Apple boots Fortnite off the App Store

[Super Craig]

13 minutes ago, footle said:

The costs of Xcode development? Are you kidding me?

 

Do you honestly think they wouldn't?

[therearerules]

37 minutes ago, Weavus said:

 

I was literally just called an Apple apologist for saying there was nothing wrong with a platform holder not wanting developers to circumvent the costs of selling goods in their ecosystem.

No you weren't.

[Super Craig]

11 minutes ago, thesnwmn said:

Yes there are costs. But why percentage? What gives them £3 of a £10 app and or 30p of a £1 one? Does it does Apple more to host and distribute the more expensive one each time? They’re not charging for a service, they’re just flat out stealing an unitemised a cut of everyone’s profits.

 

Profit is obviously the primary motivation, but the free or low grossing apps would probably be subsidised to an extent by the higher grossing ones.

[thesnwmn]

Of course. And they have to cover the costs of the free apps too. Just using services for no cost!

[Weavus]

 

47 minutes ago, Weavus said:

I was literally just called an Apple apologist for saying there was nothing wrong with a platform holder not wanting developers to circumvent the costs of selling goods in their ecosystem.

 

7 minutes ago, therearerules said:

No you weren't.

 

?

 

1 hour ago, therearerules said:

3 hours ago, Weavus said:

Whats wrong with that? It's simple to cancel a subscription on iOS, the issue is they want to give a free trial and then push the user to purchase outside of the App Store so they can take 100% of the money. Why would or should the platform holder allow that? If you don't want to pay the fees you don't get to use the country club.

 

Can someone change the text for Weavus to 'Official Apple Apologist'?

 

[therearerules]

You quoting yourself strawmanning isn't the amazing argument you think it is. You're immediate reaction when someone points out apple are doing something non-consumer friendly (like not allowing free trials to simply expire without taking further payment, something that can be done without allowing third parties to circumvent their walled garden) is to defend these actions against some imagined slight. Every one of your posts in this thread has been to defend apple, even if it's completely unnecessary.

[Weavus]

20 minutes ago, therearerules said:

You quoting yourself strawmanning isn't the amazing argument you think it is. You're immediate reaction when someone points out apple are doing something non-consumer friendly (like not allowing free trials to simply expire without taking further payment, something that can be done without allowing third parties to circumvent their walled garden) is to defend these actions against some imagined slight. Every one of your posts in this thread has been to defend apple, even if it's completely unnecessary.

 

Nope, you were the one who quoted my specific post with a glib reply who then claimed you didn't.

 

Are Apple a perfect company? Hell no, they do plenty wrong, including what I already posted in this thread about how they are dead wrong on not allowing cloud gaming services.

 

 

[therearerules]

3 hours ago, HarryBizzle said:

They refuse to allow you to give users a free trial which does not automatically convert into a paid subscription if you forget to cancel it.

 

3 hours ago, Weavus said:

 

Whats wrong with that? It's simple to cancel a subscription on iOS, the issue is they want to give a free trial and then push the user to purchase outside of the App Store so they can take 100% of the money. Why would or should the platform holder allow that? If you don't want to pay the fees you don't get to use the country club.

...

[Weavus]

4 hours ago, HarryBizzle said:

They refuse to allow you to give users a free trial which does not automatically convert into a paid subscription if you forget to cancel it.

 

If the purpose of the free trail is to try out the full version for a specific timeframe and then pay for the app inside the app store then yes it should be allowed and Apple are wrong to deny it. My reply was aimed at developers who want to use the free trial and _then_ push people to purchase a subscription outside of the app store.
 

EDIT But thinking about it further I can’t see how that would work so I was wrong on that one.

[MK-1601]

This whole thing is puzzling to me. For Epic to 'win', they need to win 100% of what they're asking for in the filing - sideloading of apps and off-platform billing. I just can't see a court going for this with US antitrust law (and Apple's expensive lawyers) being what it is. Even if they do convince the court, Apple still have plenty of scope to implement the remedy in a slow  impractical way that frustrates any effect on their monopoly power, just like Microsoft have typically done.

