|OT| Epic vs Apple/Google - Battle of the Tims

[warp_]

What is the difference between Wallmart and Apple? Serious question, because I don't get it.

if you don't like walmart you can go to target or costco or the grocer or hardware store or best buy or wherever else. the options for developers and users are the apple app store and google play store, both of which have nearly identical tos and developer agreements. that's it (except in china where apple allows alternate app stores)

there is the option of sideloading but that is used so infrequently (play store is 90% of app installs according to epic) and is accompied by warnings from google to dissuade users from doing it. there is the option of oems putting in their own stores or other alternate app stores but google seems to be threatening those oems.

Costumers just need to know about it before buying, there need to be open platform alternatives (other ultrabooks) and locking down after a costumer bought a surface decive should be impossible.

is this not the same as apple changing what payment methods you as a consumer are allowed to use on the device you already purchased?

edit: or facebook forcing oculus users to make fb accounts on devices they already bought...to bring yet another evil corp into the mix.

 

[ISee]

if you don't like walmart you can go to target or costco or the grocer or hardware store or best buy or wherever else. the options for developers and users are the apple app store and google play store, both of which have nearly identical tos and developer agreements. that's it.

there is the option of sideloading but that is used so infrequently and is accompied by warnings from google to dissuade users from doing it. there is the option of oems putting in their own stores or other alternate app stores but google seems to be threatening those oems.

You can not say there is no alternative, while stating that an alternative exists where side loading is possible.
The situation you are describing is not about people having no alternative, this is people not caring enough to use an alternative.



Warning people about side loading is fair by the way. You can infect your device easily with malicious software, just like with downloading a random exe on PCs. "Hot liquid inside" also do not stop people from buying Starbucks. Not sure why: "random software could be dangerous" is a problem.

 

[warp_]

i'm simply using epic's argument on sideloading not being a viable business model due to low traction with users and also pointing out that google dissuades users from actually using the feature they promote as an alternative to the app store. that seems like a conflict of interest to me.

google doesn't allow alternate app stores to be distributed through the play store, they discourage sideloading in the os, and they are working to stop oems from including alternate app stores when selling phones. doesn't sound that open to the average joe to me.

and like i said their tos/developer agreements are also very similar re: play store vs app store so having an "alternative" doesn't seem very helpful to devs either.

 

[Swenhir]

@Everyone

Would any of us accept Microsoft locking down windows the way Apple has locked down iOS. I'm talking beyond the store, I'm talking operating system level.

Why the pass? Try to think what the personal computing space would look like now if M$ acted like Apple and IoS.....

You want your app on the phone, NO CHOICE BUT Apple Store.

I agree with people saying that fees are reasonable if you are using apples store to sell and distribute.

Other payment stores need to be on the platform. Same goes for google. These are people's main computing devices going into the future and I'll be damned if I'm comfortable with Apple or Google setting the agenda for what were allowed to pay for on those devices.

Yep, walled gardens are pretty much unacceptable and the only reason they were given a pass was Jobs and his reality distortion field.

To a degree it's kind of like the debate on consciousness. If the device has the ability to run an OS and if the consumer could benefit from accessing that capability, I don't see that it's the place of the people you paid for the device to tell you what you can and cannot do with it. If I want to run linux on my PS4 to crunch for my Seti@Home team, who has a right to tell me I can't do as I please with the tool I bought?

A more complicated, incredibly more complex tool, but at the end of the day it's the same crap as ever.

The fact that Apple has closed off iOS by design is something that's very hard to justify from a consumer standpoint. What do we actually gain from it compared to what we loose? This is all about Apple profiting from the incredible position of power it affords them. Walled Gardens are fundamentally wrong from where I'm standing, which is accessing the capabilities of a hardware, of a possession you bought.

 

[ISee]

edit: or facebook forcing oculus users to make fb accounts on devices they already bought...to bring yet another evil corp into the mix.

I never defended Facebook for that. But would people have needed to register with facebopok accounts from day one...
Fair game. I would have never bought my Rift then.

is this not the same as apple changing what payment methods you as a consumer are allowed to use on the device you already purchased?

I'd need to know more to form an opinion here. I'm staying the hell away from apple devices because I hate walled gardens. What did exactly change?

doesn't sound that open to the average joe to me.

It's not 100% open. But also doesn't scream entirely locked down either.
And to be fair, average joe does not see any benefit from not using the play store. That's the reason he doesn't know about side loading.

