Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Apple

Fortnite is Daring Apple To Shutter Its Game on iPhones (vox.com) 85

The company that owns Fortnite is making an in-your-face challenge to Apple: We're not going to obey the rules you've set for your powerful App Store. And we dare you to do something about it. From a report: It's a fascinating standoff between a very profitable, highly valued gaming company and one of the most powerful companies in the world. The way it plays out could have consequences for Apple, its tech rivals -- and antitrust regulators. Epic Games, the North Carolina-based developer behind Fortnite and other games, announced on Thursday morning that players who want to buy Fortnite's virtual currency no longer have to buy it via Apple's App Store. Instead, they can buy it directly from Epic. The difference for players, however, is that Epic will charge them 20 percent less if they buy the currency from Epic instead of Apple. It's a small change that's a big deal because Apple has explicitly prohibited developers from promoting these kinds of end runs around its powerful App Store. Instead, Apple wants developers to sell their digital goods within its marketplace, where it takes a cut of up to 30 percent for each purchase. That stance has long upset developers, who argue that Apple's fee is too onerous and gives its home-grown products a leg up on competitors by essentially letting Apple sell its own stuff with a much better profit margin. Apple sells its music service, for instance, for $10 a month; if a rival music service sold subscriptions via Apple's store for the same price, it would have to fork over as much as $3 of that to Apple. Update: Apple Kicks Fortnite Out of App Store for Challenging Payment Rules.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fortnite is Daring Apple To Shutter Its Game on iPhones

Comments Filter:
  • Simple fix (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cowwoc2001 ( 976892 ) on Thursday August 13, 2020 @11:30AM (#60397587)

    "That stance has long upset developers, who argue that Apple's fee is too onerous and gives its home-grown products a leg up on competitors by essentially letting Apple sell its own stuff with a much better profit margin. Apple sells its music service, for instance, for $10 a month; if a rival music service sold subscriptions via Apple's store for the same price, it would have to fork over as much as $3 of that to Apple."

    Simple fix: anytime Apple offers a competing product, everyone in that space no longer has to pay Apple's fees. That way Apple will think long and hard before competing against its own partners.

    • Re:Simple fix (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tomz16 ( 992375 ) on Thursday August 13, 2020 @11:58AM (#60397705)

      Simple fix: anytime Apple offers a competing product, everyone in that space no longer has to pay Apple's fees.

      Simpler fix... just charge Apple users that 30% more and line-item that charge for them as a tax/fee. E.g. Spotify Android $9.99/mo subscription. Spotify iOS $9.99 subscription + $3.00 Apple Tax = Subtotal $12.99

      IMHO, the ACTUAL problem here is that publishers have been obfuscating and distributing that cost (e.g. someone that uses __app__ or __subscription__ on their Android, PC, Alexa, Commodore, etc. generally pays the same exact rate as someone who purchased through the Apple store AND simultaneously nobody is aware of the ridiculous cut Apple is taking behind the scene).

      • But the users have no choice - if they are on iOS. True, the user would know that the 30% is going to Apple, but they have no choice.
        • They have the choice to buy a different phone the next time. Which is the crux of the issue. If part of your phone is paid by what you buy on the platform during the life of the phone then basically you pay your phone more than you thought. Which is like selling a locked phone without mentioning it, and making users pay to unlock it later on. In that form it would probably be clearly illegal. Now we need a judge to acknowledge that forcing all transactions to go through them is the same hence make it illega

        • What is your point? Apple users will either pay the extra 30% for Apple security or do without or buy a $40 Amazon Fire tablet. The iOS user has all kinds of alternatives. No one is forcing anyone to buy anything.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • The fact that you can't do that under the terms in conditions IS the problem, it means there is no transparency or competition since Apple is such effectively a monopoly for people with iPhones. I think it is quite reasonable to pass on any valid cost incurred to a customer and make the customer aware of that cost.

          The solution is contracts should be fair, people should not be able to take advantage of others just because they are in a position of power over them. This goes for apple store, predatory lending

      • Quick mathematical note you would actually have to charge apple users 43% more or to be precise 10/7 more since if I want make $1 in order to make the same amount from an apple store I would need to charge 1.43 since 30% of is 0.43.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        Simpler fix... just charge Apple users that 30% more and line-item that charge for them as a tax/fee. E.g. Spotify Android $9.99/mo subscription. Spotify iOS $9.99 subscription + $3.00 Apple Tax = Subtotal $12.99

        IMHO, the ACTUAL problem here is that publishers have been obfuscating and distributing that cost (e.g. someone that uses __app__ or __subscription__ on their Android, PC, Alexa, Commodore, etc. generally pays the same exact rate as someone who purchased through the Apple store AND simultaneously no

    • Simple fix: anytime Apple offers a competing product, everyone in that space no longer has to pay Apple's fees.

      That's actually a massively complicated fix. The real answer, and the reason the problem exists in the first place, is that you have to go through the apple app store. You don't need Apple's permission to install a program on your mac, you don't need Microsoft's or HP, or ASUS's permission to install an application on the computer you buy from them. You should be able to install software on your phone from whatever source you choose, and it shouldn't be legal for Apple to restrict that. You've bought the ha

      • If Epic Games' experience on PC is any indication though. Brain dead fanboys will call for boycotts of Epic for offering a competing (cheaper) app store.

        • Re: Simple fix (Score:5, Interesting)

          by martynhare ( 7125343 ) on Thursday August 13, 2020 @01:27PM (#60398091)
          Epic Games is unethical in its own way. They try to give free games away to undercut competition in an unsustainable way, in much the same way Amazon does to muscle out competition. They also buy exclusivity to stifle competition outright, meaning you have to buy games through their store, so you canâ(TM)t even choose which platform to use - which is worse than Apples App Store in every way. Tim Sweeney made a similar argument for Steam, which also charges 30% and funny enough, he still canâ(TM)t convince people to use his store, even when he gives stuff away. He is also a hypocrite who charged 30% for Unreal Marketplace sales up until 2018 and that marketplace provides bugger all in return. Steam by comparison invests in cross platform compatibility and provides a multiplayer service, delta updates, integrity checking, DRM, backwards compatible ABIs (for Linux), support for DLCs, support for mods, customer service reps for simple issues and anti-cheat - as in things to help the seller generate value for customers. This is the pot calling the kettle black.
        • by Cederic ( 9623 )

          I boycott Epic because I dislike their business practices.

          Is that being a brain dead fanboy? A fanboy of what anyway? Competing fairly in the market?

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Oh.. but Apple would *LOVE* to change that model on the Mac. Hence latest Mac OS updates starting to blur the line between the two environments - iOS and MacOS.. moving farther down the road, integrating the same hardware into both.

        I'm all for making computers simpler to use and maintain. Sorry, (snide comments aside) I use windows because I do IT work all day and really don't want to do it more than I have to at home. I'm regularly using a Raspberry Pi and run pfSense as my router software - so not adve

        • If I remember correctly, in one of the product launches, Mr. Cook did mention working on a way to reduce the 30% to 15. Did that materialize for some app providers? Or did it not materialize at all? I'm not an Apple OS developer so I never followed the subject.
      • Re:Simple fix (Score:4, Insightful)

        by saloomy ( 2817221 ) on Thursday August 13, 2020 @01:12PM (#60398039)
        I know this will be an unpopular opinion, but I actually like the curated App Store. I hear of so many funky leechy and dirty malware ridden apps on the Google Play store, im thankful that Apple has some controls on the Apps in the App Store. Could they allow third party or side-loaded apps? sure. But then EVERYONE would insist on those being the methods for install and not have to play nice (by the App Store's policies). I don't want Apps stealing my clipboard, tracking me everywhere I went, and so on and so fourth. Thats what would happen were it not for the App Store. Apple built a nice walled garden. It does have drawbacks. The 30% cut seems onerous, but I think apple does deserve to charge for and profit from its efforts to keep its users safe. Indisputably, that is precisely what they have done. How to handle competitive products or excessive fees that stifle competitors is a tough question. I know though that I don't want vital apps I use (like Amazon, Ebay, Social Media) to be side loaded and no App Store equivalent, so they can sideline apple's efforts to protect me. They are the sole Silicon Valley company that has actually gone through a lot of measures to protect my privacy.
        • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          What I don't love is the watered down iOS experience that it creates. Try to write an app like BBEdit on iOS that can open files created by any other app and let you see what's inside them. Suddenly, it's like the ending of a Sorry Mario Brothers level: The file you're looking for is in another app container directory.

          Even with the fairly sizable workarounds on the Mac side (special open file dialogs that do magic kernel trickery to extent the sandbox), there are still things that don't work well, and fo

          • Instead, give the users the tools to evaluate the app themselves and decide whether it is safe. The result would be a healthier, more powerful user experience, and (realistically) a fairly comparable level of security.

            You are expecting every user to be a trained security expert?

            • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

              Not at all. I'm thinking more along the lines of, "The application wants to access [name of file] owned by application [name of app]. If this is expected, click 'Allow'." And then an option in the system settings to grant the app permanent permission to violate some specific default rule, disabling the annoying prompts for that particular behavior.

              The advantage of this is that it makes the app's behavior a lot more visible, making it a lot more likely that bad behavior will be spotted by a casual observ

              • What *YOU* think of as something simple and easy, etc, is not simple or easy. Otherwise, why would two generations of Americans be used to a blinking 00:00 on their VCRs?
        • I think it is fine for you to like the curated store, and if a company said Ok you want it pay for it, pay the extra 43%, the fact is it should be your choice not apples, and if another company can do a better job for a better price then you should be able to move to them.

        • by Cederic ( 9623 )

          Apple could easily provide the walled garden and safe curated experience without exploiting the people that make it so valuable.

          They could allow sideloading, without requiring it. They could allow off-platform sales without demanding their cut.

          They choose not to. They choose to be anti-competitive, to kick off apps that compete with their own, to impose excessive charges on anybody wanting to provide a service to their customers.

          That's the issue.

    • Simple fix: anytime Apple offers a competing product, everyone in that space no longer has to pay Apple's fees.

      And reduce profits? Do you know anything about Apple?

      Here's how it will go: litigate, litigate and litigate some more. Apple will never give up a single penny they aren't legally obligated to and even then they'll try to bend the rules.

      • Apple will never give up a single penny they aren't legally obligated to and even then they'll try to bend the rules.

        Oh? Are you aware of these?

        1. https://www.macrumors.com/2020/01/16/apple-charitable-donations-2019/
        2. https://www.apple.com/connectED/
        3. https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/apple-100-million-racial-equity-injustice-1234631693/
        4. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/11/apple-commits-two-point-five-billion-to-combat-housing-crisis-in-california/
        5. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/07/apple-allocates-more-than-400-million-to-combat-california-housing-crisis/
        • You do understand that those are all completely tax deductible, right?

          • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

            More than that, it's tax deductible advertising.

          • $2.5billion to help with the housing crisis is still $2.5billion. Even if it's tax deductible. Let me help you.

            You make $100. You pay taxes on $100. The 20% tax is $20. Your final income after tax is $80.

            Next year, you make $100 again. You donate $20. Tax deductible. So now you pay taxes on $80. 20% tax is $16. $80 - $16 is $64. Your final income after tax is $64.

            You see the difference between $64 and $80?

            It's amazing I have to explain such a simple thing.

            • $2.5billion to help with the housing crisis is still $2.5billion. Even if it's tax deductible. Let me help you.

              No, it's $2.5B to go toward something that helps their company rather than the government programs that would be dispersed to help more people.

              How do you not understand that Apple is solely in this for themselves?

    • Yeah, the Ebay-paypal axis used to charge you about 25% of your sale. All the competing auction sites killed E-bay because they charged so much.

      Do you even remember that company?

      snark aside, I think the line apple needs to walk carefully is how much value do they add. If the billing costs and customer acquisition costs are not zero for a company then what are they? That would be a fair cost if you assumed apple should make no profit at all. Then add something for apple. That would be the fair cost.

      THen

  • by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Thursday August 13, 2020 @11:37AM (#60397611)

    People want their iPhones more than they want Fortnite. Fortnite would be better off being more subtle, doing things like slightly crippling the iOS version and offering more rewards in Android. That would cause some people to purchase a second device (Android) to play Fortnite and then they may gradually transition assuming they donâ(TM)t mind losing iMessages with all their friends.

    • Isn't this a first-person shooter? People are playing those on phones now? Damn, I thought Xbox was bad enough.

