Epic Games Asks Court to Allow Fortnite Back on the App Store

[cmaier]

That’s where the nuances I mentioned come into play. Forgoing the fact I’d have to repurchase most of the apps I use, I still prefer iOS overall. It’s take on security is still a more trustworthy one than in Android especially because each app is reviewed (for better and for worse). Circling back to my original point, it’s just not as simple as “you want freedom? Go for android!” Etc.

And that’s life, isn’t it?

I mean, I like my Tesla, but wish it had CarPlay. But I’m not suing them to force them to make the specific product I want. If enough people demand a car that has everything Tesla has, but also demand car play, the market will take care of it. If not, then what’s the problem?

 

[mikethemartian]

The more I hear about Epic, the more I start to hate them.

Why would you love or hate them. It’s just business.

 

[mikethemartian]

If only there was something epic could do to remediate this while the case moves forward..... guess we’ll never know /s

Actually it is probably better for their case to be able to quantify their losses this way instead of just hypothetically.

 

[Realityck]

How so? The iPad is, in every way, a computer.

Calling something is a computer doesn't equate to an ease of use similarity when working with applications. Nobody would think that you could just replace any desktop/laptop setup with a iPad and keyboard setup. I know all the Apple marketing spins it that way, but if you use both, you see the limitations of the mobile operating system Apple created called iPadOS versus working with MacOS.

So its that "in very way" I disagree. I use both, but one is very restrictive with the speeds of doing creation and editing tasks comparably. You can in the end similarly complete tasks. Its just iPad is a fantastic within its OS constraints, but the Mac is even more powerful and flexible and room for expansion. (multiple displays, storage, I/O, etc).

 

[jimbobb24]

I really hope courts don’t force this change on Apple. The PSN works great and it follows a similar model. I want my phone to be an appliance. Those who need more should get android and enjoy those trade offs. If the courts get involved we may no longer have the option to have a closed, safe, simple, reliable system.

 

[Johnny Jackhammer]

I'll take my chances with the free market prevailing.

Except it’s not a free market when government encourages and subsidizes mega companies. They receive huge benefits that small companies don’t.

 

[CthuluLemon]

How so? The iPad is, in every way, a computer.

Yes, but they argued it would replace your notebook or desktop. For most, it hasn't. I don't agree with it being false advertising though, more just lofty marketing. Most modern tablet makers have been guilty of the same.

It could still happen, especially now that Apple has been bridging the gap between the iOS and MacOS experiences e.g adding file and folder browsing support. The new Pro case also makes it function much closer to a full notebook. While users may have been able to learn to use the iPad as a notebook or desktop for years now, it required knowledge of iOS that most users weren't willing to take the time to learn.

 

[pasamio]

Their claim comes from Apple having a monopoly within iOS. Probably not strictly a monopoly but I can see what they mean (even if they’re exaggerating, as all legal entities do in such battles).

Look at Steam and xCloud for example. Not 100% sure if the monopoly term applies but they’re essentially saying “give us our cut or you’re out” with no other choice, meaning each service now has to deal with a 30% cut, even if they’re streaming the content. That’s pretty ******, monopoly or not.

I actually thought the Steam and xCloud cases were more that Apple wanted to validate it's content before getting onto the device. I do believe that if Apple doesn't figure out a path forward for these types of services though that it will find itself at a disadvantage to other platforms but at that point if this is a feature that is important to you, you move to that platform. Maybe Apple decides that it wants to capture you back as a customer, or maybe it's happy with it's own rules. However that's how a market works and that's the counter point to the monopoly argument: if you don't like what Apple is doing, don't buy the Apple phone.

Calling something is a computer doesn't equate to an ease of use similarity when working with applications. Nobody would think that you could just replace any desktop/laptop setup with a iPad and keyboard setup. I know all the Apple marketing spins it that way, but if you use both, you see the limitations of the mobile operating system Apple created called iPadOS versus working with MacOS.

So its that "in very way" I disagree. I use both, but one is very restrictive with the speeds of doing creation and editing tasks comparably. You can in the end similar complete tasks. Its just iPad is a fantastic within its OS constraints, but the Mac is even more powerful and flexible and room for expansion. (multiple displays, storage, I/O, etc).

You're right, an iPad isn't a computer, these are computers:

 

[Johnny Jackhammer]

This Epic/Apple issue is sort of like (and completely different) from the IBM anti-trust issue from about 50 years ago. IBM invented the "Mainframe" computer that all business applications used. They had something like 99% of the market and only allowed IBM software to run on it. They were sued and lost because they did in fact have a monopoly position for "Mainframe" computers. Apple has only about 15% of the smart phone market - definitely not a monopoly. However, if the courts look at IOS as separate from the smartphone market then Apple does have a monopoly.

Apple has been slowly creating a closed Apple ecosystem since OS9 disappeared. It’s not computing any longer it’s a vehicle for entertainment and they sell/rent the entertainment.

 

[Wildkraut]

Okay, I'm Done!

All my iDevices are on eBay, except a few cables and adapters, no mood to put them there now.
It's not about Fortnite, I don't play it, it's more about ethics and all recent apple cases and philosophy which don't share, but I admit my heart is bleeding a bit.
That's probably how a divorce feels heh, but I'm also looking forward to my new Android Girl, which will hopefully do what I want heh. Maybe I'll come back someday, never say never, when EPIC wins. heh will keep my account open.
Thanks for the nice time in here, was fun incl. the all flamings, I had a good laugh.
Sorry, if I offended anybody in anyway, postings don't always show jokes and expressions.

Cya, peace, and stay healthy!

 

[Taz Mangus]

How so? The iPad is, in every way, a computer.

I agree, it is. It makes me laugh when I read people post that an iPad is not a computer. iOS/iPadOS/tvOS are all directly based on macOS. iOS/iPadOS/tvOS even runs the same APFS filesystem and if you look at the directory structure of iOS/iPadOS/tvOS it is much the same as macOS.

 

[goobot]

I think they can install the game on androids outside of Google's control.

True, but that’s not the case for consoles. Also on Mac they could have distributed it the same as on android but chose not to and instead blamed it on Apple.

 

[notabadname]

I want the billion shoppers that frequent your store back. Hmmmmmm, 70% of the profits made off a billion users suddenly doesn’t sound so bad, once your experience having the faucet shut off.

 

[Piggie]

Apple doesn’t say that.

They say “you can sell your plates cheaper at another store.”
They say “You can NOT print ’buy this instead for cheap at the store on Main Street’ on the plate”
They say “You can NOT walk into our store and stand in the corner selling your plates on your own”

Thanks for the clarification.
Let's assume Fortnight is back on the App store.

So people can buy in-app purchases (let#s say a skin) via their iPhone etc, and this purchase will incur apples 30% charge.
But (your 1st point)
They can log into fortnight, say on a PC or other device and buy the same in-game skin item at a lower price,
then log back in on their iphone and then be able to wear the new skin?

Sorry, I was not aware this was the case.
I thought Apple told devs they could not sell the same items at a lower cost anywhere else. even if they never mentioned it, and people just found out they were lower priced via someone method.

 

[cmaier]

Thanks for the clarification.
Let's assume Fortnight is back on the App store.

So people can buy in-app purchases (let#s say a skin) via their iPhone etc, and this purchase will incur apples 30% charge.
But (your 1st point)
They can log into fortnight, say on a PC or other device and buy the same in-game skin item at a lower price,
then log back in on their iphone and then be able to wear the new skin?

Sorry, I was not aware this was the case.
I thought Apple told devs they could not sell the same items at a lower cost anywhere else. even if they never mentioned it, and people just found out they were lower priced via someone method.

Yes, that would be allowed under apple‘s rules, and multiple apps do that. So long as the app doesn’t direct them to the website to buy it cheaper, it’s fine.

 

[pasamio]

Thanks for the clarification.
Let's assume Fortnight is back on the App store.

So people can buy in-app purchases (let#s say a skin) via their iPhone etc, and this purchase will incur apples 30% charge.
But (your 1st point)
They can log into fortnight, say on a PC or other device and buy the same in-game skin item at a lower price,
then log back in on their iphone and then be able to wear the new skin?

Sorry, I was not aware this was the case.
I thought Apple told devs they could not sell the same items at a lower cost anywhere else. even if they never mentioned it, and people just found out they were lower priced via someone method.

Once upon a time they took a reading that charging more for App Store purchases to recoup the 30% wasn't acceptable but I think that was removed in 2011. Apple have been reasonably consistent around permitting content purchased elsewhere on the device, they've just been inconsistent in enforcing the IAP requirements.

Using the Fortnite example, each platform has their own wallet so any purchases of V-Bucks on those platforms incur what ever payment cost for that platform and aren't transferable. If you buy content on any device, it's then available to all platforms. The example from Epic's FAQ is comparing PC to PS4, PS4 to PC and mobile to PS4. Each platform has it's own wallet but content is available on all devices.

 

[Colonel Blimp]

Don't be fooled, Apple is the thin edge of the wedge. Get a favourable ruling about Apple's store, and they will then get a favourable ruling on all of the monopolies. Epic have specifically chosen Apple to start with, because their Apple revenue is small compared to Playstation, Xbox, and PC games, and yet Apple are the biggest fish.

I strongly suspect this is exactly Epic’s thinking. Apple aren’t their real target, the console vendors are.

You can be assured that there are a LOT of disgruntled developers that are secretly cheering Epic on.

You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t take on faith your assurance about something you say is happening in secret.

 

[TiggrToo]

Calling something is a computer doesn't equate to an ease of use similarity when working with applications. Nobody would think that you could just replace any desktop/laptop setup with a iPad and keyboard setup. I know all the Apple marketing spins it that way, but if you use both, you see the limitations of the mobile operating system Apple created called iPadOS versus working with MacOS.

So its that "in very way" I disagree. I use both, but one is very restrictive with the speeds of doing creation and editing tasks comparably. You can in the end similarly complete tasks. Its just iPad is a fantastic within its OS constraints, but the Mac is even more powerful and flexible and room for expansion. (multiple displays, storage, I/O, etc).

100% irrelevant. It is a computer. My first machine from 1981 was a 6502 Acorn Atom with 12K RAM - it was a computer.

Usage and applications do not a computer make.

 

[notabadname]

Personally, the issue isn't 30% or 15% or whatever. That Apple doesn't even allow a developer to redirect their customers to their own website to complete their subscription is the most problematic. That developers can't even SAY that the subscription fee is 30% more because of Apple's fees is seriously problematic and unarguably anticompetitive. I believe this will irk the courts the most, and is probably their strongest argument.

so a free to play, micro-transaction game should get the global storefront of Apple, for free, and direct their customers outside that store for the actual revenue portion of the business and cut the owner of the store out of the business while that store is providing millions of customers. People tend to forget what it cost to put a product in Best Buy or Game Stop. You aren’t getting 70% there - the distribution to get it to the store, the packaging, producing the optical media, the loss on unsold product, Return costs. The simplicity of dumping a multi-GB file onto Apple’s server, and - presto magic - its on nearly every continent, available instantly to a billion buyers. No loss on any of the previously mentioned items.

 

[cmaier]

100% irrelevant. It is a computer. My first machine from 1981 was a 6502 Acorn Atom with 12K RAM - it was a computer.

Usage and applications do not a computer make.

Acorn atom wasn’t a computer. It was a very very tiny acorn.

 

[bousozoku]

Okay, I'm Done!

All my iDevices are on eBay, except a few cables and adapters, no mood to put them there now.
It's not about Fortnite, I don't play it, it's more about ethics and all recent apple cases and philosophy which don't share, but I admit my heart is bleeding a bit.
That's probably how a divorce feels heh, but I'm also looking forward to my new Android Girl, which will hopefully do what I want heh. Maybe I'll come back someday, never say never, when EPIC wins. heh will keep my account open.
Thanks for the nice time in here, was fun incl. the all flamings, I had a good laugh.
Sorry, if I offended anybody in anyway, postings don't always show jokes and expressions.

Cya, peace, and stay healthy!

If I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath. Epic Games did this to themselves.

On the other side, they upset loads of people when they opened their own store and "stole" exclusives from Steam.

The latest CEO isn't very good, but the store is okay, with a long way to go. I've got a few games for free due to them.

 

[macfacts]

How so? The iPad is, in every way, a computer.

The iPad is more like a locked down gaming console.

 

[bousozoku]

Don't be fooled, Apple is the thin edge of the wedge. Get a favourable ruling about Apple's store, and they will then get a favourable ruling on all of the monopolies. Epic have specifically chosen Apple to start with, because their Apple revenue is small compared to Playstation, Xbox, and PC games, and yet Apple are the biggest fish. You can be assured that there are a LOT of disgruntled developers that are secretly cheering Epic on.

What monopoly? You can use any phone/tablet you want.

 

[Victor Mortimer]

so a free to play, micro-transaction game should get the global storefront of Apple, for free, and direct their customers outside that store for the actual revenue portion of the business and cut the owner of the store out of the business while that store is providing millions of customers. People tend to forget what it cost to put a product in Best Buy or Game Stop. You aren’t getting 70% there - the distribution to get it to the store, the packaging, producing the optical media, the loss on unsold product, Return costs. The simplicity of dumping a multi-GB file onto Apple’s server, and - presto magic - its on nearly every continent, available instantly to a billion buyers. No loss on any of the previously mentioned items.

Nobody is asking for it to be on Apple's store for free. In fact, nobody would care if it was on Apple's store at all. What makes Apple's behavior an illegal monopoly is that there is currently NO OTHER WAY for me to install a piece of software on MY iPhone (not Apple's iPhone, MY iPhone, I own it, Apple does not own it) than for it to come from Apple's store. That has to change.

Apple has two choices here:

• Allow users to use other app stores and install apps from any source they want.

or

• Lose this lawsuit, hopefully a huge amount of money for actual and punitive damages, be hit with a class action from all other app developers, lose that too, and then allow users to use other app stores and install apps from any source they want.

Either way, Apple WILL lose this one, because they're wrong and they're behaving like criminals. The only question is how badly Apple loses this one.

 

[TiggrToo]

The iPad is more like a locked down gaming console.

Sure it is. That’s why I use it for all my meetings to take notes using Notability, have done project planning with it with OmniPlan,reply to work emails on it with Outlook, connect to various Windows and Linux servers using Royal Desktop and WebSsh, look at Sql performance using TablePlus, manage my various Repos using GitLabControl and WorkingCopy and plan my teams work with Trello.

Did I mention how I triage external customer tickets using ZenDesk Support, and internal ones with Jira? My bad. Mustn’t forget the Vendor Relationship Management system I put together using Ninox either.

Because that’s exactly what one uses a “locked down gaming console” for, right?