Epic Tries New Gambit To Restore Fortnite in Apple App Store (bloomberg.com) 249
Epic Games made another pitch to a judge to block Apple from removing Fortnite from its App Store in what the game maker calls "retaliation" for offering in-app purchases through its own marketplace. From a report: Friday's request for a court action comes after Epic was denied an order last month that would have temporarily stopped Apple from delisting Fortnite. The case is shaping into a major antitrust showdown over tolls of as much as 30% that Apple charges developers when users make in-app purchases. Epic has filed a separate suit with similar claims against Google. Apple's App Store business also faces antitrust scrutiny by lawmakers and regulators in U.S. and Europe looking to rein in power of big technology companies. Some app developers complain that Apple's standard App Store fees and others policies are unfair and designed to benefit the iPhone maker's own services.
"To be clear, Epic does not seek to force Apple to provide distribution and processing services for free, nor does Epic seek to enjoy Apple's services without paying for them," Epic said in a filing in federal court in Oakland, California. "What Epic wants is the freedom not to use Apple's App Store or in-app purchase, and instead to use and offer competing services." Apple released a statement maintaining it isn't backing down, adding that there's no chance of the companies working together as things stand.
"To be clear, Epic does not seek to force Apple to provide distribution and processing services for free, nor does Epic seek to enjoy Apple's services without paying for them," Epic said in a filing in federal court in Oakland, California. "What Epic wants is the freedom not to use Apple's App Store or in-app purchase, and instead to use and offer competing services." Apple released a statement maintaining it isn't backing down, adding that there's no chance of the companies working together as things stand.
So, the cards are on the table (Score:2, Insightful)
What Epic really wanted all along is their store to run on Apple devices.
I don't see this story ending well for them.
Re:So, the cards are on the table (Score:5, Insightful)
What Epic really wanted all along is their store to run on Apple devices.
They don't want that, though. They're suing Google over the same thing, and they have their own store on Android. They chose to bring Fortnite to the Google Play Store because running only their own service didn't earn them as much money.
It's clear from their actions they want the benefits of being available in the respective app stores, without paying for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Their lawsuit literally states Epic wants a competing iOS store, ace.
Newsflash: things lawyers say aren't always true.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they're not lying, but the fact remains that they HAVE their own app store on Android and it isn't good enough, because Google pops up some warnings that maybe alternate app stores aren't all on the up and up, so you better trust your sources. They feel compelled to put their app in the Play store because that's where people go when they want trusted applications.
Epic wants Apple and Google to not only make alternate app stores available but also advertise them or something? I'm really not quite su
Re: (Score:2)
With Google they just want them to allow other app stores in Google Play so they can be installed without the warning messages from the place users are used to getting apps from.
Amazon is in the same boat, you have to get their app store from their website. Also F-Droid.
The problem for Google is that they provide security for apps installed via their app store. They can reasonably audit an app but not an app store that contains potentially hundreds of thousands of other apps. Apple has the same issue.
What % for Nintendo, xbox, PS ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Would also be good to have an idea how much Steam takes, even while it is not a necessary store for its platforms.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Epic Store (Score:2)
Sounds like epic want to be able to add their own game store to IOS as part of a bigger plan
Hypocrites (Score:5, Interesting)
Here is a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black. Epic makes their billions selling crap (mainly skins and weapons) in their own closed garden which uses their V-Bucks currency. No one else can create their own skins, models, etc and sell it to others there. From a legal perspective, if Apple has to open their business model, then Epic would have to as well. Epic can't even argue scale here as they have a quarter of a billion players and an annual *profit* of $3 billion, putting them firmly in the same market scale as Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
The antitrust question is: can a vendor of proprietary hardware (Apple) require that 3rd-party software (Fortnight) use the proprietary payment system (Apple store)? No similar issue exists with the Epic store since no video game vendor is forced to use Epic's walled garden, they do so by choice. Epic competes against Steam, both of which run on multiple platforms. Someone can install Epic, Steam, Blizzard, and Ubisoft's stores all on one computer. I think there are games that are on both Steam and Epic
Re: (Score:2)
No similar issue exists with the Epic store since no video game vendor is forced to use Epic's walled garden
Who forces Epic to use Apple's walled garden? They can distribute their game on XBox, Playstation, Nintendo Switch, OSX, Android, PC (Steam OR they can distribute directly), hell they can even create a WebGL / WebAssembly version if they want to try and be that cutting edge, and probably several other platforms I'm overlooking. The point is they have to pay to play, and play by the rules of that app store.
