I really hope the solution is allowing third party app stores. That would break the monopoly and still allow customers to make the decision as to whether they prefer a tightly controlled app ecosystem or a less restrictive app environment.
It would also break Apple's reputation for rock solid stability, privacy and security. No Thank You! It's one of the reasons I buy Apple products.
it wouldn't...as long as you do not install Apps from 3rd party app stores. And a very small percentage (<0.1%) of people would dare install Apps from 3rd party app stores, so it wouldn't make a difference to the Apple's ecosystem in reality. Not sure why you think it would break Apple's reputation.
Your thinking is so wrong. So long as there is a legitimate way of downloading apps from third party sources or unsecured sites on the internet, hackers will find a way to get users to download apps into their devices, without their knowledge. It doesn't matter if the users never intend to ever download apps from the internet or other third party sources, their device is less secure than if there were no possible way to download apps from a third party source or the internet.
Do you actually think that all the malware problems with Android are caused by users purposely and knowingly downloading from third party sources or the internet? There's a reason why hackers and phishers target Android devices and it's not the because of the users.
Let me ask you this. If the government forced Apple to provide them with a backdoor key to iOS encryption and the government promise to keep the key secure, do you honestly think that iOS devices are just as secure as if there wasn't a backdoor key available? Hackers will be trying to find a way to enter that backdoor, without the key. And will eventually succeed. No matter if the government kept the key secured.
I really hope the solution is allowing third party app stores. That would break the monopoly and still allow customers to make the decision as to whether they prefer a tightly controlled app ecosystem or a less restrictive app environment.
It would also break Apple's reputation for rock solid stability, privacy and security. No Thank You! It's one of the reasons I buy Apple products.
it wouldn't...as long as you do not install Apps from 3rd party app stores. And a very small percentage (<0.1%) of people would dare install Apps from 3rd party app stores, so it wouldn't make a difference to the Apple's ecosystem in reality. Not sure why you think it would break Apple's reputation.
No, sorry -- but as soon as stories about iPhones being breached came out, Apple's reputation would sink. It wouldn't matter if the breach came from an app from a third party store.
I really hope the solution is allowing third party app stores. That would break the monopoly and still allow customers to make the decision as to whether they prefer a tightly controlled app ecosystem or a less restrictive app environment.
It would also break Apple's reputation for rock solid stability, privacy and security. No Thank You! It's one of the reasons I buy Apple products.
it wouldn't...as long as you do not install Apps from 3rd party app stores. And a very small percentage (<0.1%) of people would dare install Apps from 3rd party app stores, so it wouldn't make a difference to the Apple's ecosystem in reality. Not sure why you think it would break Apple's reputation.
You have no basis to make this assumption. More likely it would end up, over time, that people get their apps from a variety of places. And screw up reliability, privacy, etc.
The real comparison is not iOS Vs Android. It is iOS Vs MacOS. Is MacOS inherently unsafe, not trust-worthy because it allows you to install Apps from other sources? Why can't Apple adopt a model similar to MacOS, not necessarily the Android way of doing things?
The real reason is money, NOT security/privacy. Apple will stand to lose billions of dollars from in-app purchases from games if they allowed apps to be installed from other sources. And it is not even funny when people in this forum claim that Apple is just breaking even with the App store due to operational costs of hosting free apps. App store is a huge revenue generator for Apple and Apple does not want to lose control of that.
MacOS (or OS X ) is inherently way less secure than iOS. If you don't know that, then you are clueless. There are more malware associated with a Mac than with an iDevice. People concern with security aren't buying iDevices because they are as secure as Macs with MacOS or OSX. They buying iDevices because they are a lot more secure than Android mobile devices. Macs are only more secure when compared to PC's using Windows. But not when compared to an iPhone or iPad with iOS.
Malware can not be installed onto an iPhone or iPad by just the user clicking on a link in an eMail. But can be installed onto a Mac by the user clicking on the same eMail link. The only way to get malware installed this way with an iPhone or iPad is to jailbreak the iDevice. And guess what jail breaking does? It allows the user to install apps from the internet. One don't need to jailbreak a Mac, in order to install software from the internet. It can do that straight from the factory.
And BTW, the revenue generated from the App Store is a drop in a bucket when compared to the revenue generated from hardware sale of iPhones and iPads. And a good percentage of those sales are because iPhones and iPads on iOS are a lot more secure than Android devices. Did you even look at Apple earnings for the last quarter. They had for the first time, over $100B of revenue in a quarter (to be fair it was the X-Mas quarter, their largest quarter every year, revenue wise). Apple Service revenue came in at $15B for the quarter. But services also includes Apple Care, (by far the largest portion of that $15B), iTunes music store, Apple Music streaming subscription, AppleTV+, Apple movie streaming rentals and purchases and of course, the App Store. If the App Store was responsible for $2B of the over $100B this quarter, it's a drop in the bucket. If Apple made iOS less secure, they could lose 10's of billions of dollars more revenue from people no longer buying iDevices, than from the revenue generated from the App Store.
As much as Apple would not want to lose any revenue generated from the App Store, they would be more concern about the revenue loss due to the lost of sales of iDevices, if they were made less secure. And nothing you have stated can back up any of your assumptions that iOS devices will be not be any less secure, if Apple allowed the downloading of apps from third party sources or the internet. Just a couple of percent of loss sales of iDevices, that cost between $350 and $1200, would be way more than what revenue Apple gets from the App Store. And then there's the cost of keeping iOS as secure as possible, once users are allowed to download apps from third party sources or the internet.
And tells this. If what you stated is true, that < .1% of iDevice users would dare to download apps from a third party or the internet, then why in the Hell would Apple even compromise the security of iOS by one bit, for the other 99.9% of iDevice users? The < .1% can switch to Android if they want to download apps from a third party or the internet for all Apple care. None of your augments makes any logical sense from the standpoint of a company whose main responsibilities are to its shareholders, not to the < .1% that wants to download apps from sources, other than the App Store.
That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I don’t think a libertarian judge would delight in hearing this case. In fact quite the opposite. Libertarians are typically very pro-free-market, which this case is pretty much the opposite of.
Only one payment method allowed doesn't sound very free market.
It's not a free market - it's Apple's business model, and the App Store and its functionality are a feature of there iOS devices. You choose to use it or not.
Go to a BMW dealership and insist they offer you a new Merceds Benz... see how far you go. Choices are conversely offered and limited all the time. The marketplace decides if they enjoy, are indifferent, or dislike the model put forth.
Weirdly, it's the free marketers that tend to hate free markets -- or at least its ramifications.
As you pointed out: it's a free market, if you don't like what a vendor offers, go elsewhere. But don't get all pissy when BMW doesn't sell Mercedes or when Amazon insists a vendor follow their rules -- or when Apple insists that vendors follow their rules.
That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I don’t think a libertarian judge would delight in hearing this case. In fact quite the opposite. Libertarians are typically very pro-free-market, which this case is pretty much the opposite of.
Only one payment method allowed doesn't sound very free market.
A "free market" does not only apply to the consumers, it also applies to the businesses. A business is free to choose whatever payments methods they want, for their products or services. Some businesses do not accept checks. Some businesses are cash only. Others might accept Visa and MasterCard but not Discovery or American Express.
For most of eBay purchases, only PayPal is accepted as the form of payment. And eBay once own PayPal. (separated in 2015). I can't pay with my iTunes account.
Want to use a CC to pay for your purchases at a Costco? Better have a Visa. Costco do not accept any other CC in their retail stores.
With most online purchases, a CC is the only accepted method of payment. It doesn't matter if one uses PayPal, iTunes, Amazon Pay or the business takes CC directly, you still have to use a CC. Think of any reasons why an online business should allow their customers to pay with cash, money order or a check? What difference does it make as to whether your CC is tied to PayPal, iTunes or Amazon pay? You still have to pay with a CC. It doesn't cost the consumer any more to use PayPal, iTunes or Amazon Pay, when using them for CC payments. And really, do you want to be giving out your CC number to every developer that you purchase apps from? Instead of using iTunes as a payment method in the App store?
Now with iTunes, one can use gift cards to pay, instead of a CC. And PayPal can deduct the payment from a bank account instead of charging a CC, if you set it up that way.
Do you think that because it's a "free market", that businesses should have to accept bitcoins, if that's what a consumer wants to pay with? What about accepting legal foreign currencies? Or a goat?
What's free for the consumers in most cases, is that if they don't like the payment methods of a business, they are free to take their business elsewhere. And all businesses in the US must accept US currency as a form of payment. But only if in person at the time of purchase. They do not have to accept cash by mail.
Here's how it works in a "free market". Businesses are free to dictate what payment methods that they want, as a form of payment. Even if it's just one method. Consumers are free to not do business with any businesses that don't accept the way they want to pay for products or services. Businesses are then free to accept other payment methods when they lose enough business from consumers patronizing other businesses that accepts the method of payment they want to use.
