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

[rcmaehl]

Good breakdown:
 

 

[Doobeedoo]

Just now, Lord Vile said:

You know you can pay with stuff other than apple pay right? You can chose a bank/credit card or PayPal too. Honestly I’m hoping epic get destroyed because they’re claims are pretty much baseless and their income is solely from encourage kids to gamble. 
 

So YouTube is a monopoly and should be forced to allow other video services to use its infrastructure? 

They're talking about iOS app developers that sell in-app content to exclusively use Apple's In-App Purchase and preventing app devs from developing and integrating alternative payment solutions. They're not taking the issue that Apple requires devs to use App Store but they think it's unfair Apple requires you to use its payment methods, which thereby gives Apple 30% of all in-app revenue on the digital goods that make up the entirety of Fortnite’s business model.

[Arika]

35 minutes ago, rcmaehl said:

Good breakdown:

 

The fact that Epic had this ready to go...and they even made a stupid video goes to show that they don't actually care, they knew exactly what they were doing. one could even argue.

 

I agree with the video. All of these companies are scum.

[Video Beagle]

3 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

Youtube is still more open because you could go stream on Twitch for extra income, Youtube would be acting like Apple if you could only make content on Youtube and you'd be kicked off for trying to offset the fees.

That is literally the opposite of reality.

 

Apple isn't saying if you do iOS, you can't do other platforms. They're not saying that if you do other platforms and Apple, they must be equal features or you don't get on. They're saying if you want to be on iOS, you follow certain policies.

 

Youtube, however will come down on you and take you down for sending people to other platforms unless you thread a careful needle. Linus talked about it in the past.

 

 

-----------------------------------------------

This is another take on stuff, pointing toward hacker groups and stuff... The description that got me to read it (from MacObserver)

Quote

Attacking Apple’s App Store policies and Google’s equivalent is relatively easy. Over on Pando, Aimee Pearcy takes the counterview – that while the model is not perfect,  changing it drastically would be to the benefit of hackers and fraudsters, not users.
While Apple and Google have wildly inconsistent policies for their stores — Netflix got a free pass from paying Apple Tax on its $853 million U.S. annual iOS revenue back in 2018 — their payment features are a major asset for developers. Credit card-stealing malware is already a huge problem. If anyone could link to their own third-party checkout page, Hacker groups like Magecart would shit themselves with excitement. Every checkout page would have to be manually checked. It would be a huge ask for users to unknown developers with side payments. And Epic certainly isn’t a shining example. Its game Fortnite has been described as a ‘money laundering paradise’, with money launderers using stolen credit cards to buy V-bucks.If third-party side payments were allowed and credit card fraud became a problem –and make no mistake, it would become a problem — Apple and Google would have zero transparency.

 

https://pando.com/2020/08/14/changing-apple-google-app-store-model-would-suck-everyone-except-epic-games/

 

Frankly, I didn't find the article very well done....it was more "these things happen" and really didn't develop the premise, but at least added some ideas I hadn't concidered.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

15 hours ago, Video Beagle said:

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

Yes, but Walmart isn't the only store you can sell at. You  also can sell online. You don't have another option for where to download your apps on a iPhone. 

[mr moose]

13 hours ago, Video Beagle said:

Because words have meaning?

Damn right they have meaning, they have very specific meanings in law, you can't take a general word with a general meaning in everyday context and try to apply it to law.  It does not work that way.

 

13 hours ago, Video Beagle said:

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.

 

I've posted about walmart and bricks'n'mortar stores and what I think is reasonable already if you want to know what I think.

13 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.

Thus illustrating that the concept of a monopoly in legal terms as it applies to a market is beyond most of the discussion here.

12 hours ago, HarryNyquist said:

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

 

Not at all, I have openly denounced google as being just as guilty.  The problem is not because it's apple, the problem is what they are doing and the fact people seem to be happy with it.

 

9 hours ago, harryk said:

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.

 

 

Not really, it's another way to appreciate the market, but it does not change how monopolies effect the market and how they effect consumer choice.

 

 

6 hours ago, Commodus said:

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.

Nope, the key issue is:  are they engaging in a monopolistic activity? the answer is yes because those market numbers mean nothing when determining if a monopoly exist.

 

6 hours ago, Commodus said:

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.

 

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

 

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.

yes it is.  Whether they do anything about it is a different question.  Remember the monopolies the isp's have, all technically illegal but no court is going to do shit about it.

 

[TheNamelessOne]

I was just about to say yet another reason why iOS is so much better than Android, but then Google decided to also take Fortnite off. Bummer, now iOS is still better, but not as before.

[Guest]

Epic now sueing Google now. Total money grab from a shady company. 

[Zinkar]

Hi all, my first time here.

 

Why are many folks ignoring Epic's greed ? They said the v-bucks's price were more expensive for mobile only becuase Epic has to earn ... what a greed.

[mr moose]

13 minutes ago, Zinkar said:

Hi all, my first time here.

 

Why are many folks ignoring Epic's greed ? They said the v-bucks's price were more expensive for mobile only becuase Epic has to earn ... what a greed.

 

 

I think there are very few who are ignoring it.  Most people on this forum have a outspoken hatred for epic for many different reasons,  however most of the discussion is not about epic, but about an existing complaint regarding mobile store fronts (the app store and the play store).  For most of us the modern phone has replaced the desktop/laptop as being the most important device we require.  I think many would argue that trying to survive without a phone in this day and age would be like trying to survive being illiterate 50 years ago,  sure you can do it but your chances of getting anywhere are severely limited.  Therefore there should be no artificial barriers or restraints on the software one wishes to install on their personal device. 

 

 

Imagine if you had to buy photoshop again because you wanted to swap to mac on your next computer?  That is what is happening on the mobile computing front.  It prevents consumers from being able to swap between ios and android as they see fit,  I cannot afford to buy all my apps again so I cannot afford to "vote with my wallet" as many would like to pretend anyone can just  do.  Also it effects developers as they are constrained to whatever fees and charges and rules google and apple set.  This is not a free market.

 

So TL:DR, it's no that people like Epic or even like what they are doing, in this case where it is a battle between two evils, epic's actions have the potential to be much better for consumers than apples (by a long margin given the number of similar cases and complains have been raised already).

[Kisai]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Imagine if you had to buy photoshop again because you wanted to swap to mac on your next computer?  That is what is happening on the mobile computing front. 

That's actually how it was before Adobe Creative Cloud. You had one key, and you can only install it on one computer. Creative Cloud lets you install it on as many computers as you want, but you can only use it on one at a time.

 

This Epic vs Apple/Google is only about who gets to pocket more money. The customer is not going to get cheaper prices from this, because all the app stores, including game consoles are also charging 30%.

 

Honestly, I don't care if Epic wins or loses, but I'm pretty sure they will lose on the face of it, since they're not the DOJ.

 

 

[Arika]

2 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Honestly, I don't care if Epic wins or loses, but I'm pretty sure they will lose on the face of it, since they're not the DOJ.

I think the only outcome i would be happy with is:

1. Epic has to pay Google and Apple for damages for circumventing the payment requirements of their respective stores.
2. A proper investigation is launched into the App Store and Play Store for monopolistic practices.
3. Google and Apple are forced to allow other app stores/ways to install apps outside of their own store (which android admittedly already does).

 

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Kisai said:

That's actually how it was before Adobe Creative Cloud. You had one key, and you can only install it on one computer. Creative Cloud lets you install it on as many computers as you want, but you can only use it on one at a time.

Do you remember when software came on CD?  I do, often you got both mac and windows versions.  In fact many software providers allow you to down load whichever version you want because you activate your key within the program.

 

4 minutes ago, Kisai said:

This Epic vs Apple/Google is only about who gets to pocket more money. The customer is not going to get cheaper prices from this, because all the app stores, including game consoles are also charging 30%.

If epic win apple (and google officially) might have to allow 3rd party app stores. That will be a huge win for consumers.  Make no mistake, no one believes they are doing this for us, but the outcome will certainly have it's impacts. If apple win you can kiss goodbye any hope of app developers actually being able to control their own apps. 

 

4 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Honestly, I don't care if Epic wins or loses, but I'm pretty sure they will lose on the face of it, since they're not the DOJ.

 

 

 

I am not holding my hopes up that they will win, because even if they do the POTUS can just overrule anyway (because the US legal system is not independent from the government),   but make no mistake, If apple win, then consumers will lose.

 

 

[Spindel]

23 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?   

On your first paragraph the short answer: yes.

 

Second paragraph: No not monopoly, app developers that use slimey IAP or subscription models for their apps can still have a homepage where they can get paid without using apples infrastructure. The only two rules they have to obey is that they can’t redirect to that site from the app and the app must be functional even if you don’t pay anyting (at least as a time limited demo). Clearly stated rules, not monopolistic and still something that Epic and that worthless mail app, a while back, failed to adhere to.

 

But if you as a developer want to use Apples infrastructure, that guarantees ease of use, and saftey, for the consumer. You have to pay apple for it, I see this as fair.
 

What all this is about is entiteled developers that want to keep the cake and eat it at the same time. And do you know why? Because using apples infrastructure guarantees way higher revenue than the allowed workarounds. 

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Spindel said:

On your first paragraph the short answer: yes.

then you are advocating for anti trust.

 

4 minutes ago, Spindel said:

Second paragraph: No not monopoly, app developers that use slimey IAP or subscription models for their apps can still have a homepage where they can get paid without using apples infrastructure. The only two rules they have to obey is that they can’t redirect to that site from the app and the app must be functional even if you don’t pay anyting (at least as a time limited demo). Clearly stated rules, not monopolistic and still something that Epic and that worthless mail app, a while back, failed to adhere to.

 

4 minutes ago, Spindel said:

But if you as a developer want to use Apples infrastructure, that guarantees ease of use, and saftey, for the consumer. You have to pay apple for it, I see this as fair.
 

What all this is about is entiteled developers that want to keep the cake and eat it at the same time. And do you know why? Because using apples infrastructure guarantees way higher revenue than the allowed workarounds. 

getting tired of explaining how monopolies work.  I've posted several examples and an article.  its worth looking into if yoy want to continue the discussion with reasoned points.

[Kisai]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Do you remember when software came on CD?  I do, often you got both mac and windows versions.  In fact many software providers allow you to down load whichever version you want because you activate your key within the program.

Yes, as I have CS3 and CS4 on disc, but surprise surprise, I could not install the Mac version, only the PC version, because Adobe considers those unique licenses, and you had to pay for a cross-grade to switch. 

 

But it's a bit beside the point. Photoshop might be the industry standard, but within the customers that I know, all of them would like nothing more than to dump Photoshop for Clip Studio Paint, if only CSP would work in CMYK and support Western-style comic lettering. Everyone has to keep around Photoshop to make sure CYMK for print and a to do all the text. There's also a pile of alternatives to everything Adobe makes.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Yes, as I have CS3 and CS4 on disc, but surprise surprise, I could not install the Mac version, only the PC version, because Adobe considers those unique licenses, and you had to pay for a cross-grade to switch. 

 

But it's a bit beside the point. Photoshop might be the industry standard, but within the customers that I know, all of them would like nothing more than to dump Photoshop for Clip Studio Paint, if only CSP would work in CMYK and support Western-style comic lettering. Everyone has to keep around Photoshop to make sure CYMK for print and a to do all the text. There's also a pile of alternatives to everything Adobe makes.

You can migrate your adobe software from windows to mac or back again any time you want:

 

https://prodesigntools.com/move-adobe-cs5-between-computers-or-windows-to-mac.html

 

you used to be able to do it easily, but since adobe have ended support for the older versions you now have to request an exchange:

 

Quote

But if you require a different operating system version of a non–Creative Suite/Cloud product you purchased from Adobe (such as Acrobat Pro/Standard), then you can exchange your product. All product configurations (including Student and Teacher Editions) are eligible for exchange.

 

They limit it to 5 for whatever reason, but it can be done.

 

[PCGuy_5960]

10 hours ago, Commodus said:

I wouldn't call it caring about smaller developers to sign exclusives and incentivize studios to choose engines based on discounts instead of suitability for purpose. It creates a fragmented market with resentment that can actually hurt studios once the Epic money runs out.

I wouldn't say so, it's just a helpful option for those who want to use the unreal engine and aren't sure if their game is going to be a hit. And even with that, the cut they take is still way smaller than every other platform.

[Lord Vile]

10 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

They're talking about iOS app developers that sell in-app content to exclusively use Apple's In-App Purchase and preventing app devs from developing and integrating alternative payment solutions. They're not taking the issue that Apple requires devs to use App Store but they think it's unfair Apple requires you to use its payment methods, which thereby gives Apple 30% of all in-app revenue on the digital goods that make up the entirety of Fortnite’s business model.

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.

[ne0tic]

To be fair, Apple didn't do anything wrong here. It was Epic Games that went against the guidelines and because of that Fortnite kind of deserved to be banned. Had Apple not removed Fortnite, they would have been caught with treating developers differently... I still believe Apple should change their policy a bit, 30% cut is way too steep. If Apple lowered the one-time-purchase fee to 10-15% and subscriptions to 5% then that would be completely fair both ways in my opinion. I hope that Epic will lose the lawsuit but that Apple will still reconsider their policy and at least lower the fees a bit!

[Lord Vile]

3 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

as long as you're paying anything through the app store, either firsthand or through the mandated APIs, apple will take the 30% before other dev license fees. paying with paypal through said APIs does not skip that step

 

which is the entire deal of Epic's push (and Spotify by agreement)

So you can still pay how you want they just take a %... seems like that’s exactly how every other shop on earth works

[Lord Vile]

6 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

which is the basis of one of the arguments here. 30% is too much, but 0% is not fair to any platform operator either

 

another being cross-platform app ownership issues, but i don't think it's what your current argument is covering right now?

Why is 30% too much? Again YouTube takes 45%, twitch takes 50, Spotify takes 30. Remember they’re the ones who run the storefront, advertise to consumers, run the servers and put in place the infrastructure, in apples case they make the hardware too. They should be allowed to make the cut whatever they want and if devs don’t like it they can just refuse to develop for it and go somewhere else like google or Windows or even Linux. 

[Lord Vile]

1 minute ago, VegetableStu said:

one of the reasons for floatplane and patreon et al

 

with phones there're literally two companies total for the two major mobile OSes. that's really easier said than done

Well technically there’s Huawei and you can’t develop for PC instead because why? If you wanna sell your wares at an outlet you have to play by their rules. Most apps are run off micro transactions and forced ads anyway now and to make it profitable 30% cut or not you have to have a decent chunk of users and a couple of whales. Don’t think the 30% cut will be a massive issue unless you’re Epic and you could really do with the extra 30 mill a week to be even more anti consumer and anti dev than the people they’re complaining at currently.

[HenrySalayne]

9 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Why is 30% too much? Again YouTube takes 45%, twitch takes 50, Spotify takes 30.

Where does Spotify take 30% of what?

And YouTube and Twitch, if you haven't noticed, supply a "free" video service. Running the servers and paying for the content (and paying the content creators) is a teeny tiny bit more expensive and more effort than just taking 30% of everything because someone is using a phone you've originally built. In yesterday's WAN show Luke explained why they can't afford a 30% cut and aren't allowed to adjust their pricing to include the additional 30%. For many services 30% is way above the profit margin and they would basically lose money to offer a "pay through Apple" option.

[Lord Vile]

3 hours ago, VegetableStu said:

scope of this topic is mobile. if you must, Fortnite is already on almost every gaming platform (and floatplane has a webapp and on android). to ignore a sizable platform userbase is a business decision not easily generalisable on the internet

 

that's the issue against Epic, however substantiated it is or not (which is already in of itself another topic)

Ignore it or give them the cut they want, it’s fairly simple. 
 

Is important though because they can’t frame their argument as “doing it for the little guys” when they’re happy to step on the same people in a different way. <removed by staff>

 

Edited August 15, 2020 by SansVarnic
Removed content.