I disagree, if you want to be in the mobile app space, you can only "willingly" chose between two vendors, both which lock you into the same uncompetitive terms. That is monopolistic. Both companies know the level of control they have because of their market share, and know that you can't be in mobile without being on their platform. That is abuse. Doesn't matter what the agreement says if a court decides its unenforcible or illegal. You can't do much of anything in technology these days without being on mobile. We aren't talking about a subsidized console where Sony needs to make their money back, we are talking about access to 1.5 billion handheld computers bought at full price with high levels of profit up front.
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 vs. Apple: Timeline of Events Surrounding Fortnite's Removal From App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I disagree, if you want to be in the mobile app space, you can only "willingly" chose between two vendors, both which lock you into the same uncompetitive terms. That is monopolistic. Both companies know the level of control they have because of their market share, and know that you can't be in mobile without being on their platform. That is abuse. Doesn't matter what the agreement says if a court decides its unenforcible or illegal. You can't do much of anything in technology these days without being on mobile. We aren't talking about a subsidized console where Sony needs to make their money back, we are talking about access to 1.5 billion handheld computers bought at full price with high levels of profit up front.
Agreed, not only that: Apple could still require software to be digitally signed and still have a kill switch if its found a particular vendor has malware or some other malicious effect. We have this on MacOS ***TODAY***
customers of Standard Oil were willingly paying for products sold by Standard Oil before it was split up
that is literally what market power implies: you *have* to buy/sell from/to a single seller/buyer.
and no, as per econ101 price is not related to what is "deserved" or what the contribution is. price is determined by supply and demand. unfortunately when there is market power, price is suboptimally determined by the party with market power.
And they have determined that it’s not enforceable, presumably and or that they are in a position to revisit the terms.
I have the same philosophy. As an example i use Spotify instead of Apple Music because I tell myself that the day Apple kills Spotify they will jack the price by at least 30% and probably give less.
It's possible, but it would've been far easier for Apple to move to dismiss the case for a lack of standing. To sue, you have to have standing, and to have standing you must have been demonstrably harmed. It's a lot easier to demonstrate harm by saying that Apple removed your app for violating a rule that you believe is illegal, compared to just saying that you believe that the rule is illegal.
That's why people thinking that Epic wasn't fully expecting Apple to remove Fortnite from the App Store, that Apple "called their bluff," have no clue what's going on here. Epic wanted Apple to remove Fortnite so that they could sue.
I’d respect Sweeney more if he had the stones to just be honest about his opinion: “A ‘level playing field’ is defined as me getting everything I want.”
[automerge]1597429565[/automerge]
[automerge]1597429565[/automerge]
Isn’t that precisely what they just did?
They own the market in as much as iOS and Android own the market. But it is probably unavoidable that operating systems end up with something like a duopoly once a market settles down. But during fast technological change, OSes can also fiercely compete with at some point Windows Mobile, Nokia and Palm being the main players.
You would like them to be able to do that but you realize that they can't, right?
no, theres not, theres only ios and android for mobile gaming, thats what the anti competitive claim derive from.
its not about forcing someone to do something, thats a fallacy argument, 30% before tax, is really high, nothing arbitrary about it.
15-20% is the going numbers according to expert analysis, 30% is not a arbitrary number, the only arbitrary thing about it is how apple came to the conclusion of 30%, which was leaked during the big tech congressional hearing.
What is likely to result here, though not just because of this, is some form of mild regulation of app stores by Google and Apple in recognition of their oligarchy of the mobile phone business.
Frankly I don't foresee this being a negative for either company just a guideline that protects them down the road from frivolous actions by soured companies who basically are upset that they don't own the apple cart.
Frankly I don't foresee this being a negative for either company just a guideline that protects them down the road from frivolous actions by soured companies who basically are upset that they don't own the apple cart.
Even that is high when you consider Apple on subscriptions or digital asset purchase is providing nothing beyond processing the payments, and all actual payment processors - which companies like Epic work with regularly for their PC side of the business, charge ~3%
Tim Sweeney is either acting as a proxy agent in a digital war between two countries or he really is dumb enough to think apps should be side loaded by anyone on a highly sensitive device and that all developers in the world should take payments directly.
