How exactly would this make them lose in court? The email literally says they want these rights for all developers. That's not illegal.
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 Sought Side Deal for Fortnite Prior to Lawsuit, Apple Says in Court Filing [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Those are not really APIs. These are parts of OS for which I (phone owner) pay when I buy the phone.
They don't believe Apple offers anything and if they handle the purchase and payment processing without having to rely on Apple's infrastructure and services they are arguably correct.
There is a reason Apple had to impose the use of its IAP and it's because without the imposition it would have quite a hard time in actually competing with the alternatives the big developers can use.
About intangibles, it's true that Epic can profit from Apple's user base, but it's also true that Apple profits from sought-after Apps being available on their platform.
moreover their defence saying otherwise in their email STILL does not state their fighting for “all developers” lol.
this is getting pretty good here. It’s going to be a very LONG drawn out battle and I’m going it does not get “settled out of court”. This needs to be dealt with until the very end.
They argue they are anti-competitive, meaning that they argue they violate anti-trust law.
Which is why the free market allows parties to contract, and test their respective bargaining positions.
I hope Epic wins this fight but judging from what I learned so far about the case things don’t look good for them at the moment.
You miss the point. The App Store offers so much value to developers and users precisely because it doesn't have to compete with alternatives. With all users concentrated in one App Store, this is where developers will naturally gravitate to, which in turn will ensure that users continue to gravitate towards the App Store as well, rather than being fragmented amongst multiple smaller app stores. This in turn give Apple inventive to continue promoting and developing the App Store, because that's where the users and developers are.
The consumer benefits from having all apps in one place, knowing that these apps conform (largely) to Apple's strict App Store rules, and being able to purchase them readily.
This goes back to my argument about all these factors coming together to help ensure the vitality and viability of the App Store. All of which would be greatly diminished with multiple app stores opening up.
I am not sure why people keep arguing that opening up the App Store will result in some kind of newfound utopia when the Google Play Store has already demonstrated otherwise. Piracy is rife, and app revenue pales in comparison to iOS despite the larger install base (which in turn pushes developers to release apps for iOS first or exclusively). If this isn't evidence of how Apple's actions have lead to a healthier and more vibrant App Store economy, I don't know what is.
In reality, I feel the criticism often tends to hype up the benefits (which probably wouldn't be as significant in real life) while playing down or dismissing the drawbacks (which they may be willing to overlook because it doesn't affect them as much, or because it's an "inconvenient truth").
True, but this assumes one of the party is not strong enough to distort the free market. Epic is arguing that Apple has a strong enough position in the market to do that and it's actively leveraging such position of strength anti-competitively.
There is a hotel with two pools, the biggest in best in town, for guest of the hotel. One is a swimming pool and the other is a wading pool both similar in shape and size. The wading pool has rules, no diving, swimming or splashing. Doing so will get you removed from wading pool. Complaining about the rules for not obeying them and making a scene may get you booted from the hotel. Suing the hotel because you believe you should be able to do whatever you want in either pool and that both pools should be open to the public because pool monopoly... SMH.
Kids, if we’re really talking about kids (I presume under 15yrs old) many don’t have liquid funds to purchase an iPhone, those that can is on contract of course or a deal with their carrier. How many can afford to shell out for a decent amount of the games in-app purchases over the course of a year?
let’s say you’re correct. How much time are they kids gaming on an iPhone vs using the same account on the PS4, XBox and Switch spending more time there? Many will still continue to there and still keep to upgrade to yet another iPhone.
a good analogy but you forgot the kid peed in the pool before banned and before suing the hotel. Luckily everyone didn’t have to leave the pool.
I'm very skeptical of this idea: if the App Store is the best place for developers and users, alternative stores would have very little success, if any.
As stated, I believe the fear of competition is a sign of lack of confidence: if you think you have the best product or service you have no reason to fear competitors.
No, people argue that there should not be a monopoly on app store. Apple may set whatever fee they want in their store as long as there are alternative stores.
The Mac has always been an open platform, so people expect that. iOS has always been closed, so people expect it to just work.
Apart from that, the MAC App Store is indeed a horrible experience. I wouldn’t want iOS to become like that.
