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 Says Court 'Reached the Wrong Answer' and Made 'Multiple Legal Errors' in Apple Fight
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Responding to Apple's claim that sideloading or alternate app stores would compromise the security of the iPhone, Epic Games again points toward the Mac, where apps can be downloaded outside of the Mac App Store. Epic believes the only consequence of support for alternate app stores would be Apple having to "compete for its customers."
Apple shouldn't have to compete against random app stores on the platform that only exists due to Apple themselves. You compete by making your own products. So go make your Epic (failure) phone, and ****.
Guess I'm one of the only people in the world that agrees with most (if not all) of Epics position.
You're not.
The problem is complete ignorance of anti trust law (and most other things) doesn't stop people from their hot takes. Why let something like knowledge get in the way?
It's a close call with compelling arguments on both sides. But given the equities and law, I think Epic stands on solid ground.
When a company is complaining about royalties on a free product the FTC should start a deceptive business practices investigation.
For example. like I'm sure many others, I installed Fortnite on my apple products (distributed by Apple for free),
then bought the passes for myself and kids. Then Epic violated the terms of their contract with Apple and so to continue progressing in the game we all had to switch platforms. Was I unreasonable in purchasing Epic's software by assuming that Epic would continue to support their game and not breach the terms of the app store? The key determinants are below
1. Substantial injury to consumers (in aggregate, be interesting to know how many customers this affected).
2. Consumers were not able to avoid the injury (obviously).
3. The injury must not be outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition (no benefits).
For example. like I'm sure many others, I installed Fortnite on my apple products (distributed by Apple for free),
then bought the passes for myself and kids. Then Epic violated the terms of their contract with Apple and so to continue progressing in the game we all had to switch platforms. Was I unreasonable in purchasing Epic's software by assuming that Epic would continue to support their game and not breach the terms of the app store? The key determinants are below
1. Substantial injury to consumers (in aggregate, be interesting to know how many customers this affected).
2. Consumers were not able to avoid the injury (obviously).
3. The injury must not be outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition (no benefits).
It seems like that example proves Apple's point, since the Mac does occasionally suffer from malware attacks (usually as a result of an enduser installing something), while stock iOS almost never does.
There is no consumer harm. Remember, Fortnite was a free app. Furthermore, any remedy or correction is likely to cause consumer harm. Epic has also failed to demonstrate any anticompetitive practices.
It's an absurd case by traditional US antitrust standards.
I'm with you. While I do agree that Epic could have approached this differently and they certainly did breach their contract with Apple, they have started the conversation around antitrust in the Apple app store ecosystem and sideloading and those conversations are very important for the overall industry. What's funny is that I feel like a much larger percentage of comments on posts concerning just sideloading or just app store antitrust are critical of Apple. I honestly think people are mostly just angry that they can't play Fortnite because of Epic's poor execution at the beginning of this discussion and they're not separating out their thoughts.
If I recall correctly, early on Apple offered Epic a list of remedies that would get them back on the App Store while the dispute dragged out in the courts. Basically Epic had to remove the offending links and promise not to do it again until the courts ruled. Epic refused with a response like "We're not going to take part in a crooked system!". This was back when they expected their user base to screech and scream to pressure Apple into caving in. They were probably also hoping for an injunction in their favor but that didn't happen.
Surprise, surprise, the kids found something else to do. I did as well. I was an active player on my iPad until Sweeney decided I had to suffer for his profit optimization scheme.
You couldn't until like last week and only now through xCloud. They weren't getting any new players since nobody could download it, and they weren't getting microtransactions from Apple users since they can't be purchased any more. Of course there's always the option to unofficially sideload....but Apple doesn't like that.
Well, I guess if you wanted to be pedantic, Epic technically isn’t losing any money. They just aren’t making as much as they could have.
This might speak to my posts. It's quite the opposite. Antitrust usually focuses on consumer harm and anticompetitive conduct. These factors are not present on the Apple position. Yet Epic has caused consumer harm.
I separately think that some developers are mad that they have to pay 30% fees without recognizing industry standard distribution costs and other services. These costs seem pretty reasonable to me.
I'm glad you don't let your lack of legal training restrain your hot-take-ability. (If it was absurd, it would have been thrown out long ago... obviously)
Which states license you to practice law? I'm licensed in Arizona and California.
Tim Sweeny believes you have reached the wrong conclusion.
I think what Epic is trying to do and it's a good tactic is that they are trying to get the courts to see that the defence arguments Apple are making about the ios app store are invalid because Apple do not apply the same reasoning to the mac os app store which in principle is very similar to the ios app store. So, if Apple are saying security will be compromised if they were to allow side loading for ios app store, why do they allow side loading for the macos app store. Everything Apple is saying about the ios app store being bad if they were to open up it is the total opposite of near identical app store then run and operate for macos app store.
Epic thinks their store will eventually be profitable, and has a huge vested interest in getting third party app stores everywhere. Basically they see the money Apple makes and want you to pay them instead. They are flat out lying to the court too, as they will for sure try to get exclusives that make you download the Epic Store on your iPhone. If that happens, Tim Sweeny better be jailed for perjury.
Apple are guilty of doing the same with their patent lawsuits
If you're a lawyer, you should know I've hired a lot more lawyers than you. I mean really? Do you really want to have an anonymous credibility fight?
Here's another hot take, because I am not practicing law on macrumors. You haven't addressed anything of substance (consumer harm? predatory practices?). Since US vs Microsoft, courts have been trying to grapple with zero pricing, and a lot of what was decided around that was really problematic (one of my advisors was an expert witness for that case, also not a lawyer). The theory on what was decided there is still a mess and the case is still absurd (though ended more or less in the right place, consistent with my many hot-takes on this topic for the last year).
Last edited: