A victory for sanity. Apple threatening developmental licenses and anyone who used the Unreal Engine was nothing short of mafia-esque, and just as obviously Fortnite being restored to the app store is a matter for Epic's lawsuit against apple.
As for the rest, I have seen far too many “this time, Apple is doomed for real” events to agree with your last sentence. Apple could stop selling any device today and still be around in 10 years.
I think this has been inevitable for some time, but I think by making this mistake they have they they've accelerated the process and damaged their monopoly far earlier than they had to.
Note: Perhaps I am just seeing what I want to see here. I am hopeful that I and other independent software vendors will be able to avoid their app store one day.
I think reform of the AppStore is overdue. Some of the rules are counterproductive and with enough of a grey area so that their implementation looks capricious at times. But man, Tim Sweeney is such an arsehole, and Epic’s behaviour is so self-serving...
On the other hand, if this plays out the way they want, then they get 100% of the income (less overheads) which would be an absolute win for them.
I don't think their motivation matters however - as an ISV getting kicked off the app store is no longer a potential death sentence or a wasted investment; you just need to get smart about how you distribute.
It didn't seem like any sort of legitimate offer - for one, the "deal" would be that Apple would host fortnite for free, review it for free, and make 0% on in-app purchases. Epic also didn't edit the letter properly and accidentally left an "Android" in rather than changing it to "iOS", so presumably they presented Google with the same offer.
I have flashbacks of the original iPhone release and the hate it got from established gatekeeping ISPs. "Man, Steve Jobs can be such an arsehole, and Apple's behaviour is so self-serving", but in the end they did the world a favour by pushing back greedy carriers a little bit, forcing them to accept the possibility of distributing largely-untainted smartphones. Kinda the same with iTunes.
Progress is made by unreasonable and often unsympathetic people who are clearly looking after their own self-interest, which ends up actually matching the general interest. I think this is one of those.
When the federal government breaks AppStore off of Apple and forces it to compete with qualified independent app stores, they will have learned from that fiasco and probably have language in the settlement (consent decree) that does not allow it to go around buying up the other app stores and eventually change its name back to Apple. Apple without AppStore will be a media company, since hardware sales aren't/can't be enough to sustain growth (unless we find a planet of aliens), especially if we are losing the Chinese market to another cold war.
Incidentally, there is another case precedent: Disney. There is a reason Disney no longer owns Grauman's/Mann's Chinese Theater in Hollywood, its favorite venue --Disney/Paramount lost an antitrust case that prohibited them from owning both the means of production and the manner of distribution (sound familiar?); however, President Trump has recently terminated those 77 year old consent decrees meaning Disney can do what it wants now. Ironically, Disney might become a suitor for Apple's media business if it doesn't workout. For example, NASA and its contractors buy thousands of Macs from Apple but some phat idiot (won't name names) thinks it's a good idea to have an AppleTV+ series about "what if NASA didn't win the space race" wtaf?!
You must agree to an Apple Developer Program License Agreement to sign and distribute applications and to get access to pre-release SDKs.
1. https://github.com/ther0n/UnnaturalScrollWheels/
2. https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5874301/88485840-2...
3. https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/icyif5/apple_silicon...
It's a disservice to users who intentionally download the app to improve their experiences, only to find out that the program is a second-class citizen on macOS, and they need to perform a security ritual to use it. If the users don't know what the ritual is, to them, the app is just broken.
I recognize the writing on the wall, though. macOS isn't a platform to hack around on anymore, it's Apple's platform to extract rents from its developers and users. If your app or use case doesn't fit into that ecosystem, that's just too bad.
Users get a good experience on macOS and iOS so they will continue buying Apple devices which also leads to more people switching to Apple devices due to pressures of things like iMessage. Meanwhile developers are essentially forced to agree to Apple's terms to access an extremely significant portion of the market (especially when it comes to smart phones). Those terms effectively censor developer criticism by preventing developers from explaining their situation to users. If developers don't comply, their apps will be removed and their development certificates revoked on all Apple platforms. As a user Apple feels fair, as a developer it's painfully obvious that Apple is abusing their market position. Look at what's happening with Floatplane: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QzHu-sjdB8
Unless things change, I don't think I will choose to purchase an Apple device ever again. But if their market share continues to increase it will be impossible to survive as a developer without releasing for Apple devices and to develop for Apple devices I will be forced to buy their devices. The App Store and everything Apple offers is certainly worth something. Is it worth 30%? Who knows. The market isn't what decided that fee, Apple and all other software storefronts have somehow arrived at that number themselves. With no realistic way for competitors to offer alternative software storefronts on iOS and Android at their own price to compete and bring fees to their true value, we will never know.
The other difference is the message itself. Windows just displays a warning that the software couldn't be checked by smartscreen.[1] Once the app is used by enough people for the app to be in the smartscreen system the warning will disappear. Users will still see that the publisher is "unknown" though.[2] MacOS directs users to contact the developer that the app must be "updated" even if the only issue with the app is that it isn't notarized. A more fair message would be along the lines of "This app has not been notarized by Apple. Only run the application if you trust the source."
Code signing is intended to verify that the app actually came from who you think it came from. If the certificate for MS Word is unknown or something other than Microsoft you know something's not right and it's either been modified by a third party or not MS Word at all. Apple is using code signing to exert control over Epic Games rather than it's intended purpose to verify to MacOS users that their Unreal Engine in fact came from Epic.
1. https://www.ghacks.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/windows-10...
2. https://www.techspot.com/articles-info/1718/images/2018-10-0...
Exhibit I
From Apple to Epic:
"If your membership is terminated, you may no longer submit apps to the App Store, and your apps still available for distribution will be removed. You will also lose access to the following programs, technologies, and capabilities:
- All Apple software, SDKs, APIs, and developer tools"
We'll see! Until then, revoking certificates is retaliation.
> you have a duty not to enter into them in the first place
This isn't how contract law works.
Neither is this if you're admitting the legality hasn't been determined.
This would have a second-hand effect on Epic's ability to provide timely updates to their engine and remain competitive to alternatives like Unreal on the platform. It also would likely lead to a lot of problems with Epic's Game Store on Mac no longer being properly signed.
Apple is likely going down if this goes to trial. Their best interests lie in settling before trial but it doesn't seem Epic is looking to settle.
In this case, the two accounts in question (the one for Fortnite and the one for Unreal engine), while on paper are separate entities, were paid for by the same person, using the same credit card number - so that was Apple's justification for removing both.
As the order shows, the judge still felt it was overreach.
Fortnite's entrapment move was powerful because Apple's actions are more exemplary than their threats.
Perhaps it's time for some major app makers to have a day or two where they pull their apps.
Epic's actions with Fortnite were effectively this. They were aware Apple would pull the app, but that them doing so would give them clear standing to sue Apple for the contract terms.
For even a lot of "major" app makers though, pulling their apps off iOS in protest would put them out of business. (Even where Android excels in market share, Apple excels in revenue share by a wide margin.) By being a large multiplatform entity with more reliance on consoles and desktops, Epic is one of the few companies that can afford the hit to pick this fight.
Literally Joe Biden would hear about it.
Same day take out an editorial or page-sized ad in the Times.
Apple needs apps as much as apps need them, it just takes enough coordination.
If Spotify, Youtube and Netflix all pulled their apps a day after the release of the next phone, Apple would be in serious trouble that year. It would effectively permanently devalue their phones and by proxy Apple, because consumers wouldn't be able to trust that that it wouldn't happen again. It would certainly spook investors.
> and just as obviously Fortnite being restored to the app store is a matter for Epic's lawsuit against apple.
They can easily roll back their TOS breaking update and the game will be available as early as today. The reality is that they broke the rules so they could sue.
Not a single other developer using UE was targeted directly by Apple.
But indirectly. If Epic doesn't have a developer license anymore, they cannot reasonably support their clients in implementing UE on any Apple hardware (and, depending on the licensing terms, they may not even legally support it...).
* Epic Games, Inc. develops Fortnite and has an Apple developer account that it is released under.
* Epic Games International, S.a.r.l. develops Unreal Engine and holds its own Apple developer account.
So if the accounts of Epic Games, Inc. were closed, who cares. If Epic Games International's accounts were closed, then yes that's wrong of Apple to do.
That would be like Google in Mountain View claiming that they don't avoid paying tax and they are the good guys, but Google SA Netherlands & Ireland who are the assholes who scam countries out of their share of tax revenue (The Dutch Irish sandwich tax loophole that they use).
"If your membership is terminated, you may no longer submit apps to the App Store, and your apps still available for distribution will be removed. You will also lose access to the following programs, technologies, and capabilities:"
[...]
"- Engineering efforts to improve hardware and software performance of Unreal Engine on Mac and iOS hardware; optimize Unreal Engine on the Mac for creative workflows, virtual sets and their CI/Build Systems; and adoption and support of ARKit features and future VR features into Unreal Engine by their XR team"
That is a statement that Apple made saying they will stop all help they give to Epic getting UE running on all Apple hardware. With the other stuff in the letter it makes it very clear that the problem is not just one for Epic Games, but all of Epic.
You can read it yourself - https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/epic-v-apple-8-17-20-768927327... (Apple's letter starts on page 51 of the PDF)
What's less clear is whether or not Apple would have actually revoked Epic International's developer accounts. You might like to give Apple the benefit of the doubt, but it's ambiguous enough for a court to issue a ruling that Apple aren't allowed to do that. This is obviously not just Epic catastrophizing if the court agreed with them and ruled in their favor on that part.
The problem is that the US judicial system, thanks to its focus on precedent cases no matter how old they are, and "modern common sense" don't always fit together.
Definitely not. If you have multiple apps in the App Store, and one is removed for violating the terms, the rest should not be removed, since the others didn’t violate those terms.
Or put another way, they have two products at different levels of the stack and they have consciously chosen to risk one (the game) to leverage all their customer’s of their other product (Unreal Engine) onto their side in this war.
The fact that fortnite is built on UE doesn't have any significance here.
The court has blocked it because there could be greater harm in the short term (although that is grossly overblown -- the UE wouldn't stop working in the short or even medium term), but don't be confused into thinking this isn't a completely rote, normal response.
>The fact that fortnite is built on UE doesn't have any significance here.
You understand that Fortnite and UE are made by the same company, right? The canard that it has anything to do with what engine Fortnite uses is absurd noise.
No, Epic is two different companies with two different accounts. Apple canceled both the account for Fortnite and the account for Unreal.
You would know this if you read the injunction that is being discussed...
Judges make legal decisions. If a judge says you can't do something, that means it's illegal; judges can rule whether a future action is illegal, including based on a threat, and that's what this injunction does. This injunction references Apple's threat and, ultimately, says that they legally can't do it (for now), just as Epic can't legally force Apple to reinstate Fortnite (for now).
But anyway, as to your original assertion that this injunction is unrelated to Apple's threat to terminate Epic's account with the Apple Developer Program, here's a direct quote from the injunction:
"THEREFORE, APPLE AND ALL PERSONS IN ACTIVE CONCERT OR PARTICIPATION WITH APPLE, ARE 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 [italics mine]"
Also, re: your assertion that "If Apple wins, then there's another matter to attend to. If they don't, then the status quo is still maintained and the matter is over." — I don't think anyone involved in the antitrust case, including the judge, ruled or believes anything like "the matter is over" and "the status quo is maintained" if Apple is found to be violating antitrust law. The status quo legally could not be maintained by Apple in that case. What exactly Apple would have to do would depend on what precisely the judge ruled, but maintaining the status quo would not be an option.
By contrast, with respect to the Unreal Engine and the developer tools, the Court finds the opposite result. In this regard, the contracts related to those applications were not breached.
And then:
The court also finds that "Apple has chosen to act severely, and by doing so, has impacted non-parties, and a third-party developer ecosystem. In this regard, the equities do weigh against Apple."
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265...
Epic relies heavily on deploying Fortnite in order to test the Unreal Engine at scale. Fortnite itself is, in some sense, the test bed from which many improvements and fixes are carried back to the mainline engine. Any studio or publisher relying on the Unreal Engine to deploy to iOS or MacOS would be more or less immediately effected, especially given the volatility of Apple's APIs.
We can only speculate that UE Developer accounts would have been terminated as we don't really know if Apple was going to terminate those too as they belong to a separate company according to the court documents.
It’s a threat in the long term, if Epic and Apple cannot negotiate something satisfying (which they will eventually, there’s just too much to lose for both of them), but let’s keep some perspective.
There is no need for hyperbole.
The OP was not about a constructive discussion of the consequences of that, it was about Apple going after other developers. Which is factually wrong.
Sorry, my sentence was poorly worded. They threatened to revoke Epic’s license, not the other developers’ (which, again, is what the OP claimed and is specifically what I disputed).
I think they did go overboard with the intent to push Epic to settle, yes. And Epic were ready for a mud fight and called their bluff. It looks like the move was a warning, though, and I don’t think they really would do it, at least not for long: they know how important the Unreal Engine is for the platform. If an agreement is found quickly, the impact on others developers is nil. At least in the short term; this brings trust issues over the longer term.
The court isn't saying Apple is wrong for threatening to block Epic fully, including UE. The court is saying that doing say _may_ not be legal and thus Apple should hold off on it until the court has had time to deliberate the issue. It is only prudent of the court to work to reduce the variables in this situation and to prevent potential harm to innocent parties.
The sad part is that Epic's tactics are nothing out of the ordinary for these silicon valley giants, they love using innocent parties as emotional leverage in a fight to pad their profit margins by another couple percent.
If a company says, "hey, we're a marketplace" and a court says, "actually, you're not" then the company has to figure out how to adapt. There's change and an emotional toll to the drivers in that scenario whether they become employees or not.
California Assembly Bill 5 was signed into law last September and was clearly a "Going to Happen" event for at least a year prior.
There's no surprise here. Uber had plenty of time to figure out how to deal with this. And they did: they aren't dummies, this was their plan. Their considered decision was that it was in the best interests of their shareholders to play brinksmanship games with their employees' livelihoods instead of make a good faith effort to comply with state law.
Rulebreaking is, after all, part of the corporate culture at Uber, and it always has been.
And, on top of that, merely (as relevant to Uber and Lyft; it also added some exceptions that aren't relevant to them) codified the rule the California Supreme Court handed down in Dynamex on April 30, 2018; so the “one week” is off by about 121 weeks or so.
Which is exactly what I said it was, and not consistent with your framing of departure as a "perfectly logical thing to do".
I'm happy we agree.
I genuinely can't follow your point. These goalposts are moving too fast, sorry.
Their shareholders likely suspect California will capitulate. Though it is hard to do research over whether their drivers actually want this, generally the information I see indicates they'd prefer to remain contractors. Yes, some of this is paid for by Uber. I imagine some of the content I read was also paid for by the opposition. But it seems like no matter how you cut it, the drivers generally want to remain contractors, and definitely do not want ~their livelihood~ an income source threatened either way in the midst of a pandemic.
There is no requirement for them to be made full-time employees, just employees, and even if the law was unclear before the Dynamex decision, they've had the requirement under that decision for almost 2.5 years. And they've known about it, because they've been actively lobbying to change it, lobbying for Dynamex to be legislatively reversed, lobbying for an exception when it was clear that instead of reversing it the legislature planned to codify it in AB5 and also lobbying against AB5, and finally funding a ballot referendum to repeal AB5. All of that says that they understood the rule, and how it applied to them, for quite a long time.
Do you mean Uber threating not to hire all it's drivers? Right not they're not employees and they all have become them that's a very different process.
Companies shouldn’t be in the position of offering “benefits” to employees. No sane first world company ties health insurance to your employer.
It's inexplicable to me that both employers and employees seem mostly fine with the current insanity. Do business owners enjoy having to be health insurance brokers? Do employees enjoy having their insurance provider change every few years and having very little choice in policies?
(and no, "just have everybody buy their own policy" is not a realistic answer, virtually every society addresses this on a public policy level because individual purchasers simply don't work well.)
So, if you want your weird gig economy "independent contractor" nonsense, push for medicare for all, it's pretty much that simple. That's the only way having wage slaves be independent contractors isn't going to result in an immediate and massive drop in the quality and availability of health care. But oops lolbertarians don't like that either, they just want to be able to pay someone $0.50 per hour because "free markets are better".
Until the current administration, both Republicans and Democrats supported increasing the EITC.