Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

k2k koos said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not really. The difference between a store buying merchandise from a manufacturer and reselling it vs. selling it on a consignment basis is who bears the risk. Any Finance 101 class will explain why the level of risk must be coupled with the level of return.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MysticCow
Anthony Sullivan said:
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%.
Click to expand...
I’m all reality you and I pay the 30%. Plus the other 70%
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kirkster and WiseAJ
Anthony Sullivan said:
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%.
Click to expand...
As the judge recognizes and discuss in the verdict. Apple is entitled to compensation for their IP regardless of the method of payment. EPIC actually never challenged the number (30%) they challenged the whole concept of having to compensate Apple for their IP and the judge said they must.

So from where I sit, a pyrrhic victory, EPIC can link to their own payment processor and apple can (still) charge them 30% based on IOS sales and audit of EPIC Books. Less money and more work for EPIC.

The judge said that 30% seemed high but as the EPIC did not challenge that she could not render a verdict on that topic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy, Apple Fritter and Kirkster
Freeangel1 said:
GO FOR IT!!!!!!

I'm Tired of the APPLE closed GARDEN and GREEDY MONEY MAKER SYSTEM!!!!!!!

BUST IT WIDE OPEN!
Click to expand...
Apple has always sold "closed systems". Closed systems have disadvantages and advantages. Some people prefer or need those advantages. You have a choice now, and so do I. Why do you want to take away my choice? It's not hurting you.
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: strongy, NetMage, Apple Fritter and 2 others
Z1000ST said:
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.
Click to expand...

or: tencent, major owner of Epic, is pulling the strings of the lawsuit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WiseAJ, secretbum and dynamojoe
I’ve said it before, 30% is the cost of doing business and should be calculated in what you charge to your customer. Run your business accordingly and don’t try to shield your greed by claiming to do this all for the users- this is all anti-consumer behavior. Epic knows the market has decided what the price-ceiling is for these (IMO scammy) transactions are. So they are left with the decision to go back and charge users a higher price (they can‘t because user won’t pay it) or try to cut back on overhead which is where Apple‘s 30% comes into play. Unfortunately for them, it seems their dream scenario of having their own App Store was shot down and are obviously unhappy with the judge’s injunction forcing Apple to allow links to alternate payments. Its obvious these v-bucks are so lucrative that they will continue to spend legal fees to continue to increase their slice of the pie.
 
Anthony Sullivan said:
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%.
Click to expand...
And you're allowed to think that. Which is why you get to choose whether you'll use the service or not. Others might think it's more valuable than the 30% cut. Every person's (or company's) perception of the value is different.

When I go to the store to buy cereal and I personally think the price is too high, I don't find someone to force the grocery store to lower the price. I might do any of the following:
  • look for another brand that's cheaper
  • go to another store
  • find an alternative product
  • buy less of something else so I can still buy the cereal
  • not buy the cereal
  • tell the manager I think the price is too high and let them know I'm not buying at that price
Netflix decided years ago that they didn't think the 30% cut was worth it. So they required users to sign up and setup their payment completely outside of Apple's ecosystem. They still get to distribute their free app over the App Store. They still get to access to the wide user base and push out updates. They had a choice, they made a decision. Maybe they even tried to negotiate with Apple but nothing came of it. Either way, each party to the exchange should be able to offer/accept/reject terms of their own volition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy, NetMage, Apple Fritter and 4 others
Crowbot said:
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.
Click to expand...
Allow sideloading only if the app is sandboxed and it will not compromise security any more than whatever apps are on the appstore. Appstore apps can and will spy on you because you grant them permissions.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: NetMage and Crowbot
elptdbi3lYI said:
Allow sideloading only if the app is sandboxed and it will not compromise security any more than whatever apps are on the appstore. Appstore apps can and will spy on you because you grant them permissions.
Click to expand...
Now, you know that’s not true, right? Can you point to any sandbox that has not been escaped?

And allowing the ability to side load into the sandbox means that once sandbox-escape vulnerabilities are discovered, drive by installations will occur, and then you’ve got yourself a 0-click pwn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NetMage
cmaier said:
Now, you know that’s not true, right? Can you point to any sandbox that has not been escaped?

And allowing the ability to side load into the sandbox means that once sandbox-escape vulnerabilities are discovered, drive by installations will occur, and then you’ve got yourself a 0-click pwn.
Click to expand...
So what you're telling me is that app store apps are not safe
 
elptdbi3lYI said:
So what you're telling me is that app store apps are not safe
Click to expand...