Re: (Score:2)
From a legal perspective, if Apple has to open their business model, then Epic would have to as well.
Why on earth would that be the case from a legal perspective? Is Epic big enough to be skirting anti-trust violations?
Epic can't even argue scale here as they have a quarter of a billion players and an annual *profit* of $3 billion, putting them firmly in the same market scale as Apple.
They can though. scale is relative to the market.
Re:Yawn... (Score:5, Informative)
Has FortNite become what matters since Slashdot changed its motto?
Yes, this stuff matters. Don't get me wrong, i couldn't care less for Fortnite, or Epic, or Apple. But the legal question behind it is more than relevant. Do we allow Apple to have this power, or don't we. And it's not easily answered. As the internet grows up and certain tech companies grew to a size that dwarves entire countries and at the same time ignores borders, we will have to deal with such issues and it'll set the road forward.
Personally, i'm pretty much done with all the crap that Gates and Jobs brought us, and i'm not talking about hard- or software. However the general public, including judges, seem to think that a lot of things are normal that we didn't consider normal 30 year ago.
Re: (Score:3)
What I was trying to say is that it is either going to go to court or be resolved with a common agreement from both parties. If they come to an agreement, I am interested in knowing about it. If it goes to court, I am interested into the first instance court decision as well as the appeals to higher courts that should take place. In the mean time, I am not that interested into the "gambits" that Epic tries unless it brings this case to a conclusion. In that case, I would be happy to hear how the case was re
Re: (Score:3)
In the short term, the only way Fortnight is going to get back onto these stores through a court order. This is what this article is about - getting an injunction, which requires a judge deciding that Epic has a reasonable case.
Apple's major tactic is that they will throw anyone off the store and starve them of the funds needed to prosecute a case. A precedent for an injunction could force Apple to leave apps that don't pay up on the store, allowing them too to prosecute their case against Apple, which woul
Re: (Score:2)
However the general public, including judges, seem to think that a lot of things are normal that we didn't consider normal 30 year ago.
That's called progress.
Re: Yawn... (Score:2)
Its called change. Not everything we consider normal is progress. The use of presidential executive orders over the last 30 years are far from progress. We dont elect kings and a single person writing laws undermines democracy at its core. I dont care who is in office, I have hated them for the last 30 years. If congress grants the executive branch discretionary spending on foreign aid or FEMA, then declaring an area a state of emergency to get aid moving is within the scope. Deciding executive orders can
Re: (Score:2)
Do we allow Apple to have this power, or don't we.
We allow twitter to have power, why not apple?
Re: (Score:2)
But the legal question behind it is more than relevant. Do we allow Apple to have this power, or don't we. And it's not easily answered.
The answer is NO, people should own the devices they bought, not Apple.
Epic (Score:3, Insightful)
Epic has the nerve of a bad toothache. Their argument is that "we broke the rules and now are suffering as a result. No fair."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The argument is that "we broke Apple's illegal rules, which Apple applies arbitrarily and to a disadvantage against competitors of it's own services, and now we are suffering as a result. This is not legal, your honor."
There, fixed that for you.
Re:Epic (Score:5, Insightful)
"We broke Apple's allegedly illegal rules, your honour."
See, this is the problem. They claim the rules are illegal, but I don't know why we should assume Epic is right and that they should get free rein until it's confirmed or denied. While I understand that agreeing to an illegal contract is impossible, they agreed to it for years and years now, and they've only just now changed their minds on its legality. But it's not OBVIOUSLY illegal to me (not a lawyer), and I think Apple has enough lawyers to have crafted the rules to be just barely legal either way.
Re:Epic (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The argument is that "we broke Apple's illegal rules, which Apple applies arbitrarily and to a disadvantage against competitors of it's own services, and now we are suffering as a result. This is not legal, your honor."
There, fixed that for you.
The problem with your argument is Epic has plenty of other options to sell its products beyond Apple. Apple may have a very lucrative market, but it's not the only one nor even the largest.
The ultimately question is would consumers benefit from forcing Apple to change its rules, not that Epic would. I doubt Epic would generously lower prices if Apple didn't get a cut of the sales; all they want is more of the money by taking it from Apple.
