Apple Removes Fortnite From App Store [Update: Epic Files Lawsuit Against Apple]

[sigsegv]

Owning a store is not a monopoly. I can’t walk into walmart and start selling stuff on my own.

That's not what antitrust is about. Read about the Microsoft case and the Sherman Act. The store is just a tool.

If you want to focus on brick and mortar stores, imagine if half of the US was governed by Walmart, and half by Target. Imagine if you lived in the Walmart half and Walmart permitted no other stores in their states and added 30% to the cost of everything. Target did the same. Any competitors stores were banned by law.

Now the arguments that people are making are "well, you are free to move to the Target side of the country"

In the case of Apple and Google the market is the smartphone market.

I'm not sure if you remember the Microsoft vs DOJ case in 1998 - the arguments were all about what software Microsoft allowed PC manufacturers to ship on their platforms. At the time Microsoft had terms and conditions that prohibited any manufacturer that wanted to ship Windows from shipping anything competitive. They lost big time.

Apple has even more control than that today.

 

[jole]

That's not what antitrust is about. Read about the Microsoft case and the Sherman Act.

Microsoft had a dominant market position. Apple does not have a dominant market position.

 

[Shanghaichica]

i understand what I bought very well dude. I have owned every flagship iPhone since 2007. And also know that market evolves. Now it is about content and the ability to consume and create your content seamless in every device.
Apple restrictions might have been acceptable in the past, but they’re not anymore and other companies are raising their hand. Microsoft, Epic, etc. I will definitely skip the years phone for the first time, unless these changes. I love the Devices, but Apple as company gets worse and worse

Epic are just being greedy period. On the App Store I might have given some creedance to their argument. Yes developers should pay to have their app on an App Store but there is always the question of how much. Maybe 30% is too much and could be reviewed. For an Apple app it’s the App Store or nothing. So there is the argument that on iOS the developer doesn’t have a choice and are bound by Apple’s rules even if they are harsh.

However on android users can get apps from outside of the playstore. Side loading is easy to do. Epic took full advantage of this when they launched fortnite on android. They did not launch it on the play store. They launched it exclusively on their own website. This went on for almost a year. Then for whatever reason they decided they wanted to put the app on the playstore. By doing this they are agreeing to all of Google’s terms and conditions, because unlike on ios there is an alternative if they don’t ageee. An alternative that they had actually been using and had decided that they needed the playstore. For them to now try and cheat and cut google out and just shows they are greedy. They want to use an App Store and not pay a dime to the vendors. That’s what it comes down to. It’s not about wanting a lower cut or not having an alternative. They just want to cheat.

 

[Rogifan]

So why exactly did Epic sue Google for the exact same thing? Greed. They make money off of pre-teens who are syphoning hundreds or thousands of mommy’s and daddy’s currency every year! Fortnite the game is by itself a billion dollar business. This is not about anything but Epic wanting to make more money off unwitting children and adolescents. Nothing more.

Rewind 20 years and Epic would be paying 60-70% just to get their game distributed at all and be happy to pay it!

Um, do you know how much money Apple makes of game IAP? Obscene amounts. It’s probably the biggest percentage of their services revenue.

 

[theotherphil]

First of all, I don't think the consumer knows what limitations the product they are buying truly has because they don't care. This doesn't affect the consumer as much as it affects developers, although there would probably be WAY more interesting and varied apps if you could load any app onto your iOS device as compared to what apple allows on the App store.

If you were buying a new computer back in the 90s, you had many options for operating systems. But Microsoft threatened to revoke the license from manufactuers to sell windows if they dared to bundle their computers with another OS such as WarpOS by IBM for example. Most consumers didn't know there were other options, they just bought a computer with windows because thats what all companies were selling. In essense, there were no other options. What apple is doing is even worse. You literally have NO options for sideloading apps onto your phone. Its their way or the highway. Its true, most users don't care. But developers care, they just have no other option.

