Spotify Sides With Epic Games in Battle Against Apple's App Store Fees

[larrylaffer]

Some of us old timers remember when Microsoft got nailed for bundling IE, and we were all for the punishment meted down on them at the time.

I struggle to see the difference here, but for a lot you, your tune has changed.

 

[KevIsMac]

Take a second to read the complaint. Epic alleges the single option / Apple payment processing is at issue and monopolistic, not the store. I tend to agree given the law.

Look at it from the store out, not from the product down. For instance, say that a mall forced every store to use the mall's credit card processing service. That's ok because there are many malls and business/consumer choice. But now assume that the mall also makes its own product (phone?), and the only way to sell add ons for the product/phone is through its mall using its processing service.

I think that's a flawed point because to use your example, its ok if a mall makes everyone use their credit card system. You said that's ok because there are many malls, which is the same. The iPhone is only one of hundreds of phones, so that example would favor Apple. The truth is that now that fornite is so big they want more money. The face that they have been making apps for the iPhone for a decade and only now our band proves its a money thing. They want more of the cash. Apple does have to pay for storage, employees to run the farms, have you seen those data places they have, that's not cheap. It's the price to have your App. Its greed and that's not right. They could make there game only on Android as not all games our cross platform but no, they want to be on the iPhone and they want the whole cake.

 

[Art Mark]

Take a second to read the complaint. Epic alleges the single option / Apple payment processing is at issue and monopolistic, not the store. I tend to agree given the law.

Look at it from the store out, not from the product down. For instance, say that a mall forced every store to use the mall's credit card processing service. That's ok because there are many malls and business/consumer choice. But now assume that the mall also makes its own product (phone?), and the only way to sell add ons for the product/phone is through its mall using its processing service.

I don't think that would be illegal in any way. A restaurant can only accept any given pay system and it's up to consumers to decide if they want to go there. Try using a Mastercard at Costco. Apple is not the dominant player in mobile phones and that fact will be nearly impossible to get around.

 

[pacalis]

This should be great. Waiting for Walmart, Amazon and even Unreal Engine to make their markups an optional payment.

 

[BaltimoreMediaBlog]

No one would have had the nerve to embarrass Steve Jobs in such a way. No one is scared of Timmy.

 

[KevIsMac]

Some of us old timers remember when Microsoft got nailed for bundling IE, and we were all for the punishment meted down on them at the time.

I struggle to see the difference here, but for a lot you, your tune has changed.

I think the main difference is almost everyone has windows computers and they weren't given a choice to use another provider. This has to do with something that has nothing to do with consumer choices just a company wanting more of the revenue. They could make their game for Android as those sell more than iPhones but no they want to be on the iPhone and not pay the precent as in the agreement they signed and benefited from.

 

[4jasontv]

Take a second to read the complaint. Epic alleges the single option / Apple payment processing is at issue and monopolistic, not the store. I tend to agree given the law.

Look at it from the store out, not from the product down. For instance, say that a mall forced every store to use the mall's credit card processing service. That's ok because there are many malls and business/consumer choice. But now assume that the mall also makes its own product (phone?), and the only way to sell add ons for the product/phone is through its mall using its processing service.

Imagine trying to open your own store in a mall without paying rent.

 

[OtherJesus]

Google just removed Fortnite too. Whoopsie. Bet they didn’t plan on that. Will be seeing a lawsuit against Google as well?

 

[KevIsMac]

Problem is they can't because there's no other way to make your app available on iOS.

To be clear, I think it's fine for Apple to decide what can and can't go on the App Store. But equally they shouldn't restrict users from installing apps from outside the app store.

Not true, they can make web apps and things like that. They want to be on the App Store, the App Store has rules and its not free to run. People are missing the face that this company has made apps for the App Store for a decade with no problem but now that Fornite is so popular and so many people buy things in the game they want all of it, its greed not choice. If they didn't complain for a decade its cause they never had a problem with it before. Greed and nothing else.

 

[Analog Kid]

Spotify... what a bunch of cowards.

Standing on the sidelines egging someone else on in the fight. Want to support Epic? Put some skin in the game and pull your app as well.

But they won’t, because they want the subscribers and they know it’s a failing strategy.

 

[robertcoogan]

Now Google Play has banned Fortnite as well.

 

[m4mario]

This is a long overdue case.
1) Apple having the only valid store is a good thing. That is not a problem.
2) Every in app purchase in its store going through Apple in itself is not a problem.

However, when we combine these 2, some questions arise about monopoly.
At the same time, this does provide customer security benefits. For example, if I pay some app in-app and the app does not work, Apple will not be able to guarantee any refunds. Apple also cannot guarantee if a $1.99 purchase, will actually be charged $99.99. This will totally create a set of apps that are absolute scams and Apple or customers wont be able to do much about it. It looks like a monopoly, but the consequences of removing these measures will kill the iOS ecosystem.

 

[hot-gril]

Again, silly argument. Do you not own the device that's in your hand? Why are you forced to decide where to buy/get your apps?

They've allowed it on the mac, zero reason to allow this on iOS.

I'm not forced to decide where to get my apps, I can get an Android phone and don't want to. It sounds like you want someone to force Apple to build the phone the way you like it. I own my device, which means I can hack if I really want, not that I get to tell Apple how to make it.
[automerge]1597363120[/automerge]

What "Prime competitor" is looking for the same deal but is unable to get it?

Apple would have put this in the guidelines if there were many similar service, but so far only 1 exists.

Spotify competes in music. Amazon doesn't have to pay the 30% for music sales, or do they?

 

[hot-gril]

Now Google Play has banned Fortnite as well.

I guess sneaky updates are frowned upon in both places.

 

[Virinprew]

I think a lot of people are forgetting that Apple has done a lot of work to keep the store open, make sure the device play nice with your app, add more features for developers to use, provide a lot of documentation on how to make your app work great, and put it at your customer’s fingertips. If a developer want to sell his idea, his app, in the old days, he must build a software, put them on a physical media, place them at physical stores and release a new one if they want to update. All of those cost are now taken care of by Apple. You just send the code and you’re good to go. I’d say 30% is reasonable.

As for the alternative-store topic, it’s unfortunate that iOS and Android are the only players on mobile. We just have to wait for a paradigm shift for them to fall. For now, no one can challenge them. Even Microsoft failed.

 

[tongxinshe]

Take a second to read the complaint. Epic alleges the single option / Apple payment processing is at issue and monopolistic, not the store. I tend to agree given the law.

Look at it from the store out, not from the product down. For instance, say that a mall forced every store to use the mall's credit card processing service. That's ok because there are many malls and business/consumer choice. But now assume that the mall also makes its own product (phone?), and the only way to sell add ons for the product/phone is through its mall using its processing service.

Your metaphor only makes sense if the mall charges nothing to the stores who serve the customers for free, no rent, no utility bills, nothing!

 

[hot-gril]

This is a long overdue case.
1) Apple having the only valid store is a good thing. That is not a problem.
2) Every in app purchase in its store going through Apple in itself is not a problem.

However, when we combine these 2, some questions arise about monopoly.
At the same tine, this does provide customer security benefits. For example, if I pay some app in-app and the app does not work, Apple will not be able to guarantee any refunds. Apple also cannot guarantee if a $1.99 purchase, will actually be charged $99.99. This will totally create a set of apps that are absolute scams and Apple or customers wont be able to do much about it. It looks like a monopoly, but the consequences of removing these measures will kill the iOS ecosystem.

Exactly, anyone arguing for regulation forgets how awful the paid software scene is on PCs. Most devs can't really charge for software cause nobody wants to buy from random places, piracy is rampant, and the big sellers like Adobe make you install borderline malware. To anyone who disagrees, when's the last time you bought Mac software?

 

[Analog Kid]

This is a long overdue case.
1) Apple having the only valid store is a good thing. That is not a problem.
2) Every in app purchase in its store going through Apple in itself is not a problem.

However, when we combine these 2, some questions arise about monopoly.
At the same tine, this does provide customer security benefits. For example, if I pay some app in-app and the app does not work, Apple will not be able to guarantee any refunds. Apple also cannot guarantee if a $1.99 purchase, will actually be charged $99.99. This will totally create a set of apps that are absolute scams and Apple or customers wont be able to do much about it. It looks like a monopoly, but the consequences of removing these measures will kill the iOS ecosystem.

It doesn’t look like monopoly, it looks like a boutique device provider imposing order on the boutique services it offers.

<15% market share in smartphones is not a monopoly position in gaming. If they truly had a monopoly, Epic never would have stuck their neck out.

 

[ilikewhey]

I wonder if Apple lawyers will drop the case related to the pear logo. They've got plenty of work for the next few years.

they got plenty of lawyers

 

[Yojimbo007]

Apple created the ecosystem for their platform ... and all these spoiled developers who made millions/billion from that very same service and platform....are now forgetting how they got there.
Apple provided them and the the consumer a secure ecosystem through which both sides could comfortably and with peace of mind trade.
Providing and managing all that is not free for Apple... on top Apple is not a charity organization.. its a Buisness.
As for monoplistic behavior... how can one be a monopolist when they only hold 13% -16% of the market share in smartphones and mobile devices in units!?
Now if they held 95% market share like windows did.. its a very different story.
The consumer has a choice to go elase where.. actually aprox 85% do !
It is Apple‘s world and their own ecosys of their own creation.... u dont like it.. move on to the other options. There are plenty of options.
There is no Monopoly.

 

[TheRealTVGuy]

Problem is they can't because there's no other way to make your app available on iOS.

To be clear, I think it's fine for Apple to decide what can and can't go on the App Store. But equally they shouldn't restrict users from installing apps from outside the app store.

Then they (EPIC) can design and sell their own phone.

 

[Kabeyun]

And in other news, the sun rises in the East.

 

[Aoligei]

Why not? Is Walmart entitled to 50% of every purchase? Amazon?

But manufacturers can choose not sell through Walmart, Amazon and sell somewhere else.

Apple does not give option to side-load, 3rd party App Store etc.... Where Google has no problem with 3rd party App Store.

Anyway, I refuse purchase anything through in app purchase. I have problem with how anti-competitive Apple is.

I rather take risk to side load apps then purchase staff from App Store directly.

I would rather pay developer directly, not willing to take my money to Apple, because I have issue with 30% cut.

If Apple wants to open store to sell application, they are the one should eat the cost.

 

[hot-gril]

It doesn’t look like monopoly, it looks like a boutique device provider imposing order on the boutique services it offers.

<15% market share in smartphones is not a monopoly position in gaming. If they truly had a monopoly, Epic never would have stuck their neck out.

Yes, leave my premium phone alone.

 

[DeepIn2U]

LMAO. Epic Hames is cute thinking their parody of Apple’s classic 1984 commercial is going to hurt them or end users.

Spotify, like a certain upper echelon person in our society today keeps pandering to its base and lies to users with “disadvantaged competitors and deprived consumers for far too long.”
The problem with that statement is both Epic Games and Spotify have been VERY successful both financially and with exponential user base.

Spotify got out of operating losses or much closer to being in the black, and Epic Games got epic numbers of youth to play whenever & wherever they are spending $$$ dollars.

funny how the article focuses on Apple yet just updated after this news bite Google spammed the hammer on. epic Games’ fortnite game as well.

they still made their loot. They raised their fees to offsite the 30% payment to Apple. This did NOT hurt competitors - their success did and still would hurt their game competitors (Spotify music competitors) without any store fees. I don’t understand why this is so hard to get or see through their marketing bs. They agreed but wait until the hype to do and say something about it.

I’m curious. On XBox and PS4 does Fortnight charge more for online play directly inside or outside of their respective stores therein or not?