Epic: Apple has blocked your ability to update Fortnite on the App Store

[Shantae]

I don't care about Fortnite, I hate the game, but this whole thing is just so god damn stupid. As someone who agrees, maybe 30% is a high take on Apple's part...if you don't like it, then don't have your game or services on Apple's product, them's the breaks. Being on iOS isn't a right, you wanna be on their platform, then you agree to their rules, it's as simple as that. If you don't like their rules, then you're free to continue selling your game else where, on other platforms...just like you're doing. Just fuck off Epic.

 

[EVIL]

This is what Tim had to say about this:



But Steam is just a launcher, and Apple hasn't invested billions on R&D for hardware, right?



Sure. This is something that corporations and developers need to figure out themselves. Involving the users is downright nasty. Especially considering that it's not "either/or": your indie devs will get more money, but your "AAA" publishers will as well. They will be the ones that benefit the most, in fact, due to the volume of their business.

Click to shrink...

Steam is a whole lot more than just a launcher. If tim thinks that is all steam is than it also explains how they are building EGS, since that platform is so devoid of customer and developer features its no surprise they can cut their cut so low. Steam on the other hand provides a whole suite of tools for both developers and customers for their cut.

 

[TheMadTitan]

Apple cares very much for its image as a solid, closed, secure environment. Allowing official sideloading breaks that.

Also they care a lot about having profit. Allowing apps to advertise (and worse, link) to off-app ways to obtain MTX, especially without providing an in-app means to do the same, gets in the way of that.

Apple didn't mind, I believe, when Epic simply had a way to purchase VBucks on their site, thus bypassing the IAP tax. Because that makes sense, it's completely separate from the app. It only becomes a problem when you advertise a single-click way of paying slightly less but directly to you, in the app, for the same benefit. Because if that's allowed then everyone can do that, and then Apple loses a major revenue stream.

Click to shrink...

Apple can be secure by allowing sideloading the same way Google does and the same way Microsoft does with Windows apps: by making it a setting the user can turn on or off. Their maintence of security should extend to the App Store, APIs app developers use, Touch/FaceID, and Apple Pay. If the end user decides to skirt some of that to download apps directly from companies, so be it.

Even if it's something as simple as only allowing the sideloading of apps from individuals with registered developer accounts so Bob down the street can't just go and make IPAs to toss online every three minutes, so be it.

 

[Apath]

.

 

[Alvis]

It doesn't matter if you are a tiny company or a huge corporate, when you sell something you want profit. Apple is taking 30% off each sale of ANY app. Just because Apple is giving you the ability to put the app on their store. That's a LOT of money! THEN, they take 30% for every single sale that you do within the app (in-app purchases, etc). That's just fucking stealing!

First of all, 30% is a lot of money. it's robbery! Second, if they only took 30% off from sales of the app, then developers could still recuperate some with in-app purchases and micro transactions, but Apple takes 30% off that, too!! That's just criminal.

Epic wants Apple to remove the in-app robbery and reduce the 30% cut. Many developers have complained about Apple doing that! Apple does nothing! They just allow your app into their App Store that's it. Why would anyone one to pay them so much money without doing anything?!

Apple is the company that takes the most money out of any store (digital or physical) to sell your apps/products.

Click to shrink...

Are you ok, Tim Sweeney?

 

[Deleted member 35631]

You realise Sony and MS take a 30% cut too? As do Valve/Steam, and likely Nintendo.

Click to shrink...

I did not know that. But do they also take 30% off from DLC, micro-transactions, etc.?

If that is the case, then this needs to chance at a system level. I think 30% is too much. I don't remember ver well, but I think that I've read somewhere that this issue had been discussed by senators or congress in the US.

Are you ok, Tim Sweeney?

Click to shrink...

Oh, man. I wish I were Time Sweeney to have the amount of money he has. I'd be ok with even half.

No, "fucking stealing" is circumventing store rules and trying to make money for free. When you come with your product to a supermarket, you don't just clear out some shelf space and set up with a portable register to have people pay you. Like it or not, everyone has to sign an agreement, and pay fees, because the store is not a charity. You may be selling products of your own, but the store is selling you their shelf space so you can make your money, and you have to pay rent or get out.

Click to shrink...

I totally agree that Epic shouldn't have circumvented the store rules. It was not the way to do it.

However, if the only way to sell your products is in super market A, and this market was abusing the fee they charge you because they know that if they don't sell your product, you don't sell them at all, then that is wrong.

It's not about the fees and the rules. Of course there's gonna be both of them anywhere and in any business. I think it's the abuse of power Apple has over the market. This applies to everyone that abuses their power, not only Apple. There's need to be a balance to benefit both parties, not just one.

 

[Acquiesc3]

Of course they leave out the part where they knowingly broke ToS and caused this mess in the first place.

Fuck Epic.

 

[evilalien]

I did not know that. But do they also take 30% off from DLC, micro-transactions, etc.?

Click to shrink...

Yes, they do.

 

[Protome]

Epic just blatantly lying to their fans isn't surprising at this point I guess.

 

[GearDraxon]

Not going to lie, it's always entertaining to see someone enter a thread with a caps-laden diatribe, only to admit they don't have any idea about the situation in question.

 

[Orb]

Apple can be secure by allowing sideloading the same way Google does and the same way Microsoft does with Windows apps: by making it a setting the user can turn on or off. Their maintence of security should extend to the App Store, APIs app developers use, Touch/FaceID, and Apple Pay. If the end user decides to skirt some of that to download apps directly from companies, so be it.

Even if it's something as simple as only allowing the sideloading of apps from individuals with registered developer accounts so Bob down the street can't just go and make IPAs to toss online every three minutes, so be it.

Click to shrink...

It's just not that easy. Apple still supports the platform, and they would still have to if sideloading was allowed. "Sorry, you installed an unsupported app and we can't help you" is not an experience that people have come to expect from buying an iPhone. It wouldn't be acceptable to users and it wouldn't be a good look for Apple.

 

[MinerArcaniner]

Sure is nice seeing Epic's martyrdom complex get dragged in most of the replies to the tweet.

I don't like Apple either, but Tim and Co's "fight the power" schtick is insufferable.

 

[Sean Mirrsen]

If the end user decides to skirt some of that to download apps directly from companies, so be it.

Click to shrink...

And that's the thing. Apple sees that as a breach of trust. They want it to be so that if you stay in the ecosystem, then wherever you go you have the same standards of security. So that an iPhone is always an iPhone. People value that kind of consistency.

Asking for side-loads would be like asking GOG to sell your game with DRM "as an exception". Their entire thing is games without DRM, what makes your game so special that they should be willing to go against the core idea of their platform for it?

I totally agree that Epic shouldn't have circumvented the store rules. It was not the way to do it.

However, if the only way to sell your products is in super market A, and this market was abusing the fee they charge you because they know that if they don't sell your product, you don't sell them at all, then that is wrong.

It's not about the fees and the rules. Of course there's gonna be both of them anywhere and in any business. I think it's the abuse of power Apple has over the market. This applies to everyone that abuses their power, not only Apple. There's need to be a balance to benefit both parties, not just one.

Click to shrink...

See, you would have been right in that argument, had it not been for one tiny detail. "Abusing the fee" only happens when the fee is higher than you can get elsewhere. And, well, barring the occasional rebellious startup on some other platform, the fee is the same. For everyone. Everywhere. It's called "industry standard" for a reason. Apple are not abusing power or setting the standard, they're just complying with it like everyone else. They have no reason to change it.

 

[newmoneytrash]

still playing victim role.

Click to shrink...

i don't think you should be allowed to make threads on this topic anymore

 

[Sean Mirrsen]

i don't think you should be allowed to make threads on this topic anymore

Click to shrink...

Why? He(?) is right. They are playing victim. They kicked the bull, got kicked in return, and are trying to sue the bull for damages.

 

[Deleted member 198]

i don't think you should be allowed to make threads on this topic anymore

Click to shrink...

???

 

[TheMadTitan]

It's just not that easy. Apple still supports the platform, and they would still have to if sideloading was allowed. "Sorry, you installed an unsupported app and we can't help you" is not an experience that people have come to expect from buying an iPhone. It wouldn't be acceptable to users and it wouldn't be a good look for Apple.

Click to shrink...

No one said anything about Apple not helping people. they can help them the same way they always do, but telling people to factory reset or update to the latest version. They don't need to have an app in their software store for their product for them to diagnose any issues. Likewise if someone just got a virus on their phone from general web browsing. They're not going to deny someone if they got a virus for going to microsoft.com instead of apple.com.

And that's the thing. Apple sees that as a breach of trust. They want it to be so that if you stay in the ecosystem, then wherever you go you have the same standards of security. So that an iPhone is always an iPhone. People value that kind of consistency.

Asking for side-loads would be like asking GOG to sell your game with DRM "as an exception". Their entire thing is games without DRM, what makes your game so special that they should be willing to go against the core idea of their platform for it?


See, you would have been right in that argument, had it not been for one tiny detail. "Abusing the fee" only happens when the fee is higher than you can get elsewhere. And, well, barring the occasional rebellious startup on some other platform, the fee is the same. For everyone. Everywhere. It's called "industry standard" for a reason. Apple are not abusing power or setting the standard, they're just complying with it like everyone else. They have no reason to change it.

Click to shrink...

I don't see the GOG argument as being sound, since GOG is not the platform, Windows and Linux are. Several of the games sold on GOG can be found on Steam, Origin, or directly from the publishers themselves. Regardless of which storefront you buy them from, those games will run on Windows.

If GOG told a developer they couldn't have a game on their store because it has DRM, that's not going to impact that developer's ability to get their game in the hands of Windows or Linux users.

 

[Mentalist]

Why? He(?) is right. They are playing victim. They kicked the bull, got kicked in return, and are trying to sue the bull for damages.

Click to shrink...

This is the exact same BS "crusade" rhetoric we've been hearing from E[pic about Steam since the inception of EGS.

With very few exceptions due to more generous regional pricing, we're yet to see any benefits from this wonderful "competition" that Epic created.

Last year it was the "Valve Tax". Now it's the "Apple Tax". *shrug*

Epic's legal argument is novel and interesting. If they carry the day, that'll have the potential to upend the entire digital distribution space. Which is why I doubt it'll happen.

Meanwhile, everytime Sweeney tries to play crusader, he should have his BS pointed out.

 

[dex3108]

i don't think you should be allowed to make threads on this topic anymore

Click to shrink...

There is literally legal document (court order regarding TRO) that says that it's Epic fault why Fortnite is removed from the AppStore.

 

[Absolute]

i don't think you should be allowed to make threads on this topic anymore

Click to shrink...

How would you paint it?

 

[Armaros]

i don't think you should be allowed to make threads on this topic anymore

Click to shrink...

Hmm thats odd considering the judge in the case literally told Epic, whats happening to Fortnite is Epic's own doing. So i guess you think the judge shouldn't be part of the case anymore?

 

[Joseph Joestar]

Apple also has a killswitch which would delete the App from your phone as far as I know.

 

[Sean Mirrsen]

I don't see the GOG argument as being sound, since GOG is not the platform, Windows and Linux are. Several of the games sold on GOG can be found on Steam, Origin, or directly from the publishers themselves. Regardless of which storefront you buy them from, those games will run on Windows.

If GOG told a developer they couldn't have a game on their store because it has DRM, that's not going to impact that developer's ability to get their game in the hands of Windows or Linux users.

Click to shrink...

It wasn't an argument, it was a comparative simile. GOG created their storefront, and they decided what its direction will be. Apple created their platform, and decided what its direction will be. Apple will no more bend its policy of "controlled and secure environment at any cost", than GOG will bend its "No DRM" policy. GOG is a storefront, one of many, so if they don't let someone in it's no big deal. Apple is also just one of the platforms, and they can also deny someone access. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smartphones. But they made their own smartphones, and they made their own platform that includes them. If you object to Apple's approach to side-loading, you're free to choose a different smartphone, and a different platform. That's how it works.

This is the exact same BS "crusade" rhetoric we've been hearing from E[pic about Steam since the inception of EGS.

With very few exceptions due to more generous regional pricing, we're yet to see any benefits from this wonderful "competition" that Epic created.

Last year it was the "Valve Tax". Now it's the "Apple Tax". *shrug*

Epic's legal argument is novel and interesting. If they carry the day, that'll have the potential to upend the entire digital distribution space. Which is why I doubt it'll happen.

Meanwhile, everytime Sweeney tries to play crusader, he should have his BS pointed out.

Click to shrink...

I... am not sure what side of the argument you're on. Either you're not parsing my statement correctly, or I'm not parsing yours. Are you confused as to the meaning of "playing victim"?

 

[JoJoBae]

There is literally legal document (court order regarding TRO) that says that it's Epic fault why Fortnite is removed from the AppStore.

Click to shrink...

This. The judge even straight up asked why they don't comply until the court case finishes since they're just damaging themselves at the moment.

Made me glad that the people in power aren't as dumb as us lot.

 

[TheMadTitan]

It wasn't an argument, it was a comparative simile. GOG created their storefront, and they decided what its direction will be. Apple created their platform, and decided what its direction will be. Apple will no more bend its policy of "controlled and secure environment at any cost", than GOG will bend its "No DRM" policy. GOG is a storefront, one of many, so if they don't let someone in it's no big deal. Apple is also just one of the platforms, and they can also deny someone access. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smartphones. But they made their own smartphones, and they made their own platform that includes them. If you object to Apple's approach to side-loading, you're free to choose a different smartphone, and a different platform. That's how it works.

Click to shrink...

Except that people can already sideload on iOS. People have been sideloading jailbreak free for years by exploiting Apple developer accounts; this is how millions of people currently use emulators on their iPhones and iPads, for example. Apple's security isn't harmed by this, and wouldn't be harmed by a permanent sideload, either.

Apple wanting to secure its stuff and keep certain apps off of its store or keep apps off that don't follow specific rules shouldn't apply to users seeking this stuff out on their own, especially when Apple's other hardware/software blend already allows users to do this.

It's not a question of whether or not Apple has a monopoly on smart devices, but whether or not they're hampering the types of software that can run on the device, and in turn, hampering how productive people can be on devices that are pretty damn close to replacing the small, albeit significantly bigger computer I'm typing this message on.

Fortnite downloaded from Epic.com and Fortnite downloaded from Apple's App Store simultaneously existing will not harm Apple or its ecosystem.

 

[Mentalist]

It wasn't an argument, it was a comparative simile. GOG created their storefront, and they decided what its direction will be. Apple created their platform, and decided what its direction will be. Apple will no more bend its policy of "controlled and secure environment at any cost", than GOG will bend its "No DRM" policy. GOG is a storefront, one of many, so if they don't let someone in it's no big deal. Apple is also just one of the platforms, and they can also deny someone access. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smartphones. But they made their own smartphones, and they made their own platform that includes them. If you object to Apple's approach to side-loading, you're free to choose a different smartphone, and a different platform. That's how it works.



I... am not sure what side of the argument you're on. Either you're not parsing my statement correctly, or I'm not parsing yours. Are you confused as to the meaning of "playing victim"?

Click to shrink...

If it wasn't clear, I'm agreeing with you.

Sorry, that may have been awkwardly worded in the context of the quote.

 

[GrrImAFridge]

Steam is a whole lot more than just a launcher. If tim thinks that is all steam is than it also explains how they are building EGS, since that platform is so devoid of customer and developer features its no surprise they can cut their cut so low. Steam on the other hand provides a whole suite of tools for both developers and customers for their cut.

Click to shrink...

Not to mention Valve has invested heavily in tangential areas such as Linux and VR, so if console manufacturers are justified in asking 70% because they have platform-related R&D to recoup, then so too is Valve.

That said, I do think 70/30 is something of a relic and doesn't need to be that high to maintain the operational status quo, and seeing as Valve in particular has hosted numerous Steam dev roundtables since the launch of EGS, I suspect it'll cave on this eventually. But whatever the golden ratio is, it's certainly not 88/12, as evidenced by the fact Epic forces users in certain regions to cover payment processing fees.

 

[Sheng Long]

I am still trying to figure out why Epic is doing it. They have to have known what was going to happen, and that they won't win this way. I feel like there's something we don't know.

 

[MarioW]

I totally agree that Epic shouldn't have circumvented the store rules. It was not the way to do it.

However, if the only way to sell your products is in super market A, and this market was abusing the fee they charge you because they know that if they don't sell your product, you don't sell them at all, then that is wrong.

Click to shrink...

But Fortnite is also available on PS4, Xbox One, PC, Mac, Switch, and Android...

 

[Smash Kirby]

While weaponizing children is shitty, no one has yet to provide me an actual compelling reason why Apple allowing permanent sideloading is going to somehow cripple the entirely of iOS to the point where it's a bad thing that Epic gets the option of directing its users to download an ipa directly from them if they want cheaper MTX prices at the expense of uniform payment convenience should they not use the App Store version.

Click to shrink...

Where Epic is coming from is that they want Epic to promote the Epic app store and support it security wise.

 

[Einbroch]

Wouldn't a better solution have been to go to Apple and Google with a bunch of other companies and say "look, we think you should lower it to Y% or we're all going to raise our prices by X%, which in turn will mean less subscriptions through your platform" and try to work out a deal?

 

[TheGift]

Why didn't epic do the same thing on console I wonder? They dropped prices on consoles as well, so are they just eating the cost there? Does anyone know if console or mobile is more profitable for them?

 

[JoJoBae]

Wouldn't a better solution have been to go to Apple and Google with a bunch of other companies and say "look, we think you should lower it to Y% or we're all going to raise our prices by X%, which in turn will mean less subscriptions through your platform" and try to work out a deal?

Click to shrink...

It would have, for sure. But then they couldn't have weaponized their fanbase and (fail completely to) get the courts to give them a pity judgement. They aren't gonna back down now even though it's actively blowing up in their faces.

 

[Armaros]

Where Epic is coming from is that they want Epic to promote the Epic app store and support it security wise.

Click to shrink...

And apple's argument is that Epic has proven they cannot be counted on for security when Epic themselves opened their users to mass hacks due to a security vulnerability from a fortnite update.

 

[Rob]

But Fortnite is also available on PS4, Xbox One, PC, Mac, Switch, and Android...

Click to shrink...

Not Android. Google pulled the game shortly after Apple did.

Why didn't epic do the same thing on console I wonder? They dropped prices on consoles as well, so are they just eating the cost there? Does anyone know if console or mobile is more profitable for them?

Click to shrink...

I wager it's because Sony has a stake in Epic now and Microsoft has been doing business with them for quite a while now.

 

[Carbon]

Not Android. Google pulled the game shortly after Apple did.

Click to shrink...

You can still side-load Fortnight on an Android phone. You probably have to delete the Google Play version and redownload the APK, but otherwise they're back to where they were before they finally acquiesced to Google's 30% cut.

 

[phant0m]

Can't overstate how poorly this will end for Epic. They're very lucky that they didn't get UE banned too.

I am still trying to figure out why Epic is doing it. They have to have known what was going to happen, and that they won't win this way. I feel like there's something we don't know.

Click to shrink...

Public pressure can be very persuasive as we've shown in recent years. Unfortunately for Epic, Fortnite being unavailable is not going to win hearts & minds in the realms of social justice and media coverage. No one cares if little Timmy can't play his video game on the iPad. Well, he might for a minute but then just play one of the other 4,318 games available on the platform instead.

 

[MattEnth]

Didn't they lower the price from $9.99 to $7.99, which is 20% discount, while Apple takes a 30% cut? So, in the end, they profit even more and pretend they're passing the savings to the players? It's ridiculous.

Click to shrink...

You're getting something for $8 that previosuly cost you $10.

So yeah, that $2 is passed directly to the consumer.

 

[Carbon]

Wouldn't a better solution have been to go to Apple and Google with a bunch of other companies and say "look, we think you should lower it to Y% or we're all going to raise our prices by X%, which in turn will mean less subscriptions through your platform" and try to work out a deal?

Click to shrink...

Epic has literally zero power in that scenario. They might be a big player in the gaming, but among all app spending on the App Store, they're probably a fraction of a percent of what Apple makes from that 30% cut. Fortnight could completely and permanently disappear from the app store, and Apple would just go "oh well, can we interest you in Apple Arcade?".

I have no love loss for Epic, their hypocritical business tactics or Sweeney often playing the victim. But unfortunately there are few big enough to affect change on this level, because our system is so amazingly, incredibly broken. And as much as I dislike them, if Epic can bring about some change, reigning in Apple's and Google's complete and unassailable control in the mobile space, I'm for it.

 

[Pororoka]

 

[P-Tux7]

Seeing that hashtag actually makes me sick...

Click to shrink...

Still not as bad as "1984-tnite". A corporation is using a book written by a democratic socialist to insult another corporation. No satirist could predict this because they are beholden to be "realistic". Corporations' greed, however, is not.

 

[MissCauthon]

I imagine they will be giving away LESS free games on their platform if this ends up eating revenu for them.. no?

 

[MajesticSoup]

I think Epic shouldve waited on making their move. Spotify and Rakuten is making the same complaint with music and ebooks. If the EU sides with spotify and rakuten, then they would side with epic. The US isnt obligated to follow sure, but not doing so would just make it obvious that their protecting Apple and Google because theyre american.

 

[TheMadTitan]

Where Epic is coming from is that they want Epic to promote the Epic app store and support it security wise.

Click to shrink...

And if they're given the ability to tap into all of the same code/kernel/API/bullshit Apple and other apps can harness via being on the App Store -- something that should just be a given considering that in this scenario, it would be software specific for iOS -- I don't see an issue. Not like Epic isn't already on the hook for security just because Fortnite is accessible via app stores as it is.

 

[danm999]

Just take the payment system out and you're back on. Apple and the judge reviewing the TRO have said this.

Then, you can continue your litigation that the 30% is unfair. Can't see why it's unreasonable that both parties have to hold to their pre-existing agreement whilst the legality of that agreement is being decided.

 

[Le Dude]

IDK if such a thing would ever happen, but I would love for the judge to tell Epic to purge any mention of their "Free Fortnite" campaign and to stop telling consumers that it's Apple's fault Fortnite isn't available on iOS.

 

[Negotiator117]

I don't get why some hate Apple so much. It's weird.

Click to shrink...

Way overpriced phone's? Basically anything they have control over they overcharge for or is woefully overpriced.

 

[dex3108]

Way overpriced phone's? Basically anything they have control over they overcharge for or is woefully overpriced.

Click to shrink...

As long as people are ready to pay for it it is not expensive. Epic (and tons of other game publishers) is literally selling digital currency that has no value for real money, if we will look things that way.

 

[Wing Scarab]

Looking at the comments, I have a feeling the public ain't on Epic's side

Click to shrink...

It's just a Resetera thing. Majority of people I know including myself are with Epic. Remember to majority of people on here Apple is their little darling and can do no wrong just like Sony.

As long as people are ready to pay for it it is not expensive. Epic (and tons of other game publishers) is literally selling digital currency that has no value for real money, if we will look things that way.

Click to shrink...

Just because people are willing to pay for it doesn't mean it's not overpriced. What kind of logic is that?

 

[TheZjman]

I am still trying to figure out why Epic is doing it. They have to have known what was going to happen, and that they won't win this way. I feel like there's something we don't know.

Click to shrink...

All they care about is getting Epic Games Store on iOS. That's the whole reason for this, because they don't want to pay 30% to Apple and like they've done on PC, they want to take customers away etc.