Epic calls Apple's 'Fortnite' & developer tool block 'overbroad retaliation'

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 81
    mubailimubaili Posts: 453member
    The court should fine Epic money for bringing such a nonsense case to the court and wasting tax payers money.
    cornchippulseimagesBeatsuraharawatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 81
    I think something to keep in mind here is that, although Apple is the tip of the spear on this, the whole issue of exclusive access to a given ecosystem is what's at stake, especially when a mandatory fee arrangement is in place. GooglePlay for Android, App Store for iOS, iPadOS, etc, game stores for Switch, Xbox, Playstation, etc. Will governments, regulators and Courts allow this to continue without some modification? Hard to say honestly. It would be messy to undo this framework which, in the case of Apple, I happen to like due to security reasons. But if history is any guide (railroads, Standard Oil, Ma Bell), changes might be forced on these app store frameworks.
  • Reply 23 of 81
    XedXed Posts: 2,489member
    sdw2001 said:
    Anything can happen, but I don’t see how Epic has a leg to stand on here.  Apple’s terms are clear.  They deliberately violated them, Apple lowered the boom, and Epic *immediately* sued.   Now you have Apple’s competitors chiming in.  Who knows though.  These things go on for years and rarely have a clear outcome.  
    And Epic planned for this with a lawsuit and ad long before this happens. That proves that Apple's so-called "retaliation" was nothing more than cause-and-effect for violating clearly stated rules governing the App Store.
    DaRevpscooter63uraharaBeatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 81
    bushman4bushman4 Posts: 857member
    Right or wrong there are no winners!! And the customer will be the biggest loser 
    cornchip
  • Reply 25 of 81
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,088member
    bushman4 said:
    Right or wrong there are no winners!! And the customer will be the biggest loser 
    Customers aren’t losing anything nor are they the ones complaining.  Just a billionaire punk that thinks he’s above the rules everyone else has to abide by.
    andrewj5790pscooter63hlee1169uraharaBeatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 81
    Epic wanted its own App Store to sell to gamers directly, but did not want to build its own console or build its own phone.  Epic did not have problems with PlayStation, XBox, or Switch, but have problem with Apple and Google.

    It's nothing but a publicity stunt for Epic.  It could learn something from Amazon:  Amazon negotiated a deal to sell Apple TV in exchange to have Prime Video app in App Store that competes with Apple TV+.
    cornchippulseimageshlee1169aderutterBeatsfastasleepwatto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 81
    No where does Microsoft say they support Epic.  They’re saying because of their use of the Unreal Engine (also becoming part of the dispute) it will have a material impact, not only on their gaming business, but many others as well.

    As a public company Microsoft is legally required to inform investors of anything that can materially affect their business.  Don’t read to much into their statement.  I’m sure Microsoft supports Apple’s ability to charge fees via the App Store.
    edited August 2020 cornchipFileMakerFellerPezaaderutterwatto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 81
    altivec88 said:
    Pretty easy solution.  Epic can continue their lawsuit while following the same rules they followed for a decade. 
    That's the most likely message from the court per the injunction request. How can Apple be viewed as retaliating when they've already told Epic that fixing the violations, not dropping the lawsuit, is what is required to resolve the termination notice? You'd think that Microsoft would be smart enough to understand that Epic's position is really flimsy.
    radarthekatcornchippscooter63hlee1169uraharaBeatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 81
    It’s an income tax.  More income more tax, less income less tax, no income no tax.  
    Don’t like it, move to a different platform/country. 
    radarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 81
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    tommikele said:
    Epic has no intention of passing on any gains to consumers. It will go right in the pockets of the company and owners. 
    This is speculative and does not seem to be true based on the available evidence of the commission rate on the Epic Game Store, and what Epic actually offered when this whole fiasco started.. 


    Beats
  • Reply 31 of 81
    No where does Microsoft say they support Epic.  They’re saying because of their use of the Unreal Engine (also becoming part of the dispute) it will have a material impact, not only on their gaming business, but many others as well.

