That's right. And even more so, Apple doesn't have loss leaders, where they benefit from manipulating different product prices and bundling, to increase their profits at the expense of the publishers. Demand and the success of each product is driven by it's own merits and the choices of the publisher, not Apple. That is, unless the publisher tries to circumvent the whole thing...
Judge in Apple v. Epic Case Sides With Apple on Fortnite and Epic on Unreal Engine [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's right. And even more so, Apple doesn't have loss leaders, where they benefit from manipulating different product prices and bundling, to increase their profits at the expense of the publishers. Demand and the success of each product is driven by it's own merits and the choices of the publisher, not Apple. That is, unless the publisher tries to circumvent the whole thing...
CrashTestWalrus
macrumors regular
I am not sure that is entirely true, though. I think it’s true now, but prior to the ebook antitrust case Apple didn’t let you set any price you wanted. If a ebook cost $9.99 on your website it had to cost $9.99 on your iOS app. The problem being that if you are just distributing books you often don’t get a say on how much those books are priced at, so you may take 30% of the sale price and pass through 70% to the author or publisher. You can’t do that if Apple wants 30% of the sale price without giving away the entirety of your profits or reducing the stake that author or publisher gets. Forcing folks to use the in app payment system for these situations, especially when Apple competes in the space, seems abusive of their market position. I think allowing the app developers to process payments themselves should be fine. If you don’t want to use that payment system, don’t. I’ve went to order food in apps that wanted me to input my credit card number instead of being able to use Apple Pay and just closed the app at that point. If enough people won’t use your app because they don’t want to deal with your payment system the developers will change the payment system. In this case it appears to be an unnecessary one size fits all solution to in app purchases. Apple could let you use whatever system the app developer wanted to process payments and charge them directly for hosting the app in the App Store. It might turn out that is more expensive than just paying the 30% and render the whole thing moot.
And for the record, while there is only one public facing app-store for iOS, there are in fact others not public facing also run by Apple. For example: https://vpp.itunes.apple.com/?l=en the B2B and B2E app-stores, where developers can sell their apps to businesses and education in volume with volume pricing etc.
Apple rightly have control over the certification and signing of apps and that should not be taken from them under any circumstances. Apple’s walled garden exists for good reason and allows customers choice of a secure platform alternative to Android. Making iOS like Android would be anti consumer choice.
Apple rightly have control over the certification and signing of apps and that should not be taken from them under any circumstances. Apple’s walled garden exists for good reason and allows customers choice of a secure platform alternative to Android. Making iOS like Android would be anti consumer choice.
Waragainstsleep
macrumors 6502a
Where did you get that? The judge said Epic International hadn't violated their contract and that was (partly) why Apple had to leave them alone. The other part being that permanent/irrepairable harm would be done to Unreal Engine and its customers if the International account was terminated. (I'm not sure how true that is since they could just start another one for the purposes of access to tools no?)
Given the judge cited that Epic International (unlike Epic Game) hadn't violated the terms of their contract, if they launched an App Store of their own, they would then have violated their terms and Apple would in all likelihood be justified in terminating them. Even with the TRO in place. Even so, since its only 14 days or so its hard to imagine Apple wouldn't just wait to get a judge to rule again on it, in which case they would probably be allowed to terminate due to this new violation of terms/breach of contract.
It seems if Apple were to offer a compromise such as a temporary discount window (which they would make available to any developer) where user could purchase in-app currency at a discount for a limited period with Apple and the developer splitting the losses on said discount), this would heavily undermine Epic's argument if they were to decline it. Maybe offer this one day per "season" or something like that.
threesixty360
macrumors 6502a
I do remember something about not pricing any product outside of the store for less than the in store price. Not sure if that’s still the case. the idea behind it was that you don’t get the benefit of using the iOS eco system and then not paying some kind of “rent”.
The reality is the idea of processing payments is not really what it’s all about. It’s not about processing cash because any vendor can do that. So charging 30% for processing a payment is a rip off.
what’s actually happening is that Apple are seeking rent for your app being on their platform. The payment process is just the most efficient way of doing it.
if they allowed you to use your own Payment process then they’d just up your “rent” somewhere else. The dev fee would be huge like it is for console game makers for a start.
then they’d just charge you rent some other way. They are in business and they are not going to let businesses make money off their systems for free.
Reindeer_Legal
macrumors regular
“opinionated” systems: iOS, the operating system, not App Store.
Okay, I’ve dug a little deeper to clarify my perception.
Apple's letter to Epic, which is included in the court filing, leads with:
"Upon further review of the activity associated with your Apple Developer Program membership, we have identified several violations of the Apple Developer Program License Agreement. Therefore, your Apple Developer Program account will be terminated if the violations set forth below are not cured within 14 days."
