• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Apple must allow other forms of in-app purchases, rules judge in Epic v. Apple

Why would the writing be on the wall for Apple's walled garden??

It's Apple's platform, they developed it, marketed it and took every associated risk with it.
It's Apple's walled Garden and no one forces people to buy into the platform.

If you don't like walled gardens you don't buy Apple products. It is not a monopoly. There are competing products you can buy that serve the same purpose.

I guess you'll have to ask the lawmakers in SK and elsewhere for the specifics. To me it boils down to how much influence Apple and Google have over the entire fucking world's communication etc. To reduce this to "they own it, they can do whatever" is way too simplistic and ignorant. Once you get to a certain level, there is no free market, or competition. These companies simply buy anything and everything that might threaten them, and you'd need trillions of your own to truly challenge any of it. The lock-in at this level is purposely making it effectively impossible to move from platform to another.

Like the judge says in the ruling, Apple's going to do fuck all consumer friendly decisions if it loses them money... unless legally forced to. And trust me, they will be. Maybe not in the US first, though.
 
Last edited:

Genx3

Member
I guess you'll have to ask the lawmakers in SK and elsewhere for the specifics. To me it boils down to how much influence Apple and Google have over the entire fucking world's communication etc. To reduce this to "they own it, they can do whatever" is way too simplistic and ignorant. Once you get to a certain level, there is no free market, or competition. These companies simply buy anything and everything that might threaten them, and you'd need trillions of your own to truly challenge any of it. The lock-in at this level is purposely making it effectively impossible to move from platform to another.

Like the judge says in the ruling, Apple's going to do fuck all consumer friendly decisions if it loses them money... unless legally forced to. And trust me, they will be. Maybe not in the US first, though.

Who said they can do what ever? No one stated that Apple can do what ever.

It is factually their platform whether you like it or not. They designed it, built it, invested billions into it. It has always been a closed platform. Don't like it don't buy their products.

How much have the law makers invested??
How much R&D came out of their pocket??

Just because law makers can change laws does not mean those laws are just or right.

Law makers are politicians right next to or just below thieves on the morality list.
 

reksveks

Member
And how secure do you think little indie developers will be at holding your bank details ?

I prefer only having Apple , Microsoft and Sony having my details. While not 100% secure they will be a damn sight more secure than so small indie devs

Don't think indies will be implementing these changes.

Companies like Microsoft, Amazon could do, maybe Adobe for their apps. It would still depend on that commission percentage.
 

reksveks

Member
No thanks. Go use android. Majority of iPhone users like the apple enclosed system and its payment systems. It’s why we’re here.
Google is also being sued for using its power to deter oems to pre-install different play store onto their devices and other moves that epic sees as anti-competitive
 

Greirat

Member
I wish I could install whatever software I want on my iPhone, I don't want to be restricted by some big company who has completely different interests to me.
 

Kamina

Golden Boy
So in app purchases on iOS apps are now possible from 3rd parties if implemented, correct? Nothing else is affected?
 
Last edited:

smbu2000

Member
I wish I could install whatever software I want on my iPhone, I don't want to be restricted by some big company who has completely different interests to me.
Well you can Jailbreak your iPhone.

If you don't want to Jailbreak, then you can always sideload using AltStore.

It requires a free Apple Developer Account. You don't need the paid $99/year version, just the free one works fine you just need to refresh/resign every 7 days. (push the refresh button in the App on your computer)

You can also use Cydia Impactor to sideload if you have a paid Developer Account.

Or you can always go with an Android device instead if you want a completely open system.

edit: Forgot to include the link.
https://altstore.io/
 
Last edited:

hlm666

Member
So in app purchases on iOS apps are now possible from 3rd parties if implemented, correct? Nothing else is affected?
They can direct you to an external site from inside the app and use their own payment system there, but the judge said apple should be able to charge commission fees on these transactions and because epic/sony wouldn't give a number on the commission on things like cross play during the trial she was left with no choice but to let apple determine that fee themselves even though she thought 30% was probably too much she had no data/evidence to prove it's not what others are charging. She seemed frustrated Epic gave her nothing to hit apple with.
 

reksveks

Member
They can direct you to an external site from inside the app and use their own payment system there, but the judge said apple should be able to charge commission fees on these transactions and because epic/sony wouldn't give a number on the commission on things like cross play during the trial she was left with no choice but to let apple determine that fee themselves even though she thought 30% was probably too much she had no data/evidence to prove it's not what others are charging. She seemed frustrated Epic gave her nothing to hit apple with.
One other thing that people constantly miss is that she explicitly said that the only pressure on that commission comes from legal pressure but yeah, she wasn't very impressed by Epic's lawyers.
 

hlm666

Member
she explicitly said that the only pressure on that commission comes from legal pressure
That was her making sure Epic understood they had a chance to give her the evidence she needed to try make it fair, but they didn't so Apple are free fuck them even outside ios now and they can't do shit about it unless they want to pursue legal action again and disclose the numbers they didn't want to this time.

I imagine other companies are somewhat pissed with Epic at the moment, no one even considered an outcome where apple were given the right to charge commissions from transactions outside of ios. I can only imagine the laughter that came from apples supreme overlords when the lawyers were like you gotta let apps link to external websites for alternate transaction options BUT you can charge them a commission now.
 

onesvenus

Member
Not only does this not allow apps to collect payment inside the app w/o using Apples IAP, it even says Apple has the right to ask for commissions for purchases outside the app, much like Sony has their allowances for corssplay/crossbuy effecting their bottom line:


They can direct you to an external site from inside the app and use their own payment system there, but the judge said apple should be able to charge commission fees on these transactions and because epic/sony wouldn't give a number on the commission on things like cross play during the trial she was left with no choice but to let apple determine that fee themselves even though she thought 30% was probably too much she had no data/evidence to prove it's not what others are charging. She seemed frustrated Epic gave her nothing to hit apple with.

Can you both point me where it says that?
The image in the first tweet only says Epic has to pay a 30% of what they earnt directly before and during the trial, not that everyone must keep doing it even if they use other payment methods.

Looking for news claiming what you both claim I haven't found anything else than some random Twitter users
 

hlm666

Member
Can you both point me where it says that?
The image in the first tweet only says Epic has to pay a 30% of what they earnt directly before and during the trial, not that everyone must keep doing it even if they use other payment methods.

Looking for news claiming what you both claim I haven't found anything else than some random Twitter users
That 30% is for the money Epic took during the time between them adding the epic payment method and before they got kicked off ios when they were not paying the 30% because they weren't using apples payment processor. We were talking about apps in general, the 30% and how apple will still get it even if apps use the new antisteering ruling to push people to an external website to pay via a diferent method.

Watching all of it will explain how Epic didn't get anything they wanted.

 

onesvenus

Member
That 30% is for the money Epic took during the time between them adding the epic payment method and before they got kicked off ios when they were not paying the 30% because they weren't using apples payment processor. We were talking about apps in general, the 30% and how apple will still get it even if apps use the new antisteering ruling to push people to an external website to pay via a diferent method.

Watching all of it will explain how Epic didn't get anything they wanted.

I don't think that's clear at all but let's see how things change
 

Genx3

Member
They waited until they thought they could afford the fight. Epic was doing fine, but Fortnight catching lightning in a bottle and a massive infusion of Chinese money from Tencent provided that.

Epic doesn't have to pay a 30% fee. They chose to pay that fee because they make more than that fee by taking advantage of the iOS platform. They can chose to not support the iOS platform just like they did with Steam when they decided to launch a competing platform on PC (on the premise of platform exclusivity no less) but they supported Steam right until they decided they could afford not to. Apple isn't forcing them to use the iOS platform, they put games on iOS because they want to make money off the platform. Why shouldn't the company that created, maintains and controls that platform be able to dictate pricing on that platform? They are free to start their own platform to compete with iOS, they even have the backing of the Chinese government to do it. It brings up the question, do they want to compete with Apple or just weaken them through regulation so they can break into the market that way?

If you owned a piece of land with valuable resources and you charged 30% for companies to use your land to dig it up would that be unfair? Your land is creating a situation where other companies can now generate an income. Without your land none of those companies would have a business model. Would you argue in that scenario that access to the land should be free to everyone? That's the scenario with iOS.

