Apple Reinstates Epic Games EU Developer Account, Paving the Way for Alternative App Store

[jakey rolling]

Same analogy, it's been repeated many times. You go to any store, you buy things. You generally don't see items with multiple prices and re-directs to other stores near by. I think someone could be laughed out of the store if they asked them to post a price for item x that is sold at store B.

And that's fine. If you want to be honest with your analogy - nobody says Apple should be allowing vendors to re-direct to their own store from within Apple's storefront. Apple can absolutely restrict users from being redirected to another store from within Apple's app store.

And I have stated that it should be allowed for the developer to advertise pricing on their site. And via emails to account
holders. "Hey, want to get VBUCKS, go to www.epicstore.com and make your purchase. It will apply to all devices and consoles you login with. I have no issue and I think Apple would be fine with that level of informative ads. But, just not within the app.

Why not within the App? The App is not the store. The App belongs to the developer, not Apple. The fact that the Apple app store exists on a user's device doesn't have any relevance beyond the fact that Apple provides a convenient method for installing apps from its own store. The device and OS are separate entities from the app store and should be treated as such.

 

[hans1972]

Love that expression!

I'm also into silent computing which means I like devices without fans and low-sounding keyboards. And speakers which don't support bass very well.

 

[treacher]

Fortunately, most of the applications I need are in the Mac App Store, and only about 2-3 are outside.

Hey, you're getting it.

 

[I7guy]

Sure in NYC you can't survive without electricity, but that is partially because of Laws and rules that prevent you from modifying your home and installing a fireplace for heating and cooking rather than being an intrinsic problem to NYC.

That’s not the reason at all. Your existence depends on electricity. Think you can be in IT without electricity. Can you be in IT without an iPhone? Yes.

TVs are less important than phones, far less important.

In your opinion.

Try and have a job in the IT sector without a smartphone.

You need a cell phone, cellular chip and computer (aka laptop). I used to do it. And a windows based laptop (even Mac) works way better than any iPhone.

 

[gnipgnop]

The fact that the Apple app store exists on a user's device doesn't have any relevance beyond the fact that Apple provides a convenient method for installing apps from its own store.

??? The App Store is specifically for native iOS apps which run on Apple's 1st party hardware. No iOS/iPhone, no native app. Apple isn't a middle man like Best Buy or Target. Best Buy/Target didn't make it possible for your toaster to exist and you don't need anything from them beyond buying the toaster. Apple has created the entire system that makes it possible for the app to run, hardware and software and store.

 

[treacher]

TV has been regulated since the 50s (started in the 30s), and the government absolutely relied on them being in homes.

 

[gregmancuso]

If I vote for someone for president of the US even if I think one of their policy proposals would be unconstitutional, I still want the Supreme Court to strike down that policy.

Let’s not keep changing the straw man. No where in your hypothetical did you discuss a third party striking down a viewpoint. And you did specifically call them views - not laws.

Just because you think W is unconstitutional does not make it so. Many others who also selected the candidate will believe that W is constitutional and agree with the candidate on it.

You have every right to complain. And perhaps someone will look into the constutionality of the laws underlying the viewpoint. Or perhaps they won’t. You still have to make the choice as the laws and the view are today.

And let’s be clear. The issue at stake here - the forced opening of Apple’s platform is more akin to having a foreign power rewrite the founding documents, ethos, political / operational framework of another country (iOS) to that of another country (Android).

 

[hydrochloride]

Apple has created the entire system that makes it possible for the app to run, hardware and software and store.

Yeah, and they made it in a way so that nobody can bypass them, in contrast to i.e. the Mac.

 

[iOS Geek]

Ok fair enough - you know what you want and that’s ok. Though again, no one is forcing anyone to download other browsers.

I’d say Apple’s greed and sense of entitlement has caused this issue.

When a vast amount of your developers seem to be very unhappy with you, that’s a warning sign.

Vast amount? Gonna need some source on that one

 

[treacher]

Yeah, and they made it in a way so that nobody can bypass them, in contrast to i.e. the Mac.

They were so scared that someone else might make a store, that they blocked streaming game services that might display any kind of store interface or purchasing options at all. Streaming, which doesn't touch the phone or affect security whatsoever.

