
Apple just kicked Fortnite off the App Store - ardit33
https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21366438/apple-fortnite-ios-app-store-violations-epic-payments
======
dang
All: don't miss that there are multiple pages of comments in this thread.
That's what the More link at the bottom points to. Or click these:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24146987&p=2](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24146987&p=2)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24146987&p=3](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24146987&p=3)

------
hijklmno
It's not Apple vs. Fortnite. It's actually Apple vs. Users. Apple has been
taking us for a ride this whole time. We pay damn much and buy the phone. It
is the user's property from then on. What the user install's and uninstall's
from his phone should be his decision. Taking a cut of say, 3%, to keep the
app store running is forgivable. But 30% digging into users pocket is
unpardonable. Apple is no longer the underdog that it was 40 years ago, and
some fanboys pretending it to be is despicable. It's a monopoly and the only
thing it cares is it's profitability. Despite all the sugarcoated lies Apple,
Amazon, Facebook, and Google have been saying to the senate, they are a
monopoly. Stop letting them deceive us. Let's take the power back. Stop
enabling such deception. Death of a country is determined by it's governance.
Death of a society is determined by it's culture and greedy monopolies. The
way we can claim our power is by raising awareness to the point that the
powers that are will take note and take action.

~~~
Razengan
> _It 's actually Apple vs. Users. Apple has been taking us for a ride this
> whole time._

Oh please. Nobody who actually uses Apple feels that way. Though I agree they
should allow a way to sideload apps.

One of the downsides of being primarily an iOS dev is not being able to
participate in activities like game-jams because there's no way to casually
share my stuff with other users.

> _Taking a cut of say, 3%, to keep the app store running is forgivable. But
> 30%_

Do you know how much Google, Microsoft, Steam and Epic themselves take from
sales on their stores?

Apple protects its users better than the other major players. Their privacy
and accessibility features alone are unparalleled, and they do a lot to
curtail scummy developer practices. The entities which Apple protects users
from are often the ones crying foul.

See:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24154647](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24154647)
and similar comments:

> the magnitude of this is not immediately apparent unless you’ve worked in an
> agency / freelanced building iOS applications. You have no idea how many
> user-hostile and abusive things I’ve seen blown completely out of the water
> with the golden phrase "Apple won’t allow that". It wins arguments in favour
> of the user instantly and permanently.

> I’ve run up against Apple’s capricious review process more times than I can
> count, so I’ve got more reason than most to complain about it. But it’s
> impossible for me to argue that these rules don’t help the user when I’ve
> personally seen it happen so many times. It’s a double-edged sword to be
> sure, and I believe the best way of balancing things in favour of the end-
> user is to be more open than Apple is, but there are undeniable benefits to
> the user with the current system.

~~~
alkonaut
> they do a lot to curtail scummy developer practices.

Which is excellent. Apple taking a cut for _apps_ I have no problem with. They
have support, I trust them with privacy/security and so on. That costs money.

The interesting discussion is how much apple can claim to own a part of
profits made _in_ the apps, by selling content (in-app purchases).

On one hand: if a game is free for a trial, and you can unlock the full game I
think that should count as an app purchase (the alternative would be to not
have in-app upgrades and just have 2 apps, which was a worse situation).

But on the other hand: if I buy a recipe app for $10 and then recipes for $1 a
piece which I could also buy on the corresponding website, then I don't think
apple should have a cut at all.

~~~
Razengan
> _if I buy a recipe app for $10 and then recipes for $1 a piece which I could
> also buy on the corresponding website, then I don 't think apple should have
> a cut at all._

Ah that sounds like a fair point at first, but it could be argued that you
gained access to those sales because of Apple.

More importantly, they're processing payments for you, and every payment
processor out there takes a cut, one way or the other.

~~~
8note
Do stores pay a percentage of each sale to the mall?

That seems directly comparable. The store wouldn't have any sales without the
mall's infrastructure so it seems like they would be owed a cut of everything
that happens in the store

~~~
alkonaut
That's not uncommon. But normally the mall isn't the only mall in town.

I consider Amazon and the Apple App store to be not like stores or malls but
like streets or cities. They _are_ the market, not _in_ the market, and if
someone wants to enter the market they have to pay Apple/Amazon for the
privilege. They bought/built the street and now instead of charging a cut they
are charging a tax.

------
mapgrep
You could argue about Apple's rights, or citizens' free speech rights, or
consumer rights, under existing law. It would be an interesting discussion
because I think it's a lot more complicated an issue that most people
appreciate.

But really why not talk about how we think things _should_ work on platforms
like iOS? What _should_ the law be? What protects essential human rights,
encourages creativity, and allows business to function to some extent?

Personally, I would argue that consumers should have a legal right to install
whatever software they wish on a product they have purchased, including onto
the bundled operating system. I don't think it should be permissible for a
company like Apple (or Microsoft or whoever) to sell me a gadget and then use
various sorts of locks to try to keep me from putting whatever apps or app
stores or services I like on it.

Does anyone have any argument for why this right would be a bad thing? People
would get bad software on their phones, but last I checked, this is happening
already, including on iOS. Apple would lose some margin, but last I checked,
their investment in creating and maintaining iOS has been handsomely rewarded
and would surely continue to be.

~~~
wheelie_boy
A big part of the value of iPhones and iPads is that you don't have to worry
about installing an app that screws up your system and requires a wipe &
reinstall. You don't have to worry about viruses. You don't have to worry
about spending a lot of time being a system administrator, and just use it.
You don't even have to worry about many types of malware, because the system
protects you from poorly-behaved applications, through a combination of
technical means and human review.

If it was possible to side-load apps, then those advantages go out the window.
To see what I'm talking about, look at apps that are skirting the apple app
store.

Onavo is a good example. They:

\- paid teens

\- to install the Facebook Enterprise Certificate

\- to side-load the Onavo VPN

\- to spy on their internet traffic

\- to find out about new apps or websites that might be a threat to facebook
(among other things)

~~~
danShumway
How would the ability to sideload apps force you to install apps outside of
the Apple store?

I'm not forced to use FDroid just because I have an Android phone. People
aren't arguing that the app store should go away, just that consumers should
have a choice.

As an analogy, if I want OEM care for my car, I can get that. It's more
expensive, but it offers me strict guarantees about where parts are coming
from, and I don't need to worry so much that I'll get substandard care.

The existence of a third-party marketplace doesn't change anything about that
situation other than forcing the OEMs to compete more and push their
advantages and commitment to quality.

~~~
pfranz
Just look at the PC platform Epic is coming from. It used to be just buying
retail boxes, then Steam came along. Now it's Steam, Epic, Origin, Uplay.
Personally, I hate keeping track of the separate apps and which games were
purchased with each. So I avoid most of them even for games I want to play.
Its one of the things that makes me prefer consoles.

The current situation seems more anti-business than anti-consumer (it is
both). Pro-consumer would be requiring any purchase be decoupled from that
distribution platform.

~~~
blackoil
Would you want same in real world also ? Walmart and Costco stores where the
company decides what things are best for customer's experience. If you don't
want it you can always leave and go to other companies town.

~~~
pfranz
I don't think the real world works very well for these metaphors (like the
parent's OEM metaphor). What if Walmart required you to generate a username
and password, confirm your email, and store your payment info before you
shopped? When you wanted to make a cake you had to remember which store you
purchased flour or chocolate chips from.

I'm not saying Apple is in the right with how it behaves, but as a user more
stores have made things like playing PC games, streaming video, and even PC
apps suck more.

These are billion dollar companies fighting each other for their benefit. I'm
a bit skeptical about what users get.

------
andreasley
Epic Games has filed a lawsuit [1] and published a Fortnite-themed parody of
Apple's "1984" [2] to get some publicity for it.

[1] [https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-
complaint-734589783.pdf](https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-
complaint-734589783.pdf)

[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euiSHuaw6Q4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euiSHuaw6Q4)

~~~
ulfw
A PR stunt from Epic and everyone's falling for it.

~~~
dmix
My favourite is trying to spin two billion dollar companies fighting over
percentages as some “big brother” battle. I don’t remember this part of 1984.

~~~
searchableguy
I feel like epic has more to show off soon. Apple rejected facebook, microsoft
and google in the last 2 weeks when they were trying to get their game centres
approved.

[https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/6/21357771/apple-cloud-
gamin...](https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/6/21357771/apple-cloud-gaming-
microsoft-xcloud-google-stadia-ios-app-store-guidelines-violations)

[https://twitter.com/FacebookGaming/status/129170874980819763...](https://twitter.com/FacebookGaming/status/1291708749808197633?s=20)

~~~
ccktlmazeltov
wow, how is that not unfair competition?

~~~
Razengan
Does Microsoft allow other stores on the Xbox?

What about Sony and Nintendo?

Does Epic allow people to buy stuff for Fortnite from outside of Fortnite and
other companies?

~~~
TheHypnotist
I don’t see how that would work per se, but, they do let you process payments
for their in game currency via Xbox, Sony, whatever platform.

~~~
Razengan
> _I don’t see how that would work per se_

Same way as the Steam Workshop and other mod-able games.

------
mrspeaker
If I go to the App Store on my phone, and go to my "Purchased" list, Fortnite
is still listed there. I wasn't up to date, and clicking on "update" gives the
message:

    
    
        "Fortnite" No Longer Available. The developer has removed this app from the App Store.
    

Interesting wording. I wonder if they only have one message for pulled-by-
Apple vs pulled-by-dev?

~~~
mullingitover
Epic effectively pulled it themselves when they unilaterally broke their
agreement.

I think Apple's cut is egregious but at the same time, they're not a monopoly.
My main gripe is that they're behaving as if they're bringing value that the
developers are riding on, when in reality nobody would buy iPhones if it
weren't for the value that many developers are bringing to the platform, often
at no cost to Apple.

~~~
greggman3
Apple has 49-65% of the phone+tablet market in the USA. People keep forgetting
it's irrelevant if Android is more popular the world over. Countries only
bring anti-monopoly decisions based on their country's market, not the world
market.

Further, the market for "smartphones" is not Apple vs Google. It's Apple vs
Samsung vs Motorola vs LG vs Sony. Those are smartphone makers. At the 50%+
marketshare, Apple has more than double the market share of it's next biggest
competitor.

Further, as pointed out elsewhere you don't have to have a monopoly for being
sued for anti-competitive behavior.

~~~
mullingitover
> Further, as pointed out elsewhere you don't have to have a monopoly for
> being sued for anti-competitive behavior.

Conversely, you can have a monopoly _and_ commit abuses _and_ get away with it
in the pro-business United States. Microsoft is noticeably intact, despite
what we may have wanted to happen in the late 90s.

Apple realistically has more to fear in Europe.

~~~
krrrh
At this point it’s always important to remember that the DoJ lawsuit against
Microsoft was largely about them abusing their market power _by including a
pre-installed web browser_.

In this case, the market came together to produce a solution much better for
society than the state could have concocted, or predicted: high quality open
source software. We can all be thankful that Netscape’s market for $40 web
browsers (actually buggy groupware by that point) wasn’t protected for any
longer than it should have been, because the pressure of Microsoft’s dominance
drove the market towards demanding more symmetrical rights via entirely new
approaches of software development and distribution across desktop
applications, server and embedded operating systems and software, and web-
based platform-agnostic applications.

------
CarbyAu
The problem here is Apples user market capture.

Through iOS devices Apple has created a market of users they are the very
protective gatekeeper for.

Windows PC user market. Not locked down. Though MS has a store you have Steam,
EGS, GOG, Origin, UBS etc for games alone. Let alone productivity apps.

Android market. Not locked down. Though google play store is the gorilla other
stores exist. I like F-Droid.

EPICS Unreal game engine? Doesn't have a locked down market of users. It would
lock the business into a payment scheme though.

Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo consoles. I fear they are similar in terms of
gatekeepering to users and should be subject to whatever outcome Apple is.
They seem a bit more open to begin with though so are likely to be less
affected. It also makes them not the prime offender, though offenders all the
same.

Ultimately, want to sell to an Apple iOS user? One choice.

Separately then, is this anti-competitive or simply smart business? I'd answer
: Why not both? The business wants to make money and until the law steps in,
they will do it.

~~~
Whatarethese
Having to launch games from 5 different shitty desktop programs is terrible
for the user.

~~~
Polylactic_acid
Its not just bad UX. Its horrific for privacy. Epic games on windows load a
rootkit in to the kernel that starts a boot even while the game is not
running.

~~~
ohgodplsno
Absolutely not. You're thinking of Riot Games' anticheat for Valorant.

The worst EGS does is enumerating running processes and DLL.

------
papito
I want to start reading "Evil Geniuses: The Unmaking of America: A Recent
History", which covers the now failed anti-trust system in the United States,
but I am worried for my blood pressure, as it covers many other ways in which
our government almost exclusively works for its corporate owners.

We may think of how Europe deals with big business as extreme and radical, but
it's only because we got so far away from the reasonable middle ground of big
money and citizenry coexisting without f---ing each other over.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _We may think of how Europe deals with big business as extreme and radical_

What has Europe done in the last decade in anti-trust? Vestager brought a
series of suits that got overturned by the courts, or charged monopolists
peanuts for brazenly violating the law.

~~~
dahfizz
> What has Europe done in the last decade in anti-trust?

They have been squeezing billions of dollars out of Facebook and Google, for
one thing.

------
fastball
To everyone that is supporting Apple's position, let me run this hypothetical
by you:

You buy a Nespresso machine on Amazon. Some amount of the purchase price goes
to Amazon for facilitating the transaction and delivering it to you, some goes
to Nespresso for actually making the device. Cool. Then you get a pod
subscription from Nespresso – let's say there is a touch screen on the coffee
machine itself where you enter your details to subscribe. Now, Nespresso ships
pods to your house every month. Amazon _then says_ that because the machine
was _originally bought on Amazon_ , they are entitled to a 30% cut of that
ongoing subscription price, even though the subscription is neither
facilitated nor fulfilled by Amazon.

I think we can all agree that would be ridiculous.

That is what Apple is doing.

~~~
BillinghamJ
That is inaccurate. Your comparison would be closer if the purchase of pods
was handled by Amazon

Any comparison with physically shipped goods isn't going to be particularly
relevant here

~~~
fastball
Ok, so to make the analogy near perfect, we need to add in the detail that
Amazon doesn't allow Nespresso machines with this touch screen + subscription
service to be sold on Amazon _at all_ if Nespresso doesn't use Amazon to
process the payment. But that is exactly how Amazon would require a 30% cut
for a service they have no hand in. I wouldn't be happy about Amazon saying
you can't sell a Nespresso machine with that feature on Amazon. It would be a
ridiculous thing to do.

Epic providing digital currency to their users costs Apple literally nothing.
Apple does not participate in it. If Apple wants to charge Epic for whatever
it costs them to distribute Fortnite to users (e.g. bandwidth costs) then
power to them.

~~~
BillinghamJ
> Epic providing digital currency to their users costs Apple literally nothing

It's important to understand that this definitely isn't true. It probably
doesn't cost them (anywhere near) 30%, but fraud, handling upset parents,
providing a ubiquitous gift card system, etc etc. does have real operational
and monetary cost. It's not just basic payment processing

~~~
fastball
No, the whole point is that Epic wants to be able to handle payments
themselves. Their app, as they submitted it to the App Store, does not have
Apple involved in the purchasing of digital currency at all. And Apple is
saying there cannot be an app that doesn't have them as the payment provider.

 _Just like_ if Amazon said Nespresso couldn't sell a machine on Amazon that
doesn't use Amazon as the payment processor when handling pod subscriptions.

------
binthere
Simple question to whoever is honestly defending Apple: What if Windows
prevented people from installing anything on their computer except from the
Microsoft Store. Then Microsoft forced every app to use their payment system
and then charged an excessive 30% fee for each transaction. Would you think
that's an abusive and illegal practice?

~~~
BoboDupla
I might be mistaken, but wasn't this the policy Apple had since the beginning
of AppStore? Every developer and user knew from the beginning what they are
getting into. With Windows it is different, no? It would be a drastic change
to a product, which operated differently at the beginning.

~~~
badestrand
Yes, the fee has been there since the beginning, if you use their payment
system.

I think the new and problematic policy is that they now

\- forbid you to use other payment systems than their own

\- forbid you to just add the 30% to your price on iOS compared to other
platforms

\- forbid you to mention to the user that they can pay on the company's
website or through other channels

Also their own product's don't have to pay the fee. So Apple Music can charge
30% less than Spotify or Spotify can distribute significantly less of the
revenue to the artists.

~~~
zuhsetaqi
> forbid you to just add the 30% to your price on iOS compared to other
> platforms

That’s new to me. Any source of that?

------
chipotle_coyote
One of the biggest hurdles in trying to take antitrust action against Apple, I
suspect, will be in proving that App Store policies cause harm to _consumers_
rather than developers. There seem to be HN-favored narratives of "iOS users
would rise up against the walled garden if they only understood" and "iOS
users are too stupid and sheeplike to understand and rise up," but there is a
more prosaic narrative of "iOS users like having one place to go that offers
hundreds of thousands applications that are, by the standards of just fifteen
years ago, dirt cheap."

Epic is implicitly making the case that consumers are harmed by having to pay
$9.99 instead of $7.99 for in-game tchotchkes, but even as someone who's grown
pretty skeptical of Apple's approach to the App Store in recent years, that
strikes me as a reach. They were manifestly _not_ losing money under the
existing pricing agreement, and their fight here sure seems to be "we don't
want to share that much revenue with Apple" rather than something akin to
Hey's "Apple's revenue share materially harms our business". In-app purchase
policies are arguably where Apple's policies are at their worst, but I have
serious doubts whether Epic Games is a great standard-bearer to line up behind
in a fight for fair business practices.

~~~
dannyw
Epic Games can argue that a cheaper price results in more demand, ie more
profits for them even if the unit price is the same.

But I don’t think they need to argue that. The cornerstone of US antitrust law
is cheaper prices for consumers. This example demonstrates that.

~~~
risyachka
But the point of business is making money. Apple has no monopoly in smartphone
market. There are many choices. And if the court will force them to lower
prices - will it start forcing price policy on other non-monopoly companies?

~~~
victords
The monopoly is not in the smartphone market. It’s about the monopoly behavior
within the applications marketplace.

Google can have the argument that you can install different stores in their OS
(or even apps directly), and so you’re not locked into the Apps provided by
their store. Apple can not make the same argument.

------
whiddershins
All I want is a system preference that says ‘allow apps from other sources
than the apple App Store.’

And I want that setting to work exactly as you imagine.

And then everything else problematic about this debate would disappear.

~~~
dodobirdlord
If that system preference ever gets added I want Apple to continue selling a
version of iPhone that doesn't have it, with no way to enable it and with a
promise to never add it in a future update. I consider not being able to
sideload software onto an iPhone to be an important feature! I like knowing
that if someone malicious with moderate but not extraordinary technical
ability gets ahold of my unlocked phone they are limited in their ability to
compromise it in a way that persists through a restart. I.e. what any border
guard can demand on entering any country I can think of. If I used an Android
phone I would destroy it if it left my sight unlocked and I didn't know what
had happened while it was away.

I have root access to plenty of hardware devices. I don't need root access to
_every_ hardware device I own. What am I going to do with that capability on
an iPhone, sideload Fortnite? No thanks, this is the device I use to check my
email.

~~~
krrrh
So many of us function as unpaid tech support for various family members. I do
everything I can to push them towards iOS largely because the total inability
to side load apps saves me time and money.

------
rndmze
finger crossed.

Fortnite is not really the hill I have seen this battle take place. For
example Apple also rejected the satirical app of a Pulitzer winning journalist
(it does not make their app good but suggests that the content was probably
not just a fart joke).

Still, people should be able to install whatever they want on their phones,
without Apple playing walled garden.

It is not good for devs getting squeezed by the platform owners, it is not
good for people being able to install whatever they want, and quite frankly it
is not good for freedom of speech either.

I am not including Google here since their policy is a bit more defendable,
you can sideload apps without too much trouble, I even believe that Epic uses
that mechanism to do not have to pay the 30%.

~~~
cableshaft
Epic has the massive financial war chest to see this through, though. If
anyone can afford to push this through the legal process, it's Epic.

~~~
martin8412
This will cost Epic more money than it will Apple. Either company can end up
dragging the legal battle on for years. In the meantime Epic's game won't be
available on Apple platforms. By the time that battle is over, the game is
probably not popular anymore.

~~~
013a
Fortnite grosses hundreds of millions of dollars on the App Store [1]; every
dollar spent is a cut Apple counts toward its $10B+ annual gaming revenue
numbers [2]. It is not an understatement to say that Fortnite, as a single
application, is responsible for single-digit percentages of Apple's gaming
revenue (which, while small as a whole, is a TON of money).

This move hurt Apple, full stop. It will likely cost them somewhere in the
range of $50-$200M per year. You can quote me Apple's annual revenue, but I
know what it is. Fortnite's contribution to it is small, but its probably far,
far larger than most people here realize.

Of course, it hurts Epic more on the short term. But, long term, maybe
Fortnite gets to come back at a lower rate; maybe they'll get to use their own
payment processor; maybe the courts will actually work, and they'll force
Apple to allow competing storefronts, which would enable the Epic Games Store
to release on iOS, earning huge revenue for Epic.

And what's more: Epic's bread and butter has always been Unreal Engine, which
is charged at a rate of 5% of a game's revenue (above $1M I believe, below
that its free). Unreal is absolutely used for iOS game development. If Epic
can win _even a lower rate_ for all game devs, it amplifies their iOS earnings
on Unreal; more money in the devs pockets means more money in Epic's pocket.

Epic's warchest is massive; its not just Fortnite, but also money from
Tencent. They have the support of their massive community, including
impressionable adolescents. They picked a time just weeks after Tim Cook was
torn apart by Congress for allegations of antitrust. They're joining the ranks
of Microsoft, Facebook, Google, and every other company that Apple has screwed
over with their policies. They can fight this out, and its hard to say what
the exact outcome will be, but whatever it is, Apple will not like it. Apple
is on the wrong side of history.

[1] [https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/fortnite-hits-1bn-
in-...](https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/fortnite-hits-1bn-in-mobile-
revenue-in-just-two-years/)

[2] [https://www.cultofmac.com/632642/apple-worlds-fourth-
largest...](https://www.cultofmac.com/632642/apple-worlds-fourth-largest-
gaming-company/)

~~~
biryani_chicken
Google has also removed Fornite from it's own store[0] so it's guilty of the
same screwy policies as Apple.

[0][https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368079/fortnite-epic-
an...](https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368079/fortnite-epic-android-
banned-google-play-app-store-rule-violation)

~~~
013a
I feel its different.

Google (and Apple) should have a say in what they sell in their storefronts.
Suggesting that they have to carry any application submitted to them, law
permitting, is taking the situation too far. Even demanding that applications
submitted through the store use their IAP frameworks, at the 30% fee, feels
alright to me.

The line is drawn at "is that store the only option". In Google's case, it
isn't. Epic, and Android itself, has a road ahead of them getting users into
alternative storefronts, but Android has the capability, and I think we're
headed in the direction of alternative storefronts being the norm. This is
especially true given that Google really does not control the hardware;
Samsung has been working with Microsoft a lot lately, and being a Galaxy S20
user, I get a strong feeling that Samsung's relationship with Google is not a
happy one.

------
ccktlmazeltov
I'm tired of this kind of bullshit. I can't buy books on the kindle app, I
can't play Apple music on my google mini, I can't install the PAX app for my
vape on iOS, and now that. Yet there isn't enough abuse from Apple to make us
switch to another platform. Without regulation this situation will never be
fixed.

~~~
sealthedeal
regulation is not the answer. The market aka the consumer will solve this on
its own.

~~~
sircastor
I like to think that this would be resolved by the market, but if that were
the case, why hasn’t It happened. Apple has been acting this way for 12 years.
They haven’t changed their tune. The singular real market alternative is
android, which still suffers from fragmentation issues. Microsoft, one of the
most powerful companies in the world, couldn’t make their option work. Amazon,
one of the most powerful companies in the world couldn’t get people onboard
with their non-google version of Android. BlackBerry, the most powerful
company in the space before Apple couldn’t keep their devices competitive.
Palm, the leader before BlackBerry couldn’t make their OS stick.

~~~
AndrewUnmuted
IMO, this is all quite true and it signals an in-built ceiling in the mobile
phone market, which I believe we're closer to reaching than people realize.

Perhaps the market's innovation that solves this walled garden problem will be
towards a very different or very new kind of mobile communications product
altogether, rather than a mere iteration on the now rather tired smartphone
theme.

------
bdibs
More discussion:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24147486](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24147486)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24146902](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24146902)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24143346](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24143346)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24148548](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24148548)

------
jaeming
_... the developer on Thursday implemented its own in-app payment system that
bypassed Apple’s standard 30 percent fee._

 _...1,000 V-bucks, which is roughly equivalent to $10 in-game Fortnite
currency, now costs just $7.99 if you use Epic direct payment instead of the
standard Apple payment processing. Normally, that amount of currency costs
$9.99. Epic says, in this case, customers keep the extra savings, not the
company. That cast the new arrangement as a pro-consumer move instead of a
greedy power play._

My math skills aren't the best but it seems like epic is still pocketing
almost an extra dollar there than previously (almost 10%), indicating that
this is move motivated by financial gain (if not greed). Of course Apple
stands out as the bigger case of "highway robbery".

I am somewhat curious on how much apple spends on maintaining the app store
and how much of that %30 is net profit.

~~~
SolarNet
I mean, in theory third party payment processors still take a cut. I don't
think it's a dollar on a 7 dollar payment. But it's also not marginal.

The credit card companies themselves charge 3.00%+0.10 at the reasonable
maximum (or roughly $0.31). That is still not even counting the payment
processor's fees (which pay the credit card company's fees for you).

I mean the "7 dollar price" is all artificial anyway, it doesn't really cost
Epic anything to make the product of those 7 dollars (it's economic rent
extracted from the intellectual property they maintain). Either way Epic is
making more money on this move even if the whole extra dollar is fees.

~~~
csharptwdec19
I'd also guess that the Processor/CC Companies likely charge a bit more for
this specific 'industry'; Processors and CC Companies often look at the
products you are selling and what the overall risk is for things like
chargebacks.

This is part of why a lot of mom & pop shops still have a 5 or 10 dollar
minimum for card transactions; When I worked at a computer shop in an almost-
sketchy neighborhood our minimum fee was Two whole dollars.

Given the frequency of refunds and the like, I'd assume Epic is probably not
making much, if anything extra on top of this.

This may actually close a ban-hopping/stalling gap. I've seen people claim
that if you do a refund for an App store purchase, the publisher may not even
know about the refund for 2-3 months after it was requested/granted. This
likely shortens Epic's time to react and ban people for requesting fraudulent
refunds.

------
dang
I see the duplicate threads but am out hiking today and can't merge them
(that's a laptop job). Sorry all. Maybe someone can list the discussions.

~~~
myrloc
Hire me to make this a mobile job.

~~~
dang
I don't need fewer ways to escape from Hacker News.

------
throwaway140820
Apologies for the extreme swearing that ensues.

Wow, I would have hoped for better support from the HN community. Instead
there are apologists after apologists. So what if Epic is big. Really,
seriously shouldn't we have had alternative app stores available form the
official ones. Why is this even a point of debate? All the time we hear
stories of people one of our own getting fucked by these app stores and their
lordship and now that we have an opportunity to make some noise, this is the
response? Fuck that. Maybe we deserve these lords.

Fuck your security and fuck your walled gardens. Fucking no alternative
browser allowed. Fuck that, fuck you apple and fuck you google. Fuck your
monopoly and chokehold on the devs.

~~~
throwaway6000
1\. Apple establishes rules that EVERY app publisher follows for YEARS.

2\. Fortnite doesn't follow rule.

3\. Apple kicks Fortnite out of the App store.

What were they expecting?

~~~
dj_mc_merlin
1\. Pharaoh says everybody who speaks against the royal family has their
tongue cut out.

2\. Seth says there should be less taxes as the pharaoh is too rich.

3\. He gets his tongue cut out. What did he expect?

Unfair rules should not always be followed.

~~~
throwaway_2047
Well, Pharaoh is Pharaoh because they born to be Apple is Apple because Apple
earned it.

Not disagreeing your point though

~~~
lajawfe
Well, Apple were at the right place at the right time. There is quite a bit of
input from their side, but don't underplay the huge role of luck. And there is
also network effect, once they had healthy numbers, people flock to them, so
it is also due to network effects they are huge.

------
fsociety
It’s scary to see people come to Apple’s defense, and to talk about
justifications. Our conversations should be about what is good for the
consumer, not what is good for Apple.

Some of the arguments are that Apple’s closed ecosystem allows them to offer
better products and security.

I don’t really buy that. If it was true my day job wouldn’t have me so worried
about iOS and MacOS security. Exploits wouldn’t be so cheap for iOS right now
too..

------
lordleft
Imagine if Microsoft did this on PCs. a) prohibiting the installation of non-
windows store software (sideloading) and b) insisting that all purchases done
via apps give them a 30% cut. I think this is a ridiculous practice on the
behalf of Apple.

~~~
eggbrain
I mean, couldn't we just replace Microsoft->Sony and PC->Playstation and the
argument falls apart a bit?

> Imagine if Sony did this on Playstation. a) prohibiting the installation of
> non-PlayStation games and b) insisting that all purchases done via their
> store give them a 30% cut.

Many platforms are like this -- and many also have the majority marketshare.
Is this a call to redefine what platforms can and cannot control?

~~~
ClumsyPilot
There is a distinction between a general purpose computing device and a gaming
console. I depend on my computer for important aspects of my life, not just
entertainment.

I perceive capricious behaviour like this ad a threat to my liberty and well-
being.

~~~
vultour
Exactly, I depend on my computer for important aspects of my life, I don't
depend on my phone for those.

~~~
skuthus
What about when your computer is on Apple Silicon, and the stores (and their
policies) have been merged?

~~~
scarface74
You mean the same thing that people have been saying since 2011?

------
no_wizard
I wonder if this would all go away if Apple had a blessed 3rd party payment
processing sdk and the ability to sell in app upgrades (which a lot of
developers have wanted for nearly the entire existence of the App Store)

this would allow them to not have to remove the restriction about mentioning
outside of the app payment options, which I actually think prevents a lot of
abuse and businesses really care about having control over their payments
processor like using Stripe, say, to avoid the 30% cut)

Really this comes down to those two issues, I see it over and over again.

I know as an aside a lot of people want to be able to also ship binaries
outside the App Store. The reality I have found talking to quite a few app
developers that sell on the App Store, very few (I can recount one out of 13)
actually want to be able to sell their app outside the App Store and ship a
binary outside the App Store. I know some on HN want this and I get it, but I
think reality is different from ideals on that particular issue. Though I
think it has merit I also think it’s not a requirement to make nearly all
parties involved happy with an outcome that would dramatically improve things
for developers in respect to issues with the App store

------
skc
Ehh, this is the bed the tech press made, quite frankly.

Yes, I'm still bitter at how any attempts at a third mobile platform were
brutally laughed off by the tech media, often unfairly and with undertones of
glee.

Now we are in this very strange situation where Apple can rightfully claim not
to be a monopoly, Google can simply ape what Apple does, and fans of either
platform can tell naysayers to kick rocks if they don't like it.

Sad.

------
627467
Another battle front opening against Apple. Grabbing the popcorn to see who
else joins in.

The fact is: mobile software as a market has plateaued and everyone in the
ecosystem is looking around and seeing lots of profits being made by the 2
world largest digital brokers: apple and google, and very little options. It
just makes economical sense to become letigious and look for other allies
against the State of affairs.