I don’t now seem to be able to locate info detailing which type of account this pertains to. Maybe Apple was intending to terminate an ordinary developer account - one used for iOS and MacOS app-store submissions, and not as I thought an Enterprise account.
However, if this is the case why is there two accounts, one for Epic International and one for Epic Games? I thought the Epic International account was for enterprise and was being misused for Unreal distribution or something.
It feels as though maybe Epic have two app-store accounts one they use for iOS games like Fortnite and one they use for Unreal. This would explain Apple’s assertion that Epic could simply swap from one account to another to switch any “blame”, and why Apple felt it right to terminate the duplicate (Unreal) account.
This scenario seems the real one, but why Epic made such a fuss over it I don’t know, because if Apple had terminated the Epic International account, Epic could have just used the Epic Games account instead which was not under threat.
The only scenario in which it would have made a big difference is if one of the accounts had been an enterprise one, like I originally suggested.
Apple's letter to Epic, which is included in the court filing, leads with:
"Upon further review of the activity associated with your Apple Developer Program membership, we have identified several violations of the Apple Developer Program License Agreement. Therefore, your Apple Developer Program account will be terminated if the violations set forth below are not cured within 14 days."
I don’t now seem to be able to locate info detailing which type of account this pertains to. Maybe Apple was intending to terminate an ordinary developer account - one used for iOS and MacOS app-store submissions, and not as I thought an Enterprise account.
However, if this is the case why is there two accounts, one for Epic International and one for Epic Games? I thought the Epic International account was for enterprise and was being misused for Unreal distribution or something.
It feels as though maybe Epic have two app-store accounts one they use for iOS games like Fortnite and one they use for Unreal. This would explain Apple’s assertion that Epic could simply swap from one account to another to switch any “blame”, and why Apple felt it right to terminate the duplicate (Unreal) account.
This scenario seems the real one, but why Epic made such a fuss over it I don’t know, because if Apple had terminated the Epic International account, Epic could have just used the Epic Games account instead which was not under threat.
The only scenario in which it would have made a big difference is if one of the accounts had been an enterprise one, like I originally suggested.
Reindeer_Legal
macrumors regular
Reminder that iOS provides security and privacy, not App Store. Allow apps to access only selected photos? iOS. Clipboard access notification? iOS. Prevent cross-app tracking? iOS.
Unregistered 4U
macrumors G4
Apple could make non-iOS hardware, just remove the bits that makes it something that millions of Apple owners love. You can install whatever App Store you want, in face you HAVE to, because the Apple App Store isn’t available for it.
Reindeer_Legal
macrumors regular
Anyway Apple will show exactly what benefits consumers receive from App Store (None, I'd say, since I always `brew install` on macOS) and we will know whether that justifies their exclusive control.
CrashTestWalrus
macrumors regular
Yeah, I get that is really what it’s about. I always wonder when they stop, I mean McDonald’s has an App that I can order from and Apple gets nothing. They also distribute that app for McDonald’s and collect nothing but the developer program fees. I always wonder how long before they start collecting fees for that. I get that Apple is trying to draw a distinction because it physical goods versus digital goods but as a network engineer digital goods have a physical presence. I would say for a video game like fortnite their biggest expense is the servers they run the game on, and Apple’s App Store isn’t helping to run them at all.
Reindeer_Legal
macrumors regular
Distributing apps aren't that expensive. If Apple has money for your 5GB iCloud, they'd certainly have money for couple of apps. Just do it for free.
CrashTestWalrus
macrumors regular
They already charge something for it. The developer program costs money and the developers don’t appear to be complaining about that. I say if that doesn’t cover the distribution then up it, but the 30% of everything sold in app seems to be excessive.
farewelwilliams
Suspended
Xcloud is being rendered in a data center vs PS4 is being rendered in your living room. Minimum latency for xcloud will never match PS4 due to physics.
You seem to be fine with laggy controls. I’m not.
threesixty360
macrumors 6502a
Yeah the McDonald’s thing is interesting. I feel like they said digital only because in app purchases are really just a deferred payment for many apps. Like instead of paying 50 dollars that you would balk at for a photoshop app you kind of pay it off later through in app purchases.
so if Apple let you download for free and then you circumvented their payment system then you will be getting unfair treatment compared to another dev who put their price at 50 dollars for the whole app.
