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

[ToothBlueth]

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?

This analogy does not work on App Markets.

The app market on iOS is of a very significant size and brings upon extra obligations and diligence for Apple. While Apple is allowed to refuse access, they must have good reasons, and may not give arbitrary arguments. It thus has to act inline with its ToS and certain statements it has made.

I believe, brands sold in supermarkets are often on a contract to sell their goods. There is also a wide choice of supermarkets or other stores where a brand may sell their goods. For the app market, it is only iOS or Android/AOSP, and both have a significant market share.

 

[thiscatisfat]

This analogy does not work on App Markets.

The app market on iOS is of a very significant size and brings upon extra obligations and diligence for Apple. While Apple is allowed to refuse access, they must have good reasons, and may not give arbitrary arguments. It thus has to act inline with its ToS and certain statements it has made.

I believe, brands sold in supermarkets are often on a contract to sell their goods. There is also a wide choice of supermarkets or other stores where a brand may sell their goods. For the app market, it is only iOS or Android/AOSP, and both have a significant market share.

The analogy works great for someone who doesn't understand the concept of what's going on here.

They have a perfectly good reason. As I said before, Apple removed Fornite originally on the basis that they knowingly and intentionally broke the rules that they agreed to at the time. That alone is enough for a justified lifetime ban.

Epic isn't the first nor the last developer to be banned from App Store for breaking the terms and conditions. It certainly is one with money to burn to try and get their way through courts.

 

[ToothBlueth]

The analogy works great for someone who doesn't understand the concept of what's going on here.

They have a perfectly good reason. As I said before, Apple removed Fornite originally on the basis that they knowingly and intentionally broke the rules that they agreed to at the time. That alone is enough for a justified lifetime ban.

The analogy only works if one wishes to argue in bad faith and omit the complexities that are specific to this case.

 

[Nekomichi]

At the end of the day, both Apple and Epic are corporations whose primary motivation is profit and both try to mask that as something altruistic and acting in the interest of the consumer. Apple advertises their anticompetitive practices as being in the name of safety/security while Epic acts like access to a children's gambling game is a basic human right. There are no heroes here.

If I were the judge, I'd give them 30 days to sort this whole thing amongst themselves and if they can't do that, then fine both for every day past the deadline until they can come to a mutual agreement. The whole debacle has gone on for far too long and has become a drain on the justice system's time and resources that could be better allocated elsewhere.

(Side note: I'd probably make a terrible judge, haha...)

 

[applefella]

Epic is genuinely wasting everyone's time, and their own money.

On the one hand, I do think consumers should be able to sideload apps and softwares onto their phones via USB-C ports. But there has to be some sort of security measure on the phone (FaceID, TouchID, Passcode). If Epic wanted to do it that way, there would need to be user permission to accomplish that.

On the other hand, Epic should not be able to force Apple to do its bidding. Apple made the device, and Apple's within its rights to protect its users.

This is literally just a modern-day version of CD-Roms.

The ultimate thing that should matter here is user consent. And it needs to be extremely apparent—not hidden from the user.

One of the key problems in all of this is that user credit card information is now tied to devices. Apple has a legitimate interest to protect its users.

This didn't used to be as much of a thing way back when, when dial-up was a thing. We didn't have credit cards back then.

Aside from that, there are other privacy concerns.

With a world more interconnected than before, Epic cannot expect Apple to simply open up its devices to security issues.

It also becomes a major issue if Epic Games's store becomes compromised.

I think I hate Sweeny and Epic Games. They're using (/have used) loot boxes to target kids. Not every Fortnighter is a kid, but there need to be protections against predatory companies like these.

That's why user consent to alternative apps needs to be a thing.

 

[Vistaus]

A private company being forced to accept or delete an app is against freedom of speech.

You mean like how parents force kids to play with each other, even if the kids don't like each other? Oh boy, I feel a lot of court cases coming up…

 

[thiscatisfat]

The analogy only works if one wishes to argue in bad faith and omit the complexities that are specific to this case.

