Apple has counter-sued Epic Games, accusing the maker of the popular online video game Fortnite of stealing

[Sean Mirrsen]

The only good outcome of this is that Anti-Trust regulators in countries will look at this and say to Apple/Google that you can no longer have a walled garden.

Click to shrink...

There's a thing I really don't get about the "you can't have walled gardens" thing.

Like if I make a store, selling... I don't know, stuff. I somehow make it a big store, a popular store, a store I get a lot of profit from running. And I run it efficiently, meaning I spend next to nothing on upkeep and don't have to do anything to keep it running well outside of emergencies, which means I make even more money because I have the same service rates as any other general store. It's a great store that a lot of people want to sell things in.

Does any of that mean, that just anyone can come into my store and demand that I sell what they're making? And I can't turn them away because "I can't have a walled garden"? Or that I must let people use my store for their own profits without me benefiting?

 

[hanmik]

So you open up a restaurant, right? You have a lot of chefs and the menu is varied. Everything is going well, then one day one of your chefs wants to open up their own restaurant inside yours, sell the stuff they previously prepared in your menu, use your ovens and tables and servers, and not pay you any rent.

Does that sound like common sense?

Click to shrink...

Except..

You develop a piece of hardware, open up a shop (where you can buy products developed by other persons/companies) on said piece of hardware. Then you charge developers to have items for sale in their shop.. You maintain the shop and charge for selling products via the shop.
Now one of the developers/persons who has a product on the shop (a developer/person you have never paid a single dime, you just make money from their product, that they developed and paid someone a lot of money to make), thinks it is unfair that you keep making money from a product you own. You do not keep the product on your server, you do not maintain and service the product, you do not take any responsibility for what happens on the product, you provide a platform to download the file that starts the download for the product.

To put it into your analogy..

You have a restaurant, you have a menu where chefs can sell their products on. You provide the location to sell the product.. The chefs have to invent the item they want on the menu, the chef has to produce the item in another place, the chef has to deliver the product and make sure the item is satisfactory and lives up to the description on the menu. You (the restaurant) provide the menu and the place where the product is sold. Once the item from the menu is sold, you ask the customer to consume it somewhere else..
You even charge the customer to enter your restaurant (people still have to buy an iOs product from Apple to be able to use the store). So you (the restaurant) make money from customers entering your restaurant, and a fee for chefs to sell their item on your menu.

Does that sound like common sense?

Btw.. I am not saying Apple should not make money from product they allow people to download from the Apple store.. It just seems ridiculous to make $257,000,000 dollars in two years, from a product they just allow people to find on the app store..

 

[Deleted member 26526]

There's a thing I really don't get about the "you can't have walled gardens" thing.

Like if I make a store, selling... I don't know, stuff. I somehow make it a big store, a popular store, a store I get a lot of profit from running. And I run it efficiently, meaning I spend next to nothing on upkeep and don't have to do anything to keep it running well outside of emergencies, which means I make even more money because I have the same service rates as any other general store. It's a great store that a lot of people want to sell things in.

Does any of that mean, that just anyone can come into my store and demand that I sell what they're making? And I can't turn them away because "I can't have a walled garden"? Or that I must let people use my store for their own profits without me benefiting?

Click to shrink...

It's not something I've looked at in depth as I don't really care enough to.

But occasionally having an independent body looking at market behemoths and adding regulation is a good thing.

Even if they look at it and decide hey - no need to change anything

 

[Tomeru]

Yeah sure thats exactly why people are making fun of Epic. Not because they're fucking over millions of users and blaming it on Apple or anything. Or comparing digital store cuts to 1984, or using children as ammunition to help them win a legal case,

Click to shrink...

Epic hate strated the moment fortnite became successful, and reached high levels of hate when the epic store bought exclusives.

All valid reasons.

Also apple sucks much much much much much more than epic ever will.

Do you include Tim Sweeney in these gamers? Because Epic fielded a very strong argument against the "just another launcher" argument in the legal papers it filed against Apple.

Click to shrink...

I dont, because arguements are not all universal. What fits one scenario doesnt fit all other scenarios.

 

[Sean Mirrsen]

It just seems ridiculous to make $257,000,000 dollars in two years, from a product they just allow people to find on the app store..

Click to shrink...

Does it seem ridiculous to you, that government charges you money for owning land, even though you're the one that does anything on it?

To put it into better perspective, does earning 257 million dollars, seem as ridiculous, when it allowed the other company to earn three times as much, just for maintaining a slightly different version of the same product? Apple built up the platform that allowed Fortnite to reach this wide audience. Fortnite didn't get there on its own, it leverages Apple's platform to earn its money. Epic pays the same for Fortnite, as anyone else pays for their apps. And it doesn't deserve special treatment just because it got so big.

 

[crimilde]

Except..

You develop a piece of hardware, open up a shop (where you can buy products developed by other persons/companies) on said piece of hardware. Then you charge developers to have items for sale in their shop.. You maintain the shop and charge for selling products via the shop.
Now one of the developers/persons who has a product on the shop (a developer/person you have never paid a single dime, you just make money from their product, that they developed and paid someone a lot of money to make), thinks it is unfair that you keep making money from a product you own. You do not keep the product on your server, you do not maintain and service the product, you do not take any responsibility for what happens on the product, you provide a platform to download the file that starts the download for the product.

To put it into your analogy..

You have a restaurant, you have a menu where chefs can sell their products on. You provide the location to sell the product.. The chefs have to invent the item they want on the menu, the chef has to produce the item in another place, the chef has to deliver the product and make sure the item is satisfactory and lives up to the description on the menu. You (the restaurant) provide the menu and the place where the product is sold. Once the item from the menu is sold, you ask the customer to consume it somewhere else..
You even charge the customer to enter your restaurant (people still have to buy an iOs product from Apple to be able to use the store). So you (the restaurant) make money from customers entering your restaurant, and a fee for chefs to sell their item on your menu.

Does that sound like common sense?

Btw.. I am not saying Apple should not make money from product they allow people to download from the Apple store.. It just seems ridiculous to make $257,000,000 dollars in two years, from a product they just allow people to find on the app store..

Click to shrink...

Yeah no analogy is going to be 1 to 1, but you're ignoring the fact that Epic did not develop Fortnite for iOS in a void using only their tech. They are actively using APIs and SDKs and documentation and support which Apple maintains.

It's not purely an Epic effort. So yes, in a way Apple helps develop and maintain the product, as they develop and maintain their own code that Epic integrates and uses to be able to make Fortnite work on iOS. They also develop and maintain their storefront, and they provide marketing.

Developers publish their apps to a platform/storefront because they want to be there, and they can't be there if they don't use the technology enabling them to interact and run on that platform. It's mutual benefit. I provide you with the tools, you provide me with a cut from the money you made using those tools and the reach that my platform has.

 

[Deleted member 50374]

Yeah no analogy is going to be 1 to 1, but you're ignoring the fact that Epic did not develop Fortnite for iOS in a void using only their tech. They are actively using APIs and SDKs and documentation and support which Apple maintains.

It's not purely an Epic effort. So yes, in a way Apple helps develop and maintain the product, as they develop and maintain their own code that Epic integrates and uses to be able to make Fortnite work on iOS. They also develop and maintain their storefront, and they provide marketing.

Developers publish their apps to a platform/storefront because they want to be there, and they can't be there if they don't use the technology enabling them to interact and run on that platform. It's mutual benefit. I provide you with the tools, you provide me with a cut from the money you made using those tools and the reach that my platform has.

Click to shrink...

It's not like Apple does it out of altruism. They do because they have a choke on the platform. If they opened up to side loading, open stacks would pop up very fast. You can build an app for Mac, WIndows and Linux from any of these and compile for any of these and avoid fees and proprietary software if you want. You can already build applications for iOS up to the certification part, where you need xCode because Apple is greedy. Microsoft has launched React Native for Windows and Mac a little time ago, didn't ask for 30% from all apps.

 

[Alexandros]

I dont, because arguements are not all universal. What fits one scenario doesnt fit all other scenarios.

Click to shrink...

