Epic Games Asks Apple to Restore Fortnite in South Korea Following Ban on In-App Purchase Requirement [Update]

[sideshowuniqueuser]

I never understood why Epic didn't do what Amazon did long ago.

Amazon didn't want to be charged 30% on every Kindle ebook they sold... so they just stopped it altogether. And people had to go to Amazon's website to buy Kindle ebooks.

Epic could have done something similar. Even though they couldn't (then) have a link to a website in the app... I'm pretty sure gamers would have figured it out.

You need an Epic Games account to play Fortnite anyway, right? So you already have a login and password to Epic's website and store.

That seems like a better option than suing the two major mobile platforms.

Because there IS no alternative way to run Fortnight natively on iPhones/iPads without going through the Apple Store. Sure, you can run a web app, but it isn't a viable solution. Whereas it doesn't make the slightest difference where you buy your ebook, it will still run on the iPhone book reader. Thus why courts around the world are running cases on Apple being a monopoly.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

Are you talking about the $99 developer fee? Clearly you never checked Apple’s operational costs or what a $99 membership fee totals to.
Let me help….

There are around 494,000 developers who develop apps for the App Store. That’s little less than $49 million dollars in membership fees per year. That doesn’t even cover Apple’s cost to host a developers conference every year. Who do you think pays for the engineers who develop those APIs, customer and developer support, marketing, servers and every other associated operating costs? Clearly you think running a business requires only air and water.

Also, what the user pays for the device is a separate thing. Apple designs the devices, pays for components, patents, years of support for the user by pushing updates for at least 5-6 years at a time. The list goes on. Do you know anything about running a business or do you think you are entitled to get something for nothing?

You do realise that there is $0 dev fee to access all the same dev tools for macOS, and any other OS in the world? Even though you can develop macOS apps and sideload them and not pay a single cent to Apple anywhere in the process? Tell me why that is, but somehow iOS/iPadOS are so special and expensive?

 

[0924487]

Capitalism is a structure where private companies control the trade for profit. And here you are wishing the regulators to take over that structure.

App economy is a result of big guys subsidizing the small guys. It gave many small startups a chance in the market with minimal cost and low risk to them. A whole Silicon Valley runs on the mentioned App economy.
And take that information and compare it to Russia where the state controls everything. Seems to me that’s what you want.

My ideal would be closer to the Socialist Scandinavian countries.

Then why Apple is not willing to subsidize the small guys for Qualcomm?

A fair economy is where no party is at a disadvantage.

Not willing to dig your own grave is not unfair for your replacement.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

85% of the Apps are ad supported apps; meaning developers keep 100% any revenue generated through ads. Well, I guess it’s not totally free since there is a $99 a year membership fee. Boo hoo!!!! Try hosting and promoting your own app outside of the App Store for $99 a year. Let us know how that goes.

You have heard of macOS haven't you? You do know that most apps that run on it a sideloaded and not hosted on the Mac App Store, right?

 

[0924487]

Except all the push will have to face the court of law, politics or not. Nothing is above the law and it can’t be bent so much to a point where the court will just say “monopoly” when it’s not. The enforcement will have to provide evidence before it can even bring it to the table.

Do you not watch news? How did governments so called crackdown on “big tech” went so far? I am talking about the last 5 to 10 years.

The court will not have to say “monopoly”.

I will give you an example. If a new legislation says that leading mobile app distribution platforms must not be the only distributor on any single user devices. Users must be given the option to choose any platforms they which to use, and/or to set such as the default.

I don’t care if you are a monopoly or not.

 

[Michael Scrip]

A year ago Fortnite got kicked off the App Store after Epic did this:

But it sounds like this is exactly what people are expecting after this ruling. Is it?

Also... what happened when a person selected the bottom item? Did it take them away to Epic's website?

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

I guess you don’t remember the malware millions of people got because of the sideloaded Fortnite on their Android devices. Google made an example out of this incident why sideloading is something Google itself doesn’t recommend despite being allowed on Android. Sideloading apps is the only natively supported Android function that Google does not include in its warranty. That’s for a reason so I would think twice before you say Fortnite isn’t a security or privacy risk. It already has been.

