service apps too, it should be law so people can make informed choices of what app they want to use.
At this point, I am firmly of the opinion that we need a single, global standard for online payments that is just an electronic equivalent of cash or a direct bank transfer. Solid authentication of the parties. Explicit authorisation of each transaction or series of transactions to be performed. No other strings attached for anyone just because you're transferring money; that's what contracts are for. No arbitrary gatekeeping or labyrinthine terms for buyers and sellers, dictated by intermediaries in their own interests. No spying on who is paying for what and selling that data on to some shady broker for an extra cut. Ideally, the whole thing should be run as a public service in each country, at cost, with no intermediaries at all, in the same way countries operate their primary currencies as a public benefit that is beyond the control of any commercial entity. If not, then at least heavily regulated with a similar outcome. And make it illegal for any commercial entity offering goods or services for sale to require the use of some other payment method without also offering this one with at least the same prominence, so you can use something like an escrow service with a refund mechanism if you want to, but only if both parties genuinely agree to the terms.
With the increasing prevalence of online shopping, the increasing importance of reliable and efficient international money transfer to the global economy, and the seemingly never-ending ways the financial services industry can mess around both senders and receivers of money when all they wanted to do was send $X from A to B, we needed something like that long ago, but better late than never.
It doesn’t quite hit all those points but have you tried paying for a service with Bitcoin lately? The lightning network plus QR codes to autofill details all works pretty well.
Only on a tiny scale compared to all global commerce, though. IMHO, what we need is the digital equivalent of cash, something ubiquitous and readily understood, which can be handed from one person to another when both know who the other party is, with as little added ceremony on top as possible.
In this case they couldn't even know that they are being overcharged by using iOS. It's like food hiding its sugar content.
It becomes more complicated because Fortnite is not iOS , nor apple. In the end the decision will be made over anticompetitive tactics. Because mobile marketplaces are a closed oligopoly, they 'll establish customer rights.
With most Android devices, you can unlock the bootloader and replace the Rom, root the device for administrator style access, debloat and remove system components, generally modify the hardware as you see fit.
With all Android devices that aren't managed (read: business device), you can sideload a third party app store without the need to use system exploits to 'jailbreak.'
Neither can be done on iOS. Attempting to modify the system or sideload apps on iOS requires using exploits that are security flaws and will likely be patched out in a future OS update.
If you already have an iDevice and can't replace it, you basically don't have any choice.
> With all Android devices that aren't managed (read: business device), you can sideload a third party app store without the need to use system exploits to 'jailbreak.'
Is an average Android user actually going to do any of that?
Sideloading apps is very easy (albeit you have to press “okay” on a very scary looking warming page). Plenty of people do, to play Fortnight or install the Amazon App Store, for instance.
I think it only matters if that was the expectation when you purchased it. Nobody buys an iPhone with the expectation that they’ll be able to install apps anywhere outside of the App Store. In fact, a single place to buy and install apps is a selling point to many people.
> If you already have an iDevice and can't replace it, you basically don't have any choice.
An educated consumer would know that before they bought the phone. It’s never been possible to legally side load apps on iOS (well outside of your own) so it’s not unreasonable that anyone who’s bought an iPhone would expect to have that functionality. It was never taken away from them. They bought into that walled garden, whether they knew it or not.
An educated customer would also know that their food was made in a factory that also works with nuts and thus avoid said product if they have an allergy. An educated customer would also know that their car airbags have a defect and will thus fight to get them replaced. An educated customer would know that the Phoebus Cartel was driving down the lifetime of lightbulbs to increase sales.
It's entirely unreasonable to expect the average person to read up and become an expert on everything that they purchase. This is the whole reason consumer protection laws exist.
I’d argue it is the responsibility of the consumer to know if their food has allergens. It’s convenient for consumers to have the declarations on packaged products, but that doesn’t stop an allergic person from being responsible for grabbing a street bite that ends up having nuts in it.
The airbag example is a contractual obligation with a a warranted product.
The light bulb cartel example is totally unrelated and throwing it in the mix only adds a sinister tone to the original topic. If you were talking about their salary collusion it’d be relevant. But it has no relation to iOS not allowing side loading.
I’m not saying a consumer need be an expert in everything. But expecting that a product has functionality that’s never been advertised or suggested is unreasonable.
"Android device users face switching costs when switching to Apple devices, such as losing their apps, data and contacts, and having to learn how to use a new operating system"
Thank you for this comment. I had a hard time putting into words the aspect of “barrier of entry to change” which makes everything else “click”. It’s such a simple context, but hard to put into actual simple words.
If Apple had 99% market share ( it is currently edging close to 70% in US, 75% of U.S. App Store revenues, and over 80% of time spent on the mobile internet ), and you have a choice of of using Android, would that 1% even count as a choice? In that case monopoly would not exist in any market.
It is about Market power ( and imbalance )
"That wouldn’t eliminate the market power Apple has here, but it would certainly diminish it ... it would not be much of a solution at all."
I thought this sentence sums it up pretty well. Apple has far too much power and we have plenty of evidence of email shown in court they are abusing it.
In terms of market share, Apple certainly doesn't have a monopoly over smartphones. While they do occasionally have a great quarter, I don't think they've ever cracked 50% share in any major market in any calendar year. Ever.
I find it interesting that Apple is being accused of such anti-consumer behaviours while simultaneously demonstrating the success of their overall product strategy in the truly free and open marketplace of smartphone sales. There are dozens of very strong competitors, most with a much wider spectrum of options and price points than Apple offers.
>While they do occasionally have a great quarter, I don't think they've ever cracked 50% share in any major market in any calendar year. Ever.
There is a different between Sales Unit Market Share, and actual usage market share.
As long as Apple user dont migrate to Android, and the total smartphone user in US being the constant ( most adult already got a smartphone ). Even if Apple sold zero smartphone in a whole year. They will still have the same market shares.
This is not unique to Apple, it would be true for any smartphone manufacturer that chooses to sell devices with a long useful life. If some Android OEMs are making products with a shorter useful life, that's their choice.
I’m generally on Apple’s side in this debate, but on this point specifically I think Apple is in the wrong. It’s just silly that apps which don’t route payments through the App Store aren’t allowed to say so. And further, it degrades the user experience when you download an app, which Apple has reviewed and approved, but that app doesn’t work without a subscription etc. which you have to just “figure out” how to buy outside the app. That rule has always felt over the top to me.
Why would any store allow its products to advertise a cheaper price outside the establishment? What would be the point of even offering those products?
Well, in Apple's case, it's because having e.g. Netflix available on iOS devices makes people more likely to buy their very-expensive hardware. If people couldn't get the assorted free service-client apps on iOS, that'd be a problem for Apple.
Even with the store metaphor, "loss leaders" to draw people in so they'll spend money on other things are a popular technique.
Manufacturers can and do print some 'manufacturer's suggested retail price' on their products, and (in the absence of a specific contract prohibiting so) retailers can and do sell them for a higher price despite the company and product advertising that in general they are available cheaper.
A lot of products you buy (especially ones that are huge recurring purchases, like lots of baby stuff) include coupons that direct you to the website to buy more via direct subscription.
It’s insane that in my product I cannot tell people about ways you can purchase it. Defending this rule seems like Stockholm syndrome.
> A lot of products you buy (especially ones that are huge recurring purchases, like lots of baby stuff) include coupons that direct you to the website to buy more via direct subscription.
is there a 15/30% fee for physical goods such as DoorDash, Amazon, etc? thought it was just for digital goods, subscriptions, etc.
I think a lot of businesses "borrow" the inventory from the supplier and only pay them once the inventory is sold. It's not the same as a marketplace, per-se but considering you pay apple, download from apple servers, after apple does "QA" and follows apple rules, i'd say its pretty similar to a store that sources select products and provides the checkout infrastructure and distribution logistics.
My 100% selfish take on this is that Apple's in-app payment flow is a pretty incredible user experience (double-tap a button + FaceID scan, and you're done), whereas being directed to a website and having to manually enter card details is a legitimate pain. I haven't pulled my credit card out of my wallet to enter my details on a phone in a long time. Haven't had to type my billing address, haven't had to find my CVC number. It's been nice!
I'm sure Apple is very pleased with the profit margins they get on in-app payments, but I'm equally certain that Apple's desire to keep people using their payment system is just as much about maintaining a great user experience for users.
Obviously the flip side is that some companies - Netflix! - then decide just not to offer payment in-app at all. That's also bad! But I don't know how to compromise on allowing apps to direct users to payment systems outside the app store without opening the floodgates to a million different payment experiences, which I (again, selfishly) would love to avoid.
