Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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.
Fortnite hasn’t been on iOS for a few years now. It doesn’t seem to have effected sales.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
I don't think Apple is being petty. Epic hired a major law firm and plotted out a way to break open the App Store for Epic's own benefit, engaged in numerous shady practices to set up its lawsuit, and now, when Apple refuses to deal with Epic, which is Apple's rights, attempts to have a different company submit Fortnite for approval. In all likelihood, Apple's counsel is looking at whether it can completely refuse to deal with Epic, or any Epic related company, for any purpose, whether it be about Fortnite or Unreal or anything else, moving forward.

I agree about the history. I imagine Apple's folks would be happy to have the popular game back on the platform, but I don't blame them at all for defending even their most basic of rules from such clearly ill intent from their supposed partner. That's why focus on Sweeney rather than Epic; he alone seems to be the main brain behind all the relationship-precluding moves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Timpetus
They are mistreating the customer. If they are going to ban the apps arbitrarily, they will be subject to anti-monopoly regulations. They can't afford it.
well, that is not a "law".
And who is the customer? you, I? I don't feel mistreated.
And they are not banning apps arbitrarily. The banned Epic for breaking the rules of a business contract. The judge rules that Apple was within their rights and they don't need to allow Epic back in the App Store. That was like 5 years ago.
 
After costing apple potentially billions in future revenue; you can be sure that they're going to take their time delaying being really thorough in checking this app before approving it.
 
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.
No. You are close, but still miles away. There are a ton of other phones (cities in your terrible analogy, or rather STORES would be more realistic) that people can buy and do anything they want with. They buy an iPhone it is clear how it works, and nobody is forcing them to. If I am using your example it would be like a City Council agreeing that McDonalds should offer Whoppers in their storefronts and let Burger King get paid directly and McDonalds just having to suck it up and get nothing.

if you want to look at it a different way, Epic's store rules would not allow Apple to offer FinalCut, iMovie, iWork, LogicPro, etc... in the EPIC store.... without Epic getting their % cut they make everyone else pay who is selling software in the Epic store.

This is purely Tim Sweeney being a little baby pooping his diaper. Just watch any video of him, he is a whiny man who is sad his store isn't big and basically Fortnite is their only money maker. They make deals with Developers where they GIVE away games for free just to get people to install their stuff... hoping people will install Fortnite so they can sell them V-Bucks. It's sad. He is sad.
 
After costing apple potentially billions in future revenue; you can be sure that they're going to take their time delaying being really thorough in checking this app before approving it.
I'm not sure how Apple will be losing "potentially billions in future revenue" when Sweeney doesn't plan to allow Apple to make any money from Epic anyway. In fact, Sweeney plans to "cost" Apple money by free-riding on the App Store. Plus, Apple has been doing just fine financially since Epic was banned 5 years ago. So please clarify how Apple is losing anything by keeping them off the App Store.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Timpetus
Well gee, Epic intentionally broke the rules of the App Store. And now they want expedited review along with 30% cut and their game store on the platform they didn't build at all.

Tim Sweeney is a greedy ************
Well, the court decided that Apple was breaking the law.

Additionally the way the law works is that you cannot sue if someone didn’t do the action you were during over.

So, Epic had to break the rules and have Apple do something before they could sue.

If they broke the rules and Apple let it slide, then
Hardware ≠ software. You pay for the hardware, and that hardware is yours. But you do not own iOS or any of its services. You’re a user of them.

It would be different should users be charged to use iOS, similar to how OS’s used to be paid.
it would be different if Apple allowed you to use different software on the hardware.
 
Well, the court decided that Apple was breaking the law.

Additionally the way the law works is that you cannot sue if someone didn’t do the action you were during over.

So, Epic had to break the rules and have Apple do something before they could sue.

If they broke the rules and Apple let it slide, then

it would be different if Apple allowed you to use different software on the hardware.
Epic broke the contract. Because they broke the contract they were thrown out of the App Store. Can any point to any ruling that says Apple has to let them back in?
 
I'm not sure how Apple will be losing "potentially billions in future revenue" when Sweeney doesn't plan to allow Apple to make any money from Epic anyway. In fact, Sweeney plans to "cost" Apple money by free-riding on the App Store. Plus, Apple has been doing just fine financially since Epic was banned 5 years ago. So please clarify how Apple is losing anything by keeping them off the App Store.

Not from fortnite. But their antics were instrumental to all the judgement that's been placed onto apple into allowing external payment sources.
 
