Epic Games Submits Fortnite to U.S. App Store

[Sophisticatednut]

We’ll see what happens. I’ll happily come back here and eat crow if I’m wrong!

Well will you both eat some crow pies now?

Exactly same here

 

[surferfb]

Well will you both eat some crow pies now?

I believe I did already, not sure if it was on this thread or another one, but yes I was wrong that Epic wouldn’t end up back on the store. (But wasn’t wrong that Apple wouldn’t let them - Apple was forced to).

Actually genius of Epic's lawyers. Apple has permission to kick Epic or any of its subsidiaries off the store by the judge, but the EU forced Apple to allow Epic Sweden on the store. So Epic Sweden gets to follow the rules as long as they’re on the store. Well done to Epic’s lawyers.

The judge still erred in her ruling, but not sure if that will matter. We’ll see where the appeal goes.

 

[djphat2000]

I believe I did already, not sure if it was on this thread or another one, but yes I was wrong that Epic wouldn’t end up back on the store. (But wasn’t wrong that Apple wouldn’t let them - Apple was forced to).

Actually genius of Epic's lawyers. Apple has permission to kick Epic or any of its subsidiaries off the store by the judge, but the EU forced Apple to allow Epic Sweden on the store. So Epic Sweden gets to follow the rules as long as they’re on the store. Well done to Epic’s lawyers.

The judge still erred in her ruling, but not sure if that will matter. We’ll see where the appeal goes.

If the appeals favor Apple. Then they might kick them right back out. OR at least get the ability back to charge for "link-out" purchases. If they can get that back. Then you can basically say they win. They as in Apple. Lower the price below 20%, say 15%. And just live with it.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I believe I did already, not sure if it was on this thread or another one, but yes I was wrong that Epic wouldn’t end up back on the store. (But wasn’t wrong that Apple wouldn’t let them - Apple was forced to).

Actually genius of Epic's lawyers. Apple has permission to kick Epic or any of its subsidiaries off the store by the judge, but the EU forced Apple to allow Epic Sweden on the store. So Epic Sweden gets to follow the rules as long as they’re on the store. Well done to Epic’s lawyers.

The judge still erred in her ruling, but not sure if that will matter. We’ll see where the appeal goes.

I agree it’s genius of epic. Considering it was apples own legal blunder that put them in the bind. Apple doesn’t have the right to kick them out, unless they want to be in court for perjury. ( because Apple said they would let them in if they followed the rules)

I believe if Apple hadn’t done such reckless statements it would’ve like still been no Fortnite in the AppStore.

 

[surferfb]

I agree it’s genius of epic. Considering it was apples own legal blunder that put them in the bind. Apple doesn’t have the right to kick them out, unless they want to be in court for perjury. ( because Apple said they would let them in if they followed the rules)

I believe if Apple hadn’t done such reckless statements it would’ve like still been no Fortnite in the AppStore.

I don't think it is actually Apple's legal blunder. The judge ruled Apple can kick Epic or any subsidiary of Epic out of the program. (I agree saying "we'd let them on if they agreed to follow the rules" doesn't help, but she didn't put any qualification on the ruling. it was a straight up "Apple is within its rights to do so.") BUT any company in the program has to be able to follow the rules. The only reason Epic Sweden is in the developer program is because the EU forced Apple to let them on. But they do have a valid developer agreement. So Apple has to let them submit Fortnite. (Also, I agree canceling the Epic Sweden account would likely further anger the judge, which isn't in Apple's best interests)

The judge was wrong with her declaration that anti-steering language is prohibited under California law - a California court adjudicated that argument (after the judge's initial ruling) and said what Apple did wasn't a violation (and even noted it was aware of, and not convinced by, the federal judge's ruling). But because it happened AFTER the judge's ruling (and the original appeal) it remains to be seen if that will matter (which is ridiculous, but I guess maybe how the system works - I'm obviously not a lawyer).