I'm sure Epic also took into consideration that any blocking of their app on
the store will have little inmediate impact on their bottom line (since they
are already very popular and already installed by most who would want to
install).

Those who already have the update can already start sending epic money without
paying "apple tax".

Sure, epic won't be able to release updates until this situation is resolved
but I don't think this has much short term impact on their business for reason
states above.

Apple could resort to erasing apps from people's device but that would only
help Epic (and EU, and Spotify and all those who are shouting "Monopoly" at
Apple).

------
mwnivek
Main discussion:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24146902](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24146902)

~~~
nailer
Also Vox media is a clickbait site - the same one that attacked people for
social distancing to avoid Covid earlier this year as 'tech bros'.

Most of articles on Verge/Vox are blogspam around other sources adding little
to no value. Engadget covers gadgets, Ars Technica covers wider issues, the
rest probably won't be popular on HN.

~~~
dang
On HN we go by article quality, not site quality. The big sites all have
occasional good stuff among reams of...less good stuff.

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22article%20quality%22%20%22s...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22article%20quality%22%20%22site%20quality%22%20by:dang&dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment)

------
andy_ppp
Let’s be honest, this has been coming for a while, like the ever increasing
length, irritation and regularity of YouTube ads, Apple has been training you
to accept an App Store only Mac. My guess is the Arm Macs will knock
everyone’s socks off with freakish thinness, unreal battery life and
performance, be extremely cheap and completely lock down the computer to Apple
taking 30% of every piece of software you purchase and Apple being the only
way to install software.

~~~
speedgoose
I don't think Apple want to be seen as a producer of cheap products.

But I agree, there is a risk that Apple locks down its platform even more.

~~~
andy_ppp
There are rumours the new Macbook will be $799, them being cheaper with the
same profit margin means Apple makes more money. So still not cheap but
extremely good value rather than premium pricing will sell more units.

------
atarian
If Apple allowed other payment methods, that would incentivize developers not
to go through Apple at all. Even paid apps would switch over to an unlock
model in order to avoid the 30% cut.

So I think it's very unlikely that Apple will allow other payment options.
It's more likely for their 30% to go down, but even that's questionable.

~~~
winter_blue
Android allows developers to integrate Stripe and take customer's credit cards
and bypass the 30% cut.

Yet, many apps choose have direct Play Store purchases, since that convenience
might translate to a higher conversion rate.

Android also allows third party apps to be installed.

Your argument doesn't hold up in light of all of this.

~~~
atarian
>Android allows developers to integrate Stripe and take customer's credit
cards and bypass the 30% cut.

You are completely wrong.

[https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/9/21003553/google-play-
stor...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/9/21003553/google-play-store-
fortnite-epic-games-30-percent-cut-dispute)

~~~
erklik
> You are completely wrong.

Not really. Not being allowed to host on the Google Play Store does not mean
not being allowed to install the app on an Android.

[https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/3/17645982/epic-games-
fortni...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/3/17645982/epic-games-fortnite-
android-version-bypass-google-play-store)

~~~
atarian
I said you cannot bypass the 30% cut on the Google Play Store. Hosting your
app elsewhere is not the same thing as hosting it on the Google Play Store.

~~~
erklik
> >Android allows developers to integrate Stripe and take customer's credit
> cards and bypass the 30% cut.

> You are completely wrong.

He isn't wrong. Android allows developers to integrate Stripe and bypass the
30% cut.

~~~
atarian
Prove it.

~~~
ineedasername
Near as I can tell, it actually depends on what you're buying. If it's for the
app itself, like an upgrade to "premium" or stuff for the game you're playing,
it has to go through Google Pay and they take their cut. If it's something
unrelated to the app, like a physical product or digital content for use
outside the app, you're not beholden to Google Pay. But it seems like there
are some grey areas.

I didn't get this from any single source, just bits and pieces put together
from random forum posts and a few quora threads. And of course policies can
change, so anything I found might be different right now. But I know you can
buy digital books through Amazon's Kindle app on Android and it doesn't look
like Google gets any of that cut: it's the normal "one click" purchase option
you see in their web site, no prompt for Google Pay, just click and it's
yours, downloading right away.

~~~
willcipriano
Example: Bandcamp on Android let's me buy music via PayPal or credit card
outside of the Google Play store.

Similarly Audible let's me do this as well.

------
Terretta
> _“Apple, Google, and Android manufacturers make vast, vast profits from the
> sale of their devices and do not in any way justify the 30 percent cut.”_

> _Epic launched a game store on PC in which it takes only 12 percent of
> revenue as a way to try to encourage a similar change in competitor Valve’s
> Steam marketplace._

"Do not in _any_ way"?

Well, in at least 12% of a way, right, Epic?

And Apple, after acquiring you a new customer by selling them an ecosystem,
drops 30% to 15% in year two. So, Epic, you're quibbling over 3% which -- I've
seen theirs, and I've seen yours, and it's more than 3% difference in value.

~~~
dannyw
The 15% only applies to subscriptions after 1 year and would never apply to
something like the sale of V-bucks which is transactional.

For subscriptions, everyone knows the majority of revenue happen in the first
year due to churn.

~~~
Terretta
> _v-bucks_

I also find it satisfying that Epic gets so bent about “value” of App Store or
Play Store taking 30% shipping and handling fee on ... virtual expendables.

------
tomohawk
Similar to the old AT&T monopoly. You were not allowed to connect any non-AT&T
equipment to the network.

You could buy an answering machine, but could not (legally) hook it up as it
was not invented by AT&T, and they did not have one until the patents expired.

Most people ended up renting their phones and other equipment from AT&T. In
some cases, that was the only option. Being able to buy a phone was a novel
experience for many people.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1983/01/31/m...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1983/01/31/ma-
bells-breakup-means-big-changes-ahead-for-phone-
users/185c55de-505f-4f1b-98e8-e1e2bf3b67b2/)

Breaking up AT&T led to a lot of innovation, and communication options that
were at most science fiction at the time. The monopoly was probably necessary
at one point, but lasted way too long. Let's not let these monopolies last too
long.

------
ss3000
I wonder why Fortnite doesn't also make a WebAssembly version of Fortnight and
deploy it on fortnite.com?

Then Apple would get jack shit from any sales there, so they can fight this
battle with them while still offering access to the game for Apple users.

I'm probably missing some esoteric limitation Apple places on web-based games
to cripple this use case.

~~~
m4rtink
AFAIK Apple prevents this by forcing every browser app to use the half broken
Safari engine that does not implement many modern web APIs and standards.

~~~
ffdjjjffjj
I don’t know if that’s true otherwise but webgl is supported by safari on iOS.

~~~
AndrewUnmuted
Making a first-class gaming experience will require considerably more than
this on iOS, and as far as I am aware, Safari's implementation is spotty at
best.

My company spent years getting a passable Safari/iOS mobile web 360 video
player working, a whole game like Fortnite would be another beast entirely.

------
ryanSrich
I think I’m completely fine with Apple doing this.

It’s a clear violation of the TOS and Epic clearly knows that. They likely
also knew well before making the update and perhaps thought Apple would bluff
and only threaten a take down. Platforms aren’t free.

~~~
tyingq
Why would Epic have a heavily produced video and lawsuit ready if they thought
Apple would bluff?

~~~
ryanSrich
You always have a plan B.

------
minton
I get that I am in the minority here. I also get that 30% is a lot (maybe too
much). However, I do worry about getting legislation involved as usually they
tend to make things worse. For example, imagine the EU mandated a universal
port back when USB-A was all we had.

I’m just hoping they don’t force Apple to open the iPhones. I really don’t
want to deal with having to “redo” phones for family members regularly.

------
sushshshsh
What happened to the days where everyone controlled their own domains/IP
addresses/servers?

Why would anyone want to risk being deplatformed? I trust ICANN more than I
trust Apple and ${CLOUD_PROVIDER}

~~~
Pxtl
In this case they have no choice. If you want to sell applications that run on
Apple devices, you _must_ sell them on Apple's store. Doesn't matter where
they host their software and servers.

There is no historical mainstream analog since desktop/laptop OS software has
never been so locked-down that it was impossible to install software without
1st-party permission. Even early videogame consoles had unlicensed games run
on them, and the console vendors could only stop them by releasing new
hardware.

~~~
Spivak
I feel like making Apple devices and Apple's store seem like two separate
things doesn't really make sense. The whole entire phone top to bottom is
Apple's store. The "App Store" is just a pretty downloader.

~~~
sushshshsh
Apple should just be as draconian as possible so that more people will
voluntarily put in the effort to learn how to build and consume open
platforms.

If people don't want to do that, that's on them.

If Epic doesn't want to invest in an open cell phone platform that can run
Epic binaries, then its only options are to beg the government for help, or to
take Apple's bs on the chin

~~~
dayjobpork
How does someone build their own phone?

------
notSupplied
If I were a congressman and had a shot at grilling Apple 2 weeks ago, I would
have said this to them:

\--- I was a Mac user and an Apple fan in the 90s and early 2000s, and we all
know that was a rough time to be a Mac user: Because it was clear that Windows
had won. If you asked a typical PC buyer why they chose Windows, their answer
would go something like this: "All the software I need is on Windows. Windows
has the REAL version of Office. Windows has IE6, the REAL internet. Windows
has all my games, and my work software." Like the iPhone, the Mac was
technologically superior in many ways, but that did not stop the Mac from
shrinking to only a 5% market share, ceding its place in PC history to
Windows.

Today, the iPhone enjoys the breadth of 3rd party software the Mac could only
dream of. People pay $1000, sometimes every year, for a phone! This has
transformed Apple's fortune from a struggling company into the most valuable
company in the world. Why are people willing to pay so much for a phone?
Because it is so much more than a phone. And why is it so much more than a
phone? Because of the all 3rd party software expanding what the smartphone
could do beyond what anyone thought was possible. So, why on earth would you
put a tax on something that helps you so much, that it likely made the
difference between being the distant loser in the PC era, vs being one of two
major winners in the smartphone era? \---

There's a lot of different angles people arguing about this, but this is my
favorite: Which is that the FLOW OF VALUE GOES BOTH WAYS. I find the tone that
Apple takes on this arrogant: They really believe they are doing developers
this huge favor by creating the iPhone and the AppStore and the flow of value
flows massively in one direction, from Apple-to-Developer. But I sincerely do
believe that 3rd party software is what made the difference between the fate
of the Mac and the fate of the iPhone, and the respective difference in
Apple's fortune. For as much as one could gush about iPhone's incredible
hardware and software lead, the Mac _had those same things going for it_ and
still lost to Windows because of the software.

For Apple to turn around an rent-seek against one of the core reasons why the
iPhone is successful, is to me, an incredible betrayal, and made possible only
because of the gross difference in power and market concentration.

------
Findeton
I don't think this should be regulated at all. Apple should be able to impose
their rules in their systems. Let's be clear about this, if people are
choosing to buy these black-box closed handheld computing devices, there _are_
consequences that come with that choice.