I will make the argument then and you can tell me why it doesn't fit in this scenario. Your initial post expresses the opinion that people should not be angry at Epic for buying exclusives since PC owners still have access to the service the game is being sold through. Your exact words:

Amazing how a digital store that every pc owner haccess to easily can bring about hate from gamers.

Click to shrink...

Now, as we all know the service that Epic filed the lawsuit for is Apple's commission on the purchase of Fortnite digital goods. Those digital goods can be purchased through a browser and used in the game and Apple doesn't get a dime, correct? So, using your own words, my argument would be this: Amazing how a digital service that every iOS owner has access to easily can bring about a lawsuit from Epic. Why doesn't it fit?

 

[crimilde]

It's not like Apple does it out of altruism. They do because they have a choke on the platform. If they opened up to side loading, open stacks would pop up very fast. You can build an app for Mac, WIndows and Linux from any of these and compile for any of these and avoid fees and proprietary software if you want. You can already build applications for iOS up to the certification part, where you need xCode because Apple is greedy. Microsoft has launched React Native for Windows and Mac a little time ago, didn't ask for 30% from all apps.

Click to shrink...

Of course, you're totally right. Like I said it's mutual benefit. I was just trying to explain that Epic expects to not pay them anything, which is a bit ironic when they themselves make a profit from Unreal Engine/Epic Games Store, albeit a different percentage.

I'm not saying 30% is okay, I can't comment on that as the only apps that I build are in an enterprise context and so I don't have the experience in dealing with publishing for end users, I just use the In-House Distribution Profile.

The fact is that this is the current business model that all of the major platforms have in place. Epic expect to pay nothing and furthermore they installed hidden code bypassing Apple to sneak their own payment processor in. That's the stuff that's not acceptable for me.

 

[Deleted member 50374]

Of course, you're totally right. Like I said it's mutual benefit. I was just trying to explain that Epic expects to not pay them anything, which is a bit ironic when they themselves make a profit from Unreal Engine/Epic Games Store, albeit a different percentage.

I'm not saying 30% is okay, I can't comment on that as the only apps that I build are in an enterprise context and so I don't have the experience in dealing with publishing for end users, I just use the In-House Distribution Profile.

The fact is that this is the current business model that all of the major platforms have in place. Epic expect to pay nothing and furthermore they installed hidden code bypassing Apple to sneak their own payment processor in. That's the stuff that's not acceptable for me.

Click to shrink...

I don't agree with Apple's proposition because honestly they don't profit from Apple's store really. Many companies can't really decide what their users buy as their mobile phones. I don't think Fortnite became famous because you could install it on phones, they didn't explicitly set out to profit out of Apple and Google ecosystems. The fact that Google has manipulated the market into only using Play Services and Apple doesn't allow apps on iPhone out of the App Store isn't something the rest of the industry can do much of anything about. Their 30% is not because of meritocracy, it's out of their dominant position. You can always opt out of digital storefronts on PC, opt out of using Unreal Engine or Unity or Microsoft Store. Apple isn't the first company in the world to have built an OS.

 

[plagiarize]

Stealing is a stretch but that's what happens in things like this. You sue a big company they countersue you on elevated or exagerated charges. It's just not usually two big companies doing this to each other. It's to get you to settle for fear of losing the countersuit. Standard stuff.

 

[Uzzy]

Stealing is a stretch but that's what happens in things like this. You sue a big company they countersue you on elevated or exagerated charges. It's just not usually two big companies doing this to each other. It's to get you to settle for fear of losing the countersuit. Standard stuff.

Click to shrink...

Not really a stretch, it's pretty clearly stealing given the terms of the contract. Epic are contractually obligated to pay 30% commission on anything they sell on the iOS, and with the introduction of their own IAP, clearly did not hand Apple their commission, commission that Epic agreed to pay when they signed the contract with Apple. They even renewed it on the day that Tim Sweeney sent Apple that email asking for a side letter exempting them from the terms of that contract. So they clearly knew about it, and deliberately set out to breach that contract. If you don't give someone money you're contractually obligated to give them, that's....

Stealing.

 

[Tomeru]

Do you include Tim Sweeney in these gamers? Because Epic fielded a very strong argument against the "just another launcher" argument in the legal papers it filed against Apple.

