Epic is not fighting for users nor developers. They have zero care. They planned this lawsuits and ToS breaking actions simply due to their revenue declining. Epic simply wants to not pay Apple while still benefiting from the platform.
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 Epic vs. Apple Case Floats Potential Compromise
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They can charge on per download, per update, per mb served, per months hosted, per view, per review, per click, per feature, per review, per rejected review, per API call, per push, and on membership fees.
Can you explain why Apple should be forced to allow anyone to develop any platform within iOS? iOS is Apple's platform that contains millions of components and must work correctly together. Millions of engineering hours has been spent developing iOS and millions more will be spent further developing and maintaining it.
Let's use an analogy. Suppose you had build a mega successful theme park where there are millions of visitors visiting the theme park. You collect mega fees for the rights to enter the theme park so you already profited from your hard work. Would you be willing to let anyone to set up their rides within your mega successful theme park without any fees/compensations? Is it right that others should be able to profit from your hard work of building up the mega successful theme park without you getting any benefits? What happens if the rides operated by the third party starts attracting undesirable folks into the park and causing all sorts of mayhem, because maybe the rides are based on undesirable themes?
Do you think you should be forced to allow third party into your theme park?
This is essentially what EPIC is asking for.
My take is that nobody has any rights demanding Apple change iOS to suit their business model. Similarly nobody has any rights to demand that Sony, Microsoft or Google change their platform because somebody thinks they can make more money off others' platform.
So Apple is supposed to develop and maintain the App store for free out of the goodness of its heart? That’s the compromise? I like the walled garden experience free from spyware and viri and if I want freedom from it I’d have gone for Windows and Android. Epic needs to lose this case.
Xbox OS is based on Windows wouldn't you say?
Different products targeted for different use cases. Whether we like it or not, it is the product's developers design for their products. Just don't buy iOS devices if you don't like it. Nobody is forced to buy iOS devices.
Here a better compromise. Apple can set 18+ age restrictions on any app selling fake currency to kids.
It's EPIC's garbage business model that targets kids that's really at stake here.
It's EPIC's garbage business model that targets kids that's really at stake here.
There really is no slick solution here. However, I do believe developers should be allow to have a text only (non-clickable) URL on where the developer's web site is since the URL is listed and is clickable in the App Store. Or maybe they should be able to say. "To use this app please see developer's web site as listed in the App Store."
swingerofbirch
macrumors 68040
It used to. Still does. But used to have more.
I don't know if it's because of the Mac App Store, but it certainly changed around that time.
The Mac App Store has a lot of junk.
I disagree with your example here because it is wrong when trying to explain what's happening.
I believe it is more like Target will only let you pay using Target's check-out counters. Target will not let it's customer pay via check-out counters operated by third parties. Target allows multiple types of payment (e.g. cash, credit-cards, vouchers, etc), but it must be Target's check-out counters.
I don't think Target dictates the prices of the products on sale on their shelfs. Target apply mark-ups to the products on their shelf and that results in the sticker prices displayed in Target's products on their shelfs. If anyone thinks that the prices in Target are high, they can shop elsewhere. Going to Target to shop in spite of the 'high prices' because Target provides a much better experience but then demanding that prices be cheaper is unreasonable. Just don't shop there.
Last edited:
Dumb argument. You can pay at Target with many options including cash. But you can get iOS apps only on the App Store.
I've never understood this hatred of the "walled garden".
Most of us live in a societies that are a walled gardens, that are policed and safe.
It's the equivalent of saying "hey, we want no police or state. We want to be free".
Somalia comes to mind.
Go live there if you want absolute freedom and see how great it is.
Most of us live in a societies that are a walled gardens, that are policed and safe.
It's the equivalent of saying "hey, we want no police or state. We want to be free".
Somalia comes to mind.
Go live there if you want absolute freedom and see how great it is.
Maybe because now it's so much easier to see the apps in the Mac App Store centrally that gave you the insights into the proliferation of junk titles. You probably would not know about these apps previously, but they may already exists. So in a way, this is the value of having a centralised store.
Imagine if iOS is forced to allow multiple app stores.
While it seems like a small and fair compromise that would eliminate an App Store rule I've always considered unfair, I would be concerned about the law forcing Apple to alter a platform they rightfully own. See the old "I disagree with your opinion but will fight for your right to say it."
Well, they're not huge and dominant, and neither is iOS. If Apple wants to take a 60% cut, they can go ahead and watch their ecosystem melt.
Imagine Target and Ford and Charmin had a store selling nickels. Now, imagine those nickels were like identical, like little clones of each other, only some were reverse clones, facing the same way just upside down. NOW, imagine that for the price of a shiny penny minted before 1970, you could purchase three nickels and a song, but TWO pennies minted after 2001 would get you a red shilling and a promissory note to purchase a nickel in the future PLUS a dance with the queen.
That’s why my opinion is correct on this matter.
That’s why my opinion is correct on this matter.
Last edited:
One thing to keep in mind is that Apple thinks of the Least Common Denominator. You might want freedom, but what about most users including the elderly and kids? I'm only 40, but I like that every time I have a purchase show up that says it's from Apple, I get an email from Apple with a description of the cost. I don't want to have every app running it's own payment solution.
Do I think Apple needs to charge 30% for downloads and year 1 recurring payments? No. I think 10% or 15% is more than fair. But at the same time, how much does Best Buy make on products? or Target? or Costco? or a Safeway? I'm not an expert on pricing schemes, and I'm especially not an expert with online downloads. Still, Apple has taken 30% since the early days of iTunes and Music companies were praising Apple. Epic would be nothing without Apple.
Love this example, as this is what I've used in class with teens. I've explained that I can't go into a store, pay elsewhere, and walk out the door with the product. A storefront--as a middleman--is entitled to their cut.
Do I think Apple needs to charge 30% for downloads and year 1 recurring payments? No. I think 10% or 15% is more than fair. But at the same time, how much does Best Buy make on products? or Target? or Costco? or a Safeway? I'm not an expert on pricing schemes, and I'm especially not an expert with online downloads. Still, Apple has taken 30% since the early days of iTunes and Music companies were praising Apple. Epic would be nothing without Apple.
If given the choice of buying a subscription through the app via Apple, or going to the app developer’s site, I choose the former as much as possible. I want to deal with as few companies, with as few gross churn prevention techniques, as possible. I can cancel subs in one click in the App Store app. No nagging, no surveys, no hidden links, no being forced to call, no being signed up for unwanted marketing garbage.
This could be disastrous to free apps and to new, small developers -- maybe all small developers. I suspect Apple invests a very significant amount of money into developer tools, developer support, creating great, new APIs for developers, developing Swift, documenting all those APIs, etc., etc., etc. They'll want/need to fund this from somewhere. It could be by charging a much higher fee to developers than the current $99. They might, also, quit providing Xcode for free. This will result in fewer apps, fewer people exploring and self-learning Swift, and a large challenge to free apps. Why should Apple give away developer tools to people who don't use their monetization system?
Or maybe they'll let others provide the tools at great expense -- like the days of CodeWarrior, ThinkC, ThinkPascal, etc...
Alternatively, they could raise the cost of hardware -- effectively moving that cost to users. That will limit sales of hardware and put Apple at a disadvantage as the smaller platform player in the cell phone and PC spaces.
As I read these developments and Epic's claims, I get frustrated with how much they think they should get for free from Apple -- the platform, developer tools, language development, support, API documentation, etc...... Skirting Apple getting a cut could very significantly hinder Apple's platforms. It could be disastrous for the platforms as we know them.
I, like a number of others here, favor the true increased security (though not impenetrable) walled-garden.
Or maybe they'll let others provide the tools at great expense -- like the days of CodeWarrior, ThinkC, ThinkPascal, etc...
Alternatively, they could raise the cost of hardware -- effectively moving that cost to users. That will limit sales of hardware and put Apple at a disadvantage as the smaller platform player in the cell phone and PC spaces.
As I read these developments and Epic's claims, I get frustrated with how much they think they should get for free from Apple -- the platform, developer tools, language development, support, API documentation, etc...... Skirting Apple getting a cut could very significantly hinder Apple's platforms. It could be disastrous for the platforms as we know them.
I, like a number of others here, favor the true increased security (though not impenetrable) walled-garden.
Sideloading creates unnecessary confusion as companies like Epic will open lots of stores of various quality and security and if the want Fortnite they will have to fork over their credit card info to yet another company who may or may not be real or safe and no idea what info is being shared. The biggest problem is these customers will be operating under the assumption they are safe because they trust Apple. When the cesspool of criminal attacks like with android Apple will be the target of lawsuits. Google avoids it because they are not expecting safety with them. Many don’t even link Android with Google for some reason.