Safe? No. Safer than if apple allowed sideloading? Yep.

At least with App Store apps you are guaranteed not to have them installed unless you take affirmative action to install them - even if that was bypassed they won’t run if not signed by Apple. And Apple has the ability, if necessary, to disable them by revoking their certificates. And, finally, they go through at least some review, unlike apps that would inevitably be sideloaded without user intervention just because you visited a legitimate website that had its ad network hacked. (Which has happened numerous times to other platforms that allow “sideloading,” like, you know, Windows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bgillander
jkwr said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are assuming that these developers will pass that 30% on to you. Even when EPIC snuck their payment process in they only reduced by 10%. Developers will still have costs. Micro transactions will be more expensive to the developers than on the App Store. Square charges 3% + $0.30 per transaction, if I remember correctly. That $0.99 in-app impulse buy would cost the developer $0.30 (netting them $0.70) using IAP and $0.33 (netting them $0.67) using a 3rd party such as Square.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NetMage
cmaier said:
Safe? No. Safer than if apple allowed sideloading? Yep.

At least with App Store apps you are guaranteed not to have them installed unless you take affirmative action to install them - even if that was bypassed they won’t run if not signed by Apple. And Apple has the ability, if necessary, to disable them by revoking their certificates. And, finally, they go through at least some review, unlike apps that would inevitably be sideloaded without user intervention just because you visited a legitimate website that had its ad network hacked. (Which has happened numerous times to other platforms that allow “sideloading,” like, you know, Windows.
Click to expand...
You also take affirmative action when you sideload. Everything else is just - "trust fruits company"
 
  • Angry
Reactions: NetMage
FreedomPenguin said:
Exactly. Get off our beloved iOS. I would pay more to keep it locked down. Want inferior open wall? Go with Android. The peasant device. People complain about apple tax. I gladly pay it for what we have and would rally against any efforts to open it up.

I was referring to the post that the above was talking too
Click to expand...
"Go with Android. The peasant device." It's just a phone not a status symbol! (I really hope I'm just very tired and completely missed the satire in this users post)
 
elptdbi3lYI said:
You also take affirmative action when you sideload. Everything else is just - "trust fruits company"
Click to expand...

No, you don’t necessarily take affirmative action when you sideload. That’s how drive-by attacks work. And the main defense that is supposed to stop them is that the OS prevents apps from executing unless they are properly signed. But the whole point of sideloading is to allow apps to execute regardless of who signed them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NetMage, bgillander and infelix
cmaier said:
No, you don’t necessarily take affirmative action when you sideload. That’s how drive-by attacks work. And the main defense that is supposed to stop them is that the OS prevents apps from executing unless they are properly signed. But the whole point of sideloading is to allow apps to execute regardless of who signed them.
Click to expand...
Well then you can also enforce that sideloaded app has to be signed with apple provided certificate, which come free with apple account
 
  • Angry
Reactions: NetMage
elptdbi3lYI said:
Well then you can also enforce that sideloaded app has to be signed with apple provided certificate, which come free with apple account
Click to expand...

That would violate the first amendment, so no you can’t. (Not to mention, that would not serve any purpose. If any app can be signed, no matter how malicious, all signing does is point you to the account that signed the app. What good does that do, when anybody with $99 can create a developer account? Or are you now expecting Apple to do a thorough investigation of every developer?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: NetMage
svish said:
This is not going to end anytime soon. Epic should have been satisfied. Linking to other payment methods will be allowed now.
Click to expand...
actually since Epic appeal its no longer the case and next judge might not accept it
 
Epic could easily stick it to Apple in a very BIG way.

Tim Sweeney is just NOT smart-enough to figure it out !

NOT Rocket Science, iPhones & iPads are now mature products, that consumers don't see the value in upgrading more than every 3-4 years now.

But, many still have some extra Coin in the pocket, & would welcome something new & exciting to spend it on between iPhone & iPad "buy years".

Apple is also in a difficult situation, as the state of iPhones & iPads now is similar to PCs of the late-1990s.

That's when consumer upgrade cycles really stalled-out.

Consumers just didn't see the value in upgrading often.

Here in the States, iPhone upgrades are being driven by the carriers (via attractive upgrade deals), NOT by Apple.

Why do I bring ALL this up ?

There is opportunity, for Epic, OR even somebody else, to bring something new & exciting to the market, that Steals the Limelight (from Apple) !

I suspect GOOG & FB, once they figure this out, will drive the new opportunities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back