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.
Simple fix (Score:5, Interesting)
"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)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Simple fix (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So don't use that company's services.
Is that so hard?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand that those are all completely tax deductible, right?
Re: (Score:2)
More than that, it's tax deductible advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
$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?
Re: (Score:2)
Remember E-bay? they went out of bussiness (Score:2)
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
Re:Why won't Apple call their bluff? (Score:5, Interesting)
They don't sell a video game console, and are generally known to make money on every device they sell.
The answer is that real downside for Apple is if they make a move now its more ammunition for anti-trust.
Isn't is the opposite in terms of ammunition (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer is that real downside for Apple is if they make a move now its more ammunition for anti-trust.
If Epic is forced of Apple devices, and Epic carries on just fine... is that not in fact ammunition AGAINST anti-trust?
Apple is not a monopoly, and there are so many other ways to play Fortnight neither Apple nor Epic are hurt if Apple drops them from the platform because of unwillingness to follow App Store rules (actually it would be more like, Apple would just stop accepting updates and Epic would have to decide to leave and pull its material from the App Store).
The only people screwed in the middle of all this are the users. But given that Epic got users used to being able to play on iOS devices, and is now considering yanking that support despite not hurting financially, at all, puts more screwing on the side of Epic than Apple.
Who here among you is willing to argue that Epic is lacking for profit margin?
Re:Isn't is the opposite in terms of ammunition (Score:5, Insightful)
You're missing the forest for the trees. The purpose capitalism and competitive markets is to give buyers the most choice and flexibility possible in what they can purchase. That flexibility and buyer choice is what makes capitalism work. The purpose of anti-trust regulation is to prevent sellers from using a dominant position to reduce buyer choice (outside of their own products). If buyer choice is reduced, capitalism doesn't work as effectively, and you lose much of the benefit.
So if Apple's policies are so onerous that it convinces Epic to pull Fortnite from the iOS store, that is in fact ammunition for anti-trust action. Something Apple is doing is leading toreduced consumer choice. It's not about whether Epic can survive without Apple. It's about whether you the consumer are harmed b Apple's policies leading to Epic parting ways with Apple.
And the monopoly here is that there's no other way to get an app onto iOS devices except via the App Store. You can't even side-load it by buying Fortnite for iOS at Best Buy and installing it locally. You must use the App Store.
Exactly. Anti-trust regulation exists to protect you, the buyer/user. Not to protect competitor companies. It does that by (in some cases) protecting competitor companies, but the fundamental purpose is protecting buyers, not competitors. The government won't lift a finger to help if a competitor is in danger of going bankrupt (unless they've greased enough politicians' palms, but that's a different issue).
Re: (Score:3)
Something that I think is noteworthy in particular is that the USA has always treated COST as the primary measure of competitiveness. If prices go up, that's bad.
This is why Apple lost the anti-trust/price-fixing case against Amazon, when they collaborated with publishers to make sure to pay the publishers a reasonable amount of money for their products. Because prices went up for consumers (at least in the short term), Apple was seen to be 'harming' the competition, when in actuality, Amazon (the obvious m
It's not about price difference, it's about links (Score:2)
Here, Epic has done something clever: they've made it cheaper to do something through them. Apple not allowing them to do this is
There are countless examples on the App Store that allow exactly that already. Like HBO and DIsney+ letting me subscribe at a reduced rate, directly with them, vs the cost in the app.
If Fortnight wanted to just sell the v-bucks on the website at a reduced rate, it would not be against Apple's rules.
What Fortnight *is* doing that is against the rules, is to actually put in the app
Re: (Score:2)
Right, I don't disagree with you here. I think that Epic's CLEARLY breaking a well established rule that they've been happy to work with for years. Don't take this for me taking their side. I think Apple's 30% cut is too high, but I also think that Epic is playing a stupid game here.
What I'm trying to point out is that when a case like this shows up before the court, American anti-trust law really focuses on whether or not things are more expensive as a measure of consumer harm. The mere fact that prices wi
Re: (Score:1)
The argument is based on whether you call the software distribution channel of 1 brand of phone a monopoly. Apple has a monopoly on making iPhones, they do not have a monopoly on making smartphones. Is that any different than Ford having a monopoly on making Ford Trucks?
Re: (Score:2)
And the monopoly here is that there's no other way to get an app onto iOS devices except via the App Store.
That is not a monopoly. And I am not sure it is true that the AppStore is the only method of getting apps installed in iOS... iirc there is something called "sideloading." There is also jailbreaking, which gives you the Cydia store, which installs software with apt. Technically, Cydia is a competitor. No matter how you slice it, Apple has no monopoly in any market, not by a hundred miles.
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose capitalism and competitive markets is to give buyers the most choice and flexibility possible in what they can purchase.
The purpose of capitalism is to make more money. It don't give a damn about buyers and choices. User choice is bad, because it means less money for the capital.
The theory of the free market is that in a competitive market, the best product "win" . But in reality often the seller with more money (the capital) can drive out concurrents and create a monopoly.
In the end, as you said, you need some regulation to avoid this kind of problems.
Re: (Score:2)
The answer is that real downside for Apple is if they make a move now its more ammunition for anti-trust.
Ok... well the "move" does not have to be removing them from the app store..
If the game developer thinks the commission requirement is illegal (Its probably not, and Apple is far from being a monopoly, there are many other smartphone brands.).. the venue for that argument is a court of law, anyways.
There is a move that Apple could actually make that should not be any ammo for regulators. The deve
Re: (Score:1)
The thing here is that epic is challenging them publicly rather than negotiating behind the scenes, so a lot of apple customers are going to see it or hear about it, and they might not like it. Apple have a lot of loyal customers, their good reputation is very valuable and may be harmed a bit.
Just wait. (Score:2)
Wonâ(TM)t end well for Epic (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like a greedy plan, rotten to the (Apple) core. /s
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re:Wonâ(TM)t end well for Epic (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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].
Re: (Score:2)
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.
May have something to do with EU anti-trust (Score:3)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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
this ends predictably (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
> 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.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a case to be made that the current relaxed r
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Those chest thumping noises you hear (Score:1)
The problem is not the lost income (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Make an official Jailbreak (Score:2)
Easy, easy fix (Score:1)
Not again... (Score:2)
Apple YANKED IT! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If i had mod points (Score:1)
I would mark this article as low as i Could.
I am boycotting VOX, because they perma fucked Youtube.
lose-lose situation for Apple (Score:2)
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,