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 Says Fortnite for iOS Isn't Blocked Worldwide, Just the U.S.
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You can’t say what’s wasted or not as you or me or most Macrumors posters that aren’t insiders do not understand what may have come from these efforts and show up in the future as a feature or products.
One has nothing to do with another.
Agree,
Kinda how Android was, but sadly even that platform is getting to be a bit more strict and following the Apple model sadly.
I guess it's time to post something serious for once.
Apple markets their devices based on security. There are times when it's extremely inconvenient, but when users buy Apple—they're buying for one of a few reasons.
The ones who aren't as literate in the tech world typically buy it for the sleek yet simplistic style.
Sometimes, people buy Apple for its software ecosystem and the apps. Apple Music, Pages, et cetera.
Sometimes, people buy for the actual technical specs—the chips, some important physical feature on the device.
And sometimes, people buy Apple for its security. I would rather continue buying from Apple because, if my device is lost or stolen, I know that my device is less likely to be compromised... And that the company makes extreme efforts to protect our privacy, so much to the point that they've gone into court cases against the federal government for it.
Epic Games makes a valid point about the extreme cost of the fees. Apple should lower its costs, I think.
If the practice is deemed monopolistic, then Apple just needs to lower its own prices to be more reasonable. Apple also has an issue with greed on this.
But Epic Games does not have a right to compromise user security, nor does it have a right to dictate to Apple what Apple can and cannot do.
Plus—the last thing that we need is more dark patterns on subscriptions that are impossible to cancel. That should be illegal. Opening up Apple's apps to third-party markets means you're going to see more of this abusive behavior against consumers. Apple is right in saying that Epic Games doesn't deserve to change the rules on Apple's devices because Epic Games never created those devices in the first place.
In the most logical comparable extreme, it would be the same as saying Nintendo needs to host porn producers on the Nintendo Switch. Not only would this be obviously bad for the millions of kids who own Nintendo Switch units, it would also open up the users to malicious websites that might try to steal money or private information from the users—from that "3rd party market."
If Epic Games wants the luxury of being on the iPhone/iPad/Mac market, then it needs to pay the luxury fee, and it needs to follow the agreements. Epic Games is not special. All of the other app developers also follow Apple's guidelines... Or, they don't—they choose a different device and a different market, and a different company that supports them.
Even with the monopolistic element, a single video game company doesn't have the right to dictate a major global tech company's behavior, especially when said video game company would put millions to billions of user privacy and identity protections at risk.
Apple markets their devices based on security. There are times when it's extremely inconvenient, but when users buy Apple—they're buying for one of a few reasons.
The ones who aren't as literate in the tech world typically buy it for the sleek yet simplistic style.
Sometimes, people buy Apple for its software ecosystem and the apps. Apple Music, Pages, et cetera.
Sometimes, people buy for the actual technical specs—the chips, some important physical feature on the device.
And sometimes, people buy Apple for its security. I would rather continue buying from Apple because, if my device is lost or stolen, I know that my device is less likely to be compromised... And that the company makes extreme efforts to protect our privacy, so much to the point that they've gone into court cases against the federal government for it.
Epic Games makes a valid point about the extreme cost of the fees. Apple should lower its costs, I think.
If the practice is deemed monopolistic, then Apple just needs to lower its own prices to be more reasonable. Apple also has an issue with greed on this.
But Epic Games does not have a right to compromise user security, nor does it have a right to dictate to Apple what Apple can and cannot do.
Plus—the last thing that we need is more dark patterns on subscriptions that are impossible to cancel. That should be illegal. Opening up Apple's apps to third-party markets means you're going to see more of this abusive behavior against consumers. Apple is right in saying that Epic Games doesn't deserve to change the rules on Apple's devices because Epic Games never created those devices in the first place.
In the most logical comparable extreme, it would be the same as saying Nintendo needs to host porn producers on the Nintendo Switch. Not only would this be obviously bad for the millions of kids who own Nintendo Switch units, it would also open up the users to malicious websites that might try to steal money or private information from the users—from that "3rd party market."
If Epic Games wants the luxury of being on the iPhone/iPad/Mac market, then it needs to pay the luxury fee, and it needs to follow the agreements. Epic Games is not special. All of the other app developers also follow Apple's guidelines... Or, they don't—they choose a different device and a different market, and a different company that supports them.
Even with the monopolistic element, a single video game company doesn't have the right to dictate a major global tech company's behavior, especially when said video game company would put millions to billions of user privacy and identity protections at risk.
You have a very narrow and simplistic view of computing. To say the only reason somebody would want to sideload means you have zero understanding of software licensing and how powerful these devices really are. For instance, I would like to run a true terminal environment directly on my device when I’m on the go. I use a plethora of open source software that could be compiled to run on these devices - including but not limited to things like docker, Golang, etc.
You’re absolutely wrong for thinking sideloading is for piracy. I’ve got an Android, I know what color the grass is on the other side, and making it my daily driver is a sim swap away.
All of this is great!
And none of that is compromised by having iOS Apps work like macOS ones do.
The Apps are notarized and the security model is robust, by design, on both platforms.
Apple needs to held to A higher standard and hope they get made example of. Absolutely tired of all the legal drama that company creates by their own avarice and greed. Innovation is dead at Apple and has been for a while. Looking forward to android fold this summer when new devices launch. Apple is very vengeful and lacking any accountability. And it starts with that tool Cookie.
I don’t love epic either, but a 30 percent fee is ridiculous to charge on apps and needs revision.
I don’t love epic either, but a 30 percent fee is ridiculous to charge on apps and needs revision.
Tell me again how this is protecting and benefiting consumers? I thought that was the purpose of the App Store. But this makes it seem like the real purpose of the App Store is to give Apple more control over developers and users
Agree totally.
They wouldn't be in this mess if they'd been charging something reasonable, to all Apps.
Should probably be in the 5-15% range (I'm sure we could have ample debate around what exact number)
I honestly think Epic would be complaining even if Apple didn’t charge a commission at all. Epic wants the commission for itself.
Remember 30% is industry standard. And Apple charges less than industry standard for the vast majority of apps and developers.
Google, Amazon, Samsung, Valve, Nintendo,
Xbox, Sony, Windows Store all charge 30% on their digital storefronts. Only on MacRumors is that somehow Apple being anticompetitive and greedy.
Could be
They should be allowed to run a 3rd party App Store and go that route if they'd prefer.
IMO Apple needs to find some other way to charge for their IP to facilitate that (beyond the annual Dev fee)
Why should they be allowed in the US?
Why should they? I haven’t seen any argument that makes it clear on why.
The App Store is a safe haven for app distribution. Apple takes care of the housekeeping for the dev exchange for a small fee. It provides a safe payment mechanism, easy way to update. It is for the most part family friendly.
While MR posters have their own gripes with the App Store, nothing is perfect.
Ah yes.
One app I need from here.. Where's the other one... Over here.. One over there.. Can't find this one on the 'insert store here'. Etc.
Sounds like a great experience compared to what we have now.
Apple has made Billionaires bigger Billionaires with Tim Crook at the helm. But as far as innovation goes, did Tim truly build a better Apple or just a more profitable AAPL? I say he made it more profitable, but every stakeholder got the shaft except the shareholders. Look at how bad it is for people assembling the products, the consumers are worse off, developers much worse off, you got suppliers and what about direct employees? Who makes out? Only the top 1% made out under Tim Crook’s Apple. That is corporate greed and not beneficial to society. They can spin great with marketing, but it’s all just spin.
They do all the time. They share contacts with apps like WhatsApp and Facebook. Then those companies have all your details. It’s all spin. Your friends and acquaintances are selling your information without your permission. It should be criminal.
Tim built a better apple with multiple avenues of revenue; eg wearables. Services revenue went up. Consumers are worse off with the fractured operating system, devs aren’t worse off it’s exactly the same with some additional caveats for the app store.
As far as your comment about the top 1% - they always make out. That is not new news.
And what about the assembly line? Apple doesn’t own them and monitors the conditions. And many assembly factories are shared with other manufacturers.
To be honest, back in the OSX Steve Jobs days he would probably have announced a really nice feature during a keynote which kept track of all your third party apps and made it easy to re-download them. He would have gone on to talk about how this quality of life improvement was there to help with the headaches of third party apps from a variety fo sources.Ah yes.
One app I need from here.. Where's the other one... Over here.. One over there.. Can't find this one on the 'insert store here'. Etc.
Sounds like a great experience compared to what we have now.
I am sure there are some people using iOS who feel like they do have legitimate uses for sideloading. The question then is - should this small but increasingly vocal group of users be dictating policy for everyone else? If it can be argued that a closed ecosystem is what results in the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of users, I could argue that perhaps it is users like yourself who ought to make a compromise and give up these "perks" for the greater good.
I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the majority of people would use sideloading for piracy. It's like torrenting. Yes, there are people who have legitimate use cases for it, but the vast overwhelming majority of people use it for pirating shows and content.
One example, my country has been battling numerous cases of scams in the past years. It works by tricking the user into sideloading an app onto their android devices, taking control of their devices, and accessing their banking details.
Nearly 2,000 victims fell for Android malware scams, at least S$34.1 million lost in 2023
The majority of victims were aged 30 to 49, and were most frequently targeted on Facebook and Instagram.
Second example - piracy is a very real issue on Android. I don't think it's politically incorrect to say that one of the reasons developers earn more on iOS is because people who want iOS apps typically have to pay for them the honest way.
Hit mobile game Monument Valley and piracy: 'Only 5%' of Android players paid for it
Even with a high piracy rate, Ustwo says it isn't complaining.
venturebeat.com
The Mobile Economy Has A $17.5B Leak: App Piracy
Not all pirates say "arrghh" and wear eye patches. Some are smart, sophisticated, and technologically advanced.
www.forbes.com
The point I am trying to make is that conventional computing was not without its flaws and shortcomings. You had viruses, malware, piracy, just to name a few. The iOS model solved all this, and to me, the benefits (security, ease of use, ease of tracking purchases and managing subscriptions) outweigh the downsides of not being able to access certain class of apps.
To insist that we should have to live with all this just so you can continue to enjoy sideloading feels pretty presumptuous. As is expecting Apple to open up their walled garden and having to contend with new problems that were never an issue under the original arrangement, all while developers use third party payment systems to avoid paying Apple their cut.
Likewise, it feels like none of the critics here are even willing to acknowledge the potential risks and drawbacks, for fear that admitting that there might even be a single problem would invalidate their entire argument. This goes back to my original point, which I have been very upfront about. I am not saying that Apple's walled garden approach is perfect. I am simply saying that, given how the vast majority of smartphone users are likely not very tech savvy people to begin with, how apps tend to replace normal web transactions and interactions on PCs, and how security is even more paramount on a smartphone (given the nature of transactions), the current walled garden arrangement is what enables the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of users.
In this regard, my interests and priorities are quite aligned with those of Apple's. It's not so simple as to just dismiss these concerns with a "you don't have to sideload if you don't want to". Those people in the 1st linked article never intended to install a scam app onto their devices to begin with. Things just happened. That this has not happened on iOS has to mean something, no?
Nobody is asking you to you to give up what you love about the iPad. In fact, the Mac has accomplished everything you’re talking about. You can prevent your Mac from running applications that aren’t from the App Store or signed by Apple. You don’t need to give up anything you like about the Apple “closed” ecosystem for the power users to get what they need out of the hardware they purchased. It VERY LITERALLY all goes back to money - all of this goes back to money. Apple wants to treat their platform as a service; whereby they control app distribution to get that sweet revenue cut from app sales and subscriptions. That’s it.. Don’t be fooled into thinking your iPad and iPhone are completely safe from malware as-is - they’re not. Malware has gotten past the App Store review process - there’s documented cases.I am sure there are some people using iOS who feel like they do have legitimate uses for sideloading. The question then is - should this small but increasingly vocal group of users be dictating policy for everyone else? If it can be argued that a closed ecosystem is what results in the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of users, I could argue that perhaps it is users like yourself who ought to make a compromise and give up these "perks" for the greater good.
I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the majority of people would use sideloading for piracy. It's like torrenting. Yes, there are people who have legitimate use cases for it, but the vast overwhelming majority of people use it for pirating shows and content.
One example, my country has been battling numerous cases of scams in the past years. It works by tricking the user into sideloading an app onto their android devices, taking control of their devices, and accessing their banking details.
Nearly 2,000 victims fell for Android malware scams, at least S$34.1 million lost in 2023
The majority of victims were aged 30 to 49, and were most frequently targeted on Facebook and Instagram.www.channelnewsasia.com
Second example - piracy is a very real issue on Android. I don't think it's politically incorrect to say that one of the reasons developers earn more on iOS is because people who want iOS apps typically have to pay for them the honest way.
Hit mobile game Monument Valley and piracy: 'Only 5%' of Android players paid for it
Even with a high piracy rate, Ustwo says it isn't complaining.
The Mobile Economy Has A $17.5B Leak: App Piracy
Not all pirates say "arrghh" and wear eye patches. Some are smart, sophisticated, and technologically advanced.
The point I am trying to make is that conventional computing was not without its flaws and shortcomings. You had viruses, malware, piracy, just to name a few. The iOS model solved all this, and to me, the benefits (security, ease of use, ease of tracking purchases and managing subscriptions) outweigh the downsides of not being able to access certain class of apps.
To insist that we should have to live with all this just so you can continue to enjoy sideloading feels pretty presumptuous. As is expecting Apple to open up their walled garden and having to contend with new problems that were never an issue under the original arrangement, all while developers use third party payment systems to avoid paying Apple their cut.
Likewise, it feels like none of the critics here are even willing to acknowledge the potential risks and drawbacks, for fear that admitting that there might even be a single problem would invalidate their entire argument. This goes back to my original point, which I have been very upfront about. I am not saying that Apple's walled garden approach is perfect. I am simply saying that, given how the vast majority of smartphone users are likely not very tech savvy people to begin with, how apps tend to replace normal web transactions and interactions on PCs, and how security is even more paramount on a smartphone (given the nature of transactions), the current walled garden arrangement is what enables the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of users.
In this regard, my interests and priorities are quite aligned with those of Apple's. It's not so simple as to just dismiss these concerns with a "you don't have to sideload if you don't want to". Those people in the 1st linked article never intended to install a scam app onto their devices to begin with. Things just happened. That this has not happened on iOS has to mean something, no?
Apple allowed screenshot-reading malware onto App Store
OCR plugin great for extracting crypto-wallet secrets from galleries
You seem to think that in order for you to get what you want, everyone must sacrifice… that’s just not true. You aren’t giving any of your argument critical thinking - you’re just repeating Apple’s preferred talking points. Trust me when I tell you… you’re not as safe and secure as you think in your walled garden, and thinking you are is shamefully wrong. In fact, most people become victims of cybercrimes due to social engineering.. Things like phishing, scam phone calls, smishing, etc.
And privacy? Your platform does little to protect your privacy. The only thing that will really protect your privacy is knowing how companies use your data. Companies like Meta can still gain HUGE amounts of information about you via their app and website. There’s really only so much Apple can do.
And, I go back to my earlier arguments about piracy. I want to run my own open source applications… I want to be able to create using my devices using languages of my choosing… using the tools of my choosing. Me being able to run my own apps has nothing to do with how you use your iPad. And, quite frankly… I don’t care so much about where people get their software. There’s a GIANT ecosystem of open source software that people use every day - probably even you. But, due to Apple’s guidelines, they’re unable to port their apps to Apple’s platform (docker, Golang, real Firefox, etc.)… And, not to mention app developers that don’t want to use Apple’s platform services and give a cut of their revenue for using them, but are forced to use them (see earlier point about being all for money)…
For every point you make, I can counter it.. easily.
This is the part of my argument where I make an assumption about you based on what you’ve told me… You’re a teacher, right? You are used to telling people how they should think about the world around them? Based on how others tell you to think? You might try to break that cycle a bit and critically think about the rules of the game you’re playing, because they’re someone else’s… Come up with your own talking points. Some of us aren’t content with “you will own nothing and be happy” - what’s really at the core of the walled garden.
Last edited:
It was Epic Games’ decision to stay out of the US App Store. They submitted an update the violates the rules. This is an issue of their own making.
Apple today clarified that it has not blocked Epic Games from updating the iOS Fortnite app in the European Union, but it is not planning to allow Epic Games to offer Fortnite in the United States App Store at the current time.
In a statement to Bloomberg, Apple said that Epic Games tied its U.S. App Store submission to the update that was also being submitted to the Epic Games Store for iOS in the European Union. Apple told Epic Games to resubmit the update without the U.S. component.
This morning, Epic Games claimed that Apple blocked its Fortnite submission worldwide. "Apple blocked our Fortnite submission so we cannot release to the US App Store or to the Epic Games Store for iOS in the European Union," Epic Games said. The company went on to claim that Fortnite on iOS will be "offline worldwide until Apple unblocks it."
Given Apple's clarification, it sounds like Epic Games has decided to take Fortnite offline in the European Union rather than submitting an update that does not include Fortnite for the U.S. App Store. By tying the updates together and suggesting Apple is denying Fortnite's distribution worldwide, Epic Games could rally lawmakers and customers to push back at Apple's attempt to "block" Fortnite in the U.S.
Fortnite gets weekly updates, and the updates need to go out for all platforms at the same time. Apple didn't remove Fortnite from the iOS Epic Games Store in the European Union, but by denying the Fortnite submission, the EU version of the game won't get the update on time. Epic Games could remove the U.S. App Store version of Fortnite from its app submission in order to update the EU version and keep it functional, but it's not yet clear if Epic plans to do so.
Fortnite has been banned from the U.S. App Store since 2020, and Epic Games does not have a valid U.S. developer account. Last year, to distribute Fortnite in the European Union using an alternative app marketplace, Epic Games created a subsidiary, Epic Games Sweden. Because Epic Games has no U.S. developer account, the company used Epic Games Sweden to submit Fortnite to the U.S. App Store.
In the Epic Games vs. Apple lawsuit, Apple was at no point forced to allow Fortnite back in the App Store, and it was made clear that Apple does not have an obligation to distribute Fortnite.
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney said ahead of Apple's decision that he would be "very surprised" if Apple "decided to brave the geopolitical storm of blocking a major app from iOS," but the reality is that Fortnite hasn't been available through the iPhone and iPad App Store for the last five years.
Apple was recently ordered to change its App Store rules to allow developers to direct customers to purchase options outside of the App Store in the U.S., which is why Epic Games thought it would be able to bring Fortnite back to the U.S. App Store, but Apple is upholding the ban. There is nothing in the order that changes the situation with Fortnite.
Article Link: Apple Says Fortnite for iOS Isn't Blocked Worldwide, Just the U.S.
Thank you for a civil argument. I don’t think we’re worlds apart, I’m just a bit more wary.