Two problems: 1. Epic never asked for an exception. They asked for the rules to be changed. 2. Apple makes that very same exception for its own products. You can always tell if someone is in trouble when they start answering questions no one asked.
... We won't make an exception for Epic because we don't think it's right to put their business interests ahead of the guidelines that protect our customers.
... If Apple moves forward with its planned course of action, Epic will no longer be able to update the Unreal Engine ... Epic filed a temporary restraining order to halt Apple's escalation, saying the iPhone maker "is attacking Epic's entire business in unrelated areas."
So, basically, Epic’s strategy assumed Apple would not ban them as a developer. I wonder if this is standard practice for developers who purposely try to circumvent the in-app rules, or if it is an exception.
If it is an exception, it’s funny because Epic wanted Apple to make an exception for them, and they will have. Just not the exception they wanted!
If it is not, and this is standard practice, then it just shows how ill-considered the whole gambit has been.
What Epic did with Fortnight to bypass Apple in app paying method, did not result in Apple saying that they will pull Epic developer license at the end of the month. All Apple did was to ban Fortnight from the App Store.
Apple discovered Epic was violating several other rules of their enterprise developer license and informed Epic that their license will be pulled unless they remedy it by the end of the month. There has been no mention of what those violations entails. Or at least I haven't found any source with detail about those other violations. But my guess is that it's on the scale of what Facebook did in violation of Apple Enterprise Developer license, when the allowed non employees to side load a data mining app.
Apple threat of pulling Epic developer license is a separate issue, but Epic is making it seem that Apple is threatening to pull their developer license over what they did with updating Fortnight to bypass Apple in app paying method. And that is not true. All Apple did was to ban Fortnight from the App Store, until Epic fixed Fortnight to conform with the App Store rules. Like they would do with all apps that didn't conform to App Store rules. One does not lose their developer license just because they had an app that didn't conform to the App Store rules. How would Apple expect you to fix the problem than got your app banned, if they took alway your developer license and the use of the tools needed to fix the problem?
"Fortnite should put the actual rap songs behind the dances that make so much money as Emotes. Black creatives created and popularized these dances but never monetized them. Imagine the money people are spending on these Emotes being shared with the artists that made them — Chance The Rapper Album in July (@chancetherapper) ;July 13, 2018"
Epic stole dance moves from popular black artists and sold them to kids for a profit. The artists did not receive a penny or recognition for their work.
It’s just a dance...no one gets paid when rappers use other rappers dance moves at their shows. Did Will Smith have to give royalties to the inventor of the Running Man dance when he performed it on The Fresh Prince of Bel Air? Nope!
This is really simple- Epic can go build HW if it wants. Apple does not hide the fact that the App Store is the way to get programs and they take a cut for hosting and distribution.
And there is nothing wrong with making a profit off of something that they worked hard to create, and work on continuously supporting and improving on.
Two problems: 1. Epic never asked for an exception. They asked for the rules to be changed. 2. Apple makes that very same exception for its own products. You can always tell if someone is in trouble when they start answering questions no one asked.
Problems with your hypothesis. First, they are demanding the rules to be changed for them. Wether it is an exception just for them, or something that everybody gets is of no consequence to Epic. They are really trying hard to make their failing practice of 18% the "new norm", and to maximize their profits. Simple as that. Secondly, this "exception" for themselves is the craziest thing I have ever heard of. Let's do the math. Apple takes a 30% cut off from every app and in app purchase sold, right? So if Apple were to sell something for $3.99 (Dark Sky Weather). So a 30% cut of $3.99 is $1.20 (which goes to Apple). The remaining $2.79 goes to the developer, which is Apple. So explain to me how Apple is doing anything other than participating in the same system that everyone else does? There is zero difference between that and Amazon selling their Amazon Essentials on their site, or Walmart selling "Great Value" in their stores.
As noted in an opinion piece at 9to5Mac, Apple really is poking antitrust regulators with a stick by essentially banning the Unreal Engine from the App Store. If Apple wins and is found not guilty of monopolistic practises (which as people here constantly refuse to understand: a company doesn't need to be a monopoly to fall afoul of monopolistic practise legalisation), it's quite likely legislation will be created with Apple specifically in mind. If that does happen, unless Apple accepts the outcome of the legalisation and applies the same rules worldwide, they will end up with app sideloading in some countries and not others, and different developer fees in various countries. This will make it a mess for Apple and developers.
Two problems: 1. Epic never asked for an exception. They asked for the rules to be changed. 2. Apple makes that very same exception for its own products. You can always tell if someone is in trouble when they start answering questions no one asked.
There is zero difference between that and Amazon selling their Amazon Essentials on their site, or Walmart selling "Great Value" in their stores.
I'm not sure there's much weight to the 30% argument for Apple's own apps, but I think there is regarding the rules Apple applies to developers versus itself. The difference between products on Amazon and the App Store, is iOS developers have no choice but to use the App Store for iOS apps. You are correct in that Apple selling their own apps is the same as Amazon selling Amazon Essentials items on their site. However, iOS developers *have* to sell their apps on the App Store. They can't sell their app in the Google Play store because it's not compatible. People making coffee machines or whatever don't *have* to sell their coffee machine on Amazon's store, they can sell them in Walmart, direct, eBay, whatever. If they don't like the markup Amazon charges, they're free to go elsewhere. iOS developers can't go elsewhere. Saying they can go to the Google Play store is an entirely false equivalence because they can't just sell the same product at the Google Play store without rewriting the whole thing. Yes they can use cross-platform APIs to assist this, but cross-platform iOS apps are pretty crap.
A better equivalence would be BMW forcing every customer to buy all spares and accessories through them, and anyone making any kind of spare part or accessory for any BMW has to sell through BMW, and BMW charging the manufacturer 30% for the privilege. Want a phone holder? Got to go through BMW. Need a new thermostat? Got to go through BMW. As it is now, people can replace parts on their car with compatible third party parts (equivalent to sideloading apps on iOS/Android) and that's their risk. People are aware of this risk and are usually willing to take it even if it's their life on the line (unlike the risk with iPhone sideloading, where the worst that can happen is you get malware) - because the risk is so low it's worth it.
As noted in an opinion piece at 9to5Mac, Apple really is poking antitrust regulators with a stick by essentially banning the Unreal Engine from the App Store. If Apple wins and is found not guilty of monopolistic practises (which as people here constantly refuse to understand: a company doesn't need to be a monopoly to fall afoul of monopolistic practise legalisation), it's quite likely legislation will be created with Apple specifically in mind. If that does happen, unless Apple accepts the outcome of the legalisation and applies the same rules worldwide, they will end up with app sideloading in some countries and not others, and different developer fees in various countries. This will make it a mess for Apple and developers.
As noted in an opinion piece at 9to5Mac, Apple really is poking antitrust regulators with a stick by essentially banning the Unreal Engine from the App Store. If Apple wins and is found not guilty of monopolistic practises (which as people here constantly refuse to understand: a company doesn't need to be a monopoly to fall afoul of monopolistic practise legalisation), it's quite likely legislation will be created with Apple specifically in mind. If that does happen, unless Apple accepts the outcome of the legalisation and applies the same rules worldwide, they will end up with app sideloading in some countries and not others, and different developer fees in various countries. This will make it a mess for Apple and developers.
The whole thing is a mess for Apple, customers and developers. All because Epic wants to make a few billion more at the expense of everyone else.
"Fortnite should put the actual rap songs behind the dances that make so much money as Emotes. Black creatives created and popularized these dances but never monetized them. Imagine the money people are spending on these Emotes being shared with the artists that made them — Chance The Rapper Album in July (@chancetherapper) ;July 13, 2018"
Epic stole dance moves from popular black artists and sold them to kids for a profit. The artists did not receive a penny or recognition for their work.
It’s just a dance...no one gets paid when rappers use other rappers dance moves at their shows. Did Will Smith have to give royalties to the inventor of the Running Man dance when he performed it on The Fresh Prince of Bel Air? Nope!
Don't you know the laws of the universe? Don't criticize others unless your own house is in order.
V-bucks is just fake money... Epic shouldn't be charging real money for them right?
Two problems: 1. Epic never asked for an exception. They asked for the rules to be changed. 2. Apple makes that very same exception for its own products. You can always tell if someone is in trouble when they start answering questions no one asked.
There is zero difference between that and Amazon selling their Amazon Essentials on their site, or Walmart selling "Great Value" in their stores.
A better equivalence would be BMW forcing every customer to buy all spares and accessories through them, and anyone making any kind of spare part or accessory for any BMW has to sell through BMW, and BMW charging the manufacturer 30% for the privilege. Want a phone holder? Got to go through BMW. Need a new thermostat? Got to go through BMW. As it is now, people can replace parts on their car with compatible third party parts (equivalent to sideloading apps on iOS/Android) and that's their risk. People are aware of this risk and are usually willing to take it even if it's their life on the line (unlike the risk with iPhone sideloading, where the worst that can happen is you get malware) - because the risk is so low it's worth it.
What a sh** analogy. The App Store is a STORE not a parts manufacturer.
Apple is selling an appliance, the iPhone, with complete support through the device's lifecycle, including support at Apple Stores, and dumbshits want to eliminate that support by side loading, because they want choice.
Apple will be on a solid legal foundation to be held harmless for any device that fails or malfunctions just by fact of the user side loading, and Apple's only practical recourse will be to wipe the customers iPhone, and reload the current OS, all of that while Apple's brand is being tarnished by having to allow those side loading stores.
Of course Apple will fight that.
As for the fee structure, that does in fact lend itself to regulation, but I would note that there will be few niches of computing that will escape the outcome. A lower app store fee will likely impact the console makers, and game developers, much more than it will hurt Apple.
As noted in an opinion piece at 9to5Mac, Apple really is poking antitrust regulators with a stick by essentially banning the Unreal Engine from the App Store. If Apple wins and is found not guilty of monopolistic practises (which as people here constantly refuse to understand: a company doesn't need to be a monopoly to fall afoul of monopolistic practise legalisation), it's quite likely legislation will be created with Apple specifically in mind. If that does happen, unless Apple accepts the outcome of the legalisation and applies the same rules worldwide, they will end up with app sideloading in some countries and not others, and different developer fees in various countries. This will make it a mess for Apple and developers.
The whole thing is a mess for Apple, customers and developers. All because Epic wants to make a few billion more at the expense of everyone else.
"Fortnite should put the actual rap songs behind the dances that make so much money as Emotes. Black creatives created and popularized these dances but never monetized them. Imagine the money people are spending on these Emotes being shared with the artists that made them — Chance The Rapper Album in July (@chancetherapper) ;July 13, 2018"
Epic stole dance moves from popular black artists and sold them to kids for a profit. The artists did not receive a penny or recognition for their work.
It’s just a dance...no one gets paid when rappers use other rappers dance moves at their shows. Did Will Smith have to give royalties to the inventor of the Running Man dance when he performed it on The Fresh Prince of Bel Air? Nope!
Don't you know the laws of the universe? Don't criticize others unless your own house is in order.
V-bucks is just fake money... Epic shouldn't be charging real money for them right?
Since you have your knickers in a twist the BLM movement might make more sense if people took responsibility for their actions instead of playing the role of the victim all the time.
The App Store rules have been clear from the beginning and Epic has agreed to them all along. We have seen this type of arrogance time and time again with becoming successful and thinking that its success can afford allowances and exceptions.
Epic is missing the point of the 1984 imagery. Apple actual created their own platform called Mac and user the commercial to introduce it. They were not trying to control someone else’s platform.
Here’s Lee Clow explaining this ad, and how this ad changed Apple and the way ads are made for the Super Bowl.
Two problems: 1. Epic never asked for an exception. They asked for the rules to be changed. 2. Apple makes that very same exception for its own products. You can always tell if someone is in trouble when they start answering questions no one asked.
1. They didn’t ask, they just made the defiant change to the app without meeting with Apple to discuss possible changes.
2. They knew in advance that they were violating the agreement they had for their app to be on Apple’s App Store.
3. They had already had the lawsuit paperwork ready to file because they knew that this would happen so this was premeditated.
4. They are banking on the United States Government to try to break open Apple’s walled garden in order to print more money for themselves. They could give 2 shits about fairness to other developers, otherwise they could have created a consortium to confront Apple with solid evidence that their rules are hurting innovation and causing developers burdens which they wouldn’t have anywhere else.
5. With respect to other platforms with their own software or app stores, those platform creators make their own apps that compete with others. This has no bearing on intentionally violating a business agreement.
Two problems: 1. Epic never asked for an exception. They asked for the rules to be changed. 2. Apple makes that very same exception for its own products. You can always tell if someone is in trouble when they start answering questions no one asked.
There is zero difference between that and Amazon selling their Amazon Essentials on their site, or Walmart selling "Great Value" in their stores.
I'm not sure there's much weight to the 30% argument for Apple's own apps, but I think there is regarding the rules Apple applies to developers versus itself. The difference between products on Amazon and the App Store, is iOS developers have no choice but to use the App Store for iOS apps. You are correct in that Apple selling their own apps is the same as Amazon selling Amazon Essentials items on their site. However, iOS developers *have* to sell their apps on the App Store. They can't sell their app in the Google Play store because it's not compatible. People making coffee machines or whatever don't *have* to sell their coffee machine on Amazon's store, they can sell them in Walmart, direct, eBay, whatever. If they don't like the markup Amazon charges, they're free to go elsewhere. iOS developers can't go elsewhere. Saying they can go to the Google Play store is an entirely false equivalence because they can't just sell the same product at the Google Play store without rewriting the whole thing. Yes they can use cross-platform APIs to assist this, but cross-platform iOS apps are pretty crap.
A better equivalence would be BMW forcing every customer to buy all spares and accessories through them, and anyone making any kind of spare part or accessory for any BMW has to sell through BMW, and BMW charging the manufacturer 30% for the privilege. Want a phone holder? Got to go through BMW. Need a new thermostat? Got to go through BMW. As it is now, people can replace parts on their car with compatible third party parts (equivalent to sideloading apps on iOS/Android) and that's their risk. People are aware of this risk and are usually willing to take it even if it's their life on the line (unlike the risk with iPhone sideloading, where the worst that can happen is you get malware) - because the risk is so low it's worth it.
You analogy fails in this regard. You do not buy or ever own, iOS.
An iDevice owner do not have to buy an Apple case. Nor an Apple charger. Nor an Apple cable. iDevice owners can install a non Apple battery, either my themselves or by a third party. They do not have to buy Apple made accessories from Apple. Amazon sells them and at a discount. There are plenty of replacement parts for Apple iDevices on eBay, that are not made by Apple. And there are plenty of Apple made stuff that iDevice owners can buy from retail outlets, other than an Apple store. So where is this .... iDevice owners have to buy everything for their iDevice, from Apple or made by Apple?
As far as Apple is concern, you can use your iDevice solely as a paperweight or door stop. Apple has no say in this because the iDevice owner owns the hardware. But iDevice owners DO NOT own iOS. Thus Apple still has a say on what gets loaded on to it and from whom. When an iPhone owner agree to the EULA, part of it states that Apple agrees to provide upgrades, updates and to maintain iOS on that iDevice, for it's useful life. 3 years of upgrades and 5 years of updates are not uncommon. And Apple will honor their part, even if the iDevice owners sells or give away their iDevice. And Apple will do their best to recover the data or repair iOS on their devices, even if the owner screwed up and somehow corrupted iOS. That's because Apple still owns iOS, even if they don't own the iDevice it's on. Therefore Apple have a stake in seeing that iDevice owners do not screwup by installing malware or programs from sites not under Apple's control, that ends up corrupting iOS on their device.
Google is not in the same position in this regard. Google only provide Android and all its updates and upgrades to the device makers and the device makers are responsible for upgrading, updating and maintaining Android on their devices. That's because the device makers customizes the Android that ends up on their devices. So if an Android user install malware from an app not from the Google Play Store, it's not on Google. It's on the maker of the device or the entity that provided the app. When was the last time you saw a Google Store where someone can bring in their bricked Android device and have Google try to repair the OS that has been infected with malware? If this were the case, Google would not allow Android users to side load apps from outside the Google Play store. Imagine how long the line would be otherwise.
When one buy an iDevice running iOS, it's like buying a Costco membership. Costco members can only buy what Costco sells in their stores. Costco members can not demand that Costco sell products that are only available at Walmart, because this would say them money. Best Buy can not demand that Costco allow them to set up a store inside a Costco or even in the parking lot, on the premise that Costco members will be better served if they have more choices from whom to buy products from. If a Costco member want to buy a product that Best buy sells and not offered at Costco, then that member can go to the nearest Best Buy. If they want to pay Walmart cheaper prices, then they can shop at Walmart.
If you have a product you want to sell to Costco members, like auto insurance, (and Costco offers to sell for you), be prepared to pay Costco a commission for the privilege of having access to Costco members. You think Costco should be forced to allow LensCrafters to set up a shop inside a Costco, that will compete with Costco own eyeglasses lens store, because not doing so would be abusing the "monopoly" Costco have in determining what products they sell in their stores, to their own members?
As noted in an opinion piece at 9to5Mac, Apple really is poking antitrust regulators with a stick by essentially banning the Unreal Engine from the App Store.
9to5Mac is clueless when it comes to antitrust issues. They think that because Epic's customers (like iOS/macOS developers that wanted to use Unreal Engine) could be harmed by Apple enforcing the termination clauses that Epic was found to have violated, then that means that Apple's enforcement is an antitrust violation...which really makes zero sense in a business environment. Signing an important business contract that gets access to customers and then violating it is always going to potentially deprive your customers of something. How could you ever have contracts in the first place if enforcing the terms of the contract was considered to be tantamount to antitrust?
Apple was upset that QCM charged a royalty rate based on the selling price of the end devide rather than just the modem component provided by QCM. Here we have Apple charging a 30% royalty for content, irrespective of how much they have contributed in the development of the application. In the QCM instance, Apple had the choice to use a different modem supplier, developers on IOS don't have a choice.
Comments
1. Epic never asked for an exception. They asked for the rules to be changed.
2. Apple makes that very same exception for its own products.
You can always tell if someone is in trouble when they start answering questions no one asked.
I'm not sure there's much weight to the 30% argument for Apple's own apps, but I think there is regarding the rules Apple applies to developers versus itself. The difference between products on Amazon and the App Store, is iOS developers have no choice but to use the App Store for iOS apps. You are correct in that Apple selling their own apps is the same as Amazon selling Amazon Essentials items on their site. However, iOS developers *have* to sell their apps on the App Store. They can't sell their app in the Google Play store because it's not compatible. People making coffee machines or whatever don't *have* to sell their coffee machine on Amazon's store, they can sell them in Walmart, direct, eBay, whatever. If they don't like the markup Amazon charges, they're free to go elsewhere. iOS developers can't go elsewhere. Saying they can go to the Google Play store is an entirely false equivalence because they can't just sell the same product at the Google Play store without rewriting the whole thing. Yes they can use cross-platform APIs to assist this, but cross-platform iOS apps are pretty crap.
A better equivalence would be BMW forcing every customer to buy all spares and accessories through them, and anyone making any kind of spare part or accessory for any BMW has to sell through BMW, and BMW charging the manufacturer 30% for the privilege. Want a phone holder? Got to go through BMW. Need a new thermostat? Got to go through BMW. As it is now, people can replace parts on their car with compatible third party parts (equivalent to sideloading apps on iOS/Android) and that's their risk. People are aware of this risk and are usually willing to take it even if it's their life on the line (unlike the risk with iPhone sideloading, where the worst that can happen is you get malware) - because the risk is so low it's worth it.
The whole thing is a mess for Apple, customers and developers. All because Epic wants to make a few billion more at the expense of everyone else.
Don't you know the laws of the universe? Don't criticize others unless your own house is in order.
V-bucks is just fake money... Epic shouldn't be charging real money for them right?