Click to shrink...

I will make the argument then and you can tell me why it doesn't fit in this scenario. Your initial post expresses the opinion that people should not be angry at Epic for buying exclusives since PC owners still have access to the service the game is being sold through. Your exact words:



Now, as we all know the service that Epic filed the lawsuit for is Apple's commission on the purchase of Fortnite digital goods. Those digital goods can be purchased through a browser and used in the game and Apple doesn't get a dime, correct? So, using your own words, my argument would be this: Amazing how a digital service that every iOS owner has access to easily can bring about a lawsuit from Epic. Why doesn't it fit?

Click to shrink...

If the user would be a multi billion dollar company, then you would have a point. I, as a user, am not paying extra for anything through the epic store. I cant say anything regarding the apple store, but apple as a company is notorious for many anti consumer practices.

 

[Alexandros]

If the user would be a multi billion dollar company, then you would have a point. I, as a user, am not paying extra for anything through the epic store. I cant say anything regarding the apple store, but apple as a company is notorious for many anti consumer practices.

Click to shrink...

I don't understand, Epic is a multi billion-dollar company and it doesn't pay anything for transactions through the browser. I didn't quite catch the point you are making.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

If Epic wins, all those stores and hundreds more will pop up in a week. Apple will have zero incentive to police the app store since there are so many workarounds, and malware will become common. Windows style open markets have downsides too. I don't get why some of y'all are so keen to force that choice on people.

Click to shrink...

Exactly, I gravitate more towards iOS specifically because of the walled garden.

 

[Ganondolf]

I assume Apple will win this but any payment will be suspended till the other lawsuit is decided.

 

[Vulcano's Assistant]

Apple has entirely cut ties with companies for much less than this whole ordeal

What is Epic expecting their relationship with Apple is going to be regardless of who wins?

 

[Uzzy]

Apple has entirely cut ties with companies for much less than this whole ordeal

What is Epic expecting their relationship with Apple is going to be regardless of who wins?

Click to shrink...

If they win they won't need a relationship with Apple. If they lose they'll just settle, give Apple the money they're owed and some extra and presumably everyone moves on.

 

[ika]

Fuck Apple and fuck closed "ecosystems. " Anybody should be able to install any software they like an a piece on hardware that they own. The practice should be banned.

I don't know why so many people are so eager to allow a single corporation to control what software they are and aren't allowed to install on their phone. It must be some soft of domination fetish.

Click to shrink...

People have options with walled gardens and open systems. Let the people choose what they want. Nobody is forcing you to choose iOS.

Am I the only one who finds it weird that the 30% cut is being framed solely as a, "transaction fee" akin to simply swiping a credit card?

Devs on all platforms get a hell of a lot more for that 30% than mere payment processing.

They get API tools, customer support (both dev side and consumer side), hosting/updating, advertising, market access and more.

Like I get the, "30% may be too much." angle. But where do you the infrastructure for of all of the above comes from?

Tim Epic wants all the benefits with none of the associate partnership costs. Seems crazy to me.

Click to shrink...

Exactly this.

The annual fee for a development account has been only $99/year for more than 10 years and this didn't change because of the 30% to paid Apps and IAP (also it lowers to 15% after the first year for subscriptions). This allows smaller developers and students to access to all this big infrastructure and tools and publish free Apps. Lowing the 30% will inevitably increase the fees, hurting smaller developers, or lowering the amount and quality of support which will hurt everyone including end users. Probably it'd mean more paid Apps also.

 

[ika]

*double post sorry*

 

[EloKa]

So they basically made $257,000,000 in commission fees the last two years from Fortnite in app purchases, by allowing the game to be downloaded from the app store?

Click to shrink...

I'm starting to understand how media came up with the "Steam is bad! 30% is evil!" takes last year.

 

[Aaron D.]

No it wouldn't. The EU would definitely be able to distinguish between general purpose computing devices billions have in their pockets and consoles etc.

They are simply not the same thing that is not how antitrust works.

Click to shrink...

Your self-assurance that dismantling Apple's walled-garden economic model will not trickle down to other walled gardens practicing the same business model is shortsighted and naive.

Phones being defined as general-purpose computing devices have zero bearing on the matter. Use-case scenarios are not what's on trail here, the entire business model is. The antitrust case is going to define the legality of a platform holder's right to run their own walled garden as they see fit...who they do business with as well as T&C. The entire economic model is on the table here. Doesn't matter if it's a phone, PC, console or toaster.

And what the court decides on this matter will apply to ALL e-commerce businesses using that same model. The same R&R will be applicable to Sony/MS/Nintendo.

This is where the caviler, "Let them fight!" or "The both suck." comments come off as blissfully ignorant. The consequences of this judgement will have far-reaching consequences. LOL at Apple/Epic all you want. Get back to me when the entire system is dismantled and Sony/MS/Nintendo lose that 30% cut, a pipeline used to sustain their R&D, production & software development.

 

[plagiarize]

Not really a stretch, it's pretty clearly stealing given the terms of the contract. Epic are contractually obligated to pay 30% commission on anything they sell on the iOS, and with the introduction of their own IAP, clearly did not hand Apple their commission, commission that Epic agreed to pay when they signed the contract with Apple. They even renewed it on the day that Tim Sweeney sent Apple that email asking for a side letter exempting them from the terms of that contract. So they clearly knew about it, and deliberately set out to breach that contract. If you don't give someone money you're contractually obligated to give them, that's....

Stealing.

Click to shrink...

As I understand what happened, it wasn't like Epic charged the SAME for the vbucks and pocketed all the money that should have gone to Apple. Not paying someone for services isn't counted as stealing. It's a separate charge: Failure to pay for services rendered, or breach of contract. It's defined differently because it is different. Epic didn't charge people the 30% commission and keep that money.

It's still clearly breach of contract though.

 

[thisismadness]

As I understand what happened, it wasn't like Epic charged the SAME for the vbucks and pocketed all the money that should have gone to Apple. Not paying someone for services isn't counted as stealing. It's separate charge: Failure to pay for services rendered, or breach of contract. It's defined differently because it is different. Epic didn't charge people the 30% commission and keep that money.

It's still clearly breach of contract though.

Click to shrink...

To be fair, they did pocket ~7-9% of it. The Vbucks were only discounted by 20% and, according to Epic, payment processing is worth less than 3%.

 

[Uzzy]

As I understand what happened, it wasn't like Epic charged the SAME for the vbucks and pocketed all the money that should have gone to Apple. Not paying someone for services isn't counted as stealing. It's a separate charge: Failure to pay for services rendered, or breach of contract. It's defined differently because it is different. Epic didn't charge people the 30% commission and keep that money.

It's still clearly breach of contract though.

Click to shrink...

That's wrong. The contract obliges Epic to pay Apple a 30% commission on anything they sell, be it Vbucks at $9.99, $7.99 or six turnips. They've not given Apple the contractually obliged cut of the profits they've made through the Epic In App Payment Option. They've even disabled the Apple In App Payment Option for Fortnite on iOS now.

Contractually, 30% of whatever Epic charge is Apple's. They've not given Apple that money. That's stealing.

 

[Amnixia]

Hope Apple loses in the end. Fuck these giant companies.

Click to shrink...

So Epic is a small time indie dev now?

Fuck em both, but I am enjoying this very public fight between Epic and Apple.

 

[Lobster Roll]

To be fair, they did pocket ~7-9% of it. The Vbucks were only discounted by 20% and, according to Epic, payment processing is worth less than 3%.

Click to shrink...

I wouldn't be all that surprised if Tim Sweeney went after credit card companies next to get those payment processing fees.

 

[julian]

It's not like Apple does it out of altruism. They do because they have a choke on the platform. If they opened up to side loading, open stacks would pop up very fast. You can build an app for Mac, WIndows and Linux from any of these and compile for any of these and avoid fees and proprietary software if you want. You can already build applications for iOS up to the certification part, where you need xCode because Apple is greedy. Microsoft has launched React Native for Windows and Mac a little time ago, didn't ask for 30% from all apps.

Click to shrink...

Epic is not arguing for side loading! Plus you are already legally allowed to jailbreak and side load an app on your iPhone. You don't even need to jailbreak an Android phone yet this whole thing still involves Google's OS. They want to be put on the App Store but pay Apple/Google no money. That's the ask. People really need to stop assuming what Epic wants and actually read what Epic is asking for.

 

[plagiarize]

That's wrong. The contract obliges Epic to pay Apple a 30% commission on anything they sell, be it Vbucks at $9.99, $7.99 or six turnips. They've not given Apple the contractually obliged cut of the profits they've made through the Epic In App Payment Option. They've even disabled the Apple In App Payment Option for Fortnite on iOS now.

Contractually, 30% of whatever Epic charge is Apple's. They've not given Apple that money. That's stealing.

Click to shrink...

It is failure to pay for services rendered and breach of contract. Calling it stealing remains a stretch. I don't see what point insisting it was stealing serves at all. Failure to pay isn't morally or legally acceptable.

 

[Deleted member 50374]

Epic is not arguing for side loading!

Click to shrink...

I am not really arguing for Epic to have a special cut. I want Google to stop punishing distros, alternative stores and OEMs trying out new operating systems without Play Services but support for Android applications. And Apple to stop messing around with consumers and developers, since the mobile market sucks.

You don't even need to jailbreak an Android phone yet this whole thing still involves Google's OS. They want to be put on the App Store but pay Apple/Google no money. That's the ask. People really need to stop assuming what Epic wants and actually read what Epic is asking for.

Click to shrink...

While Epic started it out of greed, rest assured that Google fucking with competitors is very much real and what Epic described is pretty ominous. If Google can decide that Epic has no place on OnePlus phones threatening to kill their phone business, then they might as well be a completely closed garden too.

The only thing that has to come out of these lawsuits is the right of consumers to pick the software of their choice on their devices. If it's just lower fees for Epic (like Amazon got a special deal on that) it's just a waste of time.

 

[julian]

I am not really arguing for Epic to have a special cut. I want Google to stop punishing distros, alternative stores and OEMs trying out new operating systems without Play Services but support for Android applications. And Apple to stop messing around with consumers and developers, since the mobile market sucks.


While Epic started it out of greed, rest assured that Google fucking with competitors is very much real and what Epic described is pretty ominous. If Google can decide that Epic has no place on OnePlus phones threatening to kill their phone business, then they might as well be a completely closed garden too.

The only thing that has to come out of these lawsuits is the right of consumers to pick the software of their choice on their devices. If it's just lower fees for Epic (like Amazon got a special deal on that) it's just a waste of time.

Click to shrink...

What does any of that have to do with my post? You said you want Apple to allow side loading and I'm pointing out that has nothing to do with this case.

 

[Deleted member 50374]

What does any of that have to do with my post? You said you want Apple to allow side loading and I'm pointing out that has nothing to do with this case.

Click to shrink...

What has any of your post to do with mine?

 

[julian]

What has any of your post to do with mine?

Click to shrink...

You aren't making any sense. Did you mean to quote somebody else?

 

[Tomeru]

I don't understand, Epic is a multi billion-dollar company and it doesn't pay anything for transactions through the browser. I didn't quite catch the point you are making.

Click to shrink...

Are you saying that Epic the company (as a business) is in the same position as a regular user?

 

[gl0w]

Good, hope Apple wins!

 

[collige]

It is failure to pay for services rendered and breach of contract. Calling it stealing remains a stretch. I don't see what point insisting it was stealing serves at all. Failure to pay isn't morally or legally acceptable.

Click to shrink...

Isn't that pretty much exactly what wage theft is though?

 

[plagiarize]

Isn't that pretty much exactly what wage theft is though?

Click to shrink...

Apple don't work for Epic. It's contracted services. You could say they *stole* services I suppose. That'd be closer to accurate, but it's not true that they stole Apple's money, not in a legal sense anyway. That's why I called it a *stretch*. Cause like, if you squint and make a few mental leaps you can *kind* of argue that they stole stuff... but you don't need to at all. Cause they clearly did things that are wrong.

