Apple Will Not Reinstate Epic’s Fortnite Developer Account
daringfireball.net
daringfireball.net
I have been realizing lately that my loyalty to Apple has been waning over the years after having invested heavily in the ecosystem. This is another representation to me of how Apple's ecosystem is something you have no control over, and you are at the whim of Apple's legal team in situations like that to be able to play the games you want to play on your devices.
Apple remembered their corporate games they were playing and forgot who their real customer and focus should be: the end users. This decision doesn't benefit their end users in any meaningful way. It hurts end users to score points in their feud with Epic.
They benefit the users who want to play those games. Fortnite in particular is huge.
As an adult who's partner plays and plays occasionally, Its honestly really about group chatting (voice comms) with friends/relatives as much as it is about the game for us. I mean the game is silly and fun, but really its a group thing. I almost never play when not with friends.
And occasionally there are group events/ a concerts and movie screenings.
We're all on PCs/ Consoles, but if your a kid a free to play game your friends are on you could join in with a tablet, would be nice.
I'm not sure the risk was worth it... especially since they didn't need to take that risk to file the lawsuit.
From the first moments, Epic has been running a PR campaign, which doesn't really help you in court.
There are kids that are in elementary school that wear Fortnite clothing. The brand is everywhere. I am sure some actuary did the math on it so that Apple will come ahead, but the optics on something like this will sway brand loyalty for years in this demographic.
"(2) a declaration that (i) Apple's termination of the DPLA and the related agreements between Epic Games and Apple was valid, lawful, and enforceable, and (ii) Apple has the contractual right to terminate its DPLA with any or all of Epic Games' wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities under Epic Games' control at any time and at Apple's sole discretion."
It's a loss for cross-platform gaming altogether. Apple just really doesn't give a damn about their users =/
What this comes down to is an argument over money, and what percentage apple should get of that money. I don't think either company has a moral high ground in their negotiations on what percentage apple deserves.
Apple is just being a bully.
The brick and mortar store says "we agree to stock your product, and will take 30% off the top for our troubles."
Would we be saying the same things? It's the same dynamic, in my view.
Yes, yes I do think we would be saying the same things.
There are only two chains of brick and mortar store in the world and one with double digit market share (Apple) has decided to take 30% off the top for all goods sold in all of their stores and have banned products from having any indication on their packaging that they can be purchased elsewhere for different pricing. Entering any store also requires an extremely expensive chain-specific device that most people purchase on credit every few years, eliminating the ability to easily shop around at both chains.
If this were to happen outside of tech, the perpetrator would get crushed by anti-monopoly legislation.
The only real restriction Apple currently has is that apps should do no such advertising of alternative platforms (payment methods).
All arguments about the fairness of this are moot because see Netflix, which happily complies with these rules and avoids Apple’s 30% cut. https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/31/netflix-stops-paying-the-a...
Prior to the recent ruling, this was untrue (unless I'm mistaken).
edit: I wouldn't even say "two chains" like a sibling comment suggests because the reality is that customers have to invest hundreds of dollars on an exclusive membership to one or the other, picking and choosing from both is not an option.
In your example, it's like if you bought a TV from Walmart, took it home, and then any content you wanted to buy on that TV had to have a 30% fee paid to walmart since....that's where you bought it originally? It doesn't make sense there, and it doesn't make sense here. When epic sells you a fortnite skin within fortnite, apple provides literally no value to this transaction, other than being a gatekeeper between two legitimate sides wishing to engage in a business transaction - so that's why Epic wanted to make sure they can process their own payments within the app(and the court has agreed).
Would Walmart be interested in that? Seems like their retail cut would be sliced to $0 in that situation despite doing the retail work.
But sadly, you bought your home in a neighborhood with an HOA, and even though you own your home, the HOA requires all retail purchases have to go through them, and they take a 30% cut of everything and they won't let you order that TV directly from the manufacturer to put in your house.
But this is ok, because this is what you agreed to when you bought your home.
Is that ok? It would seem that people entered the contract together without duress?
Are there other neighborhoods? Run by other HOAs with better terms? Isn't it a market contest at that point to see which one buyers will prefer?
But the majority of other neighborhoods are also run by HOAs with similar terms. There are a few neighborhoods that are completely free of HOAs that but those houses are not as nice and neighborhoods not as nice. If you want a nice house in a nice neighborhood, an HOA is your only option.
I'm positive some people, if they had the option, would prefer to buy their current house free of the HOA. Others, on the other hand, like that HOA protects their neighborhood and don't care that they can't paint their house a different color or buy TV's directly from manufacturers.
Sadly, the house and neighborhood you want determines whether or not you'll have to enter into that contract with a particular HOA.
I think the HOA tries to argue that this isn't coincidence - its the HOA's policies and governance that have resulted in the niceness (we can cite examples that both support this and contradict this, of course, so its hard to assess whether this is true).
Folks might argue that it isn't fair that the most desirable goods are encumbered, but then its kind of up to them to create or support institutions that can manufacture the unencumbered version. That's the promise of a market opportunity where we can create brand new neighborhoods to test your hypothesis that people will prefer the nice-but-no-HOA version (I think the recent buzz around the Framework laptops is an example of this).
With iPhones I think we have a choice, and while it isn't ideal, we can vote with our wallets and support other institutions or companies.
In this case, the TV manufacturer already has all that infrastructure and they use it in neighborhoods without an HOA. It would be no cost to you or the HOA for you use it but the HOA just doesn't allow it. For obvious reasons, of course, because then they wouldn't get their cut.
If iOS only running Apple’s signed code is so bad why do people keep buying iOS devices?
Epic already runs a store they don't need the app store to distribute their apps and do payments. They're only required because Apple gives them no other option.
Also, the majority of people do not own their houses, banks do. Try financing a house and then stop servicing your loan. That’s essentially what Epic has done: breached contract.
Epic’s “store” is an app, and evidently they do need Apple to distribute it to Apple devices, unless you can tell me how to install it right now on my device?
> unless you can tell me how to install it right now on my device?
This is the dictionary definition of begging the question. You can't install apps on the iPhone because you can't install apps on the iPhone -- that's not an argument.
Software distribution and installation, historically, not required an "app store". That's a relatively new invention.
I can't help but notice that Fortnite is also available in the PS4 store as well.
This is simply Epic doing their own money grab against the the platform they can most afford to alienate:
>The documents show that from March 2018 to July 2020, the
>breakdown of Fortnite revenue by platform was as follows:
>PS4: 46.8%
>Xbox One: 27.5%
>Android, Switch, PC: 18.7%
>iOS: 7%
What about it? It's the same kind of anticompetitive practice. Except that Apple devices are used by billions every day across whole software market and consoles are entertainment devices used with much narrower market impact. Punishing them is less urgent.
If nothing else, Epic managed to lower in-app commissions for small indie devs, which is a small win at least.
This was widely misreported as true, but is in fact not what the judge ruled. If you read the full ruling rather than just the single page injuction, it seems that the only thing that Apple is being forced to allow is in-app communication about / linking to places outside the App where purchases can be made.
In fact, the Judge goes so far as to say that Apple can still legally use their contracts with developers to require Apps to pay commission on out of app purchases. This case was a far bigger win for Apple than was initially reported.
To fix this, we need new legislation. The courts seem clear so far that they can't reign in this behavior using the existing laws on the books.
Incorrect.
The ruling said that Apple cannot have anti-steering provisions that prevent developers from advertising alternative payments on content outside the app (web pages, emails).
