Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Accuses Epic Games of 'Willful, Brazen, and Unlawful Conduct' in Countersuit Asking for Breach of Contract Damages

No matter what side you’re on, the outcome of this fight will impact everyone. It’s really interesting to watch it play out.

Personally, I’m team Epic. I don’t think device makers like Apple, Sony, or Microsoft should also be allowed exclusive access to be the only storefront. It’s anti competitive.
 
  • Disagree
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: ExAplCarer, ohmydays, Ramchi and 24 others
Scipster said:
Lol it's funny how Apple conveniently left out the fact that they used Infinity Blade for their own shameless self promotion of the iPhone's prowess over Samsung Galaxy way back in 2010:
Click to expand...

Funny. I remember the same events as Apple giving tons of free advertising to Epic by including them onstage in the keynote. Guess we each see things differently.

The truth is it was probably beneficial for both parties. Epic showed what an iPhone could do and Apple showed what a creative developer could do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjack50, ohmydays, Seoras and 25 others
ArPe said:
Epic likes to portray itself as an underdog and Robin Hood figure and appeals to writers of yellow journalism to attack Apple. But let’s take a look at the facts.

Apple is owned by thousands upon thousands of shareholders round the world, many of them moms and pops waiting to retire. Tim Apple is worth only about $1 billion and is one of the most frugal CEOs in the world.

Epic is largely owned by giant monopoly Tencent that is only answerable to the CCP. It’s CEO Tim Swiney is said to be worth about $30 billion. That’s 30 times more than the best CEO on the planet.

So who is the bad guy here? Apple who created a platform and SDK that revolutionized the global economy or this game developer who only created a game engine and are trying to get a free ride so that Tim Swiney and Tencent can fill their pockets and help China circumvent bans on spyware apps like WeChat and TikTok?
Click to expand...

Come on, it's not that black and white. Both companies have done bad things here. Sure, Apple did revolutionise the way we deliver software but why do you think there are more and more anti-trust complaints popping up these days? Also, stop calling him Tim Swiney if you want your comment to be taken seriously - it comes across as incredibly immature.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 123, ExAplCarer, nickgovier and 9 others
I am curious what these damages are that Apple claims they are seeking.....

Lost revenue from Epic's payment system?
Legal fees if they win?
Repetitional damage? (I mean, Apple has been digging that hole themselves)

Lost revenue from Epic games after banning them? (I can't imagine that would have a leg to stand on)

Honestly just seems like a lot of noise.... you can't say Oh Boo Hoo, you focussed investigators on our illegal activity, I'm suing.... so its got to be something else that is tangible.... to which I don't see anything beyond legal fees. They already took their prescribed action for violations - they banned them and cut them off.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
  • Haha
Reactions: ExAplCarer, jjack50, nickgovier and 7 others
btrach144 said:
No matter what side you’re on, the outcome of this fight will impact everyone. It’s really interesting to watch it play out.

Personally, I’m team Epic. I don’t think device makers like Apple, Sony, or Microsoft should also be allowed exclusive access to be the only storefront. It’s anti competitive.
Click to expand...
All competition is anti-competitive. That's the point of competition -- to win. They have every right to compete, they do not have the right to win. Especially not because they decided to become whiny little babies about the thing they used for the last 10 years. The harder they choke the better.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
  • Angry
Reactions: Admiral Ashik, 123, jjack50 and 21 others
I'm still confused over Epic's position. 1) Contract (App Store rules) is a contract. 2) Epic can still allow subscribers to purchase v-bucks outside of the App Store in the same way that Spotify sells subscriptions that don't touch the App Store at all, but still work on iOS devices on freely downloaded App Store apps. 3) Wants the court to re-write contract terms that epic can easily get around anyway.

As far as I can tell most gamers are a pretty crafty bunch, does anyone believe there is even 1 gamer who would not go directly to Epic's web site to buy v bucks?

Sorry Epic, not seeing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjack50, ohmydays, Max48 and 1 other person
Just reading through the counter-compliant, have some questions about Apple's facts and claims...

They write "Apple’s commission only decreased while software prices plummeted and barriers to entry evaporated" - what was Apple's commission prior to being lowered to 30%?

They also state "Apple denies the allegations in Paragraph 8, and specifically denies that “[t]here is no method app developers can use to avoid [Apple’s alleged] tax” which means there is, in fact, a way for paid apps to avoid the 30% fee on the App Store. How? Using a method that developers are not allowed to advertise? Why can't they advertise it?

Very interesting developments indeed!
 
  • Like
Reactions: locovaca
dguisinger said:
What? Apple almost went out of business because they had no idea what their mission was. They didn't need to win lawsuits against Microsoft. Don't put a beverage CEO in charge of a computer company during the start of the computer revolution.
Click to expand...

