Back in the day you needed to pay for SMS, so the different color meant you were paying for communicating with the other person. There was an actual functional reason for that difference.
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
Back in the day you needed to pay for SMS, so the different color meant you were paying for communicating with the other person. There was an actual functional reason for that difference.
it all depends on who you listen too on here. There are some who say no one cares and no one is playing Fortnite on iOS so I guess if they are right, they've lost little...and then you have the other ones who say so many people can no longer play on iOS that it's the end of Epic. I suspect it is neither in all likelihood. Epic knew exactly what they were doing, they were intentionally provactive and new exactly what Apple would do. Only Epic knows the real stakes and whether it was worth it or not. btw - Epic didn't pull Fortnite off the app store, Apple did that....and Epic expected it to happen. Apple had no choice otherwise the whole world would have been banging at their door.
Well, I'm not a lawyer or a judge, but I'd say that depends....
If Apple just unilaterally decided they wanted to spite Epic and kick fortnite off the App Store - it'd likely be a fairly low bar. The argument would pretty much be - we've been paying all required fees, following all rules, and were just blighted for no good reason.
If there was an interpretation of contract dispute, perhaps similar to the "Hey!" e-mail app, then the bar would probably be 50/60%
But, instead, if you as the developer you unilaterally decide to violate contract terms then the bar is going to be very high, maybe 95% - 100%. For a *preliminary injunction* (which has a higher bar then the initial TRO / Temporary Restraining Order) you'd likely have to be able to point to an absolute "bright-line rule" to justify your action and justify your request for relief (e.g. order Apple to return fortnite to the App Store and allow for Epic Direct IAP).
That may be all your interested in - so you can stop here if it mostly answers your question.
----------------
Overall, though, I'd say the answer is going to be mostly based on what prior similar case precedence has been. I mean, the accusations of some business or another being "anti-competitive" are not brand new or novel. So what's the history of anti-competitive cases (in general and similar to the case being made) been like?
Obviously, that's not going to be the end of it - but it seems to be the largest stumbling block for many that I see. They're just Team A or Team B. For or against. This is why lawyers will spend their entire lifetime in just one single particular part of law - because they need to know the entire history of cases in their corner of law.
I mean, you or anyone on this forum, may in their heart of hearts feel that 30% is too much and Apple shouldn't be able to deny you 3rd party App stores. But, when the FTC itself says, regarding Sherman Act, section 2, that it has historically been interpreted to mean "it is not illegal for a company to have a monopoly, to charge "high prices," or to try to achieve a monopoly position by what might be viewed by some as particularly aggressive methods." Then that means you're going to have to show how Apples actions deviate from "something other than merely having a better product, superior management or historic accident."
This isn't to say there aren't things that Apple does that harm developers or consumers - but those are different cases. On this topic, though, Epic has an uphill battle. And the forum favorite bullet points of "monopolies are illegal, period." or "high prices" or "Apple is maintaining its monopoly by only allowing its own App Store and no others" don't have significance unless Apple is deviating from the rest of the market. Which isn't the case, since as far as Apple locking out any competing "app" stores - that is identical to what happens on Playstation, Xbox, and Nintendo game systems. As far the as 30% - Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Google, Steam, they all charge that amount. Epic can deviate for the better. And Google can deviate, again for the better, to allow for 3rd party app stores. But, this doesn't mean that because the xBox, Nintendo, and Playstation systems don't - that they're anti-competitive. Or, explain, why is it legal for them, but not for Apple.
So for a number of reasons, Epic's case is viewed as being very weak, based on historical interpretation of anti-trust law. Epic has stronger points where they discuss how the App review process isn't clear cut and straight forward. And that Apple maybe denying apps not based on rules violations, but because they compete against Apples own interests. But, any win on these points is unlikely to result in what Epic and Apple critics are arguing for - a 3rd party App Store and reduction of the 30% revenue cut.
Moreover, the judge is saying, more or less, that they don't feel Epic is even being honest in the claims it's bringing forward based on Epic's own conduct and refusal to understand basic distinctions (i.e. the doctrine of clean or dirty hands).
Last edited:
As I indicated elsewhere, yes I know. They all followed Apple. I thought it was clear from my note that I felt that way from the very beginning of Apple announcing the fees and continue to. Whether others followed suit is actually irrelevant to my point.
I think the judge summed it up nicely. There are hotfixes, yes, but it would be like a family-friendly app suddenly adding porn. It's a MAJOR change in violation of a contract, and they asked permission explicitly before doing it and were explicitly told no... How is the judge's reaction baffling in any way?
But, wouldn't you need to disclose those "flag-guarded features" to Apple? Especially when the "flag-guarded" feature is 3rd part IAP - which is prohibited? I'm not saying that Epic can't disagree with the terms and conditions of it's developers agreement or the App review process. But, Epic didn't need to get the Fortnite app banned to have it's case. If Epic is owed money because Apple is illegally denying them 3rd party IAP then the injury has already happened, the case is ripe for adjudication, and the dispute can be solved by a monetary reward and a lasting (final) injunction to provide 3rd party IAP or 3rd Party iOS app store.
