Actually, a contract is enforceable UNLESS a court rules that it is UNenforceable?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually, a contract is enforceable UNLESS a court rules that it is UNenforceable?
Agreed. Apple REQUIRES use of their API's (and can be wrathful when people actually 'think different')... kind of the heart, veins, and digestive system of the locked down walled world of iPhone's OS.
This will be interesting to watch unfold.
Having 200 app reviews is Apple's review requirements and ridiculous rejection reasons and their own operational failure, not any developers.
This countersuit might be cutting off their nose to spite their face. They are under global assault as a company right now for potential monopolistic and anti-competitive practices in the US and EU, and their counter to all has potential to be turned back against them if done right. Pitting benefits gained by a developer that can be argued to be requirement by Apple is an interesting approach but they need to put up a big fight on this case because it could be precedent setting and they are under fire by regulators.
I personally don't blame Epic as some people are.... 30% cut of subscription revenue/in app purchase revenue is obscene, and Apple does not, enforce those terms uniformly despite their attempting to act like they do. Do retailers pay 30% of sales for items purchased in app? Nope. So if buying a dining room set from Houzz in their app is an exception, why isn't it an option for a game developer to use thier own payment system and not pay a 30% apple tax on sales of virtual goods? There is a very solid argument that Apple is abusing power (and Google for that matter... though Google tends to be a lot more flexible... but again, flexibility isn't offered to all).
I also don't think Epic cares about winning this. This is about busting Apple's balls while they are vulnerable to regulators wanting to bust their balls as Apple is seen as the new Microsoft these days.
That's correct, a double negative is the same as a positive. In other words, contracts have no bite until they end up in court.
Basically then Epic would be under regulation as well as to how much they can charge. Sounds like a lose/lose.
Seems like they are not really the "obscene". And Apple is not under any obligation to enforce their policies with 100% equality over all app groups. However, now that the cat is out of the bag, we shall see what happens.
Correct, the only "bite" of a contract yet to be held up in court is the fear of losing that fight
It would be nice if a few dozen big names got behind Epic and pulled their apps. Apple needs to be brought down a few pegs. There was probably a better way for Epic to go about this...
The company is called Apple. We're not talking about trading Apple stock I believe?
It's just one more character and this ain't Twitter.
I think he's a shareholder, he mentioned any 3rd party product Apple ever promotes needs their cut, I think he just wants to pad his wallet
It’s not the same, though. The legal burden and presumptions are different. Contract is enforceable UNTIL a court says it’s not. That’s different than saying a contract is unenforceable until a court says it is.
Yes, but only if a hardware developer were to adopt the Epic Game Store as the default/sole App Store on their device. A more likely comparison would be Google, Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, etc. Those might also fall under regulation.
This would also include the Epic Game Store, should a hardware manufacturer choose to make it the sole App Store on their device. But if the software, like Fortnite, is not a marketplace then no, it would not be price regulated buy the government.
First it has to be proven it is an unlawful monopoly. Which is going to be very, very hard to do.
That was totally not the lesson of 1995. They almost went out of business because they made garbage products and had literally no innovation and were getting trampled and selling hardware at prices that were not competative. Steve Jobs literally **** canned every single product line when he returned and the Mac was replaced with a better version of Next and NextOS that birthed OSX. As said above, don't put the CEO of a beverage company in charge of a tech company.
Microsoft made a terrible copy of the MacOS, but beat Apple by having a more open market by letting anyway run their software on any hardware... that was far cheaper and actually affordable for the majority of people where a Mac wasn't.
Let's be honest. Apple's "innovations" have almost never been a new or original idea. I stop short of copy and paste because before they hit paste, they refine the idea they've ripped off and make it better. Microsoft created an open market while Apple, to this day, still runs a closed echo system.
Apple also, while briefly, had hardware options that were in reach while super short lived. The first iMac was priced to sell until it wasn't (and then it's spiritual successor the e-Mac filled the lower cost option). OSX and those cheaper hardware options bundles with great software out of the box (something else that's faded) are saved Apple, but Apple got themselves into that jam through stupidity driven by poor leadership and bad business decisions. Someone doing a bad copy of your ideas shouldn't collapse your company, at least not back then.
Sorry, still not seeing it. Can you explain the difference?
If a contract is only enforceable until a Court rules that it is enforceable, the does not mean the contract is unenforceable prior to the ruling. Indeed, the contract is still binding. The question is whether or not one party can enforce it.
Everyone talks about 30 percent. Remember this is nothing new. What came before the computer software it was the record business. What was that model? quote "In a major label, after all costs are paid and retail takes its cut, the label's profit is under 2 dollars per CD sold. or between 15 and 20 percent."
This is why App Store to install apps should be given as an option. Apple should not than force the food that does not want to be eaten.
Last edited:
Do you think any brick and mortar store would sell my product if I had a big old sticker on there that said "Don't buy it here, come to my website and get it cheaper"? That is not anti-competitive behavior.
Enforceable and binding mean the same thing. The point being that the contract between apple and epic IS enforceable, right now, as we speak.
Only once a judge says it is not enforceable does it become so.
Apple ($2,000B) calling out Epic ($17B) for being a big company is hilarious.
Apple -which set the rules and incentives for the app store that moved apps from premium to "free" with IAP- being indignant about Epic using IAP even more so.
Apple -which set the rules and incentives for the app store that moved apps from premium to "free" with IAP- being indignant about Epic using IAP even more so.
Epic had their entire strategy planned before they ever flipped the switch on external payments: the "hot fix", the back-end for payments, 1984 commercial, court filings. All of it a choreographed publicity stunt. I'll agree that Epic had some limited success in stirring up resentment toward Apple (I chuckle at the thought of angry, enlightened journalists with a 5-figure student loan balance banging out anti-capitalism articles on their Macbook). Unfortunately, Epic's actions were clearly a conspiracy to defraud and denigrate Apple on a public stage - Epic doesn't even deny that they intentionally violated their business agreements with Apple. I hope for Epic's sake that the judge doesn't have a child addicted to Fortnite...
I said this before and I'll say it again - Epic needs to partner with phone manufacturers and stop making a spectacle of itself. Likewise - if Apple wants to maintain a "closed ecosystem" in the mobile space, it needs to partner with mobile telecoms to broadcast the idea that enhanced app screening and security reduce malicious network traffic and reduce attack vectors on those networks.
I said this before and I'll say it again - Epic needs to partner with phone manufacturers and stop making a spectacle of itself. Likewise - if Apple wants to maintain a "closed ecosystem" in the mobile space, it needs to partner with mobile telecoms to broadcast the idea that enhanced app screening and security reduce malicious network traffic and reduce attack vectors on those networks.
Ok, if you bought MSN at CompUSA, CompUSA didn't take their cut of your dialup fees
If you buy a magazine off the shelf at Barns & Noble, B&N didn't take your subscription fees if you sent in the post card to subscribe.
In what "old-world" business model did the original point of sale FORCE all follow up business between the consumer to go through and enrich the middle man?