Microsoft joins Epic on the fight against Apple

[wanderingfool2]

44 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

And Sony control well over 50% of console sales? 

Your point being?  I never mentioned Sony at all.  One can claim a similar thing, but I can't find the % that Sony take or their ToS where they prevent from using third party stores.  If Sony has the same restrictions, then yes I could see the same argument being put in place.

 

The fact though other companies have similar policies and may operate in monopolistic behavior doesn't excuse Apple for doing it.  It's just that Apple is the one being focus on, and we really don't know if Sony does have the same restrictions.  (They might make special arrangements).

 

52 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

That's dev choice, support a platform or don't. If I want to sell a product on any market it has to be in line with their guidelines.

So then if Microsoft decided to force all developers to use Windows Store, it would be okay?  Monopoly and antitrust laws exist for a reason.  Apple controls over 50% of the total sales, so ignoring a giant market is not always a choice.  It's similar to the anti-compete rules employers put in, many are considered to be too restrictive (and yes, the employee had an option to not work there) and get invalidated by the courts.

 

20 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Which means Microsoft's claim is also a bold faced lie. Microsoft can upstream any fixes to UE4 just as easily as anyone else.

How is Microsoft's claim a lie?  If Epic doesn't have access to the API's and SDK's for Apple, then Epic cannot do the updates.  Yes, companies like Microsoft could do updates themselves and add features, but that isn't really realistic (if you read what Microsoft said, none of it is a lie).  When developing a game, you don't pick a game engine where you would have to develop and patch the code yourself (in the sense of the game engine).  Having the source code available doesn't mean a thing if that source code doesn't include the new fixes for a system (or in some cases could break on the IOS, if lets say they added a new feature that wasn't compatible with IOS)

[Lord Vile]

4 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Your point being?  I never mentioned Sony at all.  One can claim a similar thing, but I can't find the % that Sony take or their ToS where they prevent from using third party stores.  If Sony has the same restrictions, then yes I could see the same argument being put in place.

You can't use 3rd party stores on the PS, it's more walled off than iOS

4 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

The fact though other companies have similar policies and may operate in monopolistic behavior doesn't excuse Apple for doing it.  It's just that Apple is the one being focus on, and we really don't know if Sony does have the same restrictions.  (They might make special arrangements).

 

So then if Microsoft decided to force all developers to use Windows Store, it would be okay?  Monopoly and antitrust laws exist for a reason.  Apple controls over 50% of the total sales, so ignoring a giant market is not always a choice.  It's similar to the anti-compete rules employers put in, many are considered to be too restrictive (and yes, the employee had an option to not work there) and get invalidated by the courts.

Microsoft controls 80% of desktops and there is no viable competition . Not just sales. Android is more than viable competition to iOS considering it's the market leader. Also depends on what you look at as google monetise the play store differently to apple by selling user data.

[wanderingfool2]

4 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Microsoft controls 80% of desktops and there is no viable competition . Not just sales. Android is more than viable competition to iOS considering it's the market leader. Also depends on what you look at as google monetise the play store differently to apple by selling user data.

On Android though, there is actual ways to side-load apps which will make lawsuits against that a lot harder (even my phone comes with alternative stores).

 

So what...80%...Apple has over 50%, which makes them still a monopoly in the eyes of the court.  (Your argument was that it's apples rules so Epic has to abid by them, but if Microsoft isn't allowed doing it at 80% share, why should Apple?)

 

8 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

You can't use 3rd party stores on the PS, it's more walled off than iOS

Yea, I don't really have too much experience with consoles anymore.  My point still stands, it's about what battles are being fought.  Just because it's prevalent doesn't make it right.

[straight_stewie]

5 hours ago, HarryNyquist said:

Epic played stupid games, and have won stupid prizes.

The fact that all these companies have come out "against" Apple at once makes me super suspicious about how well-organized this is. They had the suit ready in hours, an ad campaign ready in hours, multiple big-name companies with them in days, and throughout all of this, everyone has forgotten it was also nuked from the Google Play Store for the exact same reason it was nuked from the Apple App Store.

