Apple boots Fortnite off the App Store

[RubberJohnny]

25 minutes ago, 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.

 

This argument doesn't work, there's no apps and files playing on your device through XCloud, all you're getting is audio and video, just like Netflix, which are apps that are allowed.

 

There's no additional security problems caused by any of this, it's simply an inconsistent standard that penalises games only.

[Popo]

1 minute ago, RubberJohnny said:

 

This argument doesn't work, there's no apps and files playing on your device through XCloud, all you're getting is audio and video, just like Netflix, which are apps that are allowed.

 

There's no additional security problems caused by any of this, it's simply an inconsistent standard that penalises games only.

 

Agreed, I wasn't referencing game-streaming apps like XCloud.

[Flub]

The interesting thing to me is Epic has essentially killed its own mobile Fortnite app for the forseeable. Apple and Google caving in aside (Which is unlikely) court cases like this take years. As far as I was aware loads of kids played Fortnite on mobile. I wonder how much revenue they just gave up for this.

[Mogster]

Just now, Flub said:

The interesting thing to me is Epic has essentially killed its own mobile Fortnite app for the forseeable. Apple and Google caving in aside (Which is unlikely) court cases like this take years. As far as I was aware loads of kids played Fortnite on mobile. I wonder how much revenue they just gave up for this.

 

You can still sideload Fortnite on Android, which I'm sure plenty of kids will have figured out already.

[Gotters]

21 minutes ago, Harsin said:

Now you’re just being hysterical.

 

Nintendo sell hardware at a profit from day 1

 

MS & Sony do not, without tear downs of the new models for actual component costs we don't know if they are subsidising or breaking even on launch, but its certain that factored into the lifetime economics of a platform revenue from their 'monopoly' digital storefronts must be a good chunk of change.

 

If this lawsuit helps remove that future iterations of machine will be impacted as there will be either less to spend on R&D, or the companies have to charge more for hardware, or make it less powerful (like Nintendo).

 

Hysterical really doesn't describe this point of view, its totally rational, but I suspect you know that and just wanted to go for a variant of 'you ok hun'

[phillv85]

It won't remove PS Store or Nintendo Store etc. It'll just mean there can be competition on there. Whether that competition surfaces is another thing. The iOS market must be bigger than all three main console store fronts combined.

[Flub]

10 minutes ago, Mogster said:

 

You can still sideload Fortnite on Android, which I'm sure plenty of kids will have figured out already.

 

I read that they eventually went back to the Play store because side loading takeup was too low.

[RubberJohnny]

7 minutes ago, Gotters said:

Hysterical really doesn't describe this point of view, its totally rational, but I suspect you know that and just wanted to go for a variant of 'you ok hun'

 

 

I dunno, complaining that this lawsuit will affect a completely different type of machine with far less market power than any of the ones actually being sued, and then extrapolating through like three or four pretty contentious implicit premises to moan that it'll mean the downfall of the console industry seems pretty reactionary, and yeah, a bit hysterical.

[Gotters]

2 minutes ago, RubberJohnny said:

 

I dunno, complaining that this lawsuit will affect a completely different type of machine with far less market power than any of the ones actually being sued, and then extrapolating through like three or four pretty contentious implicit premises to moan that it'll mean the downfall of the console industry seems pretty reactionary, and yeah, a bit hysterical.

 

the size of the store is utterly irrelevant I'd say - if its established that you can't control who can sell what on a platform then the cat is out the bag and any such ruling in precedent terms applies equally.

 

what are the contentious extrapolations I'm making ? I've not said its the downfall of the industry (you have), I'm saying it could have an impact on future generations of hardware.

[RubberJohnny]

1 minute ago, Gotters said:

the size of the store is utterly irrelevant I'd say - if its established that you can't control who can sell what on a platform then the cat is out the bag and any such ruling in precedent terms applies equally.

 

Except antitrust rulings are explicitly based on size and market power, they don't care about SMEs with bundled software. The biggest console is what, 120 million? Apple has a billion devices, and is only 15% of the mobile market.

 

1 minute ago, Gotters said:

what are the contentious extrapolations I'm making ? I've not said its the downfall of the industry (you have), I'm saying it could have an impact on future generations of hardware.

 

Extrapolating that will affect consoles, extrapolating this will mean more expensive hardware, extrapolating this means less powerful hardware, etc. Maybe just chill out and talk about the current lawsuit rather than extrapolating some dystopian future two console generations from now?

