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

[TheNamelessOne]

I was just about to say yet another reason why iOS is so much better than Android, but then Google decided to also take Fortnite off. Bummer, now iOS is still better, but not as before.

[Guest]

Epic now sueing Google now. Total money grab from a shady company. 

[Zinkar]

Hi all, my first time here.

 

Why are many folks ignoring Epic's greed ? They said the v-bucks's price were more expensive for mobile only becuase Epic has to earn ... what a greed.

[mr moose]

13 minutes ago, Zinkar said:

Hi all, my first time here.

 

Why are many folks ignoring Epic's greed ? They said the v-bucks's price were more expensive for mobile only becuase Epic has to earn ... what a greed.

 

 

I think there are very few who are ignoring it.  Most people on this forum have a outspoken hatred for epic for many different reasons,  however most of the discussion is not about epic, but about an existing complaint regarding mobile store fronts (the app store and the play store).  For most of us the modern phone has replaced the desktop/laptop as being the most important device we require.  I think many would argue that trying to survive without a phone in this day and age would be like trying to survive being illiterate 50 years ago,  sure you can do it but your chances of getting anywhere are severely limited.  Therefore there should be no artificial barriers or restraints on the software one wishes to install on their personal device. 

 

 

Imagine if you had to buy photoshop again because you wanted to swap to mac on your next computer?  That is what is happening on the mobile computing front.  It prevents consumers from being able to swap between ios and android as they see fit,  I cannot afford to buy all my apps again so I cannot afford to "vote with my wallet" as many would like to pretend anyone can just  do.  Also it effects developers as they are constrained to whatever fees and charges and rules google and apple set.  This is not a free market.

 

So TL:DR, it's no that people like Epic or even like what they are doing, in this case where it is a battle between two evils, epic's actions have the potential to be much better for consumers than apples (by a long margin given the number of similar cases and complains have been raised already).

[Kisai]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Imagine if you had to buy photoshop again because you wanted to swap to mac on your next computer?  That is what is happening on the mobile computing front. 

That's actually how it was before Adobe Creative Cloud. You had one key, and you can only install it on one computer. Creative Cloud lets you install it on as many computers as you want, but you can only use it on one at a time.

 

This Epic vs Apple/Google is only about who gets to pocket more money. The customer is not going to get cheaper prices from this, because all the app stores, including game consoles are also charging 30%.

 

Honestly, I don't care if Epic wins or loses, but I'm pretty sure they will lose on the face of it, since they're not the DOJ.

 

 

[Arika]

2 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Honestly, I don't care if Epic wins or loses, but I'm pretty sure they will lose on the face of it, since they're not the DOJ.

I think the only outcome i would be happy with is:

1. Epic has to pay Google and Apple for damages for circumventing the payment requirements of their respective stores.
2. A proper investigation is launched into the App Store and Play Store for monopolistic practices.
3. Google and Apple are forced to allow other app stores/ways to install apps outside of their own store (which android admittedly already does).

 

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Kisai said:

That's actually how it was before Adobe Creative Cloud. You had one key, and you can only install it on one computer. Creative Cloud lets you install it on as many computers as you want, but you can only use it on one at a time.

Do you remember when software came on CD?  I do, often you got both mac and windows versions.  In fact many software providers allow you to down load whichever version you want because you activate your key within the program.

 

4 minutes ago, Kisai said:

This Epic vs Apple/Google is only about who gets to pocket more money. The customer is not going to get cheaper prices from this, because all the app stores, including game consoles are also charging 30%.

If epic win apple (and google officially) might have to allow 3rd party app stores. That will be a huge win for consumers.  Make no mistake, no one believes they are doing this for us, but the outcome will certainly have it's impacts. If apple win you can kiss goodbye any hope of app developers actually being able to control their own apps. 

 

4 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Honestly, I don't care if Epic wins or loses, but I'm pretty sure they will lose on the face of it, since they're not the DOJ.

 

 

 

I am not holding my hopes up that they will win, because even if they do the POTUS can just overrule anyway (because the US legal system is not independent from the government),   but make no mistake, If apple win, then consumers will lose.

 

 

[Spindel]

23 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

You are literally arguing that a developer should halve his potential sales happily because apple have sole control over those devices. 

 

The reason apps don't disappear from the app store is because developers have NO CHOICE,  it's accept the terms of apple and pay up or lose half the market.  Why can't people see how that is a monopoly?   

On your first paragraph the short answer: yes.

 

Second paragraph: No not monopoly, app developers that use slimey IAP or subscription models for their apps can still have a homepage where they can get paid without using apples infrastructure. The only two rules they have to obey is that they can’t redirect to that site from the app and the app must be functional even if you don’t pay anyting (at least as a time limited demo). Clearly stated rules, not monopolistic and still something that Epic and that worthless mail app, a while back, failed to adhere to.

 

But if you as a developer want to use Apples infrastructure, that guarantees ease of use, and saftey, for the consumer. You have to pay apple for it, I see this as fair.
 

What all this is about is entiteled developers that want to keep the cake and eat it at the same time. And do you know why? Because using apples infrastructure guarantees way higher revenue than the allowed workarounds. 

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Spindel said:

On your first paragraph the short answer: yes.

then you are advocating for anti trust.

 

4 minutes ago, Spindel said:

Second paragraph: No not monopoly, app developers that use slimey IAP or subscription models for their apps can still have a homepage where they can get paid without using apples infrastructure. The only two rules they have to obey is that they can’t redirect to that site from the app and the app must be functional even if you don’t pay anyting (at least as a time limited demo). Clearly stated rules, not monopolistic and still something that Epic and that worthless mail app, a while back, failed to adhere to.

 

4 minutes ago, Spindel said:

But if you as a developer want to use Apples infrastructure, that guarantees ease of use, and saftey, for the consumer. You have to pay apple for it, I see this as fair.
 

What all this is about is entiteled developers that want to keep the cake and eat it at the same time. And do you know why? Because using apples infrastructure guarantees way higher revenue than the allowed workarounds. 

getting tired of explaining how monopolies work.  I've posted several examples and an article.  its worth looking into if yoy want to continue the discussion with reasoned points.

[Kisai]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Do you remember when software came on CD?  I do, often you got both mac and windows versions.  In fact many software providers allow you to down load whichever version you want because you activate your key within the program.

Yes, as I have CS3 and CS4 on disc, but surprise surprise, I could not install the Mac version, only the PC version, because Adobe considers those unique licenses, and you had to pay for a cross-grade to switch. 

 

But it's a bit beside the point. Photoshop might be the industry standard, but within the customers that I know, all of them would like nothing more than to dump Photoshop for Clip Studio Paint, if only CSP would work in CMYK and support Western-style comic lettering. Everyone has to keep around Photoshop to make sure CYMK for print and a to do all the text. There's also a pile of alternatives to everything Adobe makes.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Yes, as I have CS3 and CS4 on disc, but surprise surprise, I could not install the Mac version, only the PC version, because Adobe considers those unique licenses, and you had to pay for a cross-grade to switch. 

 

But it's a bit beside the point. Photoshop might be the industry standard, but within the customers that I know, all of them would like nothing more than to dump Photoshop for Clip Studio Paint, if only CSP would work in CMYK and support Western-style comic lettering. Everyone has to keep around Photoshop to make sure CYMK for print and a to do all the text. There's also a pile of alternatives to everything Adobe makes.

You can migrate your adobe software from windows to mac or back again any time you want:

 

https://prodesigntools.com/move-adobe-cs5-between-computers-or-windows-to-mac.html

 

you used to be able to do it easily, but since adobe have ended support for the older versions you now have to request an exchange:

 

Quote

But if you require a different operating system version of a non–Creative Suite/Cloud product you purchased from Adobe (such as Acrobat Pro/Standard), then you can exchange your product. All product configurations (including Student and Teacher Editions) are eligible for exchange.

 

They limit it to 5 for whatever reason, but it can be done.

