Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Epic Games Asks Court to Allow Fortnite Back on the App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So lets say you sell a product thats stocked at Walmart.
Do you seriously think you'd be allowed stand at the checkout with a megaphone telling customers that they can buy it cheaper at your shop down the street ?
One huge problem I have is that Apple says they treat every developer the same. Which is clearly not the case, since during the anti-trust hearings it was revealed that Amazon had negotiated a 15% cut. And if anyone could afford 30%, it's amazon.
I'm guessing that Fortnite would be happy to accept 15%, and that's probably what they're striving for.
I'm guessing that Fortnite would be happy to accept 15%, and that's probably what they're striving for.
This isn’t about doing something bad to your phone. it’s about all sorts of things that can happen. An app can give you bad driving directions and you drive into a lake. You can use a banking app and someone sniffs your wifi and steals your account info and empties your bank account. You can press the summon button on the Tesla app and your car crashes through your garage door.
Apple doesn’t want or deserve to be sued for such things.
What I wouldn’t give for Epic to say “fine we will comply with store policy” and Apple to go “naw, it’s to late. Bye-e!”
The standard no warranty clause is in almost every software license agreement on the planet. If you look at any of the Apple agreements you will find a similar "sole risk" sort of language and where possible a limit to warranty on the functioning of the software. If you look at Microsoft's stack you will seem similar limiting language. You do read the user agreements?
Apple have already made it clear with the Apple Silicon Macs that they're going to lock down the Mac even further leveraging similar technology to what they use on iOS. You're right that they're doing it under the guise of "increased security" because it does provide increased security. If someone creates something malicious, Apple can easily revoke those signing keys and neuter the software. Now is it worth that trade off to have those security features that Apple administers? That's ultimately a personal decision for a purchaser of those products. If you don't want those security features then Apple is not selling a product for you.
A long while ago there was an Internet Helpdesk video which had the wonderful line about a Mac being a simple computer for simple people. Whilst it is a parody of a Helpdesk role, in a sense Apple are continuing to sell to this marketing.
[/QUOTE]
I don't think it is. I mean, it might be nice for them to do this, but i don't see a clear legal standing to force a company to do this. "It would be nice if..." isn't really convincing.
I don't think it is. I mean, it might be nice for them to do this, but i don't see a clear legal standing to force a company to do this. "It would be nice if..." isn't really convincing.
Who are they suing for? Is this a class action? And 'greedy ways' are decided against in business since when ... and ... what makes Apple greedy to have access to their customers and a safe, secure environment? Please but an Android and partake the utopia that platform offers...no really. You have a choice.
This is just going to piss off the courts... Apple followed the results of Epic’s previous injunction to the letter and it stated pretty clearly that this entire situation was of Epics own doing and they had the power to fix it.
Epic not only refused to listen to Apple, but they ignored the suggestion of the court and their findings regarding ”irreparable harm” and them basically giving Apple the go ahead to kick them off the store if they didn’t reverse the change. They are basically now filing an injunction against an injunction (I’m not sure if injunctions actually have a formal appeals process tho).
Either way, they have no real argument here, they shot themselves in the foot by filing the first injunction. They might actually have had a stronger case had they waited until they were kicked off, but they were told in advance by both Apple and the court what would happen if they didn’t comply with the appstore policies. The first injunction is literally a shield for Apple as it was essentially the court giving its permission.
Epic not only refused to listen to Apple, but they ignored the suggestion of the court and their findings regarding ”irreparable harm” and them basically giving Apple the go ahead to kick them off the store if they didn’t reverse the change. They are basically now filing an injunction against an injunction (I’m not sure if injunctions actually have a formal appeals process tho).
Either way, they have no real argument here, they shot themselves in the foot by filing the first injunction. They might actually have had a stronger case had they waited until they were kicked off, but they were told in advance by both Apple and the court what would happen if they didn’t comply with the appstore policies. The first injunction is literally a shield for Apple as it was essentially the court giving its permission.
So you think Epic has decided to throw themselves in harms way as a champion for all developers?
This has nothing to do with buying games. You cant compare a freemium game w/in app purchases to a one time purchase of a game without any in app purchases This has NEVER been about the 30% Apple gets for Apps and games purchased on the App Store. I'm pretty sure no developer would complain about that since they realize the costs of hosting the app, the app store it self.
What this ACTUALLY has to do with is EVERY app store and game store OTHER than Apple allows you to link to a website to buy in app purchases. Sony, Microsoft, Google Playstore, Steam, Epic etc have no limitation on you linking to a website to get in app purchases, and no problem saying where the money is going if they do buy within the closed store because it isnt "irrelevant" like Apple says it is you just cant do your own payment method within the app and also for the most part everyone other than apple allows different avenues to purchase game. Like for example on a PC you can buy a game from the developer itself, or on steam, or on the Microsoft store, at game stop etc. Even if a game is exclusive to one store or one console you still have the ability to play the game by downloading the store the game is exclusive to. If it's a console exclusive you can just buy the other console.
THATS JUST GAMES
Neither Sony or Microsoft on their consoles stop Netflix or Hulu or any subscription service app from linking to a website to sign up; thus excluding any take sony or microsoft would have had on the subscription. Hell they even ALLOW QR scanning from computer or phone to bring you directly to the site.
But seeing as your avatar is Tim cook, or maybe you really are Tim Cook! Your view will never change because being in love causes one to be blind to the obvious flaws about whom/what they care about.
The end result of this is going to be epic and it won’t be to Epic’s liking. They are attempting to use the court as a tool and weapon of judicial fiat.
