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

[Blade of Grass]

4 minutes ago, mark_cameron said:

30% is extortion.

 

Apple's hypocrisy (and Google) demanding excessive cut amounts to an abuse of monopoly 

 

Its also beyond ironic given Apple's previous history:

 

 

It's funny because historically software sales had like 50% cuts from the stores selling it, when Apple came out and only asked for 30% it was revolutionary. 

 

But at the same time it's a little odd that no one complains that Steam takes 25% for offering what? DRM and a CDN? Apple is at least giving developers a real platform to develop, with all the accompanying tools and services (training etc too).

 

1 minute ago, samcool55 said:

That's the thing. For iMessage and facetime, I never set it up. It's still asking me for first-time configuration.

iCloud, we HAVE to use an apple account and as a noob, didn't know that it used iCloud by default, it was on without me doing anything (we have to use it because it's used for backups so that might have something to do with it).

Turned it off now (as far as that's possible) and it's still annoying me with "hey upgrade now!" "Store your stuff in the cloud with no worries!" like, just fuck off... No is No.

 

Funny detail: haven't configured face-id either and that's somehow just fine. Entering my pin is mostly broken tho (I hear 6 dings but it usually misses one for some stupid reason)

Ahh, hmm, I think there is a way to turn those off still, not sure off the top of my head though.

[yolosnail]

11 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

It's funny because historically software sales had like 50% cuts from the stores selling it, when Apple came out and only asked for 30% it was revolutionary. 

 

But at the same time it's a little odd that no one complains that Steam takes 25% for offering what? DRM and a CDN? Apple is at least giving developers a real platform to develop, with all the accompanying tools and services (training etc too).

 

Ahh, hmm, I think there is a way to turn those off still, not sure off the top of my head though.

That's not the issue with Apple though, sure, whether you think they deserve it or not, Apple can take a 30% cut of things going through their platform, but then they should at least give developers a choice to of whether they want to use it or not. 

Apple are more than welcome to take a 30% share of App Sales, they have the discovery platform, they host the apps.

But do they deserve 30% of in app purchases?

What have Apple done to help drive up sales there?

 

Plus, I don't have to buy a game through Steam, I can buy it from Epic.

If I have an iPhone, I HAVE to buy it from the App Store, I have no choice!

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, yolosnail said:

 

Summary

Looks like Apple didn't take too kindly to Epic's addition of direct payment in the iPhone app, circumventing Apple's 30% cut.

Epic has now removed the Fortnite app from the App Store, although it looks like users who currently have the app downloaded can still access it, only new downloads are disabled

 

Update: Looks like Epic has now filed a civil antitrust lawsuit against Apple for the removal of Fortnite from the App store

 

Epic has a point, but it doesn't make them right.

 

In an ideal situation, and I mean ideal as in "this is ultimately the right thing to do", Apple should require all purchases through apps on the device to go through Apple, and all in-app-purchases go through a "premium currency" pool. So if you want to buy things on the phone/tablet/tv you get the one-time purchase that Apple Pay is required to be used, but for anything that has impulse purchases, via in-app-purchases, must go through the premium currency pool, which means that Apple operates some kind of "premium currency exchange" between the "apple points" represented in USD and everyone elses fictional currency. You can only buy "apple points" via the core apple pay system, but any app that wants to use apple points doesn't get charged the markup. However Apple gets to decide how much to trade apple points for the other games currency (based on that game's currency being based on USD or some other currency) since ultimately Apple is the one footing the transaction fee. So if Fortnite decides to rebase their premium currency then Apple gets to change the exchange rate. That's a win-win because that cuts the card transaction fee out, and puts it at the same level as restaurant apps. Plus then any other game that wants to engage in IAP premium currency shenanigans can just do so with or without their own currency.

 

But really I'd love nothing better than IAP to just disappear entirely.

 

 

 

[yolosnail]

2 minutes ago, Kisai said:

But really I'd love nothing better than IAP to just disappear entirely.

 

Unfortunately, I don't see that happening any time soon. In app purchases are basically free money for developers, even with the 30% cut Apple takes, they're still making 70% of something rather than 100% of nothing.

[WelshDdraig]

Now this is interesting. Especially after what Luke said about Floatplane in a recent WAN show and after learning about this initial incident from Snazzy Labs twitter.
 
Personally, I think Apple should have some sort of a cut as they act as a secure payment and currency processor - but the 30% is way too much. I think they are being too greedy for their own good - especially since there is no other official way to install apps on iOS. If this suit gains any tracking (and I think it will due to it being 2 big tech companies) it could open up the gates for other developers do do the same ting or possibly jump ship. 

But - back to the lawsuit:
Who's going to win? There's only one way to find out. FIGHT!
 

Spoiler

I would assume only those in the UK will get that reference...

Edit:  Rather than post a bunch of replies - I'll add to this one.

