Epic: Fortnite Offline Worldwide 'Until Apple Unblocks It'

[Stuwil]

China isn't a level playing field. What access do Google's web crawlers have to the Chinese internet? Home field advantage works in most markets around the world, so why would it be a surprise that Chinese people like Chinese products better than foreign products? I'm fairly certain that a product made to appeal to the Chinese market isn't highly likely to appeal to me very much. Europeans aren't very fond of U.S. cars either, whose fault is that? There's no big conspiracy keeping American cars out of Europe, they're just not designed for that market!

The Europeans don’t want American cars because they are too big for the roads over there

Exactly that is my point google has their wings clipped in china so that has then allowed another company to emerge
That’s the point in mobile a government has had to legislate to stop google yet don’t worry another competitor will emerge in the west.

 

[Stuwil]

it's not about competition in China (or Russia).

it's about state sanctioned OSes that have backdoors to monitor what residents do on their phones.

they dont want them Googling answers that the State don't like.
they dont want them chatting privately or sharing files.

it's not about OS choice at all.
it's about control of a population.

and yet if China can use Android to make a version then others could too.

i'm sure Apple have considered forking iOS to make an EU only version.
tie down functions to that the EU wants and lets the rest of the world have a better controlled code base.

Exactly
Thanks for that
So you have basically said that the only way for competition to emerge for iOS or android
Is because the Government according to yourself has put in some regulation for a home grown company to emerge
Thanks for that we Finally got there in the end

Exactly so according to your shelf the only way to stop google in search is for a government to legislate it

If it’s not about choice in china and just about control then why are apple products on sale in china because people buy them over there?
If it’s about control then for example you can’t buy a huawei mobile in the west because allegedly of certain things
Yet that’s like saying looks there is WOMD
So wee need to go in there.

Because regarding iOS once there big markets legislate for things like payment links it’s only a matter of time before it then goes into other countries

This is why you are seeing things like this from payment links to alternative apps stores to side loading etc happening

 

[AppliedMicro]

Microsoft is dominant because they've succeeded in delivering superior value to more people than the available alternatives.

…and most of that value is their (compatibility with) the rich application software ecosystem for Windows.
Including their own Office Suite.

It’s not as if tons, 90% of people “love” Microsoft Windows. It’s because they “need” this and that application- and it’s only available for Windows.

Smart innovators target large markets and exploit gaps (created by dominant provider under-servicing and over-servicing customer sub-segments) to peel away customers one small segment at a time. This is how disruption occurs

There’s two problems here:

First, the amount of money and economies of scale required to develop operating systems competitive with iOS and Android. And that in the face of Android, that’s being given away for free - as are Apple’s developer tools and App Store service (to most). What’s your revenue-earning business model here?

And second, the network effect of operating systems and software applications that people are familiar with. As an example, look at Instant Messenging applications: arguably not too hard or prohibitively expensive to write a competing application. And yet, where have a country’s instant messenger market shares ever shifted? Where was a dominant instant messenger software ever replaced by a competitor since the advent of smartphones and the first messenger becoming really popular (that is, the biggest part of the population using it)?

Operating systems or instant messengers are not “self-contained” products, where you just choose the one whose design and functionality you like most and be done with it (as people do with cars, or mobile phones before iOS and Android).

 

[heretiq]

…and most of that value is their (compatibility with) the rich application software ecosystem for Windows.
Including their own Office Suite.

It’s not as if tons, 90% of people “love” Microsoft Windows. It’s because they “need” this and that application- and it’s only available for Windows.


There’s two problems here:

First, the amount of money and economies of scale required to develop operating systems competitive with iOS and Android. And that in the face of Android, that’s being given away for free - as are Apple’s developer tools and App Store service (to most). What’s your revenue-earning business model here?

And second, the network effect of operating systems and software applications that people are familiar with. As an example, look at Instant Messenging applications: arguably not too hard or prohibitively expensive to write a competing application. And yet, where have a country’s instant messenger market shares ever shifted? Where was a dominant instant messenger software ever replaced by a competitor since the advent of smartphones and the first messenger becoming really popular (that is, the biggest part of the population using it)?

Operating systems or instant messengers are not “self-contained” products, where you just choose the one whose design and functionality you like most and be done with it (as people do with cars, or mobile phones before iOS and Android).

The comment about Windows flies in the face of readily observable facts. There are multiple Windows alternatives — from Macs to a variety of Linux desktop distributions and every one has productivity apps that are functionally equivalent and file system compatible with Office and all have p,ug and play interoperability with the Microsoft enterprise stack. I acknowledge that Windows and Office have performance advantages, but those advantages are largely impactful to the small over engage of power users and not the majority of Windows users. So in my opinion Windows dominant market share is primarily due to consumer and business preferences — not coercion.

Regarding instant messaging: C’mon man! Remember Slack Skype — the first and once dominant instant messenger? It was supplanted by (i.e., market share shifted to) Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, Instagram, Snapchat, and numerous other IM clients. And IM apps, and every OS (except macOS) are definitely self-contained in the sense that they are fully functional and available on multiple devices and people do indeed choose the product they like. Where do these alternative facts come from?? 😂

 

[Stuwil]

The comment about Windows flies in the face of readily observable facts. There are multiple Windows alternatives — from Macs to a variety of Linux desktop distributions and every one has productivity apps that are functionally equivalent and file system compatible with Office and all have p,ug and play interoperability with the Microsoft enterprise stack. I acknowledge that Windows and Office have performance advantages, but those advantages are largely impactful to the small over engage of power users and not the majority of Windows users. So in my opinion Windows dominant market share is primarily due to consumer and business preferences — not coercion.

Regarding instant messaging: C’mon man! Remember Slack — the first and once dominant instant messenger? It was supplanted by (i.e., market share shifted to) Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, Instagram, Snapchat, and numerous other IM clients. And IM apps, and every OS (except macOS) are definitely self-contained in the sense that they are fully functional and available on multiple devices and people do indeed choose the product they like. Where do these alternative facts come from?? 😂T

This is irrelevant if alternatives exist
If the alternatives are not available pre installed in retail stores then the majority of people won’t use it.

 

[wbeasley]

This is irrelevant if alternatives exist
If the alternatives are not available pre installed in retail stores then the majority of people won’t use it.

BS

Chrome would not be the dominant browser if it relied on being installed already on a device...

Browser Market Share Worldwide - April 2025
Chrome	66.19%
Safari	17.25%
Edge	5.2%
Firefox	2.55%
Samsung Internet	2.23%
Opera	2.08%

 

[AppliedMicro]

There are multiple Windows alternatives — from Macs to a variety of Linux desktop distributions and every one has productivity apps that are functionally equivalent and file system compatible with Office and all have p,ug and play interoperability with the Microsoft enterprise stack.

With Microsoft Office and compatibility with Office apps, the devil is in the details.
Can you write a simple document with a word processor? Absolutely.
Will it look as intended in a different word processor, when exchanging documents? Mostly.
Can you just run business-relevant Macros etc. on a Linx word processor? -> That's the catch.

Does your ERP software or industry-specific software run on Linux? Sometimes. Often not.
Not even Photoshop or Illustrator are available for Linux.

Remember Slack — the first and once dominant instant messenger? It was supplanted by (i.e., market share shifted to) Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, Instagram, Snapchat, and numerous other IM clients.

I would not consider Slack and Snapchat to have much overlap in relevant target demographics and use.
I've never heard Slack being considered a "dominant" instant messenger.
And it certainly wasn't the first one (saying that as someone who has Skype and ICQ back in the days).

What I will acknowledge is that social media platforms are a relatively dynamic market that become and get out of fashion. Here, your theory of new market entrants filling the gaps and "peel(ing) away customers one small segment at a time" has some merit.

Then again, we've seen how Facebook neutralised emerging competition by just gobbling up WhatsApp and Instagram. And Zuckerberg is likely going to do it again. The incumbent market just maintains his position.

 

[Stuwil]

BS

Chrome would not be the dominant browser if it relied on being installed already on a device...

Browser Market Share Worldwide - April 2025
Chrome	66.19%
Safari	17.25%
Edge	5.2%
Firefox	2.55%
Samsung Internet	2.23%
Opera	2.08%

Global market share of leading search engines 2015-2025As of March 2025, Google continued to dominate the global search engine industry by far, with an 89.62 percent market share.29 Apr 2025

As this is pre installed on every android device
And coupled with the deal with apple under safari then
We beg to differ unless you think that being
Pre installed on 3.5 billion devices doesn’t give you an advantage over anyone else

Hence why in china they are not number 1
As its a another competitor instead

 

[mrboult]

Please Apple troll Epic for as long as possible!!
They bit the hand that fed them, the greedy geeks.
Apple created the iPhone and the App Store and Epic made millions from that situation.
But they wanted ALL the money! Typical of the world today.

Epic can go swivel 😂

 

[wbeasley]

Global market share of leading search engines 2015-2025As of March 2025, Google continued to dominate the global search engine industry by far, with an 89.62 percent market share.29 Apr 2025

As this is pre installed on every android device
And coupled with the deal with apple under safari then
We beg to differ unless you think that being
Pre installed on 3.5 billion devices doesn’t give you an advantage over anyone else

Hence why in china they are not number 1
As its a another competitor instead

OMG search engines ARENT installed apps.
you know that.