I think it would be hard to do that with physical goods (McDonald’s) because Apple wouldn’t even be delivering that good To the consumer. Whereas with digital goods Apple can say The original code is delivered by us and is free and we guarantee thenothing dodgy on it. And if there is we fix it and it’s our problem because Apple feel they have guaranteed their users a level of experience. And that’s why you pay premium for Apple.
maybe fortnite saying the digital content they sell exists on their servers vs the game code that Apple deliver is a contentious issue... I dunno.
derekamoss
macrumors 65816
Just curious if you have actually checked out the details of Project xCloud? Only one part of xCloud is the streaming from a data center. Yes there is latency, but for games that arent first person multiplayer shooters or third person multiplayer shooters, you wont even notice any latency or lag. I haven't and this isn't the first time Ive dealt with streaming game services. I used onLive when it first came out to run PC games on my mac and the infrastructure was nowhere where it is now and I had no problem with it then either The other part allows you to stream any game you own from you xbox to your phone as well, minimizing latency. You can also already stream your entire xbox to any computer running windows 10 and play games on you laptop, desktop or tablet. Sony only offers one third of that functionality.
Most problems are peoples crappy internet services and not the streaming app at all, or the persons router is subpar. If you have actually decent hardware you would hardly notice lag and have lower latency in the first place. I don't want to tell you how many times people have had crappy internet just because of where they decided to put the wifi box in a bad place in the house and when moved to an ideal area everything bad went away.
Santiago
macrumors 6502
This seems like good news for third-party devs who already rely on the Unreal engine, but given the uncertainty, there’s going to be a lot of developers who are going to shy away from starting any new project on the Unreal engine. I think Epic really blew off a lot more of their foot than they were expecting, and the folks at the Unity offices would be breaking out the champagne if they weren’t all working from home.
pasamio
macrumors 6502
The judge ruled that it wasn't in the public interest that Unreal Engine be hindered and the order held that Apple shouldn't be able to interfere with that relationship and that it felt like overreach. As you rightly point out that doesn't prevent Apple trying to cancel their contract later on and obviously Epic could then litigate against them terminating the contract. Unless things get significantly worse, I don't see Apple invoking the nuclear option on Epic however I think it was a rude awakening of what that nuke looked like. More importantly the judge didn't rule that it was illegal for Apple to do such a thing, they said it was not in the public interest for the purposes of the TRO to let Apple alter the status quo at this time.
Plenty of companies already do that, they're called Android phones! Non-iOS hardware, all of the bits you love from the iPhone and iOS removed AND you can even side load on them! I don't know why they're not the majority of the market...no, wait...they are? But Apple monopoly?!? ABORT!
5GB of iCloud probably costs Apple at most 10 cents a month, likely less because you're not using all of it, it's probably on the lowest cost storage, Apple likely get a crazy volume discount plus they can shuffle stuff around to optimise their cost and have their client tools handle the discrepancy (background loading recent data so it's available but then loading an old image takes a while for example to get it from slower storage). It might even be less than 10 cents per user which I'm sure they can readily fund out of the purchase cost of the devices. For a four year long life cycle you're looking at less than $5 in cost.
Distributing apps is a different situation where you're constantly sending updates for all of the apps to any of the devices that it is installed upon. I turned Content Caching on my Mac earlier this month and it's already got 16GB of stuff stored up from my various iDevices and their various updates.
If I'm a third party developer I'm going to be cautious of starting new projects on Unreal Engine. If Epic decide they don't want to play by Apple's rules and Apple wins then Unreal Engine becomes unavailable on iOS, iPadOS and MacOS plus what ever other AR device Apple decides to ship in the future. If I have made a significant investment in a project already, I'd see it through because it's still saleable on other platforms. However there is the risk that it might not run on Apple's platforms. Depending on what sort of game I'm developing that might be a deal breaker or it could be a nice to have for a little bit of extra money. That said Epic have gone to war now with Sony, Microsoft and Steam in recent memory. They've now gone to war with Apple and Google, what's to say they don't make some other move that limits their other platforms?
Johnny Jackhammer
macrumors regular
2 Trillion and counting. Would love to see an Apple profit clock.
farewelwilliams
Suspended
You mean the main part? The video game is streaming from the data center. That's the point I'm making.
I've tried OnLive (they had a nerfed "social" version on iOS briefly, but also had their micro console), SteamLink, PS4 Remote Play, Playstation Now on PC, Geforce Now on PC and Pixel 3, and Stadia on Pixel 3.
OnLive, Playstation Now, and Stadia had undesirable latency for any game that involves aiming and shooting because those rely on data centers. Geforce Now seems to have the best latency among the cloud-based gaming services, but even then, I'll never play multiplayer shooters. I tried playing Overwatch when it was available (I believe it's now removed due to license issues) and I found myself unable to play any hitscan heroes.
Steamlink and PS4 Remote Play are locally rendered on a device that's connected on the same wifi. The propagation delay is minimal. Games still have lag, but tolerable in some aiming and shooting games.
I don't see how xCloud can break the laws of physics to provide a better experience. The only way this can happen is if you play on a phone that has <5ms touch screen delay (iPhones have a 55ms touch delay) and use 5G or Wifi 6.
I noticed lag in racing games as well.
dantroline
macrumors 6502
It's a fair point, if one considers MacOS vs iOS. It would be awesome to have homebrew or a bash terminal in an iOS device, much as it exists in Android.
dantroline
macrumors 6502
I think everyone can see the benefit Apple has brought to computing over the years. If Apple was a more open system it could totally kick ass from a software engineering perspective and this would probably open its market share even more. The complaints about Apple's closed walls are not as ill-intentioned as you might think.
Wes Dennett
macrumors newbie
This is the equivalent to walking into a Tesco store, trying to sell your product to their customers and then kicking off because the store owner says, you can’t do that. Another idiot CEO leading a great development company to disaster and ruining the lives of the employees with it.
Apple last week sent a letter to Epic Games letting the company know that if it does not comply with the App Store rules and remove direct payment options from Fortnite, that all of Epic's developer accounts and access to Apple development tools will be terminated on August 28.
That would impact Fortnite, other Epic Games, and the Unreal Engine used by third-party developers. Epic in response asked a Northern California court to stop Apple from ending Epic's App Store access with a temporary restraining order (TRO), and there was a court hearing on the matter today.
Right when the hearing kicked off, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who is overseeing the case, said that she was inclined to not grant relief with respect to games (including Fortnite), but that she was inclined to grant relief with respect to the Unreal Engine used by third-party developers. Rogers said that Epic created the current situation with Fortnite and could undo it by reverting to the status quo, so if her initial opinion is any indication of the outcome, we could see a restraining order that blocks Apple from restricting access to the Unreal Engine, but permits Apple to terminate the Epic Games developer account. Lawyers for Epic and Apple were both able to argue their positions, and given the initial inclinations of the judge, Epic largely focused on arguing why its games should be able to remain in the App Store without changes, while Apple focused on reasons why it should be able to block the Unreal Engine.
Epic's lawyer's argued that asking Epic to capitulate and go back to the status quo is akin to "asking us to require consumers to pay more than they should in a competitive environment" and that it had antitrust implications. "We can't go back into an anticompetitive contract," said Epic's lawyer. Epic also argued about the social aspects of the game, suggesting it was more than a mere game and a vital way to communicate during the pandemic.
Apple's lawyer argued that if Fortnite and other games are blocked from the App Store but development of the Unreal Engine is allowed to continue, Epic could just transfer its bad behavior to other entities. Apple also focused on potential harm to users and the need to enforce contracts, claiming that Epic broke Apple's App Store model, profited by it, and "placed customers in the middle." The judge said that it sounded like Apple was overreaching because Apple has separate contracts with Epic Games and Epic International for the Unreal Engine and one should not impact the other.Epic argued that the Unreal Engine would be "destroyed" if it's blocked on Apple's platforms because developers use it for cross platform development. Epic's lawyers said that Epic has already heard from developers who are abandoning the Unreal Engine due to Apple's threat. Apple's lawyer in turn said that everything would be resolved if Epic falls in line with the App Store rules and eliminates the direct payment option in Fortnite.
Toward the end of the meeting, the judge said that the battle isn't going to be won or lost with a temporary restraining order, as there is a long legal fight to come, and it's not a "slam dunk" for either company.The judge plans to provide a ruling on the issue in the near future, letting Apple and Epic know whether Apple will be allowed to block Epic from all developer tools and accounts, or whether a temporary restraining order will prevent the Cupertino company from doing so.
Update: The judge overseeing the Apple v. Epic battle has granted a temporary restraining order that will prevent Apple blocking Epic's access to development tools for the Unreal Engine. The judge will not prevent Apple from terminating the Epic Games developer account, which will prevent Fortnite from being updated until Epic complies with the App Store rules.
Epic was unable to demonstrate that Apple's blocking of Fortnite will case irreparable harm as, as the ruling says, "the current predicament appears of [Epic's] own making." Epic was, however, able to demonstrate a "preliminary showing of irreparable harm" related to the revocation of Apple's developer tools for the Unreal Engine.
The judge points out that Epic International, separate from Epic Games, is responsible for the Unreal Engine development, and Epic International has "separate developer program license agreements with Apple and those agreements have not been breached." Apple had argued that it routinely terminates agreements for all linked developer accounts, which it will not be able to do in this case. From the ruling:Under the terms of the ruling, Apple is temporarily restrained from taking adverse action against Epic Games with respect to restricting, suspending, or terminating any affiliate of Epic Games, such as Epic International, from Apple's Developer Program, which mean Epic can continue to work on and distribute the Unreal Engine. The restraining order goes into effect immediately and will remain in force until the court issues an order on the motion for preliminary injunction.
The hearing for the preliminary injunction is set to take place on Monday, September 28, 2020.
Article Link: Judge in Apple v. Epic Case Sides With Apple on Fortnite and Epic on Unreal Engine [Updated]