 

[PCGuy_5960]

10 hours ago, Commodus said:

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.

I wouldn't say so, it's just a helpful option for those who want to use the unreal engine and aren't sure if their game is going to be a hit. And even with that, the cut they take is still way smaller than every other platform.

[Lord Vile]

10 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

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.

You mean like when you sell a game on PSN and Sony forces devs to hand over 30%?

 

Also you can use stuff other than Apple Pay on the App Store, I have PayPal as mine because I didn’t bother to change it after Apple Pay was a thing.

[ne0tic]

To be fair, Apple didn't do anything wrong here. It was Epic Games that went against the guidelines and because of that Fortnite kind of deserved to be banned. Had Apple not removed Fortnite, they would have been caught with treating developers differently... I still believe Apple should change their policy a bit, 30% cut is way too steep. If Apple lowered the one-time-purchase fee to 10-15% and subscriptions to 5% then that would be completely fair both ways in my opinion. I hope that Epic will lose the lawsuit but that Apple will still reconsider their policy and at least lower the fees a bit!

[Lord Vile]

3 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

as long as you're paying anything through the app store, either firsthand or through the mandated APIs, apple will take the 30% before other dev license fees. paying with paypal through said APIs does not skip that step

 

which is the entire deal of Epic's push (and Spotify by agreement)

So you can still pay how you want they just take a %... seems like that’s exactly how every other shop on earth works

[Lord Vile]

6 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

which is the basis of one of the arguments here. 30% is too much, but 0% is not fair to any platform operator either

 

another being cross-platform app ownership issues, but i don't think it's what your current argument is covering right now?

Why is 30% too much? Again YouTube takes 45%, twitch takes 50, Spotify takes 30. Remember they’re the ones who run the storefront, advertise to consumers, run the servers and put in place the infrastructure, in apples case they make the hardware too. They should be allowed to make the cut whatever they want and if devs don’t like it they can just refuse to develop for it and go somewhere else like google or Windows or even Linux. 

[Lord Vile]

1 minute ago, VegetableStu said:

one of the reasons for floatplane and patreon et al

 

with phones there're literally two companies total for the two major mobile OSes. that's really easier said than done

Well technically there’s Huawei and you can’t develop for PC instead because why? If you wanna sell your wares at an outlet you have to play by their rules. Most apps are run off micro transactions and forced ads anyway now and to make it profitable 30% cut or not you have to have a decent chunk of users and a couple of whales. Don’t think the 30% cut will be a massive issue unless you’re Epic and you could really do with the extra 30 mill a week to be even more anti consumer and anti dev than the people they’re complaining at currently.

[Lord Vile]

3 hours ago, VegetableStu said:

scope of this topic is mobile. if you must, Fortnite is already on almost every gaming platform (and floatplane has a webapp and on android). to ignore a sizable platform userbase is a business decision not easily generalisable on the internet

 

that's the issue against Epic, however substantiated it is or not (which is already in of itself another topic)

Ignore it or give them the cut they want, it’s fairly simple. 
 

Is important though because they can’t frame their argument as “doing it for the little guys” when they’re happy to step on the same people in a different way. <removed by staff>

 

Edited August 15, 2020 by SansVarnic
Removed content.

[Lord Vile]

3 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

<removed by staff>

 

BTW, they never said, they are "doing it for the little guys". Their video may imply they doing it for their costumers, but in the end smaller developers may profit from changes to the app stores' TOS. That's why it's a good.

<removed by staff>

 

But in reality they won’t, the only things that get hit by a 30% fee are subscriptions (which is an awful business model if it’s that only source of income) and microtransactions, not ads which most phone apps use as a way to monetise all the user base rather than the idiots who buy into the pay to win model. Running an App Store isn’t cheap on top of that I don’t think you could drop it much below 30% and it still be profitable, remember google takes a 45% cut on YouTube and that pretty much breaks even. 

Edited August 15, 2020 by SansVarnic
Removed content.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, VegetableStu said:

 

 

another being cross-platform app ownership issues, but i don't think it's what your current argument is covering right now?

