Epic Games Unlikely to Win Injunction in Ongoing Fortnite Battle With Apple, Jury Trial Possible

[I7guy]

That is certainly a risk, but one I'd be willing to take. I think if Epic was to win we'd have more choice in the App Store, which could only be better. That is if Epic is truly not looking for a special deal.

Consumers and devs lose in my opinion.

I've tuned out a bit of the whole situation but where was Epic dishonest? Was it how they've been playing the victim despite bringing this on themselves or something else?

Epic released a version of fortnight that knowingly bypassed IAP. The threads in the MR News Discussion lay all this out in detail.

I'd say Apple does have a monopoly in the App Store because they 100% control what can run on iOS - that's a powerful position to be in. Yes, it's their device and people can claim that it's a console but really it's a computer that one company decides what it can and can't do based on their commercial interests (e.g. game streaming).

Other peoples' opinions is that Apple has monopoly also. We'll see what the courts say next June/July.

It'll certainly be interesting. I started out being mostly with Epic in a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality but as it's progressed I've held less and less support for them. The Fortnite cup with the anti-Apple items was lame, as was the recent coalition development imo. Interesting times indeed.

 

[I7guy]

This is a set of ORs. Any of them will satisfy Epic. Permitting their store to be installed via Safari would also satisfy them.

And whether this comes to pass or not, we'll know in a year or so.

 

[Carnegie]

This is a set of ORs. Any of them will satisfy Epic. Permitting their store to be installed via Safari would also satisfy them.

Thats debatable. Epic hasn’t yet, as far as I’m aware, argued that allowing side loading would be satisfactory. It clearly wants to be able to distribute through the App Store, just without having to pay Apple.

Regardless, my point remains. You said Epic doesn’t want something and I wanted to clarify that Epic did indeed want that something. That is what it has asked for.

I’d add that Epic has good reasons to want to be able to distribute through the App Store, on its own terms, rather than just being able to side load.

 

[wkwkwkwk]

Yes that's true. Don't misunderstand, I'm not arguing that Epic should win. I'm simply saying that I don't understand why there are so many people on this forum who actively oppose the idea of having more ownership over what you can do with your Apple devices. I find that very surprising. I'd like if Apple made devices more open so that developers, power users, etc could do what they wanted with them (and sure, void the warranty or AppleCare or whatever).

Yes that's true. Don't misunderstand, I'm not arguing that Epic should win. I'm simply saying that I don't understand why there are so many people on this forum who actively oppose the idea of having more ownership over what you can do with your Apple devices. I find that very surprising. I'd like if Apple made devices more open so that developers, power users, etc could do what they wanted with them (and sure, void the warranty or AppleCare or whatever).

thats what you would like, not everyone including me. The reason why some people choose apple is because of restrictions. I do want at least one platform which does not allow that. I don’t think if it’s gonna make a good example here but one of my friends bought a Laptop and installed vlc player on it and then it’s speaker got busted within weeks and they declined to replace them under warranty saying you installed VLC player which boosts the speakers to work under conditions which they are not designed to work. He said where does it says that violates warranty and they replied it’s not our software and why should we state that?
I don’t think some people want that scenario to happen where they buy their iPhone, buy Apple care and when something happens they get an answer you accidentally voided your warranty and we won’t fix it.
The chances are slim but still it might happen. I don’t think there’s anything wrong having an ecosystem which tries its best to avoid you getting into those kind of situations.
And in epic’s case, I don’t think I ever want that transaction thing simply because I don’t want to deal with developers with transactions issues if something goes wrong. What if you make some accidental transaction, who wants to deal with a particular developer? They might be small developers and it might take time to get a reply from them. Instead of going through all that I would rather want Apple to deal with it. I still remember when my gf made accidental purchase and all it took was one email to Apple and they refunded within hours.

 

[31 Flavas]

Epic does not want to use Apple's store. Epic wants to use their own store. Every other OS with a web browser allows for applications to be installed via it. Permitting this requires negative effort on Apple's part - they're actively blocking it right now, all they have to do is start permitting it.

Oh sure. I wouldn't want to use Epic's store. I'd just want access to the millions that use their service. My own store that coopts their infrastructure to deliver games to my customers. Likewise I want the same access to Fortnite players. There are 350 million players who could all be my customers. I want to directly sell my own emotes and outfits to those who play. Yea, it will be an in game / in app purchase, but like heck I'm paying epic 12% for the transactions. I've got my own payment processor that only charges me around 3%. If they're gonna charge 12% that's running up the cost for my customers. That's being anti-competitive.

 

[LinkRS]

They already do that on Windows-S ... and to upgrade (legally) to windows 10 proper will cost you a pretty penny.

Xbox with its specific software/hardware combo is a fairer comparison anyhow than a Multi-System OS like Windows.

Actually, Windows 10 in S mode includes a free upgrade to standard Windows 10. See here: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4020089/windows-10-in-s-mode-faq It is a one-way conversion though, once you switch out of S Mode, it is gone unless you do a factory restore.

 

[Ubuntu]

Sure.
- we developers get up to 1 petabyte of user storage via CloudKit 100% free. Bear notes app does this and they manage 0 servers for their subscription-paid users.
- we could submit 1000 app and app updates in a year which translates to Apple paying about 1000 man-hours worth of paychecks at about $30/hr or ~$30k for app review
- we have free access to using Apple Maps instead of paying Google tons of money to use their mapping API keys (for those high volume users). this saves Yelp and Facebook a ton of money as well as small developers.
- we get many more new features every single year via the SDK compared to Android (like ARKit, Core ML, SwiftUI, Vision, etc... just to name a few).
- we get global distribution for free (including China, you know, where Google Play doesn't exist. also developers generally have to setup their own servers in China because of the great firewall, but if you used CloudKit, it just works without any extra setup).
- we get app store curated editorial with a chance to reach front page in front of 500 million customers a week.
- we have no credit card fees or international taxes to worry about
- Apple provides support to customers asking for refund for an app and app store support in general
- Testflight service is free (for public and private testing)
- app store automatically creates many different binaries of our app and distributes device-optimized versions to each customer. a 1 gigabyte app with many different permutations of versions across hundreds of servers around the world means Apple is hosting about several terabytes in the cloud for us from one single app
- push notifications/push notification sandbox servers
- Web SDK version of cloudkit/mapkit so that you can use it for a web version of your app
- Apple sign in
- Mac notarization service which improves trust by the user for downloading an app from the web
- yearly major releases of Xcode with new features
- analytics dashboard and crash reporting
- and the list goes on and on.

- Yup, CloudKit is great (I use it personally), although it does provide Apple with a great way to lock in apps (are you going to use CloudKit & another solution for Android? Probably not) so I'm doubtful about how useful it is for most developers (ignoring smaller components like iCloud Key Value store, which all developers could benefit from).
- This is a problem Apple has created, so it's no favour they're doing for us. It's an additional line of QA, for sure, but it's also a great void that can cause unforeseen problems (I have one example where they wasted two weeks of our time claiming our app didn't support IPv6 only to find out they had misconfigured their network? An apology? No. A **** storm for our marketing? 100%).
- Yet Yelp probably pays nothing despite this use. The model is flawed.
- Yup, this is a valid point.
- Eh, I guess, but this is amplified because the App Store is the only mechanism to get apps on iOS, and it's also mutually beneficial (e.g. promoting PUBG when Fortnite left the App Store).
- Yup, but there should be an option for companies that want to manage such details themselves (it results in better competition, after all).
- To a degree, but it's also a bit problematic when we can't issue refunds ourselves as the refund UX isn't great imo.
- Agreed for TestFlight.
- Again, you make this sound like it's solely for our benefit when it's not.
- Same as above, if they didn't offer the clunky (imo) APNS then the OS would suffer for it.
- I might be mistaken here as I only did a bit of research a week ago but CloudKitJS seems a bit dated to me.
- Lock in.
- A good move indeed, but why not separate out the plans? Why would this matter to a 100% iOS developer?
- They need developers to develop apps and so they must update Xcode - this is mutually beneficial.


Some good arguments indeed, but you're making the assumption that Apple is doing developers these nice things as if it's a one-way transaction when it's truly mutual.

 

[cmaier]

And Apple is also loosing a lot of money also from this

How so?

 

[farewelwilliams]

- Yup, CloudKit is great (I use it personally), although it does provide Apple with a great way to lock in apps (are you going to use CloudKit & another solution for Android? Probably not) so I'm doubtful about how useful it is for most developers (ignoring smaller components like iCloud Key Value store, which all developers could benefit from).

For plenty of indie developers, they're not worried about the other platforms as they don't have the resources to provide an Android or web version of their apps. CloudKit is great for small devs despite the lock in.

- This is a problem Apple has created, so it's no favour they're doing for us. It's an additional line of QA, for sure, but it's also a great void that can cause unforeseen problems (I have one example where they wasted two weeks of our time claiming our app didn't support IPv6 only to find out they had misconfigured their network? An apology? No. A **** storm for our marketing? 100%).

Apps going through a review process improves trust with the customer and they're more likely to try/buy your app.

I don't know the details of your IPv6 issue so I can't speak on that. Regardless that's beside the point. You can submit a million updates which improves trust by the customer and Apple fronts the bill in making your app trustworthy. Not to mention, Apple improved the app review times from 10 days to just 24 hours without asking for more money.

- Yet Yelp probably pays nothing despite this use. The model is flawed.

Whereas Google Maps charge thousands of dollars to indie developers if their free app suddenly becomes popular. That could kill indie developers since mapping services are essential to many free apps.

- Eh, I guess, but this is amplified because the App Store is the only mechanism to get apps on iOS, and it's also mutually beneficial (e.g. promoting PUBG when Fortnite left the App Store).

To each their own, but I built Android and iOS versions of a product. With Android, I had to find a new App Store in China (which meant I had to acquire a Chinese phone number to sign up for a new service) which meant I need to follow a new set of rules, I had to replace Google Maps with Baidu Maps, and I had to implement a separate push notification service because Google's Firebase doesn't work in China.

With iOS, I did 0 extra work. So whatever other "mechanism" you're striving for probably won't match what iOS' app store is going to offer in terms of distribution. Even AWS forces me to sign up for a new "China" AWS account so if Amazon had an iOS store, it sounds like it's still going to be extra work in deploy to China vs the rest of the world via an iOS Amazon App Store. Not only that, you're essentially going to split your audience among many stores. With iOS, I know I'm going to reach 100% of the iOS audience in China. With Android, I have to research which store will give me the most revenue (taking account into the royalty split and audience size, and weigh that agains the rules of the store).

- Again, you make this sound like it's solely for our benefit when it's not.

Hard to coordinate what you're responding to. If it's the device optimization, then it's both developer and user experience. Apple provides a CDN and minimizes the amount of data a user needs to download. They could have easily saved a lot of cloud space and force users to buy a higher storage iPhone tier.

- Same as above, if they didn't offer the clunky (imo) APNS then the OS would suffer for it.

Like I mentioned before, I don't even need to think about push notifications in China. APNS works without extra development, despite the clunky API

- I might be mistaken here as I only did a bit of research a week ago but CloudKitJS seems a bit dated to me.

Sure it's dated, but works fine from my end. New MapKitJS 5.0 works great as well.

- Lock in.

Purely optional if you're handling logins yourself. Otherwise, using Facebook login is a "lock in" as well.

- A good move indeed, but why not separate out the plans? Why would this matter to a 100% iOS developer?

Don't know what you're referring to.

- They need developers to develop apps and so they must update Xcode - this is mutually beneficial.

Compare the rate of feature additions of Android Studio and Xcode. Apple surely didn't need to add all of those features in a short amount of time.

Some good arguments indeed, but you're making the assumption that Apple is doing developers these nice things as if it's a one-way transaction when it's truly mutual.

Name one thing Apple can do that would be considered selfless to developers/users. I bet I can find an angle where Apple could benefit. Third party IAP systems? Third party app stores? 0% cut? All of those can be argued to be mutually beneficial. So I'm not sure why you're arguing for a "one-way transaction" when it's nearly impossible for Apple to do that.

