Epic Games v. Apple trial wraps up Monday - what you need to know

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 80
    flydogflydog Posts: 951member
    Beats said:
    Epic has a monopoly over Unreal Engine. Unfair and time to open it up. I want to use their engine free and fork it as my own and resell it to developers.
    Unreal Engine is free to use. 
    cornchipgc_ukelijahg
  • Reply 22 of 80
    flydogflydog Posts: 951member
    Apple has removed literally tens of thousands of developer accounts over the years for similar infractions.

    It’s also Apple policy to remove ALL accounts from a company based simply on the fact that if someone like Epic “cheats” under one account they are also likely to “cheat” under another account. For example, Epic could slip a payment system into Unreal Engine.

    This isn’t Apple “retaliating”. This is Apple doing what it’s always done, thousands of times before.


    My prediction is Epic loses again on Fortnite and it remains blocked from The App Store unless Epic returns it to its original non-infringing state.

    I also predict Epic loses on the Unreal Engine developer accounts, and Apple will be able to remove them after a period of time (maybe 14 days). I also think the judge will state that if Epic modifies Fortnite to comply that Apple will let it back in and their Unreal  Engine Dev accounts would be safe.
    Name one other instance of Apple removing multiple accounts belonging to the same developer for “similar infractions.”

    gc_ukelijahg
  • Reply 23 of 80
    flydog said:
    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. 





    I also side with Epic.  I do not buy the "Poor Apple has spent so much to develop it's ecosystem and now Epic wants to play for free" defense.  
    First, the iPhone would fail if not for apps.  The iPhone does not exist for developers, the developers exist to keep the hardware fresh, new, and usable.  All the amazing things the iPhone can do is because of the developers.  Without them, would you buy a $1000 device to make calls?

    Second, I think it's absolutely highway robbery to charge 30% for in-app purchases...purchases that actually have nothing to do with Apple except them processing the payment.  Thank God that when you walk into a store and whip out your CC, the store doesn't add 30% onto your purchase just for using their payment processing system.  As it is, most stores eat 3% of the purchase right there by their CC payment system.

    Third, if Apple has spent so much on R&D and their ecosystem, then why do developers who offer FREE apps get a pass?  Are they not using the same marketing and distribution network as those that are charging for their apps?  (minus the payment processing system, which comes back to Apple charging 30% to process a payment vs industry standard 3%).  Is Apple losing BILLIONS in revenue by allowing free apps or are they overcharging paid app developers to make up for the free ones?

    In the end, to make things fair, I think Apple needs to change the base developer rules.  Instead of charging everyone $99 to be a developer, raise the initial fee to developers who are developing an apps that they charge for.  And charge even more if your app has in-app purchases.  Then, either charge the industry-standard fee to process purchases for and IN the app, or allow the app developers to process their own IN APP payments.  


    edited October 2020 williamlondonelijahgZeebler
  • Reply 24 of 80
    ITGUYINSD said:
    flydog said:
    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. 





    I also side with Epic.  I do not buy the "Poor Apple has spent so much to develop it's ecosystem and now Epic wants to play for free" defense.  
    First, the iPhone would fail if not for apps.  The iPhone does not exist for developers, the developers exist to keep the hardware fresh, new, and usable.  All the amazing things the iPhone can do is because of the developers.  Without them, would you buy a $1000 device to make calls?

    Second, I think it's absolutely highway robbery to charge 30% for in-app purchases...purchases that actually have nothing to do with Apple except them processing the payment.  Thank God that when you walk into a store and whip out your CC, the store doesn't add 30% onto your purchase just for using their payment processing system.  As it is, most stores eat 3% of the purchase right there by their CC payment system.

    Third, if Apple has spent so much on R&D and their ecosystem, then why do developers who offer FREE apps get a pass?  Are they not using the same marketing and distribution network as those that are charging for their apps?  (minus the payment processing system, which comes back to Apple charging 30% to process a payment vs industry standard 3%).  Is Apple losing BILLIONS in revenue by allowing free apps or are they overcharging paid app developers to make up for the free ones?

    In the end, to make things fair, I think Apple needs to change the base developer rules.  Instead of charging everyone $99 to be a developer, raise the initial fee to developers who are developing an apps that they charge for.  And charge even more if your app has in-app purchases.  Then, either charge the industry-standard fee to process purchases for and IN the app, or allow the app developers to process their own IN APP payments.  


    Umm. . . I think the comment you were responding to was made with sarcasm.   Perhaps the author of the comment forgot to put "/s" at the end.  
    williamlondon
  • Reply 25 of 80
    kharvel said:
    ITGUYINSD said:
    flydog said:
    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. 





    I also side with Epic.  I do not buy the "Poor Apple has spent so much to develop it's ecosystem and now Epic wants to play for free" defense.  
    First, the iPhone would fail if not for apps.  The iPhone does not exist for developers, the developers exist to keep the hardware fresh, new, and usable.  All the amazing things the iPhone can do is because of the developers.  Without them, would you buy a $1000 device to make calls?

    Second, I think it's absolutely highway robbery to charge 30% for in-app purchases...purchases that actually have nothing to do with Apple except them processing the payment.  Thank God that when you walk into a store and whip out your CC, the store doesn't add 30% onto your purchase just for using their payment processing system.  As it is, most stores eat 3% of the purchase right there by their CC payment system.

    Third, if Apple has spent so much on R&D and their ecosystem, then why do developers who offer FREE apps get a pass?  Are they not using the same marketing and distribution network as those that are charging for their apps?  (minus the payment processing system, which comes back to Apple charging 30% to process a payment vs industry standard 3%).  Is Apple losing BILLIONS in revenue by allowing free apps or are they overcharging paid app developers to make up for the free ones?

    In the end, to make things fair, I think Apple needs to change the base developer rules.  Instead of charging everyone $99 to be a developer, raise the initial fee to developers who are developing an apps that they charge for.  And charge even more if your app has in-app purchases.  Then, either charge the industry-standard fee to process purchases for and IN the app, or allow the app developers to process their own IN APP payments.  


    Umm. . . I think the comment you were responding to was made with sarcasm.   Perhaps the author of the comment forgot to put "/s" at the end.  
    It just magnified his stupidity. He can't read. He can't understand. He wants someone to force Apple to adopt the Android App Store Policy. And if Apple decides to remove the Apple App Store entirely instead of be like Android, he thinks he can force Apple to put it back up. He loves dictatorships. He hates freedom. Maybe the SD in his name tells us where he's from: SauDi Arabia. A nice free country. And yet ironically, Saudi Arabia doesn't object to Apple's freedom to choose.
  • Reply 26 of 80
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,220member
    evilution said:
    "Sweeney outlined his insistence that Apple and Google stunt innovation with their respective app store policies."

    Sweeney! Making a childish version of PUBG and selling character skins to pre-teens isn't innovation.

    "the savings could be passed on to all our consumers and players would get a better deal on items, and you'd have economic competition."

    Yeah, could be, but wouldn't. Simple.

    You brought this on yourself. I hope Apple drag this out and Epic loses millions.
    Sweeney is lying through his ass about passing on the savings, when it comes to Fortnight. And yet, iOS Fortnight players were the ones that Sweeney threw under the bus, to get the coverage he needed in this fight of his. 

    Here's why. Fortnight is a free app in iOS. iOS Fortnight players do not have to pay a dime to play Fortnight. Epic makes their money by selling virtual goods to players so they look less dorky and more cool. Players buy these virtual items using Fortnight Bucks, that they pay for with real money. $10 of real money buys a player $20 worth of Fortnight Bucks. When they buy these Fortnight Bucks, the owner of the platform from which they were bought, gets a 30% cut (of the real dollars, not the Fortnight Bucks). Be it Microsoft, Sony, Apple, Google, Nintendo, etc.

    Now these Fortnight Bucks are not transferable to other platforms. So Fortnight bucks purchased while playing on an X-Box, can only be used while playing on the X-Box. The same goes for all the platforms. But the virtual items they buy with their Fortnight Bucks does move with them to other platforms, as long as they log into their account on whatever platform they're on. So players buying a virtual outfit that cost $20 in Fortnight Bucks, (to look more cool but at the same time, less smart), has access to that outfit on every platform they play on while logged on to their account. 

    Here's what would happen if Epic were able to open an app store in iOS and pass on the 30% saving to Fortnight players. Players on iOS would be able to buy $20 worth of Fortnight Bucks for $7.00, instead of $10. A 30% saving that Sweeney passed on. Remember, the game itself is free. What this mean is that if one is playing Fortnight on an X-Box, PlayStation or Switch and decides to buy a virtual outfit that cost $20 in Fortnight Bucks, all they need to do is to....

    pull out their (or a friend's) iPhone or iPad 
    start playing Fortnight with the free app
    log in to their Epic account
    buy the virtual outfit they were looking at, using the 30% discounted Fortnight Bucks in iOS
    then go back to the platform they're on and the virtual outfit will be there for them to use in play.

    Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo will not stand for that. The cost of Fortnight Bucks must be the same on all platforms, to be fair to all the owners of the various platforms. So iOS Fortnight players will not be seeing any savings if Epic wins. Not even a 10% saving. The iOS users that stands to save are the ones that buy games (or other apps), that are specific to the iOS platform. 


    applguy
  • Reply 27 of 80
    "as the battle sought to change one of the fundamental elements of the App Store: how much Apple earns."

    Fundamental to shareholders, sorta.  They probably make as money selling watch bands as selling Fortnight.
     What's fundamental is the integrity of the App Store.
    Not some nerd cashing in on a bunch of people that can't think of anything useful to do with their time.
  • Reply 28 of 80
    they breach of contract first and they try to make a big deal out of all these.  to me, they just try to make themselves famous and noticed.  and I guess they want to make fast money by suing apple. join in with the "lets sue apple" cult thinking by doing these they can get popular and fast money.  if you're not happy with the App Store just don't do business with them and take your business else where why are you getting all these attention for? even if you do a black market App Store I wouldn't go there because I don't know if you might give me virus from your app or any tracking or tracing or even take my data to do who know what.  do what you want but don't try to destroy apple.  apple have been the only company that care about disable user group.  you don't know what disable people can do when they angry to loose something that they can access.
  • Reply 29 of 80
    Imagine having to rent your house from only Teo landlords available in the entire world.... How does that situation sound to you? Not great, right?

    Well, that’s happening with mobile App Stores.

    People are comparing this with retail publishing structures from the 90’s is just silly. And the anti-Epic rhetoric... This is bigger than Epic Games!

    I am 100% behind Epic’s initiative here.

    Side-loading should be possible, third party stores should be possible. If Apple indeed has the “most advanced OS” in the world they should be able to offer apps running in their own secure container.
    Apple doesn’t have to curate or provide support in any way if I download my content elsewhere. They can keep running their stores and market it as a curated platform just fine. I mean, if the App Store is so great, the consumer will use it anyway. I just want to be able to work with an alternative install/download source whenever I want to.

    People comparing this to PlayStation doing the same thing... Yeah sure, that’s problematic too, but the mobile space is the most clearly monopolized one due to sheer market size. If Epic would win, no doubt the entire model would change for all platform owners. 
    gc_ukelijahg
  • Reply 30 of 80
    lkrupp said:
    sflocal said:
    What is conveniently ignored is that for many commercial businesses, landlords also stipulate rent is not only a monthly amount, but also a percentage of sales.  Epic has it easy compared to others.  I hope Epic fails hard.
    Yep. Back in the late 70’s I managed a music store in a large mall. Not only did we pay rent based on square footage, we also had to pay a percentage of our gross income just for the privilege of being in that mall. The concept was the same as Apple. The mall developers had built the mall, maintained the mall, marketed the mall. The mall’s existence attracted foot traffic thereby increasing tenant’s access to potential customers. We had to sell a lot of pianos, organs, and guitar picks just to make rent. We could have moved outside the mall to a standalone building but that would have been the kiss of death in terms of sales.

    I see no difference in what Apple does with the App Store and what every other commercial landlord has been doing forever. Epic knows full well that they will make more money within the App Store than having their own store outside it. They want their cake and to eat it too.
    Your comparison with the 70’s is not relevant in today’s world anymore. Plus, in that example you could still go to many of the other landlords  out there, move your business to another state or city and strike a better deal. Or you could decide to rent outside a mall, even if that to some was not an option, although I believe that depended on the type of business requiring foot traffic - several type of companies were better off outside the malls. A bed store or supermarkt has completely different needs from a clothing brand or restaurant for example. 

    There was choice. 

    The App Store is the only “mall” out there, and it’s the same damn store and landlord across the entire planet.

    The App Store is so big now it’s not even a store. It’s the only gateway to content deployment on mobile. The “App Store” is a deceiving brand name for something that for a long time already transcended the concept of a store. 
    It ironically also goes against the very principles of a free market through its own success.

    And I disagree on Epic making more money inside the App Store. Their game is popular as hell, and many people would just click a web link or advertisement to download the game directly or through their own mobile store, resulting in bypassing a 30% cut to Apple. They can market it just fine themselves.

    edited February 20 gc_ukelijahg
  • Reply 31 of 80
    Epic games is legally wrong. Apples guidelines are clear. 30%. Always has Been. Epic signed the deal and now they want to go back on that agreement. Nope.  
    baconstang
  • Reply 32 of 80
    The in-app purchases for Fortnite are mostly profit for them, so this is a simple question of pure greed for them.  
    The App and game stores (not just Apple's) has enabled them to create a successful app.  Now they are bitting the hand that feeds them.  
    I hope they are losing a lot of money by pursuing this baseless cause.

  • Reply 33 of 80
    gc_ukgc_uk Posts: 113member
    doggone said:
    The in-app purchases for Fortnite are mostly profit for them, so this is a simple question of pure greed for them.  

    So what? Didn't you know this is how capitalism works.
    elijahg
  • Reply 34 of 80
    gc_ukgc_uk Posts: 113member
    digitol said:
    Epic games is legally wrong. Apples guidelines are clear. 30%. Always has Been. Epic signed the deal and now they want to go back on that agreement. Nope.  
    I don't think Epic have an argument with Apple taking a cut of sales made through the App Store, they object to Apple having the same cut on sales made through the platform they built themselves.
    elijahg
  • Reply 35 of 80
    gc_ukgc_uk Posts: 113member

    Imagine having to rent your house from only Teo landlords available in the entire world.... How does that situation sound to you? Not great, right?

    Or even building your own house and having to pay your previous landlord for the privilege.
    elijahgZeebler
  • Reply 36 of 80
    gc_ukgc_uk Posts: 113member
    davidw said:
    Epic makes their money by selling virtual goods to players so they look less dorky and more cool.
    Do you think trying to insult Fortnite players boosts your argument? Or just makes you look bitter?
    davidw said:
    Players buy these virtual items using Fortnight Bucks, that they pay for with real money. $10 of real money buys a player $20 worth of Fortnight Bucks. When they buy these Fortnight Bucks, the owner of the platform from which they were bought, gets a 30% cut (of the real dollars, not the Fortnight Bucks). Be it Microsoft, Sony, Apple, Google, Nintendo, etc.
    In the real world retail works like this, a seller can accept multiple types of payment, each with an associated charge. A credit card might charge a percentage fee, it costs in employee time to count and bank cash, cheques need to be deposited, banks charge a fee for direct transfers etc etc. Those costs are usually absorbed by the business and the cost per item to the buyer is kept the same. The business sets prices by figuring the cost of each payment method as a percentage of overall sales and balances the price to spread the cost of across the entirety of sales. The high cost of one is offset by the low cost of another and the amount of sales they can expect over the different methods.

