Epic Games Store Launches on iPhone in EU, Brings Fortnite Back to iOS

[I7guy]

Taxes are good. Here in europe we have universal healthcare in many countries which means you don't bankrupt yourself because you had the audacity to get hit by a strangers' car and broke your leg. Many of our countries have subsidised public transport that is great value for money. Countries like Denmark and Finland have high tax rates but the happiest citizens on the planet because they know that their schools are well funded, parents get more generous leave, public transport costs are next to nothing and if they lose their jobs then the social safety net will pick them up so they can get back into work faster.

Okay, kind of proves my point, overtaxation is wonderful.

IMO Taxes are bad. I’d rather invest the difference. After a few years of smart investing I’d be covered financially and much more well off if the government had given me benefits on those taxes. YMMV.

 

[chmania]

IMO Taxes are bad.

Well, it is not the taxes are bad, but the government that taxes you, and won't use it for your welfare. For subsidised medicine (life-saving medicine), free medicine for the elderly, free education, free ambulance service and the list goes on and on. So that you don't have to sell your house, if you have a heart attack and needs bypasses, or even replacement of eye lenses (cataract) or even knee operations, hip operations etc etc. It's good to have a welfare government. Taxes are not that bad, when you consider what you get back in return.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

After a few years of smart investing I’d be covered financially and much more well off if the government had given me benefits on those taxes.

Well, well, someone took your bait. The DMA is not concerned with taxation.

There is a difference between taxation and overtaxation. I guess what you mean is taxation and overtaxation is the same.

I bet you are ok with some taxes. For instances for military purposes. Or police to keep the social pollution away from sight. After all, who will go to TW to defend Apple interests, blue color investors right? Who will be there in case your “Bugatti” is vandalized, people that workout on bull gyms right?

Anyway this is totally off topic as it becomes ideological, societal organization, rather business.

PS: Either way, in a democracy after a few years of smart investment you are good. I agree with that.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

One of my issues with this law in the EU is exactly that. Developers get to choose where to be. But, they don't have to be on anyones platform. While Apple has to allow developers full access but not get all developers on their platform. It's completely one sided.

That is a good observation. I guess it has proven to be in practice well balanced considering that it worked so well decades? Look at how many huge and great companies were built with such unfair practices as you seam to point out.

At least more well balanced than “What is mine is mine, what is yours is ours” which basically is what has been Apple App Store policies on the back of citizens devices. A game of perceptions I guess.

 

[djphat2000]

Because ‘the rules’ are anti competitive.

They don't get to break the rules to prove a point. And they lost on it. Because they were wrong.

And Google and Apple will lose almost every lawsuit everywhere in the past, now and in the future.

Apple didn't lose to EPIC in the US. Marginal changes were made but nothing even close to what EPIC wanted. Google is a different story all together.

Epic won, Spotify won and all others will win too as long as they keep being a bully.

In the EU. But, Apple is still going to collect their "CTF". So did they, really?

 

[djphat2000]

That is a good observation. I guess it has proven to be in practice well balanced considering that it worked so well decades? Look at how many huge and great companies were built with such unfair practices as you seam to point out.

I'm pointing out that this is one sided. If you're a developer and can choose where to develop (no one forces anyone to develop for Apple or Google, or M$). And you can choose where to distribute and HOW to distribute your work. Why can't Apple choose who and whom to allow on the platform they built? BOTH by definition (in the EU) should be considered gatekeepers. As EPIC controls how Fortnite gets distributed and on what platforms it will work on.
The developer, in this case EPIC. Choose to remove an application from MacOS. In protest to how they felt about iOS. Apple can't stop EPIC from doing that. Even if Apple said they would do everything EPIC wanted VERBATIM. EPIC can still say, "Nah. I don't want to make my stuffs for you anymore!". But, Apple saying "NO, you do it this way or no way!" Is not acceptable?

And for decades the practice (before the EU changed the rules) worked fine. As everyone knew exactly what the rules were. Not for nothing, but vBUCKS can't be used outside Fortnite. It has only the value placed on it that EPIC determines and whatever licensing fees they need to cover the use of it when you buy a skin/car/character/etc.
They offer a means to sign up outside the AppStore. They could have advertised that on their site as much as they want. And charged the 30% markup on the App and Play stores. the kids would still have spent whatever money on it they saw fit.

At least more well balanced than “What is mine is mine, what is yours is ours” which basically is what has been Apple App Store policies on the back of citizens devices. A game of perceptions I guess.

