Epic Games Sues Apple

Aegir

Gawd
Joined
Apr 15, 2020
Messages
565
Honestly, I'm not sure if Epic thought this through as well as it should. From what I've seen, it thought as far as "yeah! This campaign will get players, anti-Apple types and regulators on our side!" They didn't stop to think that Apple might do more than pull Fortnite from the App Store, or that the Unreal Engine developer community might get caught in the crossfire. It was so obsessed with the potential for extra money (and let's be clear, this is mainly about increased profit) that it didn't stop to think it might jeopardize livelihoods outside of the company.

Not if it wins the case.

Then developers will actually be able to publish on Apple devices outside the Apple App Store for less than a 30% cut, which is a massive benefit.
Beyond just that, I do believe lawsuits are common when it comes to businesses like this. I don't think Apple or any big tech company is guiltless when it comes to inconvenient lawsuits.

So I do not think that it is wrong to file lawsuits if we live in a country with rule of law.
 

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,290
Yes, it's about money. I read the emails, Sweeney wants to launch EGS on iOS. So not only would they get extra revenue from Fortnite, but also from all games published on their store.

So while that may have been the motivation, I think it reaches further. If mobile devices are (and I would agree) general computing devices, then the consumer should be able to control their own device.

Meaning they should be able to install software of their choice, from an open marketplace. I don't think this is an unreasonable ask.
 

odditory

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
6,482
Yes, it's about money. I read the emails, Sweeney wants to launch EGS on iOS. So not only would they get extra revenue from Fortnite, but also from all games published on their store.

And guess what would happen next if Apple really was as suicidal as Tim asked them to be in his June 30th email, and actually allowed an EGS to exist rent-free on iOS devices? Tim immediately starts trying to bribe developers to remove their games from the Apple store and go exclusive on EGS - just like he's pulling on PC. There'd be no reason for him not to. He wants Apple store money without Apple effort. He wants Google Play money without Google effort. He wants Steam money without Steam effort.

This is why Epic and their imbecilic CEO are bad faith cancer in everything they touch outside of their excellent engine. They want more money and their own monopoly, nothing else -- not "standing up for gamers & developurz". And Apple would rather burn every last cent of their 2+ trillion dollar marketcap to keep EGS and a million other wolves from getting into the henhouse.
 
Last edited:

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,445
Not if it wins the case.

Then developers will actually be able to publish on Apple devices outside the Apple App Store for less than a 30% cut, which is a massive benefit.
Beyond just that, I do believe lawsuits are common when it comes to businesses like this. I don't think Apple or any big tech company is guiltless when it comes to inconvenient lawsuits.

So I do not think that it is wrong to file lawsuits if we live in a country with rule of law.

The issue isn't so much the lawsuit as it is Epic's approach. Publicity stunt notwithstanding, it didn't stop to think that Apple might not react well to someone intentionally violating store policy. You'd think Epic's legal counsel would have been screaming "THIS IS A BAD IDEA" at the top of their lungs, but apparently not.

I'm glad the court doesn't want to allow a block on Unreal Engine use, but can you imagine if it had? It'd have been a complete mess, and Epic would have lost a large amount of sympathy even if Apple was overreacting.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,381
You really don't seem to understand the argument. (Also, accusing someone of being paid because they side with one company versus another is just... amateurish.)

Epic didn't just put access to Fortnite on the line, it put other developers' access to the Unreal Engine at risk. Imagine if you're working on an Unreal-based game with an iOS version, you've invested hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars into the project... and Epic's publicity ploy suddenly cuts off your ability to publish on the App Store. You have to either cancel your iOS version or spend months retooling the game with a different engine, assuming this doesn't torpedo the whole effort. How would that make you feel, especially if you were a smaller developer who could lose your business through no fault of your own? You'd probably want Tim Sweeney's head on a pike.

Look, I know it's easy to shout "grr! Apple bad," but Epic is far from clean here. It's trying to weaponize gamers, many of whom don't have an inkling of the full story, and it nearly wrecked the entire Unreal Engine ecosystem on iOS. Epic is trying to manipulate you, and your anti-Apple rage is hindering your ability to see that.

