In fact, there are more than 25 pages of email exchanges between Epic and Apple. Tim Sweeney only showed a single e-mail, the one that suits him alone for his defense, leaving 24 others out. What does Tim Sweeney say to Apple so much? And what is he letting us show?
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 Sought Side Deal for Fortnite Prior to Lawsuit, Apple Says in Court Filing [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In fact, there are more than 25 pages of email exchanges between Epic and Apple. Tim Sweeney only showed a single e-mail, the one that suits him alone for his defense, leaving 24 others out. What does Tim Sweeney say to Apple so much? And what is he letting us show?
Did you go back to Walmart and subscribe? If not. Then it's similar to going out and getting a vbucks card. Apple doesn't get a cut of that... WALMART does and it's about 30% plus the registration service that actives the card from the POS systems at the store to the actual corporation offering the service, etc,etc,etc...
You ever sign up for that Target credit card? The bank that manages that pays Target and initial fee PLUS a percentage of the monthly usage for the lifetime of the account. Ever buy a magazine from one of those magazine discount web shops. Yeah it goes on and on and on...
You know this for what reason?
There's a big difference between like and afford.
Android's so prevalent because you can pick up a new Android device literally for peanuts.
Given how much Google are already locking down Android while Apple is slowly opening up the UI, the usability gap is narrowing.
iPhones have never been cheap. So it's only natural there are more Android phones than iPhones. That said, don't kid yourself theat this automatically means people "prefer" Android: a lot of the time it's all they can afford.
I get what you're trying to say, but I can't, for the life of me, figure out what hardware has to do with any of this.
That has always been Apple’s main selling point since day one - that they will not give the user enough rope to hang himself with. Whether he will actually use the rope in such a fashion is immaterial. The point is that he is physically incapable of such an act in the first place.
Personally, while I am no stranger to computers and like to think that I am perfectly capable of taking the necessary precautions, I find I still appreciate having someone else take care of security so I don’t have to. And I believe that the number of people who share this sentiment far outweigh the people who don’t.
This. Every time people bring up all that Apple supposedly does to deserve the 30% they fail to mention all the apps on the store (well over a majority) that are free where Apple gets nothing. How is that fair? When the 70/30 split was first announced there was no IAP and most apps on the store cost something. Now most apps are free or freemium and contain IAP. Apple is rolling in all the money they make from game IAP.
Right, Apple makes nothing on the free game sale. How is that fair? Apple provided the IAP infrastructure, now everybody is apparently making more money (and I play far fewer games).
It's not about deserve or doesn't deserve, frankly. Apple has their business model. You can develop for it or not. You can buy their products or not. This isn't a question that requires court intervention.
Then how come Apple allows free apps or any apps that don’t have IAP and don’t give Apple a dime? It’s not a few its the majority of the App Store. Basically games subsidize everything else on the store.
You mean like Netflix, Spotify, Kindle etc? Apple is perfectly fine with certain developers paying them nothing.
Anyone else notice in his email screenshot that he referred to Apple’s users as “Android customers?” What’s that about? Makes me think this was first sent to Google and then changed the wording for Apple. Pretty sloppy though for such a huge company. Makes me think he did this without much input from others at Epic. And the idea of having their own App Store? Maybe he was drunk when he sent it.
That all being said, I still think it’s probably time for Apple and Google to lower their rates to at most 15%. But at the same time console makers also get 30%. I think the key difference though is that consoles are subsidized by these rates so they sell at a loss, especially the first couple years. Apple charges more than most companies for hardware. They’re kinda like consoles but also kinda not. They do a lot more than consoles and the software is generally cheaper.
It’s tricky but I have the feeling Apple will end up on the wrong side when it comes to some of these policies, especially those that don’t allow you to sign up separately for a paid service and then sign in to an app. That’s gonna get shut down. I think there is a less likely but still possible chance they may have to provide a system switch to allow any software to be installed. Like you’d have to enter your password and it would ask you twice like a system reset. But I think if this happens then it should be applied evenly to all hardware, even game consoles. Generally I think if you buy hardware you should have the option to do with it as you please. Personally I would keep my device locked down as I don’t have any need for this and enjoy having high security, but I might tinker with it on older hardware that I no longer use. Old iOS devices would make great servers for something like HomeBridge.
That all being said, I still think it’s probably time for Apple and Google to lower their rates to at most 15%. But at the same time console makers also get 30%. I think the key difference though is that consoles are subsidized by these rates so they sell at a loss, especially the first couple years. Apple charges more than most companies for hardware. They’re kinda like consoles but also kinda not. They do a lot more than consoles and the software is generally cheaper.