I'm a little confused as to why everyone thinks this is such a good defense. I think EPIC has been upfront that they wanted to create a competing App Store. You ask first, you don't start with the lawsuit. Did everyone think that EPIC would've sent a letter that said:
Apple's terms would also require a written side deal, which you cannot get if you don't ask:
This email also clearly establishes that Apple ignored or denied their request which is the foundation that EPIC set up for the complaint of anticompetitive behavior. EPIC also clearly states they hope they allow other developers to follow suit. So, how is this a solid defense?
If EPIC opens a competing App Store and only charges 15% instead of 30% that could help other developers. The fact that they make money too doesn't negate the benefit to other developers.
Apple's terms would also require a written side deal, which you cannot get if you don't ask:
This email also clearly establishes that Apple ignored or denied their request which is the foundation that EPIC set up for the complaint of anticompetitive behavior. EPIC also clearly states they hope they allow other developers to follow suit. So, how is this a solid defense?
If EPIC opens a competing App Store and only charges 15% instead of 30% that could help other developers. The fact that they make money too doesn't negate the benefit to other developers.
I would say this is missing the point. It would indeed offer very little benefit to anyone, but it would insert malware into the ecosystem. And malware is not made to stay only on the device of the one that installed it. In the end, everyone would lose.
Curious father here, does anyone know if a consequence of Epics solution could be that I get less control of my kids purchases in apps? Does this bypass family sharing and parental control?
You should read up on case law. Illinois Brick set a precident in 1977 that was used against Apple earlier this year (Apple vs Pepper).
Granted several states are trying to get rid of the doctrine, however the recent judgement by the court showed it still has teeth - at least until it's removed at the federal level.
And, right now, the Illinois Brick doctrine essentially may potentially be used to block Epic from suing under the Clayton Act.
If so it would be fascinating to see the very precident used against Apple earlier this year may be used to help them here.
I'm glad you included "arguably" because I'm arguing. iOS development costs money. Building the dev tools costs money. Continued support costs money. Protecting iOS users from bad actors costs money. Epic wants access to the dev tools and all the phones without making any payment to Apple. If the dev tools aren't to Epic's liking - lawsuit. If Apple doesn't allow root access - lawsuit. If Apple has to disable something another store sold (suppose Epic/TenCent releases WeChatVirus onto iPhones) - Lawsuit. The amount of grief and headache a developer like Epic can cause with whatever paltry payment they'd make to Apple isn't worth it. But if Apple doesn't license the devkit to Epic, you guessed it - Lawsuit.
A 30% fee seems to be industry standard and means that the bigger a developer gets, the portion they pay into the support they get from Apple gets bigger as well. To say Apple is just purchases and downloads is to dismiss a decade or more of world-class development and support as valueless.
Also, if Apple charged, say, a $100k annual fee for dev support to Epic, should they also charge that to someone who might make the next flappy bird? You won't see that Flappy Bird then. But that $100k wouldn't cover the cost of ONE iOS developer for Apple.
I'm affected by this. I got fortnite for free from the App store a month ago. I got the latest version before Apple pulled it. I paid some vbucks to the Apple store so I could get a battle pass. Apple got $3, Epic got $7. Now Epic says they should have got $10 and Apple $0. I don't see how that's fair, and I am going to be orphaned with all the other iOS refugees in a week because Epic is the greedy one here, not Apple.
If Epic prevails and the clauses are found to be in violation of anti-competitive law they would be declared void.
Note that I agree it's a pretty big "if", but the possibility exists.
One word: Security.
Having App Store NOT managed by Apple introduces massive security risk that Apple won’t be able to stop.
With App Store: Apple has build a firewall that protects users from potentially malicious apps. Now, some malicious app does make it in and if it does, Apple has the KILL SWITCH that can be turned on at anytime. They can just turn off part of the code in the app that is malicious or go Thermonuclear by deleting apps completely from user’s device (if it’s a paid app, no refund as stated in EULA)
Companies are allowed to have disparate strength. Unless a specific law is violated, that’s fine.
I'm not actually sure about who will prevail: I think both sides have their valid arguments. In general I tend to err in favour of competition, but that's a personal opinion.
What you say about what Apple offers is true, but it's also true that a platform without Apps is dead. Apple's greatest return of investments is IMHO having sought-after apps available on iOS.