Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

[Maximara]

Also, I think Apple should lose this right. Apple's position of hardware, OS, and store front owner puts all iOS developers at risk of facing Apple as a competitor with a built in advantage on their own platform. Apple has built the walled garden so high that I believe they have created a zone that gives them an unfair competitive advantage and developers have no recourse but to accept their polices and while paying Apple 30% that can be used to develop products that could compete with their own.

The grass isn't super green on the Android front either but it is possible someone could make a storefront on Android, including Epic themselves. It's just currently a hassle. Google also produces apps in their store. At most, Android could be forced to make it easier to make a competing store.

I predict apple will do nothing to delay the trial. The longer this drags on the more various other software vendors will play games. From apple’s point of view, either they are right (likely true) or wrong. If they are right, best to get a court to say so asap. If they are wrong, delay won’t help - they’ll have to deal with the fallout eventually anyway, and best to get it over with.

Actually thanks to the ARM Mac there is reason to delay. Imagine this:

Apple: Your honor. This case is about how no Apple device that runs iOS apps natively has access to the Epic store, correct?
Judge: Yes that is true but why are you asking?
Apple: We want to bring in evidence to the contrary.
Epic lawyer: Objection, your honor.
Judge: overruled. I want to see this evidence.
Apple: We will need internet access but we can promise that nothing of this actual trial will be transmitted.
Judge: As long as you can hold to that promise I will allow it.
Few minutes later the first of the ARM Macs is brought into the courtroom.
Epic lawyer: Objection, your honor. The Macintosh has developer tools for including an emulator for iOS.
Apple: Ah but is true only of Intel Macs. This is our new ARM Mac which runs such programs natively.
Judge: There is a point to this.
Apple: The ARM mac supports other stores and will run software designed for Intel chips, in emulation of course.
Judge: of course.
Apple: Here are the various storefront that are available: App store, Steam, Origin, Spotify, and oh Epic.
Judge: Excuse me?
And at that point Epic's whole case does a major crash and burn.

Never mind, Epic's claim of a monopoly, walled garden, or whatever other buzzword is out and about is a load of bull as there is Steam Mobile for iOS and Google Play allows access to Steam on android so there is already competition on both those platforms as long as you follow the policies of Apple and Google for such store fronts. Epic doesn't want to play by the rules set forth.

So by any sane standard Apple can show Epic has no case. Then Apple and Google join hands and do a Kail inspired dance on Epic...while singing Don Henley'a Dirty Laundry.

 

[cmaier]

Actually thanks to the ARM Mac there is reason to delay. Imagine this:

Apple: Your honor. This case is about how no Apple device that runs iOS apps natively has access to the Epic store, correct?
Judge: Yes that is true but why are you asking?
Apple: We want to bring in evidence to the contrary.
Epic lawyer: Objection, your honor.
Judge: overruled. I want to see this evidence.
Apple: We will need internet access but we can promise that nothing of this actual trial will be transmitted.
Judge: As long as you can hold to that promise I will allow it.
Few minutes later the first of the ARM Macs is brought into the courtroom.
Epic lawyer: Objection, your honor. The Macintosh has developer tools for including an emulator for iOS.
Apple: Ah but is true only of Intel Macs. This is our new ARM Mac which runs such programs natively.
Judge: There is a point to this.
Apple: The ARM mac supports other stores and will run software designed for Intel chips, in emulation of course.
Judge: of course.
Apple: Here are the various storefront that are available: App store, Steam, Origin, Spotify, and oh Epic.
Judge: Excuse me?
And at that point Epic's whole case does a major crash and burn.

Never mind, Epic's claim of a monopoly, walled garden, or whatever other buzzword is out and about is a load of bull as there is Steam Mobile for iOS and Google Play allows access to Steam on android so there is already competition on both those platforms as long as you follow the policies of Apple and Google for such store fronts. Epic doesn't want to play by the rules set forth.

So by any sane standard Apple can show Epic has no case. Then Apple and Google join hands and do a Kail inspired dance on Epic...while singing Don Henley'a Dirty Laundry.

None of that would affect Epic’s case at all. The cased is not about “apple device that runs ios apps natively.” They state quite clearly in their complaint that it’s about iphones and the ios App Store. Being able to side load onto macs doesn’t affect things one iota.

That said, i don’t think epic has a case. But in the eyes of the law, macs are not relevant to this, whether they can run ios apps or not.

 

[cmaier]

Other developers don't have Epic's resources. Losing iOS revenue would be suicide for them, and why risk it when Epic is fighting this battle for you. Apple's has no reason to rush. The status quo benefits Apple and even a win for Apple comes with no additional advantage. Losing the right means lost revenue for Apple. Only Epic loses more money in a prolonged fight.

Also, I think Apple should lose this right. Apple's position of hardware, OS, and store front owner puts all iOS developers at risk of facing Apple as a competitor with a built in advantage on their own platform. Apple has built the walled garden so high that I believe they have created a zone that gives them an unfair competitive advantage and developers have no recourse but to accept their polices and while paying Apple 30% that can be used to develop products that could compete with their own.

The grass isn't super green on the Android front either but it is possible someone could make a storefront on Android, including Epic themselves. It's just currently a hassle. Google also produces apps in their store. At most, Android could be forced to make it easier to make a competing store.

If ios developers think that there’s too much risk being on ios because apple has unfair advantages, then they don’t have to develop for ios. I develop for ios because i love the platform, i love the sdks, and i find it advantageous to do so. Nobody is guaranteed the right to succeed at a business.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Also, I think Apple should lose this right. Apple's position of hardware, OS, and store front owner puts all iOS developers at risk of facing Apple as a competitor with a built in advantage on their own platform.

So, this has been the case since Apple first created the App Store. Is there something that happened recently that made this a problem OR should the government have forced Apple to NOT open the App Store to start with?

 

[Profcrab]

Actually thanks to the ARM Mac there is reason to delay. Imagine this:
Apple: Your honor. This case is about how no Apple device that runs iOS apps natively has access to the Epic store, correct?
Judge: Yes that is true but why are you asking?
Apple: We want to bring in evidence to the contrary.
Epic lawyer: Objection, your honor.
Judge: overruled. I want to see this evidence.
Apple: We will need internet access but we can promise that nothing of this actual trial will be transmitted.
Judge: As long as you can hold to that promise I will allow it.
Few minutes later the first of the ARM Macs is brought into the courtroom.
Epic lawyer: Objection, your honor. The Macintosh has developer tools for including an emulator for iOS.
Apple: Ah but is true only of Intel Macs. This is our new ARM Mac which runs such programs natively.
Judge: There is a point to this.
Apple: The ARM mac supports other stores and will run software designed for Intel chips, in emulation of course.
Judge: of course.
Apple: Here are the various storefront that are available: App store, Steam, Origin, Spotify, and oh Epic.
Judge: Excuse me?
And at that point Epic's whole case does a major crash and burn.

Never mind, Epic's claim of a monopoly a load of bull as there is Steam Mobile for iOS and Google Play allows access to Steam on android so there is already competition on both those platforms as long as you follow the policies of Apple and Google.for such store fronts.

So by any sane standard Apple can show Epic has no case.

Steam Mobile on iOS and Google Play is not a platform to purchase games for those platforms, it provides access to the store front to purchase games to run on Windows, MacOS, and Linux as well as chat with people on your Steam friends list. This is about selling and purchase of apps in these more locked down mobile platforms which are massive markets. Because a Mac will be able to run iOS apps has no bearing on how this affects their mobile platform. None of what Apple is doing with the Mac will change the competitive landscape of Apple's mobile market.

Epic has a very strong case. Apple even stepped so far as to prove it by attempting to ban Epic's other company the that provides the Unreal Engine tools. Apple showed that it wouldn't just enforce it's rules, it would shut you out entirely and starve you until you played nice with them. If Apple knew they would win in court, the wouldn't even have tried it. If the court had not blocked it, killing the Unreal Engine on iOS would have made this larger that Fortnite and probably forced Epic to capitulate and kept them from trying this again.

Mobile OS developers, both Apple and Google, have tried hard to use the specter of security breaches as an excuse to not only get their 30% but make sure they are they only store that is getting that 30% on their platform. Android ostensibly makes it possible to operate another store, but doing so involves unlocking security options and results in an experience that would dissuade most customers. iOS flat doesn't allow an alternative store for mobile devices (maybe for ARM Macs in the future, but those aren't mobile devices and not the massive market that is the iPhone (54.7% of Apple's 2019 revenue vs 9.8% from Mac.)

Even if Apple is forced to allow alternative App stores at some point, the Apple app stores will be the primary store just by being the first one people see and will trust the brand, but, a company like Epic may try to do what you believed, incorrectly, the Steam app was. Epic may try to make an gaming store for iOS to sell iOS games with a better cut for developers, just like how they are taking on Steam on Windows. If that is the motive, it still doesn't make their case wrong. Apple and, to a lesser extent, Google locking or discouraging other stores is bad for customers. More buying options for customers creates competition. Ultimately, a store on both platforms provided by a company that doesn't make either platform could deliver what would be a big consumer win, cross platform purchases.

 

[imMango]

Maybe all of that would be fine, but Apple also produces software of its own that competes with other applications in its ecosystem. These applications have an unfair competitive advantage vs third party developers who must pay a 30% cut. Apple's paid applications don't have that additional cost and developers cannot choose a different store.

How is this any different, for example, to Sony first-party studios releasing games for PS vs. third-party studios releasing games for PS? They are all priced the same and Sony takes its % royalty of each copy sold, but is effectively not paying these royalties for games from its first party studios (or rather, its just paying this royalty to a parent company). Do you think this is also unfair and anti-competitive?

At the end of the day, Apple isn't forcing people to use their applications/subscription services (i.e. Apple Music, Apple TV+ etc..), so people are clearly subscribing because they see value in these services.

 

[Profcrab]

If ios developers think that there’s too much risk being on ios because apple has unfair advantages, then they don’t have to develop for ios. I develop for ios because i love the platform, i love the sdks, and i find it advantageous to do so. Nobody is guaranteed the right to succeed at a business.

The idea that developers have a choice here is false. No one is guaranteed to succeed at business, but consumers and the economy has a vested interest in promoting competition. Two companies creating locked or near locked down platforms where they can be the only gatekeepers to a massive market is not good for consumers. To reach those customers, developers have no alternative to sell not just on those platforms, but in those stores.

It's a duopoly. They can create policies that are are similar, and, without any direct collusion, still control the market and point at each other as the competitive reason why they don't need additional oversight. Apple did make their platform but it is now a massive juggernaut in the mobile world that within its hands controls the fortunes of thousands of companies through its app store policies. It also produces apps to compete on that same store. Their position as curator, governor, and competitor is not one that should exist in a platform the size and scope of iOS. It's just bad for consumers. The exact same can be said for Android.

The argument for keeping this status quo cannot be just "well, it's that way so companies should just deal with it or not succeed." We go after anti-competitive companies for just this reason, to ensure that more companies flourish and that consumers have options.

 

[Profcrab]

How is this any different, for example, to Sony first-party studios releasing games for PS vs. third-party studios releasing games for PS? They are all priced the same and Sony takes its % royalty of each copy sold, but is effectively not paying these royalties for games from its first party studios (or rather, its just paying this royalty to a parent company). Do you think this is also unfair and anti-competitive?

At the end of the day, Apple isn't forcing people to use their applications/subscription services (i.e. Apple Music, Apple TV+ etc..), so people are clearly subscribing because they see value in these services.

While Sony gets a cut, the games can be purchased at other locations. Now, if Sony locks down the platform completely and only allows the purchase of games through their store, then the situation would be the same. Especially if Microsoft did the same with Xbox. If consumers had no choice where to buy their games, the argument would hold. All of these companies would love to do what Apple and Google are doing because it increases revenue by killing competition from rival stores. By not stopping Apple and Google we are encouraging more platforms to aggressively force developers to sell their products only through those platforms, which increases the revenue of the platform owner at the expense of developers and consumer choice.

 

[D4vidrim]

Apple does not host the game content. They host the loader. Developers PAY for Apple to host this via their Developer account fees.
In-app purchases require ZERO Apple infrastructure. None. Apple forces devs to use them for processing transaction.

I'm sorry, you cannot actually believe in what you have just written.
99 $/year does not pay for everything, it is a very VERY low cost. And it is so low for a precise reason: to let more developers start their business with low barriers of entry.
Afterwards, the more your business grows, the more you pay. That is how Apple built is development ecosystem.
Now you cannot say that Apple has to take out their IAP system just to put a higher costs on the annual subscription. That would just hurt small developers over big ones (like Epic).

Please, think about the consequences of your ideas in the real world, before making a statement.

 

[Profcrab]

So, this has been the case since Apple first created the App Store. Is there something that happened recently that made this a problem OR should the government have forced Apple to NOT open the App Store to start with?