 

[warp_]

I'd need to know more to form an opinion here. I'm staying the hell away from apple devices because I hate walled gardens. What did exactly change?

previous to mid-2011, devs were able to process app payments within their own system if they wanted to. if you wanted to buy a kindle book or subscribe to hulu or whatever else you wanted to buy as a digital item or subscription you didn't have to go through apple's payment system.

in 2011 apple changed the rules for devs (and consumers by default) that any payment for digital goods had to go through them and a cut needed to be provided. also any mention of alternate payments were not allowed at all. for example if you wanted to subscribe to netflix the only option on ios devices was to pay through apple, netflix was not allowed to even say "go to netflix.com and sign up today". this was presented as a "no exceptions" for every app developer.

this rules change resulted in some app payments going up by 30% and some being removed entirely with the only option being to go to an external site to pay (but not allowed to mention this external site).

that was the big change to payments, apologies for not elaborating previously.

worth noting that amazon were given an exception and amazon gives up a reduced cut of 15% on prime video subscriptions. there may be other exempt companies but amazon was recently revealed in a document published in a us antitrust investigation

Apple Offered to Halve App Store Fee to Get Amazon Prime Video on iOS and Apple TV

Apple offered Amazon lower App Store fees to convince it to launch its Prime Video app on the App Store and Apple TV, documents published by the U.S....

www.macrumors.com

edit: also worth noting is physical goods do not have a 30% cut or need to go through apple's payment system if bought via ios. most likely because apple does not want to take responsibility for potential issues with shipping or fulfillment or returns, which is fair imo.

 

[Wok]

All that would happen with locked down surface laptops: They would sell even worse.

Speaking of locked down laptops, Chromebook are apparently still a thing. If I remember right, it is a laptop with Chrome (the browser) as sole OS.

GeForce Now turns the Chromebook into a ray tracing-capable gaming PC

A cheap laptop can now play high-end games, as long as your internet connection is strong enough.

www.pcgamer.com

 

[ISee]

Thank you for the explanation.

To be honest with you: Sounds like it is hurting companies. Is Apple misusing their position of power though? Yes.

But strong arming is common in every industry. Big grocery chains are strong arming farmers and grocery producers. The car industry is strong arming small suppliers. Heinz Ketchup is paying supermarket chains to have their product in the nice row etc.

As long as there is no harm done to consumers or individuals: That's unfortunately how this economic system works.
Paying for Netflix might be a bit more annoying now, but I fail to see any harm done to apple costumers.

Speaking of locked down laptops, Chromebook are apparently still a thing. If I remember right, it is a laptop with Chrome (the browser) as sole OS.

Oh wow, now even with GeForce Now support.
I thought they were running some kind of android iteration?
Never even considered a chrome book tbh.

 

[Copons]

Btw just wanted to say that this is an extremely complicated issue with a crapton of ramification, and I'm super impressed by how we are keeping it civil and interesting, despite all the discussions and disagreements.
Way to go Meta!

 

[crimsonheadGCN]

Speaking of locked down laptops, Chromebook are apparently still a thing. If I remember right, it is a laptop with Chrome (the browser) as sole OS.

GeForce Now turns the Chromebook into a ray tracing-capable gaming PC

A cheap laptop can now play high-end games, as long as your internet connection is strong enough.

www.pcgamer.com

Chromebooks are pretty popular iirc. Also, Google is rumored to be working with Valve on getting a version of Steam available for the OS.

 

[low-G]

no, options are important, including the option of having a walled garden.

We can accomplish all the benefits of a walled garden with appropriate and accessible security settings.

Walled gardens are by definition a lack of an option. You may think you want it, but eventually and inevitably they'll change things in a way you don't like and you won't have a choice. You may argue that you can just move to another platform then, but is it worth fleeing from failure to failure? Especially if you invest any money at all in one platform.

It doesn't work, just like true fascism. (But like fascism, some people think they want it)

 

[ZKenir]

No I don't "think" I want it, I want it full stop lol

 

[warp_]

As long as there is no harm done to consumers or individuals: That's unfortunately how this economic system works.
Paying for Netflix might be a bit more annoying now, but I fail to see any harm done to apple costumers.

the consumer benefit part of the epic lawsuit is mostly theoretical, so it's a bit harder to argue for right now. but the idea is mainly that if competition (real competition, not epic's definiton) is available on the ios platform there would be competing prices and more variety of apps allowed which is what would benefit the consumer.

also as a side note to apple's abuse of power, it has been growing in unexpected ways. stuff like xcloud and stadia are banned from the store, potentially because it competes with apple arcade? hard to tell and apple would never admit that.

the reasoning from apple is that they can't review the content of each game on the service so the whole service is not allowed. however they don't screen the content of each movie on netflix/amazon prime or every song on spotify and those are also streaming services. so it's things like that which grate and feel anti-competitive.

 

[morningbus]

Epic likes to position itself as a meritocratic champion, who wishes to let all the kingdom's creatures drink from the watering hole.

In reality, Epic is a jackal sitting on the bank of an oasis, snarling and laughing. It wants a kleptocracy, where the moneyed can snatch success for themselves and favors, influence, and theft are the keys to upward mobility.

 

[Alexandros]

also as a side note to apple's abuse of power, it has been growing in unexpected ways. stuff like xcloud and stadia are banned from the store, potentially because it competes with apple arcade? hard to tell and apple would never admit that.

Such cases will be the main focus of the EU antitrust investigation.

Antitrust: Commission opens investigations into Apple's App Store rules

The European Commission has opened formal antitrust investigations to assess whether Apple's rules for app developers on the distribution of apps via the App Store violate EU competition rules. The in

ec.europa.eu

The Commission will mainly investigate whether or not Apple's policies are hindering competition between third-party apps and apps that Apple has developed, for example Spotify vs Apple Music. To me it's obvious that Apple is banning XCloud and Stadia because it either wants people to buy native games or is planning a cloud gaming service of its own.

 

[ISee]

also as a side note to apple's abuse of power, it has been growing in unexpected ways. stuff like xcloud and stadia are banned from the store, potentially because it competes with apple arcade? hard to tell and apple would never admit that.

I agree that Apples reasoning to not allow XCloud, GeForce Now, Stadia etc, is selfish because they see a conflict with their own apps.

But as there are competing products with Android devices. I do not think further action is needed. Especially once we factor in market share: Apple has 26% of the market over here and Android is dominating with over 70%.

To turn the usual argument inside out: I believe it is Apples right to sell a restricted product with a store that costumers do not like. There is no law forbidding a bad product and people know what they are buying from day one. But instead of not buying apple products because of the restrictions, people are trying to use the law to force Apple into being a better product. This is baffling to me.

So while an open iOS would be better, I think it is a bit unfair to the competition to use legal force to initiate a change. Personally, I'd jump ship from Android to iOS in an open iphone scenario (for social tracking reasons), but I think Apple has the right to scare away as many costumers as they want to with their politics and they are allowed to do business with whomever they want to.
As long as you are not the dominating market share holder, you are free to make your product as unappealing as you see fit and we shouldn't stop you from doing so.

The real problem here is that there is no good smartphone OS on the market. Apple is restrictive, Google is incredibly aggressive in tracking their costumers. I understand the appeal to change one of them into a product that is actually good.

 

[C-Dub]

You know, I actually think Epic probably has a more legitimate grievance against Google than Apple. I mean, Google clearly strangles competing stores on an open platform using monopolistic tactics. The fact that Epic made a deal with OnePlus that Google than scuppered, using the Play Store's dominance to do so, is actually fucking scummy.

Apple refusing to do business with Epic after Epic engineered a negative PR campaign against them is not illegal. If I ran a company I wouldn't want anything to do with another company that signed a business agreement, broke the agreement, then ran negative videos about my company to a large demographic.

I'm in the boat that I want Apple to open up (I'd eventually switch back to iOS if it were open), but I don't think Epic has a leg to stand on here.

Plus we have to remember what Epic's motivations are here. They're just greedy assholes who want to make their own walled garden, and have access to an instant audience without doing any work to earn it.

They wanted access to Valve's Steam audience, so began aggressively buying up exclusivity on PC games most wished for on Steam to try and get that audience to come to them.

They probably tried the same shit on Android, but couldn't get enough traction with developers, because the Play Store is far more entrenched on Android (for better or worse) than Steam is on PC.

Now they are playing stupid games to try and legally force Apple to let them have access to their customers without any restrictions and, knowing they couldn't win the legal fight, have tried to make this a moral/mind share one. It's all from the same stupid-ass play book that they've been using for the past two years.

The thing is, I don't think Epic, or more to the point, Tim Sweeney, is able to predict consequences of their actions. As a result of them being dumbasses, they've garnered a lot of ill will in the PC community. Their store has barely moved the needle, and a lot of PC players, even people who think more competition to Steam is good, consider them a pariah.

And now they've failed to see what setting fire to their bridge with Apple will cause. They knew Fortnite would be pulled, and centered their campaign around that. But I don't reckon they thought Apple would go nuclear after dragging their name through the mud. And now not only is the Unreal Engine business facing a serious threat, but lots of developers who rely on Epic's tools are now facing the prospect of not being able to publish on iOS and Mac.

Even for people not making iOS games, it has the knock-on effect of eroding trust, too. I imagine a lot of developers and publishers are wondering what the next batshit insane thing Tim Sweeney is going to do when planning which engine they're going to use for their upcoming 4 year development marathon.

In short, fuck 'em. They are reaping what they sow.

 

[Wok]

The real problem here is that there is no good smartphone OS on the market.

The duopoly is happy with the statu quo. There is only pseudo-competition between the two:

• each product is sufficiently differentiated that it has its loyal customers.
• for a third-party, entering the mobile OS market would be difficult, especially to face Apple and Google, both of which could kill it in the egg.

That is why there is no good mobile OS: the consumer has to choose his poison. Unhappy? Too bad, smartphones are more and more a necessity.

Moreover, we talk about ecosystems here, not just products. This gives power and this should give huge responsibility to these firms. If the status quo implies that promising technologies like cloud gaming are dead on arrival on mobile, or that some Apple senior manager can throw a fit and kill whatever business, then some entity has to do something before it is too late.

 

[ISee]

The duopoly is happy with the statu quo. There is only pseudo-competition between the two:

• each product is sufficiently differentiated that it has its loyal customers.
• for a third-party, entering the mobile OS market would be difficult, especially to face Apple and Google, both of which could kill it in the egg.

That is why there is no good mobile OS: the consumer has to choose his poison. Unhappy? Too bad, smartphones are more and more a necessity.

Moreover, we talk about ecosystems here, not just products. This gives power and this should give huge responsibility to these firms. If the status quo implies that promising technologies like cloud gaming are dead on arrival on mobile, or that some Apple senior manager can throw a fit and kill whatever business, then some entity has to do something before it is too late.

Fair points. But duopolies are not uncommon in the tech industry.

GPUs: Nvidia or AMD
CPUs: AMD or Intel
Consoles: Microsoft or Sony

But I agree with you, we are not just talking about products but also about eco systems.
In general I do not think promising tech like cloud gaming is in danger because one eco system, with a relative low market share (if you factor in windows device, chrome OS devices, Android devices) is in danger. The problem for cloud gaming is that they are not able to maximize their profit without Apple. But that's not something that makes me sleep bad at night.

If Google and Apple would start working together to block the same apps (for example XCloud) on both of their devices I'd see a problem. But there is this huge android market and if Apple wants to hurts its own garden by diminishing and downgrading the software proposition... they can. I see way more bad stuff in the industry that I'm working for when it comes to neutralizing competition. And it is all legal. Laws have to be applicable on all occasions, but people are very picky when it comes to apple, because they want to stay on iOS, while making it more like android. Understandable, but that's not how competition works and is not something that should be enforceable through law. iOS is not a monopoly, far from it.

I agree with the "choose your poison argument" though and I therefore would rather like to see legislation go up against data collection on android devices. I think there is more legal ground to go up against that than against iOS for being walled off.

But as said, I'm not a lawyer. So my understanding is my understanding. I see the good in an open iOS system and, as said, I'd jump ship.

The thing is, just because we don't like something doesn't mean that it is illegal. I despise the EGS. Do I see ground for a lawsuit? No.

 

[lashman]

Consoles: Microsoft or Sony

poor baby nintendo

 

[Swenhir]

I agree that Apples reasoning to not allow XCloud, GeForce Now, Stadia etc, is selfish because they see a conflict with their own apps.

But as there are competing products with Android devices. I do not think further action is needed. Especially once we factor in market share: Apple has 26% of the market over here and Android is dominating with over 70%.

To turn the usual argument inside out: I believe it is Apples right to sell a restricted product with a store that costumers do not like. There is no law forbidding a bad product and people know what they are buying from day one. But instead of not buying apple products because of the restrictions, people are trying to use the law to force Apple into being a better product. This is baffling to me.

So while an open iOS would be better, I think it is a bit unfair to the competition to use legal force to initiate a change. Personally, I'd jump ship from Android to iOS in an open iphone scenario (for social tracking reasons), but I think Apple has the right to scare away as many costumers as they want to with their politics and they are allowed to do business with whomever they want to.
As long as you are not the dominating market share holder, you are free to make your product as unappealing as you see fit and we shouldn't stop you from doing so.

The real problem here is that there is no good smartphone OS on the market. Apple is restrictive, Google is incredibly aggressive in tracking their costumers. I understand the appeal to change one of them into a product that is actually good.

I don't agree with you but I find this to be a challenging thought experiment and you articulated it very well. Companies should indeed be free to make bad products.

Counter-point : there should be a baseline on the freedom afforded to do as you please with your tools. Bad shouldn't be allowed to sink so low.
Other counter-point : if you are in a duopoly, then your making bad products only makes the other party a stronger monopoly. It's not illegal but it's sure not desirable. Duopolies suck in general because at this scale they consolidate at such a size that they both embody some variation of corporate dystopia.

