We agree. Good thing that nobody is forcing any company to hand out their IP here.
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 Returns to U.S. App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You should tell that to the judge in the case.
From her ruling (page 169), emphasis mine:
You're actually the one who is wrong. While breaching the contract did make their case stronger, they could have submitted an update, had it rejected, and then sued over that rejection.
Do most people know how any physical store works? Any retail store. Even a wholesale store?
It's not the same argument as Microsoft. Apple (Steve Jobs) literally had a presentation on this exact process FOR DEVELOPERS. They loved it. The general public only cares about what the price is to them, and if they want it or not.
Most people don't know anything about how the phone works. Just that it is better than the last model or more importantly the model they currently have. Being locked is comes from the fact that Apple and or Google created an ecosystem that actually works for the end user. If it doesn't, OR they don't like a product. They don't buy it.
I don't recall seeing a wave of public demonstrations of companies breaking contracts for the world to see JUST to get it in front of a judge to argue it. Tim Sweeney wanted a publicity stunt that he continues to do to get HIS application on the store HIS way. He wants Apples customers cause there are a billion iOS devices out there to see vBucks to. It's just that simple.
Neither are faceless they actually show their faces fairly often. We know exactly who they are.
And its my pearls... My pearls.
Not when it affects the customer. I, nor any other player of EPIC games apps should have to deal with their bickering. I just want to play the game. I was able to play the game BEFORE Tim Sweeney broke the rules.
And failed in court, and lost billions by not being on the store. My perception as I speak for myself here. Is that Fortnite could have been on the App Store the whole time and in the background been worked out either directly or in court without having the customer lose out on it for years on iOS and macOS. The choice and freedom he talks about was erased as he claimed to be fighting for me and developers. He just wants control like anyone else, and all the funds to go his way. I don't blame him for that part of it, but I do blame him for not letting me play the game the way I had.
Which Tim started the problem? It wasn't Cook.
Because it is correct. So I'll say it again. And again.
It’s weird that it’s the #1 app in its category but not enough ratings to display an overall rating.
It’s #1 based on number of downloads, which the review bombers are assisting with.
Because old laws were not made for corporations with more income than a lot of country GDP
Society evolve, so do laws
My point is it’s number one based on the number of downloads. Are not enough people that are downloading it, reviewing it?
Apple isn’t a monopoly. To suggest that is just silly. They’re not even number one selling when it comes to phones.
I almost never review apps. I don’t think I’m in the minority.
But the issue isn't just 30% at that point--you're combining the 30% factor with the fact that Fortnite was kicked off of the store. The simple visibility of the app is a big deal considering you can't install non app store apps without taking more extreme measures (compared to Android being able to sideload APK).
The problem is 30% is not only extreme but is tied with a "take it or you're off our app store" approach. It's made Apple very profitable, but it's also a ridiculous tax rate for simply hosting an app.
Unfortunately, I think you’re not in the minority. People usually only review something if they have a terrible or extremely good experience. If they have an average or even good experience they don’t feel it’s noteworthy to share
I disagree about price controls though. The issue at hand isn't simply what Apple is allowed to set as the profit margin. A retailer today can mark up goods for 100% or 1%. That's the beauty of capitalism. If you sell me toilet paper for $100, another retailer/manufacturer can try to undercut you and win that business.
The issue is not only 30% but the fact that you can't sideload apps, and so thus it's either 30% or you don't have a way to sell your product at all. So in a sense Apple's setting price controls that you either let them take a minimum cut or you don't get to sell.
If 3rd party app stores are allowed, then you can bet the 30% rate would disappear fast because Apple would be pushed to compete with stores that charge the minimum necessary for a "reasonable" profit.
No, it wouldn’t. Android is “open” allows alternate app stores, including from companies like Amazon and Samsung, also allows sideloading and charges the exact same rate Apple does.
Why hasn’t some upstart forced Google to lower commissions on the play store?
In my case part of the problem was brought on by developers themselves, who for a long while nagged me to give them ratings. I now want no part of the silly ratings game.
That's fair, and I think in terms of whether 30% stays or not, Google's clearly determined it's still profitable. But from a legal perspective the reason Apple got in trouble was it has to do with antitrust. If you are saying "You must pay 30%, and you have no alternative, you can't collect money outside of the App Store, you can't sideload, use alternative app stores, etc." then that becomes a question of antitrust. It's a gray area with anticompetitive practices where I can see at least a case being made that this kind of practice is anti-competitive.
Google has its own dispute with Epic, but it's less about not being able to sideload but instead regarding other anti-competitive practices such as advertising. My larger point was when they get into situations where potential anti-competitive behavior is at play including forcing developers to face a 30% haircut with no alternative (Apple), that's where there's at least grounds for a legal dispute.
It becomes less of an issue if you allow developers to collect payment outside of your store or allow sideloading/alternative app stores.
As for whether even in a free market a 30% is justifiable--I suppose that's more just capitalism. App stores are more or less an oligopoly. Apps themselves as well as the deelopers benefit from app store coverage even in Google's case where you can sideload, so developers treat the 30% as cost of doing business--and considering you are allowed to link to outside payments (with some limits) devs are more or less OK with it. The key with all these disputes is whether these companies are allowed to place a bunch of restrictions or not.
Like I said earlier. I'm free to buy toilet paper and mark it up 30% to try to sell to you, and you'd be a fool to buy from me. But I can't lock you in a home with only toilet paper supplied by me and force you to pay for that or else let you wipe with your hands. And maybe in alternative scenario you accept paying 30% for me to hand deliver toilet paper to you when you need it on the toilet with pre-folded squares for you to wipe, but you made that choice that 30% is an acceptable premium versus you driving out to Costco every month to pickup a mega pack of toilet paper. The point is choice is fine, but forcing only one option, the 30% option, is going to get you into legal trouble.
Edit: Typo corrections & clarifications
Last edited:
Yes, I’m a lawyer and I think so too. She went to far, probably just sick of the trial. I believe in appeal this will not hold and fornite is going to be banned again
While the example is fictional, the Sandpiper case in BCS comes to mind here and does a pretty good job of illustrating exactly how predatory the actions of companies can get when they find themselves with a captive customer base. It also illustrates exactly why the "you signed up for it" argument is naive at best and evil at worst.
The worst part is reading people defending apple.
You can defend apple as a shareholder, but it's asinine to not admit that apple has been really really really anti consumers
You can defend apple as a shareholder, but it's asinine to not admit that apple has been really really really anti consumers
Apple runs a business. For a business that is anti consumer it’s not reflected in their revenue. Most people I know do not believe Apple is anti consumer. Its only on social media does that feel like an echo chamber..
Disagree 100% And I don't own a single share of Apple stock.
I absolutely think what Apple is doing is in the best interests of most of its customers. That may not be in the best interests of developers (although I'd argue it actually is for all but the tiny minority of huge mega corporations, although developers may not realize that).
There are hundreds of incredibly profitable business that are demonstrably anti-consumer in their practices. Heck, Microsoft is a favorite one that people in the tech world in general like to point to in this regard. I would say most large banks, credit card companies, energy companies, textbook publishers, music publishers, social media sites would all fall in the "anti-consumer but incredibly profitable" category.
And yet somehow we choose to do business with them. So in the spirit of these thoughts I’ll add hospitals to the list of anti consumer businesses.