 I do love point 6 that Epic makes in the opening of the suit:
(Emphasis added by me to make the point). 

Quote

Epic brings this suit to end Apple’s unfair and anti-competitive actions that Apple undertakes to unlawfully maintain its monopoly in two distinct, multibillion dollar markets: (i) the iOS App Distribution Market, and (ii) the iOS In-App Payment Processing Market (each as defined below). Epic is not seeking monetary compensation from this Court for the injuries it has suffered. Nor is Epic seeking favorable treatment for itself, a single company. Instead, Epic is seeking injunctive relief to allow fair competition in these two key markets that directly affect hundreds of millions of consumers and tens of thousands, if not more, of third-party app developers.

While I do believe Epic are doing as it claims and is taking suit for the smaller developers - i can't help but feel there is a slight motivation for themselves considering Apple canned Fortnite...
 

[Blade of Grass]

16 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Don't forget that cut includes payment processing fees. Credit cards alone charge USD 10c + USD 2-4%.

If Apple is not processing the payment, why can't they charge less/nothing? Android can sideload 3rd-party store/apps and this is probably the reason they wasn't targeted by anti-trust.

 

15 minutes ago, yolosnail said:

That's not the issue with Apple though, sure, whether you think they deserve it or not, Apple can take a 30% cut of things going through their platform, but then they should at least give developers a choice to of whether they want to use it or not. 

Apple are more than welcome to take a 30% share of App Sales, they have the discovery platform, they host the apps.

But do they deserve 30% of in app purchases?

What have Apple done to help drive up sales there?

 

Plus, I don't have to buy a game through Steam, I can buy it from Epic.

If I have an iPhone, I HAVE to buy it from the App Store, I have no choice!

Apple's argument is its both a safety and security thing--them being the central party to all transaction builds trust and encourage spending. They handle the payment security & privacy too, removing any user concerns about those things, and also can easily prevent scam apps that seek to abuse users.

 

Part of it too is that Apple spends all the R&D building devices, OS, all the tools that developers need to develop for the platform, provides training, advise on best practices, etc. Apple's argument is that them controlling/curating their platform is a benefit to their platform, which is why it's such an attractive place for people to offer their software, and why so many people buy their products. 

Why should app devs get a free ride to make money off Apple's hard work in both building the user base, and spending on R&D to create it? 

[Trik'Stari]

Once again I'm torn between my hatred of Apple and another company. I hate Apple for their business practices and shoddy designs, and dislike Battle Royale as a "genre" and fortnite in particular.

1 hour ago, 2Buck said:

absolute cheeks.

I've had a very long day, and never heard this phrase before. I needed a good laugh, thank you.

[yolosnail]

5 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

Why should app devs get a free ride to make money off Apple's hard work in both building the user base, and spending on R&D to create it? 

Then they shouldn't let free apps on the App Store then. 

Like I said, if Apple want to take their 30% cut on app sales, I have absolutely no issues with that. They're paying for the hosting, they developed the platform, they allowed the user to discover the app. 

 

If it's all about security, then why don't they vet the payment processors, it's quite clear that Stripe, PayPal, heck, even Gpay are trustworthy.

Scams would be caught during Apple's review process regardless of the payment processor.

 

If it's all about ease of use, make it mandatory to use Apple Pay, but allow developers to have an alternative along side it, like Google does. I'd personally prefer to use PayPal for everything as it keeps everything in one place.

[Kisai]

1 minute ago, yolosnail said:

Then they shouldn't let free apps on the App Store then. 

Like I said, if Apple want to take their 30% cut on app sales, I have absolutely no issues with that. They're paying for the hosting, they developed the platform, they allowed the user to discover the app. 

 

 

Yeah however IAP doesn't cost Apple anything but the transaction fee, where as if the user bought the premium fun-bucks on the game dev's site, apple gets zero, and the dev gets all of the money minus their own card processor fees.

 

This is why every company in the world wants you to not use credit cards, because credit card fees cost them between 1% and 30% of the transaction plus a per transaction fee of like 30 cents. Depends on how risky it is. Adult content, has a very high fee because it's risky has hell, where as digital deliverable have a high charge-back rate for the exact same reason, the card merchants will usually just chargeback without even investigating. 

 

At any rate 30% commissions on IAP's is ridiculous, and as much as I think Epic and Apple are engaging in stupid bank tricks, my preference here would be some kind of premium currency exchange being built that game devs and stores can interface with and trade premium currencies without involving their card processors and everyone wins. It would clearly need money laundering controls (eg no single user of a game can hold more than $100USD in their wallet nor transfer more than $10,000 in a month into/out of the exchange in any game) but it would certainly "do something" more about the existing money laundering going on in MMO games that no game dev does anything about because they make money pretending it doesn't go on.