"but I'm equally certain that Apple's desire to keep people using their payment system is just as much about maintaining a great user experience for users"
It's absolutely and fundamentally first about the platform-monopoly and control.
Apple has a considerable number of other 'bad users experiences' to point at to suggest that this issue, while might be a part of their legit product strategy, is way second tier to their control of the distribution.
Finally, there's also a fairly heavy 'bad user experience' in blocking from doing the things the want to do.
The answer to your question is actually in the economics:
Apple should be able to charge a premium to using their 'great experience' commensurate with the likelihood that vendors will use it, given that premium.
With a 15%/30% cut, vendors will not use the service.
With an 8% cut (assuming they'd have to pay Stripe 4% or whatever), then it may very well be worth it for vendors.
i.e. if the 'Apple Checkout' were forced to compete as an actual produced (even with it's entrenched position in the platform), the profits would be a measure of the value at least on some level.
I mean, the obvious answer here is that Apple needs to offer companies a reasonable revenue split (like, 5% or something) for these recurring subscription scenarios where it’s obvious Apple did nothing to drum up the business and is purely functioning as a (very convenient, admittedly) credit card processor.
You say "Apple did nothing", but the only way a company would be paying a 30% commission to Apple is if the user's initial sign-up came through their platform.
In that situation, maybe the user would have eventually signed up through a different platform, and the company could have been directly paid 100% of the price. But it's also possible that the user would simply never have signed up, in which case Apple's 30% cut would look like a steal compared to the alternative (receiving nothing).
What about transactions that weren't made directly with a credit card, but rather with an Apple Store gift card purchased from a physical retailer? Possibly during a 20% off sale? Even if you elide any such discounting, Apple's transactional cost is going to be far, far higher than 5%.
I doubt there's any publicly available hard data around the costs of running the gift card ecosystem, but a number between 15 and 35 percent would not surprise me at all.
It's easy to offer the same user experience with other payment processors. It's even possible with websites. All that's needed is for Apple to export the relevant APIs and support the needed APIs in Safari.
Then again, given that other payment processors have more experience, I'm not sure their UX is worse. There's more to UX than Face ID (chargebacks, dispute resolution, being able to move your subscription to Android should you desire it, etc.).
Therefore the issue is Apple getting monopoly rent (which you pay for indirectly), not UX. Your selfish interest should ask Apple to open up.
Apple does offer Apple Pay on websites and it can easily be integrated with a payment processor. I use it for buying stuff on Apple Pay enabled sites all the time.
Why not offer a discount without 30% cut for Apple credit card users and force streamlined UX on all apps with this payment method they can control the checkout experience.
As someone who straddles Japan and the USA, Apple's system sucks. To update my MUFG Japanese bank app I need to be on the Apple Japanese App store. To update my Capital One app I need to be on the USA store. Switching stores cancels all subscriptions.
I'd prefer a system that allowed subscription to last and one that didn't require switching stores but I'm not allowed to use another store
I think this has more just the consequences of international law (particularly the US being all up in your business via FATCA to the point of Japanese banks not wanting to even bother if you are a US citizen). It seems better than the Android situation where you either have to wait a _year_ between switching countries on your account or find the APK (y’know, for your _banking_ app) on some shady site.
I doubt this has anything do whatsoever with laws. If it laws then something would prevent me from installing software from other countries on my computer.
Not a direct result, more like the banks don’t want/care about international customers (due to the laws), so they don’t bother publishing to different regions of the App Store.
>Apple's desire to keep people using their payment system is just as much about maintaining a great user experience for users.
Steve Jobs Apple, Yes. Modern Apple that is no longer the case.
It is very clear from 2016 when they announced their focus on services revenue. Every little changes, being implemented and enforced YoY was all to push for that double services revenue target.
If you have followed Apple long enough you start seeing all these changes. From Apple Retail focusing on AppleCare+ Target, retail staff having their KPI to include Apple Services Revenue Push, as well as enforcing rules where it wasn't previously enforced on App Store.
yep agreed, there has definitely been a big shift in priorities. When iPhones had dramatic hardware improvements every year (remember the S phones, 4s/5s etc, thats how fast things were moving) revenue was ticking up from genuine innovation. Now people are mostly happy with their phones are keeping them longer, how do they maintain the growth? squeezing more out of what they've got, which is services revenue, which is naturally exploiting their monopoly more and more until someone stops them.
I am really convinced their decision to have glass backs in iPhones has nothing really to do with wireless charging but the hope that it keeps breaking and people will keep repairing it.
The charger thing just sealed it how low they can stoop to make people pay for things customers shouldn’t in the first place.
But users are equally responsible. They literally encourage it by continuing to buy into the walled garden.
If it's such a value-add then you won't mind if users who are fine with the browser-based solution are offered a lower price to compensate for Apple's cut, then?
It's silly that when I want to watch something on Prime Video, I can see the title in the Prime app on AppleTV but can't rent it. I have to go to amazon.com on a different device, search the title, rent it, then it becomes available on the TV app.
As a person working in tech I understand it, but it's still silly.
As a user I don't want to have to subscribe through anything but the app/play store. Whenever that happens I have no guarantee, at all, how easy it is to cancel, etc.
I'm sure most services would have no problem letting you do that, if they could also inform you that you're paying 30% extra when choosing that method.
The middle ground here is to allow multiple certified backend processors for larger and more trusted providers who appear have that infrastructure.
What Apple should’ve been doing (IMHO) is by controlling the conversation and thus the outcome. It’s going to be bad if a court decides this.
Apple added a small developer program to reduce their cut. This is clearly just a PR move and shows it’s not about costs anymore (it would’ve been when this was a much smaller venture). It’s simply a profit center now.
This move was completely backwards. If Apple had been willing to offer larger customers a smaller cut, scaling down to say 10% (remember this includes credit card processing) then I believe they could’ve completely avoided the risks of this lawsuit.
Why? If someone sues you, you just kick them out of the discount program. Would Epic risk a lawsuit in this case? I have doubts.
I agree that the reduction is a PR move but I doubt any reduction for large shops would be received well. If the cut was 10% they’d want 5%. If the cut was 5% they want 3%. This debate is much less about expense than it is about principle.
After what Apple did with Parlor I'm firmly in the camp that there needs to be a mechanism for alternative stores. And not Google's handling of alternative stores, but alternative stores that have an equal first party footing with Apple's store so they can't claim to support third party stores, but make the experience so shitty that they might as well not exist (Google's favorite trick).
I think the answer is simple. If it was easy to advertise to the user other payment options, then what would stop developers from making free apps [0] that are unlocked in the developers website? Bypassing the Apple's cut.
I don't agree with this but I think it would be a good argument by Apple.
[0] Assuming that these free apps would be functional but very limited so they don't have the same problem as the Hey app.
If Apple is not offering a rate that is competitive to whatever the developers use on their own site, then it means their policy is anti-competitive and costing users money. There's no law that says Apple and only apple must make the maximum amount of profit.
If apple continues by complaining that they need the extra money to operate their app store then well, they are free to allow alternative app stores.
Why should that be Apple's job in the first place? If I go to a big shopping centre, and I buy something from one of the shops there, and subsequently it turns out to be defective, that's between me and the shop who sold it to me. No-one would expect the shopping centre to have any control over that commercial relationship just because the shop happened to be under its roof.
But then if the shop is a dick to you, or it scams you, otherwise does a dirty on you, it would affect the credibility of the shopping center (how are they allowing scammers to rent shops here), even the concept of doing business with shopping centers as a whole.
Also "shopping center" analogy somewhat breaks down because you buy something from a shop and use it somewhere else. When you buy an app, you use it in the device only (inside the shopping center) using the device's affordances. So they are somewhat more intimately tied.
In the end, this all boils down to ideological differences. One camp says "it is their store, take it or leave it, they already have competitors - if the value proposition wasn't there, it would fail - and if they screw up it will fail" and I'm in this camp. Apple as a company does not owe anything to anyone. Can they discontinue the app store tomorrow if they wanted? Sure they can, it is their store and platform. Can they decide to get 99% cut from all purchases? Yes, it is their business, their platform. Up to them. If the value proposition isn't there, it will fail on its own. If it is there, whining feels to me like entitlement.
The other camp thinks private companies should be bound to rules such that even if they provide immense value, there should be a "limit" to how much return they can get from it, mandated by governments etc. I don't agree, but I can see where they are coming from.
