24 ms·

Epic Games has filed legal papers in response to Apple [pdf]

674 points by warp 6y ago

rvz 6y ago
Epic is trying to sue an near $2 trillion dollar company. It's very dangerous to sue them alone. You need Microsoft and Facebook to back you guys up given that they kicked their apps out too. Unfortunately, this app store sheriff is unreal.
- partiallypro 6y ago
  I'm not sure what you're talking about. Netscape sued Microsoft and got its way. Size doesn't often matter, just visibility. Apple was already under the microscope.
- duiker101 6y ago
  I feel like this is only true if one of the two players is really small. Epic is not small by any measure. they can afford the best legal team they want, and just like programming, at some point throwing lawyers at a problem won't necessarily make it easier to win.
bpsh 6y ago
That was fast
- uncoder0 6y ago
  Almost like it was the plan all along. You don't write a 65 page legal filing in an hour.
  - qppo 6y ago
    Automation man, it's going to take everyone's job
  - R000TKIT 6y ago
    I'd imagine Epic sitting down with 65 lawyers all tasked to draft a single page, which is then compiled into a legal doc
  - furyofantares 6y ago
    Right, it looks to me like they violated Apple’s policies in order to bring this lawsuit. It isn’t the other way around. I don’t think this is primarily about the 30% cut in Fortnite — Epic wants to run their own iOS App Store.
    - uncoder0 6y ago
      Epic games store for iOS. Automatically accessible from all games packaged for mobile built on the unreal engine. I imagine that is their goal as well.
- sneak 6y ago
  I imagine they had this drafted prior to Epic uploading the update that included direct payments.
- atarian 6y ago
  "When you strike at a king, you must kill him." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
  - ceocoder 6y ago
    "Ayo, lesson here, Bey. You come at the king, you best not miss." -Omar Little (I like this version better)
    - sg47 6y ago
      Omar comin'. One of the best delivered lines in the show.
- SllX 6y ago
  They didn’t suddenly intentionally break App Store policies without a strategy. They think they sense blood in the water, that somehow Apple will be legally and/or politically vulnerable. They’re probably angling for a deal at the negotiating table, but they’re most likely prepared to go to trial and fight for a W, and even if they earn an L, try to use it to some kind of political advantage after the transition of power next year. EDIT: I just checked my email, actually forgot that I once played a couple games of Fortnite and signed up, wasn’t my thing, and there’s a pretty big PR component to it as well advertising permanently discounted prices on quoting from the email. “PlayStation, Xbox, Switch, PC and Mac, and on mobile when using select payment methods.“ It also pointed me to this blog post[1] that already has an update at the top about Apple blocking “your” access complete with hashtag campaign and activist-style messaging. They’re going whole hog here, there’s nothing half hearted about this. I don’t have a horse in this race, but I respect the planning and the balls. [1] https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-mega-drop-permanent-discounts-up-to-20-percent https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-m...
merrvk 6y ago
Seems like they were prepared to do this all along
- detaro 6y ago
  their management and lawyers would have been pretty bad at their jobs if they didn't see the possibility of this happening and prepped for it.
- goldfishlover 6y ago
  This is tencent's move to counter the tiktok drama
  - AaronFriel 6y ago
    Is Tencent a majority share holder in Epic Games?
    - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
      They are not. In fact I believe Tim Sweeny personally has the controlling stake.
    - aquaticsunset 6y ago
      Nope
- jandrese 6y ago
  Of course they were. They knew exactly what Apple would do because Apple has never been shy about telling developers what will happen when they do stuff like this.
  - merrvk 6y ago
    Could they have been baiting it out of Apple on purpose?
    - 6y ago
minimaxir 6y ago
A 65 page lawsuit? How long was Epic planning this, and how did they manage to time it right after Apple's antitrust hearing?
- saagarjha 6y ago
  I mean, they had full control over when to release their update…
  - minimaxir 6y ago
    Right, but timing is especially important with this kind of stunt and there's a lot of variables outside of Epic's control that could have weakened it.
    - ianferrel 6y ago
      Such as?
- conradfr 6y ago
  I guess this is the first time a legal matter goes as quick as on the show Suits.
bearjaws 6y ago
I feel like its only a matter of time until the EU pins something to Apple, if the US won't address this issue, the EU will.
asutekku 6y ago
Wow, 65 pages in less than an hour. I knew epic was productive, but this must be a new record.
- bigpumpkin 6y ago
  They signed up for the GPT-3 beta and made an api call
  - jahabrewer 6y ago
    > An amazing games company files suit against an anachronistic monopoly, and their suit reads:
    - orangecat 6y ago
      Prompted with the first three paragraphs from the complaint, GPT-3 (Dragon model on AIDungeon) continues: 4.Apple's anticompetitive conduct harms consumers because it prevents new entrants into these markets from entering them at competitive prices, thereby raising the price of mobile apps and in-app content for consumers. It also harms competitors because it increases their costs of doing business by forcing them to pay higher prices for the same or similar products and services. Finally, it harms other businesses because it reduces their ability to compete by reducing the number of choices available to consumers. 5.The Plaintiffs in this case seek to restore competition to these markets by challenging Apple's anticompetitive conduct. Plaintiffs bring claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, and common law unfair competition. 6.This is a civil lawsuit. The Plaintiffs are not seeking criminal prosecution, nor are they seeking to have Apple break any agreements with other companies. They simply seek the right to compete with Apple on a level playing field. 7.The Plaintiffs are seven individuals and companies who develop software applications for Apple's iOS operating system, which runs on all of its mobile devices, such as the iPhone and iPad. Apple's iOS is the second most popular mobile operating system in the world, with approximately 1.4 billion devices sold to date.
- juskrey 6y ago
  Yeah, you don't have to write the game engine from scratch.
echelon 6y ago
Apple is about to get bitten hard for being a monopoly. I hope the government considers the harshest punishment of all: splitting up Apple into hardware and software+services entities. This is absurd that Apple has built a fiefdom on America's most popular generic computer device. It's a threat to freedom! We can only compute what the overlords allow and can tax? What a crock! The fact that Apple thinks they can extort more protection money from developers than the government does in taxes is an affront. But the freedom aspect should have everyone out with their pitchforks. This after Apple created an environment where its users, many of whom have lots of disposable income for buying goods and services, expect apps to be $0.99 and come with free updates for life. Meanwhile Apple's own products are luxury priced. And they still take 30%. US Government, please force Apple to open up iPhone to any software we want to install. It's a generic computer. It's how we communicate, do banking, do basic shopping, dating, business ... everything. Apple can't be the gatekeepers of 21st century life. It's incredibly damaging to our ability to innovate and succeed as small business owners and entrepreneurs. Apple, you are the tyrant king. Long have we suffered under your rule. We won't stand for it any longer and we demand our freedom.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
  Exactly what I came here to say. Epic Games is large enough to fight this. I think they purposefully chose this fight right here and now because of the looming report on anti trust violations that should be out any day.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ianmobbs 6y ago
  You seem to have forgotten about Android. The solution to anti-trust cases is not a blanket “break them up. In this case, requiring Apple to allow third-party App Stores is going to be the key issue. The lawyers will likely take heavy inspiration from Microsoft’s antitrust suit from the early 00s
  - valuearb 6y ago
jandrese 6y ago
Going after Apple for antitrust violations has a big hill to climb in the form of the Google Play Store. More than that, a ruling against Apple here would have huge implications for any company running an app store on their device. Smart TV manufacturers, companies like Roku, Automobile manufacturers, etc... If you can be considered a monopolist because you control your platform then there will be a LOT of monopolies out there. I'm not expecting Epic to get any real traction on this suit. The best they can hope for is Apple working out some system where they'll reduce their cut in certain circumstances, but given how unlikely this case is to go anywhere I don't think Apple is feeling any pressure.
- pgrote 6y ago
  >form of the Google Play Store. You can get Android apps from many locations other than the Google Play Store.
  - metiscus 6y ago
    Android does not prevent you from side-loading applications from other stores either.
  - surfpel 6y ago
    > Smart TV manufacturers, companies like Roku, Automobile manufacturers, etc... It’s more than just the Google Play Store.
    - mhermher 6y ago
      Good. Force them too open up as well.
      - jandrese 6y ago
        What I'd like to happen and what the law supports aren't always in sync.
      - rednerrus 6y ago
azuriten 6y ago
Looks like this was the plan all long. Now to see whether or not the risk of implementing their own payments system for V-Bucks is worth the potential revenue loss they will incur with the app being removed from the store.
- azuriten 6y ago
  Adding to this, Epic/Fortnite are planning a short which goes live in 10mins called Nineteen Eighty-Fortnite. Most likely to be a parody of the 1984 Apple ad. Yup, it's a marketing stunt. https://twitter.com/FortniteGame/status/1293984290326433792 https://twitter.com/FortniteGame/status/1293984290326433792
  - dmix 6y ago
    Seems like it's broadcast in-game? I don't know much about Fortnite. But it's been 10mins.
    - azuriten 6y ago
      Yes, it was an in-game event via their Party Royale game mode. Should be up on YouTube relatively soon - it was only a minute or so long.
    - VRay 6y ago
      It was just an exact copy of the famous Apple 1984 ad, except the guy on the screen had an apple for a head and the person who attacked the screen was a rainbow Fortnite character throwing a Fortnite donkey head staff
  - pvitz 6y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqTNO8LTggI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqTNO8LTggI
    - dmix 6y ago
      Kinda lame they used the punchline in the original tweet, even before the reveal. Two billion dollar companies fighting over percentages = big brother in 2020.
ErikAugust 6y ago
A little "speculative execution" here by Epic. They anticipated Apple's action would be to ban them, and they prepared a lawsuit and PR campaign in anticipation.
- partiallypro 6y ago
  They absolutely baited Apple to do this, I'm actually glad they did it. It's time someone takes a stand. I think this will be more significant than people think. Remember it was Netscape that helped bring about Microsoft's anti-trust.
  - outworlder 6y ago
    It's kinda hypocritical since Epic has a very similar business model for anything that's built using the Unreal Engine.
    - ronsor 6y ago
      Unreal Engine costs less and it's not mandatory to use it in order to make games.
      - canttestthis 6y ago
        For those reading along, Unreal Engine fees is 5% after the first million.
        Cu3PO42 6y ago
        Or 0% on sales through EGS.
- fluffy87 6y ago
  Apple only really had two actions, both bad for Epic. They probably prepared responses and PR campaigns against both.
- enraged_camel 6y ago
christkv 6y ago
What got banned by apple ?
- acephal 6y ago
  Fortnite for ducking fees
tiborsaas 6y ago
What's the context and TLDR?
- warp 6y ago
  Epic bypassed Apple payments on iOS - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24143346 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24143346 In response Apple removed them from the app store - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24146902 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24146902
- choeger 6y ago
  Context is that Apple has two things: A) Devices, with a large market share, restricted to a particular app store, where Apple takes a pay cut of 30%. B) Strong restrictions on what is allowed inside this app store and no hesitation to ban anyone from that app store for sometimes the weirdest reason. Naturally no one likes to pay apple the 30% cut and even more so no one likes to be forced to play by Apple's rules to distribute software to iPhones etc. Now Epic Games actually tries to fight back. Study law and read the documents if you need more details ;). My take on this: Apple is obviously acting in a manner that prevents fair competition. They have a point to be paid and they have a point to enact certain policies. But taken together with the outright ban of competing stores, this is obviously a market dominating position. I guess they can have two of the three and they should go for policies, single app store and a self-cost price. But they probably will settle for single app store and high price.
Despegar 6y ago
Epic is going to lose this case.
- grumple 6y ago
  Seems unlikely. Microsoft lost with a far more open situation than what Apple's got.
  - threeseed 6y ago
    Given that you have a complete misunderstanding of why Microsoft lost their case I don't think your opinion holds much weight. There is no law that says a platform must be open.
- n42 6y ago
  it would seem they know they do not have legal standing based on the amount of effort that went into making this a PR campaign. they seem to be attempting to force Apple's hand outside of the court.
infinityplus1 6y ago
It will be funny to read Apple's excuses how they are not a monopoly and how consumers are benefiting from their no competition allowed policy.
- valuearb 6y ago
  As an iOS developer, it’s an easy argument to make because it’s true.
- asutekku 6y ago
  How exactly Apple is a monopoly? Just because they have a “monopoly” on stores on their own platform?
  - partiallypro 6y ago
    They make up most store revenue. Android might have more installs, but Apple makes way more from their store. They are effectively a monopoly, if not a duopoly. But Android allows secondary stores...Apple doesn't.
    - asutekku 6y ago
      That might’ve been the case couple of years ago, but now the ratio is about 55:45 in favor of apple and can vary from app to app. Yes, they have a slight upper hand but still not a monopoly.
  - infinityplus1 6y ago
    If I don't make my app available on Apple's store then I lose out on a huge % of people who use iOS devices as their only general computing device. They can't simply switch to Android as they are locked-in into the iOS ecosystem (For example, they can't use iMessage on Android). Apple is effectively controlling the market access and harming competitors.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- 6y ago
somurzakov 6y ago
that escalated quickly. some prominent names from the Epic side. it will be interesting to follow this
rafaelturk 6y ago
IMO The key takeaway is that developers are no longer afraid of Apple. Epic Games move would be unthinkable a few years ago. Looks like this will become common practice. Epic Games joins Spotify, what will be joined by X, Y. Maybe at some point multiple developers will also follow and also file legal actions.
