Nobody buys an iPad just so they can play Epic games
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 Wants $73.4 Million From Epic Games to Cover Its Legal Expenses
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And nobody switches from an iOS device to play an epic game. That would indicate a level of loyalty to epic games that just doesn’t exist. Epic have just shown themselves to be a bunch of dicks over the last 3 years, any loyalty they had is probably gone now.
I wouldn’t be so sure: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/251753302
As rightly pointed out, that is an epic issue. But then that’s why epics reputation is down the toilet 😂
Epic damaged itself financially and reputationally.
Apple won completely and yet some communities still claimed that Apple lost because they have to allow 3rd party app purchases. Guess what? Apple can still charge fees even for 3rd party payments lol.
It doesn’t matter. If they buy an iPad solely for Fortnite, they will also switch away from it when it doesn’t work for that.
Another example: If Beat Saber was available on the Vision Pro (and worked as well despite the lack of controllers), I’d buy one. Since it isn’t, I won’t. So the presence or absence of a single game impacts Apple device sales. This is also why it seems wrong that they should profit on top of that a 30% from very successful games. It’s not like it’s Apple merit if a game is popular.
Last edited:
Absolutely ridiculous. Epic should have won this, it's insane that Apple continues to be the sole way for people to install software in the US.
At least the EU got a big win.
At least the EU got a big win.
No, not entirely. Before Epic Games challenged them in court, they chose not to abide by their mutually agreed contract. They went about it the wrong way around.
And then played silly games in public that backfired, and then bar one all of their cases.
As a developer, I entirely disagree. It's a pretty good deal, I'm old enough to know the days before the app stores. There is way more money to be made these days. And in the Apple ecosystem, we get access to qualified prospects who actually spent some money.
But it's a choice, they don't have to be on the app store. They haven't been on it for a while. This has nothing to do with Tim Sweeney had it coming or not, he is just plain and simple wrong, and the process of the courts has proven that.
You won't get the bill if you don't bring frivolous, unwinnable cases. Imagine how many chancers there would be if there weren't costs associated with it.
I agree, that’s why I said they did it the most ass way possible. They could have handled this a lot better and without pissing Apple off so much and without being so publicly grandstanding about it. If Sweeney wanted to make a point he shouldn’t have started off with a flagrant, public, embarrassing violation of the license agreement.
I’m just saying someone was going to test Apple’s App Store policies. I wish it had been someone more…competent.
How could Epic have handled it better if the goal was still to challenge App Store policies in court? Maybe it could've avoided putting Fortnite on the App Store to begin with, as that's the only way to avoid agreeing to the contract. Or the lawsuit could've been focused on only a couple specific policies and less broad. These are possible answers. Regardless, although it's very hard to argue Epic should've won on everything, the outcome still should've been a bit better for Epic.
Entirely reasonable for Apple to:
- Charge an annual fee to developers with apps on the App Store.
- Take a percentage of transactions made with the Apple account in-app purchase mechanism.
- Require any purchases in the app be available with the Apple account in-app purchase mechanism.
- Not allowing links to purchase content on a developer's separate website accessible in the web browser.
- Demanding a share of revenue collected via a developer's separate website accessible in the web browser.
- Keeping less-knowledgable consumers in the dark about prices being marked up 30%.
I love the personna of the “less knowledgeable user”. These are the types who:
- gets ripped off by car dealers
- buys watches from a street vendor and believes they are gen-u-ine
- goes into tourist traps to buy electronic merchandise and believes they are getting a good deal etc.
- MR believes they make up the majority of iPhone users. Nope, no savvy iPhone users out in the general population
Issues 1 and 3 were addressed by this ruling. As for 2, if you agree it is reasonable for Apple to collect a licensing fee through IAP, then I have no idea why it wouldn't be reasonable to collect a licensing fee when you link to third party payments.
My use of "less knowledgeable" means they didn't go out of their way to do extra research for whatever reason. Maybe they have better things to do with their lives than research every little purchase they make. (If it's something as big as a car, well, they'd better make time for that).
It's a website completely separate from the App Store and built with non-iOS specific technologies. The developer is paying for his own payment integration infrastructure, hosting, and domain of the website. What argument is there for Apple collecting royalties?
Because, as the judge made clear in the decision, the licensing fee isn't for processing payments. It's for use of Apple's IP (iOS). Just using a different payment processor doesn't change that.
We don't know what yet? SCOTUS denied cert. This case is effectively over. Perhaps another developer with a better case, a better trial strategy, and is not ******* crazy will be able to bring a suit with a different outcome.
ETA: Of course, that next suit will also have to overcome the precedences set in this trial.
Last edited:
I never said I agreed with the judge’s decision, in fact I made it clear the opposite is true…
It’s strange logic anyway. I suppose any website should have to pay royalties to Apple to be rendered correctly in iOS Safari too. That’d be fun to see defended.
Last edited:
You are missing two things:
- Both Apple and Epic are large companies making many billions in revenue. Yes, Apple is multiple bigger, but Epic is not some "two guys and trick duck" development house.
- Epic did not contest the policies or the contact they agreed to. The flagrantly and knowingly violated the terms of the contract with teh intent to harm Apple and get sued. I guess they did win that part.
It doesn't matter if you agree with the decision. It was just a reference to the findings of facts.
"First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission."
Thanks. I knew about Fortnite but not sure about other games for the Mac. I'm pretty sure they don't.
Your donation to Wikipedia through iOS Safari should have 27% taken by Apple because Apple’s intellectual property was utilized to access the website.
Okay, if that’s the argument being made here, whatever. These judges don’t have a clue how any these of things work, nor would they ever allow a loophole that hurts instead of helps a larger corporation. I’ve stated my opinion so end of discussion.
Last edited: