Apple boots Fortnite off the App Store

[Isaac]

The amount of Apple apologists in here is certainly a wake up call. 

 

 

[Disgraced Toblerone]

1 minute ago, HarryBizzle said:

 

They have exclusive control of the biggest software market on the planet.

 

Yeah. This isn't a monopoly.

[davidcotton]

22 minutes ago, Harsin said:

If you truly believe that Apple's motive here is security then I have a plot of land on the moon to sell you.

Could be interested if you throw in some magic beans as well.

[Stanley]

1 minute ago, Bacon Horsemeat said:

Who cares if Epic are doing this for their own advantage (although losing millions from App Store revenue would say otherwise)

 

If it brings about a reduction in App Store fees or allowing devs to set their own prices in app, it will benefit all developers.

It won’t happen, any deal Epic strikes out of court will benefit them and no one else. 

[phillv85]

2 minutes ago, Disgraced Toblerone said:

 

We'll see indeed if it's an abuse of a dominant position. I'd gladly bet my remaining bollock it's not. But we'll never know, they will get an off court agreement.

 

But it's not a monopoly. 

 

Sorry to be a bit pedantic, but in legal matters, words are important. 

 

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I think it is a monopoly, and that word is used heavily throughout the court documents we've seen, so Epic and their lawyers seem to think it is as well.

[Harsin]

6 minutes ago, Disgraced Toblerone said:

We'll see indeed if it's an abuse of a dominant position. I'd gladly bet my remaining bollock it's not. But we'll never know, they will get an off court agreement.

 

But it's not a monopoly. 

 

Sorry to be a bit pedantic, but in legal matters, words are important. 

 

Quote

Yeah. This isn't a monopoly.

You ought to ring up the European Commission who are actively investigating Apple on this matter right now, independently of the Epic thing, and tell them to pack up as you've definitively proved that they have no monopoly position using your legal expertise.

[Stanley]

1 minute ago, Isaac said:

The amount of Apple apologists in here is certainly a wake up call. 

 

 

Probably just mistrusting any of these bastards, especially the ones responsible for Fortnite. 

[phillv85]

5 minutes ago, Gotters said:

 

or tens of millions of dollars to reduce the hundreds of millions of dollars they pay in commission, they may not give a stuff about the monopoly aspect.

 

They almost certainly don't care, but they'll use it against Apple to get their way.

[Popo]

13 minutes ago, Harsin said:

Again, to the people arguing the security angle, do you think that you should be blocked from accessing Amazon and eBay on Safari? If not, why not?

 

I don't think you're comparing like for like.  All operating system platforms have been moving towards store-style distribution models for apps for many years because of the security benefits such a model offers.

[Stanley]

1 minute ago, phillv85 said:

 

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I think it is a monopoly, and that word is used heavily throughout the court documents we've seen, so Epic and their lawyers seem to think it is as well.

Of course they’ll use words like that, they’re not going to go in weak, makes no odds until a ruling. 

[Isaac]

Just now, Popo said:

 

I don't think you're comparing like for like.  All operating system platforms have been moving towards store-style distribution models for apps for many years because of the security benefits such a model offers.

 

Check out this guy! "Because of the security benefits"! 

 

You mean because of the revenue benefits, right?

[HarryBizzle]

5 minutes ago, Disgraced Toblerone said:

 

We'll see indeed if it's an abuse of a dominant position.

 

Of course it is. Apple apps are able to do things third party apps can't, Apple have access to performance data and how apps are used and can use that to make competing products, and even their direct competitors have to pay them 30% of their revenue.

[Nate Dogg III]

I have no problem with a walled garden. I like the ecosystem and having multiple thirdparty app stores would be a faff for me to use and a nightmare for Apple to police. I have no issue with the platform holder controlling what goes on its platform. I think Epic's line about building its own app store for Apple devices is more of a legal argument designed to draw parallels with the Internet Explorer case.

 

There is no need whatsoever for the fee to be as high as 30%, though, and certainly not on every transaction, because they're doing so little to earn it. When I buy the Archero battle pass, a game I've played most days for a year, for a fiver, Apple gets £1.50. What for? I heard about the game on here, I play it because it's good, I pay for the odd thing here or there because I want the developers to keep making new stuff for it. Apple just handles the payment. It's like your bank taking 30% off the top of every payment transfer it handles.

 

When Epic launched the Store to take on Steam, Sweeney said they'd run the maths on costs of bandwidth, storage, security, customer service etc and they reckoned that it came to like 6%, and anything above that is pure profit. You can maybe argue 30% is acceptable for an initial purchase, and maybe it made sense in the formative days of the App Store when most apps cost money up front. Taking that slice off every in-app purchase, a decade and millions of apps later, is just gluttony that pushes up prices, discourages purchases, makes it harder for developers to stay afloat and also pushes them towards more exploitative game design because they need to tilt the economics in their favour by getting us to spend more, and more often. I'm not saying all that goes away if they reduce the transaction fee. But I'd certainly like to give it a go and see what happens.

[Disgraced Toblerone]

3 minutes ago, Harsin said:

 

You ought to ring up the European Commission who are actively investigating Apple on this matter right now, independently of the Epic thing, and tell them to pack up as you've definitively proved that they have no monopoly position using your legal expertise.

 

Apple just got a huge fine in France because they unlawfully favored their own stores against independant (legal) retailers. It was an abuse of their position as a manufacturer and a retailer. 

 

It's basically the same thing that is being investigated by the EC. 

 

Still not a monopoly.

[Popo]

3 minutes ago, Isaac said:

 

Check out this guy! "Because of the security benefits"! 

 

You mean because of the revenue benefits, right?

 

No need to be rude.  I'm talking about the security offered by distributing signed, trusted app installers vs unsigned, untrusted ones.  This is something you'll even find on Linux systems, the antithesis of profit-making.

[Stanley]

1 minute ago, HarryBizzle said:

 

Of course it is. Apple apps are able to do things third party apps can't, Apple have access to performance data and how apps are used and can use that to make competing products, and even their direct competitors have to pay them 30% of their revenue.

So the argument is whether 30% is fair then, unless you’re saying they should get nothing, in which case every platform holder is abusing their position. 

[Gotters]

I imagine the Sony, Microsoft & Nintendo are all over this - if Epic do make this stick on the grounds stated then the whole console eShop model is busted open too.

 

I'm sure part of the financial model in developing hardware nowadays is taking a cut in software via these stores - so this case could dissuade these companies from producing new hardware.

[Isaac]

Just now, Gotters said:

I imagine the Sony, Microsoft & Nintendo are all over this - if Epic do make this stick on the grounds stated then the whole console eShop model is busted open too.

 

I'm sure part of the financial model in developing hardware nowadays is taking a cut in software via these stores - so this case could dissuade these companies from producing new hardware.

 

Oh no, imagine what might happen if there's competition.

[Harsin]

Now you’re just being hysterical.

[phillv85]

7 minutes ago, Stanley said:

Of course they’ll use words like that, they’re not going to go in weak, makes no odds until a ruling. 

 

Well yeah.... also doesn't mean it's not true.

[Stanley]

1 minute ago, Harsin said:

Now you’re just being hysterical.

You’re the only one who is sounding even vaguely hysterical here, everyone else is just discussing it normally offering measured replies, no one is claiming to be an expert. 

[Weavus]

8 hours ago, Nate Dogg III said:

I think the point is that prices are already higher than they need to be, and are putting the pinch on creator and end user so that the company in the middle, that has no reason to be there, can maintain its trillion-dollar value. Apple can maybe make the argument that it helped iOS users discover Fortnite but when someone buys V-Bucks 200 hours of play later it no longer holds water. I don’t think putting prices up is really sustainable for anyone except Apple, and even that is arguable. The ‘let the market decide’ argument falls apart when the landlord is wilfully distorting the market by demanding its pound of flesh on every transaction. 

