I don’t think Epic ever wanted a trial. The trial wouldn’t start until July 2021, so I think they were hoping for a quick decision that would allow them back in the App Store with their dignity intact. It doesn’t sound like it will go this way. So either they back down or risk their app being out of the App Store for 1+ years.
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 Unlikely to Win Injunction in Ongoing Fortnite Battle With Apple, Jury Trial Possible
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The 30% goes towards covering the costs of running the App Store (and then some). For the developers, the App Store has helped grow their pie by aggregating a large pool of users with a high propensity to spend. And Apple makes it easy for us to spend money via iTunes, and the apps store is a safe and convenient way of buying and downloading apps.
All this contribute towards us purchasing even more apps than we otherwise would have, resulting in more profits for the developers, even after Apple’s 30% cut.
So I feel that Apple is entitled to some commission in this regard. Yes, developers contribute the apps, but they wouldn’t have been as successful or sold as many apps if not for Apple facilitating the transaction between them and the end user.
I don't think it's so much a matter of voiding the warranty or insurance policy, as much as it is can you? This also goes to the heart of the right to repair laws that are gaining more traction in the states, e.g. should someone (other than the manufacturer) have the ability to provide a similar service?
With the way apps are distributed on iOS, Apple acts as the gatekeeper and will not allow other/similar distribution channels/app stores. Epic is arguing that consumers should have the ability to choose a different app store on their iOS device if they wish. They claim mobile apps - not mobile devices - are the primary market they seek to enter. Apple, on the other hand, claims mobile devices is the primary market (i.e. don't like our rules, buy a different device). I'm curious to see how it all plays out.
So what long lasting not made in China phone do you use the? last time I looked the iPhone 6s from 2015 can still run the latest iOS so thats a five year lifespan already
I knew it was all BS when Epic said that they were breaking "free" from Apple ripping us consumers a new one and directing us to their store where they were discounting the price 20% effectively giving themselves a nice little raise and screwing the fortnite players, who really are the only ones suffering through this ordeal. Thanks, epic games!!
Such high prices as compared to what? Other online stores charge the same 30%, don't you read?
Hmm, nothing? How about the hardware platform, the os, the development tools, a centralized store for your app to reside on, the payment infrastructure, need I go on?
What are you even talking about here?
Epic is NOT arguing that consumers should have the ability to choose a different app store on their iOS device, Epic is DEMANDING that iPhone customers be forced to use more than the current apple App Store in order to still have access to all apps. The only winner here is big companies who can afford to set up their own stores. Consumers wont win in any way, well except those who want inappropriate apps on their iPhone
If I have to sit on a jury I'd rather it be an entertaining one such as this. But getting a jury would be hard, most people have an opinion of Apple on way or another.
If Epic dropped the case or lost it or whatever, I don't think Apple would enforce the one-year timeout. Apple would take the win and make the players happy and let Epic back in as soon as they comply. Heck, Apple would welcome them back right now if they drop the link. Sweeney says no, though. His principles are more important than tens of thousands of his paying users.
Except that Epic isn't charging anything for the Fortnite game app; relying only on in-app purchases for revenue, at least the initial Fortnite release was modeled this way.
All Epic had to do is make all Fortnite related purchases only allowable via the web and boom, problem solved. Sure it isn't as slick or streamlined.
I've decided I do not care either way since I do not play Fortnite. The only thing that would bum me out is if Unreal Engine developement ceases for the macOS platform.
Either we watched two entirely different hearings or you’re bending over backwards to explain the hearing in Epic’s favour. Not just in this comment but other comments as well.
The only thing the judge has said to the detriment of Apple was that their security argument was overblown.
When she mentioned hotfixes the judge stopped short of a tirade, telling Forrest (Epic’s lawyer) that they’ve been dishonest and not forthcoming by claiming its “just another hotfix”.
Explaining that indeed, she (the judge) knows hotfixes are an industry standard but by doing what Epic did they were dishonest and that move in and of itself constitutes the security issue.
As for the 30% commission rate, can hardly call it “pressing Apple” as she merely asked for an explanation, after which she slammed Epic with the fact that indeed others charge the same, listing off all the others:
“The 30% of what you complain seems to be the industry rate, right?
Steam charges 30%. Microsoft: 30% ... If you go to consoles: PlayStation, Xbox Nintendo all charged 30%.
Physical stores: game shop, Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart all charge 30%. Apple and Google charged 30%.”
By all accounts, it least in the legal field, this was an embarrassing hearing for Epic and doesn’t bode well at all for the preliminary order that will drop one of these days.
Sony charges 30%
For one, Apple CloudKit can be used by any developer for free. Developer can store up to a PETABYTE (1000 Terabytes) in the cloud 100% free.
No wonder you don't get it. You have no clue what 30% pays for.
Billing is handled by Apple. Apple makes it extremely easy for the user to pay for something. Epic's own billing system requires the user to type in their credit card details for the billionth time. Think about credit card cut, international taxes, Apple support handling refunds, etc...
Continued updates are handled by Apple too. Apple handles push notifications as well. New iOS updates improves Metal performance, which improves the graphics performance of Fortnite. This improves UX for the user and they'll spend more time in the game (raking in more money via IAP).
Strawman. Microsoft never started the platform on that basis and they don't control the hardware.
So developer will not issue updates, which needs to be reviewed and distributed to the users? Developer decides, if will use fee when buying, using microtransaction, using subscriptions or use their combination. Platform gets commision from all types, because if IAP will be allowed without commision, all apps will be free and all payments will be via IAP. If developer wants to sell its app to billion users, it has to accept platform rules.
Thank you. People throw around the term “monopoly”, when it seems a stretch to consider Apple as such. Most people would assume that means they have the dominant share of the smartphone market at large, not control over the means by which apps are distributed on their own platform. The “monopoly” accusation just hasn’t felt right.
Thanks for giving us your opinion while typing on your cheap Chinese garbage product
It’s far more than just that
Money is also involved, as well as the 30% cut for Apple etc
Assuming that’s how it’s actually viewed from an accounting perspective, if a developer opts not to use CloudKit — as very many do for myriad reasons — they have to pay for it regardless. Why?
If you buy a big mac and don't want onions, does McDonald's have to charge you less?
Epic's lack of preparation in their legal endeavor is appalling. Not that I want Epic to win, but if you start a fight, you better have a plan to win it.
So my scenario was hypothetical. IF Epic changed the game from free to charging something, even $1.99, then it still stands that IAP have nothing to do with Apple and only has to do with the players ability to buy something in the game.
Maybe any apps that have IAP cannot be free. I'm not in a position to think of a policy but something needs to change how developers pay Apple to distribute their product.
Why does something need to change?