Epic Games Sought Side Deal for Fortnite Prior to Lawsuit, Apple Says in Court Filing [Updated]

[alien3dx]

What does this even mean? B2B B2C? We are talking about Fortnite here. Apple shouldn't test any apps?

yes for b2b , customize software are frequent changed on the spot depend customer need and Apple no need to test it because they didn't all business flow requirement. For now Apple just pure testing User Experince and developer must follow their rule if upload the their apple store.

Fornite not custom b2c or b2b, so i would said one thing "EXTERMINATE"(dalek)(dr who) .

 

[Ethosik]

You're missing the point. Those examples are not the same as Epic. Apart from processing the payment, Apple has nothing to do with in app purchases. And, Apple doesn't even need to process the payment (which most payment companies charge 3% or less, not 30%) when Epic can accept and process payment for a much cheaper price. The games do not run on Apple servers. Apple does nothing after I've downloaded the app onto MY device. They delivered it to me...that's all. If they want to charge devs 25 cents to transfer a few MB's to me, fine. But not 30% of BILLIONS.

But this is something that you as a developer agreed to. You know up front Apple takes a cut on in-app purchases. You can do what Netflix does and you can sign up on your computer, then just log in on the iOS app. Epic could do the same thing, have a subscription model, get X VBUCKS or whatever they call it a day/week depending on your subscription level.

Problem solved. You purchased it on something else, and it bypasses the in app purchases.

Developers know up front there is a 30% cut on purchases and in-app purchases.

 

[Ethosik]

yes for b2b , customize software are frequent changed on the spot depend customer need and Apple no need to test it because they didn't all business flow requirement. For now Apple just pure testing User Experince and developer must follow their rule if upload the their apple store.

Fornite not custom b2c or b2b, so i would said one thing "EXTERMINATE"(dalek)(dr who) .

I do not know what you are saying.

 

[alien3dx]

I do not know what you are saying.

doesn't matter understand or not. Conclusion is still the same for me for the same argument on each post.

Just freakin follow the rule EPIC . You not the saviour of developer.

 

[Ethosik]

Personally, I feel that this is bigger than any one app or developer.

What is really at stake here is App Store viability and vitality, both of which are important to Apple and Apple users, but which the critics seem to be all too ready to cast out in the same of some arbitrary notion of "openness" and "freedom".

One cannot deny that the App Store has benefited hundreds of millions of people and millions of developers. The App Store is an equalizing force which has made it possible for an independent developer to reach a billion Apple users, by virtue of Apple having aggregated the best users (thanks to the iPhone) and making it extremely easy for them to spend money (thanks to iTunes having all their payment information on hand, and biometrics making the buying experience fairly seamless).

What Epic wants is to be about to go around all this and have their own App Store. Regardless of whatever Epic says about wanting to fight for the benefit of the average developer, I don't believe their words one bit. They aren’t going against the App Store to empower users or developers. The idea that Epic is looking out for the user is just a ploy. Instead, Epic is focused on grabbing more power. As such, it's not surprising that Epic isn't going after Sony (since Sony has a small stake in Epic). Epic of all companies knows very that the future of gaming is on mobile. That's where the money is, and it's controlled by Apple and Google.

Over the weekend, it has become painfully clear that Epic isn't so much going after what they viewed as unfair or illegal App Store guidelines as much as they are looking for power on mobile operating systems. Epic sees the power Apple wields with their ecosystem, a power that Apple has painstakingly built up over the past decade, and Epic just wants to barge in and help itself to a generous serving of the pie just like that just because.

I continue to maintain that the current design of the iOS App Store results in the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of users. Apple continues to focus on doing what is best for consumers, and it is in consumers' best interests that the App Store not become a loss leader that is being propped up by cash from elsewhere, or see users abandoning the App Store and seeking apps elsewhere (eg: alternate app stores).

In this context, I think I am starting to understand why Apple is hesitatant to allow game streaming platforms like xCloud in their App Store. While it's probably more similar to Netflix as far as technology is concerned, Apple probably feels that such services have the potential to eventually become their own app stores some day. Which then goes back to my original statement about them possibly disrupting the viability and vitality of the App Store.

Apple doesn't have a monopoly in smartphones or (by extension) app distribution. What Apple does have a monopoly in is a premium user experience, and this really says more about the state of the competition than it does about Apple.

Epic's "I want to burn down the current world order and replace it with my own" argument isn't finding much traction or resonating with many people, and it shows how over the weekend, even the comments on this matter have largely become more positive in favour of Apple. They are going about it all wrong, and while Apple probably doesn't want to appear too vengeful so as not to come across as being a big bully, I wouldn't be averse to them making it hurt for Epic just a little bit more.

Also, this will turn into the Steam vs Epic issue that is existing on PC. Epic is buying exclusivity rights - Borderlands 3 is a popular example.

So all those saying "Just keep your phone locked down" or "just don't use the Epic store" have no idea the frustrations we are experiencing on PC.

 

[Ethosik]

doesn't matter understand or not. Conclusion is still the same for me for the same argument on each post.

Just freakin follow the rule EPIC . You not the saviour of developer.

I think to have a proper discussion we need to understand what you are saying. Could you clarify? I cannot follow your posts well but that might just be me.

 

[alien3dx]

I think to have a proper discussion we need to understand what you are saying. Could you clarify? I cannot follow your posts well but that might just be me.

Epic keep showing in twitter apple fault while they creating the fiasco at the first place. I has release an apps similiar to netflix no in apps purchase but still provide enchancement to the product and the apple approved it. Just follow the similiar concept and settle all issue.

Epic just pure greed and not helping any other developer at all.

 

[Ethosik]

Epic is arguing that the terms are illegal. If the terms are found to be illegal, it's irrelevant that they have been agreed upon.

Doing something to breach a contract because you think its "illegal" is not the right way to handle disputing problems.

So all the lawyers looking into Apple conveniently missed this? It wasn't until Epic pointed it out that they are doing illegal things? Or is it just that Epic feels its illegal?

As far as I have read and seen (PS4, Microsoft, and Nintendo Switch, Steam on PC and others) - 30% is not illegal. Having a locked down ecosystem that people knew up front is not illegal. So how is Apple doing an illegal thing here? And why does that give Epic reasons to break the contract or do similar illegal things?

 

[falainber]

But why does it matter to you? You don't pay a single extra penny to get apps from the App Store.

This only affects developers.

Why is it so special to use an alternative App Store?

Of course the consumers pays for it. Have you seen how high Apple profits are? We learned recently that big part of it is the huge profits from the App Store. We (consumers) pay for it. Competition (alternative app stores) is known to lower the prices.

 

[alien3dx]

Of course the consumers pays for it. Have you seen how high Apple profits are? We learned recently that big part of it is the huge profits from the App Store. We (consumers) pay for it. Competition (alternative app stores) is known to lower the prices.

its allready as "volume sales" profit. A diff app store , only hassle the developer upon update new patch. How many hour you will spend to testing/upload/entering patch note to dozen of apps store phone brand ?
No thanks for me, just apple store and play store.

 

[bushman4]

Epic taking on Apple in bout of greed after they agreed to 30% originally. No winners , Epic big loser once they're banned from the App Store and developers tools.

 

[Ethosik]

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").

I 100% agree. What would happen if a rejected app on the App Store, due to doing things deemed not appropriate like MDM or spying on kids, gets approved on the Epic Store, and parents find out their kids have been tracked? How can Apple give customers confidence that the phones will last x hours if apps are released that aren't vetted by Apple? People seem to want to turn iPhones into Android, but if you just want an Android phone get that instead. Can I sue Sony for not letting me play Spider-man on Xbox? How about Persona 5?

People KNOW up front:

iPhones: Locked down experience, only one store
Android: Open, can download apps from anywhere

Pick the product you want to use. I do not know when this paradigm shift occurred where a company HAS to change so its like another product. There is a reason there is competition. Don't like iPhones being locked down? There is Android. Don't like lack of CUDA cores on AMD GPUs, there are NVIDIA GPUs you can buy. Don't like Macs because the gaming performance sucks? There are Windows computers that do that far far far better and far far far cheaper.

If someone approaches me, asking what phone to buy and they want to get random downloads (or if they want to play Fortnite and it won't come back to iOS) I would recommend Android.

If someone approaches me, asking what phone to get and they are NOT very bright with technology and don't want to get malware, I would recommend iPhones.

This is why my grandma is using an iPhone and Windows 10 S (which is locked down to only Microsoft Store apps BTW). My grandma had Android and it was very bad. Windows 10 non-s was also very bad.

I know this discussion does not matter here, people who visit this forum by default are more technical than my Grandma. She would never visit a site like this. But people need to realize that the majority of the world's population is like my grandma. I have many young friends that still deal with malware on Windows 10 systems. They have also moved to iPhones because of Android security.

 

[Ethosik]

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.

Wonderful example. Because diving and splashing is not inherently illegal. But to mix with your example, Epic here is stating Diving or Splashing is illegal, so they are "okay" to break the rules.

I just think it is ridiculous people think Epic is doing a good thing by doing that. And that breaking the rules is fine if you think something is illegal.

If I find it illegal that Squarespace does not allow me to post any adult material on my site, does that give me the right do post it then complain about it with a lawsuit? Whatever I might feel might be the reasons - freedom of expression or whatever? But I find it illegal, so its okay right?! RIGHT?! Absolutely not. I agreed to Squarespace's rules that no adult content would be posted.

 

[Ethosik]

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.

The whole anti-competitive argument gets way overused I think.

I cannot get Playstation from Microsoft's stores, but PS4 is a competitor!
I can't get NVIDIA GPUs or AMD Processors on Macs - but AMD GPUs and Intel CPUs are competitors!

TRUE anti-competitive behavior is the Microsoft vs US case for example. Microsoft actually tried to convince Netscape to not develop software for Windows 95. Microsoft even tried to prevent Netscape from being available in distribution channels.

Windows 95 was not a locked down system, anyone could write any kind of software for it. The anti-competitive nature of this case was Microsoft did not want a company to compete with IE, and tried to force them to stop.

iOS has always been locked down. It's built in that there is only one app store. Not allowing Epic to provide an app store is not really anti-competitive behavior because the system is not designed to have more than one store.

iOS was architecturally built for one store. It would probably be a major re-write to allow more than one store. What happens to Apple's kill switch if an app is on the Epic store? That will need to be re-written. Additional APIs will need to be created to interface with something other than the App Store - StoreKit or something. How apps check for updates will need to be changed. How multi-tasking is performed will probably need to be changed. The CPU and RAM will probably need to increase to handle several stores on a single device. Battery might need to increase to handle more background processes.

 

[Ethosik]

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?

Probably, for an "open" system like people want. This is why I chose iPhones to begin with. So I will not be happy if things certainly change.

Games purchased on the Epic Store will not classify for Apple Family Sharing. Parental Controls might be tricky or impossible with third party stores, unless Apple creates something like StoreKit - API for additional stores.

A non-vetted Apple app can be on the Epic Store that does not report numbers to your Parental Control app for example.

 

[Ethosik]

That's a technical nonsense. If people download apps only from the App Store what changes from the current situation? Nothing. You are implying that Apple lets the apps into their store that can install the apps from the alternative stores. If that is the case current App Store is unsafe too.

What changes? Apps will be removed from the App Store. Fortnite (and I bet you others will) not be on the App Store as they don't want to spend 30%. If people want Fortnite, they WILL have to decrease their device security.

 

[I7guy]

Of course the consumers pays for it. Have you seen how high Apple profits are? We learned recently that big part of it is the huge profits from the App Store. We (consumers) pay for it. Competition (alternative app stores) is known to lower the prices.

The App Store is a success, of course it earns money. Can you explain how you pay for a free app and how competion will lower the price of $0.

 

[Ethosik]

I understand. To each his own, but this is not about iPhones only (and you might carry around your phone a bit more in normal times, but your computer does not have any less confidential info I am sure and the end of the world has not come to be).

And yes, it is 100% related to the software limitations which in the past were because the HW was limited. Now that is not the case, but we all need to be protected by BIG BORTHER because we are all dumb and he knows better.
(If the same thing came out of Micro$oft everybody here would be torching their campus).

To me this is about the locking and restricting a piece of hardware artificially with the excuse of protection.

If that were really the case iPadOS or iPhoneOS could easily deploy a "developer mode" with which you could code on the device, attach USB devices, use emulators, etc. AND the average user that did not enable that mode would still be "protected" as they are now if they so chose.

The "protection" piece is complete BS to me.

I just read the below quote:
Apple associate general counsel Douglas Vetter in mid-July. “We cannot be confident that Epic or any developer would uphold the same rigorous standards of privacy, security, and content as Apple"

Really? Who set Apple as the gold standard but Apple itself? I am sure they are MUCH BETTER than Epic or others, but the point is, it is at their SOLE DISCRETION, and we need to take their word at FACE VALUE....right? Like Google's "don't be evil"...

Breaking the App Store would be a good thing for us all. Epic is just noise. Could not care less about them.

Uh actually yes. I do my banking and have my health data on my phone. My computers do not have this information. I am not dragging my iMac to the hospital when I get asked what my entire family medical history is and I cannot remember every problem my family has.

Phones are WAY more risky than computers. If I need to call 911 and can't because my phone battery died in 3 hours because of some third party app store was checking for updates every second, that is a problem.

 

[Ethosik]

It's not an Apple device. Once they sell it, it belongs to a new owner. You are arguing that Apple should maintain full control over someone else's property. That's not in the interest of the consumers and thus the issue should be addressed by the government.

This kind of argument needs to stop. You did not buy full permissions to modify iOS from how it is developed.

And just FYI, if you buy Windows 10, you technically cannot use it as a virtual machine for only remote desktop.

Software and computers/phones are not the same as physical products and appliances. People need to stop with that argument "I buy it, I should be able to do ANYTHING I want with it".

You did buy the device, which means you can do whatever you want with the device. However, this does not include software on that device. I can throw my iPhone in my swimming pool for weeks. I can burn it. I can drop it from a helicopter. I can be one of those popular bend test youtubers. But that doesn't mean I can do whatever I want with the software.

 

[Ethosik]

This sounds like a great opportunity to gather like-minded Apple fans and fight for Apple to lock down the Mac to only allow Mac App Store installations. It would be far more secure, cleaner, and it would help our stocks with everything going through the 30% cut. We can make a coalition and then approach Apple with our humble request. Who's with me? Let's fight for a better tomorrow!

You know Microsoft has Windows 10 S right? And my Grandma is using it for security reasons as our entire family is tired of fixing the computer or helping recover from mistakes.

 

[Ethosik]

macOS is not licensed and never will either, and yet we don't have Apple imposing 30% cut on Netflix, Spotify, Disney+ etc there do we? And that will never happen either.

Look I appreciate your careful thinking on this and your sources, but the issue is complex and there are strong points on both sides, it's far from mere complaining, stupidity or ignorance.

In general I do agree with you that I don't see any way Apple can allow alternate App stores, as Epic is demanding, because of many things including security, privacy etc, but I wonder if Epic's request is more for legal purposes, so that they can demand Apple.

At any rate, many of the "complaints" are not just from users but from companies like Spotify, Netflix, etc, why is it ok for Apple to get 30% cut from Disney's Mulan on iOS but not on Mac? The model is wrong, obsolete and unethical, and hurts consumers and the industry and needs to be changed.

macOS is a computer operating system, originally known as OS X released 18 years ago. Desktop computer operating systems have always been open.

iOS, on the other hand, was completely written to be locked down from the ground up. From day 1. It was how it was designed.

BTW, you do know Microsoft has Windows 10 S right? macOS is heading this way too, having either toggles in System Preferences or even requiring Terminal commands to open it up for non-notarized apps.

 

[alien3dx]

The App Store is a success, of course it earns money. Can you explain how you pay for a free app and how competion will lower the price of $0.

for us, iOS zero profit and -ve. Just for pure customer support.

 

[Ethosik]

Epic keep showing in twitter apple fault while they creating the fiasco at the first place. I has release an apps similiar to netflix no in apps purchase but still provide enchancement to the product and the apple approved it. Just follow the similiar concept and settle all issue.

Epic just pure greed and not helping any other developer at all.

Ah thanks for clarifying! Sorry I was not understanding before

 

[Shanghaichica]

People do not want this. That is why eventually Fortnite went back on the Google Play store because people do not want to side load apps.

I don’t mind it on android. It’s useful. I use it on kindle fire devices to side load the play store.

The fact is google allow it. So Epic’s arguments fall flat.

 

[Shanghaichica]

Doing something to breach a contract because you think its "illegal" is not the right way to handle disputing problems.

So all the lawyers looking into Apple conveniently missed this? It wasn't until Epic pointed it out that they are doing illegal things? Or is it just that Epic feels its illegal?

As far as I have read and seen (PS4, Microsoft, and Nintendo Switch, Steam on PC and others) - 30% is not illegal. Having a locked down ecosystem that people knew up front is not illegal. So how is Apple doing an illegal thing here? And why does that give Epic reasons to break the contract or do similar illegal things?

It’s not illegal. Epic just don’t want to pay. They aren’t even arguing about 30% being too high. They just don’t want to pay anything.