Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account
macrumors.com
macrumors.com
The idea here is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do. Remember that every post you make has a non-negligible impact on the community. If we all treat this place like the discussion forum we'd like to have, eventually we'll have it.
HN is, hopefully, better than most places on the internet as there are lots of people willing to decide each issue on its merits, and also recalibrate their positions continually in the light of events,
> The idea here is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do. "Boo $BigCo", "yay $BigCo" fan-v.-antifan cage matches are not curious conversation. We want curious conversation.
If you really desire that, then please consider making some fundamental changes to how HN voting and auto-moderation works.
I just saw a comment pop up and get downvoted into the gray WHILE IT WAS STILL AT "0 minutes ago": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24314105
Currently, every HN mechanism seems designed to make these "conversations" one-sided, where $SideA just gets to pile on $SideB with abandon and all $SideB can do is watch:
• Any user that piles on $PitchforkTarget gets tens of upvotes.
• Any comment that does not pile on $PitchforkTarget gets downvoted, no matter how substantive or thoughtful it is.
• It’s not enough to just not support $PitchforkTarget; simply remaining neutral is enough to get downvoted.
• A few downvotes in a row makes you unable to post anything anywhere on HN for several hours.
All this comes together to say: “When there’s a mob against $PitchforkTarget, join it or stay out of it.”
HN does not allow the "wrong" side a chance to be heard, and punishes users for having the "incorrect" opinion. I am literally afraid to post anything by now on such topics.
This is NOT a conversation, this is an echo chamber.
Did Sweeney anticipate Apple's threat to Unreal Engine? Maybe, maybe not. But the temporary restraining order did block that threat, at least for now.
I don't think Epic ever intended to release the new Fortnite season on Apple platforms.
This is a long play, not a short play. In the short term, Epic loses money by not having Fortnite on Apple devices. But in the long term, it's much better for Epic to break Apple's App Store monopoly.
If Stripe can claim Wells Fargo doesn't want to process porn payments, and that's legal, how can an American court rule for Epic?
Epic are obviously going to lose, and lose hard, or set a precedent that's going to screw every payment provider in America and open a flood gate for fraudulent payments.
You can't force someone to sell something they don't want to, especially because Apple is nowhere near a monopoly in games or gaming sales, they can just point at steam.
If somehow the American courts arrive at that judgement, and I am a non-lawyer, I put my hands up, but surely it's going to set all sorts of nasty precedents?
Edit: The more I think about it the more absurd this is. It's as if some random brand of Mayo is suing Wallmart for not stocking their brand on their shelves.
There is absolutely no way they can win this, unless American courts are going to start allowing "mom & pop" random ketchup brand to force Wallmart to stock it on their shelves. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on phones, it doesn't have a monopoly on games, it's got a store front you can buy stuff from, and if you don't want to play by their rules, then bye-bye. Wallmart choose their suppliers, and sets the markup, why can't Apple?
In any case, App Store is the only store in town, where the "town" is the 1.5 billion iOS users. If there's only 1 store, with no competing stores, that's an entirely different situation legally.
But, at the end of the day, Walmart can't prevent customers from proceeding to Kroger down the street to get the products or deals they want. That's the market regulator of last resort in most circumstances.
You say "Apple doesn't have a monopoly on phones or games". In the broad view, you may be right, but they've spent significant effort in creating a closed ecosystem with non-trivial switching costs, inside of which they DO have complete gatekeeping power. They may not have a full "prevent the customers from going to Kroger" power, but they can basically say "here's a several hundred dollar toll to leave our store, and BTW, we won't let you back in for anything else we sell", which is a pretty high barrier. Is the only available counterweight for their behaviour "drop everything and buy a new $500 phone to express your discontent?"
Google gets out of this with their hands much cleaner-- they can retreat to "Well, you can sideload apps". Epic proved they can make that a viable business that way on Android. But iOS offers nothing resembling that without asking consumers to jailbreak their devices, which is probably beyond reasonable accommodation.
I'm sort of amazed they're so desperate to cling to the no-sideload mentality. Offering sideloading with a lot of big angry red warnings immediately defuses the vast majority of anti-competition complaints, while still being scary enough that most name-brand software isn't going to immediately drop off the App Store. I'd also think it presents a welcoming option for some hobby developers, where even the $100 annual developer fees are prohibitive, until they can show there's enough of a business there to justify going to the real App Store.
The case is going to not about that. The case is going to be about Apple not allowing developers to tell their users that they can buy subscriptions and in-app goods for cheaper through alternative payment mechanisms where Apple cannot take a cut. Payments is what is this is about (also see the FB release today).
Apple doesn't have to sell anything it doesn't want to but what it's doing is also preventing apps from telling users where they can buy these goods outside of Apple store unless Apple is offered a cut.
This behavior has a high chance of failing on anti-trust if it goes to a jury trial which is what Epic is trying to force (and likely others like Facebook will join or also sue) because Apple store is the only way people can install apps on iOS.
You can't distribute or sell mobile apps to a large percentage of the US public without going through Apple, and they should definitely not be allowed to prevent anyone from doing that (for reasonable terms, which means no 30% tax).
The fact that this is even a discussion is pretty ridiculous: if Apple were a person, their behavior would lead them to be ostracized from all communities and have no friends.
If it's not illegal, the law needs to be changed.
Apple and Google are the only major phone OS's. If they control what you can install on your phone, they have a monopoly.
> Wallmart choose their suppliers, and sets the markup, why can't Apple?
You're really comparing setting up a physical store to building world class operating system and phones? Almost anyone can set up shop and start selling things that Walmart isn't, or from suppliers who won't deal with Walmart, but it's not how tech worms. You're living in a different reality.
Is this tying? We don't know. It's not a form of tying that's come up before. That doesn't mean it's not tying. Antitrust law is very general. This case is taking a different path than most antitrust cases. The plaintiff is asking for an injunction. It's not about money damages. It's going to be very interesting.
Tying in general is insisting that customers buy thing B, which they don't want, to get thing A, which they do want. The term "B picture" in movies comes from such an arrangement. Exhibitors had to run B pictures to get A pictures. That was knocked down by a lawsuit from Syufy, who went on to build dome-shaped theaters in Silicon Valley such as the ones near Google HQ. At one time the film studios owned many of their own theaters, which is why you see big old theaters named Warner, Paramount, or Fox. That was ended by an antitrust decision.