Apple basically owns a resource-rich piece of land. For years everyone came and used Apple's own excavation equipment and on the way out they paid a royalty for doing so. My family owns a gravel pit, we own the land and charge $/ton. We do nothing other than pay taxes on the land while the company leasing our pit digs out the gravel, provides equipment and staff, and builds infrastructure to and from the pit. Apple takes $/profit for their end of the deal. The difference between us and Apple is that they also provide the equipment, fix the excavation equipment, pave the roads in and out of the land, and make sure the land itself is stocked with resources. In other words Apple keeps the platform up to date, deals with the R&D and provides the user base through successful (expensive) marketing. Now while everyone was happy to come and go paying the 30% fee. Tim Sweeney decided to roll into Apple's land with a pickup truck and a shovel made in China and he wants to just scoop up all the resources he can for free.

In the gravel pit even though we own the gravel I can't just drive in with a loader and a gravel truck. I can't help myself to the gravel because we have a contract with the company leasing from us and they would make more money off that gravel using it in infrastructure projects. The owner of the company leasing from us also can't just take gravel without paying our royalty because the contract dictates so. Similarly Tim Sweeney signed a contract saying he would pay 30% and follow Apple's rules. Now he's decided the rules should no longer apply to him. If I was down at the pit and noticed gravel trucks coming and going without stopping at the scale I would investigate. If I found the trucks were not getting weighed I would shut the works down and if needed terminate our contract with the company leasing from us due to contract violation. Lucky for us that's not an issue as the company we are dealing with is very by-the-books and reputable in that regard. Unfortunately for Apple, Epic is a lot more underhanded in it's dealings. They noticed Epic was using their platform in violation of the terms Epic agreed to. When they issued a warning to terminate the activity Epic doubled down and got other entities involved. Apple had no other recourse than to suspend dealings with Epic while the matter is being resolved as is their right.

I found this reply in the European Epic vs Apple topic. It's analogous to the Epic vs Apple case.

This should clarify what Epic is trying to do to Apple.

I know some people don't like Apple but Epic are acting like entitled children.

The courts should make fair judgements no matter what company is wealthier.
 

ethomaz

Banned
So in app purchases on iOS apps are now possible from 3rd parties if implemented, correct? Nothing else is affected?
They can’t implement 3rd-party purchase system in iOS apps.
They can link to a external web site with a 3rd-party purchase system.

I imagine hackers can really profit from that.
 

ethomaz

Banned
They can direct you to an external site from inside the app and use their own payment system there, but the judge said apple should be able to charge commission fees on these transactions and because epic/sony wouldn't give a number on the commission on things like cross play during the trial she was left with no choice but to let apple determine that fee themselves even though she thought 30% was probably too much she had no data/evidence to prove it's not what others are charging. She seemed frustrated Epic gave her nothing to hit apple with.
Epic’s lawyers looked very amateurs.
She had to call them out several times for their mistakes and not related “evidences”.

I’m not sure how even Epic thought they had a case with the lack of evidences to show to the court lol
They even tried to made up evidences.

She was very angry with the “work” from the Epic’s lawyers.
 
Last edited:

FStubbs

Member
I guess you'll have to ask the lawmakers in SK and elsewhere for the specifics. To me it boils down to how much influence Apple and Google have over the entire fucking world's communication etc. To reduce this to "they own it, they can do whatever" is way too simplistic and ignorant. Once you get to a certain level, there is no free market, or competition. These companies simply buy anything and everything that might threaten them, and you'd need trillions of your own to truly challenge any of it. The lock-in at this level is purposely making it effectively impossible to move from platform to another.

Like the judge says in the ruling, Apple's going to do fuck all consumer friendly decisions if it loses them money... unless legally forced to. And trust me, they will be. Maybe not in the US first, though.
Let's be clear. Neither Apple nor Google have such power in China. The big player there is Tencent with WeChat - who btw Epic is a proxy for in this case.
 
Let's be clear. Neither Apple nor Google have such power in China. The big player there is Tencent with WeChat - who btw Epic is a proxy for in this case.

We'll have to see how CCP will handle things in the near future considering the Huawei debacle and how hard they're currently going after their own big tech, and the fact that Apple makes most of its stuff in China. Apple has been kowtowing hard there to keep the business going, but they're not stupid so they are starting to move things to Vietnam and elsewhere to hedge their bets and gain leverage. CCP can change their tune on a dime, and if they will it, Apple can lose it's appeal for the consumers there overnight.

That doesn't come for free even for them, though. CCP relies on these companies to bring in the jobs and tech that they are willing to sell for pennies on the dollar in hopes for even a small slice of the market. I wouldn't be surprised though if CCP eventually just said no to iOS/Android and try to replace them with something homegrown, but they're not there yet, not by a long shot. Apple and Google have pretty much shown that they are willing to give up all their so called values to have access to that market, so China hasn't seen enough of a reason to yeet them just yet.
 
Last edited:

Aroll

Member
Who said they can do what ever? No one stated that Apple can do what ever.

It is factually their platform whether you like it or not. They designed it, built it, invested billions into it. It has always been a closed platform. Don't like it don't buy their products.

How much have the law makers invested??
How much R&D came out of their pocket??

Just because law makers can change laws does not mean those laws are just or right.

Law makers are politicians right next to or just below thieves on the morality list.
I feel like this fits almost right alongside arguments against right to repair. It's their device. They invested billions into. They created the parts. Took the risk. Only apple should be allowed to repair your device.

It may not make sense now, and you may rebuke and say right to repair is totally different - but it's really not. Being against right to repair is stating the people who make the device are allowed to decide how you not only use said device, but how you can fix it if it's broken. A walled garden on a device, means the maker of said device controls every aspect of how you are able to legally use said device. There are no exceptions. They funnel and police everything. It's equally not really "right". Not even morally. You brought up morality of law makers - when morality in general for walled gardens is nothing but favoring a multibillion dollar company.

Creation of a device does not mean you fundamentally control how the end user gets to use said device. Imagine you bought a PC and Microsoft told you guess what, you can only get applications, games, everything from OUR store. Steam? Blocked. Other internet downloads? Blocked. After all, Microsoft invested BILLIONS of dollars into their operating system. They are taking all the risk with Windows 11. They should control how and where you get every piece of software on your computer. Don't like it? That's fine, go use linux or go buy a mac.

Except, for obvious app compatibility, that might not be true. Oh but Microsoft doesn't MAKE the hardware! So that makes it better? Now, the argument against this is well "windows has never been that way". You're right. It hasn't. Because walling off all competition is fundamentally illegal and Microsoft lost a massive lawsuit decades ago over trying to have a monopoly in the pc space.

The argument then goes "well, apple doesn't have a monopoly. Go buy a android". You're right, Appel and Google combined, own basically the entire phone market. So it's two companies, instead of one. Technically competition, and technically Google owns 85% of the world wide market. Still, it's such a massive market 15% is still a lot. And for PC - it's 3 companies.

Point is, Apple could not get away with walling off their entire Mac OS from you installing applications outside of their store. It's already been ruled in court to be illegal. Why should their phones and tablets be any different? Why can't I legally install applications on my device without hacking it outside of the app store? Why can't I decide to spend money through my phone that ISN'T FUNNELLED through the people who made the phone? Literally every purchase you make, even on amazon, is ran through apple. Who takes a cut. Why are we just okay with this?

Look, I am not going to make Epic out to be some sort of hero. Their entire lawsuit was also completely greed based. But apples rules literally blocked xcloud because it can be used with pre-existing subs off their platforms. Do you not see the problem with this?

It's one thing if Apple needed to do that because they are taking a loss to give us these devices, right? That's what people will say to defend console makers. If they don't force everyone to purchase through their walled garden, they can't make money. But apple has the weakest argument of all. Their margins on iphone and ipad sales are absolutely insane. You go buy a iPhone 12 Max Pro today, say the largest storage size, and they make almost a grand in pure profits off that sale. Let that sink in. Apple makes INSANE profit margins on the device off the sale. Billions every year.
 
Last edited:

Genx3

Member
I feel like this fits almost right alongside arguments against right to repair. It's their device. They invested billions into. They created the parts. Took the risk. Only apple should be allowed to repair your device.



Look, I am not going to make Epic out to be some sort of hero. Their entire lawsuit was also completely greed based. But apples rules literally blocked xcloud because it can be used with pre-existing subs off their platforms. Do you not see the problem with this?

It's one thing if Apple needed to do that because they are taking a loss to give us these devices, right? That's what people will say to defend console makers. If they don't force everyone to purchase through their walled garden, they can't make money. But apple has the weakest argument of all. Their margins on iphone and ipad sales are absolutely insane. You go buy a iPhone 12 Max Pro today, say the largest storage size, and they make almost a grand in pure profits off that sale. Let that sink in. Apple makes INSANE profit margins on the device off the sale. Billions every year.

2 totally different things.

Of course the customer that owns the device can do what ever they want with it.

You want to side load apps on your phone or mac go ahead and do it. Apple however doesn't have to allow people that do this on their store.

You want to repair your phone yourself or take it to a friend to get it fixed that is also fine.

Developers like Epic are not owners and are not entitled to the same privilege's as the company that developed, marketed and built the ecosystem.

If you don't understand the difference between being a customer by owning a device and being a developer of software for a device Idk what to say other than they are completely different things.
 

Aroll

Member
2 totally different things.

Of course the customer that owns the device can do what ever they want with it.

You want to side load apps on your phone or mac go ahead and do it. Apple however doesn't have to allow people that do this on their store.

You want to repair your phone yourself or take it to a friend to get it fixed that is also fine.

Developers like Epic are not owners and are not entitled to the same privilege's as the company that developed, marketed and built the ecosystem.

If you don't understand the difference between being a customer by owning a device and being a developer of software for a device Idk what to say other than they are completely different things.
You're not really getting it, and that's fine. This isn't really about Epic themselves.

It's not a privilege to allow a customer to spend money inside your software outside of Appel's ecosystem. Imagine Apple took a cut of every purchase you made through the amazon app. Do you understand the kind of lawsuits that would crop up over that? And yet amazon, selling physical and digital goods, can charge you in their app through apples stores, on their own servers.

In fact, this is downright common practice in mutliple applications in multiple segments on the store simply because apple says "that's okay". But if a game with in-app purchases wants to offer you an optional way to not use apple's pay service to charge for a purchase, that's fine because after all, apple built the OS, they built the phone, and built the "ecosystem". Still don't understand what that has to do with in-app purchases of software they literally did not create.


if to purchase an application through their app store - absolutely. Use appel's system and they get a cut. But to control how customers purchase items WITHIN applications apple did not make? That's "right" and "justified" to you?

Do you not see how this compares to telling a customer what they can and cannot do with a device once they have it? Once they own it? Forget epic - they are telling a customer that once you buy or download an app - we still control that app we totally did not build.

Apple is busy fighting lawsuits the country over to argue against right to repair and argue against customers having freedom of choice on their devices. In the case of this lawsuit - apple didn't create fortnite. Why are they sole arbitrators of how purchases within an app they did create gets handled? They created the "ecosystem" that distributes applications. But just because they also created a way to pay for things on your phone - why do applications they didn't make HAVE to use that when they don't enforce it on all apps in their store?

I don't agree with Epic on much. But the fundamental right for an app maker to use their own methods of charging for in-app stuff? Absolutely. It's their game. They should control in-software everything. IF they want to use apples stuff because it's more convenient. be my guest. If they want to use their own services, be my guest. It shouldn't actually matter. It only matters to apple, because they want their slice of the pie. And they get to be the sole picker and chooser of which apps can have their own pay services and which ones can't. And I don't care if they created the platform, they can't also be "God" when decided who can keep all the money and who can't. That gives apple an incredible amount of power over anyone wanting to make software for their store that goes well beyond Fortnite.

I also hesitate to call anything "theirs". It's all for profit. It's tools for the customer.
 
Last edited:

Vaelka

Member
Apple and Google are both insufferable when it comes to their stores and how they force devs to censor their games for even the most minor of things.
They abuse their positions like crazy...

It's not surprising at all that they pull bullshit like this too.
 
Last edited:

ethomaz

Banned
Apple and Google are both insufferable when it comes to their stores and how they force devs to censor their games for even the most minor of things.
They abuse their positions like crazy...

It's not surprising at all that they pull bullshit like this too.
They have the right to do that.
And I as consumer will only support Stores that really do that.

Quality > Quantity.

When I try to download something in Google Play Store most apps should not be there… it is a pain to find what you want that works like it should be.
 
Last edited:

Genx3

Member
I don't agree with Epic on much. But the fundamental right for an app maker to use their own methods of charging for in-app stuff? Absolutely. It's their game. They should control in-software everything. IF they want to use apples stuff because it's more convenient. be my guest. If they want to use their own services, be my guest. It shouldn't actually matter. It only matters to apple, because they want their slice of the pie. And they get to be the sole picker and chooser of which apps can have their own pay services and which ones can't. And I don't care if they created the platform, they can't also be "God" when decided who can keep all the money and who can't. That gives apple an incredible amount of power over anyone wanting to make software for their store that goes well beyond Fortnite.

I also hesitate to call anything "theirs". It's all for profit. It's tools for the customer.

The courts already stated that companies can use their own payment methods but they also stated that they still can be charged a commission for using Apple's ecosystem.

You understand that it is Apple that developed every part of that ecosystem including the hardware.

Not sure why you think it's ok for 3rd parties to get to use it for free of charge.

That is not how the world works.

If you use someone else's property, IP then you must pay them for it. That is how ownership in this world works.
 

Aroll

Member
The courts already stated that companies can use their own payment methods but they also stated that they still can be charged a commission for using Apple's ecosystem.

You understand that it is Apple that developed every part of that ecosystem including the hardware.

Not sure why you think it's ok for 3rd parties to get to use it for free of charge.

That is not how the world works.

If you use someone else's property, IP then you must pay them for it. That is how ownership in this world works.
Yes, courts have ruled that companies can use their own payment methods, and yes that Apple can charge them for doing so. Obviously. We already know that, that's the facts of the case as it stands today.

Apple developing every single aspect of a device literally has nothing to do with much. Take your example: "if you use someone elses property IP, then you must pay them for it. That's how ownership in this world works"

Then you must absolutely be against right to repair. Keep in mind, to even publish a game on an apple device, said company has to already pay a fee to apple to do so. In fact, you pay a licensing fee to even gain access to the ability to develop applications and games for the device. So when you say "you don't just get to use apples products for free" - you are correct - and they already pay for the right to do so before the application ever comes out. I am learning this first hand in my iOS dev course. Nothing released on the app store happened without said company paying apple already for the right to do so.

My argument is, apple shouldn't then be able to double dip and not only charge you for the right to develop on their platform and then often charge you again to release the app on their platform - but turn around and then tell you how your application - software you own and developed - should function on the inside. Including microtransactions. Apple already double dips on every app released, and then currently they tripple dip. Why are we alright with that? If they already pay you for the right to even make games on the device. If you also have to pay apple again to publish your game on said device. Why again must they continue to pay apple for microtransactions on content that was already there in the first place?


So you are right, if you use someone elses property, you pay for it. They already do pay for the right to do use it. To develop for it. Why does apple alone then get to dictate how they charge people using their software, software apple doesn't own and didn't create? This ignores the base argument that, while apple can own the hardware design and own the operating system, once the device is in a customers hand... it's the customer that then owns that hardware. They don't own the design of said hardware nor the OS itself, but they own the actual device they are holding in their hand. Why can't a software that already pays a fee to be available for said device, once it's on a users own device, still have to pay apple for the right on being on devices... the customers own?

This is why I originally compared it to right to repair. Because apple designed it. Because they own the patents. Repair shops are unable to gain access to parts for repair on devices that supposedly the "customer owns". The customer is losing rights, because "only apple can fix your device". However, if it's still true that when you buy a device, you now own said device, then why after purchase is the company who sold it then the sole dictator of use?

That would infer the customer doesn't really own it in the first place. They are just "renting" it and still need apples okay to spend money on it. Need apples okay to fix it. This isn't just about publishers. They aren't publishing software to apple. THey pay apple to publish software to the end user. Apple then should control how said end user then uses software on a device THEY own? That's the issue. Doesn't matter who created the device and the ecosystem. Once a customer buys it, they are the owners of their own device. Apple isn't a hero here. Nor is Epic. The issue is options unavailable to the end user, because apple wants to dictate everything about how the end user can use something they now own.
 
Last edited:

Genx3

Member
Yes, courts have ruled that companies can use their own payment methods, and yes that Apple can charge them for doing so. Obviously. We already know that, that's the facts of the case as it stands today.

Apple developing every single aspect of a device literally has nothing to do with much. Take your example: "if you use someone elses property IP, then you must pay them for it. That's how ownership in this world works"

Then you must absolutely be against right to repair. Keep in mind, to even publish a game on an apple device, said company has to already pay a fee to apple to do so. In fact, you pay a licensing fee to even gain access to the ability to develop applications and games for the device. So when you say "you don't just get to use apples products for free" - you are correct - and they already pay for the right to do so before the application ever comes out. I am learning this first hand in my iOS dev course. Nothing released on the app store happened without said company paying apple already for the right to do so.

