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 vs. Apple Takes a Twist As 35 US States and Department of Justice Weigh in to Back 'Fortnite' Maker
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i am well aware of that. this comment literally adds nothing to your argument.
The same can be said of Steam, Google, and Microsoft ergo a non argument.
I think they are more alike than different.
iOS is operating system software in which you can pay money to buy digital goods.
Fortnite is a very popular game software in which you can pay money to buy digital goods.
iOS is popular with a large number of users who spend a considerable amount of money.
Fortnight is popular with a large number of users who spend a considerable amount of money.
Apple spent and continues to spend money to develop iOS.
Epic spent and continues to spend money to develop Fortnite.
Epic wants access to the iOS platform's customer base without any restrictions.
Epic should therefore be willing to offer third-parties access to their customer base without any restrictions.
Aside from one piece of software being an operating system and another being a game, its basically the same thing. Except that Epic does not spend its own money to maintain an SDK to enable others to make money on its platform. So it would seem to me that Apple is actually more open than Epic is.
and nobody is forcing you to download from the epic store if they get forced to allow it.
Yes it does because your comment was regarding notebook/desktop computer operating systems. Different set up from what iOS does.
Last edited:
your argument about steam being similar to the app store and charging 30% is invalid because people have the choice to not use steam. the same cannot be said for the app store.
Sorry dude, the terms have been just fine for millions of developers, and have given flight to millions of businesses. What terms are you upset about?
You’re just buying into Epic’s hype and gradeschool playground rhetoric. To be fair, I’m buying into Apple’s hype about security, but I’m not about to bite the hand that has fed millions, an enabling platform and ecosystem that pioneered it all.
Only be customer benefits? Your solution would reduce the revenue of the App Store. Would Apple continue to provide services like App Store editorials on the App Store without the added income? Would Apple invest in accessibility APIs (such as the functionality to provide Apple Watch controls with hand gestures) that offer value to many customers and increase app developers' addressable market? Would Apple increase the costs to developers, which developers would then, reasonably, pass on to users? There would be fewer free and low-cost apps in the App Store.
Would regulators allow Apple to limit services for purchases made outside the current App Store model or deem it an unfair advantage for the platform vendor?
You may turn out to be correct that any new regulations, in reality, turn out to be a net positive for consumers. However, I continue to point out that nothing is assured when you make changes to large economies. The App Store is an economy and not just an online service.
Your argument is incredibly flawed when you consider how it would've actually played out. Sure, in some perfect world for consumers Netflix would currently cost only $20/month and have the content of all the other streaming services. That was never going to be a long-term reality. First of all, in the early days of streaming most content was split between Netflix and Hulu. Netflix didn't have everything. Second, as streaming took over and cable subscriptions started to plummet, content creators and rights holders were going to expect to get paid somewhere. Most of them decided to eventually pull content from Netflix and Hulu and start their own streaming service. It makes sense, why need an unnecessary middle man if you've got a sizable catalog worth offering on its own. With content creators and rights holders looking to replace revenue they used to get from cable subscribers, had everything stayed on Netflix and Hulu, you'd have seen their price increases be far greater than they have been, as those rights holders sought the real value of their properties. Netflix started at $8/month (~$10 figuring in inflation) and now it's $20, all the while rights holders pulled content from the service, making it less valuable overall. And in this would-be world of yours, if Netflix and Hulu didn't agree to the increased rates, rights holders would have simply pulled their content, just as you see today when they fight with the cable and satellite companies. I'm sure you've seen where the networks pull their content from Dish and others over these disputes. If this were still like the old days and most content was still available on Netflix and Hulu, it would probably cost $70+ per month for those two services, which probably more than most people are spending on streaming now. In that scenario, instead of getting to pick and choose what you'd like and spending maybe only $50/month, you'd be stuck spending $70+ on crap you don't even watch.
Last edited:
Ok...and?
The Health app is not on the Mac (therefore, my health information is not saved on it). My bank doesn't have a Mac app (therefore, my banking app is not on my Mac. I've never even logged into my bank's WEBSITE on the Mac. Never had a need to do so). Both are on my phone. Which benefits from the system being more secure.
There’s so much wrong in this post it is hard to know where to start
What cost are you talking about. And cost have nothing to do with profit margins. If you choose to do business with a company and use their resources, name and goodwill to build your business, you do get to decide what you believe is fair, but cannot dictate to that company that they have to pay you what you decide. You decide if the deal makes sense for you and take it or leave it. If Apple’s system wasn’t fair and accessible they wouldn’t have over 20 million registered developers worldwide.
The scenario is similar to the PlayStation and Xbox ecosystems in that there is a device developed by one company that has a huge number of revenue streams and develops a platform That other company make products to sell on. The only difference was there was a huge barrier to entry because it requires lots of cash and access to get started and no guarantees either platform would even except your product.
Well I haven't 🤷♂️ But I'm also not going to lose sleep over whether or not some random on the internet believes me 🤷♂️
There has been legislation on the table for years attempting to force these disclosures and limit access, but they have been blocked. One such bill is just 2 votes shy of passing and the other side have no desire to change that.
regardless.. your irrational fear that someone will steal your info if I am the one sideloading is ridiculous.
"Pay us 30% or you don't get access to 60% of U.S. consumers." "Only the kind of apps we say, are allowed to be installed on iPhone."
Those terms.
I'm not. But if you're asking for a personal consultation, I'd say the diagnosis on Joe's chart may be applicable in your case.
I’m not mixing anything. I’m defining a market rationally. And, any rational market definition historically doesn’t include a company’s trademarked names. If Apple has a monopoly on the products/services Apple provides, then “Any Company” has a monopoly on the products/services ”Any Company” provides.
The Apple App Store is the same exact way. Did you know that the notes app has a function that can help you scan receipts for FREE? No? Well in the app store there’s apps that will charge 100 bucks a year to do the same.
When i meant a year is the condemning monthly subscription service all other business apps are falling into.
If the solution was at minimum like Android 11/12 where you have to specifically allow an app the ability to "sideload" this would work. Don't block but allow on a case by case basis.
Ya I don’t buy the term cable replacement being used correctly here just because you didn’t mind losing everything else cable offered. Hulu was the closer cable replacement back then. Netflix was just an compilation of old content at that time.
If back catalog was what you wanted, you should have never had cable in the first place and used the money you saved to build yourself a better library.
I love how everyone fondly remembers the “good days” of Netflix. I remember everyone joking about how generally meh the streaming catalog was 10 years ago.
Last edited: