Epic's Tim Sweeney said he would have taken special deal with Apple

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 34
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,036member
    Epic doesn’t need a lawsuit to eliminate Apple’s commissions.  They simply need to setup payment outside the Apple ecosystem.  Yes, that would be tedious for both the company and its customers.  But, go to the Epic website, setup your payment option, and then go buy some Vbucks that will show up back in your iOS instance of the game.  And do this without linking out of the iOS game to get users there. 

    But hey, if Apple isn’t providing value then this should be NO PROBLEM. 
    Epic already has this set up and for quite awhile. Providing a direct link to their website to buy V-Bucks for mobile devices was what got Fortnight kicked out of the Apple and Google Play app stores. 

    The problem is that V-Bucks must cost the same on all app stores. Just like how a Netflix subscription cost the same, no matter which platform one uses to pay. This prevent players from favoring one platform from which to purchase V-Bucks. Because even if the V-Bucks are not transferable across game console platforms, all virtual items bought with V-Bucks are accessible no matter which platform the player is playing on. A cool looking virtual outfit bought on an X-Box can still be used while playing on an iPhone or Playstation. So nothing would stop a player from buying virtual goods on the platform that has the best deal on V-Bucks.

    And because all V-Bucks must cost the same on all app stores, Epic can not give iOS and Android users a discount on V-bucks when purchased from Epic website, as an incentive for them to buy their V-bucks from there. When Epic offered discounted V-Bucks at the time they got kicked out of the Apple and Google Play app stores, they offered the same  discount to all game consoles app stores, for the same period of time. They had to, V-bucks must cost the same from all app stores.

    Without the discount, there would be no reason at all for a Fortnight player on a mobile device to login to their account on the Epic website with a browser, to buy V-Bucks that cost the same as if they were to buy it from the free Fortnight app on the mobile device.  

    Epic knows that very few players on a mobile device will leave the app, to buy V-bucks from Epic website and Epic can not offer a discount as an incentive for them to do so. Which is why Epic wants a direct link to their website to buy V-Bucks, from inside their game app on mobile devices. Which is prohibited on both Apple and Google Play app stores. Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo would never allow this on their game console platforms. 
    tenthousandthingsmuthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 34
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,335member
    Epic doesn’t need a lawsuit to eliminate Apple’s commissions.  They simply need to setup payment outside the Apple ecosystem.  Yes, that would be tedious for both the company and its customers.  But, go to the Epic website, setup your payment option, and then go buy some Vbucks that will show up back in your iOS instance of the game.  And do this without linking out of the iOS game to get users there. 

    But hey, if Apple isn’t providing value then this should be NO PROBLEM. 
    What you’re describing is exactly how Amazon sells ebooks that are later accessible on iOS and macOS. Works fine, and the superior functionality of Amazon’s Kindle Reader on Apple’s platforms versus Apple’s very pedestrian ebook reader make the extra hoop jump worth the effort.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 34
    rezwitsrezwits Posts: 878member
    Epic doesn’t need a lawsuit to eliminate Apple’s commissions.  They simply need to setup payment outside the Apple ecosystem.  Yes, that would be tedious for both the company and its customers.  But, go to the Epic website, setup your payment option, and then go buy some Vbucks that will show up back in your iOS instance of the game.  And do this without linking out of the iOS game to get users there. 

    But hey, if Apple isn’t providing value then this should be NO PROBLEM. 
    The whole problem is "it's Apple's fault in the end if things go wrong."  They're the ones who end up holding the hot potato, with Credit Cards getting excess charges or scammers...
    spock1234watto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 34
    darkvaderdarkvader Posts: 1,146member
    crowley said:
    Well there goes the principle argument.

    Oh, absolutely.  Epic isn't doing this for the good of everyone.  It's all about the money for them.

    All we can hope for is that the outcome is good anyway - an end to Apple's app store monopoly.

    I don't care if Apple charges devs 50% on their app store.  They can charge 90% as far as I'm concerned.  I just want the ability to load any app I want.  I want Firefox with the Gecko engine.  I want Pi-hole to be able to run on my iPhone so I can block domains even when I'm using cell data.  I want to be able to compile and install open source apps without having to have a paid dev account, and without having to reinstall once a week.

    It's not Apple's iPhone.  It's MY iPhone.  It's not Apple's Apple TV, it's MY Apple TV.  The Apple app store walled garden should be an option for anyone who wants it, not the only option.

    And before you say it, Android is a terrible alternative.  It's not a phone OS, it's a Google spy platform.
  • Reply 25 of 34
    Trey_LanceTrey_Lance Posts: 98member
    darkvader said:
    crowley said:
    Well there goes the principle argument.

    Oh, absolutely.  Epic isn't doing this for the good of everyone.  It's all about the money for them.

    All we can hope for is that the outcome is good anyway - an end to Apple's app store monopoly.

    I don't care if Apple charges devs 50% on their app store.  They can charge 90% as far as I'm concerned.  I just want the ability to load any app I want.  I want Firefox with the Gecko engine.  I want Pi-hole to be able to run on my iPhone so I can block domains even when I'm using cell data.  I want to be able to compile and install open source apps without having to have a paid dev account, and without having to reinstall once a week.

    It's not Apple's iPhone.  It's MY iPhone.  It's not Apple's Apple TV, it's MY Apple TV.  The Apple app store walled garden should be an option for anyone who wants it, not the only option.

    And before you say it, Android is a terrible alternative.  It's not a phone OS, it's a Google spy platform.
    darkvader said:
    crowley said:
    Well there goes the principle argument.

    Oh, absolutely.  Epic isn't doing this for the good of everyone.  It's all about the money for them.

    All we can hope for is that the outcome is good anyway - an end to Apple's app store monopoly.

    I don't care if Apple charges devs 50% on their app store.  They can charge 90% as far as I'm concerned.  I just want the ability to load any app I want.  I want Firefox with the Gecko engine.  I want Pi-hole to be able to run on my iPhone so I can block domains even when I'm using cell data.  I want to be able to compile and install open source apps without having to have a paid dev account, and without having to reinstall once a week.

    It's not Apple's iPhone.  It's MY iPhone.  It's not Apple's Apple TV, it's MY Apple TV.  The Apple app store walled garden should be an option for anyone who wants it, not the only option.

    And before you say it, Android is a terrible alternative.  It's not a phone OS, it's a Google spy platform.
    darkvader said:
    crowley said:
    Well there goes the principle argument.

    Oh, absolutely.  Epic isn't doing this for the good of everyone.  It's all about the money for them.

    All we can hope for is that the outcome is good anyway - an end to Apple's app store monopoly.

    I don't care if Apple charges devs 50% on their app store.  They can charge 90% as far as I'm concerned.  I just want the ability to load any app I want.  I want Firefox with the Gecko engine.  I want Pi-hole to be able to run on my iPhone so I can block domains even when I'm using cell data.  I want to be able to compile and install open source apps without having to have a paid dev account, and without having to reinstall once a week.

    It's not Apple's iPhone.  It's MY iPhone.  It's not Apple's Apple TV, it's MY Apple TV.  The Apple app store walled garden should be an option for anyone who wants it, not the only option.

    And before you say it, Android is a terrible alternative.  It's not a phone OS, it's a Google spy platform.
    You can want that but I don’t want the security risk with my information on my phone. Why would you force that on me? Who the F are you? You can do all those things right now by jail breaking, just do that, don’t force it on the rest of the people and make all the phones a security risk.

    There is a reason Apple Phones are proven to be the most secure, my company buy iPhones exactly for that reason 
    spock1234watto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 34
    nicholfdnicholfd Posts: 824member
    darkvader said:
    crowley said:
    Well there goes the principle argument.

    Oh, absolutely.  Epic isn't doing this for the good of everyone.  It's all about the money for them.

    All we can hope for is that the outcome is good anyway - an end to Apple's app store monopoly.

    I don't care if Apple charges devs 50% on their app store.  They can charge 90% as far as I'm concerned.  I just want the ability to load any app I want.  I want Firefox with the Gecko engine.  I want Pi-hole to be able to run on my iPhone so I can block domains even when I'm using cell data.  I want to be able to compile and install open source apps without having to have a paid dev account, and without having to reinstall once a week.

    It's not Apple's iPhone.  It's MY iPhone.  It's not Apple's Apple TV, it's MY Apple TV.  The Apple app store walled garden should be an option for anyone who wants it, not the only option.

    And before you say it, Android is a terrible alternative.  It's not a phone OS, it's a Google spy platform.
    And people in hell want ice water.  You can keep on wanting, on Apple's platform.  Sounds like you should move to Android - it has everything you want, and more!

    You own the physical hardware.  You don't own the OS/software on the device.  You agreed to the license terms when you activated the device.
    Trey_Lancespock1234watto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 34
    omasouomasou Posts: 564member
    Finally, the truth comes out. He wants to sell content w/in the app but not pay Apple their commission fee for in app sales.

    "The long-term evolution of Fortnite will be opening up Fortnite as a platform for creators to distribute their work to users and creators will make the majority of profits," Sweeney said. "With Apple taking 30% off of the top, it makes it very hard for Epic and creators to exist in this future world."

    https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/

    He probably doesn't like the rules in Section 3.1.1 and wants to re-write them as he sees fit.

    Guessing he also doesn't want to have to worry about or monitor user content to comply w/Section 1.2

    1.2 User Generated Content

    Apps with user-generated content present particular challenges, ranging from intellectual property infringement to anonymous bullying. To prevent abuse, apps with user-generated content or social networking services must include:

    • A method for filtering objectionable material from being posted to the app
    • A mechanism to report offensive content and timely responses to concerns
    • The ability to block abusive users from the service
    • Published contact information so users can easily reach you
    edited May 2021 watto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 34
    darkvaderdarkvader Posts: 1,146member

    You can want that but I don’t want the security risk with my information on my phone. Why would you force that on me? Who the F are you? You can do all those things right now by jail breaking, just do that, don’t force it on the rest of the people and make all the phones a security risk.

    There is a reason Apple Phones are proven to be the most secure, my company buy iPhones exactly for that reason 

    All I'm asking for is a toggle in settings that says something like "Allow Installing Apps From non-Apple Sources". 

    It can default to off.  It can have warnings about Apple's security concerns.  Your company can force it off on company-owned iPhones with a profile.  You don't ever have to turn it on if you don't want to.

    Jailbreaking as it exists today adds security issues FAR beyond simply allowing app installation.  This would not be the same thing as jailbreaking, not even remotely.  It doesn't fundamentally change the iPhone's security in any way.

    But it does need to be there.  It should have been there since the beginning.  And now, with Apple illegally exploiting their monopoly on iOS devices, hopefully the courts will force it to be there.  And I expect they will, if not the US courts, I expect the EU will fix the problem.

    Again, if you don't want it, you wouldn't have to do a thing.  Don't flip the switch, stay in the walled garden.  Entirely your choice.
  • Reply 29 of 34
    nicholfdnicholfd Posts: 824member
    darkvader said:

    You can want that but I don’t want the security risk with my information on my phone. Why would you force that on me? Who the F are you? You can do all those things right now by jail breaking, just do that, don’t force it on the rest of the people and make all the phones a security risk.

    There is a reason Apple Phones are proven to be the most secure, my company buy iPhones exactly for that reason 

    All I'm asking for is a toggle in settings that says something like "Allow Installing Apps From non-Apple Sources". 

    It can default to off.  It can have warnings about Apple's security concerns.  Your company can force it off on company-owned iPhones with a profile.  You don't ever have to turn it on if you don't want to.

    Jailbreaking as it exists today adds security issues FAR beyond simply allowing app installation.  This would not be the same thing as jailbreaking, not even remotely.  It doesn't fundamentally change the iPhone's security in any way.

    But it does need to be there.  It should have been there since the beginning.  And now, with Apple illegally exploiting their monopoly on iOS devices, hopefully the courts will force it to be there.  And I expect they will, if not the US courts, I expect the EU will fix the problem.

    Again, if you don't want it, you wouldn't have to do a thing.  Don't flip the switch, stay in the walled garden.  Entirely your choice.
    Just stop the BS.

    A company cannot have a monopoly on a product they make.  Either you accept the product as it comes, or you don't buy it.  Stop whining about it.

    spock1234watto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 30 of 34
    BiggieTallBiggieTall Posts: 17member
    Just curious, Why do they have to cost the same? One of the ways businesses compete is on price.  If epic makes the v-dollar product cost less at its webstore, it can drive folks to it’s store, just like Walmart does, etc. 

    If there is something that prohibits that, that would be price fixing and collusion in restraint of trade, right? A pretty basic antitrust notion. 
    If this “same price” is a apple thing (in concert with others), then I’d think they’d be vulnerable there.  

