521–530 of 614 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The app store: now with the usability of US sales taxes.
Not really, US local sales taxes are added after sale to the advertised price and can change from one side of a street to the other. App store fees are included in the price and the same everywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not about advertising. It’s about trust building. Apple has earned trust with me as a user. When I download an app from Apple’s stores it extends its trust to those apps. I feel more comfortable spending money on iOS because of that trust. Take away the trust, and I promise there is significantly less money to be made.
If that were true, Epic would not want to offer its app outside of the app store. But it does, because it's more profitable.
This is all my opinion and most importantly feelings about spending money though the AppStore and through any other channel.
I will say, for me no other company has built the good will that Apple has. I really doubt that Epic understands the “trust” I speak about. Both because of the general sentiment I see online and as a Fortnite player.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890
Just to clarify, in this case, Apple has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act due to having a monopoly on Apple services?
Similar antitrust violations of the same nature: iMusic vs Spotify, iChat vs Hey/other chat programs, Apple Webkit vs all other browsers.
I would have included Apple Pay but in that instance Apple lost, largely because their actions in other markets made it extremely undesirable for merchants and payment processors to get behind Apple's vision of Apple Pay in which Apple skimmed X% for providing absolutely no value to the transaction. In fact, so many retailers found Apple to be an undesirable partner that a number of major retailers disabled Apple Pay integration on their NFC-capable payment terminals. For example, most Kroger locations (like Ralphs) take Google Pay, Samsung Pay, Garmin Pay, and most other app-based NFC payment methods...but not Apple Pay. (Apple's situation is similar to American Express, which also charges significantly higher rates to retailers than its competitors, but unlike Apple, Amex actually processes transactions and theoretically provides valule to retailers, just not enough to justify its Appleesque rates.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They also have the choice to avoid smartphones altogether. What they want, though, is the ability to use apple hardware and non-apple software. The only reason they can't is because Apple won't let them, unless they pay a 30% commission
One cannot buy a house besides a landing lane and then complain planes are taking off and landing all day long. If iOS doesn't offer what they want, don't buy Apple, plain and simple, there is nothing more to discuss and the judge will set this straight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Android allows installation of apps outside of the Google Play store but Epic is pursuing the same path against Google.
Yes, for a different reason. Epics wanted a deal with oneplus for to have epic store preinstalled on their device, and google pressured oneplus to cancel the deal. https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368395/fortnite-epic-ga...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When checking Northgard, Galaxy seems to be required for "online content". So it at least seems right that Galaxy is not optional for some stuff. However, I haven't found any evidence that Galaxy is required for single player. In fact, I found evidence to the contrary: the game has a Linux version, where Galaxy is not available.
Jesus Christ. Your failure to find evidence is not an argument. It's not hard to find! Here's a prominent forum thread in the Northgard forum on GoG: https://www.gog.com/forum/northgard/warning_gog_galaxy_is_re... Note that title: "Warning: GOG Galaxy is required to use conquest mode." Conquest mode is a single-player mode. In fact, it's the only mode that allows you to use any of the Northgard DLC content. Without r…
It is similar to Diablo 3, SimCity 5 and Anno 2070 that have single-player features that are processed server-side, maybe like these ones it is a disguised DRM too.
So your original argument is still wrong.
Galaxy is not required to play "many newer games", it is required to play one, maybe a bit more games, where the dev made some questionable decision.
Also you asked about GoG being a platform for DRM-free games, even Northgard would still fit some definition of that: skirmish mode and campaign mode work even in the Steam version without the DRM. Seemly that particular game online shenanigans is purely to add DRM to the DLC, not the main game. (I still think that this is shady, but the original argument others were making still stands, Galaxy is not DRM, and you usually don't need it.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder what the conversations look like inside of Epic, because it seems to me that trying to make everything in Fortnight feel the same on iOS as it does on PC or console is a huge investment for not the sorts of returns they're looking for. If the iOS version was just an appetizer, then you wouldn't be pushing the volume of DLC that make the Apple tax so apparently onerous for them. If you switch to desktop then…
Fortnite is all DLC. All their money is in people buying cosmetics. I was involved in the Fortnite space for a while and on my website, just showing people the cosmetics available was a massive profit maker for me. And since some people (of the younger variety) can't get a PC to game on, but do have a mobile device, cutting themselves off to that profit defeats some of the financial incentive to be on that platform.
Ah, I forgot that bit. So Epic wants to list their products on the App Store and pay Apple $299 a year while they're earning millions off of one game.
As an Apple shareholder, I have to ask: what are they putting in the water over at Epic?
The only charitable explanation I have is that they don't want to put it on the App Store at all, but they aren't allowed to do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even wor... really? That is less than the coffee bean budget for a month at most of these organizations. They probably spend more than that a year on parts and labor for the coffee equipment. That organization fee is a token fee. A little friction so that it makes you serious and it stings a bit if it gets cancelled. To maybe not faff about and get down to shipping a product. A few bucks to cover things like CA maint…
It’s 10 times the $25 from Google Play, and is per year. That’s in addition to the $100 that you have for the Apple store as far I understood their documentation.
I really wish there was a third party - the customer - actually represented in this trial. Apple and Epic arguing over what is best for the customer, while clearly they are having their own interests in mind, screams for the actual customers to be represented. The whole argument about them promoting an app „for free“ is a bit ridiculous. They clearly knew the amount of commission they were going to earn from pushing…
I actually like it the way it is now. You don't hear our arguments, you only want to be represented in that court without us. But conscious apple users are not all pro-sideload. if the App Store is such a tremendous value, why don‘t you ask users to pay for access to that App Store directly Because the value is not in the appstore itself, but in an inability to push uncontrolled spy/trick/crap-ware through side chann…
---
You have not changed the end result, simply moved the goal posts for safety. Malicious apps can and do get approved. Malware has been signed by Apple. Millions are still tricked through websites loaded in the browser. You have NOT solved security or safety by sticking with a single store.
In return for the pretense of safety, you no longer own your device. You no longer have any choice in what software you can use on it. You have moved from owner to renter.
A digital slave to shitty piece of silicon that only obeys the masters with the signing keys.
Nothing against you as a person, but I find your argument morally reprehensible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jesus Christ. Your failure to find evidence is not an argument. It's not hard to find! Here's a prominent forum thread in the Northgard forum on GoG: https://www.gog.com/forum/northgard/warning_gog_galaxy_is_re... Note that title: "Warning: GOG Galaxy is required to use conquest mode." Conquest mode is a single-player mode. In fact, it's the only mode that allows you to use any of the Northgard DLC content. Without r…
Alright, so it is ONE mode, of ONE game that requires this... that was a (poor in my opinion) decision of the gamedev, nothing to do with GoG Galaxy itself. It is similar to Diablo 3, SimCity 5 and Anno 2070 that have single-player features that are processed server-side, maybe like these ones it is a disguised DRM too. So your original argument is still wrong. Galaxy is not required to play "many newer games", it is…