Sorry dude, I lived in those times as a computer engineer, Apple was a small company with less resources. Apple wanted to hold onto the Apple II and III sales because it was their cash cow at Apple. Steve wanted state of the art hardware, like the Lisa computer that cost $10000. The Sully was top CEO of the time, just because he sold soda does not make him a bad CEO. It is a business and those who have the best wins. So the judge said that Apple could not patient the look and feel of a product be it a windows OS and a mouse. Do you think today if I made a computer and took Apples code, which Microsoft had full access while writing Microsoft Excel in 1983 and made a system, you don't think that Apple would sue the pants off of me in court.

Steve learned a second valuable lesson when he created the NeXt company it is hard to get customers with a $10000 computer no mater how good it looks or works. People complain now about Apple hardware prices :)

Business is war.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DCW and Atlantico
jlocker said:
This is what Steve Jobs, Steve Woz and Apple learned in 1995. What is the most important people that you have in your company? Good corporate lawyers. Microsoft had better ones and they lost the case to Bill Gates over Windows. Apple almost went out of business in 1998. So they now have had the best corporate lawyers money can buy for the last 20 years. One thing Apple learns is to fix mistakes and try not to repeat it. It's not the engineers in your company it is the lawyers that keep you company out of solvency.
Click to expand...
The startup I used to work for went bankrupt because our (multi-billion dollar parent company's) lawyers sucked. I'm still salty over the ordeal, it was a fantastic company to work for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DEXTERITY
Too bad this isn't Steve Jobs' Apple anymore. He would had already bought this mom-and-pop shop called Epic just to shut them down. After all, they are currently worth like what, a seed of an Apple?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DEXTERITY, Ballis and jlocker
Scipster said:
They also state "Apple denies the allegations in Paragraph 8, and specifically denies that “[t]here is no method app developers can use to avoid [Apple’s alleged] tax” which means there is, in fact, a way for paid apps to avoid the 30% fee on the App Store. How? Using a method that developers are not allowed to advertise? Why can't they advertise it?

Very interesting developments indeed!
Click to expand...
The developer can sell credits direct from their own website. And Epic do this! They are simply not allowed to link to or advertise this method *within* the app.

If they were to advertise it in the App, it would be akin to a manufacturer selling goods in a department store and advertising to the customers (inside the store) to go buy their stuff next door! What dept store would allow that?!? None!

So I think this is a perfectly reasonable stance as the software distributor (Apple) to take! I don't understand the positive feeling some have for Epic here at all. They are literally trying to get worldwide distribution and marketing from Apple for free! Bonkers!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Admiral Ashik, Arran, ExAplCarer and 21 others
I'm glad more governments are looking at the Apple App Store but I hope Epic Games really gets smacked for violating the agreement--more than just the >60% loss of revenue due to ousting Fortnite from the App Store.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: ohmydays, namsted and DEXTERITY
My question to Apple would be whether the very same arguments that in 2008 resulted in 30% being chosen as an appropriate rate still do apply to this day? Because to me the main argument today seems to be that that’s what it as always been at.

One could ask the same thing about Apple choosing roughly 35% as their gross profit margin on hardware. The difference is that Apple has to provide something compelling enough for customers to upgrade their hardware regularly. If they raised hardware prices too much, their sales would suffer somewhat.
 
Last edited:
MauiPa said:
I'm still confused over Epic's position. 1) Contract (App Store rules) is a contract. 2) Epic can still allow subscribers to purchase v-bucks outside of the App Store in the same way that Spotify sells subscriptions that don't touch the App Store at all, but still work on iOS devices on freely downloaded App Store apps. 3) Wants the court to re-write contract terms that epic can easily get around anyway.

As far as I can tell most gamers are a pretty crafty bunch, does anyone believe there is even 1 gamer who would not go directly to Epic's web site to buy v bucks?

Sorry Epic, not seeing it.
Click to expand...

Point #1 assumes that the contract is enforceable. A contract is only enforceable if a Court rules that it is enforceable. Epic's argument is that the contract violates the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 and is therefore asking the Court to rule Apple's contract is unenforceable. Apple is claiming that it is not engaging in anti-trust behavior, and therefore the contract is enforcable. If the Court finds Apple's contract as unenforceable, Apple is not entitled to any damages or restitution. Likewise, if the Court finds Apple's contract as enforceable, then Epic's relationship with Apple is severed and they will likely owe very large legal fees.

Point #2 is very true! And one that Apple is taking. But, Apple does not allow Epic to advertise this within app. Traditionally, that is called anti-competitive behavior as a competitive market necessitates full information -- i.e. I can get the same item for less elsewhere. The technical term for Apple's behavior is market failure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure

Point #3 is a misunderstanding. Epic is not asking the court to re-write the contract. Epic is asking the Court to rule that portions of the contract, which they believe violate the law, are unenforceable (because they violate the law). So, those portions can remain in the contract but Apple may not punish developers if they choose not to follow those portions of the contact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dynamojoe, mi7chy, nickgovier and 5 others
Did I read apples counterclaim right

Epic seeks relief from Apple for itself and its affiliates, including Epic International


if so, that’s a big own goal by Epic
 
  • Like
Reactions: GarethR
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back