If Apple loses, do you realize that it means that if you or anyone else who happens to develop a product that becomes popular you may have to give up the right to control the features you add to that product? And take a read through this forum to see all the potential downsides for users if Epic were to succeed. Many of us just don't want that experience. Absolute price is not the only value to the iOS experience for many users and many developers.
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
If Apple loses, do you realize that it means that if you or anyone else who happens to develop a product that becomes popular you may have to give up the right to control the features you add to that product? And take a read through this forum to see all the potential downsides for users if Epic were to succeed. Many of us just don't want that experience. Absolute price is not the only value to the iOS experience for many users and many developers.
Darth Tulhu
macrumors 68020
Yes. She expressed my thoughts on the issue almost verbatim.
To be fair, most of us were losers long before this happened...
Without reading comments, just like what I feel, the end result will not be the one participants are expected. I’m actually surprised that this legal battle ends so quickly. Mere 2 months or so. I thought it would last years. Wonder why.
As for Epic Game, all I can say is good luck moving forward with or without Apple. It’s nice to see them spearhead the entire debate about app store policy etc. But, if epic game ends up losing, it’s mostly because their pocket is way too shallow compared to Apple. Imo, only companies like Amazon, Google, Microsoft and such could realistically launch a legal fight with Apple. Any other company either retreat or submit. There’s no middle ground here. Why fight the inevitable?
Oh, Epic Game, just like any other developer, is like a customer to Apple. One developer leaves iOS wont hurt Apple at all, even for company of the size of Epic Game. Want to make an impact? Let more company leave iOS ecosystem. I feel at this point Apple is so big, unless something happens like major apps leave iOS, nothing will change, and I seriously doubt this will ever happen.
In summary, the best way to fight Apple is leaving iOS ecosystem. Legal fight will always lose no matter what. Thanks for Epic Game proving that for us.
As for Epic Game, all I can say is good luck moving forward with or without Apple. It’s nice to see them spearhead the entire debate about app store policy etc. But, if epic game ends up losing, it’s mostly because their pocket is way too shallow compared to Apple. Imo, only companies like Amazon, Google, Microsoft and such could realistically launch a legal fight with Apple. Any other company either retreat or submit. There’s no middle ground here. Why fight the inevitable?
Oh, Epic Game, just like any other developer, is like a customer to Apple. One developer leaves iOS wont hurt Apple at all, even for company of the size of Epic Game. Want to make an impact? Let more company leave iOS ecosystem. I feel at this point Apple is so big, unless something happens like major apps leave iOS, nothing will change, and I seriously doubt this will ever happen.
In summary, the best way to fight Apple is leaving iOS ecosystem. Legal fight will always lose no matter what. Thanks for Epic Game proving that for us.
Last edited:
I'd be surprised if they just dropped the suit at this point. Look at how much free PR they get every time the case nudges forward. Meanwhile they're building coalitions with other devs who will love to insert the phrase "is defending itself in multiple lawsuits around their heavy handed AppStore policies" into as many media articles as they can.
Apple hasn't made dropping the case a requirement for returning to the AppStore, they've made removing the offending code a requirement. They can presumably do that and keep the suit alive, or force Apple to look punitive. They'll need to pay the cost of opening another dev account, which is trivial, and probably force iOS players to re-download, install, and sign into their accounts again which will probably be less trivial.
Question for any lawyers on the thread: is there a legal statute that says not allowing any sort of side loading is a anti-competitive or monopolistic practice? Or is this one of those tech things where the law simply hasn’t caught up?
Wondering what the legal argument would be if Apple were sued for not allowing installations outside the App Store rather than over the 30% fee for purchases made on the store.
I understand the security arguments on the Apple side, but I’m curious as to whether or not that, for instance, not allowing people to visit a link and install an app (like downloading an apk on Android) is evidence of some illegal or questionably legal stance.
Wondering what the legal argument would be if Apple were sued for not allowing installations outside the App Store rather than over the 30% fee for purchases made on the store.
I understand the security arguments on the Apple side, but I’m curious as to whether or not that, for instance, not allowing people to visit a link and install an app (like downloading an apk on Android) is evidence of some illegal or questionably legal stance.
I stand by my earlier view that Fortnite is a stupid game, even more over-rated and dumb than Call of Duty. It's not even as remotely interesting as Call of Duty given it only has ONE play style. There's no Capture the Flag, or a single player campaign, or nothing except 'kill everyone until the storm ends everything in a few minutes'. Honestly, what's the appeal?
Even Fallout 76 is more interesting than Fortnite.
Even Fallout 76 is more interesting than Fortnite.
I watch her hearings a couple times a week. Very well-informed judge who prepares amazingly for every hearing. And she doesn’t take any crap from anyone.
[automerge]1601340710[/automerge]
There is no statute that says anything about side-loading. Which doesn’t mean the law hasn’t caught up - it may well be that such a stupid law is not necessary.
What was a fair price for the game to begin with? How is that number determined? If a game is worth $49.99, but Epic sells it for $0, $1.99, $9.99, or $39.99, it's because they intend to make up the difference on IAP. Is $49.99 the right price for Fortnite? Is it too high? Too low? How do we know?
Games used to cost money when you had to go to the store and buy the box with the CD in it and carry it home. Better games cost more money, generally. Eventually they would get old and the boxes would be thrown in the discount bin, and you'd root around in there looking for something good at a lower price. Then an "expansion" would be released, and you'd go to the store, buy the expansion, and bring it home to add functionality to your game.
So, we can either set up an elaborate bureaucracy to determine the "true inflation adjusted old-school equivalent price", and a separate bureaucracy for determining what is a legitimate "expansion", or just accept that the way software is sold now has changed to incremental revenue and that Apple provides a storefront for that service.
Allowing side loading on absolutely everything by law is unfeasible. And where should the mark be drawn? Should IoT devices allow side-loading? Consoles? SmartTVs? Electric cars? Dishwashers? Or just Apple devices?
The products Epic started this fight with are multiple-platform, so they can use their own store to sell consumable items across the platforms. They need to make IAP available though, and can't advertise their store in Apple's, so the real issues are that they want to use the App Store but avoid paying for Apple's services, and also want to use the App Store to advertise their services. It has nothing to do with any cut.
Ummmm ... yes I can do whatever aftermarket modifications I want on it. Can I change the software in the computer brain of the car? No, because that's a literal physical safety requirement and I'm sure very heavily limited by law.
Will all modifications void the warranty? Certainly not. Will some? Sure. I can decide as the owner what I want to do with it and the manufacturer or insurance company can dictate what they will or won't cover. Again, not the best comparison given how heavily regulated all that stuff is.
Why am not surprise of the comment section. Do you all like to pat on each others back because of potential good news for Apple? Yeah, they make good products, but don't think for a second believe Apple cares about you. The price they charge for their product you means they care only for your money. Snap out of it, Apple is not your god.
Don’t think for a half second that Epic cares about you.
Good point. I guess the question becomes how high can the walled garden walls be before it’s a problem? Is it okay if they were to charge $100 to buy a dongle that allowed you to install whatever you however you want?
I feel like this is getting towards the “is it your device or our device“ argument. Maybe there just isn’t a legal answer yet. Definitely seems like a reasonable argument to say “if you want this sort of customization, buy an android phone.”
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).
This is beyond stupid. They are free to leave the app on the store and follow the rules, while lobbying for Apple to change their practice. Or, they can find other means of collecting the full profit via other methods (as countless other apps do) while leaving the app in the store while following the rules. They aren’t forced to give Apple 30 percent, even if they leave the app on the store.
Its a great platform and their arms aren’t twisted into anything, nor does Apple’s App Store have a monopoly on anything.
They are likely looking at a lengthy battle, decreased revenues and hefty court fees when all is said and done. I don’t think there is a moral high ground argument here, even though they may honestly feel that way.
And I say this being supportive of Apple maybe working with developers to figure out a fair way to allow lowered store fees. But at the end of the day, I do believe Apple ultimately gets to decide. I think this is a situation where developers should speak with their apps (by pulling them from the store or not putting them there to begin with), or consumers by going to a different platform.
Its a great platform and their arms aren’t twisted into anything, nor does Apple’s App Store have a monopoly on anything.
They are likely looking at a lengthy battle, decreased revenues and hefty court fees when all is said and done. I don’t think there is a moral high ground argument here, even though they may honestly feel that way.
And I say this being supportive of Apple maybe working with developers to figure out a fair way to allow lowered store fees. But at the end of the day, I do believe Apple ultimately gets to decide. I think this is a situation where developers should speak with their apps (by pulling them from the store or not putting them there to begin with), or consumers by going to a different platform.
So Epic is officially declaring themselves as bandit group. They only target Apple because Apple is getting rich by selling hardware.
From previous reports, Epic seemed to have taken full advantage of the benefits that come with that 30%, being especially demanding developers to the point Apple had people ready to help them particularly around the clock.
Not only that, but console may be sold at a loss or at very low margins when they first enter the market, but they stay on shelves for a long long time. A co sole generation is about, what, 7 years? And even after a new generation is released, the previous one keeps getting sold and keeps being supported. Economy of scale and reduced cost of component down the line must widen those margin a bit, even though msrp goes down too. In contrast, there is a new iPhone every year (with the R&D that goes with it). I’m not suggesting Apple isn’t making healthy profit off of their iPhone, but they propose a product people are ready to pay ~1000$ for, every few years, but the market doesn’t seem ready to pay for a console that is over 500$ (PS3 had a rough start at 600$). It doesn’t see that value proposition there but sees it in smartphones. If the market was ready to pay more for console, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo would be charging more and making a bigger margin. Different markets, different strategy.