-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Apple to terminate all developer accounts and cut off Epic off from IOS and Mac development tools
CuNi
Member
I still disagree with the chosen approach.
They could have went to court against the closed system aspect of the whole iOS Ecosystem WHILE also still being compliant to their ToS.
Breaching ToS and then trying to spin around the flak from Apple as them being Anti-Consumer was IMHO the wrong approach.
Epic had a chance to have the support from users etc. but by breaching ToS and then being salty about Apples retaliation, they robbed them self of a lot of sympathy they could have had and now face harsh lash back and criticism for said practice.
It's a Lose-Lose situation. Epic will lose in court because they did breach ToS and are in no position to complain about it and thus other devs lose out on iOS becoming more open as a ecosystem because this whole dispute was started the wrong way. Sadly.
Trimesh
Banned
I'm far from an Apple fan, but I tend to favor them in this specific case.
The Apple developer agreement is after all a contract - and one of the things it specifies is that all payments made from your app have to go though the Apple IAP framework. So there is a fairly clear breach of contract here. The other thing is that before making it into the store things have to go through app review -and you can be certain that if that option had been present when they were testing it then they would have rejected the app.
So it has to have been implemented as a hidden feature and then activated after the app was released - which makes it very obvious this was an entirely premeditated breach of the contract and not in any way accidental.
The Apple developer agreement is after all a contract - and one of the things it specifies is that all payments made from your app have to go though the Apple IAP framework. So there is a fairly clear breach of contract here. The other thing is that before making it into the store things have to go through app review -and you can be certain that if that option had been present when they were testing it then they would have rejected the app.
So it has to have been implemented as a hidden feature and then activated after the app was released - which makes it very obvious this was an entirely premeditated breach of the contract and not in any way accidental.
Stiflers Mom
Banned
I am still baffled that a company like Apple with their shitty and overprized Macs survived while the much better Atari STs and Amigas went nowhere.
Hudo
Member
A bigger mystery is even why the Sharp X68000 was never released globally, as it was the best machine of that era.
Stiflers Mom
Banned
It was a very very expensive machine. Basically Arcade hardware as a computer.
The amount of people who would have just bought it for the games would have been small, and there would not have been much other software around to use on it, I guess?
ik3
Neo Member
Apple products consistently have the best build quality in their product classes, and both perform better and last longer than competitors. Commodore Amigas pushed home gaming into the most graphically amazing era of the time (Shadow Of The Beast single handedly sold computers), had the best arcade ports and were the pinnacle of gaming, and the Atari ST changed industries - like music production with C-Lab that eventually became Cubase, so .. neither of these machines ‘went nowhere’?
It’s 2:28am and maybe I should have just responded with a Craig gif.
Hudo
Member
Well, if Sharp would've tried to push their stuff globally, it might have seen success. It would've been cool to see NEC or Fujitsu try to get a global foothold as well. But I think all three companies saw IBM and probably thought "There's no point in opposing IBM". Apple was nearly killed and both Atari and Commodore just didn't have the financial reserves to withstand IBM and Microsofts push. Commodore was also horribly mismanaged during the Amiga era, if the interviews of Commodore engineers are to be believed.
But it can't be denied that Apple founded and significantly shaped the home computer market and both Atari and Commodore had a significant influence in that as well (at least in the west). Apple was also active in Japan albeit in a rather small fashion because NEC had a hand over the Japanese market (there are rumors that NEC and the Japanese government tried to delay/hinder IBM's initiatives to get into Japan).
kraspkibble
Permabanned.
yup you had to sideload it. they put it on the play store in April.
i imagine not many knew how to sideload or were willing to. they gave in and put it on the Play Store but now they don't want to play by Googles rules so now it's been pulled and you need to sideload it again.
if they want to make it easy for people to find their game and download it then they need to go by Googles rules. If they don't want to pay the 30% cut then they are more than free to distribute their game outside the store. can't have it on the store and not pay the 30%.
Last edited:
TimFL
Member
If you bothered to educate yourself, you‘d know why it‘s 20% only:
Epic announced a permanent 20% price drop for „certain payment methods“. The $9.99 you see on Apple IAP is the default price, so Epic has always eaten up the 30% Apple takes on iOS because the Vbucks option you‘re talking about is $9.99 everywhere.