 

How much cut do Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft take on their console platforms for IAP? If you want to play golf at the club you have to pay the green fees, if you don't want to pay you are welcome to build your own course or find someone else who will let you play for cheaper. The 30% cut may be viewed as high but at least they are consistent in charging everyone the same and don't go down the slippery path of charging different fees based on how big you are. Billion dollar companies don't like paying the same as Mr backroom developer though and thats what this is about, not saving the consumer money, just wanting more of the pie themselves.

[HarryBizzle]

 

2 minutes ago, Gotters said:

I imagine the Sony, Microsoft & Nintendo are all over this - if Epic do make this stick on the grounds stated then the whole console eShop model is busted open too.

 

I'm sure part of the financial model in developing hardware nowadays is taking a cut in software via these stores - so this case could dissuade these companies from producing new hardware.

 

Platform holders have always taken a cut of game sales, long before digital was a thing.

[HarryBizzle]

2 minutes ago, Weavus said:

The 30% cut may be viewed as high but at least they are consistent in charging everyone the same and don't go down the slippery path of charging different fees based on how big you are. 

 

Amazon got that cut to 15% to get Prime video on there and more recently they've done a deal with them so that they pay 0% on video purchases via the Prime app. 

[Ste Pickford]

17 minutes ago, Stanley said:

It won’t happen, any deal Epic strikes out of court will benefit them and no one else. 

 

I genuinely don't think that's Epic's or Tim Sweeney's style.

 

This won't be settled privately with a special deal for Epic.

[Nate Dogg III]

3 minutes ago, Weavus said:

 

How much cut do Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft take on their console platforms for IAP? If you want to play golf at the club you have to pay the green fees, if you don't want to pay you are welcome to build your own course or find someone else who will let you play for cheaper. The 30% cut may be viewed as high but at least they are consistent in charging everyone the same and don't go down the slippery path of charging different fees based on how big you are. Billion dollar companies don't like paying the same as Mr backroom developer though and thats what this is about, not saving the consumer money, just wanting more of the pie themselves.

 

Sure, 30% is the standard and that's why Epic have now gone after Steam, Apple and Google over it. They'll get round to the consoles if they have to but they're small fry in the scheme of things. (I highly doubt they're paying 30% to Microsoft and Sony, incidentally, but that's not the point.)

 

Their problem, as this and other posts point out, is that ultimately they're another for-profit company with their own platform, and so there's always going to be this suspicion that they're not trying to make their competitors be better, just to make them weaker and overtake them. I honestly believe Epic are doing this for the right reasons but it's a hard sell for sure when you see how much money they're already making. 

[Weavus]

1 minute ago, HarryBizzle said:

Amazon got that cut to 15% to get Prime video on there and more recently they've done a deal with them so that they pay 0% on video purchases via the Prime app. 

 

Pretty sure Apple claim that 15% and 0% applies to any company doing the same thing, not just Amazon. It may have come off the back of an Apple / Amazon deal for access but it changed the rules for everyone in that circumstance. 

[Popo]

I'd be interested to know what other platform holders charge, 30% does seem high.

 

I get that it's necessary to charge on IAPs - otherwise developers would make all their games free to play, bypassing Apple completely.

 

Arguing for the right to have one's own storefront on another company's platform sounds like a very hard argument to make indeed.  I'd be very interested to hear it, but I don't think Epic have got a leg to stand on there.

[Weavus]

Just now, Popo said:

I'd be interested to know what other platform holders charge, 30% does seem high.

 

Google Play is 30%, Steam is 30%, no idea what Microsoft / Sony / Nintendo charge....

[Popo]

Just now, Weavus said:

 

Google Play is 30%, Steam is 30%, no idea what Microsoft / Sony / Nintendo charge....

 

One assumes Microsoft pay app developers to put content on their store at this point.