It’s tricky but I have the feeling Apple will end up on the wrong side when it comes to some of these policies, especially those that don’t allow you to sign up separately for a paid service and then sign in to an app. That’s gonna get shut down. I think there is a less likely but still possible chance they may have to provide a system switch to allow any software to be installed. Like you’d have to enter your password and it would ask you twice like a system reset. But I think if this happens then it should be applied evenly to all hardware, even game consoles. Generally I think if you buy hardware you should have the option to do with it as you please. Personally I would keep my device locked down as I don’t have any need for this and enjoy having high security, but I might tinker with it on older hardware that I no longer use. Old iOS devices would make great servers for something like HomeBridge.
The choice should be apple’s, not yours. If i run a donut shop and i give free donuts to deserving visitors or my best friend, that doesn’t mean I should no longer be allowed to charge whatever i want to anyone else.
Well, price is an important factor. Android has a big advantage here. There is nothing wrong with preferring cheaper device.
this is such an ignorant argument. It’a an Apple device. It’s their platform. There are plenty of alternatives - get an android phone, Sony, Samsung, google, blackberry.. whatever there is out there. Lots of choices all with their own app stores. That is the competition.
it’s like going to an Apple retail store and complaining you can’t buy Samsung phones there. That’s not anti competitive - it’s there shop.
Darth Tulhu
macrumors 68020
Maybe I'm missing something here, but Apple's App Store exists to facilitate software on Apple's platforms. In other words, both the hardware and software are "Apple-owned" until the customer makes a purchase of a device, AND AGREES to the mechanism by which software is delivered to that purchased platform.
The only ones with power now are Apple customers: they are aware that if you pick Apple (iOS) hardware, software comes from the App Store and the App Store only.
You want something that is not in the App Store? Get a different brand device.
So this is like Apple offering a car that can take any brand of gas, so long as the gas is sold at an Apple pump. Both the user and the gas provider agree to this AHEAD OF TIME once it makes it to the pump. It doesn't matter if the pump is paid off and costs nothing to operate (similar to if I own a house outright and rent it in perpetuity).
In my view, Epic is wrong here, by virtue of all of this being UP FRONT and TRANSPARENT. NO ONE is forcing Epic to use the App Store, or to provide Apple users with Epic software.
Whatever you think of the drawbacks of Apple's closed ecosystem, what Epic wants to do could set a bad precedent of you opening a store and being forced by the government to store and sell goods without the store owner getting paid.
The only ones with power now are Apple customers: they are aware that if you pick Apple (iOS) hardware, software comes from the App Store and the App Store only.
You want something that is not in the App Store? Get a different brand device.
So this is like Apple offering a car that can take any brand of gas, so long as the gas is sold at an Apple pump. Both the user and the gas provider agree to this AHEAD OF TIME once it makes it to the pump. It doesn't matter if the pump is paid off and costs nothing to operate (similar to if I own a house outright and rent it in perpetuity).
In my view, Epic is wrong here, by virtue of all of this being UP FRONT and TRANSPARENT. NO ONE is forcing Epic to use the App Store, or to provide Apple users with Epic software.
Whatever you think of the drawbacks of Apple's closed ecosystem, what Epic wants to do could set a bad precedent of you opening a store and being forced by the government to store and sell goods without the store owner getting paid.
You are implying that iOS users belong to Apple who "provides" them to app developers. Nobody needs Apple for that. Internet and credit card (or PayPal, or whatever) is all that's needed.
It's not an Apple device. Once they sell it, it belongs to a new owner. You are arguing that Apple should maintain full control over someone else's property. That's not in the interest of the consumers and thus the issue should be addressed by the government.
That’s called a choice. From a developer’s standpoint, why would you care whether the underlying hardware was sold at a loss or profit?
I haven't used parental controls, but considering Epic's own in-app purchase processing is bypassing Apple's APIs, then yes, I assume the iOS/App Store functions in place allowing parents to limit in-app purchases would be ineffective when using Epic's cheaper option. And indeed, the parental safety net options would be similarly ineffective on other apps if somehow -- miraculously -- Epic would be able to pressure/force Apple into allowing other developers to choose not to utilize their in-app purchase system.
Not a perfect comparison but still valid and should be helpful. (At least in the U.S.,) companies can allow other company outlets within. For example, I've seen Burger King, Subway, and McDonald's in Wal-Marts, Caribou or Starbucks and/or bank branches in grocery stores as well as plenty of stores with nothing but their own services. Why? Some companies determined allowing these inner outlets can be additionally beneficial to customers and therefore attract them, whether or not the companies would in any way compete in products. The other companies have concluded/decided (reasonably or not) having inner outlets isn't helpful or could be harmful. Either way, the decision to allow another company to do commerce within their/your store is their/your choice. It's not a requirement or a right, it's an opportunity/privilege.
I agree that (if they haven't) Apple should revisit their App Store revenue model and consider adjustments. However, as I've said in related threads, it is the fact that a portion of developers have drastically changed the concept of what an IAP is that caused this unfair revenue sharing. IAPs were for app upgrades/enhancements but now we have "free to play" with subscriptions and digital/virtual currencies that link to real currency -- which, by the way, can cause games to be very unbalanced/unfair. Basically, these (typically game developers) have bent the system and are now complaining because it's no longer working properly.
Boo hoo /s
Netflix and Spotify don't have items to purchase in-app, the content is essentially leased/rented to the account/member. Additionally, all three -- as far as I've read -- avoid giving Apple a cut for subscriptions by removing all aspects of the sign-up ability, including links to websites, basically making these companion apps to their associated services. It is differential treatment for a certain type/group of apps, but they still need to follow certain guidelines/requirements.
Last edited:
Why?
Unless you are a developer you are not impacted by this at all. Most developers are very happy with the system in place because they have a means to create and sell their own games/apps that would have been almost impossible in the past.
Epic is the greedy one here because they want a free ride to use Apples platform, and ecosystem for free and have Apple host and promote their games for free and Epic reaps all the benefits from that. You don't get to buy a house in a good school district neighborhood without paying higher property taxes. Apple provides an almost endless amount of potential customers thanks to its platform. Customers Epic would normally have to market to.
If anything Epic has a flawed business model here. They want to distribute a game for free hoping people waste money on fluff in the game. Its a much dirtier way to monetize an app than ads ever were because it makes people pay for the app vs advertisers. Epic doesn't know how to navigate this type of payment system so much like greedy corporations that want big tax breaks to make up for their incompetence they want a free ride. Epic is the company preying on users here and not Apple. The consumer never experiences any extra payments from Apple. If anything the gaming world on mobile pays vastly less for games than they ever did on desktop or consoles.
I am a mobile developer and I have absolutely no problem with Apple or Googles payment system. It is what it is and a tax to enjoy the fruits of the ecosystem. I want those ecosystems to stay fruitful so yes Apple and Google should be paid. If they fall apart then nobody wins and the consumer loses for sure since it will be harder and more complex to look for apps and games not to mention potentially less secure.
Apple has clearly violated the antitrust law if you as the customer or developer can't use a third party payment method for in-app purchases and subscriptions.
The 30% fees imposed by Apple own payment method must be optional without restricting other payment methods to be used in purchasing a subscription and in-app purchases.
The 30% fees imposed by Apple own payment method must be optional without restricting other payment methods to be used in purchasing a subscription and in-app purchases.
It’s your opinion and not a fact of law.
How is it fair for Apple to not charge for IAP? If at one point every paid app had a price then Apple would get their 30%. If IAP was a way to bypass this then every single developer would say screw Apple and make the app free with a IAP. This would bypass Apple entirely meaning Apple would no longer earn a single penny to keep the App Store going.
IAP was supposed to be a way to add on or let users have a trial version of an app so they didn't have to pay for the entire thing and find out they didn't like it. It was not a way to screw over Apple and not pay them.
Some developers like Epic now want to take that concept in a new direction and not charge for the app, not charge to unlock the app but bypass Apple entirely and earn money by conning people into paying for fluff in the game. Maybe Epic needs to rethink their business model here. Lots of developers have struck gold on the App Store with traditional purchased apps. If their argument is they can't be profitable, then Epic has a flawed business model and that's not really Apples problem. Epic is totally free and welcome to develop any games they want that stick to a traditional payment method.
Apple should not be forced to accept every hacked together payment system every developer wants to come up with. There is no way to apply security to such systems and Apple has the right to maintain a certain level of quality control for their platform. Much like DVD players had to stick to certain specifications. iOS users expect certain security and safety measures in place which is why they use iOS devices. They expect every app to use the same payment method so they don't need to constantly provide payment details for every app. The web is open but also the #1 place to steal people data. Apple is trying to make a platform where that doesn't happen.
No, nobody needs Apple for that. Some people want Apple for that. Those people buy Apple devices.
Nobody needs a travel agent, but some people choose to use them.