That's perfectly fine. The "consumer" can go and do something infinitely more useful with their time now than play a stupid game.
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
That's perfectly fine. The "consumer" can go and do something infinitely more useful with their time now than play a stupid game.
You know, that this battle won't end here, and will go to higher courts anyway, this was just quick pre-trial.No, I don’t have to admit my stance is odd. My position is based upon legal precedent.
The fact you seem to think that I’m somehow hoping Apple will look kindly upon me is irrational.
I’ve quoted Legal precedents based upon a supreme court judgement to backup my stance. If that’s not enough for you then that’s all on you.
[automerge]1598829608[/automerge]
Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account
Let’s see where this goes, wih some actual LEGAL PRECEDENT! AT&T were sued using Sherman for excessively charging downstream DSL prices and putting third party suppliers in an Brooke(Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438 (2009)) The court looked into two...forums.macrumors.com
YOU published the list - it’s up to YOU to defend the list.
This can even end with Apple paying high amount damages to many developers.
If EPIC wins, they all will come out with courage and speak loud, how they got insulted and abused.
The "Apple vs <insert_here>" news just shows the tip of the iceberg, almost every developer has a negative experience to tell, but they fear.
Last edited:
While this lengthy article was written early in EPIC vs Apple debate online here its still has a lot to ponder about.
Rethinking the App Store - Stratechery 8/25/20
A New App Store Approach
I know this Article has been wide-ranging, but there is a reason:
That, then, is the spirit of my proposals: if we accept the fact that Apple is determined to make a significant amount of money off of the App Store, and that they have the right to do so, what is a better approach? For this I will incorporate all of the above, and also draw on the distinctions I made to discrete App Store functionality last week (and again, let me be very clear: this isn’t my preferred outcome, but rather one that I hope is plausible).
App Installation: Apple should stop using App Installation to stifle new business models like Google Stadia or Xbox Game Pass. This is, admittedly, one of my weaker arguments in terms of getting Apple’s buy-in: I believe Apple should allow these because innovation is important, and cloud gaming is exactly that. At the same time, cloud gaming is a direct challenge to Apple’s App Store control, so I understand why 30% is not enough from Apple’s perspective.
Payment Processing: This is where the marginal cost/cross-platform distinction comes into play:
In addition, I will never rest in my call for traditional trials and upgrade pricing (and go ahead Apple, take your 30%); it’s a better model for productivity apps than subscriptions, particularly small-scale apps, and it genuinely bums me out that this doesn’t yet exist. Indeed, this is the strongest possible argument as to why one company having a monopoly over payment processing is such a terrible idea.
Customer Management: Here Apple both gives and takes. The taking is clear: by virtue of controlling payment, Apple controls the customer relationship. That is a reason for a developer to try and consummate the payment on their own.
At the same time, the App Store is itself a marketing channel. I do believe that Apple massively overstates its importance — sure, it is nice to for an app to be featured, but you can’t build a business model around that like you can targeted advertising — but it is a potential value-add. What Apple should do is make discovery in the App Store contingent on using in-app purchase. If you want to be featured or show up in charts use in-app purchase; if you don’t, then customers have to search for your app directly.
The odds are that Apple isn’t going to change anything; the App Store is extremely profitable, and Apple is probably going to win its court case. Why give up a single dime? At the same time, the constant wave of controversies have to be wearing on the company, from a morale perspective if nothing else. Apple can be legitimately accused of profiteering off of COVID-19!
To that end, I hope the company will at least consider the possibility that this isn’t the 1990s, they’re not about to go out of business, and that being perceived as an asset to developers and not a tax opens up the possibility of growing the pie, not simply taking their slice. If that is the outcome of this summer of App Store turmoil, it will be a win for everyone: developers, Apple, and the users that want both security and innovation.
Rethinking the App Store - Stratechery 8/25/20
A New App Store Approach
I know this Article has been wide-ranging, but there is a reason:
- First, while I recognize there are good reasons for Apple’s approach to the App Store, in a vacuum I would prefer far more openness and freedom, primarily for the sake of increased innovation.
- Second, under current law, I expect Apple to retain total control of the App Store.
- Third, I believe that Apple’s current approach to the App Store is bad for developers, bad for innovation, and ultimately bad for Apple.
That, then, is the spirit of my proposals: if we accept the fact that Apple is determined to make a significant amount of money off of the App Store, and that they have the right to do so, what is a better approach? For this I will incorporate all of the above, and also draw on the distinctions I made to discrete App Store functionality last week (and again, let me be very clear: this isn’t my preferred outcome, but rather one that I hope is plausible).
App Installation: Apple should stop using App Installation to stifle new business models like Google Stadia or Xbox Game Pass. This is, admittedly, one of my weaker arguments in terms of getting Apple’s buy-in: I believe Apple should allow these because innovation is important, and cloud gaming is exactly that. At the same time, cloud gaming is a direct challenge to Apple’s App Store control, so I understand why 30% is not enough from Apple’s perspective.
Payment Processing: This is where the marginal cost/cross-platform distinction comes into play:
- If your app experience is contained to the iPhone and has zero marginal costs, you can only use in-app purchase at Apple’s rate (30% currently).
- If your app experience is cross-platform and has zero marginal costs, your app can simply be a login page at launch, with the assumption you are paying elsewhere; if you wish to offer payments, you have to offer in-app purchase at Apple’s rate.
- If your app experience has marginal costs, then you can offer either a webview for purchase or an in-app purchase at a new Apple rate (~10%) (keep in mind that marginal costs means something discrete; simply needing some indeterminate amount of more server capacity doesn’t suffice).
In addition, I will never rest in my call for traditional trials and upgrade pricing (and go ahead Apple, take your 30%); it’s a better model for productivity apps than subscriptions, particularly small-scale apps, and it genuinely bums me out that this doesn’t yet exist. Indeed, this is the strongest possible argument as to why one company having a monopoly over payment processing is such a terrible idea.
Customer Management: Here Apple both gives and takes. The taking is clear: by virtue of controlling payment, Apple controls the customer relationship. That is a reason for a developer to try and consummate the payment on their own.
At the same time, the App Store is itself a marketing channel. I do believe that Apple massively overstates its importance — sure, it is nice to for an app to be featured, but you can’t build a business model around that like you can targeted advertising — but it is a potential value-add. What Apple should do is make discovery in the App Store contingent on using in-app purchase. If you want to be featured or show up in charts use in-app purchase; if you don’t, then customers have to search for your app directly.
The odds are that Apple isn’t going to change anything; the App Store is extremely profitable, and Apple is probably going to win its court case. Why give up a single dime? At the same time, the constant wave of controversies have to be wearing on the company, from a morale perspective if nothing else. Apple can be legitimately accused of profiteering off of COVID-19!
To that end, I hope the company will at least consider the possibility that this isn’t the 1990s, they’re not about to go out of business, and that being perceived as an asset to developers and not a tax opens up the possibility of growing the pie, not simply taking their slice. If that is the outcome of this summer of App Store turmoil, it will be a win for everyone: developers, Apple, and the users that want both security and innovation.
Last edited:
“Yet in 2007 Google's data was good enough for 2 Apple engineers to make a decent, if feature limited iPhone app in 3 weeks. That just goes to show you how important data quality is for something like maps, and how little a nice looking interface matters when you can't find something on it.“
As a director of BI and development, that speaks volumes.
It was totally from scratch using Google data.
It was a very simple app by today’s standards. Not a nuclear power plant management system. Enough bs.
Sorry, where did I claim otherwise?
I simply stated that there is plenty of legal precedent that helps Apple. Unless you can show the 30% is predatory, this instantly fails the Brooke Test.
And unless you can argue that Apple deals in wholesale pricing, Trinko will not be your friend.
The only real chance for change here (and I’ve argued many times in the past that I’d support a tiered structure) will be from legislation. The courts may not be as friendly to stopping this practice as you desire.
Don't act stupid.
If Apple wins, EPIC will go to higher court.
If EPIC wins, Apple will go to higher court.
Anyway, it won't and here and probably will take a year, maybe even longer.
Both companies are too proud to settle anything.
E.g. SCO-Linux dispute took 8-9 years.
I am a developer. The quote was all developers have complaints but are afraid. I said no we don’t.
Don’t call me stupid. Read what I said.
Since when did one outlier case become precedent? That was drawn on so much because SCO was now an empty husk with zero assists and a bunch of lawyers desperate to fund ElDorados gold.
Which they didn’t.
No-one knows what’s the outcome of this will be, however to say settlement isn’t an option is laughable.
Are you an American lawyer? Do you think your knowledge of American law is better than that of an American lawyer admitted to the bar in California?
That really depends on how Apple wins. If Apple wins convincingly all three issues (no App Store monopoly, kicking Epic out of the developer program, kicking Unreal out of the developer program), Epic may have no choice but settle.
Most likely.
It may not end here, and then again, it may, depending on many other things.
Are YOU a developer? I do develop and run a team of developers.
I can totally see that. The Google data at the time was simple enough to create a rudimentary mapping Application.
Such things had been around since the mid 1990s - such as with Autoroute. It wasn’t an impossible task.
Rather than repeat yourself, PROVE that it could not be from scratch.
Well, no, but this is all about opinions, and you’re welcome to yours
Actually, does the article say ANYTHING about the period before Apple when the commissions on mobile apps varied widely from 60 to 90%? Apple whacked it BACK to 30%.
I just don’t think digital stores have evolved, but this is my opinion only. The only change is primarily “they got bigger”, and they only got bigger because the products people didn’t want left the market one by one. I guess the government COULD have been more proactive and propped up those failing businesses so that there’s more choice...
It’s not. It was made very clear that they used Google Mapping Data.
The entire UI however was built from scratch by some seriously dedicated professionals.
Do not underestimate the ability to create miracles when all else is lost. I’ve gone through a number of those in my time myself.
Are you a developer? I placed my cards on the table as to my job. Interested to know what your qualification is to make your statement.
Actually, nope, it is not the brain, just the data store. Just as with weather, Apple built an app that accessed Yahoo! Weather and then decided to switch it to Weather.com data, without needing to replace everything. However, even if we accept your description, it is meaningless. Apple could easily do without the App Store, they would build or buy the most used apps, and build or buy various backends.
It is not inconceivable to me that given a choice of the consumer-unfriendly Android experience, or no App Store at all, Apple might be tempted to pick the latter. I do not think that choice (or any like it) is likely. Further, I hope that Apple is not forced to ruin the consumer experience by adding support for multiple stores and opening developers to increased piracy with side loading. If that is the ecosystem you want, it is available to you from every Android manufacturer.
An illegal agreement is illegal from the very beginning. That's why it's terms are unenforceable and Epic doesn't have to follow it at all.
I have met my burden of proof. Meanwhile you have provided absolutely no argument to defend the apparent monopoly of App Store. Why don't you prove to me that, despite the apparent illegality, App Store is somehow in a strange way legal?
If it is cut and dried, why did the Judge not grant Epic a Temporary Restraining Order? Seems pretty clear that the Judge felt it was enforceable and that there were at least equal odds that the final ruling would be in Apple's favor.