My argument is, apple shouldn't then be able to double dip and not only charge you for the right to develop on their platform and then often charge you again to release the app on their platform - but turn around and then tell you how your application - software you own and developed - should function on the inside. Including microtransactions. Apple already double dips on every app released, and then currently they tripple dip. Why are we alright with that? If they already pay you for the right to even make games on the device. If you also have to pay apple again to publish your game on said device. Why again must they continue to pay apple for microtransactions on content that was already there in the first place?


So you are right, if you use someone elses property, you pay for it. They already do pay for the right to do use it. To develop for it. Why does apple alone then get to dictate how they charge people using their software, software apple doesn't own and didn't create? This ignores the base argument that, while apple can own the hardware design and own the operating system, once the device is in a customers hand... it's the customer that then owns that hardware. They don't own the design of said hardware nor the OS itself, but they own the actual device they are holding in their hand. Why can't a software that already pays a fee to be available for said device, once it's on a users own device, still have to pay apple for the right on being on devices... the customers own?

This is why I originally compared it to right to repair. Because apple designed it. Because they own the patents. Repair shops are unable to gain access to parts for repair on devices that supposedly the "customer owns". The customer is losing rights, because "only apple can fix your device". However, if it's still true that when you buy a device, you now own said device, then why after purchase is the company who sold it then the sole dictator of use?

That would infer the customer doesn't really own it in the first place. They are just "renting" it and still need apples okay to spend money on it. Need apples okay to fix it. This isn't just about publishers. They aren't publishing software to apple. THey pay apple to publish software to the end user. Apple then should control how said end user then uses software on a device THEY own? That's the issue. Doesn't matter who created the device and the ecosystem. Once a customer buys it, they are the owners of their own device. Apple isn't a hero here. Nor is Epic. The issue is options unavailable to the end user, because apple wants to dictate everything about how the end user can use something they now own.

There's a Big no huuuge difference between the owner of a device getting it repaired by a 3rd party and a 3rd party developer.
That is that the owner of a device they own are merely repairing the device that broke or malfunctioned or even jail breaking a piece of equipment wholly owned by said person. That is a piece of equipment they own. They do not own the eco system, software that runs it, patents for it, etc.

A 3rd party company is developing on someone else's platform.
That platform was created, built, marketed plus the creators took huge financial risks to launch these platforms that are not just software but physical hardware as well. They own the patents on everything including the development kits, etc.
Now here is the key, that 3rd party is trying to PROFIT from this eco system that again is owned in it's entirety by a different entity.

It's ok for 3rd parties to profit off of someone else' patents and copyrights but here's another key; they must legally license it by, yup you guessed it, paying licensing fees and Royalties. Guess who makes the terms of licensing and royalties? Yup you guessed it, the owner of the patents not the 3rd parties trying to evade paying these fees.
 
Last edited:

Genx3

Member
I welcome Epic to try their hand at building a new ecosystem for cell phones, tablets and personal computers.

They can call it Epic phones, Epic notebooks, the Epic Tab, etc.

It can even use the Epic OS.

I would welcome it whole heartedly.

Competition is great for consumers.


On the other hand the one thing that gets on my nerves is when people/corporations feel entitled to something they didn't work for....
 
Last edited:

MrFunSocks

Banned
I feel like this fits almost right alongside arguments against right to repair. It's their device. They invested billions into. They created the parts. Took the risk. Only apple should be allowed to repair your device.

It may not make sense now, and you may rebuke and say right to repair is totally different - but it's really not. Being against right to repair is stating the people who make the device are allowed to decide how you not only use said device, but how you can fix it if it's broken. A walled garden on a device, means the maker of said device controls every aspect of how you are able to legally use said device. There are no exceptions. They funnel and police everything. It's equally not really "right". Not even morally. You brought up morality of law makers - when morality in general for walled gardens is nothing but favoring a multibillion dollar company.

Creation of a device does not mean you fundamentally control how the end user gets to use said device. Imagine you bought a PC and Microsoft told you guess what, you can only get applications, games, everything from OUR store. Steam? Blocked. Other internet downloads? Blocked. After all, Microsoft invested BILLIONS of dollars into their operating system. They are taking all the risk with Windows 11. They should control how and where you get every piece of software on your computer. Don't like it? That's fine, go use linux or go buy a mac.