Apple threatens to illegally retaliate... and we are suppose to blame Epic ? ok

You sound like an abused spouse. Well of course the big man that pays all the bills and cares for me smacked me a little... I was asking for it after all, what did I really expect would happen when I defied his will.

It isn't asking much for Apple to behave legally. Collectively punishing Epics engine customers isn't right legally or morally.

Epic got one of their games pulled from the store fine... we can all debate that for what it is. I believe what Apple is doing is illegal, so does Epic. However they can disagree about that in court.... retaliation is for sure illegal. I would suggest if Apple was actually worried about weaponized gamers in some PR war... escalating things to clearly retaliatory collective punishment against the Epic game engine is probably the worst move they could have made. Not to mention that when your laywers say.... well its illegal but we can drag it out for years and never have to deal with a actual ruling stating as much. The RIGHT thing to do is to say ok well lets not do that then if its not legal.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,381
Honestly, I'm not sure if Epic thought this through as well as it should. From what I've seen, it thought as far as "yeah! This campaign will get players, anti-Apple types and regulators on our side!" They didn't stop to think that Apple might do more than pull Fortnite from the App Store, or that the Unreal Engine developer community might get caught in the crossfire. It was so obsessed with the potential for extra money (and let's be clear, this is mainly about increased profit) that it didn't stop to think it might jeopardize livelihoods outside of the company.

You do have one point though.... when you know your dealing with a company conducting illegal activity. Its probably not a great idea to assume they won't amp up said activity. In Apples defense... of course most corporations don't really understand when they cross into monopoly behavious unless regulation guides them. The real failing in general is our Politicians. Historically most companies go as far as they can get away with until regulators set their course for them. Breaking up extreme vertical hardware/software integration in the mobile markets has been overdue for awhile. In Canada where I am our government stepped in a few years ago to regulate some of the extreme integration with Wireless carriers in the mobile segment. I would seem to me Apple is heading to the same type of regulation soon enough. I know some people love the secure locked in apple pool... but I have little doubt over then next few years most governments (if not the US) are going to require Apple to allow side loading and probably also open up payment options in their store. They can't argue anymore that iOS is any different from Windows or MacOs... which neither Apple nor Microsoft could legally close up. (even though Apple is the only company that sells MacOS hardware) They have created a general compute operating system... and a walled garden on the entire thing at this point is illegal as I read the law.
 

deruberhanyok

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
2,098
If mobile devices are (and I would agree) general computing devices, then the consumer should be able to control their own device.

Meaning they should be able to install software of their choice, from an open marketplace. I don't think this is an unreasonable ask.

This is the problem I’m having. where does the line between a “general computing device” and “not a general computing device” go?

to me a phone is not a general computing device. But even if it were, there’s:

I hope it convinces me that I should not have administrator access over the machines that I own.

But you do have administrator access to it. You can do whatever you want to the device - as Apple sold it to you.

do you get upset that your BluRay player can’t run Linux*, or that your TV is running webos and you can’t install android on it? Do you want to play PlayStation4 games on an Xbox One and you’re mad that you can’t?

What is different about a phone vs. these other devices?

why does everyone seem to think the government could tell Apple what to do with their own infrastructure? Even if Apple had to allow for alternative app stores, to force any one company to provide the servers and bandwidth for another, without remuneration, would be far more problematic for the tech industry.

So any alternative store would have to provide their own infrastructure, and they’d probably be charging the same 30% that Apple does - because that’s what they’re all doing already! All you get from that is to decide who gets the fee. Is that the kind of control you feel you’re lacking?

*notable exception for the PS3, but that whole thing did end with a lawsuit because it was functionality they removed, not functionality that was never there in the first place.
 

Shoganai

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
1,169
I see you used the word "entitled." What a word, huh?
I hope it convinces me that I should not have administrator access over the machines that I own.
Yeah ... it's basically a computer in our pockets ... and we have Admin accounts on our computers ... so ....

