12 ms·
Apple's response looks very silly or childlike. I guess they want to pick a fight but I don't know what they have to gain from it. I pick Apple devices because
by uberswe 6y ago
Apple's response looks very silly or childlike. I guess they want to pick a fight but I don't know what they have to gain from it. I pick Apple devices because they are easy to use. I don't play Fortnite but if this happened to any software I used on a weekly basis I would be pretty upset at Apple.
- hellofunk 6y ago> I guess they want to pick a fight Are you referring to Apple or Epic? It seems that Epic are the ones who wanted to pick a fight, for better or worse. edit: it is amusing to see this post get so many upvotes and so many downvotes. Obviously this is a very polarized community w.r.t. Apple.
- klmadfejno 6y agoEpic picked the fight but this is Apple's move at the end of the day. They could allow Epic to give the option to buy through apple or buy for cheaper skipping apple. It wouldn't be a particularly rational business decision to do so, but they do need to own the fact that putting their foot down is their call.
- hellofunk 6y ago> They could allow Epic to give the option to buy through apple or buy for cheaper skipping apple. How do you propose that Apple could give this option to Epic? If they allowed Epic to skirt their rules, they'd have to do the same for everyone, so it is a fight that Epic picked and Apple is choosing not to continue that fight, that's all. You make it sound like it would have been just fine if Apple let Epic do what they were doing. We can debate that Apple should change its rules for everyone, but it sounds like you think they should have just let Epic continue violating their policies.
- justinclift 6y ago> If they allowed Epic to skirt their rules, they'd have to do the same for everyone ... Er... yes?
- colejohnson66 6y agoThe point is that Apple doesn’t want to do that, so if they do it for one person, they’d have to do it to all. Ultimately doing something they didn’t want to do in the first place.
- hu3 6y agoThey already did that. "Documents show Apple gave Amazon special treatment to get Prime Video into App Store" https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/30/21348108/apple-amazon-prime-video-app-store-special-treatment-fee-subscriptions https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/30/21348108/apple-amazon-pri...
- fxtentacle 6y agoApple is already allowing Epic's parent company to skirt the rules. Tencent runs the biggest app store in China.
- nerdkid93 6y agoTencent is not a parent company of Epic, they are a minority shareholder of 40% [1], while Epic's CEO is the owner with >50% ownership. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games
- jonatanheyman 6y ago> If they allowed Epic to skirt their rules, they'd have to do the same for everyone Apple is already allowing Amazon to "skirt their rules".
- klmadfejno 6y agoYou're writing this as if Apple gets a sort of status quo advantage. Their policies aren't law. They're making the choice to enforce this and they're fully capable of not doing so. It's Apple's choice. Would Apple likely have to forfeit more exceptions to other companies if they did this? Probably yes. Still Apple's decision.
- hugi 6y agoThis most certainly is one fight Apple didn't pick.
- izacus 6y agoThat's like saying that a bully didn't pick fights because everyone could just back down and be abused.
- hellofunk 6y agoIronically I can't even tell who you think the bully here is. It sure seems to me that Epic was the bully in this situation.
- luckylion 6y agoThe smaller one with less power is usually not able to be the bully, pretty much by definition.
- colinmhayes 6y agoApple forcing Epic to agree to a completely one sided TOS forced Epic to fight back.
- Brendinooo 6y agoStrong words for an ecosystem that didn't exist 13 years ago.
- wilde 6y agoFor the Mac version, they certainly picked it.
- hunta2097 6y agoApple have to maintain a vice-like grip on their ecosystem as their approach relies on controlling the entire vertical. As more and more pressure is placed on them by the EU, the Right-to-Repair movement, big partners, etc. something has to give but i'm not sure Apple have the mindset to comply.
- ArkVark 6y agoI think the inevitable move here is for the EU to enact a maximum % commission for platforms above $1b revenue, at something like 20%. Maybe for sales from that region or for developers in that region. Unfortunately the EU is going the opposite way - increasing VAT and digital taxes, which are passed straight onto developers.
- tekkk 6y agoTo be fair most digital content is still purchased out of app stores so I dont think the developers are the losers there. Losers are the governments if they cant pay for their healthcare or care for their elderly because all the big internet co's dont pay any taxes for their profits in their countries. A digital tax would at least put pressure on them to take a smaller slice of the pie. Granted, it might be not the optimal solution for the problem.
- ArkVark 6y agoEurope generates a lot of content, but owns none of the platforms. Lower commissions on those stores would translate directly to higher profits and investment by those content creators, which would be taxed directly and indirectly.
- jonatanheyman 6y agoNo. The solution is to allow third party app stores, and then Apple can keep charging whatever commission they want. The high commission percentage is not the only issue with Apple's monopoly. It's also that they are gate keepers of apps they don't approve of, they can decide to throw out apps to destroy competition, etc.
- Edd314159 6y agoI wouldn't say Apple are being childlike at all. They're simply enforcing the policy they set and the consequences that Epic knew would come if they violated that policy. The argument can be made that Apple's rules are bad rules. I think I would agree that changes to the rules should be made, and I expect that they will make some concessions eventually. But you can't fault them for enforcing those rules the way they are, especially when Epic are provoking Apple so brazenly and publicly.
- bla3 6y agoThe rules are for the iOS app store (or the mac app store, but on mac os you can thankfully get your software elsewhere and the mac app store is mostly a failure). Apple has revoked Epic's license over iOS brouhaha, which means they can't sign their macOS software either. Blocking them from making mac software over an iOS dispute is very questionable, no?
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y agoIt's not that much different than Google nuking an organization account because a member did something stupid with their org account. Or steam/eBay/PayPal/Amazon/etc banning an account for a rightful chargeback.
- justinclift 6y agoGood point. Those are examples of crap behaviour too. ;)
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y agoThanks. To add, All the big companies behave horribly at every opportunity they have to make money. Epics trying to use the courts to increase their profit from Apple's walled garden. Apple's trying to protect their moat. Google Facebook and Amazon are trying to mine every single detail about everyone's life, for money. Instead of these ridiculous court battles we should have gambling laws that restrict underage gambling in video games, and antitrust suits to break open all the walled gardens.
- heavymark 6y agoApple did not pick a fight. Epic did by explicitly doing something to knowingly break the rules to cause this issue and even had a heavily produced marketing video about it prepared day one. While people can debate the value of what is provided for 30% cut, intentionally breaking the rules / picking a fight has consequences that were laid out ahead of time.
- brailsafe 6y agoSo... Apple did pick a fight. Consequences might never be the same.
- EastSmith 6y agoEpic did not pick a fight. Apple did by introducing the 30% tax in the first place and then keep sticking with the 30% tax on everything when everyone have already realized that that tax is not normal.
- dbt00 6y agoAgain, how much does playstation, xbox, steam and google play charge?
- Terretta 6y agoApple didn’t “introduce” a 30% “tax”. Apple looked around at mobile marketplaces charging 70%, and undercut them by matching the cost structure of other vertically integrated digital storefronts while adding a tremendous number of customer “peace of mind” features that shifted the value proposition and generated — and still generate — far more revenue per user than competing offerings.