Apple Doubles Down in Fight With Fortnite Creator Epic Games, Seeks Damages for Breach of Contract (cnbc.com) 199
Apple on Tuesday shot back in its legal battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games, filing a response and counterclaims alleging that the gaming company breached its contract with Apple, and seeking an unspecified amount in damages. From a report: "Epic's lawsuit is nothing more than a basic disagreement over money," Apple said in a filing with the District Court for the Northern District of California. "Although Epic portrays itself as a modern corporate Robin Hood, in reality it is a multi-billion dollar enterprise that simply wants to pay nothing for the tremendous value it derives from the App Store." [...] Apple's response suggests it was blindsided by Epic, and even notes that Epic executives "recognized and thanks Apple for its support and promotion of Fortnite events," as recently as April 2020. "Unbeknownst to Apple, Epic had been busy enlisting a legion of lawyers, publicists, and technicians to orchestrate a sneak assault on the App Store. Shortly after 2:00 a.m. on August 13, 2020, the morning on which Epic would activate its hidden commission-theft functionality, Mr. Sweeney again emailed Apple executives, declaring that 'Epic will no longer adhere to Apple's payment processing restrictions.'" Apple said in the filing that Epic Games has earned over $600 million from the App Store.
So Apple is being harmed now? (Score:3, Insightful)
There's an easy way to make that harm go away. Reinstate their developer account and stop acting like a bunch of three-year-olds.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So Apple is being harmed now? (Score:4, Insightful)
The contract allows termination at any time. So from Apple's perspective, there's no meaningful financial difference between Epic denying them that 30% by pulling the app from the store and denying them that 30% by using a different payment provider. So clearly, any claim of financial harm should rightfully be laughed out of court, and particularly any claim of continued financial harm now that Apple is no longer distributing the app.
This leaves the harm to Apple's reputation, and again, Apple can eliminate that harm any time they want.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The contract allows termination at any time. So from Apple's perspective, there's no meaningful financial difference between Epic denying them that 30% by pulling the app from the store and denying them that 30% by using a different payment provider. So clearly, any claim of financial harm should rightfully be laughed out of court, and particularly any claim of continued financial harm now that Apple is no longer distributing the app.
This leaves the harm to Apple's reputation, and again, Apple can eliminate that harm any time they want.
Harm to Apple's reputation? Why? Epic broke the damn contract and the gamers who are the ones most affected hate Epic way more than Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Harm to Apple's reputation? Why? Epic broke the damn contract and the gamers who are the ones most affected hate Epic way more than Apple.
Both parties look stupid so I'd call it a wash.
But the real question is, what harm is Apple's suit based on? If I kick a customer out of my brick and mortar store for not wearing shoes in violation of the sign in the window, I cannot then sue that customer because I lost his business.
Re: (Score:2)
Epic agreed to a contract saying that Apple is entitled to 30% of any sales generated on iOS devices.
Epic snuck in a backdoor payment system to avoid Apple's cut. Apple terminated any further sales of Epic's products, but any already installed copies of the game are still generating sales throught Epic's payment system, without giving Apple a cut.
According to the terms Epic agreed to, Apple is entitled to 30% of the those sales, which Epic isn't paying. That's the harm Apple is suing over.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So Apple is being harmed now? (Score:2)
I donâ(TM)t hate EPIC. I have 2 PCs, and 4 Apple devices. I Apple forbids any App Store from installing Apps then they should not require absolutely any % of company revenue. They have 45% mobile share in the USA and complete control over installing apps, the terms are extortionists. Makes the Robber Barons of 1900 look like Philanthropists. An Apple shareholder may want Apple to win. And Android seller may want Apple to win. As a player, one would hope the game can be used soon and for them to resolve
Re: So Apple is being harmed now? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's just that not all people are idiots who hate Epic for no rational reason.
Epic provides a solid game engine that's free to use and they don't take a cut before a product makes the first million $.
Their visual programming language is easy to understand for newer developers. For experienced developers it offers a way for prototyping and then use the C++ under the hood through Visual Studio.
These things are making it an increasingly popular engine. And we'll see
Re: So Apple is being harmed now? (Score:2)
Apple kicks Epic off their store
According to the Court, Epic effectively kicked themselves off of both the IOS App Store and the Google Play Store.
But then, just for spite, Epic also denied access to an Update to Mac Gamers, even though they aren't even part of the In-App-Purchase controversy (as if the iOS and Play Store Users are!)
Re: (Score:3)
Hatred of Apple has never been irrational.
