Apple Terminates Epic's App Store Account Following Legal Dispute Between the Two Companies (9to5mac.com) 165
As previously promised by Apple, Epic's App Store account has now been terminated due to the legal dispute between the two companies after Apple removed Fortnite from the iOS App Store. Epic Games still had a few apps available for iOS besides Fortnite, but they were all removed today. From a report: Fortnite for iOS was updated earlier this month with a new option that allowed users to purchase in-game items directly through Epic's payment system instead of using Apple's In-App Purchases. Once Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store, Epic Games started a public campaign and a legal battle against Apple, which led the Cupertino-based company to announce that it would terminate Epic's developer account. That's exactly what Apple did this Friday, August 28. The App Store now shows an alert saying "this app is currently not available in your country or region" when you try to access Epic's profile or any of their apps through a direct link, such as one from Infinity Blade Stickers app.
I don't really feel bad for Epic (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Honest question, because I don't know: How big of a cut does Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo demand from a game developer for DLC (or an in-game purchase, if those exists...not sure I've played a console game before that has them, as they usually just direct you to the console's store)
Re:I don't really feel bad for Epic (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the big difference is that Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft's ecosystems are ones that they have already grown into and can not afford to be kicked out of, while Apple is still a small market for them that they can afford to lose now but are probably hoping for rapid growth later.
Re: (Score:2)
Honest question, because I don't know: How big of a cut does Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo demand from a game developer for DLC (or an in-game purchase, if those exists...not sure I've played a console game before that has them, as they usually just direct you to the console's store)
All of them are 30%, including the Epic Store. You also left out Steam.
Re: (Score:2)
The Epic Store does waive the the Unreal license fee if you publish through the Epic store. So that can be a slight savings. And they do offer discounted rates on specific games.
But both of those are to attract people to the store (and the unreal engine) while keeping the 30% rate going forward.
Re:I don't really feel bad for Epic (Score:4, Insightful)
You sure can start a fight in self defense. I hold you for ransom for 30% of all your income, you are well within your right to pick a fight and say it was in self defense.
Apple is evil. I don't care whether or not Epic wins in court, I would just much rather see everyone else pick up their toys and leave Apple's (walled) playground. I think this is really what Epic is trying to do. It's a public volley looking for others to join in with them. I wish them luck.
Re: (Score:2)
Epic manufactured this crisis and with cries of unfair practices, they claim Apple is EVIL! I don't really feel compassion for companies, especially not Apple (I'm an Apple customer for full disclosure), but seriously. You can't start a fight and claim self defense. Epic might have a little more credibility if they pursued the console makers with the same artificial indignation.
You are seing things wrongly. The problem with Apple goes way beyond what Epic is claiming. Epic isn't the first or the last that is being forced by Apple and Google (a bit less), to do what they want or get out. Apple forces the developer to use its billing system saying that its for the privacy and safety of the customer, and they still let other apps have their own billing system for buying goods. Why can't they charge a fair fee like 5% or 10%?. Also they are now forcing developers to have an Apple acco
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, just today Facebook is trying to put its toe in the waters of fighting Apple's policy.
https://siliconangle.com/2020/... [siliconangle.com]
Facebook merely tried to display the fact that Apple gets a 30% cut with the one option and the small business gets 100% with the second option. And Apple rejected that too.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone buying Apple products think of it as "freedom". And I am talking about well before the iPhone. This has always been Apple's walled garden approach. And why not just raise your in-App purchase price by 25% to compensate for the 30% transaction fee? If that pushes too many folks away, then you know its not a viable market. Yes, there are a LOT of rules that are in Apple's favor, but these are pretty much up front and everyone plays by them. Don't like it, then make a webapp and move
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is a business. If you want to sell digital goods to their customers, they get 30%. Same as Google. Same as Xbox and Nintendo and Sony. They built the marketplace and run it and provide the tools and more, access to customers with registered credit cards just a click away.