It's definitely not as complex as you make it appear to be. Epic got greedy, didn't want to pay Apple their fair share that they agreed to pay before they became as "big" as they are, spent money into planning and intentionally broke App Store's T&Cs, got banned, and now all they do is moan how unfair of Apple, cornering Apple for literally having control over their platform. It's that simple. Every analogy where one breaks rules and gets thrown out works, because it's that simple. Both have their reasoning for their actions, but in this case, Apple's ban of Epic is 100% justified and they are 100% entitled to every bit of their fair share for allowing developers to make money off their platform. I personally have my inner fights with Apple too, I absolutely despise Apple for not letting me downgrade iOS to any version I like on my legacy devices, but in this case I fully support Apple.

 

[sirdir]

Tim Sweeney is a parasite. Freeloads off of the work of others.

Funny considering Apple is fighting to get 30% from the work of everyone.

 

[thiscatisfat]

Funny considering Apple is fighting to get 30% from the work of everyone.

Well, it's from the work of everyone who wants to benefit from Apple's platform. I think 30% is a fair share.

 

[Vistaus]

i will always maintain this judgement is still anti-consumer and potentially good for apple. The right consumer move would be waht EU did which is force iOS to open up to 3rd party app stores. That's real competition.

I don't care about competition on the payment platform if apple can play gatekeeper on who gets to be on the store.

What I fail to understand is why it's such a big deal for them to allow that. I mean: would they do that in real life, too? “Only Walmart is allowed in this town”, sounds a little far-fetched, doesn't it? I can't think of any place in the US where only one store is allowed in town. iOS is basically a digital version of a town.

 

[ToothBlueth]

It's definitely not as complex as you make it appear to be.

Thank you, that clarifies a lot about your bias.

Epic got greedy, didn't want to pay Apple their fair share that they agreed to pay before they became as "big" as they are, spent money into planning and intentionally broke App Store's T&Cs, got banned, and now all they do is moan how unfair of Apple, cornering Apple for literally having control over their platform. It's that simple. Every analogy where one breaks rules and gets thrown out works, because it's that simple.

They are both greedy, but Apple holds significant market power. If you do not want to acknowledge this, you are not arguing in good faith. In that case I can go around and around in this discussion, because you can't step away from you obvious bias towards Apple. I don't mind if your opinion is that Apple should keep its walled garden or whatever, but be honest about the powers Apple has.

Apple's ban of Epic is 100% justified

Well, apparently not anymore. But we will have to see if Apple continues its petty behaviour, and maybe we will get a final judgement.

and they are 100% entitled to every bit of their fair share for allowing developers to make money off their platform.

This is chicken-egg. Apple (in relation to the iPhone/iOS) can only make money because they have app developers to make the platform interesting. For companies like Epic, Netflix, and Spotify they do near nothing and still want a very significant share (and whether it is a fair share is unclear, because Apple has a monopoly on iOS app distribution).

I fully support Apple.

Unsurprisingly.

 

[koelsh]

Fortnite has 650m registered users and 110m active each month, you can bet there are more on here than you think playing it and won't admit it.

So at what size must Fortnite get to be forced to open up their game and allow creators to sell their own skins and hats without Epic taking a cut?

 

[iPadified]

I wonder what the profit margin is on App Store? That would indicate the degree of greed. The ability to ban and set conditions for software on 1 billion+ devices needs some outside regulations or rules. Letting one company control the whole stack is simply too much power in one place - and power corrupts.

 

[thiscatisfat]

Thank you, that clarifies a lot.


They are both greedy, but Apple holds significant market power. If you do not want to acknowledge this, you are not arguing in good faith. In that case I can go around and around in this discussion, because you can't step away from you obvious bias towards Apple. I don't mind if your opinion is that Apple should keep its walled garden or whatever, but be honest about the powers Apple has.


Well, apparently not anymore. But we will have to see if Apple continues its petty behaviour.

This is chicken-egg. Apple can only make money because they have app developers to make the platform interesting. For companies like Epic, Netflix, and Spotify they do near nothing and still want a very significant share (and whether it is a fair share is unclear, because Apple has a monopoly on iOS app distribution).

Unsurprisingly.

Buddy, you're stating the obvious here. Of course Apple holds a significant market power, what makes you incorrectly assume that nobody in this discussion is aware of that? They hold significant power thanks to their work over the last two decades, not because they suddenly popped up used someone's platform and one day decided to not want to pay the platform owner for allowing them to do business on the platform.

Apple has always been doing fine without Epic, Apple doesn't need Epic. The chicken-egg analogy is completely out of place here. Developers like Epic need Apple, it's not the other way around. Apple is doing fine with the developers who agree to and don't break the T&Cs. Epic agreed to the T&Cs and broke them intentionally - in bad faith.

You're getting too personal with this "arguing in good/bad faith", and I could even say that you're biased towards Epic, but I'm not trying to make it personal. Apple doesn't have monopoly, it has control on iOS app distribution - as they should have, as it's THEIR platform. Epic and the likes call it monopoly because it helps form a narrative for their own benefit.

 

[Dr McKay]

Does anyone here on MacRumors play Fortnite?

I play occasionally with friends on the No-Build mode.

has anyone actually asked if anyone wants to play Fortnite on an iPhone or even iPad?

I can't imagine anything worse than squinting at my phone trying to play it on my iPhone.

I have the largest size iPad Pro and a Bluetooth controller, I'd give it a go if it got released. Not only that, but I've seen kids playing CoD Mobile on iPhone without issue 🤷‍♂️

 

[neuropsychguy]

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?

That’s a completely different situation. My example is based on selling a product. Yours is based on characteristics of customers.

I hope you can see the difference between Apple not allowing a particular game and Apple refusing to sell products to someone defined as “white”.

A government forcing any given company to have to sell a particular product (a game in this case) is intrusive and oppressive.

Also, by the way, businesses generally can refuse to provide services to just about anyone for any reason. Now, refusing to serve whole classifications and groups of people (based on protected characteristics like sex, gender, race, ethnicity, etc.) is legally problematic, but refusing service to one individual who is causing a commotion and trying to attack a particular business model (which is what Epic is doing), is well within the right of the business.

 

[ToothBlueth]

Buddy, you're stating the obvious here. Of course Apple holds a significant market power, what makes you incorrectly assume that nobody in this discussion is aware of that? They hold significant power thanks to their work over the last two decades, not because they suddenly popped up used someone's platform and one day decided to not want to pay the platform owner for allowing them to do business on the platform.

That is a non-argument. Standard Oil and Microsoft also gained significant power 'thanks to their work over [..] decades.' Again you are simplifying the situation.

Apple has always been doing fine without Epic, Apple doesn't need Epic. The chicken-egg analogy is completely out of place here. Developers like Epic need Apple, it's not the other way around. Apple is doing fine with the developers who agree to and don't break the T&Cs.

Apple is doing fine without Epic, but I replied to 'and they are 100% entitled to every bit of their fair share for allowing developers to make money off their platform.' Apple is entitled to remove privileges from developers that have breached the ToCs, but the relevant ToC was deemed invalid. Apple also promised to allow Epic back on when they complied with their ToC.

You are right that Apple has created a market which are of significant importance for app developers, it is therefor that Apple has extra obligations to provide fair access to that market. It looks like Apple is arbitrarily preventing Epic to access that market.

You're getting too personal with this "arguing in good/bad faith",

Well, sorry if you feel that way, but arguing with someone who can't acknowledge the basic fact that Apple has created a market to which it holds significant power, and is using that power to seemingly arbitrarily prevent corporation to do business, needs to be pointed out at times.

and I could even say that you're biased towards Epic, but I'm not trying to make it personal.

I don't have a bias towards Epic. I am a long time Apple user and have also been fan in the past. When I started to care about privacy, I found out the hard way that Apple makes it as hard as possible to get out of their ecosystem. And how they prevent competitors from an equal playing field (browser engines, smartwatches, in-app purchases). I can only warn for ideolising a company.

Apple doesn't have monopoly, it has control on iOS app distribution - as they should have, as it's THEIR platform. Epic and the likes call it monopoly because it helps form a narrative for their own benefit.

