Epic vs. Apple takes new turn as 34 US states & DOJ side with 'Fortnite' maker

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 78
    If you're going to argue AppStore vs PlayStore, then you don't understand what's going on. The issue is DEVELOPERS vs App Store owners.
    edited January 28 williamlondoncroprmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 42 of 78
    If you're going to argue AppStore vs PlayStore, then you don't understand what's going on. The issue is DEVELOPERS vs App Store owners.
    No it’s not, *you* have been propagandised and believe the lies spouted by a few super greedy asshole whiny corporations who are at war with Apple customers, while we the customers want things to remain the way they are. If you personally don’t, then get the fuck out of the Apple ecosystem and stop trying to ruin our experience, there are alternatives you can choose and then you can bash Apple with all those troglodytes to your trolling hearts’ collective content.
    p-dog
  • Reply 43 of 78
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,094member
    badmonk said:
    I have to say it—I think the primary motivation for this weird AG political fixation on the App Store is corruption and greed, pure and simple.  The 0-30% App store commission is not on par with the corporate abuses of cigarette smoking or narcotic abuse so what gives?

    Outside of a few developers, Apple haters and Epic fanboys most Americans are concerned about other issues in the technology world, like-

    internet and telephone spam
    misinformation
    malware
    privacy violations
    database hacks


    Hey politicians and AGs why don’t you do something useful, like criminalize and go after companies that leave databases of customer personal information unsecured and get hacked?

    Or engage in privacy violations?

    Or maybe just violent crime?

    Yeah I guess that would involve real work.
    Just FYI. There is more than 1 person working at the state attorney general’s office, and they typically can work on more than 1 case at a time.  
  • Reply 44 of 78
    So Apple create this platform for us to play games on and Epic feel that Apples investment is not their worry.
    In 2029 R&D for Apple was @19billion ;
    if Epic had to sell through the high street would they expect shops to make no money from selling games perhaps even expect them to pay for the physical copies.
    if i was an Epic shareholder i might demand the removal if its CEO ad they live in the clouds 
    not only is he spending money on lawyers he’s loosing revenue 
    p-dog
  • Reply 45 of 78
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    Some people STILL want to cry "get an android if you don't like it" when they don't realize the the Playstore has the same issue and these states are going to apply any possible regulation to BOTH stores.
    Define what you mean by "issue". Pricing? Selection? Compared to what? Desktop/laptop operating systems? Consoles? 
    Some people STILL want to cry "get an android if you don't like it" when they don't realize the the Playstore has the same issue and these states are going to apply any possible regulation to BOTH stores.
    Define what you mean by "issue". Pricing? Selection? Compared to what? Desktop/laptop operating systems? Consoles? 
    I think that’s a reference to the fact Google Play takes a similar cut from in-app purchases. There’s an ongoing suit and counter-suit between Epic and Google about that. Not sure about its current status.
    Yep, issue has been about the 30% cut that both app stores are mandating. I get it from both sides. Both stores are ABSOLUTELY entitled to a cut and there's no denying that. What they've accomplished has changed the way we live our lives. However, they've both become such a large economy in and of themselves that they now demand regulation. Far too many developers (both small and large) rely on the the app stores to survive and the fact that it's a duopoly merits the discussion of regulation. I don't agree with Epic of allowing separate app purchases as that would mean that Apple/Google wouldn't get anything in exchange for maintaining their respective platforms. But an almost THIRD of their income is very excessive. And what's even worse is that it's not fair amongst even large companies considering apps like Amazon don't pay ANYTHING outside of the $100 dev fee.

    “They”?

    Apple invented the market and Google copy-pasted it.

    You think success should be punished? Then let’s punish Amazon, Wal-Mart, McDonald’s, Nike, 3M.

    Get the F outta here!!
    GeorgeBMacwilliamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 46 of 78
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    Some people STILL want to cry "get an android if you don't like it" when they don't realize the the Playstore has the same issue and these states are going to apply any possible regulation to BOTH stores. Just fanboys thru and thru. Only cry about regulation when it comes to Apple.

    What would you say if your local gas station wasn't regulated? "Just use electric cars if you don't like the outrageous prices gas station owners would surely raise their prices to, or good old fashioned horses!"

    The argument is that you can only get apps on iPhone. Android releases knockoff iPhones and knockoff iPads that you can download identical apps to.

    it doesn’t matter of android takes 30%, that’s not the argument.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 47 of 78
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    If Apple has any sense at all it will bow to the desires of its customers and relinquish exclusively of distributing apps to the iPhone and iPad before government forces it to.  It is the right thing to do and what their customers want.  How many more billions do you really need Tim?  There is choice on the Mac.  Let there be choice on the iPhone.

    Just to slap you on the face:

    Epic’s CEO has more billions than Tim Cook.
    GeorgeBMacwilliamlondonp-dogwatto_cobra
  • Reply 48 of 78
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    Marvin said:
    DAalseth said:
    Apple has a choice. They can either keep fighting this battle to the bitter end and, if what has happened over the last year is any indication, get something really bad imposed on them. Or they can accept where this is going, get out ahead and control the result. The world has changed. Attitudes have changed. Apple needs to change too or they will have something bad for them and their customers forced upon them.

    It’s far better to control the landing than to fight to stay aloft and end up stalling and crashing. 
    The arguments against Apple amount to nothing, it doesn't matter how bitter people are about it. Apple doesn't have a majority marketshare, Android does and they allow 3rd party stores. Apple allows access to the internet unrestricted and software can run either via the web or streamed. Not that it matters, people keep making the same stupid argument about an iPhone being a general purpose product, every product is designed by its manufacturer whether it's a smart TV, a console, a phone, a PC and they have a right to design it how they want with security restrictions on native software. If a manufacturer designs a Windows PC that can only run a single store and gains a 30% marketshare, it's not anticompetitive if people can buy an alternative product. If they gained a 90% marketshare, it might be different but it likely wouldn't gain that kind of marketshare if it was restrictive.

    The original argument was about Fortnite being accessible on iOS without Apple's control, it can be accessed via the cloud, this was always an option via a browser and here it is currently running on iOS:



    Apple doesn't set the prices for in-app purchases. No developers have been monetarily harmed by Apple. Here's the letter they are presenting:

    https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/States-amicus-brief-for-Epic-v-Apple-appeal.pdf

    They talk about the ruling undermining antitrust law but they aren't being honest about what their motives are. For a lot of these politicians, this is about Parler being removed from the store, getting retribution for it and laying groundwork for it not happening again and for some it will be Apple not allowing backdoors on iPhones. They want the ability to install backdoors on iPhones without Apple's permission. There was an article today about this:

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/01/28/fbi-considered-using-pegasus-spyware-for-us-domestic-surveillance

    The proposed legislation has been specifically targeted at companies with over 50m US store users to deliberately target it at Apple and Google. If it ever moves ahead, Apple can easily block access to the store in the 34 states that pushed for this to get the number to stay below 50m. If it moves ahead and they choose to go the route of allowing 3rd party stores instead, they can just create an entirely closed off sandbox for each store possibly running a separate copy of the OS in a VM so that malware is isolated from the boot capability of the device.

    Apple has plenty of options to go for but before this is even worth considering, the complainants have to prove what they are arguing about - that Apple is stifling competition and harming developers and users. They haven't demonstrated this at all. The fact Fortnite is currently capable of running on iOS without Apple doing anything discredits the entire argument.

    Good points...  But one that everybody keeps skipping over:
    They are moving the bar to suit their agenda.   Specifically:   anti-trust laws were created to prevent an organization holding a monopoly from abusing its power.   And, that could include:  gouging consumers who had no other option or running competition out of business with price manipulation (lowering the price of a product till the competition couldn't sell at that price and goes out of business).

    The key word is "monopoly". 

    But today, that bar has been lowered to claim "Anti-Competitive" simply because a company is better at it than the competition.   It's like putting ankle weights on Tom Brady because he is declared to be "anti-competitive".   He isn't.  He's just better at competition.   There is a difference. 
    foregoneconclusionp-dogwatto_cobraBeats
  • Reply 49 of 78
    shareef777 said: Yep, issue has been about the 30% cut that both app stores are mandating. I get it from both sides. Both stores are ABSOLUTELY entitled to a cut and there's no denying that. What they've accomplished has changed the way we live our lives. However, they've both become such a large economy in and of themselves that they now demand regulation. Far too many developers (both small and large) rely on the the app stores to survive and the fact that it's a duopoly merits the discussion of regulation. I don't agree with Epic of allowing separate app purchases as that would mean that Apple/Google wouldn't get anything in exchange for maintaining their respective platforms. But an almost THIRD of their income is very excessive. And what's even worse is that it's not fair amongst even large companies considering apps like Amazon don't pay ANYTHING outside of the $100 dev fee.
    Apple already called the bluff on the cut by lowering it to 15% for anyone making under a million per year with their app (meaning the vast majority of developers on iOS). That should have been enough if the "issue" was really the level of cut. 15% is like a gratuity at a restaurant. 
    I think that's a HUGE step in the right direction, but that's not the only issue. There's still the aspect of them removing apps that compete against them, and then the idea that they don't treat all apps/devs equally (why doesn't Amazon pay a fee on all purchases). Why does Hey have to give a cut of their fees, but Slack doesn't? 
    What "removing apps that compete against them"?  LibreOffice which is cheaper than Pages is still up on the Mac App Store.
    williamlondonwatto_cobraBeats
  • Reply 50 of 78
    widowsoft said:
    So Apple create this platform for us to play games on and Epic feel that Apples investment is not their worry.
    In 2029 R&D for Apple was @19billion ;
    if Epic had to sell through the high street would they expect shops to make no money from selling games perhaps even expect them to pay for the physical copies.
    if i was an Epic shareholder i might demand the removal if its CEO ad they live in the clouds 
    not only is he spending money on lawyers he’s loosing revenue 
    "IIn 2029 R&D for Apple was @19billion".  Has John Titor, returned?  :# 
    Beats
  • Reply 51 of 78
    Oh and here is Epic's master plan:

    "What the world really needs now is a single store that works with all platforms," Sweeney said in an interview with Bloomberg. "Right now software ownership is fragmented between the iOS App Store, the Android Google Play marketplace, different stores on Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch, and then Microsoft Store and the Mac App Store."

    Epic's plan to clean up that confusion is to come up with a system enabling users "to buy software in one place, knowing that they'd have it on all devices and all platforms."

    That is what this really about.

    One Epic App to rule them all - Sauron 2.0.

    Ps. Anybody who knows anything about software knows how off your rocker insane that idea is but that is the dream.  The Epic Iron Dream.  I think even Feric Jaggar would say to dial it back a bit.  :p

    edited January 29 watto_cobra
  • Reply 52 of 78
    croprcropr Posts: 1,078member
    I feel like there are infinite analogies that show why this whole Epic thing is ridiculous. Here’s one:
    The best nightclub in town charges a cover at the door, and the entertainment and overall experience they provide is the best anywhere. They provide complimentary water and soft drinks, included in the price of admission, and sell alcoholic drinks at industry-standard prices. I own a champagne producer, and I determine that customers would buy more of my champagne if the price were lower, but rather than lower my own wholesale price to the club, I try to legally force the club to reduce their markup, arguing that once a customer pays the cover, the club has a monopoly on all products sold there. 

    As long as the Apple App Store is the only distribution point of iOS apps, your analogy is incorrect.    Keeping the analogy, this would mean that the night club owner does not allow the champagne producer to sell to other night clubs.    
  • Reply 53 of 78
    croprcropr Posts: 1,078member
    Bosa said:

    Without the App Store, these developers will be selling their apps on USB sticks in front of Costco?

    These developed are just ungrateful losers

    i am a developer and I am  not a loser.   If Apple would allow, I would offer my customers the option to download my iOS apps from the secured cloud server I've set up for my other apps.  You are not only disrespectful, you should try to think before making silly remarks 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 54 of 78
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 3,060member
    cropr said:
    Bosa said:

    Without the App Store, these developers will be selling their apps on USB sticks in front of Costco?

    These developed are just ungrateful losers
    i am a developer and I am  not a loser.   If Apple would allow, I would offer my customers the option to download my iOS apps from the secured cloud server I've set up for my other apps.  You are not only disrespectful, you should try to think before making silly remarks 
    I'm not hostile to your comment, I'm just asking if you are talking about free iOS apps or if you want to be selling apps for iOS from your own server and you want to directly charge users some money for those apps, and presumably not giving Apple any compensation for the things it provides, like all the free CloudKit services that may be compiled into your apps, for starters. If so, that wouldn't seem fair at all.
    GeorgeBMacwatto_cobraBeats
  • Reply 55 of 78
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 3,060member
    cropr said:
    I feel like there are infinite analogies that show why this whole Epic thing is ridiculous. Here’s one:
    The best nightclub in town charges a cover at the door, and the entertainment and overall experience they provide is the best anywhere. They provide complimentary water and soft drinks, included in the price of admission, and sell alcoholic drinks at industry-standard prices. I own a champagne producer, and I determine that customers would buy more of my champagne if the price were lower, but rather than lower my own wholesale price to the club, I try to legally force the club to reduce their markup, arguing that once a customer pays the cover, the club has a monopoly on all products sold there. 

    As long as the Apple App Store is the only distribution point of iOS apps, your analogy is incorrect.    Keeping the analogy, this would mean that the night club owner does not allow the champagne producer to sell to other night clubs.    
    But Apple does not prohibit anyone from selling their apps to users on Android or any other OS.

    I guess you are one of those people who thinks that Apple has an obligation to let anyone sell anything on iOS for free. How is Apple supposed to recoup its expenses for things like CloudKit services that are included in everyone's apps? Or do you think Apple is not allowed to charge for its services? How would you propose Apple get paid for its services?
    GeorgeBMacwatto_cobraBeats
  • Reply 56 of 78
    Technically apple could always acquire EPIC and expand its Arcade selection and kill off the lawsuit. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 57 of 78
    croprcropr Posts: 1,078member
    cropr said:
    Bosa said:

    Without the App Store, these developers will be selling their apps on USB sticks in front of Costco?

    These developed are just ungrateful losers
    i am a developer and I am  not a loser.   If Apple would allow, I would offer my customers the option to download my iOS apps from the secured cloud server I've set up for my other apps.  You are not only disrespectful, you should try to think before making silly remarks 
    I'm not hostile to your comment, I'm just asking if you are talking about free iOS apps or if you want to be selling apps for iOS from your own server and you want to directly charge users some money for those apps, and presumably not giving Apple any compensation for the things it provides, like all the free CloudKit services that may be compiled into your apps, for starters. If so, that wouldn't seem fair at all.
    My most popular app is an e-voting app for general assemblies of large organizations.  The voting app (iOS, Android, Web) is free of charge.  The management of the system is a separate and paid Web application that integrates with the IT system of the organization. In terms of complexity and development, the client voting app represents only around 20% of the effort.

    The Apple revenue is limited to the iOS developer license ($99 a year) and the infrastructure I need to develop and test the iOS app (3 Macbooks Pro, 2 iPads, 5 iPhones).  The voting app started as a Web app, and I only made an iOS and Android version of the app on request of a large customer.   Currenty 10% of the votes are made by the iOS app, 15% by the Android app and 75% by the Web app.    I don't use Cloudkit, because it is not cross platform, which is a hard requirement for my app.

    In the past  I developed 6 iOS apps where I paid Apple the 30% (it was still 30%):  4 were loss making and 2 were about break even (for me, not for Apple).
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 58 of 78
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,363member
    cropr said:
    I feel like there are infinite analogies that show why this whole Epic thing is ridiculous. Here’s one:
    The best nightclub in town charges a cover at the door, and the entertainment and overall experience they provide is the best anywhere. They provide complimentary water and soft drinks, included in the price of admission, and sell alcoholic drinks at industry-standard prices. I own a champagne producer, and I determine that customers would buy more of my champagne if the price were lower, but rather than lower my own wholesale price to the club, I try to legally force the club to reduce their markup, arguing that once a customer pays the cover, the club has a monopoly on all products sold there. 

    As long as the Apple App Store is the only distribution point of iOS apps, your analogy is incorrect.    Keeping the analogy, this would mean that the night club owner does not allow the champagne producer to sell to other night clubs.    
    But Apple does not prohibit anyone from selling their apps to users on Android or any other OS.

    I guess you are one of those people who thinks that Apple has an obligation to let anyone sell anything on iOS for free. How is Apple supposed to recoup its expenses for things like CloudKit services that are included in everyone's apps? Or do you think Apple is not allowed to charge for its services? How would you propose Apple get paid for its services?
    Not every app uses CloudKit, and Apple can charge developers or users directly for its use if they want to, or they can provide it as a free platform feature to add value to the iPhone as a product.  Either is fine.

    That's the answer to the first question, the second question is straw man junk, and the third is the same as the first.  Try to ask one question at a time and keep it sensible if you want respectful responses.
  • Reply 59 of 78
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    crowley said:
    cropr said:
    I feel like there are infinite analogies that show why this whole Epic thing is ridiculous. Here’s one:
    The best nightclub in town charges a cover at the door, and the entertainment and overall experience they provide is the best anywhere. They provide complimentary water and soft drinks, included in the price of admission, and sell alcoholic drinks at industry-standard prices. I own a champagne producer, and I determine that customers would buy more of my champagne if the price were lower, but rather than lower my own wholesale price to the club, I try to legally force the club to reduce their markup, arguing that once a customer pays the cover, the club has a monopoly on all products sold there. 

    As long as the Apple App Store is the only distribution point of iOS apps, your analogy is incorrect.    Keeping the analogy, this would mean that the night club owner does not allow the champagne producer to sell to other night clubs.    
    But Apple does not prohibit anyone from selling their apps to users on Android or any other OS.

    I guess you are one of those people who thinks that Apple has an obligation to let anyone sell anything on iOS for free. How is Apple supposed to recoup its expenses for things like CloudKit services that are included in everyone's apps? Or do you think Apple is not allowed to charge for its services? How would you propose Apple get paid for its services?
    Not every app uses CloudKit, and Apple can charge developers or users directly for its use if they want to, or they can provide it as a free platform feature to add value to the iPhone as a product.  Either is fine.

    That's the answer to the first question, the second question is straw man junk, and the third is the same as the first.  Try to ask one question at a time and keep it sensible if you want respectful responses.

    Asking Apple to build and maintain a free secure store for developers to sell their products is not fair to Apple.  And, it would be unfair to Apple's customers because Apple would have no incentive to maintain or enhance it -- so customers would get less than optimal experience.

    Switching to fixed fee, upfront charges could/would set up a roadblock for small & first time developers (the kind Apple has always supported and encouraged) by charging them upfront regardless of whether their app sells or not.   Charging as a percent of sales enables small and first time developers to get started with low up front costs and then only charge them when they receive revenue dollars from their app.

    I think this is a situation where any new "fix" merely spawns other problems elsewhere in the chain -- and that any "fix" would be a balancing act between "good & bad, winners & losers.  That is, it's just a matter of picking the best option because there are no perfect options for everybody.
    edited January 29 foregoneconclusionmaximarawatto_cobraBeats
  • Reply 60 of 78
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,646member
    cropr said:
    I feel like there are infinite analogies that show why this whole Epic thing is ridiculous. Here’s one:
    The best nightclub in town charges a cover at the door, and the entertainment and overall experience they provide is the best anywhere. They provide complimentary water and soft drinks, included in the price of admission, and sell alcoholic drinks at industry-standard prices. I own a champagne producer, and I determine that customers would buy more of my champagne if the price were lower, but rather than lower my own wholesale price to the club, I try to legally force the club to reduce their markup, arguing that once a customer pays the cover, the club has a monopoly on all products sold there. 

    As long as the Apple App Store is the only distribution point of iOS apps, your analogy is incorrect.    Keeping the analogy, this would mean that the night club owner does not allow the champagne producer to sell to other night clubs.    
    No, you got it wrong. 

    What the night club would not allow is for their customers to walk to the liquor store down the block, buy the same champagne and then bringing it into their club to consume. Thus bypassing the nightclub ability to make money from selling the same champagne inside their nightclub.  

    The nightclub is iOS. The cover charge is cost of the iDevice. The bar inside is the App Store. The champagne is the app. There are other nightclubs that the customers can go to. There are other nightclubs and places to buy the same champagne. The champagne vender is the developers and have many other places to sell his product. But once inside the nightclub, the customer have to buy it from the bar inside the nightclub. This is not a secret and the customers knows this when they paid the cover charge to get in. 

    It's like a theater that is the only one showing a blockbuster movie. The theater owner do not have to allow a third party concession stand inside the theater, selling snacks to the theater sold out admission paying customers. But some here thinks that the theater have a" monopoly" because the only way for their admission paying customers to buy snacks once inside, is from the theater owned concession stand. So they want the government to step in and force the theater to allow other concession stands inside the theater or allow customers to buy snacks from a concession stand outside of one of the side exits. No ticket paying theater customer expects to be able to buy their snacks (once inside the theater) from a concession stand, other than one that is own and operated by the theater. 

    Where these analogies fail is that with the Apple App store in iOS, the sellers still have control of the price of their apps. There is no excuse for a developer to lose money selling apps. Except that the user don't want to pay what the developer wants. Either because there are better apps for the same or at a lower price (competition) or the app is just not what most users need. There is no excuse to lose money selling an app because the developer didn't calculate the commission into the price of the app. The commission is part of the operating expense of running a business. A commission the developers knew they had to pay when they signed the DLPA (Developer License Program Agreement) for iOS.

    Epic included the cost of the commission in the IAP cost of buying V-Bucks in Fortnight. How can they not have calculated in the cost of the commission, when they have to pay the same commission to Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo? Where they make about 80% of their Fortnite gaming revenue.  And they still sold billions of dollars worth of V-Bucks with Fortnight. Developers like Epic can not complain about how Apple and Google app stores commission harmed their profits, when they pass on that cost to their customers. It just makes them look bad. And for the most part, customers that are not complaining about being charged $20 in V-bucks ($10 in real money) for a virtual cool looking outfit that cost Epic almost nothing to produce.    
    williamlondonradarthekatmaximaraGeorgeBMacforegoneconclusionwatto_cobraBeats
Sign In or Register to comment.