I'm actually on Epic's side on this one. Their argument, although they don't word it as damningly as they could, essentially boils down to Apple and Google engaging in anti-competition practices; A claim which is in vogue right now, I might add.

And I kind of see their point on this one. It's completely normal, and acceptable, for a software distribution service to require a percentage of revenue for software sales. But is "buying in game" credits really a software sale?

Put a little differently, would you be very happy with steam if they did the same thing?

 

Of course, there is gray area here. I think Apple and Google would be perfectly correct to prevent a company like Epic from using the app store to install it's own app installer, but I don't think that Apple and Google are right to prevent people from buying things directly from a developer, especially things like, say, skins for Fortnite players.

What's really going on here is that "micro-sales" actually represent ALOT of revenue in the mobile gaming industry, most of it actually, and the biggest companies involved in that market are having a little argument about who's revenue that really is.

 

Epic will be back on the App/Play store shortly. None of the parties involved, none of them, want to see Epic leave this market. It represents some billions of dollars of revenue annually by itself, taken overall and on all platforms, and no one involved wants to lose that money. 

At the end of the day, if Epic holds their bluff long enough, Apple and Google will step down because, if they don't, they don't get any money at all. If they do, they atleast get the app sale money. However, Epic might waver, because they want the money too.

[wanderingfool2]

4 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

Of course, there is gray area here. I think Apple and Google would be perfectly correct to prevent a company like Epic from using the app store to install it's own app installer, but I don't think that Apple and Google are right to prevent people from buying things directly from a developer, especially things like, say, skins for Fortnite players.

What's really going on here is that "micro-sales" actually represent ALOT of revenue in the mobile gaming industry, most of it actually, and the biggest companies involved in that market are having a little argument about who's revenue that really is.

I think what is also happening, is there is an uptick in the "free" games that then use the micro transactions.  In this case, Apple and Google foot the bill for the hosting, distribution.  In Apples case, they still get a bit (as they charge developers yearly), but for Google they literally see nothing and are footing the bill (they don't even get the ad revenue, because of those micro-transactions).

 

Honestly though, if Google didn't allow for side-loading of apps, I would be against Google as well.  The ability to side-load apps and still access the API in my opinion is the only thing that is saving Google in this case.

[straight_stewie]

Just now, wanderingfool2 said:

I think what is also happening, is there is an uptick in the "free" games that then use the micro transactions.  In this case, Apple and Google foot the bill for the hosting, distribution.  In Apples case, they still get a bit (as they charge developers yearly), but for Google they literally see nothing and are footing the bill (they don't even get the ad revenue, because of those micro-transactions).

 

Honestly though, if Google didn't allow for side-loading of apps, I would be against Google as well.  The ability to side-load apps and still access the API in my opinion is the only thing that is saving Google in this case.

If I'm completely honest about my views, I'd have to admit that I'm interminably pissed off that we don't just have a strong Linux ecosystem on mobile yet. I would love to see phones standardized to the point where developers can start making good off-the-shelf operating systems for them, much like we do for PCs, and then we can just run "normal" Linux, like we would on a desktop. Then we could do whatever the hell we want with our phones.

 

But I do see your argument as well, I just don't agree that that's the correct solution: I'd rather Apple/Google charge developers a hosting fee than snipe 30% off the top of every transaction. Or, at the very least, give developers a choice between the two.

[wanderingfool2]

9 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

But I do see your argument as well, I just don't agree that that's the correct solution: I'd rather Apple/Google charge developers a hosting fee than snipe 30% off the top of every transaction. Or, at the very least, give developers a choice between the two.

Yea, it's no perfect scenario and not that I agree with that business practice.  In my opinion, they should be allowed to direct to other means of purchase (but with the added stipulation that the games aren't allowed to be "free").  It's a tricky kind of thing though, as then it could open up to credit card issues (when undoubtedly a smaller developer decides to do all the credit card processing in an insecure fashion)

[Roswell]

58 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Your point being?  I never mentioned Sony at all.  One can claim a similar thing, but I can't find the % that Sony take or their ToS where they prevent from using third party stores.  If Sony has the same restrictions, then yes I could see the same argument being put in place.

 

The fact though other companies have similar policies and may operate in monopolistic behavior doesn't excuse Apple for doing it.  It's just that Apple is the one being focus on, and we really don't know if Sony does have the same restrictions.  (They might make special arrangements).

 

So then if Microsoft decided to force all developers to use Windows Store, it would be okay?  Monopoly and antitrust laws exist for a reason.  Apple controls over 50% of the total sales, so ignoring a giant market is not always a choice.  It's similar to the anti-compete rules employers put in, many are considered to be too restrictive (and yes, the employee had an option to not work there) and get invalidated by the courts.

 

How is Microsoft's claim a lie?  If Epic doesn't have access to the API's and SDK's for Apple, then Epic cannot do the updates.  Yes, companies like Microsoft could do updates themselves and add features, but that isn't really realistic (if you read what Microsoft said, none of it is a lie).  When developing a game, you don't pick a game engine where you would have to develop and patch the code yourself (in the sense of the game engine).  Having the source code available doesn't mean a thing if that source code doesn't include the new fixes for a system (or in some cases could break on the IOS, if lets say they added a new feature that wasn't compatible with IOS)

That’s not how it works. You can’t monopolize your own product, however, your product itself could monopolize a market.

 

It’s astounding how many people on these forums don’t understand what monopolies are and the legal precedent surrounding them. iPhone and the App Store are Apple’s product, they can do whatever they want on those products. Nobody else but them are entitled to have access.

 

What you and others are arguing for is for Apple to give up control of their own products and platforms that they spend money to develop. If by some miracle that happened, you’d see a full collapse of the entire technology sector. Tech companies make money because they’re allowed to control... well, their tech products. Insert some crazy communist idea that companies aren’t allowed to own the products and platforms they make and that all goes away.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

4 hours ago, kelvinhall05 said:

So people can stop buying their devices instead of buying and complaining.

It's not as simple as that. Imagine Ford started to sell their cards under the condition that you use Ford-branded gas stations only. You could simply buy a car from someone else, but regardless of what you buy it would still be illegal for Ford to do so, and if Ford tried to enforce it on its customers, or other gas stations decided to take them to court, Ford would lose.

[Roswell]

7 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

It's not as simple as that. Imagine Ford started to seel their cards under the condition that you use Ford-branded gas stations only. You could simply buy a car from someone else, but regardless of what you buy it would still be illegal for Ford to do so, and if Ford tried to enforce it on its custiomers, or other gas stations decided to take them to court, Ford would lose.

No, it wouldn’t be illegal, it would just be a very easy way for Ford to tank their business.

 

I assume you’re not aware that this is already a thing. Tesla sells cars that can only fast charge at Tesla stations which you need to pay Tesla access for. 

[pas008]

3 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

No, it wouldn’t be illegal, it would just be a very easy way for Ford to tank their business.

 

I assume you’re not aware that this is already a thing. Tesla sells cars that can only fast charge at Tesla stations which you need to pay Tesla access for. 

they support 3rd party though

 

[Roswell]

1 minute ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Not even people who bought the hardware and paid for the software license?

 

Just another Apple shill.

You can do whatever you want to a product after you buy it. Doesn’t mean that you buying an iPhone means you magically get to tell them how to make it in the first place.

[Blademaster91]

Telsa charging is a terrible analogy, I can still charge the car at home or any other vehicle charging although it'll take longer, if it were like the monopolistic control Apple has, you would only be able to charge the car at an official Tesla charging station.

[Kisai]

1 minute ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

It's not as simple as that. Imagine Ford started to seel their cards under the condition that you use Ford-branded gas stations only. You could simply buy a car from someone else, but regardless of what you buy it would still be illegal for Ford to do so, and if Ford tried to enforce it on its custiomers, or other gas stations decided to take them to court, Ford would lose.

Dude, Tesla, only Tesla can repair Tesla cars, you can only use Tesla's Superchargers with a Tesla. In the EU at least they use the standard charging cable, so theoretically other EV's might be able to use it. This situation exists right now.

 

The problem with the car analogy is that there are multiple fuel types, and multiple manufacturers, with the exception of EV's which can also charge at home off a standard household circuit (albeit slowly) you are entirely at the whim of oil companies setting arbitrary prices. Recall that oil prices went negative this year and gas prices barely moved. You are more energy-secure if you drive an EV, but the costs of using an EV aren't always in your favor. If you live in places with cheap gas, and the local electricity utility burns dirty coal, then your EV is probably more expensive to the environment than a place that gets it's energy from Nuclear or Hydro-electric power and oil costs are expensive due to taxes and levies on fuels.

 

So no, Ford could not sell you a car that could only use a Ford fueling station, because customers would balk at that and either buy a different car, or just fuel anywhere and lie about it when the vehicle gets serviced. Unless Ford is tracking every single fueling, they can't claim otherwise.

 

Which comes back to this Apple analogy. Apple sells you the product, the product consists of a hardware device, an operating system and a store which you agreed to use as a condition of sale. If you choose to install HTML5 apps on the iPhone, that's entirely your choice, and Apple can't stop you. And this is still the same "sideloading" that some of y'all say iphone doesn't have cause you're using very narrow definitions.

https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/iPhone/Conceptual/SafariJSDatabaseGuide/OfflineApplicationCache/OfflineApplicationCache.html

 

The same offline application cache also works on Android. 

 

The App store is more akin to the factory options, which sometimes includes third party co-branding. Sideloading is going to walmart to get your wiper blades instead of having the dealership do it. Sure you can, but most do not.

 

 

[Roswell]

1 minute ago, pas008 said:

they support 3rd party though

 

Nope, if you want to fast charge (“supercharge”), that’s Tesla only.

[hollyh88]

this is kinda annoying.. wish epic would lose this fight and just bite the bullet. they violated apples terms. they are at fault. and now they are acting high and mighty "fighting against monopoly for the gamers!" while they themselves fck every pc player over with exclusivity deals. yeah fck epic. they deserve what they get. i don't like apple either. they are a holes as well. but damm epic is pissing me off more

[wanderingfool2]

15 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

That’s not how it works. You can’t monopolize your own product, however, your product itself could monopolize a market.

You are wrong.  As I and many other's have pointed to the FTC definition of monopoly and how it works.  In this sense, monopoly is being used as a catch-all term for things such as anti-trust and anti-competitive actions.  Monopoly essentially refers to a market dominance.

 

17 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

What you and others are arguing for is for Apple to give up control of their own products and platforms that they spend money to develop. If by some miracle that happened, you’d see a full collapse of the entire technology sector. Tech companies make money because they’re allowed to control... well, their tech products. Insert some crazy communist idea that companies aren’t allowed to own the products and platforms they make and that all goes away.

By that logic Microsoft should have been allowed to keep their push for IE by tightly integrating it into the OS.  Apple can control things that go on their platform, but there is still within reason.  Under that reasoning as well, Net Neutrality shouldn't be allowed and ISP's should be able to control what is happening on their service (after all, it's their service, they built the cabling and provide the access).

[Roswell]

5 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Telsa charging is a terrible analogy, I can still charge the car at home or any other vehicle charging although it'll take longer, if it were like the monopolistic control Apple has, you would only be able to charge the car at an official Tesla charging station.

You can use a web app, “although it will take longer”.

[Lord Vile]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

On Android though, there is actual ways to side-load apps which will make lawsuits against that a lot harder (even my phone comes with alternative stores).

