Apple Ready to 'Welcome Fortnite Back Onto iOS' if Epic Removes Direct Purchase After Losing Restraining Order Ruling

[Darth Tulhu]

Because there is competion, if there only was one, they would charge apple, just like Apple does. It's the whole point.

Apple pays FRAND to access the networks, imagine what Apple would do if they asked 30% of all sales. They would do something about it... Oh wait they did and they only asked for like 1% of the device price.

The competition is at a bigger level.

There is only ONE Verizon. There is only ONE iOS.

Whomever accesses that infrastructure has to pay based on the infrastructure owner's terms.

However, you can choose T-Mobile, or you can choose Android, respectively.

Apple has the right to charge whatever they want. So does Verizon.

The customer has the right to choose someone else, negotiate a better rate, or suck up the cost. This is business 101.

 

[coachgq]

No, Epic still has to pay income taxes. So how about your employer takes 30% and then what is leftover, the federal and state taxes are also taken out. Could you survive?

Probably not. So I'd go to the other employer, or in this case, android. If enough developers do this, I reckon Apple would consider their policy. But they don't have to because enough developers are happy with the massive amounts of cash they are bringing in due to the store apple built and the developer tools they provide.

 

[Darth Tulhu]

Lol. Now that's some Apple-quality spin right there! Would government taking over your business (again, lol!) be anything like Apple telling you what kind of apps you can and can't develop today? Extorting a 30% commission? Forcing successful apps to subsidize unsuccessful ones? Playing favorites by pulling rules out of their you-know-what to justify charging Epic a 30% commission on V-Buck sales while Amazon and Uber and others pay nothing?

Epic took Apple to court (i.e. the government) so the court (again, the government) forces Apple (a business) to change the rules Apple set regarding Apple's mechanism for making money. This is after Epic literally and in full knowledge BROKE THE LAW (Apple's App store policies Epic agreed to) regarding transactions in APPLE's App Store.

If you cannot understand how that means the government taking control of a business then were done here.

The government does EXACTLY what Apple is doing here (although not for the same reasons). They built infrastructure citizens (users) benefit from and they tax the citizens. You can call it extortion if you like though.

But it's easier to both enter and leave "Apple country" than an actual country, and it has far less severe consequences.

 

[Darth Tulhu]

Personally I agree with what Epic is doing because Apple is using it's monopolistic stance to get it's own way because they know there is no app store competitor out there because Apple does not allow it. It's either a case for app developers to abide by Apples T&C's or don't bother at all. Telling app developers to move to android is a mute point because they want to develop app's for iphones but can only do so if they agree to the arbitary conditions imposed on them by Apple.

In the physical world, a designer/developer/supplier has the ability to approach numerous retail outlets to have their product sold in. They are able to work out individual arrangements with each retail outlet that best suits both the retail outlet and the designer/developer/supplier. If a retail outlet is not happy and decides to stop selling the product, whilst it will be of some inconvience to the designer/developer/supplier, they know there are other retail outlets out there they can work a deal with. This is what a competitive market is, it gives not only the designer/developer/supplier the choice of who they want to sell their product to, it also gives the customer a choice as to who to purchase that product from.

So, take Epic games, if they want to sell xbox or ps4 games, they can go to many retail outlets to see who wants to stock and sell their games. Choice for them and choice for the consumer as to which retail outlet they buy the game from. This is not the case in the digital world when it comes to the app store. There is only one app store, If Epic wants to develop a game for ios so iphone users can play the game, they have no choice but to use the app store. Not having a choice means they are solely at the hands of Apple and whatever terms and conditions Apple set. This is not competitive but very anti competitive.

Apple built this whole house (devices, platform software, customer-base), and is fit to run it how they please.

This means Apple has the right to NOT offer ANY third-party software.

They have a monopoly on Apple devices, sure, and rightly so. This does NOT mean they have a monopoly on ALL communication devices, phone, internet, apps, etc. They only control what THEY built.

As a mechanism for making more money (the PURPOSE of a business), Apple opened THEIR house up to third-party devs (like Epic), so long as they meet Apple's rules. "My house, my rules".

Now Epic (an outsider) wants to rewrite the rules IN APPLE'S HOUSE, and is trying to use the US Government to do this.

Sorry, they're WRONG.

Sure, it sounds great if Apple allowed software from anywhere, like they do with the Mac. But this is NOT the issue here.

The issue is that this is APPLE'S DECISION TO MAKE, because it's Apple's "house".

 

[I7guy]

True, but the Apple market is not a free market. There's no negotiation --- unless you're a big fish like Amazon. If you want access to the platform you have no choice but to agree to every term Apple sets. Maybe one day they'll ask for your first born and I'm sure there will be a long line of MacRumors fanboys ready to defend that move too. The bottom line is, even if you accept the 30% commission, the rules aren't fair. Why should Apple make 30% from Epic's sale of V-Bucks but not take 30% of the Uber ride that was scheduled using Uber's iOS app? Other than "because I said so", can you think of a good reason? I sure can't.

When you walk into Target, it's not a free market either. No negotiation. Unless you are a big customer of the store. The thing is there is no force applied to walk into Target or to become a dev. The 30% buys a click of the button to make your app visible to 1 billion devices. That's why the 30% is paid.

The disingenuous part of your post is discussing the "fanboys" as if the "critics" are any better in that regard and only the opinions of the "critics" are worthwhile or valid.

Because I said so and you can make billions of dollars is a damn good reason. If you don't like the terms go to android. That is exactly what the free-market system is about.

 

[Darth Tulhu]

When you walk into Target, it's not a free market either. No negotiation. Unless you are a big customer of the store. The thing is there is no force applied to walk into Target or to become a dev. The 30% buys a click of the button to make your app visible to 1 billion devices. That's why the 30% is paid.

The disingenuous part of your post is discussing the "fanboys" as if the "critics" are any better in that regard and only the opinions of the "critics" are worthwhile or valid.

Because I said so and you can make billions of dollars is a damn good reason. If you don't like the terms go to android. That is exactly what the free-market system is about.

I feel that a lot of people on Epic's side truly have no idea about what "business" and the free market really is, and are missing the forest for the trees.

Then they attribute any defense in favor of Apple in this scenario as "fanboyism", "apologism" and the like.

They also get stuck on what's "fair" which is unequivocally subjective. I could replace Apple with any individual/company name and my position wouldn't change at all.

I believe Epic is preying on this ignorance and I think they're hoping a judge will fall for it as well. Thankfully so far, the judge didn't.

 

[Joneser67]

They do. It’s called income tax.

Income tax is slightly different. It isn't normally as much as 30%, and come tax time you will get some if not all of it back. Plus the company is going to be taxed by the government on their earnings on top of this fee. They should lower the fees, since they are getting fees from a billion users on not just Fortnite purchases, but other apps as well. And these exorbitant fees they are collecting are for goods they played no part in creating. Personally, I have never nor will I ever own an iPhone or any Apple products.

 

[Smearbrick]

Google, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo all do the same thing, so why is everyone just complaining about Apple?

You have alternatives on those platforms. Apple does not allow side loading and forces all of it’s users through its App Store. That is anti-competitive. Not so different with Amazon devices either. However, other app stores can be sideloaded on to those devices.

 

[ohmydays]

You have alternatives on those platforms. Apple does not allow side loading and forces all of it’s users through its App Store. That is anti-competitive. Not so different with Amazon devices either. However, other app stores can be sideloaded on to those devices.

You do have an alternative: you can get an Android device. Whether you like that alternative or not doesn’t matter, it’s still an alternative.

 

[laptech]

Apple built this whole house (devices, platform software, customer-base), and is fit to run it how they please.

This means Apple has the right to NOT offer ANY third-party software.

They have a monopoly on Apple devices, sure, and rightly so. This does NOT mean they have a monopoly on ALL communication devices, phone, internet, apps, etc. They only control what THEY built.

As a mechanism for making more money (the PURPOSE of a business), Apple opened THEIR house up to third-party devs (like Epic), so long as they meet Apple's rules. "My house, my rules".

Now Epic (an outsider) wants to rewrite the rules IN APPLE'S HOUSE, and is trying to use the US Government to do this.

Sorry, they're WRONG.

Sure, it sounds great if Apple allowed software from anywhere, like they do with the Mac. But this is NOT the issue here.

The issue is that this is APPLE'S DECISION TO MAKE, because it's Apple's "house".

If Walmart or target tried that approach towards Apple 'it's our house, we set the rules and as such we will take 30% of each Apple product sold' Apple would quickly be down the courts complaining.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

What about development tools? Are they free? Do you think Apple should create it for free?

Yes, they're free. Xcode has always been free. Microsoft and Google also provide free development tools for their developers.

 

[deevey]

According to this site, less than a million and a half.

Apple iPhone sales worldwide 2007-2023| Statista

The number of Apple iPhone unit sales dramatically increased between 2007 and 2023.

www.statista.com

Notice the increase in units sold with the introduction of the app store in 2008, almost ten times the units of the precedent year.

Now, if the reason is solely the app store, only one among other reasons or had no influence in the spectacular growth in sold units is up for debate. I’m inclined to think it’s a very important reason, but I wasn’t very interested in smartphones back in the day (iirc, I had a sony flip phone with some custom os and no internet connectivity), so I could be wrong.

You forget a front facing camera and 3g internet that came 2008 as well - Original iPhone was amazing as proof of concept, the 3G though was a genuine game changer and a lot of Blackberry type users started to switch.

 

[D4vidrim]

Yes, they're free. Xcode has always been free. Microsoft and Google also provide free development tools for their developers.

The tool is free, but there is a subscription for 100 $/year and there is a fee on every sold app. That's the deal.
So, you might think it is free, but in the end it costs money and Apple decided how to get profit from it.

 

[ravenstar]

If Walmart or target tried that approach towards Apple 'it's our house, we set the rules and as such we will take 30% of each Apple product sold' Apple would quickly be down the courts complaining.

Just curious, what commission do you think Walmart takes on the devices it sells?

 

[Michael Scrip]

According to this site, less than a million and a half.

Apple iPhone sales worldwide 2007-2023| Statista

The number of Apple iPhone unit sales dramatically increased between 2007 and 2023.

www.statista.com

Notice the increase in units sold with the introduction of the app store in 2008, almost ten times the units of the precedent year.

Now, if the reason is solely the app store, only one among other reasons or had no influence in the spectacular growth in sold units is up for debate. I’m inclined to think it’s a very important reason, but I wasn’t very interested in smartphones back in the day (iirc, I had a sony flip phone with some custom os and no internet connectivity), so I could be wrong.

Don't forget that the iPhone was only available in a handful of countries in 2007... US, UK, France, Germany, Portugal, the Republic of Ireland, and Austria. And it was launched in June... halfway through 2007.

The iPhone eventually became available in more countries in later years.

Hell... it took almost 4 years for the iPhone to be on more carriers in the US... remember AT&T had exclusivity until 2011. So even in its home country there were tons of people who didn't want to switch carriers to get the iPhone.

So yeah... maybe the App Store was the reason for the explosion of sales... but I think it had more to do with general availability and people's acceptance of a new style of phone (switching from flip phones, Blackberries, etc)

 

[thejadedmonkey]

The tool is free, but there is a subscription for 100 $/year and there is a fee on every sold app. That's the deal.
So, you might think it is free, but in the end it costs money and Apple decided how to get profit from it.

Only if you want to use the app store. If you're happy distributing the app via your website, it's still free.

 

[rwxx]

You may want to check your definition of extortion, because a commission is an agreed upon rate for a service. No one signs a contract to be extorted. Also, Uber and Amazon sell physical goods and services that aren’t delivered through your phone. Evrything Epic does is digital and relies on the phone and store model to deliver said digital goods. Poor comparison.

It's not a poor comparison. Why is a "digital good" subject to commission but a physical good is not? Again, other than "because I said so", what's the logic? Apple just made up these rules. Please explain to me what is logical about them. If you're an Apple lawyer arguing your case in court, how do you explain charging commissions on "digital goods" but not physical ones? I'm eager to hear one logically sound explanation for this policy.

 

[rwxx]

Epic took Apple to court (i.e. the government) so the court (again, the government) forces Apple (a business) to change the rules Apple set regarding Apple's mechanism for making money. This is after Epic literally and in full knowledge BROKE THE LAW (Apple's App store policies Epic agreed to) regarding transactions in APPLE's App Store.

