No Microsoft isn’t more ethical. There is nothing forcing any customer or dev to opt into a relationship with Apple. Don’t like the t&c figure something else out.
Apples model isn’t actually illegal. If that is your take that is incorrect.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Might Be Forced to Bring Fortnite Back to U.S. App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apples model isn’t actually illegal. If that is your take that is incorrect.
I didn't say anything about 30%. I was simply commenting on Microsoft's (and Apple's) old model of allowing software to be installed from any source.
You seem to have gone off on a tangent here.
Microsoft does charge some developers 30%, just like Apple.
There's nothing illegal about the model itself, which is why it's lasted this long. And why new laws were created to limit it's affect on competition. The problem is simply that the model has to adapt as Apple grows and spreads into new markets in order to encourage competition.
That's not what rent seeking is. And, again, Microsoft does charge platform fees just like Apple.
And, of course, Microsoft's conduct throughout the 90s was far worse from a competition perspective than anything Apple has done.
Installing software from any source does not necessarily relate to malware risk. You can apply code signing/sandboxing/long list of other modern security functions to mitigate that - which is what you see on iOS and macOS. The 'App Store = security' thing is mostly spewed by non-technical people. If you have a series of exploits that you could need in order to go from 'app on iPhone' to 'app that has control of iPhone'......in a world where somehow you can't pay $99 and slip the malicious app past app review........you would just pair that complicated series of exploits with an entry point -- probably a webkit exploit, maybe some badass image handler trickery if I have an obscene amount of money to spend on this project -- and you're good to go.
The barrier is high and malicious actors want clickless exploits, not 'ooooh i can trick someone into installing an app from outside of the app store that has the iOS permission model anyway and if I combine it with about 400k worth of exploits, I can take over iPhones until the first researcher finds out and Apple patches everything and revokes my app remotely, preventing it from running'
Microsoft does not mandate a 30% charge for people targeting Windows.
The model is unlawful and morally abhorrent, which is why you see court after court and Governments around the world demanding it to change.
Microsoft does not mandate platform fees for those targeting Windows. You can ship for Windows today and pay 0%.
To say that 'bah bah 90s WinTel' is worse than trying to eat 30% of a huge chunk of the digital economy is a bit rich. The stakes are so much different - and so is the money. Way more at stake today.
Last edited:
I own several stores selling travel goods. Like Apple I offer for sale what I want to sell. If the product is something I do not want to sell, like Apple, that is my choice. Individuals who want a product I don’t offer can shop elsewhere. In this situation they can purchase a phone that will run Fortnite. This Sweeney is very tiresome. Whining constantly and behaving like my 2 year old grandson having a tantrum. It’s pathetic.
That's well and good, but we have laws. Anti-competitive behavior is not allowed in much of the world from entities considered to be gatekeepers. So, if you were so big that you would be reasonably classified as a gatekeeper, you would be held to a different standard than what you propose. Sorry!
You should consider why Sweeney keeps winning and why Apple keeps losing. It's not because everything Apple is doing is legal and cool.
Strong disagreement with this. Cell phones are not towns. That's an oversimplification. They're a product from a company. The internet itself is a space where users interact with each other, so there's some ambiguity on that particular part. But smartphone devices and tablets are clearly not "towns."
The App Store, likewise, is not a "town." It is a service provided by Apple.
This is like saying that the Nintendo Switch is a town. It is not. It is a product sold by a company, with some live services and some offline services.
If you're for the concept that Apple must accept Epic Games's 3rd-party store on their devices, then, from a legal perspective, you'd also logically need to conclude that Nintendo must accept a pornographer's 3rd-party store on the Switch. You could replace "pornagrapher's 3rd-party app" with something either criminal or non-criminal; you could replace it with "Google," "Pokémon game," et cetera.
While you can make the argument that Nintendo markets their devices to both adults and kids (and so does Apple with their various iDevices)... You would need to remain consistent for both the iPhone and Nintendo.
And, obviously, putting a pornography shop on a video game device usually meant for children is a huge problem.
If Apple finds Epic's behavior or app objectionable, they have a right to refuse its existence on their devices—in the same way that Nintendo has a right to refuse a pornographer's 3rd-party store on their Nintendo device.
