This situation was Epic’s choice. Now Apple has countersued Epic. Let’s get the drums rolling and see who will win!
Last edited:
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
I would agree and this also.
This is why protection of computers are important with security and garden walled stores.
"FBI: $3.5B Lost in 2019 to Known Cyberscams, Ransomware"
Dude I just want to say, I've remembered your post quote in red for like, 15 years. And I've even quoted it to friends in the early 2005, 6 era.
Every time, love it. It's A1, as they say. Or something.
macOS and iPhones are two completely different platforms. One: The phone is much more critical where you should be able to dial 911 at any given time without something affecting performance or perhaps entirely blocking your ability. Two: macOS/OS X has been around for many many years before iOS was even worked on. iOS was built with sandboxing from the beginning. macOS/OS X/Windows/... have all been patched over the years with security.
Plus, people think macOS is this incredibly secure system when in reality I would argue that Windows is actually more secure in a way. Windows has so much more marketshare that it has both more targets, and more security patches due to those targets. macOS being as small as it is, I do not think it has the same number of security patches that Windows has went through.
If macOS suddenly became 90% marketshare where all malware writers target it, I think we would all be surprised at the outcome.
The App Store pays for what the AppStore does better than its competitors. They get to decide what the cost is and developers and consumers can choose something else if they don’t like it. You have a company who is worth a tiny fraction of what Apple is worth whose CEO is worth 4 times Tim Cook. If they need to cut cost it sound like that is the place to start.
This is good. Because it is more nuanced then the sterotypical "Appl is bad - Epic is good" or "30% is too much" statements critics will posit.
You are in lalaland if you think anyone is going to stop Apple.
Vertical integration isn’t a new concept and Apple doesn’t sell commodities. Buy an Android.
I play Fortnite and I also believe that Epic must pay for the damages done. Their “Nineteen Eighty-Fortnite” short is really nothing but propaganda.
It's actually the opposite - Apple is thriving because it understands the future of technology is not in hardware sales, it's in software and services.
Despite people claiming there's little innovation in Apples hardware, most of the supposed innovation in other companies products are mostly gimmicks, spec bumps and "we did it first but not very well" features.
👉 EpicFail 👈
As Apple and Epic Games prepare for a hearing on a preliminary injunction to decide whether Fortnite will be allowed back on the App Store as the legal battle between the two companies plays out, Apple has filed a countersuit against Epic requesting damages for breach of contract.
In a court filing today, Apple says that Epic's lawsuit is "nothing more than a basic disagreement over money," highlighting the revenue that Epic Games has earned through the Fortnite iOS app and Apple's developer tools.Epic, says Apple, has used more than 400 of Apple's APIs and frameworks, five versions of the Apple SDK, has had its apps reviewed more than 200 times, and has pushed more than 140 updates to Apple customers. Apple says that it also provided advertising each time Epic released a new season for Fortnite, offering "free promotion and favorable tweets" to more than 500 million end users.
Apple goes on to explain the current Epic vs. Apple situation, and how Epic blindsided Apple with a "hotfix" to add the direct payment option and then the ensuing legal assault after Fortnite was pulled from the App Store.
Apple says that Epic's "willful, brazen, and unlawful conduct" can't be left unchecked, asking the court for damages and an order that prevents Epic from furthering its unfair business practices.Apple also has a point-by-point rebuttal for all of Epic's claims, denying all allegations in the complaint. The full court filing is embedded below, and for a court document, it offers an interesting and comprehensive look into Apple's perspective on the whole Epic situation.
Epic over the weekend filed its documentation for the preliminary injunction, claiming that it challenged Apple because "it was the right thing to do" and that it was "better positioned than many other companies to weather the storm."
Epic has claimed that it will "suffer irreparable harm" if Fortnite is not allowed back in the App Store, but at the same time, Epic Games has refused to remove the direct payment option that's in violation of Apple's App Store policies. Epic wants the court to rule in its favor, allowing the app to stay in the store with the direct payment option that defies the rules, but that did not happen during the hearing for a temporary restraining order, and it's not clear if the court will rule differently after hearing new arguments from both Apple and Epic Games.