    As a public company Microsoft is legally required to inform investors of anything that can materially affect their business.  Don’t read to much into their statement.  I’m sure Microsoft supports Apple’s ability to charge fees via the App Store.
    The statement in itself is the support of Epic’s behavior by Microsoft. They are trying to sway the court into blocking Apple’s ability to remove epic as a developer because of potential damages to Microsoft and other developers. Microsoft has a vested interest in Unreal and should have been informed by Epic that they were going to pursue legal action against Apple before filing the lawsuit. 

    Epic didn’t really do their homework before getting themselves into this mess. Now, some development houses can try to sue Epic for harming them by forcing Apple’s hand into removing development tools that Epic uses to support the Unreal engine. If Epic cannot provide its developers support for Unreal for iOS and MacOS, then it could be construed as a breach of contract. Especially since Epic was the plaintiff in this legal drama. 
    tenthousandthingsPascalxxcornchippscooter63hlee1169FileMakerFellertobianuraharaaderutterBeats
  • Reply 32 of 81
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,280member
    I think something to keep in mind here is that, although Apple is the tip of the spear on this, the whole issue of exclusive access to a given ecosystem is what's at stake, especially when a mandatory fee arrangement is in place. GooglePlay for Android, App Store for iOS, iPadOS, etc, game stores for Switch, Xbox, Playstation, etc. Will governments, regulators and Courts allow this to continue without some modification? Hard to say honestly. It would be messy to undo this framework which, in the case of Apple, I happen to like due to security reasons. But if history is any guide (railroads, Standard Oil, Ma Bell), changes might be forced on these app store frameworks.

    Not sure that would works as intended. The compatibility will still be a legitimate concern so platform operators will just use it to bunker down increase testing and charge higher platform access fees per title like the good old days.

    Which would seem to be a good anti-competitive situation for Epic they can then middle man to small developers like they use to. The only platforms that will be more open* after this will be Apple and Google.  *if by open you mean cheaper not more accessible.
  • Reply 33 of 81
    danvm said:
    altivec88 said:
    Pretty easy solution.  Epic can continue their lawsuit while following the same rules they followed for a decade. What’s a few more years until it gets sorted out in the courts. In fact they can even sue to get back all Apple charges retrospective from this point if they are successful. Which they won’t be. 

    This is tantamount to saying I want to break the rules while we figure this out and throw a childish public tantrum jeopardizing all our customers work.  

    Love Microsoft for helping out Epic. It will be funny when Epic goes after them next wanting the xbox store open and there 30% fee eliminated. 

    If I was considering using Unreal engine for my game, it would be a hard pass after this. Epic seems to be a flake company that only cares about themselves. Who knows what their next crusade will be after this. Way too much volatility for me to base my work on. 
    I don’t think MS would have problems with an alternate store, considering they already have one with EA Play. 

    Also you are not forced to pay the 30% of the App Store for your games, as happens with iOS / iPadOS devices, since you can sell your boxed games in major retailers. 
    LMAO and those major retailers don’t get a 30% commission to put the boxed games in THEIR stores???

    The ignorance in these Epic vs Apple posts is astronomical.
    edited August 2020 cornchippscooter63Rayz2016uraharaaderutterwatto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 81

    I hope Apple loses, as it is stifling competition. Why is it that apps that offer physical goods are treated differently than those that offer virtual goods? Also, how is Apple entitled to 30 percent revenue of billions of dollars of virtual good revenue, when it doesn’t cost nearly that much to run the App Store and offer the services that it does ? Also, why is it that some apps are restricted from being able to even a mention an alternative payment system? Seems draconian. 