 

[amnesia0287]

It will definitely happen. The EU commission has already said in ubambiguous terms that basically it looks like Apple is trying very hard to be the first one to be found non compliant with the new legislation. The abhorrent malicious compliant it tried won’t get Apple very far at all, it will just be another humiliating u turn. Poor Apple’s apologists, more embarrassment and disappointment is coming their way.

is that really surprising given the law only really effectively impacts and is targeting Apple? Of course they would be the first to be found non compliant… android already has multiple app stores so the whole point of the law was to force Apple to do the same. What other platforms are even possible targets for enforcement? As far as I’m aware it won’t impact computers, cars, game consoles, etc.

its literally a law to regulate 1 business.

 

[H2SO4]

It is incredibly confusing for normal users. Not the sort of people who post here, but that 100% would result in a confused phone call "which one do I pick" from multiple of my family members.

Tell them to stick to the App Store only unless they are prepared to give up any protections offered by Apple. That's what I'll be telling my elder relatives.
For them, if they are that much of a technophobe they will be fine in the walled garden.

 

[hydrochloride]

is that really surprising given the law only really effectively impacts and is targeting Apple? Of course they would be the first to be found non compliant… android already has multiple app stores so the whole point of the law was to force Apple to do the same. What other platforms are even possible targets for enforcement? As far as I’m aware it won’t impact computers, cars, game consoles, etc.

its literally a law to regulate 1 business.

Reading outside Macrumors could do wonders to you: https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/6/2...n-compliance-deadline-big-tech-policy-changes

 

[hans1972]

I honestly don’t believe I’ve ever read anything quite like this statement in any part of “the free world”. It comes across as rather anti-capitalist / anti-free market.

I'm semi-pro capitalist and semi-pro free market.

Capitalists don't want competition. They want monopolies or companies with a big moat. It the easiest and surest way to make money.

Free market means non-regulated (or at least a minimum of regulation). Are there many free markets? No, very few if any, but increasing government regulations, doesn't make it more free, but more regulated.

Maybe you're confusing free with fair?

I'm certainly not a big champion of government regulations to achieve fair markets when such regulations benefits mostly other companies which are capitalist themselves.

To that end… Apple cannot be both the beneficiary of the liberties a free market affords then create it’s own fiefdom to refuse those same liberties to any whom it deems “unworthy”. This is the ESSENCE of the argument we are all having here.

Apple can indeed be the beneficiary of the liberties of a free market even though itself acts to limit it for others. It kind of follows from the definition of free.

You probably believe there must be some kind of symmetry here.

 

[k995]

Yes, but the EU only makes it worse.

I only use one messaging app, iMessage. It allows me to communicate with everyone I know.

You are just 1 person, there are more users then just you.

And multiple streaming services is bad and the EU is not doing anything to make sure that everything is available from one source.

Why is that bad? We never had more content then now. I dont see that as "bad".
The EU isnt to regulare your pet peeves its to regulate monopolies or companies that dictate a certain market.

Ios and apple is a prima example of this: they abuse there control over 1 market (ios) to avance their other markets (like apple music) .

So my solution is the Apple TV+ app which aggregates all the streaming services I use into one overarching application.

Thats for apple to achieve, the EU isnt again a healthy comition like the streaming market is, on the cotnrary thats the goal.

 

[gregmancuso]

Why? The CTF and Per-install fees are not going to fly. Then Epic does not have to pay Apple anything as involving Apple in any form in deciding who opens the Appstore and how revenues are shared is a no no.

There can be no conditions for Alt Appstores. Any conditions now in place will be removed after DMA starts the discussion with Apple.

Serious question - how, in your thinking, does a fee equate to a condition for an alt store? I admit I have not studied the text of the law as so many here have so if it does state that any platform fees are not allowed please point me to the text.

Being allowed to still secure the platform is allowed and that requires resources. Apple may enforce app signing on all deployed applications, for example. And, iOS is still proprietary platform and may require usage fees separate from App Store fees. The mechanism to date has been using the App Store to calculate the fees but I imagine that was more for simplicity’s sake than because it was a fee specific to the storefront.