Tying cases are rare. You can look them up.[1] They come in many shapes and sizes. Examples of tying include trailer park operators requiring new land lessors to purchase a new trailer from them, similar cases involving marina boat slips and boat maintenance, Visa requiring merchants accepting their credit card to also accept their debit card, telcos requiring or deceptively inducing customers to pay for inside wire maintenance, and the one people here may remember, Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows.
It is definitely, as the judge said, not a slam dunk for either side.
[1] http://app3.naag.org/antitrust/search/advSearchCivil.php
I think this depends on the basis of the rejection. If you can prove that they are not selling because of discrimination then you can force them. The question how can you prove it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
I think what Epic wants to see gone is Apple's condition that IAP sold on the AppStore should be priced the same on any other outlets (e.g. websites, Play store, etc...). And I can see a judge agreeing this is unfair of Apple to ask.
As for me, I mostly like the idea of the AppStore. As a consumer I feel more confident downloading software from the AppStore as compared to e.g. the Play store. What I don't like about the AppStore is that discovery of new products is very hard. And there also doesn't seem to be an easy way to look for apps that are ad-free or that becomes ad-free by paying a 1 time IAP fee.
Just going to comment on this part.
Supreme court decisions has a long history of making very narrow decisions, and in that question there is a clear out that they could use. The precedent can be that apple can refuse epic if it is in order to prevent fraudulent payments, but not in order to enforce a 30% tax in an online market place. That would narrow the decision down and allow payment providers to operate like they do now, but not apple. It would also not force wallmart to stock "mom & pop" random ketchup brand, because it would not be a online market and the purpose would not be to enforce a 30% tax.
Courts have a lot of room to narrow decisions down based on intent, on circumstances, and even the outcome on the specific market as a whole.
1. Stripe is a minor player overall. Lots of other credit card processors
2. Stripe is not preventing you from collecting payments from your customers. You can use a different payment processors.
It's definitely the first step of a fight. It's hard to know what the end game is for Epic, but there's several possibilities I can think of: - moving towards gettibg their own app store, they did this move on computers already. Apple and google start to get under scrutiny for their monoply. - being on one platforn using their games to bargain the 30% cut on android (android is bigger user base than iphone and users who mainly play there game can change phone). Now that apple did the move of removing all epic games, it makes this bargain more interesting. I know that Epic sued Google as well but but it can always be settled or dropped.
Users have always been (and still are) subject to all kind of fraudulent. It is about the freedom to do whatever you want with your computing device. The idea that Apple has an absolute control of what goes in into their mobile devices, and that they can claim whatever policies they see fit scares me.
Neither apple nor anyone should have this control.
That's the best I can come up with. Personally I won't run an iPhone.
Yes it is, but they would have a point.
It's unlikely, but In an EU court, it's a different kettle of fish. Maybe Epic's play for a favourable ruling in Spotify Vs Apple in the EU?
Our current definition simply was not made with digital in mind.
If I can buy in-app content in an iOS browser, why can't I buy it inside the app? (Because some app makers have decided they would rather make it unavailable inside an app than pay the Apple tax.)
This is fundamentally consumer-hostile behaviour.
Of course Apple will argue it has to vet apps and in-app content.
And then all a lawyer has to do is point to the various exploits and it's game over for that argument.
Unless they are counting on the judge actually forcing a store to sell Epic's products, which would be a very scary precedent!
I keep seeing seeing assessments in this vein but they can't really be right - the courts would have to be toddler-level naive not to see through it. They aren't - here's Judge Rogers addressing Epic at the recent hearing (as reported by Sarah Jeong):
"To Epic: Your client created this situation. Your client does not come to this action with clean hands ..... in my view, you cannot have irreparable harm when you create the harm yourself."
I'm very confident the old Steve Jobs emails from the eBooks anti-trust case will also be brought into the trial to argue anti-trust is in Apple's DNA.
That's also the reason for that silly 1984 ad parody, so they can bring Apple's original 1984 ad into the trial and make an argument of hypocrisy in front of the Jury - once they were plucky upstarts but now as the most valuable company, they're vampire like etc.
Other vendors are also at this same time taking the opportunity to test Apple store rules limitations - either for Epic to be able to add those additional arguments to their own case OR possibly for them to get standing to join the suit - look at the PR yesterday around Facebook donations to creators hurt by Covid being blocked by Apple store rules.
In this situation, there's very little role the judiciary can play except move the process along. It's going to be a fun battle to watch.
The judge won’t let this influence the decision on not extending the injunction to the Epic Games contract with Apple because of an earlier point, which is that two separate contracts exist. It’s interesting that this has been addressed with this flimsy follow-up argument.
Obviously the court shouldn’t let this influence their decision because it was a calculated move, and it’s assumed that Epic is fine with the harm it causes them to make a point. Nonetheless it’s causing them financial harm, which may in the long term be irreparable if in the meantime their player base on iOS shifts to different games.
So all in all, it is a calculated risk but irreparable harm is indeed one possible outcome. Whether Apple takes any responsibility in this depends on how the court decides in the case however. Even if their behaviour is judged as uncompetitive, that may not automatically mean that they’re at all at fault here.
If Apple had simply removed Fortnite and stopped there, they'd be in a better position legally, and in terms of PR.
Will they though? For all the players who already had the app they still have access to Epic's payment system meaning they're making 20% more on those transactions. I'm not sure that new user purchases will be > 20% they make in the short term from those existing users.
Part of the calculus must have been that Fortnite was stable enough, especially from a low-level and netcode perspective, that it could do without needing App Store updates to remain cross-play compatible in the medium-term.
Plus no new customers on iOS.
Those customers will no longer be able to download Fortnite.
[1] https://9to5mac.com/2019/02/08/four-year-smartphone-upgrades...
Ideally, the sooner people realize and escape from Apple's tyranny the better.
Epic probably doesn't care much about Apple platforms.
80% of Fortnite players are on console. I doubt macOS accounts for more than 1-2%.
https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/newzoos-battle-royale-s...
The iPhone is merely another console. Really hard for me to see why this is controversial, or why Epic thinks that Apple can have a monopoly over their console while somehow Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo don’t...
