Epic: Fortnite Offline Worldwide 'Until Apple Unblocks It'

[AppliedMicro]

I do not think that you are correct. Why would Best Buy or other retailer provide shelf space for products and hire employees for no money.

To draw traffic to the store and make sales (such as for hardware devices).

Your analogy does not work.

OK, so let's keep with your analogy of Best Buy.

You go into a Best Buy store and buy an HP printer.
You take the box off the shelf, pay at the cashier's and stow it in the trunk of your car.
Does Best Buy take a commission on subsequent toner/ink cartridge you're making directly through HP's web site?

 

[Arsenikdote]

Brick & mortar stores didn't distribute them on commission.
Also, they stocked, displayed the software on shelves and delivered it.

Does Apple store or deliver Spotify's music library?
No, they don't!

Did you work in the software space before the year 2000? Back in the day it wasn't brick and mortar stores that charged the developers. It was distributors who then worked with brick and mortar stores. The distributors charged nearly double what Apple charges. The distributors did not provide development tools, a platform, analytics, cross-selling opportunities, brand recognition, etc.... yet they charged a lot more. In every single way Apple's method of software distribution is better.

 

[AppliedMicro]

No one has ever satisfactorily explained why consumers who want a closed ecosystem shouldn't be allowed to have that option

They can limit their software purchases to exclusively Apple's App Store.
So no change from today.

No one has ever satisfactorily explained how more choice is less choice to me.

 

[jfreedle2]

Most in the context of actual real numbers of businesses, I agree. Most in the context of large enterprise businesses in most developed countries, I disagree. While some of this is opinion, I also have a LOT of first hand experience. I have not only built multiple businesses of multiple sizes, I have also worked directly with the executive suite of many large businesses in many countries. The idea of innovation to survive is also something that rarely exits in most businesses and hasn't existed since the early 2000's. Most business segments it is about funding and little else. You purchase your way to the top/sell to one of those rising to the top, or you are run out of business. Little by little we have been headed this way for decades and the rate of this is almost exponential now. For example, the portfolio size of SME loans from most banks has decreased by nearly 75% since the 90's. SMB has grown dramatically as population and opportunities have risen, but just as the wealth gap has increased, so has the gap in businesses. SMB fills a void or grows to SME size to get swallowed up or run out. There used to be space for large SMB and small SME, but not anymore. Those are the true businesses that pose threat to the profits of the larger SME's above them. Rather than competing, they are taken out (one way or another) to protect profits.

Not being a business major nor one who would have wasted time being interested in business, I would say that is more cynical than reality based. That is your experience but you would need to work with 100% of businesses to really be able to determine if you can say that it apples to all businesses. You could perform a power calculation so that you can determine a sample size to determine if the sample is representative of the whole. Organizations that are focused on pure profit often are the businesses that go out of business.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Did you work in the software space before the year 2000?

Is that a requirement to form an opinion or analogy? 😉

The distributors charged nearly double what Apple charges. The distributors did not provide development tools, a platform, analytics, cross-selling opportunities, brand recognition, etc.... yet they charged a lot more. In every single way Apple's method of software distribution is better.

...except: We don't in pre-2000 anymore.

Where software developers do not need distributors anymore.
When they can do direct B2C-distribution very inexpensively, thanks to the internet.

Do they need technical infrastructure? A web site, maybe even a payment processor?
Yes, maybe - but all of that can be had for cents on the dollar from a wide range of competing operators.

👉 But I agree that Apple's 30% commission is predicated on totally antiquated business models and their terms.

 

[surferfb]

You go into a Best Buy store and buy an HP printer.
You take the box off the shelf, pay at the cashier's and stow it in the trunk of your car.
Does Best Buy take a commission on subsequent toner/ink cartridge you're making directly through HP's web site?

Did Best Buy give that printer to you for free? Or more accurately did Best Buy keep it on its shelves and then HP gave it to you for free without paying Best Buy?

They can limit their software purchases to exclusively Apple's App Store.
So no change from today.

Until an app I have to use leaves.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I do not think that you are correct. Why would Best Buy or other retailer provide shelf space for products and hire employees for no money. With that, all retailers would go broke immediately. Your analogy does not work. You need to use Xcode to develop software for macOS, iOS, and the other derivatives of macOS. Apple also reviews applications to ensure that they contain malware, either automated or through an employee reviewing the code. It costs money to provide that review. There are costs associated with providing those services. You are ignoring the fundamental base that it requires costs associated with providing access to the App Store. Whether or not the 30% or 15% is still justified that would all come down to the costs associated with the services provided.

Nope you don’t need to use Xcode or need to be reviewed to be on macOS.

And Spotify and every other free app with only purchases allowed online pays 99$ / year. DoorDash pays 0% a game with adds pays 0%, a game with the ability to pay to remove the adds is 30%

 

[Arsenikdote]

Not being a business major nor one who would have wasted time being interested in business, I would say that is more cynical than reality based. That is your experience but you would need to work with 100% of businesses to really be able to determine if you can say that it apples to all businesses. You could perform a power calculation so that you can determine a sample size to determine if the sample is representative of the whole. Organizations that are focused on pure profit often are the businesses that go out of business.