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I don't think it is actually Apple's legal blunder. The judge ruled Apple can kick Epic or any subsidiary of Epic out of the program. (I agree saying "we'd let them on if they agreed to follow the rules" doesn't help, but she didn't put any qualification on the ruling. it was a straight up "Apple is within its rights to do so.") BUT any company in the program has to be able to follow the rules. The only reason Epic Sweden is in the developer program is because the EU forced Apple to let them on. But they do have a valid developer agreement. So Apple has to let them submit Fortnite. (Also, I agree canceling the Epic Sweden account would likely further anger the judge, which isn't in Apple's best interests)

The judge was wrong with her declaration that anti-steering language is prohibited under California law - a California court adjudicated that argument (after the judge's initial ruling) and said what Apple did wasn't a violation (and even noted it was aware of, and not convinced by, the federal judge's ruling). But because it happened AFTER the judge's ruling (and the original appeal) it remains to be seen if that will matter (which is ridiculous, but I guess maybe how the system works - I'm obviously not a lawyer).

I don’t mean the qualifier on this ruling but epic can call their actions for perjury. Eu hasn’t cared what happens in the U.S. we don’t have Fortnite on the store.

And no EU didn’t force Apple to have them in the developer program. Apple put that up as a requirement to allow sideloading. Had Apple just maintained it simple then they wouldn’t have been in this situation.

And me I can’t speak to the legality in the U.S. case. I’m just qualified for eu law. Not anything else internationally.

 

[djphat2000]

I don't think it is actually Apple's legal blunder. The judge ruled Apple can kick Epic or any subsidiary of Epic out of the program. (I agree saying "we'd let them on if they agreed to follow the rules" doesn't help, but she didn't put any qualification on the ruling. it was a straight up "Apple is within its rights to do so.") BUT any company in the program has to be able to follow the rules. The only reason Epic Sweden is in the developer program is because the EU forced Apple to let them on. But they do have a valid developer agreement. So Apple has to let them submit Fortnite. (Also, I agree canceling the Epic Sweden account would likely further anger the judge, which isn't in Apple's best interests)

Which is why this ruling makes no sense. It's a catch 22.

The judge was wrong with her declaration that anti-steering language is prohibited under California law - a California court adjudicated that argument (after the judge's initial ruling) and said what Apple did wasn't a violation (and even noted it was aware of, and not convinced by, the federal judge's ruling). But because it happened AFTER the judge's ruling (and the original appeal) it remains to be seen if that will matter (which is ridiculous, but I guess maybe how the system works - I'm obviously not a lawyer).

The system is really designed to make you spend money. I see no other benefit to it. 😂

 

[djphat2000]

I don’t mean the qualifier on this ruling but epic can call their actions for perjury. Eu hasn’t cared what happens in the U.S. we don’t have Fortnite on the store.

I wouldn't say it would fall under perjury. EPIC broke the contract that was held as valid. So Apple could remove them and their account from the store. Just by saying we would have them on the store "IF" they followed the rules. Only reiterated the fact that it was broken by them in the first place AND they have to remove EPIC's redirect for IAP to be compliant with the contract. Hence the appeal.

Now, because the Judge ruled that EPIC and others are allowed to have a redirect. Creates that catch 22. How can I let them back on the store when they broke the rules she upheld? BUT have to allow them back on because she also said everyone can have a redirect to IAP, which is why we kicked them off? Apple being allowed to remove them for breaking the rules and at their discretion BUT having to allow anyone to use a redirect, and not trying to anger the judge further. Forces them to allow EPIC back on the store.... Safest thing for Apple to do was to allow them back, and appeal the ruling.

And if they win on that appeal, they will just leave in place the new Link Out option BUT charge 27% (or whatever they feel) on link-out sales.

And no EU didn’t force Apple to have them in the developer program.

Apple created the developer account for the purpose of developing for iOS. Nothing preventing that from continuing.

Apple put that up as a requirement to allow sideloading.

To have some kind of control and safe guards.

Had Apple just maintained it simple then they wouldn’t have been in this situation.

There is no way Apple would have created a fully side loading bypass everything they put in place for a good reason way. They are not a fully open company. Never was never will be.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I wouldn't say it would fall under perjury. EPIC broke the contract that was held as valid. So Apple could remove them and their account from the store. Just by saying we would have them on the store "IF" they followed the rules. Only reiterated the fact that it was broken by them in the first place AND they have to remove EPIC's redirect for IAP to be compliant with the contract. Hence the appeal.

