Sorry, but Mac gaming sucks, now IOS is a different story - you can’t even crossfire on a Mac and with Apple now using M1, this is going to be bad under native mode.
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's Case Against Apple in Australia Might Be Over
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How would it make it worse? You would be free to continue using the Apple AppStore if you wanted. Equally others would be free to use an alternative AppStore if they so wish. I have not seen any evidence that alternative AppStores would be any worse than the Apple AppStore.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
The quality of multiple App Stores would do nothing to increase the quality of the singular apple App Store, which is pretty good considering the number of apps, and do everything to drag the quality of apps down.
The cost of trying these cases is nearly zero for either Epic or Apple’s budgets.
cmaier
Suspended
My post explained exactly how it would make it worse. The mere ability to allow apps not signed by Apple to execute allows a back door where malicious apps can be installed on your phone without your intervention. Even if you don’t use these alternative app stores, the fact that alternative app stores can exist means, in a mathematical sense, there must be a way to run apps other than via the current chain of trust system. Once that method exists, it can be exploited.
Apple requiring use of EXCLUSIVELY their own regulated app store is ESSENTIAL for iOS platform stability. I would prefer Apple charge about 1/2 their current rate, but the screening and regulation has great value for users.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
Why do you care what apple charges (out of curiosity)? Do you care what Amazons rate is? Targets? Your local car dealer? Gas station?
Cleese was doing an undergraduate degree in Law (he read Law at Downing College). I don’t know if he completed the undergraduate degree. He is not a barristet (lawyer).
I care about all of those. I’m happy for a business providing a useful product or service to make a profit. When there are factors limiting competition, then I want the profit to be kept reasonable so consumers pay appropriate prices. I’m certain Bezos, Buffet would agree with me. I strongly suspect Musk would agree.
An easy example is the last several years problems with insulin prices, which have killed or impoverished people for IP owner profit.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
I fully agree, monopolies should be dealt with because (artificial or real) monopolies limit competition. Amazon, gas stations, car dealers, app stores aren’t monopolies because there is competition. There are even apps that compete against one another in an App Store.
But even then Amazons fees are what they are, gas station markups are what they are, etc. Apples’ fees, googles’ fees, the alternative apps stores fees are what they are.
Just like Amazon doesn’t have a monopoly on products sold, Apples and googles app stores don’t have a monopoly on apps. Many apps are available in multiple app stores and there are categories of apps that are in competition; ie navigation apps.
BTW my cable provider has a town endorsed monopoly on service in my area. If I want cable, their (cable providers)markup fees are irrelevant.
cmaier
Suspended
pasamio
macrumors 6502
They're also taking in billions of venture funding as well, $1.25b in 2018, $1.7b last year and reports of trying to take $1.7b again this year. With the $330m Tencent put in they've already raised roughly $3.4 billion and they're still looking for more against the backing of reportedly one of the most profitable platforms. Out of the Epic v Apple we've found out that Epic is burning hundreds of millions on the Epic Game Store paying to make it competitive through exclusive games.
However as Epic Games is a private company, only the venture funds likely know the true financial state of the company outside of Epic Games' and it's owners. One can speculate that there is obviously going to be a drop from the loss of the mobile games revenue stream on Apple platforms and potentially a growth impact due to being inaccessible on the Google Play Store.
Too bad Sweeny has already set the narrative, otherwise he could point out Steams very real downsides. Asset flips and scam apps abound, terrible customer service, inconsistent policies on censorship and privacy, and allowing malware in the guise of DRM.
Or he could make a point that no one uses Valves tools or engines, vs the very widespread use of Unreal.
Or even say that Epic continues to make games while Valve doesn’t.
pasamio
macrumors 6502
Valve has tried to work in the hardware space building the Valve Index, Steam Link and Controllers, trying to get up Linux Steam PC alternative to consoles. Valve also released Half-Life Alyx and also some games around the DOTA franchise. They certainly got first mover advantage with their store platform, originally to support their own games, and have stagnated since then but it's not like they're not trying new business angles beyond just the store.
