Apple Says 'We Won't Make an Exception' for Epic Games in App Store Dispute

[78Bandit]

Go buy a Dell and pipe down. Epic signed the terms. If they don't like it, then they simply leave.....

Or...if they think it rises to the level of anticompetitive behavior and they have the ability to withstand the inevitable retaliation then they do exactly what they have done, call attention to it in the hopes the legal system in either the U.S. or the EU will straighten it out for the benefit of consumers and developers.

 

[Cosmosent]

Few seem to realize that up until just a few years ago, Apple paid NO attention to the iOS App Store.

It was ONLY AFTER they saw a Drop & subsequent stabilization in iPhone Unit Sales, circa 2016-2018.

Prior to that, it was simply Free Running.

If my memory serves me, it was 4Q18 when Tim Cook & Phil Schiller really stepped up their efforts to Control the Narrative WRT the iOS App Store.

They did the same elsewhere, like with certain websites !

 

[EvilEvil]

Why not 5%?

That would be even better for developers and attract more to develop for iOS.

 

[kuwxman]

Why should Apple make an exception for Epic?

You, sir, missed the point. Apple is saying they are not going to make an exception (aka change their policy and lower the fee) for anyone because these fees are an absolute cash cow for them. Apple will continue to laugh their way to the bank until someone fights them and wins in court and/or the government steps in. There is no altruistic take here on Apple's part with the "we're trying to keep people safe" nonsense they're spewing. It is all about money. Apple is getting a lot of it with the current setup and they don't want to give that up.

 

[m11rphy]

Or...if they think it rises to the level of anticompetitive behavior and they have the ability to withstand the inevitable retaliation then they do exactly what they have done, call attention to it in the hopes the legal system in either the U.S. or the EU will straighten it out for the benefit of consumers and developers.

As someone who unfortunately lives in the UK please dont say the EU will help the consumer, the EU will screw Apple, Google and Microsoft purely because they are American. The EU is the most Corrupt political power, the sooner the UK are free of them and can do a proper trade deal with the US the better

 

[ActionableMango]

I'm actually completely with Epic on this matter. At least with Android people can install apps from outside the Play Store to avoid these charges.

I don't think you are completely with Epic on this matter. They are suing Google for the same thing, even though Android allows sideloading.

Epic already tried the sideloading route and found nobody got the app that way. So they went back to using the Play Store. This is proof that Epic gets more value out of being in the official app store and paying 30%, then they did by being outside the Play Store and paying 0%.

 

[I7guy]

You, sir, missed the point. Apple is saying they are not going to make an exception (aka change their policy and lower the fee) for anyone because these fees are an absolute cash cow for them. Apple will continue to laugh their way to the bank until someone fights them and wins in court and/or the government steps in. There is no altruistic take here on Apple's part with the "we're trying to keep people safe" nonsense they're spewing. It is all about money. Apple is getting a lot of it with the current setup and they don't want to give that up.

Can't blame Apple. And, in spite of the "I want my own IOS app store crowd", this arrangement benefits consumers greatly. Consolidated billing, safety and security. Also benefits devs whose apps are all in one place.

 

[Tarantularock]

Wish Apple the best here. Forcing a company to let others make millions off your hard work is wrong.

I pay a commission to a software I use based on what I make....If I charge more or do better work that sells more they make more. But their software is amazing and I make a lot of money using it.

Epic games wants to be able to play (and get developer support) and pay nothing. Sure they made a great game, but they haven’t made a great phone.

I think it's pretty ironic - this has been said 1000x before I'm sure - For a pay-to-play game developer group complaining they have to pay someone else to use their platform and audience & how that is wrong... makes me chuckle.

 

[fmillion]

From my perspective, Epic are the ones playing dirty turning this into a publicity stunt and throwing a tantrum because they want to pay less. If this was just about freedom and offering prohibited apps (e.g. xCloud) then they wouldn't also be suing Google where this isn't an issue.

I respect your opinion, but I don't agree that Epic is "throwing a tantrum" any more than Apple is.

Apple made rules. Epic didn't like them. I'm sure Epic has tried talking about this with Apple behind closed doors (they were front-liners at multiple WWDCs and Apple keynotes after all, so not like they wouldn't have inside contacts). I'm also sure Apple gave them the same response privately. Epic chose to make the battle public. While there might be an argument about "keep private disputes private", the truth is that bringing this into the public actually brings the free market into play.

With Apple's honestly somewhat drastic move of actually pulling the game from the store, they're hoping their customers will cry to Epic and say "PLEASE DO WHAT APPLE WANTS WE WANT OUR GAME BACK!" Epic, on the other hand, is hoping their customers will say "APPLE STOP BEING GREEDY WE WANT OUR GAME BACK!" Ultimately, now it's up to the customers. And this is quite honestly how it should be. I'm honestly tending to lean towards Epic a little here, because money talks and the fact that Epic made the price cheaper for using their own payments vs. Apple's, they're appealing directly to customers' wallets.

Apple is digging in their heels by even going so far as to threaten kicking Epic completely off of iOS. This has much larger ramifications than just a single game, regardless of how popular that game is. The Unreal engine is quite popular, and in fact has been used more than once to show off iOS gaming potential. The damage to Epic would likely be relatively relatively small if Fortnite stays off the store, but if Unreal-based games face challenges or are outright not allowed, indie devs and Apple stand to lose a lot more than Epic, and will seal iOS's fate as a platform not to be considered for any type of serious gaming.

Epic challenging Google is just more of the same. Epic is basically challenging the 30% cut that all of the major distributors have settled on. Apple and Google are honestly more visible targets than the gaming console market, but if Epic sets a precedent (i.e. wins against Apple) then it could have a serious ripple effect across the entire gaming and app store industries. I'm sure this is part of why Apple doesn't want to concede - they themselves fear all the indie devs who have thus far been pummeled into submission suddenly rising up and revolting based on precedent.

Quite honestly, I think there should be a middle ground. If you don't want to pay 30% of all digital sales to Apple, then you should pay them some fixed amount per year, based on the costs for running and maintaining a payment operation. While I can understand the 30% cut of app sales themselves, nobody's ever been able to truly justify to me the need for 30% of all digital sales. Maybe the fair approach is that the $99/year rate should be adjusted based on number of downloads (to recoup App Store costs for large popular free apps). Or maybe they should just let people run their own payment operation if they're so inclined.

 

[vladimirc]

Can't blame Apple. And, in spite of the "I want my own IOS app store crowd", this arrangement benefits consumers greatly. Consolidated billing, safety and security. Also benefits devs whose apps are all in one place.

I am a consumer. I own an iPhone and an iPad. I don't give a **** about fortnite but I want to use xCloud, Stadia, Geforce Now on my devices. Sincerely, how does the apple "arrangement" benefit me?

 

[I7guy]

I am a consumer. I own an iPhone and an iPad. I don't give a **** about fortnite but I want to use xCloud, Stadia, Geforce Now on my devices. Sincerely, how does the apple "arrangement" benefit me?

I didn't say it benefits "every" consumer"... as in 100%. Nothing is ever 100%. But in my own opinion, the pros of the current system, outweigh some of the alternatives that have been discussed. Frankly, that's part of the choice/decision making of buying an iphone vs android.

 

[fmillion]

Games revenue is more than all of Apple's other services revenue combined. Of course they don't want to lose any of it.

Because games are absolutely the most lucrative use of virtual consumables on mobile platforms. If a game has been designed with virtual consumable goods in mind, all you need is an art department to make some graphics for those consumables and define their "worth" in numbers in code. At one time we had cheat codes, now we have virtual goods that are either purely visual flair, and/or pay-per-use cheat codes.

Personally I hate the freemium model and refuse to engage with any game that uses it. I admit to being a huge user of the iAPFree hacks back in the day. I'd much rather pay a fair price for unlimited play in the game with the choice to use cheat codes (for single-player modes) if I desire. I like GTA5's model - you're allowed to mod it to hell and back in single-player, but you face being banned for doing it online (which is completely fair). I'll even pay for expansion packs and upgrades. But I guess I'm not the target customer for modern mobile games.

 

[gnasher729]

Amazon, Uber and other such apps are not providing DIGITAL goods, and as such don't pay the 30%. And I am pretty sure, that if your company builds an app and you only provide physical goods for sale via the app (You cannot buy digital goods from Amazon App) you would be excluded from paying the 30% and from using the payment system.

Exactly that. The AppStore T&Cs do NOT allow you to sell physical items through Apple's in-app purchases. Not allowed, therefore no 30% taken.

 

[m4mario]

I get the logic, and that Apple can’t review every single app’s payment system so it is indeed safer from their pov for everyone to use apple’s... but.... I don’t believe it for a second.

There’s no ‘safety’ reason why bigger companies wouldn’t be sufficiently secure. They could even hire the same vetting teams that Apple does to prove this.

So of course it’s about protecting an income stream and nothing to do with consumer safety.

