Epic, Spotify, Tinder-Parent Firm Match, Tile and More Form Coalition To Take on Apple's App Store Rules (cnet.com) 134
More than a dozen app makers and other companies have joined together to form the Coalition for App Fairness, a nonprofit group that's taking aim at Apple and its App Store rules. Among the founding members are Spotify, Epic Games, ProtonMail, and Match Group, all of which have been vocal critics of the fees Apple charges developers. From a report: "As enforcers, regulators, and legislators around the world investigate Apple for its anti-competitive behavior, The Coalition for App Fairness will be the voice of app and game developers in the effort to protect consumer choice and create a level playing field for all," said Horacio Gutierrez, head of global affairs at Spotify, in a release on Thursday. The coalition comes as Apple is locked in a public battle with Fortnite developer Epic Games. Fortnite was kicked off both the Apple App Store and the Google Play Store in August after Epic attempted to bypass the 30% fee Apple and Google charge developers. Epic countered by filing lawsuits against both companies. Apple earlier this month raised the stakes further by requesting monetary damages if it convinces a judge that it was within its rights to kick Fortnite off its more than 1.5 billion active iPhones and iPads.
"Fairness" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Fairness is when there is a healthy marketplace that allows for market pressures to come into play to stop profiteering and to drive prices for consumers down by driving down prices for developers.
Unfortunately that doesn't describe Apple or Google's app stores it seems.
Re:"Fairness" (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem to overestimate people's understanding of capitalism. You assume people can differentiate between anarchy and free market.
Most people think free market means free for all of total anarchy, when in fact capitalism is an equilibrium state that takes away the micromanagement of government from day to day financial transactions. And it's the governments responsibility to intervene to put the system back into equilibrium in order to free themselves of the burden of centrally planning.
Re: (Score:2)
To paraphrase: The free market doesn't work, because when it is no longer free market there is no one enforcing the laws.
To finish: Since the free market might become unfair, the fairest is to just make it not free and unfair from the start?
Re: (Score:2)
> If you regulate against monopolies, isn't it regulated?
If you can't have sex with children, is the government over-stepping it's bounds in the bedroom?!
Unfortunately, it appears most left wing radicals, Hollywood, etc would say yes. As with everything absolutists and radicals can't seem to grasp boundaries and rules meant to maintain some sort of reasonable order.
"There can be no middle ground. Either I can diddle children or we live in a totalitarian government regime of oppression." Yikes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And then look up the webpages of some of those games there. I'm going ahead and name some examples.
https://heroesandgenerals.com/... [heroesandgenerals.com] - A lot of options that don't involve Epic.
https://www.pathofexile.com/pu... [pathofexile.com] - You can see the shop option right there, without Epic.
https://archive.smitegame.com/... [smitegame.com] - Also their own shop right there. No Epic in sight.
https://store.paladins.com/ [paladins.com] - Same story here.
Re: (Score:2)
And then look up the webpages of some of those games there.
Excuse me, but the contract between Apple and Epic (now cancelled) also stated that Epic is absolutely free to sell whatever they want on their website, without handing any money to Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Epic allows that. Apple allowing the same thing doesn't change that Epic allows that.
This just shows that there are misconceptions going around about what actually transpired there.
To re-iterate: Epic implemented their "Epic direct pay" feature into Fortnite, which allows user to conduct payments directly from within the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Fairness is when everyone pays the same, and the big boys possibly pay a bit more. So this isn't about fairness, it is a non-profit organisation that explicitly wants to create profit.
Wrong.
This is a non-profit organization working on behalf of for-profit companies to secure their profits, which have now been forcefully taken away (Epic Games).
And your definition of "fairness" is like getting pissed at lawyers for having the gall to charge money. Ever.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
which have now been forcefully taken away
Forcefully?
If you come into my house, you adhere to my rules. If you don't you'll be asked to leave.
You can then of course complain that my rules are not fair, and that's exactly what they are doing here.
Apple's house, Apple's rules. If you don't like it, build your own house.
Re:"Fairness" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If "Apple's rules" violate competition law they are null and void.
/. posts don't (seem to want to) understand this simple fact.
