This is why devs are afraid of publicly criticizing Apple, let alone testifying against them in the court.
Apple has shown that they will then prevent you from accessing 50%+ of the US market.
In short Apple is a bully, has been for more than a decade now, and it has worked out well for them.
But you’ve left out part of the narrative: Developer pushes an App update which purposefully violates the TOS, expecting rejection- having planned in advance to kick off an expensive PR campaign and legal battle.
I don’t deny Apple’s pettiness… Nonetheless, can you provide a different example of why devs are afraid of publicly criticizing Apple?
>I don’t deny Apple’s pettiness… Nonetheless, can you provide a different example of why devs are afraid of publicly criticizing Apple?
Every subscription service should have a banner on their pages saying signing up through iOS takes 30%. Many just disabled signing up.
Of course maybe this isn't the best example since Apple actually made it against their rules to tell users it'd be cheaper to purchase on their site.
Apple's rules undeniably cost end users money. Epic proved it by taking some of that 30% fee and giving it back to the consumer (you got more Fortnite credits buying on Epic store instead of Apple store).
Why people try to defend Apple I'll never understand, my guess is some people who own an iPhone have decided that's 'their team' and who wants to see their team lose? But I'm not sure.
Yeah, there's no good guys in this fight. Apple may be behaving badly, but Epic broke the terms they agreed to, tried to use the courts to force Apple to change their App Store business model, and even kicked off a public PR campaign trashing Apple... and now they're whining because Apple is not treating them nicely after all that? You went nuclear on Apple, Epic. That's not going to make them interested in having you as a business partner.
They couldn't start the legal battle without doing this. They needed to get solid legal standing. So yes, they planned it, but they couldn't easily challenge Apple without getting the rejection.
Your suggestion is that they sit on the sidelines and complain about the situation. That's what plenty of people have done, and it makes no difference.
I'm not a fan of Epic, I don't play their games. They did all this for their own benefit. But it's probably a good thing overall.
They didn’t ban them for publicly criticizing, they banned them for intentionally breaking the rules. So yes, this makes devs more afraid of knowingly breaking the rules like how jail makes people more afraid of breaking the law. And yes fornite team has been quite a bully in their incessant tweets but glad to see Apple not stopping to their level.
Devs are more afraid of breaking the rules because the rules change all the time, and they know Apple is petty and cares more about money than being good to customers and developers.
I think a big portion of the problem is that Apple is both the platform (phone) and the store. Similar to Google and Chrome for the web, it creates a conflict.
Bad faith movies like slapping warnings, geo blocking dev tools (remember you have to be in Europe to be able to develop an alternative web browser engine lol), limiting side loading etc … feels like “let’s milk the cashcow until people don’t need iPhones anymore”. The longer they can drag it the better. Disappointing tbh.
Apple gets around this by saying they are "Promising to Create 30000 american jobs" which the politicians then peddle in their election campaigns. But then it never happens because it is all a promise...
The politicians of course only care about the PR stunt and give them concessions either way.
From all of them - take it away from Google too. Frankly - Microsoft never actually got much buy in for their store, but take it away from them as well.
Hardware that has only a single approved distribution channel for software, that is owned by someone other than the owner of the hardware, shouldn't be legal.
Further - if you own a piece of hardware, you legally should own EVERY fucking key. If there's a lock in that device, hardware or software based, that has a key - you get a damn copy.
---
Some physical comparisons that show how outrageously unethical this setup is:
You buy a home, but your realtor gets the only copy of the keys. "Don't worry" they say, "I'll just pop by and open er up whenever you need to get in and out. Oh, and by the way, I don't like Ikea - so I won't open the door if you're trying to move Ikea furniture in. Great working with you guys, enjoy your new home!".
You've just bought a new car, you tried turning into your neighborhood, but suddenly the car stops. You call the dealer: "Oh, I see your neighborhood road was paved by PavingCo, They don't pay our manufacturers' yearly inspection fee, so we can't certify that our car can safely drive on that road. So we disable it when the GPS detects you're about to drive there."
---
This is fundamentally about ownership. Hardware manufacturers are playing with utter fire here, because this is the first time in history there exists enough infrastructure that a device can phone home and ask "Is this ok?" to the maker, rather than operating as the owner desires.
As far as I'm concerned - you don't own a device that does that. You're just renting it, and the manufacturer can and will extort you with rent-seeking behavior at EVERY turn.