Courts almost never evaluate specific cases based on broader patterns of behaviour... they are always narrowly focused on specific issues.
This might help in the media/social media debate, but I doubt it helps much in court. The bigger piece Epic bites off the harder their battle will be.
Apple is proving that they are.
Ultimately, I think lawmakers are going to have to be the ones to address this, and it's disappointing they don't seem particularly interested in investigating Apple's app store practices
Meanwhile, https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/24/apple-stock-500/
Unity is also making a play on this, portraying the Unreal Engine as an unreliable choice because of Epic's erratic actions, and in their court filing Epic themselves complained about people leaving them in droves.
(Incidentally, when I try to Google "Epic says people leaving in droves" all the results are about millennials leaving cities.)
I think Epic doesn't care much about losing iOS and MacOS. Epic wants to bring public attention to the issue and reiterate the idea that Apple is against the gamer community but Epic is fighting for them.
In either case Epic wins. They wouldn't have gotten into this otherwise.
> The court recommended that Epic follow the App Store’s guidelines and policies while the case is in progress – the rules they followed over the past ten years until they created the current situation themselves. Epic refused.
Well duh, this is a show match court fight of Epic Games not liking the rules and not getting the special treatment they want. No matter what opinion one holds on mobile store rules, they are their rules and so far you have the choice of following them (which is also somewhat iffy) or not being on the store.
The whole goal of two post-capitalism enterprises having a fit is for one or more of them to make more money. The whole "it is good for consumers" or "good for developers" is just sprinkles and marketing to appeal to the public. Separate the issues and angles and see it for what it is: just a bunch of legal departments having a fight.
A valid opinion is that those rules are illegal under current federal statue. Another one is that although they currently aren't, they should be.
> Separate the issues and angles and see it for what it is: just a bunch of legal departments having a fight.
Yes, but the only reason they get to adjudicate it in tax payer funded courts is precisely _because_ the decision will have a major impact on consumers and developers as as whole.
It's a surprise because typically these departments have a much larger incentive to settle, and not to create new case law. It's giant news because of the potential impact to many individuals and to the industry as a whole.
They are not asking for special treatment.
They are asking for the courts to curtail Apple's absolute power over how applications can be installed on an operating system designed for general computing.
That would be a game changer for the entire developer ecosystem.
Whether that's good or bad is another debate, but the industry-shifting impact it could have is undeniable.
your cynical take is often very true but there are sometimes real human ideals behind things.
Epic could have taken the matter directly to the courts and taken action (whatever it was) after a verdict. Heck, they could even have tried to make a case to the European Union, which seems to have a knack for pursuing this kind of thing. A ruling over there wouldn't directly impact the rest of the world, but it could get the ball rolling.
Instead, they decided to make a spectacle of this whole issue to try to rally customers to their cause. For that, I have no sympathy. Customers are being used as cannon fodder here. And it's not by Apple.
I agree that the App store cut is too high. But this is not the way to go about things.
At the expense of the users, in both the figurative and the literal sense of the word.
I don't think they want special treatment. I think they want the rules to change.
Is it not a valid response to Apple finding a violation to just say: "OK, then we just won't try to put it back up"?
this is pretty dismissive considering Apple is messing with every developers on their platform and their known not to give special treatment.
I'm stepping out on a limb and saying Apple is going to end up settling with Epic so they don't have to host competing App Stores.
I don't think this means I shouldn't vehemently support companies when their policy advances my interests.
An upvote didn’t seem like enough, that is a devastatingly accurate appraisal IMO
Case in point; Tinder, Microsoft, Facebook, Spotify have all openly backed Epic and started to call attention to features that are impacted by this 30% fee. Status quo isn't going to cut it, and it would be in Apple's best interest to make a small concession to look like they're not so evil.
I can't quite have the resources to sue Apple by myself as a small user being prevented from using the device I have paid for the way I see fit. I'm very glad that EPIC is doing it on my behalf. I'm also kind of glad that Apple didn't simply cut a backroom deal with EPIC, but is instead going the full-monty on this.
Neither Tinder nor Spotify will transfer any savings to the end users.
Spotify has been ramping their sub costs considerably my sub went up by like 150% in the UK over the past 3-4 years.
Tinder employs discriminatory pricing by charging certain genders, age groups and sexual orientations more for their premium services.
How Tinder hasn’t been sued to oblivion I’m still not sure it seems to violate even US anti discrimination laws, I guess were lucky that they don’t employ differential pricing based on race yet.
That's a big IF. You will find it damn-near-impossible to have any legal standing when you willfully violate the terms of service with a provider as openly as Epic did.
Apple is fully in the right here, and as a consumer I'm glad Apple isn't messing around with their software security. What Epic did was down right sneaky, and they are (rightfully) being punished for it.
Epic started this mess, the law and legal judgements have made it very clear how they could have avoided this, and they didn't. Your feelings, personal device choices do not change facts.
Oh, it's going to be so much fun when Epic wins and Taylor Swift decides to apply the same legal reasoning to the cut she pays Spotify for her music…
I realize Apple has the right to decide who they feature but come on. Being featured is important, it’s a big deal and it can make a serious difference to any developer’s income and notoriety. The fact that Apple can just deposit something at the top of the list because they’re in a bad mood really says something about Apple: I don’t know, maybe that they’re a bit isolated and immature about this whole thing?
[1] https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Aappstore%20pubgmobile&sr...
The message that young preteens and teens are hearing is "iPhones and iPads are wack because they don't have the cool game". They don't care about the cost of v-bucks and who gets what percentage of the money. They just care that they can't play a game but their friend at school who has an Android can.
Apple has to feature PUBG because they have to show their customers that they still have cool games to play. Otherwise they run the risk of killing their iPhone gaming market just like they did the Mac gaming market. When you think desktop gaming its pretty likely that you think Windows first, because Mac has a really weak selection of games and many of the biggest titles are Windows only.
That's what Apple is now desperately trying to avoid happening to iOS as well.
"While waiting for Apple to #FreeFortnite on iOS and Mac, here’s another awesome battle royale game powered by Unreal Engine!"
https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/129941176668281651...
My point being that if PUBG is much more popular that Fortnite on iOS it would only be natural that Apple would want to promote it. I have no idea if that's the case though.
[1] https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/newzoos-battle-royale-s...
Apple is just promoting an update for a popular game, around the time it’s going to be updated.
Sorry, nothing else new to add to the topic, just venting and have absolutely no sympathy to apps tricking kids to spend money on tiny cellphone games.
My niece begged her mother to buy a roblox dress for $60, it is in a game, not a real dress. Another neighbor's kid spent over $600 for a game called soccer stars. The game is literally gambling. When I hear gaming apps with micro transactions removed I celebrate, no matter what the reason is.
I am alright with cosmetic microtransactions, but I think "loot boxes" should be relegated to rewards for play. Microtransactions should be to buy specific items... but leave loot boxes as a way to get random ones for free through normal play.
Apps have no basis to deceive children into spending money. Most of their practices are outright illegal depending on the jurisdiction (latin Europe), shouldn't have mercy on them.
What’s the alternative? I’m in love with the micro transactions model because the alternative is experience destroyed by ads or high upfront fees.
On the games I play I rarely buy anything, don’t see ads but their business is healthy and the games are fantastic and regularly updated with new content.
I casually play Asphalt 9, SimCity BuildIt and PUBG, probably have hundreds if not thousands of hours on each and spent probably less than $20 till now. If that’s not a great deal, I don’t know what is.
I also bought games like Monument Valley or Limbo and similar. While the experience is also top notch, the upfront payment feels steep and the developers don’t update the games so the play time is considerably less.
Heck, I never put in mine, I am perfectly fine with free apps that cover vast array of my usage. I don't game on the phone though. If my kids won't either, I can call it a small victory in parenting. If they will, either they earn the money themselves, receive gift (not from me that's for sure), or they will have to suffer subpar free-to-play variant of the game. Still a win.
I know, peer pressure and all that, but what happened to proper parenting and guiding children a bit through life?
The best (far-fetched) comparisons would be the inability to pick and choose TV packages from your local TV broadcast supplier. Or not having a choice on what firmware your car's infotainment system runs. Or what store you use on your Xbox/PlayStation/Nintendo. And for all of them: you can't run your own software of choice either.
While we might see a mobile phone as a collection of Application SoC, Baseband SoC, firmwares, boot loaders, OS, apps etc. the perspective of the actual markets where they sell like the hotcakes they are see it as a 'thing', a 'device'. There is no separation, no bundling and no concept of swappable components. It's the same people that see computers that way. There is no hardware + firmware + boot loader + OS + applications, it's "the computer".
By contrast, Microsoft had 95% market share during their antitrust suit. [3]
[1] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh...
[2] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-smartphone-share...
[3] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=179876183890909...
Don’t buy an ios device if you want apps from vendors who don’t play by apples rules.
I hate the 30% fee as a developer and a user.
I was an ios jail breaker before the App Store launched. I used jailbreaking after the App Store launched to have a control panel and fast app switching. All that got baked into ios but I wish new innovations could make their way to the platform with an unofficial store.
I think that would ultimately be better for consumers.
That’s long term better for Apple.
Well, I couldn't buy a computer from a major company with an alternate operating system without paying Microsoft in the 90's, so I'll say that's pretty damn abusive.
I made a free mobile game that's in both the iOS and Play store, and after I realized the $99 fee is not just a one time fee but a recurring fee to keep the app in the store, well of course I let my developer account lapse. I'm not a charity, and it's not worth it for me to pay $100/year just so friends and family can download it. So, for now only Android users can play my game. And same with all of my future free software - it will never intentionally target Apple users, ever, unless Apple changes their ways.
This option is present in Android. And you can use it at any time. Is it often that the option is used? Absolutely not, I've never even used it myself. But I still think it's great that it's available, and, if need be, I can easily install any app I want from any source, even if Google doesn't approve of such app or such source.
This is the opposite of a backhanded complement. The market for your parents is orders of magnitudes greater than the market for developers and technologists.
Not rooting for Apple, but the pretentiousness in the “I’m not a charity” part seemed far removed from the humbleness required to be unintentionally illiterate.
I did read Apple's response though and I found the argument not a compelling justification for their practices.
A big part of their response is to justify the need for the 30% as a mechanism to recoup costs. That sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize that Epic is not allowed to recoup its own costs for the higher App Store cost by increasing their product cost by 30%.
Instead it must take a loss on the product and charge the customer the same price as app stores that do not take as large a %. That makes little sense.
What are you talking about? Epic can price their product however they want. Why do you think Youtube Premium costs more on iOS than on any other platform?
My top of the line MBP died aprox 2 years after I bought it. By that time there were thousands of people with the same problem on the internet. Obviously I had to buy another Mac to keep on working.
If Apple had cared about its customers it would have taken the defective machines early on and either exchanged them for new machines, or at least offered a proportion of its retail price towards a new Mac. Apple didn't do nothing of the sorts.
It took almost 2 more years and 3-4 action class lawsuits for Apple to finally start a repair program.
By that time I could't even sell the damn thing after the repairs. I ended up giving it away to a junior dev and guess what? It died a year later of the same problem.
Do you want to see side deals with your privacy too?
Surely there are things that such app developer organisation could do to make Apple change their terms? Quick idea: motivate users to switch to Android, by adding new features there first, exclusive deals, etc.
It's very unlikely that app developers choose to forgo the AppStore since it will be driving the majority of app installs even in a completely open world for years to come. And if they do choose to forgo that distribution channel that should be seen as a very strong signal of how unhappy developers are with the current policies. So if you want to just keep doing what you've been doing and just use the AppStore not much should change, but at least now there's the possibility of competition.
If there are alternate app stores, I am sure others would make their apps exclusive there and demand you download them through these stores:
1. Facebook will want a store that allows them to build an app that has no ad or data collection restrictions. 2. Epic will want a store that allows them to directly charge for in-app purchases. 3. Google will want a store that allows them to track your location in the background regardless of your consent. 4. The New York Times will want a store where you cannot find a way to cancel your subscription.
And so on... I end up having to download 5 or 10 stores, and end up with a poor user experience.
And what do I get in return? As a consumer, I see no value for me.
I spend a small fraction of what I spend to buy my iPhone on apps per year. If their developers want to charge more to recoup their 30%, I am fine with that.
I don’t see why this is relevant. Apple runs a business. If you force it to walk away from income sources, you could just as well force any other company to do the same. So even if consumers would win, how would it justify the enforcement?
I win if I get your car. Now what?
(I’m on neither side.)
iOS is widely regarded as being the safest consumer OS in widespread usage on the market today. Much of that is because of the restrictions that apple places on developers ability to install arbitrary code on the user's device. Epic is suing for the ability to create an app store that would allow third-party developers to install arbitrary binaries on iOS devices without oversight from Apple.
that level of restriction is a part of the product. It's what people are paying for when they buy an iOS device. People actually want that. And there's no reason why there shouldn't be an option for consumers to pick a locked-down platform. Many developers are hostile to users, and many users consciously want a device that makes that hostility harder for developers.
The 30% take that Apple charges is steep and is replicated by basically all other vendors, so I'd be happy to see that reduced since it improves all ecosystems. But the app approval process and the single app store ecosystem is a thing that I think differentiates iOS, and I wouldn't want to see that changed.
fwiw, I have an Android phone, which I picked because I wanted to use Daydream. I never really use that, so my next phone will probably be an iPhone.
Android is already a mess with multiple stores and loose, to put it mildly, standards for the quality of apps. And that still isn't enough for Epic. I don't want my iPhone turning into an Android (I did have many choices, and I chose iPhone) and I __definitely__ don't want it turning to an even less regulated ecosystem than what we already have with Android.
I don't really care if developers are happy, because so many of them have interests hostile to mine. Apple is fortunately big enough to be able to force folks like Facebook and Uber to play by the rules. They're also big enough to force developers to play ball with things like iPad support or get booted from the store. The cost of targeting iPad is less than the cost of e.g. Twitter losing their spot on iPhones, so now iPad has a great Twitter app where it didn't before.
Edit: forgot to mention how Apple's subscription management process is far, far superior to any other device. I explicitly choose to subscribe through Apple because I know I will be notified before renewal and that I can cancel easily. I know the scale of the iPhone market, combined with Apple's restrictions, are the only reason I have that choice.
People paint this whole situation as Epic fighting for the consumer, but really Epic is fighting for the interests of Epic alone. I know Android users don't get it becuase they may not have experienced it, but really Apple is adding loads of value here and taking that value away isn't automatically pro-consumer, even if associated with words like 'freedom' and 'competition'.
Edit: Another perspective on this is that as a developer who writes software for Android and iOS, iOS is a far, far superior experience. Things work more reliably, testing is easier because iOS is an OS whereas Android is really a family of operating systems - see how much things can change on Pixel vs Galaxy. Things are getting better over time especially with AndroidX and Jetpack, but the developer experience is still loads better on iOS.
If you're referring to developer as 'individual who writes software for iOS' Apple is far superior. If you're thinking of developer as 'financial entity that profits off software' then the 30% cut becomes more painful, but Apple justifies that by having a premium offering with customers who spend more on apps.
Most Apple users are deeply locked into the ecosystem. I guess it is sunk cost fallacy, now even though the cracks are clearly showing they don't want to see Apple fail in any way. You'll see people rationalize anything Apple does without blinking.
And it makes sense too. If I use a mac, iphone, apple watch, airpods, have all my photos on iCloud etc I would not want Apple to face any hurdles.
I mean if this is their plan and they pull it off then hats off to them. As a consumer I welcome healthy competition.
[1]: https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/06/19/apple-is-fourth-l...
Between this and the fact that Apple tried to kill Unreal Engine from its platform, I’d be really nervous to be a game dev trying to rely on Apple at this moment. Regardless of the outcome of the Epic suit, Apple hasn’t really acted like they take gaming seriously on Mac or iOS, as several big iOS games would’ve suffered a similar fate to fortnite if a judge hadn’t stepped in.
Sometimes they're smaller impacts - like the ability to only enable GPS when an App is actively being used. Other times they are larger - like the the changes to the Advertising and Device IDs.
I've read here that the loss of the singular, centralized and controlled store could potentially be an issue for things like malware, privacy, and some of the other causes Apple has come out to fight for on behalf of the user. Perhaps Apple forgot to consider its own behavior as a threat to those ideals? Could Apple have avoided all of this if they applied the principles they used in other cases to themselves?
If the store had a 12% rate would Epic have bothered to do this? Other decisions can come into play too, like no ability for upgrade pricing and how subscrption costs are handled. If we really look, the list could get long.
I guess what I'm trying to say is if Apple truly cares about the things that could be lost if the App ecosystem is altered, then perhaps it needs to take the same hit it has doled out to others in the name of that cause?
App Store has been around over a decade and the number of popular mobile web apps (that didn't also release an app) is basically zero.
If they want to keep this monopoly, they should make their cost transparent and apply a reasonable markup. Otherwise they should be forced to allow competing stores. Anything else is ripe for abuse, as we can plainly see now.
They're just not allowed to mention that the price is cheaper on their website or other platforms.
And I have many apps on iOS store, and sure I would love to pay a less cut.
But Apple's pricing policy was the same way before they had 50% share of phones. Sure a monopoly must be regulated, but it doesn't mean that if a company has >50% share you can dictate how they should price their product.
Monopolies should be regulated so they don't increase prices or take advantage of their position. And if the policy is 10 years old this is obviously has nothing to do with bad practices of monopoly.
I still need to understand software development, and probably to own a Mac just to sign things and to upload them to my phone. They could even provide something like a web interface to perform the signing and/or notarization, so people cannot invent magical desktop software to make signing easier for random users.
This would effectively defeat the "walled garden" objection, but make things hard enough that 99.99% of iphone users wouldn't bother.
With the notarization system (is it applied to ios apps as well, I suppose, not just to Mac apps?) they could even prevent piracy.
But the courts have set a precedent with microsoft which makes it very hard to destroy these vertically integrated monopolies moving forward. Destroying monopolies is needed to protect the people's liberty and property.
But Apple excluding all of Epic's products from their store (the technical reasons aren't that important, the effective result is), while only a single product is actually violating their (already questionable) rules, sounds to me like a heck of a glaring antitrust issue either way.
