You said this on another comment, it's disingenuous to say that just because it was bad before that it's not bad now. Apple really shouldn't charge 30 percent for doing basically nothing except gate keeping.
If there are only two sellers of mobile apps, you can't just "give your money to someone else" because no one else exists. That's the essence of antitrust, whether it be monopoly, duopoly, or oligopoly. I'd agree with you if there were a free market of device OSes and app stores, but a market of only two is fundamentally unfree.
If there are two, there is someone else, basic English grammar rules here.
Then there are feature phones like those Nokias with KaiOS, Jolla, Tizen,... be the change you want the world to become, instead of giving the money and then feeling entitled to something it wasn't available right from the start.
I don't think the biggest issue is that the AppStore is the only distribution channel. The core issue that escalated this is that the distribution channel forces additional fees for no value in some cases (i.e. services/apps/games that have their own payment collection system in place).
I don't think the fee is there to protect device health. There are plenty of free apps with no fees levied, so that point doesn't make sense.
I think it's fair to charge a fee for using the store as a paid app distribution channel. If Apple takes on the burden of risk, funds flow management, etc. it's fair to take a cut.
If Epic instead builds their own payment system, they shouldn't be charged for it or forced into using Apple's.
Apple could claim that they need to cover hosting costs or review costs. And I think there's an argument here, but it's not made, and it would raise additional questions around fairness.
It's easy to come up with such arguments but it's just as easy to come up with equal and opposite arguments like Epic has no right to run anything on iOS except by Apple's permission.
> Epic has no right to run anything on iOS except by Apple's permission.
Epic should have every right to distribute apps and users every right to download them (outside the app store at no cost to Apple) . Unfortunately in our dystopian reality a couple of corporations get to decide who can run what.
iOS is not an open platform. Apple has never marketed it as such, never promised as such, and there are a healthy number of alternatives (primarily Android) for those who are interested in it.
iOS/Apple have no legal requirement to host Epic's content...or allow Epic to distribute without following Apple's rules...
And so then the question at hand is whether it was a legal contract due to constraints on what Apple is allowed to do as a market actor in their position.
Epic is just playing stupid games for their bottom line and then there are all these hippies, the same ones that believed in junk like Google's "Do no evil", routing for Epic, without realising that they just want their Epic store, with their own exclusives.
It is going to be such a major fail, thankfully some lawyers will be happy.
The 60's are long gone and PC was an accident of IBM's incompetency to keep it vertically integrated as other home micro platforms. Something that Android, tablet and laptop OEMs are in the process of fixing.
Having additional app stores would be a win for everybody except Apple. Whatever Epic's intentions may be, if they succeed we all win against the massive mobile duopoly.
They signed but not willingly. This notion of "you signed = you consent" is ridiculous when you are in practice forced to sign.
When there is a mono/duopoly there is no choice if you want to live or do business. You are forced to accept their conditions.
I do not agree with banks, Google, Linkdln, FB, etc. yet I have been forced to sign their user agreement to have a job, to be able to buy food, etc. In no way I consent to their terms but I have been forced.
Consoles situation is bad too but you can live without a console, you can't live without a phone.
The usage of phones is not comparable with consoles. We do everything on phone/tablets/laptop and almost nothing on consoles.
That's why addressing Google / Apple Store monopolies are a priority compared to marginal things in our lives like consoles
Epic smh. This is the same argument that people use to claim federal income taxes are illegal: it’s the cost of doing business in the USA to pay taxes. To be in the iOS ecosystem you gotta pay the App Store tax.
They are being represented: they’re treated equally in the store. But they chose to throw a fit. Also your linking this to that historical event doesn’t fit. There’s no ocean between the two parties: app review and email fix that. Communication is also instant. And most of all this isn’t a platform with a relationship that users can change. Users here being Epic a seller of software. It’s not a democracy and it need not be. It’s a platform that one can (and has in Epic’s case) agree to the terms and get access to billion users who are by far and a way much more likely to spend and who do spend more in apps than their Android counterparts.
I wholeheartedly agree! And by that same token, I gladly await Epic refunding all of my payments, since they shouldn't take the fruits of my labor just to keep using their software.
I am starting to regard Epic's legal team with the same kind of respect I have for political campaign spokespeople.
There's a reality that Epic doesn't have to like, no matter how bizarre. Apple is not the only gatekeeper of an App Store for iOS. Apple is the gatekeeper of the only certified App Store on iOS, that allows users to run on their fully warrantied device. Users can always choose to try to jailbreak and install Cydia, and Epic could release their games there.
I've been wondering for a while why they haven't done this yet. It would probably make millions of users jailbreak their iPhones. It would be a big f u from epic to apple.
It's amazing that people will defend apple on this. apple and others should not have gotten away with locking down paid for devices. It's ultimately the fault of the consumer. They bought an expensive device but still accept to pay 30% to apple for every app they buy, forever. Yes, ultimately it's still the consumer that pays for this (companies will of course factor in the store prices before launching). not to mention the censoring power that apple and google now wield; they can close down any app with "hey, you didn't abide by the T&C that we wrote ourselves and keep amending".
also, consoles and phones are not the exactly same story. phones are ubiquitous now. everyone has a phone, not everyone has a PC and very few have consoles. it's one thing to get a cut of every transaction and another to get a cut of a few transactions. imagine your ISP is allowed to take a cut of every payment you make.
"Person says thing in court" is almost always a terrible basis for an article. It usually represents lazy "journalism", the most extreme and one sided version of the case and allows no counterpoint.
43 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 91.4 ms ] threadIt's Apple's sandpit and they make the rules, but I think it's hard to rationally justify their take other than "because they can".
> aren't the only ones doing 30%.
Again, just because "other people do it" does not a compelling argument make. It's just an "argument to the people" logical fallacy.
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Don't like it? Give your money to someone else and stop complaining.
Then there are feature phones like those Nokias with KaiOS, Jolla, Tizen,... be the change you want the world to become, instead of giving the money and then feeling entitled to something it wasn't available right from the start.
I don't think the fee is there to protect device health. There are plenty of free apps with no fees levied, so that point doesn't make sense.
I think it's fair to charge a fee for using the store as a paid app distribution channel. If Apple takes on the burden of risk, funds flow management, etc. it's fair to take a cut.
If Epic instead builds their own payment system, they shouldn't be charged for it or forced into using Apple's.
Apple could claim that they need to cover hosting costs or review costs. And I think there's an argument here, but it's not made, and it would raise additional questions around fairness.
Epic should have every right to distribute apps and users every right to download them (outside the app store at no cost to Apple) . Unfortunately in our dystopian reality a couple of corporations get to decide who can run what.
iOS/Apple have no legal requirement to host Epic's content...or allow Epic to distribute without following Apple's rules...
Also they are completely fine with the console stores.
Epic will fall flat on its face and the dreams of having their own 30% lost.
But hey, they can always create their own Epic Machines.
It is going to be such a major fail, thankfully some lawyers will be happy.
Keep hating Apple if it makes you happy.
Apple is abusing its position, Epic wants to allow alternative stores and more competition from anybody, not just them.
This is a fight against an abuse of position, this will benefit everyone, not just epic.
How the hell is that okay to take money from inside a service.
Did Chrome asked 30% on all Ebay sells because users where using Chrome as the "platform" to access EBay ?
How can we even support Apple on that one ?
I only use Apple devices at the office.
Yeah, really there is such a huge benefit in alternative Android stores, they are blooming everywhere.
When there is a mono/duopoly there is no choice if you want to live or do business. You are forced to accept their conditions.
I do not agree with banks, Google, Linkdln, FB, etc. yet I have been forced to sign their user agreement to have a job, to be able to buy food, etc. In no way I consent to their terms but I have been forced.
Consoles situation is bad too but you can live without a console, you can't live without a phone.
The usage of phones is not comparable with consoles. We do everything on phone/tablets/laptop and almost nothing on consoles.
That's why addressing Google / Apple Store monopolies are a priority compared to marginal things in our lives like consoles
Epic could've let people sign up via the Web, like everyone else who wants to circumvent Apple's rip-off, right?
I am starting to regard Epic's legal team with the same kind of respect I have for political campaign spokespeople.
also, consoles and phones are not the exactly same story. phones are ubiquitous now. everyone has a phone, not everyone has a PC and very few have consoles. it's one thing to get a cut of every transaction and another to get a cut of a few transactions. imagine your ISP is allowed to take a cut of every payment you make.
ISP were exactly allowed to do that, before Apple, most app stores were made available by mobile operators with rates all the way up to 80%.