Store front. The same way my Android can have multiple store fronts. Is the Google Play Store the most accessible one? Yes. Is it the only one? No. And it shouldn't be.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Apple has said that it will not let Epic Games re-apply to the Apple Developer Program for at least one year.
- Thread starter Dalek
- Start date
Store front. The same way my Android can have multiple store fronts. Is the Google Play Store the most accessible one? Yes. Is it the only one? No. And it shouldn't be.
But part of the appeal of the iOS system is the control of the App Store and not having it be a wild west of apps.
Now if we're talking about controlling the check out system, then yes I'd agree Apple is too controlling over that. While I understand the benefits of it, esp when it started, I think at this stage they should at least open it up to things like Stripe or Shopify backed systems.
Which would just be the same thing, i.e. "we'll just use this hardware platform with massive reach and powerful brand image, that you've developed entirely on your own, for our personal profits, and not pay you anything".
All true (except for the monopolistic behavior part), especially the bolded, but reading the comments here...
I agree it isn't exactly the same, but correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like Epic is trying to approach it from multiple angles hoping that at least one of them sticks which is why they're throwing out the ideas of alternate pay methods, a separate store, etc. I feel like they're going to say here's multiple ways that could be better and hope that the ruling at least allows one of them to go through or at least a minimum of some sort of compromise.
No doubt another store front opens up a different set of issues compared to simply selling a comic book or movie rental but I think that's then a separate issue of saying no business would agree to the terms of offering all that support while taking a 0% cut when clearly others are okay with that. Google, Microsoft and Sony seem to be okay with that under certain conditions.
It is relevant because I'm disputing your notion that it makes no business sense and yet companies offer those exact terms so clearly there is some sense to such terms. That doesn't mean Apple has to or want to agree to those terms, but to say no business would agree to those terms is wrong because it happens from other companies. So clearly some businesses think that terms of that model is okay.
All true (except for the monopolistic behavior part), especially the bolded, but reading the comments here...
They're not a monopoly though.
Anti-comsumer and/or anti-competitive with how they manage the App Store, yes
Look man I feel like we're going in circles. The original statement, in the context of the full post, is saying that no Vendor would agree to those terms from a Producer, as those were the terms I was talking about above the statement. Especially not ones forced upon them after saying no in the first place.
Your examples were a (different) Vendor offering similar (but not completely identical) terms to a Producer who accepted which is fine and happens all the time. It's not even remotely the same as what is going on here, which is what makes it irrelevant.
It's not all that different though. You're saying it would never happen because it doesn't make business sense. I'm saying it could happen because clearly businesses find it makes sense to offer those terms. If what you're saying is true then no Vendor would offer those terms to begin with.
This is basically why anyone is supporting Apple. The whole thing has been a joke the way Epic has approached it.
All of this is self inflicted and Apple showing Epic the consequences of their actions, as per the initial agreed upon terms, is just outright entertaining.
It's slightly different because Apple's business is a veritcal integration versus Google, Sony, MS which is more horizontal.
But that poster isn't saying explicitly Apple; they're saying no business would accept those terms.
These were their words:
Yes. Exactly the way home computers have worked for over 30 years now. I don't see how Apple is entitled to the money software engineers and app developers should be getting because the only way to make their apps/software available to the masses is by being forced to give up a share of the profit.
People are still within their rights to use the Apple App Store. They would just have the freedom to use something else.
Why are people defending Apple? And by extension, defending anti-competitive practices? I just don't think I'll ever understand.
And like others have said, why is it Apple and not the others? Why are they not fighting to get their store on Xbox or Playstation?
Probably because some think that they have earned the right(even if it has become too big right now), as they have come up with the entire eco system, dev tools and services, large consumer base for any app developer to succeed paired with an almost guaranteed successful hardware product every single year to keep increasing the reach of their apps.
My take on the whole thing is:
- I feel like Apple's 30% cut is a fine and fair rate. Yes, I guess it could be less, but in some ways the apps that generate revenue support all of the free apps. All in all, that's not a big deal.
- I think it's totally fine for Apple to prohibit you from advertising alternative payment methods in-app.
- I think it's fine for Apple to have a policy that prohibits you from selling the app or IAP for a discount rate outside of their store.
- I don't think it's ok for Apple to prevent people from entirely electing out of transactions via the App Store. AFAIK, other than "signing" the apps, if you're not using Apple's ad platform or payment scheme, once your app is downloaded to a phone Apple doesn't touch your app at all. (If I'm missing something here, and there is some other service Apple is providing, then some nominal service fee ($0.05 per user per month or whatever) to support the actual costs incurred would be appropriate for apps that generate outside revenue. But this should be based on actual cost and not be used as an income generator.)
I don't think taking on Apple, Microsoft, and Sony at the same time is a good fight to pick. But even then, mobile ecosystems are a bit different to console platforms.
How? You are abiding by the rules of Sony and MS in order to be on their store front. They don't allow you, the consumer, to install different app stores.
I'm aksing you how the mobile ecosystem is different from consoles when it comes to fight to be made about Epic's end game, hosting a store front.
It's essential to the current console business model and does have advantages for consumers; the most obvious of which is that it allows console manufacturers to sell hardware at a loss. Look at speculation about the PS5's price, there's a realistic chance the Digital Edition is $100 cheaper than the disk version despite the actual hardware cost being much smaller. That's entirely due to the higher margins Sony makes from digital purchases, if third parties no longer have to give Sony 30% that's untenable.
Hopefully this makes the case harder for apple, as they're clearly using the monopoly they have over the app store to bully Epic into retreating on the legal battle. Their actions were already deemed excessive once in this case, so I wonder how this will be seen by the judge.
This is also too funny when you look at it this way: There is a reason why there weren't a lot of third party apps or games when a game console fails or doesn't have a large customer base but they are when a product does well.
The same applies here. Apple has a successful product, everyone wants to be on it, and then eventually bigger companies like Epic feel like they can eke out more money, and come up with such ideas. It's business strategy through and through and nothing pro consumer in any of their approaches.
The same applies here. Apple has a successful product, everyone wants to be on it, and then eventually bigger companies like Epic feel like they can eke out more money, and come up with such ideas. It's business strategy through and through and nothing pro consumer in any of their approaches.
*facepalm*
They're just executing its TOS as the judge allowed them to. Stop repeating this nonsense.
Since youre late to the party....
This 'ban' is part of the ToS, the same ToS the judge ruled in favor of Apple on
What the judge ruled against Apple about was them trying to say their Epic and Unreal accounts could both be banned since theyre the same company
I see your point and to an extent, I agree with it. That's why I pointed out that they are console ecosystems and not mobile ecosystems. Game consoles are made for one or two specific purposes. That's why I'm not asking for every generic DVD player to have multiple storefronts. Mobile phones and tablets have blurred the line and are now mobile computers that we use for everything from gaming to doing our actual jobs. That completely juxtaposes the Apple situation against the console manufacturers' situation and shows that they are completely different circumstances and shouldn't be compared. They can be, but it's irrelevant because of the vast difference in circumstances.
Lawyers like Hoeglaw on Youtube already argued that both are the same under the eyes of the law and I believe Apple mentioned that in one of their filings. It's highly likely if Apple lost and was forced to host stores on their store for 0% that consoles (and maybe other devices) would have to as well.
OP
OP
And I'm sure they will charge a 0% fee for developers on their own phone.
This is simply not true anymore and hasn't been since the 360/PS3
Who is filling out spreadsheets and sending their emails primarily through a PS4?
While I doubt we'd get a perfect storm of instantaneous laws, console manufacturers still have physical media, something that isn't applicable to mobile storefronts.
Well technically by Android fanboy standards you can't do this on iOS either...