The real issue here is not so much that Apple is doing all kinds of illegal (antitrust) things (and so do Epic, Microsoft, Facebook and many more). It's that the USA has essentially become a defunct banana republic a long time ago. That particular Microsoft charade, including their subsequent violations and blatant disregards, played a significant part in the whole shift to where we are now. However, for some reason it appears that most Americans still want to hold on to an image of reality that already belongs to the past.
I'm not saying it's better in other places, or even comparing it with any other place. Still, the USA not enforcing its own antitrust rules sounds pretty bad to me. If these companies have become too powerful to effectively prosecute them for violations, then it is certainly on the government for having let those get to there in the first place.
> Shortly after Epic blatantly disregarded App Store policies
You don't need the adverb "blatantly" here.
You can just say "Epic disregarded App Store policies" and be able to claim to some reasonable objectivity. But as soon as you throw in "blatantly", you have clearly revealed yourself as a biased news source.
Now they are shooting the goose because they want a bigger share of the egg.
The goods are all digital with no lasting or intrinsic value to speak of. The only reason Epic has the cash flow it has is that people don't fully understand this yet. Instead of riding the wave they are getting off of it.
Can people sell the goods that they buy from Epic? What will happen to these goods ten year from now?
People understand perfectly well that Fortnite skins have no intrinsic value. They buy them because they enjoy the game and the skins have subjective value to them. Maybe the game will be around in a decade, maybe it won't; it doesn't matter.
Fortnite is far from the only game with paid cosmetics, it's a model that appears to work quite well from a business perspective, even over time. CS:GO has had weapon skins in lootboxes for 7 years now. (That's just one example.)
Not sure what would be needed to accomplish this.
Maybe better WebGL?
That would be amazing to help kids discover that the internet is much larger than apps.
Off the top of my head, iOS Safari doesn't support notifications or (at least on iPhone) fullscreen API. Surprisingly there is controller support
2. Let's figure out if it's possible for Apple to still offer a secure experience for apps installed via sideloading (which is one option; the other option is allowing other payment methods in the App Store for in-app purchases). It should be thanks to their sandbox. They're welcome to tighten the sandbox further too over time, e.g. how they relatively recently restricted background location access, since that was rightly considered more sensitive than foreground access.
Apple can easily offer more user benefits without fundamentally making their business model unsustainable. Note that the situation here is fundamentally different from brick-and-mortar stores, which have very limited shelf space; not to mention no single brick-and-mortar store controls so much of someone's life (we're very reliant on our smartphones).
Epic poked a bear with a stick. A stick they deliberately sharpened for poking.
No idea why they thought they would walk away from that unharmed. Enormous hubris or a complete lack of understanding of politics? Probably both.
Nothing Epic did is the sort of thing a potential employer of mine would accidentally do. There are cautionary tales to be sure. This isn’t one of them.
I remember the days when Apple was pushing to break up Microsoft for including free software (Internet Explorer) in Windows operating systems. It's amazing how "principles" change depending on whom they are being applied to.
When the government decides a business is too big to fail, it'll ensure that the company keeps running. Just look at 2008
Is this sustainable? Will these players stay happy just extracting profits and eating small innovative players for breakfast? Is the market economy strong enough not to succumb to their lobbying power?
To me, it's clear that as the general public, we don't benefit from this situation. In the best case scenario, we're overpaying for all things information. I think something should be done about this, but what? Suggestions welcome, because I don't have answers yet. In the meantime, I try to stay clear of the molochs.
[0] As a symptom, Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Facebook and Amazon's combined market cap equals 75% of the entire EU stock market. Read their annual reports to understand where thet extract their profits.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/news/the-us-tech... .
It’s not like their lawsuit wouldn’t continue if they put Fortnite back in the App Store.
OTOH I think it is outrageous that breaking the rules from the iOS App Store now bans you from even having an Apple dev account. Unless I'm mistaken, without an Apple dev account you can't even sign a macOS app (different from notarization).
I'm so glad I decided to not make any new projects for an Apple platform.
Remember the original ideal of the HotJava browser, where fully sandboxed applications could be published online?
JS has come a long way in fulfilling that vision. PWAs are trustless and require no approval from appstores. Of course they aren't as efficient as native applications, but performance is improving.
As an iOS developer who started writing Obj-C 8 years ago and witnessed and felt first-handed the overall evolution of the language environment (which subsequently led to the birth of Swift and its continuation into what I considered to be the most interesting thing about Apple now), I think 30% is fair considering it has and would continue to contribute to (and in some sense incentivise) Apple’s decision in allocating (what occured to me as) an amazing amount of resources in improving the iOS (and Swift) developer experience.
Great languages (and great developer experiences) don’t come cheap. And I won’t be surprised if the top executives of a multi-billion video game company fails to realise that.
- If Apple has a blessed Paymenrs SDk, where you could use an alternative payment processor, thst would solve the percentage cut
- if Apple allowed for being able to do true software update sales - not subscriptions or in app purchases but a way to sell through “versions” of software that would solve the last missing let of distribution
- finally they could provide guidelines for acceptable ways to communicate pricing and alternative purchase points for a license. They already have a way for developers to generate codes that let you download an app from the App Store with said code, it’s a matter of blessing this as a distribution target and not just for testing
I think these three things happen, all these issues go away, and Apple won’t have to have a protracted fight in the courts and quite possibly come out the other side looking very bad.
I really believe this is the everyone wins scenario here
> On July 10, Apple responded that “Apple has never allowed this . . . we strongly believe these rules are vital to the health of the Apple platform and carry enormous benefits for both consumers and developers.”
> Around 2am on August 13, Mr. Sweeney of Epic wrote to Apple stating its intent to breach Epic’s agreements: “Epic will no longer adhere to Apple’s payment processing restrictions.” Hours later, Epic activated a secretly planted payment mechanism in Fortnite to slide a non-approved change into the app that blatantly evaded App Review.
From the legal document: https://regmedia.co.uk/2020/08/21/appleepic.pdf
If its a credit card processing fee that should be 2-3%. With value added services maybe 10-15% but that would be the ceiling.
Apple charges these fees because they can.
Is that what happened. That leaves quite a bad taste in my mouth. Apple removed apps that were following the rules to try and enforce their rules on one that wasn't.
Is this not a confession that paying Apple’s cut makes competitor’s less competitive? Possibly hints that this is a market, but not a free one? Seems like language you’d want to avoid when facing anti trust cases.