Fortnite's battle royale with Android security problems is just getting started

You may want to avoid this party bus for a while.

www.google.com

Just read the article, and sorry to say, it sounds very similar to the behaviour that Apple has towards its security flaws.

 

[Aydo2000]

Just read the article, and sorry to say, it sounds very similar to the behaviour that Apple has towards its security flaws.

Except between the two, it is only Apple that owns an actual hardware and software ecosystem. Epic is just a gaming company that uses platforms made by others.

Apple is the company that sets the security and privacy measures on their own platforms while Epic is the company that uses loopholes in such systems to push their apps to users no matter how unsafe it may be.

In this scenario, Apple is party that needs to make sure companies like Epic doesn’t put users in security and privacy risk.

So here is my question to you. Who is right? Is Apple right for tightening up security or is it Epic who is right to bypass what Apple trying to achieve?

 

[Aydo2000]

You have heard of macOS haven't you? You do know that most apps that run on it a sideloaded and not hosted on the Mac App Store, right?

The court will not have to say “monopoly”.

I will give you an example. If a new legislation says that leading mobile app distribution platforms must not be the only distributor on any single user devices. Users must be given the option to choose any platforms they which to use, and/or to set such as the default.

I don’t care if you are a monopoly or not.

It doesn't have to say monopoly but it will have to prove monopoly. It can say Singletonring and it still won't matter if it can't check the box for the court.

 

[cmaier]

Oh this rocks, I hope Apple has no choice but to reinstate their account. They’re playing by the rules, chill out fanboys. It’s not like this is a loss for you.

you can hope that, but the court expressly STOPPED the injunction that was preventing Apple from kicking out unreal. Apple is free to never let Epic in and to kick Unreal out.

 

[0924487]

It doesn't have to say monopoly but it will have to prove monopoly. It can say Singletonring and it still won't matter if it can't check the box for the court.

No, it doesn’t matter. They can make a law that says no App Stores shall carry more than 10k apps, and enforce that one. Why do you need to call someone a monopoly to do that? You don’t even need to go through court. Fine them or close them down and arrest the executives.

 

[cmaier]

I do not understand why Apple does not just allow side loading since that would end Epic's legal battle and possible legislation regarding their App Store. All they would do is mimic Google's rollout by having users manually enable side loading with a security warning.

They seem to have done fine with epic’s legal battle without having had to do that.

 

[cmaier]

You're right in that there are no clean hands in this. Apple is clearly wielding monopoly or near-monopoly power when it comes to telling end users what store they can use on their own devices that they paid for and own.

Weird that an Article III judge in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California disagrees with you vehemently.

 

[Aydo2000]

You have heard of macOS haven't you? You do know that most apps that run on it a sideloaded and not hosted on the Mac App Store, right?

You do realise that there is $0 dev fee to access all the same dev tools for macOS, and any other OS in the world? Even though you can develop macOS apps and sideload them and not pay a single cent to Apple anywhere in the process? Tell me why that is, but somehow iOS/iPadOS are so special and expensive?

The answer is simple: 1)Security , 2) privacy, 3)revenue. It is in this particular chronological order ( will explain why). I won't even get into the technical differences. I will keep it simple.

If you want the simple chronological order, here it is:

Prior to 2007 - Mac Security was strong due small user base so the platform could stay open for side loading which did not sacrifice the measure.

2007 - iPhone came along with strong security focus as mobile devices contain way more personal information. No App Store existed at this time. Ran only Apple apps.

2008 - App Store came along which opened the device for developers but kept the security focus in check by not allowing sideloading.

2010 - Apple made a corporate decision to also add "Privacy" as part of their core offering.

And in 2021 - Apple still defends its stance that kept for decades and people like you evaluate the situation based on what it looks like right now rather than looking at Apple's entire history.

It is misleading looking at the situation in snapshots. App Store revenue didn't become an important focus until much later in time. This should be evidence enough for you that Revenue is actually NOT Apple's focus. It just happens to be a good consequence of their right decisions through the years.

