• 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 has counter-sued Epic for commision theft

Kdad

Member
So if on PC MS banned/did not allow any and all app like Steam, EGS, EA Access, etc... and any app and game not installed through the Windows Store you would be happy and cheering? I guess you would...
Windows IS moving in this directions with their first attempt a few years ago with Windows RT and their current Windows S ... they need to be much more careful about it as they a: control much more of the market than Apple does and b: built their reputation on backwards compatibility...but they ARE trying.
 

Kdad

Member
Apple the company that uses NL to funnel money so it hardly has to pay taxes?

This company says of Epic: in reality it is a multi-billion dollar enterprise that simply wants to pay nothing for the tremendous value it derives.

There are too many lawyers in the world change my mind.
Tax law was created by your elected officials...change them. Until then, expect people/companies to take full advantage of tax law. This is irrelevant to EPICvApple.
 

Sophist

Member
Should McDonalds have to let Burger King sell their burgers in every McDonalds store, where the burger king employees use the McDonalds owned and maintained equipment, and BK don't have to give McDonalds any money whatsoever? Does that sound fair?

From an user point of view, it sounds more like you would buy a burger at McDonald, go back home, then when you try to add some sauce McDonald spurts in and say "You can't do that, you didn't buy that sauce at our place!". That is the biggest problem on iPhone right now; Apple has a total control on what the user can do which is disgusting.
 

Kdad

Member
From an user point of view, it sounds more like you would buy a burger at McDonald, go back home, then when you try to add some sauce McDonald spurts in and say "You can't do that, you didn't buy that sauce at our place!". That is the biggest problem on iPhone right now; Apple has a total control on what the user can do which is disgusting.
Do you get upset that you can't play PS4 games on your Nintendo Switch? Like...I have the digital file so I should just be able to load it right in there shouldn't i? Oh....Nintendo makes sure the software is compatible and doesn't harm my hardware/software/privacy by only allowing me to load software from the Nintendo store. Those evil bastards. If you enjoy a certain sauce on your burger, buy a burger that accommodates your sauce.
 
Last edited:

Mattyp

Gold Member
Apples argument could've been sound, if they allowed other marketplaces on their phones.

The argument that Epic wishes to benefit from the app store ecosystem without paying for it is bullshit, apple is forcing everyone to use their ecosystem. I'm sure epic would happily launch their own version of the appstore on iPhones if they were allowed to.

From an user point of view, it sounds more like you would buy a burger at McDonald, go back home, then when you try to add some sauce McDonald spurts in and say "You can't do that, you didn't buy that sauce at our place!". That is the biggest problem on iPhone right now; Apple has a total control on what the user can do which is disgusting.


What plenty of people in here don't understand is iphones are some of the most secure phones on the planet because of this very reason. Because of the reason of no side loading, because of what is a well maintained and checked over appstore compared to play store mess.

Apple make their money on hardware.
Google make it by advertising.

Some of us care about these aspects and its why Apple sells to some extent the phones that it does. I have no fucking use of flashing a custom OS on my phone, for people that do go buy an Android you'll need it after support stops in 12 months.

If people want the correct analogy look at supermarkets (not Mcdonalds vs Burger King) do you get to just go stuff your shit on the shelves in Tesco free of charge to sell to the public? No. You pay percentage of every sale to that supermarket.
 
Last edited:

Tumle

Member
What plenty of people in here don't understand is iphones are some of the most secure phones on the planet because of this very reason. Because of the reason of no side loading, because of what is a well maintained and checked over appstore compared to play store mess.

Apple make their money on hardware.
Google make it by advertising.

Some of us care about these aspects and its why Apple sells to some extent the phones that it does. I have no fucking use of flashing a custom OS on my phone, for people that do go buy an Android you'll need it after support stops in 12 months.

If people want the correct analogy look at supermarkets (not Mcdonalds vs Burger King) do you get to just go stuff your shit on the shelves in Tesco free of charge to sell to the public? No. You pay percentage of every sale to that supermarket.
nah.. still bad analogy.. I didn't buy that Tesco store, to then be able to shop in it.
 

MayauMiao

Member
I am quite surprised at the amount of anti epic sentiment in NeoGAF. I would have thought we would be behind the gaming company not the anti gaming luxury tech company.

Epic made me hate them with their Epic Game Store exclusives shenanigans. It shows Epic was never about being fair competition but who has the most money to buy off gamers.

So fuck Epic and I do hope Apple wins.
 

reinking

Gold Member
One of my favorite burns this latest filing is Apple was able to demonstrate that Epic was unable to keep the Fortnite app secure when they tried to release it on android outside of the Play Store. When Epic released Fortnite via the web in 2018 they had to take it down in 2019 due to malware. Apple was able to specifically say it was taken down due to "security violations in the non-iOS version." and that it "exposed hundreds of millions of players to being hacked." Basically saying even if they were to allow other market places on the app store they do not trust Epic. "Epic, in particular had demonstrated that it could not be entrusted with this type of responsibility."
 

Kdad

Member
I am talking about apps developed for IOS that apple prevent you to install even by yourself.



proven false many times and, yeah, apple surely removed fortnite to prevail users security.
Release your iOS app for free and Apple wont take a cut...you will have it listed, on their store, for free (minus you developer charge)...charge for it, or provide in app monetary functionality and they have rules. If you don't wish to play be those rules there are phones out there (80% of them) that dont require this.
 
Last edited:
It seems like someone wants even more of a profit on top of what they're already making.

Surely they can do something better with all the money they spend on lawyers (unless of course they are in-house and haven't don't anything for a while).

I don't expect them to give it charity, but why not invest in some startups.
 

Chun Swae

Banned
Apple charges 99 dollars a year to just have a license to publish on the App Store. This idea they make "zero dollars" on free apps is a flat out lie. They are the most valuable company in the world and are actually talking about having money taken from them if people want to be able to load their own software? Why aren't Macs and Windows machines having the same issue then? They also make a massive margin on iPhone sales.

If it's such a burden to run this app store (numbers disprove this) and are just doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, then just shut it down and let us download software directly to the phones like all other critical general purpose computers allow.

Apple's stance continues to be ridiculous, and I doubt they are going to get much support from even the Apple hardcore on this one.
Perfect reply. Apple is trying to set an example of Epic because their app store robbery makes them billions a year by doing nothing. People need to get over their epic launcher hate boner and stop stanning an anti competitive company like Apple.
 

Kdad

Member
$2 trillion company vs $17 bil company. I don't think Apple even cares about the money this'll cost in legal fees to curb stomp them -- they're going to make an example out of Epic.
Epic is backed by a $1 trillion company, EPIC is just the trojan horse here for Tencent. Take a look at the Chinese model of Apple's business in China and Tencent's control .... Tencent is looking to extend that outside of China.
 

Rockondevil

Gold Member
Question for all those that hate/dislike Apples walled garden and want several app stores on iOS devices....

How is an iPhone only having the App Store different to a digital only console that we are getting these days and only have access to the store front of whichever console you chose.

You can buy a different console, much the same way you can buy a different phone.
 

Guilty_AI

Member
One of my favorite burns this latest filing is Apple was able to demonstrate that Epic was unable to keep the Fortnite app secure when they tried to release it on android outside of the Play Store. When Epic released Fortnite via the web in 2018 they had to take it down in 2019 due to malware. Apple was able to specifically say it was taken down due to "security violations in the non-iOS version." and that it "exposed hundreds of millions of players to being hacked." Basically saying even if they were to allow other market places on the app store they do not trust Epic. "Epic, in particular had demonstrated that it could not be entrusted with this type of responsibility."
"That is, what we call officially in the legal profession, a sick burn"
-Hoeg Law
 

ReBurn

Gold Member
Should McDonalds have to let Burger King sell their burgers in every McDonalds store, where the burger king employees use the McDonalds owned and maintained equipment, and BK don't have to give McDonalds any money whatsoever? Does that sound fair?
This isn't even close to a comparison. McDonalds and Burger King can both build stores in the same town, right next to each other, and sell burgers however they want. If iOS is the town and Apple is McDonalds, Burger King or any other burger joint not being allowed by McDonalds to build a store in the same town to sell their hamburgers is a problem. Google doesn't prevent other burger joints in their town. Apple does. It's that simple.

Essentially, Apple limits consumer choice by not allowing their customers the ability to choose where to buy from. If I pay $1,000 for an iPad Pro why should I be required to only buy apps or in-app purchases from Apple? Anyone who says "that's a decision you made when you bought it" is ultimately anti-consumer.

Apple intentionally makes it difficult to purchase anything for use on their devices from anyone but them. You have to jump through hoops to install apps on Mac if you buy them from "untrusted" sources, digging into security settings to provide additional approvals. They forced obsolescence of old apps on Mac and iOS by dropping support for 32-bit apps, meaning you either have to buy new versions or just lose access to your apps if a new version isn't available. why should I have to buy a new version of Microsoft Office when my old version was fine before the latest OS release? Games that I paid money for on Apple's App Store were just delisted by Apple because even though they should run as 32-bit builds Apple decided not to support them.

Apple makes good good hardware, but they are fiercely like anti-consumer on the software side.
 

Kdad

Member
Not really.
If Apple wins nothing changes and everyone does business as usual.

If Epic wins they will try to expand their "it's just a launcher" business model into every closed platform they can get into.
It is right out of Tencent's China playbook on iOS...they said all their apps built ontop of WeChat were not 'full apps'....2 years later take a look at what is going on there (Apple is 'letting' it happen there else they have zero foothold in China at all since WeChat is the defacto everything app there).
 

Kdad

Member
This isn't even close to a comparison. McDonalds and Burger King can both build stores in the same town, right next to each other, and sell burgers however they want. If iOS is the town and Apple is McDonalds, Burger King or any other burger joint not being allowed by McDonalds to build a store in the same town to sell their hamburgers is a problem. Google doesn't prevent other burger joints in their town. Apple does. It's that simple.

Essentially, Apple limits consumer choice by not allowing their customers the ability to choose where to buy from. If I pay $1,000 for an iPad Pro why should I be required to only buy apps or in-app purchases from Apple? Anyone who says "that's a decision you made when you bought it" is ultimately anti-consumer.

Apple intentionally makes it difficult to purchase anything for use on their devices from anyone but them. You have to jump through hoops to install apps on Mac if you buy them from "untrusted" sources, digging into security settings to provide additional approvals. They forced obsolescence of old apps on Mac and iOS by dropping support for 32-bit apps, meaning you either have to buy new versions or just lose access to your apps if a new version isn't available. why should I have to buy a new version of Microsoft Office when my old version was fine before the latest OS release? Games that I paid money for on Apple's App Store were just delisted by Apple because even though they should run as 32-bit builds Apple decided not to support them.

Apple makes good good hardware, but they are fiercely like anti-consumer on the software side.
The whole premise of your argument comes from a hardware and software are separate viewpoint. Apple sells iOS hardware/software as one integrated solution. Consumers do not HAVE to purchase an integrated product, they can buy Android (and many flavours of Android even) and sideload to their hearts content. So Apple isn't anti-consumer, they are just for a particular consumer.
I find it difficult to run unsigned software on my Switch and PS4 too....
 

Dynasty8

Member
Haven't been keeping up to date with this, but it definitely looks and sounds like Epic breached their agreement with Apple when all this shit went down last month. Am I missing something?
 

Kdad

Member

Dear fucking Tim...make all the apps you want...distribute them directly all you want....you dont have a RIGHT to do it on any platform you wish you lunchbucket. If you want access to a store, you need to play with the manager. If you want access to secure hardware, you have to play with the manager.

When you launched the Android version you didn't go on the Play store because you wanted all the profit yourself and no one stopped you...yet you ended up listing on the Play store anyway because...you wanted ACCESS to those customers....guess what....ACCESS costs money.
 
Last edited:

zeorhymer

Member
I cannot decide if Tim is insane or stupid.
iu
 

ape2man

Member
The amount of people here who defend apple is insane. If epic wins that would be a win for everyone.

- If i buy some food through a delivery service i would need to pay 30% apple tax on my food.
- if i buy a news paper subscription i need to pay 30% apple tax.
- if i buy groceries online i need to pay a 30% apple tax.

That shit is INSANE!!!!
 
Last edited:

iconmaster

Banned
Great so you are for anyone who wins in the courts.

Assuming just laws and a just judge, sure. I'm sure you wouldn't want the judge in this case deciding it based on what appears to be "a win for everyone"; I can't hope for that either.

Apple is being accused of actual wrongdoing. If there was no wrong done, I don't want them held liable under the law out of some baser, pragmatic motive.
 

NickFire

Member
Although it's possible this is all about Epic's view of Apple's monopoly on its phones, I won't be surprised if we see an Epic or even Fortnite branded cell phone in the next year or two, and are laying the seeds to get the fortnite kids to want one instead of Iphone. The notion that they reduce the price to essentially make the same net if Apple charged the same amount as the Epic store (if I understand correctly) seems to have less benefit than the trouble would be worth IMO. Unless they really just want to cut Apple out altogether, which seems a stretch goal to me.
 

Kdad

Member
The amount of people here who defend apple is insane. If epic wins that would be a win for everyone.

- If i buy some food through a delivery service i would need to pay 30% apple tax on my food.
- if i buy a news paper subscription i need to pay 30% apple tax.
- if i buy groceries online i need to pay a 30% apple tax.

That shit is INSANE!!!!
Food delivery is not subject to Apple's commission
Grocery is not subject to Apple's commission

From their website:
Free with physical goods and services
These apps are free for users to download and the developer generates revenue from the sale of physical goods and services, such as purchasing clothing, having food delivered or ordering a ride from a transportation service. Apple receives no commission from supporting, hosting and distributing these apps, or from transactions for physical goods and services in the app.

Newspaper...you are free to subscribe to a newspaper directly or on the web and use an app to access this content...Apple earns nothing. In exchange for this FREE service, Apples rules state that, from within the app, the newspaper cannot direct you to do this. If you, the consumer choose to subscribe THROUGH the app, because the developer has made this option available and wants your business that they may not get using other methods listed above, Apple earns a commission.

From their website:
These are apps where users exclusively purchase or subscribe to content outside the app, but enjoy access to that content inside the app on their Apple devices. Examples include books, music and video apps. In these cases, developers receive all of the revenue they generate from bringing the customer to their app. Apple receives no commission from supporting, hosting and distributing these apps.


So all 3 of your 'that shit is insane' examples....
are not. EPIC is doing fuck all for you.
 
Last edited:

FStubbs

Member
Yup. Apple isn't gunning for a win; they want a total legal annihilation.

Looks like it at this point, Apple destroyed Adobe and now they're going to try to destroy Epic. (I don't think Apple can destroy Tencent as a whole).

I wonder though - at one point can Unreal licensees sue Epic/Tencent for failure to deliver a working engine on iOS?
 
Last edited:
The amount of people here who defend apple is insane. If epic wins that would be a win for everyone.

- If i buy some food through a delivery service i would need to pay 30% apple tax on my food.
- if i buy a news paper subscription i need to pay 30% apple tax.
- if i buy groceries online i need to pay a 30% apple tax.

That shit is INSANE!!!!

You keep writing "need". Even if all you had was your iPhone to make purchases and subscribe to services, you don't need to pay Apple anything to do so since the iPhone comes with a free web browser. The fact of the matter is, you don't even need to use an iPhone to do anything you listed, meaning you have even more options open to you in order to avoid the dreaded "Apple tax". The only way you will ever have to pay that is if you chose to use Apple's own marketplace.

You don't need have food delivered through Apple, you have thousands of options on where to buy food using your iPhone's browser. Food delivery does not get the "Apple tax" anyways as Kdad Kdad mentioned. When you do have food delivered through any service though, that cost is included in the price of the goods you bought to have delivered by the company delivering them. All the suppliers have pricing agreements with the services that deliver their products just like the agreement Tim had with Apple for using their storefront. Tim would try to sneak Fortnite fruit snacks into the delivery vehicles along with the food, and demand that he not have to pay for it to be delivered. He would argue that the delivery company has a monopoly on the customers that use that delivery company and that he believes anyone should be able to put their own food product deliveries into the delivery vehicles contracted by Apple to deliver food.

You don't need an Apple news subscription, you have thousands of options available using your iPhone's browser. When you buy a news site subscription on an iPhone, you can do it from the news site directly without giving Apple a penny. The only time Apple takes a cut is when you buy it directly from their own storefront. News sites make their money selling ad space, which Tim would want to access for free in order to advertise Unreal Engine 5. He would argue that the news site has a monopoly on the people frequenting that site ignoring that the news site had to spend the time and money required to amass that subscriber base in the first place. He would argue that anyone should be able to put ads on any of the sites owned by a corporation.

You don't need to buy groceries from Apple, you have access to thousands of companies that sell food using your iPhone's browser. Even if you do use Apple's store, Apple doesn't take a cut of physical goods and food items as again Kdad Kdad mentioned in his post. When you buy food locally though, let's say a Costco, taxes and the cost of delivering those food items to your local Costco are factored into the cost of those goods. You local Costco adds a mark-up to those items as well to be profitable. Tim would go into the Costco, set up a kiosk selling Fortnite Vbucks cards, and demand that the store not charge him to do so. He would argue that Costco has a monopoly on the customers shopping there ignoring that Costco spent billions over the years building up a brand that created the market they hold in the first place. After Cotsco store security ejected him and his stand, he would go on Twitter and cry crocodile tears because he believes anyone should just be able to walk into a Costco and have a garage sale.

Tim Sweeney doesn't need to put his shit on Apple devices. Apple isn't forcing him to pay a 30% fee, he's free to not use their platform and instead focus on a device that allows side-loading. Tim can already sell Vbucks to iPhone users without paying Apple 30% anyways, Vbucks can be added to an Epic account through store-bought cards or through Epic's website and are tied to your Epic account.

From Epic's site:
V-Bucks purchased on PlayStation 4 or Switch cannot be spent on other devices. Any Fortnite content you buy with your V-Bucks will be available on every device linked to your Fortnite account, regardless of which device the content was bought on.

If you add Vbuck to your account on a PC they appear on your iPhone. If you buy them using the Safari browser on your iPhone they appear in your Epic account on the iPhone. Apple takes a 30% cut ONLY if the Vbucks are sold using it's own storefront, and under their agreement Epic is not allowed to put links to his own store inside Apple's own store or advertise that you can just open up Safari and load up there. Apple had a clear and concise contract with Epic regarding the matter that Tim previously agreed to. Tim broke the contract by circumventing a legally binding agreement and putting links to cheaper Vbucks in the Apple store.

He put his Vbucks on Apple's store in the first place because he made a lot of money by doing so despite the 30% commission. He wants to be able to do it for free because he feels that he's entitled to the benefits stemming from the work that Apple has put into creating and growing their brand and the storefront on their device that he would be profiting from. Apple maintains the storefront, Apple creates the devices the storefront is available on. Apple provides the manufacturing of the devices and gets those devices into the hands of millions of people that Tim wants free access to. Why should Tim have access to the fruits of this labor at no cost to himself? Zero overhead for Tim is what he's fighting for, he's just painting himself as a hero of the people to garner sympathy for this abortion of an idea.

I think Apple is a shit company, but I think that if a platform is built and is maintained by someone, they should be entitled to charge others to use that platform.
 

Pagusas

Elden Member
Epic is being royal assholes in this, trying to force Apple to conform to what Epic thinks the iphone market place should look like. I hope they lose this, I do not want to see the iPhone's ecosystem suddenly forced to open up and allow tons of different store fronts. I dont want to see MS or Sony have to open up the consoles and we get flooded with Uplay, Epic, EA, Steam store fronts. Watch as everything becomes a fucking mess because no one is allowed to have control over their ecosystem anymore.
The amount of people here who defend apple is insane. If epic wins that would be a win for everyone.

- If i buy some food through a delivery service i would need to pay 30% apple tax on my food.
- if i buy a news paper subscription i need to pay 30% apple tax.
- if i buy groceries online i need to pay a 30% apple tax.

That shit is INSANE!!!!

You are calling people insane yet you just posted incorrect facts. You do not know what the hell you are talking about.
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member


Let's be honest, both sides are just as anti consumer and greedy.


I don't think this poor shmuck is familiar with Nintendo's practices of 30 or 35 years ago. In gaming the precedent is that the publisher gives up a % for access to a closed platform (console, mobile, etc.) or popular stores. Sure you can sell a PC game on your own website and not pay a cut, but most still go with Steam because of the "eyeball" traffic.
 

supernova8

Banned
Apples argument could've been sound, if they allowed other marketplaces on their phones.

The argument that Epic wishes to benefit from the app store ecosystem without paying for it is bullshit, apple is forcing everyone to use their ecosystem. I'm sure epic would happily launch their own version of the appstore on iPhones if they were allowed to.

I don't really see the issue. It's not like there's only one type of smartphone out there. If a consumer really doesn't like the idea of being tied to the App store and wants to sideload apps, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of Android devices to choose from.

It's also not like Apple gave people the option to sideload and then took it away. It's always been like that on iPhone and consumers tacitly accept that by buying into the ecosystem.

Sure it would be great if we could get apps other than via the iOS appstore but it's not like Apple cheated us or anything. People willingly bought into it. If it was such a big deal to people (ie actual consumers) Apple wouldn't have sold so many devices up until now.

Besides, developers complaining that Apple takes a big cut but Apple device owners spend far more on average than Android users, maybe they should be careful what they wish for. Sure a 30% cut sucks but if your Android users aren't spending anything then you'd take that 70% and like it. If I were Apple my argument would be "we've cultivated a platform where people spend a relatively large amount of money on apps and in-app purchases so we'll take our cut thanks... or you can slide over to Android and get zero sales.... your choice".
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom