Kaarme:

Nah, the app developers are dependent on Apple. They can't just leave. They only develop apps, not phones and operating systems. Thus the application market for an existing system is the only place where they can do business. It's just so happens that vital ecosystem is another company's property, which was created in a way that specifically made it such an ecosystem. Cars, for example, are also such an ecosystem for myriad third party component/accessory manufacturers. However, cars are physical objects, so car manufacturers can't do anything if someone doesn't want to buy Toyota windshield wipers, desiring Bosch ones instead. When that person goes to "Jacques' Car and Bike Store" and buys the Bosch wipers, it's not like Toyota would magically get 30% of the price, either. Who knows, maybe 20 years from now all cars have absurd AIs, which recognise any and all parts that aren't from the car manufacturer, including the Wunderbaum, and will reject them, unless the seller had transferred 30% of the price to the car manufacturer. I don't see that pleasing the competition/consumer protection authorities either, though.

Are they, though? Most app developers create something for both platforms. Many of them seem to depend ad revenue, which to my understanding (maybe I'm wrong) doesn't go to Apple. Most paid apps that people are actually willing to pay for yield enough profit where Apple's 30% cut isn't enough of a deterrent. Your analogy is a fitting one, and that's why I think it's scummy of Apple to take a cut of in-app purchases. However, I also understand that the main reason they did this was because app devs could then completely evade the app store fees. So, an app could be sold for free and then all profits only go to the app developer. Although Apple doesn't by any means deserve 30% (let alone half that*), they are still a marketplace, so getting 0% of a cut isn't fair either. *I believe Apple charges people to submit a new app, so, for them to have that charge in addition to 30% is ludicrous. I'm not sure if there is also a cost for releasing updates. If I had my way, I think Apple should charge one large (but reasonable...) fee to submit a new app and a small fee for every update, but they don't take any percentage of revenue generated by the app (except to cover credit card fees). Free apps without in-app purchases could have small fees. As stated before, a lot of what you're paying for is a highly regulated and safe marketplace. So basically, your app submission/update fees are supposed to cover the cost of screening, and screening ought to be done whenever an app updates to make sure it is stable and nothing malicious or ToS-breaking sneaks in. That way, Apple still rakes in cash, devs don't feel totally cheated, and devs will do a better job at releasing polished products so they don't have to keep paying for updates.

Kool64:

of course but there is even a big screen iphone. I'm just not one buying those phones. Then again I'm not a fan of mobile games so that could be my problem as I don't even like playing them on my Galaxy Tab A10

Last I checked, the largest iphone screen is 6.7 inches.

schmidtbag:

Why?

It's the law. When two people cannot agree to something, the courts decide the outcome.

Well it's turned in to the court of lies now. Coughing and grunting going on.

They take nearly a 3rd of all game developers money. That is taking the pish. I suppose Apple might win because like Dave Chappelle did they probably sign an in perpetuity contract. Basically sold their souls forever and wanted a piece of the action so bad they signed pretty crappy deals. It should be 15% tops. Imagine your bank taking 30% of your wages just for allowing you to get the other 70% for free.

It sounds like Epic doesn't want to pay the cover charge to get into Apple's strip club?

Loobyluggs:

It's the law. When two people cannot agree to something, the courts decide the outcome.

That's not how the law works... If you agree to the ToS, then by definition you agreed to the policy. It doesn't matter whether or not you read it, like it, or actually agree. It doesn't matter how crappy the policy is or how much you hate the company. What matters is the fact that clicking "I Agree" effectively signed a contract, and contracts are legally binding. Epic openly admitted to going against the ToS that they "agreed" to. Epic has no leverage, because they broke the contract and Apple isn't doing anything illegal [in this context]. If going to court was as simple and easy as you described, what's to stop people from suing their bank so they don't have to pay their mortgage anymore? Or how about a daycare worker who suddenly decides "eh, I'm not going to watch these kids anymore. But I still want to get paid"? Or what if you signed a NDA at a company you worked for, and were like "hmm, I could make a lot of money if I sold this info" and you just went ahead and did it? You can't just simply back out of a contract because you don't like it, and whining to the courts doesn't change that.

MS should get a 30% cut on all transactions made from within third party programs. What, there is no other choice for an operating system? There have been plenty. Currently there is Linux, Chrome OS, and MacOS. So no one is forcing anyone on their platform. Plus there are enough choices once one throws in consoles. If Apple is entitled to complete control then MS is as well. Apple has the complete control of their operating system as they should have. What runs on it...they have no rights of any kind. Just like MS has no control. The App Store is the only place one can obtain any app/program that runs on iOS. That right there smacks of monopolistic abuse. They say it is ultimately for the consumer's protection. If the programmers/developers are that lazy so as the program does not function properly...welcome to the reality the rest of the world functions on. Has nothing to do with consumer protection. Has to do with the walled-off-garden is a cost and personnel reduction procedure. If they open up access, they would need to increase staff to cover virus and other vulnerabilities to a greater degree. Apple has been allowed to function in a vacuum for far too long. About time they get told how to function and operate as MS has been told.

30% cut is justified with "safety". No words.

Ugly foreigner = Epic: I am an XXX Citizen! How come you don't have what I want, expect or need? Why do I have to do things your way, follow your rules, laws, cultures and customs?! I am Pri-VI-LEDGGGEDD! Authoritarian Dictatorship = Apple: Lock up this kook and make him disappear!

schmidtbag:

Last I checked, the largest iphone screen is 6.7 inches.

that's 2 inches bigger than my iPhone 8....

schmidtbag:

That's not how the law works... If you agree to the ToS, then by definition you agreed to the policy. It doesn't matter whether or not you read it, like it, or actually agree. It doesn't matter how crappy the policy is or how much you hate the company. What matters is the fact that clicking "I Agree" effectively signed a contract, and contracts are legally binding. Epic openly admitted to going against the ToS that they "agreed" to. Epic has no leverage, because they broke the contract and Apple isn't doing anything illegal [in this context]. If going to court was as simple and easy as you described, what's to stop people from suing their bank so they don't have to pay their mortgage anymore? Or how about a daycare worker who suddenly decides "eh, I'm not going to watch these kids anymore. But I still want to get paid"? Or what if you signed a NDA at a company you worked for, and were like "hmm, I could make a lot of money if I sold this info" and you just went ahead and did it? You can't just simply back out of a contract because you don't like it, and whining to the courts doesn't change that.

Let me expand that point and say that disputes which cannot be resolved must be resolved by the courts, and this is not just the law, but it is in the ToS/EULA* (developer terms) by Apple, where they explicitlystate that to resolve any element of this contract must be resolved by the courts. Not my opinion, these are Apples terms and, they are the law. I appreciate the comment and I do actually support your point in signatures and contracts, but this is a little different - Apple removed them from the App Store. By force. For the simple reason they did not want to lose money. Apple have been anti-competitive here, this court case is a formality sir, and I will stake my reputation on this. As for the outcome? No idea. The judge could award a lot or a little, or even nothing...he could even get Epic to pay for the legal case completely, but the judge will NOT give the case to Apple. This day was always coming. Apple knew it. Microsoft knew it. Epic knew. We all knew it: when you are in a position of market dominance, you are a pedestal and can be easily knocked off. The iOS store cannot have the level of control it has. The consumer must have transactional choice.

mackintosh:

What's the iOS market share, again? 15%? I'm not a fan of Apple's, and I'm all for going after monopolies, but this is ridiculous.

Since Apple were aviable, and most android were not for 1,5 year, the iOS ecosystem have gained a huge boost worldwide and have bypassed android in a lot of region. Since the covid they do exeptional result. So yes there is a huge interest to be on iOS for Epic and spotify (but what a bad quality... even worse than itune).

Kaarme:

Apple is also being accused by the EU for making music streaming harder for competitors, with Spotify used as an example victim. So, Epic is not fighting alone, and I'd say the EU is a harder nut for Apple to crack than Epic. Especially since Apple isn't treated with nearly as much veneration in Europe, compared to the USA.

It's also that spotify never get high in EU, they only take off a bit when some competitor give up and merged their account to spotify... Don't forget that FAI have similar offer for free or 1 Euro by month there.

schmidtbag:

That's not how the law works... If you agree to the ToS, then by definition you agreed to the policy. It doesn't matter whether or not you read it, like it, or actually agree. It doesn't matter how crappy the policy is or how much you hate the company. What matters is the fact that clicking "I Agree" effectively signed a contract, and contracts are legally binding. Epic openly admitted to going against the ToS that they "agreed" to. Epic has no leverage, because they broke the contract and Apple isn't doing anything illegal [in this context].

They aren't legally binding anymore if the court decides they aren't. That's what the case is also about. In the end if some dude threatens you to sign a contract, you can get it annulled pretty easily in any civilised country. That's of course the extremely example. More ambiguous examples with external factors (such as anti-monopoly measures and consumer protection) often need more thorough procedures and aren't automatically going to go through.

schmidtbag:

If going to court was as simple and easy as you described, what's to stop people from suing their bank so they don't have to pay their mortgage anymore? Or how about a daycare worker who suddenly decides "eh, I'm not going to watch these kids anymore. But I still want to get paid"? Or what if you signed a NDA at a company you worked for, and were like "hmm, I could make a lot of money if I sold this info" and you just went ahead and did it? You can't just simply back out of a contract because you don't like it, and whining to the courts doesn't change that.

In your examples, what's the reason you don't want to pay your mortgage anymore? Contrary to what you understood when you bought the house, the bank sold the plot right next to your house to the city, and the city built there an open shelter for drug addicts? Why wouldn't the daycare worker want to look after the children anymore? Perhaps she's receiving immunosuppressant treatment, but the kids all belong to families who reject all vaccinations due to being antivaxxers on principle. I probably could come up with an example for the last one as well, but since you went out of your way to make it look scummy with that "make a lot of money", I won't bother. We don't, fortunately, live in a mafia world, where all contracts are sacrosanct and can't be ever challenged.

It would be interesting to see what the contact says and allows on paper.

schmidtbag:

That's not how the law works... If you agree to the ToS, then by definition you agreed to the policy. It doesn't matter whether or not you read it, like it, or actually agree. It doesn't matter how crappy the policy is or how much you hate the company. What matters is the fact that clicking "I Agree" effectively signed a contract, and contracts are legally binding. Epic openly admitted to going against the ToS that they "agreed" to. Epic has no leverage, because they broke the contract and Apple isn't doing anything illegal [in this context]. If going to court was as simple and easy as you described, what's to stop people from suing their bank so they don't have to pay their mortgage anymore? Or how about a daycare worker who suddenly decides "eh, I'm not going to watch these kids anymore. But I still want to get paid"? Or what if you signed a NDA at a company you worked for, and were like "hmm, I could make a lot of money if I sold this info" and you just went ahead and did it? You can't just simply back out of a contract because you don't like it, and whining to the courts doesn't change that.

Contract is only legally binding on agreement if the contract itself is legal. I think that is what Epic is arguing here with monopolistic practices, as it would mean that Apple has been getting people to agree to contract that is inherently illegal and maintains their monopoly. It is also important that how the app store started is not what the app store has become (for size, influence on use, livelihoods etc.), and thus the responsibilities and leverage Apple holds over its users and also app and content developers has/will substantively change. I see it similar to how in the UK people who work for Uber are now considered employees rather than part of gig/ad-hoc employment, despite the deal working and being agreed a certain way initially. As size of organisation and dependency of its staff increase, the obligations of the organisation may change, in part because the existing agreement unfairly benefits the organisation over those employed by it. I am very keen to see how this plays out, as it will have a significant impact on the entire digital sector for the future (at least in the West).

From what I've listened to so far. The arguments for and against on both sides seem to consist of Epic's violation of the T&C's which were agreed prior to Fortnite becoming available on the app store. Epic hasn't really put a good case forward as to why it did what it did. Damming emails, and a CEO who should never have made apps in the first place.

Kool64:

that's 2 inches bigger than my iPhone 8....

That's what she said.

schmidtbag:

That's not how the law works... If you agree to the ToS, then by definition you agreed to the policy. It doesn't matter whether or not you read it, like it, or actually agree. It doesn't matter how crappy the policy is or how much you hate the company. What matters is the fact that clicking "I Agree" effectively signed a contract, and contracts are legally binding. Epic openly admitted to going against the ToS that they "agreed" to. Epic has no leverage, because they broke the contract and Apple isn't doing anything illegal [in this context]. If going to court was as simple and easy as you described, what's to stop people from suing their bank so they don't have to pay their mortgage anymore? Or how about a daycare worker who suddenly decides "eh, I'm not going to watch these kids anymore. But I still want to get paid"? Or what if you signed a NDA at a company you worked for, and were like "hmm, I could make a lot of money if I sold this info" and you just went ahead and did it? You can't just simply back out of a contract because you don't like it, and whining to the courts doesn't change that.

Just to clarify, things are not as clear cut as you wrote. Just because someone agrees with a ToS or similar and signs into it it doesn´t mean everything wrote on it is legal. A ToS has to obey "normal" laws, like everything else, to prevent abuse. Otherwise someone would write crazy and abusive terms on their ToSes like" if you fail a single payment, then your wife is mine" or "i can kill you and claim your life insurance to ensure my payments" and so on... This are one of the things that Epic is disputing but Apple has great lawyers on their pocket and they probably saw this one coming.

H83:

Otherwise someone would write crazy and abusive terms on their ToSes like" if you fail a single payment, then your wife is mine" or "i can kill you and claim your life insurance to ensure my payments" and so on...

That actually happened.

Many corporations participate in attempts to be the most creative and shocking in their April Fool’s Day pranks, but GameStation went all the way into their terms of service to do their deed. 7,500 people who placed an order on the website on April 1, 2010 agreed: “…to grant Us a non-transferable option to claim, for now and for ever more, your immortal soul. Should We wish to exercise this option, you agree to surrender your immortal soul, and any claim you may have on it, within 5 (five) working days of receiving written notification from gamesation.co.uk or one of its duly authorized minions.”