Epic Games Not Satisfied With Ruling in Case Against Apple, Files Appeal

[goobot]

The analogy doesn't hold because with mobile apps there are effectively two stores: App Store and Google Play. If you want to sell your product to customers who have iPhones there is no alternative than to agree to the 30% cut. That fee is unreasonable for subscriptions because Apple's overhead is negligible: they don't store the content on their servers and they don't do extensive moderation of said content to demand such a high fee. However you look at it, it's a monopoly because there's no other way to reach iOS user base without going through the App Store.

Webapps

 

[progx]

If we are getting into conspiracy theories then I’d suggest this one.

Epic sued Apple as they are small (7%?) revenue source for them, but a massive whale in the industry. A win against Apple could leverage their negotiations with Sony, Microsoft etc and could recover that 7% + some.

Which Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo would likely boot Fortnite from their platforms. You would multiple gaming stores on a game console? That'd be ridiculous for the average consumer. With PC, yeah I have Steam and GoG on there as my primary stores I purchase from. I only use the freebies from Epic, then buy it elsewhere.

 

[jkwr]

whatever epic.. good luck. I want Apple to open up a bit but at the same time I am not in any way interested in third party app stores. Maybe it could be good to have the ability but a majority of users will never go to another store and if some apps for some reason tries to direct users to some other less known store it will either end up selling less or just having to be in two stores, Apples and some other. And then some months or years down the line they say they are dropping the alt store because they only see revenue from Apples app store albeight a little less income per sale.

Its like the same with regular stores in real life. I go to the one I know where everything is and the store is on the other side of the street. Its not the cheapest but its the one I like. Yes, sometimes I go to the other ones because they sell something I need much cheaper. But time is money and running around the city for five different groceries just to save a dollar or two isn't worth it.

If I have to pay 1.99 for some app at Apple and 1.49 in the alt store it just isn't happening for me. Setting up another account, having another app store that isn't familiar or proven “safe and reliable” and then saving 50 cent?

I understand if you pay 19.99 per month for some app like Creative cloud or something and then Adobe gives you the option to pay 12.99 directly.. sure go for it. (Don't actually know what the going rate is for CC)

I agree with what you say, your adobe cloud example is what I agree on the most which happens to be the biggest factor for parents that are also gamers like me. I also think were at a stage where big games like Doom Eternal and Witcher 3 etc. will be coming to mobile/Tables which will cost probably cost for example £30 plus each. (who knows we might get to the £70/game mark!)

I think I have probably spent over £200 on battle passes, V Bucks for my kids over the past 2 years.
Probably £300 on Apex Legends for my kids and myself over the past 2 years
Rocket League about £50.

Full Game purchases I've done over £500 over the past 2 years.

So in total over the £1000 mark.

If I can save 30%/£300 in those 2 years just by diverting from in the apple app to trusted sellers like Epic Games Store website and Steam website etc. with just a few more clicks (literally less than 1 min per transaction) its a no brainer for me. I'm sure as hell going to click the savings link.

Time is money I agree. But even for the small transactions its still worth that extra minute for me. If my time (if you class your free time as work time) I make 25p a minute (That's £15/hour here in the UK) and I can divert to another trusted store and save 50p+ in that minute I'm still going to click that savings link!

If I'm doing it then I'm pretty convinced the majority of the planet that's worse off then I am are going to do it too.

 

[SurferPup]

Keep burning up Epic's capital so they are ripe for a takeover then rebadge to  Games and terminate Tim Sweeney.

 

[jlc1978]

People don’t spend money on android, apps aren’t up to scratch, nowhere near the same level of polish as iOS.

Which is why Apple can charge a premium for its devices and take a cut from App Store sales.

iOS only having 6% sounds about right. The question is how much spending on in-game currency is being done on each platform. I'd bet that Epic is seeing the ratio of money spent per player is high on iOS thus they would love to get around the 30% fee that Apple is taking of everything being sold within the game on iOS.

Certainly, it's simple greed on his part. Epic wants access to the iOS user base and not pay for it plus have Apple handle all the logistics for the paltry developer fee.

The analogy doesn't hold because with mobile apps there are effectively two stores: App Store and Google Play. If you want to sell your product to customers who have iPhones there is no alternative than to agree to the 30% cut. That fee is unreasonable for subscriptions because Apple's overhead is negligible: they don't store the content on their servers and they don't do extensive moderation of said content to demand such a high fee.

Cost have nothing to do with price, demand does.

However you look at it, it's a monopoly because there's no other way to reach iOS user base without going through the App Store.

But the market is bigger than iOS, something the judge clearly stated.

Here is an idea. Could the app stor be made into an app galleria? We open the Apple App gallery and then choose if we wanna buy apps from this or that store? Like a real mall.. they usually have a bunch of resturants, shoe stores, sport goods and so on.. let Apple charge for the cost of running the servers and exposure.

And like many malls, charge a % of revenue along with rent for the floor space. I doubt developers would like that.

 

[Houpla]

I said it before, and will say it again: I still think all these App developers that are complaining are getting it wrong. If I have a product to sell, and I want to sell it in a certain store, then they are entitled to make a profit on my products.

You are comfortably forgetting that this is the only store in town, selling its owners' competing products, and you are not allowed to come to city inhabitants' houses and sell directly to them or open your own store — city developer physically stops you from doing either. Presumably because he built these houses before selling them to people and he thinks it's not safe to let you in.

But people can move to another town so everything is fine, no monopoly here!

 

[rpmurray]

I can see why Epic is appealing. Before the trial Epic was some obscure game company that few had ever heard about (except maybe gamers). Now they're getting tons of publicity and are hoping that will drive sales with the casual gamers who didn't know them from Adam on their other platforms.

 

[Z1000ST]

Which Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo would likely boot Fortnite from their platforms. You would multiple gaming stores on a game console? That'd be ridiculous for the average consumer. With PC, yeah I have Steam and GoG on there as my primary stores I purchase from. I only use the freebies from Epic, then buy it elsewhere.

I wouldn’t have that no. But for sure Epic wanted to win against Apple to then turn that stick against those guys.

 

[elptdbi3lYI]

Sideloading when

 

[Z1000ST]

You are comfortably forgetting that this is the only store in town selling its owners' competing products, and you are not allowed to come to city inhabitants' houses and sell directly to them or open your own store — city developer physically stops you from doing either. Presumably because he built these houses before selling them to people and he thinks it's not safe to let you in.

But people can move to another town so everything is fine, no monopoly here!

Yeah I must admit I was definitely more comfortable before I read this.

 

[jon81uk]

I said it before, and will say it again: I still think all these App developers that are complaining are getting it wrong. If I have a product to sell, and I want to sell it in a certain store, then they are entitled to make a profit on my products. The mechanism is slightly different, be it that I might sell it to the store, the store slaps on a 30% profit margin and sells it to the consumer. In the App store case, I hand my product to the store, they sell it for the full consumer price, retain 30% and give the rest to me. Same difference. No where in the world can I demand that the store uses a different payment system or that customer inside that store pay me direct, it just doesn't happen and it's total nonsense. if Epic wants to sell their product elsewhere, then they can go ahead and do so, but if they want to sell it through Apple's store, then comply with their rules. Simple.

No they want to sell it from their own store, on Apple devices. But you can’t use other stores or load apps from the web onto iOS.
Epic really want an Epic store on iOS like they have for PC. So imagine if the only place you could download onto Windows was the Microsoft store and that’s what they are arguing.
Now why they aren’t they also going after Sony because you can’t side load onto PlayStation or Nintendo as you have to use their eShop for the Switch….

 

[Z1000ST]

No they want to sell it from their own store, on Apple devices. But you can’t use other stores or load apps from the web onto iOS.
Epic really want an Epic store on iOS like they have for PC. So imagine if the only place you could download onto Windows was the Microsoft store and that’s what they are arguing.
Now why they aren’t they also going after Sony because you can’t side load onto PlayStation or Nintendo as you have to use their eShop for the Switch….

$$ - a larger % of Epic’s revenue comes from PS, Xbox etc

The Apple lawsuit was a test case for a big run at these guys later if they won.

 

[hcherry]

All these complaints seem to come down to: “I personally would prefer something different from what Apple does. Therefore, I should be able to force Apple to do what I prefer.”

I do not understand why so many folks think it’s perfectly OK to use force to make other parties offer terms you find more agreeable.

 

[I WAS the one]

Epic Games has filed an appeal against the ruling in its case against Apple, further prolonging the already year-long legal battle between the two companies.

The ruling, announced on Friday, sided with Apple on nine out of the ten counts that Epic Games had presented against the company. Epic, from the start, had alleged that Apple is anti-competitive and that it should open up its devices to third-party app stores, third-party in-app payment methods, and more. The judge said that while the trial showed that Apple "is engaging in anticompetitive conduct under California’s competition laws," Epic Games failed to prove the company is an illegal monopolist or that it violates anti-trust laws.

The judge most notably ordered Apple not to prohibit developers from adding links to external websites for in-app purchases. A week before the ruling was announced, Apple revealed similar changes to App Store policy, but limited to just "reader" apps, such as Spotify, Netflix, and others. The judge's ruling requires that Apple extends that privilege to all App Store apps.

Epic Games' appeal, filed late on Sunday, doesn't provide specifics on what the game developer aims to appeal. Given the outcome of the ruling, however, it's likely it will reattempt to convince a judge that Apple should allow third-party app stores and "sideloading" on its devices, that Apple is a monopolist, and that the termination of its developer account was unlawful and that Fortnite should be reinstated onto the App Store.

While Epic Games has filed its appeal, signaling its dissatisfaction with the ruling, Apple has called it a "resounding victory." Apple has not stated it plans to appeal the verdict, and per the current court order, the company has 90 days before it must allow all apps to link to external websites for in-app purchases.

Article Link: Epic Games Not Satisfied With Ruling in Case Against Apple, Files Appe

 

[Crowbot]

Sideloading when

Hopefully, never. Sideloading (bypassing the App Store) will compromise the security of iOS. OTOH, if Apple should allow sideloading they need to make clear that security on the device is broken and users are on their own for support and that it will break the warranty.

 

[senttoschool]

Keep burning up Epic's capital so they are ripe for a takeover then rebadge to  Games and terminate Tim Sweeney.

Except that Tim Sweeney has controlling ownership of Epic so he'd never sell to Apple.

 

[iBluetooth]

Android open source. Epic can go and bake there own OS and make there own App Store by modding Android to there liking.

What next? Epic going to sue Apple for not allowing iOS on other devices?…

Android is not "open source", all code Google is adding for the last year has been in their closed sources. No one is allowed to use Android without a contract with Google to have access to their services and all new code is added in those code bases, that you need to run Android today. It's only "open" source in the way that you can read the underlying code, but not open source in the way that you can do what you want with it.

 

[citysnaps]

All these complaints seem to come down to: “I personally would prefer something different from what Apple does. Therefore, I should be able to force Apple to do what I prefer.”

I do not understand why so many folks think it’s perfectly OK to use force to make other parties offer terms you find more agreeable.

It comes down to pure laziness, and lack of creativity and drive.

Many here believe it's easier to tear down or trying to force another company into submission rather than stepping-up, investing time and $, taking risks, being creative, working hard, producing something of value on their own, leading to earned success.

Give them a bottle and soft blankey. Stat.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Hopefully, never. Sideloading (bypassing the App Store) will compromise the security of iOS. OTOH, if Apple should allow sideloading they need to make clear that security on the device is broken and users are on their own for support and that it will break the warranty.

Exactly.

Apple would need to make some super-sandbox before they allow sideloading.

But add me to the list of people who don’t want sideloading.

Even if I don’t have to use it… I’m worried about what kind of scams would be possible if people could install unchecked and unverified apps.

Use Android if you want that.

 

[NotTooLate]

I said it before, and will say it again: I still think all these App developers that are complaining are getting it wrong. If I have a product to sell, and I want to sell it in a certain store, then they are entitled to make a profit on my products. The mechanism is slightly different, be it that I might sell it to the store, the store slaps on a 30% profit margin and sells it to the consumer. In the App store case, I hand my product to the store, they sell it for the full consumer price, retain 30% and give the rest to me. Same difference. No where in the world can I demand that the store uses a different payment system or that customer inside that store pay me direct, it just doesn't happen and it's total nonsense. if Epic wants to sell their product elsewhere, then they can go ahead and do so, but if they want to sell it through Apple's store, then comply with their rules. Simple.

You are right , but for some reason the judge did rule just that no ? , what is weird to me is how the judge can rationalize the fact that if every app will offer their own payment system without paying apple a share , how is that a viable business to operate ?

 

[PlayUltimate]

This isn't all that suprising. Fortnite is a free-to-play game. These kinds of games tend to be popular in asian markets among a demographic not known for having high income so they are most likely Android users and not iPhone users on mobile. And most people in these markets tend to play on PC or console at internet cafes.

There is no denying that Fortnite is extremely popular in the western market as well. But being a first-person shooter people will gravitate towards PC and consoles over mobile in the western market.

iOS only having 6% sounds about right. The question is how much spending on in-game currency is being done on each platform. I'd bet that Epic is seeing the ratio of money spent per player is high on iOS thus they would love to get around the 30% fee that Apple is taking of everything being sold within the game on iOS.

China’s, recently announced, video game limitations is probably helped spur the appeal. Epic needs revenue and that is drying up in China.

 

[NotTooLate]

Keep burning up Epic's capital so they are ripe for a takeover then rebadge to  Games and terminate Tim Sweeney.

They are already 49% owned by the Chinese titan TenCent.

 

[needsomecoffee]

What we need is an alternative to Safari/Webkit on iOS. Apple's effectively knee-capping PWAs by not fixing very long-lived Indexeddb bugs, and other lack-of-standards support hurts the web on iPhone. Apple should be a leader here and be confident in native apps, but this is what we get... "Courage".

 

[iBluetooth]

What we need is an alternative to Safari/Webkit on iOS. Apple's effectively knee-capping PWAs by not fixing very long-lived Indexeddb bugs, and other lack-of-standards support hurts the web on iPhone. Apple should be a leader here and be confident in native apps, but this is what we get... "Courage".

No! Then we get the same problem as on the laptops. Chrome is sucking up all CPU power and WiFi bandwidth to keep all tabs updated. Now, they have added Bluetooth, USB etc. and the biggest security risk will be the browser.

 

[Anthony Sullivan]

I said it before, and will say it again: I still think all these App developers that are complaining are getting it wrong. If I have a product to sell, and I want to sell it in a certain store, then they are entitled to make a profit on my products. The mechanism is slightly different, be it that I might sell it to the store, the store slaps on a 30% profit margin and sells it to the consumer. In the App store case, I hand my product to the store, they sell it for the full consumer price, retain 30% and give the rest to me. Same difference. No where in the world can I demand that the store uses a different payment system or that customer inside that store pay me direct, it just doesn't happen and it's total nonsense. if Epic wants to sell their product elsewhere, then they can go ahead and do so, but if they want to sell it through Apple's store, then comply with their rules. Simple.

So an enormous software company, with so much talent, with thousands and thousands of hours of work by these talented people putting their life into their work, Apple deserves 30% of all of that for merely curating and hosting content? I don't think they even deserve 10%.