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

[cmaier]

Apple doesn't charge 30% for payment processing. It charges 15-30% for hosting, network bandwidth, store-fronts in hundreds of countries and dozens of languages, developer tools, developer support, developer services, app review and access to the best app store in the world

Also intellectual property licenses.

 

[zarmanto]

Epic is not satisfied because their goal is to have alternate app store (their own) on iOS. ...

Which, ironically, they could have with the current ruling. All they would have to do is redirect customers to their own web-based payment system, and voila! Instant app store.

... there are about a billion more users on Android!

BTW... did I hear that iOS represented only about 6% of all Fortnite players? ...

Interestingly enough, the figure that I've seen quoted elsewhere stated that the entire mobile market combined amounted to 6% of their revenue, prior to their having been pulled from the iOS App Store and the Google Play Store. So that 6% is both iOS and Android -- not just iOS. (PCs accounted for 11% and the various consoles rounded it out with the other 83%.)

Besides, it's fairly well established that iOS users generally spend more than Android users, to the tune of at least 2:1, last I checked... so I'm afraid your speculation about those "billions more users on Android" being a more lucrative market may be a wee bit inaccurate.

- - - - -

These observations on both of my responses may of course be moot at this point, as there is no guarantee at all that Fortnite -- nor indeed Epic -- is ever going to be permitted to operate in the mobile market again by either Apple or Google. Breaking a contract solely for the purpose of filing a lawsuit is an ugly, messy business... I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly wouldn't want to deal with them ever again, if I were either Google or Apple.

 

[ValueArb]

Which, ironically, they could have with the current ruling. All they would have to do is redirect customers to their own web-based payment system, and voila! Instant app store.




Interestingly enough, the figure that I've seen quoted elsewhere stated that the entire mobile market combined amounted to 6% of their revenue, prior to their having been pulled from the iOS App Store and the Google Play Store. So that 6% is both iOS and Android -- not just iOS. (PCs accounted for 11% and the various consoles rounded it out with the other 83%.)

Besides, it's fairly well established that iOS users generally spend more than Android users, to the tune of at least 2:1, last I checked... so I'm afraid your speculation about those "billions more users on Android" being a more lucrative market may be a wee bit inaccurate.

- - - - -

These observations on both of my responses may of course be moot at this point, as there is no guarantee at all that Fortnite -- nor indeed Epic -- is ever going to be permitted to operate in the mobile market again by either Apple or Google. Breaking a contract solely for the purpose of filing a lawsuit is an ugly, messy business... I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly wouldn't want to deal with them ever again, if I were either Google or Apple.

The average IOS user spends TEN times more than the average Android user. The math is roughly 6 times more Android users total and they spend about two thirds as much in total as iOS users.

You think Apple's "walled garden" might have something to do with that massive disparity?

 

[CarlJ]

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

Which law legally required you to choose an iPhone over Android? Their walled garden ecosystem has been well known for over a decade and many choose iPhones because of the walled garden. This is like buying a Tesla and then getting all upset because you can’t put gas in it to make it go and have to plug it into electricity instead - and then instead of admitting you made a mistake and should have bought a car with a gasoline powered engine which would have fit your needs better, you become outraged and demand that the government force Tesla to put gas powered engines in all their cars - and then insist that this is somehow providing more choice, if we outlaw electric powered cars, so everyone can only have gas powered cars.

Please just go buy an android phone instead, it would be simpler for everyone involved, and it would leave choices available for the rest of us.

 

[Truckondo]

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.

Most malls that I know have lease agreements for those stores or kiosks operating in them. Some agreements are so bad that the mall can force you to be open or be fined if you decided to close on Thanksgiving Day.

 

[_Spinn_]

Of course they're not. They want nothing short of third party app stores on iOS. They were given the ability to link out for third party payments but cutting Apple out of the loop this way isn't good enough apparently. This is just an ego trip at this point.

 

[ss2cire]

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.

but the judge ruled that apple is not a monopoly under CA State law, which is more stringent than the federal anti-trust/monopoly laws. Please read the ruling before you make blanket statements and sound so ignorant.

 

[elptdbi3lYI]

If you want those kinds of apps, use android. That’s the difference between the two ecosystems. Why do you want to take away consumers’ ability to choose between a comparatively secure but close ecosystem and a dangerous but open ecosystem?

If sideloading is allowed nothing is taken away from you, you can continue using app store and trust apple that third party applications that you download are safe. Meanwhile if sideloading is allowed android users that use macOS can switch to iOS without compromising their software freedoms and gain better interoperability with macOS.

 

[cmaier]

If sideloading is allowed nothing is taken away from you, you can continue using app store and trust apple that third party applications that you download are safe.

That’s simply a lie. If sideloading is allowed, that means that my phone no longer enforces that no apps can run unless signed by a known developer *AND* by Apple. That means you have taken a security precaution away from me. Even if I never intentionally install a sideloaded app, if a vulnerability allows a sideloading attack, or if someone takes possession of my phone for a minute or two, then any app in the world can be installed and executed without my knowledge.

 

[cmaier]

Just to play devils advocate:
Let’s say that you live in NYC in the late 1970’s and all the stores around are controlled by different mafias, all of the stores take 30% off of the top to sell your product. You have a product to sell and mark up the price to cover the costs by 30% to cover the fee that you have to pay to the mafia. There are two different stores in two parts of town controlled by different mafias.

You products grow in popularity because of the placement in those stores. However, you want to offer your products at a cheaper price. You can’t afford to if you’re still paying a 30% fee to the mafia, so you decide to open your own store in both towns. One mafia allows you to open your own store in that part of town and sell your product. They are still happy to sell your product in their store for the 30% cut, but they don’t mind you having your own store. Some customers shop in your store because they enjoy the benefit of a lower price. Others however still shop in the other store because they have accounts there and don’t have to open a new account in your store. Everyone in that part of town is happy.

In the other part of town, you try to keep opening your own store and the mafia burns it down every time. They also don’t allow you to place anything in your product to allow your customers to know that they could get a cheaper price elsewhere. If you want to sell to the customers in that part of town, you HAVE to keep selling in the stores controlled by that mafia. Some customers have an undying loyalty to that mafia and would never buy anywhere else, even if there’s a discount or any other benefits. Others would, but they aren’t even allowed to shop in any other stores, no matter how trustworthy. That mafia keeps saying that it’s to keep their neighborhood safe, but crime rates are still extremely high.

Here’s a better analogy. The town builds the roads, water system, electrical infrastructure, and everything else you need in order for your products to be able to be sold. The town wants 30%, which it uses to maintain that infrastructure and build new infrastructure, no matter where you sell it.

You come from out of town, never having paid any taxes to build any of this stuff that you are relying on, and demand the right to free-ride on the hard work and monetary contributions of others, so that you can sell your products more cheaply and unfairly compete with others who do want to do their fair share.

 

[elptdbi3lYI]

That’s simply a lie. If sideloading is allowed, that means that my phone no longer enforces that no apps can run unless signed by a known developer *AND* by Apple. That means you have taken a security precaution away from me. Even if I never intentionally install a sideloaded app, if a vulnerability allows a sideloading attack, or if someone takes possession of my phone for a minute or two, then any app in the world can be installed and executed without my knowledge.

OS would notify you that you're trying to open application signed by unknown developer and ask for your explicit permission, and before even getting such prompts, you would have to explicitly set your OS to even attempt execution of such applications. Working absolutely fine on macOS.

 

[cmaier]

OS would notify you that you're trying to open application signed by unknown developer and ask for your explicit permission, and before even getting such prompts, you would have to explicitly set your OS to even attempt execution of such applications. Working absolutely fine on macOS.

No it doesn’t work absolutely fine on macOS. That’s why there is 10x more malware on macOS than iOS.

You said allowing sideloading doesn’t affect me, but now you admit that I lose the security of iOS and am stuck with the inferior security of macOS.

 

[jlc1978]

Actually, you would be royally ^&&%£ if the store said only it's own store payment card can be used and the T&C of using the card means every purchase made incurs a charge of 30% to cover the costs of using the stores own payment system, meaning everytime a consumer purchase your product, the store gets 30% and you 70%, whilst you are in full knowledge that you could get more if the store allowed cash payments or credit card payments.

So knowing that other payment systems are available which give you a bigger share of the purchase price and the fact the store already charges you x amount a year for putting your product in it's store, your happy to live with the store taking 30% because they are forcing everyone to use the store's own payment card which incurs a 30% charge every time it's used? You happy with that?? no somehow i do not think so.

Considering stores already markup items so they make a profit, often much greater than 30%, your argument makes no sense. How you pay is irrelevant.

Hear me out: if a business truly becomes a monopoly and starts raising prices, consumers still have a choice to buy or not buy. And when a monopolist artificially raises prices beyond the price set in the open market, it makes it more compelling for competitors to enter to market with an alternative. Customers still have a choice, and, IMO, as long as no one is being forced to buy the product, the company should be allowed to make its own business decisions.

That was the interesting thing about Standard Oil - the price of kerosene dropped significantly when they were a monopoly, specifically to keep others out. For the consumer, paying less is more beneficial than having 10 stores charging more for the same product.

The average IOS user spends TEN times more than the average Android user. The math is roughly 6 times more Android users total and they spend about two thirds as much in total as iOS users.

You think Apple's "walled garden" might have something to do with that massive disparity?

Apple users have proven to be more lucrative by their spending habits.

Let's say Apple lets you have your own payment system. You direct the user to your website. The user sees the iOS price. The user also has an Android device. Goes to your website. Sees the Android price. Unless it is the same the user will be upset. As a result, developers lose the ability to price discriminate based on device and what each user base is willing to pay. Raise the Android price and lose sales? Lower the Apple price and reduce revenue?

 

[elptdbi3lYI]

You would keep setting on the first selection and you get your current iOS implementation, but keep making up boogeyman security issues

 

[CarlJ]

If sideloading is allowed nothing is taken away from you, you can continue using app store and trust apple that third party applications that you download are safe.

People keep making this argument - it falls apart as soon as some big-name or currently hot apps decide to make themselves available only on the third party stores, and then iPhone users are forced to make a choice to either, as you say, "continue using App Store and trust apple that third party applications that you download are safe", or start using the third-party app stores where those apps are available - Epic, for example, would do this in a heartbeat, Fortnight would only be on the "Epic iOS Store".

As it stands today, iOS users can count on a lot of things for every single app they download - in terms of privacy of their information, financial details, tracking, etc. Because Apple has standards that every app has to meet, and a whole range of unsavory behaviors that aren't allowed (yes, there have been apps that violate this - they generally get caught and forced to conform, or get ejected from the store). And precisely this has made a whole lot of customers happy and has made them feel confident about downloading (and paying for) lots of apps. Epic, essentially, wants to kill that, just so Epic can get more money. Let's be clear, this isn't about "freeing the users", it's about making more money for Epic, and other big developers.

And, again, if someone wants the wild west frontier of app stores / downloading / sideloading, it's widely and easily available - all they have to do is choose to buy an Android phone instead of an iPhone - they're not hard to find, they're available everywhere. People keep portraying this as offering more choice - it's not - it's taking away one of the two current styles of ecosystem (the "walled garden approach"), decreeing that the other is better and everyone must only have the Android approach.

 

[cmaier]

You would keep setting on the first selection and you get your current iOS implementation, but keep making up boogeyman security issues

Why don’t you tell me the name of someone in the field of computer security who agrees that adding the option to sideload does not reduce the iPhone’s security. I’ll wait.

Even Epic’s expert witness didn’t make that claim.

 

[jlc1978]

People keep making this argument - it falls apart as soon as some big-name or currently hot apps decide to make themselves available only on the third party stores, and then iPhone users are forced to make a choice to either, as you say, "continue using App Store and trust apple that third party applications that you download are safe", or start using the third-party app stores where those apps are available - Epic, for example, would do this in a heartbeat, Fortnight would only be on the "Epic iOS Store".

It will also create a two tier feature set for apps - for example Apple could exclude side load apps from accessing user data such as contacts, phone records, messaging DBs, etc. unless it's the app store version. This would mean apps wanting that functionality would have to create their own DBs, limiting interaction with other apps. Having experienced that early on in the iPhone world it is very frustrating.

