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

[Colonel Blimp]

Your argument is flawed. Apple host and review millions of free apps at their own expense, apps that do not have in app purchases but yet they are still hosted and reviewed. Why should game Fortnite and it's developer be treated differently?

Fortnite isn’t being treated differently. As long as Fortnite remained free, it was welcome on the App Store. Fortnite’s in-app purchases, on the other hand, were not free, and they were treated just like any other commercial app or in-app purchase.

If you want to sell your apps, or your in-app purchases, on the App Store, you have to give Apple their cut. It was only when Epic tried to sell in-app purchases while cutting out Apple that Fortnite was removed.

Is this really so hard to understand?

 

[Analog Kid]

The legality of what Apple is doing is currently being put to the test. Over the years many app developers have complained about the app store rules but none of them have the resources to challege those rules in a court of law, Epic does and that is exactly what it is doing, testing the legality of the app store rules.

What many people forget is just because a company writes something down and says it's a 'rule' does mean it is legal. The courts have found many companies written terms and conditions to be illegal, the courts have also found many companies written rules on warranties are illegal. Why should Apple and it's app store rules be any different. Or is it the fact that because it is Apple, they are above the law when it comes to their written rules?

No, it's that the bar for illegally anti-competitive behavior is pretty high. Courts don't like to interfere in private business unless they see real harm done to the broader economy (not just to one unhappy plaintiff).

If you scan through the threads on this topic, you'll find answer to most of the things you think "people can't see".

 

[Colonel Blimp]

TL;DR educate yourselves on the subject before making accusations. Debate on the legal merits not emotive thoughts.

Very few Americans understand the law, MacRumors forum posters included (I have no idea if the level of understanding is any better in other countries, but I’d be surprised if it is), and this is how every single forum thread relating to any story about any lawsuit goes here.

(I myself know just enough about the law to realize how little I know, so I try to keep my mouth shut when it comes to discussing it, unless I’ve actually studied some point.)

Remember, however, that Facebook, Microsoft, etc. are waging a similar campaign to Epic’s not in the courts, but before Congress. They want to change the law, and Epic are clearly hitching their own wagon to theirs. Arguing in the court of public opinion about what the law should be is just what these companies are doing right now.

(Edited for grammar.)

 

[Madonepro]

I don't believe anyone understands the law, which is why we have judges and courts, so as to assess the law.

 

[Karllake]

Your argument is flawed. Apple host and review millions of free apps at their own expense, apps that do not have in app purchases but yet they are still hosted and reviewed. Why should game Fortnite and it's developer be treated differently?

Music festival Organiser allows 3rd parties to sell food etc but expect a cut of profit for arranging the whole thing (either upfront fees or a % in income), another company (seller) asks if they can distribute free T-Shirts, organiser says yes, the seller then decides that the plain T-Shirt is free but is going to charge for the ink of the printing, it feels like you're saying the organiser shouldn't expect any cut, i'd say the seller has deliberately 'gamed the system' and the organiser is still within there right to ask for a cut.

Boiling the whole argument down to pay system is a bit absurd in my view, apple deserves a cut in my view, there are other ways to do this but these also have there issues, whether 30% is fair and whether apple are truly consistent in application of their rules is debatable and is an area for review, saying apple should create the app store, the API's and all the customer loyalty / trust for another company to make all the profit makes no sense. Saying apple should be forced to allow an alternative app store and risk it's reputation isn't what i want as a consumer.

 

[laptech]

There is only ONE Microsoft Windows operating system ( versions of windows do not count). There is no Dell Windows operating system or Acer Windows operating system or HP Windows operating system, there is only Microsoft. Microsoft has it's own web browser built into the operating system. There were other web browsers out there, Netscape and Mozilla but Microsoft's rules were no other web browser was allowed to be bundled with it's operating system. This got challenged and Microsoft was found to be wrong.

There is only ONE Apple app store. There are other payment systems out there but Apple refuses to allow app developers to use them, rules state only Apple's payment system can be used.

Now please explain to me how they differ from each other and why Microsoft was found to be wrong and that even though the cases are extremely similar, Apple is in the right?

 

[TiggrToo]

Now please explain to me how they differ from each other and why Microsoft was found to be wrong and that even though the cases are extremely similar, Apple is in the right?

Microsoft were forcing third party hardware vendors to install IE and not other browsers due to their dominant position as the OS provider.

There are no 3rd party hardware providers here.

 

[deevey]

The problem is many people cannot see that Apple does use anticompetitive behaviour with it's app store. If an app developer designed an app and made it free for all, Apple would not have a problem with that. The app stays on the store for many years, the app gets 1000's of downloads, still no problem. The app developer decides to make an update that allows players to purchase in game items, a feature to help keep the interest in the game alive. The app developer see's there are numerous pay systems available as well as Apples pay system and thus approaches one of the companies requesting the use of their pay system, because the app developer feels that company offers them the best option. The app developer codes the app accordinging and Apple immediatly bans the app for rule breaches because they did not use Apple's pay system but somebody elses and tells the app developer that they must use Apple's pay system if they want to be unbanned.

This people is anti competitive behaviour and Apple will get into trouble for it, regardless of how Apple writes it's rules.

But thats NOT what happened with Epic.

In your scenario however:

The developer should NOT have approached any other payment company if they want the items to be available to purchase from WITHIN the app.

The developer COULD charge for those items OUTSIDE the App Store. They cannot however show how to obtain said items within the app or link to alternative payment methods - its on their own head how they market those paid add-ons to their customers in order to get enough people willing to pay the items externally WITHOUT violating the terms of their developer agreement.

Email marketing, telesales, viral marketing, billboards etc are all avenues they could invest in to keep 100% of the profit .. if they are lucky they might just get a tiny percentage of sales conversions vs IAP , but you might easily spend just as much as the 30% and with a much bigger headache, if you have a captive app, with a captive audience willing to jump though a few hoops you might have a chance at success.

Advertising and Marketing costs money - ALOT of money, Apple decided 30% was their commision in order to convert your free customer to a paid customer via simple one-click IAP's or in the case of subscriptions 15% after a year.

I'd warrant that for every additional step you have to click though to purchase via an external source you are almost 100% closer to losing that customer, at least in the micro transaction market.

IMHO There is HUGE value to the developers in the way Apple's IAP's currently operate, especially when it comes to micro transactions and subscriptions which are often made without too much consideration (unlike buying a complete app or game).

So pray tell, why should Apple, or any other Appstore, be willing to let anyone advertise those add-ons from within an app without making a dime ?

 

[deevey]

Your argument is flawed. Apple host and review millions of free apps at their own expense, apps that do not have in app purchases but yet they are still hosted and reviewed. Why should game Fortnite and it's developer be treated differently?

Because they are using the iOS platform to advertise and sell its own currency.

They could simply sell the game complete and charge a fixed price for updates, but the buy-now, think-later micro-transaction market is almost lucrative as gambling.

When money is being made, commissions must be paid.

 

[Karllake]

Now please explain to me how they differ from each other and why Microsoft was found to be wrong and that even though the cases are extremely similar, Apple is in the right?

Microsoft were forcing third party hardware vendors to install IE and not other browsers due to their dominant position as the OS provider.

There are no 3rd party hardware providers here.

Also MS had near total dominance in the market of personal computers, Apple doesn’t have dominance in smart phones, let along personal computers.

 

[VaeVictis]

Yes, but somebody will now say, that it has total dominance on iOS devices.

That argument is valid and it could tip the scales here.

However then the verdict is also valid for Playstation, Xbox, Wii etc., practically any device that has only one their own app store.

We will see how it goes.

And if Apple loses this and is forced to add competing App Stores to its iOS, iPad OS, MacOS and WatchOS stores than a huge portion of the App Store profits might be in trouble.

ps: President Trump also wants to ban some apps from Tencent, Tencent is also one of the shareholders of Epic (40% shareholder of Epic) and this might also be a factor in this case.

 

[TiggrToo]

Yes, but somebody will now say, that it has total dominance on iOS devices

That argument is valid and it could tip the scales here

No it’s not valid. Not one little bit.

In fact, that is a totally absurd statement to make. Does Tesla’s total dominance over Tesla vehicles make that illegal?

Apple made their phones. Of course they have domination! Who else would control them?

Good grief...

Before making such ridiculous accusations I’d suggest you quite the laws that are being broken.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

But why would having a 3rd party App Store change that?

Because that 3rd party App Store would have to have the same level of deep access into the security of the iPhone as Apple does. That means each 3rd party App Store developer would have keys to the Secure Enclave and other areas. Once those keys are in the wild, it’s the same as not having any security at all.

I want to know how Epic’s shareholders aren’t calling for blood at this point. This was a catastrophically terrible financial move.

I wonder how many companies that depend on Unreal are very quickly finding a path forward that doesn’t include Unreal.

Okay, I'm Done!

All my iDevices are on eBay, except a few cables and adapters, no mood to put them there now.

That’s going to upset all the folks that say you can’t switch! Enjoy! You’re headed to a happier place.

 

[Spectrum]

You do not get it, Epic is not allowed to offer ANY other payment form, it has to be Apples payment system only or nothing.

That isn't correct. They can sell credits from their website, they simply cannot advertise this method in the app, or offer any other payment option through the app that circumvents Apple. And why should they? If they did that, they could use Apple to distribute any game to millions of users world-wide for a tiny cost of the $100 developer fee. The reason for the 30% cut is so that Apple can support the AppStore for all users/developers, providing a seamless user experience and worldwide distribution.

Put it this way:

1. If I owned a physical store, would I really let the manufacture of some product sell their product in my store without taking a cut? Of course not! I'd go out of business pretty damn quickly and my store would have to close.

2. Would I let that manufacturer put up a big sign (in my store) saying: Now you've seen my product for free (thanks store!), please go and buy it outside for a discount? Of course not!

There is no difference here. Epic's requests are bonkers.

 

[HappyGeoCacher]

Obviously, many EPIC supporters do not understand the situation:

A developer could use Apple's whole infrastructure and technology to offer an app for free and use Apple's eco system to reach millions of potential customers ... all for free.
After having a gigantic potential customer base - for free - the developer could ask for an in app purchase. Allowing such an in app purchse outside the AppStore, Apple would have earnt zero, nill, nothing, nada and the complete revenue would go to the developer - without sales, marketing, distribution blablabla expenses.
Sure, that is THE perfect world for a developer, but not at all for the underlying infrastructure company.

Car dealers, drugstores, retail stores should promote goods or offer test drives etc. but what will happen, if afterwards the manufacturer or producer of these goods ist offering the same thing on the internet ONLY?

The infrastructure supplier (car dealer, drugstore, retail, APPLE, etc.) will no longer support such a business model or disappear.

Epic was looking for the gigantic Apple market and doesn't want to take on the expense of sales, marketing and distribution.

That's the way, how spongers and parasites work and live.

 

[avkills]

Apple already said they would welcome Fortnight back.. just go back to the old version. Simple.

But that's not the sob story then.
And if they back down now, they will never be able to do it again since they know the outcome.

100% of 40% playing still... hmm, epic loss, epic fail, epic stupidity.

Someone said Epic wanted to set up their own store. Guess then they would want to leverage all the other games that use their Unreal engine onto it. What % do you think they were planning on charging developers to be on that store? 30% would be the final kick in the butt.

Wrong, Below is what Epic charges in fees for using Unreal Engine in a commercial product:

"Once you've begun collecting money for your product, you'll need to track gross revenue and pay a 5% royalty on that amount after $1,000,000 in gross revenue is earned. To report your earnings, complete and submit the royalty form on a quarterly basis."

 

[avkills]

In my opinion, I rather stay in Apple's world and their app store than side loading apps from who knows where and get virus, etc.

So what you are saying is you would not know who and what and where you would be installing apps from? Like they would just magically install themselves? Do you have the same problem with your PC?

Sure the Apple Store makes it inherently safer; but saying you would not know where you are installing apps from is a crock of **** and you know it.

 

[avkills]

Obviously, many EPIC supporters do not understand the situation:

A developer could use Apple's whole infrastructure and technology to offer an app for free and use Apple's eco system to reach millions of potential customers ... all for free.
After having a gigantic potential customer base - for free - the developer could ask for an in app purchase. Allowing such an in app purchse outside the AppStore, Apple would have earnt zero, nill, nothing, nada and the complete revenue would go to the developer - without sales, marketing, distribution blablabla expenses.
Sure, that is THE perfect world for a developer, but not at all for the underlying infrastructure company.

Car dealers, drugstores, retail stores should promote goods or offer test drives etc. but what will happen, if afterwards the manufacturer or producer of these goods ist offering the same thing on the internet ONLY?

The infrastructure supplier (car dealer, drugstore, retail, APPLE, etc.) will no longer support such a business model or disappear.

Epic was looking for the gigantic Apple market and doesn't want to take on the expense of sales, marketing and distribution.

That's the way, how spongers and parasites work and live.

But the model you just spelled out is actually allowed on MacOS. I can purchase and download apps outside of Apple's App Store and Apple gets exactly zero revenue from it. So what's the difference? With the amount Apple charges for hardware; they're making money.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

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.

exactly. The original iPhone didn’t even have a third-party app store, or a SDK. You’ve got what came with the phone, and that was it. And that wasn’t a monopoly. Neither is this

 

[AZREOSpecialist]

Epic started out as the underdog in this story, but the more that is written the clearer it becomes that Epic is behaving as the bully here.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

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

OR, produce a NEW device for folks like you to buy. All of the Apple specific security features removed, no OS installed from the factory. You find and load the OS you want that supports the App Stores and services (maps, mail, video, music) you prefer. Apple knows their customers like what they’re selling (or they wouldn’t be selling as much) so they wouldn’t upset that boat for anything. They could just provide an alternate set of hardware... which, actually, could severely affect Android. Folks wanting an Epic win are also hoping for a world ruled by Apple hardware.

The app developer decides to make an update that allows players to purchase in game items, a feature to help keep the interest in the game alive. The app developer see's there are numerous pay systems available as well as Apples pay system and thus ...

Immediately decides to NOT follow the App Store rules they’ve been following up until this time? I guess it’s possible, but if the developer does a thing against the rules, they suffer the consequences. A quick email from Apple and an agreement to produce a compliant version, though, gets them back on the App Store.

What many people forget is just because a company writes something down and says it's a 'rule' does mean it is legal. The courts have found many companies written terms and conditions to be illegal, the courts have also found many companies written rules on warranties are illegal.

However, we’re talking about rules that have been reviewed and tested by MANY MANY companies on the App Store, some with significant resources/legal departments to go over the rules looking for any potential areas of conflict. Now, it COULD be that all these lawyers that have reviewed the App Store agreements in the past were all poor performers, but I tend to think not.

 

[Xenobius]

epic stupidity

 

[cupcakes2000]

So what you are saying is you would not know who and what and where you would be installing apps from? Like they would just magically install themselves? Do you have the same problem with your PC?

Sure the Apple Store makes it inherently safer; but saying you would not know where you are installing apps from is a crock of **** and you know it.

Errrrr.... on a PC - plenty of times there has been a random executable file download to my desktop when browsing potentially shady areas of the web, a hidden popup will load in the background. It might even be labelled something innocuous. I know it’s happening because I’m fairly savvy. But I’m not everyone.

Mobile phone user don’t expect that and shouldn’t need to contend with it.

Further more, what if my grandma got led down a rabbit hole and then downloaded a fake ‘financial’ app and got rinsed of her life savings?
Or my kids downloading some sort of tracking app?

You saying everybody would know where they’re installing apps from is the crock of **** here, and if you don’t know it then that’s the issue. Not the other way round.

 

[TiggrToo]

Your argument is flawed. Apple host and review millions of free apps at their own expense, apps that do not have in app purchases but yet they are still hosted and reviewed.

Subsidized not only the developer fees but also the 30% levy on paid for apps.

Next...

 

[TiggrToo]

Sure the Apple Store makes it inherently safer; but saying you would not know where you are installing apps from is a crock of **** and you know it.

Written by someone with apparently very little experience in malware and how it spreads.