They wont because they‘ve set the biggest precedence themselves: amazon Prime app.Where is the Apple Countersuit? Apple has every right to sue since Epic broke the TOS, broke the letter of the legal contract.
You have to do it outside of the app itself. Those are the rules.....How is this any different than buying Netflix or any other subscription outside the AppStore?
Ok this was the push i needed, these Apple devices are the last ones i bought.
This is games I love I buy on disk, and why I still buy blu Ray and 4K Disks of movies I love.
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?
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.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.
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 phonespoken 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.
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.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.
Until the next update you can't get on iOS and the game stops working.how is it gone? everything is still there as part of your account.
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.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.
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.
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.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?
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.
They don't need to convince Apple, just a court of law.
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.
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.
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?