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.
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
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2010/10/nvidia-settle...
Also NVidia has issues with their driver development and refuse to let Apple have a say in it.
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).
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.
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.
"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!
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.
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).
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.
Yes, yes I do think we would be saying the same things.
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.
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.
It's not about sticking it to them. It's to increase the cost of their appeals and pressure them to drop the case.
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)
Aren’t developers also their customers?
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.
Are they businesses or school children?
They benefit the users who want to play those games. Fortnite in particular is huge.
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.
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.
"(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 =/
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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?
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.
So why did they even pick the fight?
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.”
They also made that promise when they opened their developer account. Do you think they really mean it this time?
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.[...]
> 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".
Their promises are worth less than dogshit. Apple apparently isn’t in the market for dogshit.
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.
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.
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.
[1] Also, nothing is black and white, of course Tim/Epic were looking to get more money from what their customers paid.
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
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.
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.
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.
"it's all in the game [App Store ecosystem's contractual specifications] yo"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just stop using Apple devices. They're not the government.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is this mere conjecture or is it founded on what was said in the court's opinion?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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...
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?
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'.
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...
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.
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.
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.