SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Fortnite maker sues Apple after removal of game from App Store:
Apple Inc on Thursday removed popular video game "Fortnite" from its App Store for violating the company's in-app payment guidelines, prompting developer Epic Games to file a federal lawsuit challenging the iPhone maker's rules.
Apple cited a direct payment feature rolled out on the Fortnite app earlier on Thursday as the violation.
Epic sued in U.S. court seeking no money from Apple but rather an injunction that would end many of the company's practices related to the App Store, which is the only way to distribute native software onto most iPhones.
[...] Apple takes a cut of between 15% and 30% for most app subscriptions and payments made inside apps, though there are some exceptions for companies that already have a credit card on file for iPhone customers if they also offer an in-app payment that would benefit Apple. Analysts believe games are the biggest contributor to spending inside the App Store, which is in turn the largest component of Apple's $46.3 billion-per-year services segment.
In a statement, Apple said Fortnite had been removed because Epic had launched the payment feature with the "express intent of violating the App Store guidelines" after having had apps in the store for a decade.
"The fact that their (Epic) business interests now lead them to push for a special arrangement does not change the fact that these guidelines create a level playing field for all developers and make the store safe for all users," Apple said in a statement.
[...] Epic's lawsuit, however, argues that app distribution and in-app payments for Apple devices constitute their own distinct market for anti-competition purposes because Apple users rarely leave its "sticky" ecosystem, according to Epic's filing.
[...] Google also removed "Fortnite" from its Play Store.
"However, we welcome the opportunity to continue our discussions with Epic and bring Fortnite back to Google Play," Google spokesman Dan Jackson said in a statement. Jackson said Epic had violated a rule requiring developers to use Google's in-app billing system for products within video games.
Recently:
(2020-07-22) Microsoft Tells Congress That iOS App Store is Anticompetitive
(2020-06-24) Apple Gives Thumbs Up to Hey Email App After Update Rejection
(2020-06-17) EU Launches Two Antitrust Investigations Into Apple Business Practices
(2020-03-07) Apple's New App Store Policies Fight Spam and Abuse but Also Allow Ads in Notifications
(Score: 4, Informative) by EvilSS on Friday August 14 2020, @03:09PM (14 children)
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Friday August 14 2020, @05:30PM (13 children)
In Google's defense, you don't *need* to have your game on Google's Play Store for Android users to be able to install it. It is entirely possible to install apps through other stores (F-Droid is one famous one), or even directly with the .apk file and a USB cable. This just isn't the case with iPhones.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2020, @06:40PM (10 children)
This is, to my mind, a critical distinction. I completely understand Apple's desire to say "we don't support 3rd-party software on our devices that doesn't come through out software channels." Fine. Require users to click through 3 layers of dialogue boxes saying "Yes, I really understand this isn't officially supported, but yes, I do want to install 3rd-party apps" if you want. But to deliberately make it impossible to install 3rd-party software without their permission is surely a step too far and has been ever since this thing started well over a decade ago.
Remember the "good old days" when the very fact that Microsoft bundled a web browser into its OS [wikipedia.org] was enough to get slapped with a government antitrust suit and a settlement that (while rather weak) at least required MS to disclose details of its API for several years to ensure 3rd parties could have the freedom to do what they wanted in making software for Windows?
Microsoft wasn't trying prevent users from running 3rd-party software, much less demanding a 30% fee from them. And yet MS were viewed with suspicion. How could any reasonable person not see Apple as engaging in extreme monopolistic practices here?
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Friday August 14 2020, @06:52PM (6 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2020, @08:21PM (5 children)
From something you said in another post in this very thread.
Try following your own advice sometime. At no point did I defend Google. I said that there is a critical distinction that makes Apple worse (and in my opinion significantly so). But at no point do I think of Google as a "non-evil" company nor defend them. That doesn't mean there are degrees of evil in the world.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2020, @08:25PM
(meant "aren't" in last sentence.)
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Friday August 14 2020, @09:24PM (3 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2020, @02:22PM (2 children)
I did, before I ever replied. Realize that sometimes people may actual have valid disagreements with you. It's possible.
Yes. Why? Briefly, because Apple's problem is systemic. They have set up a fascist system that has operated for more than a decade which oppresses ALL developers that want to interact with Apple products in a monopolistic fashion, exploiting them and their labor to add to their already insane profits.
Google's single action cited by you is certainly worse than any one act of oppression Apple has taken. That I agree with. Manipulating third parties in the way Google did here is certainly very wrong. And I know Google has certainly done this in other cases too.
But Apple's insidious approach creates a status quo that is evil. Both companies are very evil. But in comparing these specific acts, it's like comparing one act of extortion and bribery to another company that does shakedowns for protection money from every developer in the freakin' world.
Does sideloading apps excuse Google? Never said it did. But it at least allows an avenue around the protection racket, rather than the purely fascist and totalitarian regime one is forced into by buying an Apple product.
Never disagreed. And again, what Google did was very wrong. Never said it wasn't. They should be sued, and Google should lose. Why do you want to keep reminding me about something where I agree with you?
Which is a real shame and a blight on our legal system. As I pointed out in my first post in this thread (had you read it! ha! see what I did there!), Microsoft was successfully blamed in an antitrust action for doing something significantly less fascist. Which was my whole point here, that you seem intent on ignoring.
You want to believe Google is evil? Fine. I agree. But your posts on this story seem to come close to Whataboutism. Are you really just intent on attacking Google, or are you trying to defend Apple's fascism? Because I'm willing to attack both of these companies -- HARD. You seem to be trying to change the story, and it's troublesome.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Saturday August 15 2020, @07:31PM (1 child)
Got it, you're off your rocker. That explains everything comrade.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 23 2020, @02:03PM
Wow. Brainwashed much?
I could cite Slashdot stories from a decade ago (as SN didn’t exist yet) that say these exact same things about Apple’s AppStore and its fascist policies and lots of comments making this same criticism. It used to be a common criticism until everyone just got used to Apple’s monopolistic BS.
But now everyone must bow and prostrate themselves before Mother Apple. Anyone who disagrees is “off their rocker.” Got it.
(Score: 2, Informative) by mce on Friday August 14 2020, @08:22PM (2 children)
Have a look into Windows 10 S mode. They are again trying to prevent users from using 3rd party apps. All they had to do to legally get away with it this time was to leave a documented backdoor that you can use to escape from their prison, knowing full well that many/most people will not dare since "it would hurt the security of their computer". Hell, when they first introduced this thing, they even made you pay extra for the key to unlock the jail. Nowadays that fortunately is for free. At leas ... as long as you give them your data and soul by creating a windows account just so you can get the unlocking app from their store. Considering that all this app does seems to be to set a few registry settings (derived from the fact I escaped without getting the app just by flipping UI switches and enforcing some sane policies) ...
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday August 15 2020, @05:20PM (1 child)
A "documented backdoor"? I just ran into this crap on my mother's PC, and it was really easy to disable it when I wanted to install Firefox. Of course, it nagged me with some stupid popup about how wonderful and safe S Mode was, but it was easy enough to click on the button to disable it and turn it into a normal Windows OS.
(Score: 1) by mce on Saturday August 22 2020, @08:22PM
I called it a documented backdoor because that's what they needed in order to circumvent the earlier issue they had with the law: A way to disable it that Microsoft documented (as opposed to that some geek discovered and documented) but that they do not openly tell the user about up front - only when they have to and even then preferably not.
My experience: The machine stubbornly refused to let me set a non-MS browser (that I had installed while not being connected to the net - an important detail, the impact of which I was not aware of at that time). It did not in any way tell me why or what to do about that. As it was late that day, I left it as was and went to bed. The next day I continued flipping all sorts of registry settings and policies into sanity. Somehow, that enabled switching the default browser, but I still don't know exactly what did the trick. Then some time later I wanted to install another piece of non-standard software, this time while I was connected to the net, but I was forbidden from doing so. Looking into this, I discovered S mode, and was told "Go to the Store and download the unlocker app". Yeah great... the whole idea was that I do not want to create a MS account, but in order to get that app one needs ... an MS account. Also, the instructions I was now being given did not work (go to Update , then click on Store (or something like that - don't remember exactly), then... EXCEPT that there was not Store link to click on on the update settings panel). Going to the Store directly, I was then told that I was in S mode and could unlock by getting the app. But sure as hell I was not going to register an MS account... After more registry and policy sanitizing actions, the Store started saying that I did not need the app, as I was not in S mode. Hurrah... But why did it have to be so complicated? And why was I not told from the start about S mode? Of course I know why: they want me to create an account at all cost. Not with me, however!
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Friday August 14 2020, @06:50PM
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Marand on Saturday August 15 2020, @12:03AM
Except, according to Epic's lawsuit against Google, when Epic attempted to make deals with OEMs to make the game more widely available to end-users without using the Play store, Google actively put pressure on OEMs to prevent it. This is similar to Intel's actions against other CPU makers that also led to lawsuits. Google also gives its own app store a privileged status, where it can do things like auto-updates that other stores and side-loaded applications cannot by design.
The situation isn't as dire on Android as on iOS, but really, Google only looks good in this regard because it's being compared to Apple, not because it's actually being good.