[HN Gopher] Apple Will Not Reinstate Epic's Fortnite Developer A...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple Will Not Reinstate Epic's Fortnite Developer Account
Author : robin_reala
Score : 410 points
Date : 2021-09-23 09:15 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (daringfireball.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (daringfireball.net)
| cmattoon wrote:
| This is from the company (Apple) who "mitigated" a zero-day with
| a case-sensitive string match so it could still be exploited?
|
| Like apple gives a shit about concealed code.
| mimsee wrote:
| Apple cares about concealed code insofar as the code is being
| concealed from them. If Apple conceals code from the user, why
| would they care?
| some_other_time wrote:
| As a developer, I can understand wanting to have a separate IAP,
| but this should add another level. If I create something for sale
| within Fortnite, I don't want to share that profit with Epic. I
| want to use my own IAP. If Apple has to provide alternative IAP
| for creators/developers on their platform, the developers should
| also have to provide alternative IAP for creators within their
| platform/app.
| moonchrome wrote:
| What happened to that proposed US regulation that they will
| mandate alternate app stores on iPhone and make Google style
| strong-arming against other stores illegal.
|
| This sounds like the best solution by far. Nothing changes for
| Apple walled garden users and happy Google Play users. The rest
| of us get better choices.
| floatingatoll wrote:
| How would this change the fact that Epic knowingly and
| intentionally violated a contract? The judge didn't prohibit
| Apple from enforcement responses to the willful rule breaking
| by Epic. Apple said they'd reinstate Epic if Epic uploads a
| guidelines-compliant build. Epic instead said they'd upload a
| build that doesn't comply with _today's_ guidelines. Apple
| declined Epic's offer as it does not met the terms they
| presented, and withdrew the offer of early reinstatement.
|
| If Epic hadn't decided to posture and had just uploaded a build
| that complies with today's guidelines - which do not, and are
| not yet required to, allow external purchasing links - then
| they would have had their account reinstated. They chose not to
| do so, in a flashy and demanding way, having no leverage left
| against Apple. Bad choice.
|
| ps. This entire post is a dupe, rehashing the same discussions
| from yesterday. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28618332
| moonchrome wrote:
| I don't really care about Apple store ? Like I don't care
| about Play Store - both have limitations I don't like.
| Android is more lax about permitting custom software
| installed on the phone but Google strongarms OEMs to prevent
| any competing stores.
|
| There's good money in maintaining appstores I'm certain
| someone will do it better than Apple and Google, I would very
| much welcome Steam mobile for example.
| [deleted]
| floatingatoll wrote:
| I think my reply went to the wrong parent comment, and I
| apologize for my error. You can safely disregard.
| locallost wrote:
| Sure, it's a f--- you move and Apple might like it, but if they
| keep it up, they will keep making enemies until they have no more
| friends. For every homer like Gruber there are many more people
| that just want to do something useful with Apple's technology.
| Like play Fortnite.
| Jensson wrote:
| > Epic will resubmit Fortnite to the App Store if you adhere to
| the plain language of the court order and allow apps to include
| buttons and external links that direct customers to other
| purchasing mechanisms without onerous terms or impediments to a
| good user experience.
|
| That seems very reasonable, why wouldn't Apple be forced to
| comply with the court order?
| threatofrain wrote:
| Apple is complying with court rulings, including the judgment
| that Apple's contract with Epic is valid and enforceable. Apple
| could hypothetically ban all of Epic's accounts forever, but
| only the Fortnite account is banned. This appears to be a win
| for... payment vendors.
|
| At this point Epic can only hope for legislative action.
|
| Also on the "reasonableness" of Epic's promises... I'm not sure
| why making a pinky promise in a non-legal setting is any more
| serious than a legal contract they already choose to break.
| YPPH wrote:
| >Apple could hypothetically ban all of Epic's accounts
| forever
|
| Is this mere conjecture or is it founded on what was said in
| the court's opinion?
| [deleted]
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Court's opinion was the Apple has the right to enforce it's
| contract and ban Epic's developer account.
| Jensson wrote:
| But wasn't Epic banned just because they broke that rule the
| court now ordered Apple not to enforce? Isn't it strange that
| this lawsuit would result in Apple now being able to enforce
| that rule only for Epic and they aren't allowed to enforce it
| for anyone else? Is that how it is supposed to work?
| tsimionescu wrote:
| No, Epic directly offered in-game payment options for the
| Epic currency. The judge ordered Apple to allow in-game
| links to online purchase options, not to directly allow in-
| app purchases from 3rd parties.
| kevingadd wrote:
| It certainly could be interpreted as contempt of court but
| in practice Apple has hundreds of vague rules in their
| developer policies and they use them on a daily basis to
| block apps or updates just because they feel like it. They
| would have no difficulty constructing a retroactive excuse
| for banning Epic (and all their customers, as they
| threatened previously) from the store.
| [deleted]
| didibus wrote:
| > Is that how it is supposed to work?
|
| Yup, the judge ordered Epic to pay some millions to Apple
| in damages.
|
| So it said something like, Epic was wrong to do what they
| did and did break their contract, but also said from now on
| that Apple can't prevent devs from steering customers to
| outside the App Store payments.
| Jensson wrote:
| > Also on the "reasonableness" of Epic's promises... I'm not
| sure why making a pinky promise in a non-legal setting is any
| more serious than a legal contract they already choose to
| break.
|
| Apple said they would reinstate Epic based on a pinky
| promise, they just wanted more in the promise they didn't
| question the promise itself. Pinky promises are absolutely a
| thing, not sure why you are ridiculing that part here.
| threatofrain wrote:
| Legal contracts are also a thing? In terms of seriousness,
| if you're willing to violate legal contracts, then what is
| the value of a pinky promise? The value of any promise is
| the sum of your credibility.
| Aeolun wrote:
| Well, violating the legal contract is just a cost of
| doing business, that's why Epic shrugs and pays 6M.
|
| I'd argue that the pinky promise means more.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| What is a contract if not a slightly more legally binding
| pinky promise?
| salawat wrote:
| Something prone to procedural weaponization in the sense
| that strategic refusal to even consider redlined terms
| (the entire point of meeting of the minds) is rife.
|
| I'd like to direct your attention to every piece of
| software's license agreement to which the answer to
| "decline" or "disagree" is to cease execution. Not to
| figure out what the person is actually okay with, and
| modifying execution from there.
|
| Network effects are explicitly exploited (see "economies
| of scale") to lock in what the provider specifically
| wants. Hence why FLOSS is so important for it's role of
| providing BATNA.
| fxtentacle wrote:
| In reality, though, Apple would be throwing half of their
| game developers under the bus if they disable the Unreal
| Engine account. So if Epic can bait them to do that, they'll
| have plenty of frustrated developers to push public anti-
| Apple sentiment.
| dkonofalski wrote:
| As long as those developers can still test their games on
| the platform, there will only be anti-Epic sentiment. Every
| game developer using the Unreal Engine is seeing this play
| out just like we are and they're seeing that it's Epic's
| actions that are causing that issue. With the state of game
| engines today, many may even consider moving away from
| Unreal for future games specifically because of Epic's
| actions.
| Dah00n wrote:
| >Apple could hypothetically ban all of Epic's accounts
| forever
|
| That is just plain wrong. There's no difference in Apple
| banning all Epic accounts over this and Apple Banning
| Microsoft or you for what Epic did. Epic is not one company,
| each account is a different business. Banning different
| companies in different countries and continents because of a
| brand name would get Apple sued into oblivion and would
| likely be the nail in the coffin for a closed app store.
| threatofrain wrote:
| > (2) a declaration that (i) Apple's termination of the
| DPLA and the related agreements between Epic Games and
| Apple was valid, lawful, and enforceable, and (ii) Apple
| has the contractual right to terminate its DPLA with any or
| all of Epic Games' wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates,
| and/or other entities under Epic Games' control at any time
| and at Apple's sole discretion.
|
| Why do you think this is plain wrong?
| InGoodFaith wrote:
| As you might recall - Apple did retaliate previously by
| also banning an associated Epic Account (for Unreal
| Engine and such) but was later legally forced not to [1]
|
| 1: https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/9/21492334/epic-
| fortnite-ap...
| notafraudster wrote:
| That was a temporary restraining order [1] and later
| certified in a preliminary injunction [2], which is what
| occurs before a trial in order to best preserve the pre-
| trial status quo and protect parties from harm pending
| trial.
|
| You will note that the preliminary injunction vacates the
| temporary restraining order and notes that it will
| "remain in force until the disposition of this case". The
| case has been disposed. The final ruling explicitly
| allows "Apple has the contractual right to terminate its
| DPLA with any or all of Epic Games' wholly owned
| subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities under
| Epic Games' control at any time and at Apple's sole
| discretion."
|
| I seriously recommend not relying on blog analysis of a
| court case and instead reading the court documents, and
| if you are unable to do so (understandable!) to avoid
| participating in the conversation in the manner of
| correcting someone.
|
| 1: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.c
| and.36...
|
| 2: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.c
| and.36...
| InGoodFaith wrote:
| edit: I am not the original GP who said it's plain wrong
| - perhaps I should lead with that
|
| ---
|
| I really appreciate your analysis. Perhaps my comment was
| unclear, but it was in reference to the GP asking
|
| > Why do you think this is plain wrong?
|
| Since from my understanding the injunction should still
| be in effect (as mentioned by another commenter). Of
| course with the added disclaimer that I am not a
| corporate lawyer.
|
| > I seriously recommend not relying on blog analysis of a
| court case and instead reading the court documents, and
| if you are unable to do so (understandable!) to avoid
| participating in the conversation in the manner of
| correcting someone.
|
| I appreciate your candor - while I may exhibit elements
| of imposter syndrome, I believe I didn't add noise to the
| SNR of this post since it was my intention to expand on
| the aformentioned GP's question.
| DannyBee wrote:
| Close, but since epic appealed, it is not disposed yet -
| it will become final once all appeals are exhausted
| microtherion wrote:
| ... in a preliminary injunction that "[...] will remain
| in force until the disposition of this case" (pg 38,
| bottom), so once the appeals process has run its course,
| Apple is no longer bound by this.
|
| https://cdn.vox-
| cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21949772/g...
|
| That said, Epic could always try to get a further
| injunction on this, and I don't really see an upside for
| Apple from banning further accounts.
| InGoodFaith wrote:
| I appreciate this - I should have expanded on my original
| post with the appeals disclaimer to clarify.
| [deleted]
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| > why wouldn't Apple be forced to comply with the court order?
|
| They seem to be waiting until all appeals have finished:
|
| "Apple will not consider any further requests for reinstatement
| until the district court's judgement becomes final and
| nonappealable."
|
| https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/144071177248318669...
| londons_explore wrote:
| Effectively telling Epic that if they are serious about this
| issue, they need to batten down for a multi-year court battle
| and give up selling games in the meantime.
| electriclove wrote:
| Epic is appealing the decision. Sweeney is promising to follow
| the rules but is also trying to take Apple down. Definitely
| duplicitous. Apple does not have to let Epic back in.
| mbreese wrote:
| Apple is complying with the court order (so far as we can
| currently tell). Not reinstating Epic's developer account is a
| separate issue. It was explicitly stated in the court order
| that Apple was allowed to terminate Epic's account and it was
| solely up to them if they wanted to reinstate it.
|
| Opening the payment mechanisms for other developers is a
| separate issue to whether or not Epic could still sell iOS apps
| on the AppStore.
| gehsty wrote:
| A short summary of the ruling is that Apple has no 'duty to
| deal' with Epic (you can't force someone to do business with
| someone), so they can let them in when they want.
|
| If Epic did not appeal, and submitted a version of fortnight
| that complied with App Store requirements I think they would be
| in the store rn.
| ribit wrote:
| I guess it has to do with the fact that Epic has appealed the
| court verdict. I can understand that Apple doesn't feel like
| doing business with someone who has an active legal case
| against them.
| Jensson wrote:
| That makes sense, thanks! The dispute isn't resolved yet,
| easy to understand. I assume if Epic accepted the court
| ruling then Apple would be forced to comply?
| nyx-aiur wrote:
| No, because in the ruling it was stated that apple has
| every right to not only ban epic but also to ban every epic
| subsidiary if they so desire.
| ribit wrote:
| I am not sure they can be forced to comply (if I remember
| correctly this particular court decision mentioned that
| Apple was within their right for terminating Epic's
| account), but that's just half of the story. It is true
| that Apple has promised to reinstate Epic once they agree
| to follow their rules. What I find really disingenuous
| about all this is Tim Sweeney's attitude - he appeals the
| decision while at the same time publicly blaming Apple for
| not following up on their part of the bargain. It's just
| embarrassing at this point.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Apple would be forced to comply with the court ruling,
| which does not require Apple to reinstate Epic's account
| and allow Fortnite back on the App Store.
| floatingatoll wrote:
| It is very self-serving of Epic to offer Apple a legal
| interpretation of the court's decision free of charge, that
| delivers Epic all benefits it failed to receive in the court
| decision. Apple is, however, free to disregard Epic's input on
| interpretation, no matter how plausible Epic's phrasing may
| sound to others. Apple is not forced to comply with Epic's
| interpretation of the court order -- Apple is forced to comply
| with _Apple 's_ interpretation of the court order, and has
| another ~10 weeks to decide how they will choose to comply with
| the order, assuming that it isn't suspended during the appeals
| process. If a court later decides that Apple has not complied,
| then Apple will be answerable to the court, not to Epic, for
| their interpretations.
| hughrr wrote:
| No winners either side. And of course no winning for their
| customers either.
|
| I increasingly want nothing to do with battling corporate giants.
| isodev wrote:
| Indeed. It was quite clear from the beginning this is more
| about Epic's bottom line than the interest of users or
| developers.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| I don't think it's very good for their bottom line. I'm
| pretty sure if they were a public company then their CEO
| would have been ousted by now.
| kevingadd wrote:
| According to the court disclosures, their iOS revenue
| wasn't as big as you'd think (less than 10%, iirc). If
| that's gross revenue, it would mean the net revenue is
| considerably lower. Once you factor in the costs to earn
| that revenue - maintaining the iOS client, OS-specific
| online services, etc - it probably wasn't too hard for them
| to stomach the hit, especially since the potential upside
| was pocketing more revenue in the future.
|
| They were also making a larger scale play here, they want
| to get rid of 30% cuts in general, which means they get to
| keep more of their Android revenue and likely more of their
| revenue on PlayStation and XBox (The court case revealed
| that Sony is basically charging extortion money to allow
| cross-platform play.)
| croon wrote:
| Of course, but Epic's bottom line isn't necessarily mutually
| exclusive to the interests of users or developers.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| So what? Assuming that the battle does lead to an enforced
| (either via court or legislation) opening of the App Store or
| to massively reduced pricing for developers, the net outcome
| for users and developers is still positive.
|
| One might even argue that it did need Epic as one of the
| largest mobile software vendors to challenge Apple both in PR
| and the courts. Small developers have complained without any
| effect whatsoever for _years_ about the App Store
| restrictions (especially adult /otherwise "not family
| friendly" content, or wishing to use an HTML renderer that is
| _not_ full of bugs) or Apple booting out their existence with
| no reason or way of appealing.
| Aerroon wrote:
| And how are those two not related? Epic is a developer,
| therefore their bottom line is literally in the interest of
| developers. Furthermore, if a company has less fees to deal
| with then they can charge lower prices for the same product.
| danaris wrote:
| Yes, Epic is _a_ developer. So too is Tim Cook _a_ user;
| does that mean that what 's in Tim Cook's interest is in
| the interest of users, in general?
|
| This doesn't logically follow; Epic's interests do _not_
| necessarily align with the interests of all developers, and
| they certainly don 't necessarily align with the interests
| of users.
|
| In particular, the whole point of this is that Epic wants
| to be more than just a developer: they want to be a
| platform owner, and run their own App Store. Most
| developers can't even dream of that--and probably wouldn't
| want to.
| sva_ wrote:
| I doubt they'd charge much less. The price is mostly
| determined with what they believe people will pay.
| kevingadd wrote:
| They literally offered a sizable discount when they
| pulled this stunt.
| zepto wrote:
| That was a stunt.
| doctor_eval wrote:
| The whole stunt was planned by Epic well in advance.
| Offering an outside payment option without lowering the
| price would have undermined their entire argument.
|
| Make no mistake, when the dust settles, consumers will
| pay the same amount, but Epic will get to keep more of
| it.
|
| There is nothing wrong with Epic wanting to increase its
| margins, but doing so under the rubric of helping the
| customer does get under my skin a bit.
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| I disagree. We know an open market lowers prices for
| consumers.
| BeefWellington wrote:
| Do we?
|
| As I saw it, Epic's initial actions here were basically
| over the percentage of the pie they get to take, not
| reducing the size of the pie.
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| Yes we do, it is one of the guiding principles of free
| markets. But the US is going into a direction of giant
| all powerful corporations smothering any competition.
|
| People love Apple I know but if other companies start
| doing this hopefully they'll reconsider.
| kevingadd wrote:
| If the person or company suing Apple needs to have no
| ulterior motives, you'll never get a lawsuit, let alone a
| successful one. The court isn't going to care about
| hypothetical accusations, the lawsuit has to be brought by
| someone who was materially harmed by Apple's behavior. Epic
| pulled their stunt to set up a blatant example of what they
| believed to be inappropriate behavior, and on at least one
| count the court agreed with them.
|
| Basically, the only way we would ever see action on this in
| the US is if a big player - like Epic - pulled a stunt like
| this to force their hand. As the evidence in the case showed,
| Apple was happy to try and pay people off to prevent them
| from filing a case like this, they offered Epic a sweetheart
| deal and eventually caved to pressure from Amazon.
| Jensson wrote:
| Apple lowered fees to 15% for smaller developers thanks to
| this fight. So regardless of their motives epic picking this
| fight is a good thing.
| Dah00n wrote:
| Sure this is a "win" but just like Apple being pro-privacy
| it is all PR and only luck that it is a good thing for
| users too.
| InGoodFaith wrote:
| Isn't the "luck" in that case the spirit of having a
| competitive market?
|
| In an effort to stifle off regulation, the self-interest
| of giant corporations are aligned with their otherwise
| powerless developers - even if coincidentally.
|
| If the duopoly wasn't under scrutiny, this "luck" would
| have run out as there would be no real viable
| competition.
| arvinsim wrote:
| > It was quite clear from the beginning this is more about
| Epic AND Apple's bottom line than the interest of users or
| developers.
|
| FTFY
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Of course? No company is a charity.
|
| The perfect situation is when a companies' bottom line is in
| alignment with the interest of users and developers.
| Invictus0 wrote:
| Once you get past their family friendly PR, Apple has always been
| a pretty ruthless company. That said, Epic has also massively
| overplayed their hand and they shouldn't be surprised that
| Apple's called the bluff.
| me_me_me wrote:
| Oh poor epic, I am so saddened by their mistreatment.
|
| Is epic succeeding in their narrative as a poor little mistreated
| company sticking it to the man?
|
| I care very little about godzilla vs king kong lawyer fights.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| little people often cared a lot about godzilla fights because
| godzilla was protecting them from a giant monster
| me_me_me wrote:
| In this analogy small people care about the outcome, the fake
| drama and PR is just none important.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| I would be very happy if I could sell ios content and keep
| 88% (epic) vs. 70% (apple) of my own revenue.
|
| That's a 25% boost in my revenue. That's huge.
| briandear wrote:
| You already can keep 85%.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| Great! Thanks Epic. But that's not enough. I want actual
| market competition.
| me_me_me wrote:
| That is what i am saying, outcome and not the process.
|
| following epic vs apple fight - the whole play and dance,
| throwing mud etc etc. Its not worth your time, you cannot
| affect the outcome. Just ignore it all and learn about
| the outcome in the end.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| And yet, here we are, you and me. Posting about it.
| me_me_me wrote:
| Technically we are clearing up my original unclear
| statement
| tpmx wrote:
| As an aside:
|
| Gruber/Daring Fireball seems to be getting less and less popular:
| https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%22darin...
| sidibe wrote:
| Hasn't crossed my newsfeeds in a long time. He is the original
| professional fanboy, Tesla has a whole bunch of people
| clamoring to be the Gruber of Tesla.
| [deleted]
| danpalmer wrote:
| Meanwhile the number of TV appearances he does and the amount
| he sells advertising on his site for have both gone up
| significantly.
|
| I think he's doing fine.
| dubcanada wrote:
| I'm not sure going from an average of 25 searches to 5 really
| matters lol. Nobody really searches for him, they just read
| articles by him linked from somewhere else. Anyone who knows
| him is probably technical and just goes directly to his site.
| pluc wrote:
| Don't ever let marketers tell you facts
| yoz-y wrote:
| Note also that he publishes all articles in full on RSS. There
| is not much need to search for it.
| magoon wrote:
| Is it possible this graph also reflects that his readers are
| more likely to employ Safari's tracker-blocking?
| jasode wrote:
| It's interesting to compare the situation Epic got itself into
| with previous episodes of Facebook & Google breaking Apple's
| rules.
|
| When Facebook and Google misused Developer Enterprise
| certificates to go beyond internal testing and _distribute apps
| to end-consumers_ , Apple revoked their accounts. Both Facebook &
| Google simply admitted they screwed up and Apple reinstated their
| accounts.[1] No lawsuits.
|
| Epic broke Apple's in-app-purchase rules and now Epic promises
| they will comply but Epic didn't get their dev account reinstated
| yet. Big difference is that Epic rolled the dice by filing a
| lawsuit about Apple's unfair rules and because they thought there
| was enough anti-Apple sentiment that they'd get a sympathetic
| judgement in their favor. Their gamble didn't work and in the
| process, Tim Sweeny's defiant attitude just made Apple dig in
| their heels even further.
|
| I'm reminded of that quote, _" you come at the King, you best not
| miss."_
|
| EDIT reply to some comments saying Epic didn't make a "promise"
| to comply with Apple's rules:
|
| _> Did i miss something where they actually said that? _
|
| In this thread's Fireball blogpost is a link to Tim Sweeney's
| tweet of an email screenshot to Apple's Phil Schiller stating his
| "promise":
|
| _> Sep 16, 2021 at 5:01 PM; Subject: Fortnite and the App Store;
| To: Phil Schiller_
|
| _> [..] Epic promises that it will adhere to Apple's guidelines
| whenever and wherever we release products on Apple
| platforms.[...]_
|
| [1]
| https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+reinstates+google+face...
| chrisfinazzo wrote:
| Not to put too fine a point on it, but for all practical
| purposes Apple can't boot Facebook or Google from the App
| Store, regardless of what they do.
|
| Tim Cook's head would end up on the chopping block if several
| billion users suddently left iOS because FB, Instagram and the
| rest weren't available.
|
| With Google, the userbase is potentially even bigger and some
| of what they do really is fundamental to most people's
| experience of the web. Users would certainly revolt.
|
| The same _might_ be true of Fortnite, but despite the fact that
| we now know most App Store revenue comes from games, Epic is
| still one of many, regardless of how popular their titles are.
| cptskippy wrote:
| > The same might be true of Fortnite
|
| It would seem that Fortnite's demographic is preteen kids.
| Are they playing Fortnite on their parent's device or one
| they own? If it's the later then Apple could be fostering a
| lifelong mistrust or dislike for their platform. If it's the
| former then Parents might just install another App for them
| and that's the end of Fortnite.
|
| I guess it comes down to how many people are willing to jump
| ship for Fortnite. I have a feeling Apple probably already
| knows the answer since Fortnite hasn't been in the App store
| for some time.
| withinboredom wrote:
| I think many of them (including me) were waiting for this
| to play out. I can remember walking into a cell phone store
| years and years ago to look around. I remember overhearing
| this:
|
| Kid: I really like this phone.
|
| Dad: That's a Windows Phone, you don't want that. It
| doesn't have that many apps. You want an Android because
| you get all the apps out there.
|
| I can see a similar argument for Android vs. Apple now.
| "Get Android, you'll get all the apps. With Apple, you only
| get Apple approved apps, which includes malware, but not
| that game you like to play, what's it called? Fortnight?"
| [deleted]
| vxNsr wrote:
| Additionally epic wants to stop paying apple, so essentially
| it's 0 lost revenue either way.
| cjpearson wrote:
| I believe in the Facebook dispute Apple only disabled their
| Enterprise account because that's the one they were abusing.
|
| Losing the Enterprise account wouldn't prevent Facebook from
| pushing their apps on to the store, but they would not longer
| be able to distribute internal apps outside the App store.
| edoceo wrote:
| That quote is by Omar Little in the TV show The Wire. That show
| was amazing. The actor (Michael?) recently died :(
| arbitrage wrote:
| His name was Michael Kenneth Williams, and he was in many
| shows.
|
| Boardwalk Empire
|
| The Wire
|
| Community
|
| Trapped in the Closet
|
| The Spoils Before Dying
|
| Hap and Leonard
|
| When We Rise
|
| When They See Us
|
| Lovecraft Country
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| The scenarios couldn't be more different.
|
| To Facebook and Google, you are the product. They are trying to
| get at your data to sell to third parties.
|
| To Epic, Fortnite is the product. They are trying to sell
| things to their users via their app.
| Aerroon wrote:
| I don't think that quote is quite as apt though. Epic seems to
| be in far less trouble than Apple. Epic might not have gained
| what they wanted, but a lot of it is a giant like of evidence
| about Apple for other countries and cases.
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| Epic is playing the long game. The price Apple is asking is
| just not acceptable and they have the money to fight it.
| taneq wrote:
| "If you can make god bleed, people would case to believe in
| him, there will be blood in the water, and the sharks will
| come."
| dubcanada wrote:
| How is the most wealthy company in the world in trouble? Epic
| made 5 billion last year most from a game that can easily be
| replaced and will eventually (they all eventually get
| replaced), Apple has 200 billion in cash just sitting there
| and makes 60 billion a year on average. They are not even
| close.
| Jensson wrote:
| This lawsuit will cost Apple way more than Epic. It might
| not hurt Apple that much as a percentage, but in absolute
| terms it will hurt them plenty. There is a reason they
| fight this so fervently.
| MikeDelta wrote:
| Indeed, the future of their business model is at stake.
| If Epic succeeds and many more try to circumvent paying
| 30% to Apple, then they will feel it.
| danaris wrote:
| Apple's business model does not depend on the App Store's
| 30% cut. Not by a long shot.
| stevehawk wrote:
| Apple's 30% cut is a cash printing press for them. Sure
| they have other business models like completely
| disposable, non-repairable, non-recyclable electronics,
| but the iTunes and App stores are significant profit
| centers.
| _jal wrote:
| The "Services" category is 21% of their revenue.
|
| The "Completely disposable, non-repairable, non-
| recyclable electronics" category is the rest.
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/382260/segments-
| share-re...
| foobarian wrote:
| Revenue != profit
| _jal wrote:
| Sure. And we don't know everything.
|
| Iphones (about 50% of Apple's revenue) have a profit
| margin estimated around 40%.
|
| https://www.zdnet.com/article/iphone-xs-max-how-much-
| profit-...
|
| But hey, maybe the cable business sells things at a loss.
| We don't know.
| xwdv wrote:
| No, people _wish_ it will hurt Apple way more, but it
| won't. It won't even make a dent in their universe.
| [deleted]
| Razengan wrote:
| Not people. Not users. Just the greedy companies and
| developers who wish that they could prey upon a billion
| users and fleece them with impunity without Apple getting
| in the way.
|
| And they will do their darnedest to conceal their true
| motives. "BUT WE CARE!" they will howl, while salivating
| with fork and knife in grubby hands.
| ryanlol wrote:
| Why? Apple hasn't lost their 30%, and there's no
| indication that they will.
| dnautics wrote:
| IIRC, they have, in south korea. (that would be a
| refutation of both points)
| mbreese wrote:
| We won't know how the new law in South Korea will play
| out in practice yet and we won't for a few months (it's
| too recent). It will probably be at least a year before
| we know how it *really* will affect the commissions a
| company like Apple makes from the App Store.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| Apple lost their exclusivity on in-app-payments:
|
| > Rogers issued an injunction that said Apple will no
| longer be allowed to prohibit developers from providing
| links or other communications that direct users away from
| Apple in-app purchasing.
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/10/epic-games-v-apple-judge-
| rea...
|
| So Apple didn't "lose" their 30% exactly, but everyone is
| now free to do what Fortnite originally did and that's
| link to their own site for users to buy in-app currency
| instead. It's likely all but certain that every game with
| IAP will be deploying this over the next few months.
| ryanlol wrote:
| Irrelevant, the judgement says apple can still take 30%
| even if you do that.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| My understanding is Apple is also free to take their cut
| from that though. It's just harder for them to enforce.
|
| This may be one of those things the little guy gets away
| with, but Epic can't.
| simonh wrote:
| Epic is very clearly and definitely not agreeing to follow the
| App Store rules. They are appealing the judgement precisely
| because they do not agree with the App Store rules. Trying to
| overturn them is not agreeing to them.
|
| Epic are agreeing to comply with the court order, for now, but
| they are not agreeing to the rules. This is not semantics,
| Apple's offer was that if Epic dropped he suit, they would be
| let back in. Epic knows this perfectly well.
| gpm wrote:
| They are very clearly agreeing to follow the app store rules.
|
| They're also trying to force them to change, but they are
| very clearly agreeing to follow whatever the rules are at all
| times.
|
| The rules do not include "you cannot sue us" or "you cannot
| appeal decisions". If apple tried to put those in the rules,
| the court would quickly remove them from the rules, but also
| Apple did not, and almost certainly will not even attempt to
| put them in the rules.
| [deleted]
| simonh wrote:
| It's been perfectly clear all along, to anyone closely
| following the case and Apples deposition and legal
| statements exactly what Apples position was. Their
| conditions for letting Fortnite back in was Epic agreeing
| to drop the case and follow the rules. This has never
| changed.
| Terretta wrote:
| > _EDIT reply to some comments saying Epic didn 't make a
| "promise" to comply with Apple's rules..._
|
| There is no such promise.
|
| There's a pile of "if" Apple ignores the rulings and does what
| Epic wanted in the first place, including rewriting the
| rules(!), then Epic will comply with the rules rewritten Epic's
| way:
|
| _"Whether Epic chooses to bring Fortnite back to iOS consumers
| depends on whether and where Apple updates its guidelines to
| provide for a level playing field between Apple In-App Purchase
| and other methods of payment."_
| comex wrote:
| Read the letter again. Epic is saying that Apple changes the
| rules, it will resubmit Fortnite for iOS; if not, it will
| only resubmit Fortnite for Mac and use the account to
| internally test Fortnite for iOS; either way, it will follow
| the rules for what it does submit.
| criddell wrote:
| > Epic promises they will comply
|
| They also made that promise when they opened their developer
| account. Do you think they really mean it this time?
| spzb wrote:
| It's a pinky promise this time. No backsies.
| passivate wrote:
| >Big difference is that Epic rolled the dice by filing a
| lawsuit about Apple's unfair rules and because they thought
| there was enough anti-Apple sentiment that they'd get a
| sympathetic judgement in their favor.
|
| I think they're doing a great service (at their cost) to raise
| the issue time and time again. After Apple, I think Steam and
| other platforms are next. Pretty much _all_ developers who make
| money on the app store agree with Epic on the fact that Apple
| should not engage in a 30% money-grab.
| OmarComin wrote:
| > you come at the King, you best not miss
|
| " _it 's all in the game [App Store ecosystem's contractual
| specifications] yo_"
| ribit wrote:
| Epic didn't promise that they will comply. Actually, Epic made
| it very clear that they do not want to comply. You can't say
| ,,sure I'm ok with it" while simultaneously filing an legal
| appeal on a court verdict forcing you to comply.
| nulbyte wrote:
| > You can't say ,,sure I'm ok with it" while simultaneously
| filing an legal appeal
|
| They didn't say that. They said they will comply, not that
| they should comply. Complying doesn't preclude continuing a
| lawsuit because they believe they should not have to comply.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| > Epic promises they will comply
|
| Did i miss something where they actually said that? My
| understanding is that in the past Sweeney's statements have
| consistently said they will not exclusively offer Apple's IAP
| which indicates they promise to _not_ comply with the rules.
| jasode wrote:
| _> >> Epic promises they will comply_
|
| _> Did i miss something where they actually said that? _
|
| In this thread's Fireball blogpost is a link to Tim Sweeney's
| tweet of an email screenshot to Apple's Phil Schiller stating
| his "promise":
|
| _> Sep 16, 2021 at 5:01 PM; Subject: Fortnite and the App
| Store; To: Phil Schiller_
|
| _> [..] Epic promises that it will adhere to Apple's
| guidelines whenever and wherever we release products on Apple
| platforms.[...]_
| abduhl wrote:
| Tim Sweeney and Epic planned and executed an entire
| campaign (hilariously even given a secret code name as if
| Epic was either some super hero or villain) that was
| predicated on knowingly breaching a contract (read: a
| promise). Then they sued. Then they lost. Now they have a
| new promise?
|
| Their promises are worth less than dogshit. Apple
| apparently isn't in the market for dogshit.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| Tim is in the fight for idealogical reasons, not calculated
| business ones.
| smachiz wrote:
| No he isn't. If he was, he'd go after Xbox and PS stores as
| well which also take 30%.
|
| But they make up like 70% of the revenue for Fortnite, so
| they haven't picked that fight.
|
| They went after the bottom 20% of their revenue. That is
| exactly a calculated business fight.
| PedroBatista wrote:
| And thank "God" for people like him[1]. Life is unbearable
| under Tim Cook's "vision", the greed, arrogance and pettiness
| is at an all-time high, and it's not like it was low before..
|
| [1] Also, nothing is black and white, of course Tim/Epic were
| looking to get more money from what their customers paid.
| rawbot wrote:
| This isn't Tim Cook's vision. The closed nature of the App
| Store is Steve Jobs' legacy. Cook just refuses to kill the
| Golden Goose.
|
| I'm not a fan of Epic, but I hope Apple loses and we get
| some sort of alternate way to load applications on iOS
| devices.
| OrvalWintermute wrote:
| I actually think this is not the golden goose.
|
| 30% is enough to ensure that competitors arise,
| competitors outcompete them on everything _plus_ price.
|
| If Appstore pricing was a neglible amount it would
| significantly impact the interest of competitors to enter
| the market.
|
| Obligatory Marvel Reference
|
| https://youtu.be/Bj6yMYaQPrw?t=75
| prions wrote:
| Because life under Epics vision of undercutting and
| delaying releases to Steam is so much more egalitarian and
| noble
|
| People are rooting for Sweeney due to his alpha nerd rage
| righteous more than how "good"Epic is to their customers
| wutbrodo wrote:
| I dokt fully understand the dynamics here, but are those
| complaints independent of the issue being fought out
| between Apple and Epic? Ie, couldn't Epic still be
| engaging in "undercutting and delaying releases" whether
| or not they're paying 30% to Apple, or is that behavior
| somehow tangled up in this issue?
|
| If it's not, then I don't see the contradiction here.
| Leaving aside people who make issues like this part of
| their identity, you can root for Epic in this specific
| case without deciding that you love Epic, with the focus
| on the impact of _this case_ on the industry. Just as you
| can root for Google in Google v Oracle without becoming a
| superfan of Google's.
| p2t2p wrote:
| My life under Tim Cook's "vision" is pretty sweet when it
| comes to electronic devices.
|
| With a tap of a button I fill my house with lossless
| quality of music that is playing on astonishingly capable
| speakers. Those speakers also answer my questions and run
| automations on my phone which I can create in a very nice
| and user-friendly interface.
|
| I'm currently watching an episode of a TV Series that is
| playing from my NAS on my mac through the only player on my
| Mac (I tried mpv, IINA and VLC) that is capable of playing
| 8k MKVs without hiccups - Infuse. That player is a port
| from an iPad app btw.
|
| When I finished with my work I say "Hey, Siri, I'm done"
| and leave the room. Monitor's lightbar, other lights turns
| off. When it is getting dark my chosen lights turn on
| automatically, provided somebody's home. My printer doesn't
| consume electricity in the night because HomeKit
| automatically turns it off in the evening and turns it on
| in the morning. I don't need to worry about my daughter
| putting her fingers into shredder because it is always
| turned off. When I need it, I say "Hey Siri, turn on
| shredder". The shredder turns on and it then automatically
| turns off after 90 seconds.
|
| When I get in my car I have a very nice screen on the
| dashboard that most of the time is capable of guessing
| where I'm about to go and suggests one-tap navigation. And
| the music starts playing from where I left off.
|
| My photos are downloaded on several devices and backed up
| in the cloud. The albums are shared with my Mom who is very
| happy every time when I upload new photos of here
| granddaughter.
|
| My private drm-free music collection is also uploaded to
| the cloud and synchronised to every device I've got.
|
| I can say "Hey Siri, facetime Mom" and I'll see my mother's
| face over the distance of 17000km in a magnificent quality.
|
| My books are synchronised and downloaded across all my
| devices as well and whenever I feel like reading one, it's
| right here. None of those books were bought from Apple btw,
| they are DRM-free.
|
| The other day I was wondering if I should buy an iMac for
| my wife - would it fit in the kitchen or not? Well, there's
| AR technology on my phone that had no troubles presenting
| me how it would sit on the counter. Now there's also an AR
| app that helps me manage my arachnophobia.
|
| I am an immigrant. In the past 5 years I had to do so many
| paperwork that it could fill a little closet. Luckily,
| compared to my peers I didn't have to print all of those
| PDFs out. I was able to sign them from my MacBook in
| Preview and using markup feature on my iPad.
|
| I am also a software developer. I value and appreciate Unix
| core utils. Turns out my Mac is a certified Unix and I am
| able to automate a lot of things in my day-to-day job using
| small Unix tools that are imprinted into my fingers. All
| that while looking at _magnificent_ 4k monitor that
| delivers 100% of Adobe's gamut and doesn't make my eyes
| with weird font issues.
|
| I love travelling into Australian Outback with my wife and
| we take some magnificent photos there with our iPhones
| without having to carry a lot of heavy equipment. We then
| are able to send this photos to each other whilst being
| completely off-the-grid, some hundreds of KM from nearest
| cell tower using AirDrop. It takes milliseconds. On the
| long drives my daughter can pick up here iPad and just
| watch some cartoons. iPad connects to the internet using my
| iPhone automatically when there's reception and Infuse has
| stuff that it downloaded form my Emby installation when
| there's none.
|
| My podcasts are downloaded automatically without my
| intervention and put onto my watch. When I go for my walks
| I don't have to carry my phone. My watch and headphones
| suffice.
|
| When I browse the web using my phone or my mac I don't see
| any advertisements and popups and auto-playing videos.
| Safari on my phone and mac is capable of having extensions
| and has APIs for adblocking applications. 1Blocker takes a
| good care of me when it comes to ads.
|
| My phone provides me with tools to take care of my digital
| well-being. It lets me know which applications I used the
| most and when and lets me to block those applications for
| certain periods of time if I find an unhealthy habit.
|
| I write my notes on my iPad. I don't need to cut trees
| anymore and it is more comfortable. With Notability I can
| zoom and cut my handwritten nodes and move them around and
| do all sorts of stuff I can't with regular pen and paper.
|
| I recently bought an iPad for my Mom and added her into my
| Apple One subscription. Now she's in Russia and I'm in
| Australia and she is able to listen to her beloved old
| soviet decedent music virtually for free without needing to
| download it anywhere. I am calm and confident that she's
| safe using this device and probably of her getting scammed
| is quite a bit lower compare to any other device.
|
| I'm looking forward to what other quality of life
| improvements Tim Cook's vision will bring to my life. I
| feel privileged that I have access to this magnificent
| technology and thankful for that.
| LanceH wrote:
| And yet, you're only allowed to install what they
| authorize. It's a nice cell.
| Razengan wrote:
| There's nothing I want to install on an iPhone or iPad
| that's not on the App Store.
| howinteresting wrote:
| Torrent remotes? Utilities that sync with other OSes like
| KDE Connect? A real browser with real uBlock Origin?
| wayneftw wrote:
| That's just a lack of imagination.
|
| Apple's app store grip prevents whole industries from
| taking shape.
| p2t2p wrote:
| If I pick up my Motorola I'll see that I can't even have
| an adblock for the default browser. And yet very soon my
| iPhone will receive an update that adds generic
| extensions support into safari. There's an extension that
| automatically changes amp links to real pages for
| example.
|
| Android is open as it gets and yet somehow the diversity
| of software there is lacking. Try finding decent email
| client that is not Gmail and doesn't suck your data into
| cloud. iPhone has got multiple and one is OOB.
| wayneftw wrote:
| Nobody scales an app business just on Android. When you
| have to target both, you'll follow Apples rules.
|
| Where are my PWA notifications on iPhone? Where is my
| replacement app launcher? Where are my programming apps?
| Where are my porn apps?
| p2t2p wrote:
| So you claim that it is lack of imagination that I don't
| want to install porn apps and receive notification spam
| from every website on the internet?
|
| Also I don't see how can innovation be equated with
| support of PWA notifications and porn apps and launchers?
| wayneftw wrote:
| Yeah, because we're only talking about what you want not
| the general you.
| p2t2p wrote:
| I echo this. I had youtube-dl running on my previous
| iPhone in pythonista.
|
| I had a shortcut that would download list of YouTube
| videos from a file for offline viewing using that
| [deleted]
| asddubs wrote:
| what a longwinded way to miss the point
| nixgeek wrote:
| I suggest you consult the HN Guidelines.
|
| > _Be kind. Don 't be snarky. Have curious conversation;
| don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't
| sneer, including at the rest of the community._
|
| > _Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive,
| not less, as a topic gets more divisive._
| eloisant wrote:
| My experience is not very different from yours but I do
| that using multiple vendors, without being tied to a
| single one.
| p2t2p wrote:
| I did consider this. Having a single vendor is a risk
| factor. In my case it is mitigated by the fact that
| everything that is in their cloud is downloaded locally.
| Then it is backed up using time machine to my Synology
| and additionally syncthing also duplicates it there as
| simple files with history enabled. I believe our
| mitigated most of the risks. If I pull the router plug
| I'll still have access to my data. If my house burns down
| - I can download it from their cloud again.
| orliesaurus wrote:
| That's an epic summary of someone who totally bought into
| the Apple ecosystem. Not here to judge, of course, I am
| impressed! Wow!
| p2t2p wrote:
| Thank you for not judging. In April this year one Sunday
| evening I realised that I've just spent about 40 hours
| over that weekend tinkering with my mutt and notmuch
| configuration instead of practicing smoking that beef
| roast as I wanted for some time
|
| Monday morning I did several things:
|
| - ordered mac mini M1 to replace my ThinkPad with Arch
|
| - ordered iPhone to replace my rooted Motorola 5g Plus
|
| - filed a ticket at work to switch myself from company
| issued precision 5540 with Arch to company issued 16 inch
| MacBook
|
| - promised myself to never go that way again
|
| I still am experiencing cravings sometimes. I saw someone
| made a Wayland port of dwm and immediately wanted to try
| it. Took a bit effort to distract myself from that and
| read a book instead.
|
| I am a recovering addict and Keyboard Maestro is my
| replacement therapy
| flohofwoe wrote:
| Would that be Apple's Tim or Epic's Tim? ;)
| ribit wrote:
| Yes, if by ideological reasons you mean ,,moneyz".
| gameswithgo wrote:
| It is easy to be cynical because cynical is usually correct
| but that really isn't Sweeny's motivation here.
| odshoifsdhfs wrote:
| https://9to5mac.com/2020/08/21/epic-games-asked-for-
| special-...
|
| I really don't understand how people still think it is
| Sweeny's ideology playing here, when he literally emailed
| Apple for an exception for Epic alone.
| ncr100 wrote:
| Him being rich and powerful lord of the Metaverse idealogy,
| IMO.
| vimy wrote:
| I don't think Epic intended to win the lawsuit. It's part of a
| broader strategy to force lawmakers to change app store rules.
| OrvalWintermute wrote:
| I think you are correct.
|
| Epic has already moved the Overton Window, as 30% is now
| being considered unfair by more and more people.
|
| These people will then reach out to their representatives for
| change. Apple will attempt to fight the tide, but it is too
| late.
|
| Really, Apple is just a monopoly, an illegally bundled system
| (both with macs and iphones) intending to control the market.
|
| There is no reason why Apple should control the lion's share
| of profits around mobile apps.
| golemotron wrote:
| The company that buys the remains of Epic can carry on with
| the lawsuit, I guess.
| sprafa wrote:
| The remains?? You clearly don't realise how successful epic
| is
| Razengan wrote:
| The other commenters here clearly don't realize how
| successful Apple is, or how much more loyal their fans
| are.
| Jensson wrote:
| The difference is that nobody said Apple was done for as
| a company due to this lawsuit. Both Apple and Epic will
| lose money due to it, but both makes most of their money
| elsewhere so they can fight to their heart's content.
| Jensson wrote:
| Epic isn't going anywhere, the appstore wasn't a very
| significant part of their income. They wouldn't have picked
| this fight if they couldn't afford it.
| bigbizisverywyz wrote:
| >the appstore wasn't a very significant part of their
| income.
|
| So why did they even pick the fight?
| doikor wrote:
| To make more money. More is more even if it is not making
| their most important thing make more money.
|
| Just like Apple has not killed most of their desktop
| offering just because they are not a very significant
| part of their income.
|
| Also a big chunk of it is probably just Tim Sweeneys
| personal opinions (he owns over 50% epic by himself so
| what he says happens pretty much). Basically he is rather
| strongly (and very openly) against any walled garden
| platforms.
| throwaway473825 wrote:
| > Basically he is rather strongly (and very openly)
| against any walled garden platforms.
|
| Is that why he doesn't support the only real open
| platform on the desktop?
| doikor wrote:
| From his perspective Windows and Linux are equally open
| in that he can have his own marketplace in each.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| because if they won the fight it could have become a
| significant source of income?
| vimy wrote:
| This is about the future of the metaverse.
|
| Longread: https://medium.com/gamemakers/the-economy-of-
| the-metaverse-i...
| rhacker wrote:
| Next epic lawsuit: Apple must have a justified reason for banning
| a game / account that is outlined in their TOS. And the exact
| specific reason must be given in writing so it can be clearly
| addressed.
|
| I mean think about it. It's not just about a feud, the games are
| literally barred on all computers of a specific type (iOS
| computers). That's like 1/5 (probably more) of the computing
| screen that is looked at daily by all people. I mean at a certain
| point banning that is like banning eating. People gotta eat.
| Doesn't anyone else think it's weird that one organization can
| ban software from being on 1/5 of all computers in the world?
|
| Computing got a lot weirder than it was when I was a kid.
| valparaiso wrote:
| > Next epic lawsuit: Apple must have a justified reason for
| banning a game / account that is outlined in their TOS.
|
| Do you have a dementia? Court clearly ruled Apple is not
| obligated to reinstate Fortnite/Epic in Apple Store because
| they breached the contract and court can't force one business
| to work with another. It's not communist Russia.
| [deleted]
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| 20% of computers that you can CHOOSE to use. I think the main
| part of the lawsuit is that Apple is not the only choice that
| is available (readily, easily, affordably) to consumers.
|
| Subway has the most franchise stores in the USA; that doesn't
| mean they HAVE to serve you. You can get a sandwich at a number
| of other places and more abstractly, you can get food at a
| number of other places. They don't need to give you a reason
| why they won't let you in, though politely they might (i.e.
| please wear shoes in the store)
| mattcantstop wrote:
| I understand Apple's decision to do this. They want to stick it
| to Epic. Completely understandable desire on Apple's part. But,
| sadly, Apple is letting their desire to get vengeance outweigh
| the interests of their users in having all the games they want to
| play on their devices.
|
| I have been realizing lately that my loyalty to Apple has been
| waning over the years after having invested heavily in the
| ecosystem. This is another representation to me of how Apple's
| ecosystem is something you have no control over, and you are at
| the whim of Apple's legal team in situations like that to be able
| to play the games you want to play on your devices.
|
| Apple remembered their corporate games they were playing and
| forgot who their real customer and focus should be: the end
| users. This decision doesn't benefit their end users in any
| meaningful way. It hurts end users to score points in their feud
| with Epic.
| collsni wrote:
| That's Apple's whole model. Glad you figured it out
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Apple is letting their desire to get vengeance outweigh the
| interests of their users in having all the games they want to
| play on their devices.
|
| Post-NeXT (or at least post-iPod) Apple has _always_ been about
| total control of user experience, not letting users do all of
| < _whatever category of activity_ > that they want.
|
| I don't think that vengeance is necessary to explain this.
| abbub wrote:
| Meh. In the grand scheme of things, Apple doesn't even make the
| top ten list of shady businesses this modern lifestyle forces
| me to engage with. :/
| kbenson wrote:
| Is that a good reason to give them a pass? By that reasoning,
| you probably shouldn't mind if you're out eating and someone
| walks up to you and just takes your plate of food for
| themselves. Honestly, it's probably not in the top ten of
| problems you deal with in a month or week.
| tyingq wrote:
| I think Apple is also risking what this all looks like to
| lawmakers. Lawmakers who currently seem to be in a frenzy
| around anti-trust and/or anti-competitive behavior.
| syshum wrote:
| Where you are wrong is believing Apple considers its users
| customers...
|
| They do not, this clear by the way they handle the ecosystem.
| See a customer buys something from a company, after which they
| own it
|
| Apple on the other hand does not have customers, they can not
| because they do not sell anything, dont be fooled by the high
| prices, and verbiage that indicates you are "buying" something,
| marketing that in a sane and just society would be considered
| illegal as deceptive
|
| No no, you simply rent the device from apple for a period of
| time determined by apple, and are given permission to use the
| device in ways only the owner (Apple) approves.
| itwy wrote:
| Exactly this. I bought iPad Pro to play Fortnite with my
| nephew, and in less than a month it was removed. Epic broke the
| agreement, fine remove them from the App Store, but there's no
| reason to not being able to install the game from an external
| source except for Apple's greed. I, for one, not going to
| purchase anything from Apple anymore. I spent over 20k on Apple
| devices in the last 8 years or so.
| JiNCMG wrote:
| a month in? You could have gotten a full refund still use
| that money to buy a couple of Nintendo Switches (better
| mobile experience).
| tenaciousDaniel wrote:
| Yep. The time is really good for a new entry in the OS
| landscape. I'd jump ship pretty easily to anything that isn't
| windows.
| melony wrote:
| The issue is vertical hardware integration. None of the
| current mainstream phone brands are good at both.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| > But, sadly, Apple is letting their desire to get vengeance
| outweigh the interests of their users
|
| Of course they are, that's Apple's standard business
| relationship practice. See also why Mac's still don't have an
| Nvidia GPU option, because Apple & Nvidia got in some spat a
| decade ago and Apple has been holding a grudge ever since.
|
| The more Apple brings stuff in-house the less this matters to
| the bottom line, but it shouldn't be surprising. Unless not
| having Fortnite begins to seriously impact iPhone & iPad sales,
| Apple isn't going to care regardless of whether or not it's
| hurting their customers.
| geon wrote:
| Apple wouldn't have gpu options regardless. It's not how they
| market products.
| mzkply wrote:
| I mean, for a company eagerly (and correctly) removing the
| headphone jack for phones, it's the least surprising thing to
| remove GPU options. All that's left is RAM and HDD.
| moomin wrote:
| They're also removing it from iPads, which is a nightmare
| for anyone with small children.
| lancesells wrote:
| This is definitely inferior to a headphone jack but it
| works:
| https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MMX62AM/A/lightning-
| to-35...
| rscoots wrote:
| Ahh nice, a planned obsolescence piece of junk that
| prohibits any other connection to the device while using
| it.
| bangonkeyboard wrote:
| I briefly tried to use that. The Lightning port is
| centered in the case, so it's impossible to use the
| device in landscape without your hand knocking the
| connector loose. No, it doesn't work.
| michaelbrave wrote:
| The main reason flash was killed by Apple was also spite
| toward Adobe, they made valid excuses sure, but spite was the
| driving force
| Gorbzel wrote:
| > The main reason flash was killed by Apple was also spite
| toward Adobe
|
| Prior to and subsequent to Flash (a Macromedia product,
| fwiw) Apple & Adobe have had extensive relationships and
| interaction that are in no way indicative of spite.
|
| The main reason Flash died is because performance & power
| consumption on mobile never got past garbage, despite the
| platform wars going borderline nuclear on the topic.
|
| > they made valid excuses sure,
|
| Perhaps it's my becoming an ol' fogey, but it's crazy to
| see the Apple haters of yesteryear also move toward
| historical revisionism.
|
| While the best approach is to just ignore such FUD like
| "valid excuses, sure", it's also important the record not
| be owned by zealots and those who preach spite.
| virgilp wrote:
| Flash was absolutely NOT killed by Apple. Adobe killed
| Flash, and it was unrelated to Steve Job's letter.
|
| Source: me. Was working at Adobe at the time, probably at
| the thing that actually led to the demise of Flash (not
| that it was my intention in any way to contribute to the
| death of Flash, the decision to kill it was a surprise to
| me as much as it was to anybody else).
| indolering wrote:
| ([?]_[?]) ... please elaborate!
| virgilp wrote:
| I didn't leave _that_ long ago, and don't want to look up
| my contract/NDA to see when it expires, so I don't want
| to go into too much detail.
|
| Flash cost Adobe a lot to develop (it was a big team). At
| some point, I speculate[+] that Adobe simply decided they
| no longer need the runtime, since the browsers have/will
| soon have all the capabilities that they need, natively.
| So why waste the money?
|
| [+] I don't know for sure (e.g. I didn't participate
| directly in the decision); but still, I believe my
| speculation is much more informed that the typical net
| user who just noticed the coincidence and wanted to
| believe the narrative.
| snvzz wrote:
| NVIDIA is well hated by the industry. They tend to screw
| their partners. They're also very aggressive with litigation.
|
| I am not surprised Apple hates their guts, too.
| asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
| Yes, but we are talking about the interests of users here.
| The idea that apple would prevent Nvidia GPUs from being
| used with their machines is further to the point of Apple
| putting its grudges ahead of the interests of their
| customers.
| snvzz wrote:
| I honestly don't see how using NVIDIA would be in the
| interest of users.
|
| e.g. AMD's GPUs have full documentation, and high quality
| open source drivers. Same deal with Intel.
|
| NVIDIA, you have to deal with their blob, and tough luck
| if it doesn't work, especially if NVIDIA has decided not
| to support your hardware anymore. They do that fairly
| quickly. In that sense, their GPUs are comparable with
| PowerVR, and your average shitty android SoC.
| stephenr wrote:
| s/got in a spat/had years of repeated customer issues because
| of GPUs shitting the bed/
| passivate wrote:
| I think it was a system design issue because of lack of
| proper cooling from the integrator (Apple). Maybe someone
| can look it up, I'm going off of memory here..
| kllrnohj wrote:
| Yeah, inadequate cooling caused the BGA to pop free, with
| the recall "fix" being to just add some rubber to smash
| it down. iirc Apple tried to blame Nvidia for it and
| Nvidia didn't take it, blaming instead Apple's design.
|
| Since then Apple has repeatedly had inadequate cooling
| and power delivery issues, just typically resulting in
| throttling instead of recalls. Sooo Nvidia was probably
| accurate and it was Apple's fault. But regardless of
| whose fault it was, the end result is consumers were
| stuck with some truly second-tier GPUs for many years
| stephenr wrote:
| ... what are you talking about? The fix was to replace
| the mainboard. I know this, because I had it done several
| times.
| tdeck wrote:
| Apple has a long history of inadequate cooling,
| ostensibly because Steve Jobs hated fans. The apple II
| overheated, the apple III famously overheated (causing
| the motherboard to warp and chips to pop out), the
| original macintosh had no fan either. For decades there
| was a suite of aftermarket fans for Apple computers,
| although that's less practical with a laptop.
| takeda wrote:
| > apple III famously overheated
|
| it was so reliable it failed 100% times :)
| busterarm wrote:
| Apple's slavish obsession with passive cooling, indeed.
| It doesn't matter how many times it has been proven to be
| a bad idea, they're still going to use it.
| lostlogin wrote:
| The M1 Air seems to be a well liked machine.
| busterarm wrote:
| It's taken them 20 years since the G4 Cube and several
| other no-fan, overheat-plagued models to figure it out.
|
| Sad for all the customers along the way that suffered
| through all the failed attempts.
| stephenr wrote:
| What are you talking about passive cooling? The machines
| in question were noisy as fuck when they got hot, due to
| fan noise.
| tharkun__ wrote:
| I'm not sure it's such a bad idea. You can take it too
| far of course.
|
| I for one love passive cooling. I select my (no Apple
| hardware in my house) hardware for silent operation where
| possible. Started with selecting the right fans and sound
| proofing my desktop PCs back when and now I'm only buying
| laptops that do well with the cooling noise. Meaning, if
| all I do is browsing HN, you better not turn on any fans
| on me. And when a fan is turned on, it has to be silent
| and have the right "sound profile". There's just some
| noise that's very very irritating and the decibels are
| just one aspect of it.
|
| So if someone does everything they can to do without
| active cooling, I support that. Now if they can't, put
| the right kind of fan in there, sure. E.g. on a GPU I'm
| fine with some cooling noise, but it better only happen
| when I'm likely not to notice because I'm loudly slaying
| aliens or something like that.
| rasz wrote:
| No, this was 100% Nvidia material engineering fail and
| affected whole industry. Dell, HP, all heavyweights had
| huge costly recalls. Apple cooling strategy of having
| internals as close to 100C "to keep the fan noise down"
| might of contributed to earlier failures, but pretty much
| _every single_ Nvidia G84/G86 series GPU died in same
| way.
|
| https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2010/10/nvidia-
| settle...
| kllrnohj wrote:
| Apple had more failures than just that series, such as
| the GT 650M's in the 2012 models:
| https://www.anandtech.com/show/8994/apple-initiates-
| video-re...
| JiNCMG wrote:
| No multiple laptop manufacturers had this same issue.
| Toshiba and Sony were two of them. Heat was the cause but
| it was operating within the specs of the GPU
| manuafacturer. The issue that soured NVidia with these
| manufacturer was when it came to fixing the issues they
| told them to go suck it. Example when Seagate had an
| entire batch of 2.5 drives dying within a year of
| manufacturing, they worked with Apple and HP to get them
| replaced and the cost was shared by both.
|
| Also NVidia has issues with their driver development and
| refuse to let Apple have a say in it.
| passivate wrote:
| >The issue that soured NVidia with these manufacturer was
| when it came to fixing the issues they told them to go
| suck it.
|
| Hmm, I don't think this is accurate. As per their filing
| with the SEC, NVIDIA pledged $150 million to cover
| damages.
|
| https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000119312
| 508...
| smoldesu wrote:
| In no way thanks to Apple's insistence on using weak solder
| and forcing the device to be as thin as possible. I've
| heard people argue this up and down the street, but I have
| a hard time believing it when most Windows/Linux devices
| have no problem managing their thermals in a way that
| doesn't destroy their hardware.
| stephenr wrote:
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2008/07/nvidia-denies-
| rumors...
|
| It affected a bunch of manufacturers.
| rasz wrote:
| How did Apple "weak solder" affect HP laptops?
| https://techcrunch.com/2008/07/10/nvidia-tries-to-cover-
| up-d...
| AltruisticGapHN wrote:
| It's literally just one game? Fortnite? Which is really a cash
| cow at this point. Epic couldn't care less about you, or
| smaller developers. Which is what is most disingenuous on their
| part, to pretend like they're the "small guy".
| davidw wrote:
| I tried to explain the details to my son, but he's just
| disappointed that he can't play a game he liked. He wants to
| buy a Windows computer and is saving up for it.
|
| Trying to get him interested in writing a bit of code, which to
| me is more fun in some ways than playing games, without pushing
| it too hard, and so far no luck.
| ehnto wrote:
| Have you been framing the coding as a way to make games?
| Basically the only reason I'm here was because I thought
| making games would be rad, then I realized programming on
| it's own is pretty rad, and then eventually adult life showed
| up and it was a natural step to make it a career.
| ye_olde_gamer wrote:
| Maybe let him try modding existing games? Steam's community
| workshop pages are thriving, especially for easily modded
| titles like Bethesda games.
|
| Back in the day, Warcraft III had a built-in script and level
| editor and people thrived on making mods and entire new types
| of games with it (murder mysteries, tower defense, battle
| royale, DOTA...). It's how I got my start as a coder, modding
| games that I enjoyed without the boring pressure of "business
| logic".
|
| I think Fortnite itself has a creative mode with limited
| logical programming:
| https://www.firetechcamp.com/course/build-an-escape-room-
| in-...
|
| Proper modding support is supposed to arrive soon:
| https://www.pcgamer.com/fortnite-creative-mod-support/
| davidw wrote:
| Cool! Any other games like that that people can recommend?
| Bonus points if it's fairly easy to get started.
| ye_olde_gamer wrote:
| I think there's a slight distinction to be made between
| "games that have built-in low/no-code content editors"
| and "games that can be modded via an SDK, but you have to
| code".
|
| The former are good for any creative kid (or adult!) and
| don't require you to learn a programming language, just
| logical thinking (as in logic gates/flows). The latter,
| depending on tooling, can require everything from simple
| Lua scripts (a common game modding language) all the way
| up to learning UnrealEngine or Unity.
|
| Games with built-in content editors:
|
| * Warcraft & Starcraft series (oldies but goodies)
|
| * Fortnite
|
| * Minecraft
|
| * Neverwinter Nights series
|
| * Divinity: Original Sin series
|
| * Age of Empires series
|
| Code-moddable games: Too many to list, see here: https://
| store.steampowered.com/tags/en/Moddable/#p=0&tab=Top...
|
| In particular I'd check out Warcraft, Neverwinter Nights'
| DM mode, and the DOS editor for a good sampling of what
| the industry can offer. They are a great stepping stone
| to actual programming, with triggers, conditionals, and
| other flow control structures all wrapped behind a veneer
| of fantasy gaming.
|
| (edit: sorry for potato formatting. no idea how HN
| handles text formatting)
| [deleted]
| ye_olde_gamer wrote:
| Side note, but fun fact! Fortnite, the uberpopular battle
| royale game, is actually itself a mod of the original
| Fortnite (now called "Fortnite: Save the World").
|
| Originally a tower defense game (you build structures and
| traps to defend your base against invading alien zombies),
| some Epic & Unreal Tournament developers decided to fork it
| into a PvP (competitive player-vs-player) battle royale game
| instead, loosely based off Player Unknown's Battlegrounds.
|
| It became a surprise hit, propelling Fortnite from "niche DIY
| tower defense game" to global pop-culture phenomenon.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortnite_Battle_Royale#Develop.
| ..
|
| (edit: this was reposted... old comment was in the wrong
| thread)
| cortesoft wrote:
| I don't necessarily agree with Apple here, but couldn't your
| same arguments be made against Epic? They want to "stick it" to
| Apple and are harming their customers in the mean time?
|
| What this comes down to is an argument over money, and what
| percentage apple should get of that money. I don't think either
| company has a moral high ground in their negotiations on what
| percentage apple deserves.
| kerng wrote:
| Epic is the customer here also and they want to be able to
| provide a convenient and cheaper way for their customers.
| Their asks are not only reasonable, they are consumer
| friendly.
|
| Apple is just being a bully.
| dimitrios1 wrote:
| Imagine you want to sell a valuable, consumer friendly
| product that is cheaper than some alternatives and will
| save people money, but in this case, in a brick and mortar
| store.
|
| The brick and mortar store says "we agree to stock your
| product, and will take 30% off the top for our troubles."
|
| Would we be saying the same things? It's the same dynamic,
| in my view.
| fallingknife wrote:
| If there were only 2 stores in the world and they both
| had exactly the same policy, then yes I would say the
| same thing.
| ttmb wrote:
| And then the brick and mortar store says "oh and also we
| want 30% of anything the customer purchases through your
| product for ever" -
|
| Yes, yes I do think we would be saying the same things.
| passivate wrote:
| Disagree. Adding 100 files on an FTP site is nowhere near
| as complicated as adding 100 boxes of frozen yogurt in a
| grocery store. Physical goods occupy space, need
| (sometimes) specific storage conditions, packaging, etc.
| We need to re-evaluate these concepts for digital-only
| goods. I'm not denying that running a store has costs,
| but grabbing 30% of sales for a digital-only good is
| immoral IMHO.
| sam0x17 wrote:
| This analogy only works if you modify it:
|
| There are only two chains of brick and mortar store in
| the world and one with double digit market share (Apple)
| has decided to take 30% off the top for all goods sold in
| all of their stores and have banned products from having
| any indication on their packaging that they can be
| purchased elsewhere for different pricing. Entering any
| store also requires an extremely expensive chain-specific
| device that most people purchase on credit every few
| years, eliminating the ability to easily shop around at
| both chains.
|
| If this were to happen outside of tech, the perpetrator
| would get crushed by anti-monopoly legislation.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| It's even worse than that, because each of the stores are
| in different cities and if your customers want to
| patronize the other store they first have to move to the
| other city.
| sam0x17 wrote:
| See my edit regarding "you need an expensive chain-
| specific device" to enter any store belonging to a chain.
| chrischen wrote:
| An App distributed on the immensely popular iOS platform
| can be used to advertise alternative platforms at
| different pricing. The "fair" price if this was allowed
| to happen would be a 0% cut since no one in their right
| mind would pay any amount extra if given the option.
|
| The only real restriction Apple currently has is that
| apps should do no such advertising of alternative
| platforms (payment methods).
|
| All arguments about the fairness of this are moot because
| see Netflix, which happily complies with these rules and
| avoids Apple's 30% cut.
| https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/31/netflix-stops-paying-
| the-a...
| sam0x17 wrote:
| > An App distributed on the immensely popular iOS
| platform can be used to advertise alternative platforms
| at different pricing. The "fair" price if this was
| allowed to happen would be a 0% cut since no one in their
| right mind would pay any amount extra if given the
| option.
|
| Prior to the recent ruling, this was untrue (unless I'm
| mistaken).
| chrischen wrote:
| What is untrue?
| root_axis wrote:
| To make the analogy accurate it would need to be
| stipulated that this brick and mortar store is the only
| place that customers can go to buy products.
|
| edit: I wouldn't even say "two chains" like a sibling
| comment suggests because the reality is that customers
| have to invest hundreds of dollars on an exclusive
| membership to one or the other, picking and choosing from
| both is not an option.
| gambiting wrote:
| Except that it's not. The ruling clearly stated that
| Apple has to allow other payment providers _inside_ the
| apps, but obviously anything sold on the App Store can
| still attract the 30% payment fee.
|
| In your example, it's like if you bought a TV from
| Walmart, took it home, and then any content you wanted to
| buy on that TV had to have a 30% fee paid to walmart
| since....that's where you bought it originally? It
| doesn't make sense there, and it doesn't make sense here.
| When epic sells you a fortnite skin within fortnite,
| apple provides literally no value to this transaction,
| other than being a gatekeeper between two legitimate
| sides wishing to engage in a business transaction - so
| that's why Epic wanted to make sure they can process
| their own payments within the app(and the court has
| agreed).
| jungturk wrote:
| What if the TV manufacturer could set a $0 retail price
| on the television and then charge the user on-device
| subscription fees to recoup a profit?
|
| Would Walmart be interested in that? Seems like their
| retail cut would be sliced to $0 in that situation
| despite doing the retail work.
| wvenable wrote:
| What if the TV manufacturer didn't even need retail
| distribution because they have their own warehouses,
| trucks, etc and will gladly send you a TV for $0 and
| charge on-device subscription fees to cover it.
|
| But sadly, you bought your home in a neighborhood with an
| HOA, and even though you own your home, the HOA requires
| all retail purchases have to go through them, and they
| take a 30% cut of everything and they won't let you order
| that TV directly from the manufacturer to put in your
| house.
|
| But this is ok, because this is what you agreed to when
| you bought your home.
| jungturk wrote:
| Great analogy.
|
| Is that ok? It would seem that people entered the
| contract together without duress?
|
| Are there other neighborhoods? Run by other HOAs with
| better terms? Isn't it a market contest at that point to
| see which one buyers will prefer?
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| No it would not be okay, factories used to pay their
| workers with coupons to be spent exclusively in company
| stores.
| wvenable wrote:
| They definitely entered into that contract without
| duress.
|
| But the majority of other neighborhoods are also run by
| HOAs with similar terms. There are a few neighborhoods
| that are completely free of HOAs that but those houses
| are not as nice and neighborhoods not as nice. If you
| want a nice house in a nice neighborhood, an HOA is your
| only option.
|
| I'm positive some people, if they had the option, would
| prefer to buy their current house free of the HOA.
| Others, on the other hand, like that HOA protects their
| neighborhood and don't care that they can't paint their
| house a different color or buy TV's directly from
| manufacturers.
|
| Sadly, the house and neighborhood you want determines
| whether or not you'll have to enter into that contract
| with a particular HOA.
| someluccc wrote:
| Well but that TV requires power lines to operate, and
| fiber to get its content. Insofar as the neighborhood (or
| whoever) paid for those, they deserve a cut too.
| wvenable wrote:
| The HOA forces you to use their power and fiber, so in
| that case sure. But if you could get power and fiber
| directly from the TV manufacturer or someone else, then
| the HOA doesn't need a cut.
|
| In this case, the TV manufacturer already has all that
| infrastructure and they use it in neighborhoods without
| an HOA. It would be no cost to you or the HOA for you use
| it but the HOA just doesn't allow it. For obvious
| reasons, of course, because then they wouldn't get their
| cut.
| conk wrote:
| If HOAs are so bad why does anyone buy a home in an HOA
| neighborhood?
|
| If iOS only running Apple's signed code is so bad why do
| people keep buying iOS devices?
| wvenable wrote:
| You want a nice home in a nice neighborhood or a nice
| phone with a nice OS. Maybe you want to avoid an HOA but
| the home/phone you want isn't available without it. You
| can always choose another phone/home in another HOA
| controlled neighborhood. Or alternatively you could get a
| PinePhone or a crack house.
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| Then you'd have a different situation. The warehouses,
| trucks etc are the app store and iPhones. In order for
| that TV manufacturer to have their own, they'd have to
| build their own devices, OS and cloud services.
| wvenable wrote:
| The iPhone is your house -- you own that. The HOA is
| Apple -- the people who make the rules. The trucks and
| warehouses are the servers and the internet.
|
| Epic already runs a store they don't need the app store
| to distribute their apps and do payments. They're only
| required because Apple gives them no other option.
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| Apple isn't an HOA, HOAs dictate what people can do with
| houses that the HOA had no hand in building. Apple built
| the houses and the logistics network that made building
| and selling them possible.
|
| Also, the majority of people do not own their houses,
| banks do. Try financing a house and then stop servicing
| your loan. That's essentially what Epic has done:
| breached contract.
|
| Epic's "store" is an app, and evidently they _do_ need
| Apple to distribute it to Apple devices, unless you can
| tell me how to install it right now on my device?
| wvenable wrote:
| You're muddying the issue here on purpose. Mortgages are
| irrelevant to the analogy. The logistics network is
| irrelevant. If you buy a TV, there is a big logistics
| network in making and building them too -- so what?
|
| > unless you can tell me how to install it right now on
| my device?
|
| This is the dictionary definition of begging the
| question. You can't install apps on the iPhone because
| you can't install apps on the iPhone -- that's not an
| argument.
|
| Software distribution and installation, historically, not
| required an "app store". That's a relatively new
| invention.
| shkkmo wrote:
| > The ruling clearly stated that Apple has to allow other
| payment providers inside the apps
|
| This was widely misreported as true, but is in fact not
| what the judge ruled. If you read the full ruling rather
| than just the single page injuction, it seems that the
| only thing that Apple is being forced to allow is in-app
| communication about / linking to places outside the App
| where purchases can be made.
|
| In fact, the Judge goes so far as to say that Apple can
| still legally use their contracts with developers to
| require Apps to pay commission on out of app purchases.
| This case was a far bigger win for Apple than was
| initially reported.
|
| To fix this, we need new legislation. The courts seem
| clear so far that they can't reign in this behavior using
| the existing laws on the books.
| smachiz wrote:
| What about in app payments in XBox or PS4? It will not
| surprise you to know they also take 30%.
|
| I can't help but notice that Fortnite is also available
| in the PS4 store as well.
|
| This is simply Epic doing their own money grab against
| the the platform they can most afford to alienate:
| >The documents show that from March 2018 to July 2020,
| the >breakdown of Fortnite revenue by platform was
| as follows: >PS4: 46.8% >Xbox One:
| 27.5% >Android, Switch, PC: 18.7% >iOS:
| 7%
|
| This is a flyer for Epic to try to take a bigger
| percentage from their ecosystem partners and devalue
| them. Commoditize your complement. And they simply
| started with the one they could afford to alienate.
| izacus wrote:
| > What about in app payments in XBox or PS4? It will not
| surprise you to know they also take 30%.
|
| What about it? It's the same kind of anticompetitive
| practice. Except that Apple devices are used by billions
| every day across whole software market and consoles are
| entertainment devices used with much narrower market
| impact. Punishing them is less urgent.
| lacksconfidence wrote:
| I don't have links handy but Sweeny directly addressed
| this. Sony and Microsoft are willing to negotiate with
| Epic. They get to find a middleground that both sides are
| happy with. Apple does not negotiate, a developer that
| has $5 in sales get's the same deal as Epic. Sweeny
| stated that if Apple had been willing to negotiate
| similar to Microsoft and Sony then we wouldn't be here.
| dhosek wrote:
| If Apple had negotiated with Epic, we'd all be arguing
| about how unfair it is that Epic gets a better deal than
| everyone else.
| ye_olde_gamer wrote:
| Eh, we'd probably just have kept buying Fortnite skins
| and never have heard about this to begin with.
|
| If nothing else, Epic managed to lower in-app commissions
| for small indie devs, which is a small win at least.
| takeda wrote:
| That's a good point. Not a big Apple fan, in fact I hate
| most what they do, but for that particular thing I don't
| agree with Epic. Those things are anti-competetive and
| hurt everyone else.
| kgc wrote:
| Apple does negotiate. See Netflix and Amazon.
| chrischen wrote:
| I believe Gamestop has that kind of deal where they get a
| cut of digital store purchases for the consoles.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| rdsnsca wrote:
| The judge did say Apple has a right to collect a commission
| , but did't rule if 30 % was fair.
|
| "First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings
| of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its
| licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple's
| intellectual property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple
| could still charge a commission on developers. It would
| simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that
| commission.
|
| Indeed, while the Court finds no basis for the specific
| rate chosen by Apple (i.e., the 30% rate) based on the
| record, the Court still concludes that Apple is entitled to
| some compensation for use of its intellectual property. As
| established in the prior sections, Apple is entitled to
| license its intellectual property for a fee, and to further
| guard against the uncompensated use of its intellectual
| property. The requirement of usage of IAP accomplishes this
| goal in the easiest and most direct manner, whereas Epic
| Games' only proposed alternative would severely undermine
| it. Indeed, to the extent Epic Games suggests that Apple
| receive nothing from in-app purchases made on its
| platforms, such a remedy is inconsistent with prevailing
| intellectual property law."
| kerng wrote:
| yeah, reasonable commmission seems like 2-4 percent here.
| I don't think consumers should have to pay more for it.
|
| And most important, apps should have no restrictions
| whatsover to have payments inside their own app
| ecosystem!
| swman wrote:
| Or just have the flat developer fee cover it unless your
| app hits like 100k plus download or something.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| Commission does not matter. It could be 300%. What
| matters is whether users can use another method of
| payment without artificial difficulties. If I can press
| "Apple Pay" and pay $120 or I can press "Paypal" and pay
| $40, I'd choose Paypal. If it would be $41 vs $40, I'll
| consider Apple. But that's me. Some people surely value
| Apple services more than me. So when competition is
| allowed, Apple will be able to price their commission
| competitively.
| apple4ever wrote:
| Bingo. There is no reason I have to go to a website to
| buy a book to read on my book reader app, other than
| Apple being a bully.
| lostlogin wrote:
| Characterising Apple as bullying Amazon is interesting.
| The ebook example is quite a fraught one and Apple
| roundly lost that battle.
| fossuser wrote:
| Yeah - I think Apple's 30% cut is a racket and a bad
| incentive for them. They should make money by shipping
| incredible products, not taxing everyone who builds for
| them.
|
| That said, I like the app store rules they can enforce
| like IAP - I just don't think they should be taking a
| cut. If they want to charge a flat one time fee of like
| $100 to publish then fine, but profit sharing seems wrong
| to me.
|
| My worry is their aggressiveness in defending their tax
| will cause blow back that damages their ability to
| leverage their rules. A worse outcome is one where they
| keep the tax, but app devs are allowed around the rules.
| This is starting to happen (an admittedly tiny bit) by
| them being forced to allow links out to sign up off of
| the phone.
|
| If they just forced people to use IAP for their user's
| benefit (easy cancellation, easy account subscription
| tracking and privacy, easy payment), but didn't take a
| cut that would be the best outcome for their users and
| it'd be an easier argument to win in the public eye.
| [deleted]
| gpm wrote:
| > What this comes down to is an argument over money, and what
| percentage apple should get of that money
|
| A lot of things have been litigated in this dispute, this is
| not one of them. What this comes down to is questions about
| control over iPhones and contents of apps, questions the
| court was asked to answer were things along the lines of:
|
| - Whether Apple can restrict iPhones to only installing
| software received via Apple.
|
| - Whether Apple can control how software installed through
| their platform collects in app payments.
|
| - Whether Apple can control how software installed through
| their platform informs users about not-in-app ways to pay.
|
| ...
|
| Not "what cut is appropriate". That wasn't the legal or moral
| point.
| Paianni wrote:
| How do Epic's games benefit users in meaningful ways over any
| of the other non-exploitative games on the App Store?
| fishywang wrote:
| Why does that matter? What does "meaningful ways" even mean?
| And "meaningful ways" according to who, the user or Apple?
| Paianni wrote:
| Don't ask me, ask the parent comment poster.
| EvRev wrote:
| Think about what is important to the demographic that is
| playing Fortnite, is playing the game more important or is
| having an Apple device?
|
| There are kids that are in elementary school that wear
| Fortnite clothing. The brand is everywhere. I am sure some
| actuary did the math on it so that Apple will come ahead,
| but the optics on something like this will sway brand
| loyalty for years in this demographic.
| [deleted]
| ye_olde_gamer wrote:
| Fortnite notwithstanding, Epic also makes the Unreal Engine,
| which is one of the biggest ones alongside Unity --
| especially for cross-platform games. Hindering iOS
| development of UE will affect a lot of other game devs, both
| huge and indie.
| rdsnsca wrote:
| Unreal Engine is under a different developer license than
| the one Apple canceled, though the judge did rule it would
| be legal for Apple to cancel all of Epics licences.
|
| "(2) a declaration that (i) Apple's termination of the DPLA
| and the related agreements between Epic Games and Apple was
| valid, lawful, and enforceable, and (ii) Apple has the
| contractual right to terminate its DPLA with any or all of
| Epic Games' wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or
| other entities under Epic Games' control at any time and at
| Apple's sole discretion."
| ye_olde_gamer wrote:
| Epic's first-party games are often a showcase /
| development driver for new versions of UE, though (the
| way Unreal, the game, first popularized UE, the engine).
| If Epic can't publish their own games on iOS anymore,
| they would have less incentive/ability to iterate UE on
| that platform even if that license wasn't canceled.
|
| It's a loss for cross-platform gaming altogether. Apple
| just really doesn't give a damn about their users =/
| SeanA208 wrote:
| > How do Epic's games benefit users in meaningful ways over
| any of the other games on the App Store?
|
| They benefit the users who want to play those games. Fortnite
| in particular is huge.
| bashinator wrote:
| On top of that, there's a pretty strong argument to be made
| that Fortnite is as much about socialization and open-ended
| interaction as it is a game. Apple banning what's
| potentially a next-generation social network from their
| platform isn't a great look.
| lkois wrote:
| But it has guns so it makes the children violent. Social
| gun violence (aka gangbanging) is not the rule of moral
| acomjean wrote:
| This is true.
|
| As an adult who's partner plays and plays occasionally,
| Its honestly really about group chatting (voice comms)
| with friends/relatives as much as it is about the game
| for us. I mean the game is silly and fun, but really its
| a group thing. I almost never play when not with friends.
|
| And occasionally there are group events/ a concerts and
| movie screenings.
|
| We're all on PCs/ Consoles, but if your a kid a free to
| play game your friends are on you could join in with a
| tablet, would be nice.
| mbreese wrote:
| A counter point is that it was an extremely reckless move
| for Epic to risk the banning of their next-generation
| social network (which to my kids, it definitely is) from
| the largest mobile store. Epic thought they were forcing
| Apple's hand, but they lost in court on the points they
| really cared about the most. And they got confirmation
| that Apple was well within their rights to cancel the
| developer account.
|
| I'm not sure the risk was worth it... especially since
| they didn't need to take that risk to file the lawsuit.
|
| From the first moments, Epic has been running a PR
| campaign, which doesn't really help you in court.
| xyzzy21 wrote:
| It may also be illegal both from an anti-trust legal view and
| from a contract legal view. IANAL but I hire them frequently
| for advice.
| sbuk wrote:
| The judge literally just ruled that it wasn't.
| eldaisfish wrote:
| .. based on precedents where none of them were digital.
| Every single precedent cited in this judgement pre-
| internet.
| etchalon wrote:
| Laws aren't different because "digital".
| lostlogin wrote:
| That doesn't change the ruling. Appeal might, but as
| things stand, this has been litigated.
| pyuser583 wrote:
| The emphasis should be on the customer, not necessarily the end
| user.
|
| Aren't developers also their customers?
| ehnto wrote:
| > I understand Apple's decision to do this. They want to stick
| it to Epic. Completely understandable desire on Apple's part.
|
| Are they businesses or school children?
| sendtown_expwy wrote:
| "Fortnite will be blacklisted from the Apple ecosystem until
| the exhaustion of all court appeals"
|
| It's not about sticking it to them. It's to increase the cost
| of their appeals and pressure them to drop the case.
| Salgat wrote:
| That sounds like "sticking it to them" to me. The alternative
| is that Apple lets them back on, stops paying for an
| expensive lawsuit, and gets extra revenue from fortnite.
| JiNCMG wrote:
| Mobile Fortnite has been dying for over a year before all
| this started so not much of an income. Note: Most gamers
| move over to a non-mobile device for these games or at
| least a Nintendo Switch.
| spzb wrote:
| Sounds like standard lawyer behaviour. They're being paid
| by Apple to look after Apple's interests.
| jensensbutton wrote:
| Are you saying Apple execs have zero say in the strategy
| they choose to pursue regarding the spat with Epic?
| spzb wrote:
| No I'm not but thanks for asking
| stiltzkin wrote:
| What percentage of their users play Epic games as Fortnite?
| achenatx wrote:
| There is no such thing as "fair". There is only what two sides in
| a transaction can agree to and what is legal.
|
| In this case apple is not a monopoly, epic has many other avenues
| to sell their product.
|
| I personally dont like the apple ecosystem, but if they can get
| away with charging 30% they should, until the market doesnt
| support it anymore.
| concinds wrote:
| This article doesn't mention the fact that Apple lied, and that
| Tim Cook "promised" in court that Epic would be let back in the
| app store if they promised to comply with the rules. Epic made
| that _exact_ promise [1]. And now Apple 's telling them: F you.
|
| What's going on at Apple?
|
| [1]: https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/news/apple-lied-
| breaks-... and
| https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/144071146788861543...
|
| And the relevant quote from the Tim Cook testimony:
|
| > Apple has said that banning Epic Games was its only viable
| action, but at the same time, the company offered to let Fortnite
| back in the App Store if it agreed to the App Store rules. "Why
| would Apple do that if Epic is a bad actor?" the lawyer asked
| Cook. "It would benefit users to have them back on the store, if
| they abided by the rules," Cook said. "The user is trapped
| between two companies and it's not the right thing to do to the
| user." Cook said that Apple was not thinking about money at all,
| and Fortnite's revenue was not a consideration.
|
| From: https://www.macrumors.com/2021/05/21/tim-cook-epic-apple-
| tri...
| advanced-DnD wrote:
| > Apple lied... [1]: https://www.epicgames.com...
|
| Yeah, I don't think that is a reliable unbiased source.
| Moreover, wouldn't this invite defamation suit?
| simonh wrote:
| >the company offered to let Fortnite back in the App Store if
| it agreed to the App Store rules.
|
| Epic is not agreeing to the app store rules. They are appealing
| the decision because they *do not agree to the rules* and do
| not want to follow them. As long as that situation stands,
| Apple is not letting them back in.
|
| If Epic drops the appeal and agrees to comply, then Apple has
| indicated they would let them in.
| Closie wrote:
| I think you are arguing semantics, and that 'Agree' usually
| means something different in this context.
|
| Agreeing in this sense usually means 'Agreeing to follow
| rules' rather than 'Agreeing that the rule should exist'.
|
| For instance - I'm sure plenty of developers don't _agree_
| that Apple should get a 30% cut and don 't want to give the
| money to them, but agree to let this happen in order to use
| the store. Most developers probably think that they should be
| able to take platform on any payment platform they wish, but
| again agree not to do it because those are the T&C's. Agree
| usually means 'Agree to do or not do something' rather than
| 'Agree something is the right thing'.
| simonh wrote:
| It's not semantics. You're simply miss-understanding the
| nature of the offer because Epic is misrepresenting it.
| Apple was offering Epic to let them back in the app store
| if they dropped the case, that's what agreeing means, and
| they haven't dropped it.
|
| If Epic wins the appeal, the ruling will be overturned and
| Apple could lose on all points. That's not an acceptable
| situation for Apple and as long as Epic is holding that
| over their heads, Apple won't make a deal.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > Cook said that Apple was not thinking about money at all, and
| Fortnite's revenue was not a consideration.
|
| That's a bald faced lie. Of course it is about the money.
| [deleted]
| olouv wrote:
| On the contrary, I think it is more about making an example
| out of Epic about the severe consequences of litigating
| against apple.
| pram wrote:
| pour encourager les autres
| simonh wrote:
| Apple is giving up a lot of money, likely hundreds of
| millions, by not letting Fortnite back in.
|
| You could argue that in the long term Apple might be
| calculating that the fear effect on other companies might pay
| that back, but that's highly arguable. It's unarguable they
| are giving up a serious amount of reliable income to make
| this point.
| jacquesm wrote:
| You are missing the wood for the trees here: Apple may give
| up some money for the Fortnite game, but meanwhile they get
| to hold on to the money they rake in on other parties'
| products. If they accepted the Fortnite change then they
| would lose that other money, which absolutely dwarfs the
| money made on Fortnite.
|
| I'm a bit surprised that this needs to be explained.
| simonh wrote:
| Apple won the case, they don't have to accept the
| Fortnite changes. In fact the court ordered Epic to
| follow the rules, if Fortnite goes back into the store.
|
| How would letting Fortnite back in the store, and taking
| their money, reduce their revenues from other developers?
| You're not making any sense.
| elif wrote:
| Ehh that is generous to the Fortnite fad. It's definitely a
| fraction of the memetic giant it was even when this
| litigation began.
|
| I would postulate that 80%+ of Fortnite revenue is now from
| the item shop. In which case apple is "sacrificing" 20% to
| try getting the 80%.
| ericmay wrote:
| Maybe tens of millions. Certainly a lot to us, not so much
| to Apple though I'm sure they want the money too (hence the
| whole lawsuit thing).
|
| Epic was ordered to pay $6mm from the case that they lost
| which was sales from pre-installed apps over around a 3
| month period [1] [1]
| https://www.macrumors.com/2021/09/13/epic-games-pays-
| apple-6-million/
| bacro wrote:
| What a utter lie Tim Cook said. Apple only sees money, do not
| try to make this about the user. I would love to have Ricky
| Gervais in the court replying to Tim, just like he did on the
| Golden Globes :D
| speeder wrote:
| Apple made not just a "promise", they made an offer, the judge
| then asked if Epic wanted it, Epic said no.
|
| Now Epic is changing their mind now that the judge ruled they
| did breach the contract, what they were expecting?
| 28626894 wrote:
| Yep. I'm confused. Do people think that Epic won the court
| case, and are therefore in some position to make demands? The
| court ruled in favor of Apple on 9 of 10 issues. Epic has
| proven itself to be a bad faith actor; recall, Epic could
| have remained in compliance and then sued for the right they
| just gained, and then implemented it. But they decided to
| purposefully break the rules they originally agreed to. This
| is the outcome they knew they would get.
| horsawlarway wrote:
| I agree that Apple won in court here, but I think they're
| losing the public perception game pretty badly.
|
| I've never been a big Apple fan - and I speak up about it
| on various forums - up until about two years ago, no one
| really cared.
|
| These last two years... The Anti-Apple sentiment is hitting
| _HARD_. Frankly - It was always an abusive company ( "my
| way or the high way" seems like it could be their company
| motto), but now the products just aren't that good, and it
| shows.
|
| Maybe the M1 devices will buy them some time, lord knows
| they need it after the cluster fuck of a computer that is
| the latest 16 macbook pro (work issued, it's the worst
| laptop I've used in the last 12 years).
|
| But the phones are WAY too expensive for what you get - the
| UI is dissolving into a mess, the laptops are losing all
| the power user features that got folks interested in the
| first case, and the privacy-centric "User first" approach
| they market so hard is visibly turning into a pretty clear
| charade.
|
| My prediction - This is going to be a pyrrhic victory.
| They're going to fight tooth and nail to hang onto this
| revenue stream (which is _clearly_ simple rent-seeking
| behavior), and it 's going to taint developer and user
| opinion across their main market. I personally went from
| "neutral/negative" on Apple to "Will not touch with a 20'
| pole - will not do business with or develop for"
|
| Even at work - We have a large group of developers now
| asking to be issued something other than a macbook. I find
| that pretty damn telling.
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _...I think they 're losing the public perception game
| pretty badly._
|
| Outside of HN and other niche media properties this is an
| _extremely_ obscure battle.
|
| > _...now the products just aren 't that good, and it
| shows._
|
| Does it though? Apple recently reported an almost-50% YoY
| increase in iPhone sales. The iPad had its best June
| quarter in nearly a decade. The Mac set a new June
| quarter revenue record. The last four quarters have been
| the Mac's best four quarters ever. Subjectively, Apple
| products have never been better.
| rchaud wrote:
| A lot of people claimed BlackBerry was finished in 2009,
| when it was still reporting record sales and profits.
|
| Of course Apple is too big to disappear the way BB did.
| But a lot of what made Apple products unique is no longer
| there. Jobs pointed out how OEMs had little brand
| identity and consistency because of the sheer number of
| variations of each product.
|
| Apple today sells 7 different models of iPhone and 5
| different models of iPads. It's on its way.
| horsawlarway wrote:
| I think it does matter - objectively. It doesn't matter
| how many consumers you have on your platform, if you
| don't have content creators you're on life support.
|
| Right now, Apple is still middle of the road - The money
| in their apps ecosystem is holding a lot of developers
| there, but I think they're royally fucked in every legal
| district except the US with regards to the current
| software distribution model. And honestly - that's simply
| because anti-trust/monopoly regulation in the US is an
| unfathomable joke at the moment (it helps that we house
| most of the tech monopolies, so from a nationalistic
| perspective, I understand that the status quo is making a
| lot of people a lot of money).
|
| So does it matter this quarter? Eh - almost certainly
| not. Will it matter in 10 years? Almost certainly yes.
|
| That said, who knows - Apple is damn good at marketing
| still, and it's possible they can leverage the M1
| machines into a dominant position.
|
| ---
|
| As for this year - We're seeing consumer spending in
| electronics up across the board, mostly thanks to
| incentives from covid (cash infusions, more people using
| devices for school/work, more people feel stuck at home
| and consume digital services). And Apple has a good
| supply chain in place to whether the current chip
| shortages, pushing consumers to buy products from Apple
| simply because they're available. Hell, Lenovo revenue is
| also up 50% in the last year, and Samsung is up nearly
| 20% this last quarter. Selling digital devices is a good
| spot to be in during a lockdown of physical spaces.
|
| Again, maybe Apple will be able to ride the wave with the
| M1 devices, but I think extrapolating out from sales
| during Covid isn't all that meaningful.
| threatofrain wrote:
| > (2) a declaration that (i) Apple's termination of the DPLA
| and the related agreements between Epic Games and Apple was
| valid, lawful, and enforceable, and (ii) Apple has the
| contractual right to terminate its DPLA with any or all of Epic
| Games' wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other
| entities under Epic Games' control at any time and at Apple's
| sole discretion.
|
| Lest anyone think Apple is ignoring the court.
| concinds wrote:
| The fact that Apple was allowed by the court to ban them
| indefinitely at their discretion, doesn't change the fact
| that making a public promise, in court (which was widely
| publicised at the time from what I recall) and reneging on it
| when their demands were met, is a little shocking, and
| certainly disappointing.
|
| The last time they made that promise was 8 days ago!
|
| > Apple says it won't let Epic Games back in the App Store
| until they agree to "play by the same rules as everyone
| else."
|
| From https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22666146/apple-epic-
| korea...
| ribit wrote:
| Except the demands were not met. Epic appealed the court
| decision, meaning that they are not ok with the demands.
| nulbyte wrote:
| Following the rules while protesting through a court case
| seems reasonable to me. Just because you flow the rules
| doesn't mean you think they are just. On the other hand,
| retaliating because someone genuinely believes they are
| being disadvantaged is quite the opposite of just.
| notafraudster wrote:
| If your position is "following the rules while protesting
| through a court case seems reasonable", then you agree
| Epic should have followed the rules while protesting
| through a court case instead of deliberately getting
| banned in order to sharpen their PR efforts in support of
| the court case they planned to file.
| mattzito wrote:
| But Epic then promptly turned around and appealed. Why
| should Apple let epic back in when they're saying they will
| "play by the rules" in one breath and saying "we don't
| accept the courts ruling on the rules" in another?
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Appealing a court decision still counts as "playing by
| the rules." Disagreeing about what the rules should be
| shouldn't count as a violation of the rules by itself.
| mattzito wrote:
| Disagreeing about the rules is not a violation of those
| rules, I agree. But it is a statement of intent that you
| plan to not follow the rules if you win your court case,
| which means...you won't be playing by the rules. Seems
| perfectly reasonable to me that Apple wouldn't want to
| give Epic access to their user base back while Epic is
| trying to reverse the decision.
|
| Now, if Epic was not appealing, and Apple refused to let
| them back in, I would agree that is egregious.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| >which means...you won't be playing by the rules
|
| No, it means the rules will be changed.
| j56no wrote:
| while they follow the rules there's no objective reason.
| If Apple is doing so only because they don't like Epic,
| they are abusing their position
| mbreese wrote:
| And Epic doesn't like Apple. These are big companies and
| Epic is not under an existential treat by not having
| access to the AppStore.
|
| Epic started this whole mess by breaking their original
| agreement. And the court explicitly affirmed Apple's
| right to terminate Epic's developer account. If Apple
| were "abusing" their position, that implies they have
| monopoly power in that market, which was not what the
| court determined (rightly or wrongly). Which is the crux
| of Epic's real goals, which they lost.
|
| You could argue that it's not nice or that it's a poor
| business choice (because people will still buy some
| VBucks through IAP), but it's not abusive. Vindictive
| maybe, but not abusive.
|
| And really the only people getting hurt are the players
| who played Fortnite (exclusively?) on their phones or
| iPads. Which ironically includes me...
|
| I think this would be a much larger issue for smaller
| developers who are reliant on access to the iOS market.
| What would happen to a smaller developer that didn't have
| more resources? I think that's a more interesting
| question.
|
| But right now, this is still a Goliath vs Goliath
| situation.
| [deleted]
| evercast wrote:
| I believe the key element here is "if they promised to comply
| with the rules". Since Epic has already filed an appeal, they
| don't seem to express a lot of willingness to comply with the
| rules.
| concinds wrote:
| I believe they have, explicitly:
| https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/phil-schiller-
| letter-2791x1969...
| zsmi wrote:
| I think your mixing actually complying with the rules and
| promising to abide by the rules.
|
| In your quote Cook said "if they abided by the rules" but
| in the Sweeney letter you linked to he said "Epic promises
| that it will adhere to Apple's guidelines". Sweeney didn't
| say they actually did it.
|
| Also, the daringfireball article includes the letter you
| linked to and covered this topic.
| jasode wrote:
| _> Apple lied, and that Tim Cook "promised" in court that Epic
| would be let back in the app store if they promised to comply
| with the rules. Epic made that exact promise [1]. And now
| Apple's telling them: F you._
|
| I think your post inadvertently makes things more confusing.
|
| In short, the situation _changed_ and got a little _more
| complicated_ after Tim Cook previously said they 'd reinstate
| Epic's account.
|
| What are the new changes and complications created by the
| recent judge's ruling? Epic's "promise" has to be dissected
| into 2 component parts:
|
| (#1) _direct_ in-app-purchases. This was the mechanism that
| originally got Epic kicked off the App Store last year. (The
| court ruling still doesn't force Apple to allow this and
| indeed, they reaffirmed this by ordering Epic to pay back $6
| million (the "lost" 30% commissions) to Apple for bypassing
| Apple's in-app-purchases.)
|
| (#2) _informing_ the user of alternative app payments via web
| links, etc. (the "anti-steering" in the court's ruling)
|
| Apple's _current_ guidelines don 't allow for either (1) & (2).
| However, Epic wants to be back in the App Store and immediately
| use option #2 because they feel the judge's ruling to stop
| Apple anti-steering policy should be followed _now_. Apple
| disagrees because they think they have a right to impose anti-
| steering. Hence, everybody is still in appeals process.
|
| Put another way, Sweeney's idea of _" promise"_ does not match
| Cook's expectation of a promise which makes it invalid from
| Apple's perspective.
|
| Contrary to public perception, "anti-steering" is not always
| illegal and Apple's legal team is probably aware of previous
| cases such as American Express winning their anti-steering case
| with The Supreme Court:
| https://www.pymnts.com/legal/2018/supreme-court-amex-case-an...
| concinds wrote:
| So you're saying that Apple won't be forced to comply with
| the anti-steering ruling because Epic's appealing, even
| though Apple didn't appeal? (and seemingly indicated that
| they won't) So Apple can indefinitely keep the anti-steering
| provision, until all appeals are exhausted? That would make
| sense.
|
| Otherwise, I believe the court gave Apple 90 days to comply,
| and I can't see anything in Epic's letter that shows they
| want to be let back in _immediately_ , so I'm unsure what
| this changes.
|
| edit: I base my idea that "Apple hinted that they won't
| appeal" from this:
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/17/22679724/tim-cook-epic-
| ap..., and also based on the fact that Apple, in practice,
| didn't lose anything (they can still force devs to pay 30% on
| "steered" purchases made through the dev's website). But it
| seems some lawyers believe it's possible Apple will still
| appeal, so I shouldn't have been so definitive.
| ericmay wrote:
| I think if Epic dropped the lawsuit after they lost the court
| case then Apple would let them back in the App Store.
| Continuing to fight makes it seem like there's no reason for
| Apple to reinstate Fortnite. [1]
| https://www.macrumors.com/2021/09/13/epic-games-files-appeal-
| against-apple-ruling/ [2]
| https://www.macrumors.com/2021/09/22/fortnite-not-returning-
| to-app-store-until-legal-battle-ends/
| [deleted]
| jmull wrote:
| I don't think Apple is going to reinstate Epic's dev account
| until the lawsuits are over.
|
| They aren't going to enter into a new contract to do business
| with Epic while Epic's breach of their last contract is still
| unresolved.
| Animats wrote:
| I would not be surprised if Epic launched a phone to compete with
| Apple.
|
| Epic partners with Tencent in China for games. Tencent sells a
| "gamer phone", the Black Shark.[1] 90Hz display, liquid cooled.
| All Epic needs to do is offer that in the US. With a bit of
| marketing effort, Epic could make their phone the one the cool
| middle school kids want. Instead of one of those slow Apple old-
| people phones.
|
| [1] https://www.gizchina.com/2020/03/03/tencent-black-
| shark-3-an...
| cheeze wrote:
| > liquid cooled
|
| What!? That's interesting. Guessing it's 'vapor cooled'?
| Animats wrote:
| Probably a heat pipe to spread the CPU and GPU heat around.
| rchaud wrote:
| Epic already has a games store competing with Steam.
|
| Steam Deck is on the way this winter, and will succeed in
| locking down users to a Steam ecosystem (majority won't bother
| replacing SteamOS w/ windows).
|
| An Epic-made handheld gaming device wouldn't be out of the
| question.
| ncr100 wrote:
| This is possible.
|
| Epic has not started doing hardware, as far as I know. And
| they're "hot" on the metaverse, which has a strong opportunity
| for new hardware (AR, etc).
|
| So that could be the future of Tim.
| outside1234 wrote:
| Sounds like retaliation and is anti-competitive. Hope the EU is
| watching.
| sigzero wrote:
| Nope. EPIC knowingly and intentionally violated the contract.
| End of story. It's up to the "good will" of Apple to let them
| back in at this point.
| nikochiko wrote:
| epic games should do "tit vs tat" and ban apple's account from
| playing fortnite
| nikochiko wrote:
| /s
| nikochiko wrote:
| ban tim cook, or his kids
| cblconfederate wrote:
| State of tech 2021: quarrelling about whose monopoly power is
| bigger
| fmakunbound wrote:
| By the time this gets resolved, the world may have moved on from
| Epic's Fortnite cash cow.
| blowski wrote:
| Regarding the footnote, are lawyers covering their arse in some
| way by having "VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL" when they send emails like
| this? Or is that just a convention from the 90s that nobody has
| bothered changing.
| mikl wrote:
| I understand that Apple is pissed at Epic, but this is just petty
| spite. They are a big megacorp now, the need to abandon the habit
| of thinking themselves the underdog. It's unbecoming.
| __void wrote:
| .
| yoz-y wrote:
| A lot of people from here are reading the site so naturally
| they would post it here.
| __void wrote:
| yeah I just read here in some comments that he also makes
| television appearances... i didn't know that, i thought he
| was more of a "internet random guy"! ...you never stop
| learning
| sigzero wrote:
| "Tim Sweeney is high as a kite." is my favorite line out that
| whole thing.
| syspec wrote:
| Lest people think Apple must allow alternative IAP, or bypassing
| their commission.
|
| From the court ruling:
|
| > At step three, Epic Games has identified no suitable less
| restrictive alternative for Apple's use of IAP based on the
| current record. The only alternative that Epic Games proposes is
| that Apple be barred from restricting or deterring in any way
| "the use of in-app payment processors other than IAP." This
| proposed alternative is deficient for several reasons:
|
| > First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of
| facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing
| fee from developers for the use of Apple's intellectual property.
|
| > Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a
| commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for
| Apple to collect that commission
|
| > Indeed, while the Court finds no basis for the specific rate
| chosen by Apple (i.e., the 30% rate) based on the record, the
| Court still concludes that Apple is entitled to some compensation
| for use of its intellectual property.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Epic totally picked the wrong way to approach this...
|
| They should have taken up the issue with the EU competition
| commission and asked them to issue big fines to Apple per day
| they don't allow competing app stores.
| nixpulvis wrote:
| Epic took a stand and we should be behind them 100%. This case
| was never about winning on the letter of the contract law, it was
| about moving the standard of practice and attempting to gain some
| ground against the evils of mega-Apple. If you are reading this
| Grubber post and thinking you agree, that's only because you are
| used to thinking this way by now.
|
| The courts simply do not understand the power companies like
| Apple and Google have apparently. The startup cost of a
| competitor would be astronomical, as we've seen reflected in the
| quality, cost, and size of the small handful of other smartphone
| companies recently. Even if we seem new players become
| competitive, then what's to stop us from being back in this same
| situation in 10 years? 5 years? This is why we have Laws.
|
| Not even to mention that the telecom companies are still working
| against progress and taking absurd cuts for themselves.
|
| Hosting, platforming, and The Web are in crisis, as we're all
| aware. We should be firmly on the side of open access to our
| (developers) content. Why let the platforms eat our lunch? Maybe
| we should just be giving them a snack, or a little treat, but
| even that would just be for "services rendered", not as a
| condition for our meal.
|
| I'm just so fucking done with this, sorry I can't help but be a
| bit angry.
| nixpulvis wrote:
| P.S. This is all part of the broader "Right to Repair" laws,
| just at the software level...
| ncr100 wrote:
| No.
|
| Epic does not own Apple's App Store. They bought a license to
| publish on that platform. Then they violated it and were
| banned. And the judge agree it's Apple's right to do so,
| within limits.
| turdnagel wrote:
| Really, that's not what this lawsuit was about, and the courts
| aren't supposed to tip the scales based the size of companies,
| are they? It's clear we need new laws to deal with the problems
| at hand. The ruling seemed pretty even-handed based on the law,
| even if you disagree with it.
| nixpulvis wrote:
| They failed to even acknowledge the duopoly, simply reciting
| tired anti-trust. I'm by no means an expert, but surely
| someone must come along at some point and take a stand for
| something in order to implement the "new laws to deal with
| the problems at hand", no? Would we be living in a better
| world if only a different judge took the case?
|
| If you have a problem caused by a system you are unwilling to
| change, you cannot be surprised by the perseverance of that
| problem.
| jdminhbg wrote:
| > simply reciting tired anti-trust
|
| That's the judge's job. They're not supposed to come up
| with novel solutions, they're supposed to apply the
| relevant case law.
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| I agree. Unfortunately the politicians who make the laws
| are deeply in the pocket of business and too busy with
| the political circus to actually make laws.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| The $6 million Epic (mentioned in the daringfireball
| piece) had to compensate Apple would've been better spent
| on lobbyists.
| nixpulvis wrote:
| A judge makes judgements.
| spzb wrote:
| And bees make honey. What's your point? Contrary to
| popular opinion, and as explained by the GP, judges only
| interpret the law, they don't make it other than that
| their interpretations can later be cited as case law.
| dkonofalski wrote:
| They didn't take a stand. They just tried to get more money
| under the BS guise of taking a stand. This was the literal
| definition of virtue-signaling.
| pornel wrote:
| When I support game developers by buying their games/DLCs, I
| do want to maximize the amount that actually goes to the
| developer instead of being captured by rent seekers.
| nixpulvis wrote:
| Here's the relevant injunction:
|
| > Apple Inc. and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and
| any person in active concert or participation with them
| ("Apple"), are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from
| prohibiting developers from (i) including in their apps and
| their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to
| action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in
| addition to In-App Purchasing and (ii) communicating with
| customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from
| customers through account registration within the app.
|
| > Tim Sweeney is high as a kite.
|
| I think not... keep shilling for Apple harder.
|
| > Here's where I think Sweeney garnered the legal "go fuck
| yourself". Sweeney is arguing that Apple, which won the
| lawsuit, should interpret the court's anti-steering injunction
| in a way that pleases Epic, which lost the lawsuit. That's not
| how things work.
|
| Is he really trying to argue that the "winner" and "losers" are
| absolute in this case?! Wild.
| jfoster wrote:
| > Why let the platforms eat our lunch? Maybe we should just be
| giving them a snack, or a little treat, but even that would
| just be for "services rendered", not as a condition for our
| meal.
|
| I actually do think the platforms do a whole lot for
| developers; far more than they get credit for, in my opinion.
| For that reason, I think the best option is for them to
| unbundle their app store developer offerings into pieces that
| developers can pick & choose from. (eg. as a developer, would
| you be willing to share 4% extra for a smoother payment
| experience for users?)
|
| I have previously mentioned this in another HN comment:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28369205
| munificent wrote:
| _> I actually do think the platforms do a whole lot for
| developers; far more than they get credit for, in my
| opinion._
|
| I think the interesting question is not whether enormous
| monopolistic trillion-dollar corporations provide value to
| consumers. They clearly must provide _some_ value or they
| wouldn 't exist at all.
|
| The real question is how much _more_ value would consumers
| have in an alternate world where these anti-competitive
| practices were prohibited and these oligopolies were broken
| up into smaller competing companies?
|
| Without a crystal ball, we can't answer that question with
| certainty, but we have to make educated guesses in order to
| have good judgement about the right way to govern the market.
| yarcob wrote:
| I've been an Apple user for more than 20 years, and I really like
| their products, but every year I am feeling more and more
| fleezed.
|
| It pisses me off that they overcharge on storage and memory,
| leading to a situation where everyone who is on a budget
| struggles with artificially limited machines. I understand that
| they need to offer multiple price points to cover the market, but
| I actually preferred it when they just charged more for black.
|
| It annoys me that they arbitrarily block content to enforce their
| weird standards (eg. no nudity allowed) or just whenever they
| feel someone is not paying them enough of their revenue.
|
| It annoys me that their overarching goal is no longer to make the
| best products, but instead the goal is to make you keep buying
| accessories and services even after you already bought their
| stuff.
|
| I dunno. For my home computer I already switched to Windows.
| There's probably lots to complain about with Microsoft as well,
| but I'm surprised how nice some things are after years of
| thinking Apple was so far ahead.
| [deleted]
| Program_Install wrote:
| I am sick of Epic honestly, these companies always feeling
| entitled to someone else's work. With this fake "level playing
| field" nonsense. No one is forcing you to use iOS as your
| delivery platform. Epic is extremely disingenuous in this case,
| if they don't like it they have all the resources to create their
| own mobile device and platform.
| CharlesW wrote:
| A surprising number of people who think of themselves as
| capitalists believe the means of production, distribution, and
| exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a
| whole.
| UnpossibleJim wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Apple_Inc.
|
| They have a section on Apple's anticompetitive behavior and a
| link to quashing smaller companies viewed as competition in the
| past.
|
| I do admire your get up and go, though and I do think more
| people should put up more competition. I'm very break up
| monopoly, which we have quite a few examples of in America,
| using exorbitant market pressures to stifle competition.
| HatchedLake721 wrote:
| That makes sense.
|
| Why would you do business ever again with someone who
| intentionally breached a contract, publicly smeared you with a
| calculated negative PR campaign and then sued you?
|
| After all this you offer them to allow Fortnite back if they
| reverse what they've done that breached the contract. Instead,
| they:
|
| - Reject the offer
|
| - Carry on smearing you
|
| - Lose the court case
|
| - Sweeney says they wouldn't release iOS version with the pricing
| still being the same
|
| - Then they decide to do a PR stunt publicly sending a letter and
| ask to get back into App Store, while hinting they plan to toy
| with the courts ruling by attempting to put an in-app payment
| button that mimics Apple's IAP
|
| And now they play a victim that they're not allowed back in to
| the App Store because they have no other avenue and they lost the
| court case.
|
| Tell me again why would _you_ do business with anyone like that?
| jjordan wrote:
| I think this just highlights the problem inherent in allowing
| Apple to be the sole arbiter of what can run on a device you
| paid for. I should be able to easily install apps that Apple
| hasn't approved, or in this case, has a legal beef with the
| company in question.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| I'm ok with Apple not letting Epic on the App Store so long as
| Apple doesn't forbid me from doing a private business exchange
| with Epic on my device.
| mrtksn wrote:
| > Apple doesn't forbid me from doing a private business
| exchange with Epic on my device
|
| I don't think Apple can do that. What Apple can do, is to not
| allow Epic to use their distribution service, known as
| AppStore.
|
| What you install on your iDevice is your own business and
| Apple cannot do anything about it. That's why jailbreaking
| your device is completely legal, you own your device you paid
| for and you can do whatever you like with it.
|
| Epic can develop a jailbreak or use a jailbreak distribution
| service to distribute their Apps. You can hack your phone and
| if Epic's licensing allows that, you can install Epic games
| yourself. You can hack your phone, install a special
| distribution of Android to you iPhone and install it from
| there.
|
| Apple can't do anything about it. Not easy as tapping a
| button you say? Well Apple is not obligated to make any of
| this easy. They make it very clear that they support app
| installation through Apple AppStore and and no point they
| promise to help you out to install apps through any other
| means. If you want to do that, you will have to do it without
| the help of Apple.
|
| Or you know, don't buy Apple devices if the arrangement
| doesn't work for you.
| mattnewton wrote:
| This seems to be overstating Apple's position as neutral
| here, they are actively hostile to jailbreakers, and Apple
| will try to stop you any way they can.
| dkonofalski wrote:
| Jailbreaking, by definition, is using exploits and
| vulnerabilities in the security of the device to bypass
| said security. Of course Apple is going to try and stop
| that. If they didn't, they'd be admitting that they don't
| care about the security of their devices which is a
| _major_ factor in why people and companies buy their
| devices.
| rscoots wrote:
| Hmm then possibly Apple could simply allow consenting
| users to install software by means other than their
| highly-regulated appstore cash grab.
|
| Every major cosumer 'computer' in history has allowed
| this as far as I can tell. Yet for some reason now in the
| last few years its unthinkable on specifically Apple
| devices. I'm sure it's merely a coincidence they make
| billions of dollars off of this overly draconian
| "security" framework.
| mrtksn wrote:
| I agree. The practical result of the current situation is
| that Apple can choose what apps most people can install
| into the their devices but this needs to be framed
| correctly because Apple actually targets the developers
| and not the users when they practically control the app
| distribution to the devices they sold.
|
| Why is it important? Because when described incorrectly,
| solutions will also be incorrect. Apple doesn't control
| it because Tim Cook gets hard when doesn't allow some
| apps into the phones of the customers. They do it because
| they want to be paid for the intellectual properties and
| opportunities they provide, they also want to be able to
| continue selling iPhones at premium prices and in this
| competitive environment they want to be able to control
| the working of the devices so to provide premium
| experience.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| > they want to be able to control the working of the
| devices so to provide premium experience.
|
| Well too fucking bad. They can offer their premium
| services as a fair competitor in the market and if people
| want that, they can choose it, and if they don't, they
| can choose other things.
| mrtksn wrote:
| > They can offer their premium services as a fair
| competitor in the market and if people want that, they
| can choose it, and if they don't, they can choose other
| things.
|
| Yes, that's exactly the situation. If people don't like
| it, they go buy a Samsung, a Pixel, Xiaomi, a Huawei, a
| Sony etc. There's no need for Apple be compelled do
| anything, there are plenty of options when you don't like
| the Apple offerings.
|
| And those alternatives are not like Bing to Google, these
| are very viable alternatives where Apple is actually a
| small minority of the market. It's %50 in the US and
| much, much less in the rest of the world.
| maxsilver wrote:
| The problem with this logic, is that Apple isn't really a
| "business" in this case. Epic and Apple aren't really "business
| partners". Apple is an unregulated privately-owned quasi-
| government entity with none of the responsibilities or checks
| on authority that a real government has.
|
| You can sue the Post Office, lose your case, and know they
| can't retaliate by stealing all your mail forever. You can sue
| the Department of Labour, lose a case, and still have the right
| to hire employees in the future. You can sue the Fire
| Department, lose a case, and still reasonably trust they won't
| burn down your house. You can sue your local Power Company,
| lose your case, and still trust that they can't unilaterally
| ban you from ever buying Electricity again.
|
| But you _can 't_ ever sue Apple, over _anything_ , ever, no
| matter how evil Apple is, no matter how heinous Apple's
| activity may be. Because no matter how valid or correct your
| complain is, no matter what happens, they'll just black-bag
| your entire digital existence in retaliation.
|
| Apple is acting like a Government, Apple is ruling like a
| Government, but Apple has none of the oversight or
| accountability we'd demand from any reasonable Government.
|
| Folks are thinking of Apple like it's just a video game
| console, when the more apt comparison is Comcast or AT&T. Apple
| shouldn't be _allowed_ to control what does or does not live in
| the App Store, for the same reason that Comcast shouldn 't even
| be _allowed_ to decide what websites or services you do /don't
| use.
| sneak wrote:
| This is patently false. Apple cannot "black-bag your entire
| digital existence".
|
| Just stop using Apple devices. They're not the government.
| judge2020 wrote:
| > for the same reason that Comcast shouldn't even be allowed
| to decide what websites or services you do/don't use.
|
| Internet is not regulated like this. ISPs can and do ban you
| for torrenting or going to certain websites because they're
| not a general utility.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Your post would hold up if the court didn't already decide
| that Apple is not, in fact, a monopoly. The market in the
| lawsuit was defined as "digital mobile game transactions"
|
| https://regmedia.co.uk/2021/09/10/epic-v-apple.pdf
| eldaisfish wrote:
| the court then has a limited understanding of what a fine
| line they are walking, both in legal and practical terms.
|
| Many laws and tests - especially the one used to determine
| monopolistic practices - are horribly outdated and based on
| ideas and assumptions from before the internet age. That
| the court failed to see how an app store where an
| unregulated corporation makes rules without oversight,
| repercussions or much legal precents - is indeed skirting
| the line of what constitutes a monopoly is tragic.
|
| Take a look at that judgement - not a single example exists
| there for digital monopolies. The insidious part of a
| digital monopoly - as already pointed out - is that there
| is no precedent and apple are now the digital equivalent of
| highwaymen.
|
| Expect this to happen more often to the point where these
| laws and tests are updated for the modern age. One that i
| foresee is Amazon and their Basics line of products.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| The court made that decision under the existing legal
| framework. That does not mean, nor even imply, that the
| existing legal framework is fair & just nor that it has
| kept up with modern structures.
| judge2020 wrote:
| This is because courts in the U.S. tend to not try to
| 'legislate from the bench' - if you want laws changed you
| have to get legislators to do it, a lawsuit won't.
| abduhl wrote:
| >> Apple is acting like a Government, Apple is ruling like a
| Government, but Apple has none of the oversight or
| accountability we'd demand from any reasonable Government.
|
| You just listed how Apple is not acting like a government:
| they're retaliating. I don't understand how you can say
| "Apple's retaliatory and discriminatory practices in choosing
| who to do business with is the touchstone of government" at
| the same time you list four perfectly good examples of a
| government entity not being able to do exactly what you say
| is the touchstone of a government.
|
| You're wrong. Apple is a private company. Doing business with
| people you want to do business with, and not doing business
| with people you don't want to do business with (barring
| certain discriminatory practices), is literally what
| distinguishes private companies from government entities. If
| you want to argue that the App Store or iPhones or iMacs or
| MacBooks are somehow critical public infrastructure that
| should be governed by, apparently, common carrier laws then
| you should do that directly.
| Jensson wrote:
| > You just listed how Apple is not acting like a
| government: they're retaliating.
|
| Responsible governments doesn't retaliate, oppressive
| governments tend to retaliate a lot. So you are right,
| Apple isn't acting like a responsible government, but the
| argument was that it is acting like an oppressive one.
| abduhl wrote:
| Somehow acting like Not-X makes you X? If it walks like a
| duck, quacks like a duck, is organized under state laws
| explicitly as a duck, and sits on top of the water like a
| duck, it's an eagle?
| Jensson wrote:
| No, the argument isn't "Apple is like a government since
| Apple is retaliating". The argument is "Apple is like a
| government and therefore shouldn't be allowed to
| retaliate".
|
| And no, saying "They are retaliating and therefore not a
| government" is not a good defence to the argument "Apple
| is like a government and therefore shouldn't be allowed
| to retaliate".
| abduhl wrote:
| I understand the definitional argument that is being
| made, but it still makes no sense. This was the
| statement: " Apple is an unregulated privately-owned
| quasi-government entity with none of the responsibilities
| or checks on authority that a real government has."
|
| A quasi government isn't a government. A privately owned
| and unregulated entity isn't a government. That's the
| whole point. If you beg the question by assuming Apple is
| like a government then of course Apple should be treated
| like a government. But on the face of the analysis,
| they're not like a government. You need to support how
| they're like a government. What about them is like a
| government? Everything the GP talks about are ways that
| Apple is NOT like a government. It does not support the
| argument that they ARE a government.
|
| It's like saying "Apple is a duck, but it isn't acting
| like a duck because it's acting like an eagle!" and then
| when someone says "but Apple is an eagle by law and has
| always been thought of as an eagle, how did they become a
| duck?" you responded with "you're missing the point, I
| said they're a duck so they should act like one!"
| judge2020 wrote:
| The comment makes no arguments for this point, though -
| it establishes an opinion (Apple acting like a
| government) then starts listing off facts like they
| support that argument.
| _fat_santa wrote:
| > The problem with this logic, is that Apple isn't really a
| "business" in this case. Epic and Apple aren't really
| "business partners". Apple is an unregulated privately-owned
| quasi-government entity with none of the responsibilities or
| checks on authority that a real government has.
|
| Are there any parallels in history we can point to for stuff
| like this? Maybe Standard Oil? I've been thinking alot about
| these massive companies lately, they are so massive and so
| intertwined in our society that maybe we should consider a
| new class of laws and regulations for these companies.
|
| I think we should have a new class of laws and regulation
| called "for the common good" or something like that, and
| apply it to companies that have more than say 100M users. The
| libertarian in me hates this, but I think we also have to
| consider that these companies are larger and more influential
| then we ever though possible.
| weixiyen wrote:
| I agree with this, Epic is forcing Apple into a no-win
| situation where they either do what Epic wants or come off
| very poorly to regulators.
|
| Epic doesn't need to win this specific court case to get what
| they want, all they need is for this to stay top of mind for
| lawmakers to change the rules in favor of developers.
| Razengan wrote:
| > _Apple is an unregulated privately-owned quasi-government
| entity_
|
| JFC
|
| Apple allows 3rd-party shit on Macs. The App Store is a
| store, just like Google Play and Steam etc. And iPhones and
| iPads are a platform, just like the PlayStation, Xbox, or
| Nintendo Switch etc.
|
| Show us one instance where someone violated the T&C of any
| other store or platform and were still allowed to continue to
| do business there.
| vibrato2 wrote:
| United States federal interstate system
| maxsilver wrote:
| > iPhones and iPads are a platform, just like the
| PlayStation, Xbox, or Nintendo Switch etc.
|
| Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point. : Folks are
| thinking of Apple like it's just a video game console, when
| the more apt comparison is Comcast or AT&T.
| UnpossibleJim wrote:
| Even if you think of it as a gaming platform (which it
| isn't)... there's Nintendo, Playstation, Xbox, PC, Mac,
| Steam (also on PC and Mac, but separate to itself)... I
| might have missed some niche platforms. As opposed to
| mobile, which is Apple and Android.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| It's complicated. Right now Apple makes $0 from Fortnite, if
| they allow them back they will at least get something. Don't
| let emotions get in the way of business- there is still money
| to be made. This feels petty on Apple's part unless they are
| using this to send a message to anyone else who wants to sue
| them.
| criddell wrote:
| The landscape is changing so fast that Apple probably will
| lose control of their app store in the not too distant
| future.
|
| Despite still being twice as large as iOS, the Android
| ecosystem isn't doing very well. If Apple isn't a monopolist
| today and trends continue, it's only a matter of time before
| it unquestionably is. At that point they aren't going to be
| able to dictate terms any longer.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| > If Apple isn't a monopolist today and trends continue,
| it's only a matter of time before it unquestionably is.
|
| That's exactly what the judge said.
|
| > In sum, given the totality of the record, and its
| underdeveloped state, while the Court can conclude that
| Apple exercises market power in the mobile gaming market,
| the Court cannot conclude that Apple's market power reaches
| the status of monopoly power in the mobile gaming market.
| That said, _the evidence does suggest that Apple is near
| the precipice of substantial market power, or monopoly
| power_ , with its considerable market share. Apple is only
| saved by the fact that its share is not higher, that
| competitors from related submarkets are making inroads into
| the mobile gaming submarket, and, perhaps, because
| plaintiff did not focus on this topic.
| isatty wrote:
| I'm fairly certain this was calculated. Someone crunched the
| numbers and included this into the equation and sticking it
| to epic came on top. This isn't a purely emotional decision
| even though it seems that way.
| MarcoZavala wrote:
| I have such a valuable reply and you'll never see it because
| dang is a huge faggot who shadowbans people.
| siva7 wrote:
| I suspect it's the latter
| onion2k wrote:
| _Tell me again why would _you_ do business with anyone like
| that?_
|
| _me looking at the massive pile of money fortnite generates_
| Yes.
| smiley1437 wrote:
| > Tell me again why would _you_ do business with anyone like
| that?
|
| > me looking at the massive pile of money fortnite generates
| Yes.
|
| Even if it risks your future earnings of literally hundreds
| of billions of dollars?
|
| Apple made about 100 million (0.1 billion) from Fortnite. A
| lot of money, to be sure.
|
| https://fortune.com/2021/05/19/apple-fortnite-epic-
| games-100...
|
| But 2020 App store gross revenue was 72 billion, 30% of that
| is 21 billion and it's growing rapidly.
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/296226/annual-apple-
| app-...
|
| Making another 0.1 billion to risk losing hundreds of
| billions in the future seems like a poor strategy.
| jfoster wrote:
| Your premise seems to be that Epic being back on the app
| store increases the risk of change for Apple, but I would
| argue that making some degree of peace with Epic definitely
| decreases the risk of change for Apple. The only way I can
| rationalise Apple not allowing them back on is that Apple
| would like for that to be part of a settlement agreement.
| smiley1437 wrote:
| Apple was 'at peace' with Epic before, right up until
| they got stabbed in the back with the hidden alternative
| payment option snuck into the game.
|
| Fool me once, shame on you.
| turdnagel wrote:
| I'm sure Fortnite IAP would generate good money for Apple,
| but it's not enough to justify giving up the control they
| want to keep, rightly or wrongly.
| twirlock wrote:
| It doesn't matter because within six months people will start
| realizing that the game fucking sucks.
| dirkg wrote:
| Is anyone surprised? Apple is one of the most vengeful and anti-
| competition companies ever and their goal is to lock consumers
| into their ecosystem and rip them off, and god help any company
| that tries to get in the way.
|
| They are a bully and can act this way because Epic to them is
| meaningless. Theres only a handful of companies who can actually
| threaten Apple with their same medicine at this point, and
| unfortunately this means consumers suffer.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| And this is why I refuse to give Apple any money whatsoever (also
| Microsoft for past shenanigans). User freedom matters. At least
| on Android, you can sideload apps (very easily too these days) if
| Google (or Samsung or Huawei or whichever app store you have)
| decides to ban an app. And Linux of course is completely free.
| stiltzkin wrote:
| Good luck playing Fortnite on a Linux smartphone.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| Anyhow, I referenced Linux as an example of a free OS since I
| mentioned all Apple products and MS (ie. Windows) as examples
| of non-free platforms.
|
| And Fortnite does run on Android.
| swebs wrote:
| It would be a reasonable possibility if Tim Sweeny wasn't
| such a raging hypocrite.
| CalChris wrote:
| The applicable legal maxim is _Justice delayed is justice
| denied._
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_delayed_is_justice_d...
| spzb wrote:
| Starting to sound like Epic have bitten off more than they can
| chew.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-23 23:02 UTC)