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

[Helpful Tech Witch]

1 minute ago, Belgarathian said:

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. 

But that negitivly effects users. Apple is in a bad possition, and a worse one if they decide to remove all unreal engine games.

[ApexMeteor]

3 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

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.

Definitely yes! Apple makes it very hard to use third-party app stores. And that should be something that should change. I've transitioned to Android since version 7, if not mistaken. I still have my older iPhones and I've played with jailbreak. It's a pain and honestly the community can be quite toxic (e.g. the subreddit is an example). Android was a bit hard to get use to root but ince I figured it out, I was a breeze and man...the options it provides are amazing! 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

2 minutes ago, justpoet said:

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.

 

Apple can easily let you install a downloaded .cia file, but they dont.

5 minutes ago, justpoet said:

"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.

But if you have a iphone you have to tht is the problem.

[StDragon]

1 hour ago, imreloadin said:

I love it when billionaires fight

We're going to need a lot more butter.

[CarlBar]

Just now, StDragon said:

We're going to need a lot more butter.

 

Wish i could throw this an informative reaction as well as the laugh one.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, divito said:

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.

I'm not on epics side, I'm just pointing out the problem with an OS maker mandating who can and can't write apps for it whilst mandating a fees policy.

[justpoet]

2 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

Apple can easily let you install a downloaded .cia file, but they dont.

But if you have a iphone you have to tht is the problem.

So don't buy an iPhone.  Like just about 75% of users have done that run Android…who has done the same thing to Epic for the same reason…violation of terms of service and the store contract.  You're mistaking "I decided to buy an iPhone for access to the Apple App Store" for "Apple forced me to use their store".

[CarlBar]

5 minutes ago, ApexMeteor said:

And that should be something that should change

 

Yep, if they allowed 3rd party app stores i wouldn't have an issue with apple, it might even tempt me to go their way in future. This is really what the entire argument in this thread is about. Forget apples 30% cut, i couldn't care less about that, their store their allowed to monetise it how they want. Same as Steam, and Humble and GoG, and Epic, and e.t.c. It's the refusal to allow alternatives that's an issue.

[The Sloth]

4 hours ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

But that negitivly effects users. Apple is in a bad possition, and a worse one if they decide to remove all unreal engine games.

No it dosen't. People use Iphones due to IOS, they don't want to use a different default browser, or download another app store. Most consumers don't want to worry about things like this, this is why IOS is sucessfull. The custom tailored expriance, don't like something? suck it up up use a different OS. Unless thare is a anticompetitive lawsuit( EU, they are really smart about this), Apple won't do shit. 

 

 

 

If you really care about open platform, or very paranord about security/ privacy, you probably use LOS( you can even make your own verson of LOS and give it updates)  with Fdroid for apps, firefox as a brower. No, don't think for a second, apple cares about privacy, or being kind, same with the users. Most tech people alrealy knows this.  

 

 

 

[CarlBar]

4 minutes ago, justpoet said:

So don't buy an iPhone.  Like just about 75% of users have done that run Android…who has done the same thing to Epic for the same reason…violation of terms of service and the store contract.  You're mistaking "I decided to buy an iPhone for access to the Apple App Store" for "Apple forced me to use their store".

 

Your mistaking "I chose to buy an iPhone for features unrelated to the app store", for  "I decided to buy an iPhone for access to the Apple App Store"

 

The most obvious draw for me if they had a more open software ecosystem would be the hardware capabilities.

[Kisai]

2 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

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.

Basically the problem here, by showing this analogy is that Epic is trying to avoid paying Apple/Google anything, and yet benefit from it's presence on their respective stores, knowing that people won't side-load things because side-loaded software is a pain to maintain if you know what you're doing, and a vector for malware if you don't.

 

Like to draw this analogy out further, Both Coca Cola and Pepsi have their own merchandisers that go into stores like Costco and Sams club to setup the retail displays, along with grocery stores and corner stores like 7-11 and every other place. What is going on there is Coca Cola and Pepsi have paid for X'ft of exclusive shelf space to put whatever they want on that shelf. This is why I can't find Pretzels anywhere, because I guess nobody out here likes pretzels. If I want Pretzels I have to find the grocery store selling their store-brand pretzels, and I'm not going to sign up for a loyalty card just to save a dollar on that one item I went there to buy.

 

So Coca Cola and Pepsi in the above paragraph, replace that with Epic and say... EA. Both Epic and EA buy some "exclusive" shelf space within the store and thus they're permitted to put whatever they want in that space as long as it's not directing them to another store. Makes perfect sense. But Epic and EA don't want you to buy anything on the Apple store, So they release "free" games" that have to be DLC completed by purchasing the DLC from their own stores. That's quite literately a scam. Products with IAP's have to be stated as such, and if you advertise a free product that you can't buy the IAP on the same device, then that's false advertising. Epic then tries to get an end-run past this by doing the actual account purchases via a webview so that it's not caught by the app review process, and they changed it on the server side. Essentially payments are made on a html page.

 

Like in the long run I think Epic just utterly screwed themselves with Apple, and Apple will likely never trust them again and may have screwed over every "free" game with premium currencies. In my mind that's a good thing, anything to get rid of freemium blight on the App store is welcome.

 

Even if Epic somehow manages to get Apple to reduce their commission costs, it won't benefit consumers, so I don't see how this lawsuit does anything but make Epic look foolish.

[justpoet]

Just now, CarlBar said:

 

Your mistaking "I chose to buy an iPhone for"features unrelated to the app store", for  "I decided to buy an iPhone for access to the Apple App Store"

 

The most obvious draw for me if they had a more open software ecosystem would be the hardware capabilities.

Perfect, you just illustrated my point for me.  "I decided to buy an iPhone" was the only portion that was relevant.  There is no forcing involved, nor market share dominance to make that a forced choice.

[mr moose]

11 minutes ago, justpoet said:

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.

1. has already been disputed,  you have a choice not to buy ios sure, but apple do not have a right to hold that market ransom to developers.  The problem is not the initial choice by consumers but the actions that a company does with their market power.  That is why monopoly laws never have a number attached to them, they are case by case dependent.

2. the fees in dispute are not the result of apples work but the app developers work.  If you wanted to argue that its the work of apple then MS would be within their rights to demand a percentage of every game sold that uses DX or Nvidi get a percentage for every game that uses GW.  Both Nvidia and MS offer those APIs and tools for free to better their product. apple should do the same.

3. you can buy games for those consoles from other places. It has already been established that the developer has the choice in those circumstances.

4. Don;t know what it even is, but nothing is easy to bypass in ios with regard to this discussion.

5. the case of the developer account (and $99 fee) was raised as a rebuttal to their being no option for consumer.  It seems like a silly argument that is only going to confuse the discussion further.

 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

7 minutes ago, justpoet said:

So don't buy an iPhone.  Like just about 75% of users have done that run Android…who has done the same thing to Epic for the same reason…violation of terms of service and the store contract.  You're mistaking "I decided to buy an iPhone for access to the Apple App Store" for "Apple forced me to use their store".

This\/

4 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

Your mistaking "I chose to buy an iPhone for features unrelated to the app store", for  "I decided to buy an iPhone for access to the Apple App Store"

 

The most obvious draw for me if they had a more open software ecosystem would be the hardware capabilities.

There is no way that i could live without air drop, it is so much easier than Dropbox, or g drive. Improved security, though not perfect is a pro for iPhone. I don't buy a iPhone for the app store, but am forced to use the iOS app store, even if I don't want to.

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, justpoet said:

So don't buy an iPhone.  Like just about 75% of users have done that run Android…

Again, the case is in the US, it is 50% not 75%.  And monopolies are dictated by market power not numbers.  So if majority of the 75% are in countries with no wealth or market that developers can sell to,  then the fact 3rd world have a lot of android means nothing other than they can't afford an iphone. Interesting if they can;t afford an iphon then they can't afford to buy apps making the market power of android's 75% moot) 

 

7 minutes ago, justpoet said:

who has done the same thing to Epic for the same reason…violation of terms of service and the store contract.  You're mistaking "I decided to buy an iPhone for access to the Apple App Store" for "Apple forced me to use their store".

And android should be held to exactly the same standards.  No OS should dictate which app store you buy from PERIOD.

 

And just another thought on the console argument.  Consoles are not everyday devices that are necessary like a mobile phone,  you buy them to play games and so you buy them with the limitation they come with.  Phones, laptops, tablets and desktops are all necessary for today's existence, therefore you buy them needing to be able to integrate, once that happens the OS takes on a whole new set of requirements under fair trade and consumer law.

 

 

 

[Belgarathian]

34 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

But that negitivly effects users. Apple is in a bad possition, and a worse one if they decide to remove all unreal engine games.

So what you’re wanting is to have Apple shoulder the cost of curating the App Store, payment processing, hosting and distribution, and development?

 

I’m having trouble following your train of thought. You want a free market place to do what you want, don’t want the end user negatively effected, and want Apple’s App Store to remain profitable but you’re not suggesting how they do so?

 

What if they made every App Store download cost $10 as a one-off fixed fee, would that work?

[justpoet]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

1. has already been disputed,  you have a choice not to buy ios sure, but apple do not have a right to hold that market ransom to developers.  The problem is not the initial choice by consumers but the actions that a company does with their market power.  That is why monopoly laws never have a number attached to them, they are case by case dependent.

2. the fees in dispute are not the result of apples work but the app developers work.  If you wanted to argue that its the work of apple then MS would be within their rights to demand a percentage of every game sold that uses DX or Nvidi get a percentage for every game that uses GW.  Both Nvidia and MS offer those APIs and tools for free to better their product. apple should do the same.

3. you can buy games for those consoles from other places. It has already been established that the developer has the choice in those circumstances.

4. Don;t know what it even is, but nothing is easy to bypass in ios with regard to this discussion.

5. the case of the developer account (and $99 fee) was raised as a rebuttal to their being no option for consumer.  It seems like a silly argument that is only going to confuse the discussion further.

 

1) Monopoly law is interesting.  A problem here though is that people are trying to define free access to the App Store as a requirement.  A monopoly is literally "the exclusive control of a commodity".  So, if you look at app stores, Apples App Store isn't the only one, there's also the Play Store, XBox, PS, etc…  If you look at cell phones, there's hundreds of brands.  If you look at smart phone OS's, there's several options.  It should also be noted that Apple doesn't maintain the largest market share position in ANY of those.  They just only make high end expensive devices, unlike most of the competition, so they make more revenue from it.

2) MS would've been within their rights to demand payment for games…in fact for a long time they did, by selling a VERY expensive developer software package if you wanted to be able to use any of their newer features.  They've moved on from that now, but Apple gives those developer tools away, then asks for a fee only when you make money from them.

3) You didn't read it very well.  Sure, I can buy the same PS or Nintendo game from walmart or from target or from gamestop.  Just as I could buy the game from the Apple App Store or the Google Play store.  The developers on the other hand, all had to make direct agreements with either Sony, Nintendo, Apple, or Google to be able to make that game available.  You CAN in fact create codes as a developer to then be used on the App store, and then move much of the retail prospect to another location.  But you're still paying them for the developer agreement, tools, and online distribution and update platforms, etc...

4) From his response, he was talking to installing an app directly from a downloaded binary.  This can actually be done though, it just takes using the free developer account and tools to load onto your own device.

5) The $99 is the fee to a real developer that publishes and distributes software.  Personal developer accounts are completely free.

[justpoet]

12 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

There is no way that i could live without air drop, it is so much easier than Dropbox, or g drive. Improved security, though not perfect is a pro for iPhone. I don't buy a iPhone for the app store, but am forced to use the iOS app store, even if I don't want to.

So you're choosing to buy the BMW instead of the Honda.  Both come with a package of accessories, both are motor vehicles which are considered essential in most of the developed modern world.  But then you're insisting BMW provide you Ford's dash cluster and infotainment system instead for no cost.  BMW isn't going to do or offer that, nor can any other third party shop.

[Thaldor]

Leaving the "is 30% cut ok or not and why" question behind.

 

Checked few things and apparently if Epic was to be removed from iOS developer program that means every game or app using Unreal Engine would be most likely to be removed from the App Store either by devs or by Apple because the app may not work after one or few iOS updates. It's not direct threat because devs could always start to develop their games Unreal Engine to keep it working but that is going to need a lot of skill, resources and money in a long run. And there's actually surprisingly many games on iOS using UE (Life is Strange, Hello Neighbor, Injustice 2, Mortal Kombat, WH40K Deathwatch are biggest that hit my eye) and most of them developed by smaller companies (published by bigger ones) and probably none of them (even with the help of the publisher) have the resources to start developing the UE itself if Epic was to loose it's development status (which means they officially cannot continue developing and supporting UE on iOS).

 

Whatever the question is Apples demands to develop on iOS are and how much they ask money for that. I consider this threat from Apple a huge dick move. After all the app that went against Apples commandments is already removed from the App Store and AFAIK UE or any other Epics things aren't breaking the rules taking the developer status away is kind of harsh thing to do especially when there is other parties relying on that.

[mr moose]

Just now, justpoet said:

1) Monopoly law is interesting.  A problem here though is that people are trying to define free access to the App Store as a requirement.  A monopoly is literally "the exclusive control of a commodity".  So, if you look at app stores, Apples App Store isn't the only one, there's also the Play Store, XBox, PS, etc…

the app store accounts for a significant portion off its market.  no court will accept that consoles or desktop is legitimate competition.

 

Just now, justpoet said:

 If you look at cell phones, there's hundreds of brands.  If you look at smart phone OS's, there's several options.  It should also be noted that Apple doesn't maintain the largest market share position in ANY of those.  They just only make high end expensive devices, unlike most of the competition, so they make more revenue from it.

They control enough of it though, that is why it is a problem.  Apple can literally lock any developer out of half the mobile market.  That is significant market power.  So once they tie fees and policies to that power it becomes an illegal monopoly.

Just now, justpoet said:

2) MS would've been within their rights to demand payment for games…in fact for a long time they did, by selling a VERY expensive developer software package if you wanted to be able to use any of their newer features.  They've moved on from that now, but Apple gives those developer tools away, then asks for a fee only when you make money from them.

I think if they did the courts would have torn them a new one instantly.

Just now, justpoet said:

3) You didn't read it very well.  Sure, I can buy the same PS or Nintendo game from walmart or from target or from gamestop.  Just as I could buy the game from the Apple App Store or the Google Play store.  The developers on the other hand, all had to make direct agreements with either Sony, Nintendo, Apple, or Google to be able to make that game available.  You CAN in fact create codes as a developer to then be used on the App store, and then move much of the retail prospect to another location.  But you're still paying them for the developer agreement, tools, and online distribution and update platforms, etc...

Which is fine, and proves that for those other services there are options for developers, not so for IOS.

Just now, justpoet said:

4) From his response, he was talking to installing an app directly from a downloaded binary.  This can actually be done though, it just takes using the free developer account and tools to load onto your own device.

5) The $99 is the fee to a real developer that publishes and distributes software.  Personal developer accounts are completely free.

Even still, I fail to see how it adds to the debate. clearly it has relevance to others so I'll just not engage in that bit further.

[Arika]

13 minutes ago, justpoet said:

Monopoly law is interesting.  A problem here though is that people are trying to define free access to the App Store as a requirement

No.... People are trying to define CHOICE. Apple can keep their app store the way it is as long as they provide an alternative way to get apps onto iOS. Either a 3rd party store not controlled by Apple (eg like APKpure for Android) or direct sideloading. The app store will still be the go to for consumers because it has the most support and apps available, BUT there should still be alternatives for developers. 

[harryk]

10 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

Whatever the question is Apples demands to develop on iOS are and how much they ask money for that. I consider this threat from Apple a huge dick move. After all the app that went against Apples commandments is already removed from the App Store and AFAIK UE or any other Epics things aren't breaking the rules taking the developer status away is kind of harsh thing to do especially when there is other parties relying on that.

According the the notice from Apple, they found additional violations related to their developer account. I don't know what those additional violations are, though I bet they were only 'identified' for the purpose of this threat. On the other hand, I also wouldn't be surprised if Epic hasn't been abusing their developer privileges or circumventing App Store policies for some time.

 

https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/17/apple-terminate-epic-developer-accounts-august-28/

Quote

Upon further review of the activity associated with your Apple Developer Program membership, we have identified several violations of the Apple Developer Program License Agreement. Therefore, your Apple Developer Program account will be terminated if the violations set forth below are not cured within 14 days. [...]

 

[justpoet]

8 minutes ago, Arika S said:

No.... People are trying to define CHOICE. Apple can keep their app store the way it is as long as they provide an alternative way to get apps onto iOS. Either a 3rd party store not controlled by Apple (eg like APKpure for Android) or direct sideloading. The app store will still be the go to for consumers because it has the most support and apps available, BUT there should still be alternatives for developers. 

You're trying to define WHERE/WHEN the choice must be.  The real choice is "do I buy an Iphone or one of hundreds of brands of Android, or something else?"

If you don't want the package, don't buy the product.

[harryk]

37 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

There is no way that i could live without air drop, it is so much easier than Dropbox, or g drive. Improved security, though not perfect is a pro for iPhone. I don't buy a iPhone for the app store, but am forced to use the iOS app store, even if I don't want to.

Unfortunately all purchase decisions come with compromise. We rarely get everything we want. It'd be very nice if Apple made an iPhone with unlocked software etc. because a lot of people want that. But by no means is Apple required to do that.

[justpoet]

1 minute ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Then you would be OK if all car manufacturers actively prevented you from looking for 3rd-party repair, Windows/Mac/Linux/Android/ChromeOS only allowed you to download stuff they allowed (e.g. killing Steam, Epic, GoG, HumbleBundle, Firefox, Chrome, etc), if your dentist prevented you from looking for a 3rd-party to fix an obturation, etc? That is completely insane.

You're mixing up "right to repair" with choosing a product package.  They're very VERY different things.