Phones are only the first stop - this is going to spread to absolutely everything that uses electricity unless this gets extinguished real fast. We're already starting to see the same games in Cars, IoT devices, TVs, etc...
I'm eagerly awaiting the day my drill stops working because I'm not trying to drill the manufacturers' overpriced screws with it...
Microsoft locking out third-party applications with Windows S, and/or pushing users to Microsoft's own game store, was actually a real threat to Valve. That's one of the major reasons Proton is a thing: Valve realized they were entirely dependant on a party they had no leverage over, so they built and invested in Linux.
Should Microsoft ever make a move now, Valve isn't completely at their mercy.
Epic didn't publicly criticize Apple or testify against them in court to get into this situation, they willfully and deliberately broke the legal developer agreement that they signed to get press coverage (they could have filed suit on the anti-steering rules regardless).
Not only did they do this, they then filed suit to say that Apple shouldn't have been allowed to suspend their account—and lost (though arguably won the broader war since anti-steering is currently dead).
There are a ton of things Apple is doing wrong around developer stuff and anti-steering rules and all of it, but I dunno, I feel pretty good about them saying to a specific developer, “actually, you've shown yourself to be willing to ignore the legal agreements you sign, so we're not going to be doing business with you any longer“. Epic's stunt should cost them, if they then want to talk about how they've martyred themselves for developers everywhere. Good work, but a martyr who comes back to life isn't really a martyr, right?
Apple is just being petty now. They're legally allowed to keep Epic out, but why? As a message to others who might wish to legally contest Apple's monopolistic (or at least duopolistic) practises? You lost, Apple. Be a gracious loser. This action is only going to foment even more animosity from developers, gamers, customers, judges, and importantly, legislators. This absolutely will be used as a datapoint for future rulings, and cases are ongoing or being filed all over the world now.
Epic wanted their own store and they got their own store. It cost them and Apple a bunch of money, which indirectly is not good for anyone's customers... my sense of justice is not perplexed as to why they are not allowed back in.
Would you want to do business with someone who just sued you after breaking their previous contract with you?
> Epic wanted their own store and they got their own store.
They don't. Quoting the article:
> "Apple has blocked our Fortnite submission so we cannot release to the US App Store or to the Epic Games Store for iOS in the European Union," Epic stated via its Fortnite account
If someone prevents me from selling my own product in my own store then it's not my store.
But they didn't get their own store. They're still blocked from distributing to iPhones everywhere except the EU. And that process is incredibly user hostile (for which Apple will likely receive another fine for violating the DMA).
As I say above, Apple is legally permitted to do this, but I think they're inviting additional and heavy-handed legal interdiction. They're burning so much of their brand and goodwill on this war against developers. They went so far as to risk actual prison time for their executives, just so they could screw developers out of as much money as possible.
Man, just let it go. More you try to block Epic or any other, more you are pushing people away from yourself.
Be Apple, innovate, give us second iPhone moment so you wouldn't worry so much about revenue drop in services. Or make payment via Apple so good, your customers would go for it even with price difference. Just stop stupid, monopolistic tactics.
Companies do not innovate for fun. The point of innovation is getting to be able to profit from it.
Apple has built the touchscreen smartphone that the world to date still could not move on from, and it still leads in that category. By working both hardware and software fronts, they have grinded out an ecosystem that was compelling and money-making to small developers (handling legal and tax logistics pretty much worldwide for you) and to the end users.
Apple Pay is yet another example: you’d think somebody would have come up with a way to conveniently and securely pay with, say, a phone, and yet everybody needed for the teacher to do it first and only then jumped on copying the feature with barely enough creativity to call it “%SOME_BRAND_NAME% Pay” and put their logo on it. Now it’s incredibly convenient, it’s everywhere online, and it basically turns every shop out there into Amazon’s patented “one-click purchase” experience.
Saying they should not be able to profit from their innovation because they just did too good of a job intuitively seems like the opposite of American values. This is not some rusty ISP monopoly with a geographically captive market, sitting on decades old software as secure as Swiss cheese, doing mostly nothing. People switch between ecosystems all the time, there are no strong lock-ins; you have to be on top of it to stay competitive, and Apple generally is. This is one of the rare cases where a company keeps generating and implementing (pretty well) idea after idea in multiple areas with a valuation, contrary to trends, built not on empty future promises but on a concrete, sound business model that provides real value to people who are willing to pay for it, despite having a lot of choice.
Eh... get outta here. Profit is fine, rent seeking is not.
I don't care if they're "rusty" or or not. Sell a good hammer, make money selling the hammer: Everything is fine.
Sell a good hammer, double dip with rent seeking and charge for every nail the user drives? Fuck off. Happy to see them get wrecked in the court system.
That is how the world Ought to be, not how the world Is.
As I do with Microsoft, I only use Apple products when its absolutely necessary.
My personal choices are whatever is best, Fedora for my home OS(Don't call Fedora Linux, Fedora is so far and beyond Linux, you don't want to associate them).
My Pixel phone... Idk, looking for something new. But at least I have been using Fdroid and its pretty amazing.
But yeah I bend to their will when I'm doing corporate stuff, never personal.
So pathetic, especially the red triangle. It's like they thought "well it's a warning, so we use the warning icon but we need to make it scary so it's red!!".
Though I am very pro Epic in this, I feel this is the least harmful way Apple can warn users who are apprehensive of alternative payment systems while those who want to go ahead can. Like Fortnite's user base would not be deterred by this.
Would you be okay for Google to warn anyone when entering a website on chrome that they are taking a risk because they offer payment options other than Google pay?
Its about freedom and openness of platforms.
‘It’s fine because people will ignore it’ doesn’t make something okay.
This has been going on for 4 years, they have won multiple times in court. The last time the judge actively insulted apple for ignoring the previous engagements and even suggesting criminal proceedings on some of the executives, and now they ignore the courts again
By “they” you mean Apple, if you’ve read the opinions. And they did fly too close to the sun recently on one point. But that point was not about whether or not they have to let epic on their platform.
The title is a bit misleading, Apple did not reject the submission, just not approved it (yet). I know ignoring a submission is practically the same as blocking or rejecting it; but I think this case is already messy enough so that these things should be read with more nuance.
Also the situation is much more complicated. In the EU, Fortnite has been available for a while through their own Epic Games AppStore. This submission seems to have been for both, the EU distribution and the US AppStore. I am surprised that such a situation is even possible, I thought if you opt-in your app/account for EU alternative AppStores you are kind of blocked from the standard AppStore submission as the requirements for the alternative distribution path are different from the AppStore. At the same time it seems to give Epic more arguments for pressure on Apple as sabotaging the release in the EU might be against the DMA laws.
Maybe you are right. „blocked“ still is a strange term to use when normally people speak of „rejected“ so maybe they just told them they won‘t approve it. The latest news is that they were told to resubmit for EU only and that will get approved.
As expected [0], it isn't over yet and Apple doesn't care.
They even went as far as to blocking downloads from third-party app stores:
> The Verge has confirmed that the game is no longer available to download on iOS from the Epic Games Store or the alternative marketplace AltStore PAL in the EU, where it had previously been available. It’s not yet clear if Apple blocked the game’s availability through those stores, or if Epic itself chose to make it unavailable. We’ve reached out to both Apple and Epic for comment.
That tells you the reach into how Apple can block app installs even from third-party app stores.
Well, I hope they keep pushing hard so that lawmakers notice how broken anything related to selling software is.
I know, wishful thinking, but I'd love more ownership for the hardware I buy.
A few days ago Nintendo announced that if you do anything outside of what they allow, they will BRICK YOUR NINTENDO SWITCH. Like, how's that even legal
just checking, so you think selling software is broken, do you actually sell software?
if you are an indie dev on app store, do you think apple allowing alt stores and basically unlocking piracy is how selling will become less broken for you?
there are only two categories of people winning this: people who like to pirate things when they can, and shady corps like epic who are invulnerable to piracy even if alt stores are allowed (because they run their own billing servers) and who want to make a penny more on every predatory microtransaction in their games.
The 3 biggest companies in the world are all 3 software companies.
I guess you could consider Apple a hardware company, that leaves us with 2, but the appstore is an enormous source of revenue for Apple, so there is that.
I guess "selling software" in my mind doesn't necessarily means a traditional transaction, so that's probably the source of disagreement.
Yes, to me selling software is very much broken for the consumer.
The fact that selling software for indie devs is hard doesn't justify that, selling to end users is hard in many businesses.
In businesses, software is everywhere though
Readit News
I don’t deny Apple’s pettiness… Nonetheless, can you provide a different example of why devs are afraid of publicly criticizing Apple?
Every subscription service should have a banner on their pages saying signing up through iOS takes 30%. Many just disabled signing up.
Of course maybe this isn't the best example since Apple actually made it against their rules to tell users it'd be cheaper to purchase on their site.
Apple's rules undeniably cost end users money. Epic proved it by taking some of that 30% fee and giving it back to the consumer (you got more Fortnite credits buying on Epic store instead of Apple store).
Why people try to defend Apple I'll never understand, my guess is some people who own an iPhone have decided that's 'their team' and who wants to see their team lose? But I'm not sure.
As for different reason, how about this official policy from ~2015:
> If your App is rejected, we have a Review Board that you can appeal to. If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150411105225/https://developer...
Your suggestion is that they sit on the sidelines and complain about the situation. That's what plenty of people have done, and it makes no difference.
I'm not a fan of Epic, I don't play their games. They did all this for their own benefit. But it's probably a good thing overall.
abiding by apple's abusive TOS won't improve developers' situations, you have to stand up to them.
Deleted Comment
Devs are more afraid of breaking the rules because the rules change all the time, and they know Apple is petty and cares more about money than being good to customers and developers.
Too many devs have their livelihood at the mercy of Apple's(and Google's) Damocles's sword. At least with Google you can easily sideload.
If even megacorpos like Epic have issues with Apple imagine what being an indie dev or small company will be like.
The politicians of course only care about the PR stunt and give them concessions either way.
Dead Comment
From all of them - take it away from Google too. Frankly - Microsoft never actually got much buy in for their store, but take it away from them as well.
Hardware that has only a single approved distribution channel for software, that is owned by someone other than the owner of the hardware, shouldn't be legal.
Further - if you own a piece of hardware, you legally should own EVERY fucking key. If there's a lock in that device, hardware or software based, that has a key - you get a damn copy.
---
Some physical comparisons that show how outrageously unethical this setup is:
You buy a home, but your realtor gets the only copy of the keys. "Don't worry" they say, "I'll just pop by and open er up whenever you need to get in and out. Oh, and by the way, I don't like Ikea - so I won't open the door if you're trying to move Ikea furniture in. Great working with you guys, enjoy your new home!".
You've just bought a new car, you tried turning into your neighborhood, but suddenly the car stops. You call the dealer: "Oh, I see your neighborhood road was paved by PavingCo, They don't pay our manufacturers' yearly inspection fee, so we can't certify that our car can safely drive on that road. So we disable it when the GPS detects you're about to drive there."
---
This is fundamentally about ownership. Hardware manufacturers are playing with utter fire here, because this is the first time in history there exists enough infrastructure that a device can phone home and ask "Is this ok?" to the maker, rather than operating as the owner desires.
As far as I'm concerned - you don't own a device that does that. You're just renting it, and the manufacturer can and will extort you with rent-seeking behavior at EVERY turn.
Phones are only the first stop - this is going to spread to absolutely everything that uses electricity unless this gets extinguished real fast. We're already starting to see the same games in Cars, IoT devices, TVs, etc...
I'm eagerly awaiting the day my drill stops working because I'm not trying to drill the manufacturers' overpriced screws with it...
The outrage would be massive, that would be giant scandal
Should Microsoft ever make a move now, Valve isn't completely at their mercy.
Not only did they do this, they then filed suit to say that Apple shouldn't have been allowed to suspend their account—and lost (though arguably won the broader war since anti-steering is currently dead).
There are a ton of things Apple is doing wrong around developer stuff and anti-steering rules and all of it, but I dunno, I feel pretty good about them saying to a specific developer, “actually, you've shown yourself to be willing to ignore the legal agreements you sign, so we're not going to be doing business with you any longer“. Epic's stunt should cost them, if they then want to talk about how they've martyred themselves for developers everywhere. Good work, but a martyr who comes back to life isn't really a martyr, right?
Epic wanted their own store and they got their own store. It cost them and Apple a bunch of money, which indirectly is not good for anyone's customers... my sense of justice is not perplexed as to why they are not allowed back in.
Would you want to do business with someone who just sued you after breaking their previous contract with you?
They don't. Quoting the article:
> "Apple has blocked our Fortnite submission so we cannot release to the US App Store or to the Epic Games Store for iOS in the European Union," Epic stated via its Fortnite account
If someone prevents me from selling my own product in my own store then it's not my store.
As I say above, Apple is legally permitted to do this, but I think they're inviting additional and heavy-handed legal interdiction. They're burning so much of their brand and goodwill on this war against developers. They went so far as to risk actual prison time for their executives, just so they could screw developers out of as much money as possible.
Deleted Comment
Be Apple, innovate, give us second iPhone moment so you wouldn't worry so much about revenue drop in services. Or make payment via Apple so good, your customers would go for it even with price difference. Just stop stupid, monopolistic tactics.
But that's good thing. More people move away from Apple the less power Apple will have.
Apple has built the touchscreen smartphone that the world to date still could not move on from, and it still leads in that category. By working both hardware and software fronts, they have grinded out an ecosystem that was compelling and money-making to small developers (handling legal and tax logistics pretty much worldwide for you) and to the end users.
Apple Pay is yet another example: you’d think somebody would have come up with a way to conveniently and securely pay with, say, a phone, and yet everybody needed for the teacher to do it first and only then jumped on copying the feature with barely enough creativity to call it “%SOME_BRAND_NAME% Pay” and put their logo on it. Now it’s incredibly convenient, it’s everywhere online, and it basically turns every shop out there into Amazon’s patented “one-click purchase” experience.
Saying they should not be able to profit from their innovation because they just did too good of a job intuitively seems like the opposite of American values. This is not some rusty ISP monopoly with a geographically captive market, sitting on decades old software as secure as Swiss cheese, doing mostly nothing. People switch between ecosystems all the time, there are no strong lock-ins; you have to be on top of it to stay competitive, and Apple generally is. This is one of the rare cases where a company keeps generating and implementing (pretty well) idea after idea in multiple areas with a valuation, contrary to trends, built not on empty future promises but on a concrete, sound business model that provides real value to people who are willing to pay for it, despite having a lot of choice.
I don't care if they're "rusty" or or not. Sell a good hammer, make money selling the hammer: Everything is fine.
Sell a good hammer, double dip with rent seeking and charge for every nail the user drives? Fuck off. Happy to see them get wrecked in the court system.
As I do with Microsoft, I only use Apple products when its absolutely necessary.
My personal choices are whatever is best, Fedora for my home OS(Don't call Fedora Linux, Fedora is so far and beyond Linux, you don't want to associate them).
My Pixel phone... Idk, looking for something new. But at least I have been using Fdroid and its pretty amazing.
But yeah I bend to their will when I'm doing corporate stuff, never personal.
https://www.gsmarena.com/apple_now_showing_warnings_on_eu_ap...
Its about freedom and openness of platforms.
‘It’s fine because people will ignore it’ doesn’t make something okay.
It's poorly worded for maximum FUD.
Also the situation is much more complicated. In the EU, Fortnite has been available for a while through their own Epic Games AppStore. This submission seems to have been for both, the EU distribution and the US AppStore. I am surprised that such a situation is even possible, I thought if you opt-in your app/account for EU alternative AppStores you are kind of blocked from the standard AppStore submission as the requirements for the alternative distribution path are different from the AppStore. At the same time it seems to give Epic more arguments for pressure on Apple as sabotaging the release in the EU might be against the DMA laws.
They even went as far as to blocking downloads from third-party app stores:
> The Verge has confirmed that the game is no longer available to download on iOS from the Epic Games Store or the alternative marketplace AltStore PAL in the EU, where it had previously been available. It’s not yet clear if Apple blocked the game’s availability through those stores, or if Epic itself chose to make it unavailable. We’ve reached out to both Apple and Epic for comment.
That tells you the reach into how Apple can block app installs even from third-party app stores.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43896104
A few days ago Nintendo announced that if you do anything outside of what they allow, they will BRICK YOUR NINTENDO SWITCH. Like, how's that even legal
if you are an indie dev on app store, do you think apple allowing alt stores and basically unlocking piracy is how selling will become less broken for you?
there are only two categories of people winning this: people who like to pirate things when they can, and shady corps like epic who are invulnerable to piracy even if alt stores are allowed (because they run their own billing servers) and who want to make a penny more on every predatory microtransaction in their games.
I guess "selling software" in my mind doesn't necessarily means a traditional transaction, so that's probably the source of disagreement.
Yes, to me selling software is very much broken for the consumer. The fact that selling software for indie devs is hard doesn't justify that, selling to end users is hard in many businesses. In businesses, software is everywhere though