So how much is fair for all of that? Actually, you just made the problem with that question apparent, as quite a few people seem to think that 15% would be "fair", but you think just 5% or 10% would be "fair". Thing is, "fair" is a sl
Re:I don't really feel bad for Epic (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is a business. If you want to sell digital goods to their customers, they get 30%. Same as Google. Same as Xbox and Nintendo and Sony. They built the marketplace and run it and provide the tools and more, access to customers with registered credit cards just a click away.
These "app stores" are just a wee bit different than simply a "marketplace" I would think.
Can you imagine if the real world worked like these so called tech world "marketplaces"? It would be completely foreign, shocking and laughably unacceptable. Nobody would tolerate it.
Imagine buying cars that can only be driven to approved destinations.
Imagine if as a condition of owning a home you could only shop at a single store.
Imagine buying an oven that would only accept a specific brand of food.
The car is not a marketplace, the home is not a market place. Neither is a goddamn phone a "marketplace". The artificial constraints designed intentionally to limit choice and force purchases from specific "marketplaces" are ONLY tolerated by the public in cyberspace. There is no analogue of this insanity in the real world and no defense for it either.
Re: I don't really feel bad for Epic (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
load "$",8,1
Pretty sure that's not going to work, you need to leave the ,1 off if you're going to load the directory.
Re: (Score:2)
Epic is not big enough to fight this battle on multiple fronts. But a victory here will help them if they should choose to fight the same battle elsewhere.
Your complaint is that they are not acting like idiots by starting more fights than they can win. It's a ridiculous complaint.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah... An iSheep, waiting to be sheared.
Grow up. This isn't high school.
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty clear that Epic Games deliberately added a feature they knew to be in violation of the contract, and was ready and waiting to throw the lawsuit the instant Apple enforced the terms of the agreement.
As to whether or not the practice is "unfair" is a matter of some debate, and pretty the entire point of the lawsuit.
THINK OF THE CHILDREN! (Score:2)
But seriously, the people I work with say all their kids constantly play Forntnite. And all but one of them are playing on Apple products. How long until we see a bunch of ten-twelve year olds marching in the streets over this?
Re: (Score:2)
The parents are going to find out they could have used a commodity PC all along instead of a fancy iThing.
Apple and Google will win (Score:2)
I don't know how lawyers convinced Epic to bring a suit with little legal merit at a time when the government simply doesn't care about monopolies. In fact, the government has actively been cultivating monopolies the past thirty years. Wake up and smell th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Apple and Google will win (Score:2)
"Pressure" a two trillion dollar company. img src=surejan.jpg
Re: (Score:2)
"...which they are likely hoping to use to pressure Apple into carving out a special exception for them."
Ummm.... current behavior and $2T says otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Epic is suing Google, too. Neither Google nor Apple is a monopoly,
They aren't being sued for being monopoly, they are being sued for anti-competitive behavior.
I don't know how lawyers convinced Epic to bring a suit
They have lawyers who have actually have read the law, unlike you, who can't even be bothered to read Wikipedia before you start typing.
apple has the right (Score:2)
Apple has the right to charge 30 percent for the use of their store but to charge for sales from inside the product is wrong. It would be like Walmart demanding a portion of the proceeds from merchandise sold from the back of cereal and other boxes.
Not a good decision (Score:2)
Feints within feints (Score:3)
Well people wanted Apple's "walled garden experien (Score:2)
STANDARD WALLED GARDEN (prison) REPLY FORM
Rev. 1
I see you are complaining about
[X] Apple [] M$ [] other:_____
You
[] bought the device
[X] invested in development tools and infastructure
[] made a large investement in (company's) products for your business/org/school/family
Knowingly or not
[X] That the above selected company is lord of the realm
[X] you should know by now corporations don't play fair
[X] don't be surprised tha
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Well 30% is less than 50%, therefore a minority, therefore not a monopoly, so any anti-competitive practices are fine.
Violating anti-trust laws is based on anti-competitive power and actions and not on market share. Whether or not Apple holds and has wielded unlawful monopoly power depends a great deal on the specific definition of the "market." If the market is apps that run on iOS, then Apple likely holds monopoly power, and because it has wielded the hammer of "essential facilities" to kick players out of the market, then a case could be made that Apple has violated anti-trust law. However, if the market is defined m
Re: (Score:2)
Violating anti-trust laws is based on anti-competitive power and actions and not on market share.
And kicking people out of a self-owned ecosystem for violation of Terms of Service is neither anti-competitive (who are they competing with again?) nor an anti-trust matter.
Regardless of how big Apple gets, they don't owe you access to their platform.
Re:Apple moves forward with proof of bad monopoly (Score:5, Interesting)
Do apple take 30% of all Amazon sales?
Do apple pay 30% tax in any country? no they go out of their way not to pay 30%. So why should developers pay 30% to apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Do apple take 30% of all Amazon sales?
Apple don't take 30% of *any* product sales. The 30% applies only to content within, apps changes to apps, or subscriptions within apps. Apple originally did apply the 30% rule to Amazon kindle books but then Amazon abused it's market position by threatening to delist all Apple products from their store, and sadly Apple capitulated. I bet you a dollar if the same case came up today Apple would fight back.
Do apple pay 30% tax in any country?
Do eggs cost $30 in China? What tax pays has absolutely nothing to do with anything. However if you wan
Re: (Score:2)
However if you want to discuss the underlying principle: Apple pay the tax they are required to, if they didn't they courts would force them to.
Apple does not always pay the tax they are required to pay, which is why courts frequently force them to do so. However, these courts are not in the USA, where corporations are allowed to get away with much more than in other highly developed nations because the people running the USA are also playing their own corrupt games and they don't want to be forced to pay taxes either.
Re: Apple moves forward with proof of bad monopoly (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Yet that ultimately had nothing to do with why they lost their anti-trust case. They used the vertical integration not to ban other players, but to bilk them for as much money as possible in many cases equipment needed to be modified to work at your own cost and then after you put all the effort in you paid a lease fee to Bell a fee for nothing. They provided no service for this.
They didn't get broken up because they were a closed vertically integrated monopoly, they were broken up because they used
Re: (Score:2)
If you think the fact that its a minority is somehow a sufficient defence then you've just proved that you have no idea how antitrust legislation works.
Re: (Score:2)
If apple self promotes it self as the # NUMBER ONE App store on earth, then it is!
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps in the literal sense, but it still represents leveraging an outsized market for the purpose of rent seeking.
Re: (Score:2)
In economics, rent-seeking means seeking to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth.
I'd argue that Apple is always actively seeking to create new wealth, in terms of selling more phones, tablets, computers, accessories, and services to more and more customers. Further, they're constantly upgrading the OS, SDKs, and tools. In effect, the pie is always getting bigger.
It's a far cry from sitting back and collecting fees on a toll road.
Re: (Score:2)
In economics, rent-seeking means seeking to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth.
For example, by demanding a 30% cut for an in-app purchase not facilitated by Apple, using their walled garden as a bludgeon.
You are correct that there are other aspects of Apple's business that increase wealth. It turns out that they own a factory and a toll road.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Apple moves forward with proof of bad monopoly (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Who else has a store that sells apps that run on iPhones or iPads? It seems to me that Apple has created a monopoly for itself.
You can argue that the relevant market is broader than just Apple devices, but Apple itself works very hard to make sure that there is no software interpretability there.
Re: (Score:2)
Who else has a store that sells apps that run on iPhones or iPads? It seems to me that Apple has created a monopoly for itself.
You can argue that the relevant market is broader than just Apple devices, but Apple itself works very hard to make sure that there is no software interpretability there.
Vertical integration has previously been ruled to not necessarily be considered an illegal monopoly. There are examples of organizations that control their entire supply chain, creating a vertical monopoly. If memory serves (been decades since I looked at it), Little Caesar's is one such organization that controls nearly every aspect of its production line.
