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.
Epic CEO: Judge's Decision 'Isn't a Win for Developers or for Consumers,' Fortnite Not Immediately Returning to App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What on earth are you talking about? Hosting the game? Anyone can have access to global cloud infrastructure by companies like Amazon, Cloudflare, Google, Microsoft and others, and it’s dirt cheap. In fact, I’m pretty sure Apple uses someone else’s infrastructure. The developer fee more than covers for the cost of hosting an app in the App Store, and all the other assets are hosted by the developers themselves.
Let's say you use the CNN app. CNN has their own cloud setup and all the articles, videos etc. are hosted on whatever infrastructure they’ve decided to use. Apple neither provides nor pays for any of that. They only host the CNN app in the App Store. It’s is only a few hundred MB in size and cost literally cents to have in the cloud. 🙄
Then you have been an Apple fan for a very long time, because they haven't been the "underdog" for many years, now. One could reasonably argue that they essentially defined an entirely new market when they produced that very first iPhone, and they have dominated that market to a large extent, ever since.
(Oh, and for the record... I'm an old-school MacHead, too. I remember all too well when reporters crowed at the top of their lungs that Apple was supposedly "near bankruptcy, and could die altogether any day now!" Times, they have indeed changed.)
They will for app A, but not necessarily for app B, C, D, E, etc.
What I think will happen is they will have mega sales on their IAP store but not on the Apple one. They have to create traffic and sales there or why even do it? If the company can't turn their alternative IAP into a profitable one, it will shutter.
As an aside, I seem to remember something about how Apple's own website was never hosted on their "server class" XServes? And how Pixar never ever ever EVER used PowerPC Macs in their projects, despite Jobs being there.
I think you are confusing enactment of laws/rules from enactment of decisions/injunctions. If a law is enacted, then it is not retroactive and does apply on a specific date (aka the effective date of that law in order to allow people time to be notified of a new law). If a court makes a decision granting an injunction, it prohibits someone from doing it at all because it was wrong. A decision that behavior is wrong today, but not yesterday etc when they started doing it to the party that brought suit doesn't make sense ...
I miss the Epic games when they released Tyrian, Jazz Jackrabbit, Unreal Torunament.
This is just an embarassing s***show. The 1984 ad (missing its own irony) and the MLK fortnite incidents are telling examples of the direction Epic's going in. An inverted fractal. I'll stick to my early pentium Epic purchases that came on discs.
This is just an embarassing s***show. The 1984 ad (missing its own irony) and the MLK fortnite incidents are telling examples of the direction Epic's going in. An inverted fractal. I'll stick to my early pentium Epic purchases that came on discs.
I have a feeling very few people will opt to not pay with Apple.
I neither trust the statements nor motives of the Epic CEO; he’s not fighting for a billion consumers and he knows that.
He also knows that his statement to pass savings on to customers today is not legally binding tomorrow.
He also knows that his statement to pass savings on to customers today is not legally binding tomorrow.
Hilarious to see how you believe this was a Tim Cook thing. As if any other ceo would be different.
Btw I am all against alternate app stores. I want my phone to be as much of a closed system as possible.
You mean like Pelton's treadmill that killed a couple of kids and dogs that they blamed on users for not reading the manual? Yeah, government has no place policing evil corporations that would literally screw over everyone if they were unchecked.
There are fair commerce acts and laws for commerce exchange (money, credit cards, payments) and the judge clearly ruled Apple violates those laws by holding developers hostage to their payment system. Normally a business is allowed to shop around and pick their own credit card processor which is usually 4-6% of the total, not 30%.
This is nothing but good for all consumers, not just iPhone users. It this holds up in appeals (and I bet it does), this precedent is sweeping.... Mac App Store, Google Play Store, Amazon App Store, etc.
I also bet Apple/Google/etc. will start to charge fees to developers for hosting or submitting and then a whole new bag of crap will land.
No, he is not confused. He is right. The court only found that apple has to change its behavior going forward - the court said nothing about when that behavior became problematic, or that it was illegal ab initio.
And the court even ruled that Apple is entitled to a cut, regardless of how the customer is billed. So there is nothing inconsistent here.
It is their store and you sign a contract to sell there.
Under the new order, Apple is:
So I don't think Apple can tack on new fees when a judge specifically lifted the rules preventing external purchasing mechanisms against In-App Purchasing and communication to the developers web site? Apple has been hosting for example Netflix app on the app-store for free with Netflix website doing all the financial transactions. Smaller developers could be active when right to do the same.
App Store, or any app Apple develops, belongs to them, it's their own property. Of course they can do whatever they want. Don't you feel that also when Google decides to quit some projects? Do you remember Wave, that new email philosophy! And so much more stuff they quit developing… Did you complaint on that too? When you buy, or create something, do you never change it?
Speaking of browsers. Do you know of any web page that only works using Chrome, the worst web browser on the planet!? Fits perfectly for your statements.
Epic wanted the injunction to be global and Apple wanted it to for California only.
The judge dismisses Epic's claim at will since they provide no authority for their claim. The judge probably wanted the injunction to be national to have an effect and Apple failed to provide good enough precedence stopping the court from doing so.
So both parties have to come up with better arguments and/or case law.
When part of a contract is found illegal only the illegal part is unenforceable. The rest of the contract is still valid unless the illegal part is a central part of the contract.
The court didn't find the developer contract to be illegal at all and the anti-steering provision only violates the California's Unfair Competition Law and isn't part of the contract but part of the store rules.
You mean to tell me that business is all about money? After all these years, I never once suspected that.
Apple and its defenders need to stop pretending this is about privacy, security and convenience. If that that was the case Apple wouldn’t allow any non-Apple IAP in apps whether the good being purchased was digital or physical.
Apple should continue to insist this about privacy, security and convenience for no other reason than it seems to upset you.
Great that Epic lost but that whiner sweeney still won't keep his pie hole closed. I'm ok with Apple having to let the developer show a link to a different payment system even if its cheaper, I won't use anything but the Apple payment system but I'm sure 3-4% of users will