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

[cmaier]

Some fallacies going on here. iOS, iPhone and the App Store currently are indivisible In practical terms. Yes some “kid” can hack the hardware to install whatever, but that is not a counter example in practice. For one it voids the warranty of the device. I understand why some want to wing this fallacy ... but lets have a honest discussion ok? This is no example of choice and freedom.

Digital/Software businesses create products/services for customers. To compete, digital business need to serve customers wherever they care, that today includes in great part, to be on smartphones. In the US one in two Americans have chosen a specific kind of smartphone, from a specific brand, iOS/iPhone. Therefore Digital businesses need to be there unless they want to leave 50% of their customer behind in the context of smartphones. Notice that I haven’t up until now, in this totally logical reasoning haven‘t even twitch the surface of the App Store.

Now, the App Store. The App Store service banks on the above, as it is mandatory to install any app on those device. Simple. There is not compedition to this Store. Yes, there is competition on smartphones, but not on this store.

Yes, Apple should be payed for the use of their infrastructure. Using its infrastructure is not an option of course. Due to this Apple enjoys the power to fix the price of its infrastructure/service as far as the ability to install and distrubte apps usage goes regardless of compeition.

Did you guys understand the the above? It’s very simple. What are the side effects ... well at least three:

1) In a market where the components of this infrastructure are not forced in, we can find services that way cheaper. From this, two things can happen. Either the prices of apps and services are up to cattier for the 30%, or digital business have less available “income” to provide better services.

2) The App Store owner its self as it happens, can choose to compete with any of the products its ”sells”. So digital businesses not only face the hurdle of higher prices for app distribution but need to compete with the products that the store owner builds With the money fuels. This again, hurts competition.

3) Maybe the more interesting as it is starting come to light. Digital business that device not to put their services on the App Store because of lack of choice to do so. This for sure directly hurts the Consumer choice of digital services to use on their smartphones way beyond they expected.

Now. To counter the above Apple touts a few billions in App Store revenue. True compare that with the billions aren’t in tthe App Store, yet using a more competitive landscape of cloud services and infrastructure, who is really winning in terms of contributing to the economy ... The conclusion, is that those billions n the App Store are little more than the result of a mandatory concentration, not actually contribution.

An interesting story. A couple of days ago decided to start using the Adobe products for photography (I’m an amateur street photographer ... for fun). Went to the App Store and download Lightroom to my iPad Pro 12.5” from 2020. Albeit the use of the app was free I was presented with in app payment service, a Premium subscription that would simply allow me to synch the photos in LR across multiple device .. $8 per month or so ... just for the Lightroom on iOS. Now, I remembered there were other options to subscribe to LR but none were presented ... So as far as the App Store goes, there was not other options available. Gladly we have the Web not built and managed by a monopoly, so I went to the Adobe site. Behold, a plan of $10 bucks that not only a provided synch, I could now install LR AND Photoshop on iOS, Mac, Windows and Android ... just for $2 more per month.

So how can Adobe offer so much more just for $2? Well, this way of subscribing meant that no revenue needed to be shared with Apple, case in case 30% hence the actual service provider is able to provide a better service at a lower cost.

Two pernicious things can potentially be revealed in this process. One, is that the App Store did not informed me that there were more cost effective option, neither did the App because of the store policy forbidding such measures. I can imagine this happening all over the place in the App Store, collectively rising prices and devaluing digital services in favor of the App Store. The second, is that given Adobe shared nothing with Apple through this approach, who actually payed for hosting the App on the App Store? Two possibilities: Customers that are uninformed of better deals given the App Store policy and other digital services ... say for instance Affinity Photo.

I like to have one place that I can go to install and update the apps that I have bought, and maybe I even search for them. But I wonder if what is happening in the backstage is actually to my benefit as a customer. Now, as you can see I’m a very informed customer, way way way above average.

Cheers.

Big news for you - when you go to a car dealer, they don’t tell you that you can get the car cheaper across town. When you go to a Safeway supermarket, Safeway won’t let Cheerios print “you can buy this cereal cheaper at Abertson’s” on the box.

Consumers are not babies.

 

[laptech]

Oh come on. No shop owner would put up with such a thing.

And apple doesn‘t offer anything “free to everyone.” Contracts have meaning, and the obligations one accepts when entering into a contract are not nothing.

