Apple Says Epic Games 'Wants Us to Be Android, But We Don't Want to Be'

[Krizoitz]

The problem becomes, I want that switch… I need that switch, I have a right to that switch.
it is my device I should be able to do with it as I please,

No, you don’t have a right to that switch. You bought an iPhone knowing what it’s capabilities were. If you didn’t like them you should have bought something else or nothing at all.
Meanwhile once you buy the device, fine, do whatever you want with it. No one is stopping you. But that’s not what you are demanding, you are demanding more, you are demanding that Apple devote time, money, and resources to providing ADDITIONAL features just because YOU want them.

 

[Lemon Olive]

Can you please list some of the anti-trust violations you believe Apple has committed?

Selectively permitting Netflix to have an app on the app store that does nothing unless you have an account with them and allowing them to not use Apple's billing system is 100% selective enforcement of the rules "because its Netflix", while other companies Apple doesn't care about or maybe compete directly with Apple's services are not allowed to do the same. This is a flagrant anti-trust violation.

 

[Analog Kid]

What a fantastic question, I’m glad you brought it up. That’s the evidence it’s a monopoly.

It’s like asking why somebody doesn’t just move to another state or country if they’re unhappy with the one they’re in. Yeah, they could, but that requires a massive amount of effort. If I asked you to switch to Android, how much time and money would you have to spend on the transition until your life/routines are back to being as seamless as they are now?

"A divorce is too much trouble for me, honey, so I'm suing for you to change your personality."

iOS hasn't changed its character, it always worked this way. You bought into that ecosystem. It's kind of disingenuous to now say that iOS needs to change and the rest of their user base needs to accommodate that because changing to Android is too much cost or trouble for you.

If, as you say, every other OS does what you want it to do, that's exactly the opposite of evidence of monopoly.

It means you have plenty of choice. If you prefer a different model, it would seem that changing to Android would be easier for you than staying with iOS and trying to change it from within. If you're under the illusion that you can change just the AppStore without changing the nature of iOS itself, I think you're mistaken-- without the review process of the AppStore, and the API enforcement, it's just the Wild West.

Money wise, it wouldn't really cost me that much to change to Android. Maybe $100 in apps? Maybe a bit more. I've spent a lot over the years, but there's really only a handful of core apps I use regularly. Effort? I don't think it would ever be as seamless as my current routines-- that's why I don't want to change from iOS and why I don’t want iOS to change from iOS.

 

[hans1972]

But that change absolutely nothing? Nothing prevents Football Manager to be available through the App store today. I have plenty of games on Steam I bought through GOG just to avoid using it.

What prevents this game for being on the Mac App Store is that the developer has several other choices: Steam and their own website.

If Mac App Store was the only choice, it would be much more likely to be on the Mac App Store.

 

[Krizoitz]

Another issue rarely mentioned is, that Apple also enforces their license on Apps, e.g you can't release a GPLv2 and GPLv3 licensed Apps in AppStore. Just another reason why sideloading must exist. Things like brew.sh will never be possible with the current iOS/iPadOS lock-in.

And? You don’t have some inherent right to brew.sh on an iPhone. You seem to be confusing what you want for what you have a legal right to. These things are very much not the same.

 

[Ethosik]

Wow…talking about something going over someone’s head.

Just because there could be numerous stores doesn’t eliminate the “original one.” All the software is still available in Apple‘s app store and despite potentially numerous other stores to pick from, nothing precludes you only ever shopping in Apples store…you remain in the protected enclave and nothing dirty can get in.

However, of course the real concern for Apple is that these other stores might have much lower hosting costs and the potential for developers to start developing exclusively for the store taking the lowest cut. Despite all the rhetoric about people consciously choosing IOS because they want the best, most secure system, once they can get what they want cheaper, they will go there, it’s simple human nature.

You are not understanding the argument here. Epic Games Store is know for purchasing exclusive rights. The game is ONLY available on the Epic Games Store. Not Steam, not Microsoft Store, not GOG. Therefore, if I want that SPECIFIC game, I need to buy it on the Epic Games Store. Follow me so far?

