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

[Skipple]

3 hours ago, Video Beagle said:

"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.

To suggest there isn't a case for monopolistic practises is very naive here. Congress was literally drilling Tim Apple about this two weeks ago any Apple's control over the App Store came up multiple times.

 

 

[Lord Vile]

22 minutes ago, D13H4RD said:

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.

You can always just not buy an iPhone if you don’t like the policy? If you want a companies products you have to agree to the TOS and I don’t think you can deem a companies own marketplace as a monopoly, what you’re effectively saying is that the All digital PS5 or even any digital only game on Sony or Microsoft’s store is illegal because you have to buy games from them and no one else ergo it is a monopoly. In fact any game console is a monopoly because you have to give Sony or Microsoft a cut to sell a game on their platform be it disc or download.

[D13H4RD]

10 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

You can always just not buy an iPhone if you don’t like the policy? 

I was talking from a developers' perspective... 

 

On iOS, you don't really have much of a choice as you just really have Apple's store. While there is more of a choice on Android, Google's aggressive push of its Play Store means that developers would still prefer to be there even if it means needing to forego a significant cut.

 

It is a giant risk to violate their terms of service and then grilling them in court for it subsequently. I have very mixed opinions on Epic Games as a whole (remember my relentless grilling of them regarding all the exclusivity deals) but as a company whose goal at the end of the day is to make more money, this is a gamble I'm pretty sure they didn't take lightly.

[Lord Vile]

10 minutes ago, D13H4RD said:

I was talking from a developers' perspective... 

 

On iOS, you don't really have much of a choice as you just really have Apple's store. While there is more of a choice on Android, Google's aggressive push of its Play Store means that developers would still prefer to be there even if it means needing to forego a significant cut.

 

It is a giant risk to violate their terms of service and then grilling them in court for it subsequently. I have very mixed opinions on Epic Games as a whole (remember my relentless grilling of them regarding all the exclusivity deals) but as a company whose goal at the end of the day is to make more money, this is a gamble I'm pretty sure they didn't take lightly.

TBH I don’t think a US court in the current climate will back a Chinese backed company against 2 of the biggest American companies going, especially as Apple and Alphabet will more than likely have them legally outgunned. 

[D13H4RD]

2 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

TBH I don’t think a US court in the current climate will back a Chinese backed company against 2 of the biggest American companies going, especially as Apple and Alphabet will more than likely have them legally outgunned. 

Hence giant risk. Mentioned it before but I really don't think this can go very far. We'll have to see.

[harryk]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

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

 

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

Here's another way to view the same situation: 

 

Half of the consumer market, by purchasing an iOS device, have essentially said "I will only purchase software via the App Store." This may have been an explicit decision, as I do, or an implicit one as the consumer chooses the Apple ecosystem which is the walled garden model.

 

It's not Apple forcing the developers to use their platform, it's the consumers.

 

[Blademaster91]

6 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

That's how iPhones have been ever since they were introduced. It's Apple's software after all, they spent their billions developing it, they get to set the rules. Would it be better if you could download apps outside of the app store or if Apple took a smaller cut? Yes, absolutely, but I don't think there's an argument to be made here other than "would be a lot cooler if you did". This is basically like someone suing fortnite because they don't let him sell his own skins in game and take all the money too. 

 

And just to make it clear, I don't like Apple's software and its limitations at all, which is why I don't use their products. But as you can see from how popular apple products are, most people don't mind them.

I see this defense for Apple a lot in this thread, though Apple definitely has a monopoly over their own platform, being their store doesn't exempt them from being a monopoly, and since Apple has about half the phone market in the US, the cut really should be 20% at the most, or Apple should only allow paid apps in the store if they really want that profit cut.

Google is also being sued, even though you can sideload with Android most people aren't going to bother with the extra effort in getting apps outside the Play store and Google pushes their store pretty hard so I doubt most people even know you can sideload apps.

I don't know how fortnite works, but if you're forced to sell skins within the game does make sense because that game is exclusive to EGS, I don't see how that applies to phone apps because a lot of apps are cross platform.

The analogy of only being able to buy from one store on Windows for example would be what Apple is doing, sure as a consumer I can choose to use something else, but devs may not have that option if they want to successfully sell their apps.

 

 

[Arika]

i can't be bothered going back and tagging everyone in this thread.

 

But to those defending Apple's monopoly, i guess that means you would be fine with

 

• Microsoft to lock everything down and only allow programs to be downloaded from the windows store and be forced to only use Edge
• Google to lock all of their services to only be accessed via Chrome (not chromium browsers)
• your ISP choosing which sites you can go to

after all, it's their platform and there are other options, right?

[HenrySalayne]

1 hour ago, Lord Vile said:

hat you’re effectively saying is that the All digital PS5 or even any digital only game on Sony or Microsoft’s store is illegal because you have to buy games from them and no one else ergo it is a monopoly. In fact any game console is a monopoly because you have to give Sony or Microsoft a cut to sell a game on their platform be it disc or download.

