Apple Accuses Epic Games of 'Willful, Brazen, and Unlawful Conduct' in Countersuit Asking for Breach of Contract Damages

[PSYCHO666]

A lot of good points but it's almost impossible to read without paragraphs and line spacing.

* I'm not being a grammar Nazi. A lot what you said is actually relevant to the discussion but most will not bother.

Huh... what are you, the paragraph police? Note the carriage returns after certain sections, which created paragraphs... about 10 of them. I did not realize that the forum rules stated you must type like you would writing a children's book.
I had trouble reading your sentence because you forgot to use a comma after the word points.

 

[pasamio]

They don't need iOS and they don't need the AppStore and they don't need Apple marketing efforts. But they want people on iPhones to run their software. On hardware that for the most part is not by Apple, and is definitely no longer owned by Apple. But that has been argued to death.

I agree, Epic should be able to install EpicOS on the iPhones and provide an alternative operating system for iPhone users who don't want iOS. I will disagree that the hardware is not by Apple given they design the SOC and a integrate components together. Is it all Apple? No, but the core of the beast is.

 

[pasamio]

Huh... what are you, the paragraph police? Note the carriage returns after certain sections, which created paragraphs... about 10 of them. I did not realize that the forum rules stated you must type like you would writing a children's book.
I had trouble reading your sentence because you forgot to use a comma after the word points.

I think they were trying to provide constructive, helpful feedback about your post's formatting to make sure it reaches the widest audience. I'll also admit I agree that some extra spacing around the paragraphs could help with reading the post, instead of a single carriage return having two would space things out a little better. No need to get defensive, they're coming from a place where they want to help

 

[123]

I agree, Epic should be able to install EpicOS on the iPhones and provide an alternative operating system for iPhone users who don't want iOS. I will disagree that the hardware is not by Apple given they design the SOC and a integrate components together. Is it all Apple? No, but the core of the beast is.

The core has been ARM. By Apple's logic it still is. Because ARM is what made them great. So for whatever game in-app purchase I make, Arm Holdings should get a cut. Let's say 50% for.. no reason at all just like Apple.

 

[Realityck]

There should be some kind of algorithm connected to a counter on MacRumors home page concerning the total number of EPIC related posts in the forum.

Then we could all look at that and think we achieved more here in the forums then Tim Sweeney achieved in court.

 

[TiggrToo]

I've already given you an example which you conveniently ignored

So, you going to respond to my request?

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

First, there are many on here (as well as in the blogosphere, government and press that do advocate for the elimination of the first party App Stores for mobile). However, I think you seem not to understand the point. Right now, as a customer, I know that everyone who wants to offer me an app has to do so with a set of rules that I trust. If alternate app stores are available, then either no one will use them at all (in which case we are where we are now), or (more likely) some like Epic (at a minimum) will use them. That means I no longer have the choice of getting all my apps from one source. Even allowing alternate app stores means weakening the security of iOS/iPadOS/tvOS/watchOS, as it means that unsigned apps have to be able to run.

I understand your point, and it has some merit. However, I have two points around that:

1) The model of multiple store fronts already exists for macOS, and what you're describing isn't an issue. Many of the name brand companies don't bother going through the Apple store, but you know full well you can still trust the software.

For the smaller ones, if I come across some software I'm interested in, and I don't know the company, it's really easy to do a quick google around for it and see if it's commonly used and if there are issues. It's very obvious if it's dodgy.

Regardless, more and more software is now being put through the Apple store on macOS, as I think many companies understand your point.

In conclusion, I think you'll find that in reality it won't be a problem. There will be a huge amount of apps that will stick to the Apple store as they know it will be the first place people will look, and they know it's trustworthy, so of the little guys creating apps, you'll have so much choice through the Apple store that you won't need to bother with anything else. Many of the bigger names might simply set up their own, or conglomerate to a couple of alternative stores with better terms, and you can decide if you want to trust, say Blackmagic or Adobe if they move to their own store, and I'm guessing you will be fine with it.

And there will be alternate stores started up by big names that will have their own filtering system to weed out anything dodgy, but with different terms and rules to Apple, so you'll likely find that other stores open up that you grow to trust just as much as the Apple store.

2) Apple rejects a lot of apps for various highly socially conservative reasons. E.g nudity, swearing, gambling etc (but high levels of violence are allowed, go figure). So at the moment, those of us that consider ourselves to be adult enough to make up our own minds about such things, well we simply can't have those apps (but we can of course get all that stuff via the web on our iPhones/iPads). In many ways apps are superior to a web app, so it is a rather lame restriction.

Apple also rejects a lot of apps for arbitrary reasons, and those poor developers are left out in the cold wondering how they got the bad end of the luck stick. Alternate stores will at least give them a chance of making a return on their investment.

Sometimes Apple even rejects an app just because it decides it's wrong, even though some people are loving it. Do you remember the app that simple presented a diamond on the screen if you paid $50? It wasn't a scam, it was very open about what you got, and many people loved it, and paid the money. Sure, most would think they are fools, and I agree, and although I don't think it is a good thing for the world as such, if people want to pay money for something so stupid, then I can't see how that's any of Apple's business to shut it down. With other stores, people have the freedom to develop ridiculous ideas that turn out to be surprisingly popular, without having Big Brother arbitrarily decide to shut them down.

In conclusion, alternate stores will not destroy the vast number of highly trusted apps on the Apple store, but will merely open up choice, both for the developers that don't like Apple's rules, and for users that want apps that aren't restricted to Apple's twisted idea of family values. For proof of this, one only has to look at macOS for comparison.

 

[Alan Wynn]

iOS is not the same as Steam, Xbox, PS etc despite what you and others wish were true. How do I know? Simple.

Yes, but Nintendo Switch, PlayStation, Steam, and Xbox are not the same as each other either.

1. Where can I get games for my pc,

As an open platform, you can get it anywhere you want.

Xbox, PS, Switch etc?

For digital downloads and goods, one can only buy on the platform's store. For physical copies of the games, the developer pays the platform owner a 30% royalty.

2. Where can I get games for my iPhone, iPad iPod Touch?

From the platform's store, just like for the other closed platforms.

Apple's app store monopoly is coming apart at the seams and deservedly so.

Which monopoly is that? Can you provide a legal definition of the market over which Apple has a monopoly? Can you provide some U.S. case law that supports your definition? Remember that the Peoplesoft case made clear that narrow market definitions will not be accepted, and the court has also ruled:

’A "manufacturer's own products do not themselves compromise a relevant product market" and a "company does not violate the Sherman Act by virtue of the natural monopoly it holds over its own product"’

For this reason, the Pystar court held that a relevant market limited to the Mac OS was an improper, single-brand market, and dismissed tying claims based on Apple requiring only the Mac OS to be used on Apple computers.

 

[kc9hzn]

I remember Epic claiming that VBucks were somehow like buying physical goods and shouldn’t be subject to IAP. Apparently Epic blocks accounts that buy skins and VBucks from third party sellers, so there goes that argument. Anyway, I think it’s telling that Epic is pushing the Epic Games Store as hard as it is, including exclusivity clauses. It’s one thing to say “we’ll only distribute Fortnite through our store”, but to sign up Hitman 3 for an exclusive contract seems a bit hypocritical, considering their complaints about Apple. I think what’s likely happened is that Epic likely negotiated custom licensing fees with console makers for Fortnite. They wanted similar on iOS, and Apple just flat out doesn’t do custom licensing.

Epic probably needs Apple more than they admit (not so much for Fortnite but for Unreal Engine on iOS, if you’re a third party wanting to launch a multi platform title on mobile, Unity suddenly just became a lot more compelling). They legally probably don’t have a strong argument legally (and are weakening their position with their petulant public behavior, like running a literal anti-Apple themed contest). The trial is also likely to turn up skeletons that Epic (and the console manufacturers) would prefer remain buried.

