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

[Dutch_Master]

It's really a bit of both. Apple and Google shouldn't tax their customers with such enormous fees, taking such huge slices from profit margins that are fairly low anyway, but OTOH, the app/play store infrastructure needs to be build, maintained and secured and that's costly.

 

There are alternative installation methods for Android, but iOS users will have a problem getting stuff. Still, this particular game is also available for other platforms so Epic isn't loosing out too much.

[Mateyyy]

[Mateyyy]

I don't know whether this is supposed to be the popular or unpopular take, but I couldn't care less about f0rTnYt3 and agree with Apple on this one (mostly because Epic is anything but a small and not shady company).

 

Firstly, they've been preying on little kids with their VbUcKs since day one, and with this move they were just looking to make more profit off of it.

Secondly, it's Apple's store, follow Apple's rules, or get fu**ed. And same with the Play Store and Google.

[Chris Pratt]

3 minutes ago, Jumballi said:

As an apple user, the 30% cut is worth it because it provides me a better overall experience.

See any of Luke's discussions on the Floatplane iOS app. It's not a better experience, if the developer has to excise virtually every worthwhile feature from their app, just to get it in the store. A service like Floatplane cannot give Apple a 30% cut. End of story. That's more than the entire profit margin, and they also have to pay the creators.

 

I'm not necessarily with Epic on this, but I am 100% against Apple on it. Epic is big enough that the cut is not an issue, and Fortnite is virtually pure profit anyways. They're just wanting to take home more instead of sharing with Apple. However, there are a ton of other developers, especially smaller developers in this same boat, and Apple is just wrong in general on this policy. All the jazz about it being a better user experience is bunk. That's just what they say in public instead of the truth: the App Store is a huge cash cow, and they're milking it for all it's worth.

[Vishera]

12 minutes ago, Jumballi said:

As an apple user, the 30% cut is worth it because it provides me a better overall experience.

It has nothing to do with experience,It's pure greed.

32 minutes ago, Smit Devrukhkar said:

Fortnite

Casino for kids.

 

Both sides are in the wrong,greedy corporations that want to maximize profits.

[Vishera]

Like i said in a related thread:

5 minutes ago, Vishera said:

  

28 minutes ago, Jumballi said:

As an apple user, the 30% cut is worth it because it provides me a better overall experience.

It has nothing to do with experience,It's pure greed.

45 minutes ago, Smit Devrukhkar said:

Fortnite

Casino for kids.

 

Both sides are in the wrong,greedy corporations that want to maximize profits.

And as for Google they just want your data for advertising use,it's worse than what Apple does.

[Teddy07]

Apple is right. It is their store and they can ban whatever app they want.

[Jumballi]

21 minutes ago, Chris Pratt said:

See any of Luke's discussions on the Floatplane iOS app. It's not a better experience, if the developer has to excise virtually every worthwhile feature from their app, just to get it in the store. A service like Floatplane cannot give Apple a 30% cut. End of story. That's more than the entire profit margin, and they also have to pay the creators.

Better doesn't mean cheaper for me, like a VAT tax that's hidden from consumers, I understand that I have to pay more for the same feature set as other platforms to also get the benefits the platform can give me.

I want to pay more for the success of both the developer and the platform. I'll gladly pay for apple's tax if it means both sides are happy and healthy.

[HenrySalayne]

8 hours ago, Blade of Grass said:

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? 

The subject is a little bit more complicated. Subscription services like Netflix or Floatplane would have to play 30% of the total each and every month. The major part of the price of these services isn't profit for the company, but licensing fees and costs to run the servers. Apple is just providing a teeny-tiny piece and wants a gigantic cut. Should your ISP get a cut every time you watch a movie you payed for? I don't think so. And I know your ISP is payed monthly so why shouldn't Apple? Because you already payed for your phone and Apple forces you to pay a premium to use it.
And I'm not opposed to Apple earning money. Their terms are just really unfair, especially because they are offering their own subscription services, as mentioned before.