If I benefit a lot from Apple's decisions, then I think it's not terribly important if Apple benefits or not.

 

[aidler]

It’s a very easy statement to make that 30% is too much. But what do you base that on? Why is 30% too much? Do you realise 30% is lot less than the 70% many were paying before such an AppStore. I think it’s value for money considering the market I can access of individuals who actually spend money, the services that are provided to me to globally distribute my apps, and the dealing with invoicing and tax globally without me having to create legal entities all around the world. And I haven’t even began to talk about the tooling provided. I used to spend thousands on that previously

Nope from a business perspective I have done my sums and can clearly say I couldn’t do all that for less. It’s a simple cost to do business and worth it.

But somehow you just think it’s too much. I would love to know why you think that.

Well what I know is that 30% is 3 out of 10 and that's a lot. No matter what Apple or similar companies say or provide that is always way too much. I'd say anything between 3 - 6% would be appropriate and Apple would still make a hefty profit. 30% is simply crazy. If you gladly pay 30% you can of course continue to do so.

That Apple can ask for 30% is simply prove that Apple indeed holds a monopoly in this market or if you count in Google, which also takes 30%, a duopoly. No sane company would otherwise be willing to give 30% of their revenue to Apple or Google.

Would you say that Apple is a company that hardly makes any profit and therefore needs to take 30% out of the revenue of other companies? I don't think so. 18.7% of Apples 210 billion revenue currently comes from services. This is the second largest revenue source for Apple after the iPhone. So again I don't think it is appropriate or nesessary for Apple to take

 

[TiggrToo]

your silly to think any one pays for linux or could sell it with out fundamentally changing the way open source licenses work.

Seems to me that you know far far less about Open Source than you think you do.

RedHat sell their Data Center Distro starting at $2,500 odd...

 

[TiggrToo]

That Apple can ask for 30% is simply prove that Apple indeed holds a monopoly in this market or if you count in Google, which also takes 30%, a duopoly. No sane company would otherwise be willing to give 30% of their revenue to Apple or Google.

Apple, Google, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo ALL charge 30%.

You personally not liking something doesn’t make it wrong, or illegal.

30% is industry standard.

 

[Zellio]

Well what I know is that 30% is 3 out of 10 and that's a lot. No matter what Apple or similar companies say or provide that is always way too much. I'd say anything between 3 - 6% would be appropriate and Apple would still make a hefty profit. 30% is simply crazy. If you gladly pay 30% you can of course continue to do so.

That Apple can ask for 30% is simply prove that Apple indeed holds a monopoly in this market or if you count in Google, which also takes 30%, a duopoly. No sane company would otherwise be willing to give 30% of their revenue to Apple or Google.

Would you say that Apple is a company that hardly makes any profit and therefore needs to take 30% out of the revenue of other companies? I don't think so. 18.7% of Apples 210 billion revenue currently comes from services. This is the second largest revenue source for Apple after the iPhone. So again I don't think it is appropriate or nesessary for Apple to take

Why does every Epic defender literally argue like Tim Sweeney? Even the judge said they were trying to gloss over the fact that everyone, including online department stores charge 30%!

 

[aidler]

Apple, Google, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo ALL charge 30%.

You personally not liking something doesn’t make it wrong, or illegal.

30% is industry standard.

Then the industry standard is wrong. Wouldn't be the first time that we do things the wrong way. Let's reiterate... 30% is clearly too much.

Asuming you are a consumer and not Apple: Why do you argue for higher prices? Who do you think pays the 30% Apple asks for? The consumer pays for it. You pay for it.

 

[aidler]

Why does every Epic defender literally argue like Tim Sweeney? Even the judge said they were trying to gloss over the fact that everyone, including online department stores charge 30%!

I have no idea if every online department store charges 30%, but if that is actually true I find that very odd and think it should be investigated. But no matter if that is the case, 30% is too much in any case.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Then the industry standard is wrong. Wouldn't be the first time that we do things the wrong way. Let's reiterate... 30% is clearly too much.