Ultimately though Sweeney sees these stores that make money from third party developers in a much more direct way than just engine sales provides and he wants a cut of that market. And in that perspective none of the other aspects matters.
Therein lies the problem….everybody would want their own store and they would sell their own apps on their store only.
Want a Microsoft title? Head to the MS store, register your personal details and credit card info.
Want an Adobe title? Head to the Adobe store, register your personal details and credit card info.
Want an Epic title? Head to the Epic game store, register your personal details and credit card info.
Want an EA game? Head to the EA store, register your personal details and credit card info.
ad infinitum.
These companies won’t be using the Apple iOS App Store when they have their own store. They will have their own seperate privacy policies. User data will be sold. One compromised store and I’ll have to change my CC details at EVERY store. It’s a user experience nightmare on desktop and I don’t want that on my mobile. This is EXACTLY the problem iOS fixes. Just because something has always been done a certain way, it doesn’t mean it has to continue.
Users who like the current model will absolutely be effected. It will effect MY choice for a unified system. The vast majority of people buy into the Apple ecosystem EXACTLY because of this unified system, great user experience and ease of use despite having to pay a lot more than their competitors. Users already have choices - use the open system of Android or a closed system like Apple. This case seeks to reduce user choice and is anti-consumer.
Apple get the best user satisfaction scores in the industry year after year for a reason…the current system works.
I don’t agree. Look at what happens with the Mac AppStore. Big developers have their own download stores but also sell their apps on Apple’s Mac AppStore. Exactly the same thing would happen with iOS. I have several news subscriptions. All of them are available directly from the publishers website or via the AppStore.
They could be taking venture capital for various reasons including new product development and acquisitions.
Complete nonsense. If that was the case they would do the same on the Mac AppStore.
The Apple reality distortion field has successfully brainwashed so many people into believing their security would suffer if Apple was forced to allow alternative iOS AppStore’s.
Nobody has explained why the Mac works perfectly well without a Mac AppStore monopoly.
The reality is that the only thing that would suffer would be Apple’s revenue and profits.
I suspect their are numerous Apple employees posting in this forum pretending to be users.
Nobody has explained why the Mac works perfectly well without a Mac AppStore monopoly.
The reality is that the only thing that would suffer would be Apple’s revenue and profits.
I suspect their are numerous Apple employees posting in this forum pretending to be users.
Look at what happens on Android. Users could side load Fortnight, use the Play Store or use the Epic Games Store. Users overwhelmingly chose to use the play store and Epic still sues. Even with all that CHOICE, Epic still seeks to reduce that choice....this is anti-consumer.
Antitrust cases look at harms to consumers. Epic isn't a consumer as they are in a contractual business agreement with Apple/ Google.
pasamio
macrumors 6502
Part of Epic's suit against Google includes interference with device manufacturers by Google to prevent them from shipping the Fortnite launcher preloaded on their devices. Given Google's monopoly over the mobile device operating system market on the OEM side, this might actually get them in trouble similar to what happened with Microsoft who moved to block OEMs from shipping Netscape. Google is in a more similar position to Microsoft in the 90's than Apple given that Apple is selling a device with software integrated versus Google's Android operating system and the separately licensed Google Mobile Services that third party OEMs leverage.
As an Australian lawyer, I have no idea what this 'article' is trying to say.
Similarly, I have no idea which 'international law' prevents MR from doing giveaways outside the USA and Canada (excluding Quebec).
Hint: don't trust tech articles about how the law operates 😉
mazz0
macrumors 68040
Will you do a class action against MR on behalf of me and... actually, just me, I don't care about everyone else, to get me a bunch of free stuff to make up for all the giveaways I was excluded from?! I can't pay you, but if we win I'll give you a plastic ring for wrapping the cable of your headphones around.