It's more like Forbes came to walmart and decided to sell subscriptions without getting permission (or being told in advance that it wasn't allowed) to the customers in the store and then not giving the store any cut (which is fundamentally the opposite of how the retail market works).
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
It's more like Forbes came to walmart and decided to sell subscriptions without getting permission (or being told in advance that it wasn't allowed) to the customers in the store and then not giving the store any cut (which is fundamentally the opposite of how the retail market works).
Read the letter. Epic was open to both a secret deal or an across the board change for all developers via changes to Apple’s standard contract. They don’t really care which, as long as their fees get cut.
How so? Sweeny's letter clearly shows they were looking for a side deal. He then states that he hopes Apple could ALSO do something for all developers.
So, "give me a side deal, and f you want, give it to everyone else if you want".
But he clearly wanted a side deal, and if it only benefitted Epic then so be it.
This analogy doesn't work (although I'm British so don't really understand Walmart). What this is is more like saying you bought any magazine as a one off from a newsagent, then put in a recurring order with that newsagent, asking them to order and put aside (maybe even post to you) a copy to you every time a new edition is out, and expecting the newsagent not to take a cut. Of course they would, they don't do that service for free, someone has to pay them....
In their head. When you hate a company so much you can make any negative a positive - no logic or reasoning required.
[automerge]1598047989[/automerge]
Walmart own Asda...
I'm aware, that doesn't mean their business practices are in any way the same however.
Why? Even if I accept your premise that there is an iron curtain around iOS, why would you insist on dictating to a successful technology company how they should conduct business? Apple retains tight control of their systems to the benefit of their customers who deal with far less frequent and problematic security issues. Apple customers also don't have developers dumping rampant all over the user experience on their platforms.
If you don't like any of that, you have other options for mobile and desktop platforms. Why force Apple to do things your way?
Fortnite didn't just violate the app store rules. Violating app store rules is normal, your app gets rejected, you fix it, your app gets accepted. In this case, Epic wanted a new feature that they knew, and every developer would have known, had no chance to pass an app review: They wanted in app purchases bypassing Apple. No way that would have passed a review, but if they had submitted it, no harm would have been done.
So instead, they produced an app that would change its behaviour after some time, say on August 10th (don't know what date it actually was). Before August 10th, the app would only show allowed in-app purchases, after August 10th it would show in-app purchases that bypass Apple. When Apple reviewed the app, it passed. Some time later, the app didn't behave as reviewed anymore. That is in itself a violation of the rules that gets your app removed. But in this case it was intentionally fraudulent.
Apple took the only correct action, which was removing the app. Then it turned out that Epic had actually prepared a lawsuit to be issued immediately after the app removal.
Now consider that there is a contract between Apple and every development company. Both sides agree to behave in certain ways. Part of the contract is that Apple can cancel the contract; I don't think they need any reason for this. But they have plenty of reason. Epic's fraudulent behaviour submitting an app for review that later changed it's behaviour, clearly planning to use this as a pretext to sue Apple, and so on. Any reasonable company would close down its business relationship with Epic in that situation, and that's what Apple is doing.
Exactly, 'within an app'. So for the analogy to make sense every Forbes magazine magazine you bought in the future after the first would be at Walmart.
Apple's argument (seemingly) is if you bought a Spotify subscription (I'm aware you can't, of course) even in your second month you're still using the App Store, Apple's APIs, iPhone features etc. to use that subscription (unlike physical goods), hence the share is owed with every payment. Buying a Forbes magazine at Walmart is a one time thing - not the same.
I’m not saying if Apple processes a credit card transaction and manages a subscription they don’t deserve a fee for that (though its debatable what that fee should be). But Apple doesn’t allow any other option. So even if you can manage your own payments system and customer relations Apple doesn’t allow it unless you fit into a special category they created.
In one of the legal briefs they submitted they said:
So is Apple arguing that all digital content in an app is the property of Apple? I’m sorry but that’s nuts. Once an app is downloaded to your device is it really still part of Apple’s store?
As far as API’s and other App Store/OS features...doesn’t that also apply to apps that offer physical goods or services for physical goods? What’s the difference between Netflix and Uber as far as the Apple tools/services they’re using to make the app work?
Yes, you can argue Apply charge too much, but they deserve a cut. And sending snarky emails with a list of demands is certainly not the way to encourage a company to work with you. The email was clearly written so it could be used in a later lawsuit for what they hope will be an advantage.
Incorrect analogy. Apple has nothing to do with delivering the digital content (but they still insist on getting 30%). OP's analogy is spot on.
No, not yet. Apple has removed the app from the store, so it can't be downloaded anymore, but people having it on their phones can continue using it. When Apple cancels Epic's developer contract, then I don't know if in-app purchases or things like push notifications will continue to work. The app itself will keep running. Maybe kids will discover that it is actually more rewarding to achieve things in a game, instead of paying for everything.
Who do you think runs the servers of the App Store? Who do you think writes the APIs developers use...?
Apple may not be creating the content, but their software is what facilitates it being delivered to you.
If you were getting Forbes in your mailbox every month, that would be a physical purchase and not subject to Apple's restrictions on payment processing that lead to them getting their cut. Walmart wouldn't be involved in the subscription in your scenario, unlike every transaction involving digital content that occurs within an app on an iPhone, which happens on top of Apple platform software (iOS and its SDKs) using Apple payment processing.
Then every app should have to pay something for what it costs to be in the App Store. But according to Tim Cook 84% of apps in the store are free.
What‘s the difference between Spotify (when they had to offer IAP) and Uber? Or Panera. Aren’t they all using Apple platform software; Apple’s SDKs and APIs?
Epic doesn't get money just because you play Fortnite. They make money from in-app purchases. It's not something that I ever want to find out as a developer, but I don't know and slightly doubt that in-app purchases will continue to work if the developer license is retracted. There is no reason why purchases on Epic's website wouldn't be working.
What other choice do they have? If you want to develop to iOS customers, you are forced into Apple's terms, fair or not. So now they are trying, legally, to get Apple to make changes. Change isn't easy, as we've found this year, but we shall see.
Epic developed a game and sold it to me. Why exactly does Apple deserve a cut? And if it did, then why don't they deserve similar cut for Epic games on Mac?
Incorrect, if Apple and the App Store did not exist, then a person would never discover and sign up for a new subscription though that device. Do you think Best Buy sells cell service because it's helpful? They do it cause they get a cut of the subscriptions.
Heck, HBO only got ~50% cut from cable companies.
It's also the exact same rate being charged by every other digital market EXCEPT epics.
What you need to remember is every iOS user is APPLE'S customer. Epic wants access to all of Apples customers and they want to sacrifice and/or pay nothing for the privilege. There is NO industry where that is acceptable. People keep making the argument that Windows is somehow comparable, but its not, Microsoft's customers are mostly OEMs, only a small number of people directly buy products from Microsoft. And because Microsoft sells their OS, of course they have to make it possible for those who purchase it to use it as they choose. Apple does none of those things.
Epic basically wants the power to change iOS design, obtain root access to directly manage the device, stop paying apple anything, and get direct access to all of their customers for free. Plus they want to be able to use that root access to open their own store and then sell other peoples apps while themselves taking a cut.
This is completely incorrect. Terminating the developer accounts will cause any apps distributed by them to stop working. That is the whole point—as it stands, Fortnite is not available for new "purchase" for those who have never downloaded it before, but anyone who has can continue using it, including the rule-breaking alternate payment system. Terminating the developer accounts end the ability to use the app, therefore ending the rule violation.