Press F for Fortnite - Apple AND GOOGLE remove Fortnite from the App Store - Epic Sues Apple

[Lord Vile]

5 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

Well percentage is scummy though. Type of control as well. I'd never support Apple anyway. Aside how Epic does this, they're trying to prove a point how the system is quite lame for devs and consumers. As for Google not too surprising seeing them do what they did, after all especially something regarding games, which they were always anti supportive. 

It's not a big deal to people now Fortnite is known by everyone and they can easily DL it from site anyway. 

The percentage is the same as google, steam, Xbox and PS stores. 

[Doobeedoo]

2 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

The percentage is the same as google, steam, Xbox and PS stores. 

Yes I know. Point is they're call them out on mobile front here and how closed and controllable the stores are not just the cut.

[Lord Vile]

4 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

Yes I know. Point is they're call them out on mobile front here and how closed and controllable the stores are not just the cut.

Can you reword that please?

[Yeroh]

1 hour ago, HarryNyquist said:

So why is it not questionable on video game consoles?

I'm not familiar with how console game releases work and how much of a cut Microsoft or Sony take from developers (and whether or not it differs when the games are sold online versus off the shelf at a retailer), so I can't comment on it. If the situation is similar, I might feel the same way about video game consoles, but smartphones are very different to consoles in many ways, so I think there are lots of things to take into consideration for a comparsion like that.

[Lord Vile]

Just now, Yeroh said:

I'm not familiar with how console game releases work and how much of a cut Microsoft or Sony take from developers (and whether or not it differs when the games are sold online versus off the shelf at a retailer), so I can't comment on it. If the situation is similar, I might feel the same way about video game consoles, but smartphones are very different to consoles in many ways, so I think there are lots of things to take into consideration for a comparsion like that.

The cut is about the same, on disc the retailer takes a cut too. 
 

How are smartphones different? It’s digital distribution of software. Also consoles are worse, dunno if it’s still the same I haven’t used it in a while but you needed Xbox Gold to use Netflix even though you already paid a subscription to Netflix. 

[Doobeedoo]

1 minute ago, Lord Vile said:

Can you reword that please?

I was writing in middle of something heh. Anyway, they're exposing them from taking a larger cut for just their game being on the store, while not allowing alternative payments. Which how it works currently it's anti consumer and not good for devs.

[Blademaster91]

4 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

I was writing in middle of something heh. Anyway, they're exposing them from taking a larger cut for just their game being on the store, while not allowing alternative payments. Which how it works currently it's anti consumer and not good for devs.

I agree with this, Epic exposing exorbitant store fees to the general consumer is a good thing, although not so sure if Epic actually cares about the little guy though considering they force devs to sell exclusively in their store, which is much more restricted and limited on features compared to Steam.

[Lord Vile]

4 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

I was writing in middle of something heh. Anyway, they're exposing them from taking a larger cut for just their game being on the store, while not allowing alternative payments. Which how it works currently it's anti consumer and not good for devs.

It’s not really unfair if you have a platform you should be able to set what you want for access to your userbase. If you don’t like it don’t sell it there. You can always just release things like games for PC on your own site or through disks if you wanted to keep 100% but then you’d have to pay for servers and refunds and all the issues platform owners deal with for you. If you think 30% is bad YouTube takes 45%

[Doobeedoo]

Just now, Blademaster91 said:

I agree with this, Epic exposing this to the general consumer is a good thing, although not so sure if Epic actually cares about the little guy though considering they force devs to sell exclusively in their store, which is much more restricted and limited on features compared to Steam.

I mean hey every big company not really cares about the little guy, still competition is good either way. Exclusivity sucks, at least it's not hardware locked like consoles, but a store. 

[Blademaster91]

1 minute ago, Lord Vile said:

It’s not really unfair if you have a platform you should be able to set what you want. You can always just release things like games for PC on your own site or through disks if you wanted to keep 100% but then you’d have to pay for servers and refunds and all the issues platform owners deal with for you. If you think 30% is bad YouTube takes 45%

Youtube is still more open because you could go stream on Twitch for extra income, Youtube would be acting like Apple if you could only make content on Youtube and you'd be kicked off for trying to offset the fees.

[Yeroh]

Just now, Lord Vile said:

The cut is about the same, on disc the retailer takes a cut too. 
 

How are smartphones different? It’s digital distribution of software. Also consoles are worse, dunno if it’s still the same I haven’t used it in a while but you needed Xbox Gold to use Netflix even though you already paid a subscription to Netflix. 

Well, consoles aren't portable, for one. With smartphones you also tend to have a lot more variety in the types of applications that you might want to use while consoles will probably never run anything that isn't gaming or streaming (i.e. entertainment) related. You could also make a strong case for the fact that owning a smartphone is pretty much mandatory in our modern world (given the reliance on communication and digitalization of even public services). So imo there's a reasonable argument to be made about smartphones requiring some sort of regulation, i.e. by making side-loading a mandatory feature.

 

Again, I'm not at all familiar with how the console licensing and everything works, but given what you've said I'd agree that the console market might need to see similar types of adjustment.

[Doobeedoo]

1 minute ago, Lord Vile said:

It’s not really unfair if you have a platform you should be able to set what you want for access to your userbase. If you don’t like it don’t sell it there. You can always just release things like games for PC on your own site or through disks if you wanted to keep 100% but then you’d have to pay for servers and refunds and all the issues platform owners deal with for you. If you think 30% is bad YouTube takes 45%

Point is exposing the monopoly bs like that. It's just greed and control, not security really like they're badly pitching it even. Really, they literally don't allow alternatives, but want a huge cut automatically just for something being there. Sucks for devs and users. They do release on PC on their own launcher, you can sideload on mobile without a store anyway, everyone knows it, so why give Apple free money. Not sure what you mean with servers and refunds though, it's a weak argument that even Apple tries to sell as "we'll take care of it, you don't need to do anything" to use their service that does that. For YT 45% is for add revenue no and 30% for PlayStore fee.

[Lord Vile]

9 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

Point is exposing the monopoly bs like that. It's just greed and control, not security really like they're badly pitching it even. Really, they literally don't allow alternatives, but want a huge cut automatically just for something being there. Sucks for devs and users. They do release on PC on their own launcher, you can sideload on mobile without a store anyway, everyone knows it, so why give Apple free money. Not sure what you mean with servers and refunds though, it's a weak argument that even Apple tries to sell as "we'll take care of it, you don't need to do anything" to use their service that does that. For YT 45% is for add revenue no and 30% for PlayStore fee.

It’s not a monopoly though because they’re not the only phone marketplace. It’s a duopoly really but still. iOS is a mobile phone OS with its own marketplace, android is that also and so is Huaweis thing which no one cares about.

 

YT is actually a monopoly with no major competitor.  

[Commodus]

1 hour ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Well to be entirely fair, I don't think epic are the bad guys here. They permanently dropped vbucks prices on all platforms to make this point about Google and Apple (which is a pretty big deal when you consider just how many people actually buy this shit every day) and they are already setting an example with the Epic Games Store, where they only take a 15% cut and if you use the unreal engine and publish your game exclusively on their store, they won't take a single dollar until you make $1,000,000 AFAIK. Out of the 3, epic is the only one who seems to care about smaller developers.

I wouldn't call it caring about smaller developers to sign exclusives and incentivize studios to choose engines based on discounts instead of suitability for purpose. It creates a fragmented market with resentment that can actually hurt studios once the Epic money runs out.

[Lord Vile]

17 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Youtube is still more open because you could go stream on Twitch for extra income, Youtube would be acting like Apple if you could only make content on Youtube and you'd be kicked off for trying to offset the fees.

That’s like saying yeah it’s fine to pay me £2 an hour because I can just take up a second full time job. YouTube is actually a monopoly with no viable competition in the video sharing space. 

[Doobeedoo]

Just now, Lord Vile said:

It’s not a monopoly though because they’re not the only phone marketplace. It’s a duopoly really but still. iOS is a mobile phone OS with its own marketplace, android is that also and so is Huaweis thing which no one cares about.

 

YT is actually a monopoly with no major competitor.  

