Epic Taking on App Store 30%

I understand what you're saying, but for all the above to happen, it means most people don't care about the points you are making, or competitors offer better alternatives to all those things you mentioned so it will probably not be a problem?

In any case, personally I think it's more probable (combined with other lawsuit and pressure : https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...-consumers-to-sue-apple-over-high-app-prices/ ) that Apple reduces their commission a bit, disincentivizing competing stores from even wanting to open, than actually them allowing other stores.

I mean, to successfully make sure .OBB files (which most apps use) download properly, you need to ask for WRITE_EXTERNAL_STORAGE permission. That permission has a prompt that says something along the lines off "[App] wants to see your photos" (because photos used to be stored in external storage / SD?). Having to explain to outraged people why our game wants to see their photos, gets old really fast.

So the part about Android permissions being super scary checks out, although I'd say it's more because of general bad design than any other motive.

Sure, but the closer that percentage is to actual cost, the less incentive there is for alternative stores to exist.

 

Cydia requires rooting the phone or something like that, right? It's not at all comparable, for the same reason Epic don't just do something equivalent themselves.

Why would you need to root the device? I've *never* had to do that to get an app on my phone, or for developer stuff (Except maybe with the Ouya? And I think it's safe to ignore that one.), though I always get the closest to a stock OS that I can.

Oh, I agree that the design of some parts of the permissions system is... lacking. In particular the level of granularity often seems to miss the mark. I somewhat sympathise, though, because more control means more complexity or less flexibility. One thing I don't get is why permissions are requested at install time rather than at the time of use. And from memory accepting them is an all-or-nothing thing? (I don't install apps very often.)

And yes, it's true that the messages are "scary". They're supposed to be. They're meant to make the point that if you accept stuff that's not really trustworthy you're opening yourself to nastiness, on a device that you probably carry in your pocket which likely has a microphone and a camera and lots of personal information. So I'm all fine with "scary", to be honest. If you do genuinely trust the developer then it doesn't really matter what permissions they're asking for, right? If you don't then yeah, Average Joe the non-technical consumer electronics user should absolutely hesitate before pressing that button.

If people were lobbying for a better security permissions system I'd get behind it. But as far as I can tell they're lobbying to have them removed.

 

Competition drives innovation but since you can't have competition in some ways thanks to a walled garden you likewise lose some sources of innovation that would lead to better devices and experiences with them.

Competition can help make a platform more viable for both customers and developers. The Epic Store's 12% fee may make it more viable for a developer to be successful, and they may even pass some of this price difference on to the customer.

 

Yes, the equivalence is that it's an alternative store, and you can ignore it, and doesn't affect you. You could also ignore an EGS iOS store if you want. I don't really buy the argument that EGS will get all the killer apps or something. Even if they start buying exclusives, I don't think the mobile market has "must buys" in general. I don't think the equivalent of a long awaited AAA release exists on mobile platforms which has fans (or even if it does, it also exists in PC/Consoles, so people would just buy it there) that will feel weird that they are "forced" on a store not of their choosing.

So the only way I see them overtaking the App Store, is if they also provide a better service, which would be a net gain for iOS users as a whole then.

They are supposed to be at runtime (just before actual use), or at least Google wants people to ask them at runtime, but they didn't want it enough to actually bother making it automatic (like have Android handle asking for permission the first you access something in the API that requires permission), and you have to request the permissions prompt manually. Also, because of certain Google Play, Android, and Unity bugs, you need a few permissions as soon as possible for the .OBB file to mount properly.

I would be too, if it wasn't for:

1. Android being buggy / badly designed, meaning everyone needs to ask more permissions than they actually need to.

2. Prompts being flat out wrong (the photos one is wrong).

3. Since the permissions are many and arbitrary, most users are already trained to either blindly accept permissions making them useless, or blindly reject permissions and then leave 1/5 reviews when games don't work. In both cases, permissions don't fulfill their intended purpose.

 

Not necessarily; working on an app right now (in Unity) that only asks for microphone access when it begins attempting to record.

I think in some formats, like VS Xamarin apps, you can MAKE it ask for permission at install or start (have not seen this ability in Unity), but you can also just do it at the moment it's required.

Yeah, there's not a "Allow one time" option that I've seen, though you can go back in the settings and refuse access.

 

Just read this
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020...ential-threat-to-the-unreal-engine-epic-says/

Apple threatening to remove any support for Unreal Engine, even games made with Unreal Engine in the future....

 

Wow I would love to know if Epic ever imagined Apple would make this move. Will be interesting to see how the judge rules on the temporary injunction. Even the threat of this though I could imagine will have some devs second guessing going with Unreal.

 

Good thing that's not what the argument is, at all. At least from me.

 

So all those devs that will no longer be able to update games on iOS and Mac are going to sue Epic now?

I guess at least they have the unreal source code and can make any changes for future iOS versions themselves...

Where are the threads about how good Unreal vs Unity is now? XD

 

Nice quote from the ars comments:

 

If this is true, I think this move proves that Epic was right in the premise of its problem with Apple. If they are willing to be so vindictive and throw Epic and all the unreal devs under the bus just to scare everyone into submission, they have never really been interested in the welfare of devs to begin with.

Not sure why anyone would be jumping at Epics throat right now for revealing that the app store is a mafia (and a nasty one at that, going by that article), unless they prefer blissful ignorance.

How about this:

Does this not mean that you won't be able to built for iOS?

 

It will mean Epic can no longer test on iOS (legally).

But other devs using unreal should be able to I would think. But if there is a change to MacOS or iOS then Epic won't be able to make a tested update for their devs. Devs will need to do it themselves.

^ this is an assumption, not fact.

 

That is what Epic is claiming in the filing. Sounds like Apple will remove Epics access to the latest SDK's that unreal needs to make builds for the latest IOS

Edit: List of everything apple is blocking access to from Epic (copied from hackernews)

 

Depends on what "tools necessary to create software for Apple's platforms" means. It could mean one's literally unable to build to that target; it could mean Epic can no longer make modifications to how that target works.

We'll have to wait for proof, rather than #FreeFortnite style rhetoric.

 

My first impression is that the SDKs necessary to build for iOS directly (or build an XCode project or whatever) would no longer be available in the engine. If Epic are not legally allowed to touch them, it's not going to be possible to maintain their integrations in the engine anyway.

 

But if i were a developer using unreal and signed up to apple dev, wouldn't i have access to those tools?

 

Maybe you have legal access, but unless you are an unreal dev how are you going to maintain them inside the engine? I don't see any way for Unreal Engine to ship with apple platform build capability when Epic cannot go near the tools needed to make it possible.

 

This isn't a direct response to your statement, but if you look at it from the opposite direction, Apple has a heck of a lot more to lose, both publicly and legally, from kicking off their store literally everyone using a certain engine vs. a company who's breaking rules. Either way they have Epic by the short and curlies, but I imagine there's a big gap between how a judge (and developers as we see here) would view the two actions.

 

Is revoking Epic's developer account a "vindictive" act of retaliation or a standard part of their disciplinary procedure for multiple violators of their rules? I don't think "we treat everyone equally" is always the right policy, but isn't that what Apple are committing to, here?

I would have preferred if Apple had paused their process to work this out with Epic (to the extent we can speculate that they didn't), but since this is what Apple has said they do when a developer breaks their rules, can anyone (Epic in particular) be surprised that they did it?

 

I guess Apple could always fork Unreal like Microsoft did with their UWP fork. That would be funny

 

I recently ran into some sort of issue where solution required root, but unfortunatley, I dont' recall what that... oh, right. I remember.