Personally, though, I’d be just fine if Epic and Fortnite weren’t a thing anymore. The whole 40% owned by Tencent thing really bugs me because Tencent’s whole MO is getting part or full ownership of low quality freemium games that are targeted at kids and are intentionally designed to be addictive. (84% ownership of Supercell, for instance. I’m legitimately surprised they don’t own any equity in King [Candy Crush Saga] or Zenga [though Zenga’s heyday was probably 10 years ago, so maybe that makes more sense].) It isn’t even so much that I think Fortnite is a bad game (though undoubtedly it is) or that battle royale games are a terrible genre (though they certainly are), it’s about the shenanigans free-to-play titles pull off. Loot boxes are basically legalized gambling that target teenagers, virtual skins are a revolving door of digital status symbols that often end up costing you more than AAA titles, dual currency systems are designed to slow you down and keep you playing. I have yet to find a GOOD freemium mechanic, the closest is likely Pokémon GO and even it needs either reduced price products in the store or more coins available in game (though it’s not pay to win, at least, except for the storage upgrades, as the best items come from PokéStops).

 

[pasamio]

The core has been ARM. By Apple's logic it still is. Because ARM is what made them great. So for whatever game in-app purchase I make, Arm Holdings should get a cut. Let's say 50% for.. no reason at all just like Apple.

Apple do indeed pay ARM for an ISA license however the actual chipset is Apple designed. The ISA license covers their usage of the ARM instruction set but Apple designs the actual implementation of the chips as well as Apple's proprietary features such as their various dedicated image processors, video encoder/decoders, neural engines, tile rendering GPU, motion co-processors and more.

If your point was the Apple should pay ARM for using their intellectual property, I think you'll find the answer is that they are.

 

[mkldev]

I don't think it needs to be said it would be optional. The problem is developers like EPIC will only ever release on third party stores that have lower fees if they could. It can create a situation where you feel pressured to install third party stores to get access to important (to you) software. So it becomes not required but an obligation.

It's still not an obligation. You can choose to use a different app for that purpose that is available from Apple's store, or you can choose to not use the app, and tell the app author why you're not using it.

For that matter, nothing prevents app developers from releasing a slightly different version for Apple's store that complies with their rules, while using their advertising to encourage new users to choose the store that gives them the biggest benefit. They can say, "You can get 25% off all in-app purchases if you download the app from our store instead." Consumers could then choose what matters more to them.

Facebook is already moaning about fees they pay to Apple. Imagine they move Whatsapp to a third party store or the main Facebook app? - I use neither but literally billions of people use these. It's the sort of strong arming that would make people feel obligated to engage with other stores if these kinds of apps are gatekeeped behind them.

Facebook is complaining for good reason. Most of the in-app purchases that Facebook offers don't result in Facebook earning money; nearly the entire purchase goes to charities and small businesses that Facebook's users are trying to support by buying tickets to events through Facebook. So Facebook's only options are to either charge iOS users considerably more money to cover Apple's comparatively *huge* cut relative to traditional payment processors or give those charities and small businesses considerably less money.

It's this kinda thing that makes me want Apple to keep control, I don't wanna have to install any third party stores for x y or z app. I'm already exhausted from having to use Steam, Origin, XBOX Games, uPlay and EPIC Games Store on my PC for computer games. The most annoying aspect there is trying to play a game with a friend and needing to add them to all these stores just to send game invites etc

If having to spend a few extra minutes once in a while to get users added to a particular store is the most annoying aspect, it sounds like it is working pretty well. By contrast, the most annoying aspect of the current system is that Apple has the final word on whether something is allowed at all. Want a game that violates Apple's explicit content rules? Nope. What about an app that provides a better replacement for something that Apple provides as part of iOS? Sometimes, but according to a strict reading of the rules, nope. And so on.

The second-most annoying aspect is the realization that Apple's cut of in-app payments and app purchases is so high that we're probably paying a premium for everything. As a consumer, when it comes to reducing competition in the marketplace, I'm actually far less concerned about Apple's payment structure than I am about Apple being the exclusive gatekeeper, with final say over what can and can't run on the platform.

 

[Alan Wynn]

I understand your point, and it has some merit. However, I have two points around that:

1) The model of multiple store fronts already exists for macOS, and what you're describing isn't an issue.

I made several points about convenience and security. Your response seems to be "There are other platforms that are less secure and convenient and I like them, so you should just live with my choice."

