Search Unity

  1. Megacity Metro Demo now available. Download now.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Unity support for visionOS is now available. Learn more in our blog post.
    Dismiss Notice

Epic Taking on App Store 30%

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by hard_code, Aug 13, 2020.

  1. AcidArrow

    AcidArrow

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Posts:
    11,626
    Private contracts are not above the law.
     
    vakabaka and neginfinity like this.
  2. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,950
    For the record I don't care at all for Epic Games and fully understand the stunt they're pulling is for their own bottom line but at the end of the day a multi-billion dollar company is only capable of being sued successfully by another multi-billion dollar company and if it leads to a shake-up of the status quo then I'm in favor of the lawsuit even if it is started by an individual that tries to pass themselves off as self-righteous.

    See in my case it wouldn't be a statement like "because no one uses Android". It would be "because the features are more advanced than most Android devices, the device has an absurdly long life span, and it retains most of its value for the first few years making it very easy to trade-in and pay far less for the next model".

    I'm only on an Android device at the moment because the majority of my software needs happen to be limited to Android devices thanks to the stunts Apple has pulled with their store leading developers to not providing equivalent apps for iOS.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2020
  3. ippdev

    ippdev

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Posts:
    3,850
    Can you explain this statement in greater detail? This is not an adhesion contract they signed. The terms were all laid out and they agreed to them in exchange for substantial consideration. This falls under UCC. it is not law of the land but of the sea..international commerce.
     
  4. AcidArrow

    AcidArrow

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Posts:
    11,626
    That if you and I sign a contract, and that contract has terms that go against the law, then the law supersedes the contract. It's for sure the case in the EU, and I'm pretty sure it's also the case in the US.

    And that is what Epic is trying to prove. That some of the terms of the agreement Apple provides are illegal. Now whether they have a case or not is another matter.
     
    NotaNaN, XCPU, angrypenguin and 3 others like this.
  5. neginfinity

    neginfinity

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Posts:
    13,553
    In EU specifically, a contract term can be overruled by a decision of a court. Meaning the law is above the contract.

    For example: https://europa.eu/youreurope/busine...ts-guarantees/consumer-contracts/index_en.htm

    I like this one:
    Makes me think about all the "no liability" clauses.
     
  6. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
    That's why you have Android. Or that new Linux phone I saw something about recently.

    Apple is directly addressing a niche in the market. Your (Epic's) change to them would pull them out of that niche.
     
    IgnisIncendio and angrypenguin like this.
  7. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,950
    Your statement that they are "directly addressing a niche" implies that they created their walled garden because people wanted it but I would be very shocked if it wasn't simply that they wanted to have complete control over the market. You don't create and maintain a market of their size by focusing on a niche.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2020
    MadeFromPolygons likes this.
  8. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
    Literally only a wonder at this point, but are (some of) these things because of Apple's closed nature? Google takes lots of risks, but they also (inadvertently?) make competing apps and abandon services after a few years. Does Apple's closed ecosystem nurture an environment where advancements happen not drastically but nonetheless steadily, and where that restricted ecosystem produces value retention?

    AMD vs. nVidia immediately comes to mind (proprietary software vs. mostly open initiatives). I exclusively buy AMD because I value their and dislike nVidia's behavior, but it's abundantly obvious which is superior in most markets.

    Yeah, I'm not speaking to the reasoning behind the initial creation of the system but where it stands right now.

    There are people who want phones/devices with really restrictive security features. I'm not one of them, but I know people who've said that explicitly. If Apple were to change their behavior these individuals would be less likely to buy their devices.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2020
    IgnisIncendio and angrypenguin like this.
  9. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,950
    Google's approach of throwing paint on the wall and seeing what sticks is not the result of them being an open platform. If anything being open makes you much more likely to have steady improvements as you're no longer constricted to receiving them solely from yourself.

    Just look at Linux. It has never had the drastic improvements that would be required for it to achieve the "day of the Linux desktop" but it has had a consistent stream of steady improvements that have resulted in it dominating both the server and mobile space. It's an example of what happens when you fully open a platform and let everyone contribute towards to it.

