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

[siijunn]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

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.

 

 

Thank you. People love to hate on Epic but for what its worth, they at least make fun games (or A fun game, rather) that actually focuses on not just hardcore player base, but a casual player base as well. When it comes to (a game, not the company itself) I've always felt like Fortnite took the family friendly approach (similar to Nintendo) and cranked it to 11 by allowing cross-platform support 100%. Fighting Sony tooth and nail until they allowed for true cross platform support. 

 

People aren't wrong when they say Epic can just choose not to support iOS, but the range that Fortnite has as a game makes me feel like that really isn't the case. Their customers more or less demand cross-platform compatibilty at this point, so their argument makes sense to me. If you were an app developer that wanted to be in the Apple ecosystem, and you wanted your application to be a part of the platform, than the 30% cut makes sense. What Epic wants is to have their game accessable to the most amount of people, regardless of the platform. To that end, they are forced to be a part of Apple's ecosystem. Okay, fine. Feel free to charge server space, bandwidth, whatever. But taking a cut of their profits does seem off to me.

 

[The1Dickens]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

make that fee whatever they want.

 

2 hours ago, siijunn said:

Okay, fine. Feel free to charge server space, bandwidth, whatever. But taking a cut of their profits does seem off to me.

The craziest part of this whole 11 page epic, is that nobody once pointed out that Fortnite is free. Which has been pointed out, Apple waives the fee for those cases (for whatever reason).

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, The1Dickens said:

 

The craziest part of this whole 11 page epic, is that nobody once pointed out that Fortnite is free. Which has been pointed out, Apple waives the fee for those cases (for whatever reason).

The thing with that is that if apple want to charge to cover expenses and some profit, then that is fine. If fortnight is free and apple choose not to charge a distribution fee, then that is upto apple.  but to demand payment for business within an app is going beyond fair.  Apple is literally asking profits they have no right to.  They don't own any part of an apps business, they are at best a retailer.  Imagine if the shop you bought your phone from insisted on being paid 30% of everything you used your phone for after the sale.

 

 

[Soulwatcher]

Epic is trying to cut Apple out of the pie, why should Apple support Epic when Apple is going to lose money?

[Helpful Tech Witch]

38 minutes ago, Soulwatcher said:

 

Epic is trying to cut Apple out of the pie, why should Apple support Epic when Apple is going to lose money

 

Because if they already hade one anti-trust investigation, and now they have a lawsuit.

[AnonymousGuy]

Epic is unquestionably going to lose this one.  What are they expecting?  A judge isn't going to rule on what defines a fair commission (and 30% is within the region of reasonable anyways).    I can't see any argument prevailing here that wouldn't be an argument against all commissions that have ever existed.

 

Nor is he going to force them to allow third party apps because Apple's branding strength is in their ecosystem.  

 

Their whole argument seems to be "we want to profit off their users and their devices for free".  Sorry, get out of the sandbox.

 

(None of this really matters anyways, Epic knows it's a lost cause and just wants publicity out of it with their premade obnoxious PR rollout.  Probably ends with them paying Apple for damages in breaching their agreement)

[Helpful Tech Witch]

7 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

Epic is unquestionably going to lose this one.  What are they expecting?  A judge isn't going to rule on what defines a fair commission (and 30% is within the region of reasonable anyways).    I can't see any argument prevailing here that wouldn't be an argument against all commissions that have ever existed.

 

Nor is he going to force them to allow third party apps because Apple's branding strength is in their ecosystem.  

 

Their whole argument seems to be "we want to profit off their users and their devices for free".  Sorry, get out of the sandbox.

 

(None of this really matters anyways, Epic knows it's a lost cause and just wants publicity out of it with their premade obnoxious PR rollout.  Probably ends with them paying Apple for damages in breaching their agreement)

No. They aren't. Epic will almost definitly win. This isn't about the fact that Apple wants a commision for using their platform. That is reasonable. What isn't reasonable, is the fact that Apple demands you pay them, even for IN APP PURCACES. That is what is unreasonable.  They are out of the picture by then. That is why they did this.

 

Also if there was no chance they were going to win this, the Epic Games lawyers would never approve this.

[AnonymousGuy]

11 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

No. They aren't. Epic will almost definitly win. This isn't about the fact that Apple wants a commision for using their platform. That is reasonable. What isn't reasonable, is the fact that Apple demands you pay them, even for IN APP PURCACES. That is what is unreasonable.  They are out of the picture by then. That is why they did this.

 

Also if there was no chance they were going to win this, the Epic Games lawyers would never approve this.

Apple: ok then, if you have in-app purchases you must pay us X dollars for every user install as a fixed fee.  Epic would shit themselves, because the only reason FN took off is because it's free to install (Save the World cost $ up front, before Battle Royale, and no one cared about it)

 

Apple is not "out of the picture" after an app gets installed, they're still responsible for device hardware/software support for both iOS and the apps themselves.  Again, this is part of Apple's branding that makes iOS devices so good...they're supported for a long time.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

Just now, AnonymousGuy said:

Apple is not "out of the picture" after an app gets installed, they're still responsible for device hardware/software support for both iOS and the apps themselves.

If you are using the app, you  are no longer using Apple software (At least for the user). Apple is forcing developers to pay through their API, and banning your app if you dare say you can pay on a website. This is a violation of anti-truss laws.

The app is supported by the developer, and not Apple. The appstore is just a discovery platform. The Fortnite app still works. Apple can stop supporting the version of iOS, but the developer can choose to still support that version. The developer is incontrol of the app.

[Kisai]

11 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

If you are using the app, you  are no longer using Apple software (At least for the user). Apple is forcing developers to pay through their API, and banning your app if you dare say you can pay on a website. This is a violation of anti-truss laws.

The app is supported by the developer, and not Apple. The appstore is just a discovery platform. The Fortnite app still works. Apple can stop supporting the version of iOS, but the developer can choose to still support that version. The developer is incontrol of the app.

Anti-Truss laws? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? (don't google "anti-truss")

 

When you use an app on a mobile device, if you invoke the device payments API, you are using the device payment's API. Hence Apple Pay on iOs, Google Pay on Google, and whatever Sony and Nintendo use on their platforms.

 

Most of the gaming platforms don't actually put microtransactions in the console's store in the first place, because they have to then maintain a lot of SKU's for each of these (which is literately a reason why IAP's aren't a thing usually on non-mobile games other than large gacha/loot-box rubbish because they use their own payment system for the IAP's by having some kind of intermediate points system.) That intermediate points system also allows them to offer discriminatory pricing between markets where 1000 points might cost 9.99 in the US, but 10 cents in Brazil or Russia.

 

Anti-trust laws do not forbid offering a superior service.

 

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/1995/04/guidelines-antitrust-enforcement-over-intellectual-property

Quote

The goal of the guides is to help businesses and others predict when certain conduct might be challenged as anticompetitive. The FTC and Justice note in the guides that they apply the same general antitrust principles to conduct involving intellectual property as they do to conduct involving other forms of tangible or intangible property, adding that "market power that is solely 'a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident' does not violate antitrust laws."

 

[AnonymousGuy]

14 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

If you are using the app, you  are no longer using Apple software (At least for the user). Apple is forcing developers to pay through their API, and banning your app if you dare say you can pay on a website. This is a violation of anti-truss laws.

The app is supported by the developer, and not Apple. The appstore is just a discovery platform. The Fortnite app still works. Apple can stop supporting the version of iOS, but the developer can choose to still support that version. The developer is incontrol of the app.

Let me present a scenario to you.  Say there's another app that just outright scams users.  You go make a purchase through a third party and they deliver nothing.   Don't you agree users would be like "well why is Apple allowing an app to do that?"  In the end it's Apple's brand that gets damaged here, which is why it's not going to be allowed.  If you want to be on Apple's platform you have to play by their terms, or you can go off and make your own cell phone OS.  Oh is that difficult to do?  Well then why don't you think Apple should get paid for doing it?

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

Epic is unquestionably going to lose this one.  What are they expecting?  A judge isn't going to rule on what defines a fair commission (and 30% is within the region of reasonable anyways).    I can't see any argument prevailing here that wouldn't be an argument against all commissions that have ever existed.

The complaint isn't only about the 30%, the complaint is there is no option to avoid it.  Apple are holding half the mobile market as ransom for 30% of everything.  If it was just the initial sale of the app I would agree, the judge would throw it out.

 

Quote

Nor is he going to force them to allow third party apps because Apple's branding strength is in their ecosystem.  

Apples branding strength is moot in an antitrust case.  It can simply be argued the anti trust is the cause of the brand strength adding to the monopoly.

Quote

Their whole argument seems to be "we want to profit off their users and their devices for free".  Sorry, get out of the sandbox.

Other way around, apple are saying they want profit from the content developers worked on, apple get their profit from the device and from the initial sale.  Apple are not entitled to the revenue of any other company just because their software runs on an iphone.

 

Quote

(None of this really matters anyways, Epic knows it's a lost cause and just wants publicity out of it with their premade obnoxious PR rollout.  Probably ends with them paying Apple for damages in breaching their agreement)

Since when does ones opinion on epic play any role in determining anti trust cases?  It doesn't so it's moot, why do people keep bringing it up?

4 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

Let me present a scenario to you.  Say there's another app that just outright scams users.  You go make a purchase through a third party and they deliver nothing.   Don't you agree users would be like "well why is Apple allowing an app to do that?" 

Nope,  they never do it for android, they never did it for windows,  no one blamed atari when they had thousands of incredible shit games release on the 2600.  

 

Quote

In the end it's Apple's brand that gets damaged here, which is why it's not going to be allowed.  If you want to be on Apple's platform you have to play by their terms, or you can go off and make your own cell phone OS.  Oh is that difficult to do?  Well then why don't you think Apple should get paid for doing it?

 

So basically you are advocating that a company can take 30% of another companies revenue simply to avoid getting a bad brand image.  Worst argument ever.

 

 

[AnonymousGuy]

After reading the actual filing here: https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-complaint-734589783.pdf

 

Epic's only valid argument is being forced to use Apple's payment methods within apps.  Buuuut then Apple is just going to argue that is a means of collecting payment for providing API access, developer tools, distribution, advertising blah blah when Apps are free downloads to begin with.

 

Here's a gem from their brilliant legal team:

Quote

It is technically feasible for Apple to provide access to iOS to Epic and other app distributors

Yeah, let's try to argue Apple should have to provide trade secrets so we can profit off them too!

 

And so many of their arguments are basically trailing off with "stop Apple from doing this [so we can do the exact same thing Apple is doing to us, except to other App developers]".

 

And the first half of their filing is basically copy-pastes of wikipedia saying that Apple makes a good product:

 

Quote

Being connected to these ecosystems greatly increases the value of the mobile devices to its users,

Oh, how awful for consumers that Apple is increasing the value of their products to users....

 

 

I look forward to reading Apples legal team absolutely destroying Epic's second stringers.

[AnonymousGuy]

6 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

I'm really surprised how strongly people are arguing for Apple's practices.

Because consumers aren't being harmed by Apple's practices.  Epic even (ironically?) spends pages of their lawsuit stating this: that Apple's ecosystem increases the value for users etc.   (because Epic is trying to establish Apple is doing such a great job that they're too difficult to switch away from?  I'm actually not sure exactly what their logic is there)

 

Epic is solely trying to argue that businesses (app developers) are harmed by it....which I could care less about.  Epic profited substantially off of this arrangement for years and now wants to pretend they're a victim.  

[maartendc]

On 8/16/2020 at 5:28 AM, mr moose said:

 Imagine if the shop you bought your phone from insisted on being paid 30% of everything you used your phone for after the sale.

I think this is a good analogy.

 

I think it would be fair for Apple to charge developers a small fee for hosting their app. Or charge a percentage even of a purchase price, if there is one.

 

But charging on an ongoing basis for all in-app purchases is going too far. Especially something as high as 30%. Apple didn't 'earn' that money. If the developer puts a lot of work into providing content in an app, be it gameplay, articles, video content, whatever, it seems pretty egregious to me to charge a percentage of all that revenue.

 

You could argue the developer is "benefiting / profiting" from the ecosystem / customer base that Apple provides. But this points to a wider problem actually: why is Apple the gatekeeper of their whole digital ecosystem in the first place. There should be consumer protection laws that force Apple to allow third party app stores on their phones, if the user wants to.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, maartendc said:

 

 

But charging on an ongoing basis for all in-app purchases is going too far. Especially something as high as 30%. Apple didn't 'earn' that money. If the developer puts a lot of work into providing content in an app, be it gameplay, articles, video content, whatever, it seems pretty egregious to me to charge a percentage of all that revenue.

 

 

 

This is basically my whole argument.  in-app purchases are basically a transaction and cost apple no more than a CC transaction costs visa.  When visa do it for 1.6% (with profit) there is no justification for the in-app purchase fee to be 30%. 

[AnonymousGuy]

3 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

Costumers are harmed by Apple's practices. A developer isn't allowed to adjust their pricing for the cut Apple is taking. So basically there are three scenarios (which are all bad for costumers):

1. A certain service isn't availabe on Apple devices (bad for Apple users)

2. The developer has to subsidize the cut Apple takes with the income from other costumers on other platforms (bad for everyone, Apple users pay less, users on other platforms pay more)

3. The developer has to increase the price by 30% across all platforms (still bad for everyone, Apple users pay what they deserve, users on other platforms pay a flat 30% more for nothing)

 

Apple has to either allow developers to adjust the price of their service or allow alternative payment methods. Dictating the price and forcing the developer to use the Apple payment system, is just hurting the free market and thus costumers. If there would be a price disparity between services on Apple devices and on other platforms, (some) people might not buy an Apple product.

You forget option 4) where the developer accepts less revenue overall.  

 

Option 1) just doesn't happen.  "well I was going to make $1M dollars but because of Apple's 30% cut I choose to make $0 instead of $700k"

[maartendc]

I would add that I applaud Epic for taking on the Google and Apple monopolies on app stores. Not many companies are big enough and have enough clout to be able to fight them on this.

 

Sure, they are doing it for their own gain. But in the end, the consumer stands to win on this.

 

I feel the same way about them taking the fight to Steam. In the end, the consumer will benefit from more competition.

[AnonymousGuy]

18 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

This is basically my whole argument.  in-app purchases are basically a transaction and cost apple no more than a CC transaction costs visa.  When visa do it for 1.6% (with profit) there is no justification for the in-app purchase fee to be 30%. 

Why does a CPU cost $10k when $50 ones exist: because the people paying it are buying access to technology that they can then profit themselves off of.  

 

The situation is no different here: you want access to a billion users who spend 2x more in in-app purchases than the competition?  Well...30% is the price of that ticket.

 

The court is not going to decide what a "fair" profit margin is, and there is no inherent entitlement for a business to have access to another business's ecosystem.  Imagine AMD suing Intel for Intel's customer list "because we're substantially harmed by not being able to market our own CPUs to them"

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

Why does a CPU cost $10k when $50 ones exist: because the people paying it are buying access to technology that they can then profit themselves off of.  

Apple do nothing but transfer the money from the consumer to the developer for an in-app purchase or subscription payment.  They literally do nothing else, it is exactly like a paypal transaction.  That move money from you to the seller.  Are you seriously trying to argue that apples funds transfer (which is probably just rebranded bank service anyway) is so much better it warrants a 1776% increase in price?

 

5 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

The situation is no different here: you want access to a billion users who spend 2x more in in-app purchases than the competition?  Well...30% is the price of that ticket.

We call that holding the market for ransom.  you can have access to the other half of the market if you pay us 30%.  

 

5 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

The court is not going to decide what a "fair" profit margin is, and there is no inherent entitlement for a business to have access to another business's ecosystem.  Imagine AMD suing Intel for Intel's customer list "because we're substantially harmed by not being able to market our own CPUs to them"

Never said the court should decide what a fair profit margin is, in fact I said quite the opposite, I said if defining the amount was the only problem then the judge would throw it out.

 

Your analogies just don't work, that are non analogous the issue.  Apple can prevent developers from accessing half the mobile market, that is enough to be considered a monopoly,  by saying to developers pay us 30% of your revenue for every in-app purchase or you can't have this market is called Anti trust.

 

I'm going to post this again because it is really important people understand 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.

 

This means if you defend apple for not only charging way than is reasonable for in-app purchases but for holding the entire ios market as ransom then you are part of the problem.  

 

It's really simple

 

Apple can fix this and dissolve all the case being bought against them by doing any one of the following:

 

1. Keeping the apple payment as compulsory but charging the same fee as any other comparable transaction.  Currently between 1 and 3 %.

2. Allow an alternative to the app store, then they can keep business as usual in their own app store

3. Allow apps to setup up their own payment systems for in app purchases.

 

No one is arguing the 30% or yearly listing fee is unfair. They are just arguing holding the market to ransom is anti trust when you have to pay 30% for in app or subscriptions.

 

All these things about API support and running costs etc, they are BS,  MS don't charge for dx, vulcan is free, opengl is an open standard. Nvidia spend millions giving developers all sorts of resources and software kits to make it easier for them to develop and make their product sell better.  Not one of them charge developers to provide support to make their product better, only apple do that. 

 

I am reminded of a line from skidrow,  "you keep telling me it's raining while your pissing down my back" this sums up apple treats it's devs at the moment.

[maartendc]

2 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

you want access to a billion users who spend 2x more in in-app purchases than the competition?  Well...30% is the price of that ticket.

You really hit the nail on the head here. That is exactly what is happening.

 

And ask yourself: is that a good thing for consumers, healthy for the market? Is that even what Apple users want?

 

As a consumer, you are under the impression you are buying a phone that is yours to do with as you please. Except, in reality, whether they know it or not, this is not the case. You are only 'allowed' to use it with the Apple app store, not any other app store. And you are only 'allowed' to install apps from said app store.

 

That is the bigger issue here. The fact that they charge 30% for all purchases is a consequence of the bigger problem. The % of what is 'fair' is irrelevant.

 

As Tim Sweeney tweeted recently:

Obviously, Epic stands to gain from 'taking a stand' in this case. But what is good for Epic, is good for everyone in this case. Everyone but Apple.

[yolosnail]

14 minutes ago, maartendc said:

You really hit the nail on the head here. That is exactly what is happening.

 

And ask yourself: is that a good thing for consumers, healthy for the market? Is that even what Apple users want?

 

As a consumer, you are under the impression you are buying a phone that is yours to do with as you please. Except, in reality, whether they know it or not, this is not the case. You are only 'allowed' to use it with the Apple app store, not any other app store. And you are only 'allowed' to install apps from said app store.

 

That is the bigger issue here. The fact that they charge 30% for all purchases is a consequence of the bigger problem. The % of what is 'fair' is irrelevant.

 

As Tim Sweeney tweeted recently:

Obviously, Epic stands to gain from 'taking a stand' in this case. But what is good for Epic, is good for everyone in this case. Everyone but Apple.

 

Exactly, imagine you bought a Toyota, and you could only fill it up at a ToyotaFuel franchise, but you could only pay using ToyotaPay, so they take a 30% cut. That sounds a bit dodgy, but fine. Maybe it takes a special type of fuel.

 

But then, say you want to buy a sandwich at the station when you're filling up, something that Toyota have absolutely nothing to do with, but because you're forced to use ToyotaPay they take their 30%. 

Great, that just means you're paying 30% extra for that sandwich for the convenience, but actually, Toyota restrict them from charging more than anywhere else, and you can't just pay by cash because, although Toyota had no hand in making the sandwich, or even own the fuel station it's in, they want to take a 30% cut.

[spartaman64]

On 8/14/2020 at 5:58 PM, 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.  

their phone isnt the monopoly. their app store on their phone is the monopoly. remember when microsoft got in trouble for antitrust just for having internet explorer bundled with their OS

[Lord Vile]

1 hour ago, spartaman64 said:

their phone isnt the monopoly. their app store on their phone is the monopoly. remember when microsoft got in trouble for antitrust just for having internet explorer bundled with their OS

It's their hardware, OS and software. I don't see how you can have a monopoly on your own devices. If that counts pretty much every company that has a storefront for its devices is a monopoly. 

[Lord Vile]

34 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

Imagine there would be a company owning 40% of the supermarkets in your country. They worked hard to get the there and now they are controlling 40% of the market. And now imagine this company would force its suppliers to sell their products for the same price as everywhere else, but they have to pay the supermarket company a 30% cut. The suppliers may say "No, thanks.", but then they wouldn't get access to 40% of the market.

The company owned store brand additonally doesn't have to pay a 30% cut.

And that's exactly what is happening with Apple devices. It doesn't matter if you call it a monopoly or just an abuse of market power.

That's not how supermarkets work. Supermarkets buy bulk from a supplier and then add their own margin to sell to customers, so they'll buy a tin of beans for like 20p from the supplier and sell it for 30p to the consumer making 10p profit. Now the supplier could sell the product directly to get more profit per unit but they wouldn't sell as many units because they lack the various infrastructures etc that the supermarket already has.

 

Company own brands for the most part are essentially all the same just with different packaging or with clothes a different label sewn in. They buy them the same as they would any other bran but slap their own label on it. 

 

It's not though because your analogy doesn't work. Well not in the way you meant it. If you want to sell software you have to let the platform take its cut. Google does it, Sony does it, Microsoft does it, Nintendo does it and pretty much everyone else that deals with licensing software for their hardware/OS.