Jump to content

Tim Apple v Tim Epic - update: Apple has terminated Epic’s developer account lololol


Brian

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

Nah. Supporting developers is good for consumers. Any money that goes to devs I like is more money going toward keeping products and services I enjoy alive.

That is only true if the additional money goes to viability as opposed to profitability. You don’t know which is happening, so you’re legitimately just making that point up ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

That is only true if the additional money goes to viability as opposed to profitability. You don’t know which is happening, so you’re legitimately just making that point up ;)

 

Sure, but there's no argument to be made that the money going to Apple helps the devs and consumers more than the same money going to the devs. What? Apple drops below is $2T valuation? That's a big boohoo from me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

Sure, but there's no argument to be made that the money going to Apple helps the devs and consumers more than the same money going to the devs. What? Apple drops below is $2T valuation? That's a big boohoo from me.

There certainly is an argument to be made that the companies who build the underlying technology that facilitates all developers is of equal or greater value than an individual developers bottom line. There are a lot of developers who would have never had the opportunity to gain any following were it not for the world of Apple. Apple certainly has more of an impact on my day to day life than app developers do.

 

I own a business and directly deal with mega-corps in a relationship similar to that of small time developers. Would I like to keep more of the revenue generated in my establishments? Sure. But I recognize that those companies facilitate my ability to make money. Disney is the worst, they charge the most film rental for any given level of title, and yet they are the company with who I generate the most profit. I could whine and complain about their onerous terms all day long, or continue the very fruitful relationship I have with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

There certainly is an argument to be made that the companies who build the underlying technology that facilitates all developers is of equal or greater value than an individual developers bottom line. There are a lot of developers who would have never had the opportunity to gain any following were it not for the world of Apple. Apple certainly has more of an impact on my day to day life than app developers do.

 

I own a business and directly deal with mega-corps in a relationship similar to that of small time developers. Would I like to keep more of the revenue generated in my establishments? Sure. But I recognize that those companies facilitate my ability to make money. Disney is the worst, they charge the most film rental for any given level of title, and yet they are the company with who I generate the most profit. I could whine and complain about their onerous terms all day long, or continue the very fruitful relationship I have with them.

 

Microsoft built Windows.  Should they be allowed to take a royalty cut on each purchase within Windows?

 

The only major difference I see is that Apple built a closed mobile OS from the onset, and sets their own (double) standards on what apps operate royalty free.  If this is acceptable, then no one should be exempt from adopting their business model.  Even retroactively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

There certainly is an argument to be made that the companies who build the underlying technology that facilitates all developers is of equal or greater value than an individual developers bottom line. There are a lot of developers who would have never had the opportunity to gain any following were it not for the world of Apple. Apple certainly has more of an impact on my day to day life than app developers do.

Then rest assured, you are already funding Apple’s iOS development by purchasing an iPhone or iPad, effectively licensing the OS.
 

An open platform where Apple cannot double dip with each App purchase sold is not going to prevent Apple from furthering their own OS and software development.
 

 It might actually even will lead to a better App Store, given Apple will need to make positive changes to keep developers and consumers coming back to their storefront.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

Microsoft built Windows.  Should they be allowed to take a royalty cut on each purchase within Windows?

 

The only difference I see is that Apple built a closed system from the onset, and sets their own (double) standards on what apps operate royalty free.  If this is acceptable, then no one should be exempt from adopting their business model.  Even retroactively.


Should they be “allowed”...sure? If people are willing to purchase Windows given such restraints, that’s up to them.

 

13 minutes ago, Duderino said:

Then rest assured, you are already funding Apple’s iOS development by purchasing an iPhone or iPad, effectively licensing the OS.
 

An open platform where Apple cannot double dip with each App purchase sold is not going to prevent Apple from furthering OS development.  It certainly hasn’t stopped Mac OS or Windows.

 

Their profitability incentivizes them to build things. There is a reason they continue to branch out into new products and services, they want to continue feeding their profit engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Their profitability incentivizes them to build things. There is a reason they continue to branch out into new products and services, they want to continue feeding their profit engine.

Apple has spent the last 36 years developing Mac operating systems and software without a closed-platform App Store to incentivize their continued development.

 

Apple and iOS can and will adapt if the platform opens up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Duderino said:

Apple has spent the last 36 years developing Mac operating systems and software without a closed App Store to incentivize their continued development.

 

Apple and iOS can and will adapt if the platform opens up.

Which do they spend more time and resources on? Why do you think that is? And certainly, Apple would adapt to iOS being more open. Would the average consumer be better off with an Apple that has less to gain from selling closed systems? That is certainly up for debate. I think Android is terrible, and most of my displeasure with it comes from the more open design of the OS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:


Should they be “allowed”...sure? If people are willing to purchase Windows given such restraints, that’s up to them.


It would inevtiably trigger another anti-trust response from the US government.  At the least, those royalties would be classified a monopolistic practice, especially if consumers didn't leave en masse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:


It would inevtiably trigger another anti-trust response from the US government.  At the least, those royalties would be classified a monopolistic practice, especially if consumers didn't leave en masse.

You asked if they should be allowed to do something, now you’re like “they wouldn't be allowed!!1!1”

 

Why ask a what if in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

You asked if they should be allowed to do something, now you’re like “they wouldn't be allowed!!1!1”

 

Why ask a what if in the first place?


If you think our anti-trust laws are too stringent in the US, then sure, we can have that conversation.  That is where your angle naturally leads, right?

 

I think it’s good to have these laws to prevent the type of price inflation those royalties tend to lead to. And also to stop unfair competitive advantages such as Microsoft hypothetically pushing Steam off Windows because they wouldn’t want to pay up.

 

I’m undecided on if Apple themselves should be regarded the same, since Android is a popular option.  But there’s no doubt they’re resorting to similar tactics as the above.  Not just with games, but with other mediums like music.

 

And barring Epic from UE iOS development is perhaps the most egregious thing that’s happened so far.  If there wasn’t already enough to warrant an anti-trust investigation...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:


If you think our anti-trust laws are too stringent in the US, then sure, we can have that conversation.  That is where your angle naturally leads, right?

 

I think it’s good to have them to prevent the type of price inflation those royalties lead to. And also to stop unfair competitive advantages such as Microsoft effectively pushing Steam off Windows because they wouldn’t want to pay up.

 

I’m a little undecided on if Apple themselves should be hit the same, since Android is a popular option.  But there’s no doubt they’re resorting to similar tactics as the above.  Not just with games, but with other mediums like music.

 

Barring Epic from UE iOS development is perhaps more egregious than anything else that’s happened so far.


You asked if MS should be allowed to do something, and then responded that they wouldn’t be allowed to. That’s the path you decided to take the conversation.

 

My only contention here is that we don’t know if consumers are better off with an open iOS system. The idea underlying that is always “all else being equal”, which it never is. We don’t know if Apple develops it’s eco system to the same degree it has without the allure of the profits they are able to generate through platform fees. Maybe you get cheaper prices and worse technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, sblfilms said:


You asked if MS should be allowed to do something, and they responded that they wouldn’t be allowed to. That’s the path you decided to take the conversation.


You said they should be allowed to.  That challenges anti-trust norms.  Hence why I brought it up.

 

17 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

My only contention here is that we don’t know if consumers are better off with an open iOS system. The idea underlying that is always “all else being equal”, which it never is. We don’t know if Apple develops it’s eco system to the same degree it has without the allure of the profits they are able to generate through platform fees. Maybe you get cheaper prices and worse technology.


Ask any Android user who wants to play Fortnite on their phone next month.

 

If Apple wouldn’t be willing to prioritize iOS development if they enabled outside apps, then they deserve to lose to their competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

Which do they spend more time and resources on? Why do you think that is? And certainly, Apple would adapt to iOS being more open. Would the average consumer be better off with an Apple that has less to gain from selling closed systems? That is certainly up for debate. I think Android is terrible, and most of my displeasure with it comes from the more open design of the OS. 

From a user standpoint, iOS and it's suite of Apple developed software has seen nowhere near the evolution that Mac OS and it's applications have during Apple's most prolific development years predating the App Store.  

 

If this 30% fee for external developers is really going back into iOS, Apple's engineers output is coming up way short.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:


You said they should be allowed to.  That challenges anti-trust norms.  Hence why I brought it up.

 


Ask any Android user who wants to play Fortnite on their phone next month.

 

If Apple wouldn’t be willing to prioritize iOS development if they enabled outside apps, then they deserve to lose to their competition.

You asked the question...I didn’t care to get into that discussion. It’s much more worthwhile to discuss the notions underlying the framework of anti-trust law, such as it’s negative effects on consumers.


The problem with your Fortnite point is that it again assumes all else being equal. Is their an iOS in 2020 that doesn’t have Fortnite While Apple and Epic fight if Apple doesn’t have the walled garden to profit generate? Selling Apps and services was always the endgame for Apple with iPhone.

 

15 minutes ago, Duderino said:

From a user standpoint, iOS and it's suite of Apple developed software has seen nowhere near the evolution that Mac OS and it's applications have during Apple's most prolific development years predating the App Store.  

 

If this 30% fee for external developers is really going back into iOS, Apple's engineers output is coming up way short.

 

All that happened with Apple is they went from having a closed software platform to sell hardware (MacOS sold high margin Macs) to having a closed software platform to sell services. Their fundamental model remains the same. And you may not like what Apple is doing with iOS, plenty do. There is always Android if you want something different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

You asked the question...I didn’t care to get into that discussion. It’s much more worthwhile to discuss the notions underlying the framework of anti-trust law, such as it’s negative effects on consumers.


The underlying framework of anti-trust law isn’t to negatively affect consumers, but to prevent monopolistic strong arming of both consumers and competitors.  That’s the aim, anyways.

 

22 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

The problem with your Fortnite point is that it again assumes all else being equal. Is their an iOS in 2020 that doesn’t have Fortnite While Apple and Epic fight if Apple doesn’t have the walled garden to profit generate? Selling Apps and services was always the endgame for Apple with iPhone.


They’d still generate more than enough profit if their garden wasn’t walled, so absolutely, yes.  The App Store would still be installed by default, and they could security check off-app installations in the same way they already do on OSX.

 

Making iOS an open platform wouldn’t kill their business by any stretch of the imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:


The underlying framework of anti-trust law isn’t to negatively affect the consumer, but to prevent monopolistic strong arming of both their consumers and competitors.  That’s the aim, anyways.

 


They’d still generate more than enough profit if their garden wasn’t walled, so absolutely, yes.  The App Store would still be installed by default, and they could security check off-app installations in the same way they already do on OSX.

 

Making iOS an open platform wouldn’t kill their business by any stretch of the imagination.


The “it’s“ here are the notions, not anti-trust laws :p 
 

And you misunderstand. You are asking the question about what Apple would do today if they were forced to open iOS, which certainly they would continue to look for ways to sell their hardware. The question I am asking is whether Apple would have bothered to develop iPhone and iOS in the first place if the platform had to be open. I think their history suggests the answer is no.

 

Are consumers better off if iPhone and iOS never existed? Maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, sblfilms said:


The “it’s“ here are the notions, not anti-trust laws :p


Clearly you carry certain biases here.  I won’t prod them out any further.
 

21 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

And you misunderstand. You are asking the question about what Apple would do today if they were forced to open iOS, which certainly they would continue to look for ways to sell their hardware. The question I am asking is whether Apple would have bothered to develop iPhone and iOS in the first place if the platform had to be open. I think their history suggests the answer is no.

 

Are consumers better off if iPhone and iOS never existed? Maybe.

 

Making iOS closed was an un-Apple like move to begin with.  Their history prior was built on open platforms.  And they’re still maintaining them, in spite of no walled gardens there.
 

Could a mobile OS still be lucrative without closed-platform royalties?  Google says no shit.  Android never needed it.  


Apple had the first break out smart phone success, paired with many innovations.  They would have competed just fine as an open-platform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:


Clearly you carry certain biases here.  I won’t prod them out any further.
 

 

Making iOS closed was an un-Apple like move to begin with.  Their history prior was built on open platforms.  And they’re still maintaining them, in spite of no walled gardens.
 

Could a mobile OS still be lucrative without closed-platform royalties?  Google says no shit.  Android never needed it.  


Apple had the first break out smart phone.  They would have competed just fine as an open-platform.


Everybody has biases they bring to a discussion. My only bias germane to this particular line is that I don’t believe all things that get captured in anti-trust dealings are actually bad for the consumer as a class even if they might be bad for an individual.

 

As in my previous response to Duerino, this is fundamentally what Apple has been for ages. They traded a different type of closed system (MacOS being on a closed hardware platform), but closed systems are their bread and butter for decades now. And it’s what has driven them in all their growth stages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, sblfilms said:


As in my previous response to Duerino, this is fundamentally what Apple has been for ages. They traded a different type of closed system (MacOS being on a closed hardware platform), but closed systems are their bread and butter for decades now. And it’s what has driven them in all their growth stages.


Closed hardware platform =/= Closed software platform

 

Those two should not ever be equated as one in the same.  Apple’s desire to do it stemmed out their desire to kill any would-be competitors to iTunes on their portable devices.  That was the history.  Not their desktops.

 

It’s not ironic that Spotify has similar grievances as Epic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, crispy4000 said:


Closed hardware platform =/= Closed software platform

 

Those two should not ever be equated as one in the same.  Apple’s desire to do it stemmed out their desire to kill any would-be competitors to iTunes on their portable devices.  That was the history.  Not their desktops.

 

It’s not ironic that Spotify has similar grievances as Epic.


There is no reason that Mac OS couldn’t be run on non-Apple hardware. It was just a mechanism to sell more Apple hardware. Now Apple uses the same type of mechanism to sell more services. You may want to look up what happened with Apple during the time when Jobs was gone. They opened Mac OS up to third party hardware. Their renaissance began when they went back to artificially locking Mac OS to Apple hardware. That predates all things iPhone and iOS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, sblfilms said:


There is no reason that Mac OS couldn’t be run on non-Apple hardware. It was just a mechanism to sell more Apple hardware. Now Apple uses the same type of mechanism to sell more services. You may want to look up what happened with Apple during the time when Jobs was gone. They opened Mac OS up to third party hardware. Their renaissance began when they went back to artificially locking Mac OS to Apple hardware. That predates all things iPhone and iOS.

Apple's mobile division is very much still in the business of making large margins on hardware (check out the iPhone's).  App Store service royalties have not changed their hardware profit model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, sblfilms said:


There is no reason that Mac OS couldn’t be run on non-Apple hardware. It was just a mechanism to sell more Apple hardware. Now Apple uses the same type of mechanism to sell more services. You may want to look up what happened with Apple during the time when Jobs was gone. They opened Mac OS up to third party hardware. Their renaissance began when they went back to artificially locking Mac OS to Apple hardware. That predates all things iPhone and iOS.


Choosing to not sell your OS for certain devices is not the same as mandating developers pay 30% royalties to sell their applications on Apple mobile hardware.  They aren’t even in the same ballpark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:


Choosing to not sell your OS for certain devices is not the same as charging developers 30% royalties to sell their applications.  They aren’t even in the same ballpark.


You couldn’t install Mac OS on non Apple hardware because they artificially locked the software to their own hardware so they could generate profit on their hardware. Locking users into their virtual store so they generate profit on their virtual store is exactly the same type of mechanism. Neither is due to some natural Lili ration, they are simply ways to create a monopoly situation in their niche.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Duderino said:

Apple's mobile division is also very much in the business of making large margins on hardware (check out the iPhone's).  App Store service royalties have not changed their hardware profit model.

Not sure what that has to do with what I said, but, yeah...Apple makes large margins on iOS hardware. They also use iOS exclusivity to sell more iPhone hardware. These aren’t mutually exclusive points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, sblfilms said:


You couldn’t install Mac OS on non Apple hardware because they artificially locked the software to their own hardware so they could generate profit on their hardware. Locking users into their virtual store so they generate profit on their virtual store is exactly the same type of mechanism.


Not opting to sell their software for other platforms is one thing.  Charging others a royalty to sell on theirs is another.

 

This isn’t hard to understand.  The two are not equivalent, like for like, etc.

 

Its apples to oranges.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:


Not opting to sell their software for other platforms is one thing.  Charging others a royalty to sell on theirs is another.

 

This isn’t hard to understand.  The two are not equivalent, like for like, etc.

 

Its apples to oranges.

All artificial locks are the same, no matter how they are achieved. Apple writing code into Mac o to prevent it being installed on non Apple hardware was done for exactly the same reason as Apple not allowing third party App installers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sblfilms said:
12 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:


Not opting to sell their software for other platforms is one thing.  Charging others a royalty to sell on theirs is another.

 

This isn’t hard to understand.  The two are not equivalent, like for like, etc.

 

Its apples to oranges.

All artificial locks are the same, no matter how they are achieved. Apple writing code into Mac o to prevent it being installed on non Apple hardware was done for exactly the same reason as Apple not allowing third party App installers.

It's quite a different situation for developers, which is the whole point of this debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Duderino said:

It's quite a different situation for developers, which is the whole point of this debate.

That was, until ghost decided to pivot from that point to the issue of consumers...which Crispy has been happy to go down. So don’t switch back to developers, developers, developers just because your point has been rebuffed :p 

 

6 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:


I fundamentally disagree.  Context is relevant, and shouldn’t be brushed aside.  Same with added fees.

What is the context outside of “Business artificially locks consumers to their own <insert thing> to maximize profit” in regards to whether such business practices are bad for consumers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

What is the context outside of “Business artificially locks consumers to their own <insert thing> to maximize profit” in regards to whether such business practices are bad for consumers?


Royalties affecting pricing, either on their platform exclusively or as a larger whole.

 

More startup apps going under because royalties didn’t allot for successful margins.

 

The power grab to lock an Epic out of iOS dev tools.  Do you honestly think consumers will benefit from that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:


Royalties affecting pricing, either on their platform exclusively or as a larger whole.

 

More startup apps going under because royalties didn’t allot for successful margins.

 

The power grab to lock an Epic out of iOS dev tools.  Do you honestly think consumers will benefit from that?


You are changing the discussion, again. 

 

Does artificially locking Mac OS to Apple hardware not affect the price of Apple hardware?  Or would Apple need to be more competitive on price if their OS could be installed on third party devices? Do consumers benefit from not being able to install Mac OS on hardware besides what Apple sells?

 

The App Store is just an evolution of their previous schemes to make as much money as possible by artificially locking their software to their own hardware platform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:


You are changing the discussion, again. 

 

Does artificially locking Mac OS to Apple hardware not affect the price of Apple hardware?  Or would Apple need to be more competitive on price if their OS could be installed on third party devices? Do consumers benefit from not being able to install Mac OS on hardware besides what Apple sells?

 

The App Store is just an evolution of their previous schemes to make as much money as possible by artificially locking their software to their own hardware platform.


I answered you directly.  All three of those things affect consumers.

 

iOS phones are already more expensive than other manufacturers.  They would continue to be with, or without, app side loading.  You know well that the Apple Tax is a thing - iDevices are no exception and probably never will be. 

 

Mac OS is not relevant here, other than pointing to Apple’s hypocrisy for allowing side loading there.  It’s an open for platform for software development and sales on a closed hardware ecosystem.  This is how Macs still work today, and what iOS is now 180-degrees on. 

 

The App Store, as I said previously, owes the most to Apple’s initial desire to stifle iTunes competition on their devices.  But it’s turned into a new revenue stream for them, precisely because they started to feel more entitled to the work others did than they ever have in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, crispy4000 said:

 


I answered you directly.  All three of those things affect consumers.

 

iOS phones are already more expensive than other manufacturers.  They would continue to be with, or without, app side loading.  You know well that the Apple Tax is a thing - iDevices are no exception and probably never will be. 

 

Mac OS is not relevant here in the slightest, other than pointing to Apple’s hypocrisy for allowing side loading there.  It’s an open for platform for development and sales on a closed hardware ecosystem.  This is how Macs still work today.

 

The App Store, as I said previously, owes the most to Apple’s desire to stifle iTunes competition on their devices.  But it’s turned into a new revenue stream for them precisely because they started to feel more entitled to the work others did than they ever did in their past.

Buddy, you aren’t answering why one thing that artificially locks consumers and raises prices is different to the other artificial lock that raises prices. What is the context missing? You say they are substantively different to consumers, apples and oranges, but haven’t described how they are so. Are consumers positively affected by not being allowed to install the operating system they purchased on whatever hardware they own that can run it?

 

*waits for it now to be about developers, again*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...