- enraged_camel 6y ago
  >>IMO The key takeaway is that developers are no longer afraid of Apple. Epic Games would be unthinkable a few years ago. Well yes, Epic Games was a small and relatively unknown studio until they hit jackpot with Fortnite.
  - zaxu 6y ago
    Is this sarcasm? Epic has been huge since the early 2000s.
    - enraged_camel 6y ago
      No, nothing like they are today. Fortnite made them literally billions -- more than all of their previous titles combined.
outside1234 6y ago
It seems like the better approach here is to go the EU route. They will be much more likely to act as this is anticompetitive (and plus it is a non-EU company).
catsarebetter 6y ago
What if Apple already has paperwork prepared too lol
- metiscus 6y ago
  Unless they somehow are suing Epic directly, it would be ill advised to submit paperwork in response to a claim that does not address the specific claims made.
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  This looks pretty similar to a lawsuit that was filed against them last year by individual developers, so they probably already do have paperwork to respond to accusations re: Sherman Antitrust Act and CA competition laws
  - catsarebetter 6y ago
    I'm not mad at this though, they really do have a monopoly with their marketplace and it's killing the growth of the mobile app industry.
artembugara 6y ago
I think apple has the right to make TOS as they want. The only way for Epic to "win" is to make others join their side and leave App Store. Then, Apple will have to decrease their cut under the pressure.
- Someone 6y ago
  I think they legally have that right, too, but the issue at hand isn’t legal. It’s whether “the public” still finds that fair. Laws exist to serve people, not the other way around. Maybe laws have to change. That’s the nut that regulators will have to crack. Do “we” think this isn’t acceptable and if so, why? Controlling what software runs on the devices you sell can’t be the only criterion, or many other platforms would have to be opened up (smart TVs, game consoles, etc)
- Dahoon 6y ago
  They can likely write whatever they want but (at least in the EU) by law you cannot sign away your rights, so even agreeing to whatever someone write in TOS or EULA doesn't mean it will hold up in court.
  - artembugara 6y ago
    Of course, but setting up your cut is totally legal everywhere. So, 30% or 99%. Whatever it is. Apple put it there. It is legal. If you don’t like just don’t accept. Go distribute your app somewhere else (also, App Store does not qualify for monopoly)
nevezen 6y ago
Just FYI, Tencent owns a 40% stake in Epic Games.
- Dahoon 6y ago
  Please take the China bashing aka. racism back to Reddit.
  - nevezen 6y ago
    How is that racist?
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  FYI some dude named Tim owns like 55%
awinder 6y ago
So what does epic games do while this is being litigated? Isn’t this the cash cow, I know they’ve got other games but still (as a windows gamer I look forward to all of you who have found in Epic your David; what a bs company). Do you try to force your way back in without the offending thing or what? This whole thing seems super coordinated but with some real confusing missing pieces, but should be fun to watch!
- ErikAugust 6y ago
  Fortnite is multi-platform. Is Fortnite for iOS their cash cow? Maybe not.
huac 6y ago
Epic appears to have retained Cravath's antitrust team; e.g. https://www.cravath.com/cvarney/ https://www.cravath.com/cvarney/, who "is the only person to have served as both the U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust and as a Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission."
Talyen42 6y ago
Can someone explain to me why Apple's 30% tax is so different from every B&M retailer providing shelf space? I can't sell stuff in walmart without paying Walmart "But you can't sell apps on iOS outside the app store" I can't sell stuff on ANY platform/device without the permission of the platform/device maker. I also can't create my own platform within another platform, without permission of that platform. I can't open an Amazon store and ask Amazon to list or fulfill my goods but not charge me a fee. Monopoly argument? with like 20-30% global user share? C'mon now
- ngngngng 6y ago
  I can install anything I want from any platform/device maker on my Windows computer, my Android phone, my Macbook, and my Linux laptop. Apple phones are the outlier here.
  - Talyen42 6y ago
    yeah, I get that, and the only reason I picked an iphone for my grandpa is because it's a curated closed platform. i'm glad it exists as an option, and it's not the most popular one, but it seems insane to make it illegal to create a closed software platform
  - threeseed 6y ago
    a) Phone is not considered by most people to be a computer. b) I can't install anything I want on my PS4, Switch, Tesla, Shopify store etc. So actually Apple isn't the outlier at all.
  - babypuncher 6y ago
    But you don't have to buy an Apple phone.
- r3muxd 6y ago
  >I can't sell stuff on ANY platform/device without the permission of the platform/device maker. you sure? i can think of at least three major platforms where you can sell your stuff without permission, namely Android (sideloading), the entire Windows market, and the entire Mac market
Animats 6y ago
Epic has a good argument that Apple is engaging in illegal "tying" - requiring that to buy B, you must also buy A, where A and B are not inherently tied tightly together AT&T lost that one decades ago. At one time phone users could only use a rented AT&T phone. (Or modem, and AT&Ts modems were huge, expensive, and included a dial and handset.) See "Carterphone decision".
BluSyn 6y ago
I really don't agree with the idea that "alternative payment processors" are pro-consumer. This only benefits the developer, and I have huge privacy concerns with trusting third-party devs to handle my payment information. There's a 100% certainty that such payment information would be used for advertising purposes in the best-case, and rampant identity theft or mass payment security breaches in the worst-case. I'm certain Apple would also get a share of the blame for these third-party issues, which further tarnishes their platform and user experience. For all Apple's faults, they've actually put a huge amount of effort to making payment processing seamless for the user, while also making it extremely transparent. I get regular notifications if I have a subscription trial about to expire, and it's super easy to manage ALL subscriptions through a single UI, and cancel them with a single click. This would not be possible through third-party systems, which I can guarantee would put huge effort into tricking users rather than making it easier for them. And yet again, Apple would receive the blame for allowing these Apps. All that said I also don't agree with Apple taking a huge 30% cut, especially for subscription services that directly complete with them such as Netflix. Though obviously there are costs to run this ecosystem, so Apple also can't just charge nothing. I see both sides of this argument, and I don't see a middle ground that can please all sides. There needs to be a reasonable compromise somewhere in the middle.
- ajkjk 6y ago
  Well the argument is they're pro-consumer in that the things you buy would end up costing less.
- bgorman 6y ago
  Theoretically some of the cost saving from an alternative payment processor would be passed on to the consumer.
  - BluSyn 6y ago
    While that would certainly be true for indie developers, I think it's laughable to suggest a company like Epic would lower their prices in response. They want that 30% for themselves. So I would take any claims from Epic that they are doing this purely for the benefit of the consumer as just pure marketing. Though assuming that is true, there's an argument to be made that some consumers are willing to pay a premium for privacy. Though 30% is probably too high of a premium for most.
haunter 6y ago
Saw on reddit and agree 100% > I will say it's a VERY smart move by Epic to position Apple against customers by no longer making it "Apple is taking 30% from epic" to "Apple is taking 20% from you"
xendipity 6y ago
Woah - Epic says they would release a competing app store if it weren't for "Apple's illegal restraints". > But for Apple’s illegal restraints, Epic would provide a competing app store on iOS devices, which would allow iOS users to download apps in an innovative, curated store and would provide users the choice to use Epic’s or another third-party’s in-app payment processing tool." Part 16, in the Intro.
- mike_d 6y ago
  Which holds zero legal weight, because Apple can point to them doing exactly that on Android to avoid paying Google Pay fees. They abandoned the plan about a year later because consumers didn't want to use it.
  - discardable_dan 6y ago
    To be fair, if Epic does this I won't want to use it (just like with their desktop client).
  - supermatt 6y ago
    > They abandoned the plan about a year later because consumers didn't want to use it. Due to high friction caused by android treating third party stores (and the apps instalkled through them) differently to the google play store - which will most definitely be an upcoming complaint...
- maps7 6y ago
  I hope Apple are forced to allow this
  - viro 6y ago
    why? so epic can make more money? they don't care about you ... they just want more money
    - gameswithgo 6y ago
Osiris 6y ago
> Epic is not bringing this case to recover these damages; Epic is not seeking any monetary damages. Well, that's interesting. > But for Apple’s illegal restraints, Epic would provide a competing app store on iOS devices, which would allow iOS users to download apps in an innovative, curated store and would provide users the choice to use Epic’s or another third-party’s in-app payment processing tool So, Epic doesn't want money, they want the ability to allow users to install an Epic App Store. They must assume there's a lot more money to be made by operating a competing store.
- napolux 6y ago
  And have their slice of the cake, which makes a lot of sense.
- mike_d 6y ago
  Exactly this. At the end of the day, Epic is a publisher. If studios can go directly to the platform they are no longer the gatekeeper and stand to lose money. Epic wants your choice to be Apple store for non-games, and Epic store for games. Period.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- gridlockd 6y ago
  It's not necessarily about making more money, it's about creating persistent returns. Making games is difficult, expensive, and risky. No company can just decide to create a franchise that will be successful indefinitely. Fortnite was a stroke of luck, the wise thing to do is not to invest that money back into the franchise, which may soon be tossed aside by the audience, nor would it be wise to undertake a massive new project. Valve figured out a long time ago that it's much better business to just sit back and let other people make games while you rake in the cash with zero risk. Epic is in a unique position to maybe pull that off as well.
dmix 6y ago
Can you create a platform then have a monopoly over various sub-operations within your own platform (specifically both payment processing and controlling internal app distribution) Or is it just a piece of the wider mobile apps market? The modern digital economy is so much different than the Oil giants of the late 1800's, for which the Sherman Act was written in 1890. I doubt this will be an easy case for Epic or government lawyers. This would be a landmark case even it ever goes anywhere (not so much this injunction as a wider anti-trust move).
totaldude87 6y ago
ok am going to put a highly objectionable comment. I buy stuff on apple store because its easy and SAFE. That safety point is more important than ever, if there was no app store or lets say having 10 other app stores , i wont have the same level of confidence and heck i wont even be spending any dollars out there. Over to Apple's 30 % cut, i dont know whats the call here, to make it 0%? ,10% , 20%? what if the same fortnite (or any other company) increases the bill to $9.99 next week :) Am saying this purely from a consumer perspective that i dont care how apple and devs split the money as long as it doesnt bite me ...
- detaro 6y ago
  Not all that objectionable IMHO, even if you think Apple should allow other app sources. Of course an app store having clear policies and a good reputation is an important factor for users installing apps from there - and thus for vendors picking one to sell in. You see that in action on Android to some degree. EDIT: In some ways the best option IMHO would be a package-manager like design, where the system is responsible for fetching and updating packages, verifying signatures, security prompts, ... and "app stores" just feed information into that, but I doubt we'll see that anywhere.
  - contextfree 6y ago
    that's roughly how Windows works with MSIX?
- sparker72678 6y ago
  The alternative is to let developers offer other modes of payment, and let people choose whether or not to use them. Even if Apple required you to offer IAP in addition to any third party service, it’d be an improvement.
- wpurvis 6y ago
  If Epic somehow takes Apple to court and wins this you can still use the Apple app store. They could just do what android does and have the App store as default and have a toggle for 3rd-party stores if you're interested.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
neo2006 6y ago
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... I'm reading this and thinking, is just the fact that an iphone do not allow you to install another OS is considered as an infringement of the anti trust law?
megakwood 6y ago
The arguments aren't good ones, and I won't be surprised if Apple knocks this down easily. Epic is arguing here that Apple is charging them 30% for payment processing. They're not, they're charging them for a return on the billions of dollars they spend developing the OS, developer APIs and tools that Epic builds on. Most egregious is the fact that is is Epic's very business model! They provide a game engine, SDKs and tools to third parties and draw a % of the sales of those games. How would Epic like it if some of their customers stopped paying them? Their customers can make the same bad arguments: It's too expensive, and it's a monopoly because the switching costs are too high! Sure, the difference it's the users that are captive on the Apple ecosystem rather than the developer, but it's pretty easy to argue that the users choose the platform because of it's quality, and a large part of that quality is driven by the massive investment Apple makes into the ecosystem, for which it deserves a fair share. All that said, I really wish Apple would drop their cut to 15% or 20% which would do a lot relieve the bad taste in everyones mouth.
klik99 6y ago
This is bigger than Apple, it would be a massive precedent if they pull it off. And it gets to my major concern with the possible merging of iOS and MacOS. I don't mind curation on my phone, but it's a deal breaker for my PC
- sebmellen 6y ago
  The day Apple does this is the day they lose every developer in the MacOS ecosystem to Linux/maybe Windows.
  - snazz 6y ago
    I highly doubt they’d do this in the first place, but even if they did, iOS developers would still be using Macs.
warp 6y ago
They've now posted an FAQ site to ask their fans to complain to Apple with the #FreeFortnite hash tag. https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/freefortnite https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/freefortnite (this beef is fascinating to watch)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
aurizon 6y ago
This will prove to be the straw that broke the camel's back. I hereby demand that everyone who read this send me one micro-bitcoin....;)
Talyen42 6y ago
Can't wait to troubleshoot my parents iphones after courts force them to allow arbitrary code installs from any source without apple's curation. The whole value proposition of iOS is they BLOCK CRAP.
justizin 6y ago
It is painfully clear that almost nobody, if anybody commenting here, actually read the fairly clearly written complaint. :)
young_unixer 6y ago
As someone without legal knowledge, it surprised me that the NATURE OF THE ACTION section reads more like a blog post than what I would expect in a legal document.
coded 6y ago
Go Epicgames! The #freefortnite campaign is bold; it’ll require users being proactive for it to maintain its momentum. I love the the things that both companies make, but I’m not in favor of the App Store’s monopoly. I’m excited to see the outcome of this lawsuit but not very excited to wait for a long, drawn out process that the US legal system lends itself to.
heimatau 6y ago
I'm curious how this will shake out. On one hand Epic (and any developer) is building their business on Apple's property/ecosystem. On the other hand, Apple has demonstrated anti-competitive behavior in numerous instances. Due to all the political turmoil in the USA with the technology industry, I don't think Apple has enough political capital to prevent a massive/historic prohibitive ruling against Apple.
- colechristensen 6y ago
  Apple’s property? This computer in my hand is mine, that argument works if you’re building your business on top of somebody else’s SaaS or social network, even then it has limitations.
jasonhansel 6y ago
> Apple has asserted that blocking third-party app distribution platforms is necessary to enforce privacy and security safeguards. [...] A simple comparison to how Apple handles third-party software on its Mac personal computers illustrates how baseless its justifications are. Clever. Now Apple will either need to (1) state that Macs are insecure and bad for privacy, or (2) admit that there is no privacy/security benefit from the App Store rules.
AcerbicZero 6y ago
I have zero interest in replacing one tyrant with another. Epic games doesn't care about what Apple is doing, they just want to do it themselves. They keep trying to buy the PC gamer market, and it doesn't take much of an imagination to guess what they'd do if they got control of it.
Apocryphon 6y ago
It's good to remember that Apple isn't just a potential monopoly, but a monopsony- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22051915 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22051915
dbetteridge 6y ago
Summary 1) iOS devices are a large market (Over 1.5 BILLION devices) 2) iOS users spend more then Android users 3) Apps must be independently developed for each platform 4) Apple’s Monopoly Power in the iOS App Distribution Market. (p20) As it is the sole means by which apps are distributed to consumers in the iOS Market. 5) Non-iOS app distribution platforms do not constrain Apple’s monopoly power in the iOS App Distribution Market because they are not compatible with iOS devices, they cannot provide iOS users with apps for their devices, and they do not contain iOS compatible apps. 6) Apple imposes unreasonable restraints and unlawfully maintains a monopoly in the iOS App Distribution Market through several anti-competitive acts, including technical restrictions - Cannot download alternative app stores - App store is preinstalled - Contractual restrictions on distributing iOS apps outside the app store - Section 3.3.2(b) of the Developer Agreement prohibits “Application[s]” that “create a store or storefront for other code or applications”. (p25 C75) 7) Apple’s anti-competitive conduct harms all would-be app distributors by foreclosing them from competing in the iOS App Distribution Market. (p26 D88) 8) Apple has a monopoly over the iOS In-App Payment Processing Market and, in the alternative, over the iOS Games Payment Processing Market, as it has a 100% market share. 9) The cost of alternative electronic payment processing tools, which Apple does not permit to be used for the purchase of in-app digital content, can be one tenth of the cost of In-App Purchase. Electronic Payment Processing Tool, Base U.S. Rate PayPal 2.9% Stripe 2.9% Square 2.6%-3.5% Braintree 2.9%
figgyc 6y ago
This is a bit cynical of me but I thought it was interesting: In the PDF their legal says this: > in the years since, Fortnite has topped 350 million players and has become a global cultutral phenomenon. Interestingly, this 350 million players number appears to have been announced back in May [0]. Of course it is somewhat likely that their legal team just Googled this number instead of sourcing an updated figure from Epic, but could it potentially be that Fortnite's growth has stagnated? It definitely feels as though it has left the zeitgeist compared to years gone by, and it could be that Epic has calculated that the payoff of this suit could exceed the amount of V-Bucks they were expecting to sell through the iOS version of Fortnite. Certainly a big gamble, but it's possible that the situation may be dire enough to make it worth it. Of course they attempt to make it look like this isn't what they want by not demanding a cash payoff, but the obvious play is that if they win then a) they will be able to sell V-Bucks again for presumably a higher margin, and b) they will launch their own Epic app/game store and take a small cut of those transactions. https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/6/21249497/fortnite-350-million-registered-players-hours-played-april https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/6/21249497/fortnite-350-mill...
- calcifer 6y ago
  I think you are reading wayyy too much into this. The most likely explanation is that the document was being worked on for a long time and the figure was added back then.
m3kw9 6y ago
Epic just want more profits, making things very inconvenient for users but having to sign up for their own payment processing. Once they got enough users on the platform they want to cut Apple out.
Osiris 6y ago
It was never mentioned in the complaint, but I thought Apple also had a policy that required in-app purchases to be priced the same or lower than prices offered outside the store... I found an article from 2011 saying they tried to do this but backed away. Are apps allowed to price, say subscriptions, higher on iOS than on the web? And if they aren't allowed to advertise the lower price on the web, isn't that anti-competitive, forcing iOS uses to pay more?
rednerrus 6y ago
Does this mean we'll get buying options on the Switch, Xbox, and Playstations?
Animats 6y ago
This filing is clever on Epic's part. (Or someone at Cravath, more likely.) What Epic is asking for is an injunction. They may well get a temporary injunction quickly, compelling Apple to put their app back in Apple's store. Then the case gets litigated on the merits, but starting from a de facto win for Epic. The standard required for a temporary injunction is low: "To justify a temporary injunction it is not necessary that the plaintiff's right to a final decision, after a trial, be absolutely certain, wholly without doubt; if the other elements are present (i.e., the balance of hardships tips decidedly toward plaintiff), it will ordinarily be enough that the plaintiff has raised questions going to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful, as to make them a fair ground for litigation and thus for more deliberate investigation."[1] Litigation on temporary injunctions is relatively fast. This part will be decided in weeks, not years. Epic might only win a rollback to the last uncontroverted state, though. That is, apparently, before Epic's payment system went live on Apple platforms. If Apple had allowed third party payments for a while, then removed the app, Epic would be in a stronger position to insist that their own payment system remain live. [1] https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2013&context=dlj https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article... [2] https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wiwd.39930/gov.uscourts.wiwd.39930.191.0.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wiwd.39930/...
- calcifer 6y ago
  > Epic might only win a rollback to the last uncontroverted state, though. That is, apparently, before Epic's payment system went live on Apple platforms. IIUIC the app itself wasn't updated, only the webview for payments was updated on the server side.
  - Animats 6y ago
    Interesting. If that's correct, Epic is in an even stronger position. They can claim that Apple retaliated against them for a competitive move which had no bearing on the activities taking place in the arena Apple claims to control.
lousken 6y ago
I don't understand - epic deliberately chooses to avoid the most open platform (Linux) and yet they don't like being wall gardened? Quite ironic
- fareesh 6y ago
  You are framing the issue with one variable only (openness of platform) There are a multitude of variables to consider before deciding to release a product on a particular platform.
- bob1029 6y ago
  Epic's reasons for avoiding Linux are substantially different from their reasons for circumventing Apple's restrictions. See examples such as: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18845205 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18845205 I do not think the irony holds in this case.
  - lousken 6y ago
    If this was true why would Steam even bother? Secondly, Nvidia and AMD both invested tons of money into fixes for games in their drivers for windows and it just shows. Also epic is spending money left and right, why couldn't they invest into the platform just like steam? And even with that little investment steam put into linux(compared to windows) it shows a really good potential.
TheRealSteel 6y ago
I have zero sympathy for a corporation that thinks everyone should have to pay them a 30% cut of everything, but that they shouldn't have to pay any tax themselves.
redm 6y ago
Maybe I'm missing something, but why can't Epic and other developers just raise the price of the games on the App Store by 30% and pass the cost along to customers. Customers on Apples Ecosystem will just need to pay a premium, just like they do for their devices. "When you choose to use Epic direct payments, you save up to 20% as Epic passes along payment processing savings to you." Apparently they already were, they just want to lower the price for consumers.
- Cu3PO42 6y ago
  This is correct. Earlier today they pushed a Fortnite update adding the option to use "Epic direct payment" which charged 20% less. In response Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store, which then triggered this law suit to be filed.
ss7pro 6y ago
So they should remove Google drive as they also skip apple payments ...
klelatti 6y ago
Most of the focus on the legal position but the damage to Apple's brand shouldn't be underestimated here. Hey was a big deal for a small group but Fortnite will hit a much, much wider audience. The 1984 video was a clever and calculated move.
Simulacra 6y ago
It’s about time someone is standing up to apples smug anticompetitive behavior. Hopefully more major developers and game platforms will join suit.
shmerl 6y ago
Simple solution. Require Apple to allow alternative stores. That's a basic anti-trust issue. Not that Epic is much better in the sense of doing anti-competitive shenanigans, but Apple is simply infamous in that regard.
NicoJuicy 6y ago
So, this is obvious that they knew they were violating terms and conditions. How can they win? It's so clear that they have been preparing for this. The ad in-game in fortnite makes it too obvious.
rdiddly 6y ago
I've reached point 7 and so far I'm seeing a lot of demagoguery. Not that I'm in love with Apple or its business practices, but for example is "tax" the right word for something that isn't a government entity? Or e.g. does a judge care what happened in 1984 or what that ad campaign looked like? That one's in there (point 1, right at the top) for the press, I suppose. Demonstrate some relevant facts and just let them be what they are, and if they aren't how you want, that's called being "wrong?" I dunno, maybe I'm being naive or maybe my courtroom (if I were a judge) would be a hell of a place to try that horseshit.
camhart 6y ago
How did this drop off the front page so fast?
_qulr 6y ago
It looks like the HN moderators have kicked this out of #1, indeed all the way off the front page, and are starting to do the same with related stories too. Welp, it was fun while it lasted (a few hours).
- camhart 6y ago
  Why are they doing that?
  - _qulr 6y ago
    "certain stories routinely get tons of upvotes regardless of how good they are for HN—e.g. anything sensational, indignant, or meta. If we didn't have a compensating factor, those stories would dominate the front page every day" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13857086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13857086
davidjade 6y ago
I choose Apple devices because I believe Apple looks out for my interests. I say that as a consumer and a developer who publishes on the App Store as a business. I've seen the kind of nightmare that Android can be and no thanks. If this requires 30% for Apple to afford to keep the review bar high then so be it. But even if it doesn't, its their platform - their rules. If I didn't like it I'd switch to something else but I am thankful that iOS devices for my family aren't a risky proposition to use because app developer are reasonably restricted in what they can do. My worry is, if the doors get opened to non-Apple app stores and non-Apple reviewed apps, what happens when enough of the top tier apps like Facebook, IG, etc.. move to a store that has less oversight and restrictions? Users essentially get forced to give up what Apple gives them (and what they may have chosen Apple devices for) in terms of oversight and privacy control to use those apps. You can say, "just don't use those apps or stores" but that doesn't match the reality when your friends and family expect you to be connected because they use those apps. So while this may be about fees now, what's to stop if from being about privacy and other bad behavior that Apple doesn't currently allow?
dzonga 6y ago
in seeking moderate profits, apple has put themselves into a corner. they literally sold the cow, to pay for the donkey's medicine. apple can't argue that users having alternative means to install apps is insecure, as they allow to that on the mac. they also can't argue about anti-competitive practices and monopoly tendencies e.g 30% cut. only way out was if the 30% was a cut directly to the gvt. whoever is running apple services is one of the most sighted exec's in history.
- scarlac 6y ago
  > apple can't argue that users having alternative means to install apps is insecure, as they allow to that on the mac I don't agree with this evaluation. They can argue it, as all macs are shipped with only access to the app store. You need to specifically opt out. macOS does have security issues, perhaps moreso than iOS, and that's an argument they could make: Allowing Epic to run a store would compromise the phones of kids and open them up to tracking, aggressive adware, etc. I think it's a fair argument, even if I think 30% is a steep price to pay for what they provide.
rednerrus 6y ago
It'll be interesting to see how much revenue Forknife has generated in the app store.
javieranton 6y ago
Let's all go on strike and make our apps unavailable for 24 hrs
patal 6y ago
What's up with the layout though? For one, the text alternates between serif and sans-serif fonts, like someone came in and edited the prewritten complaint, but didn't care about formatting. Second, they have problems matching the text to the line number template, e.g. on pages 31, 38, 42, etc. Is that common for complaints, or is this just hastily written? I remember reading others and noticed peculiar layouts there, too.

674 points by warp 6y ago

rvz 6y ago

Epic is trying to sue an near $2 trillion dollar company. It's very dangerous to sue them alone. You need Microsoft and Facebook to back you guys up given that they kicked their apps out too. Unfortunately, this app store sheriff is unreal.

partiallypro 6y ago
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Netscape sued Microsoft and got its way. Size doesn't often matter, just visibility. Apple was already under the microscope.
duiker101 6y ago
I feel like this is only true if one of the two players is really small. Epic is not small by any measure. they can afford the best legal team they want, and just like programming, at some point throwing lawyers at a problem won't necessarily make it easier to win.

bpsh 6y ago

That was fast

uncoder0 6y ago
Almost like it was the plan all along. You don't write a 65 page legal filing in an hour.
- qppo 6y ago
  Automation man, it's going to take everyone's job
- R000TKIT 6y ago
  I'd imagine Epic sitting down with 65 lawyers all tasked to draft a single page, which is then compiled into a legal doc
- furyofantares 6y ago
  Right, it looks to me like they violated Apple’s policies in order to bring this lawsuit. It isn’t the other way around. I don’t think this is primarily about the 30% cut in Fortnite — Epic wants to run their own iOS App Store.
  - uncoder0 6y ago
    Epic games store for iOS. Automatically accessible from all games packaged for mobile built on the unreal engine. I imagine that is their goal as well.
sneak 6y ago
I imagine they had this drafted prior to Epic uploading the update that included direct payments.
atarian 6y ago
"When you strike at a king, you must kill him." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
- ceocoder 6y ago
  "Ayo, lesson here, Bey. You come at the king, you best not miss." -Omar Little (I like this version better)
  - sg47 6y ago
    Omar comin'. One of the best delivered lines in the show.
SllX 6y ago
They didn’t suddenly intentionally break App Store policies without a strategy. They think they sense blood in the water, that somehow Apple will be legally and/or politically vulnerable. They’re probably angling for a deal at the negotiating table, but they’re most likely prepared to go to trial and fight for a W, and even if they earn an L, try to use it to some kind of political advantage after the transition of power next year. EDIT: I just checked my email, actually forgot that I once played a couple games of Fortnite and signed up, wasn’t my thing, and there’s a pretty big PR component to it as well advertising permanently discounted prices on quoting from the email. “PlayStation, Xbox, Switch, PC and Mac, and on mobile when using select payment methods.“ It also pointed me to this blog post[1] that already has an update at the top about Apple blocking “your” access complete with hashtag campaign and activist-style messaging. They’re going whole hog here, there’s nothing half hearted about this. I don’t have a horse in this race, but I respect the planning and the balls. [1] https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-mega-drop-permanent-discounts-up-to-20-percent https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-m...

merrvk 6y ago

Seems like they were prepared to do this all along

detaro 6y ago
their management and lawyers would have been pretty bad at their jobs if they didn't see the possibility of this happening and prepped for it.
goldfishlover 6y ago
This is tencent's move to counter the tiktok drama
- AaronFriel 6y ago
  Is Tencent a majority share holder in Epic Games?
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    They are not. In fact I believe Tim Sweeny personally has the controlling stake.
  - aquaticsunset 6y ago
    Nope
jandrese 6y ago
Of course they were. They knew exactly what Apple would do because Apple has never been shy about telling developers what will happen when they do stuff like this.
- merrvk 6y ago
  Could they have been baiting it out of Apple on purpose?
  - 6y ago

minimaxir 6y ago

A 65 page lawsuit? How long was Epic planning this, and how did they manage to time it right after Apple's antitrust hearing?

saagarjha 6y ago
I mean, they had full control over when to release their update…
- minimaxir 6y ago
  Right, but timing is especially important with this kind of stunt and there's a lot of variables outside of Epic's control that could have weakened it.
  - ianferrel 6y ago
    Such as?
conradfr 6y ago
I guess this is the first time a legal matter goes as quick as on the show Suits.

bearjaws 6y ago

I feel like its only a matter of time until the EU pins something to Apple, if the US won't address this issue, the EU will.

asutekku 6y ago

Wow, 65 pages in less than an hour. I knew epic was productive, but this must be a new record.

bigpumpkin 6y ago
They signed up for the GPT-3 beta and made an api call
- jahabrewer 6y ago
  > An amazing games company files suit against an anachronistic monopoly, and their suit reads:
  - orangecat 6y ago
    Prompted with the first three paragraphs from the complaint, GPT-3 (Dragon model on AIDungeon) continues: 4.Apple's anticompetitive conduct harms consumers because it prevents new entrants into these markets from entering them at competitive prices, thereby raising the price of mobile apps and in-app content for consumers. It also harms competitors because it increases their costs of doing business by forcing them to pay higher prices for the same or similar products and services. Finally, it harms other businesses because it reduces their ability to compete by reducing the number of choices available to consumers. 5.The Plaintiffs in this case seek to restore competition to these markets by challenging Apple's anticompetitive conduct. Plaintiffs bring claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, and common law unfair competition. 6.This is a civil lawsuit. The Plaintiffs are not seeking criminal prosecution, nor are they seeking to have Apple break any agreements with other companies. They simply seek the right to compete with Apple on a level playing field. 7.The Plaintiffs are seven individuals and companies who develop software applications for Apple's iOS operating system, which runs on all of its mobile devices, such as the iPhone and iPad. Apple's iOS is the second most popular mobile operating system in the world, with approximately 1.4 billion devices sold to date.
juskrey 6y ago
Yeah, you don't have to write the game engine from scratch.

echelon 6y ago

Apple is about to get bitten hard for being a monopoly. I hope the government considers the harshest punishment of all: splitting up Apple into hardware and software+services entities. This is absurd that Apple has built a fiefdom on America's most popular generic computer device. It's a threat to freedom! We can only compute what the overlords allow and can tax? What a crock! The fact that Apple thinks they can extort more protection money from developers than the government does in taxes is an affront. But the freedom aspect should have everyone out with their pitchforks. This after Apple created an environment where its users, many of whom have lots of disposable income for buying goods and services, expect apps to be $0.99 and come with free updates for life. Meanwhile Apple's own products are luxury priced. And they still take 30%. US Government, please force Apple to open up iPhone to any software we want to install. It's a generic computer. It's how we communicate, do banking, do basic shopping, dating, business ... everything. Apple can't be the gatekeepers of 21st century life. It's incredibly damaging to our ability to innovate and succeed as small business owners and entrepreneurs. Apple, you are the tyrant king. Long have we suffered under your rule. We won't stand for it any longer and we demand our freedom.

2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
Exactly what I came here to say. Epic Games is large enough to fight this. I think they purposefully chose this fight right here and now because of the looming report on anti trust violations that should be out any day.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ianmobbs 6y ago
You seem to have forgotten about Android. The solution to anti-trust cases is not a blanket “break them up. In this case, requiring Apple to allow third-party App Stores is going to be the key issue. The lawyers will likely take heavy inspiration from Microsoft’s antitrust suit from the early 00s
- valuearb 6y ago

jandrese 6y ago

Going after Apple for antitrust violations has a big hill to climb in the form of the Google Play Store. More than that, a ruling against Apple here would have huge implications for any company running an app store on their device. Smart TV manufacturers, companies like Roku, Automobile manufacturers, etc... If you can be considered a monopolist because you control your platform then there will be a LOT of monopolies out there. I'm not expecting Epic to get any real traction on this suit. The best they can hope for is Apple working out some system where they'll reduce their cut in certain circumstances, but given how unlikely this case is to go anywhere I don't think Apple is feeling any pressure.

pgrote 6y ago
>form of the Google Play Store. You can get Android apps from many locations other than the Google Play Store.
- metiscus 6y ago
  Android does not prevent you from side-loading applications from other stores either.
- surfpel 6y ago
  > Smart TV manufacturers, companies like Roku, Automobile manufacturers, etc... It’s more than just the Google Play Store.
  - mhermher 6y ago
    Good. Force them too open up as well.
    - jandrese 6y ago
      What I'd like to happen and what the law supports aren't always in sync.
    - rednerrus 6y ago

azuriten 6y ago

Looks like this was the plan all long. Now to see whether or not the risk of implementing their own payments system for V-Bucks is worth the potential revenue loss they will incur with the app being removed from the store.

azuriten 6y ago
Adding to this, Epic/Fortnite are planning a short which goes live in 10mins called Nineteen Eighty-Fortnite. Most likely to be a parody of the 1984 Apple ad. Yup, it's a marketing stunt. https://twitter.com/FortniteGame/status/1293984290326433792 https://twitter.com/FortniteGame/status/1293984290326433792
- dmix 6y ago
  Seems like it's broadcast in-game? I don't know much about Fortnite. But it's been 10mins.
  - azuriten 6y ago
    Yes, it was an in-game event via their Party Royale game mode. Should be up on YouTube relatively soon - it was only a minute or so long.
  - VRay 6y ago
    It was just an exact copy of the famous Apple 1984 ad, except the guy on the screen had an apple for a head and the person who attacked the screen was a rainbow Fortnite character throwing a Fortnite donkey head staff
- pvitz 6y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqTNO8LTggI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqTNO8LTggI
  - dmix 6y ago
    Kinda lame they used the punchline in the original tweet, even before the reveal. Two billion dollar companies fighting over percentages = big brother in 2020.

ErikAugust 6y ago

A little "speculative execution" here by Epic. They anticipated Apple's action would be to ban them, and they prepared a lawsuit and PR campaign in anticipation.

partiallypro 6y ago
They absolutely baited Apple to do this, I'm actually glad they did it. It's time someone takes a stand. I think this will be more significant than people think. Remember it was Netscape that helped bring about Microsoft's anti-trust.
- outworlder 6y ago
  It's kinda hypocritical since Epic has a very similar business model for anything that's built using the Unreal Engine.
  - ronsor 6y ago
    Unreal Engine costs less and it's not mandatory to use it in order to make games.
    - canttestthis 6y ago
      For those reading along, Unreal Engine fees is 5% after the first million.
      - Cu3PO42 6y ago
        Or 0% on sales through EGS.
fluffy87 6y ago
Apple only really had two actions, both bad for Epic. They probably prepared responses and PR campaigns against both.
enraged_camel 6y ago

christkv 6y ago

What got banned by apple ?

acephal 6y ago
Fortnite for ducking fees

tiborsaas 6y ago

What's the context and TLDR?

warp 6y ago
Epic bypassed Apple payments on iOS - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24143346 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24143346 In response Apple removed them from the app store - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24146902 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24146902
choeger 6y ago
Context is that Apple has two things: A) Devices, with a large market share, restricted to a particular app store, where Apple takes a pay cut of 30%. B) Strong restrictions on what is allowed inside this app store and no hesitation to ban anyone from that app store for sometimes the weirdest reason. Naturally no one likes to pay apple the 30% cut and even more so no one likes to be forced to play by Apple's rules to distribute software to iPhones etc. Now Epic Games actually tries to fight back. Study law and read the documents if you need more details ;). My take on this: Apple is obviously acting in a manner that prevents fair competition. They have a point to be paid and they have a point to enact certain policies. But taken together with the outright ban of competing stores, this is obviously a market dominating position. I guess they can have two of the three and they should go for policies, single app store and a self-cost price. But they probably will settle for single app store and high price.

Despegar 6y ago

Epic is going to lose this case.

grumple 6y ago
Seems unlikely. Microsoft lost with a far more open situation than what Apple's got.
- threeseed 6y ago
  Given that you have a complete misunderstanding of why Microsoft lost their case I don't think your opinion holds much weight. There is no law that says a platform must be open.
n42 6y ago
it would seem they know they do not have legal standing based on the amount of effort that went into making this a PR campaign. they seem to be attempting to force Apple's hand outside of the court.

infinityplus1 6y ago

It will be funny to read Apple's excuses how they are not a monopoly and how consumers are benefiting from their no competition allowed policy.

valuearb 6y ago
As an iOS developer, it’s an easy argument to make because it’s true.
asutekku 6y ago
How exactly Apple is a monopoly? Just because they have a “monopoly” on stores on their own platform?
- partiallypro 6y ago
  They make up most store revenue. Android might have more installs, but Apple makes way more from their store. They are effectively a monopoly, if not a duopoly. But Android allows secondary stores...Apple doesn't.
  - asutekku 6y ago
    That might’ve been the case couple of years ago, but now the ratio is about 55:45 in favor of apple and can vary from app to app. Yes, they have a slight upper hand but still not a monopoly.
- infinityplus1 6y ago
  If I don't make my app available on Apple's store then I lose out on a huge % of people who use iOS devices as their only general computing device. They can't simply switch to Android as they are locked-in into the iOS ecosystem (For example, they can't use iMessage on Android). Apple is effectively controlling the market access and harming competitors.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
6y ago

somurzakov 6y ago

that escalated quickly. some prominent names from the Epic side. it will be interesting to follow this

rafaelturk 6y ago

IMO The key takeaway is that developers are no longer afraid of Apple. Epic Games move would be unthinkable a few years ago. Looks like this will become common practice. Epic Games joins Spotify, what will be joined by X, Y. Maybe at some point multiple developers will also follow and also file legal actions.

enraged_camel 6y ago
>>IMO The key takeaway is that developers are no longer afraid of Apple. Epic Games would be unthinkable a few years ago. Well yes, Epic Games was a small and relatively unknown studio until they hit jackpot with Fortnite.