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

[TiggrToo]

Either way, Apple WILL lose this one, because they're wrong and they're behaving like criminals. The only question is how badly Apple loses this one.

You seem exceptionally sure of yourself. I hope you’re not basing it on the fact they have a monopoly on the App Store, because many monopolies have be shown to be 100% legal.

Not all monopolies are illegal. For example, businesses might legally corner their market if they produce a superior product or are well managed. Antitrust law doesn’t penalize successful companies just for being successful. Competitors may be at a legitimate disadvantage if their product or service is inferior to the monopolist’s.

Monopoly

A monopoly is when a company has exclusive control over a good or service in a particular market. Not all monopolies are illegal. For example, businesses might legally corner their market if they…

www.classlawgroup.com

Anti-trust? Well, first you have to show it fails under both the Brooke and Trinko doctrines first...

 

[grjj]

The reason this court case can happen is embodied in this video in a way I've not seen mentioned yet. US laws are so complex and so intertwined that a single attorney can speak ceaselessly for about 90 minutes on a single court filing of about 30 pages.
And I bet that despite the 90 minutes there are people who understand the legalese of this that would still have questions.

 

[deevey]

Out of interest.

Could this plate store legally say to me, I'm not allowed to sell my plates for a lower price in another store, even my own tiny store when I make the plates?

I must always sell the plates I make to customers at exactly that same price the GIANT plate store sells my plates for?

You simply aren't allowed to stand at the checkout of that store and inform customers that you sell your plates for a lower price elsewhere AND to add insult to injury, offer to ferry customers to that store instead.

 

[Analog Kid]

Definitely the unpopular opinion here but he has a point. For those who want change in iOS there’s nothing you can really do. Do I think Epic brought this on themselves? 100%! But it’s the best shot we have at getting any form of change in the app distribution model of iOS. Competition would be good here.

Fortnite as a “sacrificial lamb”? Epic as the brave white knight willing to risk everything for the thousands of little developers out there? That’s what I was reacting to. Not the lack of merit in the case, but just the idea that Sweeney so loves the little devs, that he’s put his greatest asset in the fire for them.

Would success by Epic affect smaller developers? Of course. Would it benefit them? That’s not really clear to me. Epic might be able to individually drive traffic to their own store, but if the AppStore fractures into a bazaar of little markets, it’s not clear to me that smaller developers will be able to get the same level of exposure they have now. Personally this seems like a change that would benefit larger developers at the expense of smaller ones.

And there are things people can do if they don't like iOS-- they can stop buying and developing for it.

But none of that was my point in this particular response, I was really just reacting to the messianic language...

 

[Colonel Blimp]

I’m not weakening my position at all. There are always people with a sense of humour who can look past that and focus on content. They can handle stand up comedians without getting emotional and focus on the message of the stand up act.

Yes, this is true.

At the same time, as TiggrToo quite rightly observed, there will always be others who, when they see childish, ad hominem name-calling, immediately tune you out.

(Personally, when I read “Tim Swineflu,” I laughed, but I also stopped reading.)

So the question is, do you want to win points from a select few for being funny, or do you want to persuade as many folks as you can?

 

[grjj]

To all the comments saying "But Apple has a monopoly!". Monopolies are not generally illegal, there needs to be a certain set of issues in play for a monopoly to be illegal. Some monopolies, in fact, are protected by the US Government. You want to star up a new NFL franchise team? Too bad, the NFL has a monopoly on new teams playing in their federally protected league. Want to sell trinket to fans at a game? Too bad, the NFL and stadium owner have a monopoly on that. Want to sell sneakers with the Nike logo on the? Fedeally protected monopoly (Copyright). Want a BMW engine in your new Ford? Too bad, Ford has a monopoly on production of their cars. Want to open a restaurant in your local airport that charges less for burgers than the existing ones, good luck getting in on that monopoly.

So before you go on your next rant that monopolies are all bad and need to be broken up, stop and think about what that really means in the larger context if there are no monopolies. If all markets are truly and completely open to anyone that wants to participate.

 

[pasamio]

Nobody is asking for it to be on Apple's store for free. In fact, nobody would care if it was on Apple's store at all. What makes Apple's behavior an illegal monopoly is that there is currently NO OTHER WAY for me to install a piece of software on MY iPhone (not Apple's iPhone, MY iPhone, I own it, Apple does not own it) than for it to come from Apple's store. That has to change.

Epic are asking to be on Apple's device for free and to be able to avoid leveraging Apple's payment system. In a sense being able to leverage Apple's intellectual property and customer base to make money for Epic with no compensation paid to Apple.

Whilst you might own the phone, you only have a license to the software that runs upon it. This is how software has worked for an exceedingly long period of time. When you purchased the device, you were hopefully aware that it ran Apple's operating system and you were aware that Apple restricted through the App Store what apps are available on the device. Apple developed these policies when they were a minority player in the smartphone market, in fact at a time when Microsoft was the dominant smartphone operating system vendor.

Apple has two choices here:

• Allow users to use other app stores and install apps from any source they want.

or

• Lose this lawsuit, hopefully a huge amount of money for actual and punitive damages, be hit with a class action from all other app developers, lose that too, and then allow users to use other app stores and install apps from any source they want.

Either way, Apple WILL lose this one, because they're wrong and they're behaving like criminals. The only question is how badly Apple loses this one.

Epic will have to prove that Apple have leveraged their increasingly dominant market position to promote anticompetitive measures. Apple will likely point to the fact that for over a decade much of what Epic is fighting against has been in place and will likely argue that this makes their product the better product in the market. Apple will point to the Android powered devices to state that a competitive alternative exists that a customer who doesn't agree with Apple's approach could buy another device that doesn't have these requirements.

Epic are going to attempt to argue that the monopoly that Apple has over it's own devices is anticompetitive with a market fully defined by the brands own devices. That's going to be a really high barrier because of the second order effects it would have to invalidate various other business models. The judge agrees that the situation requires further review but also ruled that Epic wasn't likely going to win on the merits on the basis of the current record. Epic have an uphill battle on this one and in many respects the deck is balanced in Apple's favour.

 

[Colonel Blimp]

LOL did you really expect something else in here on “macrumors”?

That would be like walking into a church, and yell that god does not exist. How many virtual thumbs up/down do you think the yeller would get there? 🤣 But this doesn’t mean that the rest of world shares the same “pro god/Apple” attitude...

Really? You’ve been a member here for almost five years and haven’t noticed that MacRumors forum posters love to slag Apple?

Honestly, when I first started reading the comments on these recent Epic vs Apple stories here, I was expecting far more Apple bashing, just because it’s such a time-honored pastime here.

The fact that there’s such a widespread lack of sympathy for Epic in these forums does not speak well for how Epic have played this.

 

[Carnegie]

Nobody is asking for it to be on Apple's store for free. In fact, nobody would care if it was on Apple's store at all. What makes Apple's behavior an illegal monopoly is that there is currently NO OTHER WAY for me to install a piece of software on MY iPhone (not Apple's iPhone, MY iPhone, I own it, Apple does not own it) than for it to come from Apple's store. That has to change.

Apple has two choices here:

• Allow users to use other app stores and install apps from any source they want.

or

• Lose this lawsuit, hopefully a huge amount of money for actual and punitive damages, be hit with a class action from all other app developers, lose that too, and then allow users to use other app stores and install apps from any source they want.

Either way, Apple WILL lose this one, because they're wrong and they're behaving like criminals. The only question is how badly Apple loses this one.

If Apple allows other app stores to be used to load apps onto iOS devices, under what terms do you think it will be willing to let developers (who distribute through those other app stores) use its intellectual property? For instance, what will it charge them to license the use of the Apple IP needed to develop iOS apps?

Will Apple want a set amount - maybe $1, maybe $10 - for every iOS app downloaded to a device? Or will it want a certain percentage - maybe 20%, maybe 40% - of all revenue generated using its IP, i.e. iOS apps? Would the percentage depend on the nature of the revenue generation?

Thats the bigger issue here. Developers want to use Apple‘s IP so that they can make iOS apps. Apple doesn’t have to let them do that, but it has been willing to under certain terms - e.g., they have to distribute their apps (to consumers) through the App Store. Even if they don’t have to abide by those terms, Apple is entitled to be paid when they use its IP - especially if they directly monetize their use of Apple’s IP.

 

[tigres]

I’m no lawyer, but I wonder if Apple could do a cease and desist from allowing any contact from Epic, Tim, or the Epic brands. Counter sue them from defamation and brand damages for basically acting like a bunch of whiny toddlers. And lastly, tell epic and the judge Apple wants no relationship with them or their brand. Get off and stay off our lawn.

I know a physical store can ban you from entry, airlines can do it for not wearing a mask etc...

 

[Piggie]

You simply aren't allowed to stand at the checkout of another persons store and inform customers that you sell your plates for a lower price elsewhere.

Indeed, I fully agree with this.
but can you sell your plates for a lower price elsewhere if you are not standing in the store telling customers.
Customers may just find your plates cheaper by themselves or some other means?

 

[Carnegie]

Out of interest.

Say I made china plates, and I wanted to sell then in a plate store.
Now let's say that plate store is one of the biggest plate stores in the USA.
They want 30% from me for each plate that get's sold in their store.
And I'm ok with this.

Could this plate store legally say to me, I'm not allowed to sell my plates for a lower price in another store, even my own tiny store when I make the plates?

I must always sell the plates I make to customers at exactly that same price the GIANT plate store sells my plates for?

Are you using that plate store's intellectual property in making these plates?

 

[bkaus]

Nobody is asking for it to be on Apple's store for free. In fact, nobody would care if it was on Apple's store at all. What makes Apple's behavior an illegal monopoly is that there is currently NO OTHER WAY for me to install a piece of software on MY iPhone (not Apple's iPhone, MY iPhone, I own it, Apple does not own it) than for it to come from Apple's store. That has to change.

Apple has two choices here:

• Allow users to use other app stores and install apps from any source they want.

or

• Lose this lawsuit, hopefully a huge amount of money for actual and punitive damages, be hit with a class action from all other app developers, lose that too, and then allow users to use other app stores and install apps from any source they want.

Either way, Apple WILL lose this one, because they're wrong and they're behaving like criminals. The only question is how badly Apple loses this one.

Buy a different phone? It is not like the electric company where there is only a single vendor available.

 

[Krizoitz]

What makes Apple's behavior an illegal monopoly is that there is currently NO OTHER WAY for me to install a piece of software on MY iPhone (not Apple's iPhone, MY iPhone, I own it, Apple does not own it) than for it to come from Apple's store. That has to change.

It’s not illegal. You may not like it, but it’s not illegal. Apple could do any of the following:
1. Sell iPhones that don’t enable installing any software.
2. Sell iPhones that only let you add Apple software
3. Sell iPhones that only let you add software from a handful of approved 3rd parties
4. Sell iPhones that allow you to install software from a broad but still limited by rules variety of 3rd parties (current situation)
5. Sell iPhones that allow you to install software from anywhere (Android style and what YOU want)

All of these are legal approaches.
Apple can not have an “illegally monopoly” on its OWN products. If that were the case EVERY company would have an illegal monopoly in its own products.

The relevant market is not iPhones, it’s smartphones. And Apple doesn’t have even CLOSE to a monopoly on smartphones. If you don’t like Apples approach, buy an Android. You don’t get to declare something illegal just because you don’t like it or you want something different.

As for YOUR iPhone, you can do whatever you want to it. Hack it to install apps to your hearts content.But Apple doesn’t have to support you or help you.

 

[notabadname]

Nobody is asking for it to be on Apple's store for free. In fact, nobody would care if it was on Apple's store at all. What makes Apple's behavior an illegal monopoly is that there is currently NO OTHER WAY for me to install a piece of software on MY iPhone (not Apple's iPhone, MY iPhone, I own it, Apple does not own it) than for it to come from Apple's store. That has to change.

Apple has two choices here:

• Allow users to use other app stores and install apps from any source they want.

or

• Lose this lawsuit, hopefully a huge amount of money for actual and punitive damages, be hit with a class action from all other app developers, lose that too, and then allow users to use other app stores and install apps from any source they want.

Either way, Apple WILL lose this one, because they're wrong and they're behaving like criminals. The only question is how badly Apple loses this one.

Sure. Just those 2 choices. OK, sure. You may own an XBox too, but all digital downloads are through the Microsoft store. There are numerous examples where hardware has control over the access and purchase of software. The precedents were established for years with phones as well, even before Apple brought an App store to the original iPhone. There were games on my Motorolla Razor even, and they had apps back then you could pay for as well. Finally, you agreed to a software license on that phone you call “MY Phone” - oops.

 

[DEXTERITY]

Nobody is asking for it to be on Apple's store for free. In fact, nobody would care if it was on Apple's store at all. What makes Apple's behavior an illegal monopoly is that there is currently NO OTHER WAY for me to install a piece of software on MY iPhone (not Apple's iPhone, MY iPhone, I own it, Apple does not own it) than for it to come from Apple's store. That has to change.

Apple has two choices here:

• Allow users to use other app stores and install apps from any source they want.

or

• Lose this lawsuit, hopefully a huge amount of money for actual and punitive damages, be hit with a class action from all other app developers, lose that too, and then allow users to use other app stores and install apps from any source they want.

Either way, Apple WILL lose this one, because they're wrong and they're behaving like criminals. The only question is how badly Apple loses this one.

Solution - dont buy their products

 

[garylapointe]

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

Do we know if this is true? (that they're selling consoles at cost or below).

 

[Branko Šuligoj]

Nobody is asking for it to be on Apple's store for free. In fact, nobody would care if it was on Apple's store at all. What makes Apple's behavior an illegal monopoly is that there is currently NO OTHER WAY for me to install a piece of software on MY iPhone (not Apple's iPhone, MY iPhone, I own it, Apple does not own it) than for it to come from Apple's store. That has to change.

Apple has two choices here:

• Allow users to use other app stores and install apps from any source they want.

or

• Lose this lawsuit, hopefully a huge amount of money for actual and punitive damages, be hit with a class action from all other app developers, lose that too, and then allow users to use other app stores and install apps from any source they want.

Either way, Apple WILL lose this one, because they're wrong and they're behaving like criminals. The only question is how badly Apple loses this one.

Mate you know exactly what you're buying. You get what you paid for if you want do whatever you want with your device than make it, no one forces you to buy apple product. Next time you'll cry that your car has no lane assist unless car company installs it?

 

[tinsoldier]

Of course Sony would, but you as a developer could also sell that game via hundreds of other retailers - or even sell it yourself direct (such as Super Rare Games do).

The problem with that argument is Sony chargers you a license for each copy sold even if you sell through other retailers, so if you sell on the PlayStation store or through another retailer Sony still gets a cut. Same with XBox and Switch.

If you sell through other retailers, Sony takes their cut, and the retailer takes their cut, in that case it’s the retailers store so they charge to sell your product, they have overheads to run the store, same as Apple does.

 

[Colonel Blimp]

Epic isn’t “starting”. Epic has already mentioned they won’t be suing Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo.

If Epic win their case against Apple, they probably won’t may not need to sue Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo. Instead, Epic will simply ask the console vendors to take notice of the court’s decision and open up their closed platforms to the Epic Games Store.

Of course, if the console vendors balk, then you can bet your life’s savings Epic will sue them.

If you think that any of Tim Sweeney’s tweets will bar Epic from suing them, then I’m afraid you don’t understand how the law works.

If you think that Epic’s current relationships with their console vendor partners mean that Epic won’t sue them in the future, then you haven’t been any paying attention to how Epic does business.

Edit: Changed “probably won’t” to “may not” (thanks to cmaier’s comment below).

 

[ruka.snow]

Do we know if this is true? (that they're selling consoles at cost or below).

Nintendo sell consoles for profit from day one. PlayStation and Xbox are sold at a loss (At lest for a few years) and this is reported. That however is based on the PS3 era, I haven’t checked the current gen.

 

[cmaier]

If Epic win their case against Apple, they probably won’t need to sue Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo. Instead, Epic will simply ask the console vendors to take notice of the court’s decision and open up their closed platforms to the Epic Games Store.

If i was sony Microsoft or Nintendo I wouldn’t relent based on a case that didn’t involve my specific practices and the specific contract I have with developers.

 

[deevey]

Indeed, I fully agree with this.
but can you sell your plates for a lower price elsewhere if you are not standing in the store telling customers.
Customers may just find your plates cheaper by themselves or some other means?

Thats not the current issue though.

1. Epic wanted to set up their own plates stall inside the shop, not pay any rent, and were refused.
2. Epic started telling all the customers lining up at the checkout that the plates were available cheaper in their shop down the street.
3. Epic were thrown out of the shop along with their all their stock for being idiots.
4. They haven't been able to sell many plates since they were thrown out.

See, they could simply sell the plates in their own shop, but they'd have to inform all their customers how to get the special deal. The customers don't want to go to another shop, they don't really "need" Epics plates, and Epic don't want to spend money telling people how to get to their special plate shop.

Maybe its time to cut a new special deal for Epic ... maybe 60/40 this time rather than 70/30

 

[farewelwilliams]

If Epic win their case against Apple, they probably won’t need to sue Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo. Instead, Epic will simply ask the console vendors to take notice of the court’s decision and open up their closed platforms to the Epic Games Store.

It sounds like you didn’t read the lawsuit at all. The court document specifically states the lawsuit surrounds “users of mobile computing devices like smartphones and tablets”. All Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo needs to do is prove their consoles are not mobile computing devices.

Combine with the fact that Sony invested $250 million into Epic’s UE5 project and the fact that the primary developers of UE5 are on consoles (Epic's bread and butter), Epic will not be suing

Of course, if the console vendors balk, then you can bet your life’s savings Epic will sue them.

Nope.

If you think that any of Tim Sweeney’s tweets will bar Epic from suing them, then I’m afraid you don’t understand how the law works.

I never said it would prevent Epic from suing. Can't and won't are two entirely separate things. Either you failed at reading what I said or you're putting words my mouth.

If you think that Epic’s current relationships with their console vendor partners mean that Epic won’t sue them in the future, then you haven’t been any paying attention to how Epic does business.

You have no idea what it says in Sony's $250 million investment deal into Epic Games which could have contingencies in place to protect Sony from certain lawsuits.

Or did you not know about that deal? Either way, your assumption doesn't hold up.

 

[true god]

Nobody is asking for it to be on Apple's store for free. In fact, nobody would care if it was on Apple's store at all. What makes Apple's behavior an illegal monopoly is that there is currently NO OTHER WAY for me to install a piece of software on MY iPhone (not Apple's iPhone, MY iPhone, I own it, Apple does not own it) than for it to come from Apple's store. That has to change.

Apple has two choices here:

• Allow users to use other app stores and install apps from any source they want.

or

• Lose this lawsuit, hopefully a huge amount of money for actual and punitive damages, be hit with a class action from all other app developers, lose that too, and then allow users to use other app stores and install apps from any source they want.

Either way, Apple WILL lose this one, because they're wrong and they're behaving like criminals. The only question is how badly Apple loses this one.

Here is to common sense! Very well said!