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

[surferfb]

I hope Apple gets slapped with a huge contempt of court fine. This is Musk-level petty trolling.

For what?

 

[JordanCautious]

Extremely predictable. So predictable I called this happening. The arrogance to think that Apple would just let them back in like nothing happened is silly.

Shouldn’t have broken the TOS 🤷‍♂️

 

[I7guy]

My prediction is that all of this will result in a win the battle, lose the war outcome.

What Apple is demonstrating is that fears over access to one of the biggest smartphone platforms on the world being solely regulated by a single company's whims can have real and tangible negative consequences.

The EU isn't the only jurisdiction that has or is considering whether such access needs to be guaranteed by law and if i was a policy maker in any of these jurisdictions I'd strongly take note of this.

It may be that we do not care about Epic, but do you really want to take the risk that software can only be made available to the public if one of two US giants are okay with it? Do you want to take that risk particularly in a much more hostile global environment?

Apple will have its reasons for this. I'm definitely not saying they are not within their legal right to do this. I don't think it will help them in the long run.

It’s going to be lose the battle and win the war where they can. The US is a good example of that mentality. As far as Epic I hope Apple is able to keep them out in the US. Of course if the appeal is denied or thrown out it will be a different matter than another type of ruling.

I hope the billions in attorneys fees gets them what they want.

 

[I7guy]

"
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.

This whole thing has to win. As the OJ trial shows, things always don’t turn out the way that people think they turn out or the way the government thinks it will turn out. Innocent until proven guilty.

Remember: “if the app store don’t fit, you must acquit”.

 

[frozencarbonite]

Hoping the 'App Store Freedom Act' will get passed and legally require Apple to allow alternate app stores. Apple has had control for too long.

 

[dbc34]

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?

@devkix I'm curious why you disagree with this statement, or my others. Is it because you think if someone houses your product for sale then they don't deserve to get a cut by providing millions upon millions of potential buyers you wouldn't have otherwise?

 

[SFjohn]

Wow, 120 hours (that’s nothing)… It’s like they expect world class treatment after years of damming Apple. I’d expect Apple to add them to the back of their cue every time they resubmit the app. 😱

 

[zarmanto]

... I’d expect Apple to add them to the back of their cue every time they resubmit the app. 😱

The same thought occurred to me -- but in an admittedly more cynical form: I think most everybody comprehends the concept of hanging up on tech support and ending up at the back of the queue when you call back. So one of my first thoughts was to wonder if Epic resubmitted with the specific intent of artificially increasing that delay, so that the perception in court is as strongly skewed against Apple as possible when they go whining to the judge about it.

(Not that it really matters what Epic does, here... As I noted earlier in the thread, I think it's safe to say that Apple is very unlikely to approve Epic's request.)

 

[Dreamweaver12]

PLEASE tell me that Apple will be able to use the fact that it was submitted by a European dev account as a loophole to not have to approve it in the US. PLEASE. I want nothing more than for this app to be denied...and for Tim Sweeney to choke on his own ****.

 

[surferfb]

PLEASE tell me that Apple will be able to use the fact that it was submitted by a European dev account as a loophole to not have to approve it in the US. PLEASE. I want nothing more than for this app to be denied...and for Tim Sweeney to choke on his own ****.

Apple doesn't have to accept any app in the store (at least in the US). There might be reasons Apple wants to (PR, not pissing off courts, etc.), but the judge in this case ruled that Apple is not a monopoly and has the right to decide what apps are in its store, and specifically ruled Apple was within its rights to kick out Epic.

 

[Bobbuilds69]

Chris are you awake?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

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.

indeed, but they have to dismiss them along the rules they have established. They could say no because we dont like you, but that's not in the rules as a reason to deny an app from being published.

 

[surferfb]

indeed, but they have to dismiss them along the rules they have established. They could say no because we dont like you, but that's not in the rules as a reason to deny an app from being published.

I think "we revoked your parent company's account for breaking the App Store's terms and conditions" is a legitimate reason. Otherwise what's to stop every company kicked out of the App Store from just spinning up a subsidiary?

 

[currocj]

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 ************

And Tim Cook isn’t greedy?

$100 for 12 cents worth of memory ?

 

[currocj]

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.