The problem I see here is that Epic is essentially arguing that Apple has a monopoly on its own product. Yeah, all companies do. Epic has a monopoly on Fortnite. You can't buy Fortnite skins from anyone but Epic. It just doesn't make sense. If Apple had 95-99% of the smartphone market, (like Microsoft had of the computer OS market in the 90s), then ok, I can see a problem. But people can buy other smart phones.
I do kinda wish there was the option for us to side-load apps on the iPhone just like we do on Macs. But, Apple doesn't want to do that, and it's their product. They get to decide what it can and can't do. We don't have to buy it; there are other options. They have a monopoly on iPhones, DUH, but they don't have a monopoly on smart phones.
I do kinda wish there was the option for us to side-load apps on the iPhone just like we do on Macs. But, Apple doesn't want to do that, and it's their product. They get to decide what it can and can't do. We don't have to buy it; there are other options. They have a monopoly on iPhones, DUH, but they don't have a monopoly on smart phones.
I think lots of people agree 30% might not be “fair”. But that doesn’t make it illegal. The courts have ruled repeatedly you cannot have a monopoly over your own products. There ARE alternatives. It’s also the standard rate charged by most digital platforms. App developers are also well aware of the fees in advance (and they are lower than traditional distribution methods) and are able to budget them into their plans. If the fees were too cost prohibitive then people simply wouldn’t make iOS apps. They have also never increased since the App Store opened. I’ve never heard of any business being ordered to charge less cause they became successful.
One big distinction people need to make with Apple vs Google & Microsoft is that Apple does not sell or license its OS directly, at all. Apple’s OSs are intrinsically part of the products they are included in just like the App Store or the CPU or the screen, it’s all 1 product.
First off, WTH were you even saying? Second Apple couldn't be held liable in that situation at all. If someone was able to sue just because software that was downloaded to a device messed something up EVERYONE in the world would be rich. All a lawyer would have to do to beat it is to printout a page from Reddit/apple showing numerous examples of other failed updates by third party programs on MacOS alone and then pretty much mic drop it there
Weren't they told two weeks ago what they needed to do to stay in the store?
I thought the court told them that they created this situation (or something in a non-sympathetic tone).
I thought the court told them that they created this situation (or something in a non-sympathetic tone).
Check out the "indirect revenue" section of the Playstation Global Developer and Publisher Agreement where in it states that any revenue generated in relation to a product requires you to remit a portion to Sony if there is any relation to a Playstation device. If anything that model is worse because they're taking the gross amount which means you still have to pay a percentage of the gross transaction to your payment processor as well. Unfortunately the actual revenue sharing amount if redacted in the document though other documentation has shown this to be 30%, the same as Apple.
PC does indeed have a different model to the vertically integrated hardware market, generally as a side effect of the hardware coming from one provider and your operating system coming from a different vendor. The business model in these cases are different to what Apple implements with it's iOS platforms, any of the gaming console platforms or various other vertically integrated devices which ship with a controlled software ecosystem tied to it's underlying hardware.
Apple have a different business model and rule system where they enforce digital goods purchased on the device as needing to be purchased through their platform. They also enforce that you shouldn't be able to provide iOS users a pathway to circumvent this method of Apple generating a revenue. This is likely to ensure that people don't just do an end run around Apple's payment method and there is no monetisation pathway for Apple. Sony or Microsoft have a different model where they're making their primary revenue from fully paid games and don't distribution millions of free games for their platform. Netflix and Hulu are likely using the same agreement as everyone else where as we can see that Sony at least from the earlier link draft per publisher agreements and can put in more specific terms each. None of this is illegal or unusual, if anything it makes the playing field on iOS much more level than it is to put a digital product on a console.
Their argument is: "well, Microsoft and Sony and everyone else take 30% from us and we don't have app stores of our own anywhere else either, but MS and Sony have invested in us, sooo...."
Epic is throwing the corporate version of a temper tantrum.
But one of the reasons that Apple have limited in store purchase, is to protect individuals from the drip feeding of charges that occur. Many reports of children playing games, that the parents thought were free, due to not having to pay for the app, and then large bills coming in. Whilst that is not Apple's fault, or that of the developer, one of the simple edicts Apple have been trying to apple to it's 'products' is simplicity, and ease of use.
Considering the market is so small for Epic, why does it bother. It has a product, and if it wants to sell it through a certain shop, then play by the rules of that shop, or go elsewhere.
How is the indirect revenue even plausible when it comes to in app purchases for games that allow accounts accross multiple devices. Say I have fortnight on PS and xbox and my phone, no matter what console I log into it's the same account with the same shared in game currency. Now that I have played it on playstation but decide to play it on xbox and decide to purchase in game currency is PS along with xbox getting a cut of the profits?
Absolutely on point. I wish people would also go look at what companies and shops add to the products that they sell, in the way of a gross profit margin. If people think 30% is not fair, the loaf of bread you buy in store will be at 40% minimum, Apple's MBP's are well into the 45% market, and don't get me started on cars or wine!
And Walmart is a good example in another way. Walmart pits product suppliers against each other and threatens to drop a supplier if they don’t beat the cost that Walmart can buy it elsewhere. Walmart doesn’t have a total monopoly but especially in small towns they will undercut the competition, both local and regional/national companies until they drive them out of business, at least in that town. And Walmart has been sued because of this practice. They haven’t lost many of these suits. You can say it’s not ethical or moral or good for businesses as a whole that have to work with them but evidently it isn’t illegal. And most national businesses may hate having to deal with Walmart and it’s business practices but they probably wouldn’t hesitate 2 seconds if they could be in the same position Walmart is.
i have no idea how ‘fair’ Apples terms and conditions are, either to its customers or to their developers, but once again I don’t think any of those developers would hesitate if they could have the market and power Apple has, and if they had to be as “unethical“ as they say Apple is it wouldn’t bother them one bit.