I mean it's a monopoly not allowing in-app purchases, also you can't add/remove/edit your payment method. Just Apple Pay thing period. Whatever you want to call it, it's all bad. Android Play Store is more flexible though. Though Epic doing their thing is to make a statement and prove a point, especially they can do that being how big they are. Other I'm sure would join/support them in this. As for YT true videos/content wise it's a monopoly since alternatives are rather unknown and not used really. As for livestreaming part Twitch is there and YT is kinda lucky in that sense if someone for X reason leaves Twitch YT is the only alternative. Not just that it allows streaming but that it's already well known.

[Blademaster91]

50 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

I mean hey every big company not really cares about the little guy, still competition is good either way. Exclusivity sucks, at least it's not hardware locked like consoles, but a store. 

Yeah any competition is good, at least on PC there are other choices if you don't like Epic.

30 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

That’s like saying yeah it’s fine to pay me £2 an hour because I can just take up a second full time job. YouTube is actually a monopoly with no viable competition in the video sharing space. 

Apple would be £2 an hour because they take 30% of your pay, you want to actually make anything then your app can't be free.

At least Youtube is open so that you can produce content on another platform, or have built in ads in Youtube videos.

[Lord Vile]

1 minute ago, Blademaster91 said:

Yeah any competition is good, at least on PC there are other choices if you don't like Epic.

Apple would be £2 an hour because they take 30% of your pay, you want to actually make anything then your app can't be free.

At least Youtube is open so that you can product content on another platform, or have built in ads in Youtube videos.

Or you can put the software on android and windows and MacOS and Linux? Most of not all platforms take a cut which includes other video sharing sites like twitch.

[Lord Vile]

6 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

I mean it's a monopoly not allowing in-app purchases, also you can't add/remove/edit your payment method. Just Apple Pay thing period. Whatever you want to call it, it's all bad. Android Play Store is more flexible though. Though Epic doing their thing is to make a statement and prove a point, especially they can do that being how big they are. Other I'm sure would join/support them in this. As for YT true videos/content wise it's a monopoly since alternatives are rather unknown and not used really. As for livestreaming part Twitch is there and YT is kinda lucky in that sense if someone for X reason leaves Twitch YT is the only alternative. Not just that it allows streaming but that it's already well known.

You know you can pay with stuff other than apple pay right? You can chose a bank/credit card or PayPal too. Honestly I’m hoping epic get destroyed because they’re claims are pretty much baseless and their income is solely from encourage kids to gamble. 
 

So YouTube is a monopoly and should be forced to allow other video services to use its infrastructure? 

[rcmaehl]

Good breakdown:
 

 

[Doobeedoo]

Just now, Lord Vile said:

You know you can pay with stuff other than apple pay right? You can chose a bank/credit card or PayPal too. Honestly I’m hoping epic get destroyed because they’re claims are pretty much baseless and their income is solely from encourage kids to gamble. 
 

So YouTube is a monopoly and should be forced to allow other video services to use its infrastructure? 

They're talking about iOS app developers that sell in-app content to exclusively use Apple's In-App Purchase and preventing app devs from developing and integrating alternative payment solutions. They're not taking the issue that Apple requires devs to use App Store but they think it's unfair Apple requires you to use its payment methods, which thereby gives Apple 30% of all in-app revenue on the digital goods that make up the entirety of Fortnite’s business model.

[Arika]

35 minutes ago, rcmaehl said:

Good breakdown:

 

The fact that Epic had this ready to go...and they even made a stupid video goes to show that they don't actually care, they knew exactly what they were doing. one could even argue.

 

I agree with the video. All of these companies are scum.

[Video Beagle]

3 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

Youtube is still more open because you could go stream on Twitch for extra income, Youtube would be acting like Apple if you could only make content on Youtube and you'd be kicked off for trying to offset the fees.

That is literally the opposite of reality.

 

Apple isn't saying if you do iOS, you can't do other platforms. They're not saying that if you do other platforms and Apple, they must be equal features or you don't get on. They're saying if you want to be on iOS, you follow certain policies.

 

Youtube, however will come down on you and take you down for sending people to other platforms unless you thread a careful needle. Linus talked about it in the past.

