Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

boss.king said:
Epic dropped the price on Vbucks to $8, down from 10 and both Epic and the customer benefited.
Click to expand...

It's kinda funny that this whole thing is centered around virtual currency.

The value of VBucks per dollar is an arbitrary decision by Epic. They could literally make VBucks worth any amount they want. VBucks are a virtual product... as are the items you buy in Fortnite.

Why do VBucks cost what they do? And why does the Silver Surfer costume cost 1,500 VBucks?

It's different than selling physical goods that have suppliers, manufacturing, packaging, shipping, distribution... and the store also wants a cut.

Epic is upset that if someone pays $10 on iOS... they only get $7 while Apple gets $3.

But wait... Epic is getting $7 real dollars... and I'm getting a bunch of fake money to buy fake items?

Epic shouldn't worry about "losing" money to a store. They developed a genius way to take real money and give people digital infinitely-reproducible fake items.
 
Last edited:
boss.king said:
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?
Click to expand...
Nothing. They can set the prices to what they want (despite their accusations that apple controls pricing)
[automerge]1598898340[/automerge]
boss.king said:
That doesn't negate the fact that the price is now lower .
Click to expand...
Yes it does.

The price is NOT lower, is it? You can’t actually buy it (for ios). This is all a game. Don’t fall for it.
 
Michael Scrip said:
It's kinda funny that this whole thing is centered around the price of virtual currency.

The value of VBucks per dollar is an arbitrary decision by Epic. They could literally make VBucks worth any amount they want. VBucks are a virtual product... as are the items you buy in Fortnite.

Why do VBucks cost what they do? And why does the Silver Surfer costume cost 1,500 VBucks?

It's different than selling physical goods that has suppliers, manufacturing, packaging, shipping, distribution... and the store also wants a cut.

Epic is upset that if someone pays $10 on iOS... they only get $7 while Apple gets $3.

But wait... Epic is getting $7 real dollars... and I'm getting a bunch of fake money to buy fake items?

Epic shouldn't worry about "losing" money to a store. They developed a genius way to take real money and give people digital infinitely-reproducible fake items.
Click to expand...

the vbuck price is the industry accepted standard just like apples 30%
 
boss.king said:
That doesn't mean we should stop pushing for improvement. As tech enthusiasts, you'd think we should understand things can always be better.
Click to expand...
Sure they can. Just ask yourself how much you, as a consumer, are willing to pay developers. Cause, as I see it, people now think it is normal to buy apps for 0.99 $ or less, meaning 0 $. There is no improvement in this case, unless you are a fan of slavery... Apple is pushing subscriptions instead of one time paid apps (15% vs 30% cut) to help developers understand they need to build a good long term relationship with their clients.
 
Apple Crusader said:
With a mentality like this, it's no wonder the world never changes for the better.
Click to expand...

Why is it so hard for you (and those like you) to understand that not everyone shares your opinion? All of life is about trade offs. Overall, I am quite happy with the ones Apple has made. I do not want an environment like exists on Android, where piracy is rampant, apps routinely collect users’ data without permission and any app can force one to sign up for an account to use it.

I like that Apple forces apps to disclose how they want to track me and forces them to give me the option to say no. Your “open world” will not result in lower prices to me and probably will not even make small developers more money (after they account for the losses to piracy).

It goes right in line with "Well don't buy an Apple device then" when people voice their complaints.
Click to expand...

It depends on what the complaint is. When someone says: “I hate that Apple thinks the can control what I install” or “On Android they have an SD Card slot and I cannot believe that Apple will not add one”, my response is simple: It sounds like there is a platform that better meets your needs and I am happy that it exists. I do not want Apple to change the ecosystem that I prefer to make it more like the other one that already exists.

In other words, if the complaint is something is broken, it is great to see comments on it. If the complaint is I really want Apple hardware, but Android everything else, my answer is do not buy Apple hardware.
 
Apple claims that it treats all developers the same. Supposedly Amazon got a deal in which Apple did not take a 30 percent cut of payments from a particular Amazon application. Both of these cannot be true. Either Apple is lying about treating all developers the same, or Amazon is lying about getting this deal from Apple. Which is it?
 
D4vidrim said:
Sure they can. Just ask yourself how much you, as a consumer, are willing to pay developers. Cause, as I see it, people now think it is normal to buy apps for 0.99 $ or less, meaning 0 $. There is no improvement in this case, unless you are a fan of slavery... Apple is pushing subscriptions instead of one time paid apps (15% vs 30% cut) to help developers understand they need to build a good long term relationship with their clients.
Click to expand...
Apple could also push that same model while taking a far reduced cut. They’re not doing this out of love for developers, they’re doing it because they like taking a cut of more transactions.
 
Picard J.L. said:
Intentions matter. It’s lower for a reason and it’s not out of goodness of their hearts.
Click to expand...
If intentions matter so much then how about we assess Apple’s intentions too? I can assure you they’re not fighting to keep their 30% cut because they believe it is for the benefit of the consumer or the developer.
 
boss.king said:
That doesn't negate the fact that the price is now lower .
Click to expand...
It is lower on all platforms, including their dominant ones that have not changed the percentage that Epic pays. Seems like it does not matter how much Apple takes if they can pay the other platform vendors the same percentage at the new price point.
 
VictorTango777 said:
Apple claims that it treats all developers the same. Supposedly Amazon got a deal in which Apple did not take a 30 percent cut of payments from a particular Amazon application. Both of these cannot be true. Either Apple is lying about treating all developers the same, or Amazon is lying about getting this deal from Apple. Which is it?
Click to expand...

Yes, both can be true. Apple got their 30% in other ways from amazon. Instead of cash, amazon agreed to do other things which made up the difference (including selling apple tv on amazon.com, an exclusive marketing deal for apple hardware on amazon.com, and supporting certain technologies that apple wanted prime video to support).

Everyone pays their rent to apple. Just because apple agrees to accept a different sort of "currency" doesn't mean it's not the same.

If Epic had something of value to give apple instead of the full 30%, I'm sure apple would take it too.
 
The intention is Apple's fee for being on the IOS app store, of which Epic made millions. The don't have to justify it, any more than than Best Buy has to justify why it's charging x dollars for y brand tv.
 
boss.king said:
If intentions matter so much then how about we assess Apple’s intentions too? I can assure you they’re not fighting to keep their 30% cut because they believe it is for the benefit of the consumer or the developer.
Click to expand...
Of course not. Apple is a business, but epic wants unrealistic things that won’t benefit most consumers. End of story.
 
Alan Wynn said:
It is lower on all platforms, including their dominant ones that have not changed the percentage that Epic pays. Seems like it does not matter how much Apple takes if they can pay the other platform vendors the same percentage at the new price point.
Click to expand...
I assume that if they win the Apple/Google cases that consoles will be next (Maybe not Sony since I believe they’re an investor in Epic). But who knows, I don’t work for Epic so I can only make an educated guess.
 
Epic is just a China compnaynow anyways... along with Opera... You can't trust anything Digital wit Chiner involved.
 
D4vidrim said:
Sure they can. Just ask yourself how much you, as a consumer, are willing to pay developers. Cause, as I see it, people now think it is normal to buy apps for 0.99 $ or less, meaning 0 $. There is no improvement in this case, unless you are a fan of slavery... Apple is pushing subscriptions instead of one time paid apps (15% vs 30% cut) to help developers understand they need to build a good long term relationship with their clients.
Click to expand...
I think that’s the world we live in now. Subscriptions are no different from Patreon. It’s a way for business people to create a healthy steady revenue stream so they can focus on their business and improving their products. I used to have a knee jerk response to subscriptions, but not as much now.
VictorTango777 said:
Apple claims that it treats all developers the same. Supposedly Amazon got a deal in which Apple did not take a 30 percent cut of payments from a particular Amazon application. Both of these cannot be true. Either Apple is lying about treating all developers the same, or Amazon is lying about getting this deal from Apple. Which is it?
Click to expand...
Yes, they can be true. If your great-uncle was to leave you quite the considerable amount of money and you wanted to set up a business to challenge Amazon, such that you meet the SAME criteria Amazon meets in Apple’s rules, then you get the same deal.

The ”deal” with Netflix, Amazon and others is not “hey, I’ll do this for you.” It’s more “I’m going to do this for you BUT, I want YOU to understand that everyone else is going to get this same terms if they provide the same conditions.”

I’m convinced that one reason (absolutely not the biggest) why Epic has a problem is that they want an “exclusive” deal with Apple and the best Apple would ever do is define new rules and then any other Epic that comes along and follows the rules gets the same deal. Of course, it’s pretty clear now that Epic never wanted a deal and they actually plan to come out with an Epic branded OnePlus phone that provides access to their own store. :)
boss.king said:
If intentions matter so much then how about we assess Apple’s intentions too? I can assure you they’re not fighting to keep their 30% cut because they believe it is for the benefit of the consumer or the developer.
Click to expand...
It’s fairly easy to define an imaginary set of intentions so that Apple’s made out to be a saint. However, I am not in a particularly facetious mode right now, maybe later :)
 
Something new

Apple says App Store appeals process is now live, so developers can start challenging decisions - The Verge 8/31/20

"Amid its historic fight with Epic Games over Fortnite"

Apple on Monday announced that its new App Store appeals process, first revealed at WWDC in June, is now live, meaning developers can challenge Apple over whether their app is in fact violating one of its guidelines. In addition to that, Apple says developers can also suggest changes to the App Store guidelines through a form submission on its online developer portal.

“For apps that are already on the App Store, bug fixes will no longer be delayed over guideline violations except for those related to legal issues. You’ll instead be able to address guideline violations in your next submission,” reads a note posted to Apple’s developer website. “And now, in addition to appealing decisions about whether an app violates guidelines, you can suggest changes to the guidelines.”

These changes were introduced at WWDC on the heels of a rather public feud with software maker Basecamp, the creator of a new email service called Hey. Basecamp openly challenged Apple over whether it could distribute an iOS companion app to its email service without including in-app sign-up options, as Hey costs $99 a year and Basecamp felt it unnecessary to give Apple its standard 30 percent cut of that revenue (although Apple does only take 15 percent of in-app subscription revenue after one year of service). Apple, in response, held up the company’s bug fixes and update capability.
 
Analog Kid said:
www.businessjustice.com

Antitrust Standards of Review: The Per Se, Rule of Reason, and Quick Look Tests - Bona Law

Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits every contract, combination or conspiracy that restrains interstate trade, or trade with foreign...
www.businessjustice.com www.businessjustice.com

It requires a full-blown analysis of (i) definition of the relevant product and geographic market, (ii) market power of the defendant(s) in the relevant market, (iii) and the existence of anticompetitive effects. The court will then shift the burden to the defendant(s) to show an objective procompetitive justification.​

Remember, when you read “market power”, you can pronounce it “monopoly”. Do you understand what a monopoly is?

So what relevant product and geographic market does Apple hold monopoly power in with anticompetitive effects that outweigh the pro competitive justification?
Click to expand...

The courts have traditionally distinguished "market power" and "monopoly power".
www.justice.gov

Monopoly Power and Market Power in Antitrust Law

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.
www.justice.gov www.justice.gov
 
Riffz60 said:
It is a hard concept to understand.

When you buy a fridge do you expect it to work as an oven?

Why are you buying devices and getting upset when they don’t do something they never claimed to do? Something they were never intended to do?

If you buy a Samsung Galaxy do you expect to be able to install iOS on it?

Please elaborate how you expect this to happen. As the entire tech industry says otherwise.
Click to expand...

An operating system is designed to run every compatible executable that you want.
Apple took that functionality away from you.
Apple degraded your product for their own benefits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top