One could pass that on to the developers for not providing an android apk when getting the iOS version.
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 Threatens to Terminate Epic Games' Developer Accounts on August 28
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
One could pass that on to the developers for not providing an android apk when getting the iOS version.
I suspect then with Fortnite gamers on iOS most have subscription and remained until it was pulled. For teens it’s been addicting if not instrumental to their popularity inclusion index.
Glad you want to root against your own interests. These is no way that this benefits almost any consumers (and frankly it will hurt most smaller developers as well. I consulted for a major company with a big business in mobile games. On Android, all our games were ad and online transaction supported. On iOS they were mostly one-time purchases. We did this because piracy was just an issue on Android. Allowing side loading and allowing people to create their own stores, does not benefit small developers, and it certainly does not generate end users.
Epic was able to build their own store on Android. They did it. The sold no copies. They decided that 30% of something was better than 100% of nothing. Then they sued not to make it possible to install around the Google Play store, but to be in the store and not have to pay for it.
Exactly. It is no problem at all. Anyone who sees it as a "problem" or "challenge" to change phones must have very little challenges in their lives. Geez! Outside of iMessage and FaceTime EVERYTHING is basically exactly the same between the ecosystems.
And one can always buy feature phones from Nokia that are neither Android or iOS.
They agreed to the terms and conditions then break them, what do they expect, special treatment because they are a big company.
Its good that Apple is treating them equally like any developer that breaks their contract.
The ironic thing is they don’t have an issue with Nintendo, Microsoft or SONY taking the same amount of cut because they are all in bed with each other, and Epic wishes to increase it’s profit by setting up it’s own AppStore for Apple and Google with the help of Apple’s and Google’s own tools, so using this PR stunt to try make Apple and Google look like a monopoly and evil so they can get a foot in the door and continue to use Apple’s tools to compete with them.
pure greed, it’s time epic server’s we’re hacked to shreda.
Its good that Apple is treating them equally like any developer that breaks their contract.
The ironic thing is they don’t have an issue with Nintendo, Microsoft or SONY taking the same amount of cut because they are all in bed with each other, and Epic wishes to increase it’s profit by setting up it’s own AppStore for Apple and Google with the help of Apple’s and Google’s own tools, so using this PR stunt to try make Apple and Google look like a monopoly and evil so they can get a foot in the door and continue to use Apple’s tools to compete with them.
pure greed, it’s time epic server’s we’re hacked to shreda.
Yeah because Apple created a special category for them so they could offer an app that DOES NOTHING upon download unless you are a subscriber. The same type of app that Phil Schiller says is a bad customer experience. Just like having to go to the web to buy Kindle books is a bad customer experience. But Apple cares more about App Store revenue than they do customer experience.
When the App Store was first announced Steve Jobs said Apple wasn’t looking to make money off of it; they felt having a vibrant App Store/app ecosystem made the iPhone and iOS more valuable. But as hardware sales have stalled/declined Apple is needing to find other sources for their revenue growth. And one of the biggest sources of that is the cut they get from IAP. And now that Apple is making billions from App Store IAP they’re not going to give it up unless forced to.
And there's the rub. The IAP percentage share may seem unreasonable but it's only because of an escalation of in-game currencies and similar mechanisms. Early on (and still true of many smaller games and non-game apps), IAPs were primarily for expanded features and content expansions, games or otherwise. Now apps offer service expansions tied to subscriptions and games use IAPs for currency, i.e. routine/frequent/regular purchases. So, yes, Apple is raking in tons of money and (these) developers are angry because it's not equal to Apple's own investment. However, again, this problem was caused by said developers exchanging the system with aggressively escalated (somewhat) sleazy revenue model. Basically, some developers have drastically altered the IAP concept.
Last edited:
Epic picked a fight with Apple over the status quo that Epic has been happily going along with until now. Having a bee in one's bonnet is not going to win one's case in court.
Yeah I agree! You know what else can be seen as a challenge? Switching from Office 365 to Google Docs.
Spotify and Netflix doesn't offer in-app purchases or any type of purchase in the iOS apps.
