Epic Resubmits Fortnite to U.S. App Store After Not Hearing From Apple for 120+ Hours

[Onelifenofear]

I’m disappointed in Tim Cook specifically for not addressing this. For me personally, I feel Apple has less value if they don’t let Fortnite back into the App Store.

They were banned. They broke the rules at the time and continued to push and lawsuit up. They deserve nothing.

If someone did this to you personally would you invite them in your house and let them run a card game, not pay you any rent or electricity?

If only for the fact the game would be on Apples servers and download 50 million times @ 5gb or whatever or whatever and Epic would pay nothing because the game is free. This was partly why Apple took 30% on IAP.

It's all a joke 30% is nothing to Epic. in the bad old days you were lucky to take home 30% with the cost of boxes, disk dupe, shipping etc - Hell the retailer took 50% straight off.

Epic want it all for free. I'd throw them out the door.

 

[I7guy]

And this, right here, is the cost of an app. store monopoly, and why agencies like the DOJ bring suits. We all suffer because Apple chooses to play petty, illegal games.

We all suffer when unscrupulous devs like epic try to pull a fast one.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

We all suffer when unscrupulous devs like epic try to pull a fast one.

We all suffer when unnecessary rent-seekers insert themselves into the middle of a consumer-company transaction.

 

[surferfb]

The judge didn't stay the ruling waiting on appeal; it applied immediately. There is also no guarantee an appeal will even be accepted by a higher court.

Yes, but the ruling didn't say Apple had to let Fortnite back in, in fact, it said the opposite (Apple was within its rights to kick out Epic).

Plus, as I pointed out in the other thread, given that Apple's motion to pause the judge's ruling until the appeal is determined contains this argument (bottom of page 23):

Epic will suffer little or no harm from a stay. It has no apps on the App Store and cannot directly benefit from the ordered changes.

I suspect at a minimum Fortnite won't be let back on until that motion is ruled on. Apple asked the court to rule by May 28 (but obviously that is a request).

 

[dbc34]

And this, right here, is the cost of an app. store monopoly, and why agencies like the DOJ bring suits. We all suffer because Apple chooses to play petty, illegal games.

Does Walmart play a petty, illegal game if they don’t let a certain brand of dish soap to occupy their shelves because said soap maker only wants to pay 3 cents per bottle sold than the 4 cents all the other soap makers are paying?

 

[dbc34]

We all suffer when unnecessary rent-seekers insert themselves into the middle of a consumer-company transaction.

Unnecessary rent seekers? So Apple bought and built the house, Epic wants to live in it for free and it’s apple’s fault for not letting it happen?

 

[Plutonius]

Don't call us. we'll call you.

 

[surferfb]

It's time for the court to push even harder.

Again, the court ruled Apple was not a monopoly, they were within their rights to kick out Epic, they did not have to let Epic back in, AND Epic owed Apple 30% of the sales it made when it bypassed the App Store to sell vBucks directly to customers.

The only thing the court agreed with Epic on is that Apple had to allow developers with apps in the App Store to allow link outs. But, again, the ruling did NOT say Apple had to let Epic back on the store.

 

[djphat2000]

Pretty sure, Apple isn't required to let them back on the store. They were banned for cause. And Apple is under no obligation to let, well anyone on the store.
I don't have an issue if they put them on the store or not. Just wanted to know if they do. Can I purchase via the Apple IAP & their link-out method. OR, will it be just Link-Out. Choice after all, right..

 

[I7guy]

We all suffer when unnecessary rent-seekers insert themselves into the middle of a consumer-company transaction.

I totally disagree as the “suffering” can’t be quantified. The needs of the few do not outweigh the needs of the many.

Rent seeking is not an appropriate term. It refers to earning money by social engineering. Apple doesn’t rent seek they charge to bring services and customers together.

 

[Onelifenofear]

And this, right here, is the cost of an app. store monopoly, and why agencies like the DOJ bring suits. We all suffer because Apple chooses to play petty, illegal games.

Why is it illegal? It's not a monopoly. It's one of 100s of phones. Go buy an Android.. or a Tizen!

What about xBox, Playstation and nintendo? They next? How about Kindle, Audible, Barne & Nook, Battle.net, Orgin / EA, Ubisoft connect, Digital Art and Asset Marketplaces, Smart TV platforms, Streaming services, Adobe creative cloud, Educational platforms like Masterclass, Car entertainment systems? All locked down. you cannot access their content or apps in any other way.

