Epic Games Pays Apple $6 Million as Ordered by Court

[cardfan]

It’s always been obvious to me that Epic want to have their apps on the App Store, even their own App Store on iOS devices and not have to pay apple a cent.

Look at how they behaved with Google. When Fortnite first launched on android it wasn’t available on the play store. You had to side load it from Epics website. Which is possible on android. In this way Epic kept all of the profits but were not breaking any rules. About a year later they decided they would have their app on the Google play store. They obviously felt they could get more customers this way. They put fortnite on the Google play store and agreed to pay the 30% cut. Then they pulled the exact same stunt as they did with apple. They put their own in app payment methods directly in the app. This obviously breeched the terms and conditions and the app was removed from the store. This however shows that they want all of the benefits of using Apple and Google’s App stores but don’t want to pay for it. The fact that on android they can bypass the play store altogether and that there are also alternative app stores. Yet these bozos thought they should get their app on the biggest App Store and pay nothing.

They shouldn’t have to pay apple a dime. Apple benefits from having them on iPhone. Epic benefits as well. Win win. Not enough for apple.

The vast majority of apps don’t pay anything to apple besides the annual fee. I know we don’t. And never will. Of course I don’t mind devs like epic paying apple. Better them then me. Lol.

 

[ponzicoinbro]

Ugh, his tweets are so, so cringe.

He’s part of that wave of ceos and vcs who think it’s totally normal to act cringe all the time because then they’ll get more stupid fans, mostly fake accounts made by some farm somewhere.

 

[Velli]

It'll be insteresting to see if Epic tries to put the two versions (iOS and Mac) back to working for the users.

Wow Epic really isn't going to bring either platform, Mac or iOS, back? I guessed he might, thinking he possibly killed both forks back at the start, but to see him actually do it! What a huge amount of money and customer goodwill he just ran over, again, with a tank - what a (insert descriptive adjective of choice here).

I would assume Apple was going to approve the game coming back since it would look good on their side in many ways (and they had offered to since the beginning). (making no mistake if Job's were in charge Epic would never be allowed on either platform again - seems like Epic has taken that quandry out of Apple's hands)

It just proves that his motivation is much larger than Fortnite profits. He will fight this fight until he gets his own app store on iOS (which I think will never happen, and should not).

 

[Aydo2000]

It’s always been obvious to me that Epic want to have their apps on the App Store, even their own App Store on iOS devices and not have to pay apple a cent.

Look at how they behaved with Google. When Fortnite first launched on android it wasn’t available on the play store. You had to side load it from Epics website. Which is possible on android. In this way Epic kept all of the profits but were not breaking any rules. About a year later they decided they would have their app on the Google play store. They obviously felt they could get more customers this way. They put fortnite on the Google play store and agreed to pay the 30% cut. Then they pulled the exact same stunt as they did with apple. They put their own in app payment methods directly in the app. This obviously breeched the terms and conditions and the app was removed from the store. This however shows that they want all of the benefits of using Apple and Google’s App stores but don’t want to pay for it. The fact that on android they can bypass the play store altogether and that there are also alternative app stores. Yet these bozos thought they should get their app on the biggest App Store and pay nothing.

I couldn’t say it better. You explained it perfectly. It is mind boggling to me how some people think it’s ok to use someone else’s platform but not feel like they need to pay anything for the privilege. Do these people live in apartments where they don’t need to pay money to their landlords? I know for sure I receive a bill for my mortgage every single month. I know the reality I live in.

 

[Overture_1622]

"Fortnite will return to the iOS App Store when and where Epic can offer in-app payment in fair competition with Apple in-app payment, passing along the savings to consumers,"

So when I go to the shop to buy a pair of shoes, I should be able to buy the shoes from the shop who are stocking the item for you, giving them a cut, or buy directly from you "in fair competition", cutting the shop out, even though I bought them from that shop and that shop has paid the overheads on stocking and selling your shoes for you. And then you brand it as "passing the savings along to consumers"

This Sweeney guy is off his head.

Well, yes.
If there only exists two shoe shops in the world and they charge you an annual fee if you want to sell your shoe brand in their store. Then it's absolutely reasonable to let the customer choose how to pay for the shoes.

Actually, it should be illegal for the two shoe shops to use scare tactics in order to make the customer pay 30% extra via their payment option.

 

[hot-gril]

Just how much did users spend on iOS during those few hours before Apple suspended them?!?!?

Well, it was a rare discount for them.

 

[Velli]

They shouldn’t have to pay apple a dime. Apple benefits from having them on iPhone. Epic benefits as well. Win win. Not enough for apple.

The vast majority of apps don’t pay anything to apple besides the annual fee. I know we don’t. And never will.

Do you realise that one outcome of killing the app store business model coukd very well be to set a license fee based on company revenue? This is how licensing works in many other businesses. The fact that you will never pay fees for your app should make you HAPPY about the current business model. You are getting a free ride.

 

[Velli]

Well, yes.
If there only exists two shoe shops in the world and they charge you an annual fee if you want to sell your shoe brand in their store. Then it's absolutely reasonable to let the customer choose how to pay for the shoes.

Actually, it should be illegal for the two shoe shops to use scare tactics in order to make the customer pay 30% extra via their payment option.

It’s a poor analogy in the first place, trying to reverse it does not make it better…

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Epic should pay, it breached the contract.

But wow, 20 million in such a short time on a “free” game is a testament to the power of the franchise. Customer just happen to choose the Apple device.

Now 6 million, even Apple admitted in court that the fee was just to pay IP, in devs terms OS APIs and docs in users devices, not the ability to sell or distribute the App.

 

[Da_Hood]

It just proves that his motivation is much larger than Fortnite profits. He will fight this fight until he gets his own app store on iOS (which I think will never happen, and should not).

Sweeney will be jailed, wire fraud in that scenario. Surprised class action on behalf of Apple in app customers wasn”t launched immediately. FBI should be watching closely.
This and the threat to Unreal dev account makes Sweeney look a little inbred

 

[Velli]

Apple has already said no to Epic’s attempt to put it back in the iOS store, because Epic refuses to follow the store rules.

Given that the ruling is that Apple is not a monopoly, I believe Apple can deny Epic in their store for whatever reason they feel like. I may be wrong, not a legal expert. But I believe that if they just happen to think Sweeney is a d**k, they don’t have to sell his products.

I’ll be that guy: Imagine this fight if Steve was still alive…

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Do you realise that one outcome of killing the app store business model coukd very well be to set a license fee based on company revenue?

Yeah but back in the day of Apple came out and told the market that would be charging 30% in royalties instead of the App Store … would be a dead duck!!! Anyone with a minimal understanding of the software industry can easily tell you that such a markup to access an OS APIs and docs is way over market prices.

So arguing that the App Store simply a different mechanism to charge for royalties / IP is not at least an intellectually honest argument.

By the way, don’t think the issue is one of killing the App Store. Anyway, personally multiple App Stores … don’t think is necessary but hey …

 

[Aydo2000]

They shouldn’t have to pay apple a dime. Apple benefits from having them on iPhone. Epic benefits as well. Win win. Not enough for apple.

The vast majority of apps don’t pay anything to apple besides the annual fee. I know we don’t. And never will. Of course I don’t mind devs like epic paying apple. Better them then me. Lol.

Use the same argument with your landlord. Tell your landlord you shouldn’t pay a dime for rent because you spend most of your day at work. Tell him he benefits from having you around and his cost of maintaining the apartment is an irrelevant argument. Make sure he understands your point by clearly stating you believe in paying for something only if it’s convenient for you. Let us know how that conversation goes.

 

[contacos]

I don’t get it. The court ruled that Apple needs allow developers to add external payment option links in their apps, then why do they have to pay 6 mio bucks back

 

[Aydo2000]

Well, yes.
If there only exists two shoe shops in the world and they charge you an annual fee if you want to sell your shoe brand in their store. Then it's absolutely reasonable to let the customer choose how to pay for the shoes.

Actually, it should be illegal for the two shoe shops to use scare tactics in order to make the customer pay 30% extra via their payment option.

Yes, sure. Because paychecks to employees are a one-time cost and not a monthly expense, right?

Business is a continuous structure. Not a snapshot in time.

 

[Velli]

P

What are You talking about? That is THE argument. Calculations end with how much they save by not using Apple payment. They will pass on their costs of business, and will round to nearest whole dollar for your convenience, because math hard.

I think the math may be wrong. They increased the price of 1000 vbucks on iOS to cover the additional 30%.

The usual price of a 1000 vbucks is 7.99 - add 30% to that and you get $10.38, so if anything they took a hit of 37c.

Edit: The 30% is taken off the 9.99, the usual price is still 7.99 when buying elsewhere so Epic took as hit when selling on iOS through Apple’s IAP. If the sold the vbucks for the 9.99 minus the 30% they would be selling vbucks cheaper than anywhere else.

It’s the other way round. You don’t add 30%. Apple takes 30% of the full amount. So if you want 1000 for yourself, the math is 1000/70*100=1428. Apple takes 30%=428, you get 1000. If you only add 30% to make up for Apples cut, you are cheating yourself.

 

[klunernet]

They shouldn’t have to pay apple a dime. Apple benefits from having them on iPhone. Epic benefits as well. Win win. Not enough for apple.

The vast majority of apps don’t pay anything to apple besides the annual fee. I know we don’t. And never will. Of course I don’t mind devs like epic paying apple. Better them then me. Lol.

This is common on every platform. Android, Xbox, PlayStation. Apple did not make up the 30% Rule. And neither does the new ruling change the 30% rule. It just allows developers to have their own mechanisms.

 

[Vjosullivan]

Pass the savings on to consumers? No Fortnite currency will cost the exact same and Epic will pocket the 30%.

There will never be a discount passed along to gamers….. ever.

Epic will still have to charge 30% precisely because Apple conditions do not permit apps, etc. on their store to be available from a third party source at a price lower than on the Apple store.
This whole fiasco blew up because Epic wanted to sell at a lower price than Apple wanted.

 

[Aydo2000]

I don’t get it. The court ruled that Apple needs allow developers to add external payment option links in their apps, then why do they have to pay 6 mio bucks back

Because of “Doctrine of clean hands”. Epic decided to be the judge on their own and breach the contract because they felt it was “unreasonable” BEFORE they brought their case to court. Courts don’t award self proclaimed judgments. If you have disputes, you bring it to court and the courts will settle it for you. You need to have clean hands before you show up. Epic didn’t and that’s why they need to pay.

 

[Vjosullivan]

Apple did not make up the 30% Rule.

They did. No one else made them charge 30%.

 

[rukia]

It’s always been obvious to me that Epic want to have their apps on the App Store, even their own App Store on iOS devices and not have to pay apple a cent.

Look at how they behaved with Google. When Fortnite first launched on android it wasn’t available on the play store. You had to side load it from Epics website. Which is possible on android. In this way Epic kept all of the profits but were not breaking any rules. About a year later they decided they would have their app on the Google play store. They obviously felt they could get more customers this way. They put fortnite on the Google play store and agreed to pay the 30% cut. Then they pulled the exact same stunt as they did with apple. They put their own in app payment methods directly in the app. This obviously breeched the terms and conditions and the app was removed from the store. This however shows that they want all of the benefits of using Apple and Google’s App stores but don’t want to pay for it. The fact that on android they can bypass the play store altogether and that there are also alternative app stores. Yet these bozos thought they should get their app on the biggest App Store and pay nothing.

Of course. Sweeney is a hypocritical clown. The irony is that this attempt to deprive a platform operator of their fee comes from a former developer who built his $7B+ fortune by charging a 5% royalty on his platform. His statement about "passing along the savings to consumers" is also interesting. Instead of passing on "savings" from fees which belong to another company he could have cut his 5% Unreal royalty to 1%. Of course he wouldn't pass along savings that comes out of his own pocket. Also, it's unfair that the Unreal EULA requires developers to report their game revenue to Epic. Given that Unreal seems like a "monopoly" developers should have to right to protect their privacy by alternatively recording their revenue on napkins which they can store in their back pocket.

 

[klunernet]

I don’t get it. The court ruled that Apple needs allow developers to add external payment option links in their apps, then why do they have to pay 6 mio bucks back

Because a) epic violated a contracted they agreed with.
b) the ruling does not change the 30%, which is why apple called the ruling a validation of the AppStore businessmodel.

so, it will only make things more complex for developers choosing that route. (Thus more expensive)

 

[klunernet]

They did. No one else made them charge 30%.

It is an industry standard. Everyone charges 30%. Android, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo. It has existed for far longer then apple has an AppStore.

 

[Vjosullivan]

Because of “Doctrine of clean hands”. Epic decided to be the judge on their own...

No. Apple were unwilling even to talk about negotiating on their onerous App Store conditions. This was the only way that Epic could force the issue into the open.

 

[Aydo2000]

No. Apple were unwilling even to talk about negotiating on their onerous App Store conditions. This was the only way that Epic could force the issue into the open.

That’s why courts exist: to settle disputes. The “only way” is to file a claim if you believe you have a claim.
This is how courts work. I didn’t invent it.