    AMD is the inferior product only because they are very heavily starved for funding. Just think about it for a moment. AMD may not have had the best product but they have been consistently delivering hardware in spite of constantly teetering on the brink of bankruptcy with a very small research and development budget.

    AMD's R&D budget for GPUs in 2019 was $750 million while NVIDIA's R&D budget for GPUs was $2.4 billion. That they haven't slipped far behind is a testiment to how competent AMD's engineers are, and now that their CPUs are generating tons of money they will start catch up again.

    https://gfxspeak.com/2019/09/02/market-exceeds-nvidia/
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2020
  10. hard_code

    hard_code

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Posts:
    238
  11. ippdev

    ippdev

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Posts:
    3,850
    Ahh.. Got it. If course. But Epic is stretching here. Alot of folks want to stick it to the man so to speak. Epic is the man also. Epic's parent company ...TenCent... now that is The Man. I would say more but my post will get banned.
     
  12. ippdev

    ippdev

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Posts:
    3,850
    After the security expert that is CTO of Linux Labs explained to me about "Intel Inside", I am becoming a big fan of AMD.
     
  13. Neonlyte

    Neonlyte

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Posts:
    512
    "If Unreal Engine cannot support games for iOS or macOS, Microsoft would be required to choose between abandoning its customers and potential customers on the iOS and macOS platforms or choosing a different game engine when preparing to develop new games."

    I mean, Unity is perfectly fine for those two platforms...? It's not like Macs are known as value gaming computers...right? :rolleyes:
     
    MadeFromPolygons likes this.
  14. neginfinity

    neginfinity

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Posts:
    13,553
    Actually there's no phone on the market I'm aware of that would perfectly my niche. So, no, I don't have Android. I mean, I have an Android phone, but if there were something better, I'd happily go for it, as this isn't even close to perfect.

    I wouldn't say that. The talk about forced obsolescence comes to mind, and Apple is guilty of pushing updates that causes slowdown on older models. My friend that uses iPhones went through more phones than I did. So I do not believe that value retention is there.

    Apple apparently confirmed that they were forcing slowdown of older models and were fined for that in 2017 for 25 million euros.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51413724

    My friend also complained about that behavior and specifically mentioned how it was impossible to avoid updating the system.

    So here goes closed ecosystem benefits, I guess.

    Amusing, since I buy both. AMD CPUs and NVidia GPUs.
     
    Ryiah likes this.
  15. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    There's no anything that's perfect for me. A heck of a lot of things are close enough to make me happy, though.

    I am certain that they wanted complete control, and I'm ok with that. And the initial audience was a niche, even if it's since grown far past that. For what it's worth, "niche" doesn't have to mean "small", anyway.

    As various people here have pointed out repeatedly, it's not for everyone, but for plenty of people who aren't computer enthusiasts having someone else take care of the technical details of stuff is great. If you've got an iDevice and something shows up in the store for you that's because someone at Apple said that thing can run on your thing and meet expected standards. That's a repeated concern I hear from non-tech-enthusiasts on other platforms, largely due to a lack of central standardisation... which requires someone being in control. It's a trade off, sure, but it's one I like being an option for those who want it, even if those people aren't me.

    One thing I don't like about how they use that control is the rules they still have rules to the effect of "you're not allowed to sell products which compete with ours". If you look at things iteratively since day 1, back before it was even a phone, it makes sense. Why should they let someone else sell music via their own music player? But things have changed a heck of a lot since then. It's obviously no longer primarily a music device, and they have their fingers in many pies at a global level.
     
  16. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,950
    I just checked four dictionaries. Google and Cambridge both state that a niche is a small group. Merriam Webster and Oxford don't make the distinction but Webster does use the word "specialized" in its definition.