[Gotters]

1 minute ago, RubberJohnny said:

 

Except antitrust rulings are explicitly based on size and market power, they don't care about SMEs with bundled software. The biggest console is what, 120 million? Apple has a billion devices, and is only 15% of the mobile market.

 

 

Extrapolating that will affect consoles, extrapolating this will mean more expensive hardware, extrapolating this means less powerful hardware, etc. Maybe just chill out and talk about the current lawsuit rather than extrapolating some dystopian future two console generations from now?

 

those are global markets and not the US one, which this lawsuit can only apply to.

 

you seem a bit sensitive to discussion about it and where it may lead, of course its all guesswork but they aren't exactly huge leaps devoid of reality.

[footle]

13 minutes ago, Gotters said:

what are the contentious extrapolations I'm making ? I've not said its the downfall of the industry (you have), I'm saying it could have an impact on future generations of hardware.

 

Google have accepted the precedent in India.

 

Would Team Apple accept locking down everyone's PCs so that they're only able to run software from the Microsoft store because "security"?

Clearly not, though presumably they're ok with the idea of "everything via the Mac App Store" on the next generation of Apple SoC Macs.

 

[Harsin]

Apple is currently facing antitrust allegations in both the US and EU. Now both legal systems may turn around at the end of a

l this and say 'Nope, they're squeaky clean', but they certainly think there's enough there at the moment to convene hearings and commissions. Yet we have people here leaping up to definitively say nope Apple are doing nothing wrong.

 

Personally I wouldn't describe Apple in the mobile OS space as a monopoly, but I feel duopoly is an appropriate term for them and Google and I'd be really interested in someone telling my why I'm wrong to use that terminology.

[DeciderVT]

44 minutes ago, Ste Pickford said:

 

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.

 

Presumably a broader precedent set by this case will also benefit Tencent's many other mobile games on both platforms, if they're able to sidestep or reduce Apple's or Google's cuts.

[HarryBizzle]

If Sony and Microsoft are able to justify the 30% based on the relative sizes of their platforms and costs of maintaining them, then I think that’s fine, but I would point out that the gaming market is growing year on year. 
 

Apple being the richest company on the planet and having to do very little to maintain the profitability of their platforms makes it a different scenario, I think. 

[Uncle Mike]

3 minutes ago, footle said:

Would Team Apple accept locking down everyone's PCs so that they're only able to run software from the Microsoft store because "security"?

 

There were a pile of people arguing quite vehemently that Epic and their PC Games Store was an abomination and should be razed to the ground, so maybe.

[bear]

11 hours ago, Nate Dogg III said:

It’s not about EA. 

I just mentioned EA because looking at the guys (very impressive) CV on his Twitter profile it seems like he'd spent the last 4 or 5 years there. 

[Mogster]

27 minutes ago, Flub said:

 

I read that they eventually went back to the Play store because side loading takeup was too low.

 

I think they offered it from the Play store and their own. It's certainly available to download from Epic at the moment. 

 

 

[Flub]

Just now, Mogster said:

 

I think they offered it from the Play store and their own. It's certainly available to download from Epic at the moment. 

 

 

 

Yeah I know but the reason I read for them putting it back on the Google store at all was because not nearly enough people were sideloading. I'm implying that not enough people will start sideloading to play Fortnite for the next 4-5 years.

[Broker]

As a PR move for Epic this is fucking spectacular. 

[Harsin]

The thing to remember about Google and side loading is that they allegedly actively used their market position to block deals where devices could have Fortnite preloaded onto them.

 

Someone earlier in the thread made a good post about how slimy Google are despite having a more 'open' platform (sorry I can’t remember exactly who posted it to give you credit).

[RubberJohnny]

12 minutes ago, DeciderVT said:

Presumably a broader precedent set by this case will also benefit Tencent's many other mobile games on both platforms, if they're able to sidestep or reduce Apple's or Google's cuts.

 

I've seen a fair few people pushing this "they're doing this to benefit their Chinese overlords and undermine US corporations" conspiracy (although they're usually not British people) and as well as being mad xenophobic, it's also not even true, most of Epic's shareholders are in the US.

[Mogster]

3 minutes ago, Flub said:

 

Yeah I know but the reason I read for them putting it back on the Google store at all was because not nearly enough people were sideloading. I'm implying that not enough people will start sideloading to play Fortnite for the next 4-5 years.

 

I'm not suggesting that every mobile player is about to switch, but I think there's more chance of people sideloading now. All those Play Store players are going to want to keep playing, and news will spread pretty quickly that all they have to do is install the Epic store version.

[HarryBizzle]

1 minute ago, RubberJohnny said:

 

I've seen a fair few people pushing this "they're doing this to benefit their Chinese overlords and undermine US corporations" conspiracy (although they're usually not British people) and as well as being mad xenophobic, it's also not even true, most of Epic's shareholders are in the US.

 

I think people forget just how incredibly compliant these wonderful US corporations are in implementing the will of China and various other authoritatian regimes.

 

Apple has threatened to remove apps from the store - from all regions! - for including stuff about the apps helping to circumvent internet censorship.

[Broker]

If the general situation in the market is anything to go by, removing Fortnite from phones is going to be fucking awesome for the phone version of Minecraft. 

[thesnwmn]

4 minutes ago, Harsin said:

The thing to remember about Google and side loading is that they allegedly actively used their market position to block deals where devices could have Fortnite preloaded onto them.

 

Someone earlier in the thread about how slimy Google are despite having a more 'open' platform (sorry I can’t remember exactly who posted it to give you credit).

 

And for the user doing it themselves there are a number of security changes the user must make to allow the install and prompts to go through. I think both are good things to prevent users installing apps from random unknown locations but they're off putting and harm competition. I guess the issue is that to remove these hurdles for competition would leave the question of who is the arbiter of "safe locations" (not that the Play store in particular has turned out to be that safe given the amount of spying/malware embedded in apps on there).

[Eighthours]

1 hour ago, Nate Dogg III said:

 

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. 

 

I believe that Epic are doing this for the right reasons too. It just so happens that these right reasons make them more money rather than less, which is also handy. The Epic Game Store's USP of taking a 12% cut rather than 30% incentivises devs to be on the platform, while also (potentially) makes games cheaper for customers. This then feeds through to a lower amount of sales that devs have to make of a game before it becomes profitable, which in itself helps the health of the industry. So it's a rolling stone gathering moss - the result of one policy feeds the result of the next, which feeds the next and so on, and everyone ends up benefitting. Fortnite only became successful after the original 'Saves The World' mode flopped and they launched the free to play battle royale mode, with the mega-money initially coming through their innovative season battle pass system. But recently, even the battle pass system has been old hat if you read into what Epic is now doing - it's essentially funnelling existing regular players into earning enough V-Bucks by simply playing the game to afford the next season's battle pass each time. I wouldn't be surprised if the battle pass ultimately ends up being dropped entirely. Epic has figured out that the real Fortnite money is from people buying the skins and emotes, which can be happily ignored by anyone who doesn't want to get involved. Epic has therefore come up with a pretty brilliant business strategy across Fortnite and the EGS. Gamers pay less or even nothing, the devs earn more into the bargain, and Epic still laugh their way to the bank. Compared to all this, Apple's approach seems like it's from the Stone Age.

 

Did Epic only do 12% in order to set their store apart, in order to give them some publicity and a reason for devs to be on the platform? Probably. Maybe this isn't actually a passionate fight against excessive fees and walled gardens at all, but is just for market advantage. I don't give a shit, though, if it results in the experience for gamers on Apple platforms becoming much better. Likewise, it's doubtful that Microsoft have turned into a cuddly corporation that's out there for the little guy, but Game Pass is great for devs and gamers alike. So what if it only came into being because Microsoft were in a terrible position against Sony this generation? I don't care how it happened - all I know is that it's a brilliant, forward-thinking service that deserves to be a massive success, and I hope that Sony and Nintendo (lol, fat chance) react to it by being forced to improve their own offerings.

 

And I'm no Apple hater by any means. I've been in their ecosystem for over a decade now and it would be very difficult for me to switch to Android at this point. iPhones and iPads are wonderful devices, but the App Store is a hellhole. FTP and IAPs are used in a horribly cynical way in the games market, and smaller devs find it almost impossible to make money without having to resort to awful design practices, making the gaming experience much worse. I only really stay in iOS because of the music apps market, which is a country mile better than on Android - it's an experience that can't currently be replicated there. However, things are far from rosy here too, with nearly all music app devs having to treat it as a sideline to their main job. They get completely gouged by Apple on the 30% take, and so their choices are to raise prices - guaranteeing fewer sales for what is already a niche market - or going to bargain basement prices in order to shift units, while being aware that they will likely never turn a profit. It's a very tough market out there for the devs.

 

I've read the Epic lawsuit and it was clearly designed to be read by normal human beings. It makes a lot of sense. The Apple policies and contradictions it outlines are nonsensical in 2020. As it says:

- There is no reason why the Mac can happily run multiple app stores yet it would be too dangerous for iOS to do the same thing.

- There's no reason why you should be able to stream any movie or TV show on Netflix, yet Apple insist on checking every single software title available on a streaming games service where nothing will be downloaded to the device. (You can even download movie files for later viewing on iPlayer, Netflix and Prime, of course!)

- There's no reason why you should be able to buy items on Amazon or eBay from their apps for no extra fees, while IAPs in games attract the 30% Apple tax.

 

I've owned so many Apple devices that I could easily be described as a fanboy, but my love for the hardware (and even their policies here have non-customer-friendly issues, such as how you can't upgrade any components within a Mac anymore) conflicts with how I think they've become absolutely fucking terrible in terms of how their walled garden is enforced on iOS. Why can I get Apple Music on my work Windows laptop through downloading iTunes, but I can't get xCloud on my iPad? There is simply no justification for this difference at all.

 

I hope Epic win. I'm pretty sure they will, but it would be great for Apple to finally see the light on their anti-consumer practices and compromise quickly, rather than this being a court fight that drags on for a number of years. In this brave new world, the App Store would still easily be the 'winner' on iOS against the competition if it's better than the alternatives. But that's the key word: competition. It tends to make companies work harder and can benefit everyone in the process.

[Harsin]

It's worth remembering that this is a far bigger matter than just gaming. If people aren't aware of what happened with the Hey email app it's worth reading up on.

 

https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-email-app-hey-finds-itself-in-battle-with-apple-over-app-store-guidelines/
 

 

https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/22/21298552/apple-hey-email-app-approval-rules-basecamp-launch

 

Quote

• Hey is a $99-a-year premium email service that launched last week to positive coverage.
• Apple’s App Store rules require paid services to offer users the ability to sign up and pay in the app using Apple’s payment tools. That costs developers a nonnegotiable 30 percent cut.
• There is a controversial carveout in the rules for “reader” apps like Netflix and Spotify but not email apps.
• Apple initially approved the Hey app in the iOS App Store but rejected a bug-fix update because it decided Hey violated the rules by not offering in-app subscriptions.
• Apple told Protocol that “client apps” are allowed for “business services” but not “consumer products,” a distinction that appears nowhere in the rules and which Apple did not push with other media outlets.
• This rejection happened on the same day the European Commission announced an antitrust investigation into the App Store and Apple Pay. (Really.)
• Basecamp CTO David Heinemeier Hansson said he would rather “burn this house down myself” than pay the 30 percent fee to Apple. (Also really.)
• Heinemeier Hansson and House Antitrust Committee chairman Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI), who is leading an antitrust investigation into digital marketplaces like the App Store, appeared on The Vergecast to discuss the situation. Cicilline called Apple’s 30 percent fee “unconscionable” and “highway robbery.” (Again: really.)
• Apple marketing chief Phil Schiller spoke to TechCrunch on the record about the situation and said, “There are many things that they could do to make the app work within the rules that we have. We would love for them to do that.”
• Importantly, Schiller also told TechCrunch: “You download the app and it doesn’t work, that’s not what we want on the store.”
• Apple rejected the Hey app again. It sent the rejection letter to the press beforeBasecamp received it. (Once again: really.) The rejection letter noted that Basecamp’s apps had “have not contributed any revenue to the App Store over the last eight years,” a line that went over in the developer community like a lead balloon.
• Ben Thompson column reports developers are terrified of Apple. Kara Swisher column reports developers are terrified of Apple. John Gruber column about Kara Swisher column reports developers are terrified of Apple. Suddenly, everyone knows Apple and the App Store terrifies developers.

This, I swear to you, is the short version.

[Weavus]

51 minutes ago, Gotters said:

Nintendo sell hardware at a profit from day 1

 

Maybe on the physical components, but they certainly are not making a profit from day 1 after the billions spent on R&D to develop and bring a consoles to market. They are just not losing any more money for each console sold.

[Eighthours]

8 minutes ago, Harsin said:

It's worth remembering that this is a far bigger matter than just gaming. If people aren't aware of what happened with the Hey email app it's worth reading up on.

 

https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-email-app-hey-finds-itself-in-battle-with-apple-over-app-store-guidelines/
 

 

https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/22/21298552/apple-hey-email-app-approval-rules-basecamp-launch

 

 

 

 

I'm sure I saw an app a while back where the subscription charge available on the dev's website was also an IAP on the phone version as per App Store rules (with a 30% markup to account for Apple's cut), but the devs had added a big note and a splash screen in the app, advising customers not to buy the IAPs on their phone because of Apple's cut. I have a feeling that Apple rejected a later update of the app until they removed that text.