~~~
a9entroy
I don't agree. Millions (maybe even billions) of people user their devices and
the country absolutely should regulate their systems. As an extreme example
imagine if Apple tomorrow said that all apps have to pay a 95% cut instead of
a 30% cut and all customers have to pay $20/month to use Wifi or internet on
their iPhone. Obviously this is unlikely to happen but then I would expect the
govt. to intervene.

If Apple want to impose rules without any government oversight, they are free
to start their own country with their own government and impose their own
rules.

~~~
Zelphyr
That's a pretty big straw man argument. If Apple said all apps have to pay a
95% cut and all customers have to pay $20/mo to use Internet on their phones
then they'd nearly instantly lose massive market share and the backlash would
be so severe that they'd never regain that market share. In other words;
they'd never do that.

------
nouveaux
For those who are arguing that Apple should allow third party developers to
have their own marketplace without Apple taking a cut, should:

\- Ebay allow for a third party marketplace to exist without them getting a
cut?

-PayPal, chase, stripe allow third party developers to offer up their own payment services without the respective companies take a cut?

Also by the same token, Amazon is a monopoly by taking a percentage fee and
should allow competitors to sell on their platform without taking a listing
fee. Is this not the same thing?

~~~
ffggvv
you’re comparing hardware to software which i don’t think is fair.

apple creates the marketplace, the OS, and the hardware.

it’s a much more complex issue which is more analogous to if windows required
all users to use internet explorer, which we know is monopolistic.

there’s also much more friction switching software like stripe than hardware
like your iphone

~~~
nouveaux
I'm not sure why it's not the same. Apple could just sell the hardware. Here
Apple is selling the hardware and providing a marketplace for apps. There is
virtually no difference between the App Store and using the browser to buy
things from Amazon. The argument is that Apple should provide the ability to
sell things on the App Store with out a cut. Amazon by the same argument
should be forced to do the same.

You can argue that Amazons web Shopping market share is larger than Apple's
cellphone market share and should be subject to the same monopoly regulation.

~~~
fastball
Apple distributes the app. They should be able to take a 30% cut for that if
they wish.

However, my app has an unlimited subscription. Accepting payment for this is
handled by Stripe. Once the app is on the users device, if a user subscribes
to the unlimited plan, why should I have to pay 30% to Apple? They are not
delivering that service in any way, shape, or form.

A better analogy would be that I buy a Nespresso machine on Amazon. Some of
that goes to Amazon for facilitating the transaction and delivering it to me,
some goes to Nespresso for actually making the device. Then I get a pod
subscription from Nespresso. Amazon then says that because the machine was
originally bought on Amazon, they are entitled to a 30% cut of that ongoing
subscription price, even though the subscription is neither facilitated nor
fulfilled by Amazon.

I think we can all agree that would be ridiculous. That is what Apple is
doing.

------
fantasticsid
As an iPhone user I much prefer any payment to go through apple payment UI,
it’s just safer and hassle free, I don’t need to worry about scammy payment
traps.

As a developer I can see the financial reasoning behind implementing third
party payment methods.

------
xupybd
My first thought was that this had more to do with the order against Tencent
than violating Apple policy.
[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/08/13/pom...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/08/13/pompeo-
trump-executive-orders-are-broader-than-just-tiktok-wechat.html)

------
risyachka
I have been and iOS developer for many years and my main problem with Apple is
that it treats small and big developers very differently. Their policies are
not applied to all, just like with Google.

But as far as I understand Apple is not a monopoly. So why should they allow
users to install app from any source if they made their OS specifically in a
way that doesn't allow it? It is a product feature.

And pricing policy - sure I'd love do get 10% cut of 30%. But again, they made
a product and allow you do develop apps just take a cut. A big cut? Sure. But
shouldn't it be their right to price their products as they see fit as long as
they don't have a monopoly?

I am thinking that if I start a company, why should the court force my price
policy or tell me what features to implement (obviously as long as they don't
harm users, break laws etc) if a consumer has many alternatives?

~~~
xnyan
The monopoly Apple has is the paid mobile software market. The difference
between software sales on the Google play store and and the iOS App Store are
pretty staggering. I have no expertise in the law so I can’t tell you that’s
it a monopoly in the US legal sense (if i had to guess, no) but it absolutely
is one in practice. It makes sense that developers, particularly powerful ones
like epic, would argue that it is.

~~~
tomgp
That's a good point re the fact that Apple offers the only viable mobile paid
software market place. For me it raises the question of whether forcing them
via law/regulation to change their model would in practice have the knock on
effect of destroying that market, making iOS more android like in terms of
developer profitability for all but the Epic-like titans.

------
jmull
I’m fine with a gated App Store, and the store has real benefits and real
costs and it makes sense to charge developers for that.

But Apple needs to align the charges more closely with the benefits and costs.

Charge developers for costs they incur. Make the benefits opt-in and charge
them for that too. And let them go their own way if they don’t want to opt-in.

------
pensiveharsh
I wish Novell, Canonical, Red Hat and other open-source leaders would form an
alliance to build an alternative OS for phones.

Even if it takes 20 years to reach the same market-share that Linux currently
has on the desktop, it would be a win.

At least, we'd have an option.

I am not a Linux expert and apps crash sometime but I never feel BULLIED by
the Linux ecosystem.

------
xondono
I’ve seen a lot of comments similar to “I don’t understand how users can be in
favor of this”. I’m not just in favor, I _love_ that they do that.

Yes, for the small percentage of the population that knows what’s doing (which
nicely overlaps with HN), having freedom to install whatever you choose is
great.

For >90% of the population it isn’t. Even with all of the improvements Windows
has seen, for me it’s still a regular situation to feel like I won’t put one
of my pen drives into the average Joe’s computer.

The freedom to install anything is the biggest security hole in most personal
computers.

By not allowing it I can trust my parents and the rest of my family with
phones knowing that they won’t do crazy stuff with the same device they use to
log into their bank accounts and manage their authentication.

What inflames the 0.1% is a blessing for >90%.

~~~
romanoderoma
That's not true.

Being limited in what you can do with your properties is never a blessing.

Hammers are dangerous yet they are sold in supermarkets.

Hell, in US even guns are sold in supermarkets so that kids can kill other
kids at school and nobody stops them and we are arguing about installing apps
on a phone?

Apple could make it clear that it's risky and that would be it.

The rhetoric of the "old parents that can't help themselves" is wrong and most
of all agist.

There's no risk of them installing dodgy apps, because they usually don't
install new apps.

My mom doesn't even know how to change time on her phone but she's smart
enough to not break what's working.

I installed WhatsApp on her phone and that's all she needed, there's no way
she could install something bad by chance and she's on Android, according to
the Apple fanboys she should be running around with a virus bomb in her purse.

Guess what?

She's completely fine.

Another important point is that Apple is not competing with Android, Apple is
competing with other smartphone producers.

Apple is a monopolyst because it locks users in, you can't change OS on your
phone, you can't install iOs on other brands, you can't move your apps and
data from iOs to Android, while the contrary is pretty straightforward.

You can't even use the web freely, because alternative browsers are forbidden
on Apple Store.

Apple is not competing in a free market, Apple is making impossible to switch
to competitors and thanks to this lock they can charge any amount they want.

I'm old enough to remember MS being bashed for proposing the TwC (trustworthy
computing) in 2002 and now I have to watch people kneeling in front of the
richest company around just because they don't want to help their parents?

That must be a new low for our society.

~~~
xondono
> Hell, in US even guns are sold in supermarkets so that kids can kill other
> kids at school and nobody stops them

How well is that working for you?

> The rhetoric of the "old parents that can't help themselves" is wrong and
> most of all agist.

A lot of the family I was referring to is not only younger than me, they’re
_digital natives_. Guess what, most computers from 15yo are full to the brim
of malware. Even supposedly _techie_ kids fall for things like Byte Defender
(as opposed to Bit defender).

My car auto-brakes when it detects a static object ahead. You could say my car
limits my freedom to drive at 80km/h towards a wall. It’s a welcome limit.

~~~
romanoderoma
> How well is that working for you?

I'm Italian, so it's working quite good thanks, we don't sell guns to kids.

And we are very careful when we sell them to adults.

That's why we have an homicide rate ten times lower than the US 0.6/100k VS
6/100k

Prevention and correct education do miracles, even in absence of a helicopter
father - Apple, if it wasn't clear - that prevents you from doing anything,
out of fear you could have too much freedom.

Gunning in US is a cultural problem, not a technical one.

DO you think the solution is controlling the market or making guns safer?

Apple tells you that their guns are safer (without any real proof), but they
won't stop selling them.

It's hypocrisy at its best.

To be fair, Apple devices are considered more secure only because the Android
market is so large and fragmented that they can compare the numbers of exploit
targeting the last couple versions of iOS with the entire Android ecosystem
which includes older versions and a large number of users that skipped OS
updates

But that's a feature if you ask me, you are not forced to update to keep using
the device.

If you compare Apple devices with equivalent Android devices (for example high
end Samsungs) you will notice little or no difference.

Of course a 50$ device is much more at risk of being compromised.

The only counterproof would be installing iOS on those devices and see how it
reacts.

But we will never know...

> most computers from 15yo are full to the brim of malware.

That's a very moot point, I guess you never had a light car accident or
slipped on a wet floor.

Should we lock you in your room strapped to the bed so that you don't harm
yourself?

> My car auto-brakes when it detects a static object ahead

Maybe you shouldn't drive if you can't brake when you see an obstacle.

> You could say my car limits my freedom to drive at 80km/h towards a wall

It does, in a way.

But

1) you can disable it, there is __always__ an off switch for those kind of
aids. Always! Can I disable Apple "protections"?

2) You are allowed to drive a car without self breaking technologies and the
car have to work even if self-breaking stops working or you disable it or you
completely remove it. It's you right, nobody will take the car away from you
and the car will keep working without it. It__has to__ by the law.

3) as much as I love hyperboles, installing an app is hardly a life-
threatening activity.

4) thank god cars have to pass very strict safety requirements, so a Tesla
might be better in terms of performance than a Renault Zoe, but in terms of
safety and interoperability they have to be equivalent. Apple is like a car
manufacturer that uses a non standard charger, forces clients to charge their
cars using Apple approved charging stations, the charging stations have to pay
for the chargers and give a 30% cut on any charge to Apple, while Apple says
it's best for customers because their electric current is safer.

~~~
xondono
1) I can’t, that’s the point of a protection. When protections can be
sidestepped, users are at risk. The warnings from Windows about risky software
protect mostly no one, since most users learn that by clicking “Accept”, they
get what they want, even if they are unaware of the price.