Checking and fixing sd card for errors may require root access apparently.
https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/38745/check-and-fix-sd-card-errors-within-android-itself

Another thing is, that one common issue with android is manufacturer installing things you can't remove even though you absolutely do not need them. For example a few years ago I tried to fix a phone with something like 8 GB of internal storage where 6 gigabytes were eaten away by adverts and games which couldn't be removed even with adb shell. You'd need to flash the whole device with an alternative firmware/rom. Because all that junk was manufacturer installed.

This does not exactly describe an open system.

------

This is actually a good reason to ditch all apple products.

 

Epic brought this upon themselves. They tried to cheat the system by implementing a direct payment which means apple doesn't get its cut of the purchase.

Now they want to play the "Apple is a bully/mafia/monopoly" bullshit.

Why should epic be exempt from the 30% fee? It's not their store. It's not their policy. They agreed to Apples terms of conditions when signing up. They broke those terms so now they have rectify the situation to comply, like every other app store developer, or they can go elsewhere.

If they are going to claim that Apple removing their developer rights will harm their business how is that Apples fault?

This disaster was created by Epic, and only Epic.

 

You're right about the judge's perspective, which is why I think Apple went this route. Epic are in a difficult position unless they win on the issue of Apple being a monopoly, because otherwise Apple has very little that they are legally required to do for Epic.

I was surprised by the move, and I'm not sure what Apple did it for except as a bluff to get Epic to back down. The reason I think it's nasty is because the devs who make the app store what it is are the chips in this game. It's either a sort of 'human shield' move or they really just couldn't care less, neither of which is good for devs.

EDIT: I have to admit though, the consequences for Apple of being judged as a monopoly would be a million times worse than what they have to lose by letting Epic sell their own fortnite junk. Maybe the fear of that is really what brought out that reaction.

I think it is, because Epic will already lose a lot of money without fortnite on iOS, also they are not seeking any money from Apple here. Epic is making it clear they want to fight on a specific principle, but it seems Apple think it's fine to not just go after Epic as a games company, but also go after unreal developers who work in the engine. That's vindictive and nasty in my book.

I don't think you understand, Epic pulled a publicity stunt. I doubt very much they 'tried' to get away with anything. They wanted devs on their side, that's why they made Apple act on the principle they are fighting against in front of everybody, and made a funny video about it. It's a strategy, not an angry reaction to something entirely expected from Apple.

It's also not about 'what they signed up for'. They are not saying Apple did not follow their own rules, they are saying the rules are wrong. They are not claiming to be victims of deceit at all.

 

Oh, that's what you call it when you get busted. I see.

 

It's a direct result of an open system, though. Android is open, so handset creators can make their own versions full of junk and lock it so it's no longer open. The un-openness there is not because of Android.

Android One might be of interest. Handset makers have to provide stock Android for that, which puts the control in user hands as much as it can. Aside from that it comes down to each vendor and what they want to do.

Is that really happening, though? Epic might lose access to Apple stuff, but current versions which already work there will continue to do so for other developers who still have their accounts in good standing... right?

As far as I understand Epic just won't be able to make updates for that one platform between when their current account expires and when they sort things with Apple to renew it.

That's still not great for developers, of course. But it's hardly "your games will break next week", unless I'm missing something.

 

Now Unity can make a noble move: stop working with Apple.
This way Apple will have to make their fee civilized. Whole industry will win.

Btw all mobile publishers will stop working with iOS anyways.
Because Apple promised to disallow analytics in upcoming versions of iOS (user's special permission will be required).
Without analytics mobile publishers won't be able to buy traffic from Facebook, Admob, etc.
Apple already crippled itself.

 

Apparently Apple is going to block all Epic Games accounts on iOS (not the users/developers, just the company), and they are also going to prevent Epic from developing tools for iOS and Mac platforms.

I'm hoping Apple will resolve this issue with Epic and allow them to continue making tools for Apple platforms. But if that doesn't happen, Unreal Engine 5 will likely not support iOS or Mac at launch.

