Seems like a pretty clear precedent. I did not know the case law, but it seems like a more specific version of the PeopleSoft case the Feds lost (their market definition was broader than just iOS, but the courts ruled that it was all of business software, not the much narrower market the Feds tried to use as their definition).
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
Seems like a pretty clear precedent. I did not know the case law, but it seems like a more specific version of the PeopleSoft case the Feds lost (their market definition was broader than just iOS, but the courts ruled that it was all of business software, not the much narrower market the Feds tried to use as their definition).
Is it? Sounds like the judge is going for a middle-ground approach where Apple would be forbidden from terminating the Epic developer account(s) while allowing it to keep Fortnite off the App Store.
Well, to be more clear, she is suggesting she WILL remove the developer account responsible for fortnite, but leave the one relating to unreal. Though, as the Gibson attorney explained, she maybe can't do that if the reason is that "these are two different companies" because, in that case, then the second company has to ask for the TRO, not the fortnite company.
Interesting that Epic claims two be two companies - one for Fortnite and games (and store), the other for the engine - but apparently filed the TRO from the "games" and not the "engine". Oooops! Sock-puppeting at its best.
Seems it went pretty fair for both sides. Epic has a huge uphill battle, and will not get Fortnite back into the App store without removing the payment code.
twitter.com
has been posting updates by the minute
Seems it went pretty fair for both sides. Epic has a huge uphill battle, and will not get Fortnite back into the App store without removing the payment code.
sarah jeong (@sarahjeong) on X
deputy features ed @verge. prev @nytimes @motherboard. I don’t check my DMs. look for me elsewhere, this place is internet chernobyl
twitter.com
Eh. The problem is, it will drag in Nintendo, Sony, MS etc etc etc.
At some point, Apple will point to 95% of apps being "free", and if they have to lower or not collect IAP, why even bother with a store?
I can concede not supporting it for active devices though I personally see that as a competition angle. For devices that Apple doesn't support Apple doesn't suffer beyond the management of a signing program and they change $99 a year for unlimited signings already.
I've had issues with older devices that updated to versions of app that don't work on those devices any more. The certificates on the devices are getting long in the tooth and eventually will stop working as well.
I don't expect a device to be supported by Apple, the ask is that Apple let others support their older devices. I have older Apple devices including an iPod Touch 4th Generation which is the to date one of the smallest iOS devices ever made. Until it lost compatibility I used to use it as a remote for Keynote and it was an amazing partner device. I used to use it with Roku until that app stopped working properly due to some autoupdate that came through as well. I have an iPhone 4S that I held onto for around 5 years that worked reasonably well albeit a sticky home button. I have an older iPad 3rd generation that I prop up from time to time but again it's increasingly having apps not work on it. I don't see any value in handing them over to get a token $20 or less when they're functional devices. I might not use them as much as I used to and realistically I'd love to have an official way to bring them back instead of just turning them into ewaste.
But the argument there would be that apple does not sell you "a device". They sell you a packaged product in its entirety - warts and all.
A lot of Apple hardware is nothing groundbreaking but when you add the OS is you get that special combination that is Apple.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be wonderful from an environmental and monetary standpoint if you your devices were updated able to unofficially get updates for ...... ever.
But any manufacturer who sells a hardware / software combo as a complete product is no way going to make it easy to side load an OS and certainly not in any official capacity. This goes for any device from Standalone Audio Hardware to washing machines.
Makes me wonder what way Tesla will start handing legacy product updates in the coming years.
And that's not what we are counting. I specifically asked about providing apps for iOS users.
I understand the point where you are coming from and as many keep pointing out it will never be a monopoly in the sense that you can always switch to Android.
The same way if you are not happy with your taxes you an move to a third world country, without one.
Or to take it to a hyperbole, why shouldn't fortnite be able to dictate what payment methods are used in their game, after all it's their game.
What I am arguing for is that in today's world, having a phone is a given and access to apps should be given without big companies unfair interference. Essentially dictating payment methods is unfair and anti-competitive.
No, and that's your problem. You've got it in your head that the moment anyone has a singular position on an item then it's a monopoly.
Are Google and Apple really 'monopolies'?
Recent charges claiming that Google or Apple are monopolies, are monopolistic or wield monopoly power are simply false. And those who use the M word about these companies are misleading you, writes columnist Mike Elgan.www.computerworld.com
You keep proving my point. For some reason you want to frame Apple or iPhone as it's whole as the entity that is a monopoly.
Let's take your requirements and break it down.
1. There is only one company in the market.
(Yes, Apple is the only company providing the market for Apps)
2. There is no close substitute for the product or service offered by that company.
(There are no App Stores for iOS offered other than Apple's, Android apps do not work on iPhones )
3. Barriers exist for other companies to enter the market.
(Yes, apple doesn't let third party provide an app store)
Now you might argue that Apple has the right to offer it and I don't disagree with that necessarily, as it's can be framed as a "bundle" with the iPhones. But you see, Apple at the same time shoves down Apple Pay through developers throats.
No, that's not true. They pay 30% for transaction and a hundred dollars a year for developer fee. Free apps exist on iPhone. I can also promise you that investment, time and effort going into providing a game such as Fortnite is not divided according to the payment structure of 33% Apple and 67% Epic.