    If epic was serious about this, they should sell v-dollars ONLY thru their website and outside of ANY platform. with a few tweets and other social networking moments, everyone would know where to go etc. The price across platforms would then all be the same. ZERO



    ———
    The problem is that V-Bucks must cost the same on all app stores. Just like how a Netflix subscription cost the same, no matter which platform one uses to pay. This prevent players from favoring one platform from which to purchase V-Bucks. Because even if the V-Bucks are not transferable across game console platforms, all virtual items bought with V-Bucks are accessible no matter which platform the player is playing on. A cool looking virtual outfit bought on an X-Box can still be used while playing on an iPhone or Playstation. So nothing would stop a player from buying virtual goods on the platform that has the best deal on V-Bucks.

    edited May 2021 watto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 34
    hammeroftruthhammeroftruth Posts: 1,303member
    darkvader said:

    You can want that but I don’t want the security risk with my information on my phone. Why would you force that on me? Who the F are you? You can do all those things right now by jail breaking, just do that, don’t force it on the rest of the people and make all the phones a security risk.

    There is a reason Apple Phones are proven to be the most secure, my company buy iPhones exactly for that reason 

    All I'm asking for is a toggle in settings that says something like "Allow Installing Apps From non-Apple Sources". 

    It can default to off.  It can have warnings about Apple's security concerns.  Your company can force it off on company-owned iPhones with a profile.  You don't ever have to turn it on if you don't want to.

    Jailbreaking as it exists today adds security issues FAR beyond simply allowing app installation.  This would not be the same thing as jailbreaking, not even remotely.  It doesn't fundamentally change the iPhone's security in any way.

    But it does need to be there.  It should have been there since the beginning.  And now, with Apple illegally exploiting their monopoly on iOS devices, hopefully the courts will force it to be there.  And I expect they will, if not the US courts, I expect the EU will fix the problem.

    Again, if you don't want it, you wouldn't have to do a thing.  Don't flip the switch, stay in the walled garden.  Entirely your choice.
    The problem with this is for most people, they wouldn’t know how to vet a good app vs. a malicious one. This is the reason why Android is always getting hacked and customers info is being harvested and in some cases identities stolen and money taken from accounts. 

    You rely on the public being smart enough to have the skill to identify the difference between a good app and a malicious one. Even Apple sometimes lets one slip by. 

    Apple will not change this model for the sake of “more choices” when it comes to apps. You’re going to have to look elsewhere if you want to do this. 
    spock1234watto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 34
    Trey_LanceTrey_Lance Posts: 98member
    darkvader said:

    You can want that but I don’t want the security risk with my information on my phone. Why would you force that on me? Who the F are you? You can do all those things right now by jail breaking, just do that, don’t force it on the rest of the people and make all the phones a security risk.

    There is a reason Apple Phones are proven to be the most secure, my company buy iPhones exactly for that reason 

    All I'm asking for is a toggle in settings that says something like "Allow Installing Apps From non-Apple Sources". 

    It can default to off.  It can have warnings about Apple's security concerns.  Your company can force it off on company-owned iPhones with a profile.  You don't ever have to turn it on if you don't want to.

    Jailbreaking as it exists today adds security issues FAR beyond simply allowing app installation.  This would not be the same thing as jailbreaking, not even remotely.  It doesn't fundamentally change the iPhone's security in any way.

    But it does need to be there.  It should have been there since the beginning.  And now, with Apple illegally exploiting their monopoly on iOS devices, hopefully the courts will force it to be there.  And I expect they will, if not the US courts, I expect the EU will fix the problem.

    Again, if you don't want it, you wouldn't have to do a thing.  Don't flip the switch, stay in the walled garden.  Entirely your choice.
    Of the billion Apple users, what percentage do you think know like you and how many are like me, who love what Apple is doing security wise with the App Store. My guess is most are like me.

    even with a Toggle button, that is better but still a risk . Again, if you don’t want Apples protection , you can jail break ,
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 34
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,036member
    Just curious, Why do they have to cost the same? One of the ways businesses compete is on price.  If epic makes the v-dollar product cost less at its webstore, it can drive folks to it’s store, just like Walmart does, etc. 

    If there is something that prohibits that, that would be price fixing and collusion in restraint of trade, right? A pretty basic antitrust notion. 
    If this “same price” is a apple thing (in concert with others), then I’d think they’d be vulnerable there.  

    If epic was serious about this, they should sell v-dollars ONLY thru their website and outside of ANY platform. with a few tweets and other social networking moments, everyone would know where to go etc. The price across platforms would then all be the same. ZERO



    ———
    The problem is that V-Bucks must cost the same on all app stores. Just like how a Netflix subscription cost the same, no matter which platform one uses to pay. This prevent players from favoring one platform from which to purchase V-Bucks. Because even if the V-Bucks are not transferable across game console platforms, all virtual items bought with V-Bucks are accessible no matter which platform the player is playing on. A cool looking virtual outfit bought on an X-Box can still be used while playing on an iPhone or Playstation. So nothing would stop a player from buying virtual goods on the platform that has the best deal on V-Bucks.

