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

[Sophisticatednut]

Yup. And that's fair. They should be. That's what keeps them in business. Just be real about it. Stop hiding behind false statements like "innovation" and "monopoly's".

Nobody but ignorant people use the monopoly label, it’s a pointless term with no legal meaning.

Those were the terms everyone agreed to. If at any point they didn't agree with them. They could work with Apple to address them. Pull the IAP out of the app (Netflix and Spotify) and continue to address them with Apple directly or via the courts without making a public stink about it. Just say, we disagree with the terms and we are looking for legal action to remedy it. We will let the courts decide. In the meantime we will pull the IAP portion out of the existing apps, and users will have to continue to subscribe via other means. Nice and simple.

Why? How isn’t using public pressure a legitimate way to push against what they consider:
1: illegal or
2: terrible for business
3: Terri for consumers
4: all of the above

Why is only the silent method the only proper method of communication?

This isn't an entitlement. It's the agreement between Apple and Developers. Apple didn't just show up like the mob and demand a cut of your profits for "protection" against others that will do the same to you.

It’s not in the agreement with the developers and a lie continuously peddled.

When did customers agree to pay Apple a fee for engaging with independent business entities? There’s millions upon millions of customers who gets denied acces to other services without apples blessing. I never agreed to apple steeling my money I want to give to developers. I never agreed with Apple to “protect me” against the big bad developer.

Why not? How much does a physical store charge its vendors for items on the shelf? Everyone of them have different cuts for different things. It's supportable as long as you agree to it. Stop agreeing to it, and negotiate another rate or follow the above steps for other solutions.

Customers haven’t agreed with it and therefore have spoken up the only way they can when money doesn’t talk and feedback is ignored, we use our democratic power to make our voice heard and force a renegotiation of the terms and conditions.

Again why? What changed? None of the prices increased for 16 years. Yet the phone got better and better over that time to offer developers more things they could do with the device. Developer prices went up over the last 16 years for their apps and services. Is Netflix less today than 10 years ago?

Everything god cheaper and none of the savings was given back to customers. Because as every business apple chooses to line their pockets while harming everyone but themselves

T-Mobile has a deal where you can either get Netflix for free (lower tier) or have it save you money if you're already a subscriber at a higher tier. I use it to lower my Netflix bill and in affect save money. Nothing like this exists for Apple and iOS AppStore. That is due because Netflix and T-mobile have a deal in place to allow that. They agreed to whatever T&S, contract etc. They don't have to offer it to another business.

The deal in place for the AppStore existed longer, and developers have made lots of money selling on the store. Now, in the EU they have the opportunity to sell their app on another store or even make their own store. If they agree to the T&S. Seems EPIC is going to create one. And other business is doing one as well. Let's see how long they like the terms.

The issue is customers don’t want Apple as the mandatory middleman dipping their finger in everything where it doesn’t belong without consent and the ability to say no. I already paid for my expensive iPhone, yet im being charged money and Apple wants to shove adds as well as collect my data for advertisement.

Many people didn’t start using iPhones just for it to slowly grow in to Google lite.

Not many years ago zero user data was collected and sent to apple servers for processing. And with the help of EU it will finally be able to return to that without the need of jailbreaking it.

 

[scorpio vega]

I was 100% certain you can't get into details because you were just spreading your hate, rapped in the same tired cliches that come for apple fans that don't have experience with Android 🤣

I own two androids but I have no experience.

Sure Jan.

In your case what does this hate of Android compensate for? I'm curious. I'm trying to figure out what type of human mind would have these thoughts, I for one don't hate any object like that and I would not sacrifice my well-being and health(like you suggested) just to not use a harmless toy, basically.

It’s the fact that you can’t see I was not serious for me. Mate, is everything alright there?

It’s not that deep.

things that aren't true anyway.

They are.

Can I get my glass of apple juice now please?

#1000

No juice for you. We drink whiskey 😂

 

[BaldiMac]

Sort of, my post was me thinking about the ways in which the previous ruling was argued rather than the specifics of that ruling. As I said, Spotify is at a competitive disadvantage vs Apple Music when it comes to account creation and subscription because of this rule. So similar logic to the previous ruling would likely apply.

I think it is a fair critique, they have both the CTF and this commission. They are trying to monetize digital purchases that they have nothing to do with while also monetizing the platform via the CTF.

Choosing to use Apple’s IAP is not a real choice, it’s a fake choice that lets people claim that there are choices when they aren’t real. If Spotify can’t afford to pay Apple’s commission they are never going to choose that option.

Despite Spotify's claims that Apple's terms interfere with competition of iOS, Spotify has a higher market share on iOS than on Android. In other words, Spotify is doing better on a closed platform than an open platform where they had a special deal to reduce the commission to little more than a standard transaction fee.

They aren’t paying a commission for using the store and platform. All physical good apps pay nothing, you can’t argue the commission is fair way of funding the store and platform and then exempt thousands of Apps.

We've already had this conversation.

 

[webkit]

For Microsoft they literally owned the market for desktop OS. In this case, Apple doesn't own the market for music streaming or iOS as the dominate player the EU. The laws being violated in Apple's case is new law. While Microsoft was abusing its power.

Just because one person is doing 150 mph in a 55 mph zone doesn't mean another person doing 85 mph shouldn't also face legal consequences. Apple (with iOS) and Google (with Android) are the only two major players in the mobile OS market and both deserve antitrust scrutiny. Google isn't perfect but allows sideloading, alternative app stores, browser engines, etc. while Apple is "abusing power" by restricting those types of things on the only other major mobile OS. Again, it doesn't matter that terms were agreed to (including MS in the 1990s or Apple today) if those terms violate laws.

Give customers (developers and users) a choice of app stores and let competition help determine "fair" terms rather than restrict competition and choice in a major segment of the market.

And that is perfectly OK with me for them to do so. Just keep out the smack talking and public shaming. Stay on the AppStore and work it out in the courts. It's better that way, as
1) You don't end up looking like a fool if you lose.
2) If it does or does not work out in your favor. You can continue keeping the business running as if nothing happened. Or choose to leave and never go back to the platform.

Not if you're just keeping it to the facts. Not like Sweeney did. Who makes a commercial to show how pissed you are at another company? Then when you lose in court, complain further and on and on.

Just keep it to simple statements such as we disagree with the current T&S and we are challenging them in the court of law. We will remain on the platform throughout and hope to continue doing so no matter the outcome.

So hard?

Spotify may very well have wanted to come to some sort of (private) agreement with Apple but when that didn’t happen, they ended up going the legal route and because they may feel Apple is so much in the wrong chose to make a "public stink" about it to bring more attention to the situation, and not just to help them but potentially others too. This included creating a website to lay out their side: https://www.timetoplayfair.com/

 

[bcortens]

Despite Spotify's claims that Apple's terms interfere with competition of iOS, Spotify has a higher market share on iOS than on Android. In other words, Spotify is doing better on a closed platform than an open platform where they had a special deal to reduce the commission to little more than a standard transaction fee.

So? An act doesn’t become anti-competitive just because the entity being discriminated against succeeds in spite of said discrimination.

We've already had this conversation.

We have - your the one who brought up the commission again being about App Store fees …

 

[M3gatron]

I own two androids but I have no experience.

Sure Jan.

YES, its obvious by your total reluctance to get into any details, it's like you avoid it.
Even if you have those phones it's obvious you don't actually use them.

It’s the fact that you can’t see I was not serious for me. Mate, is everything alright there?
It’s not that deep.

Yeah now you are just backpedalling because you can't support your hate with anything other than "I have these 2 phones".

They are.

OK, prove it, with actual objective data.
You said Android's "ecosystem is terrible". What exactly are you taking about? and what makes it terrible. Actual proof mate, don't forget.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Despite Spotify's claims that Apple's terms interfere with competition of iOS, Spotify has a higher market share on iOS than on Android. In other words, Spotify is doing better on a closed platform than an open platform where they had a special deal to reduce the commission to little more than a standard transaction fee.


We've already had this conversation.

What do you think makes Spotify most money?
9 000 free add supported user or 100 premium user?

Hint: you need way more than that.

It’s very sneak of you, but when you get the app you get a free account, they can’t even tell you what the costs is for the service

Spotify might have more users on iOS, but where is their revenue coming from?

 

[BaldiMac]

So? An act doesn’t become anti-competitive just because the entity being discriminated against succeeds in spite of said discrimination.

You're begging the question here. How could it be anticompetitive if it benefits the competition?

We have - your the one who brought up the commission again being about App Store fees …

No, I didn't. That doesn't even make sense.

 

[scorpio vega]

YES, its obvious by your total reluctance to get into any details, it's like you avoid it.
Even if you have those phones it's obvious you don't actually use them.

Yeah now you are just backpedalling because you can't support your hate with anything other than "I have these 2 phones".


OK, prove it, with actual objective data.
You said Android's "ecosystem is terrible". What exactly are you taking about? and what makes it terrible. Actual proof mate, don't forget.

There’s no reluctance. Only one of us cares and spoiler. It’s not me.

If you want to know my thoughts check my posts from the last 24 hours. I don’t feel like repeating myself about my thoughts on subpar os

 

[M3gatron]

There’s no reluctance. Only one of us cares and spoiler. It’s not me.

If you want to know my thoughts check my posts from the last 24 hours. I don’t feel like repeating myself about my thoughts on subpar os

Thank you for showing once again that beside hate, you have ZERO actual arguments to offer. It's the only reason you hide behind that hole "it's my opinion". It was quite obvious from the start.
Like I've said, you obviously don't know Android.

 

[BaldiMac]

What do you think makes Spotify most money?
1 premium user or 100 free add supported users?

It’s very sneak of you, but when you get the app you get a free account, they can’t even tell you what the costs is for the service

Spotify might have more users on iOS, but where is their revenue coming from?View attachment 2357997

So, your response is FUD and irrelevant pictures that add nothing to the discussion. You're implying that Spotify has a lower premium subscriber rate on iOS. Where is your evidence for that claim?

 

[scorpio vega]

Thank you for showing once again that beside hate, you have ZERO actual arguments to offer. It's the only reason you hide behind that hole "it's my opinion". It was quite obvious from the start.
Like I've said, you obviously don't know Android.

I wish I had your ability to literally create narratives out of nowhere lol. It’s quite hilarious

I’ll say it again. It really is not that deep. It’s not that I can’t. I just don’t care lol.

 

[M3gatron]

I wish I had your ability to literally create narratives out of nowhere lol. It’s quite hilarious

Well just look a few pages back when you were hating on Android, if you already forgot.
The "I would rather walk on glass" one was quite hilarious 🤣😂

I’ll say it again. It really is not that deep. It’s not that I can’t. I just don’t care lol.

Nope, you actually can't. That much is clear and that's your problem there.
I don't understand why you keep replying if you "don't care".
All you do is just contradict what you claim.

 

[djphat2000]

The entire mobile/computing/technology landscape has changed, bringing Apple to the forefront making one of only 2 viable operating systems for modern smartphones. Don’t pretend nothing has changed. Everything has changed. A smartphone replaces a computer (and lots of other devices) for many people and combined they vastly vastly outsell any other type of computing device.

The only change since inception is that Apple and Google are the only 2 major mobile OS's out there. Everyone else failed or wasn't adopted by enough people to matter. The rules existed while other players in the mobile space existed. Any of them could have adapted and made a competing solution. Blackberry, Microsoft, Nokia, SonyEricsson, Palm, etc.
The people and developers picked Android and iOS. The 70/30 price structure worked then, and it works now.
Had the price gone up, you and many others would have a point. But, it did not. The only real change since then is other businesses want to make more money. And that is fine to want to do that. As they should always try to make more.

 

[bcortens]

You're begging the question here. How could it be anticompetitive if it benefits the competition?

The policy in question does not benefit the competition, just because a company makes a product people want doesn’t mean that roadblocks another company puts in the way aren’t roadblocks. An anti-competitive practice is one that gives your product advantages your competitor is not able to access, which this policy does provide to Apple Music. Anti-competitive does not mean that the competition was unsuccessful.

No, I didn't. That doesn't even make sense.

You said

They could and do complain about a lot of things. That doesn't make them right. They have two options for managing subscription in app already. They can move to a third-party app store. Or they can pay Apple a commission for use of their store and platform.

Which directly claims that the commission is to pay for the store and platform - which I dispute and we have already argued about.

 

[bcortens]

The only change since inception is that Apple and Google are the only 2 major mobile OS's out there. Everyone else failed or wasn't adopted by enough people to matter. The rules existed while other players in the mobile space existed. Any of them could have adapted and made a competing solution. Blackberry, Microsoft, Nokia, SonyEricsson, Palm, etc.
The people and developers picked Android and iOS. The 70/30 price structure worked then, and it works now.
Had the price gone up, you and many others would have a point. But, it did not. The only real change since then is other businesses want to make more money. And that is fine to want to do that. As they should always try to make more.

Just because something appears to be working doesn’t mean it is. Apple and Google have all the power which means it is very difficult for App developers to really push back Against this power and fight for fairer practices. A group of companies brought their complaints about the unfairness of Apple’s policies to the EU who were sympathetic to the notion that these companies are artificially stifling competition hence the DMA.

 

[cupcakes2000]

The only change since inception is that Apple and Google are the only 2 major mobile OS's out there. Everyone else failed or wasn't adopted by enough people to matter. The rules existed while other players in the mobile space existed. Any of them could have adapted and made a competing solution. Blackberry, Microsoft, Nokia, SonyEricsson, Palm, etc.
The people and developers picked Android and iOS. The 70/30 price structure worked then, and it works now.
Had the price gone up, you and many others would have a point. But, it did not. The only real change since then is other businesses want to make more money. And that is fine to want to do that. As they should always try to make more.

That’s entirely missing the point. The point is the explosion that these two os’ caused has changed the landscape forever. it isn’t like it was before, and the same rules that were entirely made up by the inventors can no longer be considered fair. As they themselves are not willing to play fair, they must be regulated. It’s about the power that these mega corporations have on everything. It’s absurd. I like Apple as much as the next guy but they cannot become kings.

 

[BaldiMac]

An anti-competitive practice is one that gives your product advantages your competitor is not able to access

Absolutely not. Investing to create a competitive advantage is not anticompetitive. It's competition.

You said

Which directly claims that the commission is to pay for the store and platform - which I dispute and we have already argued about.

You said I claimed "the commission again being about App Store fees". Like I said, that doesn't make any sense. The commission is an App Store fee. That's not in doubt.

But on to what I really said. What's to dispute? I just stated a fact, established in court, that has nothing to do with your "it isn't fair to charge for one thing and not another" argument.

 

[I7guy]

That’s entirely missing the point. The point is the explosion that these two os’ caused has changed the landscape forever. it isn’t like it was before, and the same rules that were entirely made up by the inventors can no longer be considered fair. As they themselves are not willing to play fair, they must be regulated. It’s about the power that these mega corporations have on everything. It’s absurd. I like Apple as much as the next guy but they cannot become kings.

It’s easy to give absolute power to any company and I’ll tell you how it’s done. Easy-peazy. Stop buying apple and buy anything else. Regulating companies on popularity or size is a slippery slope.

 

[I7guy]

Just because something appears to be working doesn’t mean it is. Apple and Google have all the power which means it is very difficult for App developers to really push back Against this power and fight for fairer practices. A group of companies brought their complaints about the unfairness of Apple’s policies to the EU who were sympathetic to the notion that these companies are artificially stifling competition hence the DMA.

By fairer practices you mean use apples ip for free. Create whatever apps they want no matter how immoral. Charge as much as the devs want. That’s what you mean by fairer practices. Or they could go back to the “old” model. Develop for pc.

 

[cupcakes2000]

It’s easy to give absolute power to any company and I’ll tell you how it’s done. Easy-peazy. Stop buying apple and buy anything else.

In a black and white world sure. I agree. But it’s not black and white. It’s not a simple case of voting with your wallet. One wallet out of a sea of billions doesnt matter.

It’s not small town rivalry. It’s not even a big national EvilCorp. It’s two of the biggest companies the world has seen, between them and with the help of the other controllers of consumption, essentially and definitively manipulating the narrative of every aspect of everyone and everything on the planet, steamrolling everything in their path.

It’s never been so clear that the people we actually vote for, the only people we can at least have a semblance of control over, MUST step in.

Sounds dramatic, but that’s because it is dramatic. Not seeing it for what it is, more importantly the potential of what it can become, is naive at best.

 

[djphat2000]

As evidenced by what djphat2000 wrote above, the rules created in 2008 seem sacrosanct to some. I don’t know why they think rules that were created 16 years ago are somehow the best rules of all time.

Fair point. What do you say is the right amount of time before rules need to be changed?
Does anyone(s) reputable have better solution to the current set of rules?
Has 1 or any court or government stated how much is fair for each party to pay and or make? in % or $/euro terms?
What is currently wrong with the 70/30 split?

The context is completely different, Smartphones have a radically different place in the world than they did in 2008, the variety of transactions occurring on the platform is far broader than originally conceived. This arbitrary digital/physical distinction just doesn’t make sense anymore.

NFC, and Wallets. Otherwise, it's "internet communications, phone, and an iPod.

I still don't know what you mean by it doesn't make sense anymore. What's so radically different in transactions from 2008 to now? I bank the same way I did in 2008. On a web browser then, and an app today. Functionally no different from each other and both still work today. This goes for any credit card I have or bank I deal with. Social media, sure there is more of them, but all work via a webpage and or an app. Music, more choices than before but basically the same thing as 2008. I can pay for things using my phone which is great. So change there! And my choice of payment cards with a wallet app is also a new feature. However, I can still use my physical cards which have Tap to Pay feature built in for POS. And websites still take the card number too. New great features in hardware and software. But, nothing I can't do with other things.

 

[cupcakes2000]

But, nothing I can't do with other things.

For now.

 

[djphat2000]

Just because something appears to be working doesn’t mean it is. Apple and Google have all the power which means it is very difficult for App developers to really push back Against this power and fight for fairer practices. A group of companies brought their complaints about the unfairness of Apple’s policies to the EU who were sympathetic to the notion that these companies are artificially stifling competition hence the DMA.

And I applaud them for doing it the right way (within the EU). I still don't for EPIC (in the US or anywhere else).
However, in the case for Apple in the EU, they not being the bigger player in the EU didn't deserve the treatment they got (IMO). They abused no power. As they didn't do anything different from inception. It was the same rules when they were the smallest player in the park til today.

 

[I7guy]

In a black and white world sure. I agree. But it’s not black and white. It’s not a simple case of voting with your wallet. One wallet out of a sea of billions doesnt matter.

It’s not small town rivalry. It’s not even a big national EvilCorp. It’s two of the biggest companies the world has seen, between them and with the help of the other controllers of consumption, essentially and definitively manipulating the narrative of every aspect of everyone and everything on the planet, steamrolling everything in their path.

It’s never been so clear that the people we actually vote for, the only people we can at least have a semblance of control over, MUST step in.

Sounds dramatic, but that’s because it is dramatic. Not seeing it for what it is, more importantly the potential of what it can become, is naive at best.

I don’t agree. I am totally against micro-regulation. It has never been so clear what bad legislation the dma is. But at any rate, it’s a given we dont agree.