Apple considers transparency information as irrelevant and forbids info about their 30% cut

[Bombastinator]

7 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

This is true to an extent, but I consider dependency on a single source to be an attack vector itself. Imagine if someone compromised the app store, or imagine if someone compromised the Windows Update system if you want another example.

 

And in my way of thinking, it's going to happen eventually. It's not a question of if, but rather when.

 

Another example of dependency, was those DDoS attacks back in the day on Xbox Live during Christmas (LizardSquad, I believe?). One PC you have the option of going to other servers/services. Steam is down? You can play on origin, etc.

 

I think of dependency as the illusion of security or reliability. Not to mention that the App Store has been compromised before.

 

Either system, Android or Apple, has it's advantages and disadvantages, but I prefer relying on my own awareness and having good browsing habits, over relying on another party to keep me secure. I would like to see that spread more widely.

I don’t disagree.  It’s a fundamental problem with trustability layers.  If a layer is considered trusted and the layer is breached, problems can multiply.  This is a fundamental issue with disease.  AIDS for example is an issue because it attacks the body’s security system.

[Vishera]

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Has Fortnite bypassed the App Store entirely and didn't offer purchase within the app directly without giving user choice of doing it via App Store or via Fortnite. I don't know those specifics, but would be nice to know how exactly it happened as there seems to be a lot of weird claims around...

Fortnite released an update that adds the option to pay with Epic's payment API instead of the Apple API and it's tax so it's cheaper then the Apple option.

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, Vishera said:

Fortnite released an update that adds the option to pay with Epic's payment API instead of the Apple API and it's tax so it's cheaper then the Apple option.

Yeah, but they still offered payment through App Store or not?

[Jet_ski]

If only Apple could harvest and sell our data to CambridgeAnalytica then Facebook wouldn’t have to pay the 30% fee.

 

There’s nothing Apple can do to Facebook that’ll bother me.

[Jeppes]

4 minutes ago, Jet_ski said:

If only Apple could harvest and sell our data to CambridgeAnalytica then Facebook wouldn’t have to pay the 30% fee.

 

There’s nothing Apple can do to Facebook that’ll bother me.

Because they dont make enough hundreds of billions with a 5% cut

[KarsusTG]

I do not understand how Epic has much of a leg to stand on here. 

[circeseye]

ok im curious about this.....lets say you started all your subscriptions on your comp...netflix, amazon, and such...and you have an apple phone, you install the apps to watch or play on it. does apple still pull a 30% fee? even thou you didnt start the sub on the apple phone

[Mihle]

3 minutes ago, circeseye said:

ok im curious about this.....lets say you started all your subscriptions on your comp...netflix, amazon, and such...and you have an apple phone, you install the apps to watch or play on it. does apple still pull a 30% fee? even thou you didnt start the sub on the apple phone

No.

[Mark Kaine]

9 minutes ago, KarsusTG said:

I do not understand how Epic has much of a leg to stand on here. 

They don't. that's the joke.gif 

 

But it is speculated they want to use this case to get better regulations overall , as in no more walled gardens or at least more severely regulated ones... Of course it also appears they don't really know what they're doing so we'll see how that goes... 

 

Personally I could see apple being forced to be more open and allow sideloading after this. 

 

[AlTech]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

Yeah, but they still offered payment through App Store or not?

Correct.

 

They offered both their Epic Payment processing option and the Apple option.

 

55 minutes ago, KarsusTG said:

I do not understand how Epic has much of a leg to stand on here. 

They're trying to make the argument that Apple's walled garden is monopolistic and IMHO it certainly is.

 

The problem is walled gardens are not currently understood to be monopolistic because Judges and the law don't seem to understand any real world analogue for this.

[spartaman64]

1 hour ago, KarsusTG said:

I do not understand how Epic has much of a leg to stand on here. 

companies like microsoft has been hit on the head over this for less. 

[RejZoR]

Again, how are Apple's OWN devices with OWN OS and OWN app store monopolistic? Not to mention Apple has wide adoption only in USA. USA is not entire world. But everyone makes it sound like it is. It's their product and they should do whatever the fuck they want because outside of their own products, they don't affect ANYTHING. Unlike Android which has spread like cancer on ALL portable devices and finding one without it is almost impossible. And they ALL come with GooglePlay as cherry on top. If we demand companies that run everything their own to not run everything their own, what's next, demanding that McDonalds also sells Burger King and KFC, otherwise it's monopoly restaurant and we can't allow that? And demand that whatever video editing software on Macs HAS to be ported to Windows or else. We're charting through dumb seas here...

 

I honestly still don't get it this whining of people over Apple. Not because I'm Apple's fanboy, but because it just makes no sense. And no, you can't equate it with Microsoft and their Windows situation as it's not even remotely the same. Windows was shilled on non-Microsoft devices and within it, they shilled their browser or whatever. Devices were not owned by Microsoft and in that situation they can't do whatever they want just because it's their OS. Where with Apple, it's ALL theirs from hardware to software and they can make up policies of their own when entire product is theirs. Same should apply to Google Pixel devices or Microsoft's Surface devices. If they are suddenly not allowed to do their shit on their terms on their own devices, we're setting some dumb arbitrary rules that just make no sense. Again, I want my KFC at McDonalds then. Fucking burger monopoly...

[KarsusTG]

28 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

They're trying to make the argument that Apple's walled garden is monopolistic and IMHO it certainly is.

 

The problem is walled gardens are not currently understood to be monopolistic because Judges and the law don't seem to understand any real world analogue for this.

 

But in order for it to be a monopoly, it would have to also be the only walled garden would it not?  There is 5 or 6 of these gardens you can be in, often simultaneously. 

 

25 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

companies like microsoft has been hit on the head over this for less. 

I cannot find anything comparative to this.  Like what?  I am not trying to be super pro apple, I am just curious. 

 

[Bennet]

35 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Again, how are Apple's OWN devices with OWN OS and OWN app store monopolistic? Not to mention Apple has wide adoption only in USA. USA is not entire world. But everyone makes it sound like it is. It's their product and they should do whatever the fuck they want because outside of their own products, they don't affect ANYTHING. Unlike Android which has spread like cancer on ALL portable devices and finding one without it is almost impossible. And they ALL come with GooglePlay as cherry on top. If we demand companies that run everything their own to not run everything their own, what's next, demanding that McDonalds also sells Burger King and KFC, otherwise it's monopoly restaurant and we can't allow that? And demand that whatever video editing software on Macs HAS to be ported to Windows or else. We're charting through dumb seas here...

 

I honestly still don't get it this whining of people over Apple. Not because I'm Apple's fanboy, but because it just makes no sense. And no, you can't equate it with Microsoft and their Windows situation as it's not even remotely the same. Windows was shilled on non-Microsoft devices and within it, they shilled their browser or whatever. Devices were not owned by Microsoft and in that situation they can't do whatever they want just because it's their OS. Where with Apple, it's ALL theirs from hardware to software and they can make up policies of their own when entire product is theirs. Same should apply to Google Pixel devices or Microsoft's Surface devices. If they are suddenly not allowed to do their shit on their terms on their own devices, we're setting some dumb arbitrary rules that just make no sense. Again, I want my KFC at McDonalds then. Fucking burger monopoly...

So I think you are mixing some things up here. At First, at least I would argue that by opening up the ability for other to create and sell for and on iOS at all, they essentially created a market here. The iPhone/iOS Market. (So this is pure intuition at this point. I'm not exactly sure about the law). Sure in the grant scheme of things this market this market might not be that large but certainly not insignificant. And by being the gatekeeper to this market, they have a monopoly here.

 

So I think iOS and App Store should be seen as part of one single coherent thing, but rather a shop (in this case the only shop, because monopoly you know...) giving access to the iOS market.

 

Than comparing it with McDonalds would have to sell Burger King Burgers is the wrong analogy, I think. So I think a better real world example would be if you consider your average computer store, e.g. cyberport (this is a electronics shop here in Germany, but replace the name with what ever you can relate) giving a notebook manufacturer, e.g. Lenovo, access to the consumer electronic market (they are certainly not the only one, because there is no monopoly here, but the example will still work). So if cyberport would now act like Apple with the App Store, than there would be a policy like... okay Lenovo you want to sell laptops through us, than every additional purchase by this device for this device, like extended warrenty, would need to be processed through "cyberport pay" (this does not really exsist but yeah it is for the example) were we btw get our 30% cut. And in addition to that you are not allowed to say any where that one could make that purchase any were else for cheaper.

Of cause if such policy from cyberport would exist, that manufactures would say f*** you cyberport, than we rather sell through MediaMark (another german consumer electronics store), they also give us access to this consumer electronics market and we are perfectly happy with what MediaMarkt has to offer.

But again with the App Store this could never happen because Apple has the monopoly for the iOS market and with out them nobody has access to it.

 

And to come back to the beginning, of cause it's a market they created and it is their OS. But if they had kept it close so no one could had ever developed for it and would never had been insensitivised  making money on it, than Apple would be perfectly find and would be allowed to do what they want. That's why McDonald has no Monopoly on Happy Meals because there was never ever the option to buy and sell an King Meal or a KFC Chicken Box at a McDonalds Store.

 

 

Edit: Btw I also think that same would apply to Sony with the PlayStation Store and Microsoft with the XBox Store and so on. But noboy is complaining about it yet. But in my opinion the same principal would apply.

[AlTech]

39 minutes ago, KarsusTG said:

 

But in order for it to be a monopoly, it would have to also be the only walled garden would it not?  There is 5 or 6 of these gardens you can be in, often simultaneously. 

The argument being made is the walled garden by it's existence is a monopoly.

39 minutes ago, KarsusTG said:

I cannot find anything comparative to this.  Like what?  I am not trying to be super pro apple, I am just curious. 

 

The big one that comes to mind is IE being bundled with Windows. There was a major antitrust lawsuit and Microsoft lost.

 

In the EU Microsoft had to offer Windows with options to download different browsers from installation.

[Bombastinator]

3 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Yeah, but they still offered payment through App Store or not?

Within but not through.  They tunneled the App Store. A store within a store using the positioning of the App Store.   Like if you put up your own clothing store inside a Neiman Marcus.  The Epic App Store thing is unlikely to be upheld anyway.  The judge didn’t even run a temporary restraining order on that one.  The one that got one was the act by apple of threatening to kill off the unreal engine which is used by other companies.  Losing Apple users won’t matter much to epic. 3/4 of their user base is console, so maybe 15% of their player base plays on iPhone tops.  Probably less. Apple turning off fortnight won’t kill fortnight.  The issue with the unreal engine is different. Developers use it partially because it runs on everything.  There are other choices a game developer can make though and if unreal suddenly doesn’t run on everything there are other engines that do.  That could kill unreal , and THAT would hurt epic.  And it is the part that got a temporary injunction.  Neither of these actually have much to do with the 30% thing.   That’s just a marketing tool being used to gain popular support for the lawsuit. 

[Kisai]

2 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

The issue with the unreal engine is different. Developers use it partially because it runs on everything.  There are other choices a game developer can make though and if unreal suddenly doesn’t run on everything there are other engines that do.  That could kill unreal , and THAT would hurt epic.  

And only by Epic's own hands does it hurt Epic, since as I've mentioned:

a) You can compile UE yourself

b) You can also upstream things to Epic

 

The only thing that really is lost here if Apple blocked UE development on Apple platforms by blocking access to the SDK's is that it wouldn't get any new features. Period. Someone with XCode can compile UE4 right now, and put whatever game goes with it on the app store.

 

To that end the TRO is fair because while Apple is within their rights, by policy to do this, they are distinct legal entities (and I would be curious to find out when that happened, did it happen between 2018 and now?) and distinct legal entities not involved in the lawsuit can't be party to a lawsuit. So the lawsuit, (as it seems) is "Epic, maker of fortnite" based in the US not "Epic maker of Unreal" based in the EU. It's a legal technical thing. 

 

So legal technical thing meets engineering technical thing. The court case will likely need expert testimonies stating that Epic (Unreal Engine) is not legally distinct, and the engine can not be harmed by blocking Epic's access to it, or an expert from game development outside of epic could state that while it's possible to use UE without Apple's support of UE, it would make them think twice about using Epic's software since there is an entire support structure built between the developer and UE, not the developer and Apple in regards to UE.

 

Anyway, developers are not without choices. Unity is available. CryEngine 5.x is available this year with Android support, iOS references exist in the documentation so it's likely something coming soon too. There's nothing currently released on Android however that uses it.

[Bombastinator]

Re: distinct legal entities

I vaguely recall Switzerland being specifically not part of the EU. A neutrality thing.  A very minor point. I could be wrong.
 

re: a weirdass thought

 It would be amusing if what wound up happening is the legal fiction wound up being forced into reality. Epic(fortnight) having unreal completely severed and losing control of it entirely. That would be even more damaging to epic than if apple kicked UE out of the App Store.   I’m starting to wonder if Apple intended the demand to force Epic to stop their suit because they should have seen that coming, but they walked into it anyway.  Could be a real nest of hornets epic knocked down.

 

 

 

[Spicedaddy]

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

It was 25% more expensive to buy through Apple than directly from Epic. 

9.99 if you bought through Apple's payment API. 

7.99 if you bought through Epic directly. 

 

So it was most likely 25% plus a 5% payment fee from whatever payment processor Epic used instead, thus passing the entire savings to their customers. 

All this noise for 2$? Really? Most people probably wouldn’t mind if it was more convenient to buy it from the App Store.

 

Good luck to Epic, but this is going nowhere. Microsoft also complained about the 30% cut when they first put Office apps on iOS and Apple didn’t budge.

[Bombastinator]

8 minutes ago, Sugadaddy said:

All this noise for 2$? Really? Most people probably wouldn’t mind if it was more convenient to buy it from the App Store.

 

Good luck to Epic, but this is going nowhere. Microsoft also complained about the 30% cut when they first put Office apps on iOS and Apple didn’t budge.

It was apparently $2 a lot of times.  Iirc Someone mentioned somewhere that epic was pulling over a million dollars a day out of the Apple store.

[Spicedaddy]

21 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

It was apparently $2 a lot of times.  Iirc Someone mentioned somewhere that epic was pulling over a million dollars a day out of the Apple store.

 

It's a small amount for the end user, I doubt Epic will convince many people to get mad over 2$.

 

Epic is happy to make millions from iOS sales even after the 30% cut. If they're not happy, they can stop selling on iOS and make nothing.

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, Sugadaddy said:

 

It's a small amount for the end user, I doubt Epic will convince many people to get mad over 2$.

 

Epic is happy to make millions from iOS sales even after the 30% cut. If they're not happy, they can stop selling on iOS and make nothing.

It seems they’re trying to make them get mad over 30% instead.   It’s an easier argument to make.  Apple may have to justify that 30% and if they can’t it may go down.  And it will go down for more than just Apple. 

[TheSage79]

Now see... THIS... *THIS* is an actual example of potential a Anti-trust violation. Apple is using their position at the gatekeeper of the App store to prevent transparency to the end user (anti-trust is about what is fair to consumers, not what is fair to other businesses) about where the money is going on what any normal user would consider a charitable donation.

 

Though, in reality, this is probably just Facebook being salty because Apple is about to essentially wreck Facebooks iOS business model with the new privacy features in iOS 14. 

[Arika]

1 hour ago, Sugadaddy said:

 

It's a small amount for the end user, I doubt Epic will convince many people to get mad over 2$.

 

Epic is happy to make millions from iOS sales even after the 30% cut. If they're not happy, they can stop selling on iOS and make nothing.

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

It seems they’re trying to make them get mad over 30% instead.   It’s an easier argument to make.  Apple may have to justify that 30% and if they can’t it may go down.  And it will go down for more than just Apple. 

 

it's not quite as simple as that. Nor is Epic doing this for the "wholesome" reasons people think.

 

Quote

16. Epic—and Fortnite’s users—are directly harmed by Apple’s anticompetitive conduct. But for Apple’s illegal restraints, Epic would provide a competing app store on iOS devices, which would allow iOS users to download apps in an innovative, curated store and would provide users the choice to use Epic’s or another third-party’s in-app payment processing tool.

 

They want to put their Epic Store on iOS and Android so THEY can be the ones to be the payment processor.

 

Apple still needs to get tried for it's anti-trust crap, but Epic also isn't a hero in this either

[Bombastinator]

2 minutes ago, Arika S said:

 

it's not quite as simple as that. Nor is Epic doing this for the "wholesome" reasons people think.

 

 

They want to put their Epic Store on iOS and Android so THEY can be the ones to be the payment processor.

 

Apple still needs to get tried for it's anti-trust crap, but Epic also isn't a hero in this either

I’d personally like to see them both get burned. Apple has to justify its fee structure, meaning it would either have to charge less or do more for users, possibly both, (which would be a go-round for all the app stores) and epic has to make the division between fortnight and UE real and more than a legal fiction. Judging from what ive seen so far I think the most likely thing to happen is for Apple to get away Scott free from the government but lose amazing amounts of good will with its customer base, which is probably actually more damaging, and for epic to find itself in some kind of serious hot water regarding this US/Switzerland division thing.