A dice app is free, it uses up no extra resources, thereby costing Apple nothing to host it. Fortnite uses it's own payment system that also does not use any extra resources thereby costing Apple nothing to host it BUT regardless of that it says such an app cannot be on the store. If both apps are not using up any extra Apple resources thereby costing Apple nothing, one is allowed and the other is not, this creates a disparity, an unevenness, an unfair playing field.

Both apps cost nothing to Apple but just because one of the apps makes money, Apple is not happy that an app is making money and so Apple says it will not have a company making money off it's store unless it's making money also.

You lot can ridicule me all you want. The US might favour Apple and let them off but the EU will not as they are more strict.

 

[TiggrToo]

dice app is free, it uses up no extra resources

Storage, transmission and review. All cost money.

You lot can ridicule me all you want

Your posts are doing quite a terrific job there without anyone else.

 

[I7guy]

Some fallacies going on here. iOS, iPhone and the App Store currently are indivisible In practical terms. Yes some “kid” can hack the hardware to install whatever, but that is not a counter example in practice. For one it voids the warranty of the device. I understand why some want to wing this fallacy ... but lets have a honest discussion ok? This is no example of choice and freedom.

Digital/Software businesses create products/services for customers. To compete, digital business need to serve customers wherever they care, that today includes in great part, to be on smartphones. In the US one in two Americans have chosen a specific kind of smartphone, from a specific brand, iOS/iPhone. Therefore Digital businesses need to be there unless they want to leave 50% of their customer behind in the context of smartphones. Notice that I haven’t up until now, in this totally logical reasoning, even touch the surface of the App Store.

Now, the App Store. The App Store service banks on the above, as it is mandatory to install any app on those device. Simple. There is not compedition to this Store. Yes, there is competition on smartphones, but not to this store for 50% of US customers on smartphones.

Apple should be payed for the use of their infrastructure. Yet using its infrastructure is not an option of course if you are a digital business approaching consumers. Due to this Apple enjoys the power to fix the price of its infrastructure/service as far as the ability to install and distrubte apps usage goes regardless of compeition. Regardless of the market price of its components individually (App hosting, Payment, App Advertising).

Did you guys have understood the above? It’s very simple. What are the side effects ... well at least three:

1) In a market where the components of this infrastructure are not forced in, we can find services that way cheaper. From this, two things can happen. Either the prices of apps and services are up to cope for the 30%, or digital business have less available “income” to provide better services.

2) The App Store owner its self as it happens, can choose to compete with any of the products its ”sells”. So digital businesses not only face the hurdle of higher prices for app distribution but need to compete with the products that the store owner builds With the money fuels. This again, hurts competition.

3) Maybe the more interesting as it is starting come to light. Digital business that decide not to put their services on the App Store because of lack of choice to do so. Epic, xCloud, Stadia ... heck Netflix, Spotify ... are there because they need to otherwise go out of business. This for sure directly hurts the Consumer choice of digital services to use on their smartphones way beyond they expected.

Now. To counter the above Apple touts a few billions in App Store revenue. True compare that with the billions aren’t in tthe App Store, yet using a more competitive landscape of cloud services and infrastructure, who is really winning in terms of contributing to the economy ... The conclusion, is that those billions n the App Store are little more than the result of a mandatory concentration, not actually contribution.

An interesting story. A couple of days ago decided to start using the Adobe products for photography (I’m an amateur street photographer ... for fun). Went to the App Store and download Lightroom to my iPad Pro 12.9” from 2020. Albeit the use of the app was free I was presented with in app payment service, a Premium subscription that would simply allow me to synch the photos in LR across multiple device .. $8 per month or so ... just for the Lightroom on iOS. Now, I remembered there were other options to subscribe to LR but none were presented ... So as far as the App Store goes, there was not other options available. Gladly we have the Web not built and managed by a monopoly, so I went to the Adobe site. Behold, a plan of $10 bucks that not only a provided synch, I could now install LR AND Photoshop on iOS, Mac, Windows and Android ... just for $2 more per month.

So how can Adobe offer so much more just for $2? Well, this way of subscribing meant that no revenue needed to be shared with Apple, case in case 30% hence the actual service provider is able to provide a better service at a lower cost.

Two pernicious things can potentially be revealed in this process. One, is that the App Store did not informed me that there were more cost effective option, neither did the App because of the store policy forbidding such measures. I can imagine this happening all over the place in the App Store, collectively rising prices and devaluing digital services in favor of the App Store. The second, is that given Adobe shared nothing with Apple through this approach, who actually payed for hosting the App on the App Store? Two possibilities: Customers that are uninformed of better deals given the App Store policy and other digital services/publishers ... say for instance Affinity Photo. So in effect, Adobe competition in my case payed to Adobe to be able to provide they service free of charge as far as the App Store infrastructure goes, an example of fair practice both to devs and the customer right?

I like to have one place that I can go to install and update the apps that I have bought, and maybe I even search for them. But I wonder if what is happening in the backstage is actually to my benefit as a customer. Now, as you can see I’m a very informed customer, way way way above average.

We can discuss statistics, but statics are just result. What is in question is how does results are achieved and ot the process to achieve those results are fair to App Store customers (wether customer come from buying devices or being digital services that need to use the infrastructure to reach their customers).

Cheers.

Well, yes and no.

A digital business and physical business can deliver their products via web apps. Write once and be done with it.

Or, a digital and physical can choose to deliver their services via apps. They can chooses windows, ios, android, linux, unix or whatever. If they CHOOSE ios (a minority player), they have to voluntarily enroll in the apple developer program and agree to abide by the terms and conditions. Of course, if the T&C for the apple developer program isn't liked, there is always the google play store...the majority player.

Basically for $99 a dev for ios gets access to tens of millions of customers from an infrastructure that provides complete management, reporting, testing, distribution and monetization. Apple doesn't require any fee, but does require a percentage based commission if you, the dev, charge a fee or IAP. The fee is right in line with the industry.

Of course you don't have to charge a fee in your app, that's subject to commission, you can collect a payment on your website, but can't tell customers where to go within your app to make the payment. From apple's perspective, seems fair to me. Of course the side effect of cutting apple out, is that your app may run afoul of app store guidelines, but you as the dev would have already known that, since you voluntarily elected to sign up and become a dev.

 

[deevey]

Some fallacies going on here. iOS, iPhone and the App Store currently are indivisible In practical terms. Yes some “kid” can hack the hardware to install whatever, but that is not a counter example in practice. For one it voids the warranty of the device. I understand why some want to wing this fallacy ... but lets have a honest discussion ok? This is no example of choice and freedom.

Digital/Software businesses create products/services for customers. To compete, digital business need to serve customers wherever they care, that today includes in great part, to be on smartphones. In the US one in two Americans have chosen a specific kind of smartphone, from a specific brand, iOS/iPhone. Therefore Digital businesses need to be there unless they want to leave 50% of their customer behind in the context of smartphones. Notice that I haven’t up until now, in this totally logical reasoning, even touch the surface of the App Store.

Now, the App Store. The App Store service banks on the above, as it is mandatory to install any app on those device. Simple. There is not compedition to this Store. Yes, there is competition on smartphones, but not to this store for 50% of US customers on smartphones.

Apple should be payed for the use of their infrastructure. Yet using its infrastructure is not an option of course if you are a digital business approaching consumers. Due to this Apple enjoys the power to fix the price of its infrastructure/service as far as the ability to install and distrubte apps usage goes regardless of compeition. Regardless of the market price of its components individually (App hosting, Payment, App Advertising).

Did you guys have understood the above? It’s very simple. What are the side effects ... well at least three:

1) In a market where the components of this infrastructure are not forced in, we can find services that way cheaper. From this, two things can happen. Either the prices of apps and services are up to cope for the 30%, or digital business have less available “income” to provide better services.

2) The App Store owner its self as it happens, can choose to compete with any of the products its ”sells”. So digital businesses not only face the hurdle of higher prices for app distribution but need to compete with the products that the store owner builds With the money fuels. This again, hurts competition.

3) Maybe the more interesting as it is starting come to light. Digital business that decide not to put their services on the App Store because of lack of choice to do so. Epic, xCloud, Stadia ... heck Netflix, Spotify ... are there because they need to otherwise go out of business. This for sure directly hurts the Consumer choice of digital services to use on their smartphones way beyond they expected.

Now. To counter the above Apple touts a few billions in App Store revenue. True compare that with the billions aren’t in tthe App Store, yet using a more competitive landscape of cloud services and infrastructure, who is really winning in terms of contributing to the economy ... The conclusion, is that those billions n the App Store are little more than the result of a mandatory concentration, not actually contribution.

An interesting story. A couple of days ago decided to start using the Adobe products for photography (I’m an amateur street photographer ... for fun). Went to the App Store and download Lightroom to my iPad Pro 12.9” from 2020. Albeit the use of the app was free I was presented with in app payment service, a Premium subscription that would simply allow me to synch the photos in LR across multiple device .. $8 per month or so ... just for the Lightroom on iOS. Now, I remembered there were other options to subscribe to LR but none were presented ... So as far as the App Store goes, there was not other options available. Gladly we have the Web not built and managed by a monopoly, so I went to the Adobe site. Behold, a plan of $10 bucks that not only a provided synch, I could now install LR AND Photoshop on iOS, Mac, Windows and Android ... just for $2 more per month.

So how can Adobe offer so much more just for $2? Well, this way of subscribing meant that no revenue needed to be shared with Apple, case in case 30% hence the actual service provider is able to provide a better service at a lower cost.

Two pernicious things can potentially be revealed in this process. One, is that the App Store did not informed me that there were more cost effective option, neither did the App because of the store policy forbidding such measures. I can imagine this happening all over the place in the App Store, collectively rising prices and devaluing digital services in favor of the App Store. The second, is that given Adobe shared nothing with Apple through this approach, who actually payed for hosting the App on the App Store? Two possibilities: Customers that are uninformed of better deals given the App Store policy and other digital services/publishers ... say for instance Affinity Photo. So in effect, Adobe competition in my case payed to Adobe to be able to provide they service free of charge as far as the App Store infrastructure goes, an example of fair practice both to devs and the customer right?

I like to have one place that I can go to install and update the apps that I have bought, and maybe I even search for them. But I wonder if what is happening in the backstage is actually to my benefit as a customer. Now, as you can see I’m a very informed customer, way way way above average.

We can discuss statistics, but statics are just result. What is in question is how those results are achieved, the process to achieve those results are fair to App Store customers or not? (wether customer come from buying devices or being digital services that need to use the infrastructure to reach their customers).

So back to the beginning for you guys not to get lost in the implications. It all started with one in two Americans using an iOS device. Some might argue that these user can always choose another device. True. But the fact is that these users are not informed over what happens in the backstage that reflects on their wallets negatively every month ... and as another op posted, they should not need to care at all ... competition should level that thing out ... but there is none really. Just ways to get around some policies which also has negative side effects as my little practical story described. The difference between practice and pumping the statistical marketing.

Cheers.

All I can see is Adobe adopting freemium pricing rather than selling you all-in-one subscription.

But doesn't that LR iPad plan also include 1TB cloud storage ? Whereas the Photography bundle you mention from Adobe's site is, granted only marginally more expensive, but also only offers 20gb + additional $10 if you want the same 1TB cloud storage.

The pricing really is not that different.

Where the App Store really benefits devs is uninformed buyers and instant gratification purchases - apps that people see and instantly want, or want to try out and can instantly unlock features with just a finger touch to install. Some people (myself included) will shop around for cheaper subscriptions, vouchers etc ... but the vast majority will just click "buy".

I don't see any reason any app should tell you there is a better deal, unless that app's purpose is finding better deals

 

[cmaier]

A dice app is free, it uses up no extra resources, thereby costing Apple nothing to host it.

That's simply not true.

Fortnite uses it's own payment system that also does not use any extra resources thereby costing Apple nothing to host it

Also not true for the same reason as the first wrong statement.

BUT regardless of that it says such an app cannot be on the store. If both apps are not using up any extra Apple resources thereby costing Apple nothing, one is allowed and the other is not, this creates a disparity, an unevenness, an unfair playing field.

Both apps cost nothing to Apple but just because one of the apps makes money, Apple is not happy that an app is making money and so Apple says it will not have a company making money off it's store unless it's making money also.

You lot can ridicule me all you want. The US might favour Apple and let them off but the EU will not as they are more strict.

Where do you get the idea that hosting is free? Where do you get the idea that the costs of R&D to provide the sdks these apps rely on is free?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Where do you get the idea that hosting is free? Where do you get the idea that the costs of R&D to provide the sdks these apps rely on is free?

Yet another person that feels like this. “THE ROADS ARE ALREADY BUILT! How can it cost millions of dollars a year just for upkeep on roads??!?”

 

[pasamio]

Why shouldn't they? Epic using their own payment system means they are not using anything of Apples that all the millions of free apps are not using. So why shouldn't they be allowed to do what a free app does, which is provide nothing financially to Apple.

If Epic aren't using any of Apple's intellectual property then I have no issues with them providing their own payment system and opting out of the revenue sharing agreement that every developer agrees to when joining the Apple Developer Program. Of course if you aren't using anything of Apple then you're not running on an iPhone at that point.

Please explain how so. If Epic use their own payment system, the only resources they are using are their own. The game would be coded to direct the player to Epic's payment system, thereby having nothing to do with Apple, not using any more resources than a free app would.

Therefore, the ONLY difference between the services and resources used up by a free app to that of an in-app purchase app is the wording of the terms and conditions..correct?

If Epic use their own payment system and leverage nothing from Apple, no Apple SDKs, Apple developer tools, Apple simulator, Apple APIs or anything else from Apple then I agree Epic shouldn't have to pay Apple but at that point they're probably not making an iOS app.

You and others keep bringing the iphone into the discussion. The issue has got absolutly nothing to do with the actual physical iphone, it's purely to do with the app store and the rules and conditions set in using the app store.

You're right, it's not about the physical iPhone, it's about the software that runs on the phone and the licensing around it. Apple's license for usage of their intellectual property includes a revenue sharing agreement for any digital purchases made whilst leveraging the IP.

But if Epic in wanting to use their own payment system is not using ANY more Apple resources than that of a free app then how can Epic be greedy?

Because the agreement for the use of their APIs is a revenue sharing agreement. The understanding is that if you don't make any money on the platform, you don't pay. If you start to make money for digital goods on the platform then you start to contribute towards the upkeep of the ecosystem. This enables the smaller app developers to get started without a high barrier to entry. All of this is subsidised by the larger parties in the ecosystem, such as Fortnite, for the benefit of the wider ecosystem.

A dice app is free, it uses up no extra resources, thereby costing Apple nothing to host it. Fortnite uses it's own payment system that also does not use any extra resources thereby costing Apple nothing to host it BUT regardless of that it says such an app cannot be on the store. If both apps are not using up any extra Apple resources thereby costing Apple nothing, one is allowed and the other is not, this creates a disparity, an unevenness, an unfair playing field.

It costs Apple to store the binaries and it costs bandwidth to distribute it. It costs Apple to review the app and it also costs Apple to obviously building the infrastructure that supports the developer interactions. Apple provides this for everyone and if they start to generate revenue on the platform through the use of Apple's intellectual property, they agreed to a revenue sharing agreement and to accept payments through Apple's payment system.

If anything this creates an even playing field because it means (almost) everyone is on a level playing field. Amazon seems to be the only company that has truly extracted concessions from Apple and even they use Apple IAP. The other rules are there for everyone else and whilst the review process is decidedly "human" causing inconsistencies, it provides a level playing field for everyone big and small.

What you're actually arguing for is an uneven playing field where those who are big enough are able to go define their own strategy and to opt out of the ecosystem, not contribute towards it whilst still benefiting from the ecosystem and Apple's intellectual property. That doesn't seem fair towards Apple and it doesn't seem like an even playing field.

Both apps cost nothing to Apple but just because one of the apps makes money, Apple is not happy that an app is making money and so Apple says it will not have a company making money off it's store unless it's making money also.

If you make money on digital products by leveraging Apple's intellectual property then as a part of the agreement to use that intellectual property you enter into a revenue sharing arrangement with Apple and agree to use Apple's payment system. If you do not agree to this then nobody is forcing you to leverage Apple's intellectual property, you can of course completely avoid using Apple's proprietary SDKs and APIs to develop an Android app

Unless of course you believe that companies like Epic should be able to leverage Apple's intellectual property, generate revenue from Apple's intellectual property and then not pay any money to Apple for exploiting Apple's intellectual property?

 

[Carnegie]

Apple is reportedly making a counterclaim for damages against Epic Games.

I think that's appropriate. Epic is effectively stealing from Apple right now.


EDIT: Apple's counterclaims and answers.

 

[k1121j]

Breaking news apple seeks damages in this case!!!! Guess its not a rumor so its on on here.

 

[Carnegie]

Apple said they would let the game back in. All epic has to do is not break the elua agreement.

Apple said that previously, before it terminated Epic’s (‘84) developer account. But when Apple terminated that account, it informed Epic that a reapplication would be denied for at least 1 year. So as it stands, it seems Epic no longer has the option of just bringing Fortnite back into compliance.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

A digital business and physical business can deliver their products via web apps. Write once and be done with it.

You are in the game correct? If you are you know as well as I do that its not an equivalent from multiple technical reasons. Starting in Apple by poorly supporting PWAs on the iOS.

Basically for $99 a dev for ios gets access to tens of millions of customers from an infrastructure that provides complete management, reporting, testing, distribution and monetization.

No. Actually its 30% of your revenue within the iOS kingdom unless you opt to give your work for free.

Of course you don't have to charge a fee in your app, that's subject to commission, you can collect a payment on your website, but can't tell customers where to go within your app to make the payment.

