In case of Apple Epic clearly wants the piece of the ecosystem without paying for it, I assume it would be the same with any walled garden out there.
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Apple will terminate all Epic Games dev accounts and tool access on August 28th, Epic filing to halt the termination
- Thread starter dex3108
- Start date
It's more than that. If that's all they wanted they could do what Amazon does with Kindle; force users to buy the books (v-bucks) on their site and then download it to their device as necessary.
What they actually want is their own *store* on iOS where they can sell more than just their v-bucks.
Simple, Apple owns the platforms and the respective App Stores. They decide who is allowed to use them.
They want customers to have the freedom to come and go as the please from the walled garden. Yes this would result in more money for Epic, but it's only a positive for consumers and developers.
This is really not the definition of a monopoly.
Also like MULTIPLE people have stated. 30% is the commission that is present on many storefronts (Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft included).
That's what I've said? They want piece of the ecosystem they didn't help establish without paying "taxes" to the owners of said ecosystem i.e. creating their own store.
EGS brought about zero positive change to the PC space and in fact was quite a negative force in a few instances. I have my reservations about the positive nature of their actions.
I don't have a horse in this race tho.
Last edited:
Making phone calls and writing emails to Epic asking, "what the hell are you doing?!"
I don't know if it will even affect it, does Epic not having IOS developer accounts affect their ability to make tools for Windows and Apple for IOS deployment?
You could do that with a feature phone or a dongle. I mean I "get" the idea that it's essential, but all essential functions of a smartphone can be done by other devices.
I am not so sure. While the matter of whether or not an API as such should be covered by copyright is still a topic for the courts to decide in the US, submitting code containing use of a particular API is not even a question of copying anything as far as I can see. The Apple developer EULA could perhaps prevent an Apple developer from submitting such code however, but not a non-Apple developer.
There are different scenarios what might happen if Epic wins this lawsuit and one scenario is basically that Sony / MS / Nintendo will stop producing new consoles because it's not worth it anymore to spend billions on creating a platform for customers (R&D, Hardware, Infrastructure, Marketing) while you're also forced to let other companies use your platform for free. Those other companies will either sell the same software for less (because they don't have the expenses for running the platform they are using) or lower the perceived value of the platform due to low software standards or by simply bringing malware into that ecosystem.
There's no reason to expect that console manufacturers will continue building consoles if they have to make all investments and bear all risks while other companies will be able to rake in profits on that playerbase without having any costs / risks while the console manufacturer won't see a single penny from those profits.
It doesn't mean that this scenario has to occur if Epic wins but console manufacturers are definately sitting in the same boat with apple this time.
We'll leave that to the courts to decide. We're not in a position to say otherwise
Can someone confirm my knowledge or shoot it down:
If above is true, then the second bullet is what I am finding wrong from Apple. Bullet one is OK since they are hosting the App and so on while bullet two, assuming it is managed by the App developer/publisher, is nothing that Apple is affected by, and this is what Epic is finding unlawful? Afaik, Spotify did the same resoning awhile ago IIRC.
- You buy an app from appstore = 30% goes to Apple
- In said app, you buy era-bucks = 30% goes to Apple
If above is true, then the second bullet is what I am finding wrong from Apple. Bullet one is OK since they are hosting the App and so on while bullet two, assuming it is managed by the App developer/publisher, is nothing that Apple is affected by, and this is what Epic is finding unlawful? Afaik, Spotify did the same resoning awhile ago IIRC.
There are system frameworks on Apple devices that Xcode refuses to compile when you don't have paid account. I don't know how the signing works on iOS, but the situation may also prevent deploying UE4 games that use binary UE distribution if UE4 libraries are signed by Epic's certificates and not the game developer's one.
So what about F2P gamed that use the second bullet as a business model?
No hosting?
It is true.
But let's be fair. It's often:
You download a free app, in said app you buy era bucks and 30% goes to Apple. It's also the case on other platform.
It's a video game company suing about not being able to put their own video game store on a store already dominated by video game sales. Even if the iPhone is vastly different than a home console, it sure seems like a situation that could happen on console all the same.
The second point, In App Purchases, also use Apple's payment system. The consumer pays apple the money, Apple take their 30% (after tax) and then pass the rest on to the developer.
The issue arises is that if you try to implement your own payment method for your customers to use, you break the terms of service. Apple explicitly forbid you from implementing these features in your application. Epic did this, hence why the application was removed from the store.
I believe in the case of Spotify, they made the in-app subscriptions cost more than if you were buying it from their own website, which meant that Spotify as a developer would end up getting the same amount of money regardless of where the subscription was purchased.
Tim Sweeney: "It was 20 days ago when you and your Silicon Valley Thugs showed up to take your 30% cut, we refused and our game was saved but at the cost of our app. You had us banned, as you ran away. A hero, locking us out of a billion devices"
Apple receptionist: "I'm sorry, i don't remember any of it."
Tim: "You don't remember?!"
Apple receptionist: "For you the day your game graced our app store was the most important day of your life. But for us it was Tuesday."
Apple receptionist: "I'm sorry, i don't remember any of it."
Tim: "You don't remember?!"
Apple receptionist: "For you the day your game graced our app store was the most important day of your life. But for us it was Tuesday."