Now, because the Judge ruled that EPIC and others are allowed to have a redirect. Creates that catch 22. How can I let them back on the store when they broke the rules she upheld? BUT have to allow them back on because she also said everyone can have a redirect to IAP, which is why we kicked them off? Apple being allowed to remove them for breaking the rules and at their discretion BUT having to allow anyone to use a redirect, and not trying to anger the judge further. Forces them to allow EPIC back on the store.... Safest thing for Apple to do was to allow them back, and appeal the ruling.

I would argue it’s not a catch 22. But the issue of high ranking Apple executives stating under oath they would absolutely allow epic on the store if they followed the rules. And the moment epic had to have a developer account to distribute the epic store they were screwed.

Apple having the right is separate from lying in court that they would let them back.

And if they win on that appeal, they will just leave in place the new Link Out option BUT charge 27% (or whatever they feel) on link-out sales.

Apple created the developer account for the purpose of developing for iOS. Nothing preventing that from continuing.

To have some kind of control and safe guards.

There is no way Apple would have created a fully side loading bypass everything they put in place for a good reason way. They are not a fully open company. Never was never will be.

Sure, but Apple could have made something else. Example store distribution agreement. Then epic Sweden would be outside the scope of the AppStore. Then they would still have the ability to deny them a developer account.

 

[djphat2000]

I would argue it’s not a catch 22. But the issue of high ranking Apple executives stating under oath they would absolutely allow epic on the store if they followed the rules. And the moment epic had to have a developer account to distribute the epic store they were screwed.

It's not a lie though. They got kicked out because they broke the rules. The judge then allowed that feature post breaking the contract (Link-out). While still giving Apple the right to kick out whoever they want. However, DON"T then keep them off because I changed the allowed rule. If you do so you're not following the letter of the law, WHILE you are allowed to kick them or anyone else out? WTF?

Oh you said you would totally let them back on the store if they followed the rules. Well, what if Apple changed their mind? They can't, because you said you would let them if they followed the rules. Well you also said I can kick out whoever I wanted, so which is it?

Apple having the right is separate from lying in court that they would let them back.

Again, not a lie. They would let them back in the store under the OLD rules. The new rule didn't exist at the time. If EPIC had gone back to doing it the original way. YES. The rules changed, AND Apple is allowed to kick them off as they see fit. So, the statement holds true for the rules as they were.

Sure, but Apple could have made something else. Example store distribution agreement. Then epic Sweden would be outside the scope of the AppStore. Then they would still have the ability to deny them a developer account.

True. However, Apple is trying to keep it universally simple while still ensuring you get the store VIA a trusted source (Not directly from the vendor/developer) being Apple.

I'll go back to what I said many times before. Apple provides security by NOT having another means into the device. Everything must go through the store. So any other store, must also come from the AppStore. So there is a means in which to distribute and monitor and ensure whatever lands on the device is as safe as it can be. We can argue whether or not it is or isn't safe. But factually its just is. No other way in (easy way in), has to be from a central choke point (AppStore). Apple can monetize the process even if it isn't from them. Customer gets whatever they want via it's or third party store. They are not interested in anything that actually lets another door open (Sideload or direct to vendor/developer solution), as that will forever open up another door way in.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

It's not a lie though. They got kicked out because they broke the rules. The judge then allowed that feature post breaking the contract (Link-out). While still giving Apple the right to kick out whoever they want. However, DON"T then keep them off because I changed the allowed rule. If you do so you're not following the letter of the law, WHILE you are allowed to kick them or anyone else out? WTF?

Oh you said you would totally let them back on the store if they followed the rules. Well, what if Apple changed their mind? They can't, because you said you would let them if they followed the rules. Well you also said I can kick out whoever I wanted, so which is it?

Them having the right to kick out them is an earlier ruling and completely separate from a legal statement they did. Apple executives stating they WILL allow them back on the story IF they followed the rules puts them in a legal bind. Because they have stated they would.

Again, not a lie. They would let them back in the store under the OLD rules. The new rule didn't exist at the time. If EPIC had gone back to doing it the original way. YES. The rules changed, AND Apple is allowed to kick them off as they see fit. So, the statement holds true for the rules as they were.

It’s perjury. Epic submitted their app and can only be denied on breaking the rules at that time. If Apple denied them on any other basis they would need to answer to why they made a false statement in court.

True. However, Apple is trying to keep it universally simple while stilling ensuring you get the store VIA a trusted source (Not directly from the vendor/developer) being Apple.

I'll go back to what I said many times before. Apple provides security by NOT having another means into the device. Everything must go through the store. So any other store, must also come from the AppStore. So there is a means in which to distribute and monitor and ensure whatever lands on the device is as safe as it can be. We can argue whether or not it is or isn't safe. But factually its just is. No other way in (easy way in), has to be from a central choke point (AppStore). Apple can monetize the process even if it isn't from them. Customer gets whatever they want via it's or third party store. They are not interested in anything that actually lets another door open (Sideload or direct to vendor/developer solution), as that will forever open up another door way in.

Sure, but this is in regard to how they put themselves in a legal bind unintentionally. I wouldn’t be suprised if this is part of the case for why an executive is facing criminal contempt.

 

[djphat2000]

Them having the right to kick out them is an earlier ruling and completely separate from a legal statement they did. Apple executives stating they WILL allow them back on the story IF they followed the rules puts them in a legal bind. Because they have stated they would.

Provided it was based on the rules as it was. This question is posed based not he rules they broke. Not a future in which the rules changed. The rules are fluid in this. If you're asking me, legally binding. If I take a bag of chips and the store sues me. And kicks me out of the store. Asking the store, Would you let him back in if he followed the rules. The store says "yes". THEN, the judge says OK but the rules changed so that he "can" steal a bag of chips. The store didn't agree to that originally, as it wasn't the rule. But, the judge says, you agreed as long as they followed the rules. Well yeah the original rule not this new rule.

It’s perjury. Epic submitted their app and can only be denied on breaking the rules at that time.

How is it perjury if the rules changed after the question and statement was posed?

If Apple denied them on any other basis they would need to answer to why they made a false statement in court.

So then they are not allowed to deny them? Which is it? Why do they have to do anything other than say "we don't allow EPIC games on the store.". If Apple can't force a developer on the store. Then why can a Developer be allowed on the store without Apple's say so? Because Apple would perjure themselves based on a rule that has since changed from when they made the statement????? Makes no sense.

Sure, but this is in regard to how they put themselves in a legal bind unintentionally. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is part of the case for why an executive is facing criminal contempt.

I would argue the EU is the reason for it. But that's not gonna change.

 

[wbeasley]

Provided it was based on the rules as it was. This question is posed based not he rules they broke. Not a future in which the rules changed. The rules are fluid in this. If you're asking me, legally binding. If I take a bag of chips and the store sues me. And kicks me out of the store. Asking the store, Would you let him back in if he followed the rules. The store says "yes". THEN, the judge says OK but the rules changed so that he "can" steal a bag of chips. The store didn't agree to that originally, as it wasn't the rule. But, the judge says, you agreed as long as they followed the rules. Well yeah the original rule not this new rule.

How is it perjury if the rules changed after the question and statement was posed?

So then they are not allowed to deny them? Which is it? Why do they have to do anything other than say "we don't allow EPIC games on the store.". If Apple can't force a developer on the store. Then why can a Developer be allowed on the store without Apple's say so? Because Apple would perjure themselves based on a rule that has since changed from when they made the statement????? Makes no sense.

I would argue the EU is the reason for it. But that's not gonna change.

i would love Nintendo to "allow" VLC and MAME on their store.
I'm sure many others would too.

Yet they seem able to keep out these apps... why?

And why is this different from Apple keeping apps out of their store?

We see it all the time with supermarkets: lots of brands arent available in every store.
Either they do an exclusive deal with the brand or they stock a competitor brand or home brand.
The only driver is customer demand vs policy.
Even Aldi in Australia carry some well known brands because it makes it easier for customers.
And it gets people in the door who wouldnt shop there.
Once they do, they try other home brands and often find them cheaper or as good.
Shopping is all about balancing competing demands, for business and customers...

Apple iOS customers have over a decade of use with the Apple rules and the store has been extremely successful for Apple, app devs and customers who vote with their wallets. Every few years.

If there was an app I absolutely had to have that wasn't on Apple's AppStore I would just buy an Android device and use that. Or put it on a laptop. Solutions already exists without forcing OS changes.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Provided it was based on the rules as it was. This question is posed based not he rules they broke. Not a future in which the rules changed. The rules are fluid in this. If you're asking me, legally binding. If I take a bag of chips and the store sues me. And kicks me out of the store. Asking the store, Would you let him back in if he followed the rules. The store says "yes". THEN, the judge says OK but the rules changed so that he "can" steal a bag of chips. The store didn't agree to that originally, as it wasn't the rule. But, the judge says, you agreed as long as they followed the rules. Well yeah the original rule not this new rule.

It wasn’t based on the rules being the same.
Using your analogy. The person comes back later and say they promise to follow the rules to enter the store.

Now if you as the store owner swore you would allow them back, on what baseline will you deny them? You have the freedom to deny them if you want. But then you contradict your sworn statement if it’s unrelated to any rules being broken.

How is it perjury if the rules changed after the question and statement was posed?

It’s perjury towards the court. You swore an oath and didn’t ever intend to allow them back irrespective if they followed the law.

So then they are not allowed to deny them? Which is it? Why do they have to do anything other than say "we don't allow EPIC games on the store.". If Apple can't force a developer on the store. Then why can a Developer be allowed on the store without Apple's say so? Because Apple would perjure themselves based on a rule that has since changed from when they made the statement????? Makes no sense.

Had Apple executives not sworn under oath then they could have denied them all day. Apple could have denied them a developer account all day everyday and never need to concern themselves of never allowing them back on their store.

Currently they can only deny them for breaking existing rules, not on anything else.

I would argue the EU is the reason for it. But that's not gonna change.

Eu isn’t the reason, at least not fully. Apple required alternative stores to have a developer account to be able to distribute it.

EU doesn’t require any such thing and it’s fully within apples own rules they decided to implement it. If Epic never would have required a developer account to distribute their alternate AppStore then Apple wouldn’t have been risking perjury.

 

[djphat2000]

It wasn’t based on the rules being the same.

How so? They asked them a question based on what the rules where at the time. Not post judgment. Why on earth would Apple say under oath they would let Epic back on the store with the new rules in place? Easy to say, well why kick them off in the first place? It makes no sense.

Using your analogy. The person comes back later and say they promise to follow the rules to enter the store.

That's exactly what I am saying, so is the Judge apparently. "hey the rules are we can have a link out. You said you will let me back on the store if I follow the rules. So let me back on the store!". Apple - I didn't say if the rules were with a link out. I said if you followed the rules as we originally agreed too.

Hence Apple appealing the ruling.

Now if you as the store owner swore you would allow them back, on what baseline will you deny them?

Because I have every right to based to. Same as the developer has every right to NOT develop for Apple.

You have the freedom to deny them if you want.

EXACTLY.

But then you contradict your sworn statement if it’s unrelated to any rules being broken.

Not fair and makes no sense. You can't have it both ways. It is either I can or I can not. If I have every right, then I have EVERY right. Not limited to having said I would let them back on the store. I can change my mind. Or is that now illegal? According to these rules,. It would be illegal to change ones mind. You said it, so you HAVE to do it. Eventhough you CAN kick them off for whatever reason you want. WHAT?

It’s perjury towards the court.

SO THEN THEY CAN NOT. But clearly it's not that clear.

You swore an oath and didn’t ever intend to allow them back irrespective if they followed the law.

Had Apple executives not sworn under oath then they could have denied them all day. Apple could have denied them a developer account all day everyday and never need to concern themselves of never allowing them back on their store.

Based on the original agreement. NOT a new rules agreement that had not been finalized. This was during the proceedings. Not AFTER it was judged. Why would Apple agree to let them back on the store WITH a link out when they kicked them OUT for linking out?

Currently they can only deny them for breaking existing rules, not on anything else.

Yet, I can't get Fortnite on my Mac.

Eu isn’t the reason, at least not fully. Apple required alternative stores to have a developer account to be able to distribute it.

EU made Apple have alternative stores. It is their fault.

EU doesn’t require any such thing and it’s fully within apples own rules they decided to implement it. If Epic never would have required a developer account to distribute their alternate AppStore then Apple wouldn’t have been risking perjury.

Apple was never going to allow anyone free rein on the iPhone/iOS/iPad/iPadOS. You have to use Apple's SDK and tools to develop on the platform. That already was in place.
An alternative would be for Apple to allow 3rd party developer tools. And offer NOTHING to any developer to assist in that process. Say for a billion dollars a year, we will assist in enabling 3rd party tools to exist for anyone who does not want to develop using Apple's native tools.