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 Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There's just one thing I don't understand.
Epic broke the terms. Apple removed the app. Apple then told Epic they have limited time to remove the direct payment feature, otherwise Apple terminates their account.
Now, what if Epic doesn't want the app back in the store? Apple basically tried to FORCE Epic into submitting new and fixed Fortnite back to the store. The way I see it, Apple terminated Epic's account (removing all other non-Fortnite apps of Epic), because they refused to submit a fixed version of an app that was no longer there, regardless of whether Epic even wanted Fortnite back on iOS or not.
Some of your argument is passable, other portions exaggerated. As to the majority of what you've said, it's akin to homeowners' associations (HOAs), which some people prefer and seek out but indeed some despise and avoid. Either way, it's a part of the home buying consideration. If the house is part of an HOA community, you'll need to accept its terms or look/go elsewhere.
When you buy the game at Walmart, do you pay any fees to Wal-Mart for IAP purchases? Do you? Does Wal-Mart require that IAPs were processed by Wal-Mart only. AAPL fans love ridiculous analogies which actually prove that Apple behavior is greedy at best and unlawful at worst.
TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️
Suspended
I don’t think so lol
[automerge]1598661466[/automerge]
You bet, they are keeping an eye on it. Epic games might take the case to congress and have them settle
it.
TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️
Suspended
Do you know the attention span of youth? There will be another fad soon enough if not one already.
Both platforms have significant marketshare. Difference is Android has alternative app stores and non-restrictive app side loading capability while iOS is a single app store monopoly with restrictive, short term and complicated app side loading. iOS should have the same options if not at least non-restrictive app side loading so consumers aren't harmed and continue to play Fortnite or, in my case, run open source Retroarch which Apple has blocked to promote paid apps and services. Those are the issues FTC antitrust laws need to address.
PUBG meanwhile
I think the idea is that Apple does not allow installation of apps outside their App Store using the advantage that they own the platform. This is very similar when Microsoft had Explorer installed by default on Windows and used their "Windows Power" to drive their users away from Netscape.
I think the idea is that Apple does not allow installation of apps outside their App Store using the advantage that they own the platform. This is very similar when Microsoft had Explorer installed by default on Windows and used their "Windows Power" to drive their users away from Netscape.
Not only is profit not guaranteed but a regular store can lose money on a product it buys from a manufacturer if it doesn’t sell so they take a real risk vs automatically getting a cut for each sold units. That’s more like consignment sales.
So where are the dollars being thrown?PUBG meanwhile
PUBG was developed and published by PUBG Corporation which is a subsidiary of the South Korean video game company Bluehole Studio. It is now held under a unified gaming brand named Krafton Game Union. Either way that is not dollars headed our way except for Apple's 30%.
And the problem with Epic (as the example here) they don’t realize that the 30% cut also goes toward making all development software and tools free to the development community. Epics actions are a punch in the gut to all aspiring developers.
It's literally the job of a business to make money. The developers aren't revolting, the competition is revolting.
I also think selling 1.43 copies to make up the difference in not having a smaller storefront would be worth it. As a consumer, I'm not likely going to go to someone else's storefront on my phone to pay 81 cents for a game vs. 99 cents and now the developer has made 0 cents from me....
Epic has had a Mac store for over two years now, they still haven't figured out how to have the banners focus on Mac apps (generally the banners focus on Windows-only apps).
Also, in the Epic Store, the browse by MacOS games does NOT work properly, while it shows 19 programs for Mac, they definitely have more than that, but how am I supposed to find them???
Whoever is curating that front page should be fired and showing a different version on the Mac, and some intern should spend 5 hours checking all the games and tagging the MacOS games to be Mac OS games.
This is Epic's opportunity to show that another choice is a great option, but they're not doing it. They're literally not trying. Literally an EPIC FAIL!
If Epic's biggest games are it's own, it doesn't matter in their own store if they charge 50% or 12% as they're keeping it all. As Fortnight is kind of HUGE, getting Apple to charge less directly benefits Epic quite a bit.
To be clear, this is NOT hypothetical. I have the Epic Game Launcher/store installed on my Mac, it's the only alternative store I've tried to the Mac App Store, I've gotten some great deals during a sale but it's really not worth recommending it.
This argument is short-sided, even if the complete picture has plenty of holes and maybe imbalanced a bit. The revenue sharing isn't just about directly related things, such as payment processing, or even storage space, etc. It's those fees -- which I'm not saying couldn't use a percentage adjustment are about trying to compensate for the entire picture, e.g., recognition. Let's say someone wanted to have a kiosk in the Apple Store in the Mall of America. Think of the foot traffic, i.e. attention your kiosk would have (whether you sell anything or not). What's that worth? Do you think you could do well enough in a stand-alone store, in a different mall?
[EDIT]
...Or in another way...
How exactly is the consumer harmed? Thenconsumer has other choices of phone/tablet platforms to run RetroArch or Fortnite.
They don’t have to get it out. They just have to demonstrate willingness.
Maybe I'm not remembering what all happened long ago (I was in college during the antitrust suit) but it doesn't sound all that different today.
What's different now than it was back then?
Today every copy of Windows still comes with a Microsoft browser installed. It's also the default. So YOU have to download another browser yourself.
If Microsoft got in trouble for bundling a browser in Windows back then... shouldn't they be in trouble for still doing it today?
Also... Netscape was my preferred browser for a long time. Then it was Firefox and now Chrome. I didn't use Internet Explorer much... despite it being illegally bundled with Windows.
Regardless if facebook says or doesn't say buy from them to save, according to you, they should be able to say what ever they want for the sake of censorship. So Dell should not only put that sign up in Best Buy they should also say. "We know you came here because of the flyer Best Buy paid for, please use their sales staff to answer all your questions, but do not buy here because Best Buy only pays their employees $2/hour, and they kicked a gramma out once. You will save big buying direct on our website and we will make more money too." So what do you think the HP sign, who has a computer right next to it should read. What about every other product. That's a great way to run a company. I would love to be a merchant in your store.
I hate to break this to you but all retailers have similar clauses in their merchant contracts that prohibit this and its not censorship.
The reason Microsoft lost was because it was using its web browser to block other web browsers. Not similar to this at all. To be equal Apple would have to come out with an OS that works on Android phones and use it to force phone companies to use their operating system instead.
You guys remember in August 2007, when NBC remove all of their content from the iTunes Store, because Apple wouldn’t let them set their own prices for TV shows? NBC wanted to charge for their TV shows more than other networks, and Apple said no, and that every show needed to be priced equally. So NBC took their ball and left, and returned in September 2008. They came crawling back, because they needed the money.
That’s what’s going to happen here. Guarantee you, a year from now, fortnight will be back on the App Store, and apple will still be gaining there’s 30%.
Apple really can’t win here. They can lower the 30%, but then developers will just be greedy and want it even lower and lower and lower. It could literally be 1%, and people will complain. They could enable sideloading of apps, but that completely compromises the security of an iOS device, and security is one of their main selling points. So there’s absolutely no winning in this situation
That’s what’s going to happen here. Guarantee you, a year from now, fortnight will be back on the App Store, and apple will still be gaining there’s 30%.
Apple really can’t win here. They can lower the 30%, but then developers will just be greedy and want it even lower and lower and lower. It could literally be 1%, and people will complain. They could enable sideloading of apps, but that completely compromises the security of an iOS device, and security is one of their main selling points. So there’s absolutely no winning in this situation