The interest on that mortgage says 4% but it actually means 0, it's just a bunch of words your honor.
Man people are so dumb.
The situation could not be more simple and people still don't get it. Epic broke the terms of their agreement, which means they lose everything that comes with that agreement (which means software licenses and developer access).
Well they make the app available which can be a reason a user buy said ecosystem (Apple) in the first place. How does ad runned app work? Does Apple take 30%?
Yes, but see above, how does this work for ad runned apps?
Regarding different payment method, is this an argument to "open" up App store to allow different payment methods?
Regarding Spotify, that is a case I support Spotify actually 100%.
There's no problem with point 2. If point 2 didn't exist, then Apple would most certainly not allow free apps. Why would they? Provide infrastructure but not be able to generate revenue?
Agreements could be seen as unlawful when a judge rules on the case, that we will see though, and I believe Epic knew that this would and could happen, but they are playing the long game (if they win).
Steam does this right? Provide infrastructure but don't take a peice of the cake when games offer in-game purchase no?
It's not just about the API though is it? It's about Apple's developer resources, which you can only access via license agreement. If Epic were to produce their own compatible developer resources then that would be OK (Oracle v Google notwithstanding) but right now Epic is using Apple's SDK to make Unreal Engine.
Then what would stop devs just releasing apps for free and make it as barebones as possible and then charging for the real thing in the app itself?
Edit: Quoted wrong person.
No, I think all IAP are charged under Steam's model. I think Epic are the only one who don't charge IAP, but there is a notable lack of infrastructure in place regarding their store - there is most likely an intent to charge at least 12% on those. Otherwise you can host a F2P game and pay nothing to Epic.
Steam takes their cut for all transactions on users a game acquires through Steam. It's why FFXIV has Steam and regular service accounts - if you buy the game on Steam, Valve gets the cut for every future transaction.
Yeah, that's kind of the exact point Epic is trying to make. Apple shouldn't have so much control over the livelihoods of developers.
Edit: whether they are billion dollar corps or a small indie.
Honest question: at what point does any joint action like that become a cartel? The US legal system isn't really equipped to deal with anything free-to-play, given that most anticompetitive action is defined by an increase in price.
Steam requires all DLC and IAP to go through their payment processor (this was why EA created Origin in the first place).
The problem is that ToS are often riddled with legally unenforceable garbage that would get laughed out of any court. Accepting the ToS legally often means nothing.
Like, this is obviously hyperbolic, but if I agreed to ToS that said company staff can break my arms if I break some rule, that's hardly gonna hold up in court.
Now, a decent ToS shouldn't pull shit thats not enforceable, sure, but I just wanted to point out that "it's in the ToS" doesn't have to mean much.
Last edited:
If you mean developer documentation, then it would not be Epic that formally uses it. Third parties would be consulting the documentation and submitting patches. If you are referring to proprietary binaries and libraries, then those would not be included with the UE source code, and would require the person building the source to have legal access to. Just to clarify here, I am not arguing that Epic can get around restrictions in order to provide macOS and iOS builds of UE, merely the source code for others to compile macOS and iOS versions themselves.
Last edited:
There's a huge difference between "You are not allowed to sue us" clauses and "If you willingly bypass our security certifications to sneak in unapproved updates we will nuke your dev access" clauses.
Oh sure, I just wanted to point out that "it's in the tos" is a weak argument by itself
In this scenario, Apple and Epic have the same degree of control over the lives of people who depend on Unreal Engine. Tim Sweeney pulling a stupid PR stunt impacts people who use unreal engine when that stunt gets Epic in trouble. It's worth remembering that Epic were the one who instigated this all, with something they knew would get them booted off the platform to the point that they had a pre-prepared lawsuit and a freaking trailer for that lawsuit. Tim Sweeney knew he would be gambling with people's lives and not only did he go ahead, he went full steam ahead no brakes.
Ah, definitely. ToS clauses need to be reasonable to hold up in court.
The "Argument" is one I'll leave for the lawyers. Something about monopolizing and actively preventing competition.
The ideal outcome (From Epic's perspective) is for regulation to force apple to allow for external payment options for in-app purchases. That said, if we abstract ourselves from the numbers for a second (i.e the debate about whether the 30% fee should be reduced) it's actually hard to make an argument as to why they should be forced to do so within their own app store.
Apple owns the app store, which in turn has hundreds of millions of customers. Epic wants access to those customers, but doesn't want to pay for it. That doesn't really seem "fair", does it?
If Apple were to open iOS to having other App-stores, that is a sub-ideal outcome for Epic too. They absoultely, 100% would lose customers this way. Mobile audiences are incredibly fickle, and the more obstructions you put between them and the content (i.e Number of clicks) the more likely they are to bail out. Having to download a new app store, get the fortnite app, enter their billing details again etc. There's a not-insignificant number of users who simply just wouldn't be bothered to do that. Look at how their standalone android experiment went. Eventually they caved and just went with the Play store.
Epic doesn't claim the cut itself unlawful, the fact Apple doesn't allow for alternative payments or app distribution is their issue.
what? why?
backing the side which if they win will give consumers more freedom is the only side you should be backing, whether you like epic/fortnite shouldn't factor into it
the reasons have been enumerated many times now over the 41-page thread, as recently as the last page and every page before it. Look over the arguments.