Instead, Epic decided to shoot itself in the foot. They knowingly violated a contractual rule and got themselves banned as a result.
If instead Apple banned Fortnite, as a result of the lawsuit, then their would be a straight forward reason why the judge would issue a TRO or preliminary injunction to reverse that.
yep
however bulk of the money that epic makes from UE is the triple A games. borderlands 3 alone brought in tens of millions of dollars to epic. this is why epic basically announced they’ll waive fees on the first million dollars since the royalties from indies are peanuts to them and they rather grow the indie base so that potentially there will be more triple A UE titles in the future
No particular threshold. But the higher the likelihood of success on the merits, the lower the bar required for other relevant factors (like effect on the parties, effect on the public, etc.)
I agree. And you are correct: Apple pulled the plug. But I do think that epic’s hotfix decision will come back to bite them.
But surely if the contract wasn’t valid then Epic would have no right to access to the App Store at all?
Last edited:
I assume by “to right” you meant “no right.”
Maybe. It’s possible for specific terms of contracts to be invalidated by a court while the remaining terms remain in effect. Often times contracts actually have clauses that say “if any clause (or if some specific clause) is found invalid, the remaining terms remain in effect.”
As a developer you can also ask Apple for an “expedited review”. I had to do that _once_ in my career, which is once too many, and it took about seven hours from support telling us we had a problem, to the app blocked (by us), to a fix, to the new version in the store.
This will all eventually go to court. The court will decide whether Apple can ban fortnite and whether Apple can ban unreal engine. With a preliminary injunction, the court minimises unfair damages that happens before the court decision. So the court decided that allowing fortnite on the store will likely cause a lot of damages because it’s costly for Apple and epic is likely to lose or both. For unreal engine, not banning it will apparently cause less damage to Apple and epic might be more likely to win.
Importantly this all has to be decided by the court.
I don’t think that analog is correct. It is more like Pepsi complaining about how much Walmart keeps of the retail price and wanting to force Walmart to keep carrying its product and dictate to Walmart the profit it needs to make. The irony is companies like Amazon and Walmart are always putting pressure on companies to reduce the wholesale price so the companies like Walmart and Amazon make more. Apple hasn’t changed the price at all and has added more ways for developers to make more through in app purchases. Developers don’t have to develope for Apple but they do because that is where the money is at.
Stop defending Apple. Apple is the reason we don’t have AAA titles on Mac computers. Apple is a dick company to deal with, just like Steve Jobs and Sony blue ray talks. Steve didn’t want to play sony game with the price for blu ray on macs. Now you can get blu ray drive for your mac, no dealing with Apple and sony. Apple could’ve just told them to fix the apple instead of banning them, this is hurting the gaming market on macs.
Stop blaming everything on Piracy. Companies are at blame not piracy. Let’s look at apple an MacOS X server. Can I download or buy old version of Server that work under High Sierra for my Mac ? No so apple company drive people to seek out bootleg version instead of hosting all their on the apple store.
so blame companies like apple that are dicks to their customers.
Epic games gives me free games every week. Apple never give me free anything for being a loyal customer.
Apple could flip the switch for EPic, but if so, then every other company like Sotify would be on on this 'deal' as well.
Suddenly Apple would be be eroded from the inside, out. Companies go in thinking they wanna have control when they can't get their way when condititions change... I wish i could think like that
Suddenly Apple would be be eroded from the inside, out. Companies go in thinking they wanna have control when they can't get their way when condititions change... I wish i could think like that
You get every OS release for free. For all the devices you own.
I don’t think it’s any coincidence that the iOS App Store earns more than the google play store despite having way fewer users. Even developers have come out on record stating that the incidence of piracy on android is higher compared to iOS.
I am not blaming everything on piracy, but you can’t deny that it definitely impacts the number of apps a developer sells and the money they earn at the end of the day.
If not for apple, there wouldn’t be Mac computers.
The logic of your statement is pretty faulty.
Really?
The free U2 album 'Songs of Innocence' was a debacle for Apple fans on September 9, 2014 | AppleInsider
In a big surprise at its fall event ten years ago, Apple presented a free copy of U2 album 'Songs of Innocence' to everyone with an iTunes account — whether they wanted it or not. It was one of the biggest misfires of the Tim Cook era, and it's still not forgotten.
appleinsider.com
Texas Hold’em
Apple’s Texas Hold’em is back! To celebrate the 10 year anniversary of the App Store, we’ve brought back one of its first games, a popular classic. Originally created for iPod, then brought to iPhone, fans will love the polished redesign, featuring new characters, more challenging gameplay, and...
apps.apple.com
Not to mention every OS update, lots of first party iOS apps over the years, etc. etc.