They should be locked down by default because most people would destroy their devices with free rein ... but for those that want it, there should a toggle buried deep in the settings to enable higher privileged access.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,381
This is the problem I’m having. where does the line between a “general computing device” and “not a general computing device” go?

to me a phone is not a general computing device. But even if it were, there’s:

But you do have administrator access to it. You can do whatever you want to the device - as Apple sold it to you.

do you get upset that your BluRay player can’t run Linux*, or that your TV is running webos and you can’t install android on it? Do you want to play PlayStation4 games on an Xbox One and you’re mad that you can’t?

What is different about a phone vs. these other devices?

why does everyone seem to think the government could tell Apple what to do with their own infrastructure? Even if Apple had to allow for alternative app stores, to force any one company to provide the servers and bandwidth for another, without remuneration, would be far more problematic for the tech industry.

So any alternative store would have to provide their own infrastructure, and they’d probably be charging the same 30% that Apple does - because that’s what they’re all doing already! All you get from that is to decide who gets the fee. Is that the kind of control you feel you’re lacking?

*notable exception for the PS3, but that whole thing did end with a lawsuit because it was functionality they removed, not functionality that was never there in the first place.

Well does it have a CPU... yes but your right so does a blu ray player. Does it have system ram... yes but so do other devices. Does it have storage .... yes but.
Does it have a general compute operating system capable of running software from third party developers.... YES. That is the rub isn't it. We all know the hardware is not really any different from Android devices... other then Apple has locked out the installation of third party software. Its not that it isn't possible... we all know people jail break their iOS devices. Its an artificial lock, not a technical one.

Your blu ray player... plays blu rays. If it can load third party apps they probably are in the same vain. (playing media files ect). On a iOS device... third party software can do EVERYTHING software for Windows PCs and MacOS desktops can run. There are photo editors, word processors, every manner of email client, database software, drivers for peripherals such as printers, scanners, keyboards and the like... and yes there are even games often running the same engines games running on MacOS use.

There is really no denying iOS devices are computing platforms. Even Apple advertises them as such... unless we are all going to pretend that Apple doesn't market iPads as general compute devices.

Really we all better hope the powers in the Gov regulate Apples ambitions soon... cause if they don't get told otherwise they are likely to release MacOS ARM macbooks without the ability to load third party software in any other way then their store. I know we can choose to not buy them... but we all may feel differently in a few years when those machines are by far the fastest laptop options on the market.
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
5,455
And guess what would happen next if Apple really was as suicidal as Tim asked them to be in his June 30th email, and actually allowed an EGS to exist rent-free on iOS devices? Tim immediately starts trying to bribe developers to remove their games from the Apple store and go exclusive on EGS - just like he's pulling on PC. There'd be no reason for him not to. He wants Apple store money without Apple effort. He wants Google Play money without Google effort. He wants Steam money without Steam effort.

This is why Epic and their imbecilic CEO are bad faith cancer in everything they touch outside of their excellent engine. They want more money and their own monopoly, nothing else -- not "standing up for gamers & developurz". And Apple would rather burn every last cent of their 2+ trillion dollar marketcap to keep EGS and a million other wolves from getting into the henhouse.

This, and its so clear in here that there are fans on both sides. If you like a company give your head a shake, because its both a waste of your time and blinds you.
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,445
Apple threatens to illegally retaliate... and we are suppose to blame Epic ? ok

You sound like an abused spouse. Well of course the big man that pays all the bills and cares for me smacked me a little... I was asking for it after all, what did I really expect would happen when I defied his will.

It isn't asking much for Apple to behave legally. Collectively punishing Epics engine customers isn't right legally or morally.

Epic got one of their games pulled from the store fine... we can all debate that for what it is. I believe what Apple is doing is illegal, so does Epic. However they can disagree about that in court.... retaliation is for sure illegal. I would suggest if Apple was actually worried about weaponized gamers in some PR war... escalating things to clearly retaliatory collective punishment against the Epic game engine is probably the worst move they could have made. Not to mention that when your laywers say.... well its illegal but we can drag it out for years and never have to deal with a actual ruling stating as much. The RIGHT thing to do is to say ok well lets not do that then if its not legal.