Apart from side loading is frowned upon by google and they frequently say not to do it. You can do it on iPhones too if you jailbreak them.

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

So what...80%...Apple has over 50%, which makes them still a monopoly in the eyes of the court.  (Your argument was that it's apples rules so Epic has to abid by them, but if Microsoft isn't allowed doing it at 80% share, why should Apple?)

50% of what exactly? Apple has 25% marketshare. I know you said "sales" but that's very vauge. What sales? microtransactions, subscriptions, free apps, paid apps, what? 

 

Because Apple has viable competition, if a dev doesn't want to use the app store they can just go dev for the play store instead and have access to 75% of the market. there's a choice where's in Microsofts case there is no viable alternative. You can dev just for MacOS but that's less than 1/5 of the market. See the difference? Cut out iOS you have acces to 75% of the market, cut out windows you have access to 20% of the market.

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

Yea, I don't really have too much experience with consoles anymore.  My point still stands, it's about what battles are being fought.  Just because it's prevalent doesn't make it right.

Kinda does especially as Epic has dealings with the PS store and isn't bothered. Shows their true colours.

[Kisai]

 

More on the "oh noes, apple dun an evil"

 

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1810806/000119312520227862/d908875ds1.htm

 

Kinda amazing how quickly Unity replaced Flash isn't it?

Quote

In particular, operating system platform providers or application stores such as Apple or Google may change their technical requirements or policies in a manner that adversely impacts the way in which we or our customers collect, use and share data from end-user devices. Restrictions in our ability to collect and use data as desired could negatively impact our Operate Solutions as well as our resource planning and feature development planning for our software. Similarly, at any time, these platform providers or application stores can change their policies on how our customers or we operate on their platform or in their application stores by, for example, applying content moderation for applications and advertising or imposing technical or code requirements. Actions by operating system platform providers or application stores such as Apple or Google may affect the manner in which we or our customers collect, use and share data from end-user devices. In June 2020, Apple announced plans to require applications using its mobile operating system, iOS, to affirmatively (on an opt-in basis) obtain an end-user’s permission to “track them across apps or websites owned by other companies” or access their device’s advertising identifier for advertising and advertising measurement purposes, as well as other restrictions. We expect that Apple may implement these changes as early as fall of 2020. The timing and manner in which these plans will be implemented and the effect on our revenue are not yet clear, but these changes could adversely affect our revenue from our monetization products and potentially other Operate Solutions. In addition, if customers have applications removed from these third-party platforms because of a change in platform guidelines that impact our code or practices, we could be exposed to legal risk and lose customers. In addition, these platforms could change their business models and could, for example, increase application store fees to our customers, which could have an adverse impact on our business.

 

If we or our customers were to violate, or an operating system platform provider or application store believes that we or our customers have violated, its terms of service or policies, that operating system platform provider or application store could limit or discontinue our or our customers’ access to its platform or store. In some cases these requirements may not be clear and our interpretation of the requirements may not align with the interpretation of the operating system platform provider or application store, which could lead to inconsistent enforcement of these terms of service or policies against us or our customers, and could also result in the operating system platform provider or application store limiting or discontinuing access to its platform or store. An operating system platform provider or application store could also limit or discontinue our access to its platform or store if it establishes more favorable relationships with one or more of our competitors or it determines that it is in their business interests to do so. Any limitation on or discontinuation of our or our customers’ access to any third-party platform or application store could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Quoth Unity:

Quote

Our monetization products are primarily based on a revenue-share model. These products were introduced in 2014 as our first set of Operate Solutions products and currently account for a substantial majority of our Operate Solutions revenue. We recognize monetization revenue primarily when an end-user installs an application after seeing an advertisement (contracted on a cost-per-install basis), and to a lesser extent when an advertisement starts (contracted on a cost-per-impression basis). Our revenue represents the amount we retain from the transaction we are facilitating through our Unified Auction. Actions by operating system platform providers or application stores such as Apple or Google may affect the manner in which we or our customers collect, use and share data from end-user devices. In June 2020, Apple announced plans to require applications using its mobile operating system, iOS, to affirmatively (on an opt-in basis) obtain an end-user’s permission to “track them across apps or websites owned by other companies” or access their device’s advertising identifier for advertising and advertising measurement purposes, as well as other restrictions. We expect that Apple may implement these changes as early as fall of 2020. The timing and manner in which these plans will be implemented and the effect on our revenue are not yet clear, but these changes could adversely affect our revenue from our monetization products and potentially other Operate Solutions.

 

[pas008]

11 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

Nope, if you want to fast charge (“supercharge”), that’s Tesla only.

doesnt matter they still allow 3rd party

[Guest savagepain]

6 hours ago, Smit Devrukhkar said:

Exactly why I think its a thing against apple and not against the 30% fee.

i think they should leave the cut cause they are using ios platform which is their property epic is just throwing a hissy fit cause they want more money

[Blademaster91]

16 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Not even people who bought the hardware and paid for the software license?

 

Just another Apple shill.

I already paid for the phone and license, I'd rather have at least some choice over what I can do with the device, so I choose Android over iOS, and well because Apple's policies on repair are terrible also.

But Apple apologists insist you don't own your phone,and developers don't own their apps. I don't like Epic either but someone needs to push against the app store monopoly and devs getting screwed over having to pay a $99 fee on top of 30% off of every sale. Apple puts unfair competition on Spofity, they tried to get more money out of Wordpress which is a free app, yet people still insist fees with no other way to obtain an app aren't monopolistic practices.

[Kisai]

1 minute ago, Blademaster91 said:

I already paid for the phone and license, I'd rather have at least some choice over what I can do with the device, so I choose Android over iOS, and well because Apple's policies on repair are terrible also.

But Apple apologists insist you don't own your phone,and developers don't own their apps. I don't like Epic either but someone needs to push against the app store monopoly and devs getting screwed over having to pay a $99 fee on top of 30% off of every sale. Apple puts unfair competition on Spofity, they tried to get more money out of Wordpress which is a free app, yet people still insist fees with no other way to obtain an app aren't monopolistic practices.

Keep hitting that dead horse. The issue with Wordpress.com's app has been resolved, like a day ago, and that was due to mistakes made by the website, not the app. That's a thing that happens with apps that use or exclusively use the HTML5 webviews. They could just as easily made a HTML5 offline app, but that doesn't give them discovery in the app store.

 

[wanderingfool2]

9 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

50% of what exactly? Apple has 25% marketshare. I know you said "sales" but that's very vauge. What sales? microtransactions, subscriptions, free apps, paid apps, what? 

 

Because Apple has viable competition, if a dev doesn't want to use the app store they can just go dev for the play store instead and have access to 75% of the market. there's a choice where's in Microsofts case there is no viable alternative. You can dev just for MacOS but that's less than 1/5 of the market. See the difference? Cut out iOS you have acces to 75% of the market, cut out windows you have access to 20% of the market.

People who buy Apple products are more likely to spend more money (the free model of Android is one of the reasons I think it really took off and holds more market share in terms of userbase).

 

https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/

2018, revenue from app store sales were approximately 65%.  Android did have more growth than Apple in that department, but it still over 50%.

 

12 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

You can do it on iPhones too if you jailbreak them.

Along with breaking warranties, refusal for repairs, etc.  Jailbreaking and having built in side loading are two very different things.

 

12 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Kinda does especially as Epic has dealings with the PS store and isn't bothered. Shows their true colours.

The % that Sony charges the larger companies isn't really well known.  Sony may be only charging pennies on the dollar for all we know.  Game studios such as Epic also get large volumes of cash flowing to them from the developers themselves for exclusives (and maybe some kick-backs like reduced fees), early access to hardware/sdk's.  It's just business.