[Chris Pratt]

28 minutes ago, Jumballi said:

Better doesn't mean cheaper for me, like a VAT tax that's hidden from consumers, I understand that I have to pay more for the same feature set as other platforms to also get the benefits the platform can give me.

I want to pay more for the success of both the developer and the platform. I'll gladly pay for apple's tax if it means both sides are happy and healthy.

The problem is devs aren't allowed to do that. You must use Apple's payment API and you must charge Apple users the same price any other person on the planet would pay, whether they buy it directly from you or not. If you could just up the price for Apple users, that would be workable, but Apple expressly forbids it.

[KenTees]

Epic Games may come to a "basic realization" again.

[Prodigy_Smit]

2 minutes ago, Chris Pratt said:

If you could just up the price for Apple users, that would be workable, but Apple expressly forbids it.

Damn did not know this was a thing. Always thought prices were dependent on the dev.

[Chris Pratt]

Just now, Smit Devrukhkar said:

Damn did not know this was a thing. Always thought prices were dependent on the dev.

Well, it is in the sense that you get to set your overall price, but you can't charge Apple users more. So, if you want to up the price for everyone across the board, that's your choice, but that means screwing over all your other users, essentially making them subsidize the Apple users. It also makes pricing prohibitive. If a service is like $10/mo, suddenly making everyone pay $13, is going to hurt you. Just look at what happens every time Netflix raises their prices.

[Lord Vile]

Don’t care about fortnite, should have been hauled over the coals and banned for preying on kids with micro transactions anyway. 

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Now how did I know someone was going to try and say that?

 

The thing is, the examples you are using don't mean what you think they do and you are missing a very integral part of the problem.  Google was fined for android being a monopoly that they used to control the app market.  You cannot argue the existence of iphone makes it not a monopoly.  If a companies control is large enough to force other companies to acquiesce to their desires it is a monopoly and that is what makes it illegal.   It is exactly the same in this case,  the existence of android does not change the existence of the monopoly within the ios market.

I agree, and I think that's a major thing people do not understand about anti-trust and monopoly laws.

Just because there is some competitor does not mean a company is free to do whatever they want. It was the same thing with Microsoft back in the 90's where they got into trouble for using their dominance in the desktop space (despite there being both GNU/Linux and Mac OS) to gain unfair advantages in the browser space (despite there being Netscape to compete with).

 

Basically, if you use dominance in one area (you can't deny that Apple is dominant in the smartphone space) to disadvantage competitors in another area (like making Spotify pay 30% of their revenue to you despite you having a competing service that doesn't have that 30% extra overhead) then you might be breaking the anti-trust and monopoly laws.

 

Before someone says Apple aren't dominant in the smartphone space, here is the definition of dominant:

Very important, powerful or successful.

[Video Beagle]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

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?   

Because words have meaning?

Do you think stores sell products for free?

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

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

 

"but iOS blah blah blah 55%"

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

[Helly]

Can't do anything here but agree with apple, its their app store on their device in their eco-system. So you have to follow their rules if you want to be on their store. So why don't these big companies then just give apple the finger and pull all their apps off the app store and stay away from it completely until apple changes their policy... i guess it's kinda obvious, 30% less income is better then 100%.

I bet something more useful will happen though when all the big companies leave the app store, to bad it wont happen.

[Taf the Ghost]

6 hours ago, Geek95 said:

And they’re suing Google as well: https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368363/epic-google-fortnite-lawsuit-antitrust-app-play-store-apple-removal

 

An interesting thing The Verge found in the suit:

Source: https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368395/fortnite-epic-games-oneplus-deal-google-play-store-lawsuit-lg

via: https://www.engadget.com/fortnite-google-play-lawsuit-035741548.html

That's a small detail but has massive implications. Depending on the proof, that's a cut & dry abusive trade practice.