Yes, something happened. Size. The market when the app store was created was small and now it's massive. When you just start with something, your competitive swing in the market means little because the market itself is not large. When you are one of two companies that control the distribution and payments within all a massive, world spanning, your power of that market and the apps you make within that platform can now be at the direct expense of other companies who are tied to your platform. Also, consumers may never have had choice, but now half of everyone are your consumers and they have no other choices of where to buy items within your massive platform. At that scale, the lack of choice is now a problem and actions you take that profit you at the expense of developers that have no choice but to use your platform to reach customers is a large problem.

 

[cmaier]

The idea that developers have a choice here is false. No one is guaranteed to succeed at business, but consumers and the economy has a vested interest in promoting competition. Two companies creating locked or near locked down platforms where they can be the only gatekeepers to a massive market is not good for consumers. To reach those customers, developers have no alternative to sell not just on those platforms, but in those stores.

It's a duopoly. They can create policies that are are similar, and, without any direct collusion, still control the market and point at each other as the competitive reason why they don't need additional oversight. Apple did make their platform but it is now a massive juggernaut in the mobile world that within its hands controls the fortunes of thousands of companies through its app store policies. It also produces apps to compete on that same store. Their position as curator, governor, and competitor is not one that should exist in a platform the size and scope of iOS. It's just bad for consumers. The exact same can be said for Android.

The argument for keeping this status quo cannot be just "well, it's that way so companies should just deal with it or not succeed." We go after anti-competitive companies for just this reason, to ensure that more companies flourish and that consumers have options.

So why is this fundamentally different than the game console market?
Why aren’t developers crying that Tesla won’t give them access to the center console?

The idea that developers have a right to choose their own business model and impose it on apple is crazy.

 

[Coconut Bean]

The idea that developers have a choice here is false. No one is guaranteed to succeed at business, but consumers and the economy has a vested interest in promoting competition. Two companies creating locked or near locked down platforms where they can be the only gatekeepers to a massive market is not good for consumers. To reach those customers, developers have no alternative to sell not just on those platforms, but in those stores.

It's a duopoly. They can create policies that are are similar, and, without any direct collusion, still control the market and point at each other as the competitive reason why they don't need additional oversight. Apple did make their platform but it is now a massive juggernaut in the mobile world that within its hands controls the fortunes of thousands of companies through its app store policies. It also produces apps to compete on that same store. Their position as curator, governor, and competitor is not one that should exist in a platform the size and scope of iOS. It's just bad for consumers. The exact same can be said for Android.

The argument for keeping this status quo cannot be just "well, it's that way so companies should just deal with it or not succeed." We go after anti-competitive companies for just this reason, to ensure that more companies flourish and that consumers have options.

Very good and well-formulated reply. I might link to this in the future.

Many here have the starting point of the raw capitalist interpretation of legal = fair and missing to see that anti-competitive laws are there to safeguard all customers, from potential abuse from companies' sheer size. Not just to prevent a monopoly (duopoly).

 

[AndiG]

Apple will do everything it can to delay a trial to keep the pressure on. If it does to trial, I think Epic has enough of a case for Apple to have a good chance at losing. If Apple does lose, the results are not predictable. It could mean anything from just having to allow the kind of in-app payments Epic wanted or be forced to allow alternative stores in iOS which is the disaster they most want to avoid.

Apple already did since it needy at least 10 months to prepare to go to court - Epic told the judge it will take em 4-6 months. So we won’t see a result for at least two years.

It is more likely that the congress will take action before the end of the trial
https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/18/...e-hey-email-fees-policies-antitrust-wwdc-2020

 

[Piggie]

If Apple allowed Epic to do what they wanted, then they would have to let every app developer do the same thing. Then every app could be “free” and make you pay them directly in the app if you want the subscription. That would put Apple in the position of paying all the costs of maintaining the App Store and the distribution network and get zero money in return.

You/Anyone could do this on a profit/value basis.

If you bring me $100 a month I'll want 30% to make it worth my while.
If you bring me $1000 a month, I'll want 15% to make it worth my while.
If you bring me $10,000 a month, I'll just want 10% a month.
And if you bring me $100,000 a month I'll only ask you for $5%.

You're encouraged to make your product better, or make better products so you sell more, and the more you sell the more of your money you get to keep.
I'm really happy you are selling more as I get lots more money thanks to your product, and I'm willing to let you keep more as I'm making way more myself due to your success.
We're both happy and we both benefit from increased sales.

Can't see what's so wrong with this and I'm sure it's how much of the real physical world actually works.

Apple's current policy of.
You bring me $100 a month or $100,000 a month and I still get 30% regardless feels wrong & unfair.
I suspect most of us here would be willing to take less % if the amount of money we are getting rose up dramatically.