Would it be permissible (or better in your thinking) for Apple to have a two-tiered platform license - distribute via App Store @ $99USD / year + fees vs distribute via alternate mechanisms @ $10,000,000 / year with no other fees?

 

[gnipgnop]

Yeah, and they made it in a way so that nobody can bypass them, in contrast to i.e. the Mac.

The Mac is a legacy system that existed prior to digital stores and the internet. And developers can bypass iOS by not developing for it. For example, Fortnite was not originally developed for iOS. It was developed for video game consoles and Windows PCs.

 

[hydrochloride]

The Mac is a legacy system that existed prior to digital stores and the internet.

… and surprisingly it‘s still doing very well in the age of the internet and digital stores. 🤔

 

[hans1972]

I don't think they have the best mobile gaming market for the users. They definitely have the most profitable one but that is mostly because games on iOS are fulled with scummy micro transactions, not just cosmetics but actual slot machine style manipulation.

I said it was good, not the best.

Also, I think iOS might in fact be the biggest one in users after Android and the biggest one in number of playable hours.

But gaming developers are probably more concerned about money than being the best.

 

[hans1972]

Ok fair enough - you know what you want and that’s ok. Though again, no one is forcing anyone to download other browsers.

I’d say Apple’s greed and sense of entitlement has caused this issue.

When a vast amount of your developers seem to be very unhappy with you, that’s a warning sign.

The same could be said about slaves in the Roman Empire too. Very few slave revolts. But then again the slaves didn't have the EU.

 

[gnipgnop]

… and surprisingly it‘s still doing very well in the age of the internet and digital stores. 🤔

Just like all the other systems that were still doing very well in the age of iOS and the App Store.

 

[gregmancuso]

Not all people buy an iPhone because of the wall garden approach.

Perhaps not. But all DO buy it knowing the garden exists and that there is an optional platform that is a free and open field.

 

[amnesia0287]

Vast amount? Gonna need some source on that one

I mean, all developers want to make more money… there is nothing really surprising about that.

The real issue here is Apple doesn’t really make games. Epic does. So epic can go setup a store for themselves where they charge whatever fees they want… or no fees at all. They then make more money on their games and as long as they don’t mind footing the bill to run the store for others, they can force Apple to take a smaller cut, but unless Apple simply stops charging fees, they will never have a reason to go back.

Epic most definitely doesn’t actually care about any other developers success regardless of whatever they may claim.

Much like Apple can run ATV+ and Apple Music at a loss to entice customers, so too can epic run a store at a loss. So they can always undercut Apple. Epic won’t care either way because all they want is their micro transactions to pay out 100%.

Where this becomes a problem is Epic doesn’t care nor have a vested interest in maintaining the performance of your device, it’s security, etc. They would be just as happy if you ditched Apple and for an android as long as you kept giving them money for their games. So if they make Apple look bad, they don’t need to care. If they damage Apple devices reputation, they don’t need to care. Etc.

Which is why the DMA will probably allow the core tech fees to stay and Apple will continue to do everything they can to make using the 3rd party stores inconvenient and painful. Not only are they worried about the loss of App Store revenue, but market share and hardware revenue as well if such stores can make their devices irrelevant.

I think it may well come down to a game of chicken between stores on who’s willing to eat a bigger loss and probably some degree of fragmentation. There is absolutely no chance of the store fees going away entirely as running them does cost money both for servers/storage AND credit processing fees. DMA may be made to protect consumers, but it’s also quite anti business, at least if they rule fees imposed on the 3rd party stores a violation. Since why would Apple bother making devices if another App Store became more successful and they dropped making money on anything but hardware.

 

[hans1972]

Yeah that's like saying the casino that brings in more money than the hobby shop across the street is indicative of what the people want in their city.

If the locals spend much more money in the casino than any other place or store in the city, it means it's important to the people and should play a large role in the city.

What people say and how they behave is often quite different.

 

[gnipgnop]

But gaming developers are probably more concerned about money than being the best.

It's not a coincidence that both Epic and Microsoft started their legal/lobbying campaign against mobile right around the time that mobile gaming revenue got larger than PC/console gaming revenue combined.