Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The 30% cut talking point is way overblowned. It came out in the Epic trial that 80% of in app revenue comes from games. Most of Apple’s “competitors” don’t even allow you to pay for services within the App Store. For instance Netflix and Spotify have been forcing you to pay outside the App store for years



Way overblown... tell that to a game developer. The privacy and security argument was used time and again by Apple in court as a reason for booting Epic's Fortnite off the App Store for not using their payment system.


Let’s not make this about the poor indy game developer either. Most of the game revenue comes from in app purchases from pay to win games and loot boxes where the “whales” are making the money. They are just as sleazy as the ad supported industry.

Epic in fact tried to convince Android users to side load. It was not only a horrible failure, it introduced a security vulnerability.

https://www.itpro.co.uk/security/31787/vulnerability-spotted...

Epic also lost its case against Apple. The judge explicitly said that Apple wasn’t a monopoly.


Apple isn't deserving of a slice of revenue from game developers because of questionable gaming practices. If anything it makes them complicit. Like a mafia syndicate, they will allow these types of gaming practices if they are given their share.

The whole point of Epic side loading apps was to avoid the gatekeeping of the primary stores and their ‘review’ process. Was it a terrible failure because Epic is incapable of creating functioning software? Or was it a failure because it's near impossible to circumvent the limited developer 'sandbox' with APIs that all run through Google services? Are apps listed on Google Play free of security vulnerabilities? Who’s to say this information wasn’t disseminated throughout the public and media by Google or Apple themselves attempting to sway opinions against the so called evils of installing your own software.

As far as Epic vs Apple, whether the judge ruled Apple a monopoly or not isn’t of great concern. What’s more important is that she ruled Apple must provide other payment options to developers. It's in the user's interest that alternative payment methods are made available as it (in theory) will decrease the cost of app purchases. Apple's not in any hurry to implement it through.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: