Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
giphy.gif
 
Where is the Apple Countersuit? Apple has every right to sue since Epic broke the TOS, broke the letter of the legal contract.
They wont because they‘ve set the biggest precedence themselves: amazon Prime app.

The rule Apple clinges onto in this matter is the rule that forces all apps that want to sell digital goods, which can be consumed in app (movies, books, music, Fortnite skins etc) to use the Apple payment processor and to NOT advertise any other places (e.g. website) where you can buy said content.

Here comes amazon prime, which allows you to directly rent movies in-app using amazons payment processing as of 2020 (?).

In a fair world, with Apples rules being uniformly applied to every app, amazon would‘ve been pulled too. Reality is that Apple has most likely done behind closed door meetings cutting amazon a special deal for their cooperation (TV integration, Apple Tv app etc).

This is absolutely going to give Epic ammo to use against Apple. Back when the amazon prime payment processing thing broke news I immediately knew, this is going to be used against them sooner or later.
 
This is games I love I buy on disk, and why I still buy blu Ray and 4K Disks of movies I love.

Yeah, sadly though not many do this anymore (admittedly, that includes me). Perhaps if we had same day delivery (and I had an external CD drive) this might become a more viable option.
 
I don't own a single Apple share. I just have a problem people breaking and trying to circumvent agreements that they signed and agreed to, especially if that company is one of the biggest and most powerful game companies in existence. This is strictly about fighting over who's pocket the money goes into, nothing more. Epic and other developers feels they're entitled to 100% of the profit while Apple considers a 30% cut fair for policing and making the App Store possible in the first place.
no its not fair is using thier dominince for nafarious purposes. u seem like one of those guys that would be ok signing such an agreement like oh say several companies deciding not to hire you over a certain amout to keep wages lower instead of letting that persons skills / expericnce dictate price and then finding out a few years later that the agreement u signed was ILLIGAL and unenforceable by law and u realize that big compainies will take advantage if you let them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
spoken the a true Apple Fanboy! I don’t know, I’d like to have a bit more choice over what I can put in the device I paid over 1k for!

but hey, you let Apple dictate what you need and how you get it. No xcloud! We got perfectly fine Apple Arcade that it’s better for you.
When you bought your 1k device was you not aware you could only install apps from the Apple app store? If you didn't know apple have a 14 days return policy so you could have easily returned it and bought a more suitable Android phone
 
Mmmm no, Apple's rules have to follow anti-trust law. So it's not "Apple's rules" just because it is "their store".



Wow, Captain Obvious to the rescue there. Abusive terms can exist in every contract and the law ends up protecting the weak side against them, even if it agreed upon the contract. Let's see who ends up failing epically in the end, but it is not looking good for Apple: it's losing major services and building the grounds for the regulators to intervene them.
The App Stores rules are common in the industry. The fees charged are usual and customary. Just because Epic pitches a hissy-fit doesn't change the reality. Congress can't agree how to write legislation to save the economy, so the likelihood of regulation of the App Stores is a faint and distant threat.
 
Ok devil's advocate here. if true, then why does dev need to rip off people for these pack upgrades for $8 then regardless? For tiny upgrades to the game. Why not $3.99 or $4.99?

Maybe THAT should be regulated that you cant charge $x for a tiny pack of visual updates for your character etc to begin with. If it was a reasonable price for what you get, there would be money for all in it and still be reasonably prices to the consumer without the consumer charged $9.99

If you want some government regulation of some monetary conduct, then that logic follows. It begins a slippery slope.
How is it a rip off, if a consumer decides that is a price worth paying and they think it is not an unreasonable price then how are they ripped off, the consumer does not have to buy these things to still play the game, no one is forcing the consumer to buy. But Apples app store policies mean if they do decide to buy then they have to pay far more than they would if they could pay epic directly.
 
Mmmm no, Apple's rules have to follow anti-trust law. So it's not "Apple's rules" just because it is "their store".



