Apple threatens to kill Unreal Engine on iOS, Fornite may never return

[CarlBar]

5 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

I mean, the smokey mountains are free, and are, like, huge.

 

In was talking about in the UK. From what i can tell around 8.5% of the land area in the UK is publicly owned, (This includes public highways, urban parks and grass berms, government buildings, Military bases, e.t.c.). Or in other words the Smokey mountains National Park is equivalent to 10% of the total publicly owned land in the UK. And may be larger than all the "Natural" land area thats publicly owned in the UK. And thats just one of your national parks.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Your argument is "I want to be able to whatever I want with my device" and " I want to be able to do what I want on someone's elses property (The Apple store)", you can not have it both ways.

That first one is fair and that second argument is nothing like what I have been saying.  If you don't understand then ask, don't assume.

 

3 minutes ago, Kisai said:

On the console, I want to buy this game, but I can not because it's been withdrawn, but your argument is "you can just buy it retail" but this game was not made available at retail in a form that can be picked up from a secondary market.

That has nothing to do with the argument.  As I said before, you bring a lot of irrelevant stuff to the debate,  Again if the game is withdrawn then that is a DEVELOPER CHOICE.  we are not arguing against DEVELOPER CHOICE. we are arguing for DEVELOPER CHOICE.

 

3 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Thus Apple's store is exactly the same as Sony's store. Apple has the exact same mechanism for download codes, and you can not claim otherwise as I've shown this in one of the other threads.

 

NO it is not, apple does not give the developer a choice it takes that choice away.   you have shown nothing.

 

 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

1 minute ago, justpoet said:

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide

Apple isn't even close to a monopoly though, which is the problem with your statement.  The equivalent to going to another store (say, any other grocery store instead of Whole Foods) is to just get an Android.  Since Apple doesn't have even close to a dominant market share position, despite that so many people seem to think they do, they're not a monopoly.

 

Sticking with your analogy though, you're really dealing with shopping clubs instead of grocery stores though.  So, let's look at BJ's and Sam's Club.  You can't use your membership at one (the device you purchased) to get into and make a purchase at the other.  Likewise, nothing prevents you from purchasing a membership to both to buy from both, other than your own budget and choice.

But they force you to use their app store, and pay their fee. On EVERY OTHER GODDAMN OS (except for RT) you can get apps from multiple places. They case easily let you download and install cias, but you cant. You have to use 3rd party tools, or pay hundreds for a Dev acount.

[Belgarathian]

7 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

No. 30% purchace, even if a little high makes sense. You are using their platform to have your app be distributed. The main problems are the 30% of IAPs, and the fact that you are forced to use the app store.

How else do you propose that Apple monitors revenue generated through its App Store? You're allowed to have subscriptions that are processed outside the App Store so long as the app is a reader app, like Netflix. 

 

If they only take a cut on the original purchase price, then the entire library of apps would move to IAP and be free to download overnight. It makes sense that Apple is charging for all transactions that are on iOS (unless you have a reader app) as it costs money to manage the library of apps and host and distribute.

 

I have zero sympathy for Epic as they knew the ToS and cost of doing business on iOS well in advance.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

No. 30% purchace, even if a little high makes sense. You are using their platform to have your app be distributed. The main problems are the 30% of IAPs, and the fact that you are forced to use the app store.

It's pretty simply is't it. yet people are being intentional obtuse or deflective from the point.  I guess if people can't address that actual issue (instead electing to deflect) then this just proves it is an indisputable  issue.

[CarlBar]

1 minute ago, justpoet said:

Apple isn't even close to a monopoly though, which is the problem with your statement.  The equivalent to going to another store (say, any other grocery store instead of Whole Foods) is to just get an Android.  Since Apple doesn't have even close to a dominant market share position, despite that so many people seem to think they do, they're not a monopoly.

 

Sticking with your analogy though, you're really dealing with shopping clubs instead of grocery stores though.  So, let's look at BJ's and Sam's Club.  You can't use your membership at one (the device you purchased) to get into and make a purchase at the other.  Likewise, nothing prevents you from purchasing a membership to both to buy from both, other than your own budget and choice.

 

And yet that budget and choice part would certainly get them into regulatory trouble in the shopping club analogy. You don't have to have a majority market share to fall afoul of anti-competition regulations. You just have to have a significant piece of the market. And Apple certainly has that.

[Kisai]

1 minute ago, justpoet said:

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide

Apple isn't even close to a monopoly though, which is the problem with your statement.  The equivalent to going to another store (say, any other grocery store instead of Whole Foods) is to just get an Android.  Since Apple doesn't have even close to a dominant market share position, despite that so many people seem to think they do, they're not a monopoly.

 

Sticking with your analogy though, you're really dealing with shopping clubs instead of grocery stores though.  So, let's look at BJ's and Sam's Club.  You can't use your membership at one (the device you purchased) to get into and make a purchase at the other.  Likewise, nothing prevents you from purchasing a membership to both to buy from both, other than your own budget and choice.

This is what makes this (and the other two threads) interesting is because clearly nobody is on the same page as far as their legal knowledge, and several of us are not US residents, arguing about semantics about US legal language.

 

To make the wholesale club argument. Let's say Apple is Costco, and Android is Sams Club. Both places require a 99$/yr fee to have their products and bolt-on's in the store, and Apple/Google will automatically do all the logistics for keeping your product in the store.

 

Epic's argument is that they should be able to put their products in both stores for free, and have a sign next it saying "buy this add on directly from Epic, not here". That's clearly not fair to either store.

 

Likewise the argument about sideloading or alternative stores. Epic wants to pitch a tent in each store's parking lot to sell their fortnite vbucks cookies. They'll even give you the game for free without having membership to the store. It's apple or google's right to escort them off their property.

 

 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

1 minute ago, Belgarathian said:

How else do you propose that Apple monitors revenue generated through its App Store? You're allowed to have subscriptions that are processed outside the App Store so long as the app is a reader app, like Netflix. 

 

If they only take a cut on the original purchase price, then the entire library of apps would move to IAP and be free to download overnight. It makes sense that Apple is changing for all transactions that are on iOS (unless you have a reader app) as it costs money to manage the library of apps and host and distribute.

But you can't say, go to here.com to pay, that violates there instant ToS, as Luke discussed in a wan show.

[CarlBar]

1 minute ago, Belgarathian said:

How else do you propose that Apple monitors revenue generated through its App Store? You're allowed to have subscriptions that are processed outside the App Store so long as the app is a reader app, like Netflix. 

 

The issue isn't about how apple monetises stuff going through the app store, they're largely free to do as they please there, it's about the complete lack of the option to not go through the app store.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, justpoet said:

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide

Apple isn't even close to a monopoly though, which is the problem with your statement.  The equivalent to going to another store (say, any other grocery store instead of Whole Foods) is to just get an Android.  Since Apple doesn't have even close to a dominant market share position, despite that so many people seem to think they do, they're not a monopoly.

 

Sticking with your analogy though, you're really dealing with shopping clubs instead of grocery stores though.  So, let's look at BJ's and Sam's Club.  You can't use your membership at one (the device you purchased) to get into and make a purchase at the other.  Likewise, nothing prevents you from purchasing a membership to both to buy from both, other than your own budget and choice.

 

Two problems with that.  One the case is in the US where the market is split 50/50 (as it is in most wealthy markets).

and 2, actual market share (as a number) does not dictate a monopoly, control over a product and market power does.

 

[ApexMeteor]

3 hours ago, Darpyface said:

Right now Apple is being sued for being a monopoly with it's app store being the only way to download apps unlike Android.

 

 

Are there any properly licensed Android phones running an app store other than Play Store?? Sure, it's easier to sideload a third-party app store (or just an apk) on Android than is to run e.g. Cydia on iOS, but as is, both the App Store and Play Store seem to be the exclusive way to install apps on each platform when officially licensed.

[CarlBar]

2 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Likewise the argument about sideloading or alternative stores. Epic wants to pitch a tent in each store's parking lot to sell their fortnite vbucks cookies. They'll even give you the game for free without having membership to the store. It's apple or google's right to escort them off their property.

 

 

But Apple and Google have no right to tell they they can't setup their own store and sell their stuff from there. Except apple is insisting it does. Google is not.