This is obviously going to have a ripple effect on game development companies choosing to opt out of supporting iOS in future projects. Godot and CryEngine are already having a heck of a time trying to support iOS, and this news will likely turn both companies in the opposite direction. Android will be new dominant cellular portable gaming device, while also supporting open source projects and apps that depend on them (OpenGL and Vulcan won't work on iOS).

Unity is definitely going to continue supporting iOS, advertising its continued support as a unique selling feature that's very high in demand. Also AR games are going to continue to thrive, and Unity will likely push hard on AR gaming on iOS.

I used to play games alot on my iPod Touch way back in the day. But now I do all my gaming on my gaming pc, even though I have a iPhone 11.

 

Just to be clear, that's what I'm arguing. (In my opinion) Apple's probably not going to break all Unreal builds/releases because that would set a really, really bad tone for "we're not a monopoly violating anti-trust laws" claims. They can localize the effect to Epic while still having the intended...effect (the two "e"s makes me nervous, usually one's an "a") upon Epic.

 

I’m confused then on what would be stopping someone to treat the hypothetical EGS iOS store as not existing.

 

They weren't expecting to get busted but they had lawsuits and videos ready within a few hours after they got "busted"? This was planned.

 

I would expect an open system to be open to me as well and not just to handset creators. If the vendor has more power than I do on hardware I paid for, there's a problem.

 

I agree. My point is that Google making it actually open is what allows vendors to do that. As a consumer all we can do is not buy handsets from vendors who mess with the OS.

 

Actually, we can't exactly do that either.

The phone riddled with adverts and junk I mentioned was perfect at the time of purchase. The vendor started force-installing garbage into it a year after release.

While they did ensure that I will never buy their product ever again, there wasn't a way for me to predict that this is going to happen.

 

That's probably why Android One is a thing.

 

Actually Android One mostly guarantees that the UI will remain stock. Manufacturers can still do other changes.


"Minimal" amount of bloatware doesn't mean no bloatware

 

Except Apple isn't treating everyone equally. Apple reduced the fee for Amazon from 30% to 15%.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/30/...app-store-special-treatment-fee-subscriptions

 

I am so not for this. First, Epic's store on the PC pretty much sucks. But beyond that my iPhone/devices, I want the walled garden and very secure. Phones are for life stuff. My gaming PC doesn't even know my real email address, I'm willing to be a little frivolous on it, it's isolated.

Now... what they(Apple) COULD do, is provide a provided branded store option. Basically Apples App Store but the Epic version/skin. They go part way there already with the TV channels. They did explore this already with Disney, there was briefly a Disney app that you could buy movies and games through. It was the App store reskinned. They could do the same for big publishers. They could curate, promote games however they want. But all the underlying security is still there.

 

The store isn't the point. The side effects of allowing this the way Epic are demanding are the point. See my earlier post quoted by @zombiegorilla above.

 

Nope, they are going to be mad at Apple. You must admit that it's a S*** move to take hostage the unreal developer base.

 

I think the "security" claims are overblown. Mobile Apps on iOS already siphon a whole bunch of personal data (although in fairness, Apple is now just trying to double down on this a bit), so I don't really see where the security of the walled garden really is.

 

It seems you have not read or followed much about this other than maybe reading the headlines. Epic did not really "try to cheat the system" as they knew exactly what was going to happen and which was mainly the point of their action. They had a +60 page legal document and a polished video template with a date and time placeholders ready.

It's also not "now they want to play..." as they have criticized it for a long time and the legal document describes several things that Apple is doing which you call bullshit. If you have been living under a rock and never seen what bullshit Apple has done, lets say previously with Netflix or Spotify or recently with xCloud I suggest you go read some of that or similar stuff.

It's also not just about the 30% fee as they say in the legal document they want fair treatment for every developer and not have special deals. Some quotes from the document "Apple permits app developers like Amazon, Uber and Airbnb to process payments from customers for the goods and services they sell;it can likewise permit Epic, Match, Pandora and others to process payments from customers for the digital goods and services they sell."

"Epic brings this suit to end Apple’s unfair and anti-competitive actions that Apple undertakes to unlawfully maintain its monopoly in two distinct, multi billion dollar markets) the iOS App Distribution Market, and (ii)the iOS In-App Payment Processing Market(each as defined below). Epic is not seeking monetary compensation from this Court for the injuries it has suffered. Nor is Epic seeking favorable treatment for itself, a single company. Instead, Epic is seeking injunctive relief to allow fair competition in these two key markets that directly affect hundreds of millions of consumers and tens of thousands, if not more, of third-party app developers."

I think Epic timed this perfectly and deliberately as EU just recently opened an antitrust investigation about Apple's App Store rules and US has it's antitrust hearings and investigation. Apple threatening to terminate whole company's development access instead of removing a single app just shows how big of beast they have grown into with too much power and control regardless if the contract was broker was Epic.

 

An update to that Ars article posted before...

 

It's really depressing how many consumers, gamers and even developers don't see a problem with the current set up.

 

It's hypocritical to tout universality and also make special arrangements, I agree.

 

That's a creative solution. It'd be consistent with what Apple (until recently) has done with their WebKit requirement.

I wonder if it would satisfy Epic. Their attitude and the quotations here from their suit give me the impression that they really want to force Apple's platform open. I'm suspicious of that as an objective because Apple's control creates a trustworthy user experience. Cracks in that experience compromise the platform's appeal to Apple's primary customers and, in the long run, developers.

 

I see issues with it. I also have big issues with this particular approach to solving them.

 

Just for those who wonder what happens if Apple revokes a developer account (Apple calls it a Developer Team):
1. You can no longer notarize any macOS binaries (including macOS app bundles, shared libraries, frameworks, command line tools). This will likely cause Gatekeeper giving end user a headache if the developer distributes the binary unsigned. This check can be disabled globally, but it comes with risks. (In Xcode, it is not required to sign an macOS binary with provisioning profiles, so development is still fine. ) Any existing signature of notarized binaries submitted by the developer team might also be revoked. Any binaries built from source locally is fine, but running that built binary on another machine may trigger Gatekeeper.
2. You can no longer deploy any app to iOS devices with Xcode for development, because losing access to developer account means you can no longer add new provisioning profiles or certificates which is necessary for running iOS apps outside of App Store, and likely any existing ones will also be revoked together.
3. You can no longer submit apps to App Store or develop and deploy in-house/enterprise apps, depending on the account type. The second kind happened to Facebook and Google when their data collection efforts were exposed, and Apple revoked their Enterprise account, rendering their own employee apps invalid.

So if Apple revokes Epic's developer team, it will give Epic a headache continuing any developments for Apple platforms. It would not affect other developers with good standing with Apple building, submitting and submitting software based on Epic's toolchain, but it may affect running the toolchain in the first place.

 

Well, as it stands, I was wrong. This was planned by Epic, as most of you have stated. It just seemed unlikely to me because why would a company protest this way?

I guess Epic does things differently.

I redact my previous comments. I hope Epic sticks it to em hard.

 

It's more about apps running rampant your os doing whatever they want. Sure data is collected, but we know what it is, it has some oversight and largely it's innocuous. But if you (well.. not like you, or developers who are savvy, but folks like my mom or your mom) download some 'free' game that that is all fun and cute, but collects their address book, or uses the device as a zombie node, or sucks battery crypto mining, or hundreds of other things we can imagine or worse, things we can't, that would suck. It gets out of control in the model that epic is suggesting... third party apps able to install other third party stuff. Shudder. You can, write apps that wreck an iphone, you can even make a unity game that will hard crash a device... but you can't distribute it via the app store. There is the value in the walled garden.

 

Was there an official statement from Apple that that they really want to revoke the dev access or is it just something Epic claims to get people on there side? I mean we can't take everything as a fact Epic says...