I suppose this is where we part ways. You are taking the typical "perfect defense" approach. This is how lobbyists tried to say that global warming wasn't real because scientists couldn't provide absolute 100.00% proof, even though scientists are much better equipped to make informed hypotheses with the data available VS people who don't live and breathe it. So easy to take an uninformed biased opinion and then try and make someone "prove" it. So if you think I need to have some sort of imperial proof in order for you to consider a reasonable proposal from someone who has lived and breathed this a many levels, then I am not here for just an argument. It is just a waste of time.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Did Best Buy give that printer to you for free? Or more accurate did Best Buy keep it on its shelves and then HP gave it to you for free?

Of course not.

But when it's delivery, it's delivered.
The deal is then done. End of the story (sale) for Best Buy.

I totally support Best Buy asking whatever price they want for that printer - as long as there are enough competitive choices for consumers where to buy their printers from (important to note that printer manufacturers can feasibly do direct-to-consumer sales).

Until an app I have to use leaves.

Use another app.
Apps leaving or being discontinued is a risk either way.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Until an app I have to use leaves.

well they can do this right now no? What will you do if Netflix removed their app? Amazon app? Office? WhatsApp? Facebook? Messenger?

All of them can work just within safari and don’t need to be in the AppStore

 

[surferfb]

well they can do this right now no? What will you do if Netflix removed their app? Amazon app? Office? WhatsApp? Facebook? Messenger?
All of them can work just within safari and don’t need to be in the AppStore

Yes they could, but they’re extremely unlikely to. That is incredibly more likely now and is taking away my choice so you don’t have to chose Android.

Why is your preference more valid that mine? And more importantly, than the platform owner’s?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Yes they could, but they’re extremely unlikely to. That is incredibly more likely now and is taking away my choice so you don’t have to chose Android.

Why is your preference more valid that mine?

My preference is the AppStore. I also want to use apps that isn’t on the AppStore because they can’t be on it.

And I don’t think it’s more likely when looking at other examples.

Not even Apple allow windows users to download iTunes/iCloud from outside the windows store anymore.

 

[Arsenikdote]

Is that a requirement to form an opinion or analogy? 😉


...except: We don't in pre-2000 anymore.

Where software developers do not need distributors anymore.
When they can do direct B2C-distribution very inexpensively, thanks to the internet.

Do they need technical infrastructure? A web site, maybe even a payment processor?
Yes, maybe - but all of that can be had for cents on the dollar from a wide range of competing operators.

👉 But I agree that Apple's 30% commission is predicated on totally antiquated business models and their terms.

It is not a requirement, but it does speak to how much you are talking from an uninformed opinion Vs an informed opinion. Monday morning quarterback who never played or someone who plays the sport at a high level? Very different opinions. 😉

You are right we don't live in the pre-2000's anymore. You are also correct that a payment processor and ideally some sort of web presence is likely needed.

What you are missing is we didn't just remove the need to have the old methods without replacing them. That replacement comes in the form of mobile devices and operating systems. If we snapped our fingers and Apple and Google went away tomorrow, no app would function. No mobile software developer could continue to operate their business. They can have their website and payment processor and then do nothing. Why? Because their software runs on the hardware and software of others.

The people who make that software and hardware have every right to charge for it. How much they charge is obviously something you strongly disagree with. You think they are "overcharging" for the service they are providing. But without having been in the place of having to live and breath software development, distribution....hell just running a business, your perspective appears to just be complaining because it isn't fair. But that is not how businesses works. Do you think it is "fair" what the NFL charges? Do you think it is "fair" what your gas station charges? Do you think it is fair what pharmaceutical companies charge?

I would say the most ideal way to change the situation is to allow competition to alter the market. However, at this stage how does a new platform enter in with Apple and Google holding the market power that they have? To me that is the real issue, not how much these companies choose to charge.

 

[jfreedle2]

I suppose this is where we part ways. You are taking the typical "perfect defense" approach. This is how lobbyists tried to say that global warming wasn't real because scientists couldn't provide absolute 100.00% proof, even though scientists are much better equipped to make informed hypotheses with the data available VS people who don't live and breathe it. So easy to take an uninformed biased opinion and then try and make someone "prove" it. So if you think I need to have some sort of imperial proof in order for you to consider a reasonable proposal from someone who has lived and breathed this a many levels, then I am not here for just an argument. It is just a waste of time.

I have worked in the industry for over thirty years, and my experience is vastly different from yours. Like global warming, the issue is not the facts that average temperatures have changed. the question comes in the inaccuracy of the models that have predicted the end of life in ten years for the last fifty years that indicate that what people say is the cause is in fact the cause. Just applying logic to a problem that most people simply do not wish to use logic.

 

[Arsenikdote]

I have worked in the industry for over thirty years, and my experience is vastly different from yours. Like global warming, the issue is not the facts that average temperatures have changed. the question comes in the inaccuracy of the models that have predicted the end of life in ten years for the last fifty years that indicate that what people say is the cause is in fact the cause. Just applying logic to a problem that most people simply do not wish to use logic.

Being a worker bee is not the same, best of luck.

 

[jfreedle2]

Nope you don’t need to use Xcode or need to be reviewed to be on macOS.

And Spotify and every other free app with only purchases allowed online pays 99$ / year. DoorDash pays 0% a game with adds pays 0%, a game with the ability to pay to remove the adds is 30%

I would use a suboptimal application not developed with Xcode. Some of the worst "applications" are simple web browser engines using horrible web interfaces. There are infrastructure costs to what is provided and nobody outside of Apple really knows those costs.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

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.

I use my ipPhone, but I tend to avoid ecosystems. I don't use or subscribe to any Apple services, or any apps via the App Store, don't use iMessage and don't use iCloud...I've spent zero on anything through the App Store for at least a couple years.

I like to my services spread across companies. Ecosystems=lock in, therefor ecosystems suck.

 

[jfreedle2]

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.

You cannot purchase smartphones without an operating system.

 

[turbineseaplane]

If Apps could leave the Apple iOS App Store for direct distribution or a 3rd party App Store ... and they do ...

The party to blame would be Apple, because it would mean their terms, features and pricing aren't attractive enough to retain the developer as a customer.

It won't be a security or privacy concern any more than now, because Apps are held to the same access restrictions, user permission requirements and sandboxing regardless of the source of the iOS App.

It is, quite simply, a business terms issue

(with perhaps some element of taste on the types of Apps -- the ones Apple just doesn't like -- yet another good reason to have alternative source options -- think porn etc)

 

[BaldiMac]

You're arguing semantics.

Just because it's inconvenient to your argument doesn't mean you can dismiss it as semantics. Brave and Chrome are different browsers with different owners that compete against each other despite being forks of the same open source project. Just as each Android manufacturer owns and distributes their own fork of the android open source project.

Irrelevant, when the main argument is the (lack of) choice of ecosystems. Most notable app ecosystems. The most important decision for the average customer is between two different operating systems. You don't go into a smartphone store and have the sales clerks tell you (regarding software) "oh, we've got half a dozen operating systems to choose from" - when five of them are slight variations of Android, and one is iOS.

Nitpick semantics all you want - it's between Android and iOS. That is the main choice in software.

This is such a silly argument. Just because two things are compatible does not mean they are the same. How does it even make sense to argue that dozens of companies are a monopoly or duopoly?!?

Again, the largest anti-competitive force in the smartphone market is Google's anticompetitive agreements with almost every manufacturer (it's own horizontal competitors) except Apple for Google Play Services. That's why there is very little competition for app stores and other services. For some reason, perhaps obvious, governments want to ignore the elephant in the room while taking bites out of the apple.

 

[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

Google relied on marketing deals that installed Chrome along with other software like Adobe Reader. This is how Google Chrome was installed in the beginning and people just let it highjack their computers because they just really did not understand that Google forced Google Chrome upon them.

well given Edge is forced on Windows users... LOL. it's share is rather low

 

[jfreedle2]

well given Edge is forced on Windows users... LOL. it's share is rather low

I will use Edge before ever using Chrome. My organization installed both Chrome and Firefox on my work machine and the first thing I did was remove both of them.

 

[jfreedle2]

Just because it's inconvenient to your argument doesn't mean you can dismiss it as semantics. Brave and Chrome are different browsers with different owners that compete against each other despite being forks of the same open source project. Just as each Android manufacturer owns and distributes their own fork of the android open source project.


This is such a silly argument. Just because two things are compatible does not mean they are the same. How does it even make sense to argue that dozens of companies are a monopoly or duopoly?!?

Again, the largest anti-competitive force in the smartphone market is Google's anticompetitive agreements with almost every manufacturer (it's own horizontal competitors) except Apple for Google Play Services. That's why there is very little competition for app stores and other services. For some reason, perhaps obvious, governments want to ignore the elephant in the room while taking bites out of the apple.

That is true, they are completely ignoring Google’s bad practices. Maybe Google deletes the data they compile?

 

[AppliedMicro]

Just because it's inconvenient to your argument doesn't mean you can dismiss it as semantics. Brave and Chrome are different browsers with different owners that compete against each other despite being forks of the same open source project.

...which is why they can be considered are basically the same from a web standards perspective.

This is such a silly argument. Just because two things are compatible does not mean they are the same. How does it even make sense to argue that dozens of companies are a monopoly or duopoly?!?

Keeping with your analogy:
There is a duopoly of web rendering engines (WebKit and Chromium) from a web standards perspective.

And that is the perspective web developers are taking when deciding what and how they develop.
Deciding between developing and optimising for Brave or Chrome is not a thing or real decision.

Similarly, there's a duopoly between iOS and Android from a software application and API perspective.
Which is commercially relevant. "Do I develop for One UI, Graphene or Google's Android?" is not a real question.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Why is your preference more valid that mine? And more importantly, than the platform owner’s?

Compare it to the situation on macOS:

You will still have a rich "closed" experience when limiting yourself to software from the App Store.
While we can't have a rich "open" experience when being denied installation of non-App-Store apps.

Also, the availability of non-App-Store apps ensures competition and makes for cost-efficient distribution.
Which consumers benefit from.