You don't have to buy it.
You don't have to develop for it.
Nothing forcing anyone to do anything with iOS or any Apple product.

If we are going to say, that Apple has to allow XYZ. Then in my view (and I'm sure many others). EPIC and other developers should have to develop for Apple, and their AppStore. And let the actual consumer choose where and how they get what they want. If they have to pass along the "fee" so be it.

 

[chmania]

Nothing forcing anyone to do anything with iOS or any Apple product.

But,...if you are selling it in our area, you have to do as we tell you...strange, but true...😏

 

[AppliedMicro]

you say you are ok with "overall privacy, ease of use and integration with Mac"
how about if say the EU suddenly decided none of those were for Apple to do anymore?

EU decides that other companies are entitled to your previously private data so they can market stuff to you and see what you are interested in and sites you visit.

By the same token, we can’t get rid of Apple and their intermediary role soon enough. If I’m buying my apps directly from a developer, the developer only receives the data and the preferences I provide to them. Whereas Apple receives the data and my preferences on all my app and digital purchases. And not only that - but also contacts, calendar events, iCloud files, my music library, bookmarks synced to iCloud etc.

How about if Apple suddenly decides that they’ll sell my previously private data to other companies data, so they can market stuff to me and see what I’m interested in and sites I visit.

Apple have a much more complete and all-encompassing digital profile on me and you than any other third-party developer (possibly except Google) will ever have.

And integrating with your Mac? how dare they be so monopolistic! Windows should be able be open and able to access all your Apple ID and apps and work too. And Linux... and any other OS.

Yeah, they actually should be!
With my consent, of course.
I’d be more than happy to be less locked in by Apple.

Throw that door wide open

No.

Let me control that door and decide who gets in or not. Just as when I’m renting a place or buying a house: I get to decide who gets to enter through that door to visit me. Not the building’s doorman - let alone the door manufacturer!

Seems your needs are the only ones that matter.

I do acknowledge the utility of having a one-stop shop for your app downloads and purchases.
But where Apple could have implemented a fair system and competitive fees that developers can‘t refuse, they got greedy. So I‘ve got little sympathy for them.

 

[cocky jeremy]

Because ‘the rules’ are anti competitive.

And Google and Apple will lose almost every lawsuit everywhere in the past, now and in the future.

Epic won, Spotify won and all others will win too as long as they keep being a bully.

But who will they blame for their failures now?

 

[AppliedMicro]

Developers get to choose where to be. But, they don't have to be on anyones platform. While Apple has to allow developers full access but not get all developers on their platform

The makers and creators of products get to choose where they’ll be selling them, yes.

Apple can replace

Why can't Apple choose who and whom to allow on the platform they built?

Why can’t developers choose where to make a commercial transaction for the app they built?
They created (or licensed) and built Fortnite and its intellectual property and program code.
The Fortnite app is their creation and platform - not Apple’s.

And for decades the practice (before the EU changed the rules) worked fine. As everyone knew exactly what the rules were.

What also worked fine: developers created operating systems for general purpose computing devices and could monetise them. But everyone could develop for them and without the OS developer taxing their revenue - or dictating where they‘re allowed to advertised and make sales/subscription transactions with customers.

 

[djphat2000]

But,...if you are selling it in our area, you have to do as we tell you...strange, but true...😏

If I want to sell anything in anyones store. I have to play by the rules they lay out. I can't just walk in there, find an empty shelf, stock it with my "stuff", and put a price on it. Setup a person with Square on his phone or tablet to accept payments. And provide nothing to the store for which space I inhabit.

And the other way around. If I'm the store. I can't force anyone to sell their stuff in my store according to my rules. They don't have to be in my store. And I don't have to have them in my store.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I'm pointing out that this is one sided.

I understood what you pointed out. But some might say the your POV is very much single sided.

And for decades the practice (before the EU changed the rules) worked fine.

Obviously with all the complaints across the globe, specifically in the EU, it wasn't working fine. I mean, since when is the stock market a barometer for what is working fine?

There is an obvious tie between Apple device business and Apple digital services business. Now, tying is not illegal up to a point that it becomes illegal.

Here is an interesting beginners read: https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/antitrust-economics-tying-farewell-se-illegality#:~:text=Early cases viewed tying arrangements,in some less restrictive way."

This is not even an EU study but an US study. If there were no extraneous factors at play in the US, in particular stock market pressures, I think the DMA could have been born in the US.

In abstract, when it comes to law making and appreciation, nothing in the DMA is doing is new. In fact, the US has done it in several occasions.

You don't have to buy it.
You don't have to develop for it.
Nothing forcing anyone to do anything with iOS or any Apple product.

That is beside the point. There are a lot similar things Apple does not have to do yet they choose to do. Yet, here we are.

PS: I don’t care for Epic or any of the most vocal companies in particular.

I’m more concerned with the unknown man, waking up with a great idea, works hard on his garage to create to a point that he can have some customers only to find out that he will never have any because we left an economy covered with App Stores in the back of his devices … a mine field. Imagine that in the SJ and Was days. That seams to be the direction that all this App Stores businesses on the back of people’s devices seam to be heading unless such ties are regulated.

 

[AppliedMicro]

I can't just walk in there, find an empty shelf, stock it with my "stuff", and put a price on it. Setup a person with Square on his phone or tablet to accept payments. And provide nothing to the store for which space I inhabit.

When stores are run as a monopoly or duopoly for thousands of businesses and their consumer products, government will regulate if needed - to help you find place to sell your stuff.

They will if necessary, impose legal restrictions on what „the store“ can prohibit you from doing - or require you to do, in it terms and condition.

 

[djphat2000]

The makers and creators of products get to choose where they’ll be selling them, yes.

Then don't force Apple to have to allow them on the platform. It's equal then. They can chose to be on it, and Apple can choose to allow it. They can choose to not be, and Apple can choose to not let them.

Why can’t developers choose where to make a commercial transaction for the app they built?

They can. But if you're on someone else's platform. And you want to have your own control over everything. Then why not also be on the store (AppStore/PlayStore) of the platform you're on as well? Even at the extra cost? Let the consumer pick how to get it. I personally would not install a 3rd party store on my device. I want to stick with the AppStore ONLY. I can't if I want to play this game or any game made or supported by EPIC. You have removed my choice.

They created (or licensed) Fortnite and its intellectual property and program code. The Fortnite app is their creation and platform - not Apple’s.

Back to the top. EPIC are the gatekeepers of the app. Apple the gatekeepers of the platform. EPIC wants on iOS. Apple wants EPIC to play by the rules. The rules now in the EU allow for EPIC to be on the platform how they see fit. At the cost of CTF. Apple can't force EPIC to also allow the game on the AppStore even at the increased cost passed on to the customer, if the customer is willing to pay it. So they don't have to get a 3rd party store (if they so want to).

If it was going to be fair, EPIC should be on both the AppStore and any 3rd party store they wish. And charge accordingly.

 

[I7guy]

When stores are run as a monopoly or duopoly for thousands of businesses and their consumer products, government will regulate if needed - to help you find place to sell your stuff

Better solution is to create more competition rather than worse regulations.

They will if necessary, impose legal restrictions on what „the store“ can prohibit you from doing - or require you to do, in it terms and condition.

They can if necessary deem the store to be legal and move on with their day.

 

[AppliedMicro]

If it was going to be fair, EPIC should be on both the AppStore and any 3rd party store they wish. And charge accordingly.

…and so should Apple: charge accordingly to where a sale is made.

Sales in their store or IAP system: Apple is owed commission.
Sales outside of Apple‘s realm: No commission is owned to Apple.

Well… but how do we make sure that Apple is fairly compensated for “the value Apple provides developers through ongoing investments in the tools, technologies, and services that enable them to build and share innovative apps with users”? How do they get compensated for their platform iOS, APIs and developer tools that enable them to make apps?

I wouldn’t disagree that Apple may charge for that:
A developer fee for Apple’s technology at the core of it all.
A… „core“ technology fee, if you will?

If it was going to be fair,
and if there’s equal access to apps for stores
so should there be an equal fee for the underlying „core“ technology that powers them.

So have we found common ground?

 

[chmania]

If I want to sell anything in anyones store. I have to play by the rules they lay out. I can't just walk in there, find an empty shelf, stock it with my "stuff", and put a price on it. Setup a person with Square on his phone or tablet to accept payments. And provide nothing to the store for which space I inhabit.

The area is the EU territory. You want to sell there, your goods, services, apples and oranges, whatnot, you abide by the rules and regulations in the EU. It is that simple.

There are products that you can't buy in the US, Huawei phones, for example. It is the same principle.

 

[surferfb]

The area is the EU territory. You want to sell there, your goods, services, apples and oranges, whatnot, you abide by the rules and regulations in the EU. It is that simple.