The hardware is mine?

Can I easily swap batteries?

Can I install whatever software I want like a computer?

Or we sure the hardware is mine?

 

[Vastolorde97]

You guys are idiots if you think Epic isn't going to use this against apple in the long run to open up to sideloading in the US market and honestly, they should.

 

[surferfb]

You guys are idiots if you think Epic isn't going to use this against apple in the long run to open up to sideloading in the US market and honestly, they should.

I am sure Epic will to try to do that (I mean they already have and were told by a federal judge “Apple isn’t a monopoly, they don’t have to offer sideloading, and they were within their rights to kick you off”), but since the failed the first time not sure why they would have any different result this time.

 

[kolebee]

.

 

[kolebee]

as commented to the previous article about this: until that appeals process is completed, ruled on, nothing will happen.

Unless a higher court stays the injunction on appeal, that is very much not the case.

From the court order, "This is an injunction, not a negotiation. There are no do-overs once a party willfully disregards a court order. Time is of the essence. The Court will not tolerate further delays. As previously ordered, Apple will not impede competition. The Court enjoins Apple from implementing its new anticompetitive acts to avoid compliance with the Injunction. Effective immediately Apple will no longer impede developers' ability to communicate with users nor will they levy or impose a new commission on off-app purchases."

Apple of course may attempt to drag their feet with something specific to Fortnite/Epic's account, but they will pretty clearly lose and already had a witness declared to likely be in criminal contempt of the court and referred for prosecution.

 

[Dreamweaver12]

And Tim Cook isn’t greedy?

$100 for 12 cents worth of memory ?

Tim Cook doesn't demand the courts make semiconductor manufacturers give him memory for FREE and then sell it to you.

 

[surferfb]

Unless a higher court stays the injunction on appeal, that is very much not the case.

From the court order, "This is an injunction, not a negotiation. There are no do-overs once a party willfully disregards a court order. Time is of the essence. The Court will not tolerate further delays. As previously ordered, Apple will not impede competition. The Court enjoins Apple from implementing its new anticompetitive acts to avoid compliance with the Injunction. Effective immediately Apple will no longer impede developers' ability to communicate with users nor will they levy or impose a new commission on off-app purchases."

Apple of course may attempt to drag their feet with something specific to Fortnite/Epic's account, but they will pretty clearly lose and already had a witness declared to likely be in criminal contempt of the court and referred for prosecution.

Again, Apple is complying with the order, despite having already requested the injunction.

Nothing in the order says they have to let Epic back in the store. The same judge ruled Apple was within its rights to kick Epic out and didn’t have to let them back in. The order only said Apple had to allow link outs without commission. It changed nothing about her previous decision regarding Epic’s status.

 

[SFjohn]

And Tim Cook isn’t greedy?

$100 for 12 cents worth of memory ?

Tim Cook’s job is to make money for his shareholders, that’s the definition of a good CEO. Tim Cook is great at running Apple and I’m very glad he’s there. 🙏🏼

 

[jz0309]

Unless a higher court stays the injunction on appeal, that is very much not the case.

From the court order, "This is an injunction, not a negotiation. There are no do-overs once a party willfully disregards a court order. Time is of the essence. The Court will not tolerate further delays. As previously ordered, Apple will not impede competition. The Court enjoins Apple from implementing its new anticompetitive acts to avoid compliance with the Injunction. Effective immediately Apple will no longer impede developers' ability to communicate with users nor will they levy or impose a new commission on off-app purchases."

Apple of course may attempt to drag their feet with something specific to Fortnite/Epic's account, but they will pretty clearly lose and already had a witness declared to likely be in criminal contempt of the court and referred for prosecution.

The same judge ruled that Apple was within its rights to ban Epic from the App Store and Apple is not required to ever let them back in.

 

[Haiku_Oezu]

Apple was just hoping they got the hint lmao, there’s no way they’re not aware it’s there

That or maybe they’re just arguing internally wether to approve it an look weak or reject it and look like *******s

 

[germanbeer007]

And Tim Cook isn’t greedy?

$100 for 12 cents worth of memory ?

I'm sure there exists in a world where a CEO of a major publicly traded tech company can sell hardware options for <1% margins and not get fired by the board.