I don't now the TOS for developers on consoles, but I've never heard a complaint. There are some F2P games with IAPs, but I don't know if the console's manufacturer gets a cut and how much it is.

[PCGuy_5960]

25 minutes ago, Arika S said:

i can't be bothered going back and tagging everyone in this thread.

 

But to those defending Apple's monopoly, i guess that means you would be fine with

 

• Microsoft to lock everything down and only allow programs to be downloaded from the windows store and be forced to only use Edge
• Google to lock all of their services to only be accessed via Chrome (not chromium browsers)
• your ISP choosing which sites you can go to

after all, it's their platform and there are other options, right?

Would I be okay with it? No, I would stop using their services and switch to an alternative and I think pretty much everyone would do the same. Are they within their right to do that? Yes and judging by how popular apple products are, not that many people care about how restrictive apple's products are.

[Lord Vile]

6 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

I don't now the TOS for developers on consoles, but I've never heard a complaint. There are some F2P games with IAPs, but I don't know if the console's manufacturer gets a cut and how much it is.

You have to give a cut to the console manufacturer in the sale. That’s why they want to go to all digital because they get a bigger cut vs selling a disc through a 3rd party. On the PS store the cut is 30%, obviously there’ll be wiggle room for big publishers like EA and Ubisoft.

[Doobeedoo]

Well percentage is scummy though. Type of control as well. I'd never support Apple anyway. Aside how Epic does this, they're trying to prove a point how the system is quite lame for devs and consumers. As for Google not too surprising seeing them do what they did, after all especially something regarding games, which they were always anti supportive. 

It's not a big deal to people now Fortnite is known by everyone and they can easily DL it from site anyway. 

[Kisai]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

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.

Because people are too hyperfocused on details that don't matter.

 

There are plenty of existing, if not identical situations out there (eg the app stores on pretty much everything else) and trying to say "Apple has a dominant monopoly on ___" what exactly? This is no different from how the PS3/PS4/PS5 or Xbox 360/XboxOne/Xbox Series whatever/Nintendo consoles has, except that some models of those games can be physically bought, while others can not (no optical drive.) If Apple is required to somehow allow a third party to sell on their iOS devices, than that means the same for all of these game consoles too, and they will rightfully balk at that.

 

Like the argument can become even more stupid if you take into account certain services. It's almost like businesses would rather make more money for themselves s/

 

[Izineth]

I did not read the whole thread to see if it has been mentioned but Google has removed it from the play store now as well for the same reason Apple has.

 

I know its the cool thing to do to hate on Apple.  But I agree with Apple on this, Epic agreed to a set of terms when they put the app on the store and they chose to violate the agreement.  I for one am glad that Apple moderates what goes on the app store.  It gets rid of all the scams and malware trash that runs rampant on the play store.  The google play store is a wild west full of trash, malware and scams.  If I am looking for an app for something at least I know if its on the iOS app store its reasonably likely its going to be safe to use and to do what it says its going to do.

[yolosnail]

Just now, Kisai said:

Because people are too hyperfocused on details that don't matter.

 

There are plenty of existing, if not identical situations out there (eg the app stores on pretty much everything else) and trying to say "Apple has a dominant monopoly on ___" what exactly? This is no different from how the PS3/PS4/PS5 or Xbox 360/XboxOne/Xbox Series whatever/Nintendo consoles has, except that some models of those games can be physically bought, while others can not (no optical drive.) If Apple is required to somehow allow a third party to sell on their iOS devices, than that means the same for all of these game consoles too, and they will rightfully balk at that.

 

Like the argument can become even more stupid if you take into account certain services. It's almost like businesses would rather make more money for themselves s/

 

But the difference is even the consoles without the optical drives, at least with the XBOX, you can still buy the digital games elsewhere and activate them in the XBOX store with a code

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

i can't be bothered going back and tagging everyone in this thread.

 

But to those defending Apple's monopoly, i guess that means you would be fine with

 

• Microsoft to lock everything down and only allow programs to be downloaded from the windows store and be forced to only use Edge
• Google to lock all of their services to only be accessed via Chrome (not chromium browsers)
• your ISP choosing which sites you can go to

after all, it's their platform and there are other options, right?

They won't, and can not.

 

Microsoft has this position already on their Xbox platform.

Google already does this (try access Stadia from another browser.)

And...

 

What happened to my 2FA app? No, this is in fact how Microsoft's services operate now too, you have to open the Microsoft App on your mobile device to login to outlook.

 

The third point is completely irrelevant because that's the existing CABLE TV industry. They've been eroding your access to VOD for years so you will pay them for legacy TV services. You can pay for Netflix but it will cost you more, and you have to buy a TV that has a Netflix app, and while the local TV operators now have a Netflix app, only the DSL one had a Netflix app for a while, and now both do, so clearly they've thrown in the towel there.

 

 

Not every "there must be a competitive choice" has to exist, and in fact creates confusion about who operates what, and who is safe to use or buy from. The fact that Microsoft and Opera decided to use Chromium and Google essentially ripped off Safari, (which in turn was KHTML) to produce Chrome in the first place tells you more about how market dominance of these players than anything. If you're big enough you can just pilfer an open source product, fork it, and give nothing back.

 

[Kisai]

10 minutes ago, yolosnail said:

But the difference is even the consoles without the optical drives, at least with the XBOX, you can still buy the digital games elsewhere and activate them in the XBOX store with a code

You can do that with Apple as well. Or have you never bought a Blueray or DVD?

[Izineth]

9 minutes ago, yolosnail said:

But the difference is even the consoles without the optical drives, at least with the XBOX, you can still buy the digital games elsewhere and activate them in the XBOX store with a code

The XBOX is the only console I can think of that you can activate digital games from other sources.  I don't think I have EVER seen a digital code for a PS4 game or Nintendo game on a 3rd party store.  There are a TON of other devices that only allow you to buy from the included store.  Amazon tablets, Roku, etc.  These devices only let you use the included stores and there aren't codes elsewhere for them.  This is nothing new or unique to Apple.

[Kisai]

1 minute ago, Kawaii_Desu said:

The XBOX is the only console I can think of that you can activate digital games from other sources.  I don't think I have EVER seen a digital code for a PS4 game or Nintendo game on a 3rd party store.  There are a TON of other devices that only allow you to buy from the included store.  Amazon tablets, Roku, etc.  These devices only let you use the included stores and there aren't codes elsewhere for them.  This is nothing new or unique to Apple.

Nintendo lets you do it too, just it's rare to ever be able to do it.

[yolosnail]

 

3 minutes ago, Kisai said:

You can do that with Apple as well. Or have you never bought a Blueray or DVD?

So, say I wanted to buy the 'I love Apple App', I could go to Amazon, buy it and redeem it on my iPhone?

[HenrySalayne]

@Kisai
If we just look at games, I completely understand your point of view. If it's all about gaming, choose your platform wisely.

But if we take a look at apps in general, I strongly disagree. And that's the point of many people in this thread. In there lays the difference to gaming consoles and Stadia. If it would have been just Fortnite, who cares. But there is an underlaying problem with taking 30% of everything. And if Epic wants to fight this battle, I support it. And believe me, I dislike Fortnite just like the next guy. But Spotify, Hey (e-mail app) and Floatplane are just a few examples and I would consider them to have a valid point in this matter. A smartphone is an important part of our life and is used daily for hours. Access to it should be held to a higher standard than a gaming console.

[Kisai]

36 minutes ago, yolosnail said:

 

So, say I wanted to buy the 'I love Apple App', I could go to Amazon, buy it and redeem it on my iPhone?

The mechanism exists, that doesn't mean Apple has made it available.

 

 

Download code, nothing about it being specific to movies or music, since clearly they do allow this for those media already. 

 

Before anyone points out the obvious. No you can't buy apps in iTunes on the PC. It's however the same mechanism:

 

edit: I swear parallel arguments exist in all corners of the internet.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/08/as-epic-attacks-apple-and-google-it-ignores-the-same-problems-on-consoles/

 

[Commodus]

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america/

55% according to these guys So while it can still be technically true, the reality is slightly different.  Suffice to say it is only slightly different Not hugely different.   For those interested, 50% is not a threshold for anything, it doesn't hav an intrinsic meaning.

The key is that they were trying to portray Apple as dominant in the overall smartphone market... and it's not.  In mainland Europe it's not even close. I also wouldn't consider 55% dominance; leading, for sure, but not something that would immediately raise hackles for regulators.

 

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

Which seems weird that you can do that but not for digital goods?  I there a difference between a digital good and a material good under consumer law?

That's the billion dollar question, really. I believe Apple's rationales are that it both helps fund the App Store and always provides a simple option for customers, but it does have the drawback of making it difficult to offer in-app sign-ups without hiking prices.

 

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

I think once you get into that you are moving to edge cases like jailbreaking etc, they do not apply to the general consumer who is the target market and end user in this situation.  If Epic released their app as a corporate or beta app and started taking direct payments apple would shut them down as they have before.  So I think the original statement stands as appropriately accurate.

Not really disagreeing here, just worth pointing out that it's not quite all or nothing.

 

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

??  Abusing a dominant market position is absolutely  a cause for concern and a very valid complaint.  If I want to sell an app, in order to reach half of the US market I have to give apple 30% for it.  If that isn't abuse of a dominant position then I don't what is.

The thing is that it's not dominant in market share in the way US regulators (or indeed, many other regulators) would look for. You can point out that its share is large enough that it limits developers' choices, but it's not a monopolist the way Google is for search (plus Android on a global scale) or Microsoft is on PCs.

[JediLounger]

Screw all of them as far as I am concerned. Epic is not doing this for any other reason other than to benefit themselves. Jim Sterling says it better than I ever could.

 

 

[Commodus]

Just now, JediLounger said:

Screw all of them as far as I am concerned. Epic is not doing this for any other reason other than to benefit themselves. Jim Sterling says it better than I ever could.

 

 

I've been thinking as much. No one here is really clean. This is a money-hungry company complaining that it's not making more money from other money-hungry companies.