Am I saying that Apple is a legal vertical monopoly? No, that's for a court to decide. Do their practices resemble a legal vertical monopoly? To my
Re: (Score:2)
There is a bit of a difference. iPhone software runs only on an iPhone, so only people with iPhones will buy it. Pizza ingredients have many other potential buyers beyond just pizza.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No one else can carry or sell Target branded items commercially. No one else can carry or sell Good Value branded items. Same with Sears, JCPenny, Macy's , etc. See how far Burger King gets trying to sell a Big Mac. Lots of "monopolies" all around restricting each other. And thats before we get into Patents that literally provide you a monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
You are talking about trademark law, not about monopoly power. That's a pretty common-sense difference. Apple's behavior is like a home manufacturer building houses so that only appliances that are sold through the builder's store can be used in the house. It is not like Target selling store-branded soda or clothes or whatever else, where you can buy an exact functional equivalent in a great many other places.
And, yes, patents are legally granted monopolies, with a ton of procedural safeguards to protect
Re: (Score:2)
"It is not like Target selling store-branded soda or clothes or whatever else, where you can buy an exact functional equivalent in a great many other places."
You mean, like on Android? And in the case of Epic's games, on PCs? Xbox? Sony?
All of those other people are building "houses" too. You don't have to buy Apple's.
Re: (Score:2)
Google lets me unlock my bootloader and root my Android phone. Then I can install any software I want on it. It is fundamentally different from what Apple is doing. Android apps and PC games don't run on an iPhone. Are you suggesting that your body only lets you put on clothes sold by Target? Exactly what analogy or analogies are you trying to make here?
Or taking another interpretation of what you said, Epic doesn't sell PCs. Microsoft and Sony seem to have much more reasonable licensing practices --
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft and Sony seem to have much more reasonable licensing practices -- no one suggests that they want a 30% share of each sale
Actually, MS takes up to 30% depending on the type of app. Games = 30%. Sony takes 30% of digital sales as well. When looking at physical sales it looks like 10% to MS/Sony and 20% to the store.
So, it at least sounds like 30% for licensing/distribution is normal for the industry. That isn't to say that digital distribution needs that much, just that it is standard.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, MS takes up to 30% depending on the type of app.
Right, but I have no problems installing applications outside of the MS Store. I am not required to use it to install software, and I can pay people however we agree to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
But all you guys are talking about is "features" that your environment has that Apple doesn't. That doesn't make Apple wrong or illegal (till courts say otherwise). For you that is less desirable, but for many, they clearly want it this way. If Walmart & Amazon don't want to carry brand X, that doesn't give X a right to the shelves/webspace. Whether X is in other locations or not is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are only "features" in the sense that most other platforms make sure that you can install software without permission from the manufacturer. Those other platforms enable other people to sell software for those platforms. Apple has spent an incredible amount of money making sure that they have to approve every developer and every distributed piece of software, and making sure that no one else can sell software, for Apple platforms.
That makes Apple wrong, and I don't need a court to tell me so. But m
Re: (Score:2)
For you that is less desirable, but for many, they clearly want it this way.
We only know that a small handful want it this way, because we've only heard from a small handful. The rest may prefer it to be some other way, but as they really have only two rational choices they may be picking the one they dislike the least, not the one they like the most as you suggest.
Re: (Score:2)
Which should be sideloadable on Applephones, too.
I can't disagree, I'd love to be able to load arbitrary software on my phone.
I can also see why they won't let it happen, unless they're forced to by the American courts. Their whole brand depends on the curated nature of their one and only app store.
Re: (Score:2)
Its not Trademark law. Its contractual. When SaraLee labels their product Good Value, they are only allowed to do so if they will sell that product to Walmart. Same with Huggies for CostCo's Kirkland. Duracell for Amazon. P&G does for Kroger body care products, etc. Its the contract that says the Mfg can't sell to other customers.
The bite here is that if a SaraLee batch doesn't pass QA, it gets sorted and sold in other countries or if good enough, refurb or just rebatched. If that happens to GV,
Re: (Score:2)
I can use CVS toothpaste on a Target toothbrush just fine.
Now, try running Android software on an iPhone...
