Fortnite Takes Top Spot on App Store Charts

[AppliedMicro]

A renter, cannot not pay the rent, if they don't like what the landlord has done to the property, they have to follow due process.

Epic has always payed its rent (the yearly developer subscription) to Apple as far as we know.

And a landlord cannot unduly restrict use of the property they‘re renting out.
Which Apple have been found to do.

I can clearly see, Apple amending its App Store, to only allow 'partners' access to the platform to market their products. I'd imagine many 'company' developers jumping ship, and creating their own payment methods, and Apple could simple amend the developer agreement to non-hosting of apps, that have external payment systems

…thereby only displaying anticompetitive conduct (which they‘ve been found guilty of) and demonstrating monopoly power.
Also, prepare for legislators to take good note and enact legislation for app markets.

Alongside amending warranty to exclude issues created by third party app's from being diagnosed and repaired, under warranty.

You‘re making stuff up. That‘s not a thing that should happen if iOS is as secure as Apple claim - and they still reserve the right to audit and approve apps.

 

[Velli]

You can understand why Apple took this course. A petulant child, attempted to belittle and abuse the very mouth that allowed them to eat, by not following the rules that they had agreed to. If you don't like it, then commence a legal case, and get it changed. A renter, cannot not pay the rent, if they don't like what the landlord has done to the property, they have to follow due process.
I can clearly see, Apple amending its App Store, to only allow 'partners' access to the platform to market their products. I'd imagine many 'company' developers jumping ship, and creating their own payment methods, and Apple could simple amend the developer agreement to non-hosting of apps, that have external payment systems. Alongside amending warranty to exclude issues created by third party app's from being diagnosed and repaired, under warranty.

Understandable, yes. Smart, no.

And while I will defend Apple’s rights to do what they want with their own thing, I don’t enjoy being a fan of a company that has such a large share of their profit based on IAP gaming whales. Not because I have a problem with the 30%, but I have a problem with the ethics. Especially how they are hiding this as “services revenue”, pooling it with Music and TV+ etc. I wish Apple was the company to do “the right thing”, and not have to be forced. Sadly, I increasingly must admit to the depressing fact that such a company does not exist at a large scale.

 

[Spongmincer]

Downloaded to rate it 1 star obviously

Why. It’s a great game. Shame about all this nonsense.

 

[Madonepro]

Epic has always payed its rent (the yearly developer subscription) to Apple as far as we know.

And a landlord cannot unduly restrict use of the property they‘re renting out.
Which Apple have been found to do.

Apple closed the US Apple Developer account of Epic, and so from the day onward, Apple had legal right to restrict usage by this third party. A tenant legally evicted, doesn't have the right of entry.

Some many posters here, clearly have no concept of running a business, and the impact that rogue customers has on its business. It's up to the courts to decide whether something lilegal is happening, not vigilante behaviour, because they couldn't get their own way. The comments on here, are by people who are simply users, not developers, the majority of whom, are grateful to have a well curated market place, to peddle their wares.

 

[Madonepro]

Understandable, yes. Smart, no.

And while I will defend Apple’s rights to do what they want with their own thing, I don’t enjoy being a fan of a company that has such a large share of their profit based on IAP gaming whales. Not because I have a problem with the 30%, but I have a problem with the ethics. Especially how they are hiding this as “services revenue”, pooling it with Music and TV+ etc. I wish Apple was the company to do “the right thing”, and not have to be forced. Sadly, I increasingly must admit to the depressing fact that such a company does not exist at a large scale.

You pay tax? Obviously! The government provides a service, and whether you agree to it, you have to pay. How is Apple any different? They invented and created 'stuff', and should be able to do as they please, within the legislature. No one forces anyone to buy their devices, and they come with lot's of legalese, which I guess most can't be bothered to read, or understand.

How does a company get a large share of a market, or profit? Generally because it has to be a good product/service, and that companies/developers that engage, do due process, and diligence, and select to do business on that basis. To say they are 'hiding' the revenue, as a service, is nonsense. It's a service, they are hosting, not selling, as it's not their item.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple closed the US Apple Developer account of Epic, and so from the day onward, Apple had legal right to restrict usage by this third party.

To put things into perspective:

When Facebook and Google distributed spyware apps, they merely got a slap on the wrist.
But Epic merely making their own sales with customers, they‘re supposed to receive the lifelong hammer of a ban?

Well, that‘s what is to be expected from the Apple that has Cook at the helm:
Preaching privacy on Sunday in church. But prioritising revenue all other days of the week.

 

[Madonepro]

To put things into perspective:

When Facebook and Google distributed spyware apps, they merely got a slap on the wrist.
But Epic merely making their own sales with customers, they‘re supposed to receive the lifelong hammer of a ban?

Well, that‘s what is to be expected from the Apple that has Cook at the helm:
Preaching privacy on Sunday in church. But prioritising revenue all other days of the week.

Nothing you've said makes any sense. As a Business, Apple has the right, to decide, who it does business with. It did business with Epic, and then Epic choose to 'test the waters', )essentially behaving like a school kid flicking things with a ruler, to see how far the teacher would go). Apple warned them of their transgressions, on a number of occasions, and then closed the account. The US courts, agreed that Apple was allowed to do that. Your point therefore is moot.

 

[AppliedMicro]

To say they are 'hiding' the revenue, as a service, is nonsense

They are lumping it in with the (out-of-warranty) repair business and warranty extensions they provide themselves.

It's a service, they are hosting, not selling, as it's not their item.

And that‘s why they are (and should be) limited in restricting what the „owner“ of the respective hosted items can do.
Similarly to how a landlord can only restrict „tenants“' choice how to furnish their rented space to a certain degree.

 

[miric]

Childish 😜

Shittildish 💩.

 

[miric]

Fantastic news! More competition will bring better results for all of us.

Competition of crap with what?

 

[AppliedMicro]

Nothing you've said makes any sense.

Lol? What?

In the post you quoted, I was merely pointing out the moral hypocrisy that Apple is displaying.
I wasn‘t disputing the fact that Apple can choose whom it does business with.

That said, given the monopoly power and market concentration, I agree that governments should force Apple to do business in a manner that does not discriminate other businesses (let alone on anticompetitive grounds).

 

[miric]

Lol? What?

In the post you quoted, I was merely pointing out the moral hypocrisy that Apple is displaying.
I wasn‘t disputing the fact that Apple can choose whom it does business with.

That said, given the monopoly power and market concentration, I agree that governments should force Apple to do business in a manner that does not discriminate other businesses (let alone on anticompetitive grounds).

What a blah-blah-blah speech. Other business? pthtc sweiiNya business? LOOOL 😂

 

[Madonepro]

They are lumping it in with the (out-of-warranty) repair business and warranty extensions they provide themselves.

And that‘s why they limited in restricting what the „owner“ of the respective items can do.
Similarly to how a landlord can only restrict „tenants“ choice how to furnish their rented space to a certain degree.

You just don't get it. No point continuing.

 

[zenotds]

Bring it back to the Mac.. It was one of the best optimized games out there.

 

[AppliedMicro]

PS:

not following the rules that they had agreed to. If you don't like it, then commence a legal case, and get it changed. A renter, cannot not pay the rent, if they don't like what the landlord has done to the property, they have to follow due process.

In any „sane“ country or jurisdiction, laws govern what provisions a rental contract may contain. Even in the U.S., to my knowledge. With illegal provisions being unenforceable.

And when specific clauses are unenforceable, tenants do not have to abide by them - but crucially, they do not have to sue in court (as I suppose you implied with „following due process“) and they are (often) not grounds for termination.

They renter still have to pay the rent - which I have no doubt Epic did. To maintain their place in the App Store.

In Epics specific case, they were been found to have breach multiple enforceable terms of service, and it was explicitly noted that Apple may terminate their agreement.

But if you‘re suggesting any landlord can have any rule and renters face termination for violation of them, that‘s wrong. Unenforceable rules can simply be ignored.