    There is definitely a very high chance that the app will meet expected standards compared to Android, but there is always a chance for an app to sneak through the review process and it's potentially more detrimental to have an audience that will blindly trust the apps they download versus one that is wary and not going to permit an app to just access anything.

    https://www.scmagazine.com/home/sec...ling-apps-snuck-into-apple-and-google-stores/
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2020
    MadeFromPolygons likes this.
  17. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
    What I mean by that is if you want "more open than Apple," Android fits that role. You don't need Apple to change their approach to have a product that fits. You may want more open than Android, but that's another conversation.
    In general I agree planned obsolescence is a very scummy thing to do (and I'm kind of convinced nVidia does it too to a lesser degree), but as the story says Apple's actions at least had some justification - the batteries.
    I just can't. Their prices are insane, the price vs. performance ratio is steadily getting worse, and they use proprietary technologies and prevent optimizations on their competitors hardware. I don't do any ML intensive enough to require their hardware and I'm okay with "slightly high end" graphics.

    ...but with relation to Apple's situation, I don't think what nVidia does should be considered illegal.

    I'm a biologist, so I'm probably using the word a little differently. I wasn't referring to size but specificity.
     
    IgnisIncendio and angrypenguin like this.
  18. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,950
    NVIDIA's prices are only insane because they've had no real competition for at least a few generations. When AMD sold competitive products the prices were much more reasonable. A GTX 460, for example, was around $200. AMD's HD 6850 was its competition and sold for $180.
     
  19. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    Sure, but there is a review process. Back in the days of Windows XP I was regularly helping people with PC problems directly related to installing random crud off the Internet. I'd much rather on occasional app sneaking through than the wild west of rubbish that used to be.
    I agree, and I wouldn't recommend anyone to have blind trust in anything. In both cases I'm talking about largely non-technical users, though. Many of these people have little or no knowledge of their own to base judgements upon. For those people I would much more confidently hand them an iOS device than an Android device, no questions asked.

    In a group like this its easy to consider things from the mindset of other technical people. I suspect everyone here would be happy to, or even prefer, to 100% administer their own devices, and I bet every single one of us could do it without a worry. But we're not just talking about devices for you and me and Tim Sweeney here. We're talking about devices for grandmothers, school kids, and people who aren't interested in computers. We were talking before about granularity of file access permissions. Consider, for a moment, trying to communicate that to someone who doesn't know what a "file" is.
     
  20. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
    In grad school I was a TA for Physical Chemistry. One of the early labs was an introduction to Excel - they did some simple calculations, regressions, formatting, that jazz.

    It was...scary. That was the penultimate undergrad chemistry course, maybe the hardest class I ever took (a buddy and I got a 40 and 44 on the first exam--and we passed), and these students taking the class could barely use Excel (and let's not even talk about the lab reports).
     
    IgnisIncendio and angrypenguin like this.
  21. AcidArrow

    AcidArrow

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Posts:
    11,626
    I mean... why? My mother uses an Android tablet. She doesn't install things on her own. I don't see what the issue is?

    Just because Epic's asking for more than one store, it doesn't have to be that you'll start clicking random things on a browser and suddenly you'll end up with a bunch of apps installed.

    I imagine there could be a solution where at initial setup of the device you could have a list of available stores and choose which ones you want to have installed. And I also imagine if you only picked the App Store, then the user experience wouldn't change much than the current one?

    Also, since people keep arguing about Apple not being a monopoly because Android: there's such a thing as a duopoly, and antitrust laws do apply to it as well. And with Epic also suing Google, makes me think they are going for that angle. In the lawsuit with Google they mention that they almost closed a deal with OnePlus to have Fortnite preinstalled on their phones, but Google strong armed OnePlus into breaking that deal (because they were worried Epic would just turn Fortnite into a launcher some day and bypass Google Play).

    The bottom line is: both mobile OSes are quite similar in the end. Sure Android is a little more open, but alternative stores are clearly second class citizens by design, and otherwise the terms and monetization methods both iOS and Android offer are quite similar.
     
    Ryiah likes this.
  22. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    Because I'm considering the whole bell curve of user behaviours, not just any one individual.

    See Sweeney's tweets about Android, and that he's taking Google to court too, and consider Ryiah's earlier examples about AT&T.

    And as I've said repeatedly, I've no issue with challenging Apple (or Google) in principle. It's specifics I'm disagreeing with.

    There is definitely a duopoly. No argument there. And I think regulation is in order. I don't think that regulation should involve forcing Apple to compromise on control of their own devices, or Google compromising on warnings.
     
  23. AcidArrow

    AcidArrow

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Posts:
    11,626
    I have a tendency of quote replying to someone and then going off on tangents, which is admittedly a confusing habit. So for clarity, I do think I understand your position (and I don't think it's that far off from mine) and the latter part of my post wasn't directed at you per se nor was a challenge to your views, or anything like that.

    I'd like to discuss this with you a bit though:
    I do not think Epic is set on the means of getting what they want. You keep repeating about Permissions and installing apps randomly, but I think that what Epic really wants is for both OSes to allow alternative stores to be installed in a first class way, which I don't think involves Android getting rid of permissions, and Apple allowing installing random Apps from the web.

    I can easily imagine a solution where at initial set up you choose from a bunch of stores, and then if you choose Google Play / App Store, the whole bell curve of user experiences won't change much, if at all. (I sort of have in mind what Microsoft did for the EU Windows).

    And specifically about permissions, I think Sweeney keeps bringing it up as an example, but I don't think removing the permissions is what he's after. Because the permissions themselves are not the problem (I mean, they are badly designed and awkward to use, and cause users to become paranoid and they are a bad paradigm, but that's... unrelated to this), it's that installing an alternative store is so unintended by the OS the amount of hoops and warning and permissions you have to go through make alternative stores sort of unviable. Which again would have been solved with an OS provided way to choose between stores, without having to touch on the permissions system.
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2020
    Ryiah and Metron like this.
  24. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    If so then he should say what he's after.

    Unfortunately I suck at Twitter to find specific quotes, because all of this stuff has come up more than once in slightly different ways. From memory (which is fallible!) I believe he has been clear at one point or another about:
    • Anyone should be able to install software from wherever they want.
    • Anyone should be able to distribute their software however they want.
    • Anyone should be able to run their own store (which is an app which can install other apps...).
    • Android's "scary" warnings when attempting to install stuff from non-vendor-supplied stores persuade people not to install 3rd party stuff, and thus shouldn't be there.
    The combination of all of that is where my impression comes from. If that's not what he means then fair enough, but he's not communicating what he actually wants more clearly.

    He raises plenty of other good points if you read his stuff, and makes many a valid argument.

    One thing he says is that you should be able to install whatever you want on a piece of hardware you've purchased. I agree with that in principle. I bought it. It's mine. I can do what I want with it. But the thing is that I can, in fact, do that. Even with an iOS device, I can jailbreak it and then do what I want. What I don't agree with is that Apple should necessarily be required to specifically support that. (Though, to make a point, I don't think they should be able to actively try to stop me, either.)
     
  25. neginfinity

    neginfinity

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Posts:
    13,553
    And then on android you get google play trying to become Apple Store.

    Isn't all of this true?
    I mean even the last point. The issue is that warnings are scary AND unhelpful, due to permissions not being fine-grained/granular.

    ---------

    It boils down to several conflicting issues:

    1. A user should actually own device they purchased. Basically, I shouldn't need any account to work with it, and manufacturer shouldn't be able to push software onto my phone without my consent.
    2. Manufacturer is "entitled to sweat of their brow", and should be able to capitalize on things they developed. Meaning they should be able to offer features nobody else has and attract users this way.

    The issues here is that manufacturers generally try to blur lines between hardware and software, and usually go out of their way to attempt vendor lock-in and force unwanted features onto user. I don't want google account, appleID or anything else, I want a brick with CPU in it that does my bidding.

    A good example of this behavior is the recent announcement that Facebook announcement where their VR headsets would require Facebook accounts starting with 2023. When I bought my Quest that wasn't a thing. I also don't need facebook, and their products, I only needed a headset.

    The way I see it, the manufacturer of operating systems and device, fundamentally shouldn't be allowed to do that.

    That smells like there's a need for a new law in this area. And because of that this lawsuit could be a good thing.
     
  26. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    Not in my opinion. But I don't feel like repeating why I think that.
     
  27. neoshaman

    neoshaman

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Posts:
    6,492
    Just a remark that's a billion worth company going against a trillion worth company whose wealth is higher than the entirety of canada.

    They aren't equivalent in any way when you say billion company against billion company
     
  28. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,950
    A billion dollar company (Epic Games) backed by a trillion dollar company (Microsoft).
     
