Epic: Fortnite Offline Worldwide 'Until Apple Unblocks It'

[Stuwil]

I think it's significantly more likely that the 15-30% is actually an entirely reasonable commission given the amount of customers the PlayStore/App Store attracts, and all this grousing by "developers" is actually just large companies wanting to freeload off of the platform owners and convincing a tiny, but very vocal, minority of technically-inclined users (and government regulators who assume successful = cheating) that worse security and user experience for the vast majority of smartphone users is an appropriate trade off so they can keep more money by not paying for access to the property they're using.

It only gets that amount of customers because of how a smartphone is treated in today’s society.

What company doesn’t pay for access on iOS?

Do google not give android away for free to every OEM?

So you don’t think apple & google don’t deliberately give themselves an advantage?

 

[Stuwil]

Yes, but that is neither evidence nor an answer to my question.

What evidence do you want
Amazon sell tablets with there App Store pre installed on it
Amazon doesn’t sell smartphones anymore since the fire phone got discontinued
So they must have either an android or iOS phone so why is Amazon discontinuing there App Store on android if no one is downloading it on there smartphones
Yet use it on their tablets?

 

[BaldiMac]

What evidence do you want
Amazon sell tablets with there App Store pre installed on it
Amazon doesn’t sell smartphones anymore since the fire phone got discontinued
So they must have either an android or iOS phone so why is Amazon discontinuing there App Store on android if no one is downloading it on there smartphones
Yet use it on their tablets?

I already explained why. You disagreed and refuse to provide your own theory and evidence to support it.

 

[Stuwil]

I already explained why. You disagreed and refuse to provide evidence or your own theory.

Because Amazon wouldn’t be discontinuing it on android if there customers downloaded it on their smartphones would they?

 

[I7guy]

Because Amazon wouldn’t be discontinuing it on android if there customers downloaded it on their smartphones would they?

You cannot have any insight to non-public information. Hypotheticals are not substitutes for material knowledge of non-public information.

 

[Stuwil]

You cannot have any insight to non-public information. Hypotheticals are not substitutes for material knowledge of non-public information.

The Amazon spokesperson said it
Because people aren’t downloading it so that is why it’s getting discontinued
On android yet they have it on their Amazon tablets so if it’s a good App Store then people would download on their android devices
Because that’s what people do if they like something

 

[I7guy]

The Amazon spokesperson said it
Because people aren’t downloading it so that is why it’s getting discontinued
On android yet they have it on their Amazon tablets so if it’s a good App Store then people would download on their android devices
Because that’s what people do if they like something

Citation for this spokesperson disclosure?

 

[Stuwil]

Citation for this spokesperson disclosure?

Starting August 20, 2025, you will no longer have access to the Amazon Appstore on your Android device. We will also be discontinuing the Amazon Coins program on August 20, 2025,” the company said on a support page.

Amazon said that it will refund any coins that users hold as of August 20. The company added that only a small number of customers used the app store outside Amazon devices.

“We’ve decided to discontinue the Amazon Appstore on Android to focus our efforts on the Appstore experience on our own devices, as that’s where the overwhelming majority of our customers currently engage with it,” a company spokesperson said.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

So now you've switched back again. I'm done with this part of the conversation.


Great! So stop making that blanket claim. And provide a legal decision in the EU that limits the app market to iOS if you want to make the claim there.

I have at multiple points referred to the EU antitrust ruling that distinguished Android and playstore from ios

Even in the link I provided they state:

Google's dominance​

​

The Commission decision concludes that Google is dominant in the markets for general internet search services, licensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the Android mobile operating system.​

​

As a licensable operating system, Android is different from operating systems exclusively used by vertically integrated developers (like Apple iOS or Blackberry). Those are not part of the same market because they are not available for licence by third party device manufacturers.​

​

Nevertheless, the Commission investigated to what extent competition for end users (downstream), in particular between Apple and Android devices, could indirectly constrain Google's market power for the licensing of Android to device manufacturers (upstream). The Commission found that this competition does not sufficiently constrain Google upstream for a number of reasons, including:​

​

• end user purchasing decisions are influenced by a variety of factors (such as hardware features or device brand), which are independent from the mobile operating system;
• Apple devices are typically priced higher than Android devices and may therefore not be accessible to a large part of the Android device user base;
• Android device users face switching costs when switching to Apple devices, such as losing their apps, data and contacts, and having to learn how to use a new operating system; and
• even if end users were to switch from Android to Apple devices, this would have limited impact on Google's core business. That's because Google Search is set as the default search engine on Apple devices and Apple users are therefore likely to continue using Google Search for their queries.

