Having favorites is indeed a crime. That’s why I like all flavors of ice cream equally.
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.
Judge in Apple v. Epic Case Sides With Apple on Fortnite and Epic on Unreal Engine [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Having favorites is indeed a crime. That’s why I like all flavors of ice cream equally.
You're right this is such an unfair comparison to Apple because in the example where you buy it from a store not only do you have to pay a license to Microsoft or Sony you have to also pay it to the store as well! That's another 30% or more gone to put it in a physical retail form not to mention how much it costs you to produce the physical media, the boxes and then ship it out to the game to a store. Just imagine barely getting 30% of the game's retail price! That is downright crazy! And worse if they don't sell your product, they send it back to you to deal with and bill you for it. Dealing with retail sucks!
They're making a pragmatic decision here, on both sides. The gaming consoles make their money from games licensing and Netflix is adjacent to it as a use case. Realistically those consoles could try to force Netflix into a similar term as Apple but it isn't in their interest because they're making their money on mass market games. If anything this is where the distinction on the "general purpose" versus "specific purpose" actually holds but not in a way that works in Epic's favour: Apple's platform treats apps on it that provide for the purchase of digital content as needing to complete that through their IAP to subsidise the costs of running their platform. They could quite possibly make a special exemption for Netflix to even take their own purposes but for what Apple needs, which is the app to exist on the device, they've carved out an exception for Netflix to not be required to provide an in-app subscription option for it's users. The reason is that Apple pragmatically can't afford to lose Netflix and related apps from their platform whilst Netflix could realistically walk away from iOS. You'll note the distinction is that they don't require IAP for some digital purchases but they still prevent using third party checkout options. They're trying to keep themselves in the picture so that they don't create a loophole where they make no money out of the App Store and end up not being able to fund running the store at all.
I agree, it's an annoying distinction that one can stream anything from Netflix but xCloud some how has some sort of content problem. I think there is a path forward where there is some sort of ability to veto particular games from streaming to iOS that Apple can invoke though who knows if they'd actually come to that agreement.
I think everyone is beating on Epic for how they've broken the rules rather than that they've broken it and the rather obvious marketing campaign they're putting around it. Increasingly I'm wondering if Tim Sweeney isn't intentionally trying to litigate this on Twitter because they know they don't expect to win in court. Epic could have crossed the line, triggered the block and then put it back and STILL pushed the Apple is evil narrative but we're making sure Fortnite users aren't hurt by this. Epic decided not to do that and went one further to not release an updated Fortnite on MacOS. I personally wonder if Epic could have submitted a version of Fortnite with their own IAP pathway, had Apple block that and then filed the claim on the basis of the rejection. However that is significantly less drama and if you don't have a legal case you might as well go all out with your marketing campaign.
Even vanilla? It's just so plain, I thought you were cool, now I just...I just don't know man.
Not really. No matter how you process cards, you have to pay the fee that the bank that issued the card charges, plus the fee that the payment network (Visa, Mastercard, etc.) charges. The typical range is from 1.15% + 5 cents up to 3.15% + 10 cents. For a $7.99 transaction, that comes to anywhere from 14.2–35.1 cents. And for a card-not-present transaction like this one, unless they're doing payment processing on the same order of magnitude as somebody like Apple, you can safely assume that they're paying on the high side of that range. And that's before you factor in any fees paid to the payment processor, if they aren't one.
In other words, they were probably actually taking a slight loss on their direct sales compared with what they made from their Apple sales, but $7.99 is a better price point than $8.04, and they almost certainly more than made up for the difference through increased sales volume.
There is also chargeback fees and any refunds that might happen because that also incurs a charge. There is a lot of other expenses that processing credit cards can incur. Apple also batch up CC transactions for known accounts so that they only hit a card once a day or so depending on transaction value, so Apple also potentially eat some of that failings as well. Apple also obviously have a good grasp of the credit cards because of other transactions. People quote the base transaction fees but there are all sorts of extra charges on top.
These are all good points but the fact of the matter is everywhere 30% is the normal, there are other avenues to buy the product, other than Apple. It doesn't matter if they take 30% or even more or less, or whether people use those other options, it's just that all other parties HAVE options and Apple doesn't and is seen in the public eye going out of there way to forcefully stop other options being mentioned or just like with facebook not even allowing the app to say where the money is going from the IAP because it isn't "relevant".You're right this is such an unfair comparison to Apple because in the example where you buy it from a store not only do you have to pay a license to Microsoft or Sony you have to also pay it to the store as well! That's another 30% or more gone to put it in a physical retail form not to mention how much it costs you to produce the physical media, the boxes and then ship it out to the game to a store. Just imagine barely getting 30% of the game's retail price! That is downright crazy! And worse if they don't sell your product, they send it back to you to deal with and bill you for it. Dealing with retail sucks!
They're making a pragmatic decision here, on both sides. The gaming consoles make their money from games licensing and Netflix is adjacent to it as a use case. Realistically those consoles could try to force Netflix into a similar term as Apple but it isn't in their interest because they're making their money on mass market games. If anything this is where the distinction on the "general purpose" versus "specific purpose" actually holds but not in a way that works in Epic's favour: Apple's platform treats apps on it that provide for the purchase of digital content as needing to complete that through their IAP to subsidise the costs of running their platform. They could quite possibly make a special exemption for Netflix to even take their own purposes but for what Apple needs, which is the app to exist on the device, they've carved out an exception for Netflix to not be required to provide an in-app subscription option for it's users. The reason is that Apple pragmatically can't afford to lose Netflix and related apps from their platform whilst Netflix could realistically walk away from iOS. You'll note the distinction is that they don't require IAP for some digital purchases but they still prevent using third party checkout options. They're trying to keep themselves in the picture so that they don't create a loophole where they make no money out of the App Store and end up not being able to fund running the store at all.
I agree, it's an annoying distinction that one can stream anything from Netflix but xCloud some how has some sort of content problem. I think there is a path forward where there is some sort of ability to veto particular games from streaming to iOS that Apple can invoke though who knows if they'd actually come to that agreement.
I think everyone is beating on Epic for how they've broken the rules rather than that they've broken it and the rather obvious marketing campaign they're putting around it. Increasingly I'm wondering if Tim Sweeney isn't intentionally trying to litigate this on Twitter because they know they don't expect to win in court. Epic could have crossed the line, triggered the block and then put it back and STILL pushed the Apple is evil narrative but we're making sure Fortnite users aren't hurt by this. Epic decided not to do that and went one further to not release an updated Fortnite on MacOS. I personally wonder if Epic could have submitted a version of Fortnite with their own IAP pathway, had Apple block that and then filed the claim on the basis of the rejection. However that is significantly less drama and if you don't have a legal case you might as well go all out with your marketing campaign.
Even vanilla? It's just so plain, I thought you were cool, now I just...I just don't know man.
The hits keep coming lol
Netflix allows certain movies and tv episodes free access on Windows, MacOS and Android but not iOS lol.
You can now watch select Netflix originals for free without a subscription
You can now access several Netflix originals like Stranger Things for free without requiring a subscription to the streaming platform.
www.androidauthority.com
Netflix allows certain movies and tv episodes free access on Windows, MacOS and Android but not iOS lol.
Because IOS users already have a subscription or trial?The hits keep coming lol
You can now watch select Netflix originals for free without a subscription
You can now access several Netflix originals like Stranger Things for free without requiring a subscription to the streaming platform.www.androidauthority.com
Netflix allows certain movies and tv episodes free access on Windows, MacOS and Android but not iOS lol.
It isn't through the netflix app. It's done through the devices internet browser allowing anyone who doesnt have a sub or trial to check out certain movies/tv episodes without having to install anything.
There is nothing new with Apple "restricting options" as they have a long history of doing that. It's my belief the public eye understands Apple limits options to control their ecosystem.