Apple and others do deals or use their own search engines.

BUT THAT IS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT YOU SAID...

seriously, you go off on a tangent every single time.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Please Apple troll Epic for as long as possible!!
They bit the hand that fed them, the greedy geeks.

You got it wrong.

Epic fed Apple millions of commission.
Not the other way around.

Cause Epic made millions of sales of Fortnite items.
These are Epic’s sales coming from Epic’s intellectual property - something that Epic created.

Apple had merely been leeching off Epic’s sales revenue.

 

[heretiq]

With Microsoft Office and compatibility with Office apps, the devil is in the details.
Can you write a simple document with a word processor? Absolutely.
Will it look as intended in a different word processor, when exchanging documents? Mostly.
Can you just run business-relevant Macros etc. on a Linx word processor? -> That's the catch.

Does your ERP software or industry-specific software run on Linux? Sometimes. Often not.
Not even Photoshop or Illustrator are available for Linux.

I would not consider Slack and Snapchat to have much overlap in relevant target demographics and use.
I've never heard Slack being considered a "dominant" instant messenger.
And it certainly wasn't the first one (saying that as someone who has Skype and ICQ back in the days).

What I will acknowledge is that social media platforms are a relatively dynamic market that become and get out of fashion. Here, your theory of new market entrants filling the gaps and "peel(ing) away customers one small segment at a time" has some merit.

Then again, we've seen how Facebook neutralised emerging competition by just gobbling up WhatsApp and Instagram. And Zuckerberg is likely going to do it again. The incumbent market just maintains his position.

I actually meant Skype, but mistakenly typed Slack.

 

[jfreedle2]

How can epic be a grifter
When all they have done is challenge a private company

The fact that they are attempting to get a company to provide a service for free.

 

[jfreedle2]

You got it wrong.

Epic fed Apple millions of commission.
Not the other way around.

Cause Epic made millions of sales of Fortnite items.
These are Epic’s sales coming from Epic’s intellectual property - something that Epic created.

Apple had merely been leeching off Epic’s sales revenue.

None of this would be possible without Apple's technology and services supporting Fortnite.

 

[Arsenikdote]

if my reason is not correct
Then why is it that the only country in the world with 3 mobile operating systems is in china.
And Apple are in 3rd place with sales down 50%
And google is not number 1 in search in china

Is that because huawei makes a better OS than iOS then?
Does this mean that baidu is better than google in china?

Yet it’s because Microsoft made a bad product and nothing else is the reason why they failed
And it’s also why no other company has managed to penetrate iOS or android
Because the products are bad and nothing else.

This is why your now seeing this happen

You clearly think you have something figured out, and if you do not want to maybe learn something new then there is no point in moving our conversation ahead. Just in the slight chance you do want to learn something more than you currently know....

I can tell you didn't have to live through developing for the Microsoft mobile platforms. I encourage you to speak with people who did if you care to expand your knowledge of the situation. If you are good with your opinions without more information, then no worries.

Also, you are trying to pin me into a corner by putting words in my mouth. You said "Yet it’s because Microsoft made a bad product and nothing else is the reason why they failed" but I never said there were no other factors. There is never "one reason" even when there seems to be one reason. Business nor life doesn't work that way, there is always complexity and nuance. However, that doesn't mean there are not large factors, and the largest would be the failure to execute that caused Microsoft to not be a leading mobile platform today.

Again knowledge would help you a lot here. Terry Myerson who was the head of Windows Mobile, after leaving the company, talked at length about why Microsoft failed to become a dominant force. He cited two major factors, the first was the decision to build on an older technical platform that wasn’t able to scale with the pace of mobile. The second factor was Microsoft not only ignored Apple, but also more crucially, ignored Android which was actually the larger threat. He said Microsoft didn't believe that Android would catch on and disrupt the market the way they did. Remember, up to this point, if your company wasn't Apple, you got your platform software from Microsoft. Android changed all of that and Microsoft ceded that ground without a fight.

I don't disagree that nowadays a new platform trying to get started would be a tough ask. I know the two big players have a lot of power and sway and can keep competition out. Apple can just by keeping their platform under wraps because they make the hardware and software. Google controls the "open" side of the market by wielding power, but maybe this will change with new US regulation. However, Microsoft didn't fail due to duopolies that didn't exist when they were relevant. They failed because they didn't execute, underestimated the competition, and finally they completely failed to see and the direction the market segment was moving.

 

[Arsenikdote]

That has nothing to do with Capitalism. It is the poisoned mindsets that socialism would ever work. Just a hint, it never has and never will. Not as long as people have free will.

I am a life long entrepreneur, having success and failure, as most do. So when I say what I say, it is with a passion to create and with a love for business.