Here is more detailed look if you feel like reading:

Mac was always allowing apps and software to be downloaded even before the Mac App Store. It was also always the platform with a very small number of active user base even to date (around 100 million daily active users). As the time went on though, Mac App Store came along in addition to tighter sandboxing requirements. Even unauthorized apps needed to make sure to work with Macs sandboxing even if they were downloaded outside of the Mac Store.

iOS, on the other hand, was always very locked down. The first iPhone didn't even have an App Store until a year later. It ran only apps made by Apple, nothing else. This was back in 2007 when Apple didn't even have any idea how popular the device would be or even lead to the App Store a year later. Apple's App Store policy was pretty much the same even back then.

Fast forward several years, iOS now has over 1 billion active daily users. That's more than 10 times the Mac user count.

Since the very beginning, Apple designed the iPhone with security in mind since it is a mobile device people cary with them all the time which means more private information with sensitive information hackers would love to get their hands on. This became even more important as the iOS active user base grew significantly. This large user base would make a very good target for cybercriminals and scammers. Sideloading would lead to new focus into attacks on iPhone. This was never going to be the case for Mac since 1) It is not a mobile device 2) Has fraction of the active user base which isn't very enticing for hackers.

And lastly, revenue because the subsequent focus as the user base grew and app downloads contributed to service revenue. This, however, does not invalidate Apple's previous focus on security and privacy just because later on it also meant strong revenue.

 

[cmaier]

Careful... the judge opted not to rule on whether Apple is not a monopoly.

There's a difference.

So we still don't know if Apple is a monopoly or not.

yes it did. The court expressly said Apple lacked the necessary market power (page 139).

Hell, on page 1: :”Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws.”

That is judge-speak for “it’s not a monopoly.”

After all, the court was asked to determine whether Apple is a monopoly (because that was what Epic’s complaint claimed in several of the causes of action), and thus the court had to reach a determination on that.

If you are relying on the distinction between “epic hasn’t PROVEN it’s a monopoly” vs “it’s not a monopoly,” that’s a meaningless distinction - *every* lawsuit requires the plaintiff to prove something, and When the defendant wins it means that that proof failed.

 

[Aydo2000]

You have heard of macOS haven't you? You do know that most apps that run on it a sideloaded and not hosted on the Mac App Store, right?

I responded in great length to the same question you asked me somewhere else in this thread.

 

[cmaier]

I think you just answered your own question.



Additionally, in the second article I gave you



Which I anticipated.

Judge rules Apple is not ‘illegal monopolist’ in high-profile Epic case

Apple is not an illegal monopoly but has engaged in illegal anti-competitive conduct, a California federal judge ruled Friday in the high-profile case brought by Epic Games. Judge Yvonne Gonza…

thehill.com

That is a fake distinction. The Judge isn’t allowed to go off and do her own fact investigation. In any civil case, it is up to the plaintiff to prove its claims. The court *never* says “you aren’t a monopoly” - all the court can say is that it is not proven. And, by the way, if someone else sues, and they don’t have a new theory or new facts, this ruling will have a strong influence on the outcome next time around - in fact, it is likely to be determinative of the issue. So the supposed distinction you rely on is meaningless.

 

[Aydo2000]

It doesn't have to say monopoly but it will have to prove monopoly. It can say Singletonring and it still won't matter if it can't check the box for the court.

I responded in great length to the same question you asked me somewhere else in this thread.

Then how come all the same tools are free for Mac app devs, and on Mac, you not only can use whatever payment system you want, you also can bypass the Apple Store entirely and just sideload, which is actually what most devs do. Why does Apple spend a boatload on all those tools when they are all free, and the devs can simply sideload? I'll tell you why, because the Mac is very profitable all by itself, just like the iPhone is, and none of these devices exist if devs don't write software to run on them. Yep, Apple would looooove, to get rid of sideloading off the Mac so they could reap those 15/30% Apple Tax profits too, but that cat is long out of the bag, and Mac users would abandon the Mac if it came to that.

I don't know why you have to ask same question to multiple people (including me twice) but I responded to your questions in great detail. Feel free to read it and respond once. We can see all your post. Don't worry. We won't miss your "gotcha" attempts.

 

[Abazigal]

You have heard of macOS haven't you? You do know that most apps that run on it a sideloaded and not hosted on the Mac App Store, right?

