Epic Games Submits Fortnite to U.S. App Store

[heretiq]

there is only one country in the world with
Three mobile OS’s and no where else in the world
Now why do you think that is

The answer is simple: No one has created an alternative that challenges the current two dominant leaders. And the current state of competition is not the unchanging reality. There was a time where only one person broke the 5 minute mile and now it is almost routine. There was a time when there was only 3 news channels in most countries, now the options are infinite.

That dynamic has been repeated in automobiles, electronics and numerous industries and countless product categories. The factors that changed the status quo in both cases were (1) competitors who didn’t accept the status quo as a given, and (2) inventiveness fueled by courage and the ambition to defy the status quo.

Why do you believe mobile OS is different and immune to innovation?

 

[Stuwil]

The answer is simple: No one has created an alternative that challenges the current two dominant leaders. And the current state of competition is not the unchanging reality. There was a time where only one person broke the 5 minute mile and now it is almost routine. There was a time when there was only 3 news channels in most countries, now the options are infinite.

That dynamic has been repeated in automobiles, electronics and numerous industries and countless product categories. The factors that changed the status quo in both cases were (1) competitors who didn’t accept the status quo as a given, and (2) inventiveness fueled by courage and the ambition to defy the status quo.

Why do you believe mobile OS is different and immune to innovation?

Now if we accept that in one part of the world there are 3 mobile OS’s the 3rd company that is not iOS or Android has about 1 billion active users
Then yes it can be done.

Yet in every other region there are only two now why do you think that is 🤔
Because if it can be done one country what makes them different from everyone else

 

[heretiq]

Well that’s not what happened in the 2010’s because they launched smartphones
With a fully formed experience that people bought however they couldn’t get developers to make apps for it because of low market share because I sold them at the time called the Lumia phones
They just couldn’t get the apps for it and that’s why it ultimately failed
Nothing to do with design or how the OS was

Sorry, your facts are completely wrong. Microsoft started with an embedded base of both users and developers and lost both — which is the opposite of what you claim.

Microsoft’s attempt at mobile started in 1996 with Windows Mobile. They then spent a decade repackaging the same tired Windows story under the new PocketPC and Windows Mobile names. Doing the same thing but calling it something different did nothing to generate sufficient interest and demand from either consumers or app developers.

Apple could have offered mobile Mac but recognized that a mobile device required a mobile os that was purpose built for defined mobile experiences and were truly inventive. They were mocked by the then leading competitors and monarchs of the embedded base for their radically reimagined approach; but the market resonated with the simple focused utility and 10X UX of the iPhone with iOS.

This is the true narrative. And it shows that Apple went from 0 to 1 by being inventive and Microsoft went from 1 to 0 by not being inventive. You can easily verify this.

 

[Stuwil]

Sorry, your facts are completely wrong. Microsoft started with an embedded base of both users and developers and lost both — which is the opposite of what you claim.

Microsoft’s attempt at mobile started in 1996 with Windows Mobile. They then spent a decade repackaging the same tired Windows story under the new PocketPC and Windows Mobile names. Doing the same thing but calling it something different did nothing to generate sufficient interest and demand from either consumers or app developers.

Apple could have offered mobile Mac but recognized that a mobile device required a mobile os that was purpose built for defined mobile experiences and were truly inventive. They were mocked by the then leading competitors and monarchs of the embedded base for their radically reimagined approach; but the market resonated with the simple focused utility and 10X UX of the iPhone with iOS.

This is the true narrative. And it shows that Apple went from 0 to 1 by being inventive and Microsoft went from 1 to 0 by not being inventive. You can easily verify this.

Nobody is disputing that Microsoft came out with a mobile before Apple or google however this is not 2007 anymore

in 2010 Microsoft launched the lumia smartphones with a touchscreen interface
The OS had an original design and the mobile’s where decent
Because I sold them however developers wouldn’t create apps for it because of its low market share and that is why it eventually died a death
And that will be the problem because google gives their OS away for free
Now why would a trillion dollar company give a product away for free

 

[heretiq]

Nobody is disputing that Microsoft came out with a mobile before Apple or google however this is not 2007 anymore

in 2010 Microsoft launched the lumia smartphones with a touchscreen interface
The OS had an original design and the mobile’s where decent
Because I sold them however developers wouldn’t create apps for it because of its low market share and that will be the problem because google gives their OS away for free
Now why would a trillion dollar company give a product away for free

Google does not give their product away for free. Google licenses its mobile os to OEMs and Microsoft charges fees for its IP that is used in Android phones. These fees effectively range from $2.50 - $40 per device. Users still need to purchase the devices for $500 to $1,000+ either via subscription or one-time purchase.

In any case whether, the Android licensing fees are 0 or more has practically zero impact on either user device purchase or developer decision to develop Android apps. Why do you keep insisting this is relevant to the topic of alternate mobile os?