      It's hard for me to sympathize with either party here, though. A shit-eating contest of... epic proportions.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Fortnight is owned by Tencent, who also own WeChat.

      I wonder if Tencent sees an opportunity to destroy Apple in China. With WeChat and Fortnight gone from iPhone and iPad it could be pretty hard for Apple to hold on to market share there and in many other parts of the world. If other companies follow them in refusing to pay the Apple tax... Well, Apple will have a big problem.

      • by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Thursday August 13, 2020 @12:19PM (#60397785) Homepage Journal

        Epic Games is owned and controlled by Tim Sweeney (>50%). Tencent doesn't have a majority stake (40%), they're there as an investor. The whole "Chinese own Fortnite" conspiracy theory needs to die, you'd have to convince Tim Sweeney to put PRC spyware in these games, Tencent and WeChat don't just get to automatically do it.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          That's true, although Tencent is the distributor in China and what happens if they are not allowed to do business with them? Sweeney has to buy back the 40% stake?

          • I guess it determines on the details of contracts that we probably can't see. It could mean anything from Sweeney doing a buyback to Tencent selling their stake, either with or without approval of Sweeney. Overall it seems like it would be destabilizing to Epic Games and not a good sign.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Fortnight is owned by Tencent, who also own WeChat.

        I wonder if Tencent sees an opportunity to destroy Apple in China. With WeChat and Fortnight gone from iPhone and iPad it could be pretty hard for Apple to hold on to market share there and in many other parts of the world. If other companies follow them in refusing to pay the Apple tax... Well, Apple will have a big problem.

        Tencent may not like Apple but I'm pretty sure the CCP likes. After all, when they [wired.com] say jump [nytimes.com], Timmie reaches for the stars [buzzfeednews.com].

    • by leonbev ( 111395 )

      Yeah... I give two shits about Fortnite, but I actually need my iPhone to do my job.

      Also, I can get a burner Android cellphone for my kids to play Fortnite on for about $60. If Apple calls Epic's bluff and blocks access to their game, it's not going to end well for Epic.

  • by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Thursday August 13, 2020 @11:44AM (#60397643) Journal

    This may have something to do with the EU anti-trust probe [venturebeat.com] targeting those App Store restrictions.

  • I'm no fan of Apple (Score:2, Interesting)

    by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

    But I'm rooting for them. I hope Epic get's screwed by this. Tim Sweeney is an arrogant arsehole and it's about high time his empire comes crashing down.

    The only problem is ... I want that to happen without taking the excellent Unreal engine with it. I'm still amazed at all the good he's done for gaming, while at the same time being public enemy number 1 of PC gaming currently.

    • I am personally rooting for the meteor.
    • while at the same time being public enemy number 1 of PC gaming currently.

      Yeah Sweeney is a real cock, trying to break up Steam's egregious 30% cut of every PC game sold and save gamers money. How dare he! Kill the infidel! If Gabe Newell doesn't pocket $0.30 of every dollar from games sold I don't even want to play PC games anymore!

      • It's not a matter of price. If Tim Sweeney wanted to charge $0.00 for every dollar then more power to him. The fact that he introduced a store that was utter trash, that has a broken search function, that had zero of the features of the competition, and then .... well it turns out people don't want to pay 30% of 0% of the features of the competition.

        Oh I know let's introduce PC games to the concept of 3rd party exclusives by sinking millions of Fortnite dollars into securing exclusive deals to force users t

        • by G00F ( 241765 )

          There are a toon of games that are steam only. Hell even games you pau for DVD, and you find out it wont install unless you install steam and let it connect online. There's no point in listing them because there are so many.

          and GOG, so sad, I had hopes for them, but they went the way for DRM as well.(other than their super old games)

          • There are a toon of games that are steam only.

            And developers got paid precisely $0 to make them Steam only. There's a difference between the developer choice and anti-competitive developer bribery. Steam is a huge platform with many features and there's a reason some developers would therefore make them Steam only, by choice.

            Hell even games you pau for DVD, and you find out it wont install unless you install steam and let it connect online.

            Indeed that's because Steam offers online services. Not because Steam offers money to join a sub par experience. I'd harp on about all the things Steam offer that would make a developer by choice use that platform but "There's no p

  • by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Thursday August 13, 2020 @12:14PM (#60397761)
    Fortnight is a billion-dollar game. Apple is a trillion-dollar multi-tech company. One of these numbers is MUCH larger than the other.

    This only ends one way: Apple calls their bluff, blocks them from the app store, and that's that. The blip it makes in Apple's balance sheet is barely above the noise.

    The only way this plays out any other way is if regulators come down hard on Apple. That... simply isn't going to happen. This administration doesn't even care about mercury in our water or food safety. You think that they're gonna care about this? Oh, they're making big chest-thumping noises about regulating tech, but that's all it is.
    • > This administration doesn't even care about mercury

      That's not how prosecutors work.

      They're all salivating for a bite at this Apple.

      Fighting coal miners in court because fish oil is toxic does not advance their career.

      • The only way prosecutors can get a bite from Apple is through anti-monopoly law, which might as well not exist in this country the way we're currently structured. For all of the heat Microsoft got in public, it was all smoke and no real fire. Same goes for all the current congressional-grilling-tech-bros action. As far as I can tell, it was all theatre to placate the voters. I don't think we've done anything substantial about monopolies for decades.

        There's a case to be made that the current relaxed r
    • Fortnight is a billion-dollar game. Apple is a trillion-dollar multi-tech company. One of these numbers is MUCH larger than the other.

      One of the reasons that Apple is a trillion-dollar company is because they've managed to get developers to port their wares to Apple's hardware. If Apple blocks Fortnite, iPhone and iPad users will blame Apple which may cause them to lose some future business. Of course, Apple will be fine, but if other developers started following suit, over time it could pose a much larg

      • I hear you, and I'd like Apple to play a bit nicer with regards to the app store, but I just don't see it changing their behavior much.

        Epic might be able to use the EU courts to force Apple to change their app store.... within the EU. Apple would probably then seek ways to quietly punish Epic for it. It would be pretty easy to do. For example, Apple could respond by creating an EU-specific app store that follows all EU rules, but since it's financial structure isn't aligned with the rest of the world
    • are them trying to take over social media. They don't like that stuff like the George Floyd video can go viral or that Autozone Umbrella Man can expose fake protesters trying (and succeeding) to start riots or that kids on Tik Tok can make fools out of their figureheads.
  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Thursday August 13, 2020 @12:30PM (#60397843)

    Apple can easily handle that. A couple millions in lost sales isn't even going to be noticable in their balances.

    The problem is that there are now a LOT of people (and we're talking millions here, too) who cannot satisfy their favorite addiction on an iPhone but on an Android phone, they could.

    THAT is the problem for Apple here.

    • by Nexion ( 1064 )

      Meh, play it on a computer or console. I would think only a small subset of people are going to be truly upset they can't play it on a tiny little screen with terrible controls. While I game quite a bit I've given this particular game a complete pass as being particularly uninteresting. Overall I don't care about mobile gaming at all anymore due to the control limitations. In fact the only thing interesting about this article is that some demandy little company throwing a tantrum might get a well deserved s

      • Same here, I guess I'm just not the demographic. So I don't know why it would have any appeal on a smart phone. Maybe it does have some for some people for some reason. As far as I'm concerned, whoever loses, we win.

  • Epic and the rest of big game studios should officially endorse jailbreaking and market as the games Apple doesn't want you to play..
  • Buy Epic with all of your spare cash.
  • Every developer wants their apps on the iPhone but nobody wants to pay the fees. Pay up or get out. Apple isn't hiding anything and everyone has to play by the same rules.Stop whining about it.
  • Update 3:04pm ET: Apple removed Fortnite from appearing on the iOS App Store by 2:50pm. As of 3pm, the game still remains available on Google's Play Store. https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
  • I would mark this article as low as i Could.
    I am boycotting VOX, because they perma fucked Youtube.

  • Apple is entangled in anti-trust cases about it's store... The main complains are twofold : they control the access to the applications that run on your phone and the 30% tax imposed...

    If apple blocks Epic (which seems to be the case), it's perfect proof for antitrust cases : if you propose alternate payment options in your app, the monopoly-hammer falls and you're out... Add to that the fact that the other platforms don't use the same tactic which reinforce the problem for Apple.

    If it accepts,

To stay youthful, stay useful.

Working...