Re: (Score:2)
No one else can carry or sell Target branded items commercially. No one else can carry or sell Good Value branded items. Same with Sears, JCPenny, Macy's , etc. See how far Burger King gets trying to sell a Big Mac. Lots of "monopolies" all around restricting each other. And thats before we get into Patents that literally provide you a monopoly.
Not the same thing.
Re:Apple moves forward with proof of bad monopoly (Score:4, Insightful)
This is exactly like HP creating a market for HP printer cartridges and locking out third-party ink cartridge providers. It's not consumer-friendly, but it's not by any definition a monopoly.
If you are upset, you can buy yourself an equivalent Android phone (who have 75%+ of the total phone market!) and avoid this. Ergo, not a monopoly.
Re:Apple moves forward with proof of bad monopoly (Score:4, Informative)
Bad example. They settled a lawsuit just two years ago..."Under the terms of the HP ink cartridge monopoly class action settlement, HP is barred from using the so-called dynamic security program on affected printers. Additionally, Class Members will be able to make a claim for a cash payout from the settlement fund."
https://topclassactions.com/la... [topclassactions.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Good example! Sure, it proves the opposite of what the GP wanted to assert, but it's both applicable and clear. Apple is abusing a monopoly position in the market to the detriment of consumers.
They are also the biggest pinata, so there must be a long list of lawyers who would love to hit them with a stick and see how much candy falls out.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't use the word monopoly and i think a lot of people would agree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't use the word monopoly and i think a lot of people would agree with you.
I'm not responsible for others' willful ignorance. If they want to argue that the word doesn't mean something in a legal context (which is what we're talking about) when it clearly does mean that, I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince them that they should use the word correctly, nor am I going to coddle them. They can learn, or they can not learn. Their opinions are irrelevant unless they're going to file a brief or similar, which they clearly aren't if they can't use that word properly.
Re: (Score:2)
Mail and Calendar do support integrations with Google apps though. So you can use a google calendar and GMAIL for instance and it will integrate with macOS. You just can't go the other direction easily.
Similarly, Chrome or Firefox are available on all these platforms and can do page sharing and bookmark sync across devices.
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly, Chrome or Firefox are available on all these platforms
False. On iOS, only Chromeskin and Firefoxskin are available. You can't get real Chrome or Firefox because Apple bans anything that would compete meaningfully with their browser. That's only another example of Apple's anticompetitive behavior.
Re: Apple moves forward with proof of bad monopoly (Score:2)
That really comes down to the question of market segmentation. Thatâ(TM)s something that requires a court to answer, not a slashdot armchair lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
That really comes down to the question of market segmentation. Thatâ(TM)s something that requires a court to answer, not a slashdot armchair lawyer.
There are existing rulings that already apply, and as such they wouldn't be classified a monopoly in that market. However, these things aren't set in stone. The courts could decide to change things.
To be clear, I don't have a problem with iOS apps legally being defined as their own market and having Apple defined as a monopoly within that market. It's only that as things currently stand, that isn't how it's defined.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not monopoly. They may run aground of anti-trust and/or something else, but they're not a monopoly. People really need to understand the difference, to understand the situation.
I think the perspectives are interesting... yet I have to admit I simply don't understand the underlying logic.
If I had a monopoly on the sale of all scratch and sniff stickers in the state of Rhode Island would this not count as a monopoly since the monopoly did not extend to the 49 other states?
What if I had a monopoly on the sale of bubble blasters in all 50 states yet not any other countries... would this constitute a monopoly or would it not since the rest of the world was free to buy their bubble blas
Re: (Score:3)
Is it not a monopoly because you elected to purchase an iPhone?
For the most part, this is the answer. iOS is not the only mobile option, or even technically the largest option depending on how you look at it, as such it's not a monopoly. That does not preclude anti-trust or other laws restricting how they operate. It only means that they're not classified a monopoly within that market.
What about the rights of a seller who wants to make software available to you that you would be willing to purchase on mutually agreeable terms yet is barred from doing so due to artificial technical measures designed to reinforce restrictions on the distribution of mobile phone software to a full third of the entire US population to a single party?
As the law stands, that's ultimately up to Apple. Anti-trust may force changes, I don't know.