Wow, Captain Obvious to the rescue there. Abusive terms can exist in every contract and the law ends up protecting the weak side against them, even if it agreed upon the contract. Let's see who ends up failing epically in the end, but it is not looking good for Apple: it's losing major services and building the grounds for the regulators to intervene them.

This is a mischaracterization of contract law. Contract law does not protect the weak side unless the terms are unconscionable. Apple charging a 30% fee is not unconscionable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Solomani and ader42
If apple opened up iOS and allowed users to install apps like how you can do on macOS, this wouldn’t be a problem. If it works for macOS, why can’t it work for iOS?
Because Apple makes tons of money out of it and that's why they have been pushing the iPad very hard but not the Macs.
 
I'm not sure that this will help Apple's current App Store lawsuits...
im thinking stored anywhere and verified blockchain purchese but that way far away right now.

I get you but the stores anywhere didn’t work too long for BitTorrent or using that platform for Android TV streaming boxes. What I mean to say is any content not in high demand anymore gets rapidly deleted and purged by all hosts - rapidly by the hosts with THE MOST bandwidth to serve up. While that occurs non of the media playback or platforms (Pc/Mac/Linux/Unix & media players) have lagged in being capable of playing back the media. That’s the problem with hair anywhere too many get to choose what’s available or not and it’s crazy random. You also loose the guarantee with which device & OS (mobile) gets support for any said software when the storefront is non curated. We’ve been seeing that with GPlay Store since Android OS 4.
 
A compliant app will reappear in the store within a couple of days, if not this afternoon. Epic just wants to get Apple on record for anticompetitive behavior that the courts and the various regulatory bodies can then review. They're not stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mal Blackadder
They don't need to convince Apple, just a court of law.


This move is 100% aimed at convincing Apple. Epic would not need to forego a cent of revenue if they decided to go through the courts; in fact, since there are already existing lawsuits, they could either just piggyback on these, file as friend of the court, or just sit back and watch while waiting for a favorable outcome. I think Epic is daring other significant developers to do the same thing, putting direct pressure on Apple's business model.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mal Blackadder
How is it a rip off, if a consumer decides that is a price worth paying and they think it is not an unreasonable price then how are they ripped off, the consumer does not have to buy these things to still play the game, no one is forcing the consumer to buy. But Apples app store policies mean if they do decide to buy then they have to pay far more than they would if they could pay epic directly.

But the line here is this is best for the consumer. So how is a $7.99 shirt pack (or whatever the visual pack is) the best thing to the consumer? Why not $3.99, and make it affordable to the customer end price after the 30%?

Point being Apple isnt the tipping scale to affordable or not; that extra $2. Epic is praying on children and teens to buy overpriced IAPs. They arent saints here. And how easier than input your CC info here on our site linked in our game; no parental controls!!!
 
I believe iOS is unique in that the only way to legally acquire software from it is via an app store. Any other platform that has an online store to get software from also allows software to be added via the internet or physical media.

Physical media doesn't really provide price advantages for customers though. It's typically either the same price or higher for things like games, movies, music and books. Digital, in general, is viewed by consumers these days as the cheaper route. Game console markets, which Epic obviously participates in, are usually just the hardware manufacturer's digital store + more expensive physical versions.
 
I'm sure Apple can afford (and should) at the very least reduce the fees to benefit developer and in turn, end consumer. Yes, you could argue that some of that money goes into improving the app store, digital back-end infrastructure, app marketing, etc, but we know Apple clearly make enough money and could argue are now charging customers/developers for such a service with no viable alternative available. If for example, Apple is making £20 billion profit within in-game transactions alone, and only actually needs £600 million to still be viable, you have to question is that actually pro consumer?

Most of these business are in it for profit. If a service or good is provided at a price that’s higher than cost, it the generates a profit- be it a little or a lot. Said service or good can be argued that it is worth what people (devs) are willing to pay for it.

Devs don’t like it, leave the platform and let the market do its magic. It isn’t like the ability to code is only in demand in this specific sector of enterprise.

Why is this so hard for some folks to understand?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.