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

[HenrySalayne]

3 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

<removed by staff>

<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.

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[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.

[HenrySalayne]

5 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?"  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?

I'm really surprised how strongly people are arguing for Apple's practices. And what you are describing here is basically the story of Orwell's 1984. Just to put your statement into perspective. Which is pretty ironic considering Apple used 1984 for their advertisement back in the days and Fortnite is now doing the same to mock Apple.

 

To quote Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." And that is exactly what you are trying to sell here. Because there is a potential for malicious apps, complete totalitarian control is required. But it's not. The costumer should be responsible for their actions and not patronized by a company.

BTW and completely off topic, Microsoft is doing the same thing. My parents' notebook will display a black screen for 5 min, just because Windows 10 is automatically replacing the display driver with a incompatible one. I've tried for countless hours to find a solution, found one and the very next major update it didn't work anymore. And just because Windows and Apple think their costumers are a bunch of idiots incapable to do anything right.

[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.  

[HenrySalayne]

1 minute ago, AnonymousGuy said:

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.   

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.

[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.