No one is tackling that because they know it outright proves that the app store is being run s a monopoly.   Instead people keep flogging the line "but there is android" as if they say it enough it will become a legitimate argument.

 

Honestly there is nothing left in this discussion,  developers don't have a choice and apples reasoning has more holes in it than a catholic condom.  Everything else is just hearsay with very tenuous legal substance. 

 

 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

22 minutes ago, mr moose said:

No one is tackling that because they know it outright proves that the app store is being run s a monopoly.   Instead people keep flogging the line "but there is android" as if they say it enough it will become a legitimate argument.

Also, Google blocked fortnite too. Which I don't understand why. Hasn't Google always allowed you to use your own payment API?

 

In general, I understand the whole apple gets 30% of purchases, as a concept. Apple should get a amount of the purchace of a paid app. You are using their platform to have users discover your app. 30% is absurd. 10-15% is much more reasonable. I disagree with apple getting a cut of in app purchaces. 

 

If Epic games does win this lawsuit, I wonder if Amazon will change to let you pay in app. I get that No one is a "good guy" here, but the world will change I bit if epic wins.

[Commodus]

1 hour ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

Also, Google blocked fortnite too. Which I don't understand why. Hasn't Google always allowed you to use your own payment API?

 

In general, I understand the whole apple gets 30% of purchases, as a concept. Apple should get a amount of the purchace of a paid app. You are using their platform to have users discover your app. 30% is absurd. 10-15% is much more reasonable. I disagree with apple getting a cut of in app purchaces. 

 

If Epic games does win this lawsuit, I wonder if Amazon will change to let you pay in app. I get that No one is a "good guy" here, but the world will change I bit if epic wins.

Not with purchases like this.

 

Google's limitations are generally lighter than on Apple's App Store, but they still exist. I suspect many people think otherwise because they still see Google as the "hero" (see also: those who still think Android is an open OS in real life) when it's ultimately just another business.

[SansVarnic]

-= Thread Cleaned =-

Stay on topic.

[Doobeedoo]

6 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

You mean like when you sell a game on PSN and Sony forces devs to hand over 30%?

 

Also you can use stuff other than Apple Pay on the App Store, I have PayPal as mine because I didn’t bother to change it after Apple Pay was a thing.

No, I don't mean it like that. We're talking about mobile and in-game purchase options. Like some other said. Whatever you pay through the app store the 30% cut is not skipped. Not just about app it self and distribution and advertisement through the store, but in-game control as well. They're pointing it out how it's a shitty move and it's not beneficial to a user or a smaller dev. It's more beneficial to Apple but they won't say that obviously.

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

No, I don't mean it like that. We're talking about mobile and in-game purchase options. Like some other said. Whatever you pay through the app store the 30% cut is not skipped. Not just about app it self and distribution and advertisement through the store, but in-game control as well. They're pointing it out how it's a shitty move and it's not beneficial to a user or a smaller dev. It's more beneficial to Apple but they won't say that obviously.

The other problem in this debate is that people are being too black and white about it.  

 

Epic doesn't have to be either 100% evil or 100% behind the consumer, they can be 95% evil and 5% for the consumer, they can also bee 100% evil and their actions can still benefit consumers.

 

Apple  are 100% allowed to charge a fee for their service, but that doesn't mean they are 100% allowed to control the only service open to half the mobile platform and make that fee whatever they want.  It's not like people are demanding that apple lose complete control over their own product,  apple can still run their app store the way they want, they just have to allow alternatives to it.   

 

If we consumers aren't careful about what we defend and what we happily accept from companies then we will get the very service we deserve.  Everything will cost more than it has to, you will have no choice (a choice between google or apple is not a choice the way they do business). One of the reasons I am so active in threads like these is because I am personally sick and tired of having only two choices for phones.  I did have a third option once but between apple and google controlling the market and peoples love for either of them ,it became unpopular to support them. I now don't have that option.  If we don't support everything that has even the smallest positive effect for consumers then we get nothing.