Apple Might Be Forced to Bring Fortnite Back to U.S. App Store

[Chungry]

Seems Apple and Epic may have been playing different games (heh) when it comes to their legal angles. And if Epic was more cunning (regardless of if they are wrong or right) Apple may be in a predicament. I do find it hard to imagine Apple with all their money and Olympian lawyers would make an unforced error like this though. Guess we wait and see.

Edit: although. Did Epic know going in they'd lose the case but counted on Apple doing their BS to compel this latest fiasco...

 

[icanhazapple]

Good, break down this Wall(ed) Garden!!!!

 

[verdi1987]

What @IceCool said is 100% correct. Apple is not now, nor has it ever been "a monopoly". You have evidence to the contrary?

You can be a de facto duopoly and still engage in anti-competitive practices.

 

[0049190]

Apple’s Compliance Officer could be in trouble if the judge considers this a deliberate act of contempt of court.

 

[Chungry]

Apple’s Compliance Officer could be in trouble if the judge considers this a deliberate act of contempt of court.

Yeah it's a fine line. Wonder if they have wax wings?

 

[surferfb]

Apple’s Compliance Officer could be in trouble if the judge considers this a deliberate act of contempt of court.

I suspect they are waiting for the appeals court to rule on the injunction, but if that doesn’t happen before the hearing date will let Epic back in with enough time to cancel the hearing. The judge made it pretty clear it could be resolved without a hearing.

 

[Dark_Omen]

If Apple does not approve Fortnite in the U.S. App Store and resolve its current dispute with Epic Games without the court's intervention, there will be a hearing on May 27, and the "Apple official" who oversees compliance will need to attend in person. That could mean App Store chief Phil Schiller

They’d have to open both doors to the doorway to help him fit through the court room entrance.

I’m personally tired of Schiller.

 

[krakenrelease]

See you in court Epic *gets popcorn*

 

[Macaholic868]

Apple should shut down the App Store worldwide and force developers to go back to web apps. Why should Apple front the cost of maintaining an ecosystem for developers to mooch off of?

Public pressure will make Epic fold.

If Apple shut down the App Store tomorrow but provided an easy way for users to install apps on its hardware a huge app ecosystem would still exist and thrive without Apple spending an additional dime and it would still make billions selling the hardware. Just not as many billions as it makes by both selling the hardware and using its market position to force 3rd party developers to use its app distribution channel and billing system.

Even before Apple released an SDK or launched the App Store people were already jail breaking phones and then installing and running 3rd party apps.

If Apple stopped allowing 3rd party apps at this point it would put itself out of the smart phone and tablet production business because now that the 3rd party app genie is out of the bottle there is no going back. Consumers would stop buying their devices in favor of Android devices or devices by some other competitor who allows for 3rd party apps.

Your argument simply doesn’t hold water. Apple isn’t being forced to do anything. It’s the one forcing others to do something and that is why it’s wound up in court and why the court is highly likely to ultimately rule in Epic’s favor almost across the board here.

An argument can and is being made that Apple is using its monopoly on the hardware in an anti-competitive manner to not only stop potential competitors in the app distribution and/or billing space which stifles competition but it’s also forcing third party developers that aren’t even trying to compete in that space to pay them to even have a presence in their ecosystem.

That’s something that might fly if we weren’t talking about the smart phone, a device that has become as close to ubiquitous as a device can be in terms of how it’s integrated into the daily lives of a huge portion of humanity and one that will only grow more so over time.

 

[Bungaree.Chubbins]

None of these I have claimed. Apple, however, has responsibilities as a gatekeeper to the app market on iOS. It most likely is not allowed to be discriminatory, or create unreasonable rules.

True, you didn't, but it does look like a large step in that direction.

He/she is saying that when you control a significant portion of the market you cannot engage in anti-competitive tactics.

How big do you have to be to lose the ability to control the systems you build?

What does Apple do with the billions it gets from Google for traffic acquisition? That’s basically pure profit.

So because one section of the business is insanely profitable, they're obligated to give other things away for next to nothing?

 

[zahuh]

Epic could have sued without breaking the rules though. That’s where I think they will lose

The point is that they never broke the rules. It’s illegal what Apple is doing. So now they can’t get into the store but other apps like Spotify can submit updates? Shady!

 

[jz0309]

The point is that they never broke the rules. It’s illegal what Apple is doing. So now they can’t get into the store but other apps like Spotify can submit updates? Shady!

So how come the same judge ruled 5 years ago that Epic broke the rules, Apple was within its rights to ban them and also ordered them to pay $3.7M to Apple for lost revenue? The shady one here is Epic.

 

[zahuh]

So how come the same judge ruled 5 years ago that Epic broke the rules, Apple was within its rights to ban them and also ordered them to pay $3.7M to Apple for lost revenue? The shady one here is Epic.

I mean... that's the past. Now it's illegal. Not sure why you're bringing up the past and why you ignored the Spotify example. APPS can now have external payments which is what epic wanted.

 

[BGPL]

DOJ! DOJ! DOJ! Give me a D... give me a O... give me a J....

 

[Christian 5G]

I’m actually excited if it comes back to try it. Beings me back to college days when me and the boys would play in the dorm, great times

 

[macfacts]

so what? Because one arm of the business makes profit they have to subsidize another arm?
great business logic ... /s

Apple should increase the yearly developer fee.

 

[Piggie]

Does anyone here on MacRumors play Fortnite?