Why computers full of malware are a moot point? You can’t expect everyone to
have good knowledge about computers. Guardrails for those people are great.

In any case, I’m guessing you are a great italian farmer, because boy, that
was a beautiful straw man there!

~~~
romanoderoma
Security Is not a one way only street

When you are in danger an ambulance can drive faster than the speed limits,
because safety of people depends on their ability to act fast.

Firefighters can break safety rules, because they have to sometimes.

An on/off switch is only natural when you think about safety, if Apple believe
that the only security is the one Apple decided, Apple is wrong.

I'm Italian, but I am a computer scientist.

My grandparents were farmers, and I am very proud of were I come from.

We don't know strawmans, we only know hard work and honesty.

But good stereotypes on your side, I'm impressed!

I had the impression that using ad hominems was prohibited on HN, but I am
used to miseducation of Americans...

Anyway, Apple is not building guardrails, they are making bicicles with
training wheels, charging a lot of money for them and calling it "security"

If you are happy with it, I'm happy for you, but I'm an adult, I am able to
make choices and can, sometimes, learn new things.

------
catdawg
Just hypothetically here, what would the App Store look like if it didn't take
a cut?

Let's say everything stays the same, obviously, Apple would earn less money
but let's ignore that obvious impediment, I guess they would would care less
about how much an app makes in revenue, and exclusively about the quality of
it.

Would that be better overall for the consumer? Would it be awful for app
developers, because Apple could be a lot more (than it already is) picky about
what goes into the AppStore? It could create extreme rules that it doesn't
care at all about relaxing, since whether a new app is in the store or not,
makes no difference revenue wise for Apple.

Maybe they could finally properly tackle some predatory IAP practices, that I
assume are still allowed due to the revenue they bring in.

------
shahbaby
This is why I could never get interested in any Apple products. They can keep
their walled garden to themselves.

------
arendtio
Time and time again I wonder how Apple manages to avoid rules/laws which are
applicable for all other players in the market.

More than a decade ago the EU forced manufacturers of mobile phones to commit
to one standard for power plugs. Everybody used micro USB except Apple.

Microsoft had to pay a huge fine because the didn't let the user choose which
browser they wanted to use and simply brought the Internet Explorer as the
default with every Windows. Apple still doesn't even allow users to install
alternative browsers. Yes, from the outside it looks like you can install a
Firefox, but inside it is still a Safari for which Apple denies building
critical APIs like e.g. the Push API [1] (which is available for all major
browsers except Safari and the use cases go far beyond push notifications,
like chat apps and background synchronization of data).

The App Store is yet another example. Many other platform providers allow you
to install additional Software through other means than the default source
(Android, Windows, Linux, etc.). I am glad a major player like Epic takes the
issue head-on and hope, that in the end the eco-system will benefit as a
whole.

[1]: [https://caniuse.com/#feat=push-api](https://caniuse.com/#feat=push-api)

------
mrandish
I love that Epic is doing this as it could finally drive the regulatory
question of whether Apple's app store is a monopoly requiring intervention.

I'm not even sure I know exactly where I come down on the issue as I can see
reasonable arguments on both sides. But I do think it deserves being tested.

(Note: obviously it IS a monopoly and does have huge negative effects. The
question is whether the courts will find that it technically violates specific
anti-trust definitions sufficiently to be successfully prosecuted.

------
nullc
Scamming children was fine but scamming children and not giving apple a cut is
an unforgivable sin.

------
nromiun
This is the number one reason I don't use iPhones. Their privacy policy is
very good (compared to Android) but it is a very airtight walled garden.
Android has many problems, like no updates after two years and Google's
draconian user support. But at least you can use alternative app stores (like
F-Droid, Fortnite). At least you can compile and run your own code on your
device without asking Google for permission.

------
freakynit
All apps should just get together and remove themselves from AppStore unless
Apple bends it's draconian rules. iOS is nothing without apps.

------
artur_makly
my 7yr old son just came up to me super excited to see some mysterious trailer
when he ran the app today. He thought he was about to see some cool new
upcoming mod and instead he had to watch their propaganda campaign to Free
Fortnight.

As a parent, having to be forced to explain to your 7yr old son the dark-side
of gaming/technology is not something I was prepared to do as a bonding event
this fine evening.

------
downvoteme1
I think that Apple will prevail in this legal fight . Apple is in good terms
with this administration. Even when the social media has taken the blame by
Congress, it has been google, Facebook and Twitter that have come under fire -
but Apple not so much. And currently the US is in a position where how heavy
handed the treatment is dependent on your relationship with the
administration.

~~~
Jellyd
Regulation isn't done by the administration. There is a specific bipartisan
antitrust committee that handles these issues.

------
Abishek_Muthian
I'm all in for the support of 3rd party Appstores like FDroid on iOS and its
inevitable to not compare Android ecosystem support for that.

But, situation is not that comfy with ChromeOS. If we need to side-load an
.apk, we have to enable developer mode (which means powerwash) thereby Google
explicitly making it an Anti-feature.

Interestingly, android 10 on mobile allows direct install/update from FDroid
making it no different from Playstore. Now why this double stand when it comes
to side-loading android apps in ChromeOS vs Android? The obvious statement
would regarding security and that's exactly what Apple uses to prevent side-
loading apps.

Now coming back to Apple, it has been allowing side-loading .ipa onto iOS
devices(Although not as easy as in android) and it has also removed the need
for $99 developer license which was needed earlier to side-load .ipa!

So, the line between android vs iOS w.r.t side-loading apps is getting thinner
at least w.r.t ChromeOS.

~~~
camhart
Sideloading ipa's on iOS require sideloading every 7 days. And doesn't it
require a computer to do it?

On android sideloading is much easier, though still not as easy as GPS.

------
splatcollision
Such a staged drama by Epic Games. They even had a video ready to go!

~~~
hu3
Big corps don't take those decisions lightly.

Obviously stakeholders and lawyers were involved. Marketing saw an opportunity
and jumped in.

------
the-pigeon
This could be great news.

Might finally get the ball rolling on a court case to stop the huge app store
abuses by Apple and Google.

------
sriku
From a financial perspective, it appears unfair to also charge 30% for in-app
purchases after the safety guarantees of the app have been established by
apple, thereby invalidating their claim that charging a cut of in-app
purchases is also towards ensuring platform safety for their users.

Thing is, if apple lifted the in-app purchase cuts, then all apps would
essentially switch from "pay to install" to "pay after install" and the apps
would get their "safety certification" some for free - i.e. at apple's cost.

What seems fair in this case is to pay the platform vendors a fee for the
certification and network costs (charged like aws perhaps) instead of the
leeching that's happening. Even the _option_ of doing that over giving a 30%
cut seems fairer than what's happening.

~~~
eqtn
Then apple will probably start charging for API requests between iphone and
ios for apps that have implemented alternative payment options.

------
blisseyGo
I think the main thing which really needs to be done is allow a non-apple App
Store which hosts the apps on non-apple servers. Only reason I can see Apple's
30% cut (15% would be better) justified is that they host the download files
for apps and also review them. So I can see why they need a cut - 30% is too
much imo.

Of course that comes with its on risks as Apple won't be able to control what
apps get installed but if Google can do it, then so can Apple. This way Apple
can keep their App Store guidelines consistent across all developers and
developers who don't want to go through the sometimes tiresome review process
plus give apple the 30% share, can use this alternate App Store.

~~~
hyperbovine
Suggested name: Crap Store.

------
djsumdog
Someone did a satire of the Apple 1984 ad with Fortnite characters. Is
surprisingly well made, and hilarious:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqTNO8LTggI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqTNO8LTggI)

------
jiggawatts
I have a stupid question: If Apple pulls an app from the store, but doesn't
forcibly uninstall it from phones, what happens if that app then needs a
security update?

Can the developer still update their app, or is it stuck in update limbo?

~~~
cloogshicer
Dev with iOS experience here. Depends a bit on the case, but usually it means
stuck in update limbo.

You can request faster reviews for critical security bugs, but as far as I
know, if you're rejected for guideline violations, you're stuck until you
alleviate those violations.

This is actually another problem with the whole review process: There often
isn't a clear guideline/way to tell. You can submit an update that goes
through quickly, or wait for months, without knowing why. Valve, the company
that runs Steam, also had horror stories about this. They published the Steam
Chat app (not a store) and had to wait for months for approval, apparently
without being able to talk to anyone at Apple.

------
fabioyy
i worked on a book store here in Brazil, and while we could sell ebooks on
Apple plataform paying the 30% cut, apple did the same with ibooks... with
lower price since they don't have to pay the 30% fee

------
prepend
Hopefully this helps to get rid of the free to play market. I think free to
play games are a blight, so while it’s harsh that companies have to pay Apple
30%, that’s the price to be on iPhone and android devices.

The deal, that many choose not to take, is that Apple gets 30% of things sold
on their platform. Whether that’s 30% of a one time $100 fee to purchase or
30% of $1/week in digital Scooby snacks or whatever for the rest of your life.

------
StavrosK
> Apple has removed Epic Games’ battle royale game Fortnite from the App Store
> after the developer on Thursday implemented its own in-app payment system
> that bypassed Apple’s standard 30 percent fee

> 1,000 V-bucks, which is roughly equivalent to $10 in-game Fortnite currency,
> now costs just $7.99 if you use Epic direct payment instead of the standard
> Apple payment processing. Normally, that amount of currency costs $9.99.
> Epic says, in this case, customers keep the extra savings, not the company.

Either I can't count or Epic can't.

~~~
CamelCaseName
Epic still has payment processing costs, ones that were contained within
Apple's 30% fee, and probably some other costs I'm not familiar with.

They may have rounded those costs up to the nearest $X.99 for clean numbers.

~~~
rvnx
Or just kept 10% as extra profit :)

------
bnj
So if fortnight was allowed to have their own App Store would it need to be
downloaded via the App Store?

I see people on both sides of this issue and I know it’s heated, but I’m
honestly a bit confused about how it would work in practical terms.

The iOS platform has been deliberately engineered —- for better or worse —- to
have this blurring of the hardware/software divide... how do you overcome that
if this challenge went all the way through?

It doesn’t seem like it would be as simple as downloading the storefront from
epic.

------
dman
I hope this goes all the way and phones get opened up to work with PCs - users
have root, can install their own software, and run software written in the
language of their choice.

------
blobbers
This was probably a bad move given this whole monopoly inquiry. I'm going to
guess Tim Cook may fire someone over this if he wasn't directly involved.

~~~
weixiyen
they have to do this though or risk setting a precedent for how they run their
entire services business.

Apple is stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place, and the only way
out is to win multiple legal battles.

