yeah I agree. Judge has a good pulse on this situation and this is a fair judgement to make
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.
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
yeah I agree. Judge has a good pulse on this situation and this is a fair judgement to make
Epic violated their terms. Seems reasonable to stop doing business with them. Not just the department that caused the problem. The whole company.
There seems to be some sort of question as to whether it’s the same company. They apparently are two legal entities, but with the same developer contact, same credit card, etc.
I believe the 30% is limited only to digital services and goods, which is why you can not buy a Kindle Book through the app.
Except that it doesn't. I can create all sorts of content, and as long as I can sell it in a browser window and make it available to consume via a browser window, I don't have to pay Apple a penny. Apple charges money for content that you consume on a device and purchase within an app. That's actually a subtle, but important difference, because it puts into stark relief how absurd Apple's policies really are.
Of course, when you try to ship an app that requires an external subscription, and won't do anything without that subscription, Apple balks, and if you aren't at least as big as Facebook, they won't let you make that app available. So basically, you're either all-web or Apple is going to force you to give them their cut. That's kind of problematic.
But the policy as a whole gets quite laughable when you consider the situation with Facebook, where Facebook wanted to make their web-based games available in an app on iOS, and Apple said that they could not do so because Apple can't curate the games. Facebook could make those games available on iOS in Safari, but they aren't allowed to make the exact same games available in their own iOS app. This is the equivalent to banning the iOS native equivalent of the original Yahoo links site. 🧐
But the bigger problem, of course, is that Apple is the only company allowed to sell digital content in an app without paying Apple a fee, which means apple pays about 27% less to sell their in-app digital content than anybody else does. That's a very serious problem from an antitrust perspective — not so much for this particular case (I don't think, unless Apple Arcade makes it so), but certainly in general.
And, of course, Apple keeps pulling silly stunts like threatening WordPress, who doesn't sell *anything* in-app, trying to force them to sell in-app so that Apple can get a cut. Needless to say, that's not something consumed in-app. Apple has since apologized, but they still did it, and it's still yet another sign of an emerging pattern of abuse in Apple's behavior towards developers, trying to milk their developers for every penny they can get out of them, rather than curating the store even halfway benevolently.
Epic clearly has unclean hands, but not a tenth as unclean as Apple's. This case is going to be a serious mess, but for the sake of Apple and its users, I hope Apple loses soundly and unequivocally.
Umm... no. Fifteen million people side-loaded Fortnite on Android in the first month. So that's simply not true. I mean yes, that's only a little less than half as many as downloaded it on iOS, give or take, but the Android version also ran on only the most recent phones from... I think only a single Android manufacturer (Samsung) at the time, versus every iOS device built in the past five years, so it's not exactly a level playing field.
For sure? I know Amazon Prime made a 15% deal years ago - but right now (since April) you can buy/rent a movies inside the Prime App bypassing Apples IAP only using your Amazon store account. Try it.
How would Apple collect it‘s tax? For me it looks more like 0% for video streaming services.
No, it's like saying you can only get your iOS software and associated software upgrades from the iOS store, just like you can only get your PS1/2/3/4/5 or Xbox * or Nintendo * software from the respective vendors.
Go try write some Nintendo, Sony or Xbox software and get it published without doing a deal with the respective hardware OEM for a digital key to sign your stuff with (which will involve royalty payments) so it will run.
This is no different to the majority of non-PCs (e.g., virtually every console) since the 1980s. Even back to the NES and others of that era.
It's not even significantly different to licensing Epic's unreal engine and selling enough copies that you need to pay royalties to EPIC for every copy sold.
They're leveraging Apple's iOS frameworks to write their iOS application just like unreal engine customers leverage unreal engine. Apple want money for that. The App Store is a way of getting that.
Just because the development kit is almost free, doesn't mean to say you aren't up for paying apple the cut for publishing on their device, using their development frameworks, their store, their content distribution, etc.
If you don't like it - target android. Make the iOS version more expensive. Whatever. You have options. If it's truly as bad as epic think it is to make the iOS version more expensive to compensate, people will leave iOS and the problem will solve itself.
Last edited:
Games and software are generally released in more markets than USA. But ok, let's talk about USA marketshare. If you look at PS3, there are plenty of PS3 only games like Metal Gear Solid 4. PS3 only had about ~20% marketshare in USA (last number I saw was 17% in 2009). MGS4 sold fine and was good enough for Konami to green light the next game.
You're convinced that having store choices on a phone makes it better for consumers. I suspect that it is not. Android has this option and the general public decided to go with Google Play instead.
If Apple had 90% of the mobile market then maybe comparing the two companies in this way makes sense. Look at some of the comments on this and related articles where people indicate they are going to leave Apple for another option. The fact that this is a viable alternative really illustrates the difference.
I'm not sure if anyone has ever noted this, but when Epic added their in game purchase option the prices was $7.99, while the price through Apple was $9.99. However, if you take off the 30% cut that Apple takes off of a $9.99 purchase, you get $7.69, which means Epic was charging people $0.30 more than they would have received if the purchase went through Apple. It's a minor thing, but it's a bit of a fail on their part if they want to argue they are doing this on principle.
The judge probably has the right of it...punishing everyone who depends on the Unreal engine is not fair to everyone else, but Epic deserves what they are getting because they made their bed. Apple needs to support the App Store and iOS infrastructure that all these apps depend on, so the developers should be paying something to be on the platform (just like they do with all the other ones). Whether it's 30% or some other number is a separate question, but Epic's idea that they can live off of Apple without supporting the infrastructure they are using to make their money sure doesn't seem like anything but pure greed to me. It would be far better if they were honestly negotiating for a different pay structure, or that features come with a higher charge...say, if you don't use in app purchasing then you lose the support for all the things that go with it but also don't have to pay Apple x% for that support. Just getting it all for free makes no business sense for Apple.
The judge probably has the right of it...punishing everyone who depends on the Unreal engine is not fair to everyone else, but Epic deserves what they are getting because they made their bed. Apple needs to support the App Store and iOS infrastructure that all these apps depend on, so the developers should be paying something to be on the platform (just like they do with all the other ones). Whether it's 30% or some other number is a separate question, but Epic's idea that they can live off of Apple without supporting the infrastructure they are using to make their money sure doesn't seem like anything but pure greed to me. It would be far better if they were honestly negotiating for a different pay structure, or that features come with a higher charge...say, if you don't use in app purchasing then you lose the support for all the things that go with it but also don't have to pay Apple x% for that support. Just getting it all for free makes no business sense for Apple.
Yes, I picked up on that too and in the same way.
When the judge said Apple were overreaching I think she could have said Epic were doing the same thing with that- although maybe legally it's different-or perhaps she was just too busy laughing.
Apple will only change through court intervention or losing a lot of money.
Apple had a decade to do the right thing and still haven't. The right thing is what devs asked for, like PAID UPGRADES, NOT SUBSCRIPTIONS. Or fixing the abysmally crippled sandbox. Or stopping counterfeit apps. Etc.
The Crap Store is a services cash cow and Apple is now The Services Company. Every transaction that happens on their platform they feel they are owed a cut of. More importantly, the status quo gives Apple control of all businesses that publish to their platforms. This Epic debacle proves they'll use a system built for malware to screw anyone who threatens them.
I'm glad you agree that Apple took hostages. I'd say greedy and reckless applies more to Apple here.
Not being on iOS is not trivial, however there is still a significant market outside of it as well. Developers can still be commercially successful and not develop for iOS.
The right thing to do is to do what I asked for. like BREAKFAST COOKIES, NOT CEREAL. Or fixing the abysmally crippling curfew. Or stopping the people who cheated off me when I am cheating off someone else. Etc.
According to Newzoo, US players of Fortnite, PUBG and Apex Legends are 71% Console gamers, 17% PC, and 12% Mobile (although expenditure from each is not clear).
Epic is not doing this to make the App Store more competitive, they’re doing it to have the precedent of having their own way of installing software to Apple devices, which later they will use to demand other platforms do the same, specially Consoles which is where their main revenue comes from.
Suing Apple is just the more convenient way, since is already a company being criticized by its “monopolistic” practices and the least effect on their business.
Epic is not doing this to make the App Store more competitive, they’re doing it to have the precedent of having their own way of installing software to Apple devices, which later they will use to demand other platforms do the same, specially Consoles which is where their main revenue comes from.
Suing Apple is just the more convenient way, since is already a company being criticized by its “monopolistic” practices and the least effect on their business.
I think this might be the longest sentence I’ve ever read.
And surely, after this, you recognize how easy it is to sneak things past app review. I’ve said it before, but Apple should be glad that it was something as toothless as adding another payment option. Similar techniques could be used to pull off far, far worse.
This is a civil action, and Epic is in violation of the contract with Apple. Epic is going to argue antitrust, but this isn't really the correct venue to do that.
This is the best analysis I’ve seen of the whole situation.
Epic already is arguing antitrust, and the judge is well aware of that. If her courtroom (well, Zoom room) weren’t the right venue for that discussion, she’d have shut it down like she did with several lines of argument from both parties that she wasn’t interested in hearing. She did not; in fact, she did quite the opposite, allowing both sides to speak at length about it.
The most important thing here, for Epic, is that they actually CAN bow out quite gracefully at this point. They've gotten their press. Everyone (especially Fortnight gamers) now KNOWS that they can purchase credits outside of the game. Even if Epic says, "Yeah, we were 100% wrong and we'll follow the rules we agreed to" that doesn't prevent them from continuing to sell credits outside of the in-game experience. They just can't ADVERTISE in-game that this is an option. So, two weeks from now, they're back on the App Store and it's the "worst kept secret" that you can buy more credits for less through your web browser. For those few who still pay in-game, Apple gets their 30%.