[ApexMeteor]

Must there be changes to how app stores operate in mobile? Sure, hopefully they'll be voluntary, if not government regulation is required. But what Epic is doing is a contract breach. They could very well sue Apple/Google without all the provocations/breaches. And for that, they're on the wrong side, they've lost the high ground.

[mr moose]

Just now, ApexMeteor said:

Are there any properly licensed Android phones running an app store other than Play Store?? Sure, it's easier to sideload a third-party app store (or just an apk) on Android than is to run e.g. Cydia on iOS, but as is, both the App Store and Play Store seem to be the exclusive way to install apps on each platform when officially licensed.

Huwaei I believe has one.  But to put android into perspective, it has already been deemed a monopoly by the EU as google controls it and who can install what apps on it etc.    So in that regard android is just as bad as apple.

 

 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

1 minute ago, ApexMeteor said:

Are there any properly licensed Android phones running an app store other than Play Store?? Sure, it's easier to sideload a third-party app store (or just an apk) on Android than is to run e.g. Cydia on iOS, but as is, both the App Store and Play Store seem to be the exclusive way to install apps on each platform when officially licensed.

But to use cydia properly, you have to pay hundreds of dollars for a dev account, or to run alt server constantly, so your apps sitll work.

[divito]

I usually agree with mr moose, but sadly not on this point. And I'm someone who despises Apple.

There are many examples of the same thing occurring in gaming, and other industries, but there is no talk of it being unfair or monopolistic. Epic agreed to the terms set by Apple when they put their game in the app store, and subsequently tried to avoid their obligations by developing a workaround.

 

A better analogy is probably a farmer's market. You, as a farmer who wants to sell your product, have to pay booth fees (while most are flat fees, there are some that are percentage-based). There are also stipulations in regards to what you're able to sell, and other requirements to be allowed within the market. What Epic is trying to do, is maintain a booth within the farmer's market, but avoid the paying the fees. You can't have it both ways.

And ultimately, people are ignoring that Google did the same thing with Fortnite? This is an Epic problem, not an Apple or Google one. Epic wants to utilize the user share among Apple and Google and renege on their obligations.

[Kisai]

4 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

 

But Apple and Google have no right to tell they they can't setup their own store and sell their stuff from there. Except apple is insisting it does. Google is not.

Epic can't setup a store without a license from the city, either in the parking lot or outside it. So that's where the analogy crumbles.

 

Several people in this thread just want to say Apple is wrong, and they're not Apple fans, so they really have a chip on their shoulder about it. 

 

Nobody is saying Apple should be charging 30%, but nobody here has presented any argument as to why they shouldn't when that's what all online stores for the same software charge (games and applications.) If we were comparing movies or music, I'm sure the fee that Apple charges the music and film companies in iTunes is not 30%.

 

 

https://informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/

 

[Belgarathian]

5 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

But you can't say, go to here.com to pay, that violates there instant ToS, as Luke discussed in a wan show.

Correct, you can't direct your users to circumvent Apple's payment system. You can however have payment options outside of the App Store and then allow the user to login. An example would be walking into Wallmart and the store clerk directing you to go to the supplier to avoid Wallmart making 30% GP on the goods they're reselling. 

 

Alternatively, if they do allow you to use external payment methods then Apple would have to request the revenue generated outside of App Store payments by iOS users for every app on the App Store and then send an invoice for the 30% cut to every publisher which would likely incur increased fees to enable Apple to manage the system. And even then, that's assuming that the companies are not being fraudulent in their reporting, so on top of that you would also have to audit the publishers to ensure enforcement of ToS.

 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

Just now, Belgarathian said:

Correct, you can't direct your users to circumvent Apple's payment system. You can however have payment options outside of the App Store and then allow the user to login. An example would be walking into Wallmart and the store clerk directing you to go to the supplier to avoid Wallmart making 30% GP on the goods they're reselling. 

 

Alternatively, if they do allow you to use external payment methods then Apple would have to request the revenue generated by iOS users for every app on the App Store and then send an invoice for the 30% cut to every publisher which would likely incur increased fees to enable Apple to manage the system.

 

But thats the problem. You should just be able to get a account in app, like as in android, though like @mr moose said, android is not a saint here.

