Fortnite's Return to iOS in the UK Uncertain as Epic Games Criticizes 'Weak' Apple Regulations

[Ctrlos]

So what happens when someone wants to stick a game with (legal) porn on their game store? Or one with obnoxious political messages? Or severe profanity? Some vendors may prefer 'family friendly' fare, not running what in the U.S. used to be called a 'red light district.'

One of the key problems with regulation is it can fail to ask the question 'How can bad people misuse this? What could a trouble maker do with this?'

And why can't a company control their own platform that they created and pay for? Especially when there are viable alternatives (such as Android's side-loading).

You've objected to 'addictive' social media content being available for at-will use (e.g.: by minors), yet propose maybe platform owners shouldn't have much say on what they should or shouldn't have to host on their own platforms.

So then what happens? Government has to regulate what's allowed on those platforms, which platforms, under what conditions, etc... It escalates government control.

You seem more comfortable with government bureaucrats running the show than private company management, despite the fact we're talking about the companies' platforms.

The main difference is that, in any sane democracy the government is accountable to the people and they have the option on average twice a decade to give them the shove.

On the other hand a private company is unaccountable to the general public. Now yes you can always choose not to use their services but a company like Apple is tightly integrated into a lot of areas. They might not have much corporate presence but you can be sure your friends might prefer you to use iMessage or your family prefer you on iCloud.

Whether it's on purpose or not is down to personal opinion but 'lock-in' is kind of real. You cannot for example extract your book or app purchases from Apple to use on Android or vice versa. This applies just as much to other areas too (you cant play Mario on Xbox) but switching isn't as easy as just buying a new phone and logging in.

 

[drrich2]

The main difference is that, in any sane democracy the government is accountable to the people and they have the option on average twice a decade to give them the shove.

On the other hand a private company is unaccountable to the general public.

This is a key irony in U.S. politics, and I suspect in other 'western' democracies as well, between the political Left and Right. Each is concerned about corrupt human nature, but believes their preferred counter measure is very good at dealing with that, and their opposition's counter measure is untrustworthy.

Some on the Left disdain 'billionaires,' corporate greed, CEOs, 'rich fat cats,' that shadowy group of illuminati called the shareholders, and view believe private companies must be held accountable to the people via elected government.

Some of the Right disdain government bloat, government agencies free from free market demands who aren't required to deliver net value to exist, mismanagement of tax dollars, cronyism, political pandering, etc... And they view the 'survival of the fittest' demands of the free market as a counter balance. Yes, cronyism happens, etc..., but when it hurts efficiency and productivity, there may be push back.

And we can pick apart either position. Many people in government agencies are not elected, they are appointed (or they're simply hired salary worker 'wage slaves' in government jobs), far downstream from the 'brand name' politicians people think about voting for, and nobody is 'going to the polls' and getting rid of them.

And politics are often so partisan a politician doesn't represent 'the people,' he/she represents a subgroup constituency with a temporary tenuous hold on 'partial power.'

And when we go to the polls? Sometimes it feels like a choice between 'bad' and 'worse.' In the U.S., it's been said people 'hold their nose and vote for...' You did say any 'sane' democracy, but now often do the people agree on what's 'sane?' It's not just a U.S. thing; the U.K.'s powerful ambivalence over Brexit comes to mind. In the news it's said there's been a rightward shift in European politics recently, and dissatisfaction with immigration is a key issue, so what the people want and the politicians do didn't line up well.

So both governmental regulation and the private sector are means by which companies are accountable to the public to some degree. At least if that private company wants the general public to buy its goods/services.

Now yes you can always choose not to use their services but a company like Apple is tightly integrated into a lot of areas. They might not have much corporate presence but you can be sure your friends might prefer you to use iMessage or your family prefer you on iCloud.

Yes, and if you opt out of the dominant platform, you may face some extra hassles. That said, we're Mac users in a mainly Windows world, yet...here we are. Some people are on Linux. I get your point about the 'lock in' thing. I buy my eBooks via Amazon's Kindle system.

 

[surferfb]

I guess, ultimately, when it comes to Apple I haven't seen any activity that meets my (admittedly high) bar for government intervention. If Apple had changed, and was originally open and closed down, or was raising prices astronomically, then sure, regulate away. But Apple has done nothing but open up (to be clear, in small ways) and lowered prices. And despite the protestations on here, there actually are legitimate security and privacy reasons for Apple keeping the current model, and I strongly believe the current model is best for the average user (even if those restrictions are annoying for power users). Users who want a closed system should have that option, and no, saying "you don't have to use third party stores if you want a closed system" doesn't make it a closed system.

Apple has always been incredibly upfront about what the deal is to developers and customers. Google used to run ads about how you should pick Android because it is open and Apple is closed, and Android is still open for users and developers who prefer that. No one is actually "locked in"; even if you just bought a brand spanking new iPhone 16 Pro Max, and somehow didn't realize the restrictions were there, you have a generous return period, or if you're outside the return period, you can sell it and get enough money back to buy a high-end Android device.

I'm convinced that what this actually is is large companies who don't want to pay for use of Apple's IP teaming up with the "software should be open" crowd to get the government to ban Apple's model because the former want more money and the latter hate that a large and profitable subset of consumers prefer Apple's model. Of course regulators want to regulate, so they jump in. But it's not good for competition or consumers.

 

[Ctrlos]

This is a key irony in U.S. politics, and I suspect in other 'western' democracies as well, between the political Left and Right. Each is concerned about corrupt human nature, but believes their preferred counter measure is very good at dealing with that, and their opposition's counter measure is untrustworthy.

Some on the Left disdain 'billionaires,' corporate greed, CEOs, 'rich fat cats,' that shadowy group of illuminati called the shareholders, and view believe private companies must be held accountable to the people via elected government.

Some of the Right disdain government bloat, government agencies free from free market demands who aren't required to deliver net value to exist, mismanagement of tax dollars, cronyism, political pandering, etc... And they view the 'survival of the fittest' demands of the free market as a counter balance. Yes, cronyism happens, etc..., but when it hurts efficiency and productivity, there may be push back.

And we can pick apart either position. Many people in government agencies are not elected, they are appointed (or they're simply hired salary worker 'wage slaves' in government jobs), far downstream from the 'brand name' politicians people think about voting for, and nobody is 'going to the polls' and getting rid of them.

And politics are often so partisan a politician doesn't represent 'the people,' he/she represents a subgroup constituency with a temporary tenuous hold on 'partial power.'

And when we go to the polls? Sometimes it feels like a choice between 'bad' and 'worse.' In the U.S., it's been said people 'hold their nose and vote for...' You did say any 'sane' democracy, but now often do the people agree on what's 'sane?' It's not just a U.S. thing; the U.K.'s powerful ambivalence over Brexit comes to mind. In the news it's said there's been a rightward shift in European politics recently, and dissatisfaction with immigration is a key issue, so what the people want and the politicians do didn't line up well.

So both governmental regulation and the private sector are means by which companies are accountable to the public to some degree. At least if that private company wants the general public to buy its goods/services.


Yes, and if you opt out of the dominant platform, you may face some extra hassles. That said, we're Mac users in a mainly Windows world, yet...here we are. Some people are on Linux. I get your point about the 'lock in' thing. I buy my eBooks via Amazon's Kindle system.

All I will say is that the people routinely quoted as the happiest on earth are those of the Nordic bloc who have close to a 50% tax rate but free at the point of use public services like healthcare and transportation. They do not however have large populations to support.

Over here in the UK the most content I've seen it was during the optimism of the Blair decade, 1997 - 2008. I won't comment on the man himself but we had a generous safety net, better support for families and a school rebuilding program after decades of neglect at the hands of the Tories. New Labour was arguably centrist, skewing left on social justice but right on the military. The spendthrift Tories went back in power and everything unravelled.

 

[31 Flavas]

So will the EU make it so you can sideload games on your PS5, xbox, or Switch to avoid the 30% fee?

Nope. Because, Epic / Tim Sweeney, those that support Epic's cause, and anyone (just in general) critical of Apple all made up excuses to let Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo off the hook. Epic - of course, didn't want Fortnite (or all of its games) universally deplatformed. But, for Epic supporters and Apple critics, it really didn't really make sense arguing to exclude (or not bust open) the PSN Store, Xbox Marketplace, and Nintendo eShoppeé. I mean, a monopoly is a monopoly, right? Everyone was arguing how bad monopolies are.

I mean, I think it's pretty obvious why. Supporters of Epic or Apple critics don't actually care about the merits or core issue of the Epic v Apple case. If they did, they'd want the Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo hardware busted open, too. But, really it was because they just (largely, at the time) didn't have a problem with them so it always got hand waved away.

That was 2019/2020, though -- Now it's middle of 2025, things change. Console manufacturers are ******titfying their systems and game developers / publishers themselves aren't really seen as the innocent poor defenseless / abused ones anymore (e.g. "Stop killing games").

 

[Ctrlos]

Nope. Because, Epic / Tim Sweeney, those that support Epic's cause, and anyone (just in general) critical of Apple all made up excuses to let Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo off the hook. Epic - of course, didn't want Fortnite (or all of its games) universally deplatformed. But, for Epic supporters and Apple critics, it really didn't really make sense arguing to exclude (or not bust open) the PSN Store, Xbox Marketplace, and Nintendo eShoppeé. I mean, a monopoly is a monopoly, right? Everyone was arguing how bad monopolies are.

I mean, I think it's pretty obvious why. Supporters of Epic or Apple critics don't actually care about the merits or core issue of the Epic v Apple case. If they did, they'd want the Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo hardware busted open, too. But, really it was because they just (largely, at the time) didn't have a problem with them so it always got hand waved away.

That was 2019/2020, though -- Now it's middle of 2025, things change. Console manufacturers are ******titfying their systems and game developers / publishers themselves aren't really seen as the innocent poor defenseless / abused ones anymore (e.g. "Stop killing games").

This really needs putting to bed: Console manufacturers do not monopolise software distribution on their own platforms.

You can buy physical copies of games on Switch, Xbox and PlayStation from a variety of retailers and voucher codes from the likes of CDKeys. You can lend, borrow and resell physical software all you want. If as a gamer you dislike the idea of Sony getting any of your money you can buy everything 2nd hand and they get nothing. You can do precisely none of this on an iPhone.

And if you don't like the way one company does business you have options. You can buy a PC. Or a Mac! Or a Playdate. Or an Evercade. Or one of those Chinese retro consoles. Or an actual retro console. Or a Steamdeck. Or one of those handheld PCs. Even on PC and Mac you have the choice of a variety of storefronts for your software purchases or go straight to the Devs.

As a gamer I'd love it if my consoles were as open as the PC when it came to buying software. Indeed the next Xbox console is looking more like it's going to be more PC-like with Epic and Steam at the very least alongside the Microsoft store.

Don't like Apple for software distribution and your other option is Google. Not exactly a choice. It's like not liking beef and discovering McDonald's only sell hamburgers and cheeseburgers.