If we have to list the number of security issues and opportunity for identity theft, spyware and financial crime it will be a very long list.
So I’ll go for option 1. Sweeney is most probably acting an an agent for China.
If we have to list the number of security issues and opportunity for identity theft, spyware and financial crime it will be a very long list.
So I’ll go for option 1. Sweeney is most probably acting an an agent for China.
Not sure about the use of oligarchy in that context....
But i would agree, the eventual conclusion is going to be a DoJ Consent Decree signed by both Apple and Google that put ground rules in place, and precedent on what it means to have a platform and how much control the company that makes that platform is allowed to have once someone purchases their devices..... Kind of like I wish someone would step in and beat back Epson... a recent firmware update bricked my refilled cartridges without warning, just so they could force me to buy new... I'm sorry, I OWN the printer.
Or he knows exactly what he is doing, and it is the one commenting that falls into that category? Don't want to risk sideloading things on to your device? No one would force you.
I could care less what percentage apple takes. That should be a business matter between Epic and Apple. Is the percentage unfair. I dont know.
I do take exception on not being allowed to install apps outside of the app store. If that is what they were fighting for, I would support them, but its really not.
Thats why I find Epics move against Google specifically more perplexing. It took them 18 months before they finally submitted an app to the play store. Prior to that they had their own app Epic app store for the Android version of Fortnight. Thats not even an option on iOS (or the consoles). When they got started on PC they didn't like Steam's cut so they started the Epic PC store for exactly that reason, with only a 12% cut (vs. 30% for Steam). Again since the PC is an open platform, no issues. Mac the same. Android the same.
If they didn't want to pay 30% to google, why submit their app to the Play store - they were fine with their own store for 18 months. In Googles case they also claim Google spiked deals that would have had the Epic store pre-installed on OnePlus and LG phones... but sue them for that.
Also interesting they have lowered the price for vbucks on consoles to the same 7.99 as their direct price in the app and not the regular 9.99 price since his started yesterday. Not sure what percentage consoles take for purchases but in one sense they are at least consistent in that regard. Still not passing on all 30% though.
I do take exception on not being allowed to install apps outside of the app store. If that is what they were fighting for, I would support them, but its really not.
Thats why I find Epics move against Google specifically more perplexing. It took them 18 months before they finally submitted an app to the play store. Prior to that they had their own app Epic app store for the Android version of Fortnight. Thats not even an option on iOS (or the consoles). When they got started on PC they didn't like Steam's cut so they started the Epic PC store for exactly that reason, with only a 12% cut (vs. 30% for Steam). Again since the PC is an open platform, no issues. Mac the same. Android the same.
If they didn't want to pay 30% to google, why submit their app to the Play store - they were fine with their own store for 18 months. In Googles case they also claim Google spiked deals that would have had the Epic store pre-installed on OnePlus and LG phones... but sue them for that.
Also interesting they have lowered the price for vbucks on consoles to the same 7.99 as their direct price in the app and not the regular 9.99 price since his started yesterday. Not sure what percentage consoles take for purchases but in one sense they are at least consistent in that regard. Still not passing on all 30% though.
His masters (who have a monopoly in China) want an information and economic war with hashtags so here’s a couple back to them
#freeHongKong #freetheUyghur
Please list some examples of malignant apps for argument sake.
The sole purpose of second App Store for iOS is price - do you really think Apple would allow an app be listed in both places?? iOS store is a unique place - perfect? No but it’s seamless and secure.
Sweeney is hypocrite. For years he's railed against app stores arguing for the ability for developers to sell their apps on any platform through any store they choose... and yet once he opened his own store, he was quite content to strike deals with publishers for exclusive releases and bypass the developer completely. Remember Metro Exodus?
He obviously has no issues with different rules or fees for different developers either - less of a cut if you're using his engine... which he also profits from in licensing fees. Not exactly a level playing field.
If he's so committed to the cause, why doesn't he do the same on consoles or is that where the vast majority of his sales come from? Let's not forget Epic's ownership. Sony owns a piece. Do they have any 3rd party stores on their platform? No.
It's always about money, not consumers or developers.
There's nothing stopping the sale of v-bucks or other digital purchases on a website and having those applied to a users account, or applying discounts/bonuses by payment method. platform stores get no cut of these sales. Plenty of other developers / publishers do this already. The only issue is publicizing that purchases can be made on their website. They're barred from doing this in-app but I'm pretty sure Epic has the reach to advertise in other venues and get the word out... but this brings us back to 'it's always about the money'.
Even when given a cheaper alternative outside of an app, most people choose to use in-app purchasing. This is the crux of the problem. Sweeney can't change behaviour so he'd rather try and fragment the market into individual silos with different rules, fees, exclusivities, privacy policies and a general anti-consumer slant. Do you love maintaining your Steam, Origin, GOG, Epic, Uplay, Battle.net, etc. accounts and launchers?
We're not even going to go down the 40% ownership by Tencent route, using an Epic store as an end-run around a WeChat ban.
He obviously has no issues with different rules or fees for different developers either - less of a cut if you're using his engine... which he also profits from in licensing fees. Not exactly a level playing field.
If he's so committed to the cause, why doesn't he do the same on consoles or is that where the vast majority of his sales come from? Let's not forget Epic's ownership. Sony owns a piece. Do they have any 3rd party stores on their platform? No.
It's always about money, not consumers or developers.
There's nothing stopping the sale of v-bucks or other digital purchases on a website and having those applied to a users account, or applying discounts/bonuses by payment method. platform stores get no cut of these sales. Plenty of other developers / publishers do this already. The only issue is publicizing that purchases can be made on their website. They're barred from doing this in-app but I'm pretty sure Epic has the reach to advertise in other venues and get the word out... but this brings us back to 'it's always about the money'.
Even when given a cheaper alternative outside of an app, most people choose to use in-app purchasing. This is the crux of the problem. Sweeney can't change behaviour so he'd rather try and fragment the market into individual silos with different rules, fees, exclusivities, privacy policies and a general anti-consumer slant. Do you love maintaining your Steam, Origin, GOG, Epic, Uplay, Battle.net, etc. accounts and launchers?
We're not even going to go down the 40% ownership by Tencent route, using an Epic store as an end-run around a WeChat ban.
I think the point is more subtle, i.e. after an app gets approved to be on the App store (which already implies the developer has paid fees associated to being an Apple Developer), should it be possible for the app to use a payment system that isn't necessarily going through Apple itself?
it can be argued that the app itself is approved by Apple and therefore can be considered safe. after that, what's unsafe in, say, using PAYPAL to give Epic Games money associated to in-game purchases?
literally the ONLY reason Apple wants developers to only use Apple as a payment system is that they can get the 30% cut. and as others have said, Apple doesn't look like they're applying the same policy for all developers (see Amazon, Uber, food services, and so on).
or, does Apple take a 30% cut on, say, instacart "service fees"? those are not associated to the delivery of food (which is itemized separately in the receipts), but only to the provisioning of digital services from instacart itself. same for uber eats, door dash, and amazon sales of digital items. -- I'm asking because I have no idea.
on the other hand, wasn't there a similar issue with a paid email service recently? I thought developers could have people register & pay from a computer and then later on login to the "free" app on the phone. why isn't Epic doing the same? my guess is that there's less immediacy.
Funny how this mirrors our politics. People want freedom. Other people don't want you using your freedom to impinge on theirs. Some want a locked down ecosystem. Some want sideloaded apps. Apple should just say we'll create a way to make it optional to have an open device but devs and customers must sign an agreement that Apple is not at fault for nearly anything that happens. AppleCare is voided, your privacy is not guaranteed, your credit card information is open, your health data is available to everyone, you touchID and FaceID will be shared on the dark web. All of this won't be able to be locked down once immoral developers' apps are allowed to freely be loaded on your device. Nearly all customers are not qualified to spot malware apps on their device. Everything Apple has built would be destroyed. I would fight this to the death because death is what it would mean if they open it up.
You realize that's exactly what millions of peoples are doing on a Mac, right?