In addition, apps could include features forbidden by Apple; something we have seen in the Mac world where a developer offers an App Store and non-App store version.

 

[nt5672]

The problem with the Apple App Store is not the 30%, or that it is the only store. The problem is that Apple wants to be the store provider and the street cop to determine what gets stocked on the shelves.

If Apple just allowed any App that was not a security threat and provided minimal usefulness, then everything would be ok. But Apple wants to stamp their morality, social justice, anti-competitive behavior, and political correctness on every App in the App Store.

That is not right. So if Apple does not want these Apps in their App Store, then they better be ready to allow another App Store. That is the freedom of choice we need and want.

 

[gregmancuso]

Most malls that I know have lease agreements for those stores or kiosks operating in them. Some agreements are so bad that the mall can force you to be open or be fined if you decided to close on Thanksgiving Day.

And the leases are also, generally, area-based rent (square foot / meter) PLUS percent of revenue.

 

[nt5672]

I want sideloading because types of apps that are allowed on app store is very limited, you can't just make more apps if they are simply not allowed there. Now people have to workaround this issue with altstore or testflights or jailbreaking instead of just having sideloading outright being available.

This is the key issue. Apple needs to decide if they are going to be a neutral provider or not. If not, we need a way to load apps that support freedom of speech, freedom of choice, encryption (that does not have a government backdoor), etc.

And for those of you that don't think very clearly, this will do nothing to destroy the current App Store. If you are happy with the current App Store, that is all you have to use. Your choice.

 

[elptdbi3lYI]

People keep making this argument - it falls apart as soon as some big-name or currently hot apps decide to make themselves available only on the third party stores, and then iPhone users are forced to make a choice to either, as you say, "continue using App Store and trust apple that third party applications that you download are safe", or start using the third-party app stores where those apps are available - Epic, for example, would do this in a heartbeat, Fortnight would only be on the "Epic iOS Store".

As it stands today, iOS users can count on a lot of things for every single app they download - in terms of privacy of their information, financial details, tracking, etc. Because Apple has standards that every app has to meet, and a whole range of unsavory behaviors that aren't allowed (yes, there have been apps that violate this - they generally get caught and forced to conform, or get ejected from the store). And precisely this has made a whole lot of customers happy and has made them feel confident about downloading (and paying for) lots of apps. Epic, essentially, wants to kill that, just so Epic can get more money. Let's be clear, this isn't about "freeing the users", it's about making more money for Epic, and other big developers.

And, again, if someone wants the wild west frontier of app stores / downloading / sideloading, it's widely and easily available - all they have to do is choose to buy an Android phone instead of an iPhone - they're not hard to find, they're available everywhere. People keep portraying this as offering more choice - it's not - it's taking away one of the two current styles of ecosystem (the "walled garden approach"), decreeing that the other is better and everyone must only have the Android approach.

App store creates illusion of absolute security, if you care about security what you should be fighting for is actually for removal of app store, so that no third party applications can be installed at all.

 

[nt5672]

That’s simply a lie. If sideloading is allowed, that means that my phone no longer enforces that no apps can run unless signed by a known developer *AND* by Apple. That means you have taken a security precaution away from me. Even if I never intentionally install a sideloaded app, if a vulnerability allows a sideloading attack, or if someone takes possession of my phone for a minute or two, then any app in the world can be installed and executed without my knowledge.

Apple does not have to implement it this way. You are simply fear mongering.

 

[cmaier]

App store creates illusion of absolute security, if you care about security what you should be fighting for is actually for removal of app store, so that no third party applications can be installed at all.

LOL. Right. Because anything less than absolute security is no security, and improved security is worthless unless it is perfect security.

 

[CarlJ]

LOL. Right. Because anything less than absolute security is no security, and improved security is worthless unless it is perfect security.

Clearly the best choice is to have no smart phone at all.

 

[elptdbi3lYI]

LOL. Right. Because anything less than absolute security is no security, and improved security is worthless unless it is perfect security.

As if sideloading would remove all security and turn your iToy into windows xp machine