What a sh** analogy. The App Store is a STORE not a parts manufacturer.
Apple is selling an appliance, the iPhone, with complete support through the device's lifecycle, including support at Apple Stores, and dumbshits want to eliminate that support by side loading, because they want choice.
Apple will be on a solid legal foundation to be held harmless for any device that fails or malfunctions just by fact of the user side loading, and Apple's only practical recourse will be to wipe the customers iPhone, and reload the current OS, all of that while Apple's brand is being tarnished by having to allow those side loading stores.
Of course Apple will fight that.
As for the fee structure, that does in fact lend itself to regulation, but I would note that there will be few niches of computing that will escape the outcome. A lower app store fee will likely impact the console makers, and game developers, much more than it will hurt Apple.
We have seen this type of arrogance time and time again with becoming successful and thinking that its success can afford allowances and exceptions.
An iDevice owner do not have to buy an Apple case. Nor an Apple charger. Nor an Apple cable. iDevice owners can install a non Apple battery, either my themselves or by a third party. They do not have to buy Apple made accessories from Apple. Amazon sells them and at a discount. There are plenty of replacement parts for Apple iDevices on eBay, that are not made by Apple. And there are plenty of Apple made stuff that iDevice owners can buy from retail outlets, other than an Apple store. So where is this .... iDevice owners have to buy everything for their iDevice, from Apple or made by Apple?
As far as Apple is concern, you can use your iDevice solely as a paperweight or door stop. Apple has no say in this because the iDevice owner owns the hardware. But iDevice owners DO NOT own iOS. Thus Apple still has a say on what gets loaded on to it and from whom. When an iPhone owner agree to the EULA, part of it states that Apple agrees to provide upgrades, updates and to maintain iOS on that iDevice, for it's useful life. 3 years of upgrades and 5 years of updates are not uncommon. And Apple will honor their part, even if the iDevice owners sells or give away their iDevice. And Apple will do their best to recover the data or repair iOS on their devices, even if the owner screwed up and somehow corrupted iOS. That's because Apple still owns iOS, even if they don't own the iDevice it's on. Therefore Apple have a stake in seeing that iDevice owners do not screwup by installing malware or programs from sites not under Apple's control, that ends up corrupting iOS on their device.
Google is not in the same position in this regard. Google only provide Android and all its updates and upgrades to the device makers and the device makers are responsible for upgrading, updating and maintaining Android on their devices. That's because the device makers customizes the Android that ends up on their devices. So if an Android user install malware from an app not from the Google Play Store, it's not on Google. It's on the maker of the device or the entity that provided the app. When was the last time you saw a Google Store where someone can bring in their bricked Android device and have Google try to repair the OS that has been infected with malware? If this were the case, Google would not allow Android users to side load apps from outside the Google Play store. Imagine how long the line would be otherwise.
When one buy an iDevice running iOS, it's like buying a Costco membership. Costco members can only buy what Costco sells in their stores. Costco members can not demand that Costco sell products that are only available at Walmart, because this would say them money. Best Buy can not demand that Costco allow them to set up a store inside a Costco or even in the parking lot, on the premise that Costco members will be better served if they have more choices from whom to buy products from. If a Costco member want to buy a product that Best buy sells and not offered at Costco, then that member can go to the nearest Best Buy. If they want to pay Walmart cheaper prices, then they can shop at Walmart.
If you have a product you want to sell to Costco members, like auto insurance, (and Costco offers to sell for you), be prepared to pay Costco a commission for the privilege of having access to Costco members. You think Costco should be forced to allow LensCrafters to set up a shop inside a Costco, that will compete with Costco own eyeglasses lens store, because not doing so would be abusing the "monopoly" Costco have in determining what products they sell in their stores, to their own members?
Apple was upset that QCM charged a royalty rate based on the selling price of the end devide rather than just the modem component provided by QCM.
Here we have Apple charging a 30% royalty for content, irrespective of how much they have contributed in the development of the application. In the QCM instance, Apple had the choice to use a different modem supplier, developers on IOS don't have a choice.
What's different in these two cases ?