[ApexMeteor]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Huwaei I believe has one.  But to put android into perspective, it has already been deemed a monopoly by the EU as google controls it and who can install what apps on it etc.    So in that regard android is just as bad as apple.

 

 

I'm not sure if they were properly licensed by Google from that moment, as Huawei was hit with the sanctions.

[CarlBar]

4 minutes ago, ApexMeteor said:

Are there any properly licensed Android phones running an app store other than Play Store?? Sure, it's easier to sideload a third-party app store (or just an apk) on Android than is to run e.g. Cydia on iOS, but as is, both the App Store and Play Store seem to be the exclusive way to install apps on each platform when officially licensed.

 

I'm pretty sure my S9 came with a Samsung app store on it. I never used it and i uninstalled all most all the Samsung specific apps, but from memory it had it. As an aside my only two mobile games where not originally available in Europe, 1 still isn't, but by using .apk's i was able to install and use the US versions, (i can even technically buys things if i want). If i'd been on an iPhone i'd have had a much harder time if i'd been able to do it at all.

[Belgarathian]

1 minute ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

But thats the problem. You should just be able to get a account in app, like as in android, though like @mr moose said, android is not a saint here.

You can, Apple isn't preventing you from doing so. Apple will just take a 30% cut. Crunchyroll offer this option as a premium over subscribing through their website to cover some of the cost. 

[ApexMeteor]

4 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

But to use cydia properly, you have to pay hundreds of dollars for a dev account, or to run alt server constantly, so your apps sitll work.

I've used Cydia before and I paid in total 0,000000 Not sure what you mean with the dev account. The personal AppleID account worked fine. Wrt AltStore, that's the current method (I've seen there's a new way to get rid of it), but yeah, it's more difficult than Android, but the oprions do exist.

[justpoet]

Just now, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

But they force you to use their app store, and pay their fee. On EVERY OTHER GODDAMN OS (except for RT) you can get apps from multiple places. They case easily let you download and install cias, but you cant. You have to use 3rd party tools, or pay hundreds for a Dev acount.

Did you even bother to read the reply?  It already addressed this.

 

But, ok, let's spell this out.

 

1) "But they force you to use their app store"- They don't force anybody to buy iOS, nor do they force anybody to develop for iOS.  Those are both choices made by users and developers respectively.  In both cases, the majority have decided against doing so (see market position), so that's again further proof that they're not forcing anybody.

2) "and pay their fee"- They do indeed say "if you're using our products and making money off of our work, then you should pay us".  Making and maintaining developer tools isn't free.  Making and maintaining an app store isn't free.  Hosting all of the developer content that is put on the store isn't free.  Developing and maintaining all of the APIs that are being used by the developers isn't free.  These are all SOME of the examples of what developer fees to be in the store help pay for.  But you know what IS FREE?  When you make any app free and don't ask people to buy things in it.  Apple lets you use all of that for free so you don't have to pay for it, since you're not charging customers for it.

3) "On EVERY OTHER GODDAMN OS (except for RT) you can get apps from multiple places."- Well, you gave one example of an exception already, but you're also wrong.  You can't get apps from multiple places for the playstation OS, nintendo DS OS, etc…the list of OS's you can NOT get apps from anyplace you feel like is LONG.  Before you say "but I can get X from Y and Z store…both of those are coming from an agreement and license fee to be on the platform, so they're still ONLY available through that OS's company.

4) "They case easily let you download and install cias, but you can't"- I don't even know what you were trying to type, let alone argue.

5) "You have to use 3rd party tools, or pay hundreds for a Dev acount"- Well, yeah, of course you pay for development tools and libraries and support, even third party ones…though dev accounts are only $99, not hundreds.

[CarlBar]

4 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Epic can't setup a store without a license from the city, either in the parking lot or outside it. So that's where the analogy crumbles.

 

Except as a retailer allready selling to customers it allready has a business licence so the analogy fails to crumble. It's only bar to setting up it's own shop would be acquiring premise. Not an especially hard thing to do IRL. Even if it didn't have a business licence, acquiring one from the owning country is not impossible. Quite the opposite, so long as your not engaged in a criminal enterprise it's extremly easy, especially for large corporations.