[HarryNyquist]

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

 

In fact, everyone should know that Apple's rules and Google's rules on what can and can't be in the app store are basically identical. The sole difference is that on Android you're free to sideload. Google even takes the same huge cut.

 

Epic violated the rules of both stores, but y'all are only calling Apple names.

 

 

 

[HenrySalayne]

25 minutes ago, HarryNyquist said:

In fact, everyone should know that Apple's rules and Google's rules on what can and can't be in the app store are basically identical. The sole difference is that on Android you're free to sideload. Google even takes the same huge cut.

 

Epic violated the rules of both stores, but y'all are only calling Apple names.

This thread was called "Apple is removing Fortnite from the Appstore" before and updated regarding Google later. Which basically explains why the shitstorm is mainly aimed towards Apple. And the Play Store is not the only place on an Android device to get an app.

And the rules are not "basically identical" or there wouldn't be a Floatplane app in the Play Store.

 

I agree Epic deliberatly violated the rules on both stores, but while it's a minor nuisance on an Android device, it's literally game over for Apple users.

[WkdPaul]

* threads merged *

 

Please avoid creating threads about a subject that already has a thread discussing it.

[Lord Vile]

17 hours ago, samcool55 said:

I. Don't. Understand. Apple. File. Management. Seriously.

I want my photos in a folder on my computer, somehow I've failed at this multiple times.

 

Makes me feel like an idiot...

You can just plug it in via usb, trust the pc and transfer files through windows as you would a digital camera 

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, Video Beagle said:

Because words have meaning?

Please note that in law, the word monopoly does not mean "single" or "alone". The legal definition of monopoly and the everyday definition of monopoly are two different things.

 

In everyday speak, a monopoly means "alone" or "single", usually when referring to a company being the only ones doing something and thus have control over that market.

In legal terms however, the word monopoly means "a business entity that has significant market power".

 

 

It's ridiculous to argue that Apple has a monopoly on smartphones, as in "they are the only ones making smartphones". But antitrust laws does not care about that. They only care about "do you have significant market power", and it would be equally ridiculous to try and argue that Apple doesn't have that. Just look at how the market shifts when they do things like remove the headphone jack. The law also cares about, if you have that power, how do you use it. Those are the things that matter here. Do you have power over a market, and how do you use that power.

The whole argument about market share, competitors and "you don't have to use it" is kind of irrelevant because that is only one section in the US antitrust law which isn't even an essential part of antitrust laws.

 

 

I think people who are defending Apple in this thread are way too focused on something that quite literally does not matter in the eyes of the law. People see "monopoly" and don't understand the legal definition of it.

[D13H4RD]

2 hours ago, Helly said:

Can't do anything here but agree with apple, its their app store on their device in their eco-system. So you have to follow their rules if you want to be on their store. So why don't these big companies then just give apple the finger and pull all their apps off the app store and stay away from it completely until apple changes their policy... i guess it's kinda obvious, 30% less income is better then 100%.

I bet something more useful will happen though when all the big companies leave the app store, to bad it wont happen.

Because on iOS, Apple's store is pretty much your only legitimate option. So it's either Apple's way or the highway. Android may not be as hamstrung as Apple, but Google's massive pushing of their services mean that people are really mostly going to get their stuff from the Play Store, so they'd still want to be there.

 

It's why I think Epic is taking a massive gamble at not only violating the ToS of both stores but also going as far as to file a lawsuit against them. I've mentioned earlier, while I'm on their side with this one in regards to what they were trying to do, I also feel that there is a reasonably good chance that, at least for Apple, they could nullify the entire lawsuit because "you violated our rules, that's all" unless Epic can make an absolutely convincing case.

 

I don't think all that many people here realize but they indeed are taking quite a huge risk here, going after 2 tech-titans. The implications may be quite significant, whether Epic comes out the other side winning or in shambles.

[EL02]

Tbh i really dont care about apple nor google. In fact im rooting for epic, if they can pull it off and lower the prices for consumers then great.