About half of
No, half of the /. posts, especially those coming from the EUSSR, don't seem to understand the concept of ownership. It's the same bullshit with so-called net neutrality. My House, My Rules. My Network, My Rules. My App Store, My Rules.
You're all free to build your own house with your own rules.
You're all free to build your own network with your own rules.
You're all free to build your own app store with your own rules.
Yet, people seem to prefer whining to politicians, who then seize private property w
Re: (Score:2)
It's not yours. The DMCA specifically overruled first sale doctrine.
You are LICENSING the things you claim to OWN. The test is easy: try to do arbitrary things to it, in the privacy of your home. Still illegal? Not yours.
Re: (Score:3)
Mobile phones can only exist by using a part of the radio spectrum of a country, which is a limited resource.
It is a limited PUBLIC resource, and governments manage it as they see fit. Apple's greed will not win against that.
If they want to use public airwaves for their devices, then they have to play by whatever rules the public authority decides.
If not, they can always build another telecommunications system that only uses private resources.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "Fairness" (Score:2)
Re: "Fairness" (Score:5, Insightful)
Fairness is when everyone pays the same, and the big boys possibly pay a bit more. So this isn't about fairness, it is a non-profit organisation that explicitly wants to create profit.
"Fairness" is when a consumer buys a device and the device maker doesn't decide how they use it and what business may be conducted on it. That's kinda the point of ownership afterall. Anyone who thinks Apple is in the right is advocating for a future world where car-makers can decide they should get 30% of all transactions that your car provided transportation to, and your car will simply refuse to take you to places that don't pay up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Fairness" is when a consumer buys a device and the device maker doesn't decide how they use it and what business may be conducted on it.
Apple isn't deciding how you can use it, or what business may be conducted on it. Comparing it to 30% of future car travels going to the manufacturer is so far off in the field, you have an army of strawmen.
They are charging for someone using their platform to make apps.
Don't like it? Don't use it. There are MANY other CHOICES.
Complaining about walking into a walled garden and saying it has walls, is fucking lel.
Re: "Fairness" (Score:2)
Translation (Score:1, Flamebait)
China-owned company runs to all his friends because the upperclassman he was trying to bully got a teacher involved.
Re: (Score:3)
> They're not majority owned by China. Tencent only owns 40% of Epic. Epic is still an American company run by Americans and majority owned by Americans.
Every share tied to China will vote in unison. How is the other 60% divided up? Is 41% of that owned by an entity that acts in unison or is it split between various "American" and "global" parties that act in their own interest. Sometimes with China, sometimes against.
It isn't just 'China' and '!China'.
Re:Translation (Score:5, Informative)
> They're not majority owned by China. Tencent only owns 40% of Epic. Epic is still an American company run by Americans and majority owned by Americans.
Every share tied to China will vote in unison. How is the other 60% divided up?
Well, Tim Sweeney holds a majority share of Epic, so more than 50% of the shares vote in unison with his voice. So... what was your point, exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
Until the lawsuits start to eat into his funds and he has to start selling shares.
FFS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, they did leave, didn't they?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Quite the contrary. Only one of them left—or really, was kicked out after refusing to rollback a deliberately rule-breaking app update—the rest are still in the App Store.
Re: (Score:3)
All of you agreed to Apple's terms. If you no longer agree with their terms, leave! If you want to effect changes in Apple's terms, get enough of you to leave and maybe Apple will consider that it is losing app developers because their terms are unfair.
How exactly is Spotify supposed to leave the App Store as a negotiating tactic when their biggest competitor is Apple itself? So your advice is to just cede the market to Apple...? You realize a large part of what's broken about the App Store is exactly this power-imbalance, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dig up some of the crap they did to Gab (Score:5, Insightful)
Not buying the argument "their platform, their choice."
That is not an argument, that is a fact. Apple has absolutely no obligation to let anyone at all on its platform. Apple is also perfectly within its rights to pick and choose who it lets in. Apple would also be well within its rights to charge developers differently if it so chose.
Re: (Score:1)
Apple is also perfectly within its rights to pick and choose who it lets in.
Then no safe harbor protection for them. If Apple is allowing the installation of secure communications apps on its platforms and these apps are being used by terrorist organizations, Apple is culpable.
Re: (Score:2)
Do Apple, really have a right to determine which software the owner of the iPhone can run? Remember it's not apples phone, they sold it to the customer.
Re: (Score:2)
The owners bought the phone with the walled-garden being a well known feature of the device. And in fact many many millions of those very consumers would tell you that they appreciate the sense of security they get from that walled-garden and while one could try to argue that sense of security feeling is invalid, the point is, to them, it's valid.
And really, Epic has sort of demonstrated the red-herring nature of that argument by suing Google also claiming that while Android does support alternate app stor
Re: (Score:1)
Then jailbreak it!
But the phone is more than just the physical hardware, at least to most of the users. The users want to access Apples services too, and you do not own those. If you have a non-jailbreaked phone Apple allows you to use those services (many for free).
I know of no-one that bought an iPhone because of the hardware. Everyone I know of got them for the whole package. Those that just cared about superior hardware got the blingiest Android of the day. YMMV.
Re:Dig up some of the crap they did to Gab (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you believe the GPL in all its variations is enforceable? That is, if someone downloads a bunch of GPL's software, should they be bound by the GPL? If a person downloads GPL software onto their own hardware, do they 'own' it? Can they do whatever they want regardless of the GPL?
The GPL functions because software (aka 'intellectual property'. Sigh.) is *licensed*, not sold. There is no transfer of ownership. The owner of the iPhone owns the hardware, not the software. The software is licensed. The owner has no inherent rights to the software. The owner only has the rights granted by the license and under the terms of the license (see the GPL.)
So, the owner of the phone can do whatever they want with the hardware. They can put whatever they want on the hardware... unless they are using iOS, or the Apple firmware, or other Apple software to do so. Apple software is always Apple's and only licensed to the owner to use under the terms of the license agreement (again, this is why the GPL is enforceable. The owner of the 'intellectual property' gets to set the terms of use.) Apple can't enforce what software is run on the hardware, but they can enforce what software is run on their software. (See GPL3 and variants where just 'linking' with other software can trigger the terms.)
The linkage of hardware (which is bought and sold with transfer of ownership) with software (which is licensed) is getting to be a bit of a problem because companies are using the latter to control the former, but this is how the current 'intellectual property' system is set up. There is certain arguments to be made that it should be changed -- but people should probably be wary of doing so. If limits are placed on what the creators of software can and cannot limit in the licenses... there are no doubt many, many companies that would enjoy being able to blow off the GPL class of licenses if such terms were no longer enforceable.
That's the long winded way of saying, basically, yes, Apple does have the 'right' to determine what software iOS on the phone can run. That's what 'copyright' grants them. The right ends at the hardware, but as long as the hardware requires the firmware/drivers/software to operate, from the practical point of view, it's pretty much the same. To say otherwise implies that the GPL on any hardware driver would be invalid. If people claim that Apple cannot specify the terms of use for an operating system, then people will argue that the GPL cannot be applied to Linux.
This isn't a great situation. However, it's not clear how to deal with 'intellectual property' (ugh) in a way that reduces the power of large companies without imperiling smaller companies. I suspect because of this most of the cases will fizzle out because the judges will want to punt the issue to congress (particularly given issues of international commerce/copyright treaties) rather than make dramatic rulings.
Re: (Score:1)
They can put whatever they want on the hardware...
Except, the owner of the device can't, because the bootloader won't allow it.
The crux of the issue is whether or not it's legal to use immutable software to lock owners out of the hardware they've purchased. Based on similar situations in the automotive industry (where vehicle manufacturers used the threat of invalidating warranty coverage, as the technology didn't exist at the time to render the car inoperable if you installed an aftermarket component), it was eventually found to be an illegal business pr
Re: Dig up some of the crap they did to Gab (Score:2)
That is not an argument, that is a fact. Apple has absolutely no obligation to let anyone at all on its platform.
This is not true at all legally. That's why Apple had to stop jailbreaking with technical measures and not legal ones.
If you had the signing keys to code-sign new firmware, it would be totally legal and fine install Linux on an iPhone, or creating your own apps and install them outside the App Store. The fact that Apple is picky about who they give signing keys too doesn't legally grant them any special powers, and may in fact make them in violation of anti-trust law.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has absolutely no obligation to let anyone at all on its platform.
It's an interesting debate, I will admit.
On the one hand, Apple devoted the time, effort, and resources to develop their platform and can certainly decide "the rules" for using that platform. If you don't like their rules, don't use the platform. There is another platform available whose terms are not so onerous.
That said, one complaint I have is when Apple steps in to compete with third-party developers and, therefore, doesn't have to follow the same rules. For example, Spotify has to pay 30% of it's su
I'm really sick of these stories... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all about who gets the money, either them or Apple.
There's nothing here how any change would lower costs for consumers or make better products or anything.
They're just upset about the size of their slice of the pie and want a bigger one.
I'm sorry, but I don't really give a shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just that. Remember when Instagram banned porn because Apple booted their app for being porn?
Or when they kicked off Gab? Alternative app stores and side-loading would at least allow such apps to exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just that. Remember when Instagram banned porn because Apple booted their app for being porn?
And your complaint is what exactly? Porn is pretty obvious. If you allow it on your app, and the platform hosting your app does NOT, then you have a choice, and it's pretty damn obvious.
Or when they kicked off Gab? Alternative app stores and side-loading would at least allow such apps to exist.
We've made great progress in eliminating malware app stores and trying to secure our mobile devices from becoming compromised with side-loading bullshit.
And now you want to dismantle all that. For a game.
Brilliant fucking idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Or when they kicked off Gab? Alternative app stores and side-loading would at least allow such apps to exist.
According to Wikipedia: In July 2019, Gab switched its software infrastructure to a fork of Mastodon, a free and open-source social network platform. Mastodon released a statement in protest, denouncing Gab as trying to "monetize and platform racist content while hiding behind the banner of free speech."
If Apple doesn't let Neo-nazis on the App Store, I fully agree with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh me too, fuck those guys. The point was only that it's not just about money.
Re: (Score:3)
Or when they kicked off Gab? Alternative app stores and side-loading would at least allow such apps to exist.
According to Wikipedia: In July 2019, Gab switched its software infrastructure to a fork of Mastodon, a free and open-source social network platform. Mastodon released a statement in protest, denouncing Gab as trying to "monetize and platform racist content while hiding behind the banner of free speech."
If Apple doesn't let Neo-nazis on the App Store, I fully agree with that.
Now let's turn that around. What if instead of some neo-Nazi discussion board, it's an app being used to allow anti-government speech pseudonymously in a country that restricts that sort of speech? Because Apple has a legal obligation to block it, they would, of course, do so. But can you argue that the resulting platform is in users' best interests? Would it not be better if Apple had no technical means to completely prevent that app from being side-loadable?
IMO, from a human rights perspective, Apple'
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing here how any change would lower costs for consumers or make better products or anything.
The money we are talking about is all for in-app purchases which don't cost Epic any money, therefore pure profits. If we want to reduce prices for customers they can do that very easily. It would come out of their pockets.
Re: I'm really sick of these stories... (Score:2)
It's all about who gets the money, either them or Apple. ... I'm sorry, but I don't really give a shit.
This is really about if consumers own their devices or not. To use my analogy from another post: If your Honda refused to take you anywhere that didn't pay Honda a 30% cut of transactions at your destination, would you care then?
Analogy (Score:2)
I might care, then I'd buy a Toyota. However, people are still free to choose which car they want. So what's the problem in your analogy?
Re: (Score:2)
It's all about who gets the money, either them or Apple.
There's nothing here how any change would lower costs for consumers or make better products or anything.
If you read the 10 commandments of this coalition they are about choice, competition and prevention of conflicts of interest / discrimination.
These things promote competition in the market delivering more value per dollar to the customer.
https://appfairness.org/our-vi... [appfairness.org]
Re: (Score:1)
They're just upset about the size of their slice of the pie and want a bigger one.
You've basically just described politics, too.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing here how any change would lower costs for consumers or make better products or anything.
Well, you don't have to look very far to see how it would improve things. Apple wouldn't be able to block whole categories of apps like xCloud and Stadia for starters. Apps you might want, but are being blocked for no reason other than because they don't make Apple enough money. Apple isn't trying to "tax" those apps, they are literally just preventing you from ever having them.
Let's talk about fairness (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Let's talk about fairness (Score:4, Informative)
Epic (Score:2)
Epic takes a cut of games on their own app store. You think you get to be on there for free?