There was no problem with Fortnite either, until Epic decided to offer in-app purchases that circumvented the AppStore's payment systems, which is against the contracts and terms of service that Epic signed with Apple the day they wanted to publish on Apple's platform. If Fortnite was a free app on the AppStore without in-app purchases, like Netflix and Spotify, then it wouldn't have to pay any fee at all.
100% agree. No....100000% agree.
Adobe has a monopoly in Photoshop!
Xbox has a monopoly on Xbox games!
As stated in a previous post, there is a concept called standing:
Standing (law) - Wikipedia
If Epic had never signed that contract and never distributed its app on the App Store, it seems like it would hard to determine harm or damages in a hypothetical. By actually demonstrating what would happen if they broke the rules, they have suffered harm they can point to in a lawsuit.
Everyone pays 30% of the purchase price. Subscriptions on year 2 are at 15% of subscription price.
30% of zero is zero.
A smaller developer still wouldn't be able to afford to have their own store. How does giving the Big Guy's like Epic more money help the little developer?
I’m sure they do have some fairly serious deals between different companies. This reminds me of the time when UPS went on strike, FedEx ended up carrying all rapid delivery packages for awhile and used the profits to buy Roadway providing them the ability to compete with UPS on the ground.
Some companies never dealt with UPS again because it was always in your mind... what if they shut down again? Companies are wondering “what if this engine really isn’t available in the near future?”
Ahhh, well, um, y’see get out of here with your logic?
But, by THAT thinking every financial agreement harms every entity. For an individual, any financial agreement would lead to less money for them to... BUY FOOD WITH! And I think anyone would agree that food is far more important than a car, so no purchase of a car should ever harm anyone’s ability to buy the food they need... TO SURVIVE!!Actually, isn't that how our legal system works?
Standing (law) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
You can't simply sue because you don't like a particular law or policy from a company. You need to demonstrate how that law or policy harmed you -- and in this case, it seems like Apple is only adding ammunition to that part.
So, here’s $4.37 for my new SUV please. And if you don’t agree with that, wellllll, I’ll just sue.
As stated in a previous post, there is a concept called standing:
Standing (law) - Wikipedia
If Epic had never signed that contract and never distributed its app on the App Store, it seems like it would hard to determine harm or damages in a hypothetical. By actually demonstrating what would happen if they broke the rules, they have suffered harm they can point to in a lawsuit.
All I see is a spoiled brat claiming they hurt themselves damaging someone else's property.
As stated in a previous post, there is a concept called standing:
Standing (law) - Wikipedia
If Epic had never signed that contract and never distributed its app on the App Store, it seems like it would hard to determine harm or damages in a hypothetical. By actually demonstrating what would happen if they broke the rules, they have suffered harm they can point to in a lawsuit.
That makes no sense. That's like a burgular suing a houseowner because the burgular got hurt while breaking into the house. Although I have heard stories of sillier suits actually going to court in the US. Which is scary in itself. And makes the legal system look like a complete joke.
There is no legal precedent for causing something like this to change. The comparison with the Microsoft vs US case is not a valid comparison because Microsoft went out of their way to prevent Netscape from being both developed and distributed. Its not because Microsoft was "big" as people just assume.
Until there is similar evidence, I don't see how governments can force something like this. As stated multiple times, a Monopoly is not illegal. Microsoft vs US was not because of monopoly. It was due to other actions.
I just wanted to say THANK YOU THANK YOU. Someone else gets the Microsoft vs US case and its not just because Microsoft has 90% market share. Its all about the COERCE action they did. And they also did it with Netscape too.
My point isn't that its difficult to switch -- it's difficult to /say/ the solution is "just switch to a different one".
It's sort of analogous to political parties. When I only have two choices (Apple and Google), I only have choice in the sense that I can pick the lesser of the two evils, or that I have to make difficult choices in deciding which issue is more important to me.
Just like choice of which cellular provider to use (AT&T, T-Mobile, etc.) being separated from which smartphone I'm using, why shouldn't I get choice of which payment processor to use for digital goods in an app? I can choose which payment processor to use (PayPal, Stripe, Apple Pay, etc.) when I buy physical goods inside of an app.
Yes I agree. As someone who pays CacheFLY every month for my CDN, I can tell you how expensive just distribution alone costs. And Apple is doing that for the 30%.