Re: (Score:2)
It’s not a monopoly, but it is an illegal tie-In. Apple is exercising prior restraint by prohibiting two people who want to engage in commerce directly with each other from doing so. Forcing people to use a single payment processor is contrary to public policy. There is no technical reason this needs to happen. These don’t usually survive litigation, and may even violate Moss-Magnuson directly, I haven’t re-read it lately. but hey, who knows. Apple can afford convincing lawyers I
Re: (Score:2)
Go look up the history of QEMM, a DOS memory manager, and what happened when MS baked that functionality into DOS and Windows.
There's always a chance your utility or application will get baked into Windows, or macOS, or iOS, or Android. It's simply the nature of the beast.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Apple moves forward with proof of bad monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
Terminating the developer account when the party breaches the contract is part of the agreement Epic signed. I don't see "retaliation" here, as the same thing would have happened with or without the lawsuit.
The judge even told Epic they could temporarily comply with Apple's guidelines without affecting their court case but Epic refused to do so. It seems that Epic would rather throw their users under the bus as a publicity stunt.
As the judge said, Epic is entirely in a situation "of its own making."
Re:Apple moves forward with proof of bad monopoly (Score:4, Interesting)
Terminating the developer account when the party breaches the contract is part of the agreement Epic signed. I don't see "retaliation" here, as the same thing would have happened with or without the lawsuit.
No one (not even Apple) can make you agree to the terms of a contract if those terms are unlawful. This is what Epic is arguing: that the rule they broke was itself unlawful.
Considering Apple was asked to testify at a Congressional anti-trust hearing over the terms of the App Store agreements [businessinsider.com], has an active investigation into anti-trust issues from the US Department of Justice [politico.com], an active investigation into anti-trust issues from the Federal Trade Commission [dailydot.com], is being investigated by the EU for anti-competitive rules in the App Store [europa.eu] and separately in Korea [cnbc.com], was previously found guilty of violating the Sherman Anti-trust Act [wikipedia.org], and the Supreme Court just ruled there was enough evidence to bring an class action anti-trust case against Apple [wikipedia.org], it's not unreasonable to think that the agreement's terms might be unlawful.
Of course only a judge can decide if the terms are unlawful, but I personally think closing Epic's developer account is "retaliation" because Apple already remedied the problem by pulling the offending game from the App Store... so what other purpose could canceling their developer account serve?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I'm not wrong. In fact I can show you the relevant portion of the agreement. Termination of services on breach of contract is a pretty standard clause, so Apple's behavior doesn't violate the "law" in that regard,
Nor am I wrong about what they judge told Epic nor am I wrong that Epic chose to throw their users under the bus instead of letting them enjoy the game that they already paid for. That's a matter of public record.
Finally, and from a broader perspective, whether or not Apple's contract violates "the
Re: (Score:3)
No. You are wrong. Stop posting bad information.
He posted the direct quote from the judge.
If the fine print of an agreement you signed says that you are obligated to murder one person of Apple's choosing during the duration of your contract, then that clause is not legally valid.
Actually that clause is legally valid until a judge says otherwise. In this case here the judge didn't say otherwise, in fact he specifically stated outright that Apple may terminate the developer account for Epic Games. He also put a stay on terminating the account for Epic International for the duration of the case as he ruled that was retaliation considering they are a 3rd party to this dispute. That however does not mean Apple can't terminate Epic International'
Re: (Score:2)
Actually that clause is legally valid until a judge says otherwise.
That's hair-splitting. A murder clause is never legally valid unless you work for the government since they have a monopoly on the use of deadly force for profit, and even they are supposed to follow certain rules when it comes to killing people.
The situation is obviously a lot less clear when it comes to anticompetitive behavior, because the definitions are a lot fuzzier. That's why one shouldn't use as example a hypothetical murder clause.
With all that said, Apple's behavior is materially identical to beh
Re: (Score:3)
A murder clause is never legally valid
Not quite. Contracts are legal and valid and both signatories are bound to them unless a judge invalidates that specific clause in that specific contract during a dispute. The fact that there is a 100% guarantee of that happening if it goes to court does not change the nature of the contract when it's signed.
