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.
Epic: Fortnite Offline Worldwide 'Until Apple Unblocks It'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It’s a company mate not a family memberthey get the terms they sign up for, otherwise they broke the agreement.
not sure you would like it if everyone just did whatever they wanted even if you signed an agreement...
how about a Bank just takes back your house?
or you bank takes all your savings?
or is it just OK because it's Apple and you dont like them?
I may buy apple products however it’s just a company that sells products just like any other.
I buy Nike trainers I don’t go I’m never buying adidas
Ok so epic wanted better terms & said company wouldn’t negotiate with them so what’s the problem as they have done nothing wrong if they are back on the App Store
Tim Cook gets paid $74.6 million a year
Why does it matter if he has put them back on
IOS
Apple does have a legal reason to not let them on. The judge ruled:
That is still in place. The judge didn't rule "Apple had the contractural right to terminate its DLPA, but doesn't anymore" but "at any time and at Apple's sole discretion."
The issue is Epic Sweden does have a valid developer agreement (because the EU is forcing Apple to let them have one). So THAT agreement is in place, Apple has to allow that account to operate as normal as long as it follow the rules. It doesn't help that, as @Sophisticatednut pointed out, Apple repeatedly said in court they'd let Epic back in if they followed the rules.
But that doesn't change the fact that the judge ruled Apple has the ability to kick Epic Sweden off in the US. But obviously that would anger the EU. So Epic is back in. But it isn't because "deliberately not allowing epic on the USA iOS App Store to send a message that anyone dare challenge US knows the consequences of that." It's because the judge is pissed off at Apple and is going to make them follow the rules to a T. As long as Epic Sweden has a valid developer agreement, there is nothing Apple can do.
In a universe where Apple hasn't pissed off the judge, she maybe lets this wait out for the appeals court to rule on the injunction, since it's (in theory) supposed to happen within a week. But Apple absolutely pissed off the judge, so she's not going to do them any favors.
It’s got nothing to do with the EU
It’s this in a nutshell
If apple didn’t put epic on the iOS USA App Store sooner or later
Then all that would happen is this
If you challenge Apple then they can wreck your business and this also sends a message to every developer out there
Don’t you dare challenge US
That is why the judge said do you have any legal grounds because what was coming next
If they didn’t
off topic again.
what does Tim Cook's salary/payments have to do with any of this? seems someone is a little jealous of someone else's success...
and that success has nothing to do with Epic
as for your Nike.... sorry your tangents just are plain weird...
No, it's not that in a nutshell. That's not what the judge said or how the law works in the US.
You do this thing repeatedly where you make assumptions about how things work based on how you think they should work. But just because the outcome is what you predicted doesn't mean the reason is because Apple was sending a message to developers "not to challenge us" and that is somehow not allowed.
The judge literally said Apple had the right to cancel Epic's developer agreements. Full stop. But as long as Epic has developer account, they're allowed to follow the rules like everyone else. Apple can't selectively change the rules, after the agreement was signed, just for that one developer.
And the only reason Epic Sweden has an account is because the EU made Apple give them one. So yes, the EU has a lot to do with Fortnite being back in the US Store. Otherwise, Epic would be using their main developer account (which was canceled, and the judge confirmed Apple was allowed to cancel).
Because it’s a company I don’t have an attachment to itoff topic again.
what does Tim Cook's salary/payments have to do with any of this? seems someone is a little jealous of someone else's success...
and that success has nothing to do with Epic
as for your Nike.... sorry your tangents just are plain weird...
I’m not offended if a company takes another company to court
I treat apple products just like a pair of Nike sneakers if I want them I will buy them
And nothing else
The point is it’s his job to care because he gets paid for it and if he has no legal reason why not then I don’t get the issue
I told you last week that epic would be back on the USA iOS App Store
Because no good will come of it
And OMG look what has happened.
Now it’s the EU’s fault because an American judge has allowed epic back on
This must be the most powerful government in the world
Yes, you were correct that Epic would be back on the App Store, but you remain incorrect as to why they were let back on. We'll just leave it at that.
Thanks for saying I was correct
They were always going to get back on
Honest question, if the appeals court comes back and says "Apple has to allow link outs, but is allowed to set a commission of no higher than 20% on those link outs" do you think Epic stays or goes?
I actually think they will stay because now I’m not big on epic history but however they have had a monster hit with Fortnite it’s very hard to have games that have a lasting appeal and I’ve played video games since the early 80’s
I think he took his chance & went for it because of the Fortnite user base that only
7% was on iOS
Maybe I’m wrong but that’s how it comes across
Exactly. A car is required for some forms of employment. Like pizza delivery. But a car is not required to live. I don’t drive and don’t have a car.
No possible online access from a computer? I do all my banking on my computer
I don’t need a car for my employment
However people in the USA can no play Fortnite on iOS now
That’s correct but I find it hard to believe not even a computer is good enough.
Well you would scan the QR code and verify the login credentials with you phone. Or provide your social security number and verify it on your phone. And therefore be able to login on your computer or phone etc.
Snabb och säker digital identifiering och underskrift
Med snabb och säker identifiering möjliggör BankID ett modernt och tillgängligt samhälle.
While I agree it wouldn't (currently) work in the US, it would not surprise me if a Western European country like Sweden required it.
In the long run, I think arguing that smartphones aren't essential is a losing game. Sure, I agree with you that currently (at least in the US), they aren't absolutely essential (my Father in Law runs a very successful business off of a dumb phone and a computer, for example), but they're close to being so, and they're just going to get closer and closer to being essential every year.
You could add to that argument that the chip manufacturers could "charge downstream business" as well. But all of these arguments are invalid. The ISP and power company provide services that are used for many purposes by many market segments. Power is used for a restaurant the same way it is used by a residential user to power their vacuum. Internet is used by schools the same way it is used by marketing companies.
Apple built a specific platform and invited developers to join them. Developers thought it was worthwhile to join them for a specific market segment with specific rules and pricing. This is not used for anything else like power or the internet.
However, I believe your point is about competition. I think competition is a good thing, especially when it hinders progress. However, from a boatload of personal experience, the issue of Apple charging 30% is not a small to medium size business issue. It is something that the massive companies have issue with. They are the ones driving the narrative that it is "unfair" or "hurting business". From this perspective, I don't think the government should meddle in business to resolve something that isn't actually an issue for anyone other than billion dollar companies. Also, it's not like we are talking about food or medical services here. If people have to spend more money for entertainment (Netflix, Spotify, EPIC, etc....), that is their choice on their disposable income.
There is a huge chasm between makes life more convenient to being a necessity like electricity. (And while technically we wont die without electricity, some of us could suffer greatly and society would go back to the medieval ages) not so if I replaced My Iphone with a dumb phone.
This is certainly you...
Are you now arguing that there was reasonable amount of competition before the DMA? Then what was the point?
In what way do I argue that googles large market share is relevant for actions against Apple? When it’s because of apples large market share that gives them a dominant position that is the foundation for legal action against them?
No as the AppStore and playstore don’t compete with each other. Android have competition between their respective stores because they run on the same platform.
While the iOS AppStore competition is cydia and the AltStore