It‘s not about giving back the 30% fee because Epic has never made the user pay for it anyways, they‘ve simply eaten the fee.
anothertech
Member
What exactly did epic do in the first place? I missed it...
phil_t98
#SonyToo
So in fact epic have raised their prises then
phil_t98
#SonyToo
They circumvented google and apples payment system on the stores and built in a direct payment method so they didn’t have to pay a percentage to google or apple and broke terms of service
SoraNoKuni
Member
I literally dislike Apple cause I like tech, but I think they are right this time.
Maybe the retaliation is a little bit exaggerated, but they have any right to do so after Epic violated their terms.
Maybe the retaliation is a little bit exaggerated, but they have any right to do so after Epic violated their terms.
TimFL
Member
They have not. They just reduced their prices by 20% across the board. Any platform fee, like Apples 30%, was never passed onto the end user because it used to cost $9.99 even on their platform.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
I disagree with that. One of the good things in Apple Store is that it is not the same trash dump as Google Play store.
But I believe China is behind Epic's actions, as it benefits greatly by trying to push the ability to sell soft for iOS without Apple's oversight.
Last edited:
phil_t98
#SonyToo
So epic were getting 7.00 for every purchase and now they are getting 7.99 for a purchase if you check the prices so epic are taking more money than befor
Last edited:
llien
Member
Imagine Microsoft banning someone from Windows.
This is what just happened.
And it is one of the biggest corporate assholes on the planet, with the most outrageous business practices, from that 30% that is not refunded, if customer gets money back, to that "brilliant" idea of having a cut of the subscription fee (innovated by Jobs himself, no less).
It's depressing to read shit like this on a gaming forum.
#youareholdingitwrong
And you suck, frankly.
Don't forget to thank Apple for banning Microsoft's and Google's game streaming apps.
This is what just happened.
And it is one of the biggest corporate assholes on the planet, with the most outrageous business practices, from that 30% that is not refunded, if customer gets money back, to that "brilliant" idea of having a cut of the subscription fee (innovated by Jobs himself, no less).
It's depressing to read shit like this on a gaming forum.
#youareholdingitwrong
And you suck, frankly.
Yeah, great software in and out. Entire million.
Don't forget to thank Apple for banning Microsoft's and Google's game streaming apps.
You contradict yourself.
Last edited:
phil_t98
#SonyToo
End of the day Epic had a choice in the beginning on if they accept the terms and conditions and they did. They have now broke those terms and conditions and with that comes being booted off the store.
llien
Member
How many times this dumbfuck argument would be repeated?
The argument at hand is that Apple's T&C suck and are unacceptable.
"But but if someone is strongarmed into signing it" is not an answer to that.
DunDunDunpachi
Patient MembeR
No, this is not what happened.
And EPIC is betting that the low-detail, high-emotion internet warriors will default to these kind of empty comparisons.
Imagine if a major company that employs hundreds, including lawyers, flippantly dismissed the TOS for a storefront (instead of working out a deal behind the scenes) and then fled to social media to whip up the mob with sympathy-pouts.
This is what just happened.
Last edited:
phil_t98
#SonyToo
So google terms and conditions are the same, they got kicked off there to.
its not a dumb duck argument it’s literally a contract they signed and broke
now in terms of them wanting direct payment should they get that off xbox and playstation store to as they charge 30% to
Last edited:
ik3
Neo Member
No, it’s more like someone wearing a mask to enter a grocery store, and agreeing to wear the mask because that’s the rule to enter the store, then they pull the mask off, are told they have to leave, so they start screaming at other Karen warriors that their rights are being taken away.
Last edited:
TriSuit666
Banned
I take it you make a point to read and highlight with an assortment of colored pens the EULA's and ToS of every app you've installed on any device you've owned.
Especially all the stuff about disallowing you doing things enshrined in law and ensuring you have no recourse against the platform holder, but they retain the right to sue you into the middle of the next century so they wish.
I bet... I bet you even read the ToS of this very forum you're posting in.
Yes. Yes, of course you fucking didn't.
Last edited:
phil_t98
#SonyToo
i am not a multimillion dollar company, they will have had lawyers do that for them?
Breach of contact is breach of contact no matter what. Do i think i 30% cut is to much yeah i do but i cant side with epic one bit on this because they knew what they were getting into. by paying the 30% your gaining access to millions upon millions of customers and they were happy to do it till they had a mega hit on their hands
So are you telling me it is right for Epic to break the terms and conditions of 2 store fronts and stays on b store fronts?
thesplitsubject
Member
Do all of you defend Apple Music over Spotify too? Epic is hardly the first company to try and fight Apple’s anticompetitive practices, they’re just the biggest. Apple is able to crap all over smaller companies without us ever learning about it.
ik3
Neo Member
Today I learned that some people here think that Epic, a company worth $17.8 Billion, and who make $1.8 Billion a year with Fortnight, treat their most serious and lucrative distribution contracts the way we treat OS updates.
Fucking incredible.
TriSuit666
Banned
Well, you answered your own question - and you're right, it's called Due Diligence, something that would've been legally required for contracts for both parties.
ik3
Neo Member
Spotify pays artists $0,0032 per stream. Apple Music pays $0,0056. So yes, I would defend Apple Music over Spotify?
TriSuit666
Banned
No bucko, what's fucking incredible is that you equate my post being about Epic, when it was about your character.
You clearly just blindly smash 'I Agree' whenever a legal contract is shoved in your face without checking it first.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
Yeah so Epic are in the wrong because they knew what they were getting into and happy to call upon apples user base to gain money by having their game on the store
WelshBluebird
Member
It is clear here that people don't understand what the cases filed by Epic is actually about, nor know anything about antitrust law.
Now I am not saying epic have a valid case here (my opinion is they do, but that is an opinion not fact) or even have a chance of winning (I don't think they do - but again that is opinion not fact), but the people who are saying that "Epic signed a contract and so they have no case" are totally missing the point. In antitrust law, contracts can be illegal if one of the companies are leveraging their dominant position in a market to force unfair terms in contract. It just isn't as simple as what some people seem to think!
Now I am not saying epic have a valid case here (my opinion is they do, but that is an opinion not fact) or even have a chance of winning (I don't think they do - but again that is opinion not fact), but the people who are saying that "Epic signed a contract and so they have no case" are totally missing the point. In antitrust law, contracts can be illegal if one of the companies are leveraging their dominant position in a market to force unfair terms in contract. It just isn't as simple as what some people seem to think!
phil_t98
#SonyToo
yeah but Apple google playstation and Xbox all charge 30% for this. So it’s not like Apple is the only one who charges that.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
Doubt they will do it with Sony as they have just ploughed 250 mill into epic but it could be a possibility.
Rick Dangerous
Member
Apple, google, microsoft, facebook and Amazon are cancer. They should be dismantled.
They are way too powerfull, and have monopolistic strategy. EU in particular should not try to fight them but ban them.
I'll never buy an xbox for this precise reason.
So even if i'm not fan of epic, anything that can put a dent in those Monopoly is welcome ihmo.
They are way too powerfull, and have monopolistic strategy. EU in particular should not try to fight them but ban them.
I'll never buy an xbox for this precise reason.
So even if i'm not fan of epic, anything that can put a dent in those Monopoly is welcome ihmo.
Yoboman
Member
Of course they would, if they hate the royalties on one platform then they obviously have a similar view of it on all of them
Dont forget they are trying to be a platform holder with Epic store
I expect they'll be looking at how they can integrate their store into game interfaces on PS5 and Xbox
T-Cake
Member
That would be awful. OK, there would be competition with prices but can you imagine having to muck about downloading different games from different stores? That's one thing I like about the consoles, a unified download system.
Lord Thunderbear
Neo Member
I doubt it's that simple. It's not like they didn't know they were breaching the contract in doing so - they even had the legal papers and FreeFortnite movie ready beforehand.
They knew what they were doing. And there are probably definite reasons for them to do so - reasons that will have been discussed with their lawyers before doing so.
Putting it as "they've breached the ToS, they lose" is just a myopic approach. We aren't talking about Unlawyered Random Joe vs Corporation. Both of them have the capabilities of hiring armies of laywers, after all.
TriSuit666
Banned
This kid gets it, contracts can be illegal even IF you agree to them, and that's the point I was (crudely) trying to make. Again, Due Diligence should have picked up on this.
And for the avoidence of doubt, I'm not stanning Epic or least of all Apple (I detest them) - this whole bullshit about 'letting the market dictate pricing' is just that... bullshit.
Companies look after themselves first, ALWAYS. Let them all go out of business.
llien
Member
This is exactly what happened, a company was banned from PC OS.