    If Epic can remove the external costs of sales and manage it themselves on their own platform, they can expect a certain percentage of the sales to have a lower cost and therefore the price across all platforms can be lowered accordingly.

    The alternative would be for Epic to sell their game currency at a flat fee across all platforms and ADD a transaction fee based on the platform the user is purchasing from, but all the platforms would HATE that because Epic would be forcing pricing transparency and the end users would see clearly how much the platform is taking for every one of their sales.
    elijahg
  • Reply 37 of 80
    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.
  • Reply 38 of 80
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,220member
    gc_uk said:
    davidw said:
    Epic makes their money by selling virtual goods to players so they look less dorky and more cool.
    Do you think trying to insult Fortnite players boosts your argument? Or just makes you look bitter?
    davidw said:
    Players buy these virtual items using Fortnight Bucks, that they pay for with real money. $10 of real money buys a player $20 worth of Fortnight Bucks. When they buy these Fortnight Bucks, the owner of the platform from which they were bought, gets a 30% cut (of the real dollars, not the Fortnight Bucks). Be it Microsoft, Sony, Apple, Google, Nintendo, etc.
    In the real world retail works like this, a seller can accept multiple types of payment, each with an associated charge. A credit card might charge a percentage fee, it costs in employee time to count and bank cash, cheques need to be deposited, banks charge a fee for direct transfers etc etc. Those costs are usually absorbed by the business and the cost per item to the buyer is kept the same. The business sets prices by figuring the cost of each payment method as a percentage of overall sales and balances the price to spread the cost of across the entirety of sales. The high cost of one is offset by the low cost of another and the amount of sales they can expect over the different methods.

    If Epic can remove the external costs of sales and manage it themselves on their own platform, they can expect a certain percentage of the sales to have a lower cost and therefore the price across all platforms can be lowered accordingly.

    The alternative would be for Epic to sell their game currency at a flat fee across all platforms and ADD a transaction fee based on the platform the user is purchasing from, but all the platforms would HATE that because Epic would be forcing pricing transparency and the end users would see clearly how much the platform is taking for every one of their sales.
    I'm not saying the Fortnight player themselves looks like dorks. I'm saying that the avatar they are stuck with, when not paying for a cool outfit, looks like dorks. And that's to be expected, as Epic wants players to pay for cool looking outfits. If the free avatars looks cool to begin with, there would be less need for player to pay for cool looking outfits.

    Tell the third party retailers selling to Amazon customers in Amazon MarketPlace, that in the real world, they don't have to go through Amazon checkout payment method.

    When paying through an iTunes account, the customer can fund their account with a CC (including American Express and Discover), Apple Pay, debit card, PayPal and gift cards paid for with cash. You think Epic is going to allow as many options? Plus iTunes gift cards can often be purchased at a discount. 

    This has nothing to do with a retailer having the right to use what payment method they want or giving the customers more choices as to how to pay. This is about Epic not wanting to pay Apple and Google a commission for access to iOS and Android platform customers. You don't hear Epic making the same demand on Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo platforms. Or Amazon MarketPlace sellers demanding to use other payment methods, other than Amazon checkout, so they can avoid paying Amazon a commission for accessing customers on Amazon's market platform. 

    If Epic were to lower the cost across all platforms based on the savings they get from not having to pay the 30% "tax" on iOS and Android platforms, then that would mean the Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo 30% "tax" would amount to less money for them, as Fortnight Bucks would cost less. Good for Fortnight players on all platforms, but Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are not going to be too happy with that. That's why Epic can not pass on their savings if they were to lower their overall cost by not having to pay the iOS and Android 30% "tax". They will keep the savings for themselves. Or Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo will have to charge Epic more than a 30% "tax", for hosting Fortnight on their platforms, to make up for the loss of Fortnight players spending less to play.  

     
  • Reply 39 of 80
    crowleycrowley Posts: 7,899member
    gc_uk said:

    The alternative would be for Epic to sell their game currency at a flat fee across all platforms and ADD a transaction fee based on the platform the user is purchasing from, but all the platforms would HATE that because Epic would be forcing pricing transparency and the end users would see clearly how much the platform is taking for every one of their sales.
    I believe Apple has, or at least had, a rule saying that content purchases could not be offered at a cheaper price outside of the Apple Store.  Which is another thing that developers have complained about, as it forces them to raise prices across the board to accommodate Apple's 30% take (or else potentially take a loss on IAP sales).
    elijahgZeebler
  • Reply 40 of 80
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,220member
    crowley said:
    gc_uk said:

    The alternative would be for Epic to sell their game currency at a flat fee across all platforms and ADD a transaction fee based on the platform the user is purchasing from, but all the platforms would HATE that because Epic would be forcing pricing transparency and the end users would see clearly how much the platform is taking for every one of their sales.
    I believe Apple has, or at least had, a rule saying that content purchases could not be offered at a cheaper price outside of the Apple Store.  Which is another thing that developers have complained about, as it forces them to raise prices across the board to accommodate Apple's 30% take (or else potentially take a loss on IAP sales).
    I believe that rule only applies to digital goods that are accessible to the purchasers on all or any other platforms. All platforms owners have the same rule, under the same circumstances. And since nearly all the major platforms charges the same 30% "tax", the cost of these software should already reflect that and no single platform can be singled out as a reason to raise its price, due to a 30% "tax". 

    This is what the rule essentially does. It prevents developers from selling their software that runs on all or other platforms, at a cheaper price on their own website, because they are saving on the 30% "tax" that they would have to pay, if purchased from the other platforms. 

    For example, a person with a Netflix subscription can access their same Netflix account from an Android device, an iDevice, an X-Box, a PlayStation, a computer, a TV box, etc.. It doesn't matter what platform the subscriber uses to pay for their subscription. So all the platforms have this same rule, to prevent Netflix from lowering the cost of their subscription when paying for it on their own web site, while the purchaser can still watch Netflix with the free app on the the other platforms. Thus Netflix can  avoid the 30% "tax" on all the other platforms. That's why developers like Epic don't like it.  And this is why Epic can not deliver any promised of lower cost to iOS game players, if they were to win. 

    Think about this. Spotify main beef with Apple is that Apple makes 30% more profit from the AM subscribers paying for their AM subsciption in iOS, than Spotify does with their subscribers paying for their Spotify subscription in iOS. Apple is Spotify main competitor. Spotify is claiming Apple is violating anti-trust and should not be allowed to have apps that competes with other similar apps in their App Store. This is basically nonsense, as Apple do not charge less for AM than Spotify charges for their comparable music streaming service. Apple is not competing with Spotify with the cost advantage they have with iOS AM subscribers. It's not an anti-trust case if a business makes more profit when selling the same or similar product, at the same price, than a competitor. Otherwise businesses that own their own property would be in violation of anti-trust because they make more profit selling the same product, at the same price, than a business that must pay rent.

    Spotify would royally be pissed off if Apple were to charge 30% less for AM on iOS. Thus making about the same profit as Spotify on iOS. Then Spotify would actually have a better anti-trust case against Apple. But if Apple were to do this, Apple would also have to lower their subscription cost by 30% on all the platforms, where AM is available. Apple as a developer must abide by the same rule set by all the platforms, that a developer can not offer a cheaper price for the same software, on their own or any other platform.  

    This rule also prevents Epic from raising the cost to Fortnight players on Android just because they're not making nearly as much profit from Fortnight on Android, as they are from Fortnight on iOS. Even though there are more Fortnight players on Android. And Epic pays the same 30% "tax" on both platforms.


    edited February 26
Sign In or Register to comment.