21–30 of 468 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. It was quite clear from the beginning this is more about Epic's bottom line than the interest of users or developers.
And how are those two not related? Epic is a developer, therefore their bottom line is literally in the interest of developers. Furthermore, if a company has less fees to deal with then they can charge lower prices for the same product.
No winners either side. And of course no winning for their customers either. I increasingly want nothing to do with battling corporate giants.
Indeed. It was quite clear from the beginning this is more about Epic's bottom line than the interest of users or developers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple is complying with court rulings, including the judgment that Apple's contract with Epic is valid and enforceable. Apple could hypothetically ban all of Epic's accounts forever, but only the Fortnite account is banned. This appears to be a win for... payment vendors. At this point Epic can only hope for legislative action. Also on the "reasonableness" of Epic's promises... I'm not sure why making a pinky promise…
But wasn't Epic banned just because they broke that rule the court now ordered Apple not to enforce? Isn't it strange that this lawsuit would result in Apple now being able to enforce that rule only for Epic and they aren't allowed to enforce it for anyone else? Is that how it is supposed to work?
> Epic will resubmit Fortnite to the App Store if you adhere to the plain language of the court order and allow apps to include buttons and external links that direct customers to other purchasing mechanisms without onerous terms or impediments to a good user experience. That seems very reasonable, why wouldn't Apple be forced to comply with the court order?
Apple is complying with court rulings, including the judgment that Apple's contract with Epic is valid and enforceable. Apple could hypothetically ban all of Epic's accounts forever, but only the Fortnite account is banned. This appears to be a win for... payment vendors. At this point Epic can only hope for legislative action. Also on the "reasonableness" of Epic's promises... I'm not sure why making a pinky promise…
That is just plain wrong. There's no difference in Apple banning all Epic accounts over this and Apple Banning Microsoft or you for what Epic did. Epic is not one company, each account is a different business. Banning different companies in different countries and continents because of a brand name would get Apple sued into oblivion and would likely be the nail in the coffin for a closed app store.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple is complying with court rulings, including the judgment that Apple's contract with Epic is valid and enforceable. Apple could hypothetically ban all of Epic's accounts forever, but only the Fortnite account is banned. This appears to be a win for... payment vendors. At this point Epic can only hope for legislative action. Also on the "reasonableness" of Epic's promises... I'm not sure why making a pinky promise…
>Apple could hypothetically ban all of Epic's accounts forever Is this mere conjecture or is it founded on what was said in the court's opinion?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. It was quite clear from the beginning this is more about Epic's bottom line than the interest of users or developers.
I don't think it's very good for their bottom line. I'm pretty sure if they were a public company then their CEO would have been ousted by now.
They were also making a larger scale play here, they want to get rid of 30% cuts in general, which means they get to keep more of their Android revenue and likely more of their revenue on PlayStation and XBox (The court case revealed that Sony is basically charging extortion money to allow cross-platform play.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But wasn't Epic banned just because they broke that rule the court now ordered Apple not to enforce? Isn't it strange that this lawsuit would result in Apple now being able to enforce that rule only for Epic and they aren't allowed to enforce it for anyone else? Is that how it is supposed to work?
It certainly could be interpreted as contempt of court but in practice Apple has hundreds of vague rules in their developer policies and they use them on a daily basis to block apps or updates just because they feel like it. They would have no difficulty constructing a retroactive excuse for banning Epic (and all their customers, as they threatened previously) from the store.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. It was quite clear from the beginning this is more about Epic's bottom line than the interest of users or developers.
Apple lowered fees to 15% for smaller developers thanks to this fight. So regardless of their motives epic picking this fight is a good thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And how are those two not related? Epic is a developer, therefore their bottom line is literally in the interest of developers. Furthermore, if a company has less fees to deal with then they can charge lower prices for the same product.
I doubt they'd charge much less. The price is mostly determined with what they believe people will pay.
> Epic will resubmit Fortnite to the App Store if you adhere to the plain language of the court order and allow apps to include buttons and external links that direct customers to other purchasing mechanisms without onerous terms or impediments to a good user experience. That seems very reasonable, why wouldn't Apple be forced to comply with the court order?