So, if Samsung distributes it and Samsung sell more phones than Apple, how can Apple have a monopoly? Having the more profitable products does not equal a monopoly. The question then are we redefining what a monopoly is because one company goes against the grain in almost everything they do and makes more money because of it.
It's not a monopoly in that there is only one source for the product. Read the case. It's about the fact that Apple only allows one method of payment for in-app purchases, and that is through Apple's own systems and at Apple's own rate (30%). CC transactions typically cost businesses 2-3%.
It has been shown time and time again Apple was doing nothing that the rest of the industry wasn't doing at that time as shown in Report: Steam's 30% Cut Is Actually the Industry Standard (7 Oct 2019). The only companies charging less than Apple, other then Epic, were Humble Bundle at 25% and Itch.io with developer's choice.
Also CC transactions do NOT just cost businesses 2-3% but rather that and the flat fees of Interchange and assessment which are figured on a per transaction basis, This is what demonstrates that Epic has no clue as to what it is doin as by not having a shopping cart they were paying more then they needed to.
Another issue is that high risk category businesses (large amount of fraud, refunds and/or chargebacks, questionable sales and marketing practices, Inconsistent revenue, a lot of competitors, and can put one in this category real fast) get charged much higher rates. From what I have heard software and especially game software checks a lot of these high risk boxes and the more checks the higher the base rate.
So, if Samsung distributes it and Samsung sell more phones than Apple, how can Apple have a monopoly? Having the more profitable products does not equal a monopoly. The question then are we redefining what a monopoly is because one company goes against the grain in almost everything they do and makes more money because of it.
It's not a monopoly in that there is only one source for the product. Read the case. It's about the fact that Apple only allows one method of payment for in-app purchases, and that is through Apple's own systems and at Apple's own rate (30%). CC transactions typically cost businesses 2-3%.
Why not compare it to a game console store such as Xbox. You will see that they also charge the same 30%.
From the Microsoft store App Developer Agreement (specifically for Xbox games):
"Thirty percent (30%) of Net Receipts for: (a) all Apps and In-App Products acquired by Customers in the Microsoft Store on an Xbox console and billed to such Customers on a non-subscription basis"
Playstion, Xbox, and Nintendo: 30% Apple Store, Google Play: 30% Gamestop, Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart: 30%
"s you can see above, a game retailer taking a 30% cut is fairly common - that means if you buy a game for $60, the retailer generally gets $18 of it. Epic’s 12% cut is actually the major exception to this rule, while Valve’s cut gets lowers as a game passes certain sales thresholds and itch.io lets publishers themselves pick the cut it takes.Another exception is the Humble Store (which is owned by IGN’s parent company, Ziff Davis, but does not influence coverage in any way, full disclosure at the bottom of the page), which takes a 25% cut but only keeps 15% of that for itself, letting the buyer choose whether the other 10% goes to charity or back to them as store credit. "
Perhaps if people would stop drinking the Epic Kool-aid and look they would understand but how insane and delusional Epic's claims are especially when you remember they have a similar lawsuit agains Google. How in the same of sanity can you have two monopolies in the same industry? Mono means one. Sheesh.
I really hope the solution is allowing third party app stores. That would break the monopoly and still allow customers to make the decision as to whether they prefer a tightly controlled app ecosystem or a less restrictive app environment.
It would also break Apple's reputation for rock solid stability, privacy and security. No Thank You! It's one of the reasons I buy Apple products.
it wouldn't...as long as you do not install Apps from 3rd party app stores. And a very small percentage (<0.1%) of people would dare install Apps from 3rd party app stores, so it wouldn't make a difference to the Apple's ecosystem in reality. Not sure why you think it would break Apple's reputation.
My friends and family, whom I advise to buy Apple, would no longer get that recommendation from me if Apple had to abandon its rules of control. They need Apple's protection. Maybe you don't, because you are savvy, but they do. I myself would likely abandon Apple if Apple's controls were removed by the courts or the government. It's the main reason that I buy from Apple. And if Epic completely wins, Apple loses my business, and the business of my friends and family. The only thing Apple could do to win back my business is to offer no third party app store at all. The courts cannot mandate that Apple offer a third party app store.