    It's the deal they have to make in order to get their games on to an X-Box, PlayStation, Nintendo, iOS or Android. On each of these platforms, the Fortnight game is a free app. The platform owner is allowing Fortnight players to play for free, with the hope that they buy V-Bucks on their platform and get the commission. If Epic were to start selling discounted V-Bucks from their PC games on a computer and the player were able to transfer those V-Bucks to an X-Box, then what is preventing X-Box players from buying all their V-Bucks on a computer or from any other platform that's selling V-Bucks cheaper than from an X-Box? Why would Microsoft or any platform owner,  agree to allow a free app for Fortnight, under that condition.

    And with Epic, the virtual goods a player buy on one platform, can be used on any other platform. So even if the V-Bucks were not transferable from one platform to another, the virtual goods bought on one platform are. So players would just go the the platform with the best deal on V-Bucks and buy all their virtual goods there. 60% of game players, play on a game console. There's no way that Epic do not want their games on game console. 

    With Netflix, if they were to offer subscribers a 20% discount on their subscription, if they were to pay it directly on their website, why would Apple, Google, Microsoft, Sony, Samsung, LG, etc., even bother to offer Netflix a free app on their devices?  Nearly everyone will be paying for their Netflix subscription at their website.

    Even with a Spotify subscription. They cost the same no matter what platform you choose to pay from.

    And the same for Apple Music. You do not see Apple lowering the cost of an Apple Music subscription when paid for on iOS, where Apple do not pay the commission. (or they pay it to themselves.) If they did, they would have to lower the price on every platform that has a free Apple Music app. 

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 34
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,036member

    darkvader said:

    You can want that but I don’t want the security risk with my information on my phone. Why would you force that on me? Who the F are you? You can do all those things right now by jail breaking, just do that, don’t force it on the rest of the people and make all the phones a security risk.

    There is a reason Apple Phones are proven to be the most secure, my company buy iPhones exactly for that reason 

    All I'm asking for is a toggle in settings that says something like "Allow Installing Apps From non-Apple Sources". 

    It can default to off.  It can have warnings about Apple's security concerns.  Your company can force it off on company-owned iPhones with a profile.  You don't ever have to turn it on if you don't want to.

    Jailbreaking as it exists today adds security issues FAR beyond simply allowing app installation.  This would not be the same thing as jailbreaking, not even remotely.  It doesn't fundamentally change the iPhone's security in any way.

    But it does need to be there.  It should have been there since the beginning.  And now, with Apple illegally exploiting their monopoly on iOS devices, hopefully the courts will force it to be there.  And I expect they will, if not the US courts, I expect the EU will fix the problem.

    Again, if you don't want it, you wouldn't have to do a thing.  Don't flip the switch, stay in the walled garden.  Entirely your choice.
    It will never work that way. If there's a lock on a door, that is preventing hackers from installing malware, then they will surely find a way to pick that lock. Installing the door is much harder for hackers to do. So iOS is much more secure  by not having the door at all, no matter how many locks are on the door. 

    This is why a device with a backdoor, is never as safe as a device with one. No matter how safe the key is kept. 

    If there's a "toggle switch" that the user must "toggle", to allow the installation of software. Hackers will find a way to toggle that switch without the user knowing it.  A device is much safer without that switch, no matter if the user never intends to ever toggle that switch. 

    Numbers have it now, that less than 1% of iPhone owners jailbreak their iPhones. Downloading software from the internet is just not "in", any more. Over 99% of iOS users can do without it. Even if Apple were to provide a convenient "switch" for users to toggle if they want to download from the internet, chances are, it's still going to be less that 5% of the users that will ever toggle that "switch". Why should Apple risk compromising the security of their devices for the 95%, by installing a door with a lock on it, to make things easier for the 5% and hackers? Chances are, 95% of Apple iDevice users would rather not have that door at all, rather than the option of a switch that they will never use to unlock that door. The choice should be whether to not have that switch at all, not whether to not toggle it if you don't want to download from the internet. 

    Nothing is stopping you from being in the 1% of iOS users, with a jailbreak iPhone. 95% of iOS users do not want to compromise the security of their device because of people like you that don't want to switch to Android, so they can download from the internet. It does't matter if you use iOS or Android ....... "you can't have your cake and eat it too". 


    edited May 2021 watto_cobraDetnator
Sign In or Register to comment.