With all that said, Apple's behavior is materially identical to behavior which has gotten other companies in legal trouble in the past, so it's only reasonable to believe that their behavior is illegal.
Nope. This is a blatant misunderstanding of how anti-trust law works. The law does not apply to behaviours, it applies to specific outcomes. Since the GP brought up a murder let me give you an equally v
Re: (Score:2)
REF: Epic judge will protect Unreal Engine — but not Fortnite [theverge.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they broke the T&S that Epic (and all the others) agreed to. And this wasn't a "out of no where" type of pull. Apple gave them plenty of time to come into compliance and show they will stay there. And the Judge felt is was appropriate so why wouldn't Apple do this to set an example (and to be fair) to everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The App Store may be a bad monopoly practice in general, but I don't see it in this case. Apple isn't required to let anyone develop on their platform. If you remember, the original iPhone had only Apple's built-in apps at the time it was released. Apple chose to allow developers to make apps for the phone, in a "walled garden," subject to numerous restrictions. Epic voluntarily agreed to follow these restrictions and then tried to sidestep them by including a prohibited feature (in-app purchases without pa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
at the press of a button as retaliation for filing a lawsuit?
If I come into your house and punch you in the face will you retaliate by asking me to leave? Or are you applying double standards on purpose?
Where in legal doctrine is a company forced to do business with one actively breaching its terms of service, one which includes the ability to terminate the agreement for any reason, and one to which both companies agreed to?
Where in any logical sense should a company be forced to do business with someone hostile towards them?
Also Apple don't have a monopoly, you said
Re: (Score:2)
Also Apple don't have a monopoly, you said it yourself 30% of the handset market. No one owes you access to a closed platform, they only owe you a level playing field, and that was provided in ToS.
Apple owes you access to your own device that you bought. It's your device, not theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, seriously. Do you need more proof of bad monopoly practices than the ability of Apple to completely shut your company out of 30% of the global handset market indefinitely at the press of a button as retaliation for filing a lawsuit?
I hear this word "retaliation". It's not retaliation. There is a contract between two huge companies. One company made it absolutely clear that they have no intention to fulfil their side of the contract. So why should the other side be forced to fulfil their side? "Our contract says that I should do A, B and C, but I flatly refuse to do C, and if you tell me that I should do C because the contract says so, then I take you to court. ". Cancelling the contract is common sense, not retaliation.
Re:Good news for unity users (Score:5, Informative)
That's the account Fortnight was published under. Epic's "Unreal" account hasn't been touched, per court order.
"In her ruling Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied Epic's request for a temporary restraining order, citing the facts that it was not suffering "irreparable harm" and that it was in a situation "of its own making.""
Re: (Score:3)
Unity and Epic are two completely different companies. Epic makes the Unreal Engine, not Unity. Unity is its own company and gaming engine.
Re: (Score:2)
There was also the hack a month or so ago which took the site down for several days, with questionable content on the front page, and that was never acknowledged.
Re: (Score:2)
Questionable content on the front page? How the hell are we supposed to see the difference?
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had a funny mod point for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here
Re: WFT is with Slashdot past 2 days? (Score:2)
"Yesterday was more drastic half pages said SD was down and only front page working"
It got worse than that, the entire site went down, unable to connect at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, Epic's not allowed to do that, Apple forbids that too.
Apple also forbids including links to alternative ways to pay.
Apple also forbids app developers from even mentioning that Apple takes 30% (or otherwise implying that consumers can give more to the developers by buying things through another channel.)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems fair. No, really— if you are making money off selling whatever on the app store, and you make *more* money selling other ways, the argument is essentially about wanting more money.
The only people I think potentially have a case are Spotify and similar services that are regulated into paying the same price for content as Apple, and cannot charge a premium to Apple customers. Just eating into your (huge) profit margin is not a very good case.
As for Facegram’s hollow complaints, it would be
Re: (Score:2)
Tim Cook with ghostly Steve Jobs? :P