I agree that not only are things getting ugly, but it will only get worse and I think capitalism is at the core of the issue. "Capitalism" as something that represents a profit only focused mindset and driving of a consumeristic society IS the issue. "Capitalism" as a form of economic system with private ownership is NOT the issue.

It is one thing to have profitability and success, it is another thing to have it at the expense of humanity. No, I am not speaking of socialism, I agree I do not believe that can work. But we don't live in a reality where there can only be unbridled capitalism or corrupt socialism.

 

[AppliedMicro]

None of this would be possible without Apple's technology and services supporting Fortnite.

Of course it would be possible!

Epic does not need Apple's technology to design or deliver virtual game costumes or weapons ("skins") as sold here.
The only thing they need is Apple to stopping their active and anticompetitive blocking them.

 

[jfreedle2]

Of course it would be possible!

Epic does not need Apple's technology to design or deliver virtual game costumes or weapons ("skins") as sold here.
The only thing they need is Apple to stopping their active and anticompetitive blocking them.

Epic's stuff has to run on hardware and the platform software in order to actually run. Unless you are thinking that it just runs in the gamers heads?

 

[jfreedle2]

I am a life long entrepreneur, having success and failure, as most do. So when I say what I say, it is with a passion to create and with a love for business.

I agree that not only are things getting ugly, but it will only get worse and I think capitalism is at the core of the issue. "Capitalism" as something that represents a profit only focused mindset and driving of a consumeristic society IS the issue. "Capitalism" as a form of economic system with private ownership is NOT the issue.

It is one thing to have profitability and success, it is another thing to have it at the expense of humanity. No, I am not speaking of socialism, I agree I do not believe that can work. But we don't live in a reality where there can only be unbridled capitalism or corrupt socialism.

Capitalism is essential for freedom. It is the core of the ability for people to choose their livelihoods and careers. No one is forced to do something with Capitalism. The biggest problem today is that entities create highly addictive things that really provide no benefit to society and keeps them locked into using their products. Capitalism is not focused on profit centered productivity, but the choice in what products and services that we wish to use. Although Microsoft Office is the dominate productivity software, I choose to not use Microsoft Office.

 

[BaldiMac]

Playing word games is claiming an Android OS (like GrapheneOS) isn't Android.

Good bye.

Are all browsers based on the same open sourced project as Chrome also Chrome? Of course not! But this same argument will continue as it has for years even though it is clearly wrong.

The anticompetitive monopoly you are really looking for is Google Play Services. But acknowledging that leads to the inconvenient conclusion that Apple is the one being hurt by anticompetitive actions throughout most of the world.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Epic's stuff has to run on hardware and the platform software in order to actually run. Unless you are thinking that it just runs in the gamers heads?

Everything runs on something.

Do you advocate for Internet Service Providers charging Apple 30% of their iTunes/App Store revenue cause the downloads are transmitted through them? And the electric power company charging the ISP 30% of their revenue, because the internet access required electric power.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Are all browsers based on the same open sourced project as Chrome also Chrome? Of course not! But this same argument will continue as it has for years even though it is clearly wrong.

The anticompetitive monopoly you are really looking for is Google Play Services

I agree with your clarification (and I already mentioned Play Services a couple of times myself).

Although I believe we all knew already yesterday what was meant in context here. (that Android variations from different smartphone manufacturers are still Android, i.e. can be considered the "same" system from an economic perspective).

 

[Arsenikdote]

The biggest problem today is that entities create highly addictive things that really provide no benefit to society and keeps them locked into using their products.

This occurs when we pursue profit above all else.

LOL.....man this is a rabbit hole I don't know I want to go down in an online forum 🤣 I think we both agree on the major stuff

 

[BaldiMac]

I agree with your clarification (and I already mentioned Play Services a couple of times myself).

Great! So, stop arguing that there are only two mobile OSs.

Although I believe we all knew already yesterday what was meant in context here. (that Android variations from different smartphone manufacturers are still Android, i.e. can be considered the "same" system from an economic perspective).

Sigh. No, they can't be considered the same from an economic perspective because they are owned and controlled by different companies.

 

[kwl]

Sounds good. Apple needs to give anyone and everyone access to put whatever OS on their Apple devices that they wish. Apple's right to control the hardware should end the moment ownership transfers to the end-user. If Apple wishes to control what consumers do with their devices, they should be leased or rented, not sold.

..perhaps sell them without an OS at all, like one can purchase a PC.

You can go buy other smartphones w/o an OS and put whatever OS you want on it....

I don't think you realize how naive your POV is. You seem to want the stability, security, convenience of the Apple ecosystem w/o incentivizing Apple to continue to support it. Like, literally this is why Droid exists.....IMO, if there were a big enough market out there for what you want, it would exist.