Epic Games Submits Fortnite to U.S. App Store

[verdi1987]

can we have get set games submit mega run: redford's adventure to the app store? Also can we get all the early to mid 2010s games back? thx

It’s unlikely they would still run due to deprecated functions.

 

[Stuwil]

Well, I have no idea whatsoever so please enlighten us how this will play out in your opinion

In fact let’s do it this way
Think of it this way you probably don’t think epic should be back on the app store
Then that is the reason why they will eventually get on sooner or later

 

[Reason077]

The real question is, will Fortnite be coming back to Mac?

Then maybe I could get rid of this expensive GeForce NOW ultimate subscription which I mostly use just for Fortnite 😂

 

[soundwarp]

It amazes me at how many people will stand up for Apple who 100% would take your last dollar for no benefit to you, but at least with the greedy option from epic, devs actually have a choice.

 

[Abazigal]

Just think about it
If epic aren’t back on the iOS App Store
Then what do you think will happen going forward
It’s not difficult to see how it will play out

Nothing that isn’t already happening now. Epic was removed from the App Store because they broke the rules first, and as far as I know, Apple is under no obligation to let them back in.

Whether Apple’s decision is, it will neither help nor impede their current legal cases.

 

[russell_314]

Strange, I remember that a$$le was saying that "there are no virus on the mac"...

Yeah, anyone saying that also doesn’t understand computers. Maybe less but not none.

But you aren't obliged to download from third parties! Give to somebody the freedom to be under attack...

Actually, you’ll have no choice. At some point, big developers will say if you want our app go to our webpage. It will always be cheaper for them to host their own rather than have Apple or Google do it.

 

[Stuwil]

Nothing that isn’t already happening now. Epic was removed from the App Store because they broke the rules first, and as far as I know, Apple is under no obligation to let them back in.

Whether Apple’s decision is, it will neither help nor impede their current legal cases.

Because there is a big difference now
You need to look at the bigger picture that is why Tim Sweeney is confident epic will be back on sooner or later

Nobody says they are under any obligation to bring them back however it’s not going to achieve anything in the long term if they reject epic from being on the App Store

 

[Timpetus]

But the store is the driver to sell phones. They can close the store if they believe it isn't enough lucrative.

And if app will move away from the store it's good! It means there is no value to stay in that store.

Not sure how the logic of your position works. Apple has the power to close their App Store, but not to establish and enforce T&Cs for devs using their store?

I suspect their pricing model will end up changing once the dust has settled, perhaps to an annual dev program fee that tracks with number of downloads instead of being a set amount. Then Apple can depend less on taking such a large cut of IAP.

 

[coachgq]

I still don’t understand how Apple isn’t allowed to make a percentage off sales of IAP when without The App Store fortnight wouldn’t have access to millions of users.

 

[sherwinzadeh]

I love Apple but they got greedy with 30%. If it was 15% for everyone, not just small businesses, no one would complain.

 

[Timpetus]

I still don’t understand how Apple isn’t allowed to make a percentage off sales of IAP when without The App Store fortnight wouldn’t have access to millions of users.

It's a bizarre, ex-post requirement being added by a single judge despite the fact that Epic agreed to the terms, then willfully violated them before even starting the legal process. Even if Epic isright, the correct way to go about it would have been to negotiate directly with Apple, then take it to court if not satisfied with the result. That Epic have been even slightly rewarded for their behavior is a miscarriage of justice, and one that's likely to inspire copycats if allowed to stand.

 

[rgeneral]

Why people pay to play Fortnite. Just weird.

 

[bondr006]

Sitting on the edge of my seat

 

[Stuwil]

It's a bizarre, ex-post requirement being added by a single judge despite the fact that Epic agreed to the terms, then willfully violated them before even starting the legal process. Even if Epic isright, the correct way to go about it would have been to negotiate directly with Apple, then take it to court if not satisfied with the result. That Epic have been even slightly rewarded for their behavior is a miscarriage of justice, and one that's likely to inspire copycats if allowed to stand.

Apple didn’t want to negotiate with them
That is why epic then took them to court
however how is it a miscarriage of justice is epic is rewarded in what way

 

[Rafagon]

I don't think Apple will approve it either, but Apple is obviously 100% fine enabling companies that manipulate kids. See, e.g., the thousands of scammy "games" on iOS, not to mention Meta.

The same company that makes robust parental controls to keep kids away from those very same apps. So I don't think Apple is doing anything wrong. If the parents don't take care of their kids, that's on the parents.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

This 100%. Apple is also fine when 10 year olds demand from their parents they have the latest pro phone.

Blaming Apple for parenting failures? That may be a new one, even for MR 🤣

 

[surferfb]

however how is it a miscarriage of justice is epic is rewarded in what way

Because Epic willfully and intentionally violated terms of a legally binding agreement.

If Apple had signed an agreement that said “we promise we won’t charge 30% to fortnight” and then silently pushed a hidden iOS update and said “actually, epic owes us 30% after all” I think everyone would be rightfully outraged.

That’s essentially what epic did. They signed a legally binding agreement to only use the App Store and to pay Apple 30%. then they pushed a secret update, against the terms of service it agreed to, and deprived Apple of the money that they promised to pay Apple.

(Which is why the judge said: Apple was within its rights to kick Epic off the store, they don’t have to let Epic back on the store, and Epic had to pay Apple 30% of all of the sales it made during the short time the rogue App Store was live in Fortnight. That’s also why a bunch of us keep telling you Epic lost the case even if they have (at least temporarily) won on one small portion of it.)

 

[Maven1975]

So Epic expects Apple to distribute the game for free?