- Apple is still allowed to forbid in-app purchasing through alternative systems
- Apple still has the option to require commission on purchases made externally in the future. Currently they do not, but they were previously able to draw a clear line using anti-steering provisions.
Apple has used other techniques like minimal usability to pressure apps to support in-app payments - e.g. Hey.com was rejected because their app was unusable on download because they did not support in-app subscriptions and anti-steering meant they did not refer people to instructions on how to sign up. Presumably anti-steering solves this - right up until Apple changes their rules to say that the external payment needs to result in a commission payment.
"First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission.
Indeed, while the Court finds no basis for the specific rate chosen by Apple (i.e., the 30% rate) based on the record, the Court still concludes that Apple is entitled to some compensation for use of its intellectual property. As established in the prior sections, Apple is entitled to license its intellectual property for a fee, and to further guard against the uncompensated use of its intellectual property. The requirement of usage of IAP accomplishes this goal in the easiest and most direct manner, whereas Epic Games’ only proposed alternative would severely undermine it. Indeed, to the extent Epic Games suggests that Apple receive nothing from in-app purchases made on its platforms, such a remedy is inconsistent with prevailing intellectual property law."
And most important, apps should have no restrictions whatsover to have payments inside their own app ecosystem!
That said, I like the app store rules they can enforce like IAP - I just don't think they should be taking a cut. If they want to charge a flat one time fee of like $100 to publish then fine, but profit sharing seems wrong to me.
My worry is their aggressiveness in defending their tax will cause blow back that damages their ability to leverage their rules. A worse outcome is one where they keep the tax, but app devs are allowed around the rules. This is starting to happen (an admittedly tiny bit) by them being forced to allow links out to sign up off of the phone.
If they just forced people to use IAP for their user's benefit (easy cancellation, easy account subscription tracking and privacy, easy payment), but didn't take a cut that would be the best outcome for their users and it'd be an easier argument to win in the public eye.
That includes potentially changing their developer agreement to now require developers to meter and perhaps even audit external payments to submit Apple's commission.
Because they can no longer differentiate payments made independent of the app (because the anti-steering clauses are gone) this could result in required commission to apple in cases which it formerly was not required.
A lot of things have been litigated in this dispute, this is not one of them. What this comes down to is questions about control over iPhones and contents of apps, questions the court was asked to answer were things along the lines of:
- Whether Apple can restrict iPhones to only installing software received via Apple.
- Whether Apple can control how software installed through their platform collects in app payments.
- Whether Apple can control how software installed through their platform informs users about not-in-app ways to pay.
...
Not "what cut is appropriate". That wasn't the legal or moral point.
Aren’t developers also their customers?
Of course they are, that's Apple's standard business relationship practice. See also why Mac's still don't have an Nvidia GPU option, because Apple & Nvidia got in some spat a decade ago and Apple has been holding a grudge ever since.
The more Apple brings stuff in-house the less this matters to the bottom line, but it shouldn't be surprising. Unless not having Fortnite begins to seriously impact iPhone & iPad sales, Apple isn't going to care regardless of whether or not it's hurting their customers.
Since then Apple has repeatedly had inadequate cooling and power delivery issues, just typically resulting in throttling instead of recalls. Sooo Nvidia was probably accurate and it was Apple's fault. But regardless of whose fault it was, the end result is consumers were stuck with some truly second-tier GPUs for many years
it was so reliable it failed 100% times :)
I for one love passive cooling. I select my (no Apple hardware in my house) hardware for silent operation where possible. Started with selecting the right fans and sound proofing my desktop PCs back when and now I'm only buying laptops that do well with the cooling noise. Meaning, if all I do is browsing HN, you better not turn on any fans on me. And when a fan is turned on, it has to be silent and have the right "sound profile". There's just some noise that's very very irritating and the decibels are just one aspect of it.
So if someone does everything they can to do without active cooling, I support that. Now if they can't, put the right kind of fan in there, sure. E.g. on a GPU I'm fine with some cooling noise, but it better only happen when I'm likely not to notice because I'm loudly slaying aliens or something like that.
Sad for all the customers along the way that suffered through all the failed attempts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EY7KW-PVy8
This is also the case with the M1 iMac, the lower model only has a single fan and throttles on long running tasks as well.
Apple is constantly having bad designs and failing to take care of customers until they are forced to via lawsuits.
Also NVidia has issues with their driver development and refuse to let Apple have a say in it.
Hmm, I don't think this is accurate. As per their filing with the SEC, NVIDIA pledged $150 million to cover damages.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000119312508...
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2010/10/nvidia-settle...
It affected a bunch of manufacturers.
I am not surprised Apple hates their guts, too.
e.g. AMD's GPUs have full documentation, and high quality open source drivers. Same deal with Intel.
NVIDIA, you have to deal with their blob, and tough luck if it doesn't work, especially if NVIDIA has decided not to support your hardware anymore. They do that fairly quickly. In that sense, their GPUs are comparable with PowerVR, and your average shitty android SoC.
They've been hiring risc-v specialists recently. I wonder why.
Source: me. Was working at Adobe at the time, probably at the thing that actually led to the demise of Flash (not that it was my intention in any way to contribute to the death of Flash, the decision to kill it was a surprise to me as much as it was to anybody else).
Flash cost Adobe a lot to develop (it was a big team). At some point, I speculate[+] that Adobe simply decided they no longer need the runtime, since the browsers have/will soon have all the capabilities that they need, natively. So why waste the money?
[+] I don't know for sure (e.g. I didn't participate directly in the decision); but still, I believe my speculation is much more informed that the typical net user who just noticed the coincidence and wanted to believe the narrative.
I think that ignores a very very significant reason for the browsers getting to that point of being able to supplant Flash being that is was terrible and security nightmare and Apple had shifted mindshare against it and shown it wasn't needed in a mainstream platform. It wasn't just Adobe graciously terminating a successful platform that gave them a lot of influence.
Prior to and subsequent to Flash (a Macromedia product, fwiw) Apple & Adobe have had extensive relationships and interaction that are in no way indicative of spite.
The main reason Flash died is because performance & power consumption on mobile never got past garbage, despite the platform wars going borderline nuclear on the topic.
> they made valid excuses sure,
Perhaps it's my becoming an ol' fogey, but it's crazy to see the Apple haters of yesteryear also move toward historical revisionism.
While the best approach is to just ignore such FUD like "valid excuses, sure", it's also important the record not be owned by zealots and those who preach spite.
https://bgr.com/tech/steve-jobs-iphone-adobe-flash-testing/
yes adobe and apple have histories tied together, but it wasn't always a rosie partnership.
It's not about sticking it to them. It's to increase the cost of their appeals and pressure them to drop the case.
They do not, this clear by the way they handle the ecosystem. See a customer buys something from a company, after which they own it
Apple on the other hand does not have customers, they can not because they do not sell anything, dont be fooled by the high prices, and verbiage that indicates you are "buying" something, marketing that in a sane and just society would be considered illegal as deceptive
No no, you simply rent the device from apple for a period of time determined by apple, and are given permission to use the device in ways only the owner (Apple) approves.
Post-NeXT (or at least post-iPod) Apple has always been about total control of user experience, not letting users do all of <whatever category of activity> that they want.
I don't think that vengeance is necessary to explain this.
Trying to get him interested in writing a bit of code, which to me is more fun in some ways than playing games, without pushing it too hard, and so far no luck.