I am not a legal expert, so I wouldn't comment on what court's rulings would/could be. But governments can very well choose to pass laws to force Apple to allow apps to be installed from 3rd party sources and Apple would be legally obligated to follow suit. And it need not be US, but other major markets like EU or China that can bring in this change for those markets.
Aren't you the one that plainly stated that < .1% of iOS users would dare download apps from a third party store or the internet? So why would you think that the government can force Apple to allow a third party app store in iOS if you think < .1% of iOS users would dare download from a third party app store? What reason would the government have in do this? That would be like if .1% Costco members wants to buy Walmart products while in a Costco, the government can force Costco to allow Walmart to open a store inside a Costco.
Now, you might want to say that you might be wrong about the < .1% of iOS users would dare to download apps from a third party store. Maybe it's more like 1% or even 10%. Now you're face the problem that you plainly stated that if < .1% of iOS users would dare to use a third party store or the internet to download apps, then it would not pose a security issue with iOS. But if it's more like 10% of the iOS users would dare to download from a third party store or the internet, then there's going to be a security issue with iOS. Don't you think? And it's going to take a lot more than 10%, before the government takes notice and maybe force Apple to allow a third party app store in iOS.
Now think about this. The Microsoft Store in an X-Box and the Sony Store in a PlayStation operates the same way on their respective platforms, as the Apple App Store operates in iOS. Right down to the 30% commission on sales. So why haven't the government forced Microsoft or Sony, to allow third party stores on their game console platforms? The X-Box and PlayStations been around a lot longer than the Apple App Store. I'm sure there are > .1% of X-Box users that would like to download cheaper games from developers that don't want to pay MS 30% commission. And the same with Sony PlayStations users wanting to download cheaper games on to their PlayStations. Do you think that if 30% or even 50% of X-Box or Playstation users wants to be able to download cheaper games from a third party store, that the government can or should force MS or Sony to allow third party stores on to their platforms? More than 3x as many people play games on a game console, than on a mobile device (and that includes Android). It's about 70% to 20%.
If X-box users, PlayStation users and iOS users wants to download cheaper games from developers that don't want to pay the 30% commission, they can play those games on a computer or Android device. They have no right to demand that MS, Sony or Apple, supply free access to developers, on their platforms. And MS, Sony and Apple couldn't care less about developers that don't want to pay the 30%. There are more than enough developers that are making a tons of money on each platform, even after paying the 30%. They are not going to be as stupid as Epic and give up their 70% cut. MS, Sony and Apple can do without the crybaby developers on their platforms. It's not going to hurt MS, Sony or Apple, revenue wise, at all.
Apple was always too greedy for its own good. And Tim Cook knows exactly what Apple should do to end the Monopoly of Apple on iPhone and iPad application distribution. Will Tim Cook acknowledge the Monopoly behavior of Apple or will he force the Court to quash the Monopoly of Apple ?
You oppose Apple's "monopoly" of distribution over apps in the Apple App Store. Are you equally opposed to Epic's "monopoly" of distribution over apps in the Epic Game Store?
That's just a simple question. You should be able to answer a simple question. Are you able to answer a simple question?
And should Epic be forced to allow Apple Pay or PayPal for purchase of products on the Epic Game Store?
My questions for you are sincere, honest questions. You need to have an answer. What is your answer?
I must confess that I don't take things with a life or death seriousness. From what I have read, Epic wants to distribute its games on the Apple AppStore so as not to be restricted to its own Epic Game Store. I don't see any monopolistic behaviour from Epic, just from Apple which is insisting that only Apple can distribute games developped for the iOS and iPad OS platforms, thereby limiting to Apple any profit from the distribution of applications and games developped for iPhones and iPads. This exclusive distribution and payment system is illegal because it is a Monopoly.
You oppose Apple's "monopoly" of distribution over apps in the Apple App Store. Are you equally opposed to Epic's "monopoly" of distribution over apps in the Epic Game Store?
That's just a simple question. You should be able to answer a simple question. Are you able to answer a simple question?
And should Epic be forced to allow Apple Pay or PayPal for purchase of products on the Epic Game Store?
My questions for you are sincere, honest questions. You need to have an answer. What is your answer?
Epic does not have a monopoly over the distributoon of apps on any platform, it's a completely false equivalency. Your questions are never honest or sincere, they're always wormy, misleading and self-regarding. Wtf even is the "just a simple question. You should be able to answer a simple question" crap? You sound like a real sleazebag.
I really hope the solution is allowing third party app stores. That would break the monopoly and still allow customers to make the decision as to whether they prefer a tightly controlled app ecosystem or a less restrictive app environment.
