Epic Games Expands Fortnite Legal Dispute With Apple to the UK

[Maximara]

Nope, no judge or jury will ever rule for Epic because they know doing so would go against years of precedence and would apply to pretty much any contract that's been signed or agreement that's been entered into. Maybe some future case will be worth striking down the core of contract law, but it won't be this one.

This is what people that support Epic don't understand.

 

[bousozoku]

I was just noticing how a character in Epic Games' Battle Breakers seems to look like Tim Cook now.

 

[gnomeisland]

That's fine, no one is saying get rid of the App Store or that anything changes for you. But if you own a device, you should be able to freely install an app on it without having to go through the App Store. This system obviously works perfectly fine, as demonstrated by the laptops/desktops. Apple and software companies compete in a free market, and consumer choice wins.

Not really. Two reasons, once developers have another option they'll move off the App Store (look at the Mac App Store) and the peace-of-mind for users diminishes the responsibility of vetting an app and securing your phone now falls to the users.

It also isn't as simple going the other direction. Remember, Epic also sued Google because even though Android is "open" they have put up so many barriers to side-loading apps outside the Play Store to solve their inherent platform security issues. Yes, there is economic incentive for Apple and Google to force/encourage/lock you to their store, but saying that's the only reason is purposely myopic.

There are compromises but there aren't easy, obvious answers. IMO, of all the complaints about the App Store, Epic's is the most disingenuous and hampers more legit criticisms.

 

[gnomeisland]

I hope not. It does not “return power to the User” it takes away a perfectly reasonable choice made by the vast majority Apple’s billion+ users to empower slimely companies like Facebook, greedy companies like Epic and a tiny number of misguided users like you.

"misguided" seems harsh but I agree completely. There is a compromise here that some people just don't want to acknowledge. If you really don't see platform privacy & security as valuable then Apple probably isn't the platform for you moving forward. That's meant as an honest observation not a "kick you out of the club" comment. Apple has made this an increasingly important priority.

If they successfully move into AR it will become even more important, not just for establishing trust with Apple users but trust with those *around* the Apple users. AR has the potential to be very invasive tech and could be what finally generates a privacy backlash against the free-as-in-peepshow tech industry—*IF* Apple's big bet on AR pays off. Ironically Epic coulda/shoulda/woulda been a big part of that lucrative market before they stabbed a key partner in the back. Tim's chill but he holds a grudge.

 

[Born2Run]

You do understand that if there is another app store allowed, many apps will be available only on their own app stores? You also understand that those other app stores are unlikely to have Apple’s restrictions on privacy, so you will not know what they are doing and some will likely share your purchase information with advertisers? This is why this is a terrible thing.

But if it's not forced on my device, then I have the choice to install that App Store or not... and the way I see it, if they refuse to go on Apples App Store, then I wouldn't trust it anyway and wouldn't download any of their apps!

 

[FrankieTDouglas]

Not really. Two reasons, once developers have another option they'll move off the App Store (look at the Mac App Store) and the peace-of-mind for users diminishes the responsibility of vetting an app and securing your phone now falls to the users.

It also isn't as simple going the other direction. Remember, Epic also sued Google because even though Android is "open" they have put up so many barriers to side-loading apps outside the Play Store to solve their inherent platform security issues. Yes, there is economic incentive for Apple and Google to force/encourage/lock you to their store, but saying that's the only reason is purposely myopic.

There are compromises but there aren't easy, obvious answers. IMO, of all the complaints about the App Store, Epic's is the most disingenuous and hampers more legit criticisms.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Freedom of choice with how you use the device you paid for and own, is absolutely a value worth supporting.

 

[kmann1983]

Sure, if you feel that "terms you agreed to" are "no good reason".


Nope, no judge or jury will ever rule for Epic because they know doing so would go against years of precedence and would apply to pretty much any contract that's been signed or agreement that's been entered into. Maybe some future case will be worth striking down the core of contract law, but it won't be this one.

"Terms you agreed to" aren't always legal. That part isn't up for discussion. Governments rule in favor of consumsers frequently and is why we have certain rights now.

However it appears you missed the mark at what I was saying. The EU is eye's Apple and how you can't side-load apps (namely, have more control over your phone). They aren't using those specific words, I'm parahphrasing.

Right after the EU announced all this Apple decided to cut their percentage for smaller dev's. Apple is trying to say "there's no excuse NOT to use us, we're the best and would never do wrong" and it's up the the courts to decide how to go.

Remind me, are you required by EULA to get your tires changed at FORD for your FORD? No? But people signed that! Oh wait.. Consumer Rights supercedes it. It Supercedes it because FORD abused it. I expect something similar to happen here.

I know it's going to chap a few asses because I'm not 100% blindly soul bound and loyal to Apple but hey... s'ok

 

[Maximara]

"Terms you agreed to" aren't always legal. That part isn't up for discussion. Governments rule in favor of consumsers frequently and is why we have certain rights now.