App stores for the Android mobile operating system​

​

Google is dominant in the worldwide market (excluding China) for app stores for the Android mobile operating system. Google's app store, the Play Store, accounts for more than 90% of apps downloaded on Android devices. This market is also characterised by high barriers to entry. For similar reasons to those already listed above, Google's app store dominance is not constrained by Apple's App Store, which is only available on iOS devices.​

No, they're not being torn up. The commission is nibbling at the margins instead of addressing the root of the problem.

We will, the commission is doing investigations in cases brought up to it, and the DMA. Antitrust cases takes time

I'm well aware that your preference is to force Apple to do what you want. It just doesn't solve any problems and will just result in more fraud, more regulation and more time and money wasted.

At least my way benefits developers and 99% of consumer use cases without giving up the benefits of the single store model. Not like the EU hasn't done something similar already with card transaction fees.

Well i would prefer the Mac version of the market. Less restrictive, open competition and Apple is free to mandate whatever they want within the store. Higher payment standards and I don’t perceive any significant change will lead to more fraud.

And even with the card transaction fees all card terminals must accept any transaction it can technically support without any artificial limitations 🤷‍♂️

Major and minor players act as intermediaries between businesses and customers. It's a common business arrangement. It's how stores work. It's how many platforms work.

They act like it voluntarily. Can’t say that many have any form of forced interjection like Apple does it.

I can go though the brands intermittent Chanel or go through third parties who are independent

I can replace my router without my isp having a say. Car parts without my dealership having a say. I can buy steam keys and even in game purchases without valve getting in thereby.

I can charge my car at any place without any intervention.
Etc etc

 

[BaldiMac]

Because Amazon wouldn’t be discontinuing it on android if there customers downloaded it on their smartphones would they?

You keep repeating this, but I have no idea why. What do you think this proves? I've asked you this multiple times without a response.

 

[AppliedMicro]

OK, you are doing it again

Yes, I am.

You are trying to make apps on a mobile phone equivalent to public necessity. You are trying to make them "must have" instead of "nice to have".

Exactly.
They are, to live a reasonably comfortable life in today's modern society.

Smartphones are a luxury, apps are a luxury. It doesn't matter if, for convenience, public entities offer an app

It does matter, when many banks do not offer other types of second factor authentication for individual customers.
It does matter when social groups communicate mainly over WhatsApp with each other (when not face to face).
It does matter, when I'm standing at a train or public transit station that's unmanned and there's no one else to plan a route for me.

And whatever the decision is, the extra money goes then into the pockets of billion dollar businesses.

Not entirely. In competitive markets, economic efficiencies are realised that benefit consumers in the form of lower prices.

But I think maybe I finally get it though. Despite the fact that Apple ushered in a new consumer market segment by spending time/money/energy and RISK to build something out of nearly nothing

Innovators and inventors do not retain sole rights for economic exploitation of their inventions forever either.

you think other people (who had no skin in the game) should decide on how profitable it can be for Apple?

Not random other "people". But the elected government and judiciary.
There's not infinite or unlimited right to exploit a resource or business at the expense of others.

It is undesirable for society.

Innovators and inventors deserve proper and fair compensation for their innovations - and, yes, for their risk-taking.
That does not mean they get to do as they please forever.

I don't think you are, but you really sound like an undercover agent for Netflix or Spotify or Epic or something

I believe haven't paid a single 0.01 in subscriptions or content purchases to Netflix, Spotify or Epic yet.

But their interests align with mine for a more open platform.
I don't want 2034 to become '1984'.