Please, drop the Epic-as-victim schtick.

If we're going to use analogies, this is more like setting that abuser's house on fire and then being shocked, shocked that the fire almost burned down your neighbors' house. Your desire for justice doesn't excuse everything you do in response; you can take legal action without being spiteful. And you certainly have to think about the risk to third parties, especially if you're not asking for their permission. Legal counsel that doesn't do that is being clumsy at best, and reckless at worst.

Also, please don't say "retaliation is for sure illegal." No, only certain kinds of retaliation are illegal. Otherwise, you could never have countersuits or other kinds of legal responses. The court may have decided that Apple's Unreal Engine move should be blocked, but even that doesn't necessarily mean Apple was violating the law, just that the court felt its move would have too much of an impact on third parties.
 

deruberhanyok

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
2,098
ChadD i can’t disagree with any particular point you’re making, but it seems to me you’re saying that the biggest difference is that a smartphone or tablet device can “do anything” in its default, shipping form, so to impose artificial limitations on it that lock it down a certain way shouldn’t be allowed.

whereas a device like a BluRay player, smart tv, game console, they’re marketed as a specific thing first, and all of those other capabilities (like installing apps on an android tv or browsing the web on an Xbox) are just secondary functions.

so even though they’re built with hardware that would allow them to be “general purpose computers” if given an alternative OS, or modified to allow for additional apps, whatever, since they’re not sold that way out of the box, they are more “appliance” than “computer” so it isn’t the same as a phone or tablet, which offers those capabilities out of the box?
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,381
ChadD i can’t disagree with any particular point you’re making, but it seems to me you’re saying that the biggest difference is that a smartphone or tablet device can “do anything” in its default, shipping form, so to impose artificial limitations on it that lock it down a certain way shouldn’t be allowed.

whereas a device like a BluRay player, smart tv, game console, they’re marketed as a specific thing first, and all of those other capabilities (like installing apps on an android tv or browsing the web on an Xbox) are just secondary functions.

so even though they’re built with hardware that would allow them to be “general purpose computers” if given an alternative OS, or modified to allow for additional apps, whatever, since they’re not sold that way out of the box, they are more “appliance” than “computer” so it isn’t the same as a phone or tablet, which offers those capabilities out of the box?

Correct... a game console plays games. A blu ray player plays videos. A MP3 Player plays music.

A smartphone does all of those things and more... and things no one has dreamed of yet. Just like any other general purpose computing device.

There is also the case of inherited software... if you buy next years blu ray player its not going to be running the same operating system, or one that is backwards compatible with 15 years of previous operating systems. Like other general compute operating systems iOS and Android will run the same software the device you owned 5 years ago ran. You can count on your next iphone ipad or android device to run any third party software you purchase today.

No one expects their next game console will for sure play all of their old generation games... or any at all.

Apple and Google have both created general purpose device transferable operating systems. There is no difference between iOS and MacOS in that regard... its been stripped down and runs on a ARM chip but iOS is really little different from MacOS. Android is very much a Google Linux DE. Google avoids the same legal issues cause ya their store allows alternate non locked in payment methods, and they allow side loading.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,381
Please, drop the Epic-as-victim schtick.

If we're going to use analogies, this is more like setting that abuser's house on fire and then being shocked, shocked that the fire almost burned down your neighbors' house. Your desire for justice doesn't excuse everything you do in response; you can take legal action without being spiteful. And you certainly have to think about the risk to third parties, especially if you're not asking for their permission. Legal counsel that doesn't do that is being clumsy at best, and reckless at worst.

Also, please don't say "retaliation is for sure illegal." No, only certain kinds of retaliation are illegal. Otherwise, you could never have countersuits or other kinds of legal responses. The court may have decided that Apple's Unreal Engine move should be blocked, but even that doesn't necessarily mean Apple was violating the law, just that the court felt its move would have too much of an impact on third parties.

US vs Colgate did hold that companies even monopolies had the right to refuse to deal with anyone they wanted... With the acceptation of cases where such actions could be seen as Creating or Protecting a monopoly. That ruling may potentially give Apple legal the thought that they can simply stop doing business with Epic. However that ruling states clearly that retaliation for the purpose of creating or maintaining a monopoly is an acceptation in which case Sherman 2 still applies.

Unless Apple has some other good reason to be axing Epics other business then it is clearly a case or retaliation. It is also possible that Epic would be protected by more recent anti retaliatory laws passed just last year... IF the government is pursuing anti monopoly type cases against Apple (which we know they are) and are in anyway talking to Epic. That may not have been the overall intention of the anti monopoly whistle blower law... however I can see it being a argument if Epic can prove any government agency has talked to them about Apple prior to Apples move. I have no idea if that is the case... but it is quite possible if the government is looking into legal options vs Apple they would have talked to some of Apples largest suppliers. And yes as of 2019 in the US if the government is looking into anti monopoly cases against you and they ask for assistance form a supplier... if you retaliate it is illegal.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,336
Honestly, I'm not sure if Epic thought this through as well as it should. From what I've seen, it thought as far as "yeah! This campaign will get players, anti-Apple types and regulators on our side!" They didn't stop to think that Apple might do more than pull Fortnite from the App Store, or that the Unreal Engine developer community might get caught in the crossfire. It was so obsessed with the potential for extra money (and let's be clear, this is mainly about increased profit) that it didn't stop to think it might jeopardize livelihoods outside of the company.
You're pretty biased here, but I guess it's not like you're trying to hide it. You could just as easily turn it around and say that Apple was so obsessed with preserving their profit margins and absolute control, they didn't think twice about throwing many innocent developers under the bus just to try and bully a related, but not the same, Epic company into submission.
 

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,290
It's Apple's MO. I wouldn't be surprised if they did this with other developers before, but they were too small to take legal action.

Or, one thing I'm particularly still sour about, was Apple killing Flash. I was a big Flash game developer and this basically killed my career for a moment.

Apple claimed various things, like security and user experience, which were true, but the crux of it was that they wanted developers using their tools and ecosystem.

Even when Adobe added native compiling (not using the Flash player) Apple changed the rules and killed that too.

To this today, Apple still doesn't allow cross-compiling (e.g. creating an app on Windows and publishing to iOS) so you are forced to buy a Mac, use Xcode, use Apple APIs like Metal, and only sell on the AppStore, giving them their 30%.

Don't get me started on how they are killing (or killed already) OpenGL, refuse to support Vulkan, butchered WebGL, etc. It's all anti-consumer and developer hostile.

If that is not a monopoly, well, I don't know what is.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,696
Yep. The industry-standard 30% is the fee that developers are happy to pay to get access to a massive userbase (translation: SALES VOLUME) - the fee is an expression of the store's market size (Steam, Apple App Store, Google Play, Xbox, PS4, whatever). The problem is, Epic wants App Store money without App Store effort. They want Steam money without Steam effort. They feel entitled to walk into other companies' marketplaces that cost billions to set up and maintain, and pay nothing to just start selling to those userbases.

I can't walk into a Walmart or Costco and set up a table and start selling my own clothing or electronics in there- "hey man the store already paid for itself long ago. What is this, 1984?" And yet this is exactly what Epic believes it should be entitled to do. So they're going to bleed even more money fighting an unwinnable battle against Apple - fuckem.
This analogy is flawed. What Apple is saying is that anyone who has an apple phone must purchase items from their store. This would be analogous to buying a home from a builder and be confined to 1 grocery store... The apple grocery store.

Let's be clear the apple store is absolutely nothing without the developers. Apple is the plot of land but its not the items that stock the shelves. If the developers don't build apps then there isn't a store. People who create items deserve for stores do not pay a 30% up charge.

Furthermore yes you can walk into a Walmart and give out free samples to boots sales.
 
