Epic Games Asks Court to Allow Fortnite Back on the App Store

[pasamio]

Here's what I don't get... Every single one of Apple's moves has been entirely predictable. Of course Apple was going to hold their ground. Of course Apple was not going to let Epic on the App Store for free. Of course Apple was going to kick Epic off the App Store if they tried.

Either Epic's lawyers were too daft to realize this, or it's part of an elaborate legal strategy that I'm really not seeing. I guess they want a long and expensive legal battle, because that sure as hell doesn't scare Apple.

Epic's lawyers are getting paid to litigate a case by a client. Tim clearly has the axe to grind and he has a couple of billion to burn. I'd hope the lawyers would have informed him that whilst this is the cause of action most likely to succeed that it is likely to be a tough sell for various reasons. Tim decided to continue down this path and has instructed the lawyers to litigate the case for them. I'm sure they're doing to the best job they can, I'm sure they know it's not likely to succeed but they have a professional obligation to litigate as best they can for their client. I'm sure they also know this case has the possibility to take a while to resolve so they're assured to get plenty of cash out of it so long as they've done their own due diligence in informing the client.

 

[pasamio]

Sweeney’s tweet really doesn’t give console maker’s any leverage at all if Epic decides to sue them. People change their minds all the time. He may not even be CEO by the time this Apple case is resolved, and the next CEO may have a huge problem with the fees Sony, MS, Nintendo, etc. charge.

Given Sweeney owns the majority of Epic, I don't think he's going to stop being CEO any time soon.

 

[bushman4]

This case is going to drag on for possibly years. They’ll be appeals etc

Waste of time for everyone!!

 

[PickUrPoison]

Given Sweeney owns the majority of Epic, I don't think he's going to stop being CEO any time soon.

Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes rich, younger execs get bored and want a new challenge. Sometimes they decide $5 billion is enough and decide to retire. Maybe he gets hit by a bus.

Like I said, even if he’s still CEO in a few years, nothing prevents him from simply changing his mind and suing.

Is there some legal theory where Sony could say to the court, “hey, Epic once said in a tweet they didn’t have a problem with the concept of console platform fees” and the judge says, “oh, you’re right, case dismissed”.

Especially if what Epic might file suit for has nothing to do with fees at all.

 

[Madonepro]

This case is going to drag on for possibly years. They’ll be appeals etc

Waste of time for everyone!!

Accept for the department of lawyers that Apple employ, keeping them busy, keeping them up to date of legal precedents and rulings.
The raw facts are, Epic seem to want access to the iOS platform, why? Surely all the others keep there bank account topped up. 1.5 Billion iPhones are out there, in 11 years Sony have sold approx 500 millions Playstation! With Apple going custom Silicon, and more iOS apps being able to be ported onto the Mac, it will open up another market.

 

[savink]

The whole thing is pretty stupid on Epic's part. Look at it in whatever way, but its the consumers who pay the money of which a commission is taken by the store. If you are just greedy, raise your prices so you end up getting the money you expect to get. Epic is acting dumb and now they are terrified about losing million's of paying customers.

The more fortnite will stay off the store, the more people are going to shift to other games. so the loss is epic.

 

[pasamio]

Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes rich, younger execs get bored and want a new challenge. Sometimes they decide $5 billion is enough and decide to retire. Maybe he gets hit by a bus.

Like I said, even if he’s still CEO in a few years, nothing prevents him from simply changing his mind and suing.

Is there some legal theory where Sony could say to the court, “hey, Epic once said in a tweet they didn’t have a problem with the concept of console platform fees” and the judge says, “oh, you’re right, case dismissed”.

Especially if what Epic might file suit for has nothing to do with fees at all.

The dude is 50 years old, I don't think "young" is really the right term there and the company he founded has been around for almost thirty years. I don't think he's stepping down from being CEO any time soon absent exceptional circumstances.

I also agree that his tweet would likely provide weak support for any sort of legal case and there is more than enough latitude to change his mind. I think he's waving away consoles right now because that's the majority of the Fortnite player base. You can shaft the 10% or so of iOS and Android players without hurting the overarching game. If he wins against Apple and Google, then he can go take a chop at the consoles.

What I do think is admissible is his current attacks on Apple and I'm sure there is a paralegal somewhere taking screenshots of everything he tweets and replies to on the off chance they become useful in some context.

 

[theotherphil]

I’m no fan of Epic and think Fortnite is garbage but I’m glad someone is standing up to Apple. The decision to not allow XCloud on iOS is another monopolist move, made funnier by the fact Apple arrogantly think Apple Arcade is a competitor to it.

I love that people consistently mock Apple when they first release a product but they lack the foresight to see where Apple are heading, and can only see where they are now. Nokia with their phones and Sony with their Walkman’s are great examples. “Ha! What do Apple know about phones?”

 

[Jago]

There is absolutely a discussion to have about Apple having unfair developer practices, where big companies get way more leeway than smaller developers. Also, there’s a conversation to have about the fact that the App Store is the only distribution platform on the iPhone.
This, however, should not be a discussion. Epic games purposely went against apples rules, hoping that Apple would give them special treatment. And then, when Apple didn’t give them special treatment, and removed their app from the App Store, they went to the courts crying wolf, despite the fact that Google did the exact same thing.
And now, just two weeks after they said they would never go back on the App Store, they want the court to force Apple to let them back in to the App Store because they’re losing money.
This entire situation is completely stupid, especially on Epics part.
They got themselves into this mess, and now they want the court two just shovel them out of it so they can continue raking in the cash.
I’m sorry, Apple does a lot of shady things, and 30% might be slightly more than I would be comfortable with them taking, but I am not a developer, and I do not run an App Store, so I really can’t have a valid opinion on this. But in this situation, Apple is completely in the right. Epic completely screwed themselves in the situation.
You could call it a... epic fail

A lot of people seem to be missing forest for the trees. They seem to be imagining themselves certain rights and equal treatment while in the real world, Apple is at full liberty to raise store fees to 90% or to ban any and all 3rd parties from their store. Apple is not anywhere near to being a monopoly. You are at the mercy of their good graces, not the other way around. Don’t like it? Take your money and efforts elsewhere.

 

[Onelifenofear]

Given Sweeney owns the majority of Epic, I don't think he's going to stop being CEO any time soon.

majority sure but Tencent own 40% and they are definitely behind this.

No way are they going to allow a store access when it’s bankrolled by a Chinese company in the current climate.

even if they did.. or were forced to under law The store would be sandboxed from the os. No camera, data access at all. And apple be perfectly in their rights to say sure open a store. It will cost you 50 billion a year for a licence.

 

[PickUrPoison]

The dude is 50 years old, I don't think "young" is really the right term there and the company he founded has been around for almost thirty years. I don't think he's stepping down from being CEO any time soon absent exceptional circumstances.

I also agree that his tweet would likely provide weak support for any sort of legal case and there is more than enough latitude to change his mind. I think he's waving away consoles right now because that's the majority of the Fortnite player base. You can shaft the 10% or so of iOS and Android players without hurting the overarching game. If he wins against Apple and Google, then he can go take a chop at the consoles.

What I do think is admissible is his current attacks on Apple and I'm sure there is a paralegal somewhere taking screenshots of everything he tweets and replies to on the off chance they become useful in some context.

Being “admissible” is a lot different from having any evidentiary value.

And I never said he was young, I said he was younger. Age is relative. If you’re 10, 30 is old. When you’re 85, a 50 year old is but a youngster.

In any case, imo it doesn’t matter if he’s still CEO in five or ten years or however long it takes to finish this case. On the off chance they win, I think Epic sues the console makers next.

Even if you think the tweet is legally binding(!), what he actually said was he didn’t have a problem with the “concept” of console platform fees, not that he didn’t have a problem with 30%. Maybe his “concept” of a fair fee is 5%.

Maybe he also thinks he should be able to install his own store or other non-game software of his choosing on the consoles, and will sue to get it. Who knows?

 

[Piggie]

Personally, the issue isn't 30% or 15% or whatever. That Apple doesn't even allow a developer to redirect their customers to their own website to complete their subscription is the most problematic. That developers can't even SAY that the subscription fee is 30% more because of Apple's fees is seriously problematic and unarguably anticompetitive. I believe this will irk the courts the most, and is probably their strongest argument.

Even not being allowed to say something in the app, isn't, for me the worse bit.
I could live with that.

But not being allowed to sell YOUR product for a price YOU wish elsewhere seems indefensible.
Sure, don't allow any links or info to elsewhere if you wish.

Imagine if every single item in the world had to cost the exact same price no matter where or who you buy it from.
No sale's anywhere ever. No finding a bargain in a store.
No store allowed to run promotions ever.

That's not how we want things to be, but that's how it in in the app store.
Epic should be back on the app store and have the prices include the 30% apple charges.

But if a customer wishes to go down another route unrelated to the app store, perhaps via a mac or PC then they shoul be allowed to buy things from the game direct from the maker without the 30% cut.
Some will, some won't.
But that customer freedom to pick where they buy from should be available.

 

[Shanghaichica]

Yes they have.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1273277088787771392

Apple aren’t running a charity. Are the supposed to subsidise app developers just because they make profit on their handsets. They are a business.

There is an argument to be made about what percentage they charge developers. By all means that can be looked at and reviewed.

However to think it’s acceptable for Epic and others to have their app on the App Store and not pay anything and even further to have their own App Store on the App Store is ridiculous.

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

August:


"Epic Games has defied the App Store Monopoly."

But pwwwease let us back on the store.

 

[Piggie]

I used to think Apple bent their own rules to suit their needs, but I was misinformed about how they treated Spotify, Netflix, etc. Seems fair overall now. And it's their store anyway. Epic can pound sand.

Can you explain this more please?
Could EPIC be treated the same as NetFlix and Amazon are?

 

[ArPe]

if i offered a free game on the Playstation store and tried to bypass Sony's cut, Sony would remove the app too. but Epic doesn't want to talk about that.

if you publish a game on Epic Store and try to bypass Epic’s payment system and rules your app will be pulled too.

if you try to publish anything on monopolist spyware company Tencent’s platform and bypass their payment system and rules your apps and content will be pulled too.

But Epic and their CEO Tim Swineflu doesn’t want to talk about that and is happy to work as China’s proxy agent to attack western companies in order to force Apple and Google to make iOS and Android open to banned and spyware apps.

So much proxy warfare is done openly now and the media....crickets

 

[pasamio]

Being “admissible” is a lot different from having any evidentiary value.

I think some of the more aggressive statements he's made towards Apple would point to a potential case for prolonged bad faith in the current circumstances.

And I never said he was young, I said he was younger. Age is relative. If you’re 10, 30 is old. When you’re 85, a 50 year old is but a youngster.

In any case, imo it doesn’t matter if he’s still CEO in five or ten years or however long it takes to finish this case. On the off chance they win, I think Epic sues the console makers next.

In the grand scheme of things, 50 is solidly middle age and given he's been at the head of his company for 30 years, I don't personally see him stepping away from it. I agree that he's going leaving open the opportunity to sue other console makers.

Even if you think the tweet is legally binding(!), what he actually said was he didn’t have a problem with the “concept” of console platform fees, not that he didn’t have a problem with 30%. Maybe his “concept” of a fair fee is 5%.

I think you might be confusing me with someone else, I don't think the console statement is legally binding or even necessarily problematic if he decided to pursue future litigation against the consoles. I don't think it even matters in the face of the legal question because his own abstract distinction of "if the hardware makes a profit it's ok" is the definition of how they run their business model and not if it's an abusive anticompetitive monopoly. The way his case is framed is that Apple has a monopoly over app distribution on their own devices which could readily be framed against any of the consoles.

Maybe he also thinks he should be able to install his own store or other non-game software of his choosing on the consoles, and will sue to get it. Who knows?

Maybe you should read one of my earlier posts, I think we both agree:

The next tweet contains "Consoles could ultimately benefit from richer store ecosystems" which is precisely the change that they're litigating for on the iPhone. Epic has a history of fighting various incumbent stores to get their way, they fought against Microsoft to open up their platforms, they fought and lost against Steam and they've now moved on to Apple and Google. If they were successful against Apple, the exact same arguments would work against the Xbox, Playstation and Switch. The entire "what if" he ends that second tweet with is predicated on having a single store for all of those platforms that could validate that you have the game against, likely in their world the Epic Store. To make that vision work he needs to get the owners of those platforms concede to it.

 

[zilchfox]

That ship has sailed, Epic.

 

[Arbuthnott]

.... Epic mentions that it's "likely to suffer irreparable harm" if Fortnite is not made available on the App Store and that "the balance of harms tips strongly in Epic’s favor," citing that daily iOS active users have already declined by over 60% since the app's initial removal from the App Store.

Article Link: Epic Games Asks Court to Allow Fortnite Back on the App Store

They thought that the appeal of Fortnight to users would be overwhelming, in their silly little game. Hello, rude awakening. Yesterday’s rooster, today’s feather duster.

I want to know more about what part the Tik Tok Chinese ownership of Epic is playing in all this.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Apple aren’t running a charity. Are the supposed to subsidise app developers just because they make profit on their handsets. They are a business.

There is an argument to be made about what percentage they charge developers. By all means that can be looked at and reviewed.

However to think it’s acceptable for Epic and others to have their app on the App Store and not pay anything and even further to have their own App Store on the App Store is ridiculous.

I agree, I'm an Apple developer and I fully support paying Apple 30%.

 

[Arbuthnott]

Personally, the issue isn't 30% or 15% or whatever. That Apple doesn't even allow a developer to redirect their customers to their own website to complete their subscription is the most problematic. That developers can't even SAY that the subscription fee is 30% more because of Apple's fees is seriously problematic and unarguably anticompetitive. I believe this will irk the courts the most, and is probably their strongest argument.

So you think their users can’t find Epic’s web page??? No wonder Epic is in trouble if they are having to rely on users like that.
.
The reality, that you are trying to evade, is that Epic is playing some sort of silly game about the principle of the App Store.

 

[Manzanito]

Epic really hates it if a minute goes by and people are not talking about how evil apple is. Revert the changes, then ask for damages if you win the lawsuit.

To be clear, I’m not siding with apple either, and their valiant effort to protect at all costs their 30% cut.

 

[amnesia0287]

The more I hear about Apple's behaviour under Captain Crook, the more embarrassed I am to own Apple products.

You do realize the 30% and IAP rules were both instated under Jobs right? People love to hate on Tim Cook, but at least in this area all he’s done is maintain the status quo.

 

[GadgetBen]

What a bunch of absolute tools

 

[Polaroid]

Personally, the issue isn't 30% or 15% or whatever. That Apple doesn't even allow a developer to redirect their customers to their own website to complete their subscription is the most problematic. That developers can't even SAY that the subscription fee is 30% more because of Apple's fees is seriously problematic and unarguably anticompetitive. I believe this will irk the courts the most, and is probably their strongest argument.

Its Apples way to secure customers details.. what’s to stop a developer redirecting to a scam/dodgy site with poor security... If they did that and someone’s details were compromised Apple would get the blame.