Paid apps subsidize the free apps (Score:2, Informative)
The contract allows termination at any time. So from Apple's perspective, there's no meaningful financial difference between Epic denying them that 30% by pulling the app from the store and denying them that 30% by using a different payment provider.
No there is still a very important distinction, in the later case the app is still on the Apple store as a free download. Paid apps subsidize the free apps. Epic would be undermining this subsidy of true free app developers by moving the revenue generating in-app purchases off the Apple store. So yes, there is a financial harm.
Re: (Score:2)
The contract allows termination at any time. So from Apple's perspective, there's no meaningful financial difference between Epic denying them that 30% by pulling the app from the store and denying them that 30% by using a different payment provider.
No there is still a very important distinction, in the later case the app is still on the Apple store as a free download. Paid apps subsidize the free apps. Epic would be undermining this subsidy of true free app developers by moving the revenue generating in-app purchases off the Apple store. So yes, there is a financial harm.
But the app is NOT still on the Apple store. That's why I added the "and particularly ... now that Apple is no longer distributing the app" bit.
Also, even if it were, the financial harm of distributing the app would be almost precisely the same to Apple whether Fortnite sells tokens via their website or not, assuming that approximately the same number of people continue to find the game fun (or at least don't delete it, so that their devices download updates for it). And the purchasing of tokens does not
Re: (Score:2)
And the purchasing of tokens does not involve the use of any Apple infrastructure, so Apple is not paying for the cost of the purchasing process, either.
Careful in your defense of Epic Games with that. This is *exactly* what Epic Games is demanding in their lawsuit. They are asking the court to order Apple to provide bank transfer services for free, and Apple must pay for those transactions over it.
What the heck are you talking about? Epic's new payment system does not involve Apple in any way. Epic is using a separate payment processor. Epic is paying those fees.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Apple had a contract with Epic saying that Epic would pay Apple a percentage of revenue, and Epic decided to stop paying even though they were still collecting money. While it is true that not paying someone is the same as not having a contract with them at all, they had that contract and made a profit under its terms, so they owe Apple money.
Not if the contract terms are illegal, which is Epic's claim.
Also, Epic could have put up a screen that says, "Sorry, we are no longer taking in-app purchases for tokens. You can buy tokens on our website." As long as that screen did not include a link to their website, it would have strictly met the terms of their contract with Apple. So even if the courts favored Apple's position to the maximum extent possible, Apple would still have no legitimate claim to any income beyond whatever income Epic would h
Re: (Score:2)
Epic could have turned off in-app purchasing entirely and shown a screen that says "You can buy tokens on our website" instead. Prove that Apple would not have lost the same amount of money. No? Then there's no harm. The fact that Epic might have made less money that way is at least arguably immaterial.
Re: (Score:2)
No you can not. Apple specifically forbids that. The company I worked for had a hell of a time with our old app after apple complained that it was possible to buy credits on our site. No such luck, we had to get rid of it.
Its straight up extortion.
Re: Paid apps subsidize the free apps (Score:2)
No you can not. Apple specifically forbids that. The company I worked for had a hell of a time with our old app after apple complained that it was possible to buy credits on our site. No such luck, we had to get rid of it.
You are a Liar and/or an Idiot.
You can sell "Tokens" on a website and redeem them in-App and Apple won't say a word.
What you cannot do is either have a button or Payment Option for said "Tokens" In-App, that takes the User to an External ecommerce site that sells said "Tokens", or an In-App Notification of External Purchasing Methods for said "Tokens".
Re: (Score:2)
What they cannot do is link to the website.
Re: (Score:2)
Um did you miss the part where Epic submitted an app knowingly in breach of contract while trying to hide it? That's usually called fraud. In the end I have strong suspicions that the whole thing is a marketing ploy by Epic and they know perfectly well they don't have a legal leg to stand on. I think that is the point where harm to Apple's reputation comes in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
people now know they're gouging developers.
But are they?
I have a couple of friends who made nice money on the App Store. Several of them have started a business doing iOS development, several did it full-time for years. I don't remember even one of them complaining that Apple's cut is too high.
Now if you are Epic, and you have a marketing department and your own infrastructure to serve downloads, and your own store where people can browse and buy, and your own payment processing, and even your own game engine - then possibly the iOS development ecos
Devs got 20-25% before Apple (Score:2)
people now know they're gouging developers.
But are they?
I have a couple of friends who made nice money on the App Store. Several of them have started a business doing iOS development, several did it full-time for years. I don't remember even one of them complaining that Apple's cut is too high.
Pre app store developers took home maybe 20-25% of the retail purchase. By going digital with Apple developers now got 70%. Developers cheered, mightily. No company web presence, no company store, no payment processor, etc.
Now the small home office based developers were on a equal playing field with the billion dollar corporations, the apps of the small and the large side by side, only differentiated by customer reviews. Of course the billion dollar corporations absolutely hate Apple's ecosystem.
Re: (Score:3)
Whats the harm, the vbucks people bought in the couple hours Epic? Or is it making Apple look bad because people now know they're gouging developers.
You have tunnel vision. Google also charges a 30% tax, and Steam charges something like 25%, how are they looking bad? I heard some industry pundit talk about the ~30% as an 'industry standard'. So switch to Android and pay your 30% tax in the play store, maybe it'll hurt less because the 30% are going to Google (TM).
Re:So Apple is being harmed now? (Score:5, Informative)
One big difference is that you don't have to use Steam. Steam is one of many appstores on the PC.
Same with android, they allow 3rd party apps and even 3rd party appstores.
The other thing I dislike about Apple's policy is that not only do they force you to use their appstore but they
forbid you from even mentioning that you can buy it another way. At a bare minimum they should
allow apps to mention alternative ways to pay. Even better if they could offer a discount for the alternative way.
The reason Epic is fighting this battle is because they want an appstore of their own and they need to
break free from the apple appstore first.
Re: (Score:2)
The workaround for Epic would be to just do it and not mention it in the app.
Just don't put in any extra effort to conceal the fact from people elsewhere, nudge nudge, wink wink.
Apple can't say they are violating their terms of service by not actively stopping everyone else from saying what Apple is preventing them from saying in the iOS app.
Meanwhile, they can have their own online store run entirely by them which offers purchasable add-ons for their app, and which gives users codes they can enter i
Re: (Score:2)
Apple specificially forbids taking money from external websites for in app products.
Re: So Apple is being harmed now? (Score:2)
Apple specificially forbids taking money from external websites for in app products.
Citation, please; because that is not my understanding, nor my experience.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One big difference is that you don't have to use Steam. Steam is one of many appstores on the PC. Same with android, they allow 3rd party apps and even 3rd party appstores. The other thing I dislike about Apple's policy is that not only do they force you to use their appstore but they forbid you from even mentioning that you can buy it another way. At a bare minimum they should allow apps to mention alternative ways to pay. Even better if they could offer a discount for the alternative way. The reason Epic is fighting this battle is because they want an appstore of their own and they need to break free from the apple appstore first.
The point is pretty much everybody charges 30% so it doesn't really matter all that much where you go you always get robbed one way or the other and that includes Epic's own store. The way the discussion sounds here most of the people around here hate Apple so viscerally that they'd probably be happy if some court made limited any judgement on the lowering of fees to Apple. The fact remains that the problem is way bigger than Apple, Fortnite has been kicked off the Play Store as well and for the same reason
Re: (Score:3)
"Everybody else is doing it" is a terrible excuse that reminds me of what teenagers tell their parents.
I have no problem with them charging whatever the market can bear if there is an open market.
The problem is that there isn't an open market and between ios and android they hold a duopoly and
can charge whatever they want. There is no incentive for either one to lower their cut because each
one typically holds a monopoly on their clients. Very few people have more than one phone so
app developers are forced
Re: (Score:2)
"Everybody else is doing it" is a terrible excuse that reminds me of what teenagers tell their parents. I have no problem with them charging whatever the market can bear if there is an open market. The problem is that there isn't an open market and between ios and android they hold a duopoly and can charge whatever they want. There is no incentive for either one to lower their cut because each one typically holds a monopoly on their clients. Very few people have more than one phone so app developers are forced to use both platforms if they want to reach their entire market and are forced to pay whatever rate apple and android charge because there is no way to avoid it.
That's pretty much what I was trying to point out. The problem with the discussions around here is that only Apple is perceived to be a problem, not Steam, not Amazon, not Epic, not Google, not Samsnug, ... , just Apple. Everything would apparently be just fine and dandy in the mobile app and phone industry if only a meteorite would fall from space and turn Apple HQ into a crater cause all the other app and mobile phone store operators out there are such a nice salt of the earth bunch of philanthropists.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Apple is the strictest and the only one for which there is no real workaround so it makes sense that they would be attacked the most.
The point I was making is that saying "everyone else is doing it" still doesn't make it acceptable for Apple or anyone else.
Everyone should be allowed to sideload on any device they own. I honestly don't have a problem with android. It's annoying
but sideloading and alternate playstores are both supported. Apple is the only mainstream OS that completely blocks sideload
Re: So Apple is being harmed now? (Score:2)
.
But there are workarounds. Are you a user? Don't buy an iPhone. Are you a developer? Don't develop for iOS. Wow, look at how easy that was.
You continue to bitch about Apple being strict, Apple being this, Apple being that. Then don't fucking buy Apple! It's that simple. You think Apple is evil? Don't fucking buy Apple! It's that simple. You don't like giving Apple 30% of your sales? Don't fucking develop for Apple! It's that simple.
Amen, brother!
It really is Just. That. Simple.
I promise you: The rest of us will be just fine. We know when to push back. And if need be, we will.
Re: (Score:2)
Are people allowed to run competing app stores on the Playstation and Xbox? Without giving Sony or Microsoft a cut? I do not think so.
If Microsoft and Sony are allowed to get away with it, why not phones?
Epic are not the heroes. Epic wants to maximize their profits, that is all.
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious difference is that you don't need to distribute your app on the Play store in order to run on Android, and your don't need to distribute via Steam in order to run on Windows. There are also other app stores on both platforms (Amazon on Android, Microsoft Store on Windows).
IOW, Apple says "this is our platform, you need to pay to play" which, if said by another company, would result in torches and pitchforks.
Re: (Score:3)
The obvious difference is that you don't need to distribute your app on the Play store in order to run on Android, and your don't need to distribute via Steam in order to run on Windows. There are also other app stores on both platforms (Amazon on Android, Microsoft Store on Windows).
IOW, Apple says "this is our platform, you need to pay to play" which, if said by another company, would result in torches and pitchforks.
Doesn't the fact that the torches and pitchforks don't come out against Apple sorta indicate that the majority who buy Apple and the majority who develop for Apple are quite happy giving Apple the cut it demands? I mean hell, if Apple really is robbing everybody, why does everybody stay?
Re: (Score:3)
Apple are a small player in the mobile market, there are plenty of well known and viable alternatives to them.
If you want to run on any of the current big name game consoles you have to play by the vendor's rules, which is basically the same.
The difference is that the console market does not have anything like android offering the ability to use third party stores or sideloading.
Re: (Score:2)
Steam also provides the workshop, unlimited downloads of your product, the forums, a place to share guides and screenshots, and user reviews. Epic lacks even these basic features.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So damages will still be growing.
Re: (Score:2)
An illegal contract is not a contract. Ford doesn't get to decide I'm only allowed to drive to wendy's and not mcdonalds, and they don't get to decide I can only pay with discover card and not visa.
Re:So Apple is being harmed now? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's going to be hard for Epic to fight that one, considering that one day after Apple kicked back the app for breach of contract Epic reacted with a fully formed lawsuit plus a professionally produced video taking Apple to task over this.
It's obvious that Epic Games knowingly and intentionally breached the contract with the intent of using Apple's rejection as grounds for a lawsuit.
In fact it could entirely be possible for Epic to win one lawsuit and lose this one...
Re: (Score:2)
"Obvious" doesn't mean shit in court.
Proof does. Evidence does. Conjecture is meaningless.
Re: So Apple is being harmed now? (Score:2)
It is interesting how you insist on somehow painting this situation as Epic not being the one with the burden of proof here. They're the ones suing, you know.
The story header explains how Epic actually notified Apple they were intending to breach contract. That's a hard position to argue from.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is firing back just because they're trying to intimidate Epic into backing down. Apple is arguing the wrong points and this lawsuit is going to get axed the first time it makes it in front of a competent judge.
That is nonsense. Apple is firing back because Epic's breach of contract caused them and still causes them damages. They don't sue to intimidate Epic, but to get the damages paid. The facts here are quite clear and the damage caused by Epic's breach of contract is obvious.
Epic agreed to a contract that says "All in-app purchases will be performed using Apple's API, so Apple will collect money from users and send 70% to Epic". Every time when a user made a purchase through Epic's API, Apple doesn't get mo
Re: (Score:2)
No, they don't have to prove harm to consumers. They have to prove harm to (would-be) competitors. Epic could be one such would-be competitor, but certainly not the only one.
Re: (Score:2)
This reminds me of an argument I often hear feminists make on how tampons should not be taxed. This is something I agree with (along with all hygiene products), but if a box of tampons is £3 including tax, repealing the tax will make them £3 and the company makes a significantly higher profit that goes straight into the pockets of the suits.