Security is an issue on macOS and is even more of an issue on the dominant platform (Windows) that is why anti-virus software exists for macOS/Windows and is not required for iOS/iPadOS/tvOS/WatchOS.

Many of the name brand companies don't bother going through the Apple store, but you know full well you can still trust the software.

I have no choice on macOS, but it is a much worse experience for me than that of iOS/iPadOS/tvOS/WatchOS. I have to find the store, figure out the rules for the software (Do they have some family sharing model? On how many machines can I run the software? How do I reinstall it? Does it have to be connected to the net to work?), create a new account and share my credit card information (which I have have to go find), etc.

For the smaller ones, if I come across some software I'm interested in, and I don't know the company, it's really easy to do a quick google around for it and see if it's commonly used and if there are issues. It's very obvious if it's dodgy.

Do you argue against food safety inspections because you can tell from the packaging if it is safe? I understand that you are happy to spend your time researching these companies and products and do not mind creating a million new accounts with which you have to share your personal data. That does not respond at all to my point.

Millions of users agree with me and like the current model.

Regardless, more and more software is now being put through the Apple store on macOS, as I think many companies understand your point.

I do not want it left to their discretion. If you are ok with that, you have options (Android as an example).

In conclusion, I think you'll find that in reality it won't be a problem.

It is guaranteed to be a problem, because I never want to have to do it and we already know from the macOS that many of the larger players will make it so. I get that it does not bother you, but that does not change my view.

There will be a huge amount of apps that will stick to the Apple store as they know it will be the first place people will look, and they know it's trustworthy, so of the little guys creating apps, you'll have so much choice through the Apple store that you won't need to bother with anything else. Many of the bigger names might simply set up their own, or conglomerate to a couple of alternative stores with better terms, and you can decide if you want to trust, say Blackmagic or Adobe if they move to their own store, and I'm guessing you will be fine with it.

You are not even consistent in your statements. Most things will be in Apple's store, lots of big names will create their own stores, some new people will create other stores, but it will not be a problem.

That is exactly what I said I do not want and your response is "I understand, but I do not care because I want it."

Let me just go back to your statement and my previous response:

You will still have the choice to stick with Apple's walled garden if you want, and others will have the choice to not to if they want.

To which I said:

Once there are multiple stores, some products will only be in other stores. Now, if they want to serve me, they have to be in the only store. With your solution they will have a choice and that will mean I do not have a choice.

To which you responded: You will have to go to lots of different stores, but you should not care about that.

2) Apple rejects a lot of apps for various highly socially conservative reasons. E.g nudity, swearing, gambling etc (but high levels of violence are allowed, go figure). So at the moment, those of us that consider ourselves to be adult enough to make up our own minds about such things, well we simply can't have those apps (but we can of course get all that stuff via the web on our iPhones/iPads). In many ways apps are superior to a web app, so it is a rather lame restriction.

Again, you do not seem to understand that your option eliminates my choice of a platform without those things. Again, I understand that you want them. This is not the platform for you.

In conclusion, alternate stores will not destroy the vast number of highly trusted apps on the Apple store, but will merely open up choice, both for the developers that don't like Apple's rules, and for users that want apps that aren't restricted to Apple's twisted idea of family values. For proof of this, one only has to look at macOS for comparison.

Again, your response to my statement that I want a single store for many reasons and your option takes away that choice from me is to say in one breath that it will not have any impact, but it will make there be many stores that will guarantee fragmentation, but I should be fine with that. What you fail to acknowledge is that right now, companies and developers who wish to develop for this platform have to follow the rules on things like tracking and supporting Sign in with Apple. In your world those who have no choice and live with it now, will just move to a store where they do not have those restrictions and I will lose the option of a privacy preserving version of their app.

I am completely willing to give up porn apps for that level of trust.

Developers that do not like Apple's rules have a choice. They can develop for Android. If enough of them stop developing for Apple's platform Apple will have to charge.

Users who do not like Apple's choices can pick one of the many other competing options. Stop trying to ruin my platform by forcing me to accept your choices.

 

[123]

If your point was the Apple should pay ARM for using their intellectual property, I think you'll find the answer is that they are.