>In the end, this all boils down to ideological differences. One camp says "it is their store, take it or leave it, they already have competitors
American law abandoned this outlook at the early 20th century. Also, what Apple is doing is making it harder for customers to switch from Apple if they want to. It's ridiculous to invoke competition as a defence when Apple is trying to prevent competition.
Really? If I set up a shop in the USA, can I not dictate what I sell there and under what terms?
"Making it harder to switch" is moot, once you start purchasing stuff in X platform it is already hard to switch since your purchases do not carry over and sometimes they are not even available on other platforms.
And competition involves getting ahead, and it will feel like you are trying to prevent it from happening because if you are a lot more successful than others, it doesn't feel like competition anymore - even though others are absolutely free to get their shit together and outperform. It is important to discern the difference between "competition is being made irrelevant" and "competition is being prevented".
>If I set up a shop in the USA, can I not dictate what I sell there and under what terms?
You can if I can easily set up a store next to you. Selling more of less the same stuff.
By your analogy USA currently only has two store, App Store and Google Play. And there are no third store allowed. Setting up a third platform is literally creating another State to join the US federation.
>Really? If I set up a shop in the USA, can I not dictate what I sell there and under what terms?
There are limits. From safety to counterfeiting prevention to marketpower/monopoly considerations to various legal duties. In this case, Apple is using its position in the app store to force companies to use Apple's payment processor, and that's classic antitrust.
>"Making it harder to switch" is moot, once you start purchasing stuff in X platform it is already hard to switch
If the relationship was with the vendor directly, one could simply switch the subscription to the vendor's Android app. Because the vendor doesn't necessarily know even who the customer is (since Apple even takes other the email address), it's much more difficult to do. It's true that there can be other obstacles, but this one is an artificially made by Apple just to prevent competition.
> even though others are absolutely free to get their shit together and outperform.
The point is that others aren't allowed to. They can't run with iOS apps, and the user can't switch away from Apple unless the user cancels all subscriptions.
One camp says "it is their store, take it or leave it, they already have competitors - if the value proposition wasn't there, it would fail - and if they screw up it will fail" and I'm in this camp.
I would have more sympathy for that position if having one of two types of smartphone were not now assumed by so many organisations and if people buying those phones hadn't dramatically reduced the alternative devices those people might otherwise have bought.
Like an essential utility, a smartphone has become a practical necessity for many people to be able to live a normal life. When you have attracted so much influence, you are no longer just another business, and again like an essential utility, regulation is appropriate for the protection of the little guy.
Apple as a company does not owe anything to anyone. Can they discontinue the app store tomorrow if they wanted? Sure they can, it is their store and platform.
Sure, but if they did that, Apple's influence would rapidly diminish and the problem I described would solve itself as well.
If the value proposition isn't there, it will fail on its own.
Well, that's really the big question here, isn't it? Does Apple's App Store actually provide good value for what it costs, or is it being artificially supported through other means? One of those is just good business. The other is a potential violation of competition law in many places.
>Well, that's really the big question here, isn't it? Does Apple's App Store actually provide good value for what it costs, or is it being artificially supported through other means?
Netflix for instance can choose to refuse being on the platform under Apple's terms. It must be worth it so they stay. If Apple wanted 99% cut, would they stay? No. So the current cut must be somewhat appropriate.
Yes, that is my point. Netflix cannot even say where and how to sign up inside the app as per Apple's policies. Apple would like them to sell subscriptions from App Store, but they are refusing because Apple wants a cut for the privilege of being on their platform. Netflix doesn't want to, so their only option is to not provide the option.
If this was a bad deal for Netflix, they'd remove their app from the platform. But they feel they'd be harmed by doing so. That means Apple is providing a "valuable enough" service to them under current terms.
Then they can charge apps for downloads that dont go through their own payments.
But more importantly that's assuming that Apple needs to have rates as high as e.g. stripe, but they can probably get better much better rates due to their size, hell they have the cash to create their own bank (as they should as they re becoming a services company).
> impossible to offer a competitive rate while still taking any cut whatsoever
Huh, are you suggesting that there's no money to be made in the online payment processing industry? No differentiation in prices between processors that provide more or less service and ease-of-use?
>If it was easy to advertise to the user other payment options, then what would stop developers from making free apps [0] that are unlocked in the developers website? Bypassing the Apple's cut.
And what's wrong with this? If developers think Apples frictionless payment system is worth their cut then they'd still keep it. Otherwise consumers and developers now have choice. What marginal benefit does apple provide on the purchase of "v-bucks" to justify a 30% cut when processing costs are far lower?
Exactly. The typical problem with these huge, two-sided online marketplaces is that they are the big guy in any "negotiation" of terms with both sides of the market, which means they can effectively dictate the terms. And yet, they are just an intermediary. The only value they contribute is connecting the other parties and facilitating the transaction. In other words, they are the least important player, yet often they are taking a huge cut that inevitably pushes prices up for buyers and profits down for sellers.
I suspect the best way to bust those marketplaces and reduce them to making profits commensurate with the true value they offer is to prohibit them from handling any financial transactions between the two parties at all. Instead, let them simply get paid by the sellers on some agreed terms. If they offer enough value to justify the rate they ask, the sellers will pay it. If they are too greedy, the sellers will go somewhere else. And if they have a monopoly or monopsony position, they are subject to the same competition law as any other business buying or selling anything else in an exclusive or dominant position.
Whatever your stance is on Apple's control over apps on iOS, it's a little bit beyond the pale to claim that Apple does nothing other than connect parties and facilitate the transaction.
Apple literally made the town in which their marketplace resides. They attracted residents to their town from the goodwill of their brand name, through the creation of a desirable product, and through substantial investments of marketing. People are continually attracted to this town because the crime rate is low and the city council's ordinances are suitable for the vast majority.
Apple literally built all of the existing buildings, provided anyone who wanted to participate in the economy with a garage full of tools, provided free and near-free training to anyone who wants it, and supplied people (again, for free) many of the basic raw materials which people used to build products.
Apple literally built the marketplace itself. They did an imperfect but not terrible job at minimising the number of outright hucksters. They made it so financial transactions were perceived as secure transactions[0], and that merchants' customers felt confident opening their wallets more often than in the adjacent town.
[0] This is more important than you remember. Ten years ago the concept of trusting your credit card through an app on your phone was new. By making the system highly trustworthy from the get-go, people's trust was rapidly won and rarely shaken.
Even if that is all true, having built the town and then prohibiting anyone else from setting up a marketplace is exploiting one monopoly you hold to benefit another, which is a big no-no in terms of economics and competition law. In your analogy, why are the townspeople better off because the town bans anyone else from providing shopping facilities for them?
You assert that the town and the marketplace are two separate monopolies. I disagree and assert that they're a single entity, because they are not separable. Neither could have been created without the other. And their cumulative success is (in many respects) dependent on them being intertwined.
But even if you do insist on separating them, you don't get to arbitrarily bisect them wherever you want to suit your argument. The "retail" App Store is only the surface layer of the iOS app ecosystem which Apple has developed, it's certainly not the totality of it. There's the toolchain, APIs, documentation, training resources and many other things besides, which are all necessary parts to that marketplace's existence.
You might argue that Apple chose to give away their developer tools rather than license their use with a revenue share arrangement (like Epic does with Unreal Engine). You might argue that Apple charges for their tools with the $99 annual developer fee. I disagree that these are relevant. How Apple chooses to monetise their own work is up to them. For example, Apple could have instead defined their 30% revenue share requirement as a license condition for the use of their tools and libraries. The outcome for consumers and developers would be largely identical, but the "store monopoly" argument would make a lot less sense.
Even Epic themselves understand that developer ecosystems are valuable and it's fair for a percentage of top-line profit to go to them regardless how the app is sold or how payments work.
More broadly I must admit some occasional frustration by people who insist Apple must change, as this insistence is all too often paired with a somewhat arrogant paternalism, that they know better than I do what I should want. "Free market" is certainly the simplest argument to side with and the easiest one to wax lyrical about, but that doesn't automatically make it the best one.
I'm not going to spend too much time explaining why I think the iOS ecosystem would be worse if "free markets" were forced upon it, because unfortunately Hacker News debates on this topic generally see more people throwing down-votes rather than engaging with the debate. But fundamentally I see the difference of opinion stemming from whether you see the smartphone as a computing platform or an appliance bundled with systems administration services from the vendor. I think of my smartphone as an appliance, despite being a software developer by trade. But I'm glad that the market includes many brands of Android phone so that everyone who cares can have a choice.