I think it's also safe to conclude that Mac users purchase way fewer apps for their computers, than mobile users do for their smartphones (and tablets).

There are also way more iOS users than Mac users, and Apple clearly spends a lot more money maintaining the iOS App Store (possibly because it also earns them more).

Granted, a part of it is due to capability (I paid for Apollo, a reddit client for my iPhone and iPad), but I browse reddit via the safari browser on my Mac). So I think an argument can be made that the App Store does help to funnel more users to purchase apps, while also cutting down on piracy, thereby growing the pie for developers, and Apple feels entitled to a share of the profits for the role in plays in customer acquisition.

As such, the end result is that developers stand to earn more money this way, even after accounting for Apple's 30% cut, than the current PC model where users have to navigate to standalone websites, create one-off accounts and share their credit card information with third parties. It's just more cumbersome than authenticating with Touch ID on my iPhone.

Which is how I came to be a subscriber for Fantastical. While the app is available on both iOS and macOS, it was just easier for me to subscribe via the iOS app, which amongst other benefits, lets me track said subscription alongside other purchases within the App Store app.

As such, I don't think pointing out that things are already done a certain way on desktops is a meaningful argument without also acknowledging the downsides (not just for developers, but also for the end user as well).

 

[cmaier]

A year ago Fortnite got kicked off the App Store after Epic did this:

View attachment 1829346

But it sounds like this is exactly what people are expecting after this ruling. Is it?

Also... what happened when a person selected the bottom item? Did it take them away to Epic's website?

Yes, but apple can demand a cut from the epic direct payment choice, looks like.

 

[Michael Scrip]

yes it did. The court expressly said Apple lacked the necessary market power (page 139). Hell, on page 1: :”Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws.”

That is judge-speak for “it’s not a monopoly.”

After all, the court was asked to determine whether Apple is a monopoly (because that was what Epic’s complaint claimed in several of the causes of action), and thus the court had to reach a determination on that.

Ok cool. Thanks!

Apple is not a monopoly... so can we finally put that idea to rest?

Though there are still some people here who say they are... what should I say to them?

 

[cmaier]

Ok cool. Thanks!

Apple is not a monopoly... so can we finally put that idea to rest?

Though there are still some people here who say they are... what should I say to them?

That, at least as far as the app store is concerned, as of today, they have been adjudicated to not have the market power necessary to be a monopoly.

The court points out that things can change, but that there appears to be increasing, not decreasing, competition, so it seems unlikely that a future court would find that the AppStore is a monopoly unless things change quite a bit.

 

[Abazigal]

Ok cool. Thanks!

Apple is not a monopoly... so can we finally put that idea to rest?

Though there are still some people here who say they are... what should I say to them?

It doesn't matter what they say; there is nothing under current US antitrust law that can be used to rein Apple in. US antitrust law looks at damage done to consumers, and developers are not Apple's customers.

The correct term for Apple is probably "aggregator", where you aggregate users and use this to impose (often) onerous terms on developers, who have little choice but to agree because it's either that or lose access to a very lucrative market.

Something the US cannot effectively deal with without rewriting their own laws first.

 

[Naraxus]

That is judge-speak for “it’s not a monopoly.”

Rofl. No, no it is not

 

[Mark Booth]

If I was in charge at Apple, my next move would be to tell developers that the cost of placing an app in the iOS App Store is a tiered affair:

1) If the developer is charging money up front for the app AND the developer agrees in writing that it will NOT use an outside in-app payment site, then Apple's cut of the initial app purchase is the normal 30%. In-app purchases at the normal 30% to Apple.

2) If the developer is giving the app away for free AND the developer agrees in writing that it will NOT use an outside in-app payment site, then Apple's cut of the initial app "purchase" is zero. In-app purchases at the normal 30% to Apple.

3) If the developer is charging money up front for the app and the developer REFUSES to agree that it will not use an outside in-app payment site, then Apple will charge a significantly higher percentage up front for the initial app purchase. Say, maybe 60%.

4) If the developer is giving the app away for free and the developer REFUSES to agree that it will not use an outside in-app payment site, then Apple will charge the developer a flat fee up front for the download of the initial app.



Mark