Imagine someone making a Pro Standard Oil argument like that "yeah, conditions are so fucking bad legislation is about to hit us, but couldn't they have negotiated kinda deal with us, maybe we'd let them have a penny off".
Surely, company that just banned game streaming from its platform (Microsoft, Stadia) who can tell The Leather Man (mcap of 250 billion) to go to a bathroom have solo kamasutra, would "maybe do something".
There was a "homo soveticus" concept in USSR. When people were to dumb to see obvious things about power and misuse of it, it was written off as soviet legacy. Western people, we were told, feel the nuance.
No, they are fucking not. I'm disgusted with comments in this thread.
Responding to a "that's the rule argument doesn't fly against 'that rule is not acceptable'" with "that's the rule".
Very bright.
There are things that can be put in contracts (of which TOS is the lesser form) and there are things which could not.
If Microsoft would announce that all software for Windows (they've created it, remember) needs their blessing to exist, oh and could only be sold from Windows Store, oh and they'd get 30% cut off all sales, oh AND IF REFUND IS ISSUED, THOSE 30% ARE NOT RETURNED TO THE DEVELOPER (no, I'm not making things up, Apple is that stinky), yeah, surely, the world would just shrug it off as "but it's their windowz"....
Last edited:
llien
Member
No, they are not the same, google is not even remotely as stinky as Apple.
For starters, google does not try to get a cut from subscription.
You don't need google's blessing to develop for any of it's OSes either.
Last edited:
Herr Edgy
Member
Stop being obtuse, that's why it's called a hypothetical. How about you answer it? Especially as a Software Engineer, you think it would be fine if Windows started banning programs they weren't fine with? and distributing them via Windows Store only? How about we take away your precious Chrome or Firefox? And all the other 3rd party programms that Windows might have a program for?
Also it makes virtually no sense to root for Apple. It's like people that do so are living in this world where everything is 2D, therefore nothing exists under the surface and they judge everything by its face value.
If someone puts a gun to your head and forces you to sign a paper that removes your human rights you'd deem it lawful given you signed a contract, right?
No, you wouldn't, and the mere fact that people like you act like this is the end all be all and context doesn't matter to highly complex situations makes me think you are far removed from the reality of the situation. The case Epic is building is all about not having a choice than to 'agree' to their terms if you want to reach, what, 30% of the global market when it comes to mobile.
It's not about having to pay 30% if on their store, it's about being forced onto the store if you want to reach this audience.
Your point of being able to jailbreak your phone is asinine because of it.
____
Additionally, about in-app purchases:
Kindly explain to me how you, as a Software Engineer, would be fine with the idea that a trillion dollar company is going to take 30% of your revenue (in-app purchases here) with zero cost on their part, under the premise:
1) The user already owns the app (downloaded via App Store, Apple got some profits)
2) You created the content the user wants to purchase in-app
3) Your payment system does not touch Apple's ecosystem
Under the conditions above, there is zero cost for Apple. There is nothing Apple has to host, nothing for them to advertise on the store, no transaction fees on their part, nothing.
Now you, as a developer, tell me how being forced to sign away those 30% (of in-app purchases, mind you), makes sense to you. If you are still going to argue 'you signed up for it', while completely disregarding the points above, I'll know to just dismiss future posts of yours.
I bolded the important bits so you won't just sidestep.
DunDunDunpachi
Patient MembeR
Low detail and high emotion, like I said. Thank you for providing yet another example of my point.
This thread is chock full of corpo apologists but it ain't the people pointing and laughing at EPIC.
Herr Edgy
Member
No, they do not. Not due to them publishing a TOS-breaking update anyways.
The retaliation here is due to the lawsuit. In case you believe that Apple banning developers that try to release an app that feature TOS-noncompliance is normal, I have to inform you that's not the case.
The app is just taken off the App Store or rejected in the first place.
In the world of devs, your app or an update for your app being rejected is quite normal. You fix what they tell you to fix, and try again.
What is not normal is having your livelihood destroyed because of something this normal.
It's all about the lawsuit and has absolutely nothing to do with Fortnite offering a direct payment option.
Last edited:
llien
Member
Indeed, of all the "buh mah tirms and condishas" yours was exceptional: you've added "
Brilliant.
CuteFaceJay
Member
Guessing not well as the judge might have an iPhone.