 

[AppliedMicro]

What a blah-blah-blah speech. Other business? pthtc sweiiNya business? LOOOL 😂

Do you have anything substantial to say?

 

[macfacts]

Also I know this is unrelated but how do I change my username on MacRumors

Let me guess, you were 16 years old when you joined.

 

[Madonepro]

PS:

In any „sane“ country or jurisdiction, laws govern what provisions a rental contract may contain. Even in the U.S., to my knowledge. With illegal provisions being unenforceable.

And when specific clauses are unenforceable, tenants do not have to abide by them - but crucially, they do not have to sue in court (as I suppose you implied with „following due process“) and they are (often) not grounds for termination.

They renter still have to pay the rent - which I have no doubt Epic did. To maintain their place in the App Store.

In Epics specific case, they were been found to have breach multiple enforceable terms of service, and it was explicitly noted that Apple may terminate their agreement.

But if you‘re suggesting any landlord can have any rule and renters face termination for violation of them, that‘s wrong. Unenforceable rules can simply be ignored.

1. Due Process: Is whereby consideration of all legal rules and principles pertaining to a case so all legal rightsthat are owed to a person are respected.
2. Apple terminated Epic's developer account, as the terms were not adhered to, and ample warning given. From then on, Epic had no access to the App Store, which the courts affirmed.

Not I wasn't suggesting that. Landlords have defined rights, and if there is a right, as most have, that the renter has breached the agreement in a certain way, the Landlord can apply to court for an eviction notice. Other wise can issue a Breach notice, to ask the lessee to correct the breach with a fixed period of time, or an eviction notice will be served.

 

[Stuwil]

I hope Microsoft remembers this when Epic sues to load their garbage store on the Xbox.

Why would they do that as there is no point in epic taken Microsoft to court

 

[Madonepro]

Let me guess, you were 16 years old when you joined.

Or joined in 2016?
From what I've read, usernames can only be 'usually' changed, if you have made a typo or equivalent, and if changing it, demonstrably has impact on posts you have made, won't be allowed. Check out the rules, and contact a moderator.

 

[Madonepro]

Why would they do that as there is no point in epic taken Microsoft to court

For the same reason they went after Apple. Remember small fish went after Microsoft, because they wanted their browser on Windows and were told no.

 

[Stuwil]

I think people are missing the point. You don't have an exclusive right to have a developer account, and it's that account, that Apple banned. They could quite simply, ban all Epic's account, without any recourse.
There are so many examples of this, in my facets. Is Tim Sweeny going to take on NYRR in an attempt to insist that he has a place in the next New York Marathon, or take the owners of Augusta to court to become a member, or Donald Trump to become a member at Mar-a-Lago?
It's little different to knocking on a strangers door, and insisting you are allowed in, and then aggrieved when the dogs attack you.

The difference is this
as what the individual explained Apple could not come up with a legal reason as to why not allow epic back on the USA iOS App Store

 

[krell100]

Seems like a lot of fuss over a corny dress up and dance with your friends simulator lightly posing as a game.

 

[Stuwil]

You pay tax? Obviously! The government provides a service, and whether you agree to it, you have to pay. How is Apple any different? They invented and created 'stuff', and should be able to do as they please, within the legislature. No one forces anyone to buy their devices, and they come with lot's of legalese, which I guess most can't be bothered to read, or understand.

How does a company get a large share of a market, or profit? Generally because it has to be a good product/service, and that companies/developers that engage, do due process, and diligence, and select to do business on that basis. To say they are 'hiding' the revenue, as a service, is nonsense. It's a service, they are hosting, not selling, as it's not their item.

Because it’s a government
That’s one difference

Yes you can have a big market share and people may buy your products
However if you put certain barriers in place to maintain certain things then you should be scrutinized by courts & governments

 

[bsolar]

Seems like a lot of fuss over a corny dress up and dance with your friends simulator lightly posing as a game.

That's because whether we like it or not that "corny dress up and dance with your friends simulator lightly posing as a game" generates multiple billions of dollars of revenue per year.

With that kind of money on the table you bet it's "a lot of fuss".