Last edited:

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,290
Epic is not saying they want to be on the AppStore and not pay Apple. That was just the tactic they used to build a case.

What they want is their own store, similar to what they have on Windows. They would then have their own servers and infrastructure, etc.
 

odditory

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
6,482
Epic is not saying they want to be on the AppStore and not pay Apple. That was just the tactic they used to build a case.
Except this is exactly with Tim Sweeney asked for in his June 30th email to Apple - that Apple's App store should host EGS as a free download, circumventing Apple's revenue split and security and allowing users to effectively sideload.

But then guess who iOS users would blame when EGS and 1000 other free stores have service or security problems, or become attack vectors for malware, viruses and user data theft? They'd blame Apple. I'm sure Tencent alone would love nothing more than to somehow get their hooks into the impenetrable iOS userbase; they're already the biggest third party Android app store in China. But that's only going to happen over Apple's dead body - they've got more money than god and their whole business model relies on maintaining their status quo.
 
Last edited:

odditory

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
6,482
This analogy is flawed. What Apple is saying is that anyone who has an apple phone must purchase items from their store.

You may have missed the point of the analogy. Put another way, a mom & pop hardware store can't walk into Home Depot and set up a table and start selling their items free. Epic may think they're a big deal, but Fortnite is apparently just a drop in the bucket to Apple. And they're not interested in allowing EGS to become an attack vector to iOS with sideloaded apps - why would they?

This would be analogous to buying a home from a builder and be confined to 1 grocery store... The apple grocery store.

Plot twist: Many of the people buying those homes are choosing that builder, because there's only 1 grocery store where they can get everything. And where they feel extra secure because the parking lot has insane 24/7 security and they don't worry about being mugged on the way to the car by viruses, malware or data mining / identity theft.

I've personally avoided Apple products and run Android; I returned an iPad Pro after less than 12hrs because the ecosystem felt too claustrophobic, I think Apple are rotten for not paying any taxes. But I can recognize many people see Apple's "limitations" as attractive features.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 243478

Guest
It's Apple that's hurting their own customer relations. Epic's just pointing it out.

and that is what is hillarious, Epic have twisted this situation so much that the company who leeches money from its users by converting their real money into magical ingame currency to buy BS is now the good guy? Ahahahaha the irony.

Apple are charging the same fees for Epic as every other developer and you think this stupid kids game should be given some sort of special treatment?

Did you also know Apple charges the same fees as all the other platforms including Playstation and XBOX but they magically get a free pass.

FYI Apple did not go after the Unreal Engine, people assumed that by proxy, they went after their dev account due to their defamatory actions.
 

deruberhanyok

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
2,098
ChadD I see the reasoning there, though I just don't agree with it. To me a phone is a phone, I don't really think of it as a general purpose compute device. Way back in 2004 we had dinky web browsers on feature phones, we had SMS, even navigation apps. But those devices were always a communications device first - any "apps" you put on them (BREW, usually) weren't all that special. I still feel that way about phones - aside from some occasional web browsing and maps, my iPhone is just used for communication, whether it is text, audio or video.

I've got a laptop, desktop and an Android tablet I can do whatever I want with; I bought an iPhone, otoh, specifically because I didn't want to have to hack it to remove Samsung apps, or install Lineage because the manufacturer couldn't be bothered with security updates anymore, etc. If I wanted the same kind of flexibility on my phone that I have on those other devices, I'd have just gotten an Android phone. I've owned plenty of them in the past. But I need my phone to work, and I don't want a dozen preloaded Verizon apps on it and I'd like it to get updates for more than a year and I don't want to hack it to get there. To me, the "lock-in" is a selling point.

But, as I said, I get your reasoning. The other side of me is saying "well no one would force you to use those other app stores," which is true, but just enabling the the option to have them would mean opening up access to the platform from third party apps that isn't currently there. Basically what odditory said.
 
D

Deleted member 243478

Guest
Honestly, I'm not sure if Epic thought this through as well as it should. From what I've seen, it thought as far as "yeah! This campaign will get players, anti-Apple types and regulators on our side!" They didn't stop to think that Apple might do more than pull Fortnite from the App Store, or that the Unreal Engine developer community might get caught in the crossfire. It was so obsessed with the potential for extra money (and let's be clear, this is mainly about increased profit) that it didn't stop to think it might jeopardize livelihoods outside of the company.

Precisely! Apple is always the bad guy in this crap by providing the platform and having everyone play by the same rules. Epic is doing the big damage and upsetting the balance chasing that extra 10% revenue they have been syphoning from its users.

Epic agreed to those terms in advance and purposely breached them. They then took it a step further by launching a publicity campaign against Apple which triggered action to remove them completely as a developer.

You don’t walk up and take a shit on someones lawn and expect to be welcome there ever again.

They could have done this the mature way without any impact to 3rd parties or their own IP but they wanted to create a shit storm then pour petrol on it and watch it burn.

I got news for you guys, you will never get to sideload apps in iOS, if you think this has even a remote chance, you are delusional. The government does not dictate how Apple runs their systems.

Go and buy Android and stop expecting Apple to change.
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
20,243
Isn't that walled garden concept what keeps the bulk of ios apps free and clear of over malware and viruses?
schoolslave and yet they keep finding apps full of malware and viruses.

If Epic does not like Apples terms, do not use the App store and find another way for people to get your games? I mean, that does sound monopolistic since if you can not get on the app store.....
 

deruberhanyok

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
2,098
schoolslave and yet they keep finding apps full of malware and viruses.

If Epic does not like Apples terms, do not use the App store and find another way for people to get your games? I mean, that does sound monopolistic since if you can not get on the app store.....

Apple has the monopoly on Apple products, sure. Worldwide their market share of mobile devices is something like 15%? (https://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market-share/vendor). There's plenty of options that aren't Apple. Epic just wants iOS users because it will be more people to spend more money on Fortnite hats.

Epic is even suing Google because they removed it from the Play Store - and on Android, Fortnite is still available through several alternative channels, including Epic's own app. All this talk about lock-in on a platform is a red herring on their part. They just don't want to play by Google or Apple's terms, the ones to which they already agreed; they want to use Google and Apple's infrastructure to advertise their game to the largest possible userbase, distribute their game and make sales, but they don't want to have to pay for it.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,865
I got news for you guys, you will never get to sideload apps in iOS, if you think this has even a remote chance, you are delusional. The government does not dictate how Apple runs their systems.

Go and buy Android and stop expecting Apple to change.

Pretty much. Unless there is some massive legal change, which I am doubtful, that won't change. That is the Apple business model. Everything top down, from hardware to software. They cut out every middleman they can. Even Intel wasn't good enough to be relevant anymore.
 
D

Deleted member 243478

Guest
schoolslave and yet they keep finding apps full of malware and viruses.

If Epic does not like Apples terms, do not use the App store and find another way for people to get your games? I mean, that does sound monopolistic since if you can not get on the app store.....

Complete bullshit, there are occasional apps that are found and removed but not common. The apps that do sneak it in are minimal in impact. Android is a shit show of malware on the other hand and that is fine because users accept it by being able to side load apps.

Also if a compromised app is found, Apple move swiftly removing the developer and apps from EVERY device. This is not possible with side loaded apps and malware runs continues to run rampant indefinitely even when it is found.

Apple users don’t want the risk with a curated app store and are generally happy to pay a premium for it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

NickM

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
459
Apple has the monopoly on Apple products, sure. Worldwide their market share of mobile devices is something like 15%? (https://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market-share/vendor). There's plenty of options that aren't Apple. Epic just wants iOS users because it will be more people to spend more money on Fortnite hats.

Epic is even suing Google because they removed it from the Play Store - and on Android, Fortnite is still available through several alternative channels, including Epic's own app. All this talk about lock-in on a platform is a red herring on their part. They just don't want to play by Google or Apple's terms, the ones to which they already agreed; they want to use Google and Apple's infrastructure to advertise their game to the largest possible userbase, distribute their game and make sales, but they don't want to have to pay for it.

Key part in red. You don't sign a contract agreeing to the terms of that contract then get to break the contract without repercussions.
Epic can DIAF as far as I'm concerened.
Bust a deal, face the wheel.
 

tunatime

Well...OK
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
4,836
why should ios allow a store app on its phones if they dont want to? apple thing is it just works. to epic if you dont like the rules the players set go make your own phone os and phones and app store on it. for the crap epic pulled with the only at epic store bs i hope they lose bad
 
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
519
Good! I would develop apps for iOS if I didn't have to pay a ridiculous monthly fee and could distribute my apps from outside the app store and control my own payments and licensing terms. Screw Apple. As it is now, I still hope they die.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aegir
like this

NickM

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
459
Good! I would develop apps for iOS if I didn't have to pay a ridiculous monthly fee and could distribute my apps from outside the app store and control my own payments and licensing terms. Screw Apple. As it is now, I still hope they die.

You should let Apple know about this. I'm sure that they will change their requirements if it means that you will develop apps for iOS.
 

redhaze1er

n00b
Joined
Apr 22, 2018
Messages
15
Good! I would develop apps for iOS if I didn't have to pay a ridiculous monthly fee and could distribute my apps from outside the app store and control my own payments and licensing terms. Screw Apple. As it is now, I still hope they die.
What monthly fee are you referring to? I'm a iOS app developer and the only fee I have to pay is a yearly fee of $99usd.

Back on topic, I don't expect epic will win this battle. Too many companies rely on the exact same business model that apple has such as sony, valve, microsoft just to name a few. Don't think they will like a verdict in favor of epic in this case. Also, because I know someone will bring this up, microsoft sided with epic in only to reinstate the use of epic's unreal engine/developer tools on iOS not the fortnite ban.
 

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,290
You're right. Epic probably has a slim chance of winning outright. There are too many implications that start to not make sense, like do we open up consoles as well? TVs? Your watch?

I mean, I would like that outcome but it seems like it would be a strange precedent. Would then all phones need to come with root access? Would the phone makers need to open-source some or all of their work to enable 3rd party OS installs, etc.?

Also, even if Epic wins, do we want the government meddling in matters that they may not understand? We could end up in a worse situation. But lets see what happens.
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
20,243
aokman , not common, just apps that millions of people have downloaded....once downloaded the damage is done, the data has been stolen / collected / abused. Yes, once the app has been found, it is removed, same happens on the google store, once a malicious app is found, it is removed. The Apple store is not perfect and apps do get by more often than people want to believe, just follow a few security oriented outlets to see. Apple is no more immune to compromise than Android is or windows or what ever Os you want to pick these days.

deruberhanyok Certainly, there are other options, but i am sure the majority users of their devices have no idea about these other options, nor want to use them because they think the Apple store is the only , safe, option. I also 100% agree, every Dev agreed to Apples terms, you do not like it, do not use the platform....

But is it fair for Apple to now ban ANY developer that is using the Unreal engine in their products?

schoolslave nothing at all, your all good, was just noting the Apple store has its share of questionable apps stealing data and other users info.
 

deruberhanyok

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
2,098
But is it fair for Apple to now ban ANY developer that is using the Unreal engine in their products?

No, I think that was a step too far - I mentioned that in an earlier post. I understand WHY they did it (the whole "linked developer account" thing makes sense as a policy, as it does provide Apple a way to keep someone from working around their rules by using multiple accounts to try and game it) but it also sounds like the kind of decision a middle manager who isn't fully aware of things would make. Like "psssh, ban their other accounts too, who are these epic guys guys anyways" without realizing how far-reaching something like that would be. Whoever made that call should have gone all the way up to a really high executive level and said, "hey guys, policy is to ban everything, but I don't think it's a good idea in this instance."

I am certain that the sad king of the sad hill who made that call felt big and important when they did it and probably went out for a celebratory donut and coffee. But they really should have just left it at the removal of Fortnite and let the rest of it all play out based on that alone. As it is, it just gives Epic ammo to use against them.
 
Top