 

[Stuwil]

Google does not give their product away for free. Google licenses its mobile os to OEMs for fees that effectively range from $2.50 - $40 per device. Users still need to purchase the devices for $500 to $1,000+ either via subscription or one-time purchase.

In the end, the Android licensing fee is de minimus and has practically zero impact on either user device purchase or developer decision to develop Android apps. Why do you keep insisting this is relevant to the topic of alternate mobile os?

Every year, Google sinks millions of dollars into the development of the Android operating system and then gives it away for free

There is only one country in the world with
3 mobile OS’s this company competes with iOS & android
They have 1 billion active users
Now why is there 3 mobile OS’s in that country and everywhere else there is only two companies
Why is this country different to everybody else.

It’s relevant because by giving their OS away for free it then sidles their position as the dominant mobile OS & then deliberately makes it harder for a rival competitor to emerge & compete
That is why governments are then regulating Apple more compared with android
That’s why it’s relevant

 

[WarmWinterHat]

and 99.9999% of devs are adhering to the rules and releasing apps and making money.

that's an even bigger message

Best numbers I've see is 55% of iOS developers break even and >18% make $1000 or more in revenue per month. The majority do not make money.

Visibility is horrible unless you're an established app developer.

 

[heretiq]

Every year, Google sinks millions of dollars into the development of the Android operating system and then gives it away for free

There is only one country in the world with
3 mobile OS’s this company competes with iOS & android
They have 1 billion active users
Now why is there 3 mobile OS’s in that country and everywhere else there is only two companies
Why is this country different to everybody else.

It’s relevant because by giving their OS away for free it then sidles their position as the dominant mobile OS & then deliberately makes it harder for a rival competitor to emerge & compete
That is why governments are then regulating Apple more compared with android
That’s why it’s relevant

How are the following points even related: 🤔
(1) Google “by giving their OS away for free it then sidles their position as the dominant mobile OS & then deliberately makes it harder for a rival competitor to emerge & compete”,
(2) “That is why governments are then regulating Apple more compared with android”

So your point is that Google gives away their OS to stifle competition, so that prompts governments to regulate Apple more than Google?? This makes no sense, but you’re certainly entitled to your opinion. 🙏🏽

 

[Stuwil]

How are the following points even related: 🤔
(1) Google “by giving their OS away for free it then sidles their position as the dominant mobile OS & then deliberately makes it harder for a rival competitor to emerge & compete”,
(2) “That is why governments are then regulating Apple more compared with android”

So your point is that Google gives away their OS to stifle competition, so that prompts governments to regulate Apple more than Google?? This makes no sense, but you’re certainly entitled to your opinion

Yes because you can practically do what you want on android within reason
What are you going to regulate there that they don’t already do?
But since Apple is the only competitor in mobile OS’s in the west then they are getting regulated because of it
That’s why if there was a 3rd OS with a big user base them all the things that are getting regulated at Apple would become irrelevant because there would be 3 companies competing that’s why

 

[digimc]

Sorry, I don't understand how it's possible that in 2025 we believe that a company is above the law. If there was written you accept to become a slave, would be a valid agreement? I don't think so... and this is what's happening...

You are happy to have less freedom, I hope to have more freedom...

Anyway, nobody has answered me yet about paying 30% more at the gas station...

Ford doesn't charge you a 30% commission or fee for gas for the "continued development of your vehicle", in the same way that Apple doesn't charge you a 30% fee to charge your phone at night for the "continued development of your iPhone". That's because gasoline is essential to keeping your gas powered vehicle running, just as recharging your iPhone is essential in you being able to continue to use your iPhone.

Ford, for example, can't profit further on an extended service or maintenance contract if they put up additional roadblocks to you filling up your tank with gas. Same way Apple cannot make money of you IAP if your phone is always dead because they put up an unnecessary roadblock in the way of a fee when you went to charge your phone at night.

You're also talking about addition functionality, versus core functionality. You do not have to download an App from the App Store for your iPhone to keep working. You do, however, have the keep charging your iPhone every so often for your phone to keep working. Same as for a gas powered vehicle. I don't have to download and signup for OnStar service to keep my vehicle running, but without gasoline every so often, I cannot use my vehicle at all.

I know some people don't want to hear this, but it does cost Apple real money to maintain their App Store. Apple should be able to determine the best method or fee for the continued stability and development of that platform.

Most companies, including Apple, DON"T put up unnecessary roadblocks to keep the core functionality of their device working.

Apple's profit structure for their App Store, as it relates to IAP, is certainly fair to criticize, but Apple should at least have the right to determine what type of structure they wish to use.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

It's funny seeing one person giving me the thumbs down and disagreeing that users/consumers should be allowed the right to download, play and enjoy playing the game on their own purchased device.