And you’ll be the first one in here trashing Apple when a misbehaving/malware app obtained from god-knows-where hoses you.
Is this forum flooded with Mac users complaining about and blaming Apple for malware from apps downloaded outside the Mac App Store? I must've missed that.
You oppose Apple's "monopoly" of distribution over apps in the Apple App Store. Are you equally opposed to Epic's "monopoly" of distribution over apps in the Epic Game Store?
That's just a simple question. You should be able to answer a simple question. Are you able to answer a simple question?
And should Epic be forced to allow Apple Pay or PayPal for purchase of products on the Epic Game Store?
My questions for you are sincere, honest questions. You need to have an answer. What is your answer?
Epic does not have a monopoly over the distributoon of apps on any platform, it's a completely false equivalency.
Neither does Apple, it's a completely false allegation.
Comments
Malware can not be installed onto an iPhone or iPad by just the user clicking on a link in an eMail. But can be installed onto a Mac by the user clicking on the same eMail link. The only way to get malware installed this way with an iPhone or iPad is to jailbreak the iDevice. And guess what jail breaking does? It allows the user to install apps from the internet. One don't need to jailbreak a Mac, in order to install software from the internet. It can do that straight from the factory.
And BTW, the revenue generated from the App Store is a drop in a bucket when compared to the revenue generated from hardware sale of iPhones and iPads. And a good percentage of those sales are because iPhones and iPads on iOS are a lot more secure than Android devices. Did you even look at Apple earnings for the last quarter. They had for the first time, over $100B of revenue in a quarter (to be fair it was the X-Mas quarter, their largest quarter every year, revenue wise). Apple Service revenue came in at $15B for the quarter. But services also includes Apple Care, (by far the largest portion of that $15B), iTunes music store, Apple Music streaming subscription, AppleTV+, Apple movie streaming rentals and purchases and of course, the App Store. If the App Store was responsible for $2B of the over $100B this quarter, it's a drop in the bucket. If Apple made iOS less secure, they could lose 10's of billions of dollars more revenue from people no longer buying iDevices, than from the revenue generated from the App Store.
As much as Apple would not want to lose any revenue generated from the App Store, they would be more concern about the revenue loss due to the lost of sales of iDevices, if they were made less secure. And nothing you have stated can back up any of your assumptions that iOS devices will be not be any less secure, if Apple allowed the downloading of apps from third party sources or the internet. Just a couple of percent of loss sales of iDevices, that cost between $350 and $1200, would be way more than what revenue Apple gets from the App Store. And then there's the cost of keeping iOS as secure as possible, once users are allowed to download apps from third party sources or the internet.
And tells this. If what you stated is true, that < .1% of iDevice users would dare to download apps from a third party or the internet, then why in the Hell would Apple even compromise the security of iOS by one bit, for the other 99.9% of iDevice users? The < .1% can switch to Android if they want to download apps from a third party or the internet for all Apple care. None of your augments makes any logical sense from the standpoint of a company whose main responsibilities are to its shareholders, not to the
< .1% that wants to download apps from sources, other than the App Store.
So that's 3 strikes, your outta here!
For most of eBay purchases, only PayPal is accepted as the form of payment. And eBay once own PayPal. (separated in 2015). I can't pay with my iTunes account.
Want to use a CC to pay for your purchases at a Costco? Better have a Visa. Costco do not accept any other CC in their retail stores.
With most online purchases, a CC is the only accepted method of payment. It doesn't matter if one uses PayPal, iTunes, Amazon Pay or the business takes CC directly, you still have to use a CC. Think of any reasons why an online business should allow their customers to pay with cash, money order or a check? What difference does it make as to whether your CC is tied to PayPal, iTunes or Amazon pay? You still have to pay with a CC. It doesn't cost the consumer any more to use PayPal, iTunes or Amazon Pay, when using them for CC payments. And really, do you want to be giving out your CC number to every developer that you purchase apps from? Instead of using iTunes as a payment method in the App store?
Now with iTunes, one can use gift cards to pay, instead of a CC. And PayPal can deduct the payment from a bank account instead of charging a CC, if you set it up that way.
Do you think that because it's a "free market", that businesses should have to accept bitcoins, if that's what a consumer wants to pay with? What about accepting legal foreign currencies? Or a goat?
What's free for the consumers in most cases, is that if they don't like the payment methods of a business, they are free to take their business elsewhere. And all businesses in the US must accept US currency as a form of payment. But only if in person at the time of purchase. They do not have to accept cash by mail.
Here's how it works in a "free market". Businesses are free to dictate what payment methods that they want, as a form of payment. Even if it's just one method. Consumers are free to not do business with any businesses that don't accept the way they want to pay for products or services. Businesses are then free to accept other payment methods when they lose enough business from consumers patronizing other businesses that accepts the method of payment they want to use.
Also CC transactions do NOT just cost businesses 2-3% but rather that and the flat fees of Interchange and assessment which are figured on a per transaction basis, This is what demonstrates that Epic has no clue as to what it is doin as by not having a shopping cart they were paying more then they needed to.
Another issue is that high risk category businesses (large amount of fraud, refunds and/or chargebacks, questionable sales and marketing practices, Inconsistent revenue, a lot of competitors, and can put one in this category real fast) get charged much higher rates. From what I have heard software and especially game software checks a lot of these high risk boxes and the more checks the higher the base rate.
Playstion, Xbox, and Nintendo: 30%
Apple Store, Google Play: 30%
Gamestop, Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart: 30%
"s you can see above, a game retailer taking a 30% cut is fairly common - that means if you buy a game for $60, the retailer generally gets $18 of it. Epic’s 12% cut is actually the major exception to this rule, while Valve’s cut gets lowers as a game passes certain sales thresholds and itch.io lets publishers themselves pick the cut it takes.Another exception is the Humble Store (which is owned by IGN’s parent company, Ziff Davis, but does not influence coverage in any way, full disclosure at the bottom of the page), which takes a 25% cut but only keeps 15% of that for itself, letting the buyer choose whether the other 10% goes to charity or back to them as store credit. "
Perhaps if people would stop drinking the Epic Kool-aid and look they would understand but how insane and delusional Epic's claims are especially when you remember they have a similar lawsuit agains Google. How in the same of sanity can you have two monopolies in the same industry? Mono means one. Sheesh.
Now, you might want to say that you might be wrong about the < .1% of iOS users would dare to download apps from a third party store. Maybe it's more like 1% or even 10%. Now you're face the problem that you plainly stated that if < .1% of iOS users would dare to use a third party store or the internet to download apps, then it would not pose a security issue with iOS. But if it's more like 10% of the iOS users would dare to download from a third party store or the internet, then there's going to be a security issue with iOS. Don't you think? And it's going to take a lot more than 10%, before the government takes notice and maybe force Apple to allow a third party app store in iOS.
Now think about this. The Microsoft Store in an X-Box and the Sony Store in a PlayStation operates the same way on their respective platforms, as the Apple App Store operates in iOS. Right down to the 30% commission on sales. So why haven't the government forced Microsoft or Sony, to allow third party stores on their game console platforms? The X-Box and PlayStations been around a lot longer than the Apple App Store. I'm sure there are > .1% of X-Box users that would like to download cheaper games from developers that don't want to pay MS 30% commission. And the same with Sony PlayStations users wanting to download cheaper games on to their PlayStations. Do you think that if 30% or even 50% of X-Box or Playstation users wants to be able to download cheaper games from a third party store, that the government can or should force MS or Sony to allow third party stores on to their platforms? More than 3x as many people play games on a game console, than on a mobile device (and that includes Android). It's about 70% to 20%.
If X-box users, PlayStation users and iOS users wants to download cheaper games from developers that don't want to pay the 30% commission, they can play those games on a computer or Android device. They have no right to demand that MS, Sony or Apple, supply free access to developers, on their platforms. And MS, Sony and Apple couldn't care less about developers that don't want to pay the 30%. There are more than enough developers that are making a tons of money on each platform, even after paying the 30%. They are not going to be as stupid as Epic and give up their 70% cut. MS, Sony and Apple can do without the crybaby developers on their platforms. It's not going to hurt MS, Sony or Apple, revenue wise, at all.
I must confess that I don't take things with a life or death seriousness. From what I have read, Epic wants to distribute its games on the Apple AppStore so as not to be restricted to its own Epic Game Store. I don't see any monopolistic behaviour from Epic, just from Apple which is insisting that only Apple can distribute games developped for the iOS and iPad OS platforms, thereby limiting to Apple any profit from the distribution of applications and games developped for iPhones and iPads. This exclusive distribution and payment system is illegal because it is a Monopoly.
Neither does Apple, it's a completely false allegation.