 

[EdwardTivrusky]

poor baby nintendo

What do you mean?

GPUs: Nvidia or AMD
CPUs: AMD or Intel
Consoles: Microsoft or Sony


Best: PC and Nintendo

 

[Le Pertti]

What worries me the most with apple is their push to lockdown their computers also. Sure say what you will about MacOS, I can still install windows or Linux on it. That changes with the introduction with arm processors. And if they manage to lockdown their computers it might then be more ok for others to so also. Mostly laptops I'm thinking.

So the danger is having only own built pcs be fully free.

 

[EdwardTivrusky]

Well, that's just Apple going back to their old ways.
They always used to have their own processors and it was a big thing when they started using x86 years ago. It's a pain for some people but i've been expecting it for a while now to be honest. They do like their total control, they were the "Console" of the PC World in that they had bespoke hardware/OS and Apps and they're just going back to that.

Interesting times ahead.

 

[Ge0force]

Here's a blog from an app developer who thinks that Epic will return Fortnite on iOS soon, because the legal battle with Apple is probably gonna take a while. He also believes that Epic's campaign against Apple didn't have the results Epic hoped for, since lots of people (and even most of the media) speaks out against it.

Fortnite's absence from Apple's App Store will be short-lived--here's why and on what basis Epic Games will put it back soon

Epic Games provoked Fortnite's removal from the iOS App Store and the Android Play Store by running a promotion that circumvented the in-app...

www.fosspatents.com

 

[curi0usBystander]

Here's a blog from an app developer who thinks that Epic will return Fortnite on iOS soon, because the legal battle with Apple is probably gonna take a while. He also believes that Epic's campaign against Apple didn't have the results Epic hoped for, since lots of people (and even most of the media) speaks out against it.

Fortnite's absence from Apple's App Store will be short-lived--here's why and on what basis Epic Games will put it back soon

Epic Games provoked Fortnite's removal from the iOS App Store and the Android Play Store by running a promotion that circumvented the in-app...

www.fosspatents.com

This part:

He may have made the mistake to assume that end users care as much about that 30% App Store cut as he and other developers do

Is why this whole crusade (that started in 2017 i think) was always weird to me, once you get away of certain more enthusiast people (that probably already knew this), people don't care. Nobody goes into a store and thinks "mmm how much money is the product maker gonna make of what I pay".

 

[Ge0force]

[UWSL]Is why this whole crusade (that started in 2017 i think) was always weird to me, once you get away of certain more enthusiast people (that probably already knew this), people don't care. Nobody goes into a store and thinks "mmm how much money is the product maker gonna make of what I pay".[/UWSL]

Exactly. Especially since EGS has proven that a lower cut doesn't lead to lower prices.

 

[Jav]

Here's a blog from an app developer who thinks that Epic will return Fortnite on iOS soon, because the legal battle with Apple is probably gonna take a while. He also believes that Epic's campaign against Apple didn't have the results Epic hoped for, since lots of people (and even most of the media) speaks out against it.

Fortnite's absence from Apple's App Store will be short-lived--here's why and on what basis Epic Games will put it back soon

Epic Games provoked Fortnite's removal from the iOS App Store and the Android Play Store by running a promotion that circumvented the in-app...

www.fosspatents.com

Normal people, especially on the internet tend to have short attention spans and this matter won't get resolved in years so the momentum would be lost, that's why it was weird the whole free Fortnite movement, I guess Sweeney expected a massive push from the community against Apple and ride that wave into a better deal, but looking how half baked the response has been it's probably better for them to at least bury the axe of the community war and let the courts decide.

 

[Le Pertti]

I know epic always complains about tax that and tax this. But I'm for everyone paying their taxes. Even if it is a store cut.

That said fuck apple for all the taxes it evades, take them to court and jail someone for that!

 

[curi0usBystander]

So far, Apple is winning on that front: Blow for EU as Apple wins fight against $15 billion tax order

 

[Swenhir]

That said fuck apple for all the taxes it evades, take them to court and jail someone for that!

That's a good point, and I wish it were within the realm of possibility.

 

[Copons]

But I'm for everyone paying their taxes.

Finns, am I right?

 

[Swenhir]

Here's a blog from an app developer who thinks that Epic will return Fortnite on iOS soon, because the legal battle with Apple is probably gonna take a while. He also believes that Epic's campaign against Apple didn't have the results Epic hoped for, since lots of people (and even most of the media) speaks out against it.

Fortnite's absence from Apple's App Store will be short-lived--here's why and on what basis Epic Games will put it back soon

Epic Games provoked Fortnite's removal from the iOS App Store and the Android Play Store by running a promotion that circumvented the in-app...

www.fosspatents.com

He's quite astute in his commentary.

Whether a federal judge will be comfortable with the notion of her court being used as a PR tool by a multi-billion-dollar games company is another question. That may or may not be Epic's second miscalculation in the early stages of this dispute.

And a pretty good point there.

 

[Durante]

Yeah, this is pretty much how I see it (not a lawyer or even remotely close to it of course!):

I predict that Judge Gonzalez Rogers is going to be more than reluctant to enjoin Apple at this stage. From the perspective of a judge, it doesn't make sense that someone would purposely breach an agreement and then ask a court to enter an order within a matter of days only to prevent the other party (that met its own obligations) from triggering the contractually defined consequences of such conduct. As Apple told The Verge, they're happy to make Fortnite available again, provided that Epic honors the related agreements, which it had been doing for years and very profitably so.

 

[Trisolarian]

You know what I don't understand, all this talk of the mythical 'CONSUMER'.

Businesses buy from businesses /shop around just as much as us saintly consumers do. (I'm a ruthless fuck and have next to zero loyalty, except when it comes to buying from amazon bc fuck them break them the fuck up)

A more fair payment system and open platform is great for other small businesses as well as mega corp Epic.

 

[curi0usBystander]

A more fair payment system and open platform is great for other small businesses as well as mega corp Epic.

Yes, and I'd be more sympathetic if they were being a bit more honest, saying "we want more money" instead of "we're gonna save you from the evil megacorps (forget the part where we also are one)."

Technically you can buy directly from the website, but as they just admit it's hard to convince someone to buy it in the browser (even if they were allowed to advertise it, the "extra work" seem not worthy for such a small transaction).

 

[ISee]

Other counter-point : if you are in a duopoly, then your making bad products only makes the other party a stronger monopoly

I agree.

Counter-point : there should be a baseline on the freedom afforded to do as you please with your tools. Bad shouldn't be allowed to sink to low.

I can easily imagine scenarios where this would be true.

Duopolies suck in general because at this scale they consolidate at such a size that they both embody some variation of corporate dystopia.

True and once duopolies start taking advantage of each other it turns into a problem. A good example (imo) is AMD and Nvidia swarming the market with endless tiers of GPUs competing at similar prices and performance (+/- 10%). There is no consultation going on, just "clever" planning.

A working duopoly is the CPU market though, where Intel was compelled to go from 4c/8t to 10c/20t on consumer products in three years.

poor baby nintendo

Oh no, what have I done.
(I've seriously forgotten about them lol)

 

[warp_]

Other counter-point : if you are in a duopoly, then your making bad products only makes the other party a stronger monopoly. It's not illegal but it's sure not desirable. Duopolies suck in general because at this scale they consolidate at such a size that they both embody some variation of corporate dystopia.

this is kinda similar to epic's argument against apple and google. because both companies are copying each other in their developer agreements and tos to such a strong extent and use such underhanded tactics to stifle competition they are just different shades of shit brown rather than two actual distinct marketplaces.

and they do it because they know they can. there is no third option.

 

[Trisolarian]

Yes, and I'd be more sympathetic if they were being a bit more honest, saying "we want more money" instead of "we're gonna save you from the evil megacorps (forget the part where we also are one)."

Technically you can buy directly from the website, but as they just admit it's hard to convince someone to buy it in the browser (even if they were allowed to advertise it, the "extra work" seem not worthy for such a small transaction).

Meh, Epic can poster all over the place, its cringey but I'm looking past it.

 

[warp_]

This part:


Is why this whole crusade (that started in 2017 i think) was always weird to me, once you get away of certain more enthusiast people (that probably already knew this), people don't care. Nobody goes into a store and thinks "mmm how much money is the product maker gonna make of what I pay".

and this is why epic also cut the price of vbucks in fortnite. even right now in the apple version of the app there are two payment options: epic or apple pay. the epic payment is 20% cheaper than the apple payment. same thing is happening in the play store version of the app. now they can say "we are trying to make vbucks cheaper for you but apple/google won't let us".

it's a potentially shady move but it's the only way to make a consumer care for the most part. or maybe just me, i'm a sucker for a deal. can't blame them for trying it though.

 

[Swenhir]

True and once duopolies start taking advantage of each other it turns into a problem. A good example (imo) is AMD and Nvidia swarming the market with endless tiers of GPUs competing at similar prices and performance (+/- 10%). There is no consultation going on, just "clever" planning.

A working duopoly is the CPU market though, where Intel was compelled to go from 4c/8t to 10c/20t on consumer products in three years.

Agreed to everything you said, but this in particular. And yeah, the CPU market mostly appears to be working, or at least be free of the egregious price fixing and inflation in the GPU market.

I really liked Linus's video regarding Intel's limiting the speed of RAM for no apparent reason on some mobo's. AMD is breathing down their neck and this is a rare display of actual competition happening, I concur with you.

this is kinda similar to epic's argument against apple and google. because both companies are copying each other in their developer agreements and tos to such a strong extent and use such underhanded tactics to stifle competition they are just different shades of shit brown rather than two actual distinct marketplaces.

and they do it because they know they can. there is no third option.

I've never read the ToS so I can only take your word for it but I believe you. There kind of is an option from a technical standpoint, which is to root your Android device and just install whatever you want on it with a custom rom. But the whole "you can actually sideload" reasoning of Google is rather disingenuous.

Yes, you can, but the lengths you have to go are labyrinthine and the warnings are worded in such a way that you would think your device is going to spontaneously combust and spread the black plague on your family if you do so.

I get the feeling Google wishes they could have a walled garden, but have locked themselves out of that path.

 

[warp_]

most digital stores basically just copied apple's homework, including psn/xbl. 30% cut of single purchases, 30% of all subscriptions that turns into 15% after a year straight of subscribing, and only pay via our system with no other option. there's other things but they are mostly the same. this is of course second hand info to me from friends who work in development on mobile/console stuff but it does seem very similar.

But the whole "you can actually sideload" reasoning of Google is rather disingenuous.

Yes, you can, but the lengths you have to go are labyrinthine and the warnings are worded in such a way that you would think your device is going to spontaneously combust and spread the black plague on your family if you do so.

epic makes this exact same argument in the google lawsuit

Direct downloading on Android mobile devices, however, differs dramatically. Google ensures that the Android process is technically complex, confusing and threatening, filled with dire warnings that scare most consumers into abandoning the lengthy process. For example, depending on the version of Android running on a mobile device, downloading and installing Fortnite on an Android device could take as many as 16 steps or more, including requiring the user to make changes to the device’s default settings and manually granting various permissions while being warned that doing so is dangerous.

As if this slog through warnings and threats were not enough to ensure the inferiority of direct downloading as a distribution method for Android apps, Google denies downloaded apps the permissions necessary to be seamlessly updated in the background—instead allows such updates only for apps downloaded via Google Play Store. The result is that consumers must manually approve every update of a “sideloaded” app.

In addition, depending on the OS version and selected settings,such updates may require users to go through many of the steps in the downloading process repeatedly, again triggering many of the same warnings. This imposes onerous obstacles on consumers who wish to keep the most current version of an app on their mobile device and further drives consumers away from direct downloading and toward Google’s monopolized app store.

 

[curi0usBystander]

and this is why epic also cut the price of vbucks in fortnite. even right now in the apple version of the app there are two payment options: epic or apple pay. the epic payment is 20% cheaper than the apple payment. same thing is happening in the play store version of the app. now they can say "we are trying to make vbucks cheaper for you but apple/google won't let us".

I mean, didn't they also cut the price on console ?
They could have always had a cheaper version in the website/client. They've been complaining about this for years and could have used it to prove a point.

it's a potentially shady move but it's the only way to make a consumer care for the most part. or maybe just me, i'm a sucker for a deal. can't blame them for trying it though.

Sure, but at the end of the day would most people care if that deal came from a store cut or somewhere else ?

 

[Swenhir]

pic makes this exact same argument in the google lawsuit

I am aware

 

[warp_]

vbucks have been cheaper on pc than console/phones for a few years now (i know too much about fortnite due to younger relatives lol). as far as console i assume those were just cut to match every other version. i don't think tim is ready to wage the war on consoles just yet, and his arguments probably wouldn't work as well there since there's more options in that space.

Sure, but at the end of the day would most people care if that deal came from a store cut or somewhere else ?

i think that's why they show the two options side by side in the app, to directly show the cuts being taken by apple/google:

 

[Ge0force]

and this is why epic also cut the price of vbucks in fortnite. even right now in the apple version of the app there are two payment options: epic or apple pay. the epic payment is 20% cheaper than the apple payment. same thing is happening in the play store version of the app. now they can say "we are trying to make vbucks cheaper for you but apple/google won't let us".

That was probably their plan. But as said before, EGS proved that a lower cut for developers doesn't lead to lower prices for us as consumers , minus a few exceptions. These "trickle-down economics" have been proven wrong on many occasions already.

Also, the MT's in Fortnite are heavily overpriced, and nothing keeps Epic from adding stuff that cost even MORE vbucks to unlock in the next few months to compensate the loss of revenue on consoles. This is one of the reasons why I strongly dislike in-game currencies linked to real money. People should clearly see that they are spending €20 on a virtual costume, especially kids. This is a problem in many (F2P) games of course, not specifically in Fortnite.

 

[curi0usBystander]

vbucks have been cheaper on pc than console/phones for a few years now

Fair enough. When I read the news it sounded like they did it everywhere (the price drop).

 

[Copons]

For example, depending on the version of Android running on a mobile device, downloading and installing Fortnite on an Android device could take as many as 16 steps or more, including requiring the user to make changes to the device’s default settings and manually granting various permissions while being warned that doing so is dangerous.

This... is not exactly true though?

I'm not exactly a normal user, and I've been sideloading stuff on Android since forever, but still.
On my Pixel 2XL running Android 10, allowing unknown source apps for specific apps is simple enough (of course, you need to know what you're doing, but there are tons of guides anywhere; I guess Epic could even do a nice video and show it in-game! ):

1. "Settings"
2. "Apps & Notifications"
3. Expand the "Advanced" section
4. "Special App Access"
5. "Install Unknown Apps"
6. select an app (e.g. Chrome)
7. Turn on "Allow from this source" (this is the only step where there is a security warning, and it's under the toggle; it's not like you have to click through an endless sequence of "Are you sure?" popups)

That's it.
7 steps against "as many as 16 steps or more depending on the version of Android".
Like, yeah, I guess some manufacturers might bury the setting in some more obscure place, but that "16" is such a random number, imho. They could as well said "as many as 250 steps".
Also what does "changes to the device's default settings" even means? Is that such an uncommon thing? I'm pretty sure my father (70) pokes around his iPhone's settings all the time.

(Personal opinion: this extremely granular control you have over apps is a bit of a chore, but overall a very good feature.)

 

[gabbo]

You know, I actually think Epic probably has a more legitimate grievance against Google than Apple. I mean, Google clearly strangles competing stores on an open platform using monopolistic tactics. The fact that Epic made a deal with OnePlus that Google than scuppered, using the Play Store's dominance to do so, is actually fucking scummy.

Apple refusing to do business with Epic after Epic engineered a negative PR campaign against them is not illegal. If I ran a company I wouldn't want anything to do with another company that signed a business agreement, broke the agreement, then ran negative videos about my company to a large demographic.

I'm in the boat that I want Apple to open up (I'd eventually switch back to iOS if it were open), but I don't think Epic has a leg to stand on here.

Plus we have to remember what Epic's motivations are here. They're just greedy assholes who want to make their own walled garden, and have access to an instant audience without doing any work to earn it.

They wanted access to Valve's Steam audience, so began aggressively buying up exclusivity on PC games most wished for on Steam to try and get that audience to come to them.

They probably tried the same shit on Android, but couldn't get enough traction with developers, because the Play Store is far more entrenched on Android (for better or worse) than Steam is on PC.

Now they are playing stupid games to try and legally force Apple to let them have access to their customers without any restrictions and, knowing they couldn't win the legal fight, have tried to make this a moral/mind share one. It's all from the same stupid-ass play book that they've been using for the past two years.

The thing is, I don't think Epic, or more to the point, Tim Sweeney, is able to predict consequences of their actions. As a result of them being dumbasses, they've garnered a lot of ill will in the PC community. Their store has barely moved the needle, and a lot of PC players, even people who think more competition to Steam is good, consider them a pariah.

And now they've failed to see what setting fire to their bridge with Apple will cause. They knew Fortnite would be pulled, and centered their campaign around that. But I don't reckon they thought Apple would go nuclear after dragging their name through the mud. And now not only is the Unreal Engine business facing a serious threat, but lots of developers who rely on Epic's tools are now facing the prospect of not being able to publish on iOS and Mac.

Even for people not making iOS games, it has the knock-on effect of eroding trust, too. I imagine a lot of developers and publishers are wondering what the next batshit insane thing Tim Sweeney is going to do when planning which engine they're going to use for their upcoming 4 year development marathon.

In short, fuck 'em. They are reaping what they sow.

While I agree with your reap what you sow sentiment, I have a hard time believing Epic or Sweeney didn't have this exact outcome planned well in advance and built it into their legal strategy. It's one thing for us to not read a EULA, it's another for one billion dollar company not to read its business contract with another btrillion dollar company. They knew theyd get the Engine tools/support locked out, whether they thought they'd be seen in the bad light their currently in is another thing.

 

[warp_]

epic is including every step in the process as part of the "16 steps". and of course they will use every avenue to make their case look stronger (so many steps, so hard for joe lunchpail, much easier to use play store) then things get argued back and forth in the courtroom.