Many of which are being stripped away by things like Binding Arbitration clauses.

However it appears you missed the mark at what I was saying. The EU is eye's Apple and how you can't side-load apps (namely, have more control over your phone). They aren't using those specific words, I'm parahphrasing.

So you get another phone that does allow it. You know the one that has ~75% of the freaking marketshare called Android.

Remind me, are you required by EULA to get your tires changed at FORD for your FORD? No? But people signed that! Oh wait.. Consumer Rights supercedes it. It Supercedes it because FORD abused it. I expect something similar to happen here.

Total non sequitur straw man. You are talking about what in the US is called First Sale doctrine and while that existed in the past for software that is no longer true. Software these days is a license which is covered under standard contract law which is what the EULA is. Now the EULA may not be a valid contract but it is up to the customer to prove that.

I would like to point out that Apple's position isn't just on EULA but on the DMCA which was to implement the treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization which the EU is a member of. The key part of those treaties related to this mess with Apple is the anti-circumvention clause:

"...provide adequate and effective legal remedies against any person knowingly performing any of the following acts knowing, or with respect to civil remedies having reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an infringement of any right covered by this Treaty or the Berne Convention:

(i) to remove or alter any electronic rights management information without permission;

(ii) to distribute, import for distribution, broadcast or communicate to the public, without authority, works or copies of works knowing that electronic rights management information has been removed or altered without authority."

 

[gnomeisland]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Freedom of choice with how you use the device you paid for and own, is absolutely a value worth supporting.

I’m not saying it’s a bad thing I’m saying there are always compromises. I’m not sure if you’re missing my point or we just don’t agree on whether “freedom of choice” is an involuble, uncompromising value. If it’s the latter then I see the value but to me some trade offs in time and security are worth giving up a degree of that.

 

[Maximara]

I’m not saying it’s a bad thing I’m saying there are always compromises. I’m not sure if you’re missing my point or we just don’t agree on whether “freedom of choice” is an involuble, uncompromising value. If it’s the latter then I see the value but to me some trade offs in time and security are worth giving up a degree of that.

There is already “freedom of choice”: get an iPhone or get another brand that uses a different service if you don't like Apple's restrictions. See simple.

 

[gnomeisland]

There is already “freedom of choice”: get an iPhone or get another brand that uses a different service if you don't like Apple's restrictions. See simple.

Thanks for spelling it out, but yeah. I do think (understandably, this a site for Apple fans) you see a lot of apologetics who's knee jerk reaction to any criticism is, "well, we didn't want you anyway!" In this case though it seems a matter of priorities/tradeoffs. Apple has been very clear about their choice and if you don't like it the platform will just continue to be frustrating regardless of any legal outcome.

 

[Maximara]

Thanks for spelling it out, but yeah. I do think (understandably, this a site for Apple fans) you see a lot of apologetics who's knee jerk reaction to any criticism is, "well, we didn't want you anyway!" In this case though it seems a matter of priorities/tradeoffs. Apple has been very clear about their choice and if you don't like it the platform will just continue to be frustrating regardless of any legal outcome.

That is what I don't understand about this. Unless the complainers have being living under a rock they had to have known about the restrictions. So if they wanted to easily be able to side load programs why in the name of sanity did they get an iPhone? Better question why do they want to turn the iPhone into the clusterFUBER of a security garbage fire that is android?

 

[theotherphil]

I’m not saying it’s a bad thing I’m saying there are always compromises. I’m not sure if you’re missing my point or we just don’t agree on whether “freedom of choice” is an involuble, uncompromising value. If it’s the latter then I see the value but to me some trade offs in time and security are worth giving up a degree of that.

Freedom of choice isn't an all you can eat buffet though. You can't get a Ford with a BMW engine from the dealership just because you feel like it. You can't walk into MacDonalds and order a Whopper and you can't buy Air Jordan's from Adidas.

In life, you choose the products that suits your needs. If side loading or alternate app stores are your thing, there is literally and figuratively the ability to choose that. If you want a product that is locked down to a single curated app store, then you can choose that too. That is Freedom of Choice.

Buying a locked down product and then arguing that it needs to be open is not only pretty stupid, but what you are arguing for is LESS CHOICE.....as in those that wanted a locked down, single curated App Store NO LONGER HAVE THAT CHOICE.

 

[MBAir2010]

But on this planet, humans can put a BMW engine in a ford, sew 3 stripes on a pair air Jordan shoes and eat a real hamburger than that fast food crap.

What Apple and Google did was make their software concrete and the only 2 choices we have in these phones. whether this is legal, by the rules, non-monopoly or any other term, their are still humans that are not going stand for this for much longer and take action

Good for Fortnite trying and figuring out a way to collect more money for THEIR product, and they did it!