No. According to section 3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services and I quote:

”Apps that operate across multiple platforms may allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they have acquired in your app on other platforms or your web site, including consumable items in multiplatform games, provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app. You must not directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods must not discourage use of in-app purchase.”

In other words, if you sell your app, content or service in your web site, you need to sell them in App. This is the rule

Now it may be the case that Apple turns a blind eye on this ... it seams that they do this in certain cases .... But I also seen them applying this rule strictly. It seams that they may let this rule fall case in case until they don’t and send a letter requiring in-app purchase.

There are many examples of this rule not being applied. Take for instance GitHub. You can subscribe the service on the site, there is an app in the App Store to access the service, yet not in-app purchase. Just an example of many. Now this is of course until Apple see this as nice revenue stream and then send them a letter.

Maybe you lack some info about the web application market place. But there are many many services that simply aren’t on in iOS ... apps that are ranked in the top 10 in their categories, especially productivity oriented apps. Not because their customers aren’t asking for an iPhone or Android version, just check their user forums, but simply because of the high cost in question. Just don’t know how is this any good for iOS device users/customers considering it something they oftent tout. I can only conclude that customers don’t know they are being hold “ransom” without knowing. Usually when the digital service provider does not have an App for them to install on iOS, who they blame? Not Apple as they totally ignore the shared revenue required ... so its quite natural that Apple does not want that splashed in the App ... irrelevant they say. But has I already wrote on another post to you, it’s not really that irrelevant between spending 20K a year to distribute an App or giving up 30% of your revenue, case in case if it is 500K that means 150K just for distribution.

PS: It seams that Fortnite was banned for a year from iOS. So one in two Americans will not have Fortnite in their phone even if they wanted it. Don’t know how is this an example of looking out of their Customers, I think its more looking out for their cut. The reality is that the App Store is not there to provide a good service for customers but for Apple to charge their customers more than once for the user of the technology, considering that the App Store is the only way to install Apps And digital services they santo to use. Unless of course they considering reducing their use to Safari.

 

[pasamio]

Apple said that previously, before it terminated Epic’s (‘84) developer account. But when Apple terminated that account, it informed Epic that a reapplication would be denied for at least 1 year. So as it stands, it seems Epic no longer has the option of just bringing Fortnite back into compliance.

Apple gave them two weeks to come into compliance or have their developer accounts terminated. Per Epic's own testimony, this is just a switch in their backend that controls available payment types and they could change it to just return Apple IAP. The judge also sided with Apple that since there is indeed a remedy within Epic's control that their motion to restore Fortnite to the App Store was denied and included the verbiage that just because Epic doesn't want to stop harming itself isn't cause for it to be returned to the App Store.

Epic had their chance, they decided against it, they're out of the App Store and now it's into the courts to figure out the next steps.

 

[cmaier]

Breaking news apple seeks damages in this case!!!! Guess its not a rumor so its on on here.

This means a jury will almost certainly be involved. Before this it was all up to the judge.

Edit: though it looks like they didn’t put a jury demand on their Answer, so maybe not.

 

[I7guy]

Apple is reportedly making a counterclaim for damages against Epic Games.

I think that's appropriate. Epic is effectively stealing from Apple right now.


EDIT: Apple's counterclaims and answers.

Seems like Apple came out of the chute not mincing any words.

 

[Carnegie]

From Apple's counterclaims (emphasis added, footnotes omitted):

32. Apple’s concerns about Epic’s request were hardly theoretical. The experience of Fortnite outside of the iOS environment illustrates the importance of Apple’s approach to app review and security. In 2018, Fortnite announced that Android versions of the game would be available on the web, and immediately sites appeared that not only advertised Android Fortnite but also distributed malware in the game. As one commentator noted, “Unsurprisingly, malware versions of Fortnite targeted unsuspecting gamers in the months following the Android launch, which is what malicious individuals would do with any popular app that’s available from outside the app store.” By 2019, Epic acknowledged security vulnerabilities in non-iOS versions of Fortnite that exposed hundreds of millions of players to being hacked. Although Apple does not leave it to any developer to keep the iOS platform safe and secure, Epic in particular had demonstrated that it could not be entrusted with this type of responsibility.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

From Apple's counterclaims (emphasis added, footnotes omitted):

Yet Epic claim was due to not being able to provide an alternative payment method to the service they provide. The issue of this is more “how can Apple than make sure it gets payed for the use of their infrastructure to distribute and review the App?”. There are many ways to do this. Now of course if 30% revenue share is key than there is not other way.