While I agree that sideloading should be an option for users, and that they should understand the risks of sideloading onto their devices—Epic Games clearly does not have a legal right to dictate what Apple does or doesn't do with their App Store or their devices.
Apple is, effectively, a publisher, in this situation. And publishers have a right to choose which texts (or apps) that they publish or do not publish.
And Apple's objection is Epic trying to avoid fees on an agreement.
Even though Apple is definitely abusing its price charges, and even though sideloading should be legal and optional for its users—Epic does not have a clear and justifiable legal ground to stand on. They want Fortnite to be in the App Store without paying Apple's requested fee.
I'm not going to argue with you about whether Microsoft's model led to a costly malware industry. It's a fact of history.
I like how you quickly moved the goalposts there! I didn't limit my comment to Windows. And despite how "scary" your 30% number is, it only applies to less than 2% of iOS developers.
Nonsense. Again, there's nothing unlawful with the model until a company gets so big that it affects competition. Where that line is varies by jurisdiction.
Even in this case, despite the anti-steering provision likely violating California law, the judge specifically ruled that Apple was still entitled to collect their commission even on external purchases.
You can ship for iOS today and pay 0%. That's what 87% of iOS developers already do.
Of course, you can't really pay 0%. You still have all the costs that the App Store covers. Transaction fees, hosting, bandwidth, etc.
Alternate history? Sweeney lost on 9 out of 10 counts. The judge ruled that Apple did not violate federal or state antitrust laws. And said Apple was still entitled to a commission on external purchases.
You kind of make fair point with Microsoft, but you're heading into the "whataboutism" territory here. Epic agreed to pay, they agreed to the T&Cs and deliberately went against them and got banned. That's why they aren't on the App Store, which they desperately want to be a part of.
That's not really a choice, though. They want to offer their software on iOS, they don't actually *want* to be on the App Store. Apple's monopolist BS prevents them from doing that - so we have a clear indication from the Judge is going to order Apple to allow Epic in the store.
Again, this judge ruled that Apple did not violate federal or state antitrust law. So your "monopolist" claim is unsupported by law.
Doesn't seem to be such big a win at all if companies still try to fight to distribute the Apps themselves. That shows that the 30% are overpriced and not really fair. But go ahead and believe your fairytale.
To be fair, im using both, Mac and Windows and I've never had a single Virus on either of them. Also, if you download some shady software and - while Microsoft Defender warns you 10 times about a possible thread of the file - yet you press "confirm" the 11. time, Microsoft is not to blame here.
Sure, in the end Apple allowed Fortnite back in the store since they are good guys, right? Not, because they're afraid of judges deciding against them.
No. The anti-steering provisions were found to violate California Unfair Competition laws, not antitrust laws. Fortnite was let in as the result of a contempt ruling because Apple was found to have misled the court about how they calculated their commission on external purchases.
To be more fair, your personal experience does not negate the entire history of malware on Windows.
Why is it my personal experience? That's common sense. It's like ignoring these "DANGER"-Signs. You can do it, but then why should the company be liable for that?
I'm convinced many posting here weren't around and using computers before like 2015 and that's why we see so many strange takes about the App Store and Apple's closed ecosystem. Microsoft (then Windows) Defender didn't exist until 2006, and was useless until like 2017. If you weren't around in the late 1990s/early 2000s then of course you think Apple is overblowing the security concerns.
Okay, so? On XP I used Norton or ESET, not sure anymore. But again, I don't care what was back then, I do care how and what is now.
I used to be on Apple's side of this, but then when I started trying to publish to the app store, they would give reasons for denial that would range from someone not liking a font one time, and then another time was that it was spam and they had too many tarot card apps, and that's not even what my app was...
Exactly. Most people defending Apple aren't developers and haven't had experience trying to get through their Gatekeeping only to hear the ridiculous reasons Apple uses to justify their rejection.
Last edited:
Business 101. There are other platforms if they don’t want to pay the going rate. But yeah keep believing the devs own the platform.
Only the anti-steering provisions were found to be illegal under California law.
Epic was banned for using their own in-app purchase code. They are still not allowed to do that.