 

Apple could argue that their restrictions make the platform safer for kids/families and that this has value in their dealings with carriers. They could also argue that not having to deal with billing, hosting, refunds, etc. makes the store a practical option for many smaller developers. Anyone can set up a store on Android but (in the West at least) only Google Play (with Amazon and Galaxy stores taking two smaller slices of the market) realistically reaches the general audience.

 

I think how Apple run iOS does need to evolve. When they set the rules for the platform, iPhone/iPod was still a luxury item with limited practical function. It's much closer to being a PC-like general purpose platform now. But they're still (mostly) taking the same cut and banning huge segments of app types.

 

PS I don't think winning this will make much difference for Xcloud and Stadia. It would be a bit like Adobe forcing Flash onto the platform in the early 2010s. It just has too many disadvantages over running locally or using a different device in most cases. Onlive failed because they didn't anticipate consoles still being around and lots of mainstream games not needing high end PCs, I think it's mainly going to play out that way again.

 

PPS the email client guys who were moaning about not being able to offer a non-renewing free trial - I think this is more indicative of a lack of ingenuity on their part. When Apple decreed that you couldn't make an app a 'demo', the loophole was that you just called your demo a 'lite' version. Gameclub had their apps rejected an insane number of times to find a way to make their (somewhat unique) service work. I suspect the real issue with those guys is that they want to capture the user's details at the point when they start the trial.

 

PPPS (Broker) Sweeney has a long history of advocating open platforms. If they just cared about maximising their profit margin they'd just go along with the platform rules rather than taking this risky gamble.

 

PPPPS Weavus's argument reminds me of the good old days of rllmuk where people earnestly argued that Xbox Live preventing crossplay was in the players' best interests. Well now we have crossplay (an insane 15 years later than technically necessary) and the sky isn't falling. And no, they're not barring xCloud and Stadia from the App Store because they're scared it will dent hardware sales(!?), it's because it would open up a route around their review process. (Hass's post on p.8 says this much better.) It's fundamentally different to TV/Music streaming (which almost certainly aren't covered by the standard app store agreement anyway), it's closer to jailbreaking the phone. "Companies always know best, don't like it make your own billion-user platform" isn't really worthy of response.

 

Did you know that mobile apps existed before the App Store? It's true! The way they were distributed and sold was through carrier portals (and third party portals) with billing mainly through premium SMS. The carriers took AT LEAST a 50% cut of SMS, and a cut out of every other step of the process. They would also have argued that they built the system so they could set any price the market would bear. And they would have continued in perpetuity if Apple and Google hadn't challenged that system.

 

"Don't know if it's still the case now, but Epic were apparently stopping a lot of games going on there unless there was some sort of exclusivity." - this was never the case, one indie dev  misinterpreted an email saying "um, yes to get the $$$ benefits of an exclusivity agreement you would have to agree to timed exclusivity" as "if you don't take this offer you're banned from our store" to try to get some publicity and sales on the back of anti-Epic sentiment.

 

...And finally, Apple have a 100% monopoly on distribution and billing on iOS. This is the least controversial statement in the Epic filing, it's objective, obvious fact, it is bananas that anyone is disputing that part.

[footle]

3 hours ago, MK-1601 said:

Apple could argue that their restrictions make the platform safer for kids/families and that this has value in their dealings with carriers. They could also argue that not having to deal with billing, hosting, refunds, etc. makes the store a practical option for many smaller developers. Anyone can set up a store on Android but (in the West at least) only Google Play (with Amazon and Galaxy stores taking two smaller slices of the market) realistically reaches the general audience.

In the google case I think Epic have a ready retort that, in practice, Google block carriers from preinstalling other stores if they want to ship the Google suite.

In the Apple case, not having to deal with blah is covered by any storefront provider. The first “safety” thing is the bit that Epic etc, have to deal with: I’m not so sure about dealing with the carriers - if I buy an iPad, I don’t deal with any carrier.

[DukeOfEarlsfield]

3 hours ago, MK-1601 said:

...And finally, Apple have a 100% monopoly on distribution and billing on iOS. This is the least controversial statement in the Epic filing, it's objective, obvious fact, it is bananas that anyone is disputing that part.

Agree with your post, but I don’t think anybody is disputing this part, at least not the way you’ve worded it.

 

But the way “monopoly” has been used has often been unclear and in one case has even been compared to the MS Internet Explorer case. Apple don’t have a monopoly over internet connected mobile phones in the same way that MS had an effective monopoly over internet connected PC’s. I think that’s where the disagreement has been.

 

So yes, Apple have a monopoly over their own eco-system, just like Sony and Nintendo do.

[phillv85]

2 hours ago, DukeOfEarlsfield said:

Agree with your post, but I don’t think anybody is disputing this part, at least not the way you’ve worded it.

 

But the way “monopoly” has been used has often been unclear and in one case has even been compared to the MS Internet Explorer case. Apple don’t have a monopoly over internet connected mobile phones in the same way that MS had an effective monopoly over internet connected PC’s. I think that’s where the disagreement has been.

 

So yes, Apple have a monopoly over their own eco-system, just like Sony and Nintendo do.

 

Not exactly the same for Sony or Nintendo though, you can go to a store and buy games there. Developers have the option of a physical product for those platforms, that doesn’t exist with Apple.

[Paulando]

26 minutes ago, phillv85 said:

 

Not exactly the same for Sony or Nintendo though, you can go to a store and buy games there. Developers have the option of a physical product for those platforms, that doesn’t exist with Apple.

So platform holders don’t take a cut from physical sales too?

[gooner4life]

1 minute ago, Paulando said:

So platform holders don’t take a cut from physical sales too?

 

They take 5% of mtx vs 30% on google play and the app store.

[Paulando]

These are also the platform holders who are doing their absolute best to kill of physical sales once and for all. Tempting buyers with a cheaper, all-digital console, you say?

[phillv85]

11 minutes ago, Paulando said:

These are also the platform holders who are doing their absolute best to kill of physical sales once and for all. Tempting buyers with a cheaper, all-digital console, you say?

 

Regardless of their future intentions, the point was, right now I can buy a PS4 game from either PSN or Amazon, I have a choice. Even tiny devs have more choice than ever to put their products on disc via all these small print run companies.

[DukeOfEarlsfield]

53 minutes ago, phillv85 said:

 

Not exactly the same for Sony or Nintendo though, you can go to a store and buy games there. Developers have the option of a physical product for those platforms, that doesn’t exist with Apple.

 

1 minute ago, phillv85 said:

 

Regardless of their future intentions, the point was, right now I can buy a PS4 game from either PSN or Amazon, I have a choice. Even tiny devs have more choice than ever to put their products on disc via all these small print run companies.

True. But you still have to get approval from Sony or Nintendo. And you still have to pay for that approval and give them a cut of those sales.

 

You’re still restricted by their eco systems, they still hold a monopoly on their platforms. It’s hardly dissimilar.

[Stanley]

33 minutes ago, gooner4life said:

 

They take 5% of mtx vs 30% on google play and the app store.

Plus the license, how much is that? 

[phillv85]

1 minute ago, DukeOfEarlsfield said:

 

True. But you still have to get approval from Sony or Nintendo. And you still have to pay for that approval and give them a cut of those sales.

 

You’re still restricted by their eco systems, they still hold a monopoly on their platforms. It’s hardly dissimilar.

 

The alternative methods of redemption do however block the console manufacturers from truly taking the piss on their platforms though.

[MK-1601]

5 hours ago, DukeOfEarlsfield said:

Agree with your post, but I don’t think anybody is disputing this part, at least not the way you’ve worded it.

 

But the way “monopoly” has been used has often been unclear and in one case has even been compared to the MS Internet Explorer case. Apple don’t have a monopoly over internet connected mobile phones in the same way that MS had an effective monopoly over internet connected PC’s. I think that’s where the disagreement has been.

 

So yes, Apple have a monopoly over their own eco-system, just like Sony and Nintendo do.

 

This was in reaction to 'Digraced Toblerone's posts.

 

I realise I didn't cover the point of what does this mean for console manufacturers. I think they *could* argue that there is a case for licensing fees to support their whole business model (and have successfully done so in the past) - if it was to be fought out again they would probably also lean heavily on the fact that they're not general purpose computers. Considering the amount of shit that gets away with putting RFID tags in things (printer cartridges, coffee pods etc.) I think they're probably on pretty safe ground, for better or worse.

[Nate Dogg III]

Re: console manufacturers, something I hadn't considered. Basically they invest more in games than the mobile platform holders do.

 

 

[footle]

They invest and market to grow a user base who all want to play games, and who’ll then buy the games. And they’ll keep the kit running for seven years or so.
 

create a decent game and your console manufacturer will market it. Then feature it prominently in their store, and again in sales.

 

your phone manufacturers are selling general purpose computing and communications devices, for which games are an afterthought and competiting with rip off apps. You’ll have much more of a discovery problem.

[Disgraced Toblerone]

39 minutes ago, MK-1601 said:

 

This was in reaction to 'Digraced Toblerone's posts.

 

I

Well, it’s a bit like complaining that you can’t order a Big Mac at Burger King.

 

I know the analogy is a tad absurd, but legally it’s a myriad shades of grey. Not black and white.

[Isaac]

1 hour ago, Disgraced Toblerone said:

Well, it’s a bit like complaining that you can’t order a Big Mac at Burger King.

 

I know the analogy is a tad absurd, but legally it’s a myriad shades of grey. Not black and white.

 

Not really, it's like buying a MacBook and only being able to download apps from the App store, and Apple taking a cut of literally every transaction.

 

If we are in agreement that mobile phones are essentially now pocket computers, I think barring developers from being able to sell software that works on those computers is a bit of a shit move.

[footle]

2 minutes ago, Isaac said:

 

Not really, it's like buying a MacBook and only being able to download apps from the App store, and Apple taking a cut of literally every transaction.

 

If we are in agreement that mobile phones are essentially now pocket computers, I think barring developers from being able to sell software that works on those computers is a bit of a shit move.

there’s a difference between shit and illegal.

[DukeOfEarlsfield]

9 minutes ago, Isaac said:

If we are in agreement that mobile phones are essentially now pocket computers

I don't think I agree with that. I know it sounds ridiculous because they literally are just a pocket computer with a sim card and 4G antenna, but conceptually I think of my iPhone completely differently than I do my Mac Mini. My usage is completely different, despite significant crossover, and therefore my priorities for how it should work are completely different.

 

I'd abandon the MacOS in a heartbeat if it had the same restrictions as iOS and yet I'm broadly in favour of them on my phone.

[Isaac]

39 minutes ago, DukeOfEarlsfield said:

I'd abandon the MacOS in a heartbeat if it had the same restrictions as iOS and yet I'm broadly in favour of them on my phone.

 

I think you'll be able to test this theory when the Arm silicon Macs launch.

[Harsin]

They’re flogging iPad Pro’s specifically as a laptop replacement, I’ll just fire up xCloud on it... oh wait.

[MK-1601]

1 hour ago, DukeOfEarlsfield said:

I don't think I agree with that. I know it sounds ridiculous because they literally are just a pocket computer with a sim card and 4G antenna, but conceptually I think of my iPhone completely differently than I do my Mac Mini. My usage is completely different, despite significant crossover, and therefore my priorities for how it should work are completely different.

 

I'd abandon the MacOS in a heartbeat if it had the same restrictions as iOS and yet I'm broadly in favour of them on my phone.

 

I sympathise with this - I think a large part of why iPhone has been such a success is Apple's philosophy fits well with a device that users want to Just Work and to have an extremely intuitive UI.

 

But at the same time I'm aware that a lot of things I would definitely use my phone for if it allowed sideloading and general hacking about that I've just become resigned to not doing.