You are arguing that the platform and the app marketplace are inseparable, but many other platforms for personal computing have not had such a store yet have been popular with both users and developers. They provided tools and documentation for developers, often for free, too. Plenty more have had multiple marketplace-like sources for new software, not necessarily provided by the same organisation that built the platform itself. From Windows to Linux distros and from Steam to the plug-in marketplaces for many large applications, there is no shortage of counter-examples to your position here.
No, I am only arguing they are inseparable with respect to questions of antitrust. Obviously there's no technical impediment to iOS becoming a complete free-for-all where you can download and run any binary with root privileges using an innocuous shell script command piped from wget.
The question of what's been done elsewhere isn't relevant, because there are many elsewheres, each with their own origin stories. Most of them look more like iOS than macOS—the personal computer marketplace is something of an outlier when it comes to software distribution.
OK, but we still don't seem to have a solid argument for why Apple should be allowed, for competition law purposes, to treat different aspects of its business such as making physical devices, offering a marketplace for users of those devices to obtain software from third parties, and providing payment processing services, as inseparable. As we've been discussing and seem to agree, there is no technical reason those distinct activities couldn't be performed independently, and there are numerous examples of similar arrangements on other platforms where they are. Isn't this situation the epitome of what antitrust rules are supposed to prevent?
Developers would stop offering Apple payment and only allowed to buy subscriptions and full products by their websites. It wouldn’t be cheaper for consumers, maybe on the beginning it would, as a PR move. But as a consumer I would lose this amazing Apple support, that allows me to return in few clicks game I didn’t like, subscription that didn’t offer what it promised and other services I was dissatisfied with. I would lose one interface to manage all my apps subscriptions, and had to give my credit card number left and right for every, even small app, I would want to try. No thanks
One-sided consumer protections are great if you're a consumer who actually is being wronged. They're not so great for merchants when consumers who haven't been wronged abuse them, though, and that has a chilling effect that hurts everyone. Merchants will either push their prices up to compensate for the abuse, so legitimate customers end up paying the price for abusive ones, or simply not offer their products or services for sale in that channel at all if it brings more trouble and risk than it's worth.
Yes, you're talking to it. My businesses operate web apps but do not offer native iOS apps despite the occasional request. The hostile developer environment, high fees and expectation of ridiculously low prices simply aren't worth it in our view.
That sucks but what does it have to do with "consumers who haven't been wronged abuse them"? Especially in the context of "Apple support, that allows me to return in few clicks game I didn’t like, subscription that didn’t offer what it promised and other services I was dissatisfied with".
I guess my point is that App Store metrics (total revenue, subscription revenue, average revenue per user, etc) continues to grow and maintain their lead over Google Play so the chilling effect can't be too bad.
For example, if Apple's terms require that merchants take the hit any time a consumer gets buyer's remorse and demands a refund, it's hardly surprising that some merchants aren't willing to accept that liability.
I suggest that in terms of metrics, Apple's App Store vs Google's Play Store isn't really the right comparison to see the chilling effect I'm talking about, because both mobile ecosystems have broadly similar dynamics. A more telling comparison might be something like iOS app developers vs. web developers offering SAAS. How many businesses that run successful SAAS websites charging subscription fees for access also offer an equivalent mobile app where customers can subscribe, accepting Apple's 30% cut and other restrictions?
If the frictionless payment system was so much more appealing to users that it generated enough extra income to offset Apple's fess then devs would offer it. This is how marketplaces are supposed to work.
It's frictionless in part because it's exclusive and universal. I don't even have to think about what the payment method is, or whether I should trust it, or whether I should choose another one. I'm not necessarily arguing for this, just pointing out that friction can be as much about uniformity as it as about choice.
And let's be clear, this isn't an argument over competing methods of payment, it's an argument about whether Apple should be entitled to a percentage of revenue for iOS app sales, regardless how they are sold, regardless where they are sold.
We should be mindful to keep this question separate from whether there should be more than one place to acquire apps, or whether it matters if the financial transaction occurs prior to downloading or after the app is installed.
If you don't like the payment options the app offers then you're free to choose another app that does. Isn't that the same justification Apple's defenders always give?
To be clear, are you arguing that what matters is a choice in payment methods even if Apple takes a percentage either way, or is your argument that Apple shouldn't be entitled to a percentage of revenue from apps built with their tools and libraries?
If it's the latter, then Epic disagrees with you.
Epic's own business model says they're entitled to a cut of your revenue if you use their tools and libraries. They don't care what payment method you use. They don't care if you sell copies or sell in-game hats. If you make revenue, they're entitled to a slice of it.
(Yes, Epic does waive their fee for low revenue games. That's very nice of them, though in reality it's obviously a clever strategic move to lure game developers over to their ecosystem, in the hope that more breakout indie successes happen to be built with Unreal Engine. But that doesn't change the underlying principle: they would be entitled to it if they had asked for it.)
I don't think Apple should be allowed to both require that all apps on the phone go through their store and that they get a cut of all the business that goes through that store. Either allow other stores or allow other payment methods in the one store they do allow. Unfortunately Apple has recently made it clear they will use their control over their store to disadvantage competitors.
Yes, but separate to the question of marketplace and payments diversity, do you think Apple is entitled to a revenue share in return for the use of their tools and libraries, just as Epic are entitled to for their tools and libraries?
Maybe but I think that’s a separate issue that’s going to have to be hashed out in court and in legislation. Nobody would buy Apple hardware if those tools didn’t exist so in some sense they’ve already been extremely well compensated for the work they put into them.
Fair enough. I just notice people arguing that the reason why Apple should face competition in app stores is because charging 30% for retailing an app is too high, as though the 30% was supposed to be a retail margin and nothing else.
Though I disagree with arguments about whether Apple are "extremely well compensated" already. Arguments of principle should not take into account any company's particular monetisation strategy. For example, it's often stated that game consoles are sold at razor thin margins, or even a slight loss, and this justifies why they can charge high license fees for games. I think that's a perfectly valid strategy, but the fact that the game consoles aren't a profit centre (whereas iPhones definitely are for Apple) shouldn't affect whether it's decided that a 30% manufacturer's margin on digital software sales is appropriate or not.
But I would also argue that when the software in question is a game, a game console can indeed be a relevant analogy. Games are games—whether you are buying them to play on a smartphone or a GameBoy or an Xbox. The "business models" and "stakes for society" are the same regardless.
If I were in charge of Apple, I would lower their store percentage to a very low 10% for non-game apps. 30% might have been a reasonable amount in the early days, but Apple's market success means they don't need it. (I would also completely abandon their pointless stance over reader content and allow Spotify, Netflix etc to bill customers directly in-app.)
But for games, I would have Apple match the prevailing percentage set by Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo—which I believe is 30% across the board.
I haven't read that particular detail but it wouldn't surprise me. Though it's not a particularly clever line of argument since fundamentally it is a game, even if it does have a sprinkling of non-game aspects to it. I'd argue that when a game has aspects which are "more than just a game", the error is in our description of what a game is.
I suppose you could bolt a rudimentary spreadsheet feature onto Call Of Duty but that doesn't stop it from being any less of a video game. This isn't interesting and it certainly isn't clever.
A more interesting question would be if Microsoft Excel iOS had a little Sudoku mini-game buried in a submenu.
Of course developers would allow people to purchase through the app.
They would do this by transparently showing the markup to the user, and allowing the user to choose if they want to pay 30% more or not.
That seems like a pretty reasonable solution to all of this. Give users the choice to buy on the app, and have them pay the full fee if that is actually what the user wants.
Sure. That's also pretty much the definition of anti-trust. Using a dominant position in one market (distribution of apps on iOS) to gain an unfair advantage in others (payment processing) to make profits in a way that causes consumers to pay more - it's very easy to demonstrate in many apps you pay higher to buy exactly the same content in-app vs. on website.
Apple's in very deep shit in this lawsuit and losing this will open a can of worms.
>Apple's in very deep shit in this lawsuit and losing this will open a can of worms.
For example, is it okay to bundle a default web browser with an OS and forbid any other browsers from being installed? All iOS browsers are required to use Safari's WebKit under the hood, despite the appearance of choice in the app store. This cripples the features and performance of 3rd-party browsers like Firefox.
And unlike this spat with Epic, there might be some strong precedence on that question.
> For example, is it okay to bundle a default web browser with an OS and forbid any other browsers from being installed?
There are hundreds (or depending on how you count them, thousands) of products where exactly this is the case. Try installing an alternative web rendering engine on your LG smart TV, or your Toyota, or your Playstation.