 

 

-----------------------------------------------

This is another take on stuff, pointing toward hacker groups and stuff... The description that got me to read it (from MacObserver)

Quote

Attacking Apple’s App Store policies and Google’s equivalent is relatively easy. Over on Pando, Aimee Pearcy takes the counterview – that while the model is not perfect,  changing it drastically would be to the benefit of hackers and fraudsters, not users.
While Apple and Google have wildly inconsistent policies for their stores — Netflix got a free pass from paying Apple Tax on its $853 million U.S. annual iOS revenue back in 2018 — their payment features are a major asset for developers. Credit card-stealing malware is already a huge problem. If anyone could link to their own third-party checkout page, Hacker groups like Magecart would shit themselves with excitement. Every checkout page would have to be manually checked. It would be a huge ask for users to unknown developers with side payments. And Epic certainly isn’t a shining example. Its game Fortnite has been described as a ‘money laundering paradise’, with money launderers using stolen credit cards to buy V-bucks.If third-party side payments were allowed and credit card fraud became a problem –and make no mistake, it would become a problem — Apple and Google would have zero transparency.

 

https://pando.com/2020/08/14/changing-apple-google-app-store-model-would-suck-everyone-except-epic-games/

 

Frankly, I didn't find the article very well done....it was more "these things happen" and really didn't develop the premise, but at least added some ideas I hadn't concidered.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

15 hours ago, Video Beagle said:

You want your product sold at Wal-Mart, you follow Wal-Mart's policies.

Yes, but Walmart isn't the only store you can sell at. You  also can sell online. You don't have another option for where to download your apps on a iPhone. 

[mr moose]

13 hours ago, Video Beagle said:

Because words have meaning?

Damn right they have meaning, they have very specific meanings in law, you can't take a general word with a general meaning in everyday context and try to apply it to law.  It does not work that way.

 

13 hours ago, Video Beagle said:

Do you think stores sell products for free?

You want your product sold at Wal-Mart, you follow Wal-Mart's policies.

 And if Wal-Mart doesn't want to sell your product, you don't get to sue them because you're upset.

 

I've posted about walmart and bricks'n'mortar stores and what I think is reasonable already if you want to know what I think.

13 hours ago, Video Beagle said:

"but iOS blah blah blah 55%"

So what? The product category is smart phones....not iOS. (and it might not even be that...it mgt be like "mobile computing") Apple's not stopping Fornite, or Floatplane, or anything else from being in business. They're not saying "if you put it out on iOS, you can't put it out elsewhere".  They're not using their market position to do anything other than control their own product.

Thus illustrating that the concept of a monopoly in legal terms as it applies to a market is beyond most of the discussion here.

12 hours ago, HarryNyquist said:

ITT: People forget that Google also removed it from their store too for violating the same rule.

 

Not at all, I have openly denounced google as being just as guilty.  The problem is not because it's apple, the problem is what they are doing and the fact people seem to be happy with it.

 

9 hours ago, harryk said:

Here's another way to view the same situation: 

 

Half of the consumer market, by purchasing an iOS device, have essentially said "I will only purchase software via the App Store." This may have been an explicit decision, as I do, or an implicit one as the consumer chooses the Apple ecosystem which is the walled garden model.

 

It's not Apple forcing the developers to use their platform, it's the consumers.

 

 

Not really, it's another way to appreciate the market, but it does not change how monopolies effect the market and how they effect consumer choice.

 

 

6 hours ago, Commodus said:

The key is that they were trying to portray Apple as dominant in the overall smartphone market... and it's not.  In mainland Europe it's not even close. I also wouldn't consider 55% dominance; leading, for sure, but not something that would immediately raise hackles for regulators.

Nope, the key issue is:  are they engaging in a monopolistic activity? the answer is yes because those market numbers mean nothing when determining if a monopoly exist.

 

6 hours ago, Commodus said:

That's the billion dollar question, really. I believe Apple's rationales are that it both helps fund the App Store and always provides a simple option for customers, but it does have the drawback of making it difficult to offer in-app sign-ups without hiking prices.

 

Not really disagreeing here, just worth pointing out that it's not quite all or nothing.

 

The thing is that it's not dominant in market share in the way US regulators (or indeed, many other regulators) would look for. You can point out that its share is large enough that it limits developers' choices, but it's not a monopolist the way Google is for search (plus Android on a global scale) or Microsoft is on PCs.

yes it is.  Whether they do anything about it is a different question.  Remember the monopolies the isp's have, all technically illegal but no court is going to do shit about it.