Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It would be more like "what if walmart only allowed you to buy things that walmart had an agreement with the vendor to sell? Products that the vendor and walmart agreed on terms of the sale and what cut walmart would get?" Oh wait, that is ALREADY TRUE of every store.
The difference is a vendor could choose to sell their product directly from their production plant or build their own store to sell it if they don't agree with the terms offered by "Walmart"
 
Last time I checked, you can play Fortnite on iOS, Android, MacOS, PC, Xbox, and PS4. So tell me again how it’s a monopoly?
On all of those platforms except iOS it's possible for epic to distribute on their own if they chose to

for Xbox, PS4, and Switch they could manufacture a physical product and choose to bundle (or not) any amount of V-bucks they wanted and charge whatever they wanted, they could choose to sell it through a retailer and accept their cut, or they could choose to sell it directly to customers.

on Android, they can distribute directly, on iOS, they're forced to sell through Apple.
 
Good for Epic. Apples App Store is a monopoly which needs to be addressed. Here's hoping for an Epic (excuse the pun) victory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
On all of those platforms except iOS it's possible for epic to distribute on their own if they chose to

for Xbox, PS4, and Switch they could manufacture a physical product and choose to bundle (or not) any amount of V-bucks they wanted and charge whatever they wanted, they could choose to sell it through a retailer and accept their cut, or they could choose to sell it directly to customers.

on Android, they can distribute directly, on iOS, they're forced to sell through Apple.

No. Physical games sold for consoles still have to pay some % to Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft and won’t be approved if they break their store rules (i.e. by having in-game third party payment methods).

Switch games have to be signed by Nintendo (via their development program) or they won’t load. And they don’t approve every game sent to them, rest assured. I imagine the same to be true for other gaming platforms.
 
This is interesting. Personally I do think that the Apple store terms for developers are a barrier to entry for some companies and applications. that aside it is a clear violation of contract. it explicitly states that you must use our purchase system and Epic chose to forgo that. Now you can argue that 30% is exorbitant and that special cases exist with Uber because of the "physical" goods involved... but clearly epic is choosing to violate here. Just like my local grocery store, if they don't make a sufficient profit on an item, no matter how much I like it... they will no longer stock it. if you remove the 30% apple kickback from the App store, then Apple makes no money on in app purchases made by their users. that is just like in store purchases. if Apple can't make money on Fortnite in their store then they have no reason to keep offering it. The developers even get to set their own prices... Apple just says our margin is 30%, Period.

Long run, I do expect Apple to ultimately lose here. Some judge will take that amazon book store email and the uber situation and twist it into a way that apple is colluding with some of its developers and service providers. end result the anti-trust ban hammer is coming their way.

but it is like a toy manufacturer that makes a toy and has an MSRP of $19.50. They sell the game to the store for $15 because the store says we require a 30% markup. then turns around later and sets up a stand and checkout in the same store, sells the same toy for 19.50 and says to the store. we can do this, so we will. and then the store owner throws them out and all of the original games they bought for $15. no one would ever accept this.... but somehow in the world of digital goods people think this is ok.
 
  • Like
Reactions: techfreak23
Jesus, all these companies complaining and trying to get around the commission. That part of the case against Apple is complete nonsense. Now, how they come up with and apply those policies is the real issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlphaCentauri
You own the phone, not the software running on it.
Do you really own the phone do you own a license to use the software on it? I mean it’s not like you can install whatever software you want on the device. And doesn’t any modification (like a jailbreak) break warranty?
 
A business that gets access to tens of millions of users. Would your business even exist if not for the App store?
I think a lot of the businesses complaining about this would say yes. Digital software distribution existed before 2008.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jonblatho
I use Amazon's iOS app all the time to buy stuff. Apple doesn't get a 30% cut on those purchases. How is this different?
 
that’s all rolled into the height device cost

what does the high device cost have to do with anything? This isn't about the consumer or their devices. Its about the developers. Apple pays a lot of people to review apps and keep the App Store functioning. They have storage and bandwidth costs as well as financial banking transaction costs to cover. They cannot and should not provide the App Store for free without some kind of payment system. A payment system consumers do not feel.
 
what does the high device cost have to do with anything? This isn't about the consumer or their devices. Its about the developers. Apple pays a lot of people to review apps and keep the App Store functioning. They have storage and bandwidth costs as well as financial banking transaction costs to cover. They cannot and should not provide the App Store for free without some kind of payment system. A payment system consumers do not feel.
most of those costs are minuscule by comparison due to scale " the more u store the cheaper it is" apple is a hardware seller those developer costs like reviewing apps making API etc are all rolled into the high cost as those are incentives for people to buy those expensive devices. case in point people come to buy apple hard are because of the software that devs put out take for example if you have ever gotten an app that's on android and iOS and noticed that the iPhone version feels more fluid more put together.

that software experience is what drives sales which are apples bread and butter HW sales.
 
Jesus, all these companies complaining and trying to get around the commission. That part of the case against Apple is complete nonsense. Now, how they come up with and apply those policies is the real issue.
The App Store is, IMO, a monopoly and therefore something needs to be done about it.
 
its not ur opinion its fact. defacto by denying competion it is a monopoly.
Well, until it's been litigated and ruled as such I think it remains opinion. That's why I am pleased with the action Epic has taken.
 
Downloading is a one-time transaction. After the app is downloaded on the user's device, Apple doesn't provide much if any service to the app's users (save for the instant notifications maybe, but that is minuscule).

It's EPIC's game servers that do the heavy lifting server-wise and provide the actual gaming connectivity. So why should Apple take a cut of that, if they don't provide the actual gaming online server/service?

Where were the complaints when Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft took 60% to 70% of every cartridge or disc sold and required developers to pay up-front money to license the SDK's to develop?

Apple made this easy for ANYBODY to make a game and took the commissions and cut them in half (or much less for subscription-based after the first year).

When every game has its own payment system it is:

A) a pain for the user to keep entering their credit card

B) a pain for the user to deal with "what happens if one of 100 developer's credit card databases gets hacked"

C) a pain for Apple to sift through customer support calls when the customer does not know who is charging them by mistake -- especially when their credit card gets hacked

D) a pain for the user to try to manage parental controls to block in-app purchases in 100 different ways for different developers

EPIC should shut up and develop their own platform if they think they can do it. Steam did it on Windows and macOS and it is fairly successful, but their are costs in setting that up. Apple makes it possible for anybody to distribute their apps and games to everybody.

And if your app/game is free, Apple just eats the cost of hosting it, reviewing it and managing the upgrade system to replace the binaries when you release a new version -- that alone is awesome since writing installers and especially upgrade installers and automatic update checking and notification is a total pain in the butt and Apple handles a bunch of that for the developer.

When Nintendo and Sony and Microsoft Xbox and even Atari built their platforms nobody ever questioned whether or not they were entitled to the huge fees they charged. This is 100% spin by EPIC games. Screw Fortnite.
 
Lol. I wonder how many would have chosen $9.99 over $7.99.
A lot. For the savings, I think you have to go to another website login, and buy the Vbucks, then switch back to the game.
For many the convenience of FaceID is worth that 2 measly bucks. lol
 
Can I still play it if I have already downloaded it? What about updates?
You can play, it works for me, but no major app updates. As those go through the Apple iOS AppStore.

but if a new season comes, a new map, or concert or something that big comes out we’re screwed.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.