141–150 of 614 posts
In my experience bullies cry the most when they get hit back. Apple throwing a temper tantrum when somebody fights back fits that pattern.
In my view Epic is the full grown capable adult wanting to live in his parents basement for free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is reasonable to charge developers for development tools, but if that's what you want to do, just charge them for development tools. This isn't how the software development eco-system works. There are tonnes of examples of providing free development tools with restrictions on use and revenue sharing agreements. For example, there's this little known company called Epic Games which provides the Unreal Engine for…
You can write a game without using Unreal Engine. You can't write an iPhone app without Apple's permission, even if you don't use a single byte from their SDK. The "the app store pays for libraries" argument is total bullshit. Apple wants 30% of your Spotify subscription because they saw it, they wanted it, and now they're having a temper tantrum about it. Not because they laid the foundation for Spotify.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If it costs money to develop a platform, it doesn't seem that strange to just charge that upfront when someone buys an iPhone. Epic runs their own digital distribution platform, in which they also take a cut of the sales. Their terms are different than Apples, but they still do take a cut of sales. Epic also takes 5% royalties for any (non-free) game built with Epic's Unreal Engine. Epic and Apple have the same bus…
It doesn't really matter what Epic is doing. Loot boxes, game engines, and game mechanics aren't the issue here. The issue is that I, a user of an iPhone, should be able to install whatever software I want. You know what? I played Fortnite and I hated it. I won't be installing Fortnite or buying any skins for it. But, Epic has the right to offer their product to me without interference. Apple already has $1000 of my…
And, likewise, Apple, as the platform owner, should be able to deny access whatever software they want.
You can of course, jailbreak your iphone, or install PWA's that work.
This is a very bad look on Apple. Regardless of the enforceability of their agreements, the sense of entitlement that underlies Apple’s position is shocking. The claim that Epic has “lined [its] pockets at Apple’s expense” implies that Apple deserves to sit in the middle of every transaction that happens on their devices and take a margin. This is the world’s most valuable company we’re talking about here; assertions…
Isn't a better analogy that car dealerships deserve revenue for selling Toyota's cars? Running an app store and providing a safe platform for users isn't free right?
In some states its illegal for the car manufacturer to directly sale to the consumer, they have to go through car dealerships.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Such a weird argument too, as if there was a different service Epic could use to reach > 50% of the US mobile market.
If Epic was able to install their own app as a store (what they actually want), they would have at least a few tens of millions of users to start with (there's 116 million iOS Fortnite players). Epic's in the fairly unique position of having a "killer app" that a large portion of the iOS user base would want to install to get the ball rolling on a competing store. Given their rates a much better than Apple's, I imagi…
You know, actual innovation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sad part to me as an iOS developer is that Apple is essentially calling iOS a "service." I'm a huge Apple fan, but they have been digging themselves a grave in terms of developer goodwill with their reaction to these lawsuits.
This should alarm any developer. Any iOS developer could be at risk to pay Apple punitive damages whenever they determine their rules have been broken.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Apple platform is more than just the AppStore.
But it's no more value than they get from googles platform, or more importantly their own platform. It's "just another platform" to EPIC.
And Google's play store has value to Epic too - they started by only allowing Fortnight to be side loaded, and moved to the play store.
I suspect that the reason lots of people prefer these devices are precisely because of the app stores. They have confidence that they won't get viruses, confidence in the payment process, ability to lock down devices for kids etc. The ecosystem clearly has a lot of value.
This whole thing is about money. In the first year Epic made $500m from fortnight on ios. Of course they want a larger piece of the pie - Apple got $214m.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They prohibit the app, that is available from their store to advertise ways of bypassing that store. I'm pretty sure Walmart doesn't sell items in its stores that have text on the packaging about how to buy the item cheaper at Target, and it isn't particularly controversial that they do things that way. As far as I'm aware app's web pages or other communication medium aren't prohibited from advertising whatever they…
Sorry, but what? Once I've bought the app, that analogy is broken. I've taken it home and opened the box, but somehow Walmart think they now get to control any subsequent transactions between me and the manufacturer? Let's say it's a water filter. Now it's a Walmart-specific water filter. When the filter module needs replacing, the vendor is now prohibited from selling me a replacement through any channel but Walmart…
The question of course is an iPhone a specialized device or a general one. I would say Apple has worked as hard as it has to keep things locked down so it can say, with a straight face, that its platform is no different than a Kindle or a Leapfrog.
Its just a very successful specialized device that 3rd parties have decided to come and join the party (hosted by Apple.) So much like Xerox successfully fought off becoming a generic term, Apple is fighting off becoming a legally generic platform.
Apple writes in their court filing: “Epic sought to enjoy all of the benefits of Apple’s iOS platform and related services while its ‘hotfix’ lined Epic’s pockets at Apple’s expense.” It seems that Apple has forgotten that each iPhone user already paid Apple hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars for the iPhone itself. It is reasonable to charge developers for development tools, but if that's what you want to do, jus…
Well to be specific, buying the iPhone comes with access to apps through the the App Store, not any software that you like. That's clear to almost everyone I would think. And it comes without any statement/guarantee about how Apple charges the developers or the agreements there. Most people have no idea, and don't care. Some apps choose to make their apps free, others choose to charge fees. Some want to have their in…
Bad analogy, it'd be like buying the cell tower and getting charged for using it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, but what? Once I've bought the app, that analogy is broken. I've taken it home and opened the box, but somehow Walmart think they now get to control any subsequent transactions between me and the manufacturer? Let's say it's a water filter. Now it's a Walmart-specific water filter. When the filter module needs replacing, the vendor is now prohibited from selling me a replacement through any channel but Walmart…
Its par for the course. You can't buy a Kobo book on a Kindle. The question of course is an iPhone a specialized device or a general one. I would say Apple has worked as hard as it has to keep things locked down so it can say, with a straight face, that its platform is no different than a Kindle or a Leapfrog. Its just a very successful specialized device that 3rd parties have decided to come and join the party (host…
Apple's rules would prohibit it.
Apple's restrictions on any content that suggests the consumer may access services by any means other than making an in-app purchase are not "par for the course", they are an unusual abuse of market power that directly misleads the consumer.
I've also just re-read the App Store rules and noticed that for multi-platform services, it even contains a covenant outside of the walled garden: "your general communications about other purchasing methods must not discourage use of in-app purchase."