What are you talking about? xCloud does not give you access to Applications, it's a stream, netflix doesnt even access files, unless you use the download option which apple allows so they are being hypocritical.
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
Come on, how many people do that? 0.0 something %?
By the way, what's the rate there? I guess 30% too... isn't it?
I wonder what Apple’s response would be if major retailers like Walmart and Amazon started demanding a piece of the action on any app store sales for iOS devices sold in their stores.
Once again you are missing the whole point... the problem is you are only able to download on apple ONE way digitally, whereas every single other store allows multiple options whether it be physical or digital.But there’s only ONE way to buy it digitally... hmmm, so that would mean Sony has a monopoly on “digital downloads through the Sony Playstation Store to Sony Playstation brand game consoles”! Time for the government ban-hammer!
Why would they? Apple doesn’t charge them in the App Store. It’s only for digitally delivered goods.
Imagine if the TV was for free and the only way Walmart could take a cut was through a rented movie.
Anyway I don't like this sort of analogy, they do not work very well. Walmart doesn't have to pay anything after the tv has been sold, while Apple pays for every update of any app, even if they are free. And if those apps are only ads supported, Apple make 0 $ in total. Taking 30% on IAP covers that.
Sony and microsoft take their full % cut whether the game is sold digitally or on physical media, so what difference does it make? Would it make you happy if apple sold an iphone bluray drive and let app developers sell their apps on disc, if apple still took 30%?
[automerge]1598807511[/automerge]
Are they breaking the google play store rules doing that?
No justification apart from the agreement Epic has decided to sign knowing what was written on it.
No different than what Spotify does on iOS. I did not get my subscription through an in app purpose. My ISP includes it.
or no different than buying v bucks from epic on the epic website.
Only Android is free (as in freedom). iOS is not free in whatever sense. Apple's just taking advantage of customers who ALREADY PAID FOR iPhone and iOS.
The world-wide web is open. Epic would not have to pay Apple anything if it distributed its product thru the web.
If Epic wants to ride the rails, they're going to have to pay the railroad company (Apple) and play by its rules.
If they want to go places where the railroad doesn't go, it's a free and wide-open country (web.)
Epic does not get to operate its trains on someone else's railroad without paying and playing by the rules.
An ILLEGAL agreement means nothing. No binding force whatsoever. The court will invalidate it. WAIT AND SEE!
Gotta love how sure you are that such an agreement is not legal. Got any actual evidence to support such a statement?
Pray tell, which particular laws were broken by Apple?
If only Apple stopped interfering with Epic and allowed users to install apps directly. Apple doesn't get to forcefully charge somebody for a service they didn't ask in the first place!
Do you have any idea at all how apps work? Don't pollute this thread with more ignorance.
Last edited:
I already destroyed your legal ignorance in another thread.
PS: the simple legal argument that a 3-year-old can understand.
1. App Store is different from iOS
2. Forcing people to use App Store on iOS is anti-competitive conduct and illegal per se in violation of Sherman Antitrust Act
Except that the game companies have to pay the platforms a fee for any disc they produce, such that it ends up being the same 30% (or even worse) for the developer whether it is purchased at retail as a code, at retail as a disc, or in their platform's market place.
There are many companies that deliver "native applications" for Windows and macOS that are Electron Apps (just a web app bundled in a browser). In addition, WebAssembly provides access to most programing languages at speeds that are competitive. Whether it works well for a specific game or not is irrelevant, as it is a viable option for most apps, were they really concerned about the 30% fee. Certainly would have been for the Hey! guys as one way they deliver their product is as a web app.
Good. We agree.
No, I did not know that, as most people using the word on here have meant it in the legal sense.
For developers, there are lots of options, depending on what their product is. They can choose not to be on the platform at all (despite the openness of macOS, many developers have chosen this option). They can develop web apps (might not work for some high performance games).
Most AAA game titles do not have iOS versions and these companies do just fine. There is no requirement that every application be on every platform. It is particularly amusing for game developers (in general) and Epic (in particular) to argue they have the absolute right to be on every platform with no restrictions, when they routinely create platform exclusives.
Ah the irony of your post is really quite palpable!
Calling someone ignorant whilst pushing fantasy scenarios with no legal footing is quite humorous.
Apple have a huge number of terms and conditions that all developers are required to follow to be listed in the App Store.
Until such time those conditions are found to be unenforceable, they are the terms and conditions that developers are required to follow.
Odd you accuse Apple here but seemingly have given Epic a total free pass to peddle their overpriced digital dance moves to kids and to arbitrarily and methodically make change they knew, full well, where in direct contravention with the same said terms and conditions.
Proof? Please quote legal cases to support this.
You screaming this out over and over again doesn’t mean squat. You can yell it out until you’re blue in the face if you want, but until you can show just how this is a violation of any of the anti-trust acts, then you’re spouting just your opinion.
Not if you see what would come with lower prices.
And... why do you think Epic would give you any money back?
If you are willing to pay 10$ for a nice hat, that is exactly what you will be charged.
You won't be charged 11$, cause you would only pay 10 and your seller would not like to loose 1$ making you pay 9$.
So, you will be charged 10$.
And it doesn't matter if 3$ will go to Apple or to Epic, you will still be charged the maximum you are willing to pay: 10$.
This is my take on the situation. I'm a 3P seller on Amazon.com. For everything I sell on THEIR platform, Amazon typically takes 15% of the selling price. I gladly pay this because of the exposure that Amazon gives to the product I sell. They also have rules in place where you can't direct customers to other websites to purchase. If caught your 3P selling account can be terminated. I view the Apple App Store in similar light. Epic games is benefiting by Apple's platform and exposure. They should not be allowed to skirt the payment process. When that occurs, Epic games or any other developer benefits 100% from Apple platform without having to pay for it. Developers are paying for the retail space by paying the 30%.
You really should look into the backgrounds of the House and Senate in the US (at state and federal level). Most are lawyers. Judges are lawyers.
An agreement is legal until it is declared differently. So, my statement is a fact, yours is just your opinion about future events you don't know yet. Unless you can tell the future, but if you could, you would not be here.
This is from their latest 10-Q:
| Gross profit margin as a percentage of net sales | 23.7 | % |
I am not an accountant either so I could easily be wrong. But my assumption was that discounts would already have been accounted for in ”net sales”.