The upshot of all of this is if Apple were to lower its fees they c
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt Epic would generously lower prices if Apple didn't get a cut of the sales;
That's because you didn't read the lawsuit. In it they literally have a screenshot of themselves offering lower prices when Apple didn't take a cut (specifically of the payment processing for in-app purchases).
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad. You made the claim, burden of proof is on you, and it doesn't look like you'll get the chance to prove it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
An excellent example for when the phrase "begging the question" can be used correctly.
Keurig locks their coffeemaker to K-Cups sold/licensed by them (it can be hacked, sure, but iThings have been jailbroken, too). Try creating and distributing a Playstation (X-Box, Nintendo) game without manufacturer support. Try fixing a modern John Deer tractor with third-party parts.
Apple's rules aren't "illegal", they're just something you don't like. And, Apple isn't being anti-com
Re:Epic (Score:5, Informative)
Apple's rules aren't "illegal", they're just something you don't like.
We literally don't know this yet.
And, Apple isn't being anti-competitive, exactly the opposite - they're encouraging competition.
That's obviously false. Apple discourages competition by outright disallowing competing app stores for their platform, that's undeniable.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's rules aren't "illegal", they're just something you don't like. And, Apple isn't being anti-competitive, exactly the opposite - they're encouraging competition. The baseline is that they don't have to allow or support the development and distribution of third party apps on their platform. They'd be within their rights to lock it up tight and do everything themselves. Instead, they opened it to third party development with strict rules, which expands the market and encourages competition. That they don't allow competition with themselves on their platform doesn't make it anti-competitive, it _is_ their platform and the marketplace is _much_ larger than just their platform. If you don't like it, find a different platform to use.
The point is, maybe those rules should be illegal. Why would "allowing installing apps outside the App Store" be discouraging competition? If somebody can be competitive offering software outside the store, why shouldn't they be allowed to? If every platform turns into a walled garden then there's no alternatives. It's their store and they can make reasonable rules about what's offered for sale there. But it's MY device and I should be able to choose what runs on it. Just like I should be able to self-repai
leisure suit Larry banned as to adult back then (Score:2)
leisure suit Larry banned as to adult back then and later IBM forces all to pay high prices to use MCA slots.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing you're referring to the IBM PC, and not simply personal computers, which contemporaneously included Apple ][, Commodore PET, Radio Shack TRS-80, and a range of systems based on the S100 bus. All different, it was a very competitive market. The platform which IBM created _was_ "a closed platform from the beginning", it relied on a copyrighted BIOS. It was only after that BIOS was reverse engineered that the IBM PC compatible market came
Re: (Score:2)
IBM PC was a 'closed platform'? Where did you get THAT horseshit? If 'copyrights' mean 'closed', then there is no such thing as 'open', because all software, RFCs, etc are copyrighted. I still have my copy of 'IBM PC Technical Reference 1.0' from 1981. It was available to anyone. It has a LISTING of the BIOS. It has descriptions of the BIOS functions and the parameters to them. It has schematics for the adapter cards. Yeah, you couldn't just copy the BIOS, but it was in no way a 'closed' system. I
Re:Epic (Score:4, Informative)
So you replace one logical fallacy with another (strawman). Nobody is arguing that Apple does not have the right to license their product. Nobody is arguing that Apple doesn't have the right to set the terms of that licensing. What they ARE saying is that merely licensing your technology does NOT give you the right to say that all sales of that licensed technology must be done ONLY by you.
Yeah, Kuerig licenses K-Cups. So what? I can go buy Green Mountain K-Cups from damn near any grocery store. Keurig does not say all coffee in K-Cups must be sold ONLY in Keurig stores. Keurig does not say they get 30% of all business deals transacted while drinking coffee. Same with games. Yeah, they're licensed. Yeah, I can buy them from any number of retailers.
Sure, Apple could have not allowed third party development. Perfectly within their rights. But they didn't. As you said, they 'expanded the market'. And since now it IS a market, they have to play by the rules of the market and that includes allowing competition.
Re: (Score:2)
More strawmen. Of course Tesla can say they are the only ones selling Telsas. It's THEIR product, they can sell it how they want. This is not about Apple selling THEIR products, it's about them saying they are the only ones allowed to sell OTHER PEOPLES products. If Telsa decided to say all tire sales for Telsas (regardless of who the tire was manufactured by) could ONLY be done through a Telsa store, they would be smacked down very quickly.
If the law says you can not bar competitors from selling someon
Re: (Score:2)
Legal citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called the Sherman Antitrust Act. Look it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Keurig locks their coffeemaker to K-Cups sold/licensed by them (it can be hacked, sure, but iThings have been jailbroken, too).
Keurig can't contractually prevent you from using third-party K-Cups in the machine you bought. Apple does do that to end-users.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they don't. They prevent third-party app stores through technical means.
You are literally wrong and right at the same time. They do prevent third-party app stores through technical means, but they also do it through contracts.
Re:Epic (Score:4, Informative)
I’m a self professed Apple fan boy, but I have to disagree here. It’s not the “must be distributed via the AppStore” that’s the issue. It’s not even the “must include IAP”. The problem arises when Apple has different rates and different applications of what constitutes an IAP. If the same rules applies to *ALL* then it’s somewhat defensible, but when some get a different treatment, then the problems of anti-competition and monopoly price control arise. That’s exactly what the Sherman Act was designed to protect against. One can argue that Apple isn’t a text book monopoly, but the act isn’t limited to text book monopolies. Any company or group of companies that conspire to prevent free market competition is fair game. In this case, Apple stepped over the line when they changed the pricing rules for *SOME* (ie. Amazon). I don’t see how Apple gets out of this one, it crossed the line on AppStore rates and now it’s going to get regulated, the only question is when and how much regulation.
The reason it’s a certainty dates back to when Apple lost it’s antitrust case with eBooks, it tried to appeal and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. That precedent is the Sword of Damocles. Apple will lose it’s antitrust case with the AppStore primarily due to the fact that one-off pricing agreements exist, but the guarantee is that precedent from the eBooks case. Repeat offenders do not get the benefit of the doubt in the eyes of the law, they have to prove innocence.
So even if Epic’s argument doesn’t hold, the deal between Cue and Bezos detailed in the congressional data requests and the prior conviction is enough “burden of proof” to guarantee the judgement. There’s always a 1% chance of some crazy other outcome, but I just don’t see a legal path to victory in this case. Of course, Cook is still close to Trump by necessity, so maybe some behind the scenes arm twisting in the DoJ may yet yield that 1%.
It’s going to be an interesting court case to watch with massive implications for the tech landscape.
Re: (Score:2)
Epic has the nerve of a bad toothache. Their argument is that "we broke the rules and now are suffering as a result. No fair."
Yes, Epic broke the rules. They might even be assholes. But the rules they broke are set by a monopolist. That is the real subject of this case.
For all customers with an iPhone, you must go through Apple. There's no competition.
For all customers with an Android phone, you must go through Google. There's no meaningful competition.
(the only competitors to the Google Play Store with a significant market share are for the Chinese market only)
Re:Epic (Score:4, Insightful)
Epic has the nerve of a bad toothache. Their argument is that "we broke the rules and now are suffering as a result. No fair."
Yes, Epic broke the rules. They might even be assholes. But the rules they broke are set by a monopolist. That is the real subject of this case.
For all customers with an iPhone, you must go through Apple. There's no competition.
For all customers with an Android phone, you must go through Google. There's no meaningful competition.
(the only competitors to the Google Play Store with a significant market share are for the Chinese market only)
For all customers with an XBox, you can only go through Microsoft.
For all customers with a Playstation, you can only go through Sony.
For all customers with a Switch, you can only go through Nintendo.
There's plenty of meaningful options, they're just all tied to specific devices.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It means that no-one has managed to successfully make a competing store to MS, Nintendo, Sony, etc. on their gaming platforms / walled gardens, despite lawyers being readily available in quantity during the period of their existence (several decades).
This does not bode well for Epic in the courts...
Re: (Score:2)
On May 16, 1954, Ed_1024 wrote:
It means that no-one has managed to successfully get an African American admitted to any all-white schools, despite lawyers being readily available in quantity during the period of their existence (58 years).
This does not bode well for Linda Brown in the courts tomorrow.
Every judicially-ordered shift in the corporate or governmental landscape was triggered by the first case that didn't fail. Lack of prior precedent is no more an indication of Epic's certain failure than lack of success at desegregation prior to Brown v. Board of Education was an indication that their case would fail after almost six decades of "separate but equal".
