Did Apple give them 14 days to comply? Or a Fortnight?
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
No comment:
appleinsider.com
Developer says Apple rejected update for not forcing auto-billing on users | AppleInsider
Yoga app developer Down Dog reports that Apple has rejected an update because its free trial version doesn't automatically turn into a paid subscription.
I guess there's two meanings of gaming, casual vs hardcore. People have and will continue to associate Apple as "casual gaming", but in terms of hardcore gaming, people already have that feeling. I don't think the "casual gaming" view will be affected by this (except by the Fortnite players)
Yep, I'm not an avid gamer, but I do play Playstation, Switch, and PC games casually. All this tells me is don't get into Apple's ecosystem for gaming unless you wantt the same lackluster user experience you get with the rest of the ecosystem. Its annoying enough having to leave an app whenever I can't buy something directly in the store, I'll just look elsewhere to avoid these annoyances and other Apple restrictions when it comes to gaming. Why lift a finger to use my phone for gaming when I don't have to do that with a console, PC, or even my MacBook.
Not to mention the perceived buying risk. Why buy a game on iOS when Apple could change the rules at anytime and limit updating or make the game unplayable. I'm not buying any game in iOS with that risk when I can just buy it for another platform without fear.
It looks like Apple is giving one more chance for Epic to abide by them otherwise they lose this option, and if they lose it by then well... who cares. Epic will lose far more money than reaching for a solution in their wrong unethical, shamefully wrong way. I don’t have to explain everything but Apple won’t Even care if Epic goes but Epic, definitely the other way around.
i hope Apple kicks out Epic
i hope Apple kicks out Epic
Seems like a simple fix for the app. Might be harder for the developer.No comment:
Developer says Apple rejected update for not forcing auto-billing on users | AppleInsider
Yoga app developer Down Dog reports that Apple has rejected an update because its free trial version doesn't automatically turn into a paid subscription.
When I buy an app I expect it to work on all my devices. Developers don’t get to dictate how I use my content. They already charge me for every platform, now they want to charge per device.
I can't speak for the poster you were replying to, but no, I'd rather Nintendo be brought to task as well if what you are saying is true. Apple or Nintendo, Apple or Epic Games, Apple or Sony, Apple or Facebook, Apple or Walmart, Apple or Microsoft, etc. are all false choices. They can all be better. As consumers, we don't have to pick which company we rally behind, we can be disgusted with them all.
But Nintendo’s strategy has always been to force developers to only release their very best on their systems. It likely saved video games.
Perhaps I should say, meaningful choice.
The size of an ecosystem absolutely matters. The size is the valuable part! For example, developers don't want to waste time and money developing apps for platforms without a lot of users on them, but that leads to a conundrum where users don't want to adopt your platform because there aren't any apps on them.
Epic did this the wrong way and needed to honor their contract with Apple. Apple makes the devices, the operating system, and the distribution platform. Stealing their agreed on percentage of a contract is not only greedy - it's theft.
Props to Apple for having integrity and maintaining the same standards for big and small developers alike.
Props to Apple for having integrity and maintaining the same standards for big and small developers alike.
Nah, pretty sure that's already a done deal, they've moved on. Poor Tom, though.
I was referring to how the new Avengers video game had Spider-Man removed on all platforms except PS4.
You'll have to elaborate. Yes, exclusive games have always been a thing, but that exclusivity, whether permanent or time-limited, was paid for. Nintendo pays for the privilege of exclusivity, kind of the same as how AT&T paid apple for the exclusive rights to carry the iPhone in the U.S. when it was originally released. If you remember, it took some time for the exclusivity deal to expire before other carriers could start selling the original iPhone.
Are we arguing Nintendo's exclusivity deals are anti-competitive? Are we arguing that Apple should get a pass because other companies do shady things too? What's going on here, you seem to be only responding to the most immediate post, ignoring your own prior points and muddying the waters. You're all over the place. Are Nintendo and Apple both being upstanding, is one being bad and the other good, is it justifiable because of the greater good? There's just no making heads or tails of your argument.
That’s how all began:
en.wikipedia.org
The application was removed from the App Store without explanation by Apple Inc. the day after its release, August 6, 2008 (2008-08-06).
I Am Rich - Wikipedia
The application was removed from the App Store without explanation by Apple Inc. the day after its release, August 6, 2008 (2008-08-06).
I have nothing against your expressing your opinion. My issue is simply that the changes you want would eliminate much of what millions of other users want to make it more like a platform that already exists (and that you can choose to buy if those things are more important than the things you say you like about the platfrom.
Those are things I like about their platforms as well. You want to know why they are first and reliable? Simply because they do not support out dated APIs forever. You are completely correct that one can still run MS-DOS games on Windows, and until recently, that worked by switching into real mode, eliminating much of the CPU’s protection. It also meant that the code and configurations they needed to test were several orders of magnitude more complex and so were inherently less stable.
Apple did not care what one developed for the Apple II, but even early on they cared about what software was developed for the Mac. Just like with NeXT, one needed to apply to join their developer program and one could not develop apps without being a member.
I head a great proposal for a Constitutional Amendment, called Truth in Legal Naming. It would require that any law named after some crime victim would need to so that had it been in place, it would have prevented the crime against the named victim. The problem with your contention that they have too much control is that your proposed solution would not have fixed the problem you just mentioned. Even if the developer had been able to offer support for side loading, 99% of customers would not bother to figure out how to do it.
In addition, one can still load any application on the Mac one wants, so nothing has changed there for the tiny number of users who care. For the rest of us, notarization (as an example), makes things better and safer.
Yup, one could still use the App Store (and as Epic discovered on Android, most people do not care or want this “freedom” hence they had to back down and give up delivering their apps outside the Google Play store. However, what you and others do not seem to want to acknowledge is that opening things the way you suggest necessarily makes security weaker and hurts small developers most.
Your argument is: Build a castle, surround it with high, thick walls, with a steel gate. Then, just to that gate, build a giant opening and cover it with a piece of paper that says “only go though this hole if you know what you are doing.” Unfortunately that completely negates the rest of the security.
What you and others seem to refuse to acknowledge, is the many of the things you like about the platform, only exist because of the things about which you complain.
I understand how important these things are to you and do not even argue that your desires are wrong. I just argue they are met perfectly on Android and that I would rather you decide that if your listed requirements are so important that you can not live without them, that you will just switch platforms, rather than ruin the one that many others and I want.
Apple provided a level ground when they opened their App Store. Before Apple, all the cell phone company operated appstores were taking 50% to 70%. When Apple first said 30%, *ALL* the developers said this is such a good price.
Honestly, this seems like a desperate mafia-style messaging action to other smaller developers. Sit quietly on your hands, do not challenge us, or we will give you a fatal blow you will be unlikely able to fight.
I have no doubt a court will block this until the case is over. And it will fall into evidence towards the anticompetitive claims in the lawsuit, and in congressional, EU, and state-level investigations. The sharks are circling, honestly the wise move would have been to let it simmer and then announce new policies that go half-way... because its only going to take one government somewhere to kick the door wide open and for Apple to lose a lot more control.
I have no doubt a court will block this until the case is over. And it will fall into evidence towards the anticompetitive claims in the lawsuit, and in congressional, EU, and state-level investigations. The sharks are circling, honestly the wise move would have been to let it simmer and then announce new policies that go half-way... because its only going to take one government somewhere to kick the door wide open and for Apple to lose a lot more control.