Let’s just say, Epic gets their wish so now we have Epic Games Store on iOS They purchase exclusive rights to some app, it WONT be on the Apple App Store - just like on PC it’s not on Steam.

Still with me? Then you can see how we CANNOT get the app on Apple’s App Store, so we would be forced to lessen our security if we want said app.

Epic’s history has shown that the “original store” won’t have said program available. So the only solution is to use the alternative stores if we want said program.

 

[ComRadMac]

Certainly not in the same league as Borderlands 3 etc

Oh man, wait until he learns that B3 is the worst Borderlands game.

 

[Krizoitz]

What is garbage. I find many apps totally useless, but some needs them. Even some apps made by Apple are a total mess and should be removed from the store according to high standing quality...
A simple very ugly utility app might be incredibly helpful for tens of thousands of people, the dev just simply didn't have 5000$ to throw at a designer for a free app which cost him still 120$ per year to be on the AppStore. It is charity from the developer. Many apps are simply charity from developers.

If we continue in this direction, we should also forbid 99% of the fastfood, which sells not only un-eatable **** but which also cost billions in health issues...

So no thank you. I don't want to loose the choice of apps just because of totally arbitrary decisions of Apple. I'm currently on some specific apps for specific business. Apple prevent me to do this app because of their arbitrary rules. But that's what my customers need and want... Why should Apple prevent the creation of such application only due to their totally arbitrary rules. The companies spends tens of thousands in Apple devices, which now they have to throw because a very simple feature is not possible ONLY because Apple doesn't feel like it...

This only should be enough to force Apple to allow the installation of external signed application like on the mac.

If you don’t like Apples AppStore model get an Android. I wish Apple would make some changes too, as I mentioned, but just because I want something doesn’t mean I act like Apple (or someone else) should be forced to give it to me for no reason. That’s the difference between me and you, you want to force Apple to do it your way, I don’t.

 

[hans1972]

The problem with that line of thinking is there's no guarantee the developer will sell the app via the App Store. The developer might be like "I don't like the rules of the App Store so I won't make a Mac version at all." At least with the way it is, you have a choice to install Steam or not. With App Store only, you don't.

With only one store the likelihood is much smaller.
With a popular platform like iOS there is almost a zero percent probability for a developer to ditch iOS.

 

[Krizoitz]

1. App Store rules change constantly.
2. App Store rules are not enforced equally.

I don't think Epic has a case here at all because they are barking up the wrong tree.

But Apple has opened themselves up to plenty of scrutiny by engaging in selective enforcement for partner companies that do or do not compete with them.

The rules in question here have not changed. IAP has always required using Apples payment system. Apps which sell IAP have always been required to pay a specific cut to Apple. Those are applied equally.
Anyone who bought an iPhone did so with the ability to know that. Apple didn’t promise them one thing and deliver another.

 

[Krizoitz]

Selectively permitting Netflix to have an app on the app store that does nothing unless you have an account with them and allowing them to not use Apple's billing system is 100% selective enforcement of the rules "because its Netflix", while other companies Apple doesn't care about or maybe compete directly with Apple's services are not allowed to do the same. This is a flagrant anti-trust violation.

Actually Netflix does NOT have a special deal, other apps (Kindle) can and do use the exact same model. Epic could if it wanted to as well.
But even if that wasn’t the case, even if Apple did make deals with certain key apps, it STILL wouldn’t be an anti-trust violation since Apple doesn’t have a smartphone monopoly and even if it did it STILL might not be a violation, there are multiple criteria to meet.
But getting back to your Netflix example, companies make exclusive or preferential deals all the time, pretty standard really.

 

[IllinoisCorn]

Anyone can be an expert with the right kind of audience to fill the echo chamber.

That’s probably right.

 

[SuperMatt]

Actually Netflix does NOT have a special deal, other apps (Kindle) can and do use the exact same model. Epic could if it wanted to as well.
But even if that wasn’t the case, even if Apple did make deals with certain key apps, it STILL wouldn’t be an anti-trust violation since Apple doesn’t have a smartphone monopoly and even if it did it STILL might not be a violation, there are multiple criteria to meet.
But getting back to your Netflix example, companies make exclusive or preferential deals all the time, pretty standard really.

Agreed. The statement from the poster you replied to shows a misunderstanding of anti-trust law, and a misunderstanding of the Netflix situation. Apple doesn’t require anybody to have in-app purchases. They can have subscriptions they bought separately and use with the App Store app. They cannot put a link to buy a subscription in the app though unless it uses Apple’s in-app purchasing solution.

 

[Ethosik]

Certainly not in the same league as Borderlands 3 etc

Oh man, wait until he learns that B3 is the worst Borderlands game.

I enjoyed it. I had to buy it on Epic Games Store as that was one of the games they got exclusively.

 

[JMacHack]

This is all smokes and mirrors. Epic has a single objective, to reduce their cost and increase their revenue. That’s it. They only had this “issue” when their revenue is declining, thus they want to see if they can sue Apple and save money (by not giving Apple their cut). That’s it. It’s already shown, even the fact that Epic planned to sneakily circumvent Apple’s ToS via a hot fix. Anybody that still think Epic is in the right or side with Epic are simply blind sighted.

I used to think that but the longer this goes on, the more I wonder if Sweeny actually believes his rhetoric. iOS was such a small portion of total Fortnite revenue that fighting a multi million dollar suit seems crazy.

 

[robco74]

There are also several issues with the competition argument:

• Lower prices aren't always the ideal outcome. See Walmart in the US, where workers make so little and rarely qualify for benefits, that they qualify for government assistance. Essentially, the government subsidizes Walmart's low prices. On the supplier side, Walmart is infamous for bringing representatives to little dark rooms in Bentonville, demanding access to their books, and squeezing the lowest possible prices out of them - often requiring the supplier to lower wages at home, or start shipping jobs elsewhere to compete.
• The race to the bottom will not help indie companies thrive. Several of the existing stores started out selling for an existing developer, then expanding: Valve and Steam, EA and Origin, Epic and EGS, Activision Blizzard and Battle.net. Almost any of these companies could afford to sell at a loss for some time - especially Apple - and keep potential competitors out of the market.

So currently Apple offers its users one portal to get apps, one store to keep payment details and other PII, once central place to easily manage subscriptions, and more importantly, put in place rules to keep apps from vacuuming up as much user data as possible. Sony, MS, and Nintendo offer similar benefits for their users - but they don't even offer the alternative of web apps like Apple does. All of them own their own game studios that make exclusives, and don't have to pay the store fees that independent publishers do. I don't see why this suddenly needs to change after more than a decade. Apple lowered the barriers to developing software for mobile devices, and put more money into the pockets of developers by allowing developers to self-publish, and cutting out the carriers. When the App Store launched, keeping seventy percent of revenues was considered a bargain.

 

[deevey]

I've not heard of any Android malware either and honestly the vast majority of Android users never run into any issues with regards to malware.

Maybe you should try Google - First results:

Android security: Flashlight apps on Google Play infested with adware were downloaded by 1.5m people

Android users looking for simple tools found their devices infected with aggressive LightsOut adware.

www.zdnet.com

Android Security Alert: Delete These Flashlight Apps Now

Request a ridiculous number of permissions

www.tomsguide.com

 

[deevey]

Our consumers don't want that either," she added.

This is actually a really weak argument considering they have the exact opposite stance on app tracking which is give the customer a choice. If consumers want to be tracked they can opt in. If consumers want to side load apps they can opt in. If their customer base really has no interest in anything but using the app store then what's the problem?

Tracking is not going to empty your bank account or start sending your granny p0rn links

 

[ani4ani]

With only one store the likelihood is much smaller.
With a popular platform like iOS there is almost a zero percent probability for a developer to ditch iOS.

Well with only having one store, it is essntially impossible if a developer wants to sell his app to iPhone users.

If a developer could have his app hosted and managed for say half the fee and still sell it to iphone user [i.e an alternate store] he would without question; why wouldn't they? That's the real issue for Apple, it would be a race to the bottom on hosting and distribution fees. That race to the bottom could lead to less privacy and security as a consequence [though not a guaranteed outome] and that is what Apple hangs their coat on. By the same token, Apple has to continue to convince that by paying the higher fees, this guarantees there will be no privcy or security issues, something that is becoming harder and harder to demonstrate.

 

[hans1972]

Bull-****. Apple has already done the engineering and testing to implement it here. It in fact does not open the OS to security holes apple has already solved the problem they make it seem like the world would fall apart if the iPhone had other stores but it wont, pure corporate ********.

And for those wondering im not an apple hater Im an apple hype-beast apparently.

But there still must be an entity to make decisions and those decisions has to follow certain rules.

If everyone can get a developer ID and get it signed it is almost as if no-one has it.
Who decides when such a signed ID certificate should be revoked? If it's Apple what rules should they follow?

Let's say Apple thinks that a game on Epics game store is to violent and graphical real. Should Apple be allowed to revoke the certificate for such a game?

 

[hans1972]

Another issue rarely mentioned is, that Apple also enforces their license on Apps, e.g you can't release a GPLv2 and GPLv3 licensed Apps in AppStore. Just another reason why sideloading must exist. Things like brew.sh will never be possible with the current iOS/iPadOS lock-in.

I thought Apple cared about licenses and they believe that software licensed under the GPLv3 (and probably v2 also) isn't compatible with being on the App Store.

So they are in fact helping the original developer and the developer using the code to upheld the license.

How can this be bad?

 

[Lemon Olive]

Agreed. The statement from the poster you replied to shows a misunderstanding of anti-trust law, and a misunderstanding of the Netflix situation. Apple doesn’t require anybody to have in-app purchases. They can have subscriptions they bought separately and use with the App Store app. They cannot put a link to buy a subscription in the app though unless it uses Apple’s in-app purchasing solution.

Wrong. Other developers CANNOT have an App that does nothing until something is purchased outside of Apple.

 

[Ethosik]

There are also several issues with the competition argument:

• Lower prices aren't always the ideal outcome. See Walmart in the US, where workers make so little and rarely qualify for benefits, that they qualify for government assistance. Essentially, the government subsidizes Walmart's low prices. On the supplier side, Walmart is infamous for bringing representatives to little dark rooms in Bentonville, demanding access to their books, and squeezing the lowest possible prices out of them - often requiring the supplier to lower wages at home, or start shipping jobs elsewhere to compete.
• The race to the bottom will not help indie companies thrive. Several of the existing stores started out selling for an existing developer, then expanding: Valve and Steam, EA and Origin, Epic and EGS, Activision Blizzard and Battle.net. Almost any of these companies could afford to sell at a loss for some time - especially Apple - and keep potential competitors out of the market.

So currently Apple offers its users one portal to get apps, one store to keep payment details and other PII, once central place to easily manage subscriptions, and more importantly, put in place rules to keep apps from vacuuming up as much user data as possible. Sony, MS, and Nintendo offer similar benefits for their users - but they don't even offer the alternative of web apps like Apple does. All of them own their own game studios that make exclusives, and don't have to pay the store fees that independent publishers do. I don't see why this suddenly needs to change after more than a decade. Apple lowered the barriers to developing software for mobile devices, and put more money into the pockets of developers by allowing developers to self-publish, and cutting out the carriers. When the App Store launched, keeping seventy percent of revenues was considered a bargain.

Careful. Apparently we cannot compare to consoles.

 

[Wildkraut]

I thought Apple cared about licenses and they believe that software licensed under the GPLv3 (and probably v2 also) isn't compatible with being on the App Store.

So they are in fact helping the original developer and the developer using the code to upheld the license.

How can this be bad?

It's not compatible, because they wanted it to be incompatible.
They could have made the AppStore license compatible with GPLvX, if they wanted to.
Greediness first!

 

[hypertoast]

Um... so advertise the app for free, put it in the store for free, host terabytes of downloads for free... and the developer keeps 100% of the money? This is not the way to run a successful business.

Umm, Apple does charge $99 or similar fee per year for all the things you just mentioned to list an app on the AppStore. That can still continue to ensure that they are able to provide same services. Nothing wrong in separating the Payment aspect from hosting/ securing the content.