Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Removes Fortnite From App Store [Update: Epic Files Lawsuit Against Apple]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But, with so many customers choosing Apple’s hardware, the ONLY way to increase market share of rival hardware is to literally force folks to not buy Apple. Since no one is going to take the personal responsibility to not buy Apple (“Yes, Apple should have less marketshare as it’ll increase competition, but, you know, OTHER people should buy other products... I’m going to buy Apple”), then the government needs to step in to regulate how many iPhones and iPads get sold.
If the sticking point really is “Apple has too much marketshare in the US”, then it’s a fairly simple resolution. It will take time to reduce their share, but it could be done with just a few small tweaks.
The problem with that is that within the iPhone’s lifetime, there have existed other OS’s and ecosystems. There’s no reason to believe that by creating a plethora of options that folks will choose anything other than iOS (because they haven’t before). So, you HAVE to curtail the iPhone. And, possibly, introduce subsidies, like those provided to farmers, to prop up the competition.
This right here is silly. The *reason* that all those other options failed is because people *like* iphone and people do *not care* about “choice“ in app stores and such. They actually *like* the benefits that derive from apple’s locked down approach. So the idea that you “have to curtail” the iphone because people like it too much is silly.
Epic understands that it was a breach of contract on their part and is not looking forward to get the same contract back. What Epic aims with this move is to ascertain that such a contract was illegal in the first space. Which happens if Apple is found guilty of using their power to impose contracts / rules that are found anti-competitive considering their power over the market, including power driven by their market share in the mobile devices space.
You see. If Epic opened their law suit while being in agreement with the contract its position to argue its case would be weaker. By doing this it states “I’m being forced to follow a contract that I don’t agree” and it rises attention ... and press. Is up for Epic to prove why it is being “forced” to follow a contract that it is harmful to their business goals.
This is going to take years.
Last edited:
It is indeed, BUT it is a logical response to assertion that ”the problem is that Apple has too much market share in the US”.
Like that one.
So, if, instead of changing Apple’s business practices, they curtail the number of iPhones sold in the US, then Apple’s market share drops, they no longer have the same position in the US and problem solved! Apple’s very existence and ability to be purchased in the US is destroying competition in the US! Sure, other companies COULD step up and challenge Apple, but, as they don’t seem to be able to for whatever reason, the only sure fire way to decrease Apple’s marketshare is to prevent the sale of too many iPhones in the US.
I’m being forced to follow a contract right now that I don’t agree with in my apartment. SO, I think the best solution is to stop paying rent and sue my landlord. It’ll definitely raise attention and likely press. And I’m ABSOLUTELY certain I can prove that following the contract is harmful to my life goals as it takes money out of my pocket that I could use to buy a car (which, incidentally, will ALSO be a contract that I don’t agree with).
That wouldn’t take “years” for any court to figure out
and this won’t, either. Epic, like Hey before them will eventually release an app that is in compliance, be back on the App Store and that’s it.
I am thinking you have a good point here.
If there are two profit-seeking landlords nationwide, sharing 99% of the total rental market between them.
ORRRR, just cap the number of phones they can sell in the US to something more reasonable, like 2 million. At least for 5 years or so, to decrease their marketshare.
SO, I hadn’t thought about this BUT you’re absolutely right. If Apple used their large amount of money and large app presence to lower the rate to something that’s unsustainably low for a competing Android app store to support, it would drive developer interest in iOS and potentially crush the ability of Android app stores to pull any profit at all. That would, indeed, be monopolistic behavior. Good one.
No no no, it doesn’t matter how many there are in the country because right here, on this block, THIS apartment complex has a 100% monopoly on this location. I’ve tried to lease from the apartment complex down the street, but they want me to actually MOVE to their property. I’ve not interest in being on their property because all my stuff is right here, I just want a better deal, something more reasonable, like $75 dollars a month. If I stop paying and sue them, I’m sure they’ll see things my way.
I didn’t remember Ambiance, but they didn’t want to release a 64-bit version? I mean... it plays audio. It CAN’T have been incredibly difficult. EDIT: Just searched, they built their app with a 32-bit framework that didn’t get migrated to 64-bit when Apple required it. It couldn’t work on todays iPhone processors anyway. I doubt this developer left the platform because they couldn’t deal with the 30%, they’ve been gone for awhile.
Yeah, but we all know that no one can run a company on 700M...
Actually, no refunds if Apple remotely removes the app. Standard refund policy applies for App Store which is no refunds, period unless it’s extraordinary circumstances. Remote removal of app is not considered “extraordinary circumstances”
How about you pay your 30% tax and leave me alone? But Apple doesn't leave me alone, and your support continues to enable Apple to force me to pay for an unfair deal. If there is any real competition, consumers can bargain the 30% tax to at most 5%, or perhaps less. The problem is that the current deal is the result of monopoly.