There are products that you can't buy in the US, Huawei phones, for example. It is the same principle.

Literally no one is arguing the EU isn't allowed to set rules and regulations, or that Apple doesn't have to follow them. We're arguing that these specific rules and regulations are bad and will hurt EU citizens in the long run.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Better solution is to create more competition

No, not necessarily.

Particularly not if they are a natural monopoly (oligopoly), that is, if multi-firm supply of retail space is more costly than supply by a monopoly landlord/mall operator.

 

[AppliedMicro]

PS:

Better solution is to create more competition

Given how Apple know iOS best and can (do!) operate at truly huge economies of scale, with minuscule marginal costs, I‘d argue that Apple being a monopoly digital store operator and deliverer of apps may be most cost-efficient.

And having to deal with just a single intermediary benefits consumers too, doesn’t it?

Plus… I’m not sure about its discovery and search part functionality - but the actual purchasing experience (and for in-app purchases) on Apple’s App Storem, ore specifically, the transaction handling of it is very smooth and convenient, isn’t it?

 

[djphat2000]

…and so should Apple: charge accordingly to where a sale is made.

The point was more to the EU rule that Apple must allow access. While not recognizing the fact that developers don't have to even be on the platform at all if they so choose to not be. Apple's CTF is in response to the fact that any developer will now have full access, without contributing to the platform (meaninfully) and without having to also be on the platforms default store. So Apple provided options. Stay on the store, these are the terms. Choose your own way, these are the CTF fees associated with it and the terms. Choose both, choose neither, choose either or.

Sales in their store or IAP system: Apple is owed commission.
Sales outside of Apple‘s realm: No commission is owned to Apple.

For the first 1 million downloads. I personally think that's generous. But, they should pay a CTF of some kind. If they want to be totally free. Stay on the AppStore model. Off the AppStore, pay the fee over 1 million downloads.

Well… but how do we make sure that Apple is fairly compensated for “the value Apple provides developers through ongoing investments in the tools, technologies, and services that enable them to build and share innovative apps with users”? How do they get compensated for their platform iOS, APIs and developer tools that enable them to make apps?

I wouldn’t disagree that Apple may charge for that:
A developer fee for Apple’s technology at the core of it all.
A… „core“ technology fee, if you will?

Which is what Apple did.

If it was going to be fair,
and if there’s equal access to apps for stores
so should there be an equal fee for the underlying „core“ technology that powers them.

"IF" they exist on both stores (alt+AppStore). I would be "OK" with the CTF being less to none (zero) "IF" they are on both stores. As I can pick and choose which place to purchase from. Not be forced to choose "only" alt stores. If I want to remain in the garden, so be it. If someone else wants to venture off, so be it. But we both get the same access to the same apps.

So have we found common ground?

We sure. The EU. Not so much.

 

[djphat2000]

The area is the EU territory. You want to sell there, your goods, services, apples and oranges, whatnot, you abide by the rules and regulations in the EU. It is that simple.

There are products that you can't buy in the US, Huawei phones, for example. It is the same principle.

If today was the first day the iPhone came out. Your point would be fair. But, it's not.

 

[surferfb]

So have we found common ground?

Honestly, what I think the most likely result of all of this is:

• CTF on all apps with an exemption for X number of downloads (MAYBE with an exemption for Apps that are truly, 100% free, but my guess is the EU will not allow that).
  • Note, that this will result in many free apps having to either shut down or start charging - harming consumers - in the name of better competition

I think this is absolutely worse for the vast majority consumers than the status quo, but can certainly understand why others would look at this result and come to a different conclusion.

I suspect it will take years, absurd fines, and several court cases before we end up here.

I also think the other, non App Store related, parts of the DMA will continue to make tech worse for the EU for decades, but that is outside of the scope of this thread on App Stores.

 

[AppliedMicro]

CTF on all apps with an exemption for X number of downloads (MAYBE with an exemption for Apps that are truly, 100% free, but my guess is the EU will not allow that).

• Note, that this will result in many free apps having to either shut down or start charging - harming consumers - in the name of better competition

Apple’s decision to charge such a fee may harm consumers, yes.

It’s not as if they had or have to.

 

[chmania]

Literally no one is arguing the EU isn't allowed to set rules and regulations, or that Apple doesn't have to follow them.

Apple has to follow the EU rules in the EU. It is that simple!

We're arguing that these specific rules and regulations are bad and will hurt EU citizens in the long run.

Oh, really? 😏