The point is that my in-app payment is not being shared with any component manufacturer or IP licensor (in this case Arm whose contribution to the platform has been magnitudes higher than what Apple has added). There is no reason why Apple should be an exception. I have paid for everything when I bought the hardware. Now I want to run software on it, software that needs none of the services Apple provides.

 

[deevey]

And there will be alternate stores started up by big names that will have their own filtering system to weed out anything dodgy, but with different terms and rules to Apple, so you'll likely find that other stores open up that you grow to trust just as much as the Apple store.

Sure, and until that time we just have to cross our fingers and "hope" that the Acme App Store is legit, doing their jobs properly and our data isn't stolen. While Apples brand name goes down the toilet as the OS that you can now get widespread malware on ?

For the smaller ones, if I come across some software I'm interested in, and I don't know the company, it's really easy to do a quick google around for it and see if it's commonly used and if there are issues. It's very obvious if it's dodgy.

Epic is a massive company, wants their own App Store and have PROVEN they are not capable of being trustworthy as an on-topic example.

A phone is a far more a personal device than a computer ever is/was and the likelihood is that there is far much more valuable data on it than you EVER had on your PC. How willing are you to have it compromised ?

The point is that my in-app payment is not being shared with any component manufacturer or IP licensor (in this case Arm whose contribution to the platform has been magnitudes higher than what Apple has added). There is no reason why Apple should be an exception. I have paid for everything when I bought the hardware. Now I want to run software on it, software that needs none of the services Apple provides.

You do reaslize that Apple was one of the founding contributors of ARM right ? Your point makes no sense whatsoever.

You can run what you like on the hardware provided you can figure out how to do it. Jailbreak it, throw linux on it etc. but its not Apples job to make that any easier for you.

An iOS device is sold as a complete package which includes both hardware and software and the means to get that software on to the device via the App Store. You knew that when you bought it.

 

[Carnegie]

Yes, but Nintendo Switch, PlayStation, Steam, and Xbox are not the same as each other either.



As an open platform, you can get it anywhere you want.



For digital downloads and goods, one can only buy on the platform's store. For physical copies of the games, the developer pays the platform owner a 30% royalty.



From the platform's store, just like for the other closed platforms.



Which monopoly is that? Can you provide a legal definition of the market over which Apple has a monopoly? Can you provide some U.S. case law that supports your definition? Remember that the Peoplesoft case made clear that narrow market definitions will not be accepted, and the court has also ruled:

The Ninth Circuit didn't need to address antitrust issues in the Pystar case. It mostly considered copyright abuse issues. The district court did consider antitrust issues in dismissing Pystar's antitrust counterclaims and it did reject Pystar's claim that Mac OS computers constituted an antitrust market. But in doing so it acknowledged that, in some circumstances, a single brand can constitute an antitrust market - either (in rare cases) an antitrust primary market or (more likely) an antitrust aftermarket.

The Supreme Court has been clear in saying that a single brand product or service can constitute an antitrust market in which an alleged monopolists can have market power. See Eastman Kodak v Image Technical Services (1992):

Kodak also contends that, as a matter of law, a single brand of a product or service can never be a relevant market under the Sherman Act. We disagree. The relevant market for antitrust purposes is determined by the choices available to Kodak equipment owners.

The Ninth Circuit has, based on Eastman Kodak, said the same thing and provided some guidance on when a single brand might constitute an antitrust aftermarket. Ninth Circuit law is what will apply in this case. See Newcal Industries v Ikon Office Solution (2008)(Cert Denied by Supreme Court):

First, the law permits an antitrust claimant to restrict the relevant market to a single brand of the product at issue (as in Eastman Kodak ).

We can get into the criteria for assessing whether a single brand product or service is a relevant (after)market for antitrust purposes if you want to. And we can consider whether those criteria are met for, e.g., the iOS app distribution market. But the bigger picture point is that a company can be considered to have monopoly power (and then to have used that power improperly) in a market that's limited to its own products or services.

 

[Alan Wynn]

The point is that my in-app payment is not being shared with any component manufacturer or IP licensor (in this case Arm whose contribution to the platform has been magnitudes higher than what Apple has added).

You feel that ARM’s contribution is more valuable than Apple’s. If you purchase ARM (it seems to be for sale), you can try to negotiate that license. I have no problem with that if you are able to convince Apple of the value of your IP.

There is no reason why Apple should be an exception.

Apple is not an exception. ARM (and every other Apple supplier) negotiated a price with Apple. If you were negotiating with Apple, maybe you would have received a better deal. Apple offers a product with a set of terms. You have a choice to purchase it on those terms or purchase one of its competitor’s products.

I have paid for everything when I bought the hardware.

No, you purchased some physical hardware with licensed software and a set of restrictions. They provide their license agreement and require you to accept it before you can use it. If you do not want to accept it, you may return the device for a refund.

Now I want to run software on it, software that needs none of the services Apple provides.

Actually, it does. All the software from the firmware up, are just licensed to you. You may not use any of it without permission from Apple, and then you may only use it on their terms. You may not like this model. That is totally reasonable. You have a large selection of other mobile devices from which you may choose.

 

[pasamio]

The point is that my in-app payment is not being shared with any component manufacturer or IP licensor (in this case Arm whose contribution to the platform has been magnitudes higher than what Apple has added). There is no reason why Apple should be an exception. I have paid for everything when I bought the hardware. Now I want to run software on it, software that needs none of the services Apple provides.

Different vendors have different licensing arrangements, in a sense a portion of any revenue Apple generates goes to paying the companys that fab their chips (TSMC), that make individual components (displays from Samsung) or their assembly partner (Foxconn amongst others), a portion of it pays ISA license fee to ARM and obviously they pay their own hardware designers, CPU designers, software engineers and more from that same set of revenue.

Apple's licensing model is a revenue sharing arrangement, itself not an entirely uncommon model. Advantage of that model is that if you don't make any money, you have minimal upfront costs ($99/year + a Mac) so it helps smaller developers to get started because there is no large amount to be paid. This revenue sharing arrangement isn't dissimilar to many other stores either nor the cut itself.

I think you'll find you didn't pay for everything when you bought the hardware and if you removed the services from Apple's revenue that the company would not be profitable.

That said I am supportive of you running your own provided software on the hardware, I've mentioned elsewhere that I think Apple should be required to sign images for their devices for a reasonable fee for folk who might want the Apple hardware without Apple's software. Then you could install EpicOS on your phone and not worry about Apple's software. Though at that point I do wonder why you'd pay for a more expensive Apple hardware instead of getting a cheaper Android device.

 

[nickgovier]

.

 

[garylapointe]

Look I said I’m not defending Epic. My questions are in general not about Epic specifically. Why is delivering an app outside the Mac App Store OK but not for the iOS App Store? Because more people use iOS devices than use Macs? OK so what is the number where it’s OK to have alternate distribution? Or do you think the Mac should be closed to distribution outside the Mac App Store?

It really doesn't matter why, that's the rules that Apple made.

But to answer the question...
No one developed anything for the iOS app store before the 30% rule, there was never any other option. If you developed for iOS, you knew the cost before going into it.

Why is the Mac different? I'd say it's because there wasn't always a Mac App store and software was already distributed outside of Apple's control. Changing the rules after companies already developed a business model and taking 30% when they never did before would seem kind of Draconian.


I'd be curious about developers that switched from their own distribution of a Mac app (that people never heard of) to then being on the Mac App store and wonder if their sales increased. Realistically, if you sell 1.43 times as many apps on the Mac App store you're making more money than you were and that's not even factoring in your own distribution costs of the app and credit card costs (which while small add up and take time keeping them running, and time = money).

 

[Brandon916]

I have to say if Apple loses this and other companies can make competing stores on the iPhone it will really be a double edged sword for us as consumers.

On the one hand we would get software with features Apple won't allow on their own store and competition on price. On the other hand we will have to at some point install third party stores that may have a poorer user experience compared to the built in App Store or stores that allow apps which don't respect our privacy.

And on top of that there is the question of security. An open store not run by Apple may not be vetted as well as Apples and that could allow for viruses. The strict sandboxing that Apple currently forces upon us will certainly have to be altered significantly to allow third party stores to function fully with the ability to install, update and uninstall apps etc

In addition to these things you can be sure lawsuits will start to allow for the iOS frameworks Apple keeps for themselves to be opened up to all developers. Heck if they're forced to allow third party stores there's nothing to stop that store publishing apps that use Apples private frameworks, something Apple strictly prohibits currently on their own store.

