No, you should REALLY stick it to Tom Appleman and just NOT give him any more money. And, bonus, you could use an OS that most of the mobile world is using and install what you want when you want INCLUDING cracked apps, JUST like you should be able to on a mobile PC.
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 Began Planning Antitrust Lawsuit Against Apple Two Years Ago With 'Project Liberty'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Eh, I’d be fine with it. I mean it’s not like developers are going to NOT release their apps on the Windows Store LOL Developers might even like this better because they could keep the price higher longer and get more dollars per sale.
Never said Apple is involved in developer's AWS.
However, Apple has CloudKit. Essentially free for any developer to use. Plenty of game types can use CloudKit to host multiplayer games. GameCenter also offers services for real time and turn based games 100% free.
Which fortnite can sell currency outside of the store. Alternatively, Epic can charge players 30% extra in-game compared to other sources to pay for Apple's cut. They're free to do that under App Store policy.
Nope. Apple deserves some of the cut for reviewing, distributing the game, and handling billing customer support.
Apple has been getting a cut for offering iTunes movie rentals. They handle the software, distribution of content, and customer technical/billing support.
Not gonna lie, they both make it hard to want to side with either of them. They are both arrogant and have abused their positions.
I won't forgive Apple for being pathetic and patty with Kindle and specifically nerfing it -- thus abusing their control for no justified reason. Apple also has let a TON of abuse-ware get approved so their walled garden isn't as "perfect" as people like to imply it is.
I've never particularly cared for Epic either.
Trouble is, I only see fanboi's on both sides thinking their sports team.. err.. sorry.. their company can do no wrong. Ever.
I won't forgive Apple for being pathetic and patty with Kindle and specifically nerfing it -- thus abusing their control for no justified reason. Apple also has let a TON of abuse-ware get approved so their walled garden isn't as "perfect" as people like to imply it is.
I've never particularly cared for Epic either.
Trouble is, I only see fanboi's on both sides thinking their sports team.. err.. sorry.. their company can do no wrong. Ever.
The app or the device? The device is still out there. Never used the app, though.
I know, like those Kindle fanboi’s, eh? /s
If Microsoft did that for phones, yes.
If Microsoft wanted to sell a new line of devices with that functionality, and the trade off was improved security and privacy, yes.
EXACTLY!! You can build your app however the hell you want, charge whatever you want. If you want to use the Apple tools......play by their rules. No different than any other software license agreement in the world.
Nice hyperbole? I would assume if you really felt this intensely about this then you would have provided some sort of context for why you believe it. That is unless you are just trolling, in which case, you got me!
The average consumer is not technically savvy. They don't know how to determine if an app is malicious or not. Having mechanisms in place to protect against that is helpful. Any app can do anything it wants as long as it doesn't utilize Apple's own software code. So just have your precious apps that have their cert yanked, just build the app outside of Apple's provided code and you are all set.
Whether the device can do a lot or a little has nothing to do with it being defined as a monopoly. You can buy a smartphone from multiple vendors at different prices. You can install apps via the App Store or run apps via a web browser without Apple's App Store rules. What you can't do is take advantage of Apple's extra development tools and platform without playing by their rules and paying for it.
I am not sure you understand how business works. Yes EPIC has costs. They have development costs and hosting costs and many others. They are a business just like Apple. However, just like any non-direct sale businesses, you sell your product to at least one middle person. Each person in the chain adds a percentage and by the time a consumer buys a product, it is marked up quite a bit more than what it costs in the first sale. Your toothbrush you bought at Target. Your car you bought at the dealership. The chicken in your sandwich. All of these things operate on this principle. Apple is part of the distribution and therefore them getting a cut is just normal business.
What is up for debate is whether their part in distribution is a monopoly and therefore unfair. The fact they feel like they are forced into doing business in a particular way and think that is monopolistic behavior is what is under question. However, since Google exists, that causes doubt in their case. As others have pointed out, they are also being sued for similar practices. But that is less monopoly and more anti-trust then? Also, since you can publish an app with HTML and run it on your phone, then you don't even need Apple for anything.....unless of course you want to utilize the frameworks that Apple built to make your app better. So what the argument is.....I should be able to use Apple's platform (iOS) and Apple's tools (native frameworks) and not pay Apple anything because to do so would make it a monopoly. Doesn't really square in my mind.
From a security standpoint.....HECK YES!!! If Microsoft could make their OS more robust by forcing some sort of review and approval process, the world of corporate IT would look a LOT different.
Gamers might not like it, LOL, but as much as they think the world revolves around them.....they are a drop in the lake in terms of technology spending at a global scale.
Yeah and Apple is a squeaky clean company. I guess you don't remember when Apple had an official Government agent on Apple's corporate campus overseeing them for a few years huh ?
I hope Epic succeeds. Digital stores dont deserve 30% of the revenue from developers for doing nothing more than server hosting. Thats double the highest sales tax rate in the world. If they do succeed and justice prevails then stores like App Store, Play Store and Steam will finally begin to treat devs fairly. The only people who don’t want this to happen are people with a vested interest in those tech gatekeeper companies’ bottom lines and profits.
If you think 30% is bad you should look into the margins on retail store items. Or even what software developers used to get before the app store model came around.
That might only work in a 3rd world country otherwise most developed countries have something similar to FTC.
https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/what-we-do
What We Do
The FTC is a bipartisan federal agency with a unique dual mission to protect consumers and promote competition. For one hundred years, our collegial and consensus-driven agency has championed the interests of American consumers. As we begin our second century, the FTC is dedicated to advancing consumer interests while encouraging innovation and competition in our dynamic economy.
The FTC develops policy and research tools through hearings, workshops, and conferences. We collaborate with law enforcement partners across the country and around the world to advance our crucial consumer protection and competition missions. And beyond our borders, we cooperate with international agencies and organizations to protect consumers in the global marketplace.
PROTECTING CONSUMERS
The FTC protects consumers by stopping unfair, deceptive or fraudulent practices in the marketplace. We conduct investigations, sue companies and people that violate the law, develop rules to ensure a vibrant marketplace, and educate consumers and businesses about their rights and responsibilities. We collect reports on hundreds of issues from data security and deceptive advertising to identity theft and Do Not Call violations, and make them available to law enforcement agencies worldwide for follow-up. Our experienced and motivated staff uses 21st century tools to anticipate – and respond to – changes in the marketplace.PROMOTING COMPETITION
Competition in America is about price, selection, and service. It benefits consumers by keeping prices low and the quality and choice of goods and services high. By enforcing antitrust laws, the FTC helps ensure that our markets are open and free. The FTC will challenge anticompetitive mergers and business practices that could harm consumers by resulting in higher prices, lower quality, fewer choices, or reduced rates of innovation. We monitor business practices, review potential mergers, and challenge them when appropriate to ensure that the market works according to consumer preferences, not illegal practices.Actually it can't, as you would know if you didn't skip over my comment previously which showcased the many ways Apple have deliberately undermined the delivery of web apps by way of Safari's failure to adopt web standards.
Actually, iOS forbids JavaScript running locally so you can't run a webapp on your phone. If you upload an HTML webapp to iCloud Drive with the components required to be an app (CSS+JS) the CSS will run but Webkit will block any JavaScript from running for security reasons (even sanitized code where there is no possibility of it affecting outside the browser - so no safety issues possible).
What you can do on your phone relating to a web app (as I mentioned in my earlier post) is you can have a shortcut to a website on your homescreen that launches an app like layout, except it cannot run offline, cannot cache properly, and cannot access multiple JavaScript API's either because of Apple's refusal to follow W3C standards for ServiceWorkers and hardware features. As such, iOS devices cannot run web apps, they just run websites that look like apps.
So if anyone is not technically savvy it's people peddling arguments that iOS's version of the web is capable enough to qualify as a substitute for the store (because of Apple's deliberate actions) - despite the fact that it would for a good proportion of apps be more than capable IF Apple didn't cripple their browser purposefully.
Not sure what you are trying to say. Javascript definitely runs on-device. In fact, one of my apps makes use of JavaScript running on user’s devices to interface between AppKit and user interactions with a web view.
I’m pretty sure “taking advantage” is synonymous with “receiving the benefits”
I'm talking about running JavaScript within WKWebView. For example if you place an HTML file with embedded CSS and JavaScript on iCloud drive and try opening it on an iOS device, WKWebView will try previewing it rather than opening it in Safari; which you'd expect the natural behavior to be for an HTML document. And while WKWebView can render HTML and CSS to preview and interact with the document, it cannot render JavaScript hence my response.
You cannot run a server locally on iOS of course, but you can load a website and have some stuff stored in a very limited cache but if it's a webapp then the rules are very sketchy as I mentioned re-service workers.
I’m still not sure I agree with you. I use a wkwebview to display html generated by loading from a local sql db into an NSString, and include JavaScript in the header of the html, and that JavaScript definitely works. I use it to determine what text the user is trying to select, and to pass that my swift/objective-c code.
Leave them alone. You asked to show when Apple did this type of thing. That’s all. They reacted without thinking thru the situation. Apple can be very hypocritical at times. Do as we say not as we do.
Never said it was better or worse. But vaping cannabis flower is safer than puffing cigs.
Not to get all tinfoil hat, but some nation states have a strategic interest in weakening Apple's platform. The cost of the long shot lawsuit is peanuts compared to the chance to cripple Apple.
"In a December 2020 article in Foreign Policy, a former senior official of the Central Intelligence Agency stated that the CIA concluded that Tencent received funding from the Ministry of State Security early on in its foundation."
"In a December 2020 article in Foreign Policy, a former senior official of the Central Intelligence Agency stated that the CIA concluded that Tencent received funding from the Ministry of State Security early on in its foundation."
iOS and macOS support service workers. You can download and cache content ahead of time within your app's origin, which allows for offline use.
Until another maker comes along with a successful alternative, when it comes to smartphone OS yes, you can choose between iPhone or Android. So what? There are tons of Android makers who offer a huge variety of options. Whether or not iOS has a walled garden approach doesn't change that consumers have AMPLE choice from the competition. And the competition offers a different approach which allows things like side loading, so not only can they buy alternatives (many of them CHEAPER) they have different options when they do. Further, forcing Apple to allow alternate app stores won't change that iPhone or Android are the only major smartphone OS choices, in fact Apple sticking to its offering should make it EASIER for a competitor to arise by offering an alternative approach if thats what consumers actually want.
Epic may be suing Google as well, but its not a monopoly, since mono means one, and Google allows both side loading and alternative App stores so you can't even credibly claim a monopoly. Just because someone claims something does not make it true.
First, they aren't solely gaming devices, consoles have offered browsers, media playback, task scheduling, video conferencing, etc.
Second, so what if the iPhone has more capabilities? That has exactly nothing to do with whether or not its a monopoly (its not) or whether there is consumer choice (there is) in the smartphone market. This isn't a question about device capabilities, its about consumer choice in a market, consoles vs. smartphones. In both cases consumers have choice. Whether they wish there were MORE choices or certain choices did things differently is irrelevant.
What rights is anyone being asked to give up? None. You don't have a right to alternate app stores. You don't have a right to app stores period. Apple could have stuck with no 3rd party apps for iPhone if it had wanted. It could have offered a very select curated selection if it wanted. Those are business approaches, not infringements on your rights.
Further, consumers have every opportunity to learn about payment methods all they want. The internet is full of information (and misinformation as you demonstrate so well). The consumer has the choice of which smartphone to buy and Apple (and Google) clearly tell you what their platform does and does not allow, in fact Apple campaigns on it.
Again, if you don't like Apples approach, you can buy the alternative. Just like if you don't like what the Switch or the xbox, or playstation offers you can buy a different console, or none at all, or a PC, etc.
First, Macs have security problems which iOS devices don't.
Second, so what? Just because something CAN be done doesn't mean it MUST be done. Car manufacturers CAN sell manual transmissions and people will buy them. Does that mean a car manufacturer can't offer automatic transmission? What if they ONLY offer automatic transmission cars. Lets say Ford decides to make only automatic cars. Lets say you REALLY love manual transmission cars but also want a Ford car. Does that mean you should be allowed to sue Ford to force them to make manual transmission cars? No, it means you have to choose which is more important to you, Ford or manual transmission. If manual is that important you can CHOOSE to buy a Toyota or a GM or a VW, whatever. And the same with smartphones, if you don't like Apples approach you can CHOOSE to buy a Huawei or a Samsung or a Google or a OnePlus or any other number of Android devices which gives you multiple app stores, side loading, etc. You already have the choice. And so does Epic.
Heck, if they wanted Epic could make their own phone, either an Android device or go crazy and build their own OS. Make a Fortnite phone! Load it up with Fortnite and Fortnite themed skins for Android. Bundle in the EPIC game store (where they are charging fees just like the App Store does btw). They'd have complete control. THAT is your customer choice.
If Apple had a monopoly, yes, things would be different. But they don't. Not even close. Epic (and you) are wrong on the merits.
They(Apple) might have a good reason for pulling those apps, which you are not aware of. (and as I said, I am taking your comments at face value)
I am not sure how the page for the FTC relates to license agreements that companies like: Microsoft, Oracle, Cisco, SalesForce, etc.... all use and are perfectly legal. Apple's license agreement currently falls under that same category and until a court says otherwise will remain what it is today, a legally binding contract. Not in a third world country, but in the US.