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?
No, I wouldn't be fine. But I wouldn't put a program in there and then try to sabotage the system.
In fact, Microsoft had to go to court for trying to make something similar with
Internet Explorer. Not banning them but making it difficult to use other programs and slowing down your system.
and distributing them via Windows Store only?
As long as they have the same rules as today, I would be fine.
The difference is that Windows was "open" from the beginning, iOS didn't. It was much more closed than now.
How about we take away your precious Chrome or Firefox? And all the other 3rd party programms that Windows might have a program for?
That would be shit and make me never go back to Windows.
But would Microsoft do it? They would lose a lot of customers for doing it.
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.
I really don't like Apple, never had any of their products. They're too snob for me. But in this case, they are right.
I'm not rooting for Epic, they broke an agreement. I would think the same if it was Microsoft, Google or someone no one knows.
Don't say me Epic's doing all this because they want a better world. They just want their own store so they take 100% revenue.
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?
Well that's an easy one. I prefer the bullet in my head. It would be unlawful.
In this case Epic wasn't forced to put their app into Apple's ecosystem. They wanted to reach Apple iOS's customers, signed a contract to pay Apple 30% of their revenue and then, one day they thought that was unfair and decided to break the rules.
The problem is that they accepted and then broke it. If they would have rejected the deal and attacked Apple from outside I would be in their side.
They didn't.
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.
Yeah, but that case was made breaking rules in the first place, so it's unfounded.
A different thing would be if Epic took the case to court
before making the agreement. Or more plausible, they should have removed their app first from the store and then present the case.
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.
Exactly. If you want to sell something in there, pay the price the platform holder asks. If you don't like it, go elsewhere.
They built that platform, they make the rules.
A different thing would be if they had >50% of the userbase. That would make them a monopoly and some intervention would be needed.
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
What's the problem of them being a rich company? Are you jealous?
30% is the price I have to pay to reach that precious audience that likes to spend a lot of money so if I sell something at $10, Apple earns $3 and I $7. Multiply that to a million.
Epic here is being to greedy, they earn what, 700 million in iOS? And they want those 300 millions from Apple, which invested a lot of resources in keeping those customers docile and happy to spend?
Again, pay the price.
1) "Apple got some profits". That's not necessarily true. Fortnite is free to download.
2) So? Apple created the content on which your application works.
3) Oh, it does. You are touching their customers. The 30% it's not for the store, it's for the ability to reach those whales.
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 answered above.
Nothing is free you know. The business model of Fortnite is to offer the base game and then you customize it (with in-app purchases). So, the price of the product is inside of what you are "adding" to it.
Tell me, Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft also make you pay them a 30% of your revenue, including microtransactions (aka in-app purchases). What's the difference with Apple?
Are you going to tell me that Apple has more customers? Well, Android has even more.
Should Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft let you circumvent their ecosystem too?
They made the userbase for you, it's nice if you pay them for their work.
I tried to answer every bolded part and the rest of it.
If you still don't understand my stance or you still don't agree, feel free to reply back.
DunDunDunpachi
