Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
That email does take some of the fire out of Sweeny's earlier statements. Earlier he'd said "Epic does not seek and would not accept special treatment". In this email, he asks for special permission for Epic and "hopes" Apple would offer the same to others.

Given the populist rhetoric he's been throwing around, I'd have though this email would be written as "I demand Apple allow Epic and all other developers" everywhere rather than "Epic is requesting Apple agree in principle to permit Epic [...] We hope Apple will also make the options equally available". Sounds to me like they would have accepted one without the other.

There's also this bit at the end that I found interesting:

1598054380222.png


Why do I think Google got exactly this email with one less search and replace than it should have had?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dynamojoe
Companies are allowed to have disparate strength. Unless a specific law is violated, that’s fine.
Definitely true, that's why Epic doesn't only need to successfully argue that Apple is in a position of strength, but also that it's such a position of strength that it can distort competition and that they are actively doing so.

I don't think it's an easy task to accomplish, but neither that it's impossible.
 
In general I tend to err in favour of competition

I also err in favor of competition, and what I'm seeing is Apple being told they can't compete against the dominant mobile device platform by innovating in the area of integrated services. They're being told that they must adhere to a model "as it is on personal computers".

That's not competition, that's forced commoditization.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WiseAJ
Those are not really APIs. These are parts of OS for which I (phone owner) pay when I buy the phone.

Apple owns the software, you’re allowed to use it based on the agreement of rights laid out within: iOS Settings, General, Legal and Regulatory. Have a proper read through this.

You the buyer owns the device BTO the software or services that Apple has provided. You may own the 3rd party software or first party software you’ve purchased yet I’m not certain I the last part.
 
I also err in favor of competition, and what I'm seeing is Apple being told they can't compete against the dominant mobile device platform by innovating in the area of integrated services. They're being told that they must adhere to a model "as it is on personal computers".

That's not competition, that's forced commoditization.
I don't see how allowing alternatives would prevent Apple's innovation in integrated services.

If this integration is so valuable to the users and developers it should not have to fear competitors and be imposed: it would still be sought-after even with alternatives available.

Unless there is lack of confidence that it's actually such an added value.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UnbreakableAlex
This is a really good point and one of the reasons I hope Apple locks down the Mac next. Wouldn’t it be great if we could only get apps from the Mac App Store? Think of how much more secure and streamlined that would be! Oh I get chills just wishing for it.
Are you serious, or did you forget to add a /s mark?
In any case, you’ve been able to configure macOS to behave just like that for years, but you’re not forced to, that’s the beauty of it.

As for the iPhone, maybe Apple could come up with a fully unlocked iPhone Ultimate (or whatever) for the PC Master Race crowd, complete with third-party app stores and IAP, as well as side-loading, sold at an absurd premium to offset lost revenue and support costs triggered by inevitable bouts of malware and scams that would ensue.

Apple could, but they won’t, because their brand would be tarnished and devalued in ways that no premium would be able to offset. And, in any case, if Apple’s current iPhones Pro are any indication, such a device would be so stupidly expensive that it would only cater to a niche of a niche. No parent would buy such a phone for their kid, and I suspect that once they realize the implications of Epic’s cavalier attitude towards parental controls (by the way, I didn’t even know about that, I just learned of it on this thread) and overall probity – or, better yet, lack thereof –, and are forced by their kids to weigh in a switch to an Android device just because of a game – no matter how popular; I’d venture a guess and say that most parents won’t care –, they may in fact tell the young ’uns to stick to their consoles or PCs or switch games altogether.

Look, I won’t argue against a reduction in some ways of the 30% cut, or defend Apple’s other special, bespoke deals; what I’m saying is that Epic comes across as really juvenile, whining, two-faced and outright dishonest. The fact that there is a paper trail further proves just how premeditated and deliberate their infraction of the App Store’s rules was.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Epic could’ve gone with the exact same outcome in practice by unilaterally withdrawing Fortnite in protest, which would preserve their moral high ground, their developer account and UE’s integrity on iOS and, by extension, that of all the developers who trusted them to keep it up-to-date. Now, in exchange for some support in the court of public opinion by mostly, you know, kids, they are throwing those developers under the bus. I’d be crying bloody murder and suing Epic for dereliction of duty (or whatever legal term is applicable in this context; you get my point) and damages if I was a developer and relied on UE for an iOS game right now; even if they are trying to portray themselves as the good guy, and end up opening the floodgates, it’s not those third-party developers’ fight to pick, they shouldn’t have been needlessly dragged into this.

As for Apple, you may argue all you want about their policies and strategy, but you’ll have to admit that they are at least fairly open about their reasoning and motivation when it comes to this particular issue of IAPs (which is commendable in context, considering the secrecy that has always defined them as a company and the relative opacity of some App Store review processes).

