Epic Games Asks Apple to Restore Fortnite in South Korea Following Ban on In-App Purchase Requirement [Update]

[Waragainstsleep]

I do not understand why Apple does not just allow side loading since that would end Epic's legal battle and possible legislation regarding their App Store. All they would do is mimic Google's rollout by having users manually enable side loading with a security warning.

Because not being able to side load is a part of the security of iOS. According to Apple at least. Its hard to imagine that any significant portion of Apple customers would ever bother doing it. Doubtless Epic would post detailed video tutorials with high production values to help them though. And Epic know that adoption would be driven be entitled brats whinging at their parents to help them sideload Fortnite onto their phones.
Ultimately its more likely to cause customer confusion and frustration than being a security issue. Epic wouldn't be the only ones to do it so there would be different instructions from different developers and hundreds of Youtube how to videos and the quality would vary wildly and therefore so would results.
In short it makes a secure, convenient system messy, less secure and less appealing than it currently is.

 

[Abazigal]

If I was in charge at Apple, my next move would be to tell developers that the cost of placing an app in the iOS App Store is a tiered affair:

1) If the developer is charging money up front for the app AND the developer agrees in writing that it will NOT use an outside in-app payment site, then Apple's cut of the initial app purchase is the normal 30%. In-app purchases at the normal 30% to Apple.

2) If the developer is giving the app away for free AND the developer agrees in writing that it will NOT use an outside in-app payment site, then Apple's cut of the initial app "purchase" is zero. In-app purchases at the normal 30% to Apple.

3) If the developer is charging money up front for the app and the developer REFUSES to agree that it will not use an outside in-app payment site, then Apple will charge a significantly higher percentage up front for the initial app purchase. Say, maybe 60%.

4) If the developer is giving the app away for free and the developer REFUSES to agree that it will not use an outside in-app payment site, then Apple will charge the developer a flat fee up front for the download of the initial app.



Mark

Sounds way too complicated.

 

[Waragainstsleep]

If I was in charge at Apple, my next move would be to tell developers that the cost of placing an app in the iOS App Store is a tiered affair:

1) If the developer is charging money up front for the app AND the developer agrees in writing that it will NOT use an outside in-app payment site, then Apple's cut of the initial app purchase is the normal 30%. In-app purchases at the normal 30% to Apple.

2) If the developer is giving the app away for free AND the developer agrees in writing that it will NOT use an outside in-app payment site, then Apple's cut of the initial app "purchase" is zero. In-app purchases at the normal 30% to Apple.

3) If the developer is charging money up front for the app and the developer REFUSES to agree that it will not use an outside in-app payment site, then Apple will charge a significantly higher percentage up front for the initial app purchase. Say, maybe 60%.

4) If the developer is giving the app away for free and the developer REFUSES to agree that it will not use an outside in-app payment site, then Apple will charge the developer a flat fee up front for the download of the initial app.



Mark

I think if Apple is somehow forced to allow 3rd party payment systems there are two ways that might go:

1: They change the terms of the app store to say that if you allow other payment methods then Apple gets to set the purchase price of your app for you at their normal 30% cut. Just making them charge means Epic would sell Fortnite for $0.99 and hand out vouchers left and right for people to get it free or get cash back or they'd give away a free skin or something like that. Apple would set it at $40+ and charge again for every update. This would kill Fortnite on iOS completely.

2: Apple would make a deal with one or two specific 3rd party payment services and devs would be forced to use only those. Apple would have deals with them to ensure they got a reasonable cut. They could allow all payment services to apply and just exclude any that won't pay the fees on the basis of not meeting the strict criteria Apple requires to protect their customers security and privacy etc.

3: Some combination of the two.

 

[Aydo2000]

I do not understand why Apple does not just allow side loading since that would end Epic's legal battle and possible legislation regarding their App Store. All they would do is mimic Google's rollout by having users manually enable side loading with a security warning.

All you need to do is to look back in history to find your answer. Few years back, millions of Android uses got infected by malware through sideloaded Fortnite. Lots of private information was compromised. That’s in addition to malicious code being found in payment systems. Google was not happy about it and they made an example out of this incident to tell people not to go the sideloading route. Sideloading is allowed on Android but Google won’t honor its warranty if anything goes wrong that is caused by unauthorized sideloladed apps.

From security and privacy point of view, Apple has a point and real life incidents like that prove that point. It’s hard enough to protect yourself in today’s cyber world. It is mind boggling to me why would anyone knowingly and willingly put themselves in vulnerable situation for the sake of playing a silly video game. Is it really worth it?

 

[Aydo2000]

If I was in charge at Apple, my next move would be to tell developers that the cost of placing an app in the iOS App Store is a tiered affair:

1) If the developer is charging money up front for the app AND the developer agrees in writing that it will NOT use an outside in-app payment site, then Apple's cut of the initial app purchase is the normal 30%. In-app purchases at the normal 30% to Apple.

2) If the developer is giving the app away for free AND the developer agrees in writing that it will NOT use an outside in-app payment site, then Apple's cut of the initial app "purchase" is zero. In-app purchases at the normal 30% to Apple.

3) If the developer is charging money up front for the app and the developer REFUSES to agree that it will not use an outside in-app payment site, then Apple will charge a significantly higher percentage up front for the initial app purchase. Say, maybe 60%.

4) If the developer is giving the app away for free and the developer REFUSES to agree that it will not use an outside in-app payment site, then Apple will charge the developer a flat fee up front for the download of the initial app.



Mark

Sounds brutal 🙂. Especially the third tier. 60% is quite an added premium. You may be just opening doors to more legal troubles.

I look at this more like how human body adopts for survival when one of the five senses are lost. The ramaining for senses just get sharper and better. I expect Apple to simply tighten and robust other parts of developer agreements. App review process, for example.

 

[BuddyTronic]

Epic Games today said that it has asked Apple to reinstate its Fortnite developer account because it intends to release Fortnite in South Korea.

South Korea in late August passed a bill that bans Apple from requiring developers to use its in-app purchase system. The bill forces Apple (and Google) to let developers use third-party payment methods to make purchases.

Epic Games now says that it intends to release Fornite in Korea and offer both Epic payment and Apple payment options side-by-side "in compliance with the new Korean law."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1436105346184056832

Fortnite has been unavailable on iOS devices since Apple pulled the app in August 2020. Apple removed the app from the App Store after Epic Games added a direct payment option that skirted Apple's in-app purchase requirements, and since then, the two have been embroiled in a bitter legal battle.

Epic Games attempted to get a judge to require Apple to allow Fortnite on the App Store while the lawsuit played out, but the judge refused because the situation that caused Fortnite to be banned was of Epic Games' own making.

When South Korea passed its updated Telecommunications Business Act banning Apple from requiring in-app purchases, Apple said that it would put users at risk of fraud and undermine privacy protections.Apple and Epic Games faced off in a trial that took place earlier this year, and we are still awaiting a final ruling from the judge overseeing the case. Epic Games argued that iOS should be opened up to competing app stores, but it is unlikely that Apple will be required to implement such a drastic change.

Update: In a statement to MacRumors, Apple said there is no basis for the reinstatement of the Epic Games developer account. Apple says that to be added back to the App Store, Epic Games would need to comply with all of Apple's App Store review guidelines, which the company has thus far declined to do.

Apple also points out that the legislation in South Korea is has not yet gone into effect and even if it had, Apple would have no obligation to reinstate a developer account that was terminated prior to when it became law.

Article Link: Epic Games Asks Apple to Restore Fortnite in South Korea Following Ban on In-App Purchase Requirement [Update]

Ummmmmmmm. No

 

[Futurix]

Epic should just pay $99 and open a new dev account. They are not forbidden to.

 

[cmaier]

Epic should just pay $99 and open a new dev account. They are not forbidden to.

That would violate Apple’s T&C’s and would just get them kicked out, again. Plus, they’d have to transfer their apps to the new account (which they can’t do without apple’s help, I believe).

 

[DeepWebinar]

you can hope that

I will, thanks!

 

[DeepWebinar]

Epic are still in breach of contract and can no longer be trusted. Would you sign a contract with someone you know is going to break it?

Would you create a contract so unreasonable it would compel someone to break it?

 

[cmaier]

Would you create a contract so unreasonable it would compel someone to break it?

if the contract is unreasonable the law tells you not to enter into it.

 

[DeepWebinar]

if the contract is unreasonable the law tells you not to enter into it.

If you have monopolistic control, someone needs to break it and sue you to bring attention to your gross overreaching power.

Be real, do y’all really care about contracts this much? What other contract breakers are getting you all worked up rn? Or is it just this one because it’s offending the megacorp with a cultish following that makes the phone you like?

 

[I7guy]

If you have monopolistic control, someone needs to break it and sue you to bring attention to your gross overreaching power.

Be real, do y’all really care about contracts this much? What other contract breakers are getting you all worked up rn? Or is it just this one because it’s offending the megacorp with a cultish following that makes the phone you like?

Or proving a point that "success is not illegal"?

 

[Aydo2000]

Would you create a contract so unreasonable it would compel someone to break it?

That’s why courts exist…to settle disputes. Epic decided to be their own judge and breech the contract before they took their case to court. It doesn’t work that way. Courts don’t support such actions no matter how unreasonable Epic might think Apple’s contract was. That’s called the “doctrine of clean hands”. You can’t just breech the contract and ask the Judge to rule in your favor after the fact. That’s why judge who presided over the case ordered Epic to pay the 30% Apple deserves from the revenue Epic generated from their own payment systems.

 

[Aydo2000]

If you have monopolistic control, someone needs to break it and sue you to bring attention to your gross overreaching power.

Be real, do y’all really care about contracts this much? What other contract breakers are getting you all worked up rn? Or is it just this one because it’s offending the megacorp with a cultish following that makes the phone you like?

You think Epic doesn’t have contracts with developers? What do you think happens when someone breaches Epic’s contracts? Talk it over dinner? Sweeney already admitted they too kick games off their platform and/or suspend developer accounts whenever breech of contacts occur.

Contracts are contracts. Nothing Apple specific about it.

FYI, per judge’s ruling, Epic failed to demonstrate Apple is a monopoly. She said, and I quote, “Success is not a monopoly”. There is that.

 

[Aydo2000]

My ideal would be closer to the Socialist Scandinavian countries.

Then why Apple is not willing to subsidize the small guys for Qualcomm?

A fair economy is where no party is at a disadvantage.

Not willing to dig your own grave is not unfair for your replacement.

I think you need some knowledge refresher.

A fair economy where no party is advantaged is a structure called communism. That’s type of economical structure where no capitalism occurs and everyone is equal in wealth. There is no such thing as competition where everything is equal. Look it up.

Also, it isn’t Apple’s or anyone else’s responsibility to subsidize for Qualcomm. Qualcomm is the only party who is supposed to do that. They are a corporation of their own. A big one with almost monopolistic power too.

Use the words correctly. Fair doesn’t mean equal and equal means lack of competition. There is a reason why it is referred as “fair competition”. Nobody calls it a fair economy because that makes it a subjective issue.

 

[hans1972]

You can have anything you want in a prenup agreement, "period".

BUT, if 30 years after the fact, a judge thinks that the prenup is "unjust", the court will throw it out.

Cry me a river.

The existence of antitrust investigations is not to arbitrate the legality of contract making, but Economic Analysis of the market actors, including but not limited to, the "fairness" of the contract with the public interest in mind.

Who are performing these anti-trust investigations you are talking about ?

 

[hans1972]

“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…

thehill.com

But this doesn't prohibit Apple from taking a commission from transactions happening in external third-party payment solutions. They just have to collect it in a different way.

 

[hans1972]

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.

A court is the only authority in the United States which can determine if a company has monopoly power and in addition if such monopoly is illegal.

Regulators have no authority to so.

 

[hans1972]

No, it doesn’t matter. They can make a law that says no App Stores shall carry more than 10k apps, and enforce that one. Why do you need to call someone a monopoly to do that? You don’t even need to go through court. Fine them or close them down and arrest the executives.

You need to go through the court system to enforce any law in the US including your 10k apps-law.

If you're not a monopoly, it's extremely difficult be found guilty of breaking the Sherman Antitrust Act. Which is why companies are fighting for not being judged a monopoly.

 

[Waragainstsleep]

If you have monopolistic control, someone needs to break it and sue you to bring attention to your gross overreaching power.

Be real, do y’all really care about contracts this much? What other contract breakers are getting you all worked up rn? Or is it just this one because it’s offending the megacorp with a cultish following that makes the phone you like?

This is a dispute between two megacorps. It just so happens that one is a lot bigger than the other.
That "unreasonable contract" has earned Epic millions and millions. If it weren't for that platform, there may not have been other similar ones for them to profit from either.

Epic wants Apple's cut back. Apple wants a cut for the substantial amount of work it does to provide Epic with a very lucrative platform. Any argument should be over the numbers and thats between those two. If it weren't viable, Epic probably wouldn't be as big as they are, so they really don't have much of an argument.

 

[Aydo2000]

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.

This is a dispute between two megacorps. It just so happens that one is a lot bigger than the other.
That "unreasonable contract" has earned Epic millions and millions. If it weren't for that platform, there may not have been other similar ones for them to profit from either.

Epic wants Apple's cut back. Apple wants a cut for the substantial amount of work it does to provide Epic with a very lucrative platform. Any argument should be over the numbers and thats between those two. If it weren't viable, Epic probably wouldn't be as big as they are, so they really don't have much of an argument.

Well said 👍

 

[cmaier]

This is a dispute between two megacorps. It just so happens that one is a lot bigger than the other.
That "unreasonable contract" has earned Epic millions and millions. If it weren't for that platform, there may not have been other similar ones for them to profit from either.

Epic wants Apple's cut back. Apple wants a cut for the substantial amount of work it does to provide Epic with a very lucrative platform. Any argument should be over the numbers and thats between those two. If it weren't viable, Epic probably wouldn't be as big as they are, so they really don't have much of an argument.

It’s also a weird definition of “unreasonable contract.” A contract where you didn’t get as much profit as you’d like is not “unreasonable.”

 

[Michael Scrip]

We should also remember that Epic had no problem standing on stage at the iPad introduction in 2010 to announce their first iPad game.

And this was after they signed a contract with Apple and agreed to Apple's 30% cut.

But less than a decade later... Epic filed a lawsuit against that same company... complaining about that same cut.

 

[0924487]

I think you need some knowledge refresher.

A fair economy where no party is advantaged is a structure called communism. That’s type of economical structure where no capitalism occurs and everyone is equal in wealth. There is no such thing as competition where everything is equal. Look it up.

Also, it isn’t Apple’s or anyone else’s responsibility to subsidize for Qualcomm. Qualcomm is the only party who is supposed to do that. They are a corporation of their own. A big one with almost monopolistic power too.

Use the words correctly. Fair doesn’t mean equal and equal means lack of competition. There is a reason why it is referred as “fair competition”. Nobody calls it a fair economy because that makes it a subjective issue.

Nah, communism does not mean that, it means no competition.

A perfectly competitive Economy would have all markets similar to the paper clip making. It also means that wealth does not accumulate significantly across generations. It also means social mobility. People on top must try very hard to stay at the top, and they are very easily replaced. It also means “factors of production” cannot “scale” in private hands. Once you are of a certain size, you should be broken down into two companies. So, the wealth and power are divided and not concentrated. It also means the two companies now can compete with each other instead of operating as a giant company.

etc.