 

[Armoredgoomba]

Listen, I actually am a lawyer and your self-assurance is misplaced. Epic has serious, well-respected anti-trust counsel who would not and did not file an "open-and-shut" antitrust case. They might not win, but the fact that you think this is easy tells me that you know a lot less than you think you do.

Click to shrink...

Well we both have our own opinions about the case and that's fine. Neither one is necessarily "more right"

 

[Wilf Netherton]

From Apple's countersuit:

There is nothing anticompetitive about charging a commission for others to use one's service. 4
Many platforms—including Epic's own app market place and Unreal Engine—do just that. In Apple's case, that commission is not charged—and Apple earns nothing from its substantial investment in the App Store—unless and until developers bill and collect funds from users who engage in digital transactions. For the more than 80% of apps available to consumers for free on the App Store, this means Apple earns no commission whatsoever. Epic wants to change that in ways that would have dire consequences for the App Store ecosystem. In its Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Epic boldly suggests that Apple monetize the App Store by charging a regressive "per download fee," leaving consumers and developers on the hook to pay for what otherwise would be billions of free app downloads.

Click to shrink...

The boldest is really important. As it currently stands the App Store model is progressive in its pay structure: Developers pay more the more money they make, and more important they pay nothing for distributing free content through the store. Epic's fees help pay for all of the services supporting the free apps in the ecosystem. Epic's vision is one where apps that are free to users will cost the developers of those apps money... potentially a very large sum of money if the free app happens to become very popular.

This obviously will kill the free app ecosystem on iOS overnight.

 

[Deleted member 50374]

You aren't making any sense. Did you mean to quote somebody else?

Click to shrink...

You seem to imply that I care what Epic is arguing for

(a) Epic is not arguing for side loading! (b) Plus you are already legally allowed to jailbreak and side load an app on your iPhone. (c) You don't even need to jailbreak an Android phone yet this whole thing still involves Google's OS. (d) They want to be put on the App Store but pay Apple/Google no money. That's the ask. People really need to stop assuming what Epic wants and actually read what Epic is asking for.

Click to shrink...

A. I don't, I have issues with Apple control on the platform, and incidentally with the disgusting practices of google.

B. To be honest, not everywhere in the world... And also having a "legal choice" didn't stop the European Union from punishing Microsoft for Internet Explorer, and having them add the browser picker. If they equate this control and the App Store to Internet Explorer, they might put a new ballot screen on iOS too, including forcing Apple to make it entirely removable. Jailbreak isn't a solution. At all.

C. You seem to misunderstand why Google is involved - which is abusing their dominant position by killing Epic deals with OEMs and banning them from promoting their Android storefront from Google Ads and YouTube. It's a different thing, but the kind of that is still being investigated by the EU.

D. No shit. Tho, people getting Fortnite on their phones aren't because of the absymal store of Apple either. Getting a 30% off when they push around some numbers in databases is still bollocks.

From Apple's countersuit:

The boldest is really important. As it currently stands the App Store model is progressive in its pay structure: Developers pay more the more money they make, and more important they pay nothing for distributing free content through the store. Epic's fees help pay for all of the services supporting the free apps in the ecosystem. Epic's vision is one where apps that are free to users will cost the developers of those apps money... potentially a very large sum of money if the free app happens to become very popular.

This obviously will kill the free app ecosystem on iOS overnight.

Click to shrink...

It sounds like a very stupid argument when you can download applications free from thousands of places, like Github, Sourceforge and more. If the App Store only hosted paid apps and allowed side loading, then everyone just moves to other providers.

 

[kiguel182]

This counter suit is ridiculous and unnecessary.

 

[impiri]

From Apple's countersuit:

The boldest is really important. As it currently stands the App Store model is progressive in its pay structure: Developers pay more the more money they make, and more important they pay nothing for distributing free content through the store. Epic's fees help pay for all of the services supporting the free apps in the ecosystem. Epic's vision is one where apps that are free to users will cost the developers of those apps money... potentially a very large sum of money if the free app happens to become very popular.

This obviously will kill the free app ecosystem on iOS overnight.

Click to shrink...

Agreed. The current App Store situation has its absurdities (no sane justification for rejecting xCloud, 30% Apple cut on absolutely everything), and Apple should be acting much more afraid of government regulation. But Epic's proposal is insane.

 

[Wilf Netherton]

It sounds like a very stupid argument when you can download applications free from thousands of places, like Github, Sourceforge and more. If the App Store only hosted paid apps and allowed side loading, then everyone just moves to other providers.

Click to shrink...

Not the point. Free apps get value from being on the App Store. Epic wants to eliminate that.

 

[toy_brain]

I feel as though the Hoeg Law youtube videos should be required viewing for anyone posting in this thread. They are a bit long, but make great background listening and you learn quite a lot.

Seeings as we are back to discussing Walled Gardens again, I think I should mention that Epic is trying to use a legal precedent set back in the 90's (I think it was an EU ruling, but I could be mis-remembering) that related to printers. Yes, really. Printers.
Back then, if you bought a Xerox, HP, Cannon or whatever printer, your maintenance contract had to be with that company as well. Nobody else was allowed to service a Xerox printer but Xerox, for example.
The ruling said this was unlawful, and that's why we have the situation today where, for example, the company I work for has Xerox printers maintained by Xenith - a 3rd party.
Epic is trying to use this precedent to dismantle part of the walled garden.
It sees the processing of IAP's as similar to device maintenance (you are 'maintaining' the game I guess?), and separate to the up-front purchase of software from the App store.
Its a bit of an iffy comparison, because if it were to pass, it would mean that any app on the App store could be downloaded for free, then just contain an IAP to unlock the full version, and bypass the 30% Apple cut. Apps and printers are really quite different (I mean, DUH!), but its the legal precedent Epic's lawyers are interested in, not the physical nature of the devices.

Personally I think Epic's case is extremely shaky, but it all depends on the Judge, and how much they can be persuaded to lean towards legal precedent, versus how much they can see the distinction between downloading free software and......... y'know........ maintaining a ruddy great big printer!

 

[Alexandros]

Are you saying that Epic the company (as a business) is in the same position as a regular user?

Click to shrink...

It is in a similar position as Apple.

 

[Sean Mirrsen]

no sane justification for rejecting xCloud

Click to shrink...

As far as I recall, it was not rejected. Apple just required that every game on the service be submitted for evaluation separately, as a separate game on iOS would. This is obviously less than ideal for Microsoft, but Apple wants to remain in control of what games are available for purchase on the platform. It's a harsh requirement, but not one I'd say I don't understand, at least in the context of Apple's disposition towards their brand image.

 

[AshenOne]

Not rooting rooting for Apple but i fucking hope Epic lose a lot of money on this shit and this stops them or prevents them from doing a lot of those BS exclusivity deals. I won't mind if epic is only left alive just for its unreal engine stuff. Its the only good thing about them remaining for me, their BS actions and their past has just soured the company for me..unless Sweeny leaves that is..

 

[Deleted member 20471]

The iPhone is the only decent smartphone out there, I want have my effin walled garden without any problems. Get fucked, Tim.

 

[Wilf Netherton]

I think Apple's xCloud stance is stupid and it would be better for everyone if they changed it to view a game streaming service as the same concept as a video streaming service.

 

[SJurgenson]

Apple don't work for Epic. It's contracted services. You could say they *stole* services I suppose. That'd be closer to accurate, but it's not true that they stole Apple's money, not in a legal sense anyway. That's why I called it a *stretch*. Cause like, if you squint and make a few mental leaps you can *kind* of argue that they stole stuff... but you don't need to at all. Cause they clearly did things that are wrong.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, 'stealing' is not the right term. The more appropriate term (that Apple uses in the filing) is conversion.

It's not that Epic stole money from Apple -- took money that Apple had under its control. What Epic is accused of doing is taking money in that (under their contract was due to Apple) and converted it into their own. Per Epic's contract with Apple, Apple is due 30% of all IAPs on iOS -- and Apple is still due 30% of what Epic has received through their direct payment scheme on iOS.

If I enter into a contract with a charity stating that I will run a raffle with 70% of the proceeds going to the charity, but instead I keep 100% of the proceeds, I have not stolen from the charity. The charity does not have less money than they did before. I converted that money that was due to charity to my own -- which is conversion.