[PB PM]

Purge

[kscherer]

Round 1 is split. The big fight goes to Apple, the little fight to Epic Games.

The judge correctly ruled that this fiasco was entirely of Epic's making and there will be no restraining order. However, she also ruled that the Unreal Engine would remain available since it is with a different account. We will see how that plays out.

[turtle]

It makes sense to leave Unreal since it is a different account. I thought it was under the same account that broke the store agreements/contracts.

[turtle]

Nifty! Apple files for damages in the lawsuit. I hope they get it too.

“Although Epic portrays itself as a modern corporate Robin Hood, in reality it is a multi-billion dollar enterprise that simply wants to pay nothing for the tremendous value it derives from the App Store,” writes Apple in its suit. “While Epic and its CEO take issue with the terms on which Apple has since 2008 provided the App Store to all developers, this does not provide cover for Epic to breach binding contracts, dupe a long-time business partner, pocket commissions that rightfully belong to Apple, and then ask this Court to take a judicial sledgehammer to one of the 21st Century’s most innovative business platforms simply because it does not maximize Epic’s revenues.”

Apparently Apple also made it public that Epic has made more than $600 million from the App Store. Not bad for being Robin Hood.

[kscherer]

They also made it public that Epic runs their own app store and charges developers and customers for access, while not permitting things to be downloaded from any other source.

These guys are jackholes, and nothing more.

[Dr. Bobsky]

The walled garden as a concept is so well trodden, you have to wonder why Epic thought they would win this one? Fortnight being played out, as unlikely as that event is, is marginally more likely because of this conflict with Apple and Google. Epic has gotten too arrogant...

[kscherer]

Well, unless the courts wrongly decide in Epic's corner, Fortnight is done on the iPhone. With Epic's developer license permanently revoked, nothing but a court order in the favor of bullies will get it back in. They are finished, and Fortnight probably won't work at all in iOS 14, as developer app-signing will likely be terminated and the app will cease to function.

Then their cash-cow will cease to deliver and the game will be up. It's a terrible move long-term, and their only hope is that contract law is tossed under the bus, at which point every other developer will follow suit, the App Store will be undermined, and something like 95% of small developers will lose their store front and, thus, their livelihood.

Also at which point, Apple will be forced to begin charging $$$$ for software tools, and I can see entry into the system costing $25,000+ just to get access to Xcode, Apple's extensive API libraries, and the App store. (Too expensive? Well, there's always Google Play and it's freeware and virus-infected crapfest. I love that Apple pointed out Epic's utter failure at protecting their customers in that hell-hole. Oh, and there's also the old CD/Walmart shelf model. That could work. )

But, Epic would love that because the competition they brazenly claim to crave will be wiped out. Wait, so there is an endgame!

Actually, Apple would still have a horse in the race. The App Store could remain, and access could remain at $99/year + 30% commission. Or, devs could choose the other "competitive stores", provide their own API's, pay $25,000 to access Xcode to make their crap work on iOS, develop their own store fronts or web-based side-loading garbage, and then prepare a large legal-defense fund so they can defend themselves after their server gets hacked and all those credit card numbers get stolen.

In other words, consumers only win if Apple does.

[drewprops]

I didn't see a dedicated thread to the ongoing court fight between Epic Games and Apple Computer. If there is one please fold this into that thread.

Apple dropped a bombshell by accusing Epic Games of being a stalking horse for Microsoft . That's a pretty wild Matlock Moment.

Bird Law is now in play.

...

[turtle]

I created one a while ago but this has been a slow moving process.

[turtle]

That is an interesting theory. I really wonder how involved they were in push Epic to make the move.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by drewprops I didn't see a dedicated thread to the ongoing court fight between Epic Games and Apple Computer. If there is one please fold this into that thread.

Merged.

—

My suspicion is that the advertising industry* is the real goat behind the fence in this thing. They knew they were going to take a hit, and they are already behind the anti-trust cases being levied in the EU. I will not be at all surprised if they are behind anti-trust in every nation, and even behind Epic's actions. There is a lot of money at stake with Apple's "privacy first" approach. A lot!

* That would include all advertisers, including MS. Advertising is huge business, and they have more to lose from Apple's actions than any other entity. Cui bono?

[turtle]

It is really true. I mean, privacy is expensive. We pay less for smart devices with the concept that our data is their real income not selling the widget.

[turtle]

Round one is a split decision is looks like.

