I'm confused. Why doesn't Apple just use their "Termination for Convenience" clause that lets them terminate any contract with a 30 day notice?
(2) I've said this before and it's important to understand this: just because a contract says Apple can do something (terminate the contract with Unreal Engine), that does not mean they can do it. If that were the case, the entire field of Contract Law need not exist.
Collective bargaining.
I’m surprised (not really) that people are defending Epic but would never defend King (Candy Crush) or the makers of FarmVille.
I would much rather see BaseCamp (Hey) or the company that was selling virtual workouts with real trainers take them to court. If Apple was really about protecting users and cared about the quality of the App Store they would prohibit in app purchases for games with consumables.
I wouldn’t, because they’d be crushed. I’d rather that if someone takes Apple to court, it’s someone with the resources to make a dent.
> I’m surprised (not really) that people are defending Epic but would never defend King (Candy Crush) or the makers of FarmVille.
Even if you think they’re equivalent, the difference is the former is taking an action that—even if for selfish reasons—can have a positive impact on independent developers.
Epic “we want to sell useless virtual goods with 0 marginal cost” or
BaseCamp - “we run a small business, pay our employees well, always sought to be profitable instead of VC funding, etc.”
Everybody eats up the small business angle. Besides DHH is a lot less slimy than anyone who Epic parades out.
If they started a GoFundMe, I would donate to their legal defense. What Epic wants will probably never happen. What BaseCamp wants - just basically to be treated like Netflix and the other “reader apps” is much more realistic and it’s fair to the actual indy developers of cross platform useful apps who could do their own marketing.
Basecamp’s story is irrelevant if they’re forced into bankruptcy before they get the chance to tell it where it makes a difference.
We’re not watching a feel good movie where the righteous little guy prevails. They’d get squashed and tossed aside, and they know it.
What jury is going to care that Epic can’t sell useless virtual currency and make a larger profit?
Only geeks care about “openness”, ordinary people don’t have a problem with any app that Apple is blocking besides probably MS’s streaming game system.
Epic itself released a buggy installer that caused a security vulnerability. Do you really want them to be the poster child?
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/08/fortnites-android-vu...
Out of all the problems that the App Store has. There are other options that would be better for the average consumer and better for the developer.
1. 30% is way too high for any service or app that has marginal cost. If Apple is going to force in app payments as option for those types of apps, it should allow Apple Pay (standard credit card processing fees $0.30 per transaction + 2-3%)
2. Any productivity app should be allowed to have the same “reader app” exemption.
3. I would be okay if any app that has out of store payments not showing up in the store unless the user specifically searches for it by name or navigates via an external link. That means Apple had nothing to do with app discovery.
4. Non game apps that are subscription based start off at 15%
5. Allow upgrade pricing.
6. Allow a scaling percentage. The more you bring Apple, the less of a percentage you take.
7. Any game that only has a one time in app purchase to unlock the game from demo to full version should be able to pay a lower percentage. This is what Apple should be encouraging.
Mix and match any of these suggestions. They are more fair to developers.
Although I was working on a small Swift game to refresh my mobile app dev skills, but it's on the backburner right now anyway.
HTML5 and WASM —and since you will need one for testing anyway, a Pixel 5/4a, S20 Ultra or Note S20 could be fun for learning Android.
As those of us who target iOS know, they're not transparent, but it's not arbitrary. Thank god. We'd never hear the end of unsolicited opinions about the Touch Bar and HN's annual subscription to the year of desktop Linux.
You can see their calculating ways if you look carefully —can’t have too many fart apps you know, too many fart apps are bad for the user. Nevermind if you have the best fart app ever —you can’t even load it on your friends’ phones or show it to the guy deciding whether or not to give you a scholarship because, you know, a prick in Cupertino who has his own reality that’s pretty far removed from the rest if the world thinks that too many fart apps are an unpleasant experience for all one billion potential fart app users.
Yea silly, but the type of app doesn’t matter when considering questions of “arbitrary” consideration.
Then why does Amazon get a special deal?
No, they justify ruining some developers based on some criteria that they then justify with the logic that (a) the developer wouldn’t have had any money if it weren’t for Apple to begin with and (b) they “care so deeply” for the Apple “users” that they can’t allow the developer’s life work (or livelihood) to exist and make any kind of unpleasantness available for consumers to choose.