> This is a quote from the letter that Apple sent 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:"
>> [...]
>> - 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)
Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24269719
So they seem to be very specific and specifically call out work on the Unreal Engine.
So, to be clear, development for the Unreal Engine would absolutely be impacted but that is not the same thing as "blocking Unreal Engine". Apple can't block the Unreal Engine as a whole since developers license that separately from Epic.
> You will also lose access to the following programs, technologies, and capabilities:
> All Apple software, SDKs, APIs, and developer tools
If Apple had carried out that threat (which this injunction prevents), it seems like Unreal's development would have come to a halt, as Epic employees would no longer be able to legally use XCode etc. I suppose they could have kept writing code in a text editor, but there would have been no practical way to test it.
Source: Exhibit I https://www.scribd.com/document/473210410/Email-exhibits-fro...
Edit: not that Epic isn’t right to sue to see if they can get their way, just that they should have sued without violating current terms. My personal belief is that much of the 30% goes to gift card promotions and markup which brings in funds for all developers.
The developer you are talking about didn't break the rules of the app store. Epic -the one with the development of Unreal Engine- is an entirely different legal entity than the one that broke Apple's rules - the forthnite developer. X broke a rule, Apple got pissy and punished both X and Y because both have the same owners. As the judge also acknowledged in the ruling.
I am sure Apple did it to try and bully Epic into settling.
By being forced to reinstate the entire account under anticompetitive scrutiny, its a PR loss for Apple. If Epic had separate dev accounts for its MacOS and iOS presence it would have played out differently.
This was a moonshot by Epic, mostly about the court of public opinion than the actual law.
https://twitter.com/EskilSteenberg/status/129752027579013939...
- safari is a minority marketshare browser and already existed when iOS was created; Windows already had its marketshare dominance before the browser was invented
- Portable music also pre-existed before iOS.
iPhone and Android were laughing stocks in 2008. To say these points are anticompetitive would require proving they achieved their marketshare by parlaying their existing dominance into a new market, and it’s not clear that happened, especially given the thriving of alternatives like Chrome, Spotify, Tidal, etc.
There is also a bunch of not-actually-anticompetitive points
- charging developers for use of the platform
- disallowing competitive tools
- controlling platform access altogether
All of the above would imply the game console makers like Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft have been anticompetitive for decades. It’s not likely.
The crux to me is if there is a “right to a market“ for otherwise vertically integrated components. Just beside their was a market in he past for those things, doesn’t mean they need to be enshrined in laws. It would be akin to declaring game platforms or mobile platforms as public utilities so that ISVs in other adjacent platform markets can legally force the extension of their business model on other ecosystems. It’s been done with
power generation/distribution,
alcohol brewing/distribution/sales, and
car manufacturing/sales/service.
But those had massive unintended consequences.
There is one area where there may be a clear legitimate issue: Abuse of private APIs. But it would have to be proven.
The Fortnite game wanted to avoid this fee of 30% by making the game free to download, but the users could pay directly inside the game (the payment mechanism did not go through Apple).
If more apps or games do that, Apple would lose a lot of money. Also, Apple App store is the only way to get apps and games into iOS devices. So if I make a game and I want you to play it, and you know me and my game and you want to play it too, Apple is a "third person", who can stop us from doing so.