------
cptskippy
I have a feeling Apple is going to argue a ToS violation other than related to
Payments. Something like concealing functionality from reviewers or something.

------
panpanna
Most folks on Twitter are siding with apple on this. I think this is mostly
thanks to Epics horrible way of explaining this.

I feel they could have gone with this much simpler explanation and everyone
would be happy;

"We have no problem giving apple 30% if we use their infrastructure. But if we
use our own and save 30%, we want to be able give our customers lower prices"

Btw, the ad mostly confused their (mostly young ) players.

------
Maha-pudma
I hope apple lose the lawsuit. It's about time their monopoly was broken.No
different from what Microsoft did in the passed and Google are doing now.

------
hannibalhorn
If I were Epic, I wouldn't even pick up the phone tonight. Let Apple sweat,
and soon enough it'll be before a Congressional panel.

The app store certainly adds value by screening out abusive behaviors that
can't be simply sandboxed; but 30% of revenue? That's just too much. At a
minimum, we need to allow for competing app stores that can also earn the
right to be trusted by consumers.

------
vortico
I'm a software developer considering releasing a mobile version of my
software. Is there a way to completely bypass the iOS app store and allow
users to download and install iOS apps from Safari? I hear stories like this
all the time and don't want to touch the App Store one bit.

Can this be done with Android? Perhaps I could release for Android-only and
allow the app to be downloaded with Chrome.

~~~
hu3
Android's let's you download the app from any website. No questions asked. And
the app can charge you without giving Google a single dime.

For example I can go to itch.io and download this game directly to my phone:
[https://majorariatto.itch.io/pureya](https://majorariatto.itch.io/pureya)

~~~
askvictor
Not quite no questions asked - you first need to enable a setting, then get
through the warnings. That said, Android comes with an ability to install
other _App Stores_

~~~
osn9363739
Does that setting also stop you from using some apps? such as banking apps
etc. I recall something like that.

(sorry, Apple user here)

~~~
askvictor
This setting won't in itself stop you using any apps. But apps can (I think)
determine where they were installed from, so a banking app might be able to
detect this and bail out.

Google's Android (don't think this is in AOSP; probably tied to Google Play
Services) also checks non-play-store apps for malware on your phone, and might
reject them if they contain malware.

Some apps also try to detect rooted/jailbroken phones and won't run (or at
least give a warning) in that situation.

------
reallydontask
Is the issue the cut or the percentage?

I'd imagine that a sliding scale would be far more palatable for big
companies, say every order of magnitude increase above say 1000 in installs,
the cut drops by 5%, so if you have 1 million installs, any extra would be
15%.

I suppose there is the possibility of fake accounts but at this scale, likely
hundreds of millions, is it going to be a big difference?

~~~
jamil7
I feel like the percentage isn't that important, it's more the fact that
you're not even allowed to direct users to your own website or payment
processor to have them sign up. I think changing that tiny rule as a starting
point would go a long way.

------
mulmen
I get hung up in the semantics of monopoly. I don't think it really applies
here because Android exists. But if we frame this as an anti-competitive
question I think it is very clear Apple's practices are anti-competitive.

I'm not a fan of diluting the term "monopoly", I think we need modern laws to
encourage competition. Maybe I just need to get over my pedantry.

~~~
hu3
Android lets you install apps from any site without hassle.

And those apps can charge you money without giving Google a single dime.

~~~
mulmen
Sure but does that mean Apple's actions are not anti-competitive?

------
anupamchugh
Despite, Apple's App Store monopoly, I believe in this case, its Epic Games
fault. They knew the consquences and still went ahead with it. Make no
mistake, its a marketing stunt and would put Apple in the spotlight but in the
end the 30% tax won't change for indie developers. Even if Fornite manages to
go past it like HEY, Netflix and Spotify.

------
muzika
Apple wouldn’t be in this mess if only they had the foresight to charge less
than 30% as fees. 10% would have been much more reasonable.

------
vmh1928
Apple has plenty of funding to fight a lawsuit. They can divert some of the
share-buyback funds. [https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/apple-launches-
unprecedent...](https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/apple-launches-
unprecedented-second-bond-offering-fund-billions-buyback-how-much-will-fed)

~~~
metalliqaz
A lawsuit isn't Apple's biggest concern. It's being set upon by the government
for antitrust.

------
thatguy0900
Epics making such a hard push onto getting a steam competitor running, and is
taking such a big loss losing out on ios money even temporarily, I have to
assume they're using fortnite to establish precedent than planning on opening
a competing app store or something. They're milking fortnite to play the long
game before fortnite stops wing as huge,I think

------
ksolanki
There is a potential solution: how about an app like fortnite to charge the
users 30% more and be transparent about it if they use the App Store to buy?
Is that against the App Store TOS? There has to be a way for the costs to be
made transparent so users can make an informed choice. It doesn’t have to be
these large lawsuits?

~~~
eqtn
That is against TOS.

------
eqtn
What is preventing apple from renting the phone instead of selling it? If they
do that, can they do whatever they want?

------
fumar
I just ordered my first Android phone in years just to play XCloud. Apple
needs to rethink its gaming and app policies.

------
nytesky
How much of a security risk is side loading apps? It seems pretty large to me,
even on a fortified system like iOS.

~~~
lern_too_spel
Pretty tiny. Consider that the Apple App Store has infected more users (with
Xcodeghost malware) than all the sideloaded apps on Android combined.

------
butterisgood
They had a commercial all ready to go mocking Apple. They know what they’re
doing and they wanted a war.

------
cromwellian
"iPhone/iPad is a console"

A $1000+ device with a moniker "Pro" is not a console. If you're trying to
sell me the concept that something is "Pro" to be used for work, and can even
replace a laptop, don't try to tell me its equivalent to a games console.

~~~
pb7
[https://www.playstation.com/en-
us/explore/ps4-pro/](https://www.playstation.com/en-us/explore/ps4-pro/)

"Pro" means absolutely nothing. It is a marketing label. Also the price means
nothing. What's $1,000 (iPad Pro) to you is $500 (PS4 Pro) to me.

~~~
cromwellian
So Apple isn't pitching the iPad Pro as a laptop replacement, and is instead
pitching it as a games console?

Funny, I seem to member the announcements, and Apple showing iPhone Pro's
shooting movies, doing professional photography, video editing, etc.

This this a game console?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7krzWNOXrFY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7krzWNOXrFY)

Gimme a break. Rent-seeking behavior dressed up in a security credit.

~~~
pb7
What do games consoles have to do with this? I'm showing you a similar walled
garden app ecosystem (PlayStation) with a "Pro" label since you went down that
path. iPad doesn't have to be a games console to be subject to the same rules.

~~~
cromwellian
Tim Cook and many of the Apple bloggers are using the console analogy to
defend a closed walled garden App Store that takes an extremely high fee. Tim
Cook brought it up in his congressional testimony even.

------
LeicaLatte
A lot more developers would come sell on the store if it’s 15%. Apple has a
real chance to take the App Store to the next level. This is a failure of
imagination on their part and those are the worst kinds of mistakes a creative
organization can make.

~~~
cynix
You’re saying those developers currently would rather make 0% than 70%?

------
crobertsbmw
Can we wave the Havel at Amazon too? I feel like they are more predatory and
anti-consumer than Apple is. They take at least 30% bu the time you consider
that you are practically forced to buy their ads, FBA, deal with (amazon’s)
counterfeits etc.

~~~
selimthegrim
Havel is too peaceful for the matter at hand :p

------
irjustin
"You either die a hero or live long enough to see your self become the
villain."

------
shallowthought
Because they were bypassing the approval process, which exists for a good
reason, otherwise they wouldn't expend so many resources on it, sorry for
being reasonable and obvious, we can all go back to scouring the shadows now.

------
pjfin123
This seems like something Apple may regret if it leads to anti-trust action.

------
alec_kendall
I wonder where within management this decision was made. I can’t help but
wonder if decisions like this are made without considering the impact it will
have, given their current circumstances.

------
mensetmanusman
Has anyone tried having work meetings on Fortnite custom rooms? Seems like a
fun concept, not sure how it works in practice (are there other games that
would be better for avatar-based private meetings?)

~~~
jpindar
Sinespace is trying to sell companies on this, I don't know how successful
they've been.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1nBlm2HKKY&feature=youtu.be](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1nBlm2HKKY&feature=youtu.be)

------
Razengan
Does Epic allow players to buy Fortnite content from outside of Fortnite,
without giving Epic any money?

Do Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo allow other stores on their consoles?

How much % do they take from console game sales?

------
smiley1437
As of 7:30 ET, Matchmaking on Fortnite for IOS doesn't seem to be working
anymore, so while it's possible to log into the lobby, it's not possible to
play a game anymore.

------
anderspitman
The more AAPL and GOOG lock down their platforms, the more basic features like
installing software you want start to look like killer apps. There may be hope
yet for a truly OSS phone.

------
torgian
Title is slightly misleading because Google Play also removes them from the
Play store. The title is there to generate instant emotions strictly against
Apple for some reason.

~~~
marrone12
At the time this thread was submitted, Google had yet to ban Fortnite from the
store.

------
victords
With Google now also kicking them out of the store, I don’t think that’s a
battle they will win.

However, I really hope they do. Against both. That would be a great victory
for the consumers.

------
wnevets
Didn't epic go through this with google play store? I'm assuming secret
negotiations are taking place so epic gets a much better deal than everyone
else's 30%.

------
brainless
_This is not about a monopoly_

What it boils down to is that a computer (iOS device) can not run apps even
when I own it. So technically I do not own the device, right? Never?

------
randomsearch
Apple fighting a losing battle here, I think. Probably best approach is to
reduce their cut. They may find total revenue increases in the long term
anyway.