Epic was bad, but Apple needs to change their payment rules for the App Store. Given the South Korean laws I'm not shocked to see this be a push.

In her decision, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the US District Court for the Northern District of California, said she agreed with Apple's claim that Epic had violated its developer agreements, and awarded damages equal to 30% of the $12 million Epic collected from iOS users between August and October 2020, plus 30% of any such revenue Epic's collected since then. Rogers also said Apple's rules against allowing developers to direct users to other payment systems was anticompetitive, and issued an injunction to allow developers to do so in their apps. "Once acceptable, Apple's commission rate is now questioned by some consumers and some developers, like Epic Games, as being overly burdensome and violative of competition laws. Indeed, two related lawsuits were already pending before the Court well before the commencement of this action," she wrote as part of her ruling Friday. "The Court is not persuaded by Epic Games' broad-brush argument that it should not be bound by certain portions of the agreement." Rogers presided over and decided the case rather than a jury. Her ruling goes into effect in 90 days. Representatives from Apple and Epic didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

Speaking of SK, Epic has filed to have Fortnite restored in the SK App Store thanks to that new law.

[kscherer]

It wasn't a "split" decision. Apple won 9 of 10 rulings. Epic won 1.

While technically that is a "split", it's not what it sounds like. Developers can now happily incur the expenses associated with collecting payment and marketing their junk. This will benefit Epic and other large developers.

However, the judge also ruled that neither Apple nor the App Store are monopolies. Thus, Apple can now only be called a monopoly by legislative fiat.

Epic will now route users to their own payment systems so that they can do the gouging.

EXCEPT!!!

The judge also ruled that Epic is still in breach of contract and must pay Apple a nice some of change, and Apple is in no way commanded to even let Epic back on the App Store at all. So, they can—at Apple's leisure—go suck a stick!

Oh, and Apple will come up with another way to collect their commission, likely through an increase in expenses for developers to even use the API's, Xcode, etc. That $99/year thing is likely going to go bye-bye for developers who want to leverage Apple's work for close to free (by giving away free apps on the store and then routing users to their own payment systems). $99 may become something like $9999.99—or more—for the titanic Epics of the world. Or, Apple will institute a per-download processing fee that could put a lot of smaller developers into crash-mode. If it costs Apple 50 cents to move an app, and your app is currently free, then "free" is going to become a 99-cent app that wasn't even worth it when it was free. In other words, you're out of business.

All in all, I think the judge made a reasonable compromise. Apple can no longer prevent you from leading your customers outside the App Store, and you get to find out how expensive that can be.

[turtle]

True, it wasn't a clean split but opening up third party payment options is going to hit the simplicity of the App Store. It will be interesting to see how Apple changes "developer tiers" to compensate for stuff like this.

[kscherer]

And you can bet they're going to change it.

1) Use the App Store and pay 30%. Simple, easy, and cheap.

*OR*

2) Don't use the App Store and you pay a delivery fee for each app, plus you pay $10,000+/year to access the API's and Xcode

3) Something else that's worse than #1

On a side note, I absolutely cannot wait for the tech-not-savvy congress to legislate away the App Store so that the haters can experience what iPhone life will be like in the land of "free and open". Good luck with that. It will be super-fun when one of those incompetent morons side loads some trash-ware onto their iPhone and a hacker gets all of the secrets! And I do mean all of them!

[Ryan]

At some point, I do think Apple is going to have to realize that trying to squeeze their developers like this is going to backfire.

I can't go into details but the demands they've made of my employer are fucking insane, demanding cuts of revenue for products that use literally none of their infrastructure.

[PB PM]

Apple does seem a little heavy handed with this stuff, and it's not like they need the cash.

[kscherer]

*Generalizations ahead. Not pointing fingers at anyone.*

—

It's not a matter of need, but of compensation for work performed.

Complaints come from those who never experienced distribution prior to the App Store, or who have forgotten what that was like (70+ % of revenue went to publishers, and the leftover 30% was split between retailers and developers). Very little money was made by developers as a percentage compared to today's 70%.

The issue is not with the percentages, but that software lost its value along the way. A game used to cost $49 and was good, and is now $2.99 and sucks ass. A good editing app was $299+, and is now free (with IAP, of course). Photoshop used to be $799 and can now be had for $10/month. Office for Mac was $499 and is now $149. The App Store is directly and solely responsible for cheap-ass software. And by "cheap-ass" I mean crap! Most software is nothing more than junk, whose only value is in data collection for targeted advertising. Margins are razor thin, so developers whine about nickels when they should be thankful for drastically farther reach as a result of drastically cheaper pricing.