This is why side loading is imperative. I honestly think this is Epics next route and is just a trap for Apple either way.

Apple need to get on a “Seal of approval” campaign ASAP. This will help them in the long run when side loading becomes forced practice.

Once people are hit with nefarious malware in a large scale, then people will realize the importance of the “Seal of approval” and will not want to tread the side loading waters.

Personally, I don’t want to go back to the Win95 days

This is the only way.

 

[flexwithmarius]

This is exactly the point that Apple failed to clearly demonstrated during the trial.
I believe that the resurfaced old emails where Apple executives decided the infamous 30% cut out of nowhere, instead of providing a more thoughtful and reasoned explanation, were detrimental.

I do believe that Apple is entitled to a fee for the IP behind the SDK's that powers all the apps available in the platform and a fee for the app and content distribution.

If instead of defending the 30% cut, Apple had explaining the costs associated with the SDK, servers, security, and other expenses, it might have achieved a better result.

$99/year is ridiculous for some big companies and 30% of everything is too much as well.

I foresee an increase in developer fees. Or the addition of a “commerce” tier like website hosts offer. WWDC is coming up, they’ll announce it then.

 

[Stuwil]

Because Epic willfully and intentionally violated terms of a legally binding agreement.

If Apple had signed an agreement that said “we promise we won’t charge 30% to fortnight” and then silently pushed a hidden iOS update and said “actually, epic owes us 30% after all” I think everyone would be rightfully outraged.

That’s essentially what epic did. They signed a legally binding agreement to only use the App Store and to pay Apple 30%. then they pushed a secret update, against the terms of service it agreed to, and deprived Apple of the money that they promised to pay Apple. (Which is why the judge said: Apple was within its rights to kick Epic off the store, they don’t have to let Epic back on the store, and Epic had to pay Apple 30% of all of the sales it made during the short time the rogue App Store was live in Fortnight).

Just think about it
That is why epic will be back on the iOS App Store sooner or later

 

[davide_eu]

Yeah, anyone saying that also doesn’t understand computers. Maybe less but not none.


Actually, you’ll have no choice. At some point, big developers will say if you want our app go to our webpage. It will always be cheaper for them to host their own rather than have Apple or Google do it.

You are right, anyone saying that doesn't understand computer... it was told by a$$le: https://www.wired.com/2012/06/mac-viruses/

At some point I have to go to their webpage? It's my dream! I hope it will happen soon, I don't want to use "a store"... I'm not a kid, I don't need them... let's get rid of the store asap...

 

[surferfb]

Just think about it
That is why epic will be back on the iOS App Store sooner or later

I don’t follow your “just think about it” logic, but glad you’re so confident! We’ll see what happens.

 

[surferfb]

You are right, anyone saying that doesn't understand computer... it was told by a$$le: https://www.wired.com/2012/06/mac-viruses/

At some point I have to go to their webpage? It's my dream! I hope it will happen soon, I don't want to use "a store"... I'm not a kid, I don't need them... let's get rid of the store asap...

That link doesn’t say what you claim it says….

“Macs don’t get viruses that affect PCs” != “Macs don’t get viruses at all.”

 

[Jumpthesnark]

I'm going to step away from my usual Apple advocacy for a moment... because I feel that there's a much larger truth at stake which is being largely ignored by both factions in this thread.

So, this is your obligatory reminder: For anyone who is strongly arguing in favor of one or the other of these two companies, or who is trying to assert that your favorite company has the "plight of the little people" in mind while the opposing company is only being greedy... you may need to be reminded that they're both being greedy.

• Both are multi-billion-dollar mega-corporations who use the "little people" as pawns, and whether it's consumers or small developers makes very little difference to either of them, so long as their argument is plausible enough to convince the judges and/or jurors.
• Both corporations are singularly focused on profits above all else, and are seeking the most effective way to maximize those profits.
• Both corporations have pockets deep enough that they have the luxury of viewing these lawsuits as perfectly acceptable costs of doing business, and they will both exhaust absolutely all appeals before ever accepting defeat.
• Both are willing to bully their way through the court system, and couldn't possibly care any less about who else gets hurt in the process.
• And perhaps the very core issue at stake: both have business models that are being (ahem) slightly disrupted... by the business model of the other. Note that "slightly disrupted" still equates to billions of dollars in this case... but I still argue that it's an entirely apt description; neither corporation is at risk of going bankrupt, regardless of the ultimate decision in this battle.

This is not a fight wherein we, the little people, get to "win" anything at all... other than the privilege of spending more of our hard earned cash on one thing or another. Whether or not you get to play one particular game on one particular platform is literally the smallest of the issues at stake here. Make no mistake: Regardless of who you are or what you think your stake is in this issue, you are being used by one side or the other. (Or, quite possibly, both.)

As usual, the lawyers will win either way... and the little people get screwed. Either. Way.

Exactly. I find it hilarious that people are able to tell themselves that either Apple or Epic are being virtuous in all of this.

Both companies can be wrong and do bad things. But it's easy for people to just think in terms of good and evil, black and white, etc.

 

[davide_eu]

That link doesn’t say what you claim it says….

“Macs don’t get viruses that affect PCs” != “Macs don’t get viruses at all.”

You and me know that a PC virus cannot affect a Mac (and the opposite), but the message sent to non-tech people was different; it was "no virus here".

And by the way, a$$le doesn't claim that PC virus don't affect Mac because they are written for a different OS, but because [...]That's thanks to built-in defences in Mac OS X that keep you safe without any work on your part[...]. So this is the confirmation that the message is "no virus here".