Epic CEO: Judge's Decision 'Isn't a Win for Developers or for Consumers,' Fortnite Not Immediately Returning to App Store

[m4mario]

With this ruling, Fortnite is technically back allowed in the app store even if they want to use their own payment method (as long as Apple restores their dev account). That's all they SHOULD want, and it's what they got. Anything else is just desperation.

Even without this ruling, Apple was willing to let Fortnite back if it removed the alternative payment.

Even after the judgement, Fortnite will have to remove the alternative payment within the app to get back into the app stores. Only difference now is that, they can provide a link to their website, that takes the player out of the app and into the browser for the alternative payment.

Anyway, epic’s motive for this was something else.

 

[DelayedGratificationGene]

Did this news cause this?
View attachment 1829224

It did but it should be green and it will turn once the panic sellers are gone and investors realize it was an Apple victory

 

[januarydrive7]

I think an important question that's not being asked is: "how does this affect the children?"

 

[junkw]

i'm all for alternate app stores, i've personally had a greatly enhanced experience on iOS over the years thanks to the efforts of jailbreak devs who have enabled a swarm of talent to make tweaks and alternative system apps for iOS that apple wouldn't dare be creative enough to allow.

can you provide some links to those good alternative stuff?

 

[Darth Tulhu]

So basically, I have to build a store and stock MY STORE shelves with a third-party product AND have a sign right next to it that advertises for the third-party product manufacturer's direct store.

Makes sense.

 

[januarydrive7]

There are some major inconsistencies in the decision which will likely be challenged on appeal. For instance, the judge makes the injunction nationwide despite only ruling the anti-steering violates California state law. Also, the judge ruled Apple cannot anti-steer payment methods under the injunction, but then found Epic in breach of contract for introducing it's own payment method which is in contradiction to the injunction.

Yes, this part does not make sense. Especially the fact that Apple can continue blocking Epic's account at will.

Not a lawyer, but it seems that breaking contract is the justification, here. When Epic (unashamedly) broke the contract, they lost any rights to claim contractual rights. If it were the case that they were found to have not broken contract, then they'd have something to stand on in requiring Apple to allow it back in.

 

[cmaier]

Not a lawyer, but it seems that breaking contract is the justification, here. When Epic (unashamedly) broke the contract, they lost any rights to claim contractual rights. If it were the case that they were found to have not broken contract, then they'd have something to stand on in requiring Apple to allow it back in.

The contract always allowed apple to cancel it when it wished. And courts don’t like forcing people to do business together.

 

[JosephAW]

Did this news cause this?
View attachment 1829224

No, the govmnt speech by that guy.

 

[subjonas]

Mr. Sweeney, you’re not fighting for me, the consumer, so please don’t act like you are. You are fighting to save yourself money, under the false pretense of doing it for others (just like Facebook was trying to do with their “but what about the small businesses” spin on Apple requiring user permission for tracking). You may be inadvertently helping other business owners like you, but helping consumers? That’s a far stretch, if not completely opposite of true. Stop being so disingenuous.

 

[djphat2000]

Even Epic says they lost, but this is probably how it should end

LOL, and people still say Apple lost. It's incredible. The both will appeal what they didn't like. Which in Apple's case is FAR Less.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

Seems like a fair ruling, but yet again, the Government sticking its nose where it doesn't deserve to be, by dictating what a private business does with their product.

Here's a compromise: When Corporations can no longer write down Debt, the Government will no longer intervene.

 

[DG808]

If apple allowed this, eventually you would have apps only available in this store or that store. So if you want to use that app you will be forced to use that store too. And suddenly you end up with several store apps. No thank you. I'm happy with just one.

What Epic wants has always been the ability to open its own App Store on iOS devices. This is so they can take the "Exclusivity" model they currently have on the Epic Games Store and apply that to popular apps. Can you imagine Epic striking some sort of exclusivity deal with popular apps?

On another note, Epic cannot even build a shopping cart for their own store. How does its CEO expect to be able to run a mobile App Store effectively?

 

[pearvsapple]

iOS has no good games with or without Fortnite.

 

[tdar]

Apple can still decide who lives and who dies on the appstore and nuke any developer
at will, without recourse. This is horrible. It just has too much power with the ability to dictate arbitrary rules and add new ones all the time as it sees fit.
Speaking of arbitrary, no other web browser engine than Safari is allowed. That's mind-blowing.

Are you suggesting that Walmart should be required to sell any product that wants to be in their stores? Totally ridiculous.

 

[RalfTheDog]

Apple lets developers give their software away for free on the iPlatform with the intent of making the money on transaction fees. Now, developers want to use the Apple iPlatform for free, and not pay Apple for transactions. They want Apple to give away their platform for free.

 

[Homme]

With this ruling, Fortnite is technically back allowed in the app store even if they want to use their own payment method (as long as Apple restores their dev account). That's all they SHOULD want, and it's what they got. Anything else is just desperation.

Wrong, the judge said that apple has the right to decide if Fortnite comes back in the store or not, one of the counts epic wanted was for the judge to force apple to reinstate fortnite ack but epic failed on that one

 

[tdar]

Yes, ban the Unreal Engine. That won’t affect anyone outside Epic for sure.

I expect that Apple will not take this step that the judge ruled is totally with in their rights to take as a “ public service “.

 

[vipergts2207]

Are you suggesting that Walmart should be required to sell any product that wants to be in their stores? Totally ridiculous.

If Walmart setup, enforced, and maintained a system whereby they were the only store that over half of consumers were even allowed to shop at, you might have an argument that made an iota of sense.

 

[Realityck]

@TimSweeneyEpic
Fortnite will return to the iOS App Store when and where Epic can offer in-app payment in fair competition with Apple in-app payment, passing along the savings to consumers.

What so hard about providing a link to your store so it can compete and user can choose to pay at either?

 

[Rogifan]

It's always been about money. But tangentially, the first big data breach one of these new third-party payment solutions has, and that's the end of that. Users will flock back to Apple's IAP. As I said elsewhere, the devs have to do three things:
1. Make their IAP as secure
2. Charge less (otherwise why should I leave the Apple IAP ecosystem?)
3. Make their IAP solution at least as convenient

Otherwise, why bother? This might be a Pyrrhic victory for the developers who want their own IAP solutions.

Why are some so opposed to this? It’s not like Apple’s IAP goes away. Most likely any 3rd party IAP would be offered along side Apple’s not in place of. Also none of this applies to non-digital purchases or the reader categories where you can’t buy/subscribe in app. Why is digital different from a security perspective?

 

[jmgregory1]

This ruling could be a huge benefit to those parents who have been funding their kid’s in app purchases for stupid game upgrades that a lot of kids simply clicked on in-game without thinking of (or purposely not caring) how much of someone else’s money they were spending. Now, if kids want to buy an IAP, and they’re directed to a separate website that requires getting the (or stealing their parent’s) credit card and going through the payment process, it may slow down these types of purchases. Of course it could also make for one additional layer of complication when a parent sees charges for something they never authorized on an unfamiliar website, unlike when they see charges come through from Apple.

And yes, this is coming from a parent who went through exactly this, albeit with a kid playing xbox, not on iOS. Watching hundreds of dollars a month disappear, it was hugely frustrating and stopping it took more than a month of back and forth with Microsoft, not to mention getting the one child to understand money doesn’t grow on trees or magically show up in your bank account.

 

[mrochester]

There are some major inconsistencies in the decision which will likely be challenged on appeal. For instance, the judge makes the injunction nationwide despite only ruling the anti-steering violates California state law. Also, the judge ruled Apple cannot anti-steer payment methods under the injunction, but then found Epic in breach of contract for introducing it's own payment method which is in contradiction to the injunction.

This new rule doesn’t apply for another 90 days. When epic breached the contract this rule was not in place therefore they owe apple the money they agreed to pay.

seems pretty simple to me?

 

[now i see it]

Everyone involved in this lawsuit lost.
Those not involved won.

 

[zarmanto]

It's funny how Tim thinks that Apples gives a $h1t about its little game. 2.4T Market Cap Tim. You're nothing to them.

That's only a small piece of the story, though: As you note, Apple doesn't really care that much about the profit share that Judge Rogers just granted them in her ruling; in comparison to their overall app market profits, it's pennies to Apple. But likewise, Epic doesn't really care about the profit they've "lost" by not having Fortnite on the Apple App Store and the Google Play Store for all this time... in comparison to their profits from consoles, mobile profits are likewise fairly small, believe it or not.

For both companies, it's about what this ruling means to their continuing business, beyond this specific situation. Fortnite has been an incredible success for Epic -- but Epic isn't just thinking about Fortnite; they're looking to the next big success, and how much money they can get from that, and how this ruling affects that. Likewise, Apple isn't just thinking about Fortnite or even Epic's Unreal Engine based games; they're thinking about all of the rest of their developers, and how this ruling could affect Apple's share of their profits.

It's never just about any one situation. It's always about, how big of a deal will this decision be, after the dust settles?

 

[ilikewhey]

It did but it should be green and it will turn once the panic sellers are gone and investors realize it was an Apple victory

i'm just surprised that this had any effect to begin with.