The difference here is Microsoft was creating a monopoly by nefarious means....forcing oems to preinstall windows with threat of losing access to their software.

Apple own both the hardware and software (the platform). Apple aren't forcing other manufacturers to either install iOS or the App Store. Apple do not have the dominant position in any market that they operate and are not disadvantaging other manufacturers from getting ahead. Indeed, Apple's ecosystem is MORE expensive than their competitors such as Android/ Google/ Samsung - which means that THEY have all the advantage. People are choosing to use Apple DESPITE the increased cost which implies that Apple ADDS value over their competitors. Ultimately, Apple own the platform, don't even have to offer an App Store on iOS and are not required to allow anybody else to either.

By very definition of the above, the Sherman Anti-Trust law that keeps getting bandied about here doesn't apply in this situation. Apple is getting ahead by producing products and services that are attractive to users DESPITE cheaper alternatives. This is the very definition of competitive.

 

[Rogifan]

From Arstechnica

An Apple App Dev posted views on 30%

DOOManiac Ars Tribunus Militum
REPLYAUG 13, 2020 11:09 AM

• POPULAR

I don't know about Android, but this is absolutely 1000% against Apple's rules for doing in-app purchases on their platform. I'm curious to see how fast the ban hammer comes, and how this plays out.

[edit]
Well that didn't take long. Seems this whole thing was scripted from the start...
[/edit]

Given the work-to-cut ratio, 30% may have been fair a decade ago when there wasn't a new app every 10 seconds and you actually got something out of being on their store, but these days, with the economies of scale being what they are, its just way too much. Especially on in-app purchases.

But I do want to dispel the myth that Apple/Google/Steam are doing "nothing". Here's what me and my fellow developers are getting for our 30%:

- Credit Card transaction processing
- No liability from credit card processing. This is a big deal so I list it twice.
- Handles all refunds, stolen credit card chargebacks, fraud
- Placement (even if buried) on an easy to use store used by millions of customers
- Fast, reliable hosting & distribution on global CDNs
- Scheduled release times, possibly staggered by region
- Regional pricing (sometimes automatic)
- Platform services (user logins, leaderboards, in app purchases, authentication, anti-piracy measures)
- Maybe 5 minutes of marketing as your app/game shows up in the "new" section for the blink of an eye on launch day. Maybe.

Every time I get upset about the 30% cut I remember all this - especially credit card legal liabilities - and I am fine with it again. Would prefer if it was only 15% or 20%, but I would much rather have the status quo as it is now than have to deal with that mess myself.
Last edited by DOOManiac on Thu Aug 13, 2020 4:23 pm
Up +104 (+116 / -12) Down

Every time I see someone post something this I have to ask then why doesn’t every developer have to pay 30%? Why are 84% (according to Tim Cook) of the apps in the App Store “free”? I’m assuming some of the items mentioned above also apply to free apps. But Apple doesn’t require every app to cost something, doesn’t require IAP for all purchases. And if someone big enough threatens to leave Apple just creates a new policy for them so they don’t leave.

Maybe the question we should be asking is does the App Store need to make money? Steve Jobs originally said it wasn’t Apple’s intention to make money off the App Store. What if Apple ran it at break even knowing that the value of the App Store is that it makes their hardware/platforms more desirable? What if Apple charged developers based on what it cost to maintain the App Store rather than rent seeking? And every developer paid something. Not what we have now where a small percentage of apps subsidize the rest. I mean does it seem fair that Netflix pays nothing but some indie/niche app has to give Apple 30% of every IAP? What Phil Schiller should do now that he only has the App Store is pull a team together and come up with what the App Store of the 21st century should look like. Implement changes before regulators force them on you.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

oh and about owning the OS thats debateable at this juncture it would take a judge some serious time to debate that as when u buy a phone such as this u cannot use another os its tied to the hard ware it could be said that since a proper functioning phone as demonstrated by apples commercials that the software and hardware are merged and it could be extrapolated that all MOBile phone EULAs are null and void and unenforceable. that is the kind of thing that COULD be decided becouse of this case which has a **** ton of appplications say a telsa or a johndeer tractor all of it its exciting that we could possiblelly see the begenning of say outright ban on certain EULAs

I say this as a DEV

Yup, and the END of any incentive to develop vertically integrated hardware and software technologies, which would be DEVASTATING to tech innovation in all the exciting industries today - and a major setback for CONSUMERS as well.