People need to stop thinking that the biggest company on the planet whose primary concern is looking after its shareholders is in any way a victim.

 

[Ethosik]

Because Nintendo are not the only storefront for their platforms. You can buy physical games on carts as much as you can buy voucher codes from werbsites like CDKeys. You also have the option of buying 2nd hand carts if you don't want to pay the full price. You can lend them (and digital purchases now!) to friends and family.

And if you don't like Nintendo you can always buy a PlayStation. Or an Xbox. Or a PC. Or a Mac! Or a retro console. Or a PlayDate. Or an Evercade. Or one of those chinese retro handhelds. Or don't buy a device at all and stream them directly to your TV. Pick a PC or Mac and there are loads of storefronts to choose from.

The videogames market is nothing like the mobile one because there is a lot of choice over where you get your games from. Microsoft will likely drop physical media altogether on the next Xbox but are building a 'Living room PC' with 3rd party stores (Steam etc) baked in.

Apple are the sole provider of apps and games on their platforms. And not factoring in localised chinese companies like Huawei Google has over 90% of the market share on App distribution on Android irrespective of 3rd party vendors.

In terms of development on it, regardless if you make a physical copy, Nintendo still gets a cut from those sales.

People who constantly bring up the physical media as an option don't fully understand what it takes to make console games. You honestly think its a 0% cost to create a physical media and that Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo gets NONE of that?

And your arguments about getting Playstation etc instead are EXACTLY what we have been saying all along. Don't like Apple, you can buy Android.

 

[Ethosik]

Epic are as annoying and self serving as much as they are right.

I enter my payment details to different companies on something they have called ‘websites’ on ‘the internet’ and it’s ok.

Moreover these companies can change their content on these websites and have full control over what and when they publish.

And even more radical - apart from the cut that they pay to visa or PayPal etc thru get to keep the money from each sale.

Apparently they don’t need to give any cut to whoever runs ‘the internet’.

I know, amazing right?

I am fine providing my credit card to sites like Amazon and Netflix. However, I will not provide my credit card to Joe Somebody's $0.99 app download.

 

[Ethosik]

Switching to Android IS the option.

Apple shouldn’t be compelled to do any of the things you mention. They are nowhere near a monopoly. Don’t like how they do things? But a different product, of which there are many MANY options.

I agree.

Apparently people literally think you cannot switch to Android so freely. I had someone actually say it was easier for me to physically move to switch ISPs since I only have Spectrum. Come on get real. It was very easy to move to Android.

 

[Ethosik]

This really needs putting to bed: Console manufacturers do not monopolise software distribution on their own platforms.

In terms of development, yes they do. You honestly believe Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo gets 0% of any Physical purchase? Are you serious? It doesn't matter if you sell it at some mom/pop store. Getting the disc made with the company logo COSTS money, and Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo STILL get their cut. And it is far more expensive as the developer than the 30%, because now you have the mom/pop stocking fees (and target etc) to deal with too.

 

[Ctrlos]

In terms of development, yes they do. You honestly believe Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo gets 0% of any Physical purchase? Are you serious? It doesn't matter if you sell it at some mom/pop store. Getting the disc made with the company logo COSTS money, and Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo STILL get their cut. And it is far more expensive as the developer than the 30%, because now you have the mom/pop stocking fees (and target etc) to deal with too.

The point is not about commission but distribution though. On consoles I have a choice about where I obtain my software, economics be damned. On iOS not so much.

Games developers often cut out the middle man by releasing on PC.

 

[surferfb]

The point is not about commission but distribution though. On consoles I have a choice about where I obtain my software, economics be damned. On iOS not so much.

In some cases. I have zero choice where to buy games for my Digital-only PlayStation 5.

Games developers often cut out the middle man by releasing on PC.

Yes, but in that case they don’t have access to Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo customers.

Exactly the same deal here - app developers are perfectly capable of releasing apps online; they just lose access to Apple’s customers (but still have access to 70+% of the market on Android).

 

[Ctrlos]

In some cases. I have zero choice where to buy games for my Digital-only PlayStation 5.

You can always buy that disk drive!

 

[surferfb]

You can always buy that disk drive!

Actually, I can’t

The disk drive doesn’t work with the original digital PS5 from 2020. The EU should do something about that!

 

[Ctrlos]

Actually, I can’t

The disk drive doesn’t work with the original digital PS5 from 2020. The EU should do something about that!

That I did not know.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

No need, it's a common sense answer: Microsoft (AKA the platform maker) allows Windows (AKA the platform) to have multiple stores (AKA Epic, Steam, Microsoft, Ubisoft, etc and even the internet in general).

Microsoft doesn’t own Steam, though. Valve owns the Steam platform that is available on top of other OS’s like Windows and Linux. And, Epic has decided not to make the games available to Steam users.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

In terms of development on it, regardless if you make a physical copy, Nintendo still gets a cut from those sales.

People who constantly bring up the physical media as an option don't fully understand what it takes to make console games. You honestly think its a 0% cost to create a physical media and that Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo gets NONE of that?

And your arguments about getting Playstation etc instead are EXACTLY what we have been saying all along. Don't like Apple, you can buy Android.

And, for anyone not afraid of doing their research, if they don’t like the fact that they must download from the App Store (OR if they find out within 14 days of buying it that they have to download from the App Store), they can return it to the store and buy some other device that will allow them to use more than just the App Store.

 

[31 Flavas]

This really needs putting to bed: Console manufacturers do not monopolise software distribution on their own platforms.

