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 Denied Preliminary Injunction for Fortnite, But Apple Can't Block Unreal Engine
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
because it may yet be determined (during the case) that the contract was unfair or anti-competitive (basic Epic claim).
this is a fair statement. But let’s remember where we were when the App Store was created. If I read correctly, Just to be on a store shelf back then you would give up 40-50% of the total sales price to the brick and mortar store. Heck, you would be glad even if you made it to the bottom shelf. At the time, developers praised Apple for lowering the standard and providing the necessary marketing. Now Apple is being looked at like they did something wrong... basically, developers getting greedy... biting the hand that fed them. Honestly, it’s becoming a joke. While I understand some points... the fact of the matter is some got to where they got due to the exposure the App Store gave them... now they want to cry after they made some money and pretend they never agreed to the guidelines.
I’ll give one good reason why the same developers simply don’t stop making apps for iOS / App Store and continue to pay the 30%.... that’s the spending power of Apple users. (They know where the money is) Good luck trying to get an android user to actually buy a movie instead of rigging his phone to download some cheap knock off torrent. Rant over lol 😂
jokes aside, I have a list of apps I simply stopped using due to their BS behavior (Spotify who..? Epic what? Xcloud gimmick?) Yeah, simply delete and move on to the next.
ok, ok - caught my breath. Rant really over. 😅😂
THANK YOU! I think most of them forgot where we came from before the App Store 🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼
I tend to agree with this point. I think Samsung and others, thought all their Christmas’s came at once when Apple broke the $1000 barrier for a smartphone. It’s obvious Samsung can sell their phones for less (and ultimately do) but take up the bonanza at launch....same follows with earbuds, smartwatches etc. Apple sets the market price and the rest fill their boots
as a said on another thread, then the market isn’t working. By implication if everyone charges the same then, then the consumer is always paying the highest price. There is no commercial competition between platforms. Years ago, it was the same with the airlines, when AA, BA, Virgin and United would charge an identical fare (to the penny) for a transatlantic flight...only a threat of an investigation into fixing and collusion by the EU put a stop to it.
I believe you mean Windows CE, and, as whether or not the device could run software was defined by the carrier, it doesn’t matter what the company charged, the carriers were taking THEIR cut on top. In a lot of cases, it ended up being close to or over 50%. Some of those early apps were REALLY expensive as a result. However, I’ll do some searching to see.
You’re right, not just a couple.
Home - Coalition for App Fairness
App developers deserve a level playing field The Coalition for App Fairness is an independent nonprofit organization founded by industry-leading companies to advocate for freedom of choice and fair competition across the app ecosystem. Contact Us our vision Lear
appfairness.org
You’re conflating two very different things. Price fixing is indeed illegal and anti-consumer, but the 30% cut that Apple, Google, et al take, isn’t price fixing. Now, if Apple told a developer that their app must cost $xx no matter what platform it is on, then that would be price fixing. As it stands, however, a developer can put an app on the Google Play Store and charge $10 for, while charging $11 for it on Apple’s App Store. Developers don’t do this because it simply makes no sense, not because of some price-fixing scheme.
Apple need to be careful they do not shoot themselves in the foot with this case. My reasoning for that remark is that one of Epic's complaints is the 30% fee charged to developers who use in-app purchases in their app. As such Epic's lawyers will be allowed to explore this and get Apple to explain how do they come by this figure. Remember, Apple host millions of free apps of which the developers pay Apple nothing. Therefore, if Apple try to claim that the 30% is applied as costs for marketing and promotion of an app, use of Apple's development tools, Epic will then be able to argue that the free apps get the same treatment, they get albeit free limited marketing and promotion and use of Apple's app tools so therefore why isn't Apple applying a charge to those developers? If Apple then argue that part of the 30% is to recoup costs of use of Apples pay system, again Epic will be able to claim under it's 'unfair usage' claims as to why app developers who apply in-app purchases in their app are forced to use Apple's pay system.
Epic may lose the legal battle but Apple may lose out to public opinion if Epic is able to expose any undue fairness against developers who's apps have in-app purchases against free apps that don't.
Apple will need to prove that those developers who pay the 30% get more substantial benefits than those developers who make apps for free. If it all boils down to the 30% being paid because of having to use Apple's pay system then Apple will find itself in trouble because such would be seen as 'unfair practices', something Epic has complained about in it's court case.
Epic may lose the legal battle but Apple may lose out to public opinion if Epic is able to expose any undue fairness against developers who's apps have in-app purchases against free apps that don't.
Apple will need to prove that those developers who pay the 30% get more substantial benefits than those developers who make apps for free. If it all boils down to the 30% being paid because of having to use Apple's pay system then Apple will find itself in trouble because such would be seen as 'unfair practices', something Epic has complained about in it's court case.
the problem is Apple isn’t a utility that people need. Apple isn’t a monopoly. So they can ask for whatever they want and use it to pay for whatever they want. It’s a private compan. The reality is that Apple will use these payments to cover the marketing expenditure for the whole eco system as well server costs / employee labour to run the store. The invested billions in iOS over the last 10 yrs, billions in the iTunes payment model etc.. just like every enterpenuer they took “risk“ and now seek reward for that risk. If they failed (like numerous other companies in the space, palm, Nokia etc..) would epic even be having this conversation? Would epic subsidies apple if it was doing badly? No!
this is capitalism. You risk , you Win, you reap.
what I find mind boggling is companies like epic and Spotify knowingly developing business models where the cost of business is x and has been for years, entering the business anyway and then moaning that their business is failing because of this known cost? really? Shareholders (in Spotify’s case) need to ask the exec why they didn’t know that cost x would hurt their business before they entered it?
i know Spotify would argue that apple Music is new. But Spotify is still has the vast majority of the market and still doesnt make money. So even if apple music didn’t exist the 30% fee would still be a problem right? Also spotifys problem with Apple Music indicates that they expected Spotify to be a monopoly and use that ability to dictate terms and make more money (like Amazon). Which is shady as hell.
epic and Spotify just sound like really shady companies.