  29. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
    In what ways is the Google Store becoming like the Apple Store, other than the industry-standard revenue cut? Genuine question, I don't know.
     
  30. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest

    Apple can’t revoke Epic Games’ Unreal Engine developer tools, judge rules

    https://www.polygon.com/2020/8/25/2...ple-lawsuit-fortnite-ios-unreal-engine-ruling

    "In her ruling, the judge pointed out that for one thing, Epic Games International — which owns the Unreal Engine and maintains a contract with Apple for development rights — is a legally separate entity from the Fortnite maker. “For now, Epic International appears to have separate developer program license agreements with Apple and those agreements have not been breached,” said Gonzalez Rogers."

    "In her ruling, the judge pointed out that for one thing, Epic Games International — which owns the Unreal Engine and maintains a contract with Apple for development rights — is a legally separate entity from the Fortnite maker. “For now, Epic International appears to have separate developer program license agreements with Apple and those agreements have not been breached,” said Gonzalez Rogers."
     
  31. IgnisIncendio

    IgnisIncendio

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Posts:
    223
    The judge also denied Epic the part of the TRO that would force Apple to restore Fortnite, claiming that it’s a self-inflicted wound.

    https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/25/...l-engine-fortnite-temporary-restraining-order

    Just to balance it out here, though I understand this is less important than the other in our case.
     
  32. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,950
    One of the article's comments (posted by Regalli) makes a good point. Apple is currently facing an antitrust lawsuit and while they were in their rights to pull Fortnite from the store, pulling the game engine itself has a very retaliatory feel to it and could be used against them in the antitrust lawsuit.
     
  33. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest

    Indeed. Apple's approach to all developers questioning App Store rules is always arrogant: "shut up and gave us your money". I guess they hoped Epic would simply recalculate risks and stop barking at Apple, not achieving anything. While Epic definitely knew the cost and risks. Hired top-tier antitrust lawyers and prepared media campaign. They prepared for the war and Apple assumed they can scare them that easily ;)

    Personally, I think it's beautiful. If any court or antitrust committee would consider for a minute that Apple ways need to be changed (granting more freedom to developers by law), Apple gives them more more arguments :)
     
    Ryiah, bobisgod234 and neginfinity like this.
  34. XCPU

    XCPU

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2017
    Posts:
    145
    Epic owns Unreal? my bubble must be too tight! But then again have never played Fortnight either....
     
  35. Joe-Censored

    Joe-Censored

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Posts:
    11,847
    I've thought about this a lot. Rather than a unified vision, development on Linux (and similar large OSS projects) involves a large number of people scratching their specific itch. Fixes to correct their specific issues, features to address their needs, and the wider community benefits. But the piecemeal approach doesn't do much for a unified experience that a desktop user expects today. Linux is only dominant on mobile because Google implemented that unified experience themselves on top of Linux as a base. Apple has done basically the same thing on their own platforms.

    I used to work for a company where we'd push a lot of Linux kernel and core driver fixes upstream, many of them getting in. But it was all about our specific itch needing to be scratched, as having our own fixes integrated into the mainline kernel meant when we eventually upgrade kernel versions there were less of our own fixes which needed to be merged back in, saving us significant dev and QA time. We weren't doing it in some effort to help create the next revolution in desktop operating systems, just fix rather minor issues we were having. That's a lot of what Linux development is.
     
  36. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
    Apple disables the Epic Games developer account.

    Apparently the Unreal account is still up, so they can still accommodate the platform in the engine.

    I can understand why--Epic did add that alternate payment option to Fortnite, and refused to revert it--but...not a good look.

    This completely prevents payments from within the iOS version of Fortnite. I wonder how large a percentage of their user base that is?
     
  37. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    Personally I think the judge did well. Fingers crossed things carry forward with similar level-headdedness.
     
  38. neoshaman

    neoshaman

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Posts:
    6,492
    Facebook join the battle sideway, apple blocked an update that warn user that apple take 30%, so it can't be waive as help for business during the current hardship. 4d chess popcorn party
     
  39. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
    Next stage - Epic asks court to restore its "Epic Games" account and allow Fortnite back on Apple's App Store.

