Apple accuses Epic of “Willful, brazen, and unlawful” conduct
scribd.com
scribd.com
Also, editorialized title.
> Epic fired the first shot in this dispute, and its willful, brazen, and unlawful conduct cannot be left unchecked.
> Epic fired the first shot in this dispute, and its willful, brazen, and unlawful conduct cannot beleft unchecked. Neither Mr. Sweeney’s self-righteous (and self-interested) demands nor the scale ofEpic’s business can justify Epic’s deliberate contractual breaches, its tortious conduct, or its unfair business practices. This Court should hold Epic to its contractual promises, award Applecompensatory and punitive damages, and enjoin Epic from engaging in further unfair business practices
> APPLE’S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO EPIC’S COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Inflammatory, click-baity titles can be "catchy" for sure, but that doesn't mean we have to use them here. The fact that it uses "wording from the legal document" doesn't make it a good title, regardless of how catchy it is.
".. please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
In any case it's a dupe as GP correctly pointed out while linking to the existing and more substantial discussion.
A bit apocalyptic, no Apple?
Apple's multiple shrinking would cause inordinate pain in a lot of places.
I do not trust Facebook to avoid leaking that data out of my phone.
What you're describing here is not really related to the App Store policies but your trust on the Apple apps themselves.
Most large companies still eat the 30% and launch on Google Play Store anyways, even with alternative app stores or just shipping .apk files.
I don't know why, but my guess is updates. They've probably done some user research and decided it's easier to deliver updates that install in the background. Since the .apk update method is just reinstalling the app, it's very annoying if you ship freqeuent updates.
They're asking the court to give them all the commissions Epic failed to pay while their direct payment system was online, going out of their way to describe it as theft.
> Award restitution and disgorgement of all earnings, profits, compensation, benefits, and other ill-gotten gains obtained by Epic as a result of its conduct inviolation of the UCL
What you can not do in an iOS app is direct someone to another payment processing platform to purchase digital goods to be consumed within the app. Customers have to figure it out on their own.
It's all silly and arbitrary, and video game creators have been understandably upset for a long time.
Would use it initially as the perfect portable gaming device, which alone is enough to get Epic 100mns+ of distribution.
Epic can subsidise the cost of the smartphone as they would make money from apps and games. They can set their example by taking 5-12% commission.
And after hitting Epic scale and by practicing the principles it preaches Sweeney can show the world a better way.
(Note the HN title is editorialized as sibling comments point out.)
Correct.
The natural market of mobile software is choked out by Apple and Google. Theyre not accepting that the market they originally created has now gone significantly further than what they can and should control. They impliment anti competitive practices, removing apps that may compete with them, where they can completely bankrupt multi million dollar companies based on good mobile software.
Markets belong to everyone, praise be capitalism.
Seriously, I need someone to explain what makes this any different from The google store or consoles? I mean aside from consoles not supporting free (as in price) software either
IOS has a complete monopoly on their mobile vertical.
Granted, there aren't many people that would self-immolate over Apple's terms of service, but the point is that economic freedom is still an important political freedom that people are willing to die over.
This is simply a political gamble. They are hoping that the publicity gained results in politicians opening up the app store to favor app creators (epic) through regulation. It's a pathetic move.
Why didn't they think of that? /s
Yet they managed to dominate the mobile market. Nothing in this world is static.
Just fork Android and ask Asus or whatever to launch a phone with that OS preinstalled with the Epic App Store as the default app store. Like Amazon Fire OS.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368395/fortnite-epic-ga...
this got me to thinking of the alternatives. Android. that's all i could come up with that are viable.
out of curiosity, has anyone attempted to install Android on a jailbroken iPhone?
Edit: quick search makes it look like it is possible on certain devices. i haven't followed through them yet to see success rate, but if you don't like iOS there you go
If Epic were going to do that, they would have already done it. Why would they though? They've seen other vendors come and go. They'll just sit back making money by utilizing other people's platforms, and then complain about it. They knew the terms of the contract they agreed to, and are being little babies about it now.
They clearly enjoy the money they make through iDevice users, enough that they don't just abandon the platform. Agree or not with Apple's control, but if you agree to their terms that's on you. You can complain all you want, but break their terms and it is again on you. (royal you, not specific you)
That's not to say I think Epic's case is clear. I think it's a worthy legal question. I don't own any Apple devices from this century, so the result either way wouldn't directly affect me (but certainly ecosystem effects would).