Asuming you are a consumer and not Apple: Why do you argue for higher prices? Who do you think pays the 30% Apple asks for? The consumer pays for it. You pay for it.

The developer sets the prices. They always have.

If you sell an app for $1 and you're unhappy that you only get 70 cents... then sell your app for $2 and enjoy life.

In the case of Epic... you give them real money and they give you fake money. Same for coins, jems, and other in-game currency.

You may think the blanket 30% policy is wrong... but these companies are selling virtual items for your hard-earned dollars. Epic doesn't have to "make" VBucks... they don't actually exist. You give them real money and they give you pixels.

THAT'S the real problem...

 

[icanhazmac]

Let's reiterate... 30% is clearly too much.

Based on what? Please, tell us all about your retail expertise, about how you transformed the online sales industry to operate on lower margins.

I'll wait......

 

[cmaier]

Then the industry standard is wrong. Wouldn't be the first time that we do things the wrong way. Let's reiterate... 30% is clearly too much.

Asuming you are a consumer and not Apple: Why do you argue for higher prices? Who do you think pays the 30% Apple asks for? The consumer pays for it. You pay for it.

What higher prices? A simple utility or game cost a lot more before the App Store than after the App Store. The App Store has resulted in much lower software prices for consumers.

 

[duanepatrick]

This is just..... shocking!

/s

Shocking indeed.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Well what I know is that 30% is 3 out of 10 and that's a lot. No matter what Apple or similar companies say or provide that is always way too much. I'd say anything between 3 - 6% would be appropriate and Apple would still make a hefty profit. 30% is simply crazy. If you gladly pay 30% you can of course continue to do so.

That Apple can ask for 30% is simply prove that Apple indeed holds a monopoly in this market or if you count in Google, which also takes 30%, a duopoly. No sane company would otherwise be willing to give 30% of their revenue to Apple or Google.

Would you say that Apple is a company that hardly makes any profit and therefore needs to take 30% out of the revenue of other companies? I don't think so. 18.7% of Apples 210 billion revenue currently comes from services. This is the second largest revenue source for Apple after the iPhone. So again I don't think it is appropriate or nesessary for Apple to take

So no concept of value for money nor awareness of what you are getting in return. I guess you don’t run a business and don’t do due dilligence. I mean going into negotiations and just saying it’s too much without understanding the issue is not getting you anywhere. Heck not just business, that is just life in general.

It need more substance other than saying it’s too much. And looking how rich another legal entity is has nothing to do with it. Should rich legal entities not be allowed to make the same margins as poorer legal entities? What about richer people, shall we make them pay more? Dude you’ve got a seriously warped view of the world and a bit of a chip on your shoulder.

 

[TiggrToo]

Then the industry standard is wrong. Wouldn't be the first time that we do things the wrong way. Let's reiterate... 30% is clearly too much.

Asuming you are a consumer and not Apple: Why do you argue for higher prices? Who do you think pays the 30% Apple asks for? The consumer pays for it. You pay for it.

Why is it “clearly too much”? Because you have decided as such?

if it’s “clearly too much” then there wouldn’t be folk like me arguing that it’s not.

Do you even have the first clue what the developers get for that 30%?

And where did to start thinking this affects the consumers?

There is so much here going on that you don’t understand; like, for example, iOS apps cost more simply because developers know iOS users will pay more. In addition, despite the ‘common sense’ rule “cheaper = more sales” on iOS it’s looking like for a lot of apps cheaper prices do not equate to increased sales.

But hey, you keep up with the single minded simple argument of “30% is clearly too much” - just know that the system is so much bigger and complex than your battle cry would suggest.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Yea, it will be an in game / in app purchase, but like heck I'm paying epic 12% for the transactions.

You contradicted yourself here. You had said you didn’t want to use their store at the start, then suddenly changed to saying you want to use their store here.

I’m split on the sentiment. In a single player game, sure, knock yourself out. It’s called modding - there’s a vibrant community that does it and it’s often supported by the original developers. In a multiplayer game though, I’d worry about the possibility of whatever you’re doing being used to introduce aimbots and other cheats. I’d want Epic to officially say 3rd Party emotes are fine and their game will handle them, then you can go ahead and sell them via their store and their rules or your own store.

 

[deevey]

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4020089/windows-10-in-s-mode-faq It is a one-way conversion though, once you switch out of S Mode, it is gone unless you do a factory restore.

Well what I know is that 30% is 3 out of 10 and that's a lot. No matter what Apple or similar companies say or provide that is always way too much. I'd say anything between 3 - 6% would be appropriate and Apple would still make a hefty profit. 30% is simply crazy. If you gladly pay 30% you can of course continue to do so.

That Apple can ask for 30% is simply prove that Apple indeed holds a monopoly in this market or if you count in Google, which also takes 30%, a duopoly. No sane company would otherwise be willing to give 30% of their revenue to Apple or Google.

Would you say that Apple is a company that hardly makes any profit and therefore needs to take 30% out of the revenue of other companies? I don't think so. 18.7% of Apples 210 billion revenue currently comes from services. This is the second largest revenue source for Apple after the iPhone. So again I don't think it is appropriate or nesessary for Apple to take

And many sane companies are only too willing to allow stores to set their prices at 40, 50, 60% (and in some cases higher) profit margins.

You'd probably have a heart attack at the margins on clothing for example.

The only difference is that Apple informs all parties exactly how much that margin is going to be from the get-go.

Do you think there should be a law against what's a reasonable profit ?

Should all items globally follow this rule ?

 

[I7guy]

Well what I know is that 30% is 3 out of 10 and that's a lot. No matter what Apple or similar companies say or provide that is always way too much. I'd say anything between 3 - 6% would be appropriate and Apple would still make a hefty profit. 30% is simply crazy. If you gladly pay 30% you can of course continue to do so.

That Apple can ask for 30% is simply prove that Apple indeed holds a monopoly in this market or if you count in Google, which also takes 30%, a duopoly. No sane company would otherwise be willing to give 30% of their revenue to Apple or Google.

Would you say that Apple is a company that hardly makes any profit and therefore needs to take 30% out of the revenue of other companies? I don't think so. 18.7% of Apples 210 billion revenue currently comes from services. This is the second largest revenue source for Apple after the iPhone. So again I don't think it is appropriate or nesessary for Apple to take

That you believe 30% is "a lot", got it, your opinion. Even though even the judge acknowledged 30% is an industry standard. 30% is a bargain given what Apple (and this has been documented numerous times) provides for the $99. An absolute steal.

It's not proper reasoning to conclude the if apple can ask for 30% it holds a monopoly. It could be your opinion, not likely to stand the test of the legal system though. And here in the US the biggest tax bracket is 37%.

Apples' revenue is irrelevant to how much it charges in the App Store. Would you say you can afford to earn less because you are a person that can buy electronic consumer devices?

 

[Michael Scrip]

30% is a bargain given what Apple provides for the $99. An absolute steal.

Exactly. You pay $99 and you have access to a billion Apple users.

If you have a free app... you're done. Enjoy being a developer.

But if you offer a paid app... or an app with in-app purchases... now you're dealing with Apple monetarily.

The good news is... you only pay the 30% when you get the 70%. You don't have to pay before you sell anything.

But what if you did? Recently, because of all the Epic talk, people have been comparing app stores to shopping malls.

Well guess what... malls charge rent. You must first pay your rent... and then you start selling.

So imagine if Apple's App Store was run like a mall. Imagine if developers had to pay $5,000 a month to even be in the App Store.

Imagine how many cool little apps wouldn't have been created because of a huge upfront cost.

Thankfully it's not like that. Apple only charges a 30% fee after you've sold an app or in-app purchase. And that 30% fee is payment to cover the running of the App Store, Apple's developers who create the APIs and SDKs, their data centers, payment processing in over 100 countries with various currencies and sales taxes, etc.

Is the 30% "too high" as some people say? I obviously don't think so considering what all you're getting.

But I understand there are different opinions.