Epic winning this lawsuit would only fatten their wallets.
Re: (Score:2)
Epic winning the lawsuit could set a precedent letting all developers keep more of their revenue.
That's the real win here.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, Epic's making tons of money, so all this does for them is increase their profit margins.
For most other developers though, it would be huge. Most developers struggle to turn a profit, so a significant reduction in fees would make it a lot easier to be viable.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a civil case. There is no 'burden of proof'. There is 'preponderance of evidence'. Does Epic have more evidence that Apple is committing anti-trust violations than Apple has showing they are not? If so, Epic wins. The rest of the crap doesn't matter.
Re: (Score:3)
It's obvious that Epic Games knowingly and intentionally breached the contract with the intent of using Apple's rejection as grounds for a lawsuit.
Violating a business agreement, and then suing that the agreement was illegal when the other party takes action, is hardly a new tactic. If Apple are found to have an anti-competitive agreement then it does not matter if Epic violated it. If Apple wins then maybe they sue Epic for legal fees. Okay.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store, but not from devices that already had it installed. Anyone that downloaded the last update still has the game, with the option to spend money through Epic's payment system.
Apple wants 30% of the sales made on Apple devices using Epic's payment system. They're entitled to that according to the contract Epic agreed to. Epic's only hope here is that a judge decides the contract terms are illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
190 millions is some harm to me, even if it's peanuts to you.
Re:So Apple is being harmed now? NO PROFIT! (Score:3)
Corporate cancers are quite sensitive. Anything that threatens or might possibly reduce the profits is INCREDIBLY harmful. At least that's how the corporate cancers see it.
I see it as a fake problem. There is no amount of profit that would be sufficient to solve the fake problem of needing more profit.
Sometimes I've been uncertain whether or not Apple qualifies as a cancer. Then I see a story like this one and my doubts are cured.
I'm still not sure if Epic qualifies as a corporate cancer or is merely delude
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is not harm to Apple. Epic could just as easily have simply stopped taking in-app purchases, and told users to go to the website if they want to buy tokens, and the loss to Apple would have been identical. Therefore, the breach of contract itself, per se, had zero financial impact on Apple. What *did* have a financial impact on Apple was Apple's decision to stop allowing users to make in-app purchases for tokens from within the game.
Clearly, the only one causing harm to Apple here is Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
> There's an easy way to make that harm go away. Reinstate their developer account and stop acting like a bunch of three-year-olds.
This guy should have his own series:
"War in the middle east? Reinstate Israel and stop acting like a bunch of three-year olds."
"BLM is burning and looting cities? Reinstate racism and stop acting like a bunch of three-year olds."
"AIDS pandemic in the gay community? Reinstate hetero-only sex and stop acting like a bunch of three-year olds.
Re: So Apple is being harmed now? (Score:2)
There's an easy way to make that harm go away. Reinstate their developer account and stop acting like a bunch of three-year-olds.
Pardon be; but exactly Who is it that you are alleging is acting-out like a three-year-old? Surely not Apple!
I'm actually surprised, dgatwood; I thought you were more realistic than your post would suggest...
Reasonable Corporations can "disagree", and seek to modify or even terminate enforceable Agreements either between them amicably or, failing that, adversarially.
One Party Unilaterally simply going Rogue and expressly violating said Agreement is simply
Not the mark of a Reasonable Corporation. It is the m
Re: (Score:2)
There's an easy way to make that harm go away. Reinstate their developer account and stop acting like a bunch of three-year-olds.
Pardon be; but exactly Who is it that you are alleging is acting-out like a three-year-old? Surely not Apple!
Apple. Those terms in Apple's contract have bothered me since the moment Apple announced them. They're flagrantly anticompetitive, and lack of vendor choice is almost *never* in consumers' best interests. I would not have been at all concerned had they required that all sales provide the *option* of Apple as a payment processor, but the moment it became "only us", their policies crossed a bright line, IMO.
In my mind, the only thing unfortunate (other than the immature showmanship on the part of Epic, whi
Re: (Score:2)
A Plaintiff suing for Damages (or Injunctive Relief, like Epic) has a duty to minimize their own Damages.
Yeah. That's exactly what I said.
Sorry, snowflake; like it or not, legally, Apple is 100% in the right, here.
Even if you were right, which you aren't, Apple would still have a duty to minimize their own damages. Continuing to keep Fortnite out of the app store means that new users don't even have the opportunity to *consider* paying the extra cost for Apple's overpriced in-app purchase option. With Fortnite on the store, at least *some* users would be buying tokens through Apple because they don't want to give Epic Games their CC info. With Fortnite not on the store, Apple's lo
payment processing restrictions? the EU smack down (Score:2)
payment processing restrictions? the EU may have some big time smack down if apple payment processing fess are to high and then are the only choice.