Re:Epic (Score:4, Informative)
You can buy XBox, Playstation, and Switch games from any number of retailers (Amazon, Best Buy, Target, Walmart, etc). You can buy IOS apps from exactly one place, Apple.
Re: Epic (Score:2)
How is it that Roblox sidesteps the app store for purchases and goes unpunished? I dont want my kids making in-app purchases so I turn that shit off. If they want something in roblox, they go buy a game card (Robucks) and use that. Seems like they sidestepp the app store. Seems like apple is applying this rule unevenly and discriminately to me. What am I missing?
Re: (Score:2)
so your saying that if Fornite simply had people buying cards and applying codes in-game, this would not be an issue? Or even going to a website and making a purchase there right from your iphone? If thats true then its fairly dumb on part of Epic. I cant rent vudu movies from within the iphone app, but I can use the browser and make vudu purchases (like disk 2 digital) right from my iphone and then watch them all I want on the device.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. This ground was well-trod years ago when Amazon wanted to sell books from within the Kindle app without a cut going to Apple. Amazon can sell all the ebooks they want /from their website/ and download the purchases to the Kindle app, all without any money going to Apple.
Not quite correct, actually. Apple has kicked apps off the store just for linking to their website where you can buy things online, or for collecting the user's email unnecessarily so that you can then tell them about the availability of things like that outside of Apple's ecosystem. It's not just an issue of one-click impulse purchases. Without some other strong reason to require them to provide their contact info, there's no guarantee that it would even be possible for Epic to inform their would-be cus
Re: (Score:2)
so fortnite could technically just disable all in-app purchases and just give you a link to open safari externally and let you buy vbucks there? Similar to getting kindle books delivered to the kindle app, or renting a vudu movie outside a vudu app?
Re: (Score:2)
I think any link from within any iOS app to an external website regardless if it uses safari or not to take you to the webpage to process a payment is against the terms of use. The netflix ios app states you must go to the netflix website to signup but you must manually switch to a browser and type in netflix.com, which effectively bypasses apple payment processing BUT is in accordance with Apples terms of use.
The irony of this is that it completely refutes any claim that this is about security. If Apple actually cared about its customers' security, they would allow a direct link. Otherwise, there's a much, much higher risk that iOS users will type the wrong thing or search for the wrong thing and end up on a scam site that charges them money without providing whatever they think they are buying.
Apple's policy completely breaks the whole trust model. And that is by design. If Apple allowed anything even appro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Being a monopolist in and of itself isn't illegal. Being a monopolist also doesn't immediately mean any rules you make are invalid. Does Apple have a dominant market position that they're abusing in order to suppress competition? It's not clear, because they would rightly tell you that they have no dominant market position in the smartphone space. The fact that they control an app store isn't immediately disqualifying—Epic doesn't have to deal with Apple on Apple's platform if Epic doesn't like the ru
Re: (Score:2)
OK, but let's get the analogy a bit closer to what Apple's doing. Let's say you bought your washer from Walmart (if they sold washers), and they somehow artificially enforce use of only soap obtainable from Walmart. And maybe that wasn't entirely clear at the time, until Walmart decided to stop selling Tide and suddenly you can't wash your clothes anymore until you go buy other soap. Having to buy another washing machine because your soap stopped working isn't a rational situation. Neither should buying a d
Re: (Score:2)
Being a monopolist in and of itself isn't illegal.
You left out a word there. Apple is a convicted monopolist, which by definition, is illegal. Once you have been convicted of conspiring with other big companies (Amazon, book publishers) to violate antitrust laws, you operate under a whole different set of rules, with every decision scrutinized to see if it has the potential to cause further violations.
Even if Epic loses this case, by clearly demonstrating a willingness to charge users less money if they didn't have to pay the high Apple sales commission,
Re: (Score:3)
Here's the difference: for customers with an Android phone you don't actually have to go through Google. Sure, they'd prefer you did, and lately they've put up a bunch of scaremongering warnings before you install a non-Store-signed APK (not cool). But I can go install another store on my Android device (e.g. F-Droid), or individual APK packages. No such option for Apple.
