The reason Epic can make so much money, is that Apple, Google, Microsoft and Sony have put a lot of R&D and marketing into iOS, Android, Xbox and Playstation. If Epic wants to sell direct to the consumer, they should make their own hardware. They want to leech off Apple and Google, but are willing to pay 30% to Microsoft and Sony (for now).
The shoplifting analogy that Apple uses isn't very good. It is more like Epic setting up shop and selling things inside an Apple Store without paying any rent; Epic cries in the store that they made the products they are selling not Apple, so Apple should let them stay there for free.
Remember before Apple invented this lucrative AppStore scam, games and software were downloaded and paid directly to the developer. Then Google & Microsoft followed as the service is very lucrative. The gov needs to step in to protect the consumers and developers from these draconian anticompetitive and monopolistic practices.
On the other hand Epic acted out of desperation and not in a very wise and strategic manner.
RE: the first point, that’s only true on PC’s. On gaming consoles the concession has always been 30%. Only now is MS considering lowering that to 12%. Apple’s App Store business isn’t any different from gaming consoles.
That 12% is for the Windows game store. As far as I know, it's planning on retaining 30% for the Xbox game store.
Both app stores are monopolies. You have zero choice to purchase any games/apps/etc on iOS except through the app store; same with Google Play store. One gatekeeper to rule them all and control everything.
With PC's, you purchase the hardware, install your choice of software. This should be the same with mobile devices. Crazy to think we have devolved so far in mobile computing when we should have learned our lesson in 2001 with Microsoft.
Brand loyalty has become blind loyalty, allowing and excusing monopolistic practices.
Ridiculous. There’s no law that says computing devices are required to be open to allow software installs from anywhere. It’s literally a choice by the company, and Apple chose to make iOS closed.
The only reason Windows and macOS allow installs from other sources is because they have ALWAYS been open, not because they are somehow required to.
You had better get Microsoft to appeal the antitrust decision against them then, because they were doing their utmost to only allow the browser they wanted on their OS. Turned out that wasn't a choice MS had the freedom to make.
Also surely if a closed system is so good, there'd be a demand for such an OS from MS and Apple? But for some reason there isn't. Why is that?
canukstorm said: That’s incorrect. I can subscribe to & pay for Netflix right on Netflix’s website & then just login to the iOS / iPad app. In this situation, Apple wouldn’t get a cut of my Netflix subscription. Only if I use Apple’s in-app purchase will Apple get a cut. And this doesn’t apply only to Netflix.
Exactly. This is what doesn't really make sense about the complaints per the App Store. iPhone users have access to the App Store and the internet with their device. Apple controls the transactions on the former and not the latter. Doing individual internet payments may not be as convenient for users as paying in-app, but that's part of what Apple is charging a commission for per the App Store. Convenience has always been a major part of the draw for stores. Go to one place to look at a range of products instead of having to visit every product maker individually.
They do as much as they can to control it though, insofar as not allowing apps to even suggest there is a cheaper or alternative way of subscribing via the internet. If it is so much more convenient to use IAPs - worth the 30%, then surely IAP subscriptions would stand alone without erecting artificial barriers to alternate forms of payment?
canukstorm said: That’s incorrect. I can subscribe to & pay for Netflix right on Netflix’s website & then just login to the iOS / iPad app. In this situation, Apple wouldn’t get a cut of my Netflix subscription. Only if I use Apple’s in-app purchase will Apple get a cut. And this doesn’t apply only to Netflix.
Exactly. This is what doesn't really make sense about the complaints per the App Store. iPhone users have access to the App Store and the internet with their device. Apple controls the transactions on the former and not the latter. Doing individual internet payments may not be as convenient for users as paying in-app, but that's part of what Apple is charging a commission for per the App Store. Convenience has always been a major part of the draw for stores. Go to one place to look at a range of products instead of having to visit every product maker individually.
They do as much as they can to control it though, insofar as not allowing apps to even suggest there is a cheaper or alternative way of subscribing via the internet. If it is so much more convenient to use IAPs - worth the 30%, then surely IAP subscriptions would stand alone without erecting artificial barriers to alternate forms of payment?
For several reasons related to Safari specifically, WebApps are not really a viable alternative. There's a lot of work to be done before Safari is up to current browser standards.
Epic's true intentions have been apparent from the very beginning. A $9.99 purchase without the 30 % commission for Apple should have cost $6.99, not $7.99.
This is not about the consumer, period. That this charade got this much traction within the judicial and regulatory sphere, as a consumer cause, is a shambles in and on itself.
This is just about a billion dollar corporation demanding a free ride from a trillion dollar one, while its CEO makes a fool of himself in public court!
They broke their contract, it’s that simple. That they have a different anti-trust allegation about Apple is one they can take to the FTC as the fair markets regulator, but that’s not a defence for breaking their contract. All they can look for in this trial is whether Apple broke the contract, too, or otherwise acted without good faith towards Epic within the spirit of the contract, which could lead to damages.
canukstorm said: That’s incorrect. I can subscribe to & pay for Netflix right on Netflix’s website & then just login to the iOS / iPad app. In this situation, Apple wouldn’t get a cut of my Netflix subscription. Only if I use Apple’s in-app purchase will Apple get a cut. And this doesn’t apply only to Netflix.
Exactly. This is what doesn't really make sense about the complaints per the App Store. iPhone users have access to the App Store and the internet with their device. Apple controls the transactions on the former and not the latter. Doing individual internet payments may not be as convenient for users as paying in-app, but that's part of what Apple is charging a commission for per the App Store. Convenience has always been a major part of the draw for stores. Go to one place to look at a range of products instead of having to visit every product maker individually.
They do as much as they can to control it though, insofar as not allowing apps to even suggest there is a cheaper or alternative way of subscribing via the internet. If it is so much more convenient to use IAPs - worth the 30%, then surely IAP subscriptions would stand alone without erecting artificial barriers to alternate forms of payment?
For several reasons related to Safari specifically, WebApps are not really a viable alternative. There's a lot of work to be done before Safari is up to current browser standards.
So say the Google/Chrome shills (not referring to you, @gatorguy) who expect Apple to pick up everything they want the "new" web to be. Just because one browser/company develops a technology, doesn't mean everyone else wants it or thinks it's a good idea.
Both app stores are monopolies. You have zero choice to purchase any games/apps/etc on iOS except through the app store; same with Google Play store. One gatekeeper to rule them all and control everything.
With PC's, you purchase the hardware, install your choice of software. This should be the same with mobile devices. Crazy to think we have devolved so far in mobile computing when we should have learned our lesson in 2001 with Microsoft.
Brand loyalty has become blind loyalty, allowing and excusing monopolistic practices.
Ridiculous. There’s no law that says computing devices are required to be open to allow software installs from anywhere. It’s literally a choice by the company, and Apple chose to make iOS closed.
The only reason Windows and macOS allow installs from other sources is because they have ALWAYS been open, not because they are somehow required to.
You had better get Microsoft to appeal the antitrust decision against them then, because they were doing their utmost to only allow the browser they wanted on their OS. Turned out that wasn't a choice MS had the freedom to make.
Also surely if a closed system is so good, there'd be a demand for such an OS from MS and Apple? But for some reason there isn't. Why is that?
Thanks for proving my point (unintentionally).
Windows is open. By trying to restrict browser access MS was trying to close it off. That is a clear antitrust issue. iOS doesn’t have this concern because they didn’t start out as open and later became closed.
Quote by Tim Sweeney (Via Twitter) back in 2019 on why it’s good that only the Epic Store distributes their software.
There’s a saying: “You’re safe because the pilot is on the plane with you”. Epic relies on the Epic Games store as the sole way we distribute our games and engine to all of our customers on PC. Our whole business relies on it. Similar with Epic’s online services.
I for one support Epic's stance on this. I went down to my local Apple Store and asked to sell used Android tablets in a little used part of the store, and manager kicked me out. I think it's absurd that Apple is exerting its monopoly over its own retail space to exclude other sellers from offering competing products.
The analogy falters, Apple owns the mall and does not allow you to open a store and sell competing products.
Apple does a decent job keeping the iOS platform secure, but are they seriously saying only Apple can operate a safe AppStore on iOS? Competition could/would mean that someone can operate a safer store at a lower cost, innovation that Apple claims it does. Apple, let’s innovate instead of blocking competition. I used the be an Apple fan (and I still am I guess), but it is starting to look like 1984 for me too. I may have to go back to Sony. There is cydia I guess, but there is such an effort to jailbreak nowadays.
I for one support Epic's stance on this. I went down to my local Apple Store and asked to sell used Android tablets in a little used part of the store, and manager kicked me out. I think it's absurd that Apple is exerting its monopoly over its own retail space to exclude other sellers from offering competing products.
The analogy falters, Apple owns the mall and does not allow you to open a store and sell competing products.
Apple does a decent job keeping the iOS platform secure, but are they seriously saying only Apple can operate a safe AppStore on iOS? Competition could/would mean that someone can operate a safer store at a lower cost, innovation that Apple claims it does. Apple, let’s innovate instead of blocking competition. I used the be an Apple fan (and I still am I guess), but it is starting to look like 1984 for me too. I may have to go back to Sony. There is cydia I guess, but there is such an effort to jailbreak nowadays.
Does anyone see the irony that people who complain about Apple's "monopoly" just decide to go switch to a different platform?
E.G., "I hate Apple's monopoly so I'm going to switch to Android."
Tim Sweeney is the devil. He wants to use apples devices for free. Maybe he should develop his own device that he can sell on. or go to Walmart and ask to sell his products in all their stores for free. totally with apple.
They aren’t Apple’s devices once they are purchased by customers. We don’t rent the products.
This would be the same as a car manufacturer only allowing it to be fuelled at gas stations owned by them. Charging other cars a 30% premium to fill at their stations. Voiding the warranty and bricking the vehicle if they fill up at a different station.
It’s a monopoly. Pure and simple. We don’t allow these sorts of monopolies for numerous reasons.
If Apple was only making an insanely gross amount of money from this model - no problem. But they are rolling in astronomical insanity amounts of cash and the most valuable company in the history of the world.
The lawsuit isn’t going Apple’s way - not even close. The judge has already stated she doesn’t buy Apple’s arguments at all. There is a good article on Forbes about it.
I am willing to take the risk of installing my own software - just like I have on my Mac for 30 years with no problems. I’m an adult, I can make my own decisions. I don’t need Apple telling me what to do with my property. And it is my property. I buy it, I maintain it, I insure it, it’s mine. I can glue diamonds to it and sell it for more if I want, I can drop it from a bridge to watch it smash. Apple holds the rights to the OS and patents on the tech, that’s it. They shouldn’t have the right to tell me what I can and can’t do with it and how I use it and when.
Tim Sweeney is the devil. He wants to use apples devices for free. Maybe he should develop his own device that he can sell on. or go to Walmart and ask to sell his products in all their stores for free. totally with apple.
They aren’t Apple’s devices once they are purchased by customers. We don’t rent the products.
This would be the same as a car manufacturer only allowing it to be fuelled at gas stations owned by them. Charging other cars a 30% premium to fill at their stations. Voiding the warranty and bricking the vehicle if they fill up at a different station.
It’s a monopoly. Pure and simple. We don’t allow these sorts of monopolies for numerous reasons.
If Apple was only making an insanely gross amount of money from this model - no problem. But they are rolling in astronomical insanity amounts of cash and the most valuable company in the history of the world.
The lawsuit isn’t going Apple’s way - not even close. The judge has already stated she doesn’t buy Apple’s arguments at all. There is a good article on Forbes about it.
I am willing to take the risk of installing my own software - just like I have on my Mac for 30 years with no problems. I’m an adult, I can make my own decisions. I don’t need Apple telling me what to do with my property. And it is my property. I buy it, I maintain it, I insure it, it’s mine. I can glue diamonds to it and sell it for more if I want, I can drop it from a bridge to watch it smash. Apple holds the rights to the OS and patents on the tech, that’s it. They shouldn’t have the right to tell me what I can and can’t do with it and how I use it and when.
Do you also attack other companies for not letting third party app stores in their own devices, OSs and app stores? Or is your hatred directed only at Apple? Are you consistent? There's no evidence of that in your post.
I agree with you that you own the hardware, and you should be allowed to install any OS that you want on it. I'll back you up on that. But I won't back you up on your idea that Apple should have to install every single feature that you demand in its own OS which you don't own and didn't buy, but are licensing from them.
Your analogy of modifying the hardware and reselling it is bogus. You own the hardware but you don't own the software.
Tim Sweeney is the devil. He wants to use apples devices for free. Maybe he should develop his own device that he can sell on. or go to Walmart and ask to sell his products in all their stores for free. totally with apple.
They aren’t Apple’s devices once they are purchased by customers. We don’t rent the products.
This would be the same as a car manufacturer only allowing it to be fuelled at gas stations owned by them. Charging other cars a 30% premium to fill at their stations. Voiding the warranty and bricking the vehicle if they fill up at a different station.
It’s a monopoly. Pure and simple. We don’t allow these sorts of monopolies for numerous reasons.
If Apple was only making an insanely gross amount of money from this model - no problem. But they are rolling in astronomical insanity amounts of cash and the most valuable company in the history of the world.
The lawsuit isn’t going Apple’s way - not even close. The judge has already stated she doesn’t buy Apple’s arguments at all. There is a good article on Forbes about it.
I am willing to take the risk of installing my own software - just like I have on my Mac for 30 years with no problems. I’m an adult, I can make my own decisions. I don’t need Apple telling me what to do with my property. And it is my property. I buy it, I maintain it, I insure it, it’s mine. I can glue diamonds to it and sell it for more if I want, I can drop it from a bridge to watch it smash. Apple holds the rights to the OS and patents on the tech, that’s it. They shouldn’t have the right to tell me what I can and can’t do with it and how I use it and when.
Do you also attack other companies for not letting third party app stores in their own devices, OSs and app stores? Or is your hatred directed only at Apple? Are you consistent? There's no evidence of that in your post.
I agree with you that you own the hardware, and you should be allowed to install any OS that you want on it. I'll back you up on that. But I won't back you up on your idea that Apple should have to install every single feature that you demand in its own OS which you don't own and didn't buy, but are licensing from them.
Your analogy of modifying the hardware and reselling it is bogus. You own the hardware but you don't own the software.
I don’t use any other companies for software - so I have no stake in it. I’m entirely in the Apple ecosystem through my whole business and personal life. I imagine I wouldn’t be happy if I was caught up in this with any other company either... so I guess I’m consistent.
And woah... “hatred” “attack”... slow down turbo. I don’t agree with Apple’s policies on certain things, and I don’t like the leadership direction on many things - like millions of others. Has nothing to do with hatred or attacks. It’s allowed in a publicly traded company.
I have no problem with them having a store and charging a %30 premium. I have a problem with them having a monopoly so that I have no choice to pay them for anything I want to do on it.
Regarding installing features on the OS... I think you are confusing me with someone else. No idea what you are talking about.
Reselling phones happens millions of times every day - it’s not bogus. I can resell my licence on the phone any time I want. I just can’t sell the licence outside of that phone.
Tim Sweeney is the devil. He wants to use apples devices for free. Maybe he should develop his own device that he can sell on. or go to Walmart and ask to sell his products in all their stores for free. totally with apple.
They aren’t Apple’s devices once they are purchased by customers. We don’t rent the products.
This would be the same as a car manufacturer only allowing it to be fuelled at gas stations owned by them. Charging other cars a 30% premium to fill at their stations. Voiding the warranty and bricking the vehicle if they fill up at a different station.
It’s a monopoly. Pure and simple. We don’t allow these sorts of monopolies for numerous reasons.
If Apple was only making an insanely gross amount of money from this model - no problem. But they are rolling in astronomical insanity amounts of cash and the most valuable company in the history of the world.
The lawsuit isn’t going Apple’s way - not even close. The judge has already stated she doesn’t buy Apple’s arguments at all. There is a good article on Forbes about it.
I am willing to take the risk of installing my own software - just like I have on my Mac for 30 years with no problems. I’m an adult, I can make my own decisions. I don’t need Apple telling me what to do with my property. And it is my property. I buy it, I maintain it, I insure it, it’s mine. I can glue diamonds to it and sell it for more if I want, I can drop it from a bridge to watch it smash. Apple holds the rights to the OS and patents on the tech, that’s it. They shouldn’t have the right to tell me what I can and can’t do with it and how I use it and when.
Do you also attack other companies for not letting third party app stores in their own devices, OSs and app stores? Or is your hatred directed only at Apple? Are you consistent? There's no evidence of that in your post.
I agree with you that you own the hardware, and you should be allowed to install any OS that you want on it. I'll back you up on that. But I won't back you up on your idea that Apple should have to install every single feature that you demand in its own OS which you don't own and didn't buy, but are licensing from them.
Your analogy of modifying the hardware and reselling it is bogus. You own the hardware but you don't own the software.
I have no problem with them having a store and charging a %30 premium. I have a problem with them having a monopoly so that I have no choice to pay them for anything I want to do on it.
Regarding installing features on the OS... I think you are confusing me with someone else. No idea what you are talking about.
You are demanding that Apple install a feature in iOS that lets other app stores onto iOS. That's a feature that doesn't exist. You are asking for that feature. Now do you understand? I encourage you to try to understand my point, and it should all fall into place.
The reason Epic can make so much money, is that Apple, Google, Microsoft and Sony have put a lot of R&D and marketing into iOS, Android, Xbox and Playstation. If Epic wants to sell direct to the consumer, they should make their own hardware. They want to leech off Apple and Google, but are willing to pay 30% to Microsoft and Sony (for now).
The shoplifting analogy that Apple uses isn't very good. It is more like Epic setting up shop and selling things inside an Apple Store without paying any rent; Epic cries in the store that they made the products they are selling not Apple, so Apple should let them stay there for free.
Remember before Apple invented this lucrative AppStore scam, games and software were downloaded and paid directly to the developer. Then Google & Microsoft followed as the service is very lucrative. The gov needs to step in to protect the consumers and developers from these draconian anticompetitive and monopolistic practices.
On the other hand Epic acted out of desperation and not in a very wise and strategic manner.
RE: the first point, that’s only true on PC’s. On gaming consoles the concession has always been 30%. Only now is MS considering lowering that to 12%. Apple’s App Store business isn’t any different from gaming consoles.
That 12% is for the Windows game store. As far as I know, it's planning on retaining 30% for the Xbox game store.
Both app stores are monopolies. You have zero choice to purchase any games/apps/etc on iOS except through the app store; same with Google Play store. One gatekeeper to rule them all and control everything.
With PC's, you purchase the hardware, install your choice of software. This should be the same with mobile devices. Crazy to think we have devolved so far in mobile computing when we should have learned our lesson in 2001 with Microsoft.
Brand loyalty has become blind loyalty, allowing and excusing monopolistic practices.
Ridiculous. There’s no law that says computing devices are required to be open to allow software installs from anywhere. It’s literally a choice by the company, and Apple chose to make iOS closed.
The only reason Windows and macOS allow installs from other sources is because they have ALWAYS been open, not because they are somehow required to.
You had better get Microsoft to appeal the antitrust decision against them then, because they were doing their utmost to only allow the browser they wanted on their OS. Turned out that wasn't a choice MS had the freedom to make.
Also surely if a closed system is so good, there'd be a demand for such an OS from MS and Apple? But for some reason there isn't. Why is that?
That is patently false. That’s not why there was an anti-trust suit against. Other browsers were still allowed to run on Windows during that time. The case against them was regarding the bundling of IE with Windows & IE having access to technologies within Windows, technologies that other browsers did not have access to, that gave IE an artificial performance advantage. This was at a time when Windows literally owned the PC market with 90%+ market share. It was an actual monopoly.
canukstorm said: That’s incorrect. I can subscribe to & pay for Netflix right on Netflix’s website & then just login to the iOS / iPad app. In this situation, Apple wouldn’t get a cut of my Netflix subscription. Only if I use Apple’s in-app purchase will Apple get a cut. And this doesn’t apply only to Netflix.
Exactly. This is what doesn't really make sense about the complaints per the App Store. iPhone users have access to the App Store and the internet with their device. Apple controls the transactions on the former and not the latter. Doing individual internet payments may not be as convenient for users as paying in-app, but that's part of what Apple is charging a commission for per the App Store. Convenience has always been a major part of the draw for stores. Go to one place to look at a range of products instead of having to visit every product maker individually.