So you want to sell an app? Well first you practically cannot install it "for security reasons" without being on either the Apple AppStore or the Android Play Store, which represent 99.9% of devices or so. (yes you can disable GPP, and side-load on android, or sign as a dev and side-load on Apple, neither of which make any practical sense if you're not a developer)
If you do not like their rules, you now need to make your own OS, Phone, distribute it and have your game on it. That's quite the step and why there are laws against monopolies.
The globalized monopolies use their leverage to exert pressure on governments, and it is very difficult to apply these laws without the company using a "globalized capitalism" as their own advantage, i.e. it will move everything it can to another country that will let it exploits it's customers and it's workforce (which is why all our stuff is made in China, India, etc. obviously, and tax HQ is generally in Ireland rather than USA and on so)
They could even do it in such a way that they waive all responsibility should you choose to use one.
1. they don’t get 30% cut 2. other app stores could have pirated content (like cydia) 3. other app stores could have content with viruses
https://twitter.com/darren25437616/status/129950347290827571...
Gangsta.
Capitalism, according to Wealth of Nations, has some problems with corporations becoming monopolies. When Teddy Roosevelt was sidelined into the Vice President position, it was partly to sideline the movement towards regulation and trust-busting. That period, due an assassination, broke up large companies.
We now have Apple, and a host of other players, using monopoly powers to extract value from any who would play. Epic may have done that math and found the tax was too high to be profitable, or that upsetting the monopoly was worthwhile. History may turn again, and monopolies may face more scrutiny.
The uncertainty of changes are one of the joys of a government system that is organized mob rule.
(Ignore the video’s title)
Let's be honest, this is what Tencent/Epic want and they want their own store. It was demand #2 on their initial emails to Apple from Tim Sweeney [1].
> Because of restrictions imposed by Apple, Epic is unable to provide consumers with certain features in our iOS apps. We would like to offer consumers the following features:
> 1) Competing payment processing options other than Apple payments, without Apple’s fees, in Fortnite and other Epic Games software distributed through the iOS App Store;
> 2) A competing Epic Games Store app available through the iOS App Store and through direct installation that has equal access to underlying operating system features for software installation and update as the iOS App Store itself has, including the ability to install and update software as seamlessly as the iOS App Store experience.
> If Epic were allowed to provide these options to iOS device users, consumers would have an opportunity to pay less for digital products and developers would earn more from their sales. Epic is requesting that Apple agree in principle to permit Epic to roll out these options for the benefit of all iOS customers. We hope that Apple will also make these options equally available to all iOS developers in order to make software sales and distribution on the iOS platform as open and competitive as it is on personal computers.
Apple's official statement [2]:
> We are disappointed that we have had to terminate the Epic Games account on the App Store. We have worked with the team at Epic Games for many years on their launches and releases. The court recommended that Epic comply with the App Store guidelines while their case moves forward, guidelines they’ve followed for the past decade until they created this situation. Epic has refused. Instead they repeatedly submit Fortnite updates designed to violate the guidelines of the App Store. This is not fair to all other developers on the App Store and is putting customers in the middle of their fight. We hope that we can work together again in the future, but unfortunately that is not possible today.
[1] https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21807251/e...
[2] https://9to5mac.com/2020/08/28/apple-has-now-terminated-epic...
I don't think most people would consider direct payment to reputable companies like Epic to be a particular security risk. I don't think most realize why they can't subscribe to Spotify from their iPhones, they think it's simply not implemented.
The thing is, Apple now holds a tremendous amount of power over a large set of the population. All the comments saying "just buy an Android" ignore the simple fact that you buying an Android does not change the fact that a significant portion of the market is elsewhere.
I'd be more OK with this if Apple was OK with displaying a 30% Apple tax on checkout. But the fact that they prevent apps from showing it and actively try to conceal it shows that they know most of their customers would ask questions about it, at the very least, likely question if the "benefits" they get in return are worth it.
Many a company is upset that they have no leverage in a business deal and want to courts to hand it to them.
Do you know any store that adds a line showing their margin on the customer receipt ?
Without the in app purchase fees, developers could (and would) give away the app and take all of the revenues.
With the in app purchase fees, developers (rightfully) feel as though Apple is taking a cut for something they they did not sell.
If apps sold for $40 or $80 each, Apple would have a much harder time justifying the commission on in app purchases. The motivation to do so would still be there, but the pressure from consumers may have more bearing on the rates (though I doubt they would eliminate them).
I dont see why collecting 30% from Games is anything off limit. I consider Gaming as Non-Essential. If you dont like the Gaming Platform. Go Elsewhere. Literally every Gaming Platform collects 30% ( if not more ) on Games being sold. That is everything from early days of Nintendo, Sega, and now Playstation and Xbox. So in the case of EPIC, why are they happy with Sony and Microsoft charging them 30% on Playstation and Xbox? Whether they are losing money on the console sales is irrelevant in this context, that is their business model, and that is how the market works and accept. Nintendo is able to compete with a profits on both console and games.
However charging 30% on Apps, on productivity, business tools and when there are only One competing App Platform in the whole world ( of whole of US ) is where the question of Monopoly or Monopsony comes into play.
I dont think there is an easy answer. On one hand, changing 30% of subscription for Education and Fitness App is ridiculous. Apple being the sole buyer and pitching these client / business / partners against each other while benefiting from it is precisely the definition of Monopsony.
On the other hand, I would much rather paid this 30% extortion than having a platform where user can, no matter how difficult it may be, able to side load Apps. I dont want any of my family member doing it. If you really want the ability to side loads, Android it is.
I think Apple should just keep the 30% on Games. 15% of One Time Purchase Apps, 10% on Subscription and call it a day. I think that is a fair deal. Payment Processing, Fraud Protection, Refund and General Admin and Store Operation would have put it close to 5%. Business aren't losing much with the 10% Rent. With the lower commission Apple can better Enforce the Sign up rules. No more "Reader" App Guidelines. You are allowed to give better deals else where like on your Website. But as a consumer I am happy with the extra 10% for the safety of going through Apple.