At the end of the day, no matter what YOU, the power user at MacRumors, thinks of Apple or Epic, the latter will still get royally fscked because they very much consciously and deliberately trampled on an agreement they signed, and it’s still the parents, most of them regular Joes, Janes and everyone in between, who – usually – pay for their kids’ phones, App Store games, IAPs and subscriptions. Call them boomers, scream and shout all you want, but they won’t side with the scruffy “upstart” (they’re anything but, except common folk don’t even know what UE is, and those who do will be mad as hell… at Epic, not Apple) with the weird characters and – stolen – dance moves. Guess what: Apple knows this, because they obviously know their customers better than anyone else. That’s why they are willing to take a gamble, and that’s why letting Fortnite linger on all those kids’ devices in a semi- or altogether non-functional state instead of pulling the remote kill-switch is pure – evil, even? Yeah, I’ll give you that – genius; it’s not heavy-handed or intrusive on their part, and it makes it look like it was Epic which let a good part of their customers behind (and, in fact, that’s precisely what they did; they just chose the most obnoxious and destructive way to go about it, for good measure). It exposes Epic for what they are and leaves them on display, on digital stocks.

Considering all of this, I, for one, won’t shed a tear for Epic; they aren’t any better than Adobe or Microsoft (or, yes, Apple) at their worst. As a matter of fact, they remind me of those stupid Hackintosh sellers that pop up every now and then (by the way, if you peruse my posting history you’ll realize that the only reason I never ventured into making my own Hackintoshes was the fact that I depend on my Macs for my income and am not much of a gamer nor need any work-related Windows software at native speeds, but otherwise love upgrading and fixing my own Macs, as well as updating them waaay past the last officially supported version of macOS, because screw planned obsolescence and hooray for Right to Repair, so don’t even try to go there).

Sheesh, this place has devolved into a freaking echo chamber of rather questionable Apple users (are you, really, or are you just paid trolls?). And if you are real people and hate Apple that much, what the hell are you doing here, really? Look, I’ve been following Apple since 2003, and while it’s probably one of the most reputable companies I know of, I’ve seen them make a fair share of pig-headed, heavy-handed, tone-deaf and even outright petty moves; and this, I can assure you, is NOT one of them. Epic and Sweeney are the complete bastards here. They rank even below Samsung (at least those are great component manufacturers) and Google. And that’s quite the statement, as you may recall their shameless copying from insider, privileged knowledge. Espionage, shoplifting, potayto, potahto.

As a parting thought, consider this: Epic is actually doing customers and developers a disservice when it comes to IAP cuts (which, mind you, are also 30% on Google’s Play Store) and market freedom on iOS. Had they gone the civilized, strictly legal route, they might’ve garnered universal (even if not as widespread) support (possibly me included, even) and be at least respectful and respected in court; as such, not only will they be utterly destroyed in that legal setting, they also garnered active animosity from regular bystanders like myself, third-party developers and an extra layer of well-deserved wrath from Apple (which, yes, often keeps conducting business with companies with which they are embroiled in litigation). All for, maybe, a quick buck. And the only chance those cuts and restrictions will ever be revisited will likely now be if regulators step in. So, Epic may also be in it for the long game and counting on that after bringing it to light… However, the fact that they are partially owned by Chinese capital and the entire UE situation may put them in a precarious position until then, so… I really don’t get it. If I had to bet, this will end up just being one of those “cutting the nose to spite the face” stories.
 
Last edited:
I don't see how allowing alternatives would prevent Apple's innovation in integrated services.

If this integration is so valuable to the users and developers it should not have to fear competitors and be imposed: it would still be sought-after even with alternatives available.

Unless there is lack of confidence that it's actually such an added value.
You aren't talking about allowing alternatives, you are talking about banning an alternative. The alternative that Apple currently provides.

You're looking at innovation only at one level. Apple has created a walled garden business model integrating hardware, software, and services. The App Store is such a service.

Although they're quite profitable in that business, they're not nearly as popular as their competitors. They aren't preventing Fortnite from running on other platforms, and they aren't insisting that Fortnite runs on theirs. Live and let live.

What you seem to be advocating is banning a business model. A business model that I appreciate. You're looking at the 15% of the device market that Apple controls and treating that like it's the universe within which all competition exists. It's not. That 15% is competing against the other 85%.
 
Apple owns the software, you’re allowed to use it based on the agreement of rights laid out within: iOS Settings, General, Legal and Regulatory. Have a proper read through this.

You the buyer owns the device BTO the software or services that Apple has provided. You may own the 3rd party software or first party software you’ve purchased yet I’m not certain I the last part.
And that's a problem. The consumer is suffering and that's why the government should fix this problem.
 