------
dilse
Genuine question: Do flight travel booking companies pay commission to Apple
for any bookings made via App? If not, isn't this a differential treatment?

~~~
y2bd
IIRC Apple doesn’t require in-app purchases for “physical” goods. Obviously a
JPG of a barcode that lets me on a plane or into a movie theater itself isn’t
a physical good, but I guess it’s in service of one.

There are a couple of exceptions though for digital goods (I think Amazon has
an exception for their Video service, but _not_ Kindle. People rumor this was
part of a deal to get Apple TV onto Amazon Fire products.)

------
tommymachine
This all sounds very misguided on Fortnight's end.

------
jeffrallen
The bigger the bully, the harder they eventually fall.

------
aabbcc1241
Why this kind of article again? Apple rules the apple app store, we can, and
we do have alternative way to deliver apps.

------
dwaite
Apple has not disallowed goods bought online or via other PC/mobile/consoles
to be brought over. Or setting different prices depending on whether you buy
through the iOS app or directly through a company. The restriction Epic
violated is specifically around taking third party payments in-app.

So this isn’t even necessarily that Apple is rent seeking on their platform -
it is that Apple is charging more for the marketing and convenience of having
things available directly on their platform than Epic likes.

------
rmrfrmrf
Thinking about the team(s?) at Epic that had to work 120hr weeks in endless
crunch just so that their CEO could troll another CEO.

------
ngcc_hk
The whole point I buy in Apple is not side-load of app. Others are minor.
There is always Android if you side loaded.

------
orionblastar
[https://youtu.be/7iCXcCFXAhE](https://youtu.be/7iCXcCFXAhE)

------
kebman
Hm. An exemption for big friends sounds eerily like cartel activity. Am I
missing something here? How is this legal?

------
thrownoone
I hope Apple stays its course.

\- It's really hard to mess up apple devices for non-tech savvy people.

\- I have learnt the importance of "It just works" and familiarity when my
family got tired of Android and just bought everything Apple.

\- I hope/wish to see Apple Pay/login implemented everywhere on web as well.

Would a tier system like the tax brackets help small developers?

------
gigatexal
in the end i think apple relents and opens the app store in order to keep
subscription revenue from music, tv, etc., because all of these high profile
attacks are basically death by a thousand cuts. In the end everyone loses but
the lawyers.

------
sali0
Epic is releasing a new game mode[1] called Nineteen Eighty-Fortnite. This is
the most epic (no pun intended) ad campaign in history.

1:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euiSHuaw6Q4&feature=youtu.be](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euiSHuaw6Q4&feature=youtu.be)

------
darthrupert
Will Epic's games be soon available in Steam, then?

------
blunderkid
What Apple is going is just obnoxious and as clear a case of anti-trust as has
ever been. 30% of revenue for no services offered, just because they can, is
the definition of extortion. The only thing stopping them from asking 30% off
of your Amazon orders placed via Safari is because the consumer has a choice
of another browser for free. Otherwise these high priests of design and
aesthetics would make the shirt on your back cost 30% more. Your app can't
even tell the consumer that they can pay outside and avoid paying the Apple
tax infinitely AFTER paying for their really expensive device. This is keeping
the consumer in the dark to exploit them. This isn't capitalism. This is
monopoly abuse.

------
NoblePublius
I am not a lawyer but I’m pretty sure it’s a violation of anti-trust law when
Walmart tells me I’m not allowed to set up for free a lemonade stand in the
middle of their store.

~~~
ifmpx
I'm sure it is if I'm only allowed to shop at walmart for all my food.

I hope Apple looses.

------
whalesalad
You don't bite the hand that feeds.

------
chadlavi
This makes me feel a million years old.

------
prvc
For those complaining about their misuse of "1984", it's merely a mockery of
Apple's previous misuse of it (an effective one, too!). "1984" is a satire of
Bolshevism and the Stalin regime, but became of a victim of its own success,
and has been appropriated as a weapon against many unrelated or very loosely
related things.

------
sigzero
Apple should permanently ban Epic and then drop their cut to 20%. lol

------
tigerbelt
Indubitably Bad

------
nodamage
I am curious if any lawyers can weigh in on whether or not the reasoning in
_Blizzard Entertainment Inc. v. Ceiling Fan Software LLC_
([https://casetext.com/case/blizzard-entmt-inc-v-ceiling-
fan-s...](https://casetext.com/case/blizzard-entmt-inc-v-ceiling-fan-software-
llc)) would apply to the antitrust claims made in Epic's lawsuits.

For those unfamiliar with the case, Blizzard filed suit against Ceiling Fan
Software for selling a World of Warcraft bot against the WoW EULA. Ceiling Fan
Software filed a countersuit claiming Blizzard's monopolistic actions in the
market of "add-on hardware/software for WoW" violated antitrust laws.

Blizzard argued that Ceiling Fan Software could not establish an antitrust
claim because WoW users voluntarily consented to their EULA and knew the ahead
of time when they purchased WoW that they would not be allowed to use third-
party bots. The court agreed:

> _Blizzard raises this argument in its motion, contending that Defendants
> cannot establish antitrust claims based on its users ' voluntary consent to
> the EULA and TOU. (Mot. Br. 22–23.) Although Blizzard does not argue this
> point in the market power analysis, the Court finds that this discussion is
> applicable to whether the market power requirement is established. Blizzard
> cites Newcal, Queen City Pizza, Inc. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 124 F.3d 430,
> 441 (3d Cir.1997), and Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 586 F.Supp.2d 1190, 1201
> (N.D.Cal.2008), to show that Defendants cannot base its claims on the
> aftermarket restrictions. ( See Opp'n Br. 17.) These cases explain that the
> law prohibits an antitrust claimant from asserting an antitrust claim
> “resting on market power that arises solely from contractual rights that
> customers knowingly and voluntarily gave to the defendant” when they
> purchased the initial tying product._

...

> _Based on the allegations in the FACC, users agreed to the terms of the EULA
> and TOU during the initial contract they sign with Blizzard regarding the
> use of WoW. Blizzard is entitled to condition the use of WoW on such
> restrictions, and any resulting market power in the aftermarket cannot be
> the basis for antitrust claims. The only reason why Blizzard or its
> licensees allegedly hold market power in the aftermarket is because Blizzard
> users agree not to use any unauthorized WoW add-ons. It can be inferred that
> users therefore agree to only use authorized WoW add-ons that advance play,
> and agreeing to this inherently gives Blizzard power over any market for
> such products. Based on the case law discussed, it is clear that such a
> contractually mandated monopoly over an aftermarket is not a legally
> cognizable market. Because the market power allegations fail, Defendants
> have not adequately plead antitrust counterclaims under the Sherman and
> Clayton Acts. Moreover, since Defendants ' UCL counterclaim is based those
> antitrust claims, that counterclaim also fails._

If the reasoning in that case applies here, I don't see how Epic doesn't lose
both lawsuits? If Apple's App Store policies are known by the consumer in
advance of purchasing an iPhone, and Apple's "market power" in the aftermarket
of "iOS App Distribution" is based on the iPhone's EULA saying you can only
install apps from the Apple App Store, wouldn't the same reasoning apply and
Epic's antitrust claim would fail because "a contractually mandated monopoly
over an aftermarket is not a legally cognizable market"?

Note: the _Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp_
([https://casetext.com/case/apple-2](https://casetext.com/case/apple-2)) case
cited above is also highly relevant, possibly even moreso than the Blizzard
case. It's about whether or not "Mac OS" and "computer hardware that runs Mac
OS" are two separate markets and whether Apple's monopoly over the
distribution of Mac OS results in antitrust liability in the aftermarket of
"hardware that runs Mac OS". The court ruled in Apple's favor, concluding
similarly that Apple's market power in the latter market was derived from its
EULA and therefore was not an allowable basis for an antitrust claim, because
customers _" knowingly agree to the challenged restraint."_

------
dutch3000
fortnite is a drug anyway. my kid is a freaking zombie from that stupid game.

------
jkepler
A June 21 podcast episode interviewing Basecamp regaeding their fight against
Apple's pulling their Hey! email app for the same reasons:
[https://www.whatbitcoindid.com/podcast/is-apple-abusing-
its-...](https://www.whatbitcoindid.com/podcast/is-apple-abusing-its-monopoly-
power-with-david-heinemeier-hansson)

Isn't Apple's 30% cut way more than even the mafia charge local businesses
when they force folks to pay protection fees? Or is that standard for
monopolists?

------
vondur
Yikes. I can imagine a bunch of people are pissed off that the can’t access
Fortnite.

------
albertTJames
Apple thinks content creators owe a third of everything they make on their
platform. Forever. End of story.

Is it justifiable from a moral standpoint? no. Is it good business? yes. Will
Epic loose in court? yes.

------
8fingerlouie
I don't get the problem.

The App Store (Apple or Google) is a software distribution platform run by the
owner of the platform. The platform has rules to cover costs and generate
profit. Participation is entirely voluntary.

Epic Games has violated the TOS of the platform, and for this both Google and
Apple has removed their app(s) from their platforms. Again, participation is
entirely voluntary, but if you participate you're expected to follow the rules
of the platform.

It's really not down to Apple keeping a walled garden, or Apple vs. Users, or
Google spying on you.. again, Participation is entirely voluntary, that also
goes for users.

~~~
nabla9
Just because company creates and operates a market does not mean that they can
act without restrictions or disregard competition law once the market becomes
economically important.

I'm not very familiar with the US wording in the US law but EC defines
_relevant market_ as: _" A relevant product market comprises all those
products and/or services which are regarded as interchangeable or
substitutable by the consumer by reason of the products' characteristics,
their prices and their intended use"_

A relevant market in this case is iOS App store and the payment system. Not
smartphone market. Epic is not selling phones.

(I don't know where you get the voluntary participation argument, maybe that's
some idealistic political viewpoint, but it's not the only thing that matters
in competition law and antitrust)

------
eecc
Ok, lets just set aside our strawmen for a second and ask: why did Apple do
this and what's the big deal anyway?

* Why did Apple trounce these folks? My first thought is, ridiculously intrusive anti-cheat? * Then, assuming that's the case and you're ok with letting someone else remote-admin your machine, can't you just install Fortnite directly anyway?

So what's the big deal exactly?

~~~
smiley1437
1\. Epic violated Apple's ToS (apparently intentionally, to start a legal
battle that they want to have right now due to EU investigations into abuse of
monopoly power by large tech companies like Apple and Google)

2\. Apple has to enforce their ToS (there is legal precedent that if you don't
enforce your own rules, then you don't care about them - so it's a good idea
to follow your own rules) so they had to boot Fortnite from the App store

The big deal is that this might trigger significant legal judgements that may
determine what tech giants can or cannot do on their platforms.

------
nodesocket
I don't see the problem, Epic explicitly went around the app store's payment
process and terms of service. It's within Apple's right to pull Fortnite. They
are also suing Apple as well.

Why should Epic get a “special arrangement” from all other developers?

If you don't like the terms, then don't be on the Apple App store, but of
course your missing a huge swath of the population thus the 30% fee. Being on
the App store is essentially unlimited marketing and exposure for your app.
Cost of doing business.

~~~
kqvamxurcagg
As a consumer, why can't there be an alternative App Store on IoS if I don't
like the Apple terms? Apple shouldn't force consumers and developers to
provide them with 30%.

~~~
ernst_klim
If you don't like the service or product, don't buy it. There are Android,
Sailfish, Postmarket, Mer.

It's extremely unethical in my opinion to force some service provider to
adjust the service to your needs/preferences.

~~~
9HZZRfNlpR
Why on earth is it unethical?

~~~
ernst_klim
You are restricting other people's right to agree on terms they deem fit. It's
unethical in my opinion, until an agreement hurt any third party.