Back in the day, Warcraft III had a built-in script and level editor and people thrived on making mods and entire new types of games with it (murder mysteries, tower defense, battle royale, DOTA...). It's how I got my start as a coder, modding games that I enjoyed without the boring pressure of "business logic".
I think Fortnite itself has a creative mode with limited logical programming: https://www.firetechcamp.com/course/build-an-escape-room-in-...
Proper modding support is supposed to arrive soon: https://www.pcgamer.com/fortnite-creative-mod-support/
The former are good for any creative kid (or adult!) and don't require you to learn a programming language, just logical thinking (as in logic gates/flows). The latter, depending on tooling, can require everything from simple Lua scripts (a common game modding language) all the way up to learning UnrealEngine or Unity.
Games with built-in content editors:
* Warcraft & Starcraft series (oldies but goodies)
* Fortnite
* Minecraft
* Neverwinter Nights series
* Divinity: Original Sin series
* Age of Empires series
Code-moddable games: Too many to list, see here: https://store.steampowered.com/tags/en/Moddable/#p=0&tab=Top...
In particular I'd check out Warcraft, Neverwinter Nights' DM mode, and the DOS editor for a good sampling of what the industry can offer. They are a great stepping stone to actual programming, with triggers, conditionals, and other flow control structures all wrapped behind a veneer of fantasy gaming.
(edit: sorry for potato formatting. no idea how HN handles text formatting)
Originally a tower defense game (you build structures and traps to defend your base against invading alien zombies), some Epic & Unreal Tournament developers decided to fork it into a PvP (competitive player-vs-player) battle royale game instead, loosely based off Player Unknown's Battlegrounds.
It became a surprise hit, propelling Fortnite from "niche DIY tower defense game" to global pop-culture phenomenon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortnite_Battle_Royale#Develop...
(edit: this was reposted... old comment was in the wrong thread)
Are they businesses or school children?
When Facebook and Google misused Developer Enterprise certificates to go beyond internal testing and distribute apps to end-consumers, Apple revoked their accounts. Both Facebook & Google simply admitted they screwed up and Apple reinstated their accounts.[1] No lawsuits.
Epic broke Apple's in-app-purchase rules and now Epic promises they will comply but Epic didn't get their dev account reinstated yet. Big difference is that Epic rolled the dice by filing a lawsuit about Apple's unfair rules and because they thought there was enough anti-Apple sentiment that they'd get a sympathetic judgement in their favor. Their gamble didn't work and in the process, Tim Sweeny's defiant attitude just made Apple dig in their heels even further.
I'm reminded of that quote, "you come at the King, you best not miss."
EDIT reply to some comments saying Epic didn't make a "promise" to comply with Apple's rules:
>Did i miss something where they actually said that?
In this thread's Fireball blogpost is a link to Tim Sweeney's tweet of an email screenshot to Apple's Phil Schiller stating his "promise":
>Sep 16, 2021 at 5:01 PM; Subject: Fortnite and the App Store; To: Phil Schiller
>[..] Epic promises that it will adhere to Apple’s guidelines whenever and wherever we release products on Apple platforms.[...]
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+reinstates+google+face...
The "Completely disposable, non-repairable, non-recyclable electronics" category is the rest.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/382260/segments-share-re...
Iphones (about 50% of Apple's revenue) have a profit margin estimated around 40%.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/iphone-xs-max-how-much-profit-...
But hey, maybe the cable business sells things at a loss. We don't know.
> Rogers issued an injunction that said Apple will no longer be allowed to prohibit developers from providing links or other communications that direct users away from Apple in-app purchasing.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/10/epic-games-v-apple-judge-rea...
So Apple didn't "lose" their 30% exactly, but everyone is now free to do what Fortnite originally did and that's link to their own site for users to buy in-app currency instead. It's likely all but certain that every game with IAP will be deploying this over the next few months.
This may be one of those things the little guy gets away with, but Epic can't.
[1] Also, nothing is black and white, of course Tim/Epic were looking to get more money from what their customers paid.
I'm not a fan of Epic, but I hope Apple loses and we get some sort of alternate way to load applications on iOS devices.
30% is enough to ensure that competitors arise, competitors outcompete them on everything plus price.
If Appstore pricing was a neglible amount it would significantly impact the interest of competitors to enter the market.
Obligatory Marvel Reference
With a tap of a button I fill my house with lossless quality of music that is playing on astonishingly capable speakers. Those speakers also answer my questions and run automations on my phone which I can create in a very nice and user-friendly interface.
I'm currently watching an episode of a TV Series that is playing from my NAS on my mac through the only player on my Mac (I tried mpv, IINA and VLC) that is capable of playing 8k MKVs without hiccups - Infuse. That player is a port from an iPad app btw.
When I finished with my work I say "Hey, Siri, I'm done" and leave the room. Monitor's lightbar, other lights turns off. When it is getting dark my chosen lights turn on automatically, provided somebody's home. My printer doesn't consume electricity in the night because HomeKit automatically turns it off in the evening and turns it on in the morning. I don't need to worry about my daughter putting her fingers into shredder because it is always turned off. When I need it, I say "Hey Siri, turn on shredder". The shredder turns on and it then automatically turns off after 90 seconds.
When I get in my car I have a very nice screen on the dashboard that most of the time is capable of guessing where I'm about to go and suggests one-tap navigation. And the music starts playing from where I left off.
My photos are downloaded on several devices and backed up in the cloud. The albums are shared with my Mom who is very happy every time when I upload new photos of here granddaughter.
My private drm-free music collection is also uploaded to the cloud and synchronised to every device I've got.
I can say "Hey Siri, facetime Mom" and I'll see my mother's face over the distance of 17000km in a magnificent quality.
My books are synchronised and downloaded across all my devices as well and whenever I feel like reading one, it's right here. None of those books were bought from Apple btw, they are DRM-free.
The other day I was wondering if I should buy an iMac for my wife - would it fit in the kitchen or not? Well, there's AR technology on my phone that had no troubles presenting me how it would sit on the counter. Now there's also an AR app that helps me manage my arachnophobia.
I am an immigrant. In the past 5 years I had to do so many paperwork that it could fill a little closet. Luckily, compared to my peers I didn't have to print all of those PDFs out. I was able to sign them from my MacBook in Preview and using markup feature on my iPad.
I am also a software developer. I value and appreciate Unix core utils. Turns out my Mac is a certified Unix and I am able to automate a lot of things in my day-to-day job using small Unix tools that are imprinted into my fingers. All that while looking at _magnificent_ 4k monitor that delivers 100% of Adobe's gamut and doesn't make my eyes with weird font issues.
I love travelling into Australian Outback with my wife and we take some magnificent photos there with our iPhones without having to carry a lot of heavy equipment. We then are able to send this photos to each other whilst being completely off-the-grid, some hundreds of KM from nearest cell tower using AirDrop. It takes milliseconds. On the long drives my daughter can pick up here iPad and just watch some cartoons. iPad connects to the internet using my iPhone automatically when there's reception and Infuse has stuff that it downloaded form my Emby installation when there's none.
My podcasts are downloaded automatically without my intervention and put onto my watch. When I go for my walks I don't have to carry my phone. My watch and headphones suffice.
When I browse the web using my phone or my mac I don't see any advertisements and popups and auto-playing videos. Safari on my phone and mac is capable of having extensions and has APIs for adblocking applications. 1Blocker takes a good care of me when it comes to ads.
My phone provides me with tools to take care of my digital well-being. It lets me know which applications I used the most and when and lets me to block those applications for certain periods of time if I find an unhealthy habit.
