No, that’s for Epic only, before this new changes goes into effect. This is because before the injunction, the old rules still applies. Epic should not have done that with Apple. They should’ve sued Apple and waited for a verdict.
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 Games Asks Apple to Restore Fortnite in South Korea Following Ban on In-App Purchase Requirement [Update]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don’t have a side. I am looking at this from a legal and corporate point of view. Let me put it this way. Nobody prepares for the olympics to get the bronze medal. Epic got Bronze Medal which is neither gold or silver medal. It’s just a consolation price for being somewhat successful.
Epic Games Asks Apple to Restore Fortnite in South Korea Following Ban on In-App Purchase Requirement [Update]
Good info in that article:
forums.macrumors.com
You were so sure Apple was a monopoly and so was Epic. And the judge clearly said Epic failed to prove that.
My response was to your statement that Epic is not fine with it. I imagine they are fine with it, just not the rest, is what I am saying.
Understood. Perhaps I should have been more clear. What I meant is Epic is not fine with the “overall” verdict because they didn’t win their biggest claims.
I think you just answered your own question.
Additionally, in the second article I gave you
Which I anticipated.
Judge rules Apple is not ‘illegal monopolist’ in high-profile Epic case
Apple is not an illegal monopoly but has engaged in illegal anti-competitive conduct, a California federal judge ruled Friday in the high-profile case brought by Epic Games. Judge Yvonne Gonza…
thehill.com
Congratulations for winning the bronze medal. In another news, Epic CEO declares the ruling a loss and plans to appeal the decision.“Gonzalez Rogers also issued an injunction “permanently” restraining Apple from prohibiting developers from including external links directing customers to options to make purchases outside of the in-app payment system.”
I think with this, it changed a lot of things. Epic wants to go further, it’s up to them. They may want to continue to give Apple pressure so that they capitulate.
Judge rules Apple is not ‘illegal monopolist’ in high-profile Epic case
Apple is not an illegal monopoly but has engaged in illegal anti-competitive conduct, a California federal judge ruled Friday in the high-profile case brought by Epic Games. Judge Yvonne Gonza…
For sure, the empire must be weakened before downfall.
A series of small wins can change the game.
Also, I’m not against Apple, I just don’t want big companies to have any advantages over smaller companies. I want all markets to be perfectly competitive.
Yes, I’m aware how courts work. You on the other hand think Apple is a monopoly although the judge clearly said Epic failed to prove so.I think you just answered your own question.
Additionally, in the second article I gave you
Which I anticipated.
Judge rules Apple is not ‘illegal monopolist’ in high-profile Epic case
Apple is not an illegal monopoly but has engaged in illegal anti-competitive conduct, a California federal judge ruled Friday in the high-profile case brought by Epic Games. Judge Yvonne Gonza…
The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. If Epic says Apple is a monopoly, the judge expects the plaintiff to prove so. Apple is only needs to “defend” it’s position. Defendants defend against the claim.
Simply put, judges make their ruling based on plaintiffs ability to prove their case. Not based on defendants ability to defend the claim.
Yes, of course. You want to protect the little guy. Epic is that small company that happens to be a multi billion dollar company.
You simply don’t realize if Epic won everything it would mean the end of most small developers. The unintended consequences of rulings like that only hurt the little guy.
try to think more than two steps at a time if you really care about the small developers.
This is not an “Epic vs. Apple“ business. It’s a market issue. Even if Epic and Apple reaches a settlement behind the curtains, it doesn’t mean Apple is not a monopoly anymore. It’s not just a dispute between the two companies.
The court is reluctant to define either way means this investigation is inconclusive. The regulators will step in and carry on.
Successive small changes will make Apple lose most of its monopoly power, and the case in the end would be irrelevant.
Yea, don’t we all? Epic wanted very specific things. They didn’t get it. That’s the story.
Doesn't change the fact that Apple need to allow 3rd party in app purchase which is a huge loss.
Careful with the wording. By the courts ruling, Apple is not proven to be a monopoly.
Courts rule based on evidence. Regulators can do whatever they want. They still need to prove their case…based on evidence.
And yes, it is very much “Apple vs. Epic”. You are too naive if you thought this was ever about the small developers. Actions speak louder than words. What Epic did was just to get the support of small developers for their own gain. In practice, they did nothing to actually protect the small developers.
It’s ok. You will eventually see this unfolding over time. No point talking about the future just yet. Just sit and watch.
Last edited:
App Store policies don’t change. That would be a huge loss if the court forced them to change the policies. Most small developers will stick with IAP. They can’t afford what bigger developers like Epic can. Never wondered why most small developers didn’t actually support Epic?
Regulators and legislators can bend the law to fit their policy and enforcement objectives, monopoly or not is just a name. The ruling can be “Apple is not determined to not be a monopoly“. It’s the specific enforcements that matters.
From an academic point of view, Apple is, but in court, pinning Apple down is not important.
Capitalism is a structure where private companies control the trade for profit. And here you are wishing the regulators to take over that structure.
App economy is a result of big guys subsidizing the small guys. It gave many small startups a chance in the market with minimal cost and low risk to them. A whole Silicon Valley runs on the mentioned App economy.
And take that information and compare it to Russia where the state controls everything. Seems to me that’s what you want.
Except all the push will have to face the court of law, politics or not. Nothing is above the law and it can’t be bent so much to a point where the court will just say “monopoly” when it’s not. The enforcement will have to provide evidence before it can even bring it to the table.
Do you not watch news? How did governments so called crackdown on “big tech” went so far? I am talking about the last 5 to 10 years.
Then how come all the same tools are free for Mac app devs, and on Mac, you not only can use whatever payment system you want, you also can bypass the Apple Store entirely and just sideload, which is actually what most devs do. Why does Apple spend a boatload on all those tools when they are all free, and the devs can simply sideload? I'll tell you why, because the Mac is very profitable all by itself, just like the iPhone is, and none of these devices exist if devs don't write software to run on them. Yep, Apple would looooove, to get rid of sideloading off the Mac so they could reap those 15/30% Apple Tax profits too, but that cat is long out of the bag, and Mac users would abandon the Mac if it came to that.
Putting to one side the fact that Apple's app checking process claims to be able to protect us such perfidy; what exactly is the problem with an app containing a legitimate payment platform and what is the benefit to me of Apple preventing me from doing business with Epic in this way on my (not Apple's) phone?