Developers will lower their price in competition with each other because consumers prefer lower costs.
So you think it's ok for a laptop manufacturer to degrade certain capabilities of the device so that they can cut a deal with another party. Not sure if that violates antitrust laws. I think it's so grossly anti-competitive that it should be illegal.
They learnt nothing from Steam vs Epic Store last yr. Epic pulled the same with last yr with Steam store, saying they will not pay Steam the steam tax and would instead launch their own games on Epic store. Unfortunately there aren't many buyers.
This is the same old tactic they pulled with Steam store what's new? They said they won't release Epic games on steam and won't pay the high steam charges and instead started the Epic Store that have hardly any takers. Now they are trying to pull the same with Apple/Google. Why do people forget all this?
I think your point about cutting a deal with another party is different to the point I’m making, if you’re talking about consistency and transparency then I’m all for that.
The point I was trying to make is that say for instance Dell decides to market a new laptop but you can only get apps from it’s store, they promise a better experience in terms of security and performance but at the offset of flexibility, as a consumer I want the right to choose that, this is how I feel about apple and the AppStore, as above I’m all for ensuring fairness, but I don’t want side loading etc, for me if you want that then go android, let the people who are happy with the trade off talk with their wallet.
if Apple ever gets to 90% market share and there isn’t a viable alternative then my position might change, for now the AppStore needs to evolve but not fundamentally change.
Last edited:
1. I don't deny that exclusive control of App Store might have potential benefits for consumers. But Apple abused that control for their own interests: There is no justification (in terms of degrading App Store's potential benefits) for pulling Fortnite out merely because it offered another in-app purchase option. That option does not degrade any of App Store's alleged provisions of security and performance. It merely shows that Apple will do whatever it takes to ensure their 30% tax gets paid. Apple does not want to cut a fair deal with developers. Apple wants to maintain their gatekeeper position so that they can sabotage competitors and charge an excessive tax way above the market level. Apple built the ecosystem not to benefit you, but to benefit themselves. If they really just wanted to provide security and performance for a fair price, they would go work a deal and lower their tax.
2. Nobody is forcing you or asking you to sideload anything. Some people are asking that they can do that themselves. Their request does not impede you from enjoying the supposed benefits of App Store.
There are two sides to all of this.
> But Apple abused that control for their own interests: There is no justification (in terms of degrading App Store's potential benefits) for pulling Fortnite out merely because it offered another in-app purchase option.
Apple didn’t abuse that control. Developer had a tantrum didn’t want to follow the rules, took their toys and left the sandbox.
> That option does not degrade any of App Store's alleged provisions of security and performance. It merely shows that Apple will do whatever it takes to ensure their 30% tax gets paid.
Companies that are about the money first and customers second, like Enron, end up as Enron and not with a valuation of $2T. I’m not saying the people/critics don’t have their views, but that doesn’t seem to jive with the majority.
> Apple does not want to cut a fair deal with developers. Apple wants to maintain their gatekeeper position so that they can sabotage competitors and charge an excessive tax way above the market level. Apple built the ecosystem not to benefit you, but to benefit themselves. If they really just wanted to provide security and performance for a fair price, they would go work a deal and lower their tax.
2. Nobody is forcing you or asking you to sideload anything. Some people are asking that they can do that themselves.
Your opinion about this, imo, is incorrect. They are entitled to the same cut some of the other purveyors of online digital goods get. Side loading reduces the entirety of the Apple ecosystem, which imo is why Apple doesn’t want it.
>Their request does not impede you from enjoying the supposed benefits of App Store.
It will make a shambles out of the ecosystem, which isn’t good for consumers.
"Making a shambles out of the ecosystem" is hardly any proof that it harms you. In fact, you'll never prove it because Apple will remain the sole developer of proprietary iOS (unlike open-sourced Android) and therefore App Store probably will remain the major distributor. But competition will drive App Store's tax down.
So you are asking to take away freedom from a few consumers, not because their freedom somehow unjustly infringes your rights, but because you don't like their freedom. You're not entitled to such "protection", legally and morally.
We can take this to the extreme, harming the ecosystem could cause devs to leave apple, causing a downward spiral and ruining the resale value (which causes me harm).
So this is not up to me to decide, and I've already voiced my views. However, I don't understand why people care so much about apples margins and app store fees. Nobody but a dev should care.
To me if people feel constricted there is android. But don't go into the ecosystem, knowing what the way it works and then determine it's an unfair monopoly. Start out on a different platform.