mike eggleston

Beats said:

mike eggleston said:

I don't think that Apple needs to create a game engine that only works for Apple. This won't work for game developers who want to target multiple targets all at once. Instead, they could help and add to an open source project (like Godot) and promote the hell out of that! This way they can help influence and enhance a really good open source project, and they do not need to create something just because Epic got their panties into a twist and shoved up their ass...

No, an Apple exclusive engine would be bad ass. Why? Because it will not be fragmented or compromised to support everything and will focus 100% on Apple's chips, APIs, hardware, EVERYTHING. This engine could be the most powerful in the world DAY ONE. Vertical integration.

The fact that you are missing is that game developers do not want to just target one audience, they want to target multiple. Now, Apple could make one just for the Apple ecosystem, but I think that would be a whole lot harder than contributing to something that already exists that is open source. That way they can make sure it is fast and efficient for Apple's ecosystem, and still be focused on the things that really make them money.

I don't think that Apple needs to create a game engine that only works for Apple. This won't work for game developers who want to target multiple targets all at once. Instead, they could help and add to an open source project (like Godot) and promote the hell out of that! This way they can help influence and enhance a really good open source project, and they do not need to create something just because Epic got their panties into a twist and shoved up their ass...

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

Two problems:
1. Epic never asked for an exception. They asked for the rules to be changed.
2. Apple makes that very same exception for its own products.
You can always tell if someone is in trouble when they start answering questions no one asked.

Problems with your hypothesis. First, they are demanding the rules to be changed for them. Wether it is an exception just for them, or something that everybody gets is of no consequence to Epic. They are really trying hard to make their failing practice of 18% the "new norm", and to maximize their profits. Simple as that. Secondly, this "exception" for themselves is the craziest thing I have ever heard of. Let's do the math. Apple takes a 30% cut off from every app and in app purchase sold, right? So if Apple were to sell something for $3.99 (Dark Sky Weather). So a 30% cut of $3.99 is $1.20 (which goes to Apple). The remaining $2.79 goes to the developer, which is Apple. So explain to me how Apple is doing anything other than participating in the same system that everyone else does? There is zero difference between that and Amazon selling their Amazon Essentials on their site, or Walmart selling "Great Value" in their stores.

dasanman69 said:

JMaille said:

When are people going to realize this isn’t about reducing the cost to consumers, this is about getting as much money out of consumers as they possibly can.  Epic and the other companies that are protesting the “Apple Tax” aren’t trying to eliminate or even reduce the cost of being in the App Store for themselves.  What they are trying to do is force Apple, either through their own decision, through the courts, or through legislation, to change the way they charge developers for being in the App Store.  They want to do away with the competition from free apps.  They want Apple to change to an approach where any developer that wants to put an app in the App Store has to pay for it, which in turn will eliminate almost all free apps and almost all developers they may have to compete with.  Or better yet, they want to force Apple to allow, or be force to allow, alternate App Stores on every single IOS device so they can stop having to live with the privacy restrictions Apple forces on them.  Then they can get to what they really want, harvesting user data so they can make the user what they think all users should be – the product rather than the customer.

Sorry but you are wrong. Epic did lower the price by 20% if purchased through the online payment system. For instance, 1,000 V-bucks, which is roughly equivalent to $10 in-game Fortnite currency, now costs just $7.99. 

Do the math for a second. So, for the Apple version of that package is $9.99. Their "Epic Store" pricing is $2.00 cheaper (or 20%). They make MORE by having you go through their system than the Apple ecosystem. This is 100% so Epic can make more money, and not pay anything (or close to anything) for being on someone else's hard work and infrastructure. JMaille is absolutely correct.

I can tell you that as a web developer, it is MY responsibility that I handle usability, that I had compatibility, and that I handle the edge cases. I can't be asked to think of every edge case (that isn't reasonable), but when a bug report comes across my desk saying that there are issues doing simple uploading of a file and it is causing the test to timeout, that becomes a high priority. Hell, I find it completely inexcusable that they did not offer any kind of feedback if the file didn't upload (that is just basic common sense, sending back a 400+ error and handling the message as a result of the AJAX request).

So, while some people like to try to make sure everything is Apple's fault (and you people know who you are); this isn't even close to their fault. The codec is available, and it can be converted from HEIC to JPG if that is a requirement (Here is one using GOLANG: https://github.com/jdeng/goheif; literally took 5 seconds to find it), so there really is no excuse on their part.

I would also say that this sort of thing happened before when PNG first started to come onto the scene, and people flipped tables about that one as well.