The preliminary injunction hearing is set to take place on Monday, September 28.
Article Link: Apple Accuses Epic Games of 'Willful, Brazen, and Unlawful Conduct' in Countersuit Asking for Breach of Contract Damages
Epic broke their end of the contract because they don’t like it and placed their own client at risk, Epic clients such sue EPIC.
Does not matter. If one party does not voluntarily abide by the contract, only a court can enforce it. During the proceedings to enforce, the court can also rule that a contract provision is not enforceable, or partially enforceable, or fully enforceable.
Also a developer.
The Apple platform is wonderful to develop for these days. I happily pay the 30% for the ease of use. All I really have to do is write code and get some screenshots. And as a subscription service, it's only 15% after a year. Plus $99 annual fee is a steal. I don't really have to worry about finances. And it's GLOBAL, that convenience and wide spread distribution is worth a lot.
Epic sadly is jeopardizing the deal, and they don't realize it. Epic is showing greed, when they should realize the wild success they have helps the platform grow, and in turn helps their own apps, and of course, the engine that they get royalties from!
Down the line, Apple may see such success that they lower the commission, like the already have once with the subscription deal.
Epic is trying to take take take, and the little guys are hurt the most.
Apple says:
Epic took advantage of everything the App Store had to offer. It availed itself of the tools, technology, software, marketing opportunities, and customer reach that Apple provided so that it could bring games like Infinity Blade and Fortnite to Apple customers all over the world. It enjoyed the tremendous resources that Apple pours into its App Store to constantly innovate and create new opportunities for developers and experiences for customers, as well as to review and approve every app, keeping the App Store safe and secure for customers and developers alike.
Epic, says Apple, has used more than 400 of Apple's APIs and frameworks, five versions of the Apple SDK...
Did Epic have a choice but to use the tools, etc., that Apple FORCES developers to use? It's not like Epic chose to use Apple SDK's, etc., over other options. Everything Apple says Epic "enjoyed", Epic was basically forced to use.
Epic took advantage of everything the App Store had to offer. It availed itself of the tools, technology, software, marketing opportunities, and customer reach that Apple provided so that it could bring games like Infinity Blade and Fortnite to Apple customers all over the world. It enjoyed the tremendous resources that Apple pours into its App Store to constantly innovate and create new opportunities for developers and experiences for customers, as well as to review and approve every app, keeping the App Store safe and secure for customers and developers alike.
Epic, says Apple, has used more than 400 of Apple's APIs and frameworks, five versions of the Apple SDK...
Did Epic have a choice but to use the tools, etc., that Apple FORCES developers to use? It's not like Epic chose to use Apple SDK's, etc., over other options. Everything Apple says Epic "enjoyed", Epic was basically forced to use.
I use security protection on my Mac and all my device on my network. You can never be to safe anymore.
That is just not how the law works. If I break a company's non-compete while I am still working there, I will get fired and probably sued for damages too. Sure I could take it to the courts, but I would still get fired WHILE its in the courts. I cannot keep working there. In fact there are places that have 2-year non-compete and I have known people who left a company, went to work in a different state and was sued for breaching the non-compete.
If I get a dog on a "no pets" apartment complex, sure I can take it to the courts but I would still get evicted.
Just FYI, you can TRY to go to court by just about anything. This whole argument that "only the court can decide if the contract is enforceable" is just not correct. The way people make this argument seems like they are trying to say you can pretty much do whatever you want without ANY form of consequences if you do not agree with something unless a court tells you otherwise. That is just not how things work. I cannot keep my job if I drag out the legal battles for months after breaching a non-compete. I cannot keep my apartment in a pet free environment for however long it takes for the courts to decide if I should give up my dog or not.
brought this st Storm on themselves. The natives have been grumbling for years. It's finally coming to a head & world wide investigations are following. Heck, even Australia has now started an investigation.