    As mentioned above the judge basically said she was against this before (she didn't think Epic could claim "irreparable harm" for actions they deliberately took), so I don't know what Epic's thinking here.

    And of course there's the fact that Apple has stated that Fortnite was removed because it broke the rules, and if Epic reverted their payment-system-bypassing update Apple would let the game back on the store.

    According to The Verge (and by extension the original document, linked there), 116 of 330 million Fortnite users are on iOS, and 63% of them only use iOS. That's 22% of the total. I wonder how much Android is.
     
    IgnisIncendio likes this.
  40. AcidArrow

    AcidArrow

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Posts:
    11,626
    The article's a little vague, but I guess they are talking about the account being terminated, which happened after the judge practically said, hold your horses, nothing else should happen until the case goes through.

    I mean, we've (and every app store developer ever) occasionally broke the rules when uploading new updates to or game, because sometimes the rules are a bit vague, (or the reviewer interprets them however they want), not letting Fortnite on the platform is fine, terminating the whole account feels a bit weird (although I guess it's the "knowingly" breaking the rules that makes this worthy of a termination).
     
  41. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
    That's a reasonable argument. However, I read the preliminary statement and it doesn't talk at all of the Epic Games developer account. It's all about Fortnite and Unreal. And regarding the latter, the judge already ruled that Apple can't shut down Epic's "Unreal account" or whatever it is (this duality is confusing to describe), so the latter just seems like posturing.

    Read the last bit too (conclusion and the section before), and they're really making it seem like Apple terminated accounts unrelated to the Fortnite account:

    Seems like some clarification of what Apple actually did is in order.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2020
    angrypenguin likes this.
  42. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    Is this even referring to a separate action to the one MothDoctor quoted about before? Epic is made up of more than one corporation, ie: "legal entity". The judge was quite clear that only one of those legal entities (the one making Fortnite) has broken the rules, and that's why they stopped Apple from acting against another (the one making Unreal Engine).

     
    IgnisIncendio likes this.
  43. AcidArrow

    AcidArrow

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Posts:
    11,626
    My understanding of the events is:
    -Epic broke the rules with their Fortnite update.
    -Apple pulled Fortnite.
    -Epic did lawsuits, also asked for Fortnite be reinstated immediately.
    -Apple said we're going to terminate all Epic related developer accounts.

    -Judge said, Fortnite's not getting back, you broke the rules, but also, no terminating of Unreal related accounts, that's a different thing.

    -Apple terminated Epic's App Store account. <- It is my understanding that the App Store developer accounts, and Unreal accounts are different. As I understood it, App Store developer account was terminated and Unreal wasn't affected. But in Epic's motion, which I just skimmed a bit, they make it sound like Unreal was affected as well?

    So I am now confused as to what actually happened. (because either Epic's lying, which would be stupid, since it would be easily proven that they're lying, or Apple went against the judge's orders, which would also be really stupid, or maybe I'm understanding something wrong)
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2020
  44. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest

    The thing is Epic not exactly "broke rules" since Apple doesn't follow its own rules. It's not true that every app has to pay 30% cut from in-app purchases.

    Some companies pay less - like Amazon paying 15% from Prime subscriptions.
    Some products simply set up payments outside of the app - like Netflix, where Netflix iOS app supposedly cannot even inform about payments outside.
    Some apps remove purchases in apps - I heard you can't buy books via Kindle app in iOS.

    And there are some apps they don't pay cut for IAP at all.

    Source: https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/free-fortnite-faq

    Some apps are allowed to have direct payments, some not. Apple allows itself to block any product and company from its operating systems for any reason they want to. Damaging your product, company and brand because some App Store employee decided to. Epic simply doesn't agree anymore for such arbitrary treatment, assuming such practices shouldn't be even legal within operating systems used by several billions of customers (general purpose computing platform).

    It's not comparable to stores like Steam or game consoles where rules are the same for all 3rd party companies. The only exception is where the store owner pays for an exclusive deal, which is financially positive for given 3rd party company ;)
     
    AcidArrow likes this.
  45. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    It never has been, though. Apps have always been able to provide their own payment system, and were often required to, as long as they're for eligible transactions.

    I don't know about now, but the rules used to be pretty darn clear cut. Anything which sold digital goods for use on the device itself (apps, app content, music, etc.) had to go through the App Store, and thus had to pay the Apple cut. Apps selling physical goods (ordering a pizza, grocery shopping, buying a laptop) had to do everything themselves, including payment processing without giving Apple a cut, since Apple doesn't do physical distro for other people.

    Things got a little muddy when apps came along which give access to content licensed under an existing, external subscription service. More on that below.

    I see this referred to a lot, but just how different is Amazon's deal? The standard deal is that you get 85% of auto-renewed subscription income after a 1 year period. Anyone who talks about it as a 15% vs. 30% thing is either spinning it or doesn't understand it. If anything it should be an immediate vs. 12 months thing.

    As far as I'm aware this has always been allowed, for everyone. That's why you can't (couldn't?) buy Kindle books directly on your iOS device. Amazon didn't want to give Apple a 30% cut and it falls under the digital goods category, so they can't sell it directly on that system. For them it's not a big deal, as their users already know where and how they can buy new books, and they can even do it on the same device - just via their web browser instead.

    What you can't do is tell people about it from within the app. So Amazon* can't (couldn't?) put instructions or direct links in their app which encouraged them to pay money for digital goods outside of Apple's controlled systems. So it relies on customers already knowing about it.

    I'm 99% sure Epic could do the same and sell v-bucks via their website, people could still use them on their iOS devices. But they couldn't have instructions or a button in the game that told their players that.

    Personally, I think that particular rule would be a really good one to challenge. Apple are literally making things harder for competition and their users by censoring mention of alternatives in this case. It's removing important information from the apps themselves without doing anything to increase usability, clarity, security... anything positive I can think of.

    Epic's statement there makes it sound like they're being singled out - "Apple is blocking direct payments for certain ... companies (like Epic)" - but that simply isn't true.

    Same deal with Facebook complaining that their games app won't be accepted. From memory they compared it to things like Kindle and Netflix which are also allowed to provide access to digital goods purchased elsewhere, but to me there's a pretty clear distinction. Both of those apps provide access to static content, where games are obviously software that's executed in real-time on the device. If you look back at the original distinction between where you had to use Apple's system or your own, ebooks and movies are debatably borderline, but games clearly fall well on the App Store side of the line.

    Yeah, I see what you mean. It could be intentionally vague language to get that exact response, just like the above.

    * Actually, Amazon may have got in early enough that these weren't rules yet at the time, which is another consideration. Some of the rules "not applying" to people are because the rules got changed after they started doing their thing.
     
  46. neoshaman

    neoshaman

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Posts:
    6,492
    steam just added the same clause
     
  47. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
    Steam added the same clause because games were being bought out by Epic, delayed on Steam for a year, and the Epic version of the game was being promoted on its Steam page.

    Not even remotely the same.
     
  48. LaneFox

    LaneFox

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Posts:
    7,462
    I don't think it's particularly unfair for a product to say that you cannot directly compete with the product within the product and largely thats what is taking place in many circumstances and the reason for these clauses. It's basically like saying "I want to use your platform, but not under your rules."... Well, if you don't like their rules, make a competing platform?
     
    IgnisIncendio and angrypenguin like this.
  49. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,950
    Great. If having a fancy phone isn't enough we could tell people it's Epic! :p
     
  50. Billy4184

    Billy4184

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Posts:
    6,008
    I think we're getting to the point where tech companies can no longer be simply treated like a restaurant business, where you can just go down the road and find a good alternative if you don't like something. They are getting into every nook and cranny of people's lives and minds, and the established companies are so big that competition is incredibly hard, and they can do virtually whatever they want without worrying about losing competitive advantage.

    I expect that if a private company owned all the roads in Australia, they wouldn't be able to do whatever they want in terms of deciding who can use it and under what terms. Digital platforms are probably even more integral to people's lives these days than the roads they drive on.

    So I don't see it as just a question of business practices, it's also a question of maintaining a relatively free and open ecosystem that people operate in.
     
    OCASM, NotaNaN, bluescrn and 6 others like this.