You made several statements in your reply, and though I am not the person who gave it a thumbs down, I can see why someone might. And it has nothing to do with the sentiment of consumer rights as a goal or as a hypothetical statement.

I can only speak for myself, and not the person who thumbs-downed the reply. Just saying there may be more to it than what you are assuming someone meant.

 

[Zest28]

The answer is simple: No one has created an alternative that challenges the current two dominant leaders. And the current state of competition is not the unchanging reality. There was a time where only one person broke the 5 minute mile and now it is almost routine. There was a time when there was only 3 news channels in most countries, now the options are infinite.

That dynamic has been repeated in automobiles, electronics and numerous industries and countless product categories. The factors that changed the status quo in both cases were (1) competitors who didn’t accept the status quo as a given, and (2) inventiveness fueled by courage and the ambition to defy the status quo.

Why do you believe mobile OS is different and immune to innovation?

Bunch of non-sense. In China, iOS is ranked 3rd. Yes, you read that right. iOS is not even in the top 2 in China.

Just because Europeans and Americans don’t want to use Chinese OS’s, doesn’t mean there are no alternatives. Because they do exist.

 

[Stuwil]

Bunch of non-sense. In China, iOS is ranked 3rd. Yes, you read that right. iOS is not even in the top 2 in China.

Just because Europeans and Americans don’t want to use Chinese OS’s, doesn’t mean there are no alternatives. Because they do exist.

Exactly and that is the reason why iOS is getting regulated

 

[davide_eu]

No it sends the message that try to defraud us and we will kick you out.

"defraud"? Can you prove it?

 

[heretiq]

Bunch of non-sense. In China, iOS is ranked 3rd. Yes, you read that right. iOS is not even in the top 2 in China.

Just because Europeans and Americans don’t want to use Chinese OS’s, doesn’t mean there are no alternatives. Because they do exist.

I agree 100% with you that there are alternatives and there can be many more alternatives. I think you missed the context of my comment — which was in response to a post regarding the dominance of Android and iOS in the west. That post claimed it was impossible for a third platform to emerge in the west. My comment was a challenge to that perspective but used the poster’s language to make the argument. Net-net: we are in agreement.

 

[davide_eu]

Why do you believe mobile OS is different and immune to innovation?

Because the market is locked in.

When you bought a TV CNN wasn't the only channel available, you were able to add more channels, more box tv, ... now the TV reseller decides which channel you can see, which is the cost, ... it's totally different...

...that's the reason because we urge a$$le & friends are pushed (and crushed if needed) until that market changes...

 

[I7guy]

"defraud"? Can you prove it?

Epic Games v. Apple - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[heretiq]

Exactly and that is the reason why iOS is getting regulated

Why is every comment the reason that “iOS is getting regulated?” 🤔

 

[davide_eu]

i'd like Nintendo to let VLC in so i can play media files on a Switch.
Sony eventually allow the PSP to have a media player.
but it isnt happening so i just play files elsewhere. problem solved.
i'm 100% certain the same solution exists for whatever you want to run. on different hardware.

Yes, and I agree with you!! It's not only for a$$le, but we must fight for *ALL* the hardware to be unlocked...

 

[davide_eu]

Epic Games v. Apple - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I have done CTRL+F to look for "defraud" but I have no results... please, be polite with me, highlight where a$$le has been "defraued"... thank you

 

[Stuwil]

I agree 100% with you that there are alternatives and there can be many more alternatives. I think you missed the context of my comment — which was in response to a post regarding the dominance of Android and iOS in the west. That post claimed it was impossible for a third platform to emerge in the west. My comment was a challenge to that perspective but used the poster’s language to make the argument. Net-net: we are in agreement.

Yeah the big difference is there is only an alternative in china
And not the west
That’s the point
You won’t get a 3rd OS with substantial market share in the west

 

[Stuwil]

Why is every comment the reason that “iOS is getting regulated?” 🤔

Because if there was a 3rd mobile OS
With substantial user base
Then iOS wouldn’t be getting regulated
Thats why it’s not an attack on Apple

 

[I7guy]

I have done CTRL+F to look for "defraud" but I have no results... please, be polite with me, highlight where a$$le has been "defraued"... thank you

“Epic implemented changes in Fortnite intentionally on August 13, 2020, to bypass the App Store payment system, prompting Apple to block the game from the App Store and leading to Epic filing its lawsuit.”

 

[Stuwil]

“Epic implemented changes in Fortnite intentionally on August 13, 2020, to bypass the App Store payment system, prompting Apple to block the game from the App Store and leading to Epic filing its lawsuit.”

Ok
But epic never defrauded US as you claim
They did that to get kicked off to initiate court action not to cheat Apple

 

[I7guy]

Ok
But epic never defrauded US as you claim
They did that to get kicked off to initiate court action not to cheat Apple

What they did was try to defraud Apple, even if the word defraud wasn’t used in the wiki