More like Employee steel money out of register, gets fired, then tries to sue the company for not paying them enough to begin with.
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 Argues to Get App Store Injunction Thrown Out in Epic v. Apple Appeal
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What would be very interesting would be to see sales and profit numbers for that brief period during which Epic added the option to pay outside of Apple.
If Apple is arguing that Epic "hasn't shown that the anti-steering provisions have caused them harm", would it change the game if simple profit figures showed that during the time that Epic ignored those provisions, they made a larger profit?
I dunno, to me it just seems to be one of those "duh, that's obvious" things - if someone orders you to give them 30% of your income, and then tries to say "oh, that didn't cause you any harm"...
IANAL, but perhaps it's how "harm" is defined? I mean, if you have 100 million dollars cash and someone orders you to give them 30% of it, you still have 70 million dollars, you'll still be fine. But if you barely make enough money to make rent and pay bills, and someone orders you to give them 30% of it, that 30% can mean the difference between being able to pay your bills and being evicted. But if that's how "harm" is defined, then it'd be hard for ANY large company to claim "harm" unless said company actually went under or something due to the practice. And in that case, shouldn't Apple have to prove that NOT having the 30% cut from Epic caused them "harm" (which it clearly wouldn't?)
If Apple is arguing that Epic "hasn't shown that the anti-steering provisions have caused them harm", would it change the game if simple profit figures showed that during the time that Epic ignored those provisions, they made a larger profit?
I dunno, to me it just seems to be one of those "duh, that's obvious" things - if someone orders you to give them 30% of your income, and then tries to say "oh, that didn't cause you any harm"...
IANAL, but perhaps it's how "harm" is defined? I mean, if you have 100 million dollars cash and someone orders you to give them 30% of it, you still have 70 million dollars, you'll still be fine. But if you barely make enough money to make rent and pay bills, and someone orders you to give them 30% of it, that 30% can mean the difference between being able to pay your bills and being evicted. But if that's how "harm" is defined, then it'd be hard for ANY large company to claim "harm" unless said company actually went under or something due to the practice. And in that case, shouldn't Apple have to prove that NOT having the 30% cut from Epic caused them "harm" (which it clearly wouldn't?)
IANAL either but as far as I know, when you become a developer you agree to the terms of being a developer. And if that means 30% to Apple and not providing ways to circumvent that, then that's the rules of the field you're playing on. Apple shouldn't have to prove what you stated there.
Yeah, let's bury the guys that own the Unreal Engine. Good plan.
If your business model is such that after paying Apple their commission you don't make any money, that means your business model is wrong. Or you have a product that rightfully should go away because it isn't valuable enough to consumers for you to make a profit.
It's perfectly ok for developers to make a loss and go out of business if they don't have a product that makes enough money after taking into consideration all the costs of doing business. Apple's commission is no more or less a cost of doing business as paying employees or renting office space. What next, developers sue their office landlords to force them to rent out the office space for free? Or sue their employees to make them work for nothing?
The exact comparison is less important than the point it illustrates, which is that cutting ties with someone or something when you get sued by the aforementioned someone or something so that you can claim that "actually they don't have standing" in order to get the case dismissed completely undermines the justice system.
In this particular case... Epic was making $1,000,000 per day on iOS with all those little microtransactions in Fortnite.
Epic obviously had no problem cashing those checks from Apple while following their rules.
Then they decided to break those rules. And they got caught and kicked out.
So I'm having a hard time feeling sorry for Epic.
After reading this whole article, this was also my strongest takeaway that was super easy to see. Not a good look.
I believe Apple are using this approach because a) they believe they didn’t do anything wrong and b) they believe Epic did do something wrong. Apple already won damages for the payments Epic didn’t make to them during the offending period so as far as Apple are concerned this case is pretty much already settled and just needs tossing away as Epic are no longer being ‘harmed’ as they claim.
Apple can’t ‘harm’ Epic when Apple and epic don’t do business with one another.
You've literally simplified it down to the basis of every legal disagreement ever. Bravo. This is like saying water is wet.
The case isn't settled when it's being appealed by both parties. What kind of nonsense logic is that?
If the reason Apple and Epic don't do business any more is because of improper rules or actions by Apple, then Epic is being harmed by Apple. Whether or not that's the case will be up to the appeals court.
But that’s exactly why Apple are asking for the injunction to be thrown out, it has already been ruled that apple did not harm epic and it was in fact epic that harmed apple.
In that situation, if the company tried to argue the plaintiff has no standing because they aren't an employee anymore, I would say that's bull****. (This is not the same as saying the employee who stole money should win the lawsuit.)
No, I'm trying to make the point that the specific circumstance is 100% irrelevant, regardless of how you feel about Epic Games and/or Apple.
Last edited:
Just an FYI, you're going balls to the wall for a company worth 36 billion dollars. It isn't like Apple is trying to squash a local mom and pop store here.
Apple would cheerfully squash a mom and pop developer.
I don't care about Epic. I do care about installing whatever software I choose to on MY iPhone without needing Apple's permission.
The same logic used by Apple’s lawyers provides a revolutionary defense for criminal cases, too!
“Your Honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this alleged murder has no victim because the purported ‘victim’ is no longer alive and therefore cannot be murdered.”
Not really the same idea.
Epic was making money, but not a LOT of money compared to everywhere else. They were likely intending to end development for iOS devices and, since they were going to be pulling their app anyway, decided on this course of action so that they’re ‘removed’ from the store rather than removing it themselves. If the gambit worked, they’d have their own store on iOS, if it didn’t, since they were going to remove it anyway, no loss in potential income.
Pretty much. Anyone that can’t make a profit on the 70% are soooo poor at business planning, they absolutely wouldn’t be able to make a profit even with the 30% added. It would all be flushed down the money hole due to their bad planning!
Says more about current employees and, moreso the current worker shortage. The ones remaining in the workforce feel more valuable than prior employees, so it’s not a surprise.
No, Apple’s got the better arguments. BUT, that’s primarily because Epic’s arguments started with “So we had this legal binding agreement between Apple and us, right? Well, we invalidated that agreement. However, you know, they FORCED us to invalidate it so we’re suing for something.. like.. <drifts off>”
Lionel Hutz has better arguments than that.
Wait… isn’t anyone going to point out how Epic has rolled out its own in-game store where “creators” can sell their own digital creations to fortnight gamers? And how Epic, ever fair-minded and reasonable, and taking great pains to show Apple and the world how to fairly compensate creators is taking 95% of the revenue from creators??
😂😂 What hypocritical a**hats. 🙄
😂😂 What hypocritical a**hats. 🙄
It is one of the many reasons it is hilarious to see people standing up for Epic like they are some little guy.
Your iphone yes, but borrowed software
Right. They should be like Unity and bury themselves.