Re: (Score:3)
There are free-to-play games that finance themselves through microtransaction cash shops. Epic offers to buy cash shop currency through their platfrom, from where they will most likely take a cut. But that is not the only option they allow. They also allow the game's publishers/developers to run their own payment methods.
Valve does the same on Steam.
An example of this would be an ARPG I used to play in the past - Path of Exile. It's both on Steam and Epic, where you can buy microt
Re: Epic (Score:3)
Epic takes a cut of games on their own app store. You think you get to be on there for free?
But in the world where Epic had a game store on iOS, no developer would be forced to use it, and the vast majority of developers wouldn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Why just Apple? (Score:1, Troll)
Google isn't mentioned, Microsoft isn't mentioned, Sony isn't mentioned, Steam isn't mentioned... and EPIC isn't mentioned. Why not?
Wait! I know why!!!
Because it just doesnâ(TM)t look so unfair when the entire online software sales "industry", including one of the Complainers(!!!) does EXACTLY the same rent-seeking practices, and charges within a few percentage-points, of one another.
And those companies didn't collude to "price-fix"; they simply came to approximately the same conclusion of what was a r
Re: Why just Apple? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Valve also offers their own payment service, which they make attractive for the Steam users by giving the Steam users additional 'benefits' (depends on how you put it) for spending money through their services.
That's how you do it right, in my opinion at least.
And that is also where Steam differs from Apple's App Store. Apple thinks they're entitled to a cut from all the transactions that happen, even though a 3rd party was used.
The real question (Score:3)
Stop debating wether or not Apple or Epic are in the right here. Apple charges 30% of all transactions happening on their platform and Epic broke their contract. Those are facts.
The real question is that 30% charge. Should Apple be allowed to charge 30%?
I think they should be charging different fixed amounts depending on the sale, but not a percentage of the sale itself.
Think about it for a second. If I make a free game that's 50GB in size (or whatever the maximum is allowed for iOS applications) then Apple has to assume the costs from my annual 99 dollars developer license. But if a big company sells a game for 999 dollars and their game is only 1MB in size, Apple gets a lot of money.
For sales of virtual assets that are already on the device (ex: adding more virtual coins is just a variable change, it does not require the download of new graphics/sounds/whatever) then I think something similar to credit card fees should apply, i.e. a small amount per transaction. Wether someone buys 500 or 50000 virtual coins, it's the same thing from a technical point of view.
So not only do I hope this new coalition wins, I hope they win against Apple, Google, Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony because we're the ones paying that 30% cost.
Re: (Score:3)
Found this while searching for credit card processing fees:
"Square offers competitive pricing when it comes to online credit card. You pay 2.9% + $0.30 for each transaction."
Given that Apple, Google and the others are not small companies, I'm sure they get much better rates than that from MasterCard, VISA and the others.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Although Epic tries to bamboozle people into thinking that Apple charges a 30% transaction fee, that is not the case. It pays for a lot, lot more. For example handling all your taxes in 150 countries. Allowing the use of gift cards, when Apple doesn't actually get $100 when you buy a $100 gift card. Services like maps, notifications, login with AppleID, iCloud storage etc. Advertising your app on the store, storing it, downloading it. Plus paying for all the free apps. It all adds up.
There's a lot wrong with your list, but it doesn't really matter. The issue is that developers should be able to deliver apps outside the App Store and if they see value in being in the App Store they can still be free to choose that road at whatever percentage Apple would like. If you want a hint about how much value there is in all of the things you mentioned, on the Mac (where the App Store is optional) developers have nearly universally shunned the App Store. There simply isn't any value in it.
Re: (Score:2)
And? Are you suggesting that Apple, Google, Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony only handles monetary transactions? That they have not invested in an eco-system that they are maintaining?
You are painting a false equivalency.
But let's pretend that 30% is too much. What would you say is reasonable? Please justify your number with a calculation of how you came to that specific number.
Re: (Score:2)
And? Are you suggesting that Apple, Google, Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony only handles monetary transactions? That they have not invested in an eco-system that they are maintaining?
The App Store is optional on Macs, and yet Apple consistently makes a profit on Macs. And the iPhone is even more profitable than Macs. In fact if you look at Apple's numbers you could completely eliminate App Store revenue and Apple would still be the largest company on Earth. Your argument that the App Store pays for the ecosystem is way off base.
Re: (Score:3)
I think they should be charging different fixed amounts depending on the sale, but not a percentage of the sale itself.
That's what you think. Tim Cook has a different opinion. And since he is Apple's CEO, they implement his idea, not yours.
Many years ago, before trains and lorries, when transport in England was largely done by boats, they charged a percentage of the value to transport your goods. So 1,000 times more for a small amount of diamonds worth a million than for thousand pounds worth of coal. "But who determines the value? ". Simple. The person who wants their goods transported set the value. And the person tran
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is that 30% charge. Should Apple be allowed to charge 30%?
The only question of import is should Apple be allowed to maintain a total monopoly on software sales and distribution in a market comprising tens of millions of suppliers and 1 billion consumers.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly this. On some level, Epic and others don't care that Apple has a store that charges 30% markup. What they really care about is that, for Apple devices, there is one and only one store, and that store has a huge markup.
30% on all transactions really is exorbitant, but the exact percentage would be moot if owners of Apple devices were allowed to shop around for apps - if there were competing stores, then the 30% charged by Apple would naturally come down to a more reasonable level due to competition,
Re: (Score:2)
Which makes no difference at all. The question is not whether rates WILL come down, it's whether they CAN come down.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a "real" alternate app store on Android? As in, one that doesn't seem shady and that using it doesn't trigger Google into sending you scary messages?
Also, the changes we're talking about aren't instantaneous; the market leader will cling to their big margins for as long as they can. In Apple's case, even with an alternate app store, they will probably always charge *some* premium (because, Apple) but once real app store competition exists, it will force them to either yield some on the margin or in
Re: (Score:2)
what power do they have? (Score:2)
It's not like they're going to get their own app store on iOS.
iPhones are in the decline. I'm not sure why it matters.
Also, Epic games put this on their own shoulders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they don't want you there it's going to be a strained partnership.
Re: (Score:2)
Are they just going to whine about the things Apple is doing?
Basically yes, but they are going to whine to regulators, which is called "lobbying".
It's not like they're going to get their own app store on iOS.
Well, that's actually up to regulators in the US and EU. That's why they are gathering support before going to them.
iPhones are in the decline. I'm not sure why it matters
It matters because intellectual property laws haven't caught up with the reality of what companies are doing. To use my analogy from another post, to accept Apple's position is to accept that it would be OK for future self-driving cars to refuse to take you to any destination that doesn't pay the car-maker 30%
Re: (Score:2)
What this fancy new Coalition should do... (Score:1)
My guess is paying the 30% to the companies that provide that functionality that is much, much cheaper.
Unfair lock-in (Score:2)
The fact that Steve Jobs chose to not allow that, shows a part of his (rare) dark side. In which he still dreamt of full monopolistic control. Luckily that world is gone now. Apple just doesn't realises this yet.
Sooner or later this was bound to happen. I
Re: (Score:1)
I always enjoy reading the mental gymnastics of Apple fanboys. You guys come up with some really creative and entertaining bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
They signed the agreement because it's the only way to get stuff onto the App store. There isn't any bargaining room. There is no option to opt out of Apple's payment system and use your own. You can't even advertise to users that they could technically pay for the same service through the website, and you definitely can't give them a discount if they discover on their own that they can purchase through your website.
This is basically like Walmart requiring all magazines sold in their stores to give 30% of
Re:"Monetary damages" (Score:5, Informative)
They signed the agreement because it's the only way to get stuff onto the App store. There isn't any bargaining room. There is no option to opt out of Apple's payment system and use your own. You can't even advertise to users that they could technically pay for the same service through the website, and you definitely can't give them a discount if they discover on their own that they can purchase through your website.
Correct until your last sentence. Any purchases through Epic's or anyone else's website is completely without any payment to Apple. The last three companies I worked for all made good money with iOS applications, without any advertisements (at least two of them our customers would have killed us if we had done advertisements), no selling of customer data (all three of them our customers would have killed us if we did that, and in one case I mean that literally), and yet they all made good money without handing a penny to Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They signed the agreement because it's the only way to get stuff onto the App store. There isn't any bargaining room.
That's what Apple has been doing since the iTunes Music Store. Back then they negotiated a deal with four of the big five music companies (one wasn't interested yet), and the exact same deal was offered to _every_ music company, from the smallest to the biggest. No negotiation. Considering that the deal was negotiated by the best lawyers the music industry could buy, it was presumably a good deal.
And the same now. My hobby app with a few thousand downloads gets exactly the same contract as Epic. I would
Re: (Score:2)
I would pretty pissed off with Apple if they gave Epic a better deal than they are giving me. Same deal for everyone.
There's a pretty good chance you're paying more to the US Postal Service when you mail a package than Amazon does. Negotiating better terms with companies that bring you more business is common throughout most industries.
Re: (Score:1)
This might be the dumbest summary of the situation I have ever read.
And you with your great contribution here too.
Regardless of the theft analogy, sure as hell seems like an obvious breach of contract to me. If Epic Games didn't like that fine print, then they shouldn't have signed the fucking contract. And reading more into Epics story, it reeks of the arrogance of Too Big To Fail as they try and throw popularity around as a legal defense for fighting for the "little" guy. Sorry, but that's about as valid a legal defense as a "dying wish" from a Supreme Court Justice.
Ep
Re:"Monetary damages" (Score:4)
This might be the dumbest summary of the situation I have ever read.
And you with your great contribution here too.
Regardless of the theft analogy, sure as hell seems like an obvious breach of contract to me. If Epic Games didn't like that fine print, then they shouldn't have signed the fucking contract.
If they wanted to sell their games to users of iPhones and iPads they had no choice. There is no alternative. And that's exactly the point they're raising: There need to be alternatives to the Apple App Store and Apples Payment systems. Apple controlling every aspect of the ecosystem limits competition and is thus bad for the consumer.
You may not agree with their point of view but they have to right to raise this point and have a judge decide.
Re: (Score:3)
Increased "competition" of Android app stores has done absolutely nothing to lower prices for consumers. Epic's in-game currency (over which there's zero competition) is no cheaper on Android no matter how you got the game.
Re: (Score:2)
Increased "competition" of Android app stores has done absolutely nothing to lower prices for consumers.
Epic's in-game currency (over which there's zero competition) is no cheaper on Android no matter how you got the game.
This is like buying a garden hose at Whale-Mart and complaining price competition for garden hoses doesn't lower the cost of water.
Re: "Monetary damages" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I hate this dogma that more competition is magically better for a consumer. There are plenty of instances where this isn't the case, and where increased competition or market fragmentation is a bad thing for the customer.
As it applies to Apple, as an iPhone user, I'm actually happy that any payments I make in apps on my phone all go through Apple. Why? Several reasons:
1) I have a high level of trust in Apple's security and privacy protections
2) I don't have to waste time signing up for some random third-par
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This might be the dumbest summary of the situation I have ever read.
Well, Epic does indeed seem to be rather dumb, expecting to take a knife to a gunfight, and instead they just got a steel door smashed in their face.
Competition (Score:3)
Apple also has competition in the tablet market from Android, Windows, and Amazon Fire tablets.
Re: "Monetary damages" (Score:3)
The App Store is more than shelves.
They bring high traffic, pre screened users, ready to run, ready to buy, with known credit card accounts.
All things are not equal. High fashion doesnâ(TM)t stock products at Dollar General. And they donâ(TM)t demand that fashion malls charge Dollar General fees. Sure, they would like that, but those businesses are usually run by adults.
Re: (Score:2)
The App Store is more than shelves. They bring high traffic, pre screened users, ready to run, ready to buy, with known credit card accounts.
So do store shelves, if you pick the right store. It's literally just shelves, only in a company town where you can only buy from a single store. :-)
Re: "Monetary damages" (Score:3)
But the App Store is not McDonalds or WalMart. Thatâ(TM)s the point. Google Play is the low end, bring-your-own-coffee market. They wonâ(TM)t mind if you eat out of the bus pans, as long as they generate traffic numbers to sell to ad vendors.
Try bringing your coffee into a higher end establishment. You wonâ(TM)t get in the door, and the people dining there appreciate and pay more for that filtering. There is a market segment that wants, and will pay for, something better than a Waffle House e