So ya know there's upsides and downsides. Personally I think I'd lean towards maintaining Apples control over the App Store. I feel they've gradually opened up enough that I'm satisfied. Being able to set your own Browser as the default in the new iOS 14, having background apps in general (from a few years ago). Having apps that can handle VoIP and so forth. I feel like they've been moving in the right direction, albeit slowly.

What EPIC is asking to do I feel will degrade the user experience, at-least for me. I do not want to install lots of different application stores where my privacy and security may not be respected to the same degree as it is with Apple. I like being able to use Apple Pay in my apps to shelter my payment information, I like being able to login with Apple and have the app developer only receive a randomised iCloud email address etc - I'm certain EPIC would never offer similar features in their own store as there's no incentive for them to do so, they just want to sell Apps while Apple is trying to make an entire ecosystem with which to compete with Android so it's really different goals.

Anyway just my mumbling thoughts about the whole thing.

How do you know it's going to be a worst user experience? We won't know until we actually see it. Is having less grocery stores better or worst in your life? What about retail stores? I don't know about you but I'm glad I can go to either best buy, target or Walmart for goods.

 

[Brandon916]

People always make this out to be that Epic wants to be on the App Store and not pay the fees Apple charges, but I've always seen this as Epic wanting the ability to bypass the App Store altogether and foot the bill themselves.

Wanting side-loading and not wanting to pay fees while being on the app store are not the same thing.

But on windows you can sell stuff without having to go to Microsoft. Same w android.

 

[deevey]

But on windows you can sell stuff without having to go to Microsoft. Same w android.

Android is not a singular device and neither is Windows, they are simply multipurpose OS's, designed to run on a multitude of different hardware.

However with Windows-S, you do not have that option, you must use the Microsoft app store or pay to upgrade to Windows 10.

Apple iOS Products consists of the hardware and software designed to work exclusively with that device.

The very fact that you can still Hackintosh or Jailbreak is simply a by-product, not something that was ever intended.

 

[deevey]

That said I am supportive of you running your own provided software on the hardware, I've mentioned elsewhere that I think Apple should be required to sign images for their devices for a reasonable fee for folk who might want the Apple hardware without Apple's software. Then you could install EpicOS on your phone and not worry about Apple's software. Though at that point I do wonder why you'd pay for a more expensive Apple hardware instead of getting a cheaper Android device.

Why would Apple want the bad press when people start side loading garbage onto their non-Apple Apple phones ?

An Apple product consists of both the hardware and the software to run on it. Period

Though at that point I do wonder why you'd pay for a more expensive Apple hardware instead of getting a cheaper Android device.

Exactly. I guess some people want the looks of a Ferrari with the economy of a Toyota. But no company is going to make it easy to screw up their brand. Thats why there is funny looking screws on almost every consumer product these days.

 

[pasamio]

Why would Apple want the bad press when people start side loading garbage onto their non-Apple Apple phones ?

An Apple product consists of both the hardware and the software to run on it. Period

Which is great until Apple abandon perfectly functional hardware that now doesn't get any updates. Now I don't want to oblige Apple to keep supporting their products however I would like the ability to install my own operating system on it once Apple have moved on. I have plenty of perfectly functional hardware wise devices that are increasingly at risk to unpatched security vulnerabilities, not getting updates for stuff like certificates or even simple browser enhancements.

 

[matram]

Which is great until Apple abandon perfectly functional hardware that now doesn't get any updates. Now I don't want to oblige Apple to keep supporting their products however I would like the ability to install my own operating system on it once Apple have moved on. I have plenty of perfectly functional hardware wise devices that are increasingly at risk to unpatched security vulnerabilities, not getting updates for stuff like certificates or even simple browser enhancements.

It is unlikely that Apple will ever allow you to install you own OS on a iPhone. If that is a requirement for you, it is best to look for other options.

On the other hand I think Apple is quite good at supporting older HW with updates.