But seriously, consoles are doing more now. Games, streaming video, broadcasting to twitch, sharing direct to social media, live TV,
I don't actually know how it'd work if Apple lost and was required to allow stores on their phone. I imagine another company would either sue or threaten to sue one or all of the console manufacturers citing this case as the reason why. I'd like to get insight on what would happen though.
User Warned: Inappropriate commentary
Win or lose, I'm glad EPIC has done this. It would have been better if less odious companies were the ones leading the charge, but you take the "hero" you can get.
Nothing to add to this comment except my goodness that young lady. . .
All true (except for the monopolistic behavior part), especially the bolded, but reading the comments here...
Nothing to add to this comment except my goodness that young lady. . .
I don't disagree. It's just that consoles haven't turned into mainstream "do work" devices yet outside of entertainment (overwhelming skewed toward gaming)
I'm not an Apple fan by any means, but my wife's iPad can do a hell of a lot more than I thought it could. Including spreadsheets, which she used for an assignment in college once.
The way Epic has behaved in all this is distasteful to say the least. the lawsuit itself is also a bit hilarious as they want access to all the benefits of iOS like, the tools and API's that Apple develops, access to the app store, access to Apples customer base which they earned over the last decade, all for free. Thats a huge no in my book. I dont want to have wild west of apps on my smartphone and I am sure many many people who use them will agree. Nobody is asking for their to be a choice is multiple store fronts or payment systems on iOS. The phone just works and that is what appeals to the vast vast majority of smartphone users. Thats not to say that Apples App store policies need to be adjusted for a new decade as some of them are archaic.
Also the law does not classify devices as essential and not essential. Tim Sweeny saying that consoles are different does not fly with the law. The court will not say "Xbox is different because it mostly plays games."
Also the law does not classify devices as essential and not essential. Tim Sweeny saying that consoles are different does not fly with the law. The court will not say "Xbox is different because it mostly plays games."
I guess Fornite doesn't have that big of a following on iOS?
I can't see how this benefits either side.
I can't see how this benefits either side.
Probably should have reverted the Fortnite app changes like the judge recommended Tim Epic. Now it looks like you're losing something like 1/3 of your Fortnite revenue for 12 months.
It's difficult for me to care about either party here from a moral standpoint since they're both massive companies but goddamn if Epic isn't blundering away here in the dark in a very entertaining way.
It's difficult for me to care about either party here from a moral standpoint since they're both massive companies but goddamn if Epic isn't blundering away here in the dark in a very entertaining way.
Epic said recently in court filings it's 1/3 of their userbase, and that the majority of that do not access Fortnite on another platform.
This is awesome, somehow I'm happy Apple is winning, a shame there's no way both lose somehow.
Btw what happened to fortnite in google play? They didn't sue google?
Btw what happened to fortnite in google play? They didn't sue google?
I see this get mentioned a lot and what I don't get is, if you never download or use any of the other stores, nothing would change for you. So how does other people having options impact your usage? Google allows you to sideload a store or app if you want but if you stick to the Google Play store, you're inside their walled garden with no need to worry
This is part of the TOS, the very thing a judge ruled Epic violated. This stuff just slow trickling out.
Throughout this entire situation, Epic has pretty consitently been the unreasonable party. Like, what they appear to be asking for is for Apple to distribute an "Epic Games Store" app on the iOS app store without Apple getting any sort of money for anything. Even on actual open platforms, that's not how it works. Like, you're not going to see EGS hosted on the Windows Store any time soon.
I suspect in legal terms it'd come down to whether Apple can argue that Epic's actions suggest that they cannot be seen as trustworthy; if Apple succeed in that argument, then I think it's reasonable for the court to ultimately conclude that there's little justification that Apple should have to work with Epic.
(I also agree with those saying that despite that, I'm sure Apple would relent as part of a settlement agreement - indeed, I'm sure part of this is giving them bargaining chips for a settlement)