So then the game devs get more revenue share for the specific example of the Epic Game store. Great. Glad you agree.
> everyone except for EPIC
So epic gives a larger revenue share to game devs. Great. And Apple's actions are preventing this revenue share increase to game developers, for that game store, at the very least.
> You are the not the arbiter of what is a valid example.
What? Even you agree that epic is giving game developers a large revenue share. That is an example right there, that exists.
> isn't representative of a whole
Its representative of at least one example though! So that means that Apple is preventing at least 1 competing app store that would have a better revenue share, for game developers. That single example, is an example of harm done to game developers.
> If* it is proven so in court than I may agree with you.
So then your previous statement about who "deserves" the money could be invalid.
> You keep on pretending that there is only one phone manufacturer
Anti-competitive practices do not require a literal singular monopoly, for them to be illegal. Instead, all that is required is them having significant market power. Which Apple clearly has.
> Your opinion isn't a fact.
Ok, then your opinion, of Apple "deserving" anything is also not a fact, because the court case could prove that the actions are anti-competitive.
You cannot at all say that Apple "deserves" this money, if the courts prove their actions to be anti-competitive.
> You want the market to be legislated because you don't like Apple.
No, it is because philosophically I want game devs to get more of the revenue split. Why? Because they developed the game.
> If people argued from the fact that there should be able to sideload applications.
What? Thats basically what this is about. Allowing other competing app stores on the platform.
No I don't. How disingenous. The claim was that it would reduce the cost. There is no guarantee this will happen.
> So epic gives a larger revenue share to game devs. Great. And Apple's actions are preventing this revenue share increase to game developers, for that game store, at the very least.
At the moment they do. But they won't in the future. You need to actually see EPIC's stance on this. If you read some of the interviews of the guy that runs it (I can't remember his name now) you would come to the same conclusion as I have.
All you are doing is thinking short term. I am thinking long term. So in the long-term there it won't benefit anyone except for EPIC.
> Its representative of at least one example though! So that means that Apple is preventing at least 1 competing app store that would have a better revenue share, for game developers.
You keep on reframing (dishonestly) the subject. When I originally replied to this thread I was specifically debunking the 30/70 split as being unreasonable as it simply isn't true as it something that exists outside of the IT industry. It just a split that people over the course of time have decided is reasonable. Maybe it is vestigial remnant of the past, but it is still seen as reasonable in similar types of relationships. To say otherwise (despite your protests) is a nonsense.
Also EPIC are buying their way in. They won't be able to keep it up forever (sooner or later people will stop buying skins on fortnite). Which means they will have to up their take at some point. If you don't think this will happen you are simply foolish.
> That single example, is an example of harm done to game developers.
The way the term harm is used these days is disgraceful.
> So then your previous statement about who "deserves" the money could be invalid.
No. The operative word in there is if.
> Anti-competitive practices do not require a literal singular monopoly, for them to be illegal. Instead, all that is required is them having significant market power. Which Apple clearly has.
That hasn't been decided by anyone. So you cannot claim that.
>Ok, then your opinion, of Apple "deserving" anything is also not a fact, because the court case could prove that the actions are anti-competitive.
Because something can be decided in the future doesn't mean it can be considered anti-competitive. This is a nonsense.
> You cannot at all say that Apple "deserves" this money, if the courts prove their actions to be anti-competitive.
Yes I can. If you want to be on the App Store, the agreement until recently was that it is a 30/70 split. That was the agreement between them and the app publisher. They are owed that money because that was what was in the agreement.
> No, it is because philosophically I want game devs to get more of the revenue split. Why? Because they developed the game.
I doubt that is the case. You wouldn't be supporting EPIC if that was the case. EPIC want a sea of launchers and return us to the days of game publishers which Steam btw broke that bullshit (for PC at least).
> What? Thats basically what this is about. Allowing other competing app stores on the platform.
No it isn't. It is about one large company EPIC trying to force another large company's hand (Apple) and trying to convince you that it is for your benefit. Both companies are doing PR and you are stupid enough to fall for the BS.
If EPIC wins. Do you know what will happen? There will be two dominate app stores. One owned by EPIC where 99% of the money taken through it will be for fortnite skins the Apple one. There will be others and nobody will use them because most normies will just use whatever is already on the phone. Independent devs will still get most of their revenue from Apple's store and nothing will change for them.
The only people that is likely to get any benefit out of this if they win is EPIC and it won't be the indie dev hacker. You are foolish to think otherwise.
Anyway this deffo will be last reply to you are you seem to be disingenous.
But you agree that it would increase the developer split. Thats good enough for me. Glad you agree that it would increase the developer revenue split.
> At the moment they do.
Ok, and it is still a good thing, that in the moment, for a certain period of time, that developers would get a better revenue split. Thats still good.
> it won't benefit anyone except for EPIC.
I would still rather that a game developer get more of the money that their game makes. Thats still good.
> Also EPIC are buying their way in.
Ok. Even so. That means that in the mean time, developers could benefit from Epic buying their way in. Thats still good.
> That was the agreement between them and the app publisher.
But the agreement could be illegally anti-competitive. Therefore your argument would not be valid in that case.
> They are owed that money
You have no basis for claiming this to be the case, because the lawsuit could still find the arrangement to be illegal, and also the law could be changed later.
> . EPIC want a sea of launchers
If a game company wants to have their own launcher, that should be their right to do so. I would be happy that they get a larger cut, from having their own launcher.
> It is about one large company EPIC trying to force another large company's hand
The precendent that is set would allow other app stores to be on the IPhone as well. Even if you think Epic is doing it for its own benefits, the precent set would allow other game developers or app stores, to be on the IPhone. That helps those groups.
> There will be two dominate app stores.
I still prefer 2 app stores to 1 app store. Also, it would allow a 3rd and 4th or 4th app store to be in the Iphone, if anyone wanted to do that.
> it won't be the indie dev hacker
Well, it would help any indie dev hacker that is now allowed to be on the IPhone, without being forced to go through apple. Those people would benefit.
> But you agree that it would increase the developer split. Thats good enough for me. Glad you agree that it would increase the developer revenue split.
I never agreed. Please don't put words into my mouth. It is soo disingenous. I haven't done it to you so don't do it to me.
As for the rest of the points. You aren't accepting the reality of the situation. It will benefit nobody other than EPIC which have a money printer called fortnite. EPIC doesn't care about other developers it cares about itself,. Nobody will benefit from this in the long run other than EPIC and the other huge companies. But you keep on talking about the theorectical benefits, it is the same sort of mental masturbation that GPL zealots engage it. It is mostly pointless and doesn't address reality.
Also your concern trolling for the devs is cute. I imagine the vast number of developers are fine with the current revenue splits on storesm, unless you prove otherwise all you are doing is concern trolling to avoid the real issue.
As for future court rulings about "anti-competitive" practices. We will see. You and I don't know what will happen.
The 70/30 split which I was originally replying to is not anti-competitive or unfair. It is a normaly split and I will keep on re-iterating this because people on here because they are ignorant think it is unfair when it is perfectly normal.
As for app stores. More app stores won't benefit the consumer or the developers in the long run as I don't think the vast majority of Apple users will use anything other than the official App Store. You can claim theorectically it will be better but in practice that won't be the case. It will be a pyrrhic victory at best.
Even if you think it is only a short term benefit, that is still a good thing that the benefit would exist in the short term. Great. Glad you agree that there would be at the very least, a short term benefit.
> More app stores won't benefit the consumer or the developers in the long run
Even a short term benefit is still a benefit and is still a very good thing! Glad you agree that there is a short term benefit.
Never agreed. You are obviously trolling. Goodbye.
You agreed that "EPIC is buying their way in" to the market.
Buying their way into the market helps developers in the short term at the very least, which is a good thing.
So you agree that they were "buying their way in" to the market, in the short term. Great! Glad you think that.
This results in developers getting more money, in the short term, at the very least.
Nope. Not at all. It isn't cheaper to the consumer. You keep on conflating revenue share between who owns the store and the dev, with the amount the customer pays at the checkout.
> Cheaper is cheaper. Thats all that I care about. I care about the end result of lower fees.
That won't be the end result as I have already explained.
> It is representative of Apple actions unfairly causing prices to be higher for this specific competitor is being kept out though!
No it isn't. Prices aren't higher. You keep on conflating the price to the end user with the revenue share. They are not the same thing.
Even on revenue split everyone except for EPIC (which are buying their way in) are about the same in their respective stores.
> All I need is a single example, to show that Apple's actions have prevented a lower priced option from competing.
You are the not the arbiter of what is a valid example. I've already explained why in a previous comment why one example isn't representative of a whole, you chose to ignore it. That is on you and not I.
> Nope! Because their actions are illegally anti-competitive, and Apple has significant market power.
If* it is proven so in court than I may agree with you. IIRC the case is still ongoing. Your opinion isn't a fact. Google have significant market power, Steam has it, Microsoft has it (to a lesser extent). You keep on pretending that there is only one phone manufacturer on the market. All of this is nonsense.
> Regardless if game devs agreed to the contract, the contract can still be illegally anti-competitive. And the law can be used against Apple on that.
We will see if that is the case in court.
> And even further more, I still want any and all actions to be taken, through whatever means possible, whether they be through the existing laws/court system, or that is through changing the law to retroactively target Apple and its employees, or if it through game devs working together to oppose apple, so as to make the game companies get more of the money, and for Apple to receive less of it, no matter how it happens.
You want the market to be legislated because you don't like Apple. How foolish.
If people argued from the fact that there should be able to sideload applications. Then I maybe inclined to agree with you.
I suspect the conversation from here on out will be a waste of time because you keep on selectively ignoring caveats to your arguments.