Except, for obvious app compatibility, that might not be true. Oh but Microsoft doesn't MAKE the hardware! So that makes it better? Now, the argument against this is well "windows has never been that way". You're right. It hasn't. Because walling off all competition is fundamentally illegal and Microsoft lost a massive lawsuit decades ago over trying to have a monopoly in the pc space.

The argument then goes "well, apple doesn't have a monopoly. Go buy a android". You're right, Appel and Google combined, own basically the entire phone market. So it's two companies, instead of one. Technically competition, and technically Google owns 85% of the world wide market. Still, it's such a massive market 15% is still a lot. And for PC - it's 3 companies.

Point is, Apple could not get away with walling off their entire Mac OS from you installing applications outside of their store. It's already been ruled in court to be illegal. Why should their phones and tablets be any different? Why can't I legally install applications on my device without hacking it outside of the app store? Why can't I decide to spend money through my phone that ISN'T FUNNELLED through the people who made the phone? Literally every purchase you make, even on amazon, is ran through apple. Who takes a cut. Why are we just okay with this?

Look, I am not going to make Epic out to be some sort of hero. Their entire lawsuit was also completely greed based. But apples rules literally blocked xcloud because it can be used with pre-existing subs off their platforms. Do you not see the problem with this?

It's one thing if Apple needed to do that because they are taking a loss to give us these devices, right? That's what people will say to defend console makers. If they don't force everyone to purchase through their walled garden, they can't make money. But apple has the weakest argument of all. Their margins on iphone and ipad sales are absolutely insane. You go buy a iPhone 12 Max Pro today, say the largest storage size, and they make almost a grand in pure profits off that sale. Let that sink in. Apple makes INSANE profit margins on the device off the sale. Billions every year.
I see it a bit differently. You can do whatever you want to try and repair your device, but Apple shouldn't be forced to have to provide you access to official parts to do so. They provide official paths of repair, and if you choose not to use them then it's up to you to figure the rest out yourself imo.
 

supernova8

Member
We all know that Apple will find a way to put up other barriers for developers (not covered by this ruling) in the hope that nobody as big as Epic will try to sue them again.
 

RoboFu

One of the green rats
What’s weird is that I’ve been buying games on the iOS steam app for years… how does valve get away with it? Do they have a special deal?
 

smbu2000

Member
Last year right after the whole incident happened Apple did offer to re-instate Epic's account if they removed the hidden code to bypass IAP, even during the trial. The judge even suggested that they could have Apple's 30% fee kept in escrow while the trial was going on and the money would go to the party who came out on top at the end of the trial.
Sweeney came out on his high horse though and said they wouldn't go back on iOS until Apple allowed 3rd party App Stores.

Now that the trial is over they are trying to get re-instated and it looks like Apple isn't having any of it. If you prove yourself to be a bad actor, then don't be surprised when somebody doesn't want to do business with you.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/com...e-off-app-store-until-after-trial/ar-BB19TTVE
(From last year, 2020)
"Apple handed Epic an olive branch, offering to reinstate Fortnite if the company agreed to comply by the terms of the contract. The judge offered a further compromise, saying that Apple's fees from the sale of Fortnite could be placed in escrow until the conclusion of the trial, but Epic balked, saying it didn't want to be forced to comply with an unlawful contract."
 

RavenSan

Off-Site Inflammatory Member
One the one hand, fuck Epic, but mostly for their EGS exclusivity bullshit.

On the other hand, however, god damnit I fucking hate Apple and everything they stand for. I pray for the day that company crashes back into the miserable cesspool hell pit from which it once spawned. I've never hated a company and everything it stood for more than Apple.

A Aroll good on you for trying to take a balanced approach. Sorry for all the Apple bootlickers who seem to completely miss your point.
 

oagboghi2

Member
One the one hand, fuck Epic, but mostly for their EGS exclusivity bullshit.

On the other hand, however, god damnit I fucking hate Apple and everything they stand for. I pray for the day that company crashes back into the miserable cesspool hell pit from which it once spawned. I've never hated a company and everything it stood for more than Apple.

A Aroll good on you for trying to take a balanced approach. Sorry for all the Apple bootlickers who seem to completely miss your point.
The reactions Apple produces out of people is insane.

Just don’t buy their product.
 

Someone is offering a service to testing the boundaries of the judges ruling
Drama Reaction GIF by MOODMAN


This is going to be fun.
 
Top Bottom