If they only allow bigger known companies, then there will be another lawsuit saying that Apple is favoring certain developers, as there is already a complaint about Apple in that regard.

 

[PixelmonGalaxy]

Apple is anti consumer. They allow anticompetitive practices by letting Amazon to use their own payment processing but do not allow Epic to do so. This just means that customers have to pay higher prices for apps and developers have less resources to create better experiences.

Apple is anti developer. Disabling Epics access to Apple Dev Kit will hurt all developers making games and other apps on Apple products. The majority of top triple A games on the App Store use Unreal Engine. I am a game developer and personally use Unreal Engine on my Mac (maybe only for another 10 days if Apple succeeds in banning Epic).

Another anti competitive practice Apple does is not allowing cloud streaming games with xCloud / Stadia but lets Netflix stream movies. Apple is stifling innovation in order to squeeze as much money from customers as possible.

This is not the Apple that I fell in love with. Epic is right, Apple has become rotten.

They do not allow amazon to allow purchasing of Amazon Prime, they only allow physical goods to be sold with an alternative payment method, ebooks are also unavailable thru the amazon app on iOS, it’s a very specific exemption

 

[Ethosik]

They never tried to prevent them from MAKING navigator. They never cut off their access to development tools. They did strong arm OEMs into not bundling it, and that they bundled their own product (Honestly, even back then it was more and more evident that some form of web browser was a required part of a modern OS.... since apps started embedding html views, which made it easy to lay out even locally generated content, and would require at least a non-user facing web browser installed). This is the same Microsoft that made OEM's pay based on # of machines sold, not # of machine sold with Windows because their argument was there is nothing else to run but Windows, so clearly everyone is pirating.... of course you could go out and buy OS/2 or get a copy of Linux....

Yes they did.

79. Microsoft's first response to the threat posed by Navigator was an effort to persuade Netscape to structure its business such that the company would not distribute platform- level browsing software for Windows. Netscape's assent would have ensured that, for the foreseeable future, Microsoft would produce the only platform-level browsing software distributed to run on Windows. This would have eliminated the prospect that non-Microsoft browsing software could weaken the applications barrier to entry.

Excluding Navigator from Important Distribution Channels
143. Decision-makers at Microsoft worried that simply developing its own attractive browser product, pricing it at zero, and promoting it vigorously would not divert enough browser usage from Navigator to neutralize it as a platform. They believed that a comparable browser product offered at no charge would still not be compelling enough to consumers to detract substantially from Navigator's existing share of browser usage. This belief was due, at least in part, to the fact that Navigator already enjoyed a very large installed base and had become nearly synonymous with the Web in the public's consciousness. If Microsoft was going to raise Internet Explorer's share of browser usage and lower Navigator's share, executives at Microsoft believed they needed to constrict Netscape's access to the distribution channels that led most efficiently to browser usage.

 

[78Bandit]

Exactly that. The AppStore T&Cs do NOT allow you to sell physical items through Apple's in-app purchases. Not allowed, therefore no 30% taken.

You have described what it is. Now explain why it must be that way.

The T&C are 100% arbitrary by Apple and can be changed at any time. There is no reason why Apple can't allow physical items to be sold through IAP nor for Apple to allow digital goods to be paid for through a third-party payment system. The question then becomes why is the distinction being made and does it do unnecessary harm to consumers and developers?

 

[Ethosik]

If a company decides to remove themselves from the App Store, it's your choice to not support the company... no one would be forcing you to do anything, if you really want an app outside of the store, you could, but if you want to remain inside the walled garden, you could.

Just as if you wanted android for the features it offers, you could switch to that.

Companies will go where the money is, and more exposure with a higher cut is still more money than low exposure with a lower cut

It would be no different than if epic removed fortnite from the App Store entirely and made it exclusive to Android, you wouldn't be forced to switch to android.

Then you cannot say 100% that "If you like the iPhone locked down, nothing will change". If I want Fortnite for example, I will need to open up my iPhone to use a different store.

 

[Ethosik]

I respect your opinion, but I don't agree that Epic is "throwing a tantrum" any more than Apple is.

Apple made rules. Epic didn't like them. I'm sure Epic has tried talking about this with Apple behind closed doors (they were front-liners at multiple WWDCs and Apple keynotes after all, so not like they wouldn't have inside contacts). I'm also sure Apple gave them the same response privately. Epic chose to make the battle public. While there might be an argument about "keep private disputes private", the truth is that bringing this into the public actually brings the free market into play.

With Apple's honestly somewhat drastic move of actually pulling the game from the store, they're hoping their customers will cry to Epic and say "PLEASE DO WHAT APPLE WANTS WE WANT OUR GAME BACK!" Epic, on the other hand, is hoping their customers will say "APPLE STOP BEING GREEDY WE WANT OUR GAME BACK!" Ultimately, now it's up to the customers. And this is quite honestly how it should be. I'm honestly tending to lean towards Epic a little here, because money talks and the fact that Epic made the price cheaper for using their own payments vs. Apple's, they're appealing directly to customers' wallets.

Apple is digging in their heels by even going so far as to threaten kicking Epic completely off of iOS. This has much larger ramifications than just a single game, regardless of how popular that game is. The Unreal engine is quite popular, and in fact has been used more than once to show off iOS gaming potential. The damage to Epic would likely be relatively relatively small if Fortnite stays off the store, but if Unreal-based games face challenges or are outright not allowed, indie devs and Apple stand to lose a lot more than Epic, and will seal iOS's fate as a platform not to be considered for any type of serious gaming.

Epic challenging Google is just more of the same. Epic is basically challenging the 30% cut that all of the major distributors have settled on. Apple and Google are honestly more visible targets than the gaming console market, but if Epic sets a precedent (i.e. wins against Apple) then it could have a serious ripple effect across the entire gaming and app store industries. I'm sure this is part of why Apple doesn't want to concede - they themselves fear all the indie devs who have thus far been pummeled into submission suddenly rising up and revolting based on precedent.

Quite honestly, I think there should be a middle ground. If you don't want to pay 30% of all digital sales to Apple, then you should pay them some fixed amount per year, based on the costs for running and maintaining a payment operation. While I can understand the 30% cut of app sales themselves, nobody's ever been able to truly justify to me the need for 30% of all digital sales. Maybe the fair approach is that the $99/year rate should be adjusted based on number of downloads (to recoup App Store costs for large popular free apps). Or maybe they should just let people run their own payment operation if they're so inclined.

This is throwing a tantrum.

Correct way: You yourself pull your app from the App Store
Wrong way: Intentionally break the rules, forcing the app to be removed, then spinning the situation like you are the victim.

Think about how protests work. I peacefully won't do something to make my point. I do not do something to get evicted or whatever, then spin it around like I am the victim.
[automerge]1597784270[/automerge]

I am a consumer. I own an iPhone and an iPad. I don't give a **** about fortnite but I want to use xCloud, Stadia, Geforce Now on my devices. Sincerely, how does the apple "arrangement" benefit me?

Do you have ANY apps on your devices?

 

[DanTheMan827]

Exactly that. The AppStore T&Cs do NOT allow you to sell physical items through Apple's in-app purchases. Not allowed, therefore no 30% taken.

Makes you wonder why companies haven't tried something like using Apple Pay for a "collectable" card that also includes immediate digital bonus content...

They could mail a postcard for pennies and the cost of that would still be under the 30% that Apple charges

 

[philryan]

You know what , let me try and get those V-BUCKS from a different V-BUCKS exchange , mmm cant find one.

yes! Here you go, Epic games, in one:

pot.kettle.black

 

[russell_314]

What's funny is how many people here are so naive to think this is somehow a battle between the underdog (Epic Games) and the big bad Apple. In reality this is a battle between China's CCP (Epic, Spotify, and a few others) and the USA (Currently Apple and Google). This is just payback for the tariffs and banning Huawei.

 

[rafark]

. Does this fee fairly compensate Apple for the time they spend developing the OS, APIs, etc?

Apple already charges a pretty penny to iPhone customers that already covers the cost of the development of iOS.

 

[mateytate]

Before you buy something at a retail store do you first check to see if you can purchase it directly from the manufacturer so they can make all the money on it? I could be wrong but I highly doubt you purchase all of your Apple products directly from Apple. It sounds to me that since you’re a developer your viewpoint is a little cloudy. Devs or manufacturers aren’t going to to lower their price point if we buy directly from them. So why does it really matter where we buy it from?

From what I read, they did exactly that didn’t they? Epic offered both Apple Pay and their own payment method in the app, the price was $10 using Apple Pay but $8 if using Epics payment method so yes, it does matter where you buy it from.

 

[ader42]

Interestingly I’ve been reading about this for a few days on a variety of forums, tech/av forums, gaming forums and mac/ios forums. I think overhelmingly there are more Epic supporters on the mac/ios forums than anywhere else. It looks like most people can see this is an Epic fail.