I do not think the law should support them here.
On one point, I don’t think Apple has anything to worry about. To access the developer tools, all developers pay a fixed annual fee, regardless of whether they later charge for their app or not. So from that perspective it’s a level playing field.
The case will likely focus on whether or not Apple should be able to restrict in-app purchases to its own payment system and if it’s still ok to differentiate between physical and digital services in terms of applying a fee. Not what that fee is - as I doubt a court in a “free world” can successfully dictate how much a company can or can’t charge for a service, as that sets a very dangerous precedent.
I think the most likely outcome will be, Apple will be required to allow all apps to use their own payment systems for in-app purchases if they choose to. And Apple will be able to continue taking a cut for anyone who chooses to use ApplePay.
I can’t see right now, the courts forcing Apple to open up iOS to other App Stores stores. After all, they’re under no obligation to allow third party software to run on their devices at all.
This is a loss in the short term but a win for Epic and Google in the future. There's a mass of the new generation kids that want Fortnite on the go. They won't be asking for iPhones at Christmas, it will be android phones and tablets so they can get their Fortnite fix and whatever other game Epic release. Get them locked into the Android/galaxy store Ecosystem and it's a big loss for Apple.
Im not confusing anything; if every App Store and every platform charges an identical fee then no one can say that price fixing and collusion is not taking place. Who‘s to say they all didn’t meet up in a darkened room and agree to charge the same handling fee on all their platforms. (They didn’t). Nevertheless if as you say, the developer doesn’t change his price between platforms and the platform provider is not either, then competition is not taking place and the market isn’t working and it is anti consumer.
That’s right and the world has moved on; largely bricks and mortar shops have gone and the cost of marketing and distribution fallen exponentially.What seemed great value then when the alternative was so expensive makes no sense now.
Organisations who recognise this and want to reduce the cost further or charge consumers less, or compete, in essence are not being allowed to because for iOS there are no alternate means of acquiring apps.
The end game that Epic is playing is for its partial owner Tencent, who want their own app store on iOS.
I do wonder if this will come back to bite Epic, whatever the the result. I suspect even if the court found in their favour, that consequential losses wouldn't be awarded.
The % argument is interesting. I guess the court will determine if Apple the balance between making back its operating costs through to capitalism/you sign our contract we charge what we want.
I do remember the end days of Palm OS, where stores (H***go etc) I think were charging 40% albeit on far smaller volumes, so these percentages are familiar.
But we / they all knew this going into Apple’s walled garden / ecosystem. Look at the other side (android) and the mess of an operating it is which allows side loading and numerous app stores. Even with side loading allowed on Android, developers still complain (cough: Epic).
Personally this is one of the reasons why I love the App Store. It’s safe, secure, and has never failed me once in the 13+ years I’ve used it. I’m confident in what I’m downloading and I don’t have to think twice if the app is “fake” or trying to steal my information or where exactly I downloaded something from. There’s also something to say in regards to quality control, apps, uniformity, and optimization on the App Store. I have used the same apps on android and iOS (i.e YouTube) and the iOS version is much more refined / optimized then androids (i.e haptic feedback when refreshing, animations, etc)
From a consumer stand point - I have seen the alternate options and it’s tragic. If someone wants more choices... they can go to an operating system that allows you limitless customization. I actually appreciate Apple’s approach.
indeed. Sweeney stuffed this up big time for them
The coolness (and management for the parents) of iPhones are more than Fortnite, based on what I can tell from kids in my area.
This is over. Epic made a unbelievable miscalculation in what they attempted. Time to move on..............
[automerge]1602322315[/automerge]
Good luck with that theory.
[automerge]1602322315[/automerge]
Good luck with that theory.
Interesting opionion - I guess using numerous other sources or "side loading" your software for Mac is perfectly safe then?
This always interests me when folks make these kind of claims, why, if the App store is the utopia you believe it to be [ and let's not forget, you have apparently been using it before it existed], why do you have so much knowledge of Android and other stores? What drove you to use Android if everything is so amazing, so "refined" and safe on the App store?
A possible option would be to introduce something similar to the notorisation process for Mac Apps. Don't allow alternate stores into the App Store directly, but allow developers to sell Apple approved apps through their own websites, etc. Then for an app to be able to be installed on an iOS device, its code (not content) must have first been reviewed and approved by Apple for security, etc. Installation of non-certified software would be blocked by the OS.
That all said, I actually don't see why Apple should open up the App Store at all. I'm not sure why anyone would believe they have the right to free acess to a user base built by Apple, largely on the promise of simplicity, security and privacy. But I do question the policy on in-app purchases being forced through ApplePay.
Last edited: