Epic Taking on App Store 30%

There isn't one from Apple, yet. I assume Apple just notified Epic with Apple's normal communication channel (sending an email to the developer's registered email account) as Epic's actions were violations to the Apple Developer Program ToS and not something outside of Apple's framework.

 

Yep, basically a small child kicking up a fuss because they want more chocolate and mum/dad just ignoring them until they finish their vege.

 

Will Epic be able to test new releases of the engine if Apple revokes their access to the device?

 

The actual email Apple sent epic listing everything they will remove access to next week including working with them on Unreal Engine is included in Epics legal filing.

https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/epic-v-apple-8-17-20-768927327.pdf

The community probably can, but at the end of the day no way Epic will be bringing first in class new engine features to IOS if they get the boot from accessing pre-releases and official sdk's and documentation.

 

Being able to install other applications is not automatically equivalent to collecting your user data, or using your phone as a cryptominer, though.

Basically, it is a matter of default security policy. On a system done in a sane way, an application should be able to act as a store and install other application, but accessing user data, or adding an application to auto-start is an entirely different matter and is something that should request permission separately.

I think modern security model needs a revamp, because there's no distinction between separate folders on sdcard, and an application requests blanket permission instead. It would be more reasonable for each application instead to have its own databox it can access, request separate permission for sdcard, and separate permissions for user data...

 

How so? Unreal is asking not just for their own store, but so that any store can compete. But if a store can install applications, who is filtering them? What policies are they limited to?

Is there a system out there that implements good policies? Does one of these exist? I'm seriously curious because I can't think of one. Closest commercial is iOS, where since the app store is curated, malicious software is hard to get on it.

If you let an app do nothing on a system and it is totally sandboxed, okay (iOS and Android are both sandboxed but give some access to device and other services, Android gives a little more access). But with a third party store this is easy to pollute with malware.

No developer is going to want to write an app doing nothing, they won't like it. If you're a third party store you're going to want to integrate with the phones ecosystem (users won't want to enter a credit card for each store). So you're going to give third parties credit card access? Cloud service access? Hardware acceleration?

Or do you ask for each app installed if the application can access one of many services and locations on a phone. And what do users and Epic do when this happens? Complain about popups asking for permission.

I don't think there is an easy solution as some people seem to think. If there is can you point me to a system that works well? Or do you think iOS should just be like Android?

 

Apple is just enforcing their policy, there's nothing wrong on what they're doing.
Epic used the worst strategy, throwing their players and Unreal developers into the fire. Bad, bad move!
They should just rollback Fortnite and (try to) open a former discussion about rates But now with all this legal fuzz, Apple will never open any exception for Epic, as they already noted.
Epic f*$%ed up.

 

Yes and now I'm wondering if....

Amazone Game Engine and Apple. Can they cut Unity off too (for any reason)?

 

Apple did not cut off Epic. Epic broke the rules.

Amazon have proven time and time again that they don’t understand the game industry.

Unity will be fine.

 

Linux privilegies are decent. Can't install system-wide app without root/sudo permissions. But it does not have granular access and per application data storage.

Android applications are not sandboxed, because to do anything, they request permission.
Store does not mean pollution with malware, if you do not grant auto-start by default.

"Doing nothing" is not the same thing as "application that requires no permissions".
For example, a basic calculator application would not request any permissions by default.

That's exactly what they would have to do, though.

Yes. An applicaiton shoudl request specific permission instead of being vague ("access photos on this device!"), because vague is ambiguous and insecure as a result.

That's overly negative,.

I think both iOS and Android still have a long way to go when it comes to security, with iOS being marginally better. Their security permission needs to be iterated through.

 

Yes, Linux is decent, I like it. But Windows and MacOS have been ahead of it with signatures in executables and for system and device drivers. But you're safest if you stay with packages from the package manager (single store if you will). Yes you can go outside the package manager, but you better know what you're doing. I'm not going to give my mother, family or friends this kind of system. I can't imagine my mother asking me how to install some app from source or even just checking an md5 checksum.

Android does have app sandboxing:
https://source.android.com/security/app-sandbox

Actually, a third party store is an easy entry point for malware, depending on how trusted the store is. Epic wants it not just for themselves, but any competition.

Apps don't need autostart, just something like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shedun
Which repackaged legit apps along with malware released on third-party store.

Yes. Developers don't like this. They want to do anything they want on the device. They don't like their garden "walled".

Sure. I'm just saying it is nice to have seamless integration for these kinds of things. Users like an integrated experience. Apple tries to cater to this.

There is always a balance between usability and security. If you make something too secure, users will just bypass it. If not vague, an app may have to ask 10-20 questions, and users will just ignore them (Next, Next, Next...). How many people pay attention to Windows installers? I do, but everyone I work with clicks right through them (and this includes some technical people).

Sorry. I was referencing this from a few different new sites:

https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/...-android-is-fake-open-but-apple-is-even-worse
(This one also mentions how Fortnite was originally released with a serious security hole on Android)

https://venturebeat.com/2020/02/12/tim-sweeney-android-is-a-fake-open-system-and-ios-is-worse

"Sweeney said that Google put up “scary” pop-ups in front of users about the risks of sideloading (viruses, malware) and other steps that users had to engage in order to get Fortnite on Android"​

Fortnite was originally only available as a sideloaded app in Android, but later put on Google Play. So it sounds like they just want free reign on the device even though it is not their platform. And their game is free, so they want to advertise their game for free on a large storefront, and then sell their own money on their platform? This is what it sounds like. Basically reaping the benefits of the built in stores but paying nothing.

Sure, I agree. I don't think Apple has a perfect system. They frustrate me in some things, but this isn't one of them. I actually do like a single gatekeeper that analyzes what is coming in (keeps tech calls from family to a minimum).

I just don't like Epic's approach and it seems illogical.

 

In the particular example raised, though, the issue isn't so much the granularity of the statement, it's that it's wrong. The message in question talks about photos, when it's actually about general file access. This is both more alarming than it needs to be (eg: "Why does a music player want to look at my photos?!?") and misinforming people making a decision (eg: After declining access to photos, wondering "Why can't it find my music?")

Simply rewriting that one to be correct would be a good start. "Application X needs access to read and write user files on your device." would already be far better.

Thinking aloud, maybe an improvement on that could be to let users mark files as "private" or "not private"? Private files need specific, per-app permission to be read or written, where non-private ones can be read and written by anything with file read/write access? Not as robust as a full permission system, but probably far more accessible to the average user, as it can all be done using yes/no questions at creation and/or access time. I bet it introduces other complexities I haven't considered, though.

 

That's roughly what I meant. Privilegies should be granular and more sensible.
"Access photos", "access music", "Access all files on sd card", "access all files on user behalf", "access profile contact information", "access payment informaiton", "perform purchase on user's behalf", "read entire address book", "send sms to whitelisted numebr", "send sms to any number", "add itself to autostart", "lock device screen", etc.

I also think that an app by default should be able to work without privilegies at all, meaning it should have access to some sort of "databox" to store its own data and at the same time it should be locked out of everything else.

 

AFAIK more recent versions of Android do do that. Or at least they try to.

The problem is that certain versions of Android, versions that are still around (because all versions of android are still around in perpetuity), are buggy and mess up and somehow write stuff with root, instead of being owned by the app, so you need to ask for read/write permissions anyway.

 

Oh, I'm not as familiar with Android permissions and it's shortcomings. I see that they don't have a "Photos" permission, but instead it is just considered External Storage. But I also see that Developers provide their own message unless they use an Intent.
https://developer.android.com/training/permissions/usage-notes

So, sure I agree permissions could be better. It is a learning process and the industry is progressing. I just don't think Epic's approach in this instance is helpful at all.

 

Epic Approach is that they want their own store, isn't it?

This stuff already exists. I'm on xiaomi phone, it has its own updater which does the same thing as a store would. My smart tv uses AptiodeTV instead of google play, and so on.

Oh, and on PC we already have "launchers". Steam, Origin, Bethesda's, UPlay, GOG Galaxy.

 

More drama: "Apple says Epic Games CEO wanted a side deal for Fortnite"

In the court document referenced Apple say they received an email from Sweeney asking for their own app store deal to circumvent the payment thing. Apple replied that they've never done that (to be clear, they asked for their own store to install apps, along with the payment thing). Later Sweeney sent another email (at 2am, apparently) saying they were "no longer adhering to Apple's payment processing restrictions."

This isn't all that surprising, but it probably weakens Epic's claim that they're not looking for special favor.

In the court document it says "In order to deliberately conceal the change from Apple, Epic changed the option on its own servers to enable the approved version of Fortnite to offer a non-compliant in-app purchase option." I don't know what that means, but it seems interesting. Might a less well-known app and developer be able to bypass Apple's system without it being noticed, or was this something only Epic could do?

Edit: Sweeney posted the emails. There's a comment in there about Apple offering what Epic is requesting to all developers, which kind of overturns the "Epic is looking for special favor" thing, but it looks like Epic specifically requested os-level access to be able to install software freely from their own app, independent from the App Store. That's definitely a security issue (not saying it's good or bad, just that device security seems fundamental to that specific point).

 

Well their approach was to break the Apple Store terms and then claim Apple to be an evil monopolist when Fortnite and their access was revoked. Not saying Apple is perfect, but it seems Apple took the right action. And I don't see how Apple is a monopoly.

Yes, they want their own store. On Apple's platform. So... should all platforms should be required to allow any store on them? XBox? Playstation? Switch? FitBit? Are all of these monopolies? If I make a device and os (watch, console, tv, phone, pc, robot, car, toaster, etc.), and allow apps on it through my store, am I required to open it to all stores?

Yes PCs have launchers and are pretty open. PCs are also notoriously bad at security and pose a lot of security risks. And average consumers are pretty bad at maintaining a PC.

One of the most common and easiest way to infect a phone (PC too) is from an unofficial app store (channel).

 

My experience is Apple uses pattern matching over the code to determine if an app needs further review. For example I have had my app get held up because Unity had class names with Payment in their ad library. They then ban my app with a notice that I am trying to circumvent their IAP and I have to appeal it and explain why I am not doing that. My app doesn't even have IAP at all.

 

A monopoly exists when a specific person or company is the sole supplier of a commodity. Apple says they are not a monopoly but they are the sole provider of the hardware they manufacture and selling through them is the sole way to release software for some of their platforms. Sounds like a monopoly to me.

Spoiler: Google Dictionary

Good questions, and based on the antitrust lawsuits starting up we may very well have answers to them in a few years as it isn't just Epic that has a problem with Apple.

https://www.techradar.com/news/appl...rillion-us-company-amid-antitrust-allegations
https://www.zdnet.com/article/why-apples-antitrust-fight-could-spell-the-end-of-ios-as-we-know-it/

 

The problem is when you become the rounding error of all these big essential market that decide who make a living. I can't sell (or buy) on google store because on the wrong region (france mind you, but somewhat they don't count us), I can't use google wallet, that mean I have no reach to any phone, being local market or global market, I can't set a store, I can't do nothing. In the current world we live on, that's a very dangerous situation to be in if you have no other skills or infrastructure to rely on. The next google/apple can't happen here, because google/apple made sure we aren't a player at all.

SO securities is not even a concern. It's a monopoly it doesn't reward innovations, skills or talents, it's not based on merit, just being the right person at the right place with the right wealth, it's anti capitalistic. ON pc I can still set up a store, but almost nobody use pc anymore, the market have moved to mobile mostly.

 

I agree with most of your sentiment, but is this true? I was under the impression (perhaps naively) that, for indies at least, there is way more money in PC game development than in the mobile market.

 

I was talking in general, not just games, there is many opportunity to do stuff where I am, but I can't monetize it in any direct way, I had deal who fall through because of that, I still don't make any money. They are probably cheaper to do than game, I'm still looking for a clever business plan to bypass all of that.

That said, you are still beholden to huge shop on pc, since they suck all the air, see steam, but at least you have broader range to innovate at being paid.

 

There's a false equivalence there, though. You're talking about "the hardware they manufacture" as if it's the same thing as the "commodity" in question, which is not true. Apple are not the only manufacturer of smartphones. They're the biggest, they're even dominant, but they're not the only option.

They can only be termed a "monopoly" in the specific case of "iOS" devices, and many businesses are a monopoly if you define that as "the only people to sell their own product". That'd make MacDonalds a monopoly, for one, despite the fact that there are many other hamburger joints who successfully compete in that market.

It also makes Epic a monopoly on Fortnite skins. Should I be able to demand that Epic let me open my own store in their game to sell cosmetics, without giving them a cut, based on the idea that otherwise they're being monopolistic?

 

Windows, netscape, internet explorer

 

The IE thing was not restricted to devices made by MS. In fact, MS's business model is specifically about getting their software on as many other manufacturers' devices as possible.

For what it's worth, I don't disagree with challenging Apple on this, necessarily. But doing so on the basis of a "monopoly" is flawed at best.

 

It was restricted to the OS, and there is competing OS, so there is options if you don't like their ecosystem. BeOS is the future, NeXT!

 

The OS was on the vast majority of hardware available to businesses and consumers alike. It was actually difficult to buy a non-Windows desktop device. Etc etc.

If I buy a phone now I can trivially easily buy a non-iOS device. iOS doesn't even hold a market majority.

 

The companies you listed are mostly interested in making a platform where competitors are excluded from participation.

In the long term this doesn't even correlate with user's goals.
--------
Either way, this is a bit tricky, because while developer should allow competition on their own software platform, they should not be required to go out of their way to do so.

 

Correct, they aren't the only manufacturer of smartphones, but they are the only manufacturer of devices that run the iOS operating system like the iPhone and iPad. Just because I can buy a tablet doesn't mean it's not a monopoly because the only way to have the hardware and software of their devices is to buy from them.

 

I could have sworn I responded to that already, in the same post.

 

Outside of the sauce that they use to create the Big Mac everything you need to make a McDonalds knockoff burger can be purchased from sources other than McDonalds. You might not have exactly the same taste but you can very easily replicate their burgers. Meanwhile you can't really replicate an Apple device.

I do have a tendency to stop reading once I stop agreeing with a post. I need to learn not to do that.

 

So I should be able to demand that Epic let me sell Fortnight cosmetics from within Fortnite without me giving them a cut, then? They have a monopoly on Fortnite, after all.

 

You know I would love to see the response they give to that seeing as its basically the response they gave Apple.

 

That's not quite equivalent, but also.... sure why not? Epic can be hippogryphs (edit: uhh I meant hypocrites, but I think I'll leave it as is for now ) but at the same time have a point about Apple.

 

Hmm... how so?

I never said they were hypo-anythings. I've agreed with part of their point, too. I'm specifically talking here about the monopoly angle being flawed.

 

Fortnite does not contain itself another market, where anyone can sell things on it, and that Epic profits from. It just has a mechanism to deliver overpriced Epic made skins to users.

If users were able to make their own skins and were able to sell them on Fortnite, then you'd have a better equivalence.

You didn't, I'm saying it and I sort of mean it. IMO they actually should reduce the percentage they take off the Unreal Marketplace, if they want to walk the walk and not just talk the talk

 

Meanwhile...
https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/20/21394834/epic-fortnite-apple-freefortnite-tournament-prizes

 

Angrypenguin says it well.

Yes they are the sole provider of the hardware they manufacture. Just like Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Samsung, IBM, Amazon, Google, Intel, Nvidia, FitBit, etc. You can also jailbreak, root, or hack any of those devices those companies make and do what you want with it.

But yes, they allow third party software on their platform (but every hardware has software). So where is the line drawn? If you allow third party software for your device (lots of hardware uses third party software)? If you have a store that allows third parties to sell their software for your device? When are you required to have an open platform?

Sure. Apple might be guilty of some antitrust practices, I don't argue that. I don't like anticompetitive behavior, I'm just not sure a single software distribution system on a platform they made is anticompetitive. Maybe the 30% fee is? Maybe the fact that apps can't advertise their external payment system? Maybe Apple having competing products (Apple Music, Apple TV, etc) but having harsher terms on third parties is?

This I agree with. It is definitely tricky and competition is good.

 

Like @AcidArrow mentioned one of the key factors here is that Apple owns an entire marketplace. Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony are the closest equivalents to this. Amazon likely qualifies but they're already being investigated.

This idea that the presence of competition means that you are not a monopoly is bogus. Bell System was the dominate telephone company in the United States for one hundred years yet like the article mentions it was not the sole telephone company available. There was competition and yet it lost against its antitrust lawsuit and was forcibly split.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System

Speaking of breaking up companies there is a possibility it will happen to the current tech giants.

https://venturebeat.com/2020/08/01/...breaking-up-amazon-apple-facebook-and-google/

 

If you were starting a new project today and you wanted it to be as cross platform as possible would you even consider Unreal anymore?

I really wonder if Epic is done with the whole indie thing and wants to go back to being a AAA engine. I just don't see them keeping up with all these Mac and IOS changes while they are in a 5 year antitrust lawsuit (if apple even lets them). If Epic is not done with the Indie thing then I am lost as to what exactly they were thinking with all of this.

 

Speaking of how Apple treats developers...

https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-pressures-wordpress-add-in-app-purchases-30-percent-fee-2020-8

Which seems to agree with the quote from the following article...

https://www.businessinsider.com/tec...bezos-cook-zuckerberg-pichai-testimony-2020-7

 

I actually had an unwritten post sitting here at the bottom of the page:

"One could easily argue that an Apple purchase isn't just about the hardware, but the software as well. Kind of like the Xbox and PlayStation thing - you're buying into an ecosystem."

I know people who would absolutely be less interested in their Apple devices if they became more open.

 

Well like was quoted earlier

"A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity"
​

Which for smartphones, Apple is not the only supplier.

Bell Systems (AT&T) bought out competition and cut off local systems in the early 1900's and had 58% market share in 1912 and was quickly rising as they controlled a lot of infrastructure (all long distance). At this time anti-trust claims were brought against them and they came up with a strategic retreat which seemed like a win for competitors. However, by 1932 AT&T controlled 80% of telephones and all of the long distance market. This cycle continued until the split.

In the US Apple owns around 40-46% of the market, not quite half. And Samsung is growing its share. Globally Apple is only 11-13% of the market.

I was actually just starting my new project in Unreal. I was only about a week in and this has made me reconsider.

This is tricky to me. 30% may be high, sure. But if every developer can bypass the app store by making their app free and then charging outside of the app store... that would make Apple run at a loss for the App Store. Then out of what finance budget does Apple pay their app store curators, their app hosting costs, their developer tools, etc?

Sure you could say Apple makes a ton of money so it doesn't matter. But that isn't a very fair precedent, if the company makes their money from quality products and services. And again I'm not saying everything Apple does is great, they might be overstepping in some areas. But some areas to me seem tricky.

Yeah, I'm less interested if they do. Though I would love to see a new competitor with a new OS (or another Linux based flavor).

 

Apple is only one-tenth of the market if examined as a whole company but if we separate the company into individual segments the picture is very different. Like with smartwatches where they own half the market.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/08/22/apple-has-gobbled-up-half-of-the-smartwatch-market/

Globally Apple owns just under 60% of the tablet market. Last year they were at more than 70%.

https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/tablet/worldwide

Global smartphone market share is one-quarter.

https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile

Basically if we completely ignore the joke that is the Apple desktop and laptop marketshare and pay attention to just the iOS device markets they're much more successful than people may think and it suddenly becomes much more apparent why there are antitrust allegations starting up. They've hit the same threshold with them that Bell System hit in 1912.

 

BTW fortnite on switch bypass a lot of nintendo's system

 

Agreed, but we're not talking about "any" competition here, we're talking about competition with a meaningful impact on consumer choice. I didn't feel the need to make that distinction, because otherwise monopoly wouldn't be practically possible.

Going back to the MS web browser example, there were competing OSes (including Apple's). Nonetheless, it was actually difficult for the majority of customers to avoid MS's influence. They held an overwhelming majority, anecdotally in excess of 90% of desktop PC installs, and many people had to take compatibility with other Windows stuff into account when buying.

Apple don't have anything like that dominance, as far as I'm aware. Consumers can easily pick a non-Apple device, it'll do almost the same thing, and will be pretty much interoperable with people using other stuff. Kind of like a different tasting hamburger.

None of which is to say that acting against them is bad in principle. You don't have to be a monopoly to be harmfully anti-competitive.

 

Exactly, those people bashing Apple and boasting owning an Android, for example: "See, this is why I hate Apple. This is why they'll never see a cent from me" ironically pushes the argument that Apple is not a monopoly.

If it was a monopoly, they would be saying "See, this is why I hate Apple, but I'm practically forced to use iPhones because no-one uses Android" instead.

You know, like Windows in the 90s, or even Windows now if you're talking about PC gaming.

I too think that sideloading (with security warnings) will benefit iOS, and that the 30% cut is too high especially for indie developers but I don't side with Epic as well in this.

 

The commodity would be software for apple platforms.

And I know people who would be interested more in Apple devices, if they were more open. I'm actually one of them.

I don't want a garden or an ecosystem, I want a brick that does what I tell it to do.

A walled garden kind of configuration requires me to put trust into the company/developer, and requires me to believe that they have my best interests in mind.

I'm unable to believe in that, as I know this is not true.

It woudl be great if someone was making blank phones, with no OS installed, and there were 3 to 5 mobile systems user could flash their phone with, depending on their needs.

 

Hank Johnson??? This clown said that Guam might tip over from too many troops there. Not exactly an intellectual giant with a proper understanding of cause and effect.

That being said. You sign a contract, you have agreed to the terms. If you build a game with Unreal and sell it you are subject to the contract to pay them a percentage. If you do not comply they are gonna stick it to you legally. Sweeney is a hypocrite and a dishonorable man. Honest commerce is based on this simple principle, whether agreement by handshake or 2000 page contract. Substantial consideration is offered by one party and accepted by another. Start breaking this arbitrarily is to break the backbone of civilization.