And some additional info, it is estimated that 80% of App Store Revenue are from Gaming. So dropping the Apps and Subscription to 15% / 10% arrangement isn't going to make their services revenue collapse. Apple are also working hard on their AppleCare+ push, as you can now buy it within the first year of your purchase and Apple Store Genius has had their KPI percentage increased for AppleCare sold. ( Personally I think what is happening in Apple Retail is even worst than the App Store )
All the comments saying “just allow side-loading apps/third-party stores and let people decide themselves” ignore the fact that by doing so then iOS will end up with the same virus/malware issues that you see on Windows and Android. Suddenly we’ll need to help friends and family factory reset their iPhone because their search engine got hijacked, or because they get spammed with sex notifications, etc.
Apple is truly doing themselves a disservice here, if Epic wins this battle Apple will undoubtedly be painted as the bad guy, and other major companies will smell blood in the water when it comes taking down a competitor.
Case in point; Tinder, Microsoft, Facebook, Spotify have all openly backed Epic and started to call attention to features that are impacted by this 30% fee. Status quo isn't going to cut it, and it would be in Apple's best interest to make a small concession to look like they're not so evil.
I'm not invested at all in this debate, but I do silently hope that Epic succeeds purely for the little guys who may benefit from that.
Epic has been trying to position their own game store as a competitor to Steam. One of the things they have been doing is spending money paying for games to be exclusive to their platform. This is seen as the ultimate evil by gamers who want all of their games in one place (on Steam).
They maintain the platform.
They promote the platform.
What's arbitrary about that?
Or people might enjoy being able to use a device without having to worry about viruses and whatnot.. a problem plaguing Windows and slowly starting to affect many Android users as well. And while they might feel comfortable being able to avoid such viruses themselves, then they likely have friends and family that will suffer from it (you might think it’s easy not to install a different App Store, just like you might think it’s easy not to click on phishing links in your mailbox.. but it unfortunately isn’t easy for the average user).
Or people might worry about losing all sorts of privacy as a result of the Apple being forced to open up various parts of their system.
We're all just out here trying to find (secular) religion, apparently.
On the other hand, I don't feel good about the way Epic went about this. Makes it hard to support them because they were the ones who first started the war by deliberately breaking the terms of service. There's gotta be a better way.
Cut - 5 years later, after a billion dollar sales via that platform, and all of a sudden some developers see this 15% as a burden..
Now for an outside consumer, he doesn't care about the split, all he sees is value and return of his purchase..
For a indie developer, getting the much needed traction could be well worth the 15%..
now for a bigger shark this could be a problem and they propose a solution that the store shouldn't be the only one and they will setup a new shop (today for free, with discounted 15% for their products, but one day they when their own side platform grows, they WILL start charging)
as a consumer I side with Apple, as a developer am split, but no matter what , I won't Side with EPIC, because, they pay the same cut everywhere else ( XBOX,PS4 etc)..
If the counter argument is that apple is getting billions in profits, lets take a devlis advocate position and say apple grows negatively and billions become losses, now will EPIC agree for a 40% cut instead of 30%? NOPE, because that's not how. business works!
a contract is a contract!
To me, and I suspect to almost everyone else, iPhones are not computers. They are devices. Laptops are computers because they are for computing things. This is why I have moved away from MacOS as they have progressively made computing harder, but gravitated even further towards iOS.
If you want a totally open smartphone platform, great. That sounds wonderful for you. But don’t use the law to take away the only secure smartphone platform I have available to me - go find your own open platform and play Fortnite to your heart’s content.
It’s possible for some middle ground here. If there’s an alternative distribution method, you wouldn’t have to use it.
And it’s of course possible that a lower commission is enforced.
Finally, the biggest issue here is Apple’s extreme power in being able to completely destroy software companies. I don’t think that’s right, personally.
What else do you want Apple to do? Suppose Apple cave this time, what happens if tomorrow Facebook comes in and use private API to track users? Could Facebook argue Apple is using its monopolistic position to hurt its business? If you say, clearly forbidding tracking is good for the user and taking a cut is bad, who gets to draw the line? One can argue preventing tracking make ads less relevant to user therefore hurt them, and similarly forcing all purchase to go through Apple prevent unscrupulous developers from fleecing users. It's never a black and white issue.
Also, to be honest I always thought bigger developers have special negotiated rate with Apple. As an Apple customer & developer, I am very glad that everyone is treated equally in App Store.
- if anti-trust is about consumer protection (kind of a European perspective), there's no basis. You buy an Apple device knowing full well that the only apps allowed on that device are vetted by Apple. That's hardly new. The rules have not changed. Few exceptions have been made, and I bet those few have been framed by the best lawyers there are to avoid any possible contamination. So there's no new event or situation that has consumers losing.
- if anti-trust is about protecting against market manipulation : no one forces any one to be on the App Store. The rules have not changed. Few exceptions etc. Apple does have sole control of the iPhone apps "market" but is that truly a market in the sense of competition law? The fact that it's called "App Store" should not obscure the fact that Apple could as well have decided to provide only their own Apple-branded apps, and develop themselves all of the apps they make available to iPhone users. Instead they chose to let third-parties provide apps under a restrictive set of conditions that include the "tax". Would it be any different if they actually licensed the apps from developers for a fee and resell them on the App Store to end users?
As far as I know in Apple ecosystem its very hard to have apps installed in your device if its not in the store. That is not how it should be. It's my phone my decision. It should be like it is on android.
Other countries apart from US should have extensive set of regulations to protect consumers and ensure no monopoly takes place. These regulations should be about what companies are allowed or not allowed to do.
Apple is only the distributor here. If they would charge a reasonable processing fee (4-5% like credit card companies do) nobody would have had - presumably - a problem.
Unlike with most (all?) other platforms there is no way to install apps from any alternate sources.
30% is the modern version of way-laying. (IMHO at least)
Supporting Apple in this fight is just setting a dangerous precedent that big players should be able to just intimidate platform developers into giving them whatever terms they want. Don't do it.
Again I don't really have a concrete view but a lot of these discussions tend to boil down to preference against one party or the other and not objectively looking at the arguments from both sides. Replace Epic with one of your critical apps. Replace Apple with Google and the arguments are the same.
Even if this is all in Epic’s selfish best interest, that doesn’t matter if their interest is more aligned with smaller app developers’ interests.
The balance of power is still shifted well towards Apple.
And it seems like Apple has already given the big players whatever terms they want, and epic is too small to get the same treatment