Another commenter also mentioned the same problem with Xbox, PlayStation, Switch, etc. Personally I don't think those devices should be al
Re: Epic (Score:2)
Epic has the nerve of a bad toothache. Their argument is that "we broke the rules and now are suffering as a result. No fair."
What you're missing is that there's a good chance that it's a rule Apple has no legal right to set.
Re: (Score:3)
Um no. No, you can not just open a competing store on Apple iDevices. Apple quite completely locks out all competition on their phones and tablets. The whole basis of the legal question here is can Apple be allowed to do that AND charge arbitrary fees while requiring all transactions pass through them.
Re: (Score:2)
Um no. No, you can not just open a competing store on Apple iDevices. Apple quite completely locks out all competition on their phones and tablets. The whole basis of the legal question here is can Apple be allowed to do that AND charge arbitrary fees while requiring all transactions pass through them.
30% is seemingly the industry standard for store cuts (Steam, GOG, Apple, Google etc), so hard to argue that it is arbitrary.
how are the Sportsbook apps on ios going around (Score:2)
how are the Sportsbook apps on ios going around apple there is no way they giveing apple 30% of each bet.
Re: Yawn... (Score:2)
Roblox lets you buy robucks at retail outlets. Im fairly sure walmart is not giving apple a cut of that sale. There is no way to know that those robucks are being used on the ipad, android, or a PC.
Re: (Score:2)
That's only a small subset of the market for apps.
"Apple quite completely locks out all competition on their phones and tablets."
So what? That's their right. They're under no obligation to allow any third party to make apps which work on their platform. They're under no obligation to distribute third party apps. But they do, because they've found a way to make it mutually beneficial. They consider their "walled garden" a beneficial feature
Re: (Score:2)
Epic can even create a new platform of their own
Yes, and you can start your own ISP if you don't like your cable company. Totally viable, both of those options.
Re: (Score:2)
And, if you don't like your ISP, you can just move, because your ISP certainly does not have a monopoly (as defined by the ISPs fanboys).
Re: Yawn... (Score:2)
How is it any different than going to Vudus website to rent a movie and then watching it on Apple devices? Or Movies Anywhere? Or making redbox purchases? Or buying Robucks at walmart to play roblox?Or Making Amazon purchases? Or buying a kindle book on Amazons website to read on an apple device.
There are plenty of examples where money is exchanged in Apple devices without going through the App Store.
Re: (Score:2)
seems pretty simple then, just disable in-app purchases. Its not like the fans of the game wont buy from an external store. I make my kids buy the physical cards for roblox. Personally I think its a stupid waste of money, but at least this way they get a better understanding of the exchange of money and the process. I suppose it might cut down on impulse buying too, but having virtual cash is just as susceptible to impulse purchases if there is a balance of virtual money. I also limit them to no more than o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The basic gist of this is that if Epic wins, it means that you can't have walled garden platforms like that of iOS or any of the current generation consoles
Re: (Score:2)
The basic gist of this is that if Epic wins, it means that you can't have walled garden platforms like that of iOS or any of the current generation consoles.
Sure you can. You only have to let the user of the garden have a key to the gate, like Google does. It places the decision of whether to open the door or not in the hands of the users. Sure, we here on /. are savvy enough to comprehend that distinction before purchase, but the average person doesn't know jack about shit. By the time they get around to wondering whether you can get software anywhere but from Apple, it's too late.
Re:Disingenuous. (Score:5, Interesting)
Epic doesnt want to do that, because if Epic can get a judge to force Apple to allow Epic to continue as they want, then Epic can string the court case out as long as possible and eventually their exception will become arguable as a viable option for more and more developers.
Thats Epics mid-game here - create the exception through an injunction against Apple and then get other developers to push for the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, they are enjoying an extra 30% or so in $ from iOS users who moved to PCs. It probably doesn't quite make up their losses but there might be a strategy there.
Epic is not making losses on Fortnite. At worst their most profitable mobile game revenue stream has been interrupted pending the settlement of a pissing contest with Apple.
This kind of sums this whole mess up: https://i.redd.it/2i0zk5y5mel5... [i.redd.it]
A lot of the gamer crowd is celebrating Fortnite being kicked off the App store, they seem to hate the guts out of Epic.
Re:Disingenuous. (Score:5, Insightful)
And Apple's game here is to also string it out - keep them off, and starve Epic of the funds needed to prosecute what is really an open and shut case. You can argue that preventing third-party stores is a security measure, but forcing in-game purchases through Apple's expensive payment system is purely for profit, and a forced monopoly is illegal.
Of course, Epic has the resources to prosecute that case, whereas almost everyone else on the App Store lacks the resources to even get the injunction.
Re: (Score:2)
and starve Epic of the funds needed to prosecute what is really an open and shut case.
Fortunately that is only your strategy, and Apple's lawyers have a different strategy, because Epic has enough money to finish the case no matter how long it drags out.
Being rich helps in court, but that's not equivalent to "the richest side wins."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I do. It makes for a much more productive conversation if we use applicable terms instead of saying things that aren’t correct.
Apple doesn’t have a monopoly, so it’s inaccurate and wrongheaded to keep insisting otherwise, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t engaging in anticompetitive practices that are either illegal or require regulation to maintain a healthy market/avoid consumer harm. The sooner we start talking about it like that, the sooner we stop making unproductive compa
Re:Disingenuous. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, they could just pay the danegeld, but then they'll never be rid of the Dane.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And when Apple begins providing defense, currency, rule of law, roads, etc., they too may be able to justify that.
Re: (Score:2)
We're stretching this analogy to the breaking point, but I'd say that if we call the App Store "Denmark" then the review process for malicious apps is analogous to defense and rule of law. The payment infrastructure is analogous to a currency (and the baked in transaction fee is analogous to a country's taxation). The app store infrastructure itself is analogous to a government maintaining roads.
Re: (Score:2)
And EPIC's contention is that once Denmark's currency has been converted to virtual currency, Denmark doesn't get to tax every exchange of the virtual currency that happens within EPIC's software platform. Which is honestly an open and shut case in EPIC's favor.
I am sure EPIC is greedy but its lawyers has clearly thought this through which is why lame analogies still point in their favor.
Re: (Score:2)
The analogy is definitely dead at this point, but I enjoy the debate.
Denmark isn't taxing the exchange of Epic's virtual tokens (called VBucks, I think). If you use your VBucks to buy a character skin in Fortnite, the Danish government doesn't take a cut of the VBucks (and neither does Apple, in the real world). But, if you buy VBucks in Denmark, you better believe that Denmark is going to charge you a nice hefty 25% VAT.
This analogy of course only holds if we treat Apple like a sovereign nation, which is
Re: (Score:2)
That makes sense for the initial installation of the game. I *think* even Epic isn't disputing that. The part under dispute is the in-game purchases that are processed through Epic's code and Epic's servers without getting Apple involved. To really break the analogy, Apple's position is that since the buyer and seller were at one time in Denmark, they should pay Danish taxes forever even though they both reside in Fiji now.
This is compounded by Apple deliberately blocking any initial installation that doesn
Re: (Score:2)
No, they are fine with giving Apple a cut of the parts that Apple actually helps distribute. They object to paying a tax on things they distribute themselves. Note that Apple would fall flat if nobody produced software to run on their various gadgets.
Re: (Score:2)
> Epic knows full well that they can put Fortnite back on the app store at any time by complying with the contract that they're trying to breach. Fuck 'em.
I too support indentured servitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Contracts can't supersede the law. If Apple's (and Google's) behaviour is anti-competitive then it doesn't matter what the contract says.
Re: (Score:2)
iPhones have 50% market share in the US (Score:3)
Absent a truly dominant (monopoly) position, then there are plenty of examples where a manufacturer owns a 'platform' and restricts access to it. Game systems, Keurig, automobiles, etc., etc. EPIC has a really weak position, and most of the anti-Apple arguments on this forum are pretty silly.
Re: (Score:2)
Epic _SHOULD NOT_ have to do that. Apple should not have the right to decide how , how much profit and what kind of profit another company can make in a way that is total in favor of Apple.
Re:Yeah "retaliation" (Score:4, Insightful)
Simplistic statements of the facts may be correct in an abstract sense, but things change when anti trust gets involved. You can no longer do whatever you want with the things you own if your are big enough. Actions which are fine for almost all companies are not necessarily OK and more if they control enough of the market to have a distorting effect.
That's the entire basis of anti trust.
Apple book something like 67% of mobile revenue. The question is if that's enough market dominance to trip anti trust rules.
Re: (Score:2)