    I’m not advocating For an end result that leads to alternative app stores in iOS. But at minimum I think there should be competition in regards to in App payments. Apple shouldn’t be the sole supplier. I’m sure if competition opened up, costs would come down for consumers. 
    ...that’s where your post starts shouting  I DONT KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT 
    Rayz2016Beatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 81
    hexclockhexclock Posts: 1,232member
    They almost make it sound as if Unreal Engine...is a monopoly. /<Dramatic chords>
    cornchipmattinozRayz2016uraharaBeatswatto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 36 of 81
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,280moderator
    I hope Apple loses, as it is stifling competition. Why is it that apps that offer physical goods are treated differently than those that offer virtual goods? Also, how is Apple entitled to 30 percent revenue of billions of dollars of virtual good revenue, when it doesn’t cost nearly that much to run the App Store and offer the services that it does ? Also, why is it that some apps are restricted from being able to even a mention an alternative payment system? Seems draconian. 

    I’m not advocating For an end result that leads to alternative app stores in iOS. But at minimum I think there should be competition in regards to in App payments. Apple shouldn’t be the sole supplier. I’m sure if competition opened up, costs would come down for consumers. 
    The people who profit from the store are helping subsidize the provision of the App Store for everyone. Successful companies try to ensure that no part of their companies make a loss. Apple pays a lot for cloud services for over 1 billion users and over 1 million apps:

    https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/22/18511148/apple-icloud-cloud-services-amazon-aws-30-million-per-month
    https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/12/apple-to-build-new-campus-in-austin-and-add-jobs-across-the-us/

    "Apple plans to invest $10 billion in US data centers over the next five years, including $4.5 billion this year and next. Apple’s data centers in North Carolina, Arizona and Nevada are currently being expanded."

    There are more services than payments, there's real-time push notifications (billions per hour), iCloud data storage and access, location services and more. Apple offers 150,000 APIs.

    Offering other payment services could easily open Apple up to fraud like if someone decides to offer bitcoin payments and buyers are tricked into losing a lot of money, Apple can't recover the funds for the App Store user.

    Apple's main objective is providing a safe, secure, trusted App Store for their hardware customers. There are too many bad actors that want to abuse this.

    Some people consider 30% to be too high but digital is different from the provision of physical goods as physical goods come with a tangible cost. Offering a taxi ride has the cost of the vehicle, the driver's income, the fuel. It's hard to know what the profit margin is on any given physical product or service, mostly it's small. Taking 30% of a physical product or service would easily make most of them unsustainable. While there's a cost of production with digital products too, it's mostly time the developer spent making the product and it's much easier to adjust pricing. It's a unique product with little competition. There's no competition for Epic's in-game currency, it only works in Epic's games so they can charge whatever they want.

    For apps that compete with Apple like music reseller services, the fee is more of a problem because Apple can sell the same music cheaper than Spotify but for long term subscription, it's 15% and most of Spotify's users are subscribed outside the store. Apple only monetizes 0.5% of Spotify's premium users according to Apple:

    https://www.idropnews.com/news/spotify-pays-apple-tax-on-less-than-1-of-subscribers-while-demanding-money-back-from-songwriters/109615/

    That's very far from stifling them. For all the stifling people talk about, there are a lot of billion-dollar companies being built using the App Store.

    It seems as though companies like Epic want hardware platforms to be like cable/internet companies where the cable companies provide the cable and anyone can compete offering services on the cable. But software platforms have inherent security risks and while desktop platforms have managed this effectively, mobile has more risks with biometrics, location data, mobile banking, more personal data and it's harder to notice and deal with security issues. Just the fact people didn't notice apps were copying clipboard data shows this.

    On some level it would be beneficial for consumers to be able to install software from anywhere like game emulators on the Apple TV but the same is true for games consoles. It would be nice for the developers not having to pay fees but most would continue doing it anyway because it's easier to setup (payment processing services are fairly easy to setup, merchant services are not) and just the biggest companies would avoid it. This means the little people end up covering the costs of the App Store while the biggest companies pay nothing and that's not a fair system.

    Just saying it's not fair to charge a percentage doesn't make sense when Epic (and every other company) do this on their own store. They charge 12%, who's to say their server costs justify charging any given games company 12% of their revenue? They even did the same thing forcing developers to use their payment system:

    https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/355283/Epic_Games_Store_policy_change_expands_ingame_payment_options_for_devs.php

    "Until now, it was only possible to use an Epic-provided payment service, but the company said it wanted to give developers more freedom."

    They had a change of heart after a year and now they think they have a right to dictate that to other companies who have different business models. Every business has a right to negotiate terms but the kind of thing Epic is doing is juvenile, literally because they are trying to get children who play their game to back them when the only difference to them is $2 for a topup their parents pay for anyway.
    tenthousandthingscornchippulseimagespscooter63Rayz2016bestkeptsecretFileMakerFellertobianBeatstechconc
  • Reply 37 of 81
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,390member
    Apple_Bar said:
    danvm said:
    altivec88 said:
    Pretty easy solution.  Epic can continue their lawsuit while following the same rules they followed for a decade. What’s a few more years until it gets sorted out in the courts. In fact they can even sue to get back all Apple charges retrospective from this point if they are successful. Which they won’t be. 

    This is tantamount to saying I want to break the rules while we figure this out and throw a childish public tantrum jeopardizing all our customers work.  

    Love Microsoft for helping out Epic. It will be funny when Epic goes after them next wanting the xbox store open and there 30% fee eliminated. 

    If I was considering using Unreal engine for my game, it would be a hard pass after this. Epic seems to be a flake company that only cares about themselves. Who knows what their next crusade will be after this. Way too much volatility for me to base my work on. 
    I don’t think MS would have problems with an alternate store, considering they already have one with EA Play. 

    Also you are not forced to pay the 30% of the App Store for your games, as happens with iOS / iPadOS devices, since you can sell your boxed games in major retailers. 
    LMAO and those major retailers don’t get a 30% commission to put the boxed games in THEIR stores???

    The ignorance in these Epic vs Apple posts is astronomical.
    My point was that console game developers have options not available in iOS / iPadOS, and retailers was one of them.  I haven’t seen an article about retailers and 30% commissions for boxed games. Can you post one?
    Beats
  • Reply 38 of 81
    Why is nobody stating the obvious?

    You DON’T NEED a developer account to code for iOS. You need an account if you want to put your Apps in The App Store.

    Xcode isn’t going to suddenly stop working on all Epic computers and Epic isn’t going to be prevented from writing iOS software and deploying/testing it on all their own internal devices (like they now do).

    They will lose access to some tools, but Epic is making it sound like development is going to grind to a halt and anyone who uses Unreal Engine in their Apps are going to find those Apps no longer working.

    That’s not even close to being true. It’s scare mongering.
    XedcornchiptenthousandthingsuraharatobianaderutterBeatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 39 of 81
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,121member
    I hope Apple loses, as it is stifling competition. Why is it that apps that offer physical goods are treated differently than those that offer virtual goods? Also, how is Apple entitled to 30 percent revenue of billions of dollars of virtual good revenue, when it doesn’t cost nearly that much to run the App Store and offer the services that it does ? Also, why is it that some apps are restricted from being able to even a mention an alternative payment system? Seems draconian. 

    I’m not advocating For an end result that leads to alternative app stores in iOS. But at minimum I think there should be competition in regards to in App payments. Apple shouldn’t be the sole supplier. I’m sure if competition opened up, costs would come down for consumers. 
    Why is it that we all have to pay city, state, AND federal taxes? 

    Why do movie tickets for movies that cost $300 million to produce cost the same as movies that cost $50 million to produce?

    Why does Ferrari charge over 350k for a new Pista when it only costs $200k to manufacture? 

    Why do people who ask for paper bags at the grocery store pay the same as people who ask for plastic when paper is more expensive?
     
    Seriously dude. Get a clue. In case you haven’t heard, this is a free market economy where people are free to enter into contracts. The answer to all of your ridiculous question is that none of those things are illegals and Epic agreed to to all of them (until they felt that 70% of a billion a year wasn’t enough for them).

    edited August 2020 cornchipXedhlee1169uraharaBeatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 40 of 81
    jkichlinejkichline Posts: 1,369member
    It’s in the legal agreement they signed. No surprises. Don’t agree to something you don’t intend to do. Pretty simple.
    Beatswatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.