 

[verpeiler]

So why is this fundamentally different than the game console market?

Because it is completely different? You can buy console games everywhere, you don't have to use the XBOX/PS whatever shop. You can even buy the game physically (and resell it) or digitally. So that's a very bad analogy.

 

[Nacho1234]

Clearly you don't even understand what is going on. This mall analogy is bad.

I think in principal is true.The the email from Epic, they asked to do exactly the same. Have Apple allow the Epic Store to be loaded on to their App Store, which then would have its own offerings, payments system. The email mentions to allow Apple to load a competing Store on to their platform. I think the analogy is good.If Epic really has a problem with 30% cut from in-app purchases then why not fight to lower it? That is not what they want, they wish to push their own store so they can take a cut, pretending this righteous company who stands up for the people who dont have voices, all while hiding behind customers and missinforming them ( Apple did block iOs development for Epic, but they chose to take it down from the Mac from their own store and launcher, while blaming Apple for it)

 

[Maximara]

If ios developers think that there’s too much risk being on ios because apple has unfair advantages, then they don’t have to develop for ios.

Why would they think such a thing? As has been pointed out before that 30% is pretty standard in the console market and if you go with Steam or Google play. (which as I mentioned beforeare both currently available on iOS)

Epic's whole case hinges on Apple being a Monolpy. Mono as in one. Last time I checked Apple app store+Steam+Google is more than freaking one! Similarly Epic is also suing Google for being a monopoly which make no darn sense for the same reason - you can't have two Monopolies in the same field because there is more than one company in that field.

Heck, Apple doesn't even have a dominance in the mobile market with only ~24%

Epic's case amounts to Ford suing Lamborghini because it doesn't sale Ford vehicles. It is on that level of stupid and the efforts to defend it are ridiculous.

 

[Vandeuren Glenn]

Stores always take a cut. You sell Fortnite at Walmart, they take a cut. You sell in-app purchases in the App Store, then Apple is totally reasonable to want a cut. If you think you can thrive without the marketplace/middle-man, then by all means sell direct to consumers...but don’t try to have your cake and eat it too, using someone else’s marketplace but bypassing them in sales.

But I can go to another store if I find one to expensive, Apple store is a monopoly instead...

 

[cyb3rdud3]

But I can go to another store if I find one to expensive, Apple store is a monopoly instead...

You can buy another phone if you prefer the stores available there. Nobody is stopping you. The store is an integral part, to me one of the main attractions of iOS. That and the secure integration with other devices.

Heck you can even load applications directly onto iOS outside of the store if you so wish and trust that developers code.

 

[Maximara]

Apple already did since it needy at least 10 months to prepare to go to court - Epic told the judge it will take em 4-6 months. So we won’t see a result for at least two years.

It is more likely that the congress will take action before the end of the trial
https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/18/...e-hey-email-fees-policies-antitrust-wwdc-2020

"You cannot get software onto the iPhone unless you go through the App Store." BZZZ WRONG.

Steam Mobile and Google Playstore allow you get software onto the iPhone.

As I see it, the congress is just going through the motions to get brownie points for the upcoming election. Don't do anything about loot boxes (like make them illegal as at least on other country has) but go after companies for what when you really look at it is a non issue.

But I can go to another store if I find one to expensive, Apple store is a monopoly instead...

How is having the option of using Steam Mobile and Google Playstore on an iPhone make the Apple store a monopoly?

 

[Vandeuren Glenn]

Apple allows Google Play to be installed on iOS

You know that's fake right? You can't install/use any android apk on iphone.

There is only one store, the Apple store ...

 

[Vandeuren Glenn]

Heck you can even load applications directly onto iOS outside of the store if you so wish and trust that developers code

You mean trough xcode?

 

[Vandeuren Glenn]

Steam Mobile and Google Playstore allow you get software onto the iPhone.

You know steam mobile doesn't download any game to your phone?

With the Playstore I expect it's just a pwa That looks like playstore but the apps have Apple uid, so they are downloaded from the appstore and not playstore.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

You mean trough xcode?

Xcode, flutter etc. Whatever you use as the build system. Yes, sign it yourself and off you go. Easy and quick to load onto a phone when you have access to a computer.

 

[Vandeuren Glenn]

Xcode, flutter etc. Whatever you use as the build system. Yes, sign it yourself and off you go. Easy and quick to load onto a phone when you have access to a computer.

Agree, easy for us, but pain in the ass for the rest...