 

[yolosnail]

1 minute ago, Kisai said:

Yeah however IAP doesn't cost Apple anything but the transaction fee, where as if the user bought the premium fun-bucks on the game dev's site, apple gets zero, and the dev gets all of the money minus their own card processor fees.

 

This is why every company in the world wants you to not use credit cards, because credit card fees cost them between 1% and 30% of the transaction plus a per transaction fee of like 30 cents. Depends on how risky it is. Adult content, has a very high fee because it's risky has hell, where as digital deliverable have a high charge-back rate for the exact same reason, the card merchants will usually just chargeback without even investigating. 

 

At any rate 30% commissions on IAP's is ridiculous, and as much as I think Epic and Apple are engaging in stupid bank tricks, my preference here would be some kind of premium currency exchange being built that game devs and stores can interface with and trade premium currencies without involving their card processors and everyone wins. It would clearly need money laundering controls (eg no single user of a game can hold more than $100USD in their wallet nor transfer more than $10,000 in a month into/out of the exchange in any game) but it would certainly "do something" more about the existing money laundering going on in MMO games that no game dev does anything about because they make money pretending it doesn't go on.

 

 

That's another of the issues, Apple doesn't want 'premium fun-bucks' bought on the devs site, if there's any mention in the app at all that the user can do that, the app gets removed. That's the issue Floatplane had.

If the user gives the developer money for anything, it has to go through Apple, or the app is blocked. 

[HenrySalayne]

44 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

Part of it too is that Apple spends all the R&D building devices, OS, all the tools that developers need to develop for the platform, provides training, advise on best practices, etc. Apple's argument is that them controlling/curating their platform is a benefit to their platform, which is why it's such an attractive place for people to offer their software, and why so many people buy their products. 

Why should app devs get a free ride to make money off Apple's hard work in both building the user base, and spending on R&D to create it? 

I strongly disagree:

- R&D for OS and the devices could be included in the devices' price

- Apple could charge developers for using their tools to create a free app with IAP

- there are neither thrid party tools to create apps for iOS and iPadOS, nor would someone be able to run the app

- Apple could certify non-malicious apps (and get payed for it)

- allowing only the Apple payment service on their platform makes the cross-platform experience worse and inhomogeneous

- Apple is not only selling devices and providing the ecosystem, but also a content provider (music, video and games); a 30% cut is basically a disadvantage for their competitors and could be legally considered to be disloyal competition

The EU comission is currently (to my knowledge) still investigating a complaint by Spotify regarding the latter subject.

[WelshDdraig]

Spotify has just shown support for Epic Games anti-trust lawsuit: LINK

Not surprising considering their own anti-trust suit against Apple in 2019. LINK

[Tieox]

Meanwhile have this artistic interpretation of Luke currently with this situation.

 

[mr moose]

If visa, mastercard, pypal and even american express can build a secure and trustworthy system for a few % then why can't apple.  Hell it would be fine if they threw a few % on top of that to cover costs and  make profit, but 30% is taking the piss.  I don't know any retailer that has a 30% markup in a similar situation.

 

 

[Blade of Grass]

55 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

-snip-

Where did I say that Amazon or Humble Store weren't trustworthy? But yeah, to some degree, there's no guarantee that either of those companies would properly evaluate apps, and I'm sure Apple would get flak if someone ever downloaded something bad from those stores.

Even the Google Play Store is a mess of trash apps with gross privacy issues (like a calculator app requiring full access), which do not occur on iOS, so it doesn't seem like it's an easy thing to do if even Google fails spectacularly at it. 

Also, idk if trying to painting Amazon as a pillar of trust and morality is really a good argument point  

 

XcodeGhost was a scam? I feel like if you can only bring up one example of something that's not even a scam, they're doing a pretty good job. 

I don't think a single person in the tech industry would say that any system is impervious to security vulnerabilities, but hey, a centrally managed App Store does give a pretty straight forward resolution process in this specific instance. Imagine the shit show that would occur trying to solve this on Windows.  

 

Why must R&D cost come from hardware sales alone? Why should a company pass all of the cost on to user's buying their hardware, and not make other companies that are trying to profit off their platform also contribute? Those companies benefit from both the hardware and software that Apple builds, so why should they only benefit from both, but only contribute to one? 

 

People buy their devices for a variety of different reasons--them "just [working]" being one of them--and I honestly don't think you can deny that the App Store is definitively one of those things. Why else did Apple's platform grow so large, if one of the things that's existed from the start was so bad? If it's so bad, why do developers even want access to it, when supposedly there are better platforms out there anyway? Apple lets competitors on their platform because in some ways it is mutually beneficial for them, even if it's for a competing product. 

 

If the argument is that Apple's control limits progress, why is there no "free market" alternative that's so good and enticing that everyone's moved to it?

45 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

-snip-

• I'll refer to the above about the R&D costs. I definitely agree that they can be, but I don't agree that they have to. 
• True, but I feel like Apple not charging for free apps is probably a good thing regardless? Devs already have to 
• Ehh, there's stuff from Jetbrains that you can use, but I think it still require Xcode, since that's the only way to get the closed-source stuff required to actually build/run the apps. I don't think there's particularly anything illegal/anti-competitive about not being OSS.
• Is that not exactly what the App Store is? Approval from Apple of apps made from other companies that Apple gets paid to certify? Plus Apple throws in distribution too etc?
• Those non-malicious apps would still have a set of rules that they would have to follow, so I don't see how it would be any different? 
• Heh, it's interesting because they released the whole "Sign in with Apple" stuff recently, I wonder if it's to combat this a bit. I think ultimately though, Apple doesn't particularly care if the off-platform experience is inhomogeneous--nor do I think they particularly should have to. 
• That's true, I think the fact that Apple offers competing services does muddy the water a bit. I think that's why they say the whole "We apply our rules equality to all apps," so that other companies can't claim Apple unduly targets them since they're a competitor. 

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

-snip-

Heh, I said this earlier but, retail markup on software is an insane 50%. Even Steam takes 25% (for what, a CDN and DRM?). Google takes 30% too, same as Apple. I agree though, maybe the times have changed and Google/Apple should look at cutting their take down a bit.

[yolosnail]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

If visa, mastercard, pypal and even american express can build a secure and trustworthy system for a few % then why can't apple

[yolosnail]

1 minute ago, Blade of Grass said:

Google takes 30% too, same as Apple. 

But you can bypass Google's 30%, you can't get around Apple's 30% cut. That's the issue!

[Blade of Grass]

1 minute ago, yolosnail said:

But you can bypass Google's 30%, you can't get around Apple's 30% cut. That's the issue!

I mean, there's two separate issues right? There's the % that is taken, and there's alternative access methods. Apple right now doesn't do the second, but for the first, they're kinda par for the course. 

[yolosnail]

1 minute ago, Blade of Grass said:

I mean, there's two separate issues right? There's the % that is taken, and there's alternative access methods. Apple right now doesn't do the second, but for the first, they're kinda par for the course. 

To be honest, I don't think anyone cares about the 30%, that's not what this is about.

This is about the fact it's either Apple Pay or no Pay

[Quinnell]

3 minutes ago, yolosnail said:

To be honest, I don't think anyone cares about the 30%, that's not what this is about.

This is about the fact it's either Apple Pay or no Pay

I think Epic should lose this lawsuit.  BUT I also think Apple shouldn't block sideloading.  Android allows it (after you accept the warning of potential security risks)

[Spotty]

I wonder how much money has been spent on buying in app items in Fortnite on iOS through apple's payment system. Does the lawsuit specify? Wouldn't surprise me if the figure would be in excess of 1 billion, potentially making apple's 30% cut hundreds of millions of dollars from fortnite alone. With that much money at stake it's obvious why both companies are willing to fight over it, though the stakes would be much higher for Apple as this would have implications for other apps on the app store if Epic were to win.

[mr moose]

16 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

Heh, I said this earlier but, retail markup on software is an insane 50%. Even Steam takes 25% (for what, a CDN and DRM?). Google takes 30% too, same as Apple. I agree though, maybe the times have changed and Google/Apple should look at cutting their take down a bit.

You can forget the 50% because that generally pertains to bricks and mortar and generally smaller businesses,  larger companies like walmart, kmart etc have lower markups because they sell such volume.    Now I did say in an alike situation, which would be steam, google et al, and yet they are too much too.   However steam and google don;t force you to use their service.  games and apps in android and steam can have service paid for outside of the steam store.

Here is an oddly appropriate article for the thread:

 

https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/19/20701256/tinder-google-play-store-android-bypass-30-percent-cut-avoid-self-install

 

Quote

Even though Epic Games did bypass the Google Play store, it decided to release Fortnite on iOS through the App Store and take the hit, for instance. Android, however, is more open and therefore more flexible with how developers want to make money and reach users more directly.

 

There is also information in that article about other companies that are taking apple to court over their app store policies.

 

[Kisai]

15 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

 

• True, but I feel like Apple not charging for free apps is probably a good thing regardless? Devs already have to 

Apple charges developers 100$/yr, regardless of what you develop, even if you only want to read the developer manuals and not publish anything yourself. So a free app is a cost to the developer always.

[Donut417]

2 hours ago, mark_cameron said:

extortion

How is it any different than Steam? You think Devs get to sell on steam for free? Yeah right.... 

[PCGuy_5960]

While this will be entertaining to follow, I don't think epic games is right. If you are using Apple's platform and services they are free to ask for whatever cut they want. No one is forcing epic to have fortnite on iOS.