This link may at least give you some idea:

How many iOS players play Fortnite? - Gaming Pedia

How many iOS players play Fortnite? According to the data, approximately 73.1 million users exclusively played Fortnite on iOS devices. Does Fortnite run on iOS? Yes, Fortnite is available on iOS and it was free to play on the platform. Why is Fortnite not on iOS? Fortnite was removed from the...

www.ncesc.com

 

[frenchcamp49er]

Apple should increase the price of the iPhone and blame it on Epic and Spotify

 

[Piggie]

It's funny how a GIANT company like Apple fails to see ahead and grasp the obvious.
Like the 30% app store from day one, and not considering lowering it since way way back then.
Like the refusal with Fortnight.
The malicious compliance with rulings against them.

Every single one of these issues would never have happened, and Apple could have maintained it's loved viewpoint if they just acted in a more sensible and mature manner.

Instead of acting like either bullies, or Stroppy children, digging their heels in at every single opportunity.

Sadly, we all know with Tim Cook in charge it's Money, Money, Money and to hell with the outcome.

I've not totally lost faith, when Tim Cook goes, and all the old guys that have been there also go, there is still a good chance for an Apple Re-Boot and turn the company around. Making it once more something like it was that wanted to create cool new products and let people enjoy them how they wanted.
(Much love for the Apple II by many still)
And move away from the cash grabbing monolith it's sadly become.

It's just a shame, those running the ship now have let it get to this point and forgot about what made Apple so amazing all those years ago.

 

[Piggie]

If the judge rules that Apple has to allow Fortnite, it will get overturned. That’s a highly dangerous precedent to force a business to sell a product it doesn’t want to. This would be like a judge telling Walmart it had to sell a particular game or brand of cracker or brand of toilet paper.

Regardless of your thoughts about the other Epic / Apple legal battles, I hope people at least recognize that a government forcing a retail business to sell (give away) a product is anti-democratic.

If I open a store.
Would you fully support me if I did not wish to serve anyone I don't want to?

Say I don't like people who dress a certain way, I don't like people of a certain skin colour, or I don't like a particular race of people, or one sex over another?

I don't want specific people in my store and I won't let them buy anything.
Would you give me your full support that it's my store, I own it, and if you don't like my rules in my store then go and shop elsewhere, or open your own store?

 

[cjsuk]

So how come the same judge ruled 5 years ago that Epic broke the rules, Apple was within its rights to ban them and also ordered them to pay $3.7M to Apple for lost revenue? The shady one here is Epic.

They are both asshats.

This is the point of regulation: avoid even getting here in the first place. Fundamentally:

1. Payment legal standards should be formalised and enforced.
2. App store legal standards should be formalised and enforced.

The lack of payment standards currently across the world means that independent siloed payment systems exist all over the place and from experience in working in that sector, customer service is not even considered as an operational cost. If you want out of a billing agreement, then you might be in trouble. Epic are great at that one. I lost my Epic account entirely due to a billing problem and everything in it and customer service is ZERO. Apple on the other hand are on top of that and would refund me if I bought through the App Store. Thus Sweeney can shove it.

However the app store does not allow side loading and has really difficult to pass constraints on actually getting something on there (partially for good reasons but inconsistently applied). That means I can't really build iOS apps for personal use without incurring significant friction and pain. Or get something in the store without having to negotiate with Apple from ground zero. Thus Cook can shove it.

And with both parties, I never own anything I buy. It's always behind a login and an account which can be withdrawn at a moment's notice with no recourse.

Ergo they're both terrible in their own way. There are no sides worth taking on this matter.

 

[Nekomichi]

Say I don't like people who dress a certain way, I don't like people of a certain skin colour, or I don't like a particular race of people, or one sex over another?

Skin colour/race and gender identity are protected traits, Fortnite is neither a race nor any other kind of protected characteristic so comparing it to a form of discrimination would be inaccurate.

I don't want specific people in my store and I won't let them buy anything.

There's a difference between refusing to stock a certain item and refusing to serve a certain customer, Apple is doing the former but this example is the latter.

I'm not defending Apple by the way, just pointing out that this comparison is inaccurate.

 

[Baslea]

To be honest, I couldn't care less. Both Tim's are crybabies. However, I welcome (and support) any consumer friendly decision. And, this time, it's EpicGames who is leading the way. I don't care about Fortnite's skin-scheme or revenues.

@Nekomichi I can't imagine US don't have these anti-monopolist laws (- Yes. As you are only allowed to purchase/download Apps form Apple's AppStore they are literally monopolists). At least in the EU after they meet specific criteria (and get categorized as monopolists) they cannot say anymore "I don't like your nose, I don't want to do business with you".

Edit: Yes they do have, Sherman Act.

 

[svish]

Looks like Apple will be forced to do it. Waiting to see what will happen over the next few days.

 

[thiscatisfat]

If I open a store.
Would you fully support me if I did not wish to serve anyone I don't want to?

Say I don't like people who dress a certain way, I don't like people of a certain skin colour, or I don't like a particular race of people, or one sex over another?

I don't want specific people in my store and I won't let them buy anything.
Would you give me your full support that it's my store, I own it, and if you don't like my rules in my store then go and shop elsewhere, or open your own store?

Someone gave a much better example in a different discussion on this topic. Something along the lines that if Coca Cola came to your store and force you to sell it on their terms, and you refuse, you shouldn't be being dragged to courts just because you did so and I will accept your decision - you don't want to sell Coca Cola no matter what, you have your reasons and I will continue to buy from you because you continue to provide quality service with the business you've built with your own money and with your effort brought it to become the most popular shop in town. You just don't want to sell Coca Cola because they're jerks and want to screw you over and use your business for their benefit alone while not giving you absolutely anything for selling their product in your store. Makes sense, no?