Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney Teases Fortnite Returning to iOS in 2023 as Legal Battle Continues

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

No tech company will ever allow itself to be a gatekeeper in the EU going forward. The rest of the world will benefit from the tech except the EU will be left with the crumbs.

Don't be silly.

The more likely outcome here is the legal precedent set in the EU leads to further regulatory action elsewhere.

 

[AndiG]

Based on the earlier thread on the topic of sideloading, and until Apple unveils their plans for this, I have come to the following conclusion.

1) Apple will likely allow sideloading, but not third party app stores. We also don't know what sort of restrictions will be placed on side loaded apps, so I doubt many people will actually go through the hassle of sideloading Fortnite. In the very least, the absence of Fortnite from the App Store has not impact iPhone sales materially.

2) Apple will still attempt to charge Epic 27% of IAP revenue for apps sideloaded in this manner. At the end of the day, Epic is no better off just agreeing to pay Apple 30% in order to return to the App Store.

Of course the EU gets the final say, but I suspect that Tim Sweeney is celebrating too prematurely here.

3rd party app stores isn‘t something you have to believe in or not. The DMA tells Apple to do so.

„The law means that Apple will not only have to allow third-party app stores but sideloading as well, where users can install software downloaded from the web.“
https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/13/23507766/apple-app-store-eu-dma-third-party-sideloading


Apple could have avoided this, but it was too stubborn for many years. The Epic case is part of the game and could be a reason why Apple's business model „lock customers in, lock competition out“ is coming to an end with the DMA.

 

[Abazigal]

3rd party app stores isn‘t something you have to believe in or not. The DMA tells Apple to do so.

„The law means that Apple will not only have to allow third-party app stores but sideloading as well, where users can install software downloaded from the web.“
https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/13/23507766/apple-app-store-eu-dma-third-party-sideloading


Apple could have avoided this, but it was too stubborn for many years. The Epic case is part of the game and could be a reason why Apple's business model „lock customers in, lock competition out“ is coming to an end with the DMA.

Technically, the DMA says that Apple has to allow either sideloading OR third party app stores. So Apple could argue that they are under no obligation to allow both.

 

[Realityck]

Technically, the DMA says that Apple has to allow either sideloading OR third party app stores. So Apple could argue that they are under no obligation to allow both.

I was thinking that this might be similar to how Movies Anywhere works. You go to a secure web site that the developer uses, and for the iOS/IPadOS product it uses a code that redirects you the App Store for redeeming. The cost is removed for downloading and installing the app. You could use the same web site to buy add-ons that can use the same redemption process bypassing Apple App Store purchasing.

Comparably with MacOS you can purchase and download software from web sites besides via the App store. Seems they could do the same for iOS/IPadOS just allow the App Store to function differently. That way Apple can still sell the apps in the older method as a option for consumers.

 

[Abazigal]

I was thinking that this might be similar to how Movies Anywhere works. You go to a secure web site that the developer uses, and for the iOS/IPadOS product it uses a code that redirects you the App Store for redeeming. The cost is removed for downloading and installing the app. You could use the same web site to buy add-ons that can use the same redemption process bypassing Apple Store purchasing.

The issue with this is that it still doesn’t allow users to install apps otherwise not available in the App Store. There is already a way to get apps onto your device using TestFlight (which I used to help test beta apps in the past), so Apple might continue to build on that?

 

[coolfactor]

In a tweet to celebrate the new year, Sweeney said, "Next year on iOS!" followed by an image of a Fortnite character looking up at fireworks that spell out 2023.

Ummm... "looking up"? How about holding a GUN and shooting at 2023!

Sweeney is a dork. What does that image communicate other than violence and aggression against a year that hasn't even happened yet? Now if it displayed "2022", that would be a different story.

 

[coolfactor]

2) Apple will still attempt to charge Epic 27% of IAP revenue for apps sideloaded in this manner. At the end of the day, Epic is no better off just agreeing to pay Apple 30% in order to return to the App Store.

This is still where the conversation goes sideways...

When you go to the store and buy something, it's likely been marked up 30-50% higher than what that store paid for it. Did the seller "charge the store" 30%? No. It's called markup, and is standard retail practice. The only difference is that Apple has built the markup into all product prices because — it's their store! Just like any store. They own the store.

I feel that Apple would be smart to build a marketplace... allow others to create their own "Apple stores" and set their own prices for apps. Effectively competition within the app marketplace — within the walled garden. It's an interesting concept, but I suppose it would not a true "free market" since then Apple would be the true overseer.

 

[Naraxus]

That’s another thing Fortnite is as about as played(no pun) as it gets. Epic is done and done.

You really have no idea what you're babbling on about do you?

 

[quarkysg]

This is what happens on MacOS. Do you think Apple allowing developers to develop and sell apps for MacOS that don’t go through the App Store is absurd?
If you believe Apple should continue allowing developers to sell apps directly to Mac users, can you explain why your analogy doesn’t cover the Mac?

Why should macOS, iOS, iPadOS, tvOS, watchOS, or whatever OSes that Apple publishes work the same way?

 

[genovelle]

While I don't agree with what Epic did, at the heart of the matter, many people don't think he's wrong. There is a move afoot to force Apple to allow side loading and/or rework their policies regarding what makes or doesn't make the cut into the app store.

Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly happy in the walled garden, the positives outweigh the negatives, but storm clouds are brewing for Apple

The fun part will be when Apple turns their focus to xrOS and presents it with the Apple One/Arcade Model. Direct exclusive partnerships with developers for defined periods and one subscription for all you can eat. The current iOS Store will be a graveyard to them. They will trickle features down from xrOS after a year or two, but the hot new features will come with the Apple One subscription.

 

[svish]

Don't think Fortnite is coming back anytime soon.

 

[theotherphil]

The eu won’t allow apple to charge a fee on apps installed from other stores or from the developer website. Epic will eventually get what it asked for and apple will have to comply. Kudos to epic for making it better for all of us.

The problem being, all Apple's API's are intellectual property and Apple is allow to charge a fee for their use. This has already been ruled on in Epic v Apple.

My feeling is Apple will include all their dev tools at the same costs they do now for developing for the Apple App Store. The dev tools and access to API's for third party App stores will be at a much higher licensing fee and likely tiered based on App sales.

This is literally how every software platform in Europe already does business....API licensing.

 

[DailySlow]

I don't think Tim Sweeney expected this to go as far as it did. It's a shame. Epic made billions on the App Store and then decided they don't like Apple's rules. Most large app stores have the same 30% cut. Yes it's high, but it's not illegal.

As the EU and other heavy-handed government bodies come down on app store policies, we will see the mobile world become and more like the desktop world with a never ending fight of phishing, malware and viruses.

That being said, I definitely think Apple should find a medium to this problem. Lately, my concern with Apple is hubris. It seems that Apple is spending millions fighting legal battles that, ultimately, go against societal changes. Apple should find a way to preemptively come out ahead with these changes because, as the way it seems now, Apple is continuously fighting their way into forced acceptance. These debates are not going away:

Right to Repair v. Authorized Repair Centers
(Lack of charger included in iPhone)
Lighting v. USB-C
RCS v. iMessage
App Store v. Other options
Battery Replacements

Yes, in this real world, right here, the “walled garden“ is the best option for me and has been over the last 10 years - a bit more than an average Apple user but basically lazy and unmotivated to try side-loading. But rationally, could Apple‘s anal fixation with control be a death spiral going forward?

 

[DailySlow]

Not quite. Apple hosts free apps all the time (Fortnite was/is free). This would be the equivalent to a home builder building your home, then requiring you to only buy anything that goes inside your house to be done through them for ever. Need a new light bulb? Gotta go through the home builder.

Now let’s say that you need to replace a lightbulb. It’s stored and distributed by Home Depot. However, because it’s being bought for your house that was built by this builder, you cannot use the point of sale at Home Depot which the processor takes a 2-3% cut of the transaction. They have to now pull out your home builders point of sale that takes a 30% cut of the transaction.

You see, Fortnite hosts the skins, matchmaking servers, etc. Just like Home Depot stores these light bulbs. But Apple still wants a 30% cut of everything just for being a payment processor, and they won’t allow any other payment processor for any digital goods, even though it doesn’t actually host those digital goods.

Then to top it off, they make you believe that it’s to recoup the costs of hosting your app on their store, when in fact they forced you to host it on their store in the first place, giving you no other choices. Even if you already have a successful brand and app and don’t need their discovery/hosting/services/marketing to begin with.

Xlent anology. Wrong, but well done.

 

[strongy]

The eu won’t allow apple to charge a fee on apps installed from other stores or from the developer website. Epic will eventually get what it asked for and apple will have to comply. Kudos to epic for making it better for all of us.

Newsflash you can’t just hop on someone else’s platform and not pay them

 

[Abazigal]

I don't think Tim Sweeney expected this to go as far as it did. It's a shame. Epic made billions on the App Store and then decided they don't like Apple's rules. Most large app stores have the same 30% cut. Yes it's high, but it's not illegal.

It's not just the revenue from Fortnite. If Epic does (eventually) get their way and are able to have their own third party App Store hosted on iOS, this means that Epic will then be able to host other third party apps and charge developers a cut of their revenue. In addition to keeping 100% of earnings from their own apps.

I can see why Epic would want this, and I still don't think that Apple is obligated to let them have their way. So if I interpret the DMA right and Apple does what I think they will do (by allowing only sideloading and not third party app stores), that would be the perfect middle finger to Epic.

 

[strongy]

I guess 11-year-olds will care. For a month, until their parents see the credit card bills.

Which they can’t get ask Apple for a refund for anymore

 

[strongy]

Not quite. Apple hosts free apps all the time (Fortnite was/is free). This would be the equivalent to a home builder building your home, then requiring you to only buy anything that goes inside your house to be done through them for ever. Need a new light bulb? Gotta go through the home builder.

Now let’s say that you need to replace a lightbulb. It’s stored and distributed by Home Depot. However, because it’s being bought for your house that was built by this builder, you cannot use the point of sale at Home Depot which the processor takes a 2-3% cut of the transaction. They have to now pull out your home builders point of sale that takes a 30% cut of the transaction.

You see, Fortnite hosts the skins, matchmaking servers, etc. Just like Home Depot stores these light bulbs. But Apple still wants a 30% cut of everything just for being a payment processor, and they won’t allow any other payment processor for any digital goods, even though it doesn’t actually host those digital goods.

Then to top it off, they make you believe that it’s to recoup the costs of hosting your app on their store, when in fact they forced you to host it on their store in the first place, giving you no other choices. Even if you already have a successful brand and app and don’t need their discovery/hosting/services/marketing to begin with.

30% is not the payment processing fee why are people so out of touch with this

 

[WB2Colorado]

I'm not against side-loading or 3rd party app stores per se. My concern is that big developers will abandon the Apple App Store and sell exclusively from their sites. I trust Apple's App Store. Not so much the other guys.

I'm hoping that Apple will do something like what happens on the Mac side. (Apps have to be signed by Apple to run on the latest OS builds.)

That hasn’t happened on Android and its had sideloading since the beginning. Fact of the matter is not being on the App Store is like not showing up in Google search, your app basically doesn’t exist.

 

[2540497]

I’m not going to use an alternative App Store

 

[marcofan]

The eu won’t allow apple to charge a fee on apps installed from other stores or from the developer website. Epic will eventually get what it asked for and apple will have to comply. Kudos to epic for making it better for all of us.

The EU will not lift a finger against the collection of a fee by Apple if that fee is for the licensed use of its technologies. It is the same thing that Epic applies to anyone who develops a game with Unreal Engine (a percentage of revenues). If Apple requires a tax for allowing a developer to access and use its technology, there is no way for Epic to not pay. The tax can be debated whether it is reasonable, but if one considers the 5% on revenues that Epic charges developers to allow them to use its engine as adequate, then I personally think a 15-30% for an entire ecosystem of technologies is appropriate, too. As a developer, I am not scandalized.

As for the fact that things will go better thanks to Epic, I completely disagree with you. The store rules, although some may seem obscure individually, have a purpose: to prevent very bad stories like this from happening https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/new...ore-half-billion-dollars-over-ftc-allegations

 

[AppliedMicro]

How can Costco dictate what it sells in its store?

It‘s a free market.

That said, I suppose that Costco isn‘t in a retail duopoly controlling the things it sells. And they don’t prevent manufacturers from selling stuff on their own - even if a base product was distributed by Costco.

Technically, the DMA says that Apple has to allow either sideloading OR third party app stores. So Apple could argue that they are under no obligation to allow both.

Irrespective of whether that interpretation is supported:
Isn’t it a wash? Third-party stores allow for installation of other apps - and someone will likely host them liberally? And if you allow sideloading, you can sideload a „store app“.

Did the seller "charge the store" 30%? No. It's called markup, and is standard retail practice. The only difference is that Apple has built the markup into all product prices because — it's their store! Just like any store. They own the store.

What’s not standard retail practice: Retailers preventing manufacturers from selling their products themselves or through alternative channels. That is one of the core issues the DMA addresses.

The problem being, all Apple's API's are intellectual property and Apple is allow to charge a fee for their use.

„the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services.“

 

[I7guy]

It‘s a free market.

That said, I suppose that Costco isn‘t in a retail duopoly controlling the things it sells. And they don’t prevent manufacturers from selling stuff on their own - even if a base product was distributed by Costco.

Irrespective of whether that interpretation is supported:
Isn’t it a wash? Third-party stores allow for installation of other apps - and someone will likely host them liberally? And if you allow sideloading, you can sideload a „store app“.


What’s not standard retail practice: Retailers preventing manufacturers from selling their products themselves or through alternative channels. That is one of the core issues the DMA addresses.

„the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services.“

Now, even if applies to „services“ only, the EU can institute an implementing act on how Apple needs to fulfill compliance.

I think the EU is going to nanny itself into getting the tech crumbs of the tech crumbs.

 

[AppliedMicro]

The problem being, all Apple's API's are intellectual property and Apple is allow to charge a fee for their use. This has already been ruled on in Epic v Apple.

The EU isn’t the United States of America, EU courts of law aren’t the United States District Court for the Northern District of California - oh, and the EU has just adopted new regulation that wasn’t applicable / in force back then.

…which, by the way, does (will, once in force) require gatekeepers to provide some access „free of charge“.

So if I interpret the DMA right and Apple does what I think they will do (by allowing only sideloading and not third party app stores), that would be the perfect middle finger to Epic.

I don‘t see your point.
Epic will be able to sideload a store application.
That store application can provide downloads of third-party apps.
And downloaded apps, again, may be installed („sideloaded“).

Even if your logic with „one of either sideloading or third-party stores is enough“ were allowed (which it won’t be), Apple will retain greater control and leverage over an Epic store - than on individual apps being installed. Nuking or hampering a whole store with its dependent apps is way easier than having to act against dozens, hundreds of individual apps.

The EU will not lift a finger against the collection of a fee by Apple if that fee is for the licensed use of its technologies

They are already doing it with the DMA. They are restricting what Apple can charge fees for:

„the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services.“

 

[strongy]

The EU isn’t the United States of America, EU courts of law aren’t the United States District Court for the Northern District of California - oh, and the EU has just adopted new regulation that wasn’t applicable / in force back then.

…which, by the way, does (will, once in force) require gatekeepers to provide some access „free of charge“.


I don‘t see your point.
Epic will be able to sideload a store application.
That store application can provide downloads of third-party apps.
And downloaded apps, again, may be installed („sideloaded“).

Even if your logic with „one of either sideloading or third-party stores is enough“ were allowed (which it won’t be), Apple will retain greater control and leverage over an Epic store - than on individual apps being installed. Nuking or hampering a whole store with its dependent apps is way easier than having to act against dozens, hundreds of individual apps.


They are already doing it with the DMA. They are restricting what Apple can charge fees for:

„the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services.“

all i here is you don't understand that nothing is free, you will be paying for this and no reasonable court is going to argue with the business's decision either.