No. You are close, but still miles away. There are a ton of other phones (cities in your terrible analogy, or rather STORES would be more realistic) that people can buy and do anything they want with. They buy an iPhone it is clear how it works, and nobody is forcing them to. If I am using your example it would be like a City Council agreeing that McDonalds should offer Whoppers in their storefronts and let Burger King get paid directly and McDonalds just having to suck it up and get nothing.

if you want to look at it a different way, Epic's store rules would not allow Apple to offer FinalCut, iMovie, iWork, LogicPro, etc... in the EPIC store.... without Epic getting their % cut they make everyone else pay who is selling software in the Epic store.

This is purely Tim Sweeney being a little baby pooping his diaper. Just watch any video of him, he is a whiny man who is sad his store isn't big and basically Fortnite is their only money maker. They make deals with Developers where they GIVE away games for free just to get people to install their stuff... hoping people will install Fortnite so they can sell them V-Bucks. It's sad. He is sad.

Tim Sweeney is crying (like usual) because he sees dollar signs…and absolutely has zero access to them 😂 I don’t feel bad one bit about it. Maybe Tim Sweeney can work out a deal with Apple….Fortnite can have big, huge massive Apple advertisements in the landscapes and run little video messages in the corner about Apple products. You know, so it’s a fair two way street.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy
And because the court ruled Apple isn’t a monopoly, they can decide what products they offer in their store. They’re under no obligation to accept the app any more than Walmart is obligated to carry a Target house brand.
"
While the United States government has not yet secured a final legal declaration that Apple is a monopoly, the Department of Justice (DOJ), joined by 16 state attorneys general, filed a significant civil antitrust lawsuit against Apple in March 2024. This lawsuit explicitly alleges that Apple holds a monopoly in the smartphone market and has engaged in a pattern of anticompetitive conduct to unlawfully maintain that monopoly.
The DOJ's complaint contends that Apple has used its control over the iPhone ecosystem to stifle competition and limit choices for consumers and developers. Specific allegations include:
* Blocking innovative super apps: Preventing the development of apps that could offer a wide range of functionalities and reduce reliance on the iPhone's operating system.
* Suppressing mobile cloud streaming services: Hindering the availability of cloud-based gaming and other applications that would make high-end experiences accessible on less expensive hardware.
* Excluding cross-platform messaging apps: Degrading the quality of messaging between iPhones and non-Apple devices.
* Diminishing the functionality of non-Apple smartwatches: Making it more difficult for smartwatches from other companies to work seamlessly with iPhones.
* Limiting third-party digital wallets: Restricting the ability of third-party apps to offer tap-to-pay functionality.
Apple has denied these allegations and is contesting the lawsuit. The company argues that its practices are aimed at creating a secure and integrated user experience and that it facesỞrobust competition in the smartphone market.
It is important to distinguish between being accused of being a monopoly and being legally recognized as one. A legal recognition of monopoly status in the U.S. typically occurs through a court judgment after a trial or as part of a settlement agreement in an antitrust case. As the DOJ's lawsuit is ongoing, there has been no such formal legal determination that Apple is a monopoly.
Prior to this large-scale lawsuit concerning the smartphone market, Apple has been involved in other antitrust matters in the US. Notably, in 2012, a U.S. District Court ruled that Apple conspired to raise the price of e-books, a decision that was upheld on appeal. However, this case did not declare Apple a monopoly overall, but rather found anticompetitive behavior in a specific market."

It's just a matter of time.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Timpetus
Dude, I’m switching to Android. I just want to use the A16 Bionic to it’s fullest for once but Apple won’t let us.
 
let me re-phrase: until Apple knows the outcome of the appeal they files - nothing will happen
You don't get to avoid judgement just because you have filed an appeal. Quite literally 99% of all inmates in US prisons are awaiting the outcome of some sort of appeal. It doesn't mean they don't need to abide by the judgement of the court in the previous (standing) ruling. Appeals can take years. It stands until it's overturned.
 
Neither side really comes off particularly well in the whole thing.

At the end of the day Apple is preventing its own customers from playing Fortnite out of pettiness. Personally I don't care because it's not my thing, but if it was I'd be very annoyed with Apple.

Pettiness? I thought it was because Epic willfully broke contract by sneakily circumventing Apple’s mechanisms. This got their entire account banned by Apple.

The above has NOTHING to do with the recent court case, though I can see why people are conflating it.

One can not like Apple’s previous policy, and like what the Judge did, while also not liking Epic for being sneaky contract breaking turds.
At least I can :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Timpetus
Apple, just stop being a dick and acting like a 5yr old!
As a shareholder why would we remotely want to lose such a revenue stream?

There is no compelling reason for shareholders to think that opening up the App Store will sell enough hardware to make up from lost App Store revenue
 
  • Like
Reactions: Timpetus
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.