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.
Fortnite and Epic Games Store Submitted to Apple for iOS Launch in EU
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Stores don't provide warranties, build quality, etc. The manufacturer does that.
Not necessarily. Amazon refunded my M1 Macbook Air after it died outside of Apple's warranty window.
If some developers opt to not make their apps available through the Apple App Store, how exactly are those people not going to be forced to buy apps and subscriptions from another source?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
By choosing clones. Example: a few years ago, Adobe got greedier than usual and adopted the subscription model. That was enough to move me to switch from Photoshop to Pixelmator.
When some desirable app vacates the "main" store, similar apps will see an opportunity to add any missing features in pursuit of taking some share from them. Pixelmator got my long-term Adobe repurchasing revenue and has enjoyed it since.
However, I really do not believe that many will bail out of the main store for long. Yes, some will certainly go for a while... then miss the easy revenue from the most established store... then opt to have that revenue again instead of continuing to refuse it. If me, I offer my apps direct AND continue to offer them in the App Store too. Why? Because while I can likely make more money by direct sales on each app (even if I charge less than the App Store price by shaving something off of what was formerly Apple big cut), my website store won't have the reach of the App Store already on every iDevice in the world. So I want to be both THERE and HERE... and in any other stores where it makes sense for my app to be too... including "X apps for $10" bundles where I might make as little as a nickel on each sale.
Analogy: I make shoes. I could sell my shoes through Walmart. I could sell my shoes though my own website. I could work distribution deals with Target, Kohls, etc too. I very well maximize my profit for each pair of shoes sold for all who buy direct from my website... but I won't have the reach of Walmart, Target, Kohl's etc. By being in all places where shoe buyers may shop, I have a chance to sell all of them... even if those other channels will yield me less profit on the next transaction. So I want to be there too, as some profit is better than no profit. But I also want to sell direct, as maximum profit would have me pursuing the same profit objective as Walmart, Target & Kohls: maximize profit on each unit sold.
AFTER someone buys my app on the App Store or in another App Store, etc, maybe that customer will like my app enough to come direct to me for the next major revision and I can maximize my profit on that sale then? Apple or other distributor channel got a big bite of my creation's revenue on this transaction and I reached a brand new customer I may not have otherwise reached in a direct-marketing-only model. And now, I have a great opportunity to grow my relationship with them and perhaps they buy the next version direct from me next time.
When some desirable app vacates the "main" store, similar apps will see an opportunity to add any missing features in pursuit of taking some share from them. Pixelmator got my long-term Adobe repurchasing revenue and has enjoyed it since.
However, I really do not believe that many will bail out of the main store for long. Yes, some will certainly go for a while... then miss the easy revenue from the most established store... then opt to have that revenue again instead of continuing to refuse it. If me, I offer my apps direct AND continue to offer them in the App Store too. Why? Because while I can likely make more money by direct sales on each app (even if I charge less than the App Store price by shaving something off of what was formerly Apple big cut), my website store won't have the reach of the App Store already on every iDevice in the world. So I want to be both THERE and HERE... and in any other stores where it makes sense for my app to be too... including "X apps for $10" bundles where I might make as little as a nickel on each sale.
Analogy: I make shoes. I could sell my shoes through Walmart. I could sell my shoes though my own website. I could work distribution deals with Target, Kohls, etc too. I very well maximize my profit for each pair of shoes sold for all who buy direct from my website... but I won't have the reach of Walmart, Target, Kohl's etc. By being in all places where shoe buyers may shop, I have a chance to sell all of them... even if those other channels will yield me less profit on the next transaction. So I want to be there too, as some profit is better than no profit. But I also want to sell direct, as maximum profit would have me pursuing the same profit objective as Walmart, Target & Kohls: maximize profit on each unit sold.
AFTER someone buys my app on the App Store or in another App Store, etc, maybe that customer will like my app enough to come direct to me for the next major revision and I can maximize my profit on that sale then? Apple or other distributor channel got a big bite of my creation's revenue on this transaction and I reached a brand new customer I may not have otherwise reached in a direct-marketing-only model. And now, I have a great opportunity to grow my relationship with them and perhaps they buy the next version direct from me next time.
You're right. Every app on the Mac is automatically sideloaded. So why would they stop developing or supporting Fortnite on the Mac - I can't imagine they sold through the Mac App store.
Which every Mac Fortnite gamer should have been more then willing to do, to stick it to the man.
It's not about costs. It's about convenience, simplicity and uniformity. That's one of the reasons why I don't like the DMA.
If I cared about costs, I would never have become an Apple customer.
No, it shouldn't. The producer should decide how their products works.
Your freedom should be limited to buying or not buying.
Let me understand: do you mean a$$le is legally accountable for the software available on its store?
You don't like? Don't use it! Somebody else will use it!
Like high end products and low end products - software runs the gamut as well.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Not everyone feels as you do. See thousands of thread posts on any given day wanting things from Apple for lower cost.
Do people want convenience, simplicity and uniformity too? Yes. But one can have the latter AND lower costs... just as one can buy a Mac from Apple or buy a Mac from Best Buy. What they end up with is the exact same product. Why they chose to buy it from one or the other might revolve around price, added value, convenience, simplicity or "other."
To each his own. Relative to this matter, those in the EU wanting to only use the App Store can keep using only the App Store. Those wanting to get apps from other places will have that option too (just as we all do with Macs now). Those who would like a game like Fortnite on their iDevices will be able to choose that instead of having a corporate squabble make Daddy decide for ALL consumers.
Happy with the as is? Stick with the as is. Wishing you could have Fortnite (or other app) on your iDevice? If you are in the EU, you'll have that option. The rest of us are subject to what Daddy decides we can have on devices we own.
If EU people believe Father knows best, EU people can continue to accept Father's policies, restrictions, limitations and pricing. If some feel differently, there will be something for them too. The rest of us are subject to the "as is", business as usual.
Last edited:
Of course we do.
We just want one closed platform for simple stuff, like a mobile phone, and a semi-closed/semi-open platform for complex stuff, like a computer.
It's like you want a wife to raise your children and a mistress to have interesting sex.
Two very different use cases.
I fully support Facebook’s right to remove all their applications and services from Apple devices. They should be able to make this decision without government intervention or prohibitive laws.
The DMA will make the iPhone and my Mac usage worse in the long run, that's why I'm against it.
Every other alternative is even worse.
No, he bought great hardware. If it was bad the EU and DMA defenders would do the rational thing and switch to android vs. trying to get the government make iPhone turn into Android with an iOS skin on top.
The big question is when does Apple choose to ditch their 7% of revenue and pull out of Europe. Will Europeans care enough to protest, or will everyone immediately jump to the freedom of Android?
AAPL shareholders won't like the quick 15% drop, but in the long run it is probably for the best.
AAPL shareholders won't like the quick 15% drop, but in the long run it is probably for the best.
I could say the same for game consoles like the switch and PS5 as well. No one seems to bat an eyelid at them charging game developers 30% or paying upwards of $60 for games, yet suddenly, everyone becomes misers on the iOS platform.
And how exactly will you be impacted if you don’t install the Epic Games Store? And if you don’t install the Epic Games Store, how is the iOS platform made “worse”?
Some people don’t think before they type and it really shows.
How is pulling out of an entire market better than simply letting people install whatever software they want on hardware they paid for?
Clearly it’s about degrading a business model. If you think this is to better the experience to customers, you haven’t been paying attention. It’s about financial gain for EU companies, and I suspect corruption is high in this decision process if the E.U. are consistent. The EU couldn’t care less about customers.
Some people, just don’t get it.