> there might be some strong precedence on that question
This precedent isn't analogous. Microsoft had an initial marketplace monopoly over desktop computer operating systems, which was not ideal, but legally fine. They then illegally buttressed and extended their monopoly by arm-twisting the largest OEMs to lock competitive operating systems out of the open market. Finally they used this illegal monopoly to force their way into an existing competitive market of commercial[0] web browsers. Had alternative operating systems such as OS/2 and Linux not been illegally suppressed, or had the question been asked in the iOS/Android era, Microsoft's actions around Internet Explorer wouldn't have justified the same level of scrutiny.
For the analogy to hold, you'd have to show that Apple has used their market dominance to illegally suppress market access from its competitors.
[0] It's often hard for us to remember in 2021, but web browsers weren't always entirely free. Netscape was commercial software; initially free for evaluation purposes only, then later free for non-commercial purposes only. Netscape was set to be a very successful company through commercial web browser sales.
> There are hundreds (or depending on how you count them, thousands) of products where exactly this is the case. Try installing an alternative web rendering engine on your LG smart TV, or your Toyota, or your Playstation.
Sure, and that's problematic, but let's focus on the bigger fish for now.
It's not problematic. Just because Toyota happens to sell a product that contains a multi-purpose computer with a display, Toyota is not suddenly obligated to release free tools and libraries to allow third parties to port Firefox to their cars' head units. Having such a requirement would be insane, not to mention impossible given the existence of copyright laws[0]. Toyota's software is proprietary; if they don't want to release tools and libraries, that's their prerogative.
[0] And before you start arguing in opposition to intellectual property rights, remember that copyright law is necessary to enforce the GPL. Without the protection of copyright, GPL software cannot exist—everything becomes de-facto public domain, with none of the benefits of copyleft rules.
Apple charges (and is able to charge) a lot for an iPhone in large part because the iPhone gives the purchaser access to the App Store. But they also bundle a payment service into the app store, force developers to use it whether they want to or not, then charge a very hefty premium for it as well.
Obviously Apple likes being able to charge a hefty premium to both sides - why wouldn't they? But there's no obvious moral reason why we, as a society, should let them, nor any obvious empirical reason why we wouldn't collectively be better off if we stopped them.
Nothing stops Apple from charging a competitive rate for payments, or for download bandwidth, or for app reviews, or for offering various plans or bundles of these services. Apple should be more than capable of making the best iOS app store! "$500 per submission and $1 per 10k app downloads, first 1m downloads free for new apps, download fees waived for apps from non-profits, charities, and students are registered educational institutions, ask us about our payment plans, starting at a 15% cut of all revenue, discounts for high volume apps available, all payment plans come with free submissions and downloads!" Sure, why not?
But the more they create a single bundle or services, and the more they use non-market power to force people into accepting the bundle, and prevent anyone from offering a competing bundle of services, the worse it looks for them.
> I don't agree with this but I think it would be a good argument by Apple.
The argument is basically "if you stop us from forcing developers to give us more money, then we'll have less money". And IF Apple is abusing their market dominance to extract money from developers, then that would be a terrible argument for them to make, because the entire point of all this is to stop them forcing developers to give them "unearned" money. Rather than a defence, this would just be admitting the court had stumbled across the correct target.
Now, personally, I'm not entirely sure I agree that Apple is abusing their market dominance and should be stopped. But if you do think that, then "this would cost them money" is an argument in favour of the policy. (Conversely if you don't think that, then it's all irrelevant, because Apple can do what they like.)
I have the option to not use Google Pay but I use it whenever possible. It is far more convenient than having to enter in (and trust!) CC details.
Apple has subpoenaed the living daylights out of everyone in near orbit of operating a market. This argument wouldn't stand up to evidence acquired from Google Pay.
The choice should be with the user. If an app has a redirect to their website for payment, there should be an option of Apple pay too(may be with 30% extra) just like how every app with "Login with Facebook/Google" has an option "Login with Apple"
Apple should let customers pay a $30 fee or so to lock out other stores from their phones. If the restriction is so valuable to customers and isn't really about being valuable to Apple they will gladly pay that much or more.
People would immediately stop locking their phones to the Apple store though because there would be much better chat applications available outside of it.
Personally I think that Apple should settle this matter by lowering their revenue share of non-game apps to 10–15%. Google would have no choice but to immediately match Apple's move, eliminating any concern over competitor advantage.
I also think Apple should give up on their awkward stance over "reader" content and treat content sales within reader apps identically to physical goods sales. Let the content providers use their own payment gateways. It's the right thing ethically, but Apple should also do this because it side-steps some of the stickier arguments from the likes of Spotify and Netflix, which Apple directly competes with. Apple might do well to avoid being in a position to lose a legal fight over those questions.
But as long as the game consoles are entitled to charge a 30% revenue split for digital sales of games, I don't see why Apple should be forced into accepting a lower percentage for game sales. Games are games—whether you are playing them on a smartphone or a GameBoy or an Xbox.
(It's also a very neat way whereby both Apple and Epic would comprehensively "lose" and that feels like a very satisfying outcome to me.)
How many times PC games / software store vanished without a trance in a known history while breaking all previously downloaded games / software?
Yeah services do come and go, but they are mostly just distributors and not product owners. Any sane software developer will always gonna give you a key for software you previously bought, but for the new platform if something like that happens.
On other side Apple do push developers off their platform all the time and old apps getting abandoned all the time when API breaking and App Store no longer sell the app.
165 comments
[ 0.19 ms ] story [ 133 ms ] threadEdit: Apple built the ecosystem. No one has to develop for it.
You all want to be indie wonders? Go do that.
You want to be unicorns? Build something novel.
Wait, wait, I got you; release your source code. I want choice in how things run on my device.
“But but but I made this IP!”
On top of Apples infrastructure, and intellectual property.
Circular grifting.
I think you’re seeing this in terms of what some solo dev should be allowed to do when they have a choice; don’t sell iOS apps.
You're moving the goal posts further away from this example making sense.
The app in question was built, packaged, distributed, installed and runs on Apple funded SDKs after all.
1. https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/epic-direct-pay-apple-app-stor...
The source of an Amazon seller page is made through Amazon's portal.
It's not. The difference between building your store and getting a booth in someone else's.
Show me the app store in this image?
Doesn't sound like a vendor I would want in my market either.
No, and again, these moving goal posts make this conversation more and more meaningless.
Epic wants to sell their currency outside of the app store. They're not allowed to do so by Apple's TOS. This is the same as Amazon saying a website cannot sell to users on the Seller's personal site if the buyer owns an Amazon account. It's just monopoly garbage.
If it were possible to buy from _either_ the App Store or Epic's store, Epic would certainly ablige and just include a 30% upcharge. Of course, nobody would use it (as has been proven over and over again), but they would absolutely include it.
You all want these corporations to learn a lesson? Stop giving them attention.
There are more useful political conversations to be had. This is more David v Goliath crap bros use to seek Valhalla
Apps should be able to offer a choice of how users can pay.
It’s a legal contract.
Don’t like the terms, don’t sign up?
I frankly don’t care about some small dev that could vanish when and take my paid app or service with it.
If we as a culture cared about small business still we’d not have enabled this mess to begin with.
Society has determined that certain things are not allowed because they are inherently abusive, "legal contracts" or not.
https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/epic-direct-pay-apple-app-stor...
https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-m...
I agree, it seems sensical to allow an app to mention that buying direct from their website might be cheaper than going through in-app purchases. It might even be reasonable to open that link automatically.
I do think that it's reasonable to restrict third party payment processors, though. It's inconvenient, dangerous, and provides little in the way of antifraud measures if you're dealing with every app's purchase processor (assuming they don't all just use Stripe).
I actually think Apple's, "only our payment system can be used," system is reasonable. The percentage is maybe steep and would be better served by a progressive scale. But I also don't think Apple should be able to prevent an app from advertising their own payment system out of the app.
Yep, because they needed to flagrantly violate the rules if they thought the rules were not something that would stand up to legal scrutiny. The US court systems (particularly on the civil side) try not to rule on hypotheticals. They want to be discussing actual damages. Because of that, flagrantly violating the app store rules (to then get taken off the store) is the first step towards getting a judge to rule on if they were legal in the first place.
Rules that many believe are unjust, hence this making it to court.
>I do think that it's reasonable to restrict third party payment processors, though. It's inconvenient
Paying for goods has never been easier especially with all the payment app integrations like paypal, cash app, venmo, etc.
I want choice and I want Apple to compete by being a better product not by being the only game in town. If Apple opened up they would gain me as a customer.
The major card networks have rules that give customers recourse in case of fraud or missing/faulty goods regardless of the processor and card type. Some countries have laws that strengthen these protections even more, though it's usually limited to credit cards.
The "antifraud" narrative about how the App Store is so much better at fraud protection is annoying (especially considering how many scam apps there are).
Aren't those two positions mutually exclusive?
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Apples OS is decent and their options are "solid"... but for each of their offerings, there are better options and their options aren't worth the 30% tax.
Tons of companies have better payment options and should be allowed to use them without anti-competitive restrictions placed by Apple.
[0]: https://www.amazon.com/gp/mas/get/amazonapp
[1]: https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
(A) They can't bundle GApps with Play Store & (B) they have to present an app store picker instead of defaulting to Google Play.
I think the happy medium everyone should be striving for is just third party payment APIs that are blessed by the platform. This isn't about distribution (I don't think Epic cares if it's hosted on the App Store, Google Play, or not). It's all about payment processing.
If Apple and Google had a blessed Payment API that let developers use alternative payment processors, this would go away I imagine. I know some users want more freedom, but this lawsuit really isn't about user freedom, it's about payments (and if users do get more freedom, e.g. able to install apps in alternative ways, it's a side effect of this, not the goal of the lawsuit)
I wonder if Apple is forced to cut their fees in payments if they'll raise the developer fees to compensate, tiered based on size of the org.
If you want to reach millions of customers, you are restricted to the Apple Payment options... even when better options exist. Same for Ad and other subpar options.
Why? Because they are better options? No... because Apple FORCES you to use those options.
"but you don't have to develop for Apple" is a copout that ignores the anti-competitive and monopolistic behavior Apple is using to force people into subpar options for a 30% gateway tax.
Similarly, others can't put good browsers onto Apple because of restrictions... why? because webkit is the REQUIRED base... despite the fact that its restrictions mean you can't use webapps as real alternatives because of limitations with controllers, bluetooth, etc.
Google can make better alternatives to Safari? Firefox can? Microsoft can? doesn't matter... Apple FORCES you to use their subpar options because if there was real competition, they wouldn't get a 30% tax.
Spread that decision to email clients and all other corners of the Apple "ecosystem" and you have a company using monopolistic practices to limit competition to increase prices.
"but don't do business on their platform" doesn't change the fact that they are using monopolistic practices to fleece their customers.
I don't like EA and think they are an equally horrible company - and should be judged equally poorly for many bad practices... but EA (and netflix, steam, etc) should have the ability to not use Apples gated options and not pay for a service that isn't worth 30% - especially when they can host their own payment and ad services.
Stop with the bad arguments to defend a company using monopolistic practices to fleece their customers.
I say this as an iPhone owner and a programmer.
It's not so much about offering choice (implying the choice multiple app stores on iOS), as it is allowing users to be directed off iOS for purchases.
This judge does actually seem to be looking for middle-ground between the parties.
With the increasing prevalence of online shopping, the increasing importance of reliable and efficient international money transfer to the global economy, and the seemingly never-ending ways the financial services industry can mess around both senders and receivers of money when all they wanted to do was send $X from A to B, we needed something like that long ago, but better late than never.
(/s)
It becomes more complicated because Fortnite is not iOS , nor apple. In the end the decision will be made over anticompetitive tactics. Because mobile marketplaces are a closed oligopoly, they 'll establish customer rights.
With most Android devices, you can unlock the bootloader and replace the Rom, root the device for administrator style access, debloat and remove system components, generally modify the hardware as you see fit.
With all Android devices that aren't managed (read: business device), you can sideload a third party app store without the need to use system exploits to 'jailbreak.'
Neither can be done on iOS. Attempting to modify the system or sideload apps on iOS requires using exploits that are security flaws and will likely be patched out in a future OS update.
If you already have an iDevice and can't replace it, you basically don't have any choice.
Is an average Android user actually going to do any of that?
It really doesn't matter if the average Android user will do it.
What matters is that you have the option to do so.
That must be why there isn't a large jailbreaking community behind iOS.
Or why there hasn't been a lawsuit over...
An educated consumer would know that before they bought the phone. It’s never been possible to legally side load apps on iOS (well outside of your own) so it’s not unreasonable that anyone who’s bought an iPhone would expect to have that functionality. It was never taken away from them. They bought into that walled garden, whether they knew it or not.
It's entirely unreasonable to expect the average person to read up and become an expert on everything that they purchase. This is the whole reason consumer protection laws exist.
I’d argue it is the responsibility of the consumer to know if their food has allergens. It’s convenient for consumers to have the declarations on packaged products, but that doesn’t stop an allergic person from being responsible for grabbing a street bite that ends up having nuts in it.
The airbag example is a contractual obligation with a a warranted product.
The light bulb cartel example is totally unrelated and throwing it in the mix only adds a sinister tone to the original topic. If you were talking about their salary collusion it’d be relevant. But it has no relation to iOS not allowing side loading.
I’m not saying a consumer need be an expert in everything. But expecting that a product has functionality that’s never been advertised or suggested is unreasonable.
"Android device users face switching costs when switching to Apple devices, such as losing their apps, data and contacts, and having to learn how to use a new operating system"
But the other way around.
If Apple had 99% market share ( it is currently edging close to 70% in US, 75% of U.S. App Store revenues, and over 80% of time spent on the mobile internet ), and you have a choice of of using Android, would that 1% even count as a choice? In that case monopoly would not exist in any market.
It is about Market power ( and imbalance )
"That wouldn’t eliminate the market power Apple has here, but it would certainly diminish it ... it would not be much of a solution at all."
I thought this sentence sums it up pretty well. Apple has far too much power and we have plenty of evidence of email shown in court they are abusing it.
I find it interesting that Apple is being accused of such anti-consumer behaviours while simultaneously demonstrating the success of their overall product strategy in the truly free and open marketplace of smartphone sales. There are dozens of very strong competitors, most with a much wider spectrum of options and price points than Apple offers.
There is a different between Sales Unit Market Share, and actual usage market share.
As long as Apple user dont migrate to Android, and the total smartphone user in US being the constant ( most adult already got a smartphone ). Even if Apple sold zero smartphone in a whole year. They will still have the same market shares.
Even with the store metaphor, "loss leaders" to draw people in so they'll spend money on other things are a popular technique.
It’s insane that in my product I cannot tell people about ways you can purchase it. Defending this rule seems like Stockholm syndrome.
is there a 15/30% fee for physical goods such as DoorDash, Amazon, etc? thought it was just for digital goods, subscriptions, etc.
Apple sells apps. Apps that were made by others. Walmart sells X. X that was made by others.
I'm sure Apple is very pleased with the profit margins they get on in-app payments, but I'm equally certain that Apple's desire to keep people using their payment system is just as much about maintaining a great user experience for users.
Obviously the flip side is that some companies - Netflix! - then decide just not to offer payment in-app at all. That's also bad! But I don't know how to compromise on allowing apps to direct users to payment systems outside the app store without opening the floodgates to a million different payment experiences, which I (again, selfishly) would love to avoid.
It's absolutely and fundamentally first about the platform-monopoly and control.
Apple has a considerable number of other 'bad users experiences' to point at to suggest that this issue, while might be a part of their legit product strategy, is way second tier to their control of the distribution.
Finally, there's also a fairly heavy 'bad user experience' in blocking from doing the things the want to do.
The answer to your question is actually in the economics:
Apple should be able to charge a premium to using their 'great experience' commensurate with the likelihood that vendors will use it, given that premium.
With a 15%/30% cut, vendors will not use the service.
With an 8% cut (assuming they'd have to pay Stripe 4% or whatever), then it may very well be worth it for vendors.
i.e. if the 'Apple Checkout' were forced to compete as an actual produced (even with it's entrenched position in the platform), the profits would be a measure of the value at least on some level.
In that situation, maybe the user would have eventually signed up through a different platform, and the company could have been directly paid 100% of the price. But it's also possible that the user would simply never have signed up, in which case Apple's 30% cut would look like a steal compared to the alternative (receiving nothing).
Which is an admission that Apple is rent seeking.
I doubt there's any publicly available hard data around the costs of running the gift card ecosystem, but a number between 15 and 35 percent would not surprise me at all.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/24/how-amazon-and-walmart-make-...
Then again, given that other payment processors have more experience, I'm not sure their UX is worse. There's more to UX than Face ID (chargebacks, dispute resolution, being able to move your subscription to Android should you desire it, etc.).
Therefore the issue is Apple getting monopoly rent (which you pay for indirectly), not UX. Your selfish interest should ask Apple to open up.
I'd prefer a system that allowed subscription to last and one that didn't require switching stores but I'm not allowed to use another store
Steve Jobs Apple, Yes. Modern Apple that is no longer the case.
It is very clear from 2016 when they announced their focus on services revenue. Every little changes, being implemented and enforced YoY was all to push for that double services revenue target.
If you have followed Apple long enough you start seeing all these changes. From Apple Retail focusing on AppleCare+ Target, retail staff having their KPI to include Apple Services Revenue Push, as well as enforcing rules where it wasn't previously enforced on App Store.
The economics of the situation are clear and massive, and they outweigh any 'usability' concerns.
Apple has tons of usability issues, they're not going to trade something marginal for 10's of billions of dollars in revenue opportunity.
This is a straight up realpolitik war over platform control.
The charger thing just sealed it how low they can stoop to make people pay for things customers shouldn’t in the first place.
But users are equally responsible. They literally encourage it by continuing to buy into the walled garden.
As a person working in tech I understand it, but it's still silly.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203294/amazon-prime-vide...
What Apple should’ve been doing (IMHO) is by controlling the conversation and thus the outcome. It’s going to be bad if a court decides this.
Apple added a small developer program to reduce their cut. This is clearly just a PR move and shows it’s not about costs anymore (it would’ve been when this was a much smaller venture). It’s simply a profit center now.
This move was completely backwards. If Apple had been willing to offer larger customers a smaller cut, scaling down to say 10% (remember this includes credit card processing) then I believe they could’ve completely avoided the risks of this lawsuit.
Why? If someone sues you, you just kick them out of the discount program. Would Epic risk a lawsuit in this case? I have doubts.
I don't agree with this but I think it would be a good argument by Apple.
[0] Assuming that these free apps would be functional but very limited so they don't have the same problem as the Hey app.
If apple continues by complaining that they need the extra money to operate their app store then well, they are free to allow alternative app stores.
Obviously every developer would prefer to transact directly and bypass the cut, while relying on the App Store for advertising and visibility.
Also "shopping center" analogy somewhat breaks down because you buy something from a shop and use it somewhere else. When you buy an app, you use it in the device only (inside the shopping center) using the device's affordances. So they are somewhat more intimately tied.
In the end, this all boils down to ideological differences. One camp says "it is their store, take it or leave it, they already have competitors - if the value proposition wasn't there, it would fail - and if they screw up it will fail" and I'm in this camp. Apple as a company does not owe anything to anyone. Can they discontinue the app store tomorrow if they wanted? Sure they can, it is their store and platform. Can they decide to get 99% cut from all purchases? Yes, it is their business, their platform. Up to them. If the value proposition isn't there, it will fail on its own. If it is there, whining feels to me like entitlement.
The other camp thinks private companies should be bound to rules such that even if they provide immense value, there should be a "limit" to how much return they can get from it, mandated by governments etc. I don't agree, but I can see where they are coming from.
American law abandoned this outlook at the early 20th century. Also, what Apple is doing is making it harder for customers to switch from Apple if they want to. It's ridiculous to invoke competition as a defence when Apple is trying to prevent competition.
"Making it harder to switch" is moot, once you start purchasing stuff in X platform it is already hard to switch since your purchases do not carry over and sometimes they are not even available on other platforms.
And competition involves getting ahead, and it will feel like you are trying to prevent it from happening because if you are a lot more successful than others, it doesn't feel like competition anymore - even though others are absolutely free to get their shit together and outperform. It is important to discern the difference between "competition is being made irrelevant" and "competition is being prevented".
You can if I can easily set up a store next to you. Selling more of less the same stuff.
By your analogy USA currently only has two store, App Store and Google Play. And there are no third store allowed. Setting up a third platform is literally creating another State to join the US federation.
There are limits. From safety to counterfeiting prevention to marketpower/monopoly considerations to various legal duties. In this case, Apple is using its position in the app store to force companies to use Apple's payment processor, and that's classic antitrust.
>"Making it harder to switch" is moot, once you start purchasing stuff in X platform it is already hard to switch
If the relationship was with the vendor directly, one could simply switch the subscription to the vendor's Android app. Because the vendor doesn't necessarily know even who the customer is (since Apple even takes other the email address), it's much more difficult to do. It's true that there can be other obstacles, but this one is an artificially made by Apple just to prevent competition.
> even though others are absolutely free to get their shit together and outperform.
The point is that others aren't allowed to. They can't run with iOS apps, and the user can't switch away from Apple unless the user cancels all subscriptions.
I would have more sympathy for that position if having one of two types of smartphone were not now assumed by so many organisations and if people buying those phones hadn't dramatically reduced the alternative devices those people might otherwise have bought.
Like an essential utility, a smartphone has become a practical necessity for many people to be able to live a normal life. When you have attracted so much influence, you are no longer just another business, and again like an essential utility, regulation is appropriate for the protection of the little guy.
Apple as a company does not owe anything to anyone. Can they discontinue the app store tomorrow if they wanted? Sure they can, it is their store and platform.
Sure, but if they did that, Apple's influence would rapidly diminish and the problem I described would solve itself as well.
If the value proposition isn't there, it will fail on its own.
Well, that's really the big question here, isn't it? Does Apple's App Store actually provide good value for what it costs, or is it being artificially supported through other means? One of those is just good business. The other is a potential violation of competition law in many places.
Netflix for instance can choose to refuse being on the platform under Apple's terms. It must be worth it so they stay. If Apple wanted 99% cut, would they stay? No. So the current cut must be somewhat appropriate.
If this was a bad deal for Netflix, they'd remove their app from the platform. But they feel they'd be harmed by doing so. That means Apple is providing a "valuable enough" service to them under current terms.
Then they can charge apps for downloads that dont go through their own payments.
But more importantly that's assuming that Apple needs to have rates as high as e.g. stripe, but they can probably get better much better rates due to their size, hell they have the cash to create their own bank (as they should as they re becoming a services company).
Huh, are you suggesting that there's no money to be made in the online payment processing industry? No differentiation in prices between processors that provide more or less service and ease-of-use?
Allow users to install app stores then.
"How dare you bypass the App Store!"
"Alright, can we make our own app store?"
"No!"
I suspect the best way to bust those marketplaces and reduce them to making profits commensurate with the true value they offer is to prohibit them from handling any financial transactions between the two parties at all. Instead, let them simply get paid by the sellers on some agreed terms. If they offer enough value to justify the rate they ask, the sellers will pay it. If they are too greedy, the sellers will go somewhere else. And if they have a monopoly or monopsony position, they are subject to the same competition law as any other business buying or selling anything else in an exclusive or dominant position.
Apple literally made the town in which their marketplace resides. They attracted residents to their town from the goodwill of their brand name, through the creation of a desirable product, and through substantial investments of marketing. People are continually attracted to this town because the crime rate is low and the city council's ordinances are suitable for the vast majority.
Apple literally built all of the existing buildings, provided anyone who wanted to participate in the economy with a garage full of tools, provided free and near-free training to anyone who wants it, and supplied people (again, for free) many of the basic raw materials which people used to build products.
Apple literally built the marketplace itself. They did an imperfect but not terrible job at minimising the number of outright hucksters. They made it so financial transactions were perceived as secure transactions[0], and that merchants' customers felt confident opening their wallets more often than in the adjacent town.
[0] This is more important than you remember. Ten years ago the concept of trusting your credit card through an app on your phone was new. By making the system highly trustworthy from the get-go, people's trust was rapidly won and rarely shaken.
But even if you do insist on separating them, you don't get to arbitrarily bisect them wherever you want to suit your argument. The "retail" App Store is only the surface layer of the iOS app ecosystem which Apple has developed, it's certainly not the totality of it. There's the toolchain, APIs, documentation, training resources and many other things besides, which are all necessary parts to that marketplace's existence.
You might argue that Apple chose to give away their developer tools rather than license their use with a revenue share arrangement (like Epic does with Unreal Engine). You might argue that Apple charges for their tools with the $99 annual developer fee. I disagree that these are relevant. How Apple chooses to monetise their own work is up to them. For example, Apple could have instead defined their 30% revenue share requirement as a license condition for the use of their tools and libraries. The outcome for consumers and developers would be largely identical, but the "store monopoly" argument would make a lot less sense.
Even Epic themselves understand that developer ecosystems are valuable and it's fair for a percentage of top-line profit to go to them regardless how the app is sold or how payments work.
More broadly I must admit some occasional frustration by people who insist Apple must change, as this insistence is all too often paired with a somewhat arrogant paternalism, that they know better than I do what I should want. "Free market" is certainly the simplest argument to side with and the easiest one to wax lyrical about, but that doesn't automatically make it the best one.
I'm not going to spend too much time explaining why I think the iOS ecosystem would be worse if "free markets" were forced upon it, because unfortunately Hacker News debates on this topic generally see more people throwing down-votes rather than engaging with the debate. But fundamentally I see the difference of opinion stemming from whether you see the smartphone as a computing platform or an appliance bundled with systems administration services from the vendor. I think of my smartphone as an appliance, despite being a software developer by trade. But I'm glad that the market includes many brands of Android phone so that everyone who cares can have a choice.
The question of what's been done elsewhere isn't relevant, because there are many elsewheres, each with their own origin stories. Most of them look more like iOS than macOS—the personal computer marketplace is something of an outlier when it comes to software distribution.
I guess my point is that App Store metrics (total revenue, subscription revenue, average revenue per user, etc) continues to grow and maintain their lead over Google Play so the chilling effect can't be too bad.
I suggest that in terms of metrics, Apple's App Store vs Google's Play Store isn't really the right comparison to see the chilling effect I'm talking about, because both mobile ecosystems have broadly similar dynamics. A more telling comparison might be something like iOS app developers vs. web developers offering SAAS. How many businesses that run successful SAAS websites charging subscription fees for access also offer an equivalent mobile app where customers can subscribe, accepting Apple's 30% cut and other restrictions?
And let's be clear, this isn't an argument over competing methods of payment, it's an argument about whether Apple should be entitled to a percentage of revenue for iOS app sales, regardless how they are sold, regardless where they are sold.
We should be mindful to keep this question separate from whether there should be more than one place to acquire apps, or whether it matters if the financial transaction occurs prior to downloading or after the app is installed.
If it's the latter, then Epic disagrees with you.
Epic's own business model says they're entitled to a cut of your revenue if you use their tools and libraries. They don't care what payment method you use. They don't care if you sell copies or sell in-game hats. If you make revenue, they're entitled to a slice of it.
(Yes, Epic does waive their fee for low revenue games. That's very nice of them, though in reality it's obviously a clever strategic move to lure game developers over to their ecosystem, in the hope that more breakout indie successes happen to be built with Unreal Engine. But that doesn't change the underlying principle: they would be entitled to it if they had asked for it.)
Though I disagree with arguments about whether Apple are "extremely well compensated" already. Arguments of principle should not take into account any company's particular monetisation strategy. For example, it's often stated that game consoles are sold at razor thin margins, or even a slight loss, and this justifies why they can charge high license fees for games. I think that's a perfectly valid strategy, but the fact that the game consoles aren't a profit centre (whereas iPhones definitely are for Apple) shouldn't affect whether it's decided that a 30% manufacturer's margin on digital software sales is appropriate or not.
But I would also argue that when the software in question is a game, a game console can indeed be a relevant analogy. Games are games—whether you are buying them to play on a smartphone or a GameBoy or an Xbox. The "business models" and "stakes for society" are the same regardless.
If I were in charge of Apple, I would lower their store percentage to a very low 10% for non-game apps. 30% might have been a reasonable amount in the early days, but Apple's market success means they don't need it. (I would also completely abandon their pointless stance over reader content and allow Spotify, Netflix etc to bill customers directly in-app.)
But for games, I would have Apple match the prevailing percentage set by Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo—which I believe is 30% across the board.
I suppose you could bolt a rudimentary spreadsheet feature onto Call Of Duty but that doesn't stop it from being any less of a video game. This isn't interesting and it certainly isn't clever.
A more interesting question would be if Microsoft Excel iOS had a little Sudoku mini-game buried in a submenu.
They would do this by transparently showing the markup to the user, and allowing the user to choose if they want to pay 30% more or not.
That seems like a pretty reasonable solution to all of this. Give users the choice to buy on the app, and have them pay the full fee if that is actually what the user wants.
Apple's in very deep shit in this lawsuit and losing this will open a can of worms.
For example, is it okay to bundle a default web browser with an OS and forbid any other browsers from being installed? All iOS browsers are required to use Safari's WebKit under the hood, despite the appearance of choice in the app store. This cripples the features and performance of 3rd-party browsers like Firefox.
And unlike this spat with Epic, there might be some strong precedence on that question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
There are hundreds (or depending on how you count them, thousands) of products where exactly this is the case. Try installing an alternative web rendering engine on your LG smart TV, or your Toyota, or your Playstation.
> there might be some strong precedence on that question
This precedent isn't analogous. Microsoft had an initial marketplace monopoly over desktop computer operating systems, which was not ideal, but legally fine. They then illegally buttressed and extended their monopoly by arm-twisting the largest OEMs to lock competitive operating systems out of the open market. Finally they used this illegal monopoly to force their way into an existing competitive market of commercial[0] web browsers. Had alternative operating systems such as OS/2 and Linux not been illegally suppressed, or had the question been asked in the iOS/Android era, Microsoft's actions around Internet Explorer wouldn't have justified the same level of scrutiny.
For the analogy to hold, you'd have to show that Apple has used their market dominance to illegally suppress market access from its competitors.
[0] It's often hard for us to remember in 2021, but web browsers weren't always entirely free. Netscape was commercial software; initially free for evaluation purposes only, then later free for non-commercial purposes only. Netscape was set to be a very successful company through commercial web browser sales.
Sure, and that's problematic, but let's focus on the bigger fish for now.
[0] And before you start arguing in opposition to intellectual property rights, remember that copyright law is necessary to enforce the GPL. Without the protection of copyright, GPL software cannot exist—everything becomes de-facto public domain, with none of the benefits of copyleft rules.
Who argued for that? No one, it's a strawman.
> And before you start arguing in opposition to intellectual property rights, remember that copyright law is necessary to enforce the GPL.
Ordering companies not to lock down the customer's hardware does not require abolishing copyright.
Apple charges (and is able to charge) a lot for an iPhone in large part because the iPhone gives the purchaser access to the App Store. But they also bundle a payment service into the app store, force developers to use it whether they want to or not, then charge a very hefty premium for it as well.
Obviously Apple likes being able to charge a hefty premium to both sides - why wouldn't they? But there's no obvious moral reason why we, as a society, should let them, nor any obvious empirical reason why we wouldn't collectively be better off if we stopped them.
Nothing stops Apple from charging a competitive rate for payments, or for download bandwidth, or for app reviews, or for offering various plans or bundles of these services. Apple should be more than capable of making the best iOS app store! "$500 per submission and $1 per 10k app downloads, first 1m downloads free for new apps, download fees waived for apps from non-profits, charities, and students are registered educational institutions, ask us about our payment plans, starting at a 15% cut of all revenue, discounts for high volume apps available, all payment plans come with free submissions and downloads!" Sure, why not?
But the more they create a single bundle or services, and the more they use non-market power to force people into accepting the bundle, and prevent anyone from offering a competing bundle of services, the worse it looks for them.
> I don't agree with this but I think it would be a good argument by Apple.
The argument is basically "if you stop us from forcing developers to give us more money, then we'll have less money". And IF Apple is abusing their market dominance to extract money from developers, then that would be a terrible argument for them to make, because the entire point of all this is to stop them forcing developers to give them "unearned" money. Rather than a defence, this would just be admitting the court had stumbled across the correct target.
Now, personally, I'm not entirely sure I agree that Apple is abusing their market dominance and should be stopped. But if you do think that, then "this would cost them money" is an argument in favour of the policy. (Conversely if you don't think that, then it's all irrelevant, because Apple can do what they like.)
Apple has subpoenaed the living daylights out of everyone in near orbit of operating a market. This argument wouldn't stand up to evidence acquired from Google Pay.
I also think Apple should give up on their awkward stance over "reader" content and treat content sales within reader apps identically to physical goods sales. Let the content providers use their own payment gateways. It's the right thing ethically, but Apple should also do this because it side-steps some of the stickier arguments from the likes of Spotify and Netflix, which Apple directly competes with. Apple might do well to avoid being in a position to lose a legal fight over those questions.
But as long as the game consoles are entitled to charge a 30% revenue split for digital sales of games, I don't see why Apple should be forced into accepting a lower percentage for game sales. Games are games—whether you are playing them on a smartphone or a GameBoy or an Xbox.
(It's also a very neat way whereby both Apple and Epic would comprehensively "lose" and that feels like a very satisfying outcome to me.)
Yeah services do come and go, but they are mostly just distributors and not product owners. Any sane software developer will always gonna give you a key for software you previously bought, but for the new platform if something like that happens.
On other side Apple do push developers off their platform all the time and old apps getting abandoned all the time when API breaking and App Store no longer sell the app.