Please show any developer how they can entirely by-pass and publish a title ("sideload") on Nintendo, Sony, or (while it's still around) Microsoft hardware -- without out forking over any commission % and specifically without getting sued. Or even just a reduced commission %. I'm not talking about hacking the console to run some homebrew or pirate copies of games or such. A retail game sold online (e.g. mail order), at a physical store on a store shelf (e.g. Walmart, GameStop, etc) or through an on console app / digital game store.

You can buy physical copies of games on Switch, Xbox and PlayStation from a variety of retailers and voucher codes from the likes of CDKeys. You can lend, borrow and resell physical software all you want. If as a gamer you dislike the idea of Sony getting any of your money you can buy everything 2nd hand and they get nothing.

How do those physical copies get onto the store shelves? The developers / publishers aren't doing it themselves. Even in the 80's and 90's "code signing" was even a thing, you had to license "keys" to the systems lock-out chip. If you were Tengen or Accolade who developed work arounds to sell games for Nintendo or Genesis you were sued and ultimately lost your case. And, as we just saw with Epic vs Apple -- even the U.S. Supreme Court didn't give Epic a win on the merits of the case. Apple, though, subsequently decided to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by playing FAFO with trial judge. But, that's their problem.

But, back on topic -- Who are the retailers buying the physical games from? It's not the game publisher or the developers directly. They're bought a distributing party or company of Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. Because, yea -- they own the distribution of games. And, guess who sets the price that the retail store has to pay so their store shelves can be stocked with said games? It's again: Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo based on MSRP guidance from the developer / publisher.

I am more then happy to be corrected by anyone that works as the purchasing agent for a Walmart, Best Buy, GameStop, or any local retail store. Maybe it worked a bit different in the past in that publishers could sell the games directly, but they had to have a contractual agreement to buy a specific number of game carts at a specific price. And while this means that the developer can chose a price point for their game -- they don't get to directly sell the games. And retail stores don't get to negotiate game prices so Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo get their 30% cut on the whole price of the game. Any discount a retailer offers you on a physical copy comes comes out of their profit cut on the retail sale, not out of console manufacturers position. Meaning, it's either to clear out inventory or meant as a loss leader to get you in the store to hopefully buy other stuff and make up the difference.

So while, yes, I get that you're saying you can "trade around" your physical copies of games. It's not the 'out' or the 3rd party "App Store" you maybe thinking retail sales are. And, spoiler, both the console manufacturers and developers / publishers don't really want to sell physical games anymore -because- of trading and reselling. Why do you that are games are not fully on the disk or cart anymore? Or why was EA games selling physical console (not PC) games with one time one time use "online" game codes. Why did Sony sell a "digital only" PS5 version and why is the PS5 Pro only sold as "all digital" and without a disk drive? Why did Microsoft try so hard with the launch of Xbox One to mandate online "check-in"? Why is Nintendo banning Switch 2 consoles that use MIG flash carts and writing into their EULA that they can just brick your console if they want? Why is online YouTube personality "Pirate Software" trying so hard to position the "Stop Killing Games" EU citizens initiative as bad?

I can't speak for an you, but if you only care that you -can- get a discount on games (at the retailers expense) then I'd say you don't really care about the merits of the matter. I'd like to be wrong, but that's how I understand it.

You can do precisely none of this on an iPhone.

Sure, I grasp the concept there aren't physical manifestations of iPhone or Android "apps" -- but that's beside the point. With the exception of the Atari 5200 (and earlier) no video game hardware will run arbitrary code. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo (and previously Sega) spend a lot to make sure of that.

And if you don't like the way one company does business you have options. You can buy a PC. Or a Mac!

Sounds to me like you're again excusing Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. Best case scenario, because you're uninformed about how physical game distribution for those systems work. But, you wouldn't let me (or anyone) get away with just saying "Go buy an Android, then." Because there is a principle at stake, right? So, while, yes those are options and, many console games have PC equivalents, not all do. And this isn't addressing the underlaying issue. They aren't actual alternatives for someone who wants to play console video games. Just like Android isn't an alternative for someone who likes iOS devices, but doesn't want to be overpaying for apps.

Or a Playdate. Or an Evercade. Or one of those Chinese retro consoles. Or an actual retro console. Or a Steamdeck. Or one of those handheld PCs.

Now you're just talking about Piracy which is entirely different from developers and publishers not having to put up with Apple's 30% commission or arbitrary, capricious, ever changing rule structure. Don't get me wrong, retro gaming is fun and increasingly the better bet since modern video games systems being overpriced and overbearing with even developers over pricing or over monetizing their games though "microtrasactions" which are not at all "micro" anymore.

Even on PC and Mac you have the choice of a variety of storefronts for your software purchases or go straight to the Devs.

Yea, PC games usually have more options for purchasing -- but, you should want the video game hardware system to be exactly like your PC or Mac. I mean, isn't that why everyone was calling behind Epic Games and Tim Sweeney? But, during the Epic vs Apple case, those critical of Apple, were not being critical of Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft they're a different case. Best case scenario they were saying that because well, they were just blindly going along with what Epic wanted. But, the more likely scenario was that they just didn't care about Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft since they weren't really affected by them at the time (maybe because they don't game, only play PC games). Even though, the reality is the console manufacturers are just as 100% in control (with all the despotism) as Apple is.

Like I said, that was 5 years ago, and now people are waking up. Increasingly, you're losing the freedom from control that PCs have afforded. Because, increasing software and games, are being locked behind a developers own digital "storefront" without any physical product. Which means that no is alternate store to purchase from. And though which, the software or game will only launch though said storefront. So it can be taken away at any time they desire.

Even worse, I'm sure you've read - Steam and Itch.io have had to delist 10,000's of games because now the payment processors Visa / Mastercard / PayPal are flexing and saying they won't process payment for legal products or content they don't approve of. So it isn't a matter whether the product or content is legal anymore -- if it doesn't fit the brand image that Visa / Mastercard / PayPal's values -- they'll decline the merchants ability collect payment. Better hope that some activist group doesn't argue your PlayDate or Evercade, Chinese Retro console or Steamdeck *could* play a game that has titties, or perverted behavior, *could* be used to play pirated / illegal ROMs. So Nintendo can probably just get your Playdate, Evercade, or whatever effectively banned because who wants to -literally- mail order anything today.

As a gamer I'd love it if my consoles were as open as the PC when it came to buying software. Indeed the next Xbox console is looking more like it's going to be more PC-like with Epic and Steam at the very least alongside the Microsoft store.

Microsoft's game pass isn't very long for the world, I think. The idea is great, but they keep laying off employees, killing game studios, and if you don't need to buy an xbox to play Microsoft / Xbox games - it's no wonder they're hardware is in last place, less then half the sales of PS5. Only around 1/4 the sales of the PS4, even. Moreover, if the "nextbox" is effectively just a PC - why not just use your existing PC?

Don't like Apple for software distribution and your other option is Google. Not exactly a choice. It's like not liking beef and discovering McDonald's only sell hamburgers and cheeseburgers.

The question I've always asked and everyone always dodges or tries to avoid answering is why don't 3rd party app stores work on Android? Why does Google's PlayStore still get to charge its 30% commission rate and functionally is the only really viable app store on Android. Or, why do Androids 3rd party app stores suck?

I mean, it is the _key_ thing that is championed about Android. It is the thing Epic Games was suing / demanding for, from Apple and that everyone was rallying behind Epic Games / Tim Sweeney and his "Project Liberty" for. But, it doesn't function on Android.

It is the rallying cry, the clarion call, that if Apple's iOS App Store monopoly was broken and had to compete against 3rd Party app stores like Epic's own app store or Valve's Steam, then Apple would have to lower to lower commission rates and stop being so abusive towards app developers.

So why doesn't that happen on Android? Why does Google's PlayStore still dominate Android. Why don't 3rd party app stores for Android make the same impact that they are claimed they will make on iOS? Before you say, because Google isn't as overbearing and restrictive as Apple is -- I'm going to remind you that Epic Games / Tim Sweeney sued Google's PlayStore at the same time it sued Apple's App Store and it was Google who lost on the merits: Epic Games Wins Antitrust Lawsuit Against Google Play Store: "the nine-member jury in the case unanimously agreed that [Google] abused its power by operating an app store monopoly and charging developers unduly high fees."

People need to stop thinking that the biggest company on the planet whose primary concern is looking after its shareholders is in any way a victim.

In no way am I saying that Apple can do no wrong, but Epic's case against Apple was weak. It's why their lawsuit failed, it's why even the U.S. Supreme Court rejected their appeal. As I mentioned previously, Epic could have had substantially more success if they were attacking Apple on its inconsistent and arbitrary application of its own rules. Example: Epic was successful in getting Apple's ban on links to the developers website for sales overturned.

But, I don't think that really matters. I mean, Apple shot itself in the foot in how it responded to handling the loss of that provision. What I think really matters is that Epic destroyed Google's Android monopoly.

I'll challenge you again, that if 3rd party app stores (or, even sideloading) worked on Android -- then mobile app developers would effectively only develop for Android because they just keep more (or all) of the revenue from their app sales and just don't have to deal with Apple's nonsensical iOS platform policies. Meaning that, like the PC market, Apple's iOS mobile devices would only be a small fraction. Which would also mean that Google's "PlayStore" would only be the equivalent of say the Windows app store or the Mac App Store.

 

[Ctrlos]

Please show any developer how they can entirely by-pass and publish a title ("sideload") on Nintendo, Sony, or (while it's still around) Microsoft hardware -- without out forking over any commission % and specifically without getting sued. Or even just a reduced commission %. I'm not talking about hacking the console to run some homebrew or pirate copies of games or such. A retail game sold online (e.g. mail order), at a physical store on a store shelf (e.g. Walmart, GameStop, etc) or through an on console app / digital game store.

My post was from the point of view of the consumer, not the developer. Devs of course have to jump through the same hoops to publish software physically, and pay the platform holder a cut but they do at least have an option about how their software is distributed. On Console that can support physical exclusively if they wish and on PC/Mac pick and choose which store they distribute from or hawk it from their own.

On iOS they have precisely one choice and on Android its kind of the same because Google operate a 95% download marketshare which they've reached through coercing platform holders to carry their apps.

But, as my post pointed out, as a gamer you have all sorts of options about where you buy your games from. Its about empowering customers with choice. You can choose not to buy any downloads or exclusively do so. And if you dislike one platform holder you can go elsewhere. There is a tremendous variety of platforms to choose from. Sony, Nintendo and to a lesser extent Microsoft do not operate the only storefront on their devices because you can still go to Gamestop.

On smartphones there are two storefronts and whilst there might be dozens of Android OEMs they all still run the same OS and operate the same app portal as everybody else. Not even a company with the reach of Samsung has managed to make a dent in the app distribution market with their own portal and if they can't, nobody can. The only time there has been any real competition to Google was when Amazon operated its own app portal and it was pretty great being able to pick and choose where you bought things.

 

[surferfb]

My post was from the point of view of the consumer, not the developer. Devs of course have to jump through the same hoops to publish software physically, and pay the platform holder a cut but they do at least have an option about how their software is distributed. On Console that can support physical exclusively if they wish and on PC/Mac pick and choose which store they distribute from or hawk it from their own.

On iOS they have precisely one choice and on Android its kind of the same because Google operate a 95% download marketshare which they've reached through coercing platform holders to carry their apps.

I would argue that the fact that the Play Store has 90-95% market share on Android, despite Android's open nature, highly suggests that customers prefer having one store to shop at for their apps. I know the EU and its defenders hate that, but it's honestly the most likely explanation.

If that is indeed the case, there is zero justification for having government come in and forcing Apple to allow something that customers have clearly said they don't want. I mean, if only 5-10% of customers on the "open" alternative take advantage of the openness, the percentage of those who are actively choosing the closed ecosystem who will take advantage is going to be smaller. Certainly not worth taking away a closed ecosystem, and the safety and security benefits that ecosystem brings, from those who want it when an open alternative exists.

But, as my post pointed out, as a gamer you have all sorts of options about where you buy your games from. Its about empowering customers with choice. You can choose not to buy any downloads or exclusively do so. And if you dislike one platform holder you can go elsewhere. There is a tremendous variety of platforms to choose from. Sony, Nintendo and to a lesser extent Microsoft do not operate the only storefront on their devices because you can still go to Gamestop.

I don't understand how you can say there is a difference. If you don't like Apple's rules, you can go elsewhere. I don't have a right to put my game on PlayStation without compensating Sony, and developers shouldn't have a right to put their software on iOS without compensating Apple. You're not suggesting Apple should get 30% of software sales from third party stores, right? So why is it different? In the console market, if I want the best of the best console games from a graphical fidelity standpoint, my choices are Sony and Microsoft. Two options. Same as smartphones.

The EU has explicitly said the same 30% take that Sony gets is not allowed when it comes to iOS. Apple has to break up its fee into different chunks to justify it. In what world does that make any sense whatsoever? If you were saying "yes, the EU should have gone further and broken up consoles' distribution rights too" that would be one thing, but you're not. You're saying "it's ok when consoles do it" and your justification of "if you dislike one platform holder you can go elsewhere" is literally what I've been saying for over a year now. Go to Android. there is a tremendous variety of devices, flavors of Android, and places to buy software from. There are also Google-less forks of Android, Linux phones, etc.

Don't take away my option for a closed platform so a tiny minority of customers don't have to compromise.

On smartphones there are two storefronts and whilst there might be dozens of Android OEMs they all still run the same OS and operate the same app portal as everybody else. Not even a company with the reach of Samsung has managed to make a dent in the app distribution market with their own portal and if they can't, nobody can. The only time there has been any real competition to Google was when Amazon operated its own app portal and it was pretty great being able to pick and choose where you bought things.

If Amazon and Samsung couldn't make App Stores work on Android, the fact of the matter is consumers don't want alternatives. So why are we compromising everyone's safety and security by forcing alternatives onto iOS?

 

[Ctrlos]

I would argue that the fact that the Play Store has 90-95% market share on Android, despite Android's open nature, highly suggests that customers prefer having one store to shop at for their apps. I know the EU and its defenders hate that, but it's honestly the most likely explanation.

If that is indeed the case, there is zero justification for having government come in and forcing Apple to allow something that customers have clearly said they don't want. I mean, if only 5-10% of customers on the "open" alternative take advantage of the openness, the percentage of those who are actively choosing the closed ecosystem who will take advantage is going to be smaller. Certainly not worth taking away a closed ecosystem, and the safety and security benefits that ecosystem brings, from those who want it when an open alternative exists.


I don't understand how you can say there is a difference. If you don't like Apple's rules, you can go elsewhere. I don't have a right to put my game on PlayStation without compensating Sony, and developers shouldn't have a right to put their software on iOS without compensating Apple. You're not suggesting Apple should get 30% of software sales from third party stores, right? So why is it different? In the console market, if I want the best of the best console games from a graphical fidelity standpoint, my choices are Sony and Microsoft. Two options. Same as smartphones.

The EU has explicitly said the same 30% take that Sony gets is not allowed when it comes to iOS. Apple has to break up its fee into different chunks to justify it. In what world does that make any sense whatsoever? If you were saying "yes, the EU should have gone further and broken up consoles' distribution rights too" that would be one thing, but you're not. You're saying "it's ok when consoles do it" and your justification of "if you dislike one platform holder you can go elsewhere" is literally what I've been saying for over a year now. Go to Android. there is a tremendous variety of devices, flavors of Android, and places to buy software from. There are also Google-less forks of Android, Linux phones, etc.

Don't take away my option for a closed platform so a tiny minority of customers don't have to compromise.



If Amazon and Samsung couldn't make App Stores work on Android, the fact of the matter is consumers don't want alternatives. So why are we compromising everyone's safety and security by forcing alternatives onto iOS?

On Android the choice of app portal is portability. If you move from Samsung to Honor you want to take everything with you. In many ways the Play Store prevents platform lock-in.

Opening up iOS probably isn't actually in the best interests of the general market. But it is the quickest way to get authorities off their backs so who knows.

My arguement is that Apple could implement sideloading to rid themselves of litigation whilst building in enough protections to make sure IT-phobic users don't inadvertantly activate it but actively choose not to to protect their bottom line and not the end user. I'm not arguing in favour of them doing so, just suggesting its an option.

There are many, many arguements against taking such action that make a lot of sense too.


(On an unrelated note I'd say graphical fidelity is in the eye of the beholder. I play Spiderman 2 and there is still some level of model pop-in as you move around the environment because the console cannot render the world in detail on an infinite scale. Its a technical decision to ensure a consistent frame rate. On the other hand Link's Awakening on the Gameboy had no such issues )

 

[31 Flavas]

My post was from the point of view of the consumer, not the developer. Devs of course have to jump through the same hoops to publish software physically, and pay the platform holder a cut but they do at least have an option about how their software is distributed. On Console that can support physical exclusively if they wish and on PC/Mac pick and choose which store they distribute from or hawk it from their own.

On iOS they have precisely one choice and on Android its kind of the same because Google operate a 95% download marketshare which they've reached through coercing platform holders to carry their apps.

You're making my point -- those who either supported Epic, were critical of Apple, or in general just support the rights consumer -- don't actually care about (or care to understand) the merits of the Epic vs Apple case.

It's noble that you want more options - but as you've pointed out with Google, just options alone isn't enough. Options can't be a checkmark item.

There is a reason why console manufacturers (as well as, Apple / Google) are allowed to close off their platforms if they want. For that matter, a reason why the courts typically defend this practice of businesses. i.e. why the U.S. Supreme Court let stand the findings of the Epic vs Apple case (at the trial court and the review of the appellate court). I just think you'd tell me the whatever the reason is, it's irrelevant or nonsense.

But, as my post pointed out, as a gamer you have all sorts of options about where you buy your games from. Its about empowering customers with choice. You can choose not to buy any downloads or exclusively do so. And if you dislike one platform holder you can go elsewhere. There is a tremendous variety of platforms to choose from. Sony, Nintendo and to a lesser extent Microsoft do not operate the only storefront on their devices because you can still go to Gamestop.

This is great, yes, you can choose whatever makes sense to you as the consumer. And, you might be able to snag a closeout deal or a loss leader sale. But, the choices available to you and the prices they are presented at are illusions and manipulations. Epic ostensibly was attacking that with the Epic vs Apple case, but they got so fixated on trying to steal the platform for themselves that they missed the forest for the trees and ended up with almost nothing.

But, that doesn't matter, they got the win that counts (or should): Epic vs Google -- which got zero publication, coverage, or news after the opening salvo, until literally the day the decision was released. And if you read it exposes the 3rd party app stores and sideloading for what they are -- an illusion. Android 3rd party app stores suck, because Google manipulates them to suck. They're there to give you a warm fuzzy feeling (yes, you -- as in Ctrlos) and to Google the moral high ground. But behind the scene they make sure that all the important apps stay in the PlayStore meaning they don't have to compete, don't have to lower commission, all the business and revenue stays with them, and don't have to care about the customer or improve things for the customer, more then necessary.

This will have a knock on effect that Apple won't have cover from Google anymore. Apple's "bad behavior" is supported by Android not being a clear alternative to iOS. If the Android platform actually becomes viable because Google can't be anti-competitive and developers are actually free to make viable 3rd party app stores or sell directly to consumers -- I think Apple's App Store will clear out quite quickly if Apple don't make changes. (This is aside from Apple harpooning themselves in the foot with their response to their judge telling them to let developers link to their own website for subscription purchases, potentially even having criminal liability)

On smartphones there are two storefronts and whilst there might be dozens of Android OEMs they all still run the same OS and operate the same app portal as everybody else. Not even a company with the reach of Samsung has managed to make a dent in the app distribution market with their own portal and if they can't, nobody can. The only time there has been any real competition to Google was when Amazon operated its own app portal and it was pretty great being able to pick and choose where you bought things.

This was because Google was the one actually being actually anti-competitive. There were many more lucrative pain points that Epic could have pressed in their case vs Apple, but they wanted to bring tepid farts to knockdown Atari vs Activision which as been battle tested for the better part of the last 40-50 years.

 

[Ctrlos]

You're making my point -- those who either supported Epic, were critical of Apple, or in general just support the rights consumer -- don't actually care about (or care to understand) the merits of the Epic vs Apple case.

It's noble that you want more options - but as you've pointed out with Google, just options alone isn't enough. Options can't be a checkmark item.

There is a reason why console manufacturers (as well as, Apple / Google) are allowed to close off their platforms if they want. For that matter, a reason why the courts typically defend this practice of businesses. i.e. why the U.S. Supreme Court let stand the findings of the Epic vs Apple case (at the trial court and the review of the appellate court). I just think you'd tell me the whatever the reason is, it's irrelevant or nonsense.


This is great, yes, you can choose whatever makes sense to you as the consumer. And, you might be able to snag a closeout deal or a loss leader sale. But, the choices available to you and the prices they are presented at are illusions and manipulations. Epic ostensibly was attacking that with the Epic vs Apple case, but they got so fixated on trying to steal the platform for themselves that they missed the forest for the trees and ended up with almost nothing.

But, that doesn't matter, they got the win that counts (or should): Epic vs Google -- which got zero publication, coverage, or news after the opening salvo, until literally the day the decision was released. And if you read it exposes the 3rd party app stores and sideloading for what they are -- an illusion. Android 3rd party app stores suck, because Google manipulates them to suck. They're there to give you a warm fuzzy feeling (yes, you -- as in Ctrlos) and to Google the moral high ground. But behind the scene they make sure that all the important apps stay in the PlayStore meaning they don't have to compete, don't have to lower commission, all the business and revenue stays with them, and don't have to care about the customer or improve things for the customer, more then necessary.

This will have a knock on effect that Apple won't have cover from Google anymore. Apple's "bad behavior" is supported by Android not being a clear alternative to iOS. If the Android platform actually becomes viable because Google can't be anti-competitive and developers are actually free to make viable 3rd party app stores or sell directly to consumers -- I think Apple's App Store will clear out quite quickly if Apple don't make changes. (This is aside from Apple harpooning themselves in the foot with their response to their judge telling them to let developers link to their own website for subscription purchases, potentially even having criminal liability)


This was because Google was the one actually being actually anti-competitive. There were many more lucrative pain points that Epic could have pressed in their case vs Apple, but they wanted to bring tepid farts to knockdown Atari vs Activision which as been battle tested for the better part of the last 40-50 years.

The Epic Vs Apple case was largely misunderstood. It was never and has never been about the App Store. Tim Sweeney's ultimate goal is the Epic Store on Playstation consoles.

According to Epic's own evidence during the trial, Apple devices accounted for a measily 4% of Fortnite revenue compared to the 60% it drew from PlayStation gamers. The 30% cut Epic pays to Sony is a lot larger than the 30% cut they paid to Apple. Why go through all that courtroom palava just to claw back what amounts to maybe 1% of overall revenues?

In 2020 there was a building amount of tension between developers and Apple about the arbitrary commission they paid to Apple. Apple were the biggest fish in the pond and they took advantage of it for their own reasons.

If Epic sued and lost they've gained is a lot of free marketing from the press. But if they sue and win they could leverage that ruling against every other digital platform ultimately allowing for the Epic Store on PlayStation consoles.

So why not just sue Sony? In the first instance Epic aren't stupid enough to bite the hand that feeds them. Sony are also an investor in Epic so they had to tread carefully. There was a building antitrust wave against Apple they could serve and it would generate the most publicity.

They didn't win and so continue to bemoan things but in reality it has nothing to do with Apple (unless Sweeney has some Lex Luthor complex about iOS!)

Not that I support their actions but Epic are keenly aware of software as the platform of the future. A phone is really just an empty shell for it's OS after all. They wanted to build Fortnite into a gaming platform of it's own. They were the first company to nudge Sony into allowing cross-platform online play for example. There was every chance they might have won.

 

[31 Flavas]

In 2020 there was a building amount of tension between developers and Apple about the arbitrary commission they paid to Apple. Apple were the biggest fish in the pond and they took advantage of it for their own reasons.

Is the number "30%" itself for the commission arbitrary, is Apple charging different developers a different commission rate, is Apple arbitrarily assigning different fees (outside of the commission) to different developers? This would have been great stuff to bring up at the trial.

If Epic sued and lost they've gained is a lot of free marketing from the press. But if they sue and win they could leverage that ruling against every other digital platform ultimately allowing for the Epic Store on PlayStation consoles.

Except if you've read Epic's own musings in their filings (or just followed the lawsuit on Mac Rumors) Epic specifically were exempting console video game hardware manufacturers. By and large their argument was that the 30% they charge was necessary and valid as the console manufacturers sell the hardware systems, at a loss (i.e. subsidize), to the end consumer. Therefore, they're entitled to recoup the loss/subsidy they provide to gamers from the commission they charge the video game developers. I think they also wanted to claim that video game hardware was special purpose hardware that wasn't a general PC. Where as Apple does not sell the iOS hardware at a loss and argue that the iPhone / iPad are general purpose PCs.

That said these excuses from Epic don't hold water. Playstation and Xbox are literally PCs that just have locked down hardware. And Nintendo has never sold their hardware at any loss or discount.

Even if Epic had won Apple -- I don't think any judge would look favorably on them going back on their argument / word. Epic would make up a different argument and technicalities, but the court(s) aren't dumb. That said, while Google lost its own case to Epic the precedence behind their monopoly wasn't ruled unconstitutional -- from what I understand -- one part of the proposed remedies is that the PlayStore had to be severed from Google. And those favorable deals they were providing to keep apps in the PlayStore are going bye-bye. That is the PlayStore itself is not getting broken open and they don't have to change their commission %. But, they don't get support from Google and Google gets none of the revenue from PlayStore. And the new PlayStore will have to actually compete against 3rd party app stores. I don't know if that means it has to be sold to someone.

So, anyway, I'm not really buying this angle. Atari v Activision was upheld in both Apple's and Google's Epic case. Google was just found have engaged in text book anti-competitive business.

 

[drrich2]

And the new PlayStore will have to actually compete against 3rd party app stores.

I'm not saying this is true of you, but over the years a number of people and even the government seem enamored of 'breaking up' companies, mandating some division be split off , etc..., apparently assuming that being 'big' in a particular sector means your business model should be viable for longterm survival competing as a 'one trick pony' in the free market.

Oh, really? MySpace, Blackberry, Nokia, Yahoo, Atari, WordStar, Lotus 1-2-3, how many more 'household names' from the past are now either extinct or afterthoughts?

The companies that appear best positioned to survive the long haul are those that have strong, deep presences in multiple markets. Remember when Amazon was an online bookstore, seemingly at a disadvantage to Barnes & Noble (which is both)? Amazon diversified mightily. And look what happened.

Companies with deep pockets in one sector can finance developing and rolling out products and services in another. As much as some people resent big 'mega-corporations,' there are benefits to the products, services and stability brought by platforms from Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc...