Trying to cripple competition simply because you are falling behind is simply an admission of you being on the losing side. How do you not see that?
Last edited:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Epic Games Asks Apple to Restore Fortnite in South Korea Following Ban on In-App Purchase Requirement [Update]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This one was hard to read, but really? In this political climate, there is something called "going too far"?
You can try to go as far you want. You just won’t get as far as you think.
Oh you are not interested in monopoly labeling? What do you think you have been labeling Apple as for the last 3 days? What did the judge rule yesterday? Did she not say Apple IS NOT a monopoly?
That’s it. I am done with you. You talk but not actually say anything.
All it needs to be is on the wrong side of the regulators or "national interest". It shows you that the system has the capacity to, but has not yet attempted anything that I know of on US companies. Partly because they would just use media to defame the company and short its stocks, then do a hostile takeover of the board.
About Alstom:
How the American takeover of a French national champion became intertwined in a corruption investigation
A Department of Justice investigation into Alstom ended in 2014 with General Electric’s $17bn takeover of the French company
About Alstom and Huawei:
What does the fate of Alstom tell us about the Huawei case?
On April 14, 2013, Frederic Pierucci, an executive of Alstom, a French power and transportation conglomerate, was arrested by the FBI when his plane arrived at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport. He was charged with bribing Indonesian officials to win a power plant contract.
news.cgtn.com
Once again, I am done with you. You can bs in public forums but you can’t bs life or really. Get a grip, will ya?All it needs to be is on the wrong side of the regulators or "national interest". It shows you that the system has the capacity to, but has not yet attempted anything that I know of on US companies. Partly because they would just use media to defame the company and short its stocks, then do a hostile takeover of the board.
About Alstom:
https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d3d514f3445544f34457a6333566d54/index.html
How the American takeover of a French national champion became intertwined in a corruption investigation
A Department of Justice investigation into Alstom ended in 2014 with General Electric’s $17bn takeover of the French companywww.economist.com
So you want small developers do be negatively impacted then. You may not care about Epic but Epic does't care about the small devs either no matter the type of narrative they are desperately trying to create. Think about what the unintended consequences would mean to small devs.
It seems to me you just dislike Apple and you wish for their loss regardless the end result. It was widely discussed in this thread why Apple's loss on all counts is actually bad for small devs. Try to have a deeper understanding where this would all lead to. Economies of scale is something only big corps like Epic can achieve. Small devs cannot afford dedicating time and resources on having their own payment systems, customer service, support, etc. Epic already has this in place because they are a big and well resourced. They just want more money in their pocket. Nothing to do with small devs or their interest at all.
Last edited:
IMHO, there are some potential issues with that (namely, scams), which can damage Apple's brand; then again, it's not like Apple helps users caught on scams processed by their own first-party payment system, so there's that.
However, can you really put that to the side? That's my main – nay, only – point here. Epic can be absolutely right when it comes to payments but, if they go about it in borderline, if not outright criminal fashion, they can't expect any special treatment.
Others may try making the same point and, if they fail because Epic set a bad precedent, that will just confirm what I anticipated, i.e. that Epic was doing their competitors, partners and customers alike a huge disservice in behaving in such fashion.
Being right, and having freedom of speech and access to courts of law does not give you the right to behave in a deceitful manner. Letting that kind of thing slide is an even worse slippery slope into which neither Apple, or any other company, for that matter, will ever enter.
Guess it's a good thing that Epic wasn't able to prove their claims and Apple gets to keep the status quo.
Yes, it is. Courts aren't interested in letting mega corps like Epic use laws as tools to fill in their pockets. We all know - with the exception of few folks here - that what Epic did is only for their own benefit. Part of Epic's burden was to prove if the judgement is in its favor, it would also benefit the small devs and the consumer. Epic failed on that also along with 9 out of their 10 claims. Ask any developer. They will tell you the "status quo" is how they happen to exist. If anything, this lawsuit proves Apple's business model is a legitimate model that benefits Apple, small devs and the consumer. Win-Win-Win.
This is less directed at you individually (i.e. not attacking you) and more directed and responding in general to the spirit of your message ...
Regardless of how payments are done (1st party, 3rd party, or an In-App purchase completed outside of the app), as the judge pointed out, and then others went and re-read the developer agreements, the developer still owes 30% of sales to end-users to Apple, full stop. Which, before anyone else jumps to say is unfair, anti-competitive, or monopolistic, etc, it's the same as Epic -- itself! -- mandates in it's own contracts. They have different numbers for the commission level, but the point is, the commission (the 30% part) is not as a condition of Apple taking in the money themselves. So even if you could use a 3rd party payment processor -- you still owe Apple their 30% first, then, the payment processor (on the whole sale amount, again) who will collect their own cut for processing and collecting the users payment. Epic, like I said, doesn't provide this "out" for any developer either. In fact, it's even more unambiguous in their contract compared to Apple's.
Epic's Unreal Engine license agreement:
"When you generate revenue from a Product or Distribute it to end users, you must provide Epic with advance notification at unrealengine.com/release, as early as reasonably possible, including the name of the Product, the format of distribution, unique Product id (where applicable), and the distribution channel(s). [...] You agree to pay Epic a royalty equal to 5% of all worldwide gross revenue actually attributable to each Product, regardless of whether that revenue is received by you or any other person or legal entity, as follows: (etc... )
Or to put it another way.... On iOS, you're hassling yourself, your customers, and costing yourself (as a developer) extra fees and commission using a 3rd party processor for in-app purchases or initial app sales.
Now Epic could have attacked Apple on the 30% number itself. But they didn't. Epic chose to argue against the imposition of any commission at all. That is they stated they chose to breach their contract and do what they did because it was their opinion that any commission charge of any amount was unconscionable. (Despite the fact that Epic itself wants a commission for games developed with their Unreal Engine and games / apps sold though their store).
So again, Epic's core arguments and core case were super flimsy weak. But, they did win on the anti-steering, the only portion that they really didn't screw up.
The question isn’t even whether it would benefit small devs and the consumer. That’s not the test. Otherwise it would be illegal to make a profit - you’d have to do everything at cost.