
Apple removes Fortnite from App Store after Epic attempts to bypass fees - xoxoy
https://twitter.com/markgurman/status/1293984069722636288
======
smnrchrds
Discussion of Apple topics here on HN almost always gets reduced to the
argument that Apple is not a monopoly, so what they are doing is OK. I want to
present an alternative viewpoint. It's not a monopoly issue, it is an anti-
competitive issue.

In Canada, we have three major cell carriers. None of them has a monopoly, or
anything close to it. None of them has even 50% market share.

You can have a 10 GB smartphone plan with Rogers for $75. If you don't like
that, you can switch to Bell's 10 GB plan for $75. If you don't like Bell, of
course you can switch to Telus's 10 GB plan for, wait for it, $75.

The Big 3 operate smaller brands with fewer bells and whistles and lower
costs. You can get a 4 GB cell plan from Koodo (Telus subsidiary) for $50, or
from Fido (Rogers subsidiary) for $50, or from Virgin Mobile (Bell subsidiary)
for $50.

Sometimes one of them has promotional pricing, like $45 instead of $50 for
4GB. The other two offer the same pricing for the same duration. Sometimes one
of them increases their prices by $5 a month citing reasons such as
infrastructure investments, lower Canadian dollar value, or inflation. The
other two increase their prices by the same amount a couple of days later.

And none of this is collusion in the legal sense. They don't gather in smoke-
filled rooms and decide how to screw over their customers. There is not back-
channel communication whatsoever. And it is not because the competition is so
perfect the prices have been commoditized. In fact, Canada has some of the
highest cell plan prices in the world, even adjusting for factors such as
population density and GDP.

It's just that the big companies have decided to stop competing. If you live
in, say Alberta or Ontario or BC, you have three options and they are all the
same overpriced crap. Cell carriers in Canada are not a monopoly, but you
don't have to be a monopoly to harm customers with anti-competitive behaviour.
Apple and Google, Android and iOS do not have a monopoly or a collusion
agreement. But they are harming the customers all the same.

~~~
musicale
I think this is called tacit collusion.

You see something like this with gasoline pricing - major brands will have
"competing" stations across the street from each other, but their prices moves
in lock step without a race to the bottom.

Memory vendors have explicitly colluded in the past, but they really didn't
need to - they just needed to copy their competitors' posted pricing.
Presumably that is what they do now.

If there are high barriers to new competitors entering the market, then the
situation is unlikely to change.

~~~
Tehnix
Actually, that’s not correct about gas stations.

Having worked at one, we would check the prices of the two others on the same
road once every hour. These numbers were reported into HQ, and a price
adjustment would be made to be lower.

It’s very competitive and people are willing to drive or wait until a
different time of day to get a lower price.

EDIT: Maybe I should have said: that’s at least not the case everywhere.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
This isn't practical without an electronic sign.

~~~
Tehnix
In all the parts of the world I’ve been in, I’ve never seen a gas station
without an electronic sign?

~~~
jeffrallen
You might enjoy a trip to Aru, in eastern DR Congo. The gas pumps were run off
of a gas generator!

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
You only have to travel to third world countries like USA.

~~~
boogies
I don’t have downvote yet and you’re tempting me to flag you. The US is a vast
and diverse country with plenty of areas that aren’t homogeneously
Liechtenstein rich but it’s far from any widely-established definition of a
third world country.

------
xoxoy
Fortnite of course expected this: seems like they’ve prepared a short video
mocking Apple’s old super bowl ad 1984 to premiere in an hour
[https://twitter.com/fortnitegame/status/1293984290326433792?...](https://twitter.com/fortnitegame/status/1293984290326433792?s=21)

~~~
ecf
Doesn’t Epic take a cut out of every single purchase made of a game built with
Unreal Engine?

Seems kinda hypocritical that they’re taking this stance when their licensing
model is arguably just as burdensome on developers.

In my opinion, Epic should not put their app on the App Store if they don’t
like the terms, just as they would tell a developer to not use their engine if
they don’t like the terms.

~~~
slongfield
If a developer doesn't like Unreal's terms, there are other game engines.

If a developer doesn't like Apple's terms, there are no viable alternatives
for iOS distribution.

~~~
ecf
But there are other Smartphone platforms with their own store, correct?

I don’t know why people feel it’s their undeniable right to be able to provide
an app to iOS users.

~~~
daveidol
It's not an "undeniable right" but it's also not like there are a lot of other
options. You can say "just move to another platform" or "then make your own
platform" but you also have to be a realist.

This is why antitrust laws exist - sometimes the market realities make this
nearly impossible.

~~~
giarc
But where is the line of lots of options vs not a lot of options? iOS isn't
even the most popular mobile operating system.

~~~
d0m
For some market it is. Our users were 80%+ on ios

~~~
jasonv
Seems to me the biggest hurdle to moving/finding customers via the
Google/Android platform is that they won't spend money over there.

The feature/capability parity between the platforms means they are, in fact,
both capable of serving these markets. But people want to vote with their
dollars in the iOS ecosystem, and now the players want to change that
ecosystem.

I'm not entirely convinced that this is Apple's problem, in as much as it is
Google's fault for not fostering a properly competitive revenue delivery
platform, even though it has the maturity and standing to do so.

------
epaga
This is not surprising to me, and I have to say, I completely agree with it.
Epic publicly and blatantly bypassed multiple App Store restrictions with
their move today.

Surely they were expecting this to happen, so what comes next? Perhaps Epic
has been planning a major lawsuit and this will provide them with the reason
to launch it?

Edit:
[https://twitter.com/FortniteGame/status/1293984290326433792](https://twitter.com/FortniteGame/status/1293984290326433792)

They have an entire short prepared for this. This is nothing if not
fascinating deep-level company poker.

~~~
rbecker
> I completely agree with it. Epic publicly and blatantly bypassed multiple
> App Store restrictions with their move today.

App Store policy is not law - its terms are unilaterally set by Apple. Citing
it as justification makes no sense.

~~~
jaegerpicker
The own the platform, they designed it, built it, and maintain it. They have
every right to set the rules for it.

~~~
ardit33
Until regulations steps in, and mandates to be more fair and open, or to break
up the company, or to allow multiple app stores (by competitors).

At the end of the day, and iPad is a general computing device, and it will
probably be treated as such in courts, where there are precedents on this.

~~~
threeseed
a) There are no rules that mandate that a "general computing device" must be
open in whatever arbitrary way you've not defined.

b) There are no precedents that state that a platform must have competing App
Stores or make them freely available for anyone to publish. In fact the
opposite is the default in companies today e.g. PSN, XBox, Tesla, Shopify,
Salesforce.

If you have case law that contradicts this please by all means provide it.

~~~
Apocryphon
Perhaps a case related to open source licensing? Here's one that's still in
progress:

[https://resources.whitesourcesoftware.com/blog-
whitesource/t...](https://resources.whitesourcesoftware.com/blog-
whitesource/the-100-million-case-for-open-source-license-compliance)

Of course, Apple had the foresight to purge GPL apps from its store:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3559990](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3559990)

------
FreakyT
Really hoping regulators crack down hard on Apple's clearly anticompetitive
practices.

If Apple allowed sideloading the entire point would be, of course, moot, but
Apple's continued refusal to allow this is really the biggest problem, IMO.

~~~
threatofrain
As a user I'm quite happy with Apple intermediating my relationship with
companies that seek to do business with me over the phone, and I'd actually be
happier if Apple took over more of my relationships.

I don't want a situation where 10 apps means 10 different privacy agreements.
I also don't want to deal with app companies directly for returns or their
custom payment solutions — an "Amazon" is way better.

~~~
shajznnckfke
> and I'd actually be happier if Apple took over more of my relationships.

I’m really curious what you mean by this. Which additional transactions do you
wish Apple would take a 30% cut on? You DoorDash orders, your rent, your
salary?

~~~
chrisshroba
> Which additional transactions do you wish Apple would take a 30% cut on?

That's not what they said. Apple already handles payment processing via Apple
Pay for real world goods (Amazon, Food delivery, Wish), and does not take a
cut of the transaction. Some people see Apple controlling payments for many
companies as monopolistic and overreaching, but some (like the parent poster
and myself to a degree) see it as a safer alternative to having trust dozens
of different companies.

~~~
akmarinov
Apple takes 0.15% of every transaction that used Apple Pay, though-
[https://www.macrumors.com/2014/09/12/more-apple-pay-
details/](https://www.macrumors.com/2014/09/12/more-apple-pay-details/)

They haven’t developed it to not make money off of it.

~~~
threeseed
Mastercard, Visa etc all take a fee for transactions.

There are serious costs involved in running an international payments system.

But that's very different from a proper 30% style cut.

~~~
brummm
Apple pay uses the Visa and Mastercard network though. It's on top of the V/MC
cut. Apple only adds that you can use your card on the phone. You end up using
your credit card anyways.

~~~
sabellito
Exactly.

Apple has none of the risk and somehow thinks it is appropriate to charge per
transaction AND customer. Yes, they charge the companies who wish to integrate
with apple pay a quarterly fee per card.

Apple customers are footing this bill, of course, as vendors and banks aren't
just going to lose money. Apple is way out of line, and apple customers would
benefit from informing themselves.

------
elliekelly
What is Apple’s end game here? It seems like they’re fighting a losing battle
and digging their own antitrust grave.

Pretty clever on Epic’s part to specifically highlight how Apple’s app store
fee hits the user directly. Pretty short-sighted of Apple to immediately pull
an app for providing consumers with additional disclosure about where their
money is going.

~~~
donor20
Good lord - on HN the monopoly comments are so crazy sometimes. What is the
monopoly issue Apple has? Use android if you don't like Apple's product line.
Apple is at 22% share.

~~~
Barrin92
>on HN the monopoly comments are so crazy sometimes

what's crazy is harping on a technicality about the word "monopoly" and then
to ignore the actual issue that is implied by the criticism, market power.

Even two companies aren't a market, if you get hung up about monopoly call it
a duopoly. The state of affairs is ridiculous. There should be a thriving
market of competing stores, payment systems, operating systems and so on, yet
we're stuck with at best two alternatives, both of which are extremely locked
down.

~~~
52-6F-62
But is that required on each and every platform available on the market?

Sure, there should be more platforms available. I'm into that. Personally, I
bought an iPhone because of the closed ecosystem. I don't want to have to
think about my phone that much, but I want to be able to rely on it. That's
what I paid for and that's what I'm getting.

From my perspective demanding that the platform be open to any and everything
is a bit like going to a carwash and demanding they also do your house.

~~~
jackson1442
Agree. Other comments raise the point of “what if Windows decided to do
this... is it okay because Linux exists?” and the answer is clearly no. I
bought an iPhone with the _expectation_ that I would be in a closed ecosystem;
if win10 updated to mirror win8 RT where you could only use the windows store,
that would obviously be a problem because win10 users purchased a license with
the expectation that they could install whatever they wanted on it.

> I don’t want to have to think about my phone that much, but I want to be
> able to rely on it.

I’m in the exact same boat; I have no interest in sideloading every app that
decides to get into a pissing match with Apple (and as Spotify’s hinted at it
before, they will certainly be losing my subscription if I need to sideload
their app). For every app that has a legitimate reason to sideload (i.e.
payments), there will be another app that sideloads to bypass the user-
beneficial aspects of the App Store (i.e. Onavo from Facebook).

------
nabla9
Apple platform is closed like gaming consoles. Epic almost certainly knew this
was going to happen. I think they are trying to build a case for regulatory
intervention.

US Antitrust is still in the 80's Chicago School era where antitrust is solely
based on consumer benefit and and efficiency. EU has more broad approach where
economic power in the public interest is important. It may be up to the EU to
change how Apple does business.

~~~
dmix
If Epic is planning to rely on US anti-trust intervention, they will be
waiting a very long time, even in a best-case scenario situation.

Unless they know something the public doesn't about a prior case file, this
stuff takes a long time to be fully investigated and go through the courts.

~~~
nabla9
That's why I think it's up to the EU.

~~~
bengale
Still won’t be quick. EU has bigger things to deal with right now and even if
they do pass something the ECJ would then be involved no doubt.

~~~
nabla9
They don't have to pass new laws for this.

Epic could sue in some EU country or some European game developer might jump
in.

------
areoform
The transparent sophistication of this ploy is strangely delightful. And very
reminiscent of Steve Jobs' e-book negotiation emails,
[https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/the-
ste...](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/the-steve-jobs-
emails-that-show-how-to-win-a-hard-nosed-negotiation/276136/)

We have been given court-side seats to a sophisticated game of feints and
dramatic negotiation. Pre-Game, Epic lined their shot with care. They've come
prepared with media and assets, (no doubt) lawyers (and potential lawsuits?),
PR strategy, regulatory strategy etc. They know the argument they would like
to make. And they know _how_ to make it.

How will Apple respond? Will Epic's strong start lead to a strong finish?

Their machinations have been laid scandalously bare. If you listen closely,
you can hear your local business school clickety-clacking away to a
ludicrously overpriced case study. And the local #hustle blogger RSI their way
to a million views.

O'Think of the great blog posts and MBA lessons this drama will make!

edit: and they've filed for relief! [https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-
complaint-734589783.pdf](https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-
complaint-734589783.pdf)

------
cocktailpeanuts
It's interesting how the industry is shaking up in so many different ways
lately.

1\. TikTok and WeChat getting banned (This will also have a huge side effect
for Apple)

2\. Uber and Lyft regulated to classify drivers as employees

3\. Influential companies trying to tear down the Apple payment walled garden
(Last time it was Hey, but this time it's Fortnite, which is infinitely more
formidable). Now the only thing left is for Google to come out and say "we're
going to charge zero commission for our in-app payments", and the wall will be
down pretty soon.

I feel like there's some pattern here that may change the overall game of the
tech industry. Grabbing some popcorn and waiting for new opportunities to open
up!

~~~
foepys
You could say that the disruption is being disrupted.

Regulators are slowly getting sick of the tech industry's behavior of
overthrowing markets by VC-ing out competitors to establish their own monopoly
all while dodging taxes through global schemes.

------
pgrote
I am ignorant of the rules applying to apps with payments in the apple app
store. Is it true retailers do not have to pay a percentage to Apple when
people pay to reload cards through the app?

[https://twitter.com/ballmatthew/status/1293893660493455360](https://twitter.com/ballmatthew/status/1293893660493455360)

"Wow. Epic outright promoting direct in-app payment around iOS store but in
iOS apps

And users collect 100% of the savings. No monetary benefit to Epic.

Note: McDonalds, Starbucks, et al are 'allowed' to do this today - but not
gaming/media cos"

~~~
kayodelycaon
Physical and digital goods are treated differently.

------
jedberg
Here's the short they just released making fun of Apple's 1984 commercial:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqTNO8LTggI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqTNO8LTggI)

Edit: The youtube comments are hilarious because no one knows what it's a
spoof of. For those who don't know:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zfqw8nhUwA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zfqw8nhUwA)

------
ryneandal
Given Epic's history, this is entirely them taking the lead and trying to
fight for smaller game devs. Kudos to them.

~~~
voidpointercast
That seems blindly naive but okay.

~~~
calcifer
How so? If, over the long term, Epic wins this fight (e.g via an antitrust
case) Apple would either allow sideloading, or reduce their cut. How is that
not a benefit for small developers?

------
heavyset_go
Apple and Google are able to gatekeep what you can install on entire
generations of devices, from smartphones to tablets. Their power to gatekeep
billion dollar markets needs to be looked at through the lens of antitrust
legislation.

~~~
Vendan
Google gatekeeps by default but you can trivially bypass and install custom
app stores or sideload apps. Apple gatekeeps, and does everything in its power
to prevent you from bypassing that. Seems like a rather striking difference...

~~~
heavyset_go
Third party app stores can't implement background installations, auto-
upgrading, or batch installs because of the restrictions Google put in place
on Android. Using third party app stores is hindered experience on Android.

The Play Store can do background installations, auto-upgrading and batch
installs of software, while competitors can't. That's anticompetitive behavior
in my book.

~~~
Vendan
I wasn't aware of all that, thanks, but I still think that Apple's stuff is a
whole different ballgame.

------
ghiculescu
That was quick [https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-
complaint-734589783.pdf](https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-
complaint-734589783.pdf)

------
justicezyx
I feel that Apple made a mistake.

App store fees are on the unjustified side in the current spectrum of value
assessment.

The more reasonable approach is to figure out ways for customers to get more
values from the platform, instead of extracting more efficiently.

I bet this decision is some form of lower-to-middle level decision, without
consulting Tim and his close subordinates. I would expect Tim and his close
subordinates to be sensitive enough to at least not doing something so
abruptly (not that it's not complying with the rules). I would guess this
decision didn't even surfaced to VP level. AFAIK, VPs should be owning such
sensitive decisions at Apple.

------
samcat116
Has Google done anything yet? This is in violation of their guidelines as well
from what I can tell. On the Google Play store only games must use the Play
Store In App purchase system. Other types of apps can link to their own.

------
EastSmith
Monopoly definition is so much outdated.

Everything that has 10% market share should have some kind of regulation for
_things like this_.

Defining _things like this_ is hard though. What to regulate is hard too.

------
elicash
This is really bad for Apple users like me and ultimately for Apple.

People are talking anti-trust, but I don't think it'll take a legal case for
them to eventually lose this broader fight. Apple has enough money they COULD
do whatever they want for as long as they want, but if this grows to even more
companies, Apple's negotiating position becomes weaker.

------
tomxor
The quantity of twitter replies along these lines is sad:

> Why would epic even do this.... they know the rules. Why would they expect
> to use another companies platform for free. With apple 100% on this.

Use? they add value to the platform, Apple is just double dipping because
crazy hardware markup wasn't enough for them. Are people really this blind?

~~~
foepys
I wonder if people were still with Apple if Apple charged them 30% for using
Apple Pay.

------
EE84M3i
The Verge has a statement from apple:
[https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21366438/apple-
fortnite-i...](https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21366438/apple-fortnite-ios-
app-store-violations-epic-payments)

~~~
bredren
Concluding points from the statement:

>Epic agreed to the App Store terms and guidelines freely and we’re glad
they’ve built such a successful business on the App Store.

>The fact that their business interests now lead them to push for a special
arrangement does not change the fact that these guidelines create a level
playing field for all developers and make the store safe for all users.

~~~
aaomidi
> Epic agreed to the App Store terms and guidelines freely

lol.

~~~
almost_usual
are you suggesting they were threatened?

~~~
mamurphy
are you suggesting they had any alternative if they wanted to pursue iPhone
customers?

~~~
yazaddaruvala
Epic doesn't need to pursue Apple iPhone customers they same way Epic doesn't
need to pursue Sony Bravia customers.

This is the same as Bungee not needing to pursue Playstation customers to make
Halo what it is.

~~~
aaomidi
IPhone is a general computing platform so that argument doesn't hold water.

~~~
yazaddaruvala
Why is it more of a "general computing platform" than an Xbox or a Playstation
or a Bravia?

All of those platforms have stores, all of them allow digital downloads of
software that executes, all of those have browsers.

What makes the iPhone "general purpose" where the others are not?

~~~
aaomidi
Probably the fact that no one made a fuss over consoles. I'd argue the same
rules should start applying for them as well.

But there was nothing stopping Microsoft from releasing halo onto the
playstation.

There is nothing stopping anyone from developing a game for these consoles.

~~~
yazaddaruvala
And there is nothing stopping Epic from releasing Fortnite on the iPhone (in-
fact it was there for years).

The rules could be unfair[1] but this issue is just Epic not wanting to follow
the rules to make some more money.

[1] We can discuss what a fair price/percentage should be. Arguably the market
and Apple customers have decided 30% is fair, but we can discuss. Meanwhile,
side-loading or not charging would make my iPhone experience worse.

~~~
aaomidi
Well the unfair part is what is being discussed. So ignoring that would be
ignoring the whole point of this.

~~~
yazaddaruvala
My conversation with you was entirely about "the iPhone being a general
purpose computer".

It seems we have both settled that either an iPhone is not general purpose, or
all consoles, TVs or IOT devices with downloadable content are general purpose
devices.

If you'd like we can now start discussing if the price Apple charges is fair.

I've already stated, the market decides to buy iPhones understanding (even
appreciating) that the user cannot side-load non-Apple approved apps (other
than through a less trusted channel i.e. the browser). As such the market
through demand, has decided there is a niche ecosystem where 30% fees for in
app purchases are appropriate and fair.

What are your thoughts?

