Overclock.net banner
101 - 120 of 357 Posts
What is a "Fornite"? Is it just a misspelled title?
  • Well you had OneNite .. the stand
  • then you had Tonite which with COVID is pretty quiet these days
  • followed by Freenite which is a bargain if you are a pensioner or have a student card
  • and then now we have Fornite ... but as we well know Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out.
 
Again, I can pay from within the app for Aliexpress, Alibaba, Amazon and not give Appl or Alphabet anything. Yet when Epic tries to do the same, they get the boot. That is what Epic is going to court about because that's the double standard.
All of those are storefront themselves which cannot be considered the same as Fortnite (a product itself). The suit is about a lack of third party store and being forced to use the iOS payment system. It's not about unfair treatment in comparison to any other.
 
All of those are storefront themselves which cannot be considered the same as Fortnite (a product itself). The suit is about a lack of third party store and being forced to use the iOS payment system. It's not about unfair treatment in comparison to any other.
The issue that got Fornite the boot was because they included a link to pay for vbucks in app bypassing Apple's own payment gateway. I can buy food thermometer from AE and pay them, either via AliPay, Credit / Debit card and Appl and Google cannot take anything for that sale. Epic wants Appl /Alphabet to get treated fairly and for Appl to allow marketplace alternatives on their iOS.
 
You push it. Don't pull.
Thanks for doing exactly what I expected you to. I mean, you couldn't possibly explain such a bad analogy without digging a deeper hole, so it makes sense that you'd simply avoid it altogether.

All I'm left to construe is that your love for Epic (or hatred for "Appl") clouds your judgement.
 
The issue that got Fornite the boot was because they included a link to pay for vbucks in app bypassing Apple's own payment gateway. I can buy food thermometer from AE and pay them, either via AliPay, Credit / Debit card and Appl and Google cannot take anything for that sale. Epic wants Appl /Alphabet to get treated fairly and for Appl to allow marketplace alternatives on their iOS.
You still don't get it.

Simple terms:
If you buy in your app something to use in the app, you must use apple payment system.
If you buy in your app something not to use in the app (like physical goods), you do not need to use apple payment system.

That is the ToS.
It was done to allow stores (like amazon, aliexpress, ebay, whatever), create an app, allow customers to sign up and pay via CC or whatever, and not require to pay apple.

Are you saying buying in game virtual currency to use only in fortnite is the same as buying shoes off amazon? Really?

It isn't ok for Appl and Alphabet to remove an app from their store just because they found a way to save 30% commission.
Just to be clear, fortnite app has been out since april 2018.
That means that since april 2019, they are only paying 15%, not 30%.
 
Just to be clear, fortnite app has been out since april 2018.
That means that since april 2019, they are only paying 15%, not 30%.
I didn't know that. That being the case, I suppose their end game could be destroying Apple's paradigm completely. I mean, I don't see them making a singular exception for Epic. Legal precedent would probably dictate all developers get to enjoy the same hypothetical benefits.

But would that ever happen? Would iOS, traditionally, for the longest time, based on software curation, suddenly become just like all the other OS alternatives? I don't see it, but what do I know.

Of course, they could simply be trying to reduce rates even further, as I figured from the start. In 15%, there's still some wiggle room for a nice revenue stream for Apple, considering the absolute amount of money Fortnite makes.
 
Thanks for doing exactly what I expected you to. I mean, you couldn't possibly explain such a bad analogy without digging a deeper hole, so it makes sense that you'd simply avoid it altogether.
Honey I only got in to get you out after you said you wouldn't reply to the second paragraph from my post because you would have to accept that legally binding contracts mean squat if it hurts someone. In our example, that's Epic.

All I'm left to construe is that your love for Epic (or hatred for "Appl") clouds your judgement.
I love neither of them. But Epic does give free games every week which I like so you can think whatever you feel like.

You still don't get it.
Simple terms:
If you buy in your app something to use in the app, you must use apple payment system.
Epic doesn't like the 30% cut Appl and Alphabet charge. Which is what the fight is about.

If you buy in your app something not to use in the app (like physical goods), you do not need to use apple payment system.
Please quote where in either of their ToS does it say this?

That is the ToS.
You need to read what Appl and Alphabet charges their 30% cut for.

It was done to allow stores (like amazon, aliexpress, ebay, whatever), create an app, allow customers to sign up and pay via CC or whatever, and not require to pay apple.
And that is what Epic's feud is about. If Amazon, AE, Ebay don't pay 30% on all sales happening through the app, so shouldn't Epic.

Are you saying buying in game virtual currency to use only in fortnite is the same as buying shoes off amazon? Really?
That's what Epic is saying and I think it's fair. Appl /Alphabet do not add any value along the value chain to be paid 30%. Whether you use Apple's payment system or not.

Just to be clear, fortnite app has been out since april 2018.
That means that since april 2019, they are only paying 15%, not 30%.
And how does that in anyway change the fact that Epic doesn't want to pay that?
 
Honey I only got in to get you out after you said you wouldn't reply to the second paragraph from my post because you would have to accept that legally binding contracts mean squat if it hurts someone. In our example, that's Epic.
You still haven't told me who or what Apple's business model hurts that Epic didn't know beforehand when they started doing business.

So, till you actually explain how that ridiculous analogy is even relevant to legitimize your seemingly anarchic views, all you've done is play yourself.
 
You still haven't told me who or what Apple's business model hurts that Epic didn't know beforehand when they started doing business.
It hurts Epic. E. P. I. C. Games.

So, till you actually explain how that ridiculous analogy is even relevant to legitimize your seemingly anarchic views, all you've done is play yourself.
Again, legally binding contracts, that you claimed was the bible means squat when it hurts someone. And since it's a slow day, that's E. P. I. C. Games.
 
You still don't get it.

Simple terms:
If you buy in your app something to use in the app, you must use apple payment system.
If you buy in your app something not to use in the app (like physical goods), you do not need to use apple payment system.

That is the ToS.
It was done to allow stores (like amazon, aliexpress, ebay, whatever), create an app, allow customers to sign up and pay via CC or whatever, and not require to pay apple.

Are you saying buying in game virtual currency to use only in fortnite is the same as buying shoes off amazon? Really?

Just to be clear, fortnite app has been out since april 2018.
That means that since april 2019, they are only paying 15%, not 30%.
Fair points.

Take a minute and consider it from the perspective of Epic though. You have a game involving virtual currency to buy virtual things. Unless I am misunderstanding, you're saying Apple is insisting purchases of this virtual currency go through their payment system. This means a cut for Apple anytime those purchases are made. Again, if I am understanding correctly. If you were Epic would you find this acceptable?

For the record, I'm not necessarily an Epic fan. I'm definitely not a fan of Fortnite. Granted, I've never played it (don't intend to either). Nor am I saying the microtransaction frenzy thrust upon us in recent times is a great concept. What I am saying is Apple getting a cut on all of those transactions seems a bit absurd. Put differently, if the ToS functions this way it strikes me as disproportionately punitive for "apps" operating under this business model.

I'd add, there is a very big difference between getting a cut for an app on an app store vs getting a cut on any transaction made within this app. It's completely understandable to take a cut for the app itself if you're providing the storefront. Even if the app is free some form of compensation could be negotiated. Based on short reading it sounds as if Apple does the latter. Worse yet, it sounds like they're intentionally trying to lock anything and everything into their payment system on Apple devices. Neither of these behaviors are something I'd consider particularly ethical.
 
Fair points.

Take a minute and consider it from the perspective of Epic though. You have a game involving virtual currency to buy virtual things. Unless I am misunderstanding, you're saying Apple is insisting purchases of this virtual currency go through their payment system. This means a cut for Apple anytime those purchases are made. Again, if I am understanding correctly. If you were Epic would you find this acceptable? I don't think anyone or any company in Epic's place would find this acceptable. It's part of being a profit-driven entity. Epic are playing whatever hand they think they have. And that's absolutely fine.

For the record, I'm not necessarily an Epic fan. I'm definitely not a fan of Fortnite. Granted, I've never played it (don't intend to either). Nor am I saying the microtransaction frenzy thrust upon us in recent times is a great concept. What I am saying is Apple getting a cut on all of those transactions seems a bit absurd. Put differently, if the ToS functions this way it strikes me as disproportionately punitive for "apps" operating under this business model. It must not be that punitive; otherwise, companies and developers wouldn't pay for the privilege. My most educated guess is they all would try to force the hand of Apple in some way if they thought they would eventually get a better deal in the end. But that, I don't think, is relevant. Business at this scale is often a game of cat and mouse - compromise; give and take.

I'd add, there is a very big difference between getting a cut for an app on an app store vs getting a cut on any transaction made within this app. It's completely understandable to take a cut for the app itself if you're providing the storefront. Even if the app is free some form of compensation could be negotiated. Based on short reading it sounds as if Apple does the latter. Worse yet, it sounds like they're intentionally trying to lock anything and everything into their payment system on Apple devices. Neither of these behaviors are something I'd consider particularly ethical. Ethical or not, they all know beforehand what the terms are. Epic knew what they were signing up for. It's smart of them to, firstly, have shown Apple what they would miss. They're giants in their own right, and they're using that leverage. But let's not kid ourselves: both are protecting their interests, and Apple are not about to be bullied. Epic wronged them legally, and, thusly, the services they provided were terminated. It's about as plain and expected as things could be.
I agree with everything you said, and I completely understand your point of view, but I've added a couple of points in red.
 
Hi,
Doubt anyone on an apple device really cares about being charged a little on transactions from the apple store
Google maybe I wouldn't use a google... device if it were free.
 
Just to be clear, fortnite app has been out since april 2018.
That means that since april 2019, they are only paying 15%, not 30%.
That is incorrect, that only applies to annual subscriptions that are renewed using the pay system. All digital in-app purchases are a flat 30%.

https://www.apple.com/ios/app-store/principles-practices/

Free with in-app purchase

These apps are free for users to download and users can pay for additional digital features and content in the app with Apple’s In-App Purchase system. Developers earn 70% of sales from in-app purchases and Apple collects a 30% commission.
Free with subscription
These apps are free to download and users can purchase auto-renewing subscriptions inside the app. If developers choose to sell digital subscriptions inside the app, they use Apple’s In-App Subscription system. In that case, developers earn 70% of subscription sales for the first subscription year, and Apple collects a 30% commission. After the first year, the developer earns 85% for all successive years that the user remains a subscriber, and Apple collects a 15% commission.
 
It hurts Epic. E. P. I. C. Games.


Again, legally binding contracts, that you claimed was the bible means squat when it hurts someone. And since it's a slow day, that's E. P. I. C. Games.
lol Epic Games is hurting real bad

Image


Epic agreed to the ToS when they put their game on the iOS App Store and Google Play Store. They broke the ToS and got their game removed. The Play Store one doesn't even make sense, nothing is stopping them from removing Fortnite from the Play Store and giving an apk install for it directly from their website. They also aren't going after Microsoft and Sony despite both of those making Apples walled garden look like it's open source.
 
lol Epic Games is hurting real bad
If you understood capitalism, $ saved is $ gained.

Epic agreed to the ToS when they put their game on the iOS App Store and Google Play Store. They broke the ToS and got their game removed.
And are now objecting to that very ToS as being abusive and non-sensical. Hence the fallout.

The Play Store one doesn't even make sense, nothing is stopping them from removing Fortnite from the Play Store and giving an apk install for it directly from their website.
Because the substance is to get both of them to negotiate regardless of whatever form it is being presented as.

They also aren't going after Microsoft and Sony despite both of those making Apples walled garden look like it's open source.
Well, once they have precedence, going after MS and Sony would only be a formality.
 
I'm honestly curious now if my dude here is skirting the actual point because he has no real answer to justify his initial statement or because he's actually missing it.

There's a third alternative, which is more likely to me, but explaining it violates OCN's ToS. But, then again, I'm sure mods would do nothing to me for violating the ToS, as it wouldn't be ok to punish me for violating it.
 
101 - 120 of 357 Posts