Yes. EC as in European Commission 🙂 If I were an attorney I might understand why they decided the Google case the way they did but then again maybe not.
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
Sure, but there is zero legal requirement from Apple to make that easy - or, as it pertains to software, even possible.
Regardless of how I feel about the merits of the actual case, I find these sorts of analogies to be rather unhelpful for Apple.
When I buy a refrigerator, I don't expect it to work like an oven. I expect it to refrigerate the food that I want to refrigerate. If I buy a Samsung refrigerator, I consider it mine to use as I like. This does not mean I should expect to cool down an entire elephant. But if I want to buy a gallon of Epic Farms milk, I should be able to put it into the fridge I purchased. I should not have to buy that gallon from Samsung, even if Samsung didn't intend their appliances to be used on food purchased from non-Samsung sources. I should not have to buy that gallon from Samsung, even if Samsung really want to ensure the highest level of dining enjoyment.
I mean, do you even have a refrigerator? Because I've never heard of one that forbids you from buying food from stores not run by the fridge manufacturer. In fact, every item I currently have in mine was purchased from other sources. Hell, I even have a pitcher of lemon water in there, where the pitcher comes from Target, the lemons came from Aldi, and, sin of sins, I got the water from my tap.
Not when the device includes software/firmware subject to copyright law, and when it is sold to you pursuant to a license agreement.
The whole thing that kicked this off was Epic offering lower prices through their own payment option. Why are you acting like this is a hypothetical scenario when it has literally already happened?
That is great. We have had many other developers on here who are very happy. Not sure your one anecdote means a lot.
I am sure that is true. As an example, we know that Facebook is unhappy because Apple will not let them track people against their will. We know there are other developers that are unhappy because Apple prevent them from stealing cycles to run crypto-currency mining without their customers knowledge. There are lots more. If the standard is every developer has to be happy, there is no policy that will work.
If you are quoting him accurately, and it is his argument that developers have to move to subscriptions because they need to give up 30%, then he fundamentally does not understand economics.
There are so many subscriptions because it is easier to pay for ongoing development with ongoing revenue. Hence Adobe, Autodesk, Microsoft and others who do not sell through the App Store all moved to subscriptions. There is nothing inherently greedy about subscriptions where the developer is adding and updating the application/suite on a regular basis. I would be fine with software that gave me the rights to continue to use the current version I purchased (maybe with bug fixes), forever (assuming I can keep the hardware/os running), and for which I needed to be subscribed to use the current version with all the new features.
It should be clear that in the days before the App Store, we had subscriptions, we just did not acknowledge them. Most software had new versions every 6 - 12 - 18 months sometimes with upgrade pricing, sometimes without it. Subscriptions just make that clearer and more predictable. That is not to say that there are no developers whose subscription models are not too expensive or have subscriptions and yet do not really upgrade/maintain their apps.
I understand the point Sweeney is making.
But the simple fact is this:
Stores generate revenue... and Apple has a big store.
It's no surprise that Apple has a lot of store revenue when they have over a billion devices accessing that store. And gaming, as it turns out, is pretty popular.
If Tim Sweeney is upset that Apple takes a cut... guess what... ALL stores take a cut.
He knew the rules that Apple, in particular, has had for the last decade. He didn't have to sign the contract... but he did. And then he violated that contract.
Last edited:
With this logic no apps are ever written entirely from scratch. Have a AAA game that costed millions in voice acting, 3d modeling and millions of lines of code, but used Unreal as the backend? Not from scratch. Created an iOS App but used an API, not from scratch.
Because that scenario was fake. The account was going to be terminated and the app was going to be deleted from the App Store from minute 1 Epic sent the update. So, nothing has actually happened for real. Epic always knew the updated version of Fortnite was going to go away immediately.
Moreover, I was talking about effects in the long term. Companies will charge you the maximum amount of money you are willing to pay, it is not an hypothesis, it's just what happens. It doesn't matter if the cut goes to Epic or to Apple, it won't go to the consumer.
These things are not a requirement to function in the world. I can go without email for an hour while I am at the store. I don't need to browse online while I am driving.
However, phone and messages are essential. But not as a smartphone. Things like Jitterbug exists that just do phone and texting.. This is what is essential. Therefore, I think the Playstation/Xbox comparisons to a smartphone are valid.
Actually there are oven designed to buy food from the manufacturer... just like there are coffe machines designed to work with certain capsules and not with others. Guess what, that's what happen when you buy a product for a really cheap price. In this analogy, you "buy" free apps, then you gotta pay something later on for it, through IAP.
Because epic will raise to $10 as soon as this stunt is over, if they are successful. Prices are much lower today for ALL software on the app store than that software would have cost before the app store.
The hits keep coming lol
You can now watch select Netflix originals for free without a subscription
You can now access several Netflix originals like Stranger Things for free without requiring a subscription to the streaming platform.www.androidauthority.com
Netflix allows certain movies and tv episodes free access on Windows, MacOS and Android but not iOS lol.
...due to a limitation on iOS Safari browser.
Cool try though
With a mentality like this, it's no wonder the world never changes for the better. It goes right in line with "Well don't buy an Apple device then" when people voice their complaints.
I feel like they'd end up in court very quickly if that were to happen (as they should).
That doesn't mean we should stop pushing for improvement. As tech enthusiasts, you'd think we should understand things can always be better.
You are 100% right!
But you have to remember: This site isn't full of tech enthusiast, it's full of Apple enthusiast! There's a large difference between the two!
I for one refuse to be an Apple apologists because Apple [just like every other company] can improve in many areas, thus benefiting us, the consumer.
I don't understand the people in this forum that bend over backwards trying to put Apple in a positive light whenever they have shady practices. You would think somebody that is such a fan of Apple would want Apple to actually do good things so their opinion can actually be validated.
Why would they end up in court for raising their price? You seem to have very strange ideas of how the law works.
If a part of their legal argument is that allowing third party payment processing would result in lower prices for consumers, and then they steeply raise prices, do you not think Apple would appeal the decision to get their 30% cut back?
I'm not claiming to be a legal expert, but that seems like a very plausible scenario to me. If we know one thing for sure, it's that tech giants love to appeal court decisions.
I'm not claiming to be a legal expert, but that seems like a very plausible scenario to me. If we know one thing for sure, it's that tech giants love to appeal court decisions.
No, apple would have no legal basis to do that. That’s not how the law works.
Nor will the legal decision be based on whether epic reduces or raises its prices. The price thing is a red herring that epic did just for P.R.
Fair enough, as I said I'm not claiming to be a legal expert.
As an aside, what exactly is stopping Epic from raising prices even with Apple's 30% cut?
Last edited:
C’mon, you cannot seriously believe that Epic is pushing for alternative App Store only to “make prices lower”. If they are, then their shareholders should be firing Sweeney as company’s primary function is capitalism is to increase capital for shareholders.
Epic is pushing for alternative stores and payments so that Epic itself can get a piece of the app distribution pie.
The prices will not get lower, because in market economy prices are set to the maximum a consumer can bear. If iOS VBux are bought at $9.99 now, Epic is damn better keep charging $9.99 or they’re leaving revenue on the table.
Sales aside, compare prices of the same game on Epic vs Steam stores. They are generally the same. New titles come out at $60, an industry trend.
So let’s get one thing clear, whether we are tech enthusiasts or Apple fans, Epic is not fighting this fight for the good of consumers. Epic is fighting this for Epic to make more money.
Of course I don't, but if that ends up as a side effect that's good enough for me.
Yup, no disagreement here.
Except that's not the full story. Epic dropped the price on Vbucks to $8, down from 10 and both Epic and the customer benefited. People got Vbucks for a lower price while Epic actually ended up making an extra dollar per transaction. The only entity missing out was Apple, and if we're honest they don't need the money.
Again, I totally agree here. Neither Apple nor Epic is looking out for the consumer at their own expense. No corporation is going to fight solely for users' interests, but users can still benefit from the fight.
Epic dropping the price was a distraction from the real intentions.
Apple has an ability to drive some folks who don’t even use their products to blind anger.
The sane developer that, for some reason (maybe insanity) has an irrational disdain for any and all things Apple. I mean, there’s a publisher right now that, when I found their work, the FIRST thing I thought was “I’m going to the Apple Books store and support them, because it’s like TRIVIALLY easy. (and I don’t have to give my info to another party)” But, they don’t have their content posted to Apple Books.
These are the kind of statements that people who are already angry with Apple can easily get riled by and agree with, but with just the barest effort of thinking, the idea falls apart. (You can tell when posters reach that point, it’s usually when they bring out “Apple Fanboy”
GameStop doesn’t make games either. Neither does BestBuy. However, I’d bet they both have nice chunks of gaming revenue. Now that I think about it, so does WalMart.