~~~
aaomidi
Sure make them general computers too. I would rather have all of these devices
give more choices to users.

However the current focus is on Apple due to their size.

~~~
yazaddaruvala
I'll reiterate:

I've already stated, the market decides to buy iPhones understanding (even
appreciating) that the user cannot side-load non-Apple approved apps (other
than through a less trusted channel i.e. the browser). As such the market
through demand, has decided there is a niche ecosystem where 30% fees for in
app purchases are appropriate and fair.

Why is this market dynamic an issue given there are so many games and tons of
competition on and off iOS?

~~~
bredren
Just cause you both bridged from my comment, first thanks.

But I disagree that consumers agree to 30% because they continue to buy
expecting sideloading to be relegated from relevancy.

If polled, I doubt consumers would guess the royalty is even that high.
Someone should run a survey.

I am in general, very favorable toward Apple as a company. I’ve commented
before that I believe in the company’s stance toward privacy. I see Apple as a
benevolent dictator in its continued security restrictions on MacOS. With some
exception to his deference to Trump, I admire Tim Cook as he presents himself
as a person.

However, I have also sold apps through the App Store.

And there’s no real way around Apple’s massive financial success. It’s so big,
if it were a person they would be burned at the stake.

There is an upper bound on reasonable net income.

This isn’t even about tax revenue, it is about any developer getting more than
70 cents on the dollar for their work.

Getting an app into the App Store barely means anything; you have to market
it. Sure it is “safe” and incredibly easy to install. But good luck thinking
that because you see a Ready For Sale message your app is going to be a hit.

In my experience, Apple is snobbish in interaction with developers.

At least historically, there is very little goodwill, even when Apple
magically decides to “feature“ your work. Which is again self-serving because
they take their cut regardless.

I am having a hard time defending Apple’s rate. Not because of Epic but
because of someone like me who wants to sell software on the best (and only
other serious) mobile platform.

~~~
yazaddaruvala
> If polled, I doubt consumers would guess the royalty is even that high.
> Someone should run a survey.

This is definitely the right mental model. I am fully onboard for more data.

However, to clarify my previous point when I said "customers agree" I meant
customers understand and are generally accepting of "priced in" convenience.
For example, in some convenience stores they offer a discount for using cash
or debit. Most big stores tho, "price in the cost of credit transactions".
Customers understand this and are happy for the convenience and happy for the
points.

With the Apple store, digital goods are 30% more expensive, and seemingly
customers are ok with it because they are making purchases, while getting the
conveniences of the AppStore vetting, refunds process, permissions model,
advertising model, privacy, etc.

------
vffhfhf
I dont think people here actually understand why monopolies are bad.

Its not for consumers. Consumers will always feel safe with what they have.

Its to not stifle the competition.

Look what happened to vine.

A competitor bought it, twitter. Gutted it and left it. It could have been
next tiktok in a few years. We would never know.

How many competitor have google and apple stiffed?

------
AkelaA
In a way this is the equivalent of an old-school carriage dispute but for
apps. I wouldn't be surprised if we see more of this in the future.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carriage_dispute](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carriage_dispute)

------
iamspoilt
Question: How is Apple's 30% cut different from the transaction fees that are
charged by Visa / Mastercard and payment processors like Stripe? I can see the
big percentage but is the argument in favour of removing the entirety of the
cut or reducing it down?

~~~
paxys
1\. The percentage cut is a lot more in Apple's case (30% vs 2-3%).

2\. (Directly resulting into 1) There is no competition for distributing apps
on Apple devices. You cannot sideload or implement your own app store. You
cannot use any other payment processor.

------
Leherenn
How does it technically work? Is the app forcibly removed from every phone
that has it, or is it just not downloadable/upgradable anymore. If the latter,
can people who have it already keep on playing or are there some other
obstacles involved?

------
sjs382
Epic has filed a legal complaint, according to their Twitter account:
[https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-
complaint-734589783.pdf](https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-
complaint-734589783.pdf)

------
totaldude87
replied to another thread....

ok am going to put a highly objectionable comment. I buy stuff on apple store
because its easy and SAFE.

That safety point is more important than ever, if there was no app store or
lets say having 10 other app stores , i wont have the same level of confidence
and heck i wont even be spending any dollars out there.

Over to Apple's 30 % cut, i dont know whats the call here, to make it 0%? ,10%
, 20%? what if the same fortnite (or any other company) increases the bill to
$9.99 next week :)

Am saying this purely from a consumer perspective that i dont care how apple
and devs split the money as long as it doesn't bite me ...

~~~
dayjobpork
If there was another app store, no one is forcing you to use it.

------
XCSme
The problem are not the rules on the App Store (that Epic actually breached),
but the App Store having a monopoly as you can't easily install external apps
or stores like you can on Android.

------
cosmotic
Apple famously makes its money on the hardware; if they claim the cut is for
the app store tools, then they better start charging less for the hardware. If
the tools are indeed paid for by the hardware sales, they should reduce or
eliminate the cut they take.

Based on the reports of how hard it is to develop for the app store and all
the third party tools to help deal with signing apps, I have a hard time
believing the self-proclaimed greatness of the tools Apple provides.

Apple claims level playing field, but that's obviously nonsense.

------
jariel
This is great news, it will take a handfull of 'killer apps' to possibly move
the needle.

App makers could start to 'play games' like trying different pricing models
that 'go outside the bounds' and the 'come back' \- making sure to blame Apple
for the problems.

App makers could group together and 'go black' for a few days in protes.

App makers could group together and all circumvent the rules at the same time.

------
Wolfenstein98k
I find it obscene that Apple feels it deserves a third of each and every
microtransaction.

I also find out obscene that Epic tried to used its size to circumvent that
when its smaller competitors wouldn't dream of doing so.

But I'm more annoyed by the first bit. It's such an obscene cut to take when
it's clear you are only facilitating the transaction by choice instead of by
necessity.

------
jdmoreira
People will take sides in this and I think they will be missing the point.
These are just 2 greedy corporations strong-arming each other and trying to
win some hearts in the public space. Epic would do the same if they were in
Apple's position and Apple would do the same if they were in Epic's position.
This is just 21st century politics and it’s all about money.

~~~
Sargos
This is a naive take on the situation. Sure they are both companies and
looking to make money but this issue transcends both of them and is a core
freedom of choice issue. As a society are we allowed to run software that we
want or are we okay with being told which software is deemed acceptable for
us? This question would be thorny if it even were a political issue but at
this point it's literally a private corporation with no accountability
unilaterally deciding what software is deemed worthy of use for a large
portion of the entire world. That's dangerous and not at all a good place to
be in.

~~~
jdmoreira
It has been like that for 10 years since the start of the Appstore. The
difference now is that these platforms are getting big enough that public
opinion are starting to look at them as classical infrastructure / utilities.
That’s why it needs to be regulated and I agree with that 100%. But Apple is
obviously just one example among thousands. Even Epic runs their own
marketplace.

------
wedn3sday
How is the apple app store not the definition of a monopoly? Is there an
competing app store on iphones that Epic could be using?

~~~
btbuilder
Apple has something like ~40% of US market share of smart phones. Therefore it
is not a monopoly even if within that market share they have complete control
with app store.

~~~
ss3000
That's only the difference between a monopoly vs duopoly though, and as far as
the app developer is concerned I'm not sure it makes much of a difference.

Reality is anyone releasing a for-profit app aiming for mass appeal can't
afford to ignore either the Android or iOS ecosystem. They have to release for
both, so there's no real competition involved.

------
vjba
Reading the announcement post on HN: "This will surely piss of Google and
Apple"...

Then I read the title to this post... directly under it.

What a day

------
simonhamp
In all this dick-measuring, the people that lose out are the consumers.

Apple maintaining a stupid and unjustifiable premium forced higher prices.

Companies retaliating with this sort of posturing from Epic forces App Store
removals and worse.

Epic are hypocrites. Apple are greedy. I’ll back the horse that’s neither

------
ctdonath
This is about nothing, folks.

Literally.

Epic sells usage ("v-bucks") which would cost them nothing to supply
'unlimited'.

Apple, having a standard of "in-app sales, we get 30%", wants their cut of
making a bundle via the Apple ecosystem.

------
makecheck
This is one of the games Apple likes to “feature” regularly. They basically
strongly encouraged people to buy this game one week, and yanked it from the
store the week after. The game “owners” should be livid.

~~~
jbarnett2
It's like you're dating a hot girl and you like showing her off. Then you find
out the next week she cheated on you then you dump her. Wouldn't you do the
same thing in Apple's position?

------
bdz
If any company then I think Tencent has the money and will to bring Apple to
the court (they have 40% share in Epic). And won't be surprised if this will
be a new chapter in the US v China trade fight.

------
adrianmonk
So, what is Epic's plan?

I have to assume they fully expected removal. So they must have some next step
in mind.

Some kind of legal action? A complaint to regulators or a lawsuit? Are either
of those likely to work?

~~~
kevingadd
Might be as simple as "let our players do the talking" since Fortnite has a
huge audience and many of the players are really passionate.

~~~
almost_usual
Apple has more cash stockpiled than most companies on Earth, I think they’ll
survive the fallout of Fortnite gamers.

------
minusSeven
Boy am I glad I use Android instead. Never used an Apple product before and if
things are like this I don't see why I should.

------
jnetterf
Is it time for Epic to invest in the PinePhone?

------
rvz
Well that was expected and was quick wasn't it?

Unfortunately Apple's the sherrif in the app store and doesn't give a damn.

Unreal.

------
tazedsoul
Remarkable that TikTok is still available on the App Store, despite the risk
it poses to national security. I guess Apple and China sleeping together is
truly a case of friends with benefits. Maybe Epic Games should please Apple
more often?

~~~
sercand
Epic games kind of Tencent (a Chinese company) subsidiary, it has 40% share.

~~~
tazedsoul
There are about 5 times as many TikTok users as Fortnite players. I suppose
that is a part of the calculation as well.

~~~
tazedsoul
Also, perhaps I’m mistaken, but the majority of Epic Games is owned by Tim
Sweeney. Meanwhile, TikTok majority is owned by ByteDance, which I don’t think
we can confidently believe is truly a separate, sovereign entity from the CPC.
And all this is somewhat besides the point; Apple is clearly more dependent on
TikTok (China) than Epic Games.

------
joisig
I sometimes wonder why app makers don't "unionize", to collectively threaten
to boycott the Apple ecosystem, to pressure Apple into reducing its cut. An
iPhone without apps is much less valuable than an iPhone with apps.

------
mirthflat83
Lmao

------
laloyosoy
[insert michael jackson popcorn meme]

------
Exuma
AWESOME. Fortnite not following rules = good riddance. I don't want 528925
apps with different payment platforms and rules.

------
xwdv
Saying the App Store is a monopoly every chance you get doesn’t mean it
actually is.

~~~
an_ko
And vice versa: saying it isn't doesn't mean it actually isn't. Opinions are
unproductive to discuss without reasoning attached.

------
Sargos
This is a highly technical forum so I really think all of the "Apple is within
their rights to determine what software users can run" folks should think
about how they would feel if Windows could only run software that Microsoft
publishes. Are you okay with that? Does the fact that Linux exists make this
okay? It sounds like the answer from a lot of people is "Yes, of course" which
baffles me.

It doesn't take much imagination to see how different the world would be if a
single corporation decided what software was allowed to be used by society.
Anything that is the least bit controversial wouldn't exist. Napster,
Torrents, Emulators etc are obvious and people would no doubt argue they
shouldn't exist anyway, but I imagine even web browsers themselves (Apple
already doesn't allow them on iOS), networking tools like IPFS, game streaming
services (also banned by Apple), etc just wouldn't exist in that world. I
could go on with examples but that's the point, there's a LOT of creativity
and complexity out there and it's impossible for a single gatekeeper to do a
good job of deciding what has a right to exist.

~~~
Sargos
My post is being downvoted and I have no idea why. I didn't say anything
against the rules and wasn't being annoying I don't think. I guess this topic
is too political for discussion.

