Epic: Fortnite Offline Worldwide 'Until Apple Unblocks It'

[iamdamian]

This laughable.

Tim Sweeny been playing the victim too long...

While I don't agree with everything Apple does... I wholeheartedly support Apple in their stance on this;

Apple spent decades and Billions
developing;

1. iOS
2. the iPhone(s)
3. the iPad(s)
4. App Store.

This takes billions and billions of investment. Why is it the world thinks that Apple should be forced to just give access to that for free. Whilst the 30% fee may well be on the hefty side, I do believe Apple have a right to levy a fee to their platform. Amazon, eBay and many stores alike charge people (business sellers) to sell on their Marketplaces, why does the world think Apple isn't permitted to do this, and if they do they're being anti competitive? what about all the smaller App and Game developers who would never have had a platform if it weren't for the App Store?

Fortnight were quite happy to play by the rules when it was going their way and while they were getting what they wanted. but then they decided they didn't want to stick to the rules because they no longer suited them. I wouldn't enter into a contract with someone and then choose to not obey the terms of that contract, 3 years after signing the agreement.

Furthermore, Sweeny may want to play this like Fortnight are the victim and that they are fighting for all developers. They are building their own App Store AND they plan to charge developers a fee to use it. Yes, they're going to have a less of a percentage cut than Apple. but everything they're calling Apple out on, it's abundantly clear Sweeny plans to do exactly the same as Apple. he's just sour that Apple came up with the App Store and made it a billion dollar industry before he did.

Furthermore, I choose to do my purchases through Apple on the App Store and my Subscritpions through Apple, because I know they will be handled properly and I can manage them all in one convenient place. Who are the EUY and other governing bodies to tell me to go outside that ecosystem that in my opinion protects me sufficiently and makes it easy to manage everything simply and easily.

Are the EU and other governing bodies coming after eBay and Amazon for the fees they levy on business sellers using their platform? No. Are they coming after the Google App Store? I personally believe they are unfairly targeting Apple and will ultimately degrade user experience on the iPhone. I chose Apple because of how they gatekeep to my satisfaction. Now the EU and other governing bodies are ruining that!

Whilst I don't deny Apple could lower their fees, AND I feel Apple have somewhat lost their way, I do not agree AT ALL with the witch hunt against Apple over things like this.

Classic example - all the governing bodies getting out of their prams over USB-C ports and cables to "save the environment". For something so small, even waste cables don't take up much space in comparison to other things... for EXAMPLE.... all these power tools the world over...Einhell, Ryobi, Black and Decker, Makita, Ferrex, Parkside and more. They ALL have different batteries and I can bet you most people have at least 3 different brand power tools at home. I have 5, so thats 5 batter types, five charges. Those batteries ultimately fail or come to end of life. These batteries all going to waste are far more harmful than USB-C cables, So why isn't the EU and other governing bodies insisting that these batteries all fit a universal dock, charger. So that they can be used with ALL brands.

Thats in my mind, is clear proof the EU and other governing bodies are unfairly going after Apple while turning a blind eye to far more important wastage and incompatibility issues.

 

[jlc1978]

this is going to cause so many more issues now with blocking it in the EU

Are they? Or is EPIC just taking their ball and going home to try to get sympathy?

Except Apple were told by both the US and EU courts that they weren’t allowed to stop or prevent developers from charging fees outside of the App Store and Apple weren’t allowed to tell developers how they presented these third party fees.

However, they were also told they do not have to host any app they don't want to host.

You do realize Epic is shutting down Fortnite in Europe where people can actually install it?

Yea, they are just trying to get the EU to tell Apple they have to host Fortnight for free by making it harder to get for people used to the App Store.

OMG, Fortnight is gone because I can't d/l and play the latest build for the App Store. Evil greedy Apple is hurting me...

IMHO, EPIC wants access to the App Store's user base for free, even as they charge for use of their App Store, products, and lockdown their apps to outside developers.

 

[DrWojtek]

By an Android. You’re not forced to buy an iPhone that you know has these rules.

The much bigger problem for Apple that you won’t see is that is in fact what people will start doing.

 

[djphat2000]

I just really can't understand the end-goal for Sweeney, here.

They want to be on Apple's and Google's storefronts, accessing hundreds of millions of potential users, making tens of millions of dollars in yearly revenue on the platform, but using external payment services to avoid paying a single penny apart from the $99/year (or $25 lifetime, in Google's case) developer fee?

Like, I agree that developers should not be locked in to using Apple's or Google's payment system and that there should be alternatives, but arguing that you should not pay any fee to the store owner is frankly nuts (and also hypocritical, since the Epic Games Store does charge a percentage of revenue for games sold there, regardless of where that revenue comes from, except in very specific circumstances).

Apple's store fee should be lower - 30% is borderline theft - and it makes sense that they allow external payment providers, but they should be allowed to take a cut - albeit smaller, of course - from those payments as well.

Without knowing exactly what the benefits to Apple and other developers that pay nothing "is". We can't make this judgement. The whole idea behind the 30% fee is that very successful developers can very easily cover that 30% as it will save them in other areas where they were paying way more than that, and for the same price for the product (MSRP). Plus no loss revenue due to theft. While that 30% covers those developers that can't charge or choose to use Ad revenue to make money. They could both be on the store front and center for making a quality product regardless of the size of the company behind it. If we look at it on just the per transaction basis. It would seem that 30% is high. Well, they did lower it didn't they? It's not as if it ever went higher than the original 30%. Which would be seen as greedy and everyone would complain.

Plus, you're getting (as a developer) access to a billion devices world wide. Immediately.... How would you get to them otherwise? That has a cost.

We only get to see it from the revenue side, what Apple made from AppStore sales etc. We don't know their expenses and only assume it based on what others pay.

 

[djphat2000]

I don't support either here. Billionaires fighting billionaires.

Both sides need to put consumer choice first, instead of this silly squabble.

We had that the day before Tim Sweeney decided to circumvent the rules and get the game kicked out of the store.
As a consumer, I had a choice to play it or not. To purchase it or not.
Now, I have no choice.

 

[MikeZTM]

It's amazing?

I would call it terrifying if you run a business on their store.

That's why you need to follow the rules. It's on their store, not yours.
And the good part of it is Apple is setting the same rule for everyone -- not making EPIC any special offer.

 

[djphat2000]

I’m not a fan of Fortnite; their business model has its own flaws, but I’m wholeheartedly for consumer choice. Consumers should have the choice to use any software they like on any platform they use and use any payment system of their choosing. Apple's decision is once again regrettable.

Do you say the same for the thousands of other games that never made it to the Apple platform in any shape or form?
Or did you agree with the developer that making the game for any Apple platform wouldn't be profitable enough to justify it? Both sides have rights to make or not make something work everywhere.

 

[Oestreich Dieter]

Why don't Apple make their own Fortnite? Or is that an expensive endeavour?

This makes zero sense. Fortnite needs Apple. Apple doesnt need Fortnite.

 

[dynamojoe]

Silly question: If Apple is forced by the courts to host Fortnite can they pass along reasonable fees for listing and bandwidth to Epic? Epic doesn't want to pay the 30% and that's been argued to death, but why should Apple be forced to do business with a proven bad actor AND have to pick up the tab for all those downloads?

 

[WarmWinterHat]

This makes zero sense. Fortnite needs Apple. Apple doesnt need Fortnite.

No it doesn't. It would like to have Apple, but it doesn't need them.

The game and company has been doing fine for years without Fortnite being on the iPhone.

 

[Jhyrachy]

What so many people here are dismissing is that Gigacorp like apple and google NEED government regulations otherwise they could hold enough powers to destabilise entire countries.

If you have such a duopoly (google/apple) you must limit the company power.

For everybody that argue that "you buy the hardware, not the software" you must remember that apple DOES NOT release the bootloader keys, so you can't run your own operative system on an iPhone.

There must be rules that are strongly enforced about device ownership, otherwise we'll end up with no consumer rights

 

[JapanApple]

It's doubtful highly many plays as they did during the pandemic. My child doesn't play as much as they did.

 

[MikeZTM]

No it doesn't. It would like to have Apple, but it doesn't need them.

The game and company has been doing fine for years without Fortnite being on the iPhone.

That's why EPIC sued Apple and Google but not Microsoft nor Sony.
Even they charge them much more than Apple plus Google combined.

 

[MikeZTM]

What so many people here are dismissing is that Gigacorp like apple and google NEED government regulations otherwise they could hold enough powers to destabilise entire countries.

If you have such a duopoly (google/apple) you must limit the company power.

For everybody that argue that "you buy the hardware, not the software" you must remember that apple DOES NOT release the bootloader keys, so you can't run your own operative system on an iPhone.

There must be rules that are strongly enforced about device ownership, otherwise we'll end up with no consumer rights

I care about my device ownership. But everyone have a different view of what ownership is: I want it to be secure and all my digital transactions can be tracked in one place. Having 3rd party payment system allowed is not my choice and defy my device ownership.

So this should be leave as is unless there's no other options in the market.

 

[djphat2000]

So if I agreed with segregation, which I don't, then back in the day I should have just sat in the back of the bus and not said anything to anybody? After all that was the law of the land. Your argument has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Not exactly the same thing. In EPIC's case. They could have remained just fine on the AppStore. And just used the courts. They would have had the link-out option AND still be on the store the whole time.
While boycotting the bus hit them in the pocket and showed a business that you need our riders "too". Was a peaceful protest to prove a point that one citizen is being treated differently than another. EPIC is being treated the same as everyone else. While they want to be treated differently...

 

[MTWomg]

You came all the way from twitter to write this comment and it still makes no sense.

Well, let's see. Apple was instructed by the EU commission to enable Apple's developer account. Apple did so because they were effectively ordered to do so. Now Apple is messing with Epic's account, again. Penalities for willfully ignoring a governmental order are fair and reasonable.

 

[tenthousandthings]

[…] Fortnite needs Apple. Apple doesnt need Fortnite.

I think I’d argue neither of them needs the other. That’s why Epic can never really pose as the representative of other mobile developers, because their business doesn’t depend on the mobile platforms. Teens who want to play Fortnite will move to computers and/or consoles.

 

[I7guy]

Well, let's see. Apple was instructed by the EU commission to enable Apple's developer account. Apple did so because they were effectively ordered to do so. Now Apple is messing with Epic's account, again. Penalities for willfully ignoring a governmental order are fair and reasonable.

That government order wasn’t reasonable. This isn’t a banana replica, but it is acting like one.

 

[Stevez67]

Apple doesn't own the hardware, I do.

But, you don’t won the OS or the servers and other equipment that make the device work. And the rules for access to that equipment and those services were laid out before you bought the device.

 

[davide_eu]

Is EPIC not greedy too?

They are giving a game for free... is this a definition of greedy?

 

[davide_eu]

So, basically, you mean every restaurant in the world MUST offer Coca-Cola if they come and tell the owner to have it on the menu?

Here there is only one restaurant in the city ...

 

[Cameront9]

One thing I’m confused about and I’ve seen conflicting answers:

Did Apple do something now prevents the game from working via the alt store in the EU, or did Epic just take it offline worldwide out of spite?

If it’s the latter I think Epic is clearly banking on the general public not understanding what the actual court ruling was. That’s pretty clear from many of the responses in this thread.

If it’s the former and Apple did something then yes that is problematic based on rulings in the EU.

 

[davide_eu]

As per the original court ruling:

Apple’s termination of the DPLA and the related agreements between Epic Games and Apple was valid, lawful, and enforceable, and (ii) Apple has the contractual right to terminate its DPLA with any or all of Epic Games’ wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities under Epic Games’ control at any time and at Apple’s sole discretion.

Translation: even though Apple now has to allow these various changes to apps, they don’t have to have any business relationship with Epic Games if they don’t want to.

I was not referring if it is correct or not, but that the "think different" company has died. And trying to be borderline with the law, reducing the user experience to customers because a$$le is afraid of competition is a public evidence it is dead forever.

 

[Stevez67]

I think the concept of a one-sided EULA is garbage from the get-go, and I'm not even sure how they are still legal, but that's a different story.

Simple fix here would be for Apple to let the user install a different store if they wish, or the app directly without any store at all. Everyone wins, except Apple's undeserved sense of control.

Except the store is useless without the corporate hardware and software that allows the store and the app to function.

 

[JonathanX64]

I want it to be secure and all my digital transactions can be tracked in one place.

Perfect example of why we indeed should force Apple to provide apps with access to third-party payment systems.

You find value in paying 30% tax on your purchases, but having them in one place, with reliable unsubscribe option, single-click payments, easy refunds, beautiful Apple's UI, etc. — good for you. This should the point of the App Store — pay more, get better service.

Something tells me that not many people think this way, and Apple knows that, judging by how hard they fight for this in the court.