I write my notes on my iPad. I don't need to cut trees anymore and it is more comfortable. With Notability I can zoom and cut my handwritten nodes and move them around and do all sorts of stuff I can't with regular pen and paper.
I recently bought an iPad for my Mom and added her into my Apple One subscription. Now she's in Russia and I'm in Australia and she is able to listen to her beloved old soviet decedent music virtually for free without needing to download it anywhere. I am calm and confident that she's safe using this device and probably of her getting scammed is quite a bit lower compare to any other device.
I'm looking forward to what other quality of life improvements Tim Cook's vision will bring to my life. I feel privileged that I have access to this magnificent technology and thankful for that.
Apple's app store grip prevents whole industries from taking shape.
Android is open as it gets and yet somehow the diversity of software there is lacking. Try finding decent email client that is not Gmail and doesn't suck your data into cloud. iPhone has got multiple and one is OOB.
Where are my PWA notifications on iPhone? Where is my replacement app launcher? Where are my programming apps? Where are my porn apps?
Also I don't see how can innovation be equated with support of PWA notifications and porn apps and launchers?
> Apple's app store grip prevents whole industries from taking shape.
If you can’t launch industries on Android or PC, maybe that’s just a lack of imagination.
I had a shortcut that would download list of YouTube videos from a file for offline viewing using that
Monday morning I did several things:
- ordered mac mini M1 to replace my ThinkPad with Arch
- ordered iPhone to replace my rooted Motorola 5g Plus
- filed a ticket at work to switch myself from company issued precision 5540 with Arch to company issued 16 inch MacBook
- promised myself to never go that way again
I still am experiencing cravings sometimes. I saw someone made a Wayland port of dwm and immediately wanted to try it. Took a bit effort to distract myself from that and read a book instead.
I am a recovering addict and Keyboard Maestro is my replacement therapy
People are rooting for Sweeney due to his alpha nerd rage righteous more than how “good”Epic is to their customers
If it's not, then I don't see the contradiction here. Leaving aside people who make issues like this part of their identity, you can root for Epic in this specific case without deciding that you love Epic, with the focus on the impact of _this case_ on the industry. Just as you can root for Google in Google v Oracle without becoming a superfan of Google's.
I really don't understand how people still think it is Sweeny's ideology playing here, when he literally emailed Apple for an exception for Epic alone.
But they make up like 70% of the revenue for Fortnite, so they haven't picked that fight.
They went after the bottom 20% of their revenue. That is exactly a calculated business fight.
So why did they even pick the fight?
Longread: https://medium.com/gamemakers/the-economy-of-the-metaverse-i...
Just like Apple has not killed most of their desktop offering just because they are not a very significant part of their income.
Also a big chunk of it is probably just Tim Sweeneys personal opinions (he owns over 50% epic by himself so what he says happens pretty much). Basically he is rather strongly (and very openly) against any walled garden platforms.
Is that why he doesn't support the only real open platform on the desktop?
Epic has already moved the Overton Window, as 30% is now being considered unfair by more and more people.
These people will then reach out to their representatives for change. Apple will attempt to fight the tide, but it is too late.
Really, Apple is just a monopoly, an illegally bundled system (both with macs and iphones) intending to control the market.
There is no reason why Apple should control the lion's share of profits around mobile apps.
They didn't say that. They said they will comply, not that they should comply. Complying doesn't preclude continuing a lawsuit because they believe they should not have to comply.
Did i miss something where they actually said that? My understanding is that in the past Sweeney's statements have consistently said they will not exclusively offer Apple's IAP which indicates they promise to not comply with the rules.
>Did i miss something where they actually said that?
In this thread's Fireball blogpost is a link to Tim Sweeney's tweet of an email screenshot to Apple's Phil Schiller stating his "promise":
>Sep 16, 2021 at 5:01 PM; Subject: Fortnite and the App Store; To: Phil Schiller
>[..] Epic promises that it will adhere to Apple’s guidelines whenever and wherever we release products on Apple platforms.[...]
Their promises are worth less than dogshit. Apple apparently isn’t in the market for dogshit.
> Whether Epic chooses to bring Fortnite back to iOS consumers depends on whether and where Apple updates its guidelines to provide for a level playing field between Apple In-App Purchase and other methods of payment.
Epic said "if you update your terms to something we would like to follow, we promise to follow them".
Epic are agreeing to comply with the court order, for now, but they are not agreeing to the rules. This is not semantics, Apple's offer was that if Epic dropped he suit, they would be let back in. Epic knows this perfectly well.
They're also trying to force them to change, but they are very clearly agreeing to follow whatever the rules are at all times.
The rules do not include "you cannot sue us" or "you cannot appeal decisions". If apple tried to put those in the rules, the court would quickly remove them from the rules, but also Apple did not, and almost certainly will not even attempt to put them in the rules.
But anyway all the lawyers and the judge would have understood this and that's what matters in a court.
There is no such promise.
There’s a pile of “if” Apple ignores the rulings and does what Epic wanted in the first place, including rewriting the rules(!), then Epic will comply with the rules rewritten Epic’s way:
”Whether Epic chooses to bring Fortnite back to iOS consumers depends on whether and where Apple updates its guidelines to provide for a level playing field between Apple In-App Purchase and other methods of payment.”
Tim Cook's head would end up on the chopping block if several billion users suddently left iOS because FB, Instagram and the rest weren't available.
With Google, the userbase is potentially even bigger and some of what they do really is fundamental to most people's experience of the web. Users would certainly revolt.
The same might be true of Fortnite, but despite the fact that we now know most App Store revenue comes from games, Epic is still one of many, regardless of how popular their titles are.
It would seem that Fortnite's demographic is preteen kids. Are they playing Fortnite on their parent's device or one they own? If it's the later then Apple could be fostering a lifelong mistrust or dislike for their platform. If it's the former then Parents might just install another App for them and that's the end of Fortnite.
I guess it comes down to how many people are willing to jump ship for Fortnite. I have a feeling Apple probably already knows the answer since Fortnite hasn't been in the App store for some time.
Kid: I really like this phone.
Dad: That’s a Windows Phone, you don’t want that. It doesn’t have that many apps. You want an Android because you get all the apps out there.
I can see a similar argument for Android vs. Apple now. “Get Android, you’ll get all the apps. With Apple, you only get Apple approved apps, which includes malware, but not that game you like to play, what’s it called? Fortnight?”
Does this simply mean App Review screwing up and allowing questionable apps to be approved, dark patterns that encourage bad behavior, or something else?
Apple has been caught allowing malware (see Shlayer for a high profile case) and in their case with Epic, has alluded that they don’t even check iOS apps for malware so they don’t even know how much iOS malware is out there; if any.
Most of the Gatekeeper protections in macOS are baked into the design of iOS, but I wonder if they will eventually need to surface them so users have more direct control over what runs.
If sideloading from the web ever comes to pass, I would expect this to be a fundamental building block of how it would work.
Losing the Enterprise account wouldn't prevent Facebook from pushing their apps on to the store, but they would not longer be able to distribute internal apps outside the App store.
Boardwalk Empire
The Wire
Community
Trapped in the Closet
The Spoils Before Dying
Hap and Leonard
When We Rise
When They See Us
Lovecraft Country
"it's all in the game [App Store ecosystem's contractual specifications] yo"
To Facebook and Google, you are the product. They are trying to get at your data to sell to third parties.
To Epic, Fortnite is the product. They are trying to sell things to their users via their app.
They also made that promise when they opened their developer account. Do you think they really mean it this time?
I think they're doing a great service (at their cost) to raise the issue time and time again. After Apple, I think Steam and other platforms are next. Pretty much all developers who make money on the app store agree with Epic on the fact that Apple should not engage in a 30% money-grab.
Basically iOS is a very popular yet closed hardware and software platform and if others want to run anything on them it needs to go through Apple's approval process which might be both good and bad depending on your perspective.
The courts simply do not understand the power companies like Apple and Google have apparently. The startup cost of a competitor would be astronomical, as we've seen reflected in the quality, cost, and size of the small handful of other smartphone companies recently. Even if we seem new players become competitive, then what's to stop us from being back in this same situation in 10 years? 5 years? This is why we have Laws.
Not even to mention that the telecom companies are still working against progress and taking absurd cuts for themselves.
Hosting, platforming, and The Web are in crisis, as we're all aware. We should be firmly on the side of open access to our (developers) content. Why let the platforms eat our lunch? Maybe we should just be giving them a snack, or a little treat, but even that would just be for "services rendered", not as a condition for our meal.
I'm just so fucking done with this, sorry I can't help but be a bit angry.
Epic does not own Apple's App Store. They bought a license to publish on that platform. Then they violated it and were banned. And the judge agree it's Apple's right to do so, within limits.
If you have a problem caused by a system you are unwilling to change, you cannot be surprised by the perseverance of that problem.
That's the judge's job. They're not supposed to come up with novel solutions, they're supposed to apply the relevant case law.
> Apple Inc. and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and any person in active concert or participation with them (“Apple”), are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from (i) including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing and (ii) communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app.
> Tim Sweeney is high as a kite.
I think not... keep shilling for Apple harder.
> Here’s where I think Sweeney garnered the legal “go fuck yourself”. Sweeney is arguing that Apple, which won the lawsuit, should interpret the court’s anti-steering injunction in a way that pleases Epic, which lost the lawsuit. That’s not how things work.
Is he really trying to argue that the "winner" and "losers" are absolute in this case?! Wild.
I actually do think the platforms do a whole lot for developers; far more than they get credit for, in my opinion. For that reason, I think the best option is for them to unbundle their app store developer offerings into pieces that developers can pick & choose from. (eg. as a developer, would you be willing to share 4% extra for a smoother payment experience for users?)
I have previously mentioned this in another HN comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28369205
I think the interesting question is not whether enormous monopolistic trillion-dollar corporations provide value to consumers. They clearly must provide some value or they wouldn't exist at all.
The real question is how much more value would consumers have in an alternate world where these anti-competitive practices were prohibited and these oligopolies were broken up into smaller competing companies?
Without a crystal ball, we can't answer that question with certainty, but we have to make educated guesses in order to have good judgement about the right way to govern the market.
Why would you do business ever again with someone who intentionally breached a contract, publicly smeared you with a calculated negative PR campaign and then sued you?
After all this you offer them to allow Fortnite back if they reverse what they've done that breached the contract. Instead, they:
- Reject the offer
- Carry on smearing you
- Lose the court case
- Sweeney says they wouldn’t release iOS version with the pricing still being the same
- Then they decide to do a PR stunt publicly sending a letter and ask to get back into App Store, while hinting they plan to toy with the courts ruling by attempting to put an in-app payment button that mimics Apple’s IAP
And now they play a victim that they're not allowed back in to the App Store because they have no other avenue and they lost the court case.
Tell me again why would _you_ do business with anyone like that?
me looking at the massive pile of money fortnite generates Yes.
> me looking at the massive pile of money fortnite generates Yes.
Even if it risks your future earnings of literally hundreds of billions of dollars?
Apple made about 100 million (0.1 billion) from Fortnite. A lot of money, to be sure.
https://fortune.com/2021/05/19/apple-fortnite-epic-games-100...
But 2020 App store gross revenue was 72 billion, 30% of that is 21 billion and it's growing rapidly.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/296226/annual-apple-app-...
Making another 0.1 billion to risk losing hundreds of billions in the future seems like a poor strategy.
Fool me once, shame on you.
Despite still being twice as large as iOS, the Android ecosystem isn't doing very well. If Apple isn't a monopolist today and trends continue, it's only a matter of time before it unquestionably is. At that point they aren't going to be able to dictate terms any longer.
That's exactly what the judge said.
> In sum, given the totality of the record, and its underdeveloped state, while the Court can conclude that Apple exercises market power in the mobile gaming market, the Court cannot conclude that Apple’s market power reaches the status of monopoly power in the mobile gaming market. That said, the evidence does suggest that Apple is near the precipice of substantial market power, or monopoly power, with its considerable market share. Apple is only saved by the fact that its share is not higher, that competitors from related submarkets are making inroads into the mobile gaming submarket, and, perhaps, because plaintiff did not focus on this topic.
I don't think Apple can do that. What Apple can do, is to not allow Epic to use their distribution service, known as AppStore.
What you install on your iDevice is your own business and Apple cannot do anything about it. That's why jailbreaking your device is completely legal, you own your device you paid for and you can do whatever you like with it.
Epic can develop a jailbreak or use a jailbreak distribution service to distribute their Apps. You can hack your phone and if Epic's licensing allows that, you can install Epic games yourself. You can hack your phone, install a special distribution of Android to you iPhone and install it from there.
Apple can't do anything about it. Not easy as tapping a button you say? Well Apple is not obligated to make any of this easy. They make it very clear that they support app installation through Apple AppStore and and no point they promise to help you out to install apps through any other means. If you want to do that, you will have to do it without the help of Apple.
Or you know, don't buy Apple devices if the arrangement doesn't work for you.
Why is it important? Because when described incorrectly, solutions will also be incorrect. Apple doesn’t control it because Tim Cook gets hard when doesn’t allow some apps into the phones of the customers. They do it because they want to be paid for the intellectual properties and opportunities they provide, they also want to be able to continue selling iPhones at premium prices and in this competitive environment they want to be able to control the working of the devices so to provide premium experience.
Well too fucking bad. They can offer their premium services as a fair competitor in the market and if people want that, they can choose it, and if they don't, they can choose other things.
Yes, that's exactly the situation. If people don't like it, they go buy a Samsung, a Pixel, Xiaomi, a Huawei, a Sony etc. There's no need for Apple be compelled do anything, there are plenty of options when you don't like the Apple offerings.
And those alternatives are not like Bing to Google, these are very viable alternatives where Apple is actually a small minority of the market. It's %50 in the US and much, much less in the rest of the world.
Every major cosumer 'computer' in history has allowed this as far as I can tell. Yet for some reason now in the last few years its unthinkable on specifically Apple devices. I'm sure it's merely a coincidence they make billions of dollars off of this overly draconian "security" framework.
At the software layer? It's been litigated on more than one occasion that a company can't sue people to prevent jailbreaking their own devices.
You can sue the Post Office, lose your case, and know they can't retaliate by stealing all your mail forever. You can sue the Department of Labour, lose a case, and still have the right to hire employees in the future. You can sue the Fire Department, lose a case, and still reasonably trust they won't burn down your house. You can sue your local Power Company, lose your case, and still trust that they can't unilaterally ban you from ever buying Electricity again.
But you can't ever sue Apple, over anything, ever, no matter how evil Apple is, no matter how heinous Apple's activity may be. Because no matter how valid or correct your complain is, no matter what happens, they'll just black-bag your entire digital existence in retaliation.
Apple is acting like a Government, Apple is ruling like a Government, but Apple has none of the oversight or accountability we'd demand from any reasonable Government.
Folks are thinking of Apple like it's just a video game console, when the more apt comparison is Comcast or AT&T. Apple shouldn't be allowed to control what does or does not live in the App Store, for the same reason that Comcast shouldn't even be allowed to decide what websites or services you do/don't use.
JFC
Apple allows 3rd-party shit on Macs. The App Store is a store, just like Google Play and Steam etc. And iPhones and iPads are a platform, just like the PlayStation, Xbox, or Nintendo Switch etc.
Show us one instance where someone violated the T&C of any other store or platform and were still allowed to continue to do business there.
Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point. : Folks are thinking of Apple like it's just a video game console, when the more apt comparison is Comcast or AT&T.
You just listed how Apple is not acting like a government: they’re retaliating. I don’t understand how you can say “Apple’s retaliatory and discriminatory practices in choosing who to do business with is the touchstone of government” at the same time you list four perfectly good examples of a government entity not being able to do exactly what you say is the touchstone of a government.
You’re wrong. Apple is a private company. Doing business with people you want to do business with, and not doing business with people you don’t want to do business with (barring certain discriminatory practices), is literally what distinguishes private companies from government entities. If you want to argue that the App Store or iPhones or iMacs or MacBooks are somehow critical public infrastructure that should be governed by, apparently, common carrier laws then you should do that directly.
Responsible governments doesn't retaliate, oppressive governments tend to retaliate a lot. So you are right, Apple isn't acting like a responsible government, but the argument was that it is acting like an oppressive one.
And no, saying "They are retaliating and therefore not a government" is not a good defence to the argument "Apple is like a government and therefore shouldn't be allowed to retaliate".
A quasi government isn’t a government. A privately owned and unregulated entity isn’t a government. That’s the whole point. If you beg the question by assuming Apple is like a government then of course Apple should be treated like a government. But on the face of the analysis, they’re not like a government. You need to support how they’re like a government. What about them is like a government? Everything the GP talks about are ways that Apple is NOT like a government. It does not support the argument that they ARE a government.
It’s like saying “Apple is a duck, but it isn’t acting like a duck because it’s acting like an eagle!” and then when someone says “but Apple is an eagle by law and has always been thought of as an eagle, how did they become a duck?” you responded with “you’re missing the point, I said they’re a duck so they should act like one!”
Are there any parallels in history we can point to for stuff like this? Maybe Standard Oil? I've been thinking alot about these massive companies lately, they are so massive and so intertwined in our society that maybe we should consider a new class of laws and regulations for these companies.
I think we should have a new class of laws and regulation called "for the common good" or something like that, and apply it to companies that have more than say 100M users. The libertarian in me hates this, but I think we also have to consider that these companies are larger and more influential then we ever though possible.
Many laws and tests - especially the one used to determine monopolistic practices - are horribly outdated and based on ideas and assumptions from before the internet age. That the court failed to see how an app store where an unregulated corporation makes rules without oversight, repercussions or much legal precents - is indeed skirting the line of what constitutes a monopoly is tragic.
Take a look at that judgement - not a single example exists there for digital monopolies. The insidious part of a digital monopoly - as already pointed out - is that there is no precedent and apple are now the digital equivalent of highwaymen.
Expect this to happen more often to the point where these laws and tests are updated for the modern age. One that i foresee is Amazon and their Basics line of products.
Internet is not regulated like this. ISPs can and do ban you for torrenting or going to certain websites because they're not a general utility.
Epic doesn't need to win this specific court case to get what they want, all they need is for this to stay top of mind for lawmakers to change the rules in favor of developers.
Just stop using Apple devices. They're not the government.
From the court ruling:
> At step three, Epic Games has identified no suitable less restrictive alternative for Apple’s use of IAP based on the current record. The only alternative that Epic Games proposes is that Apple be barred from restricting or deterring in any way “the use of in-app payment processors other than IAP.” This proposed alternative is deficient for several reasons:
> First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property.
> Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission
> Indeed, while the Court finds no basis for the specific rate chosen by Apple (i.e., the 30% rate) based on the record, the Court still concludes that Apple is entitled to some compensation for use of its intellectual property.
They should have taken up the issue with the EU competition commission and asked them to issue big fines to Apple per day they don't allow competing app stores.
That seems very reasonable, why wouldn't Apple be forced to comply with the court order?
At this point Epic can only hope for legislative action.
Also on the "reasonableness" of Epic's promises... I'm not sure why making a pinky promise in a non-legal setting is any more serious than a legal contract they already choose to break.
Is this mere conjecture or is it founded on what was said in the court's opinion?
Yup, the judge ordered Epic to pay some millions to Apple in damages.
So it said something like, Epic was wrong to do what they did and did break their contract, but also said from now on that Apple can't prevent devs from steering customers to outside the App Store payments.
Apple said they would reinstate Epic based on a pinky promise, they just wanted more in the promise they didn't question the promise itself. Pinky promises are absolutely a thing, not sure why you are ridiculing that part here.
I’d argue that the pinky promise means more.
I'd like to direct your attention to every piece of software's license agreement to which the answer to "decline" or "disagree" is to cease execution. Not to figure out what the person is actually okay with, and modifying execution from there.
Network effects are explicitly exploited (see "economies of scale") to lock in what the provider specifically wants. Hence why FLOSS is so important for it's role of providing BATNA.
That is just plain wrong. There's no difference in Apple banning all Epic accounts over this and Apple Banning Microsoft or you for what Epic did. Epic is not one company, each account is a different business. Banning different companies in different countries and continents because of a brand name would get Apple sued into oblivion and would likely be the nail in the coffin for a closed app store.
Why do you think this is plain wrong?
1: https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/9/21492334/epic-fortnite-ap...
You will note that the preliminary injunction vacates the temporary restraining order and notes that it will "remain in force until the disposition of this case". The case has been disposed. The final ruling explicitly allows "Apple has the contractual right to terminate its DPLA with any or all of Epic Games’ wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities under Epic Games’ control at any time and at Apple’s sole discretion."
I seriously recommend not relying on blog analysis of a court case and instead reading the court documents, and if you are unable to do so (understandable!) to avoid participating in the conversation in the manner of correcting someone.
1: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36...
2: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36...
---
I really appreciate your analysis. Perhaps my comment was unclear, but it was in reference to the GP asking
> Why do you think this is plain wrong?
Since from my understanding the injunction should still be in effect (as mentioned by another commenter). Of course with the added disclaimer that I am not a corporate lawyer.
> I seriously recommend not relying on blog analysis of a court case and instead reading the court documents, and if you are unable to do so (understandable!) to avoid participating in the conversation in the manner of correcting someone.
I appreciate your candor - while I may exhibit elements of imposter syndrome, I believe I didn't add noise to the SNR of this post since it was my intention to expand on the aformentioned GP's question.
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21949772/g...
That said, Epic could always try to get a further injunction on this, and I don't really see an upside for Apple from banning further accounts.
Apple, on the other hand, is widely known as arbitrary, both on technical things and on what content or what games are allowed.
So if you tell a random game developer that Apple and Epic are fighting, most people will assume that it's Apple's fault because Epic has built up a lot of goodwill in that community.
They seem to be waiting until all appeals have finished:
"Apple will not consider any further requests for reinstatement until the district court's judgement becomes final and nonappealable."
https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/144071177248318669...
If Epic did not appeal, and submitted a version of fortnight that complied with App Store requirements I think they would be in the store rn.
Opening the payment mechanisms for other developers is a separate issue to whether or not Epic could still sell iOS apps on the AppStore.
I increasingly want nothing to do with battling corporate giants.
They were also making a larger scale play here, they want to get rid of 30% cuts in general, which means they get to keep more of their Android revenue and likely more of their revenue on PlayStation and XBox (The court case revealed that Sony is basically charging extortion money to allow cross-platform play.)
One might even argue that it did need Epic as one of the largest mobile software vendors to challenge Apple both in PR and the courts. Small developers have complained without any effect whatsoever for years about the App Store restrictions (especially adult/otherwise "not family friendly" content, or wishing to use an HTML renderer that is not full of bugs) or Apple booting out their existence with no reason or way of appealing.
Make no mistake, when the dust settles, consumers will pay the same amount, but Epic will get to keep more of it.
There is nothing wrong with Epic wanting to increase its margins, but doing so under the rubric of helping the customer does get under my skin a bit.
This doesn't logically follow; Epic's interests do not necessarily align with the interests of all developers, and they certainly don't necessarily align with the interests of users.
In particular, the whole point of this is that Epic wants to be more than just a developer: they want to be a platform owner, and run their own App Store. Most developers can't even dream of that—and probably wouldn't want to.
Basically, the only way we would ever see action on this in the US is if a big player - like Epic - pulled a stunt like this to force their hand. As the evidence in the case showed, Apple was happy to try and pay people off to prevent them from filing a case like this, they offered Epic a sweetheart deal and eventually caved to pressure from Amazon.
In an effort to stifle off regulation, the self-interest of giant corporations are aligned with their otherwise powerless developers - even if coincidentally.
If the duopoly wasn't under scrutiny, this "luck" would have run out as there would be no real viable competition.
As I saw it, Epic's initial actions here were basically over the percentage of the pie they get to take, not reducing the size of the pie.
People love Apple I know but if other companies start doing this hopefully they'll reconsider.
The perfect situation is when a companies' bottom line is in alignment with the interest of users and developers.
FTFY
What's going on at Apple?
[1]: https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/news/apple-lied-breaks-... and https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/144071146788861543...
And the relevant quote from the Tim Cook testimony:
> Apple has said that banning Epic Games was its only viable action, but at the same time, the company offered to let Fortnite back in the App Store if it agreed to the App Store rules. "Why would Apple do that if Epic is a bad actor?" the lawyer asked Cook. "It would benefit users to have them back on the store, if they abided by the rules," Cook said. "The user is trapped between two companies and it's not the right thing to do to the user." Cook said that Apple was not thinking about money at all, and Fortnite's revenue was not a consideration.
From: https://www.macrumors.com/2021/05/21/tim-cook-epic-apple-tri...
Lest anyone think Apple is ignoring the court.
The last time they made that promise was 8 days ago!
> Apple says it won’t let Epic Games back in the App Store until they agree to “play by the same rules as everyone else.”
From https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22666146/apple-epic-korea...
Epic started this whole mess by breaking their original agreement. And the court explicitly affirmed Apple’s right to terminate Epic’s developer account. If Apple were “abusing” their position, that implies they have monopoly power in that market, which was not what the court determined (rightly or wrongly). Which is the crux of Epic’s real goals, which they lost.
You could argue that it’s not nice or that it’s a poor business choice (because people will still buy some VBucks through IAP), but it’s not abusive. Vindictive maybe, but not abusive.
And really the only people getting hurt are the players who played Fortnite (exclusively?) on their phones or iPads. Which ironically includes me…
I think this would be a much larger issue for smaller developers who are reliant on access to the iOS market. What would happen to a smaller developer that didn’t have more resources? I think that’s a more interesting question.
But right now, this is still a Goliath vs Goliath situation.
Now, if Epic was not appealing, and Apple refused to let them back in, I would agree that is egregious.
No, it means the rules will be changed.
In your quote Cook said "if they abided by the rules" but in the Sweeney letter you linked to he said "Epic promises that it will adhere to Apple’s guidelines". Sweeney didn't say they actually did it.
Also, the daringfireball article includes the letter you linked to and covered this topic.
That's a bald faced lie. Of course it is about the money.
You could argue that in the long term Apple might be calculating that the fear effect on other companies might pay that back, but that's highly arguable. It's unarguable they are giving up a serious amount of reliable income to make this point.
I would postulate that 80%+ of Fortnite revenue is now from the item shop. In which case apple is "sacrificing" 20% to try getting the 80%.
Epic was ordered to pay $6mm from the case that they lost which was sales from pre-installed apps over around a 3 month period [1]
[1] https://www.macrumors.com/2021/09/13/epic-games-pays-apple-6-million/I'm a bit surprised that this needs to be explained.
How would letting Fortnite back in the store, and taking their money, reduce their revenues from other developers? You’re not making any sense.
I think your post inadvertently makes things more confusing.
In short, the situation changed and got a little more complicated after Tim Cook previously said they'd reinstate Epic's account.
What are the new changes and complications created by the recent judge's ruling? Epic's "promise" has to be dissected into 2 component parts:
(#1) _direct_ in-app-purchases. This was the mechanism that originally got Epic kicked off the App Store last year. (The court ruling still doesn't force Apple to allow this and indeed, they reaffirmed this by ordering Epic to pay back $6 million (the "lost" 30% commissions) to Apple for bypassing Apple's in-app-purchases.)
(#2) _informing_ the user of alternative app payments via web links, etc. (the "anti-steering" in the court's ruling)
Apple's current guidelines don't allow for either (1) & (2). However, Epic wants to be back in the App Store and immediately use option #2 because they feel the judge's ruling to stop Apple anti-steering policy should be followed now. Apple disagrees because they think they have a right to impose anti-steering. Hence, everybody is still in appeals process.
Put another way, Sweeney's idea of "promise" does not match Cook's expectation of a promise which makes it invalid from Apple's perspective.
Contrary to public perception, "anti-steering" is not always illegal and Apple's legal team is probably aware of previous cases such as American Express winning their anti-steering case with The Supreme Court: https://www.pymnts.com/legal/2018/supreme-court-amex-case-an...
Otherwise, I believe the court gave Apple 90 days to comply, and I can't see anything in Epic's letter that shows they want to be let back in immediately, so I'm unsure what this changes.
edit: I base my idea that "Apple hinted that they won't appeal" from this: https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/17/22679724/tim-cook-epic-ap..., and also based on the fact that Apple, in practice, didn't lose anything (they can still force devs to pay 30% on "steered" purchases made through the dev's website). But it seems some lawyers believe it's possible Apple will still appeal, so I shouldn't have been so definitive.
[1] https://www.macrumors.com/2021/09/13/epic-games-files-appeal-against-apple-ruling/
[2] https://www.macrumors.com/2021/09/22/fortnite-not-returning-to-app-store-until-legal-battle-ends/Now Epic is changing their mind now that the judge ruled they did breach the contract, what they were expecting?
I've never been a big Apple fan - and I speak up about it on various forums - up until about two years ago, no one really cared.
These last two years... The Anti-Apple sentiment is hitting HARD. Frankly - It was always an abusive company ("my way or the high way" seems like it could be their company motto), but now the products just aren't that good, and it shows.
Maybe the M1 devices will buy them some time, lord knows they need it after the cluster fuck of a computer that is the latest 16 macbook pro (work issued, it's the worst laptop I've used in the last 12 years).
But the phones are WAY too expensive for what you get - the UI is dissolving into a mess, the laptops are losing all the power user features that got folks interested in the first case, and the privacy-centric "User first" approach they market so hard is visibly turning into a pretty clear charade.
My prediction - This is going to be a pyrrhic victory. They're going to fight tooth and nail to hang onto this revenue stream (which is clearly simple rent-seeking behavior), and it's going to taint developer and user opinion across their main market. I personally went from "neutral/negative" on Apple to "Will not touch with a 20' pole - will not do business with or develop for"
Even at work - We have a large group of developers now asking to be issued something other than a macbook. I find that pretty damn telling.
Outside of HN and other niche media properties this is an extremely obscure battle.
> …now the products just aren't that good, and it shows.
Does it though? Apple recently reported an almost-50% YoY increase in iPhone sales. The iPad had its best June quarter in nearly a decade. The Mac set a new June quarter revenue record. The last four quarters have been the Mac's best four quarters ever. Subjectively, Apple products have never been better.
Right now, Apple is still middle of the road - The money in their apps ecosystem is holding a lot of developers there, but I think they're royally fucked in every legal district except the US with regards to the current software distribution model. And honestly - that's simply because anti-trust/monopoly regulation in the US is an unfathomable joke at the moment (it helps that we house most of the tech monopolies, so from a nationalistic perspective, I understand that the status quo is making a lot of people a lot of money).
So does it matter this quarter? Eh - almost certainly not. Will it matter in 10 years? Almost certainly yes.
That said, who knows - Apple is damn good at marketing still, and it's possible they can leverage the M1 machines into a dominant position.
---
As for this year - We're seeing consumer spending in electronics up across the board, mostly thanks to incentives from covid (cash infusions, more people using devices for school/work, more people feel stuck at home and consume digital services). And Apple has a good supply chain in place to whether the current chip shortages, pushing consumers to buy products from Apple simply because they're available. Hell, Lenovo revenue is also up 50% in the last year, and Samsung is up nearly 20% this last quarter. Selling digital devices is a good spot to be in during a lockdown of physical spaces.
Again, maybe Apple will be able to ride the wave with the M1 devices, but I think extrapolating out from sales during Covid isn't all that meaningful.
Of course Apple is too big to disappear the way BB did. But a lot of what made Apple products unique is no longer there. Jobs pointed out how OEMs had little brand identity and consistency because of the sheer number of variations of each product.
Apple today sells 7 different models of iPhone and 5 different models of iPads. It's on its way.
Epic is not agreeing to the app store rules. They are appealing the decision because they *do not agree to the rules* and do not want to follow them. As long as that situation stands, Apple is not letting them back in.
If Epic drops the appeal and agrees to comply, then Apple has indicated they would let them in.
Agreeing in this sense usually means 'Agreeing to follow rules' rather than 'Agreeing that the rule should exist'.
For instance - I'm sure plenty of developers don't agree that Apple should get a 30% cut and don't want to give the money to them, but agree to let this happen in order to use the store. Most developers probably think that they should be able to take platform on any payment platform they wish, but again agree not to do it because those are the T&C's. Agree usually means 'Agree to do or not do something' rather than 'Agree something is the right thing'.
If Epic wins the appeal, the ruling will be overturned and Apple could lose on all points. That's not an acceptable situation for Apple and as long as Epic is holding that over their heads, Apple won't make a deal.
They aren’t going to enter into a new contract to do business with Epic while Epic’s breach of their last contract is still unresolved.
Yeah, I don't think that is a reliable unbiased source. Moreover, wouldn't this invite defamation suit?
This sounds like the best solution by far. Nothing changes for Apple walled garden users and happy Google Play users. The rest of us get better choices.
If Epic hadn’t decided to posture and had just uploaded a build that complies with today’s guidelines - which do not, and are not yet required to, allow external purchasing links - then they would have had their account reinstated. They chose not to do so, in a flashy and demanding way, having no leverage left against Apple. Bad choice.
ps. This entire post is a dupe, rehashing the same discussions from yesterday. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28618332
There's good money in maintaining appstores I'm certain someone will do it better than Apple and Google, I would very much welcome Steam mobile for example.
I mean think about it. It's not just about a feud, the games are literally barred on all computers of a specific type (iOS computers). That's like 1/5 (probably more) of the computing screen that is looked at daily by all people. I mean at a certain point banning that is like banning eating. People gotta eat. Doesn't anyone else think it's weird that one organization can ban software from being on 1/5 of all computers in the world?
Computing got a lot weirder than it was when I was a kid.
Subway has the most franchise stores in the USA; that doesn't mean they HAVE to serve you. You can get a sandwich at a number of other places and more abstractly, you can get food at a number of other places. They don't need to give you a reason why they won't let you in, though politely they might (i.e. please wear shoes in the store)
Epic partners with Tencent in China for games. Tencent sells a "gamer phone", the Black Shark.[1] 90Hz display, liquid cooled. All Epic needs to do is offer that in the US. With a bit of marketing effort, Epic could make their phone the one the cool middle school kids want. Instead of one of those slow Apple old-people phones.
[1] https://www.gizchina.com/2020/03/03/tencent-black-shark-3-an...
Steam Deck is on the way this winter, and will succeed in locking down users to a Steam ecosystem (majority won't bother replacing SteamOS w/ windows).
An Epic-made handheld gaming device wouldn't be out of the question.
Epic has not started doing hardware, as far as I know. And they're "hot" on the metaverse, which has a strong opportunity for new hardware (AR, etc).
So that could be the future of Tim.
What!? That's interesting. Guessing it's 'vapor cooled'?
They are a bully and can act this way because Epic to them is meaningless. Theres only a handful of companies who can actually threaten Apple with their same medicine at this point, and unfortunately this means consumers suffer.
It pisses me off that they overcharge on storage and memory, leading to a situation where everyone who is on a budget struggles with artificially limited machines. I understand that they need to offer multiple price points to cover the market, but I actually preferred it when they just charged more for black.
It annoys me that they arbitrarily block content to enforce their weird standards (eg. no nudity allowed) or just whenever they feel someone is not paying them enough of their revenue.
It annoys me that their overarching goal is no longer to make the best products, but instead the goal is to make you keep buying accessories and services even after you already bought their stuff.
I dunno. For my home computer I already switched to Windows. There's probably lots to complain about with Microsoft as well, but I'm surprised how nice some things are after years of thinking Apple was so far ahead.
And Fortnite does run on Android.
In this case apple is not a monopoly, epic has many other avenues to sell their product.
I personally dont like the apple ecosystem, but if they can get away with charging 30% they should, until the market doesnt support it anymore.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_delayed_is_justice_d...
Is epic succeeding in their narrative as a poor little mistreated company sticking it to the man?
I care very little about godzilla vs king kong lawyer fights.
That's a 25% boost in my revenue. That's huge.
following epic vs apple fight - the whole play and dance, throwing mud etc etc. Its not worth your time, you cannot affect the outcome. Just ignore it all and learn about the outcome in the end.
Like apple gives a shit about concealed code.
They have a section on Apple's anticompetitive behavior and a link to quashing smaller companies viewed as competition in the past.
I do admire your get up and go, though and I do think more people should put up more competition. I'm very break up monopoly, which we have quite a few examples of in America, using exorbitant market pressures to stifle competition.
Gruber/Daring Fireball seems to be getting less and less popular: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%22darin...
I think he's doing fine.