Re: (Score:3)
The service Apple provides is not just payment processing. They provide this service on behalf of their customers, not their vendors. Apple’s role is that of a sales agent.
Apple is not Epic’s only choice for payment; they can sell on their website, but they cannot advertise that fact in the app itself.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple is not Epic’s only choice for payment; they can sell on their website, but they cannot advertise that fact in the app itself.
Epic should make Fortnite available for sideloading on jailbroken iPhones. Not only would Apple make nothing from that, it would also encourage jailbreaking by giving the scene a premier big name app, as well as convincing people to keep their older jailbreakable phones as long as possible.
Re: (Score:3)
That response would be truly epic, but it would also technically violate the Xcode licensing agreement and open themselves up to another breach of contract lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
That response would be truly epic, but it would also technically violate the Xcode licensing agreement and open themselves up to another breach of contract lawsuit.
Another lawsuit would certainly be likely regardless. It would also be yet another data point for the antitrust investigators.
Re: payment processing restrictions? the EU smack (Score:2)
That response would be truly epic, but it would also technically violate the Xcode licensing agreement and open themselves up to another breach of contract lawsuit.
Not if they Open Sourced the entire XCode Project, sans any Frameworks. I don't know if that would get around the 7 day reinstall requirement, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Epic can't open-source Xcode. Epic doesn't own Xcode. Apple does. And you can't build iOS apps without it. Well, ostensibly you could have someone reverse-engineer it using runtime analysis, then build your own clean-room copy of the frameworks (complete with stub libraries for every symbol), but even that would involve someone violating the Xcode licensing, just a different someone.
Re: (Score:2)
Enter a new alternative: AltStore, an App Store alternative that doesn’t require jailbreaking.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/... [digitaltrends.com]
Re: (Score:3)
It's worse that "they are the only choice". They INSIST that they are the only choice. It makes for a very poor bargaining position if competitive legalities are to be ajudged.
I remember when Apple was the good guy who tried to get along.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
payment processing restrictions? the EU may have some big time smack down if apple payment processing fess are to high and then are the only choice.
Nope. You can charge for processing what you want to your closed market. Apple can charge 50% and that would be okay too. They aren't violating antitrust laws until they use their power to make *others* change their prices.
Right now Apple charge the exact same rate as every other company. ... Except for Epic, the "good guys" who charge a hidden credit card processing fee not advertised up front, and don't offer a shopping cart facility so they can charge the fee for each game. Oh and Epic's parent corp Tenc
Re: payment processing restrictions? the EU smack (Score:2)
Right now Apple charge the exact same rate as every other company. ... Except for Epic, the "good guys" who charge a hidden credit card processing fee not advertised up front, and don't offer a shopping cart facility so they can charge the fee for each game. Oh and Epic's parent corp Tencent who charge 55% fees in their store.
Wow! Is that true? Nice little factoid, that...
Re: (Score:2)
payment processing restrictions? the EU may have some big time smack down if apple payment processing fess are to high and then are the only choice.
There are no "payment processing fees".
Let's say there is an in-app purchase for $10. That's what's displayed on your screen. Apple will take $10 from the customer and hand over $7 to the developer.
There are some caveats: If you bought a $100 gift card in some store, then I bet that Apple isn't going to get $100. Why would a store bother selling third party gift cards if they don't make money? At the very least, the want their cost covered. So for those purchases, the developer gets 70% of the display
Right on one point (Score:2)
As Apple has apparently pulled them from the app store, I think that this point is a moot one, however.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple can remotely disable the app on people's phones if the app violates the terms of using the app store, so no.... they cannot.
Apple cannot actually remotely delete the app, however... so all of the user's data will still be intact on their device and could theoretically be transferred.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know the details of Apple remotely disabling apps, but they didn't disable Fortnite. Anyone who installed it before they delisted it is still able to play. And they're still able to use Epic's payment system.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't.... yet, but they could.
If they continue to allow it, I expect the reason that they may not disable it would only be because they fear it could cost them more money than they stand to gain otherwise.
Bs (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with the protection racket analogy is that a protection racket involves an entirely uninvolved 3rd party demanding payment from operating properties for at best nothing and at worst a promise not to exact vengeance. In other words, the mafia is demanding value in exchange for something of either no-value or negative value.
Apple has a store. Epic wants to sell things in their store. Apple lets them do this in exchange for a cut of the retail sale price. The value that Epic receives is more cu
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has a store. Epic wants to sell things in their store. Apple lets them do this in exchange for a cut of the retail sale price. The value that Epic receives is more customers buying their products. This is literally the way every store in the world works, whether online or brick & mortar.
You are skipping over the part where Apple has a store that's exclusively tied into the iPhone market.
The markup of 30% is not the problem, the full control and lack of competition is a problem.
You want a really bad one? Clothing is often marked up 200% or more
Do you have an example of a clothing store chain that fully controls 39% of the population in US (Apple's market share in Q3 2018) with no other way to sell these people clothing?
Re: (Score:3)
The important difference is that Apple actually is providing a service. Not just the App Store, but also the development environment, libraries, etc. etc.
You may disagree with the price or the method of paying (30% cut - maybe you'd prefer a flat fee), but you are getting something for your money.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry but it's nothing of the kind. Apple is more like the butler at the gate informing the door to door sales man that if they wish to come in an consult with this rich wealthy and very large family the will have to pay an entry fee to the premises.
The mafia comparison is either bullshit or ignorance. Apple doesn't owe you their customers, they aren't holding you to ransom and absolutely everything about the deal was agreed upon up front, countersigned and not altered.
Pretty sure Apple was well compensated too (Score:3, Insightful)
Epic paid their programmers / designers / 3D artists, and a whole army of people, and also paid to run the Epic owned cloud services that do the heavy lifting to operate their game, and Apple just sat there and made a pile of money because Apple enforces a monopoly on their platform. I hope Apple suffers the fate of Microsoft in the 90's, no love lost here.
Re: Pretty sure Apple was well compensated too (Score:2)
Apple just sat there and made a pile of money because Apple enforces a monopoly on their platform.
Wow. Just. Wow.
How many vbucksâ(TM) 30% Commissions do you think this Datacenter cost?
https://www.apple.com/newsroom... [apple.com]
Oh, wait, we can know: $1,300,000,000â(TM)s worth. But then we have to keep it running... ...and do the same for all of its sisters all the fuck over the planet!
Then we have the Developers, Artists, Copy and Tech Writers, Attorneys, et fucking cetera, to keep the whole OSes, Ecosystem, App Stores and related Streaming Services Developed, Updated, and Maintained.
But no, Apple "...j
why the difference between macOS and iOS? (Score:2)
Could someone explain to me why one can distribute macOS apps outside of the AppStore while one can not do the same for iOS?
If you notarize a macOS app, then macOS simply throws up a dialog at first run confirming you do want to run the app. If you don't notarize it, it is a bit more cumbersome to run the app, but it's still possible (i.e. right-click and choose 'Open').
I've heard two reasons:
1) iOS runs on phones- that doesn't make sense, ipads don't do phone calls and i can do phone calls on mac (via VoIP
Re: (Score:3)
Could someone explain to me why one can distribute macOS apps outside of the AppStore while one can not do the same for iOS?
Development.
The Mac is a personal computer used - among others - by developers. It must by necessity be open to run any code, because how else could anyone write new software for it?
iOS doesn't have that. Nobody writes iOS software on iOS. It doesn't have to be open, it can be a closed ecosystem and that gives you a bunch of advantages. One is a lot reduced probability of malware, the other is a walled garden where nothing goes except via Apple. Obviously, that is mostly an advantage for Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. Agree you use mac to develop for both iOS and macOS. I'm not talking about macOS apps for personal use. I will point out you can run, say, Python or Playgrounds on iOS.
If you write a macOS app, harden it and then get it notarized (which supposedly looks for malware), that notarized app can't inject new executable code. I realize the notarization can fail at detecting malware, but in theory it should eliminate the problem. Just as there are occasional problems with malware on iOS.
I understand the adv
Re: why the difference between macOS and iOS? (Score:2)
and the advantage of having a closed ecosystem from Apple's POV for iOS. Do i then concluded macOS will eventually become closed also?
No.
They have certainly "hardened" certain areas of macOS in recent years, and removed a few "unsafe" Unix commands (but you can grab better versions on the 'net, anyway, if you are in the .05% who needs it) and gone even further (like Sandboxing) with Mac App Store Apps. But it honestly feels like Apple is pretty satisfied with where macOS is now as far as Security and Privacy for most Users; while still allowing Power Users and Devs. the requisite switches and access necessary to tinker and install "unappr
Re:why the difference between macOS and iOS? (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree. Apple allows MacOS to run arbitrary code only due to tradition and momentum. People have had the freedom to run any piece of junk software they want to on their personal computers ever since the home-brew clubs of the 1970's (60's?). Apple gets away with the walled garden that is the iOS app store because smartphones feel like a new thing to people. Consumers have no expectation for the old paradigm on these newfangled pocket super computers. And yet, each year Apple and Microsoft edge ever closer to locking down their respective desktop operating systems to restrict user freedoms. If they locked everything down too quickly, users would revolt. Instead, we are the proverbial frog, and they are slowly turning up the heat.
When (not if) Apple and Microsoft disable the ability to run code outside what has been distributed via their respective app stores, they will simply charge developers more for that ability.
Re: (Score:2)
MacOS was created from the start as an open platform, and that was part of the desirability of the product at the time. A large part of the market for the platform is professionals doing development work that requires it to be open.
iOS was created from the start as a closed platform, and marketed as such. The extra security and simplicity of that model have been pushed as key selling points of the platform from the start, and it makes the product more desirable to a large portion of its target audience.
Robin Hood. Sitting on his pile of billion$. (Score:3, Informative)
Good ol' Robin Hood Epic. The same Epic who shout on high that their 88/12 split is more fair to developers (developers who make far less money on the Epic store due to abysmal sales and lack of platform features), the same Epic who shout on high about trickle down economics making games cheaper for users ...
Far Cry New Dawn:
Steam: 44.99EUR
Epic: 44.99EUR + 5% processing fee.
Far Cry 5: Same on both stores, except for the Epic fee.
Watch Dogs 2: Same on both stores, except for the Epic fee.
Maybe they meant the whole giving away games for free, but that was funded by Fortnite money, as are their 3rd party exclusives they constantly have to buy because people see through Epic's bullshit for the whinging cash grab it is. There's a reason developers voluntarily list on Steam vs the Epic store, and guess what, 88/12 means nothing if you're not getting 12% value for money.
Epic are the worst thing to happen to gaming (especially PC gaming) this current games generation.
Re: (Score:2)
Epic are the worst thing to happen to gaming (especially PC gaming) this current games generation.
I don't see how that is significant
It would be important to determine if Apple is in violation of anti-trust laws with their contract.
Epic could be the most evil company in the world, but how does that affect the merit of the lawsuit?
No heroes here (Score:3)
There are no heroes here. Only villains.
It makes very good sense that Epic should pay some fees to make money off of an app on Apple's platform. Their attempt to pull their payments off of the platform in order to avoid the fees is pretty flagrant cheating.
But the 30% standard fees (both iOS and Android) are exorbitant. There is simply no good reason for fees that high. I suspect it's a relic from when the amount of money to be earned on these services was far smaller, so that Apple and Google really did need higher fees in order to justify their investment. But that just isn't the case any longer. These ecosystems are huge. Keeping the fees at the same level is today purely a result of their monopoly power combined with collusion (the two companies should have to compete with one another by lowering such fees to attract more apps to their respective platforms, but they are both deliberately avoiding this).
If we had a better government in the US right now, there might be an anti-trust investigation to be had here.
Still waiting for class action lawsuit from users (Score:3)
I can kind of see Apple's lawsuit against Epic, though I'm not sure they will win..
The people who I think should sue, and could easily win are all o the people who played Fortnite on Apple devices - both MacOS and iOS.
They would have an extremely strong case that Epic took action to eliminate their ability to use the software without any warning, and in the case of Mac users that Epic is arbitrarily blocking them as well with no blocking from Apple!
In the long run I wonder if this will harm the funnel Epic has for new Fortnite users, I could see a lot of people getting into it through iOS and then switching to play on a more advanced system like a PC later.
Re: (Score:2)
They would have an extremely strong case that Epic took action to eliminate their ability to use the software without any warning, and in the case of Mac users that Epic is arbitrarily blocking them as well with no blocking from Apple!
I don't think Apple is actually blocking Fortnite users, except where Fortnite uses features provided by Apple to developers, like Maps, iCloud storage, push notifications etc. These features won't work anymore.
Apple's response available online (Score:2)
Important bits: 1. Epic's lawyers are stupid because they put claims into footnotes, which the court has to ignore. 2. Apple admits nothing except that it was founded by Steve Jobs, created the Mac, later the iPhone, and the App Store. 3. Fortnite still works and users can still make in-app purchases through Epic's API without Epic paying Apple's commission, which means Epic is committing theft period