You're looking at innovation only at one level. Apple has created a walled garden business model integrating hardware, software, and services. The App Store is such a service.
Again, I don't see how the alternatives would prevent Apple from offering that. If there is value in the walled garden, users and developers would not leave it, even if the cage is not actually locked anymore.
 
if I make a game, I could sell it for 1€ or 10€.
What makes it more expensive for apple that they need to take away more money from the 10€ game than from the 1€ game. It’s the same game after all.
Apple needs to stop being all greedy and scroogy. It doesn’t paint a good picture publicly.
 
Never thought i’d see a Slasher tweet on Macforums lol this is getting spicy tho I’m really curious to see how this plays out.
 
Again, I don't see how the alternatives would prevent Apple from offering that. If there is value in the walled garden, users and developers would not leave it, even if the cage is not actually locked anymore.

Having a less secure "cage" or alternative jeopardizes the entire security of the device whether or not you choose to participate and download apps outside the App Store or not. All someone has to do is gain access to your device and download a malware/spyware filled app from an alternate source and every benefit of the secure walled garden is meaningless at that point.
 
You aren't talking about allowing alternatives, you are talking about banning an alternative. The alternative that Apple currently provides.

You're looking at innovation only at one level. Apple has created a walled garden business model integrating hardware, software, and services. The App Store is such a service.

Although they're quite profitable in that business, they're not nearly as popular as their competitors. They aren't preventing Fortnite from running on other platforms, and they aren't insisting that Fortnite runs on theirs. Live and let live.

What you seem to be advocating is banning a business model. A business model that I appreciate. You're looking at the 15% of the device market that Apple controls and treating that like it's the universe within which all competition exists. It's not. That 15% is competing against the other 85%.
Allowing alternative app stores does not prevent walled garden. People who want to stick with App Store would be able to do so.
 
Having a less secure "cage" or alternative jeopardizes the entire security of the device whether or not you choose to participate and download apps outside the App Store or not. All someone has to do is gain access to your device and download a malware/spyware filled app from an alternate source and every benefit of the secure walled garden is meaningless at that point.
That's a technical nonsense. If people download apps only from the App Store what changes from the current situation? Nothing. You are implying that Apple lets the apps into their store that can install the apps from the alternative stores. If that is the case current App Store is unsafe too.
 
All someone has to do is gain access to your device and download a malware/spyware filled app from an alternate source and every benefit of the secure walled garden is meaningless at that point.
If they gain access to your device with enough permissions to enable alternative software sources IMHO you are done already, even in today's situation.
 
So using your example, you think it’s cool to charge one person 150/night but another person 300/night for the same room because reasons? How about a grocery store that charges one customer 1.50 for a bag of chips but makes another customer pay 3.00 for that same bag?
You’re completely onboard with that and feel this is the behavior of a good and ethical business? Oh I’d love to hear your argument for this.

i assume you don’t work for or with the hotel industry, because that is exactly what they do with various rate codes. (Price changes all the time, walk in rate is different from corporate rate/premium status rates/online booking rates, etc.) They will also sometimes wave fees for some guests and not others, such as parking or resort fees.
 
Two sides to every story
Epic wants special treatment because of the revenue they produce and their popularity. But that’s not the agreement they signed
No winners here Apple and Google and epic as well as the customer all lose
Advise to Epic: End the battle with Apple and Google before you lose the war
 
Again, I don't see how the alternatives would prevent Apple from offering that. If there is value in the walled garden, users and developers would not leave it, even if the cage is not actually locked anymore.
Allowing alternative app stores does not prevent walled garden. People who want to stick with App Store would be able to do so.

There are alternative App Stores. Use Android to access them.

Why is this so hard to understand?

There are two questions here, and the answer to both favors Apple.

The first question is "is this good for customers?". If the answer were "no", then those customers would follow the other 85% of the market, switch to Android, and be done with it. What we see instead, is that Apple attracts the customers willing and able to pay a premium to access their curated experience. Looks like Apple's customers see value in Apple's business model, no reason for Apple to decide to change it.

The second question is, "is this illegal?". Apple is a 15% player in the market. There are plenty of alternatives out there, and relatively little barrier to entry posed by Apple. They are not leveraging market dominance in one business to achieve market dominance in another because they don't have dominance in either. If they did, Epic wouldn't have chosen the route of losing access to the all of Apple's customers. Apple is behaving legally.

Instead what we're seeing is a minority of people hoping to leverage a lot of bad press to scare the masses into thinking they're being exploited by some corporate overlord as a means of adding weight to their own personal demands.

The cage is not locked. Go join the 85%.
 
Where are Epic's letters asking the same of Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo?

I checked the Sony store and Nintendo store, and 1000 vbucks sell for $7.99 on their stores which is the same as epics ‘direct’ price. It seems that Nintendo and Sony arent taking a cut of in app purchases like Apple is.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.