Your argument is crap anyway - extrapolating it out, as a “Dev” you would have to give the consumer full ownership of your software simply because they bought a copy of it. I really don’t think you want that, do you? If that was established, the entire book of copyright law would have to be rewritten. Media like music, TV, and Films would have to transfer ownership to each consumer simply because they bought a copy of it.

There is definitely a case for asking the hard questions about why iOS/iPadOS T&C’s should be any different than macOS T&C’s and why the app distribution model should be any different there.

However, the App Store in itself there is nothing wrong with. Epic has overplayed their hand here I think, when they also sued Google with an almost identical suit, and Google does allow 3rd party app stores - it shows that this is about money for Epic and nothing else.

 

[frownface]

Why does this seem remediated?

 

[Karllake]

However, the App Store in itself there is nothing wrong with. Epic has overplayed their hand here I think, when they also sued Google with an almost identical suit, and Google does allow 3rd party app stores - it shows that this is about money for Epic and nothing else.

Completely agree, I’m interested in what people would think if I advertise to sell a product on amazon and get all the benefits of the amazon website but then request direct payment so amazon makes nothing, is that fair? Is amazon anticompetitive by asking for a cut, I can’t understand the argument that Apple should not charge anything, 30% seems fairly industry norm but there’s room for discussion

 

[EfratBarTal]

This is arm wresting - and Apple’s arm is bigger.

 

[Abazigal]

Maybe the question we should be asking is does the App Store need to make money? Steve Jobs originally said it wasn’t Apple’s intention to make money off the App Store. What if Apple ran it at break even knowing that the value of the App Store is that it makes their hardware/platforms more desirable? What if Apple charged developers based on what it cost to maintain the App Store rather than rent seeking? And every developer paid something. Not what we have now where a small percentage of apps subsidize the rest. I mean does it seem fair that Netflix pays nothing but some indie/niche app has to give Apple 30% of every IAP? What Phil Schiller should do now that he only has the App Store is pull a team together and come up with what the App Store of the 21st century should look like. Implement changes before regulators force them on you.

I like this line of thinking, but am not sure that developers would be happy paying any amount to Apple that is basically greater than 0%. You lower it to 25% or 20% or even 15%, people may rejoice for a while, then once that becomes the "norm", they get complacent and greedy over time and start clamouring for 10% or 5%. Before long, we would be having this same conversation all over again.

I guess this also raises the question of just what this mystery "break even" point even is, or if the App Store even needs to break even. For example, services like Maps, Siri and iMessage clearly don't generate any money on their own, but they help differentiate Apple's product offerings from the rest of the competition, and it's assumed that they pay for themselves by helping to sell more Apple products.

We know that the App Store is definitely profitable right now, but we don't know by how much. What if say one day, Apple reports show that it takes a 20% cut on average from every developer in order to break even (or maybe generate a small modest profit). Would knowing this make developers fork over that 20% more willingly, or will it just flip into a "Apple is so rich, they can well afford to run the App Store at a loss using iPhone profits and just let me keep my 100%?" instead?"

And if Apple were forced to allow alternative payment methods (meaning that more users can circumvent iTunes and decrease their earnings), the only other way Apple can make up for this shortfall would be to increase the annual developer fee. From $100 to $200 or maybe even $500? Companies like Epic or Netflix have no problems shelling out this minuscule sum, but it's your small-time developers would be hardest hit.

Steve Jobs has said a lot of things, but we will never know just how sincere he was about them, or if he could even envision just how big Apple (and the App Store by extension) would become one day. I imagine that if he were still alive today, he need only give one fiery impassioned speech and everyone here on Macrumours would be falling over themselves to support Apple and denounce Epic. If you ask me, that's really the only thing Apple lacks today - a charismatic leader to rally around.

 

[darkcompass]

This only hurts the users, neither Epic or Apple are short of case.
Talking solves so much, maybe it is time to drop that 30% to 5%, or even lower, depending on revenue.
With Apple Silicon on the horizon, the opportunities for developers will become a lot more open. It's surprising that these two firms cannot see the bigger picture.

 

[gnasher729]

In case it wasn't mentioned elsewhere: Fortnite was _first_ removed from the Google Playstore and is suing Google, for the exact same reasons.

 

[gnasher729]

My understanding is that app already downloaded will still function. Updates will stop as they are done through the App Store.

Apple _can_ kill an app on your phone. You would expect that to happen if Apple found out that the app is malware and removing it is in the best interest of the end user. Clearly not the case here.

The situation here is "your app had inactive features, and we would never have let it on the AppStore if we had known about these features. You now activated them." So Apple _might_ remove Fortnite from users' phones, if Fortnite doesn't stop doing what they're doing. And Apple's lawyers might be looking at whether they should refund in-app purchases to users in this case (and per contract that money would have to be paid 100% by Fortnite).

 

[gnasher729]

You're not forced into buying an Apple product, that's the choice. Don't like Apple's product? Buy a ***** Android.

Fortnite has been removed from the Google Playstore and sued Google - before Apple removed them from the App Store! So buying an Android phone isn't going to help. Not giving a company money for virtual goods, that's going to help.

 

[matt_and_187_like_this]

Love it, hilarious.

 

[Reindeer_Legal]

For those defending Apple, so you willingly paid premiums for a phone just so that Apple could extract more money by controlling what apps you get to install?
The fact is simple: developers would charge less if not for Apple's tax. If you want to send your money to Apple for nothing, buy their pricey HomePods and Watches.

 

[Reindeer_Legal]

Completely agree, I’m interested in what people would think if I advertise to sell a product on amazon and get all the benefits of the amazon website but then request direct payment so amazon makes nothing, is that fair? Is amazon anticompetitive by asking for a cut, I can’t understand the argument that Apple should not charge anything, 30% seems fairly industry norm but there’s room for discussion

If the vendor has a website, you can buy from them directly. Suppose you bought a laptop produced by Amazon, and the laptop forces you to do online shopping only on Amazon, how's that like?

 

[mrcloaked]

People want access.

 

[Piggie]

A Question.

If I made an App, let's say a game, and made it free on the App Store.
So, ok for far.

Then I allowed people to buy expansions, skins, all sorts of in-app things via my website.
But I did not mention this at all in the app.

But spent a ton of money all over the Internet, social media and the news to tell people how to come to my site and buy all the stuff (no 30% cut)
Then is Apple still going to allow the free app to remain?

Remember I'm not putting any in-app purchases actually in the game, nor any payment options in my App.
Or any mention of payments in the app.

 

[fmillion]

I don't see what's wrong here. Apple made policies that developers disagree with - whether that disagreement is "good" or "bad" isn't the issue. Epic in turn said "Screw you" and challenged said policies. Apple responded by removing the app. Epic responded by rallying its player base. It's actually quite clever on Epic's part - they have a large player base and a lot of PR power, so they are ideal to be the champion for those arguing against Apple's policies.

Yes, "Apple's store Apple's rules", but this is exactly how the free market works. Apple isn't really doing anything wrong, but neither is Epic. Epic knew the consequences and calculated this move. Both sides are testing their customer bases to see what they will accept. Will Apple customers protest Epic and demand they surrender to Apple's demands (and understand that extra cost comes with that) because having the game on iOS is more important to them than cost? Then that's what the customers want and Epic should give in - if the customers are willing to pay more to Apple, then so be it. But on the other hand, will customers protest Apple because their favorite game was pulled? Will they purchase Android devices to play Fortnite and then possibly discover other benefits of Android? Then Apple will be forced to decide - worth the bad PR and possibly losing those customers?

Epic filing a lawsuit is honestly just PR anyway at this point. We know lawsuits take years to process. Even the government investigations are going to take years. People who read Mac news hear about these things, but a move like this on Epic's part will bring the issue to the attention of a lot more people. The immediate short-term issue (Fortnite not being on iOS) is going to have a MUCH stronger impact on what happens. Not to mention xCloud and so on - iOS is basically killing itself as a platform for serious gaming. A lot of gamers tend to be quite proactive and vocal about gaming issues, so this actually could produce a measurable impact on Apple's bottom line. I can't fault Epic for refusing to "sit down and shut up".

(BTW, everyone who says "developers benefit from the App Store, and that's why they should pay 30%" - anyone ever consider that sometimes it works the other way as well? Imagine if Facebook violated an App Store policy and Apple made that argument - would Apple honestly be able to tell us that Facebook owes its success to Apple? Facebook existed before the App Store did, and they have far more users on Android and even on PC platforms - Facebook is not "successful" because of iOS, I'd even argue iOS is successful partly because of Facebook's presence. Imagine a mobile platform without access to Facebook - how well would that platform do in today's ecosystem? Apple needs to start acknowledging that the iOS platform wouldn't be what it is without the developers and their efforts and stop taking all the credit.)

 

[sirozha]

Developers have no inalienable constitutional right to sell software on iOS, or any other platform.

Who said that it’s a constitutional right? There are other laws besides the constitution.

 

[sirozha]

But I won't be able to have my site on Squarespace. Just like me going to another host, you can go to Android.

Bad analogy. By blocking you from
the Apple platform they cut off your revenue. When you host your web site with another provider, the same people can still access your web site, so there is no revenue loss to you.

 

[sirozha]

So why exactly did Epic sue Google for the exact same thing? Greed. They make money off of pre-teens who are syphoning hundreds or thousands of mommy’s and daddy’s currency every year! Fortnite the game is by itself a billion dollar business. This is not about anything but Epic wanting to make more money off unwitting children and adolescents. Nothing more.

Rewind 20 years and Epic would be paying 60-70% just to get their game distributed at all and be happy to pay it!

Epic’s suit against Google will be dismissed.

 

[Abazigal]

For those defending Apple, so you willingly paid premiums for a phone just so that Apple could extract more money by controlling what apps you get to install?

I pay a premium for Apple to vet and curate their App Store so I have a trusted and secure place to download apps from. I know that because Apple wields absolute power over their App Store, they are able to get developers to adhere to their rules and guidelines and (generally) toe the line and if they don't, then they lose access to me, the end user. And because I am the customer, these rules tend to favour me. All of which come together to create a better user experience for myself.

I also acknowledge that doing so entails a lot of money and resources on Apple's part and it is not unreasonable for Apple to attempt to recoup their expenditure in some form.

How much Apple goes on to extract from these developers is, frankly speaking, inconsequential to me because as I will proceed to explain below, I believe the final price of the app would have been the same anyways regardless of whether there is a 30% App Store cut or not.

The fact is simple: developers would charge less if not for Apple's tax. If you want to send your money to Apple for nothing, buy their pricey HomePods and Watches.

The simple fact is that if consumers are willing to pay $9.99 for an app, they will do because that's what the app is worth to them. As a developer, knowing this, why would I charge less if I know that people are going to buy it regardless of whether I price it at $10 or $7?

What you probably mean to say is that developers could in theory charge less and still earn the same amount of money, but in reality, I am willing to bet that most won't.