If all the world is against them, I don't see it ending well for them.
If all the world is against them, I don't see it ending well for them.
Contract law is completely different than criminal law. Contracts are not determined to be legal or illegal until a court case and all appeals are decided.
You can write a contract that makes yourself a slave to someone else, have everyone sign it. You think that is legal. Nope, Nada, no how. You can make a contract that says your renter has to have sex with you for rent and have everyone sign it. You think that contract is legal, nope, nada, no-how.
Ignoring the obvious exaggerations and criminal acts, you should see the pattern here. A contract is what two entities agree to, but nothing in the contract makes the terms legal or illegal unless criminal law is broken or a court rules.
Epic's argument is that Apple's contract is illegal. It's not illegal to own a pet, but if I do not agree with my apartments contract of no pets allowed, I cannot keep living there without any consequences to my actions while it gets taken to the courts.
Suck it Epic.
Also to those (I assume) pro Android users who are on this forum, still writing anti apple crap in reference to this case and on Epic’s Side GTFO, it’s obvious who’s the winner (even if Apple can be a bit greedy and “controlling” of the things it has made like the App Store),
Also to those (I assume) pro Android users who are on this forum, still writing anti apple crap in reference to this case and on Epic’s Side GTFO, it’s obvious who’s the winner (even if Apple can be a bit greedy and “controlling” of the things it has made like the App Store),
So just a precursor to my argument....I'm an Apple Fan Boy in many ways...my home is filled with Apple products...I wrote my first app and released it in week 3 of the Apple app store's existence...and I haven't looked back since...Apple has fueled my career, and allowed me to provide a nice living for my family...as it has for tens of thousands of developers around the world.
With that said, I have to side with Epic here...not entirely, but I lean more in their direction. I know folks always like to talk about contracts, and what have you...but just because you agree to a contract, doesn't make the terms of the contract legally binding...A common argument is: "You signed the contract, you accepted the terms, so just deal with it"...however, this doesn't always mean it's ok...if I'm a developer, and I want to release an app on an Apple device, I have no choice but to accept their terms...in this particular case, there's no alternative to me releasing an app on an Apple device. You might say that's fine, but I don't agree with that sentiment. If I want to create mobile apps and make money, I need to conduct my business on the Apple platform...there are no alternatives for building and releasing within the Apple ecosystem.
and when Apple started the App Store, it was truly a great way for developers to economically launch new software products. So perhaps the control they required was necessary to growing and improve the platform...However, times change. Apple does in fact control way too much without allowing free and open competition. I'm all for Apple controlling the App Store distribution experience to ensure security, safety, and consistency...however, they control way too much financially without allowing fair competition.
Not to overuse the retail store analogy, because I know it's not a perfect apples to apples comparison,...but the Fortnite product has "left" the store and gone home with a customer, and Apple wants to keep making money off it. I understand why...in order to build up their platform, they created an infrastructure that was cheap for ANYONE to participate ($99 annual developer fee),...distribution, development, etc...were all FREE. Apple needs to incur costs to provide all these services. And they only charge on the initial sale of the app, unless you're a "FREE" app. So they need to support this ecosystem somehow.
In my opinion, Apple would break this up into two models. One model would support the indy developers. Folks that started off like me, writing code on their living room couch, without having the financial resources to do things like figure out a distribution model, push notifications, security, privacy, in-app purchases, etc....a second model might be a more costly "enterprise" model, in which companies like Epic, could launch their apps, still pay some kind of usage fee (probably much higher due to the type of account), and leverage more of their own tools as long as those tools adhered to a certain set of criteria that maintained the high expectations for Apple Hardware, while providing more freedom to third parties.
Another issue at hand is due to it's dominant position, Apple apps need to adhere to the same standards as everyone else. Apple apps have exclusive use of apple private APIs, and compete with, and often bankrupt, third party developers. This is anti-competitive. These developers are then at a disadvantage because they don't have the same access to the hardware they are developing for, giving Apple an important leg up on their competition.
Finally, Apple does need to stop some of the backroom handshake deals they have with certain companies. They can't continue to put on a public image that they treat ALL developers the same when this is completely false. I'd venture to say 99% of developers get the same treatment, but here are backroom deals that happen between Apple and certain companies, and this flies in the face of everything they state publicly.
This is definitely a touchy subject, with alot of grey areas...but I do believe that Apple is trending towards the Microsoft of old that we knew in the 90s. I do think Apple is not entirely about greed and global dominance, but I do believe their practices with apps need some serious evaluation and adjustment to avoid becoming the anti-competitive business that it appears to be becoming.
With that said, I have to side with Epic here...not entirely, but I lean more in their direction. I know folks always like to talk about contracts, and what have you...but just because you agree to a contract, doesn't make the terms of the contract legally binding...A common argument is: "You signed the contract, you accepted the terms, so just deal with it"...however, this doesn't always mean it's ok...if I'm a developer, and I want to release an app on an Apple device, I have no choice but to accept their terms...in this particular case, there's no alternative to me releasing an app on an Apple device. You might say that's fine, but I don't agree with that sentiment. If I want to create mobile apps and make money, I need to conduct my business on the Apple platform...there are no alternatives for building and releasing within the Apple ecosystem.
and when Apple started the App Store, it was truly a great way for developers to economically launch new software products. So perhaps the control they required was necessary to growing and improve the platform...However, times change. Apple does in fact control way too much without allowing free and open competition. I'm all for Apple controlling the App Store distribution experience to ensure security, safety, and consistency...however, they control way too much financially without allowing fair competition.
Not to overuse the retail store analogy, because I know it's not a perfect apples to apples comparison,...but the Fortnite product has "left" the store and gone home with a customer, and Apple wants to keep making money off it. I understand why...in order to build up their platform, they created an infrastructure that was cheap for ANYONE to participate ($99 annual developer fee),...distribution, development, etc...were all FREE. Apple needs to incur costs to provide all these services. And they only charge on the initial sale of the app, unless you're a "FREE" app. So they need to support this ecosystem somehow.
In my opinion, Apple would break this up into two models. One model would support the indy developers. Folks that started off like me, writing code on their living room couch, without having the financial resources to do things like figure out a distribution model, push notifications, security, privacy, in-app purchases, etc....a second model might be a more costly "enterprise" model, in which companies like Epic, could launch their apps, still pay some kind of usage fee (probably much higher due to the type of account), and leverage more of their own tools as long as those tools adhered to a certain set of criteria that maintained the high expectations for Apple Hardware, while providing more freedom to third parties.
Another issue at hand is due to it's dominant position, Apple apps need to adhere to the same standards as everyone else. Apple apps have exclusive use of apple private APIs, and compete with, and often bankrupt, third party developers. This is anti-competitive. These developers are then at a disadvantage because they don't have the same access to the hardware they are developing for, giving Apple an important leg up on their competition.
Finally, Apple does need to stop some of the backroom handshake deals they have with certain companies. They can't continue to put on a public image that they treat ALL developers the same when this is completely false. I'd venture to say 99% of developers get the same treatment, but here are backroom deals that happen between Apple and certain companies, and this flies in the face of everything they state publicly.
This is definitely a touchy subject, with alot of grey areas...but I do believe that Apple is trending towards the Microsoft of old that we knew in the 90s. I do think Apple is not entirely about greed and global dominance, but I do believe their practices with apps need some serious evaluation and adjustment to avoid becoming the anti-competitive business that it appears to be becoming.
That is simply not true. You can make a living just releasing an Android app. I know plenty that do this.
Docs are public, and serve a PR function. Need to tell a story.
[automerge]1599606461[/automerge]
It may be true <shrug>. But if so, it’s because Apple built a platform based on the rules it applies.