altivec88

Pretty easy solution.  Epic can continue their lawsuit while following the same rules they followed for a decade. What’s a few more years until it gets sorted out in the courts. In fact they can even sue to get back all Apple charges retrospective from this point if they are successful. Which they won’t be. 

Beats said:

elijahg said:

fastasleep said:

Beats said:

telepathy2000 said:

No law in the country can force Apple to do business with Epic on the App Store. I’m kinda hoping Apple dig in their heels and just never let them come back in. Fads come and go, Fortnite May have gone the way of Angry Birds by the time all this is over. 

And had Apple taken gaming seriously a decade ago they would have wiped Epic from the face of the Earth. I wanna see Apple create a unified Apple Engine for game developers.

Some of us don't want to see Unreal Engine go away. What you guys are missing is that part of the reason we have so many games on macOS/iOS is because Unreal Engine and Unity will *also* compile for those platforms on top of Windows/Linux/XBox/Playstation/Android. Not to mention the amount of realtime film production now being done using Unreal and other XR, animation, previz, etc applications outside of gaming altogether. 

Anyway, losing the Mac userbase is very little concern for Epic, it's probably less than 1% of their revenue.

"If the Unreal Engine can no longer support Apple platforms, the software developers that use it will be forced to use alternatives. The damage to Epic’s ongoing business and to its reputation and trust with its customers will be unquantifiable and irreparable. Preliminary injunctive relief is necessary to prevent Apple from crushing Epic before this case could ever get to judgment.”

-Epics attorney

Apple is not banning Unreal Engine,  Epic is choosing to leave the platform because they no longer wish to follow the decade old rules.  Apple has offered them to come back with open arms as long as they follow the rules that everyone else follows.  If Epic continues this path of leaving by their own accord, as you wrote, software developers will be forced to alternatives or leave the platform entirely damaging Apple's reputation and trust with its customers.  Preliminary injunctive relief is not necessary because it is already available.  They can continue doing business by following the rules that they've been following and still proceed with court.  What are you expecting the courts to say.  They should be allowed to break the rules for the years this is going to take.  Right now it's Epic that is in breech and they hold all the cards to decide the path going forward.

- Apples attorney 

FileMakerFeller said:

altivec88 said:

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. 

You are very naive if you think that's the case.   This is a stunt to get consumers on their side and nothing more.  If Apple was out of the picture, there is no way they would discount the price.  Why would any company lose out on extra money.   If the market was willing to pay $10 before, why would they lower it for you.  You really think they are nice guys and don't care about making as much money as they can.   Maybe if they make another stand and get rid of other costs such as employee coffee breaks, they will pass that on to us customers too.  Looking forward to it being $6.99

John Gruber pointed out that from the App Store $9.99 price Epic gets ~$7. From the direct to Epic price of $7.99 they get something like $7.75 after payment processing fees.

So as @Altivec88 says, when they make it $6.99 (to eliminate the "Apple Tax") and eat the cost of payment processing then they'll be sacrificing some of what they're already getting and can be judged accordingly.

Let's also think about Fortnite being a knock-off of "Player Unknown's Battlegrounds" while we're examining Epic's motives and character. While we're at it, think about the business reasons for having "in-game currency" that does not mimic any fiat currency users might be familiar with - research has shown that (much like with credit cards) customers will pay more when they are distracted from calculations involving cash.

Further to this, I can't believe how many general users are being fooled by this thinking that prices will drop.   Companies such as Epic have people hired specifically to figure out what the market is willing to pay for their products.    Since they chose the disgusting loot box method with in game currency,  they even get to control and manipulate the value of the currency.   An exaggerated example would be, they offer a 50% discount to look good but magically newer items that are for sale cost twice as much.  So although people are tricked into thinking they are getting a deal, in reality they are paying the same.  As mentioned, that was an exaggerated example, they do this staggered, slowly and over time so it doesn't look so obvious.  The point being, they control the value of the virtual currency so what they charge in real currency is irrelevant.

The bottom line is every company wants to maximize their profits.  So if they know little Timmy is willing to pay 10 real dollars for that costume, it will eventually creep up to be the virtual equivalent of $10 regardless if Apple is takes a cut or not.   Apple's expense is no different than any other expense they have.  It would be no different if they pulled the same stunt to get rid of employee coffee breaks.  Get the customers on their side by saying we will cut the price by a dollar.  Little Timmy will be happy that day, but big CEO knows Timmy will pay $10,  so over time and a little manipulation, it will end up back at $10.  This is a publicity stunt to make Timmy think he is going to save big if he helps them go against Apple.  For the short term he will, but once Apple is gone, prices will go back in line with the Moto every company has "maximize profit based on what the market is willing to pay"

I can understand developers wanting this to happen but I don't understand the general public siding with these companies because they think prices will go down.  Prices will end up being the same in the long term regardless.  So you are gaining nothing but you are losing a lot.   Security of the OS, Security of your information and CC being stored only at one company,  Convenience of not having to shop at 300 different stores to find what you're looking for, etc...

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. 

You are very naive if you think that's the case.   This is a stunt to get consumers on their side and nothing more.  If Apple was out of the picture, there is no way they would discount the price.  Why would any company lose out on extra money.   If the market was willing to pay $10 before, why would they lower it for you.  You really think they are nice guys and don't care about making as much money as they can.   Maybe if they make another stand and get rid of other costs such as employee coffee breaks, they will pass that on to us customers too.  Looking forward to it being $6.99

Although the keynote was very well thought out, the biggest issue is that they did not spend enough time on here and now.  Other than saying, we will support your intel purchases for "years" which technically means 2 or more.   Apple has pulled so many things out from under me, that my trust level is gone.   How many are going to go out and buy an expensive dead end computer with no resale value for only 2 years of use.  Again, it may not be two years, but Apple was being vague and should have come right out and gave us a number to quell those fears.   ie.  We will simultaneously be creating an intel version of the OS every year for a minimum of the next 5 years.  Without clarification, it's going to be a bumpy road for Mac Sales over the next couple of years.   What bothers me is that they are smart enough to know this but still purposely decided to be vague.  Hopefully the machine you want to buy isn't the last one to transition 2 years from now.  If you were expecting 5 years of use out of that, it means Apple would have to support and maintain intel software for 7 more years from today.  That's not going to happen, so someone (meaning you) is going to get shafted.   I know I won't be buying anymore intel Macs unless they clarify what "years" means and what "support" means.