Unfortunately, because most software is junk, people have a new expectation that software should be $1, or "free".

When Apple opened the App Store, all developers were ecstatic that they got to keep 70% of revenue rather than the traditional 10-15%. Now, developers act like they deserve 100% and whine when they don't get it. They want the marketing, the payment processing, and the distribution, and they want it for free.

Grief.

I write books, and the traditional agency model takes 70% of revenue. Then, on a good day, I get 10% of the final 30%. With Amazon publishing, I get 70% and I'll take it! Holy cow, it's so much better. And don't tell me it's "different". I put 3 years into a novel—and it's a lot of work—and to get 70% as opposed to 5%? Any author who whines about Amazon's 30% take is a flat-out fool and should be chased out of the business.

Put more effort into your software, stop making your business model about data collection and advertising, and maybe people will buy it. Otherwise, your issue isn't with the bottom line, but that you just don't have anything to sell that people are willing to pay for.

I won't use any app that relies on ads or IAP. If it's not worth $5, then it sure as hell isn't worth $50, and likely isn't worth free. Then, to demand that Apple provide you with all of the tools for nothing while you give back nothing is just absurd.

[Ryan]

I would argue that:

1) There's a difference between Apple taking a cut of app sales on their store, and demanding a cut of revenue for products that just happen to exist on an iPhone. Does Apple deserve a cut of revenue for, say, Facebook ads displayed on their iOS apps? For Kindle books bought through Amazon's apps? That's where I think Apple is over-reaching (and yes, Apple has started making demands in that direction for ad-based services).

I don't have a problem with taking a 30% cut of app sales, or even a cut of IAPs that use Apple's billing infra, but they're choking off developers at this point by threatening to ruin their businesses if they don't hand over slices of revenue for products that don't rely on Apple's infrastructure (other than the phone itself). There's no fair compensation going on here, it's just plain greed.

We have some new products rolling out where Apple is making more money off each purchase than we are!

2) Apple does get value from providing dev tools, distribution, etc even for free apps for which Apple makes no money. The iPhone would be far less valuable without the app ecosystem. Providing all that support is just the cost of doing business for Apple—the Apple/third-party-dev relationship must be symbiotic in both directions, not parasitic.

[psmith2.0]

I think we should just go back to the pre-App Store days. Nothing but a page of first-party, built-in Apple apps. That'll shut everyone up, on all sides, real quick.

"Want a better weather forecasting experiencing? Stick your head out the $@%&*! window like your grandpa did, hipster. All we seem to have done is create an entire generation of sore-thumbed, bent-necked goofs who don't know how to read a map, hail a cab or punctuate/capitalize and have reverted to hieroglyphics for the bulk of their communicating, ffs."



We're supposed to think all this shit is really cool, and the end-all/be-all of civilization and life itself. It really isn't, is it?

[chucker]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 We're supposed to think all this shit is really cool, and the end-all/be-all of civilization and life itself. It really isn't, is it?

It is really cool, though.

You got a mobile phone (with video!) and a calculator and an alarm clock and a map and a camera (with video!) and a little web browsing machine and so much more in… your pocket. If you had told me that twenty years ago, I would have said "nah, you're exaggerating" (there's an inappropriate 9/11 joke in here somewhere) and would have thought "yeah, but the experience is probably awkward; slow CPU and all that". But no, not even that; the CPU is faster than what many have at their desks!

Like, when I started at this job many years ago, I used a big fat book containing a road map to figure out how to get there. Today, that would be a stupid way of approaching it; I'd just open Apple Maps and/or my local public transport's app.

I don't think getting rid of third-party apps is the answer. I don't know if getting rid of App Store exclusivity is; instinctively, it seems to be, but that does indeed worsen overall safety, privacy, simplicity, etc. Apple isn't all wrong on that part.

[psmith2.0]

I'm aware of all that. I love my iPhone and all the things it does/represents.

But if they stopped making them tomorrow, I wouldn't die or freak out. I went the bulk of my life (~75%) without one, and could do so again. I use it, not the other way around (like so many people I've known).

It isn't my oxygen or anything. If I can't get a good cellular or wifi signal, I don't start looking for a high bridge or wrist-slitting material. I've got friends and others in my orbit who absolutely lose their shit, in public and in full view of their peers/friends/co-workers over stuff like that.

It's embarrassing!

I use my iPhone every day. I do love it. In my case it's kind of a private, inward tool. Not being on social media and living/sharing my life (pics, videos, selfies, etc.) beyond anywhere but here,, I do kinda see it more like that...a communicator, really complete/up-to-date encyclopedia/reference tool, flashlight, calculator, alarm clock, atlas/roadmap, entertainment viewer, guitar tuner, camera, meteorologist, Scrabble partner, endless Post-Its, etc.. I might feel more strongly about it all if I were an "influencer" (or one of these chicks with 11,000 selfies in my Instagram feed). But I'm not, so I don't.

It's just a cool phone that does way more than my last one ever could, and I try to get a new one every 3-5 years if it makes sense to do so. But that's about the extent of my passion/need for this stuff at this point. I could go to the AT&T store this afternoon and get an iPhone 12 mini, or even a second-gen SE. I just don't really want/need to.

I'm probably weird in that I only have six third-party apps installed (AT&T, ADT Pulse, Ring, Scrabble, Weather Channel and YouTube). The Weather Channel will likely get ditched with the new built-in Apple weather app hits in iOS 15. I can't tell you the last time I launched the ADT or Ring ones. Scrabble and YouTube are really the only two that get daily, consistent use (and it's the old, "real" Scrabble vs. that infuriating, a-box-of-crayons-threw-up-on-itself, hunk-of-shit Scrabble GO, they replaced it with. I knew better than to delete the real one after messing with its replacement!

[PB PM]

Third party app needs really depend on what you do with your phone. For some people third party apps make up 90% of the use time, for others hardly any at all. Thing is, it shouldn't be up to Apple, or the third parties to decide which we get to use. Personally I'm happy with the app store for the few apps I use. I think my average daily app use is 3-5 apps, half Apple and half third party, and I wouldn't want to be forced to use one or the other. What about Apple's cost for the system? An apps developers use of the App store system is constant, not a one time thing, each user download, each update the developer releases costs something. Should Apple be compensated by 30% of all revenue for each purchase/subscription from the app? I don't think anyone could convince me the App Store system costs even close to that to maintain and improve. Should Apple profit from it? Yes, how much is fair to developers is the question in my mind. Right now, at least to me it seems heavy handed. I'm trying to come up with a good metaphor here, based on what Ryan said earlier about other revenue systems built into an app, so I hope this works, sort of. If a government placed a flat 30% sale tax on a type of goods and services, and then asked for another cut on things not even related to the service in order to be allowed to use that service, we would all be up in arms, yes? So why shouldn't developers be angry about that? That's all I'll say on that front.

The Apple app store should be able to exist for those who want to use it, and it's safe vetted system is fine for my app store limited use. Should there be room for other systems for developers who don't want to pay the Apple tax? Maybe. Question is, who is to say the other app stores would really be any different? Let's face it, they will be out for as much money as they can get from developers as well. Maybe they take a smaller cut, but at the end of the day will it be all that different? We've seen other companies and systems virtually copy Apple's model time and time again, why would this be any different?

[psmith2.0]

I've had some cool ones over the years. A lot of them, I don't even see anymore. I figure they made/did all they can and got out? This was back in the pre-iOS 7 days where everything was leather, wood, fabric, etc. Seems like a hundred years ago.

[PB PM]

Some apps died off because the developers didn't move to 64bit code I believe. Some died, because they were found to be taking user information in violation of app store use agreements. Some died, because they didn't get enough traction to be profitable. Others were just pet projects that the maker didn't maintain anymore. So many reasons.

[turtle]

Boy, Epic CEO is a whining baby trying to get the public to fight his battles. He's so miffed over Apple not immediately opening their account again that I'll be shocked if the developer account ever gets activated again.

He's being a real twit because he can't get the audience he wants the way he wants.

[chucker]

I think it's tricky for a lot of people to realize that there are no good guys in this fight. Apple is a big corporation, and is kind of the bully, but Epic isn't in it for the little guy either.

[turtle]

Both want their money, and yours and mine while they are at it.

[drewprops]

Tangential update, kind of upholding Apple's actions against Epic Games, which is in hot water for loot box microstransactions.

First, by the US Federal Trade Commission:
https://www.ign.com/articles/epic-games-fine-ftc

Second, by the European Parliament:
https://www.gamingbible.co.uk/news/e...07730-20230119



...

...