Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I really hope Epic doesn't go back on this and stops supporting iOS devices on Epic engine. iPhones and iPads need to become real general computing devices, not the locked things we have now that are limited by whatever Apple thinks is good or bad for us.
That's called Android.
 
Last edited:
While I *may* agree with you, Dumb people like me don't see the case for the distinction.
Let's change to Apple vs. Spotify. Apple Music comes preloaded on my iPhone and would like 9.99 /month for subscription. If I happen to prefer Tidal or Spotify better, sure I can DL for free, but of the 9.99 subscription to Spotify, they only receive 7.99, seems fishy to me... Sure Apple probably has Apple Music as a separate entity, i just want to see the funny math to see the app store is still getting 30%

If the digital devices didn't exist, makers of digital products would have no way to monetise them. In a world without iPhones you could still sell pizza and cab rides, but you could not sell gems for a iOS puzzle game. The same applies to movies, eBooks and music. All useless without gadgets. If you produce digital products you are absolutely reliant on the makers of digital devices and if your business relies on somebody else's products you can expect them to want money from you.
 
That's called Android.

And look how good Epic does on that platform.... The only reason google isn't really lumped in to this is because they do a fraction of the business on android, cause they take 30% too.
 
This is a classic setup by Epic. They knew very well Apple would take these steps and have had a response and/or lawsuit already prepared, just waiting. To a jury, all of these actions by Apple casts Epic as the victim and they don't even have to do anything. Epic's crime that caused all of this? Wanting to bring lower, more competitive prices to its customers.

If this gets to a jury Apple will lose. Bigly.

Because Epic signed a contract they didn't like - umm that's not how it works.

Epic is is in textbook breach of contract.
 
Irrational? Then all the governments in the world are... irrational?!?

First, I know of no country that caps income tax. If you know of one, let me know. Second, the argument for capping Payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare) is that they are supposed to be savings programs and one is capped as to how much one can receive, so one is also capped as to how much one needs to contribute.

Have a look at your last pay report.
Some amounts that are automatically taken from you are capped for the year, some others have marginal % (like taxes in most countries), some others are fixed. This isn't anything new here, it's good old finance 101.

Marginal rates have nothing to do with this, nor in fact do taxes in general. Taxes are not voluntary, one is required to pay them. No developer has to put an app on Apple’s platforms. If they do not feel they will be well enough compensated for doing so, they should not.

What if your government took 30% of everyone's salary, no matter how much money you make? Would it make sense for you? This is exactly what Apple and the others are doing.

Wow, if they only took 30%, many people would be happy here in California. The top marginal rate in the U.S. Is 37%, add the 12.3% for state income tax and people are paying over 49% on every dollar from the point they hit that number. No upper bound.

It's harder for a small company that does not generate revenue yet to give 30% of almost nothing than for a big company like Epic to give 30% of a **** ton of cash. If you ever owned a business, you'll know what I'm talking about.

It is a cost of doing business. It might be harder, but the App Store and Google Play store benefit the smaller players much more than the bigger ones. It levels the playing field, so that one looking at apps cannot tell how big or small the company is, nor do they have to drive people to their own web site, or convince customers to trust their payment processor. Apple and Google do that all for them.

Again, even a giant company like Epic, discovered that people did not want to go to a separate store to buy Fortnite and decided they should go back in to the Google Play store. Seems easy to get that the cost was worth it, or they would not have done it.

What they and others want is the benefit of the App Store/Play Store, without having to pay for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacCheetah3
If the digital devices didn't exist, makers of digital products would have no way to monetise them. In a world without iPhones you could still sell pizza and cab rides, but you could not sell gems for a iOS puzzle game. The same applies to movies, eBooks and music. All useless without gadgets. If you produce digital products you are absolutely reliant on the makers of digital devices and if your business relies on somebody else's products you can expect them to want money from you.

But it does create an unpleasant asymmetry, where the maker of the gadget has a privileged position to offer services. Apple is simultaneously a competitor and a regulator of competition, which gives them a business advantage. To be honest, I don't know what is "right" or "wrong" here. One one hand, Apple did make the technological platform, so it sounds logical and fair that they benefit from it. On the other hand, if they choose to offer a particular service, no outsider would be able to compete with them, which can have negative impact on the development of the platform. I think this is really what is meant when people say that Apple is a "monopoly". In regards to the App Store, Apple essentially fulfills the role of the state. So to say the "benevolent dictatorship of the United States of Apple". And we all know that giving government exclusive access to the market is not the best ideas.

In the end, I start tending towards the notion that a company who is the provider/regulator should not be able to offer services on the said platform. Following the notion that a government should regulate, not compete with free business. This means that services like Apple Music etc. should be split into separate entities who are subject of the same business conditions as any other players, e.g. they would need to give the "big" Apple a cut.
 
And look how good Epic does on that platform.... The only reason google isn't really lumped in to this is because they do a fraction of the business on android, cause they take 30% too.
Google is lumped into this, Epic filed the same lawsuit against them.
 
[...]
What they and others want is the benefit of the App Store/Play Store, without having to pay for it.
Maybe this is the object of the lawsuit, but the only possible outcome that I see is :
1. Apple (without forgetting the others) might be obliged to revise how they take their cut (various ways to do it as I mentioned).
2. Epic will be obliged to continue selling their stuff on the App Store and pay the new amount.

I know you could not disagree more with that, and it's OK.

I'll call it quits about this discussion. You won't convince me that 30% is a reasonable fee for everything sold in the App Store in 2020, and I won't convince you that it is not.
 
Maybe this is the object of the lawsuit, but the only possible outcome that I see is :
1. Apple (without forgetting the others) might be obliged to revise how they take their cut (various ways to do it as I mentioned).
2. Epic will be obliged to continue selling their stuff on the App Store and pay the new amount.

I know you could not disagree more with that, and it's OK.

I'll call it quits about this discussion. You won't convince me that 30% is a reasonable fee for everything sold in the App Store in 2020, and I won't convince you that it is not.
Yep, the issue is polarizing, considering most of the posters in this thread are probably not devs, but yet want to regulate Apples business model.

Does anybody really believe if Apple, for the sake of argument reduced the fee that anybody would see a saving? Or is this about ensuring the mythical IOS developer gets as much revenue as possible, while making use of Apples' infrastructure?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacCheetah3
That would be an un-competitive behaviour and retaliation against a company. Apple would not suffer, the developers would who use the engine. This entire mess and show by Epic is to push their own store. It is part of a plan. A few months back they started to advertise their epic store, by giving away free games and now they do jump on Apple and Google. I am sure the final phase of this this is to push their own EPIC Store on all platform ( which by the way takes cut from revenue just like the App Store). This whole agenda onEpic’s behalf is hypocritical. They are not standing up for small developers, the only problem they have is that the money doesnt go to them and they want to use Apple’s platform to take a chunky share of annual revenue, like a leech.
I see it this way:
  • Epic want iOS devices to become as general as Mac/PC to push their store on phones/tablets
  • Epic breaks AppStore rule to show they are against it
  • Apple bans Fortnite but then they also terminate Epic's developer account so Epic can't update Unreal Engine on Mac/iOS
Epic have two choices:
  1. Play safe, stop the fight, conform to AppStore rules and continue developing for iOS/Mac
  2. Epic doesn't like AppStore conditions, they stop working with Apple, Fortnite and Unreal Engine games are gone from Mac/iOS
I think Epic is wrong to break AppStore rules but I see nothing wrong with them not updating Unreal to work on Apple devices. After all if a company like Apple doesn't care about you why should you care about them? This will lead to many people hating Epic for not supporting Apple and many people hating Apple for not supporting Epic. More developers will choose Unity, more people will get Android devices (especially kids / Fortnite players) and nothing will change about the Mac because no one gets a Mac for gaming.

It would be much easier to petition Apple to promote iPads becoming real general computing devices than to hope for a developer to keep working with Apple when Apple doesn't make it worth it.
Yeah, but someone needs to take the first step and it has to be someone big like Epic or Spotify. I don't see why Apple would otherwise lose on a part of an income stream like AppStore without a retaliation like this or maybe even antitrust lawsuits.

Move on android then, bye
That's called Android.
Android sucks.

Why? And I mean why does an Apple manufactured device specifically need to become a general computing device?
Why not a Kindle Fire, or some Android phone?
There are two platforms for phones. One is open, the other is closed. Why would I choose the closed one? Simply because in my opinion Apple hardware and software is better than Android alternatives, the ecosystem is also not replaceable with anything else.
Imagine if Apple started locking down macOS to only use the Mac AppStore. People would be furious and demand them to revert it at once. At some point people would start using Windows alternatives. iOS devices to me should not be treated differently and I think with time more and more will take my side. In the end, the only reason Apple can do this is because people like me keep buying their products. Better competition would solve this problem but as I already said, Android sucks. ;)
 
I see it this way:
  • Epic want iOS devices to become as general as Mac/PC to push their store on phones/tablets

Nope. Epic does not give a damn about that. They want Apple to be forced to include their app store and do not care if people are forced to only buy from their store or Apple’s store.

  • Epic breaks AppStore rule to show they are against it

Again, no. They broke the rules to create publicity. They could have followed the rules and still filed the lawsuit, or they could have pulled the app from the store and announced they would not be updating it until the rules changed and still filed the same lawsuit.

  • Apple bans Fortnite but then they also terminate Epic's developer account so Epic can't update Unreal Engine on Mac/iOS

Still wrong. They informed Epic that if they did not cure the breach within a set number of days, they would terminate their developer account. meaning that Epic are not just putting their own revenue at risk, but those of others they encouraged to use their engine.

Epic have two choices:
  1. Play safe, stop the fight, conform to AppStore rules and continue developing for iOS/Mac
  2. Epic doesn't like AppStore conditions, they stop working with Apple, Fortnite and Unreal Engine games are gone from Mac/iOS

Once again, wrong.

Epic can follow the rules, and disable the functionality that is in breach while continuing their lawsuit. They could also disable the app and withdraw from the App Store while they continue the suit but still support their engine customers. There are a million other possibilities for them.

I think Epic is wrong to break AppStore rules but I see nothing wrong with them not updating Unreal to work on Apple devices. After all if a company like Apple doesn't care about you why should you care about them?

We agree on both points. If this were a matter of principle, they could withdraw from the store and announce that they would no longer develop Unreal Engine for Apple’s platform. They might get sued by some of their developers (depending on their contracts with them), but it would be certainly show that they were fighting for a principle, by giving up all their revenue on the platform.

This will lead to many people hating Epic for not supporting Apple and many people hating Apple for not supporting Epic. More developers will choose Unity, more people will get Android devices (especially kids / Fortnite players) and nothing will change about the Mac because no one gets a Mac for gaming.

This will lead a small number of people who currently care about iOS based Unreal Engine-based games to be upset. It may convince a large number of developers that they should not trust Epic, given how little care they have shown them in this fight (might be good for Unity, CryEngine and Lumberyard). Apple Silicon Macs should make casual games (at a minimum) an option for macOS.

Yeah, but someone needs to take the first step and it has to be someone big like Epic or Spotify. I don't see why Apple would otherwise lose on a part of an income stream like AppStore without a retaliation like this or maybe even antitrust lawsuits.

Again you are wrong. There is already an anti-trust case against Apple over its App Store. It is over a year old. This case by Epic is just a publicity stunt.

There are two platforms for phones. One is open, the other is closed. Why would I choose the closed one? Simply because in my opinion Apple hardware and software is better than Android alternatives, the ecosystem is also not replaceable with anything else.

Has it occurred to you that the reason it better is that they control it better and that if that goes away, it will end up just like Android?

However, there are other platforms, they are just smaller, as the two primary options hit the needs for most users. Those who want a stable, protected ecosystem in a walled garden pick iOS/iPadOS/tvOS. Those who really just wanted a free phone, a form factor that Apple does not support, the ability to use a stylus, customize their home screen or just say how much cooler they are because they are not sheep (because they own the dominant platform) buy Android.

Imagine if Apple started locking down macOS to only use the Mac AppStore. People would be furious and demand them to revert it at once.

Yup, but most of them would not really be Mac users, just people who like to complain. Given a choice, I always buy apps from the Mac App Store. I prefer knowing they will work on all my Macs, and that I will not have to remember where I got them to re-download them. Others have different opinions.

At some point people would start using Windows alternatives.

Not sure if you know this, but over 90% of desktop/laptop users already use Windows. However, about 90% of tablet users pick iOS. Given how cheap Android tablets are, I would guess that they do not care about apps only coming from the App Store and if Apple Silicon makes the Mac more compelling, will buy most of their apps via the Mac App Store as well (especially given the option of universal app purchases and subscription Family Sharing).

iOS devices to me should not be treated differently and I think with time more and more will take my side. In the end, the only reason Apple can do this is because people like me keep buying their products.

Nope. It has little to do with ”people like” you, and everything to do with the hundreds of millions who are completely happy with things as they are. There is no evidence that the number of users who supports your position has grown at all. Not only is it not true on iOS/iPadOS/tvOS/WatchOS, it is clear that it is not even true on Android where it is possible to pick other app stores and no one trusts them or cares enough to bother (hence why Epic had to cave and sell through the Google Play store). While you live in the Mac Rumors Echo Chamber, more users have not even heard of this lawsuit and almost none care about it.

I sincerely hope that those of you who want these open world like Windows and Linux will leave and go to Android and I will not have to worry about you ruining the system that many millions of users like me prefer as it is.

Better competition would solve this problem but as I already said, Android sucks. ;)

Sorry this is not about competition. This is about a system model that is inherently different. The tightly coupled ecosystem, the concern for users’ privacy, the overall lack of malware, etc. are all by design. Google has a different set of interests so you will always be forced to choose, unless you and those like your succeed in destroying iOS so there two platforms with the same lack of privacy and high quality software, with apps that do not integrate well with the hardware because they need to go though the same APIs as other use, with limited new features built in to the system so that no third party offering an expensive add-on solution that hits .001% of users gets ”Sherlock-ed”, etc.
 
Yup, but most of them would not really be Mac users, just people who like to complain. Given a choice, I always buy apps from the Mac App Store. I prefer knowing they will work on all my Macs, and that I will not have to remember where I got them to re-download them. Others have different opinions.
Surely you joke because there isn't much there, meaning you really don't use much in the way of software on your Mac except for Apple applications. Oh well your loss.
 
Surely you joke because there isn't much there, meaning you really don't use much in the way of software on your Mac except for Apple applications. Oh well your loss.

Hmmmm.... I have Microsoft Office, Blackmagic Design DaVinci Resolve, Affinity Designer, Affinity Photo, Affinity Publisher, Pixelmator Pro, Tumut Hype, Omni Graffle Pro, Omni Outliner and about 100 other applications, so I guess you are right, not many. Most of the rest of what I have is open source stuff and a small number of non-App Store apps that do not work with sandboxing (like TeamViewer). I think my bf still has a subscription to Creative Cloud, but I am not sure. He has mostly moved to Resolve for editing, Fusion for compositing and motion graphics and the Affinity Suite for drawing/publishing.

Xcode is one of the Mac apps I use most these days, as I find myself doing more and more of my non-development work on my iPad Pro.

But I guess you are right, not a lot of software.
 
Hmmmm.... I have Microsoft Office, Blackmagic Design DaVinci Resolve, Affinity Designer, Affinity Photo, Affinity Publisher, Pixelmator Pro, Tumut Hype, Omni Graffle Pro, Omni Outliner and about 100 other applications, so I guess you are right, not many. Most of the rest of what I have is open source stuff and a small number of non-App Store apps that do not work with sandboxing (like TeamViewer). I think my bf still has a subscription to Creative Cloud, but I am not sure. He has mostly moved to Resolve for editing, Fusion for compositing and motion graphics and the Affinity Suite for drawing/publishing.

Xcode is one of the Mac apps I use most these days, as I find myself doing more and more of my non-development work on my iPad Pro.

But I guess you are right, not a lot of software.
Well you got a great creative/developer collection for sure. I just find too often when looking for some utility application or entertainment its not there. Still you won your point against its usefulness. :)
 
Wow Apple is being complete and utter dog cr*p here. I was strongly considering buying a Pixel 4, now I'm certain it's right right move. Bye bye Apple. Greedy fascist scumbags.

Confused. You're angry at Apple yet overjoyed at Google - who've also yanked Fortnite and who are also being sued by Epic?

Makes zero sense.
 
Android sucks.


There are two platforms for phones. One is open, the other is closed. Why would I choose the closed one? Simply because in my opinion Apple hardware and software is better than Android alternatives, the ecosystem is also not replaceable with anything else.
Imagine if Apple started locking down macOS to only use the Mac AppStore. People would be furious and demand them to revert it at once. At some point people would start using Windows alternatives. iOS devices to me should not be treated differently and I think with time more and more will take my side. In the end, the only reason Apple can do this is because people like me keep buying their products. Better competition would solve this problem but as I already said, Android sucks. ;)
Android sucks because they went the open route. "General computing" devices like PCs could never get that popular because they were too complex for most people to use. At least Android made things a bit simpler than on a PC, but it's still a mess.
 
Yep, the issue is polarizing, considering most of the posters in this thread are probably not devs, but yet want to regulate Apples business model.

My position is based both on working for a studio that released quite a few iOS (and Android) games, and having work for several pre-App Store/Mac App Store software development houses. That is why I understand that Apple’s model is better both for the small developer (who gets access to a market without needing to build either a sales infrastructure, nor trust with the user over payment or personal information. That leveling of the playing field is critical for the smaller developers. Secondly, Apple’s locked down environment makes piracy much less of a factor than it was on Android while I was working in the iOS game space.

Does anybody really believe if Apple, for the sake of argument reduced the fee that anybody would see a saving? Or is this about ensuring the mythical IOS developer gets as much revenue as possible, while making use of Apples' infrastructure?

This is just like Senator Durbin’s capping of Debit Card interchange rates, arguing that it would help ”mom and pop” stores and save consumers money. First, the savings did not matter to the “mom and pop” stores, as they still had lots of cash customers, and second none of those savings ever accrued to the consumer, but were all sucked up by the retailers. Worse, cutting the interchange rate meant that many banks who used to offer free accounts (paid for by the interchange fees), cut those and began charging for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy
These are one and the same. Violating the app review guidelines violates the contract:

No they are not - they are separate for very important legal reasons. An App can be rejected or removed from sale for bugs. So your interpretation would provide legal justification for Apple to terminate a developer program membership for simple bugs - which is ludicrous. No court would side with Apple in such a case.
[automerge]1597896923[/automerge]
 
  • Like
Reactions: Realityck
No they are not - they are separate for very important legal reasons. An App can be rejected or removed from sale for bugs. So your interpretation would provide legal justification for Apple to terminate a developer program membership for simple bugs - which is ludicrous. No court would side with Apple in such a case.
[automerge]1597896923[/automerge]

Yes they are. And I cited the precise sections of the T&C‘s that say so. It’s not a “simple bug.” They violated T&C sections that (1) disallow hiding functionality from the app review team (which Epic did); (2) disallow violating the developer guidelines (which they violated in numerous ways); (3) require Epic to fix the issue within 30 days after being notified (which is why the date for being kicked out is the date that it is).

Read the T&C’s.
 
Good for Apple

Epic broke their TOS, snuck code in a back-door illegal update, and developed a stealth PR campaign and legal lawsuit

All while in parallel they lied to Apple
AND all while in parallel they were making money through Apple.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.