 

[BaldiMac]

I have at multiple points referred to the EU antitrust ruling that distinguished Android and playstore from ios

Even in the link I provided they state:
Even in the link I provided they state:

Google's dominance​

​

The Commission decision concludes that Google is dominant in the markets for general internet search services, licensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the Android mobile operating system.​

​

As a licensable operating system, Android is different from operating systems exclusively used by vertically integrated developers (like Apple iOS or Blackberry). Those are not part of the same market because they are not available for licence by third party device manufacturers.​

​

Nevertheless, the Commission investigated to what extent competition for end users (downstream), in particular between Apple and Android devices, could indirectly constrain Google's market power for the licensing of Android to device manufacturers (upstream). The Commission found that this competition does not sufficiently constrain Google upstream for a number of reasons, including:​

​

• end user purchasing decisions are influenced by a variety of factors (such as hardware features or device brand), which are independent from the mobile operating system;
• Apple devices are typically priced higher than Android devices and may therefore not be accessible to a large part of the Android device user base;
• Android device users face switching costs when switching to Apple devices, such as losing their apps, data and contacts, and having to learn how to use a new operating system; and
• even if end users were to switch from Android to Apple devices, this would have limited impact on Google's core business. That's because Google Search is set as the default search engine on Apple devices and Apple users are therefore likely to continue using Google Search for their queries.

App stores for the Android mobile operating system​

​

Google is dominant in the worldwide market (excluding China) for app stores for the Android mobile operating system. Google's app store, the Play Store, accounts for more than 90% of apps downloaded on Android devices. This market is also characterised by high barriers to entry. For similar reasons to those already listed above, Google's app store dominance is not constrained by Apple's App Store, which is only available on iOS devices.​

Sigh. Of course, iOS doesn't compete for installation on third-party devices. Do you even bother to read what you post?!?

We will, the commission is doing investigations in cases brought up to it, and the DMA. Antitrust cases takes time

You say without evidence.

Well i would prefer the Mac version of the market. Less restrictive, open competition and Apple is free to mandate whatever they want within the store. Higher payment standards and I don’t perceive any significant change will lead to more fraud.

And even with the card transaction fees all card terminals must accept any transaction it can technically support without any artificial limitations 🤷‍♂️

Great. That's your preference. I'm well aware. It's not my preference. Which you are aware. The difference is that I'm not supporting the elimination of the model that you prefer.

They act like it voluntarily. Can’t say that many have any form of forced interjection like Apple does it.

I can go though the brands intermittent Chanel or go through third parties who are independent

I can replace my router without my isp having a say. Car parts without my dealership having a say. I can buy steam keys and even in game purchases without valve getting in thereby.

I can charge my car at any place without any intervention.
Etc etc

It's weird how when you cherrypick examples to fit your predetermined conclusion, you come up with examples that fit your predetermined conclusion.

Again, any store gets "in between the customer and the service provider". Any platform gets "in between the customer and the service provider". That's a completely normal thing.

 

[AppliedMicro]

I think it's significantly more likely that the 15-30% is actually an entirely reasonable commission given the amount of customers the PlayStore/App Store attracts

...if

• you have captive customers and
• consider them "owned" by Apple (and Google, respectively)

That is, you agree that a de facto duopoly of the largest companies in the world deserves (or at least has the right) to full "ownership" over their respective hundreds of millions of customers. That merely owning and using a smartphone gives these two companies the right to fully control each and every commercial transaction between them and every other business.

That is dystopian.

I use Apple products and I mostly prefer them over the competition. I use and chose their software and operating system, from a very limited range of alternatives. But I'm not owned by Apple. It's time governments fight back against that.

15-30% is actually an entirely reasonable commission given the amount of customers the PlayStore/App Store attracts

👉 Why not 50%?

Or 75%?
It's hundreds millions of customers and there's so much money to be made.

I mean... if I'm not mistaken, you support Apple to "price as they please"?
So what's stopping them from hiking their commission rate to 50% or 75%?

You own line of argumentation does not provide any upper boundary, does it?
50% or 75% can just as well be justified as 30%, can't it?

 

[surferfb]

...if

• you have captive customers and
• consider them "owned" by Apple (and Google, respectively)

That is, you agree that a de facto duopoly of the largest companies in the world deserves (or at least has the right) to full "ownership" over their respective hundreds of millions of customers. That merely owning and using a smartphone gives these two companies the right to fully control each and every commercial transaction between them and every other business.

That is dystopian.

Apple doesn’t “own” its customers, but it has been clear since Day 1 of the App Store how Apple runs iOS and the App Store.

Consumers actively choosing an option that is better for their ease of use and security when another option exists isn’t “dystopian”, it’s making a different choice than you prefer.

I use Apple products and I mostly prefer them over the competition. I use and chose their software and operating system, from a very limited range of alternatives. But I'm not owned by Apple. It's time governments fight back against that.

Again, if you have an issue with how Apple runs its platform, so much so that you think Apple “owns” you, there is a glaringly easy fix.

And that fix doesn’t involve giving away a company’s IP and removing the option of a closed ecosystem from everyone on the planet.

👉 Why not 50%?

Or 75%?
It's hundreds millions of customers and there's so much money to be made.

I mean... if I'm not mistaken, you support Apple to "price as they please"?
So what's stopping them from hiking their commission rate to 50% or 75%?

Yes, Apple should be able to price as it pleases. Too high and developers won’t develop for the platform, which will make iOS a less attractive platform. As I am frequently reminded on here, Apple needs developers too. And it’s true!

If consumers can’t get the apps they want, or they cost significantly more on iOS than they do on Android, they will choose Apple’s competitors. Just because people on MacRumors pretend Android and iOS don’t compete doesn’t mean they don’t, they absolutely do.

 

[BaldiMac]

...if

• you have captive customers and
• consider them "owned" by Apple (and Google, respectively)

That is, you agree that a de facto duopoly of the largest companies in the world deserves (or at least has the right) to full "ownership" over their respective hundreds of millions of customers. That merely owning and using a smartphone gives these two companies the right to fully control each and every commercial transaction between them and every other business.

That is dystopian.

I use Apple products and I mostly prefer them over the competition. I use and chose their software and operating system, from a very limited range of alternatives. But I'm not owned by Apple. It's time governments fight back against that.

I've got to applaud the hyperbolic nonsense here. Dystopian?

In reality, Apple takes a cut of a small percentage of the commercial transaction conducted on their devices. The majority of which are games. A market that historically pays a commission to the platform provider.

👉 Why not 50%?

Or 75%?
It's hundreds millions of customers and there's so much money to be made.

I mean... if I'm not mistaken, you support Apple to "price as they please"?
So what's stopping them from hiking their commission rate to 50% or 75%?

Because developers would leave for other platforms. Which is why Apple has had to relax their commission and terms over time. You know, competition.

 

[AppliedMicro]

In reality, Apple takes a cut of a small percentage of the commercial transaction

30% isn't a small percentage.
Neither is 15%, for provision of payment transaction services.
I accept credit cards at 2.5%.

Because developers would leave for other platforms

Which ones?
Google Play?
The store that charges the same rates, basically?

Which is why Apple has had to relax their commission and terms over time.

They haven't.
Not due to competitive pressure.

And their upper tier of 30% hasn't change in ...ever. Where else do the largest customers pay the highest prices/rates? Especially markets with near zero marginal costs. That's indication of little to no economic pressure and competition.

Apple only lowered their rates when legislative efforts to regulate gained traction.

 

[BaldiMac]

30% isn't a small percentage.
Neither is 15%, for provision of payment transaction services.
I accept credit cards at 2.5%.

I wasn’t talking about the percentage of the commission.

Which ones?
Google Play?
The store that charges the same rates, basically?

Under your scenario, Google Play would be significantly undercutting the App Store. And, as we discussed, I support breaking up Google’s control of the Android market.

They haven't.
Not due to competitive pressure.

And yet the rates came down and terms were changed after pressure from developers such as Amazon and Netflix

 

[wbeasley]

You can get a Nokia 3310 4g edition
Because in my country the 3g connection is switched off.

but it's not an original Nokia 3310... an Android resuss edition?

not the same by a long shot...

 

[AppliedMicro]

Under your scenario, Google Play would be significantly undercutting the App Store

No. Because they're not competing for distribution of iOS apps.
And vice versa', Apple's App Store doesn't compete for distribution of Android apps.

They've split up the market for mobile apps (and related transactions for digital goods and services) between them - but do not compete with each other. They're not selling the "same product", so to speak, but substitute products.

And yet the rates came down and terms were changed after pressure from developers such as Amazon and Netflix

Not at all.
I mean, we could argue about the reason why Apple introduced their small developer program.

But attributing it to Amazon and Netflix is completely absurd, when they, of all developers, benefit the least from it - namely zero (they aren't small developers). They aren't even using in-app purchases in their iOS apps.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Sigh. Of course, iOS doesn't compete for installation on third-party devices. Do you even bother to read what you post?!?

I do, or you haven’t read the case they refer to as Google tries to use the existence of the iOS AppStore as a ”defense” for a broader market as well as a competitor for the play store

You say without evidence.

Do you expect this case as an example instead for defining the relevant market iOS AppStore?( page 72 they expand on the relevant market)

Competition case search

Searches for published decisions can be carried out under policy area, case number, title and date.

competition-cases.ec.europa.eu

Or the list of recent antitrust rulings towards Google, meta and Apple?
Or the DMA ruling last month that Apple wasn’t complying?

Great. That's your preference. I'm well aware. It's not my preference. Which you are aware. The difference is that I'm not supporting the elimination of the model that you prefer.

And An unfortunate disagreement about the ”elimination of your model” as I would argue it hasn’t existed for well over a decade.

It's weird how when you cherrypick examples to fit your predetermined conclusion, you come up with examples that fit your predetermined conclusion.

Again, any store gets "in between the customer and the service provider". Any platform gets "in between the customer and the service provider". That's a completely normal thing.

What else do you want me to pick in my everyday life? I said the vast majority of them with a small but large minority that do get in the customers way.

Is effectively all ISP, mobile isp, malls, cars, stores cherry-picking?

Because I can’t think of many stores or businesses that interact with that put themselves between me and a relevant service/business provider that I can’t circumvent and do business with the relevant party without being disturbed by the company that happened to sell me something like they own me.

Apple is one, Nintendo( more and more), probably some smart tvs etc.

 

[BaldiMac]

I do, or you haven’t read the case they refer to as Google tries to use the existence of the iOS AppStore as a ”defense” for a broader market as well as a competitor for the play store

Context matters. The case that you quoted establishes that it isn't a competitor for INSTALLING ON ANDROID DEVICES. It is a competitor for app sales.

Do you expect this case as an example instead for defining the relevant market iOS AppStore?( page 72 they expand on the relevant market)

Competition case search

Searches for published decisions can be carried out under policy area, case number, title and date.

competition-cases.ec.europa.eu

Or the list of recent antitrust rulings towards Google, meta and Apple?
Or the DMA ruling last month that Apple wasn’t complying?

Still not reading your own citations. From your link:

41) The Commission concludes that the product markets that are relevant for the purpose of this Decision are:​

​

– The market for smart mobile devices (in which Apple competes against OEMs offering smart mobile devices to end consumers);​

– The market for the provision to developers of platforms for the distribution of music streaming apps to iOS users (i.e., the developer facing side of the two-sided App Store platform);​

– The market for the provision of music streaming services.​

So, once again, your own citation doesn't support your argument. The market is only limited to iOS from a developer perspective. It is not limited to iOS on the consumer side.

And An unfortunate disagreement about the ”elimination of your model” as I would argue it hasn’t existed for well over a decade.

I'm aware of your ridiculous "side loading was available in a limited way, so that's the same thing as unrestricted side loading" argument.

What else do you want me to pick in my everyday life? I said the vast majority of them with a small but large minority that do get in the customers way.

Is effectively all ISP, mobile isp, malls, cars, stores cherry-picking?

Because I can’t think of many stores or businesses that interact with that put themselves between me and a relevant service/business provider that I can’t circumvent and do business with the relevant party without being disturbed by the company that happened to sell me something like they own me.

Apple is one, Nintendo( more and more), probably some smart tvs etc.

Keep moving those goalposts. Your original quote was "Apple just can't stop themselves from getting in between the customer and the service provider." Walmart gets between the customer and providers. Amazon gets between a customer and providers. Barnes and Noble gets between businesses and providers. Citing examples where businesses don't get in the middle doesn't change the fact that it's a normal thing that businesses do.