As has been noted before, iOS is not the market.
From court cases:
In addition, the Peoplesoft case is another where the courts made clear that narrow definitions of markets are incorrect.
In gaming, it is not even iOS/Android, but iOS/Android/Microsoft/Nintendo/nVidia/Sony/Steam.
No. Android and the other gaming platforms are larger than iOS. If the argument is that people on Android do not spend money, and that all the paying customers are on iOS, then the point is even more clear. Apple has built an ecosystem that is valuable because of the decisions they have made. Other platforms have made other decisions giving us a robust, competitive market.
They can do that as long as they do not need anyone else’s tools. Just as they can dictate their pricing for Unreal Engine and dictate the payments in their own store. Not only do they not allow other payment methods in their own store, but for several months from launch, they would not allow Boderlands 3 to ship on a competitive platform.
No one is stopping anyone from having a phone. What does the second half of your sentence even mean? Do you mean that every developer needs to be required to support every possible platform? Does it mean that the makers of these platforms need to get free access to every platform with no restrictions? Or does it simply mean having some form of app store is expected on every platform. It seems like you are arguing for a one way definition. Game (and maybe other App developers), should not have to pay for anything, and should have no responsibility to support any other platform. If Epic only wants to support the Epic store, that should be fine.
Everyone of this companies is a “big company”, if Epic does not feel they can make money on iOS with Apple’s terms as they are, they should not release for the platform. Just as Epic should not be forced to make their games available through Steam, or on any other platform. I find it hilarious that a company that purchased platform exclusives (for their own platform) and limits on which competitors’ platforms they sell their product should turn around and complain that others are not giving them something for free.
The Wall Street Journal is available on Android
Linux applications don't work on Windows either. So what is the point that is being made as there are many devs that develop for both android and ios.
Faux-barriers. Barriers also exist for companies to load another operating system onto an iphone. Apple is not legally required to allow alternate app-stores.
It sells me a device and grants me a license to use their software. What I'd like is the option to install my own software on the device, especially if the company that is ostensibly tasked with supporting the device decides they don't want to ship software updates. I don't think it's fair to expect unlimited updates but I also don't think it's unreasonably to be able to sign OS images to install onto it for a reasonable fee. This goes back to the right to repair and similar approaches where the tying of the software makes it illegal to make use of what is generally regarded as your properly.
Actually Apple hardware is some of the most interesting SOC chips on the market today and have historically been some of the more advanced chips. When everyone was in competition around how many cores they had, Apple made a transition to 64-bit CPUs.
You're right, it's not like Apple which sells their Mac hardware and MacOS operating system as a complete product would ever make it easy to side load an OS and certainly not in any official capacity.
Same way as everyone else does: just stop updating the devices.
You're correct, it's 30% of revenue generated on the platform (15% for subscriptions after a year) and $99 to get a license to use Apple's intellectual property. Thanks for the correction!
Free apps do indeed exist on the iPhone, I'm not sure what from my post gave you the impression that I thought that free apps don't exist.
I'm not sure who you are and how you can promise me the investment, time and effort is not divided that way. You'll have to forgive me for not accepting your promise but if you've got something to back it up I'd gladly read it. It'd be interesting to see the balance of the Apple side and it's various investments into the platform versus what Epic did with Fortnite. It'd be interesting to see what decisions you made on amortisation of costs for each side and how that balances out.
eh...for all the guy saying it is Apple's store...if you don't like it, leave and go somewhere else; the judgement proved otherwise. Even if it is their store, they cannot remove Unreal Engine from it even if they badly wanted to.
It’s more like you follow the rules. You can’t expect to play and make your own rules. Gtfo.Epic introduces a option that allows you, the customer to purchase their items as a reduced price.
Apple blocks this option, unless Epic removes this option and charges you a higher price.
Epic are the ones being greedy?
Interesting viewpoint.
So paying more for something due to Apple is a good thing for the customer?
We do not know that yet. The judge granted a Temporary Restraining Order, preventing Apple from removing it from the store until she issued a ruling in the case. She decided that the harm to others from removing it from the App Store until the case is decided outweighed the harm to Apple for leaving it there even if she ultimately decided in their favor.
Apple were permitted to remove Fortnite from their store and they removed not only Fortnite but Epic's other first party games/apps. As we can see from Epic's filing, one of their developer teams also had it's account terminated as well. What the judge restrained Apple from doing was terminating all of Epic Games' developer agreements for the potential harm that would do to Unreal Engine and the broader game development ecosystem (the public interest).
Additionally the judge's order stands until the preliminary hearing later this month, it is entirely possible that the judge permits Apple to continue removing Epic Games' first party content from it's store. Apple might also be able to build a better case for persuading the judge to allow it to terminate the other agreements it has with Epic Games.
It is possible that the judge orders a preliminary motion similar to the previous TRO however the judge might order something different. It seems unlikely to permit Fortnite to remain in the App Store when there is a readily available remedy at Epic's disposal, so I don't see that as succeeding. It remains to be seen if Apple can make a reasonable argument around terminating the remainder of it's relationship with Epic Games.