Let me pose a hypothetical, if Apple charged 30% of any revenue generated on the platform as a license fee for the platform and then let you handle payment processing yourself, would you be fine with this?
You don’t want to rent telephones from Ma Bell? You’re free to not have a telephone!
This generation has Stockholm syndrome! Unbelievable that so many people are defending monopolistic practices.
The iPhone and iPad are now general purpose computers. No one would accept a locked down Windows, macOS or Linux so why should iOS/ipadOS be locked down forever?
Apple can solve this problem by bringing Gatekeeper over to iOS. If you don’t want to install anything without the App Store you won’t have to.
But it isn't that you're "free to not have a telephone" it's that you're free not to buy a phone from Apple and instead buy a phone from Google, Samsung, Huawei, LG, Motorola, OnePlus, Oppo, Xiaomi, Nokia, HTC and many more. You have a choice to not buy the device from Apple.
Ahh the Epic line, the phone that is so custom that it has Apple designed just about everything is a general purpose computer and a Playstation that is so general purpose that it can run Linux is in fact not a general purpose device.
Good news is that Apple are bringing the same lock down capabilities to their Apple Silicon Macs, we'll get to see who accepts a locked down MacOS.
To pose the counter question, plenty of people seem happy with their locked down iOS/iPadOS devices, why should they ever be unlocked? Just imagine if there were alternative hardware vendors you could choose that let you do what you want.
I'm not sure Apple see it as a problem, I'm sure you see it as a problem but all of this reminds me of that one girl that kept trying to change the guy to be perfect and couldn't accept them for who they were. Don't worry, they broke up too.
Last edited:
Does that mean it will allow Amazon to put in a payment system to buy electronic books and comic books in the iOS Kindle and ComiXology apps? And allow Amazon's own iOS app to allow the buying of Kindle books?
But the court ruling also stated that Apple has the right to charge a commission for its IP (iOS, including the App Store). This means that Apple can still charge developers whatever they want, they just have to let those developers offer a third party payment link or button in the app. Apple could decide that the yearly developers fee is $100,000,000 per year for big companies if it wanted to. Or it could still demand a % of sales for each app, it just means that if the developer didn't pay the bill to Apple, then Apple removes their apps from the App Store. Nothing about the ruling is a huge blow to Apple. Apple has said all along that the reason they prefer the IAP directly through Apple is that they don't have to chase up developers for the commission.
If a consumer does not want to be locked into Apples "Walled Garden", then they are free to purchase an Android phone from one of hundreds of different Android phone makers. The fact is each and every person that purchases an iOS device knows for well that they are going to be locked into iOS for purchasing apps, etc. Apple doesn't even make the cheapest phones, so no one can use the " but I can''t afford to buy an Android phone" excuse either.
It's a bad take in general, Apple can't prevent apps from putting links to or advertising external payment systems that may offer either a cheaper price than IAP or in fact be the only way of giving that company money.
The judgement explicitly states that the IAP restrictions do not violate the Sherman Act. Virtual Legality has a feature length deep dive on the decision but here is a link to the relevant portion and it goes onto cover the various findings.
The decision reads:
Pretty clear statement and CNN's headline clearly not based in reality.
Yeah, and this is part of the problem in terms of the suit: Apple has always acted this way from when they had next to no marketshare to today. Buying into Apple has always meant the walled garden and for their IAP always taken 30% without increasing it (if anything, decreasing it).
The difference is that most Windows systems are not connected to the telephone network (anymore, after analog modems went out of style), whereas the vast majority of iPhones are connected to the cellular network. At times, more than half of all email traffic is spam (mostly due to people installing random bot software on their PCs), and the phone companies didn't want that to happen to telephone traffic as well. Thus Apple locked down the iPhone to keep Cingular happy, and thus make the iPhone more profitable for the telcos, et.al. to sell.
Most people on older phone networks would not like their phone bill to double to pay for more spam and malware.