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 Denied Preliminary Injunction for Fortnite, But Apple Can't Block Unreal Engine
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Pages 11 through 20 of the preliminary injunction decision were very interesting, as the Court hinted that there may be merit to Epic's argument on the Sherman Act (without the ability yet to comment on the California State law until trial). No wonder Epic doesn't want a jury trial, as the Court noted it raises "serious questions."
I hope they lose. They are trying to give the appearance of falling on their sword, but it’s anything but. Apple doesn’t just rob them of 30%... it’s agreed to up front and they provide a very valuable service for that amount. If they don’t like it, there are numerous avenues for them to pursue remedial efforts. This comes off as petulant.
Apple doesn’t have a monopoly on apps or platforms. They’ve created a successful ecosystem and deserve to run it how they wish.
Apple doesn’t have a monopoly on apps or platforms. They’ve created a successful ecosystem and deserve to run it how they wish.
Ha tell that to the Youtube gamers and my 9 year old. It's honestly a fun game (minus when the 5 year olds get on and scream into their headsets)
I wondered about this part too. If Epic hasn’t been able to prove it at the very least has a strong case, why hasn’t this just been thrown out as breach of contract, end of.
The App Store monopoly will eventually come tumbling down.
30% is the industry standard. This is not something Apple does out of the blue. Epic knew this going in.
please explain how this is a monopoly when iOS holds a smaller percentage of the market compared to other companies?
I think that this could be a triable issue, something that can be overcome with evidence of a monoplist exercising control. The purpose of marketing isn't "honest", but to draw attention to an issue or product or service. A hotfix could be shown to demonstrate the monoplist's power, a david and goliath scenario, such as how regardless of the merits of a hotfix Apple has discretion to later on revoke that power. All Epic needs to do is call "experts" aka other app developers to testify how Apple changed the terms later on. Who watches the watchmen?
I’m not totally convinced it will. Apple designed and built iOS and the devices it runs on. They’re under no obligation to let third party software run on their devices full stop.
If we took what some developers are asking for into the bricks and mortar world. It’s pretty much the equivalent of Target asking the courts to let them open stores inside Walmart. But in reality it’s up to Walmart what they sell to their customers.
Fortnite is not on app store. Fortnite is still viable and making tons of money. How then is apple app store a monopoly?
I think it’s telling that the only “testimonials” we have heard so far are from developers with an axe to grind against Apple.
The app store does not exist for developers. It exists for us consumers, yet the whole lawsuit seems to treat us as being non-existent.
Why haven’t we heard anything from consumers about how they have supposedly been harmed by App Store rules? Because I believe that once you dig deeper, you will find the majority of users have benefited from the current App Store rules in the form of better security and ease of use, and that they will be generally in favour of a locked down App Store model compared to what you will find on Android or even MacOS.
The app store does not exist for developers. It exists for us consumers, yet the whole lawsuit seems to treat us as being non-existent.
Does Epic really want to climb this mountain? The government had an unlimited amount of money when they went after Microsoft. This is going to be even harder to prove, because even defining the market is going to take forever. Every reference in the judges decision could take years to adjudicate...and that's not necessarily an exhaustive list, because even that list can be adjudicated (ie: it's not necessarily an exhaustive list, or an authoritative list; it's just a list put out by the judge that has the presumption of authority and relevance).
Basically, Epic is screwed.
Basically, Epic is screwed.
The part I bolded isn't quite true. Indeed, Epic was able to get a preliminary injunction (and previously a temporary restraining order) with regard to the Epic affiliates (affecting, e.g., Unreal Engine) even though the court found that Epic had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.
You've correctly paraphrased the Winter factors that apply when considering a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. But a moving party can get a preliminary injunction (or temporary restraining order) even if it is only able to show there are serious questions on the merits, so long as it can show that the balance of equities tips strongly in its favor and it's able to make the required showings on the other two Winter factors.
Your arrogance thinking you know better than the judge is astonishing. The whole reason for this “hotfix” was to give one version to apple’s review team, and then have a totally different version in the hands of the users, with a feature that Epic knew was in breach of their contract with Apple, and which Epic knew would never have passed an app review.
Because it goes to court around May. Can’t be thrown out any earlier than that.
No, that's not what the footnote says at all. The words "this basic distinction" refers to the distinction between using server-gated changes to fix bugs and using them to add new features.
The judge is saying that the record stats that these sorts of changes are only used in serious emergencies. However, that is, in fact, the exact opposite of how they are actually used. Hot fixes to work around bugs are impossible in iOS, because code signature validation prevents it. The only thing you can meaningfully do on iOS is turn on or off features that are already baked into the code.
The other thing you can do, if a lot of your functionality is actually server-side, is to change the server-side behavior, but that, too, is not primarily used for bug fixes; it is, in fact, the way all features on highly server-driven apps are released. And most developers do release them retroactively to the earliest version that supports the feature. Again, this is industry-standard practice.
Now it may be that Epic's lawyers are incompetent, and failed to explain how modern software development works, but regardless of whose fault it is, what I read in this footnote is mind-bogglingly out of touch with the modern world of software development.
As cmaier indicated, it was Epic which described this is a hot fix.
If I remember previous filings correctly, Epic claims that it had long included check-on-start-up functionality in Fortnite. With version 13.40, Epic built into the app the ability to show multiple payment options for IAPs. At start-up the app would check with the server to find out if it should show an additional payment option. At some point Epic's servers started telling the Fortnite app, when it checked, that it should show the additional payment option. So it did. That was the hot fix at issue here.
Apple hasn’t changed any terms later on. Epic tricked Apple’s app reviewers into accepting their app into the AppStore by hiding how it would behave. Not only is it obvious that the app would be removed, but intentionally misleading Apple is a breach of their contract.
Well, if thats the case, I suppose Apple could actually work harder for their 30% and inspect the bundles more closely to see what functionality is in the hot fix.
I think you're going to be disappointed, then.
There will likely be a number of issues that the court rules on between now and the trial. Both parties are likely to ask for summary judgment on at least some of the relevant issues.
It comes down to Marketing !
Did OR Did NOT Apple promote Epic's Games ?
If yes, they have NO ground to stand on ! ... they benefited SIGNIFICANTLY from Apple's marketing help !
As such, they will NEVER win a Pricing Battle with Apple !
Apple has a Stranglehold on App Discovery, & Completely Controls the Narrative in the iOS App Store !
As such, it is Apple's help in Marketing, OR lack there of, that should be of primary consideration !
Specifically, if Apple recommended an App, then Apple is entitled to their agreed-upon cut !
However, if Apple NEVER recommended an App, then Apple's cut should be ZERO !
Just my $0.02.
Did OR Did NOT Apple promote Epic's Games ?
If yes, they have NO ground to stand on ! ... they benefited SIGNIFICANTLY from Apple's marketing help !
As such, they will NEVER win a Pricing Battle with Apple !
Apple has a Stranglehold on App Discovery, & Completely Controls the Narrative in the iOS App Store !
As such, it is Apple's help in Marketing, OR lack there of, that should be of primary consideration !
Specifically, if Apple recommended an App, then Apple is entitled to their agreed-upon cut !
However, if Apple NEVER recommended an App, then Apple's cut should be ZERO !
Just my $0.02.