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

[diamond.g]

Wait... you think consoles will go back to discs or cartridges?

I mean the more powerful versions have drives and if the winds say that digital sales will be directed to allow 3rd parties. 🤷🏽‍♂️

bit difficult that one when Sony sell a diskless PS5 and Microsoft diskless xboxs

They just as easily can stop selling the XSS and PS5 Digital as well. Games you have downloaded will work but nothing new. Though it would screw GamePass.

 

[urmaster]

Because you seem not to understand cryptography as it applies to OS protections. Any “switch” to be flipped is a potential attack vector. The fact that the OS allows, with a flipped switch, apps not signed by Apple to execute, is an attack vector. Even if I don’t download another “App Store,” and even if i never download an app from an alternative App Store, the OS is now much less secure. It’s the inexorable result, stemming from mathematics, of allowing a mechanism to bypass apple’s own certificate checks.

This already exists on iOS; enterprise distribution. Apps that are essentially self signed can be distributed on iOS outside of the App Store as long as the end user agrees to install. A prompt on springboard and enabling if the accompanying profile in the system settings. This does not weaken security in the slightest as the OS is what is hardened.

Apple can still ultimately revoke the cert in question here as they most famously did to Facebook and Google not too long ago.

 

[m11rphy]

I mean the more powerful versions have drives and if the winds say that digital sales will be directed to allow 3rd parties. 🤷🏽‍♂️


They just as easily can stop selling the XSS and PS5 Digital as well. Games you have downloaded will work but nothing new. Though it would screw GamePass.

You think they would stop people from buying games for a six month old console? Also many hear are saying that Sony and Microsoft sell consoles at a loss so how would they make money back on these machines?

 

[kingfish78]

2.) If Apple has NEVER recommended OR promoted an app in ANY way, then Apple's cut should be ZERO !

2b.) And should remain ZERO for the number of days that the app was in the App Store, prior to receiving ANY love from Apple; in other words, if an app has been in the App Store for two years BEFORE Apple show'd it ANY Love, then it stays @ ZERO (cut) for two years, starting from the day it first received Love from Apple.

So... how does an app in the Apple App Store get distributed? Is it not submitted to Apple for review where some employee spends their time (and thereby Apple's money)? Is the app not stored on Apple servers where it is made available for public download (at some expense to Apple for storage, backup, server maintenance, etc.)? Is the app not distributed to customers via internet (with upload bandwidth being paid by Apple)?

These things all cost money. How much? That can be difficult to monetize. Developers pay a flat annual fee which provides access to Apple-developed software toolkits, the ability to upload apps for review, etc. But, what if the software fails review due to some discovered flaw, bug, violation, etc? What if that app requires review five or six times? Should Apple bill the developer? How much do they bill? Each employee's actualized fully-burdened rate or some aggregated mean value across the "App Store reviewer" position. Should Apple bill a developer for hosting an App for distribution? How much? Should it be a flat cost per MB based on the App Size? What about bandwidth? Should Apple bill for that too?

There's more to the equation than just "Marketing."

 

[diamond.g]

You think they would stop people from buying games for a six month old console? Also many hear are saying that Sony and Microsoft sell consoles at a loss so how would they make money back on these machines?

Versus requiring 3rd parties access to the console for digital sales? Sony is arrogant enough to do it. They didn’t even want to allow cross play. Nintendo could stop selling via digital store. Microsoft would have the most issues but they have deep pockets and operated the Xbox division at a loss before.

 

[m11rphy]

Versus requiring 3rd parties access to the console for digital sales? Sony is arrogant enough to do it. They didn’t even want to allow cross play. Nintendo could stop selling via digital store. Microsoft would have the most issues but they have deep pockets and operated the Xbox division at a loss before.

Well if they do they better be offering refunds, I own a Series X and regardless of it having a disk drive I'm not buying disks like its 2010 😂

 

[DeepWebinar]

Im asking as I'm trying to workout in what kind of time frame you feel apple and their App Store has changed. Your post sounds like you are still using an iPhone 5/6 or in fact you have a newer iPhone and you have continued to keep buying iPhones despite the changes in apple you have observed

It’s obvious that’s where you were going and I don’t see the point in that line of thinking. The phone I have doesn’t matter because of course your response could only be “well you bought it” which doesn’t address the legitimacy of the issues people are voicing. There’s nothing unreasonable about voicing a want for things to be different.

 

[diamond.g]

Well if they do they better be offering refunds, I own a Series X and regardless of it having a disk drive I'm not buying disks like its 2010 😂

I have a XSS (and a PS5 Disc) so yeah it is a conflict of interest. Lol. I don’t think anyone will sue them to get a 3rd party App Store but I could see that being the outcome. The ironic part is they make more on digital sales since lower prices are not that common versus physical sales.

 

[m11rphy]

It’s obvious that’s where you were going and I don’t see the point in that line of thinking. The phone I have doesn’t matter because of course your response could only be “well you bought it” which doesn’t address the legitimacy of the issues people are voicing. There’s nothing unreasonable about voicing a want for things to be different.

you said thing have changed since you bought your phone, if you have a 5s then fine I'm sure thing shave changed since you bought it if you have an iPhone 11 then I can't see how things have changed since you bought it. So yes the iPhone you have and how long you've had it is very relevant to your original post

When I bought my orningal iPhone 2G it could only be used in the UK on the O2 network and I wanted it to work on the orange (now EE) network so I bought that iPhone with the intention of jail breaking it, however I knew fully well I was taking a risk and at anytime it could stop working

 

[kingfish78]

There’s nothing unreasonable about voicing a want for things to be different

VOICING A WANT is not unreasonable. SUING A COMPANY because they choose not to oblige your desire IS. I may really want General Motors to offer Wireless CarPlay in my new Car. It has wireless charging, it has CarPlay built-in, and the infotainment system has an external 4G/5G data connection and internal wifi. All the requirements for Wireless CarPlay are there. I can write emails, make phone calls, start online digital petitions, and even mail out letters. But, if General Motors says, "No. Plug that phone in and enjoy the CarPlay experience we offer." I don't have a right to sue them. I knew what was available when I bought the car. I might hope for something to change on it, but there's never a guarantee. GM build the vehicle and decides what they will offer, support, and warrant.

Now, take that analogy a step farther. I can modify my GM Vehicle with an aftermarket Apline stereo and gain Wireless CarPlay. But, in so doing... I might lose access to the specialized features of my air-conditioner, because that software and interface was part of the GM infotainment system I removed. Will GM fix my air-conditioner software? No. And I have no basis to sue them for it. Same with Apple. You can modify the device through jailbreaking to allow side loading of apps through 3rd party App Stores like Cydia. But, in doing so, I lose my right to complain when some other software component stops working, errors, or loses support due to inability to implement future security and OS updates.

The real question - and the one that the judge will ultimately define is what constitutes "the market." If the market is "App Stores," then Apple will win. If the market is "Smart Phones," then Apple will win. If the market is "Digital Game Shops," then Apple will win. Only if Epic can convince the judge that the market is very narrowly "iOS App Stores" do they have much chance of getting Apple declared a Monopoly. Further, since there is no evidence (or even accusations of) collusion between the different game and/or app stores - Apple, Google, XboxLive, Sony PS Store, Nintendo and its multiple stores for every device they sell, etc. - who all sell software for the same 30% cut, then there is no grounds for anti-trust litigation.

 

[theotherphil]

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?

Apple customers are given the ultimate vote…paying much more for hardware and services despite higher spec and cheaper alternatives. They vote with their own hard earned cash, and continue to do so, again, and again, and again. Not only that, these same customers have a 2-4week return period globally, no questions asked….don’t like what Apple are offering? Return it for a full refund.

Finally, those same customers have voted Apple number 1 in customer satisfaction surveys EVERY SINGLE YEAR since the iphone and iPad were introduced. Good luck trying to convince anybody that Apple customers want iOS to be like Android.

 

[cmaier]

This already exists on iOS; enterprise distribution. Apps that are essentially self signed can be distributed on iOS outside of the App Store as long as the end user agrees to install. A prompt on springboard and enabling if the accompanying profile in the system settings. This does not weaken security in the slightest as the OS is what is hardened.

Apple can still ultimately revoke the cert in question here as they most famously did to Facebook and Google not too long ago.

They are ”essentially” self signed except for the fact that they still rely on Apple’s certificate.

 

[neuropsychguy]

You seem to not even understand whats being asked. if epic wins it wouldn't be that they would get to use the app store for "free" the whole point would be to use their own payment processing their own hosting their own store. Apple for its part has benefit from third party developers. Without third party innovation the i ecosystem would not have taken off as people come to the iPhone for its apps. as far as security of the store itself that's debatable as a lot of craptstic apps have been able to scam people very recently.

So Epic would still pay Apple 30% of IAPs and subscriptions that were processed using those alternatives?

This is all about Epic wanting to sell apps and IAPs on iPhones without paying Apple any fees (or drastically reduced fees). It would be like macOS or Windows where we can essentially buy and use applications from anywhere but that change would allow Epic to not pay Apple any money, or pay them much less than they now do. Maybe that’s how apps on iPhones should be. Maybe they should be able to be purchased and installed from anywhere but it all boils down to Epic not wanting to pay Apple fees, which is what my previous comment was about.

 

[Krizoitz]

But if your stance on this is formed only from the idea that contracts Epic signed with Apple were broken, why do you care? I’m not trying to be rude, but if your reasoning isn’t to do with anything else, who cares about Apple getting contracts broken by some developer?


Oi vey, where do I even start with you @Krizoitz? Your comment is absurd. First of all, no need for the condescending analysis of what I’m saying. It’s clear you don’t actually understand where I’m coming from at all, so your weak analysis that lead to the embarrassing swing and miss of a conclusion might be a good reminder to take a second before you tap out a comment.

Just because we see differently about this doesn’t make the people who disagree with you “entitled”. That’s a massive generalization and you’re completely mischaracterizing where I’m coming from. I’m not “demanding” anything, don’t paint my argument as if I’m a petulant child having a temper tantrum. The personal attacks are completely unnecessary, we’re talking about smartphones, take a breath and chill out.

Second, Apple is stopping us from having more control over what we do with our devices, that’s the whole point. If “no one” was stopping us from letting us do whatever we wanted like you say, then there wouldn’t be anything to talk about right now.

You are demanding Apple be forced to change the product it offers to meet your desires, that’s entitled.
Meanwhile, what you are demanding requires effort. It’s not simply Apple actively preventing something that would otherwise be possible, it’s Apple CHOOSING a different model entirely. It’s like complaining that your electric car isn’t a hybrid car or a gasoline car. Could the car be modified? Sure. Is it as easy as simply flipping a switch? No. It would require effort to change it, just like changing iOS to do what you want would require effort. Just because something CAN be done doesn’t mean it has to be done. If you didn’t like what Apple offered you should have bought an Android phone which does what you want, not demand Apple be forced to change.

I have no issue with people wishing Apple would change or hoping they will change, my issue is with people believing they should be forced to change, especially the ones who falsely think it’s trivial to do so.

 

[Maximara]

The real question - and the one that the judge will ultimately define is what constitutes "the market." If the market is "App Stores," then Apple will win. If the market is "Smart Phones," then Apple will win. If the market is "Digital Game Shops," then Apple will win. Only if Epic can convince the judge that the market is very narrowly "iOS App Stores" do they have much chance of getting Apple declared a Monopoly. Further, since there is no evidence (or even accusations of) collusion between the different game and/or app stores - Apple, Google, XboxLive, Sony PS Store, Nintendo and its multiple stores for every device they sell, etc. - who all sell software for the same 30% cut, then there is no grounds for anti-trust litigation.

The case is so silly from a common sense prospective. Never mind if the judge does get convinced, Apple will appeal which will kick the case down the road. Heck, I hope that Apple can bring up the fact Epic has is suing Google for the exact same thing. I would love to see Epic explain how you can have two monopolies in the same market when "mono" means one.

I wonder if Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony are concerned that they could be next as they are even more restrictive than Apple is.

 

[Maximara]

So Epic would still pay Apple 30% of IAPs and subscriptions that were processed using those alternatives?

This is all about Epic wanting to sell apps and IAPs on Apple devices without paying Apple any fees (or drastically reduced fees). It would be like macOS or Windows where we can essentially buy and use applications from anywhere but that change would allow Epic to not pay Apple any money, or pay them much less than they now do. Maybe that’s how apps on iPhones should be. Maybe they should be able to be purchased and installed from anywhere but it all boils down to Epic not wanting to pay Apple fees.

Actually that is not true as the Mac is an "Apple device"(it is marketed that way) and Epic's argument about a walled garden is untrue for the mac.

 

[kingfish78]

The case is so silly from a common sense prospective. Never mind if the judge does get convinced, Apple will appeal which will kick the case down the road. Heck, I hope that Apple can bring up the fact Epic has is suing Google for the exact same thing. I would love to see Epic explain how you can have two monopolies in the same market when "mono" means one.

Even better, I hope that Sweeney is asked how many App Stores on the PC sell Fortnite and Fortnite In-App Purchases? The judge might be interested to hear that the answer is... One - the Epic Game Store.

 

[neuropsychguy]

Actually that is not true as the Mac is an "Apple device"(it is marketed that way) and Epic's argument about a walled garden is untrue for the mac.

I wasn't clear. "Apple devices" meant iPhones. I edit my comment to make that clear.

 

[Krizoitz]

It’s funny how supposedly all iPhone uses are so fully aware of all the restrictions imposed by Apple & IOS and even so they made informed decisions and entirely accept those restrictions willingly, and yet in the story below this one the same folks are stunned to discover that Air Tags can’t be shared and that is a terrible restriction and needs to be fixed as soon as possible?

It doesn’t matter if they are actually aware, only that they could have reasonably been aware. Since Apple has been absolutely open about the AppStore model the consumer had the ability to be informed and therefore are responsible for their own choice. Unless Apple lied about some feature or hid the information then there is no grounds for complaint if the consumer is ignorant.

 

[Krizoitz]

This is what I hope the Judge ultimately concludes:

1.) If Apple recommended OR promoted an app in ANY way, then Apple is entitled to its agreed-upon cut.

2.) If Apple has NEVER recommended OR promoted an app in ANY way, then Apple's cut should be ZERO !

2b.) And should remain ZERO for the number of days that the app was in the App Store, prior to receiving ANY love from Apple; in other words, if an app has been in the App Store for two years BEFORE Apple show'd it ANY Love, then it stays @ ZERO (cut) for two years, starting from the day it first received Love from Apple.

---

IMO, Epic benefited significantly from Apple's Marketing !

Unless Apple promises some level of marketing or promotion for the 30% cut and doesn’t provide it, there is no legal grounds for the judge to make such a ruling.

 

[diamond.g]

The case is so silly from a common sense prospective. Never mind if the judge does get convinced, Apple will appeal which will kick the case down the road. Heck, I hope that Apple can bring up the fact Epic has is suing Google for the exact same thing. I would love to see Epic explain how you can have two monopolies in the same market when "mono" means one.

I wonder if Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony are concerned that they could be next as they are even more restrictive than Apple is.

MS and Sony could drop their game stores.

 

[ani4ani]

It doesn’t matter if they are actually aware, only that they could have reasonably been aware. Since Apple has been absolutely open about the AppStore model the consumer had the ability to be informed and therefore are responsible for their own choice. Unless Apple lied about some feature or hid the information then there is no grounds for complaint if the consumer is ignorant.

Hmm not like Apple to be misleading at all, e.g. 2 sims in your 5G phone but only one can use 5G (takes them 8 months to update, rather than a few weeks)...or your 15w changer wont work with AirPower. Magic keyboard not being compatible with the new iPad Pro? Apple are masters at it.

 

[Maximara]

MS and Sony could drop their game stores.

The problem with MS and Sony dropping their game stores is it would effectively kill their consoles as they are loss leaders. The money is made via the games not the consoles.

 

[SuperMatt]

The problem with MS and Sony dropping their game stores is it would effectively kill their consoles as they are loss leaders. The money is made via the games not the consoles.

Exactly. Some don’t seem to realize that even before digital distribution, the console makers got a cut of the sale of every game. You were not allowed to sell a game for a console without explicit approval from the console maker.

 

[SuperMatt]

Hmm not like Apple to be misleading at all, e.g. 2 sims in your 5G phone but only one can use 5G (takes them 8 months to update, rather than a few weeks)...or your 15w changer wont work with AirPower. Magic keyboard not being compatible with the new iPad Pro? Apple are masters at it.

This is not misleading. This is people literally not taking 5 minutes to read up on what they are buying. Oh and the magic keyboard DOES work with the new iPad Pro… but to learn that, one might have to do 5 minutes of reading.