They do as much as they can to control it though, insofar as not allowing apps to even suggest there is a cheaper or alternative way of subscribing via the internet. If it is so much more convenient to use IAPs - worth the 30%, then surely IAP subscriptions would stand alone without erecting artificial barriers to alternate forms of payment?
Companies that sell products within Best Buy are not allowed to advertise within Best Buy that their products can be sold at a different store and / cheaper elsewhere. Apple’s app store policy isn’t any different. And rightfully so.
Both app stores are monopolies. You have zero choice to purchase any games/apps/etc on iOS except through the app store; same with Google Play store. One gatekeeper to rule them all and control everything.
With PC's, you purchase the hardware, install your choice of software. This should be the same with mobile devices. Crazy to think we have devolved so far in mobile computing when we should have learned our lesson in 2001 with Microsoft.
Brand loyalty has become blind loyalty, allowing and excusing monopolistic practices.
Ridiculous. There’s no law that says computing devices are required to be open to allow software installs from anywhere. It’s literally a choice by the company, and Apple chose to make iOS closed.
The only reason Windows and macOS allow installs from other sources is because they have ALWAYS been open, not because they are somehow required to.
You had better get Microsoft to appeal the antitrust decision against them then, because they were doing their utmost to only allow the browser they wanted on their OS. Turned out that wasn't a choice MS had the freedom to make.
Also surely if a closed system is so good, there'd be a demand for such an OS from MS and Apple? But for some reason there isn't. Why is that?
Thanks for proving my point (unintentionally).
Windows is open. By trying to restrict browser access MS was trying to close it off. That is a clear antitrust issue. iOS doesn’t have this concern because they didn’t start out as open and later became closed.
Your last point is just another logical fallacy.
It became an anti-trust because at that time Windows had 90%+ market share of the personal computing market. It had no competition and by extension was the market. If Windows had 25% market share, like iOS, and there were other major competing platforms, it may not have been an issue.
Tim Sweeney is the devil. He wants to use apples devices for free. Maybe he should develop his own device that he can sell on. or go to Walmart and ask to sell his products in all their stores for free. totally with apple.
They aren’t Apple’s devices once they are purchased by customers. We don’t rent the products.
This would be the same as a car manufacturer only allowing it to be fuelled at gas stations owned by them. Charging other cars a 30% premium to fill at their stations. Voiding the warranty and bricking the vehicle if they fill up at a different station.
It’s a monopoly. Pure and simple. We don’t allow these sorts of monopolies for numerous reasons.
If Apple was only making an insanely gross amount of money from this model - no problem. But they are rolling in astronomical insanity amounts of cash and the most valuable company in the history of the world.
The lawsuit isn’t going Apple’s way - not even close. The judge has already stated she doesn’t buy Apple’s arguments at all. There is a good article on Forbes about it.
I am willing to take the risk of installing my own software - just like I have on my Mac for 30 years with no problems. I’m an adult, I can make my own decisions. I don’t need Apple telling me what to do with my property. And it is my property. I buy it, I maintain it, I insure it, it’s mine. I can glue diamonds to it and sell it for more if I want, I can drop it from a bridge to watch it smash. Apple holds the rights to the OS and patents on the tech, that’s it. They shouldn’t have the right to tell me what I can and can’t do with it and how I use it and when.
They aren’t going to win this.
You can jailbreak it if that’s what you want to do.
Comments
This is not about the consumer, period. That this charade got this much traction within the judicial and regulatory sphere, as a consumer cause, is a shambles in and on itself.
This is just about a billion dollar corporation demanding a free ride from a trillion dollar one, while its CEO makes a fool of himself in public court!
Windows is open. By trying to restrict browser access MS was trying to close it off. That is a clear antitrust issue. iOS doesn’t have this concern because they didn’t start out as open and later became closed.
Your last point is just another logical fallacy.
What a fucking hypocrite.
E.G., "I hate Apple's monopoly so I'm going to switch to Android."
I agree with you that you own the hardware, and you should be allowed to install any OS that you want on it. I'll back you up on that. But I won't back you up on your idea that Apple should have to install every single feature that you demand in its own OS which you don't own and didn't buy, but are licensing from them.
Your analogy of modifying the hardware and reselling it is bogus. You own the hardware but you don't own the software.