It sort of is... they hold nearly all power (only limited by US law) on iOS app distribution. The point that it is 'their' platform, is covered in my first paragraph. Of course some argue that Android is the alternative, but in my opinion this ignores the fact that two options is not a proper choice and that a decision doesn't arrive solely on the basis of app stores, but a whole range of requirements.

 

[Vistaus]

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

Yet that is exactly how businesses work. And people, too. If you have two jobs and one pays more than the other. Now you cannot buy all of your groceries with the money from job 1, are you choosing to starve yourself or would you say “I have a second source of income, let's buy the rest of my groceries with that”?
And this is what a lot of businesses do as well.

 

[SexExpert]

Well, it's from the work of everyone who wants to benefit from Apple's platform. I think 30% is a fair share.

Fair based on what, exactly? If you say "well something has to pay for App Store infrastructure" then you have to show what you think their cost breakdown is, because most calculations come out to a tiny fraction of that 30%.

That 30% is based on nothing but Apple charging the absolute maximum they think they can get away with, before it starts turning away enough devs to hurt their bottom line.

 

[thiscatisfat]

Fair based on what, exactly? If you say "well something has to pay for App Store infrastructure" then you have to show what you think their cost breakdown is, because most calculations come out to a tiny fraction of that 30%.

That 30% is based on nothing but Apple charging the absolute maximum they think they can get away with, before it starts turning away enough devs to hurt their bottom line.

I never said that. It's the cost of doing business with Apple on their App Store, and you either go with it and gain access to a platform that distributes apps to over 1.5 billion devices worldwide, or you freaking don't.

They can charge even 50% if they want, it's their platform and their choice. You as a developer have a choice too.

 

[thiscatisfat]

It looks like Apple is arbitrarily preventing Epic to access that market.

Again - and I feel like I need to keep repeating this to you until you acknowledge this - Epic deliberately violated the T&Cs they had no problem complying with when they first started publishing their apps on Apple's platform. They weren't preventing them before they broke the rules that they agreed with to begin with. Epic lost access to that market due to their own actions.

 

[ToothBlueth]

They can charge even 50% if they want

They can (possibly) do that, because they have no competition. You know, like a monopoly. If they had competition, the percentage might have gone down, because they had to compete with stores that were charging lower fees, or had better features or apps.

Again - and I feel like I need to keep repeating this to you until you acknowledge this - Epic deliberately violated the T&Cs they had no problem complying with when they first started publishing their apps on Apple's platform. They weren't preventing them before they broke the rules that they agreed with to begin with. Epic lost access to that market due to their own actions.

I already have acknowledged that Epic has deliberately violated the ToCs. But those ToCs were not lawful, and now, because Apple had to change their ToCs, Epic is complying with the ToCs.

 

[neuropsychguy]

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.

Most companies and individuals making money through the App Store are not paying 30%. They pay 15%. The bigger companies pay 30%, although some pay 15% (subscription-based apps like Disney+).

 

[thiscatisfat]

They can (possibly) do that, because they have no competition. You know, like a monopoly. If they had competition, the percentage might have gone down, because they had to compete with stores that were charging lower fees, or had better features or apps.

I already have acknowledged that Epic has deliberately violated the ToCs. But those ToCs were not lawful, and now, because Apple had to change their ToCs, Epic is complying with the ToCs.

Well, buddy bud, why don't you become the competition? Make something of your own, make it as popular as Apple and compete? What's holding you back?

 

[SexExpert]

I never said that. It's the cost of doing business with Apple on their App Store, and you either go with it and gain access to a platform that distributes apps to over 1.5 billion devices worldwide, or you freaking don't.

They can charge even 50% if they want, it's their platform and their choice. You as a developer have a choice too.

You literally said 30% was a fair cut:

Well, it's from the work of everyone who wants to benefit from Apple's platform. I think 30% is a fair share.

Now you're saying Apple can charge whatever they want, it's up to the dev whether they want to suck it up or not.

Those are two completely different positions.