But its quite natural that Apple plays the ”customer fear” approach.

 

[I7guy]

You are in the game correct? If you are you know as well as I do that its not an equivalent from multiple technical reasons. Starting in Apple by poorly supporting PWAs on the iOS.



No. Actually its 30% of your revenue within the iOS kingdom unless you opt to give your work for free.



No. According to section 3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services and I quote:

”Apps that operate across multiple platforms may allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they have acquired in your app on other platforms or your web site, including consumable items in multiplatform games, provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app. You must not directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods must not discourage use of in-app purchase.”

In other words, if you sell your app, content or service in your web site, you need to sell them in App. This is the rule

Now it may be the case that Apple turns a blind eye on this ... it seams that they do this in certain cases .... But I also seen them applying this rule strictly. It seams that they may let this rule fall case in case until they don’t and send a letter requiring in-app purchase.

There are many examples of this rule not being applied. Take for instance GitHub. You can subscribe the service on the site, there is an app in the App Store to access the service, yet not in-app purchase. Just an example of many. Now this is of course until Apple see this as nice revenue stream and then send them a letter.

Maybe you lack some info about the web application market place. But there are many many services that simply aren’t on in iOS ... apps that are ranked in the top 10 in their categories, especially productivity oriented apps. Not because their customers aren’t asking for an iPhone or Android version, just check their user forums, but simply because of the high cost in question. Just don’t know how is this any good for iOS device users/customers considering it something they oftent tout. I can only conclude that customers don’t know they are being hold “ransom” without knowing. Usually when the digital service provider does not have an App for them to install on iOS, who they blame? Not Apple as they totally ignore the shared revenue required ... so its quite natural that Apple does not want that splashed in the App ... irrelevant they say. But has I already wrote on another post to you, it’s not really that irrelevant between spending 20K a year to distribute an App or giving up 30% of your revenue, case in case if it is 500K that means 150K just for distribution.

PS: It seams that Fortnite was banned for a year from iOS. So one in two Americans will not have Fortnite in their phone even if they wanted it. Don’t know how is this an example of looking out of their Customers, I think its more looking out for their cut. The reality is that the App Store is not there to provide a good service for customers but for Apple to charge their customers more than once for the user of the technology, considering that the App Store is the only way to install Apps And digital services they santo to use. Unless of course they considering reducing their use to Safari.

Even if I mis-stated something there are these points:
- Something being difficult or expensive to program/develop is not a barrier in the tech world. There is no law or regulation that says, the implementation of every concept and idea has to be easy/low level of effort.
- It's totally Epics fault the one in two Americans do not have access to Fortnite and the court backed up Apple.
- Epic broke it's contractual obligations with Apple purposefully with hidden code and Apple had no choice but to do what it needed.
- The fact that there are "exceptions", are not for me to defend. Apple has to (probably) defend them in trial.
- Airlines for example can deliver a boarding pass from purchase to boarding a plane without a physical piece of paper.
- The app store has billions in revenue, doesn't seem like anything or anybody is being held hostage and the 30% that Apple took in the case of Epic was pocket change given Epic made hundreds of millions before they decided to make a stink. The app store, Apple argues, made them successful.

 

[cmaier]

From Apple's counterclaims (emphasis added, footnotes omitted):

They’re not wrong. Pretty strong Answer, though I haven’t read it all yet.

 

[I7guy]

Yet Epic claim was due to not being able to provide an alternative payment method to the service they provide. The issue of this is more “how can Apple than make sure it gets payed for the use of their infrastructure to distribute and review the App?”. There are many ways to do this. Now of course if 30% revenue share is key than there is not other way.

But its quite natural that Apple plays the ”customer fear” approach.

And Apple may be correct with the "customer fear" approach. I don't blame Apple for defending their turf, it seems a lot is at stake. And it seems in Apple's favor is the voluntary sign-up process for the dev program, while at the same time Apple not being in a monopoly position.

 

[TiggrToo]

Apple is reportedly making a counterclaim for damages against Epic Games.

I think that's appropriate. Epic is effectively stealing from Apple right now.


EDIT: Apple's counterclaims and answers.

Not sure I ever expected to see the sentence “Fortnite users can dance their Floss, ride their sharks...” in any court documents until today!

🤯

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I don't blame Apple for defending their turf, it seems a lot is at stake.

Neither do I. I would be doing the same. Yet, I’m not Apple.

But Apple in the middle of all the words its kind of nails it. There is not really much at stake but the issue of the 30% shared revenue as a bottleneck for businesses to access their customer given their choice of device. Worst, given the vertical integration put in place, it almost impossible to ascertain its level of fairness through the merits ot the App Store alone. That is the actual market problem ... App Store don’t compete between themselves, devices do.

The very idea that for one to get payed in their App directly, for their services one would need first to be a device manufacturer shows how monopolistic this approach is. If this gets widespread back to laptops and desktops, which it will if this passes, digital businesses ... take care ... and innovation in the digita business space will inevitably be affected negatively ... and prices will go up. It already went up with the subscription model in case people did not notice, pay more for less.

 

[PickUrPoison]

From Apple's counterclaims (emphasis added, footnotes omitted):
... Epic in particular had demonstrated that it could not be entrusted with this type of responsibility.

What say you, Epic... 🤣

🍿 🍿 🍿

 

[I7guy]

Neither do I. I would be doing the same. Yet, I’m not Apple.

But Apple in the middle of all the words its kind of nails it. There is not really much at stake but the issue of the 30% shared revenue as a bottleneck for businesses to access their customer given their choice of device. Worst, given the vertical integration put in place, it almost impossible to ascertain its level of fairness through the merits ot the App Store alone. That is the actual market problem ... App Store don’t compete between themselves, devices do.

The very idea that for one to get payed in their App directly, for their services one would need first to be a device manufacturer shows how monopolistic this approach is. If this gets widespread back to laptops and desktops, which it will if this passes, digital businesses ... take care ... and innovation in the digita business space will inevitably be affected negatively ... and prices will go up. It already went up with the subscription model in case people did not notice, pay more for less.

The term "monopolistic" is not for us lay people to decide. The courts will decide that, if at all. We throw that term around as if it were the legal truth, as of this post, it's not.

30% is a pittance considering the amount of investment in an infrastructure to do the same thing. Apple is right to file a counter-suit as the very idea of Epic using Apples platform without paying for it is theft to say the least. Apple built the platform and it's an intrinsic service to IOS and now some devs want that platform for free. That doesn't track.

Apple does mention in it's counter-suit about the platform competition, so we'll see where this goes.

 

[Colonel Blimp]

A dice app is free, it uses up no extra resources, thereby costing Apple nothing to host it. Fortnite uses it's own payment system that also does not use any extra resources thereby costing Apple nothing to host it BUT regardless of that it says such an app cannot be on the store. If both apps are not using up any extra Apple resources thereby costing Apple nothing, one is allowed and the other is not, this creates a disparity, an unevenness, an unfair playing field.

Both apps cost nothing to Apple but just because one of the apps makes money, Apple is not happy that an app is making money and so Apple says it will not have a company making money off it's store unless it's making money also.

It has repeatedly been pointed out to you that reviewing, hosting, and serving free apps costs Apple money.

It costs Apple money to pay their reviewers, not just when an app is released, but every time it’s updated. It costs Apple money to pay for the storage space on their servers, and for the electricity to operate them. It costs Apple money to pay their ISPs for the bandwidth used to serve those apps and updates, which in the case of a game like Fortnite will be quite considerable.

In addition to the ongoing costs of operating the App Store, it also costs Apple money to develop the software that runs the App Store and the APIs and OS on which iOS apps run.

Apple choose to serve free apps for free because Apple deem that it adds value to their platform to pay the hosting expenses for freeware (some of which is of very high quality) for developers who have themselves generously donated their own time at their own expense to develop and make their software freely available.

When the iOS App Store was first rumored, many of us feared that there would be a minimum charge for apps to pay Apple’s expenses. When Steve Jobs announced that the App Store would make freeware available for free, the developers in the hall cheered. Apple were under no obligation to do that, and they still aren’t.

If developers want to make money off of Apple’s time and resources, however, then Apple require those developers to pay their share.

Just what do you imagine would happen if Apple were required to allow App Store games to allow in-app purchases that used a third-party payment processor and bypassed Apple’s cut? If every commercial software developer could simply release a free demo on the iOS App Store and then sell an upgrade in the app for full functionality, without paying Apple a penny? Apple would probably start charging a minimum price for each and every app download and indeed for each and every app update. Freeware would entirely disappear from the App Store.

Also, I’ll note that on your theory, it’s anti-competitive and discriminatory for Epic to collect royalties from developers who make real money from games that use Epic’s Unreal Engine while letting freeware developers use the Unreal Engine for free.