First, Apple's App Store policies are NOT law, so Epic broke no law. They violated a contract.

Did you feel the same way about Microsoft's actions in the 90s concerning Windows and IE? Do you feel the government shouldn't have gotten involved there either? Or are you just singing this tune today because you're an Apple fan? Just curious.

If you cannot understand how that means the government taking control of a business then were done here.

Well, considering you don't understand the difference between breaking a law and violating a contract, I'm fine with being done here.

 

[I7guy]

If Walmart or target tried that approach towards Apple 'it's our house, we set the rules and as such we will take 30% of each Apple product sold' Apple would quickly be down the courts complaining.

Whataboutism?

 

[rwxx]

When you walk into Target, it's not a free market either. No negotiation. Unless you are a big customer of the store. The thing is there is no force applied to walk into Target or to become a dev. The 30% buys a click of the button to make your app visible to 1 billion devices. That's why the 30% is paid.

The disingenuous part of your post is discussing the "fanboys" as if the "critics" are any better in that regard and only the opinions of the "critics" are worthwhile or valid.

Because I said so and you can make billions of dollars is a damn good reason. If you don't like the terms go to android. That is exactly what the free-market system is about.

Except that's not how the system works. Ask Microsoft. Microsoft wasn't taken to court because they had 97% of the PC operating system market. They were taken to court because they used their control of the PC operating system market to enrich themselves and stifle competition. Stop brining Android into the argument. This has nothing to do with Android. This has to do with Apple using it's control over the iOS market to give themselves an unfair advantage.

The Microsoft trial had nothing to do with Apple, just like what's coming for Apple has nothing to do with Android. When you reach the point where you have a billion active devices, you're going to get some scrutiny and that scrutiny is completely justified no matter how loudly the fanboys protest to the contrary.

It's simply not fair for Apple to demand a 30% cut of V-Bucks sales and 0% of Amazon sales. It defies logic. The fanboys defend by saying "well, V-Bucks are digital and Amazon is selling physical goods." So what? Why is Apple entitled to a cut of "digital goods" sales but not physical? Apple has about as much to do with V-Bucks as some random kitchen gadget you order on Amazon, so why are they entitled to a cut of one and not the other? How are they going to defend that in court? Maybe you can explain to me why Apple is entitled to a cut of certain goods and services but not others.

 

[rwxx]

You do have an alternative: you can get an Android device. Whether you like that alternative or not doesn’t matter, it’s still an alternative.

That's NOT what this is about. If it were, the government would never have taken Microsoft to court. The fact that Android exists has no bearing on Apple's alleged anti-competitive behavior. The Microsoft case was about Microsoft using its OS monopoly on PCs (this is the key point) to enrich themselves and thwart competition. The fact that you could "get a Mac" had nothing to do with the case.

 

[Baymowe335]

Income tax is slightly different. It isn't normally as much as 30%, and come tax time you will get some if not all of it back. Plus the company is going to be taxed by the government on their earnings on top of this fee. They should lower the fees, since they are getting fees from a billion users on not just Fortnite purchases, but other apps as well. And these exorbitant fees they are collecting are for goods they played no part in creating. Personally, I have never nor will I ever own an iPhone or any Apple products.

LOL, I don’t “get some or all” of my taxes back. No clue what you’re talking about. Only very low earners don’t pay income tax.

 

[mi7chy]

You do have an alternative: you can get an Android device. Whether you like that alternative or not doesn’t matter, it’s still an alternative.

Skirting FTC antitrust laws didn't work in the Apple eBook collusion case because of alternative platforms so why would you think it'll work for this case?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc.

 

[JagRunner]

I dont care about Epic or Apple. I'm not loyal to any of them. I have Apple products and I don't play fortnite.

But I'm just amazed at the amount of people on here that can't use their phones or do anything on it without apple holding their hands. This "walled garden" How do you people survive when you leave your homes? LOL

 

[rwxx]

Skirting FTC antitrust laws didn't work in the Apple eBook collusion case because of alternative platforms so why would you think it'll work for this case?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc.

Exactly this. People bringing up Android don’t understand this situation on a very basic and fundamental level.