 

[AppleFan91]

Apple leaving ‘em on “read” lol

 

[MartyF81]

The court ruling didn't say Apple had to re-enable EPIC. This is Tim Sweeney grand standing for headlines. Who by the way also has a game store and Gaming engine that expects cuts from developers using their platform.

They intentionally broke the App Store rules and got disabled. The court ruling says a different payment method is now allowed, it didn't say "You have to allow EPIC on your store now."

Also why on earth would any company enable someone who is actively in litigation to use their ecosystem?

Imagine you own a retail store chain that with locations all over the country and some product provider is like "you need to stock my product on your shelves but let the customer ignore your register line and just pay me directly... and since you won't I am going to sue you." Only an insane person would be like "here is some shelf space welcome back".

 

[davide_eu]

Again, the court ruled Apple was not a monopoly, they were within their rights to kick out Epic, they did not have to let Epic back in, AND Epic owed Apple 30% of the sales it made when it bypassed the App Store to sell vBucks directly to customers.

The only thing the court agreed with Epic on is that Apple had to allow developers with apps in the App Store to allow link outs. But, again, the ruling did NOT say Apple had to let Epic back on the store.

I don't change my mind.

A company that believes to be above the law is dangerous for the democracy. Time to split in smaller companies, like what was done in US in the telco industry.

 

[davide_eu]

The court ruling didn't say Apple had to re-enable EPIC. This is Tim Sweeney grand standing for headlines. Who by the way also has a game store and Gaming engine that expects cuts from developers using their platform.

They intentionally broke the App Store rules and got disabled. The court ruling says a different payment method is now allowed, it didn't say "You have to allow EPIC on your store now."

Also why on earth would any company enable someone who is actively in litigation to use their ecosystem?

Imagine you own a retail store chain that with locations all over the country and some product provider is like "you need to stock my product on your shelves but let the customer ignore your register line and just pay me directly... and since you won't I am going to sue you." Only an insane person would be like "here is some shelf space welcome back".

No, it's different. Here is "you cannot have another store in this city" and even if the city council agrees, you do everything to go against competitors.

 

[jz0309]

It doesn't work in this way...

says who? you?

 

[I7guy]

I don't change my mind.

A company that believes to be above the law is dangerous for the democracy. Time to split in smaller companies, like what was done in US in the telco industry.

That’s not the way it works in the US. Apple isn’t above the law, doesn’t mean they can’t legally appeal.

 

[davide_eu]

And this, right here, is the cost of an app. store monopoly, and why agencies like the DOJ bring suits. We all suffer because Apple chooses to play petty, illegal games.

And even more important, a$$le has distroied forever their status as friend of consumer, a think different brand. Now it is just another company, even worst than Google or Microsoft. And that has no price!

 

[jz0309]

It's time for the court to push even harder.

court has nothing to say beyond that they rules Epic is banned. Never was challenged, it's a fact.

 

[rjp1]

Ultimately, it is the consumers that lose here.

Either let them back in the store so people can play Fortnite on their device.

Or, open installs from outside the App Store or alternative App Stores.

At the end of the day, it is no different than a mac or Windows or Android laptop or tablet. It is just a computer. Nothing really different, "because phone." The people that defend this would lose their mind if Microsoft announced tomorrow that they will now require all apps come from their store and Windows couldn't run anything else. It is that level of stupid.

 

[davide_eu]

We all suffer when unnecessary rent-seekers insert themselves into the middle of a consumer-company transaction.

True! It should become illegal...

 

[davide_eu]

Ultimately, it is the consumers that lose here.

Either let them back in the store so people can play Fortnite on their device.

Or, open installs from outside the App Store or alternative App Stores.

At the end of the day, it is no different than a mac or Windows or Android laptop or tablet. It is just a computer. Nothing really different, "because phone." The people that defend this would lose their mind if Microsoft announced tomorrow that they will now require all apps come from their store and Windows couldn't run anything else. It is that level of stupid.

Rjp1 for president!

 

[davide_eu]

That’s not the way it works in the US. Apple isn’t above the law, doesn’t mean they can’t legally appeal.

Yes they can, but before you have to comply. If there is nothing to comply as a lot of people are saying here,why they would appeal?

 

[I7guy]

And even more important, a$$le has distroied forever their status as friend of consumer, a think different brand.

Ni it hasn’t. The consumer doesn’t care about the pretzel battles MR members wage on the internet front.

Now it is just another company, even worst than Google or Microsoft. And that has no price!

If you believe is just another company, that’s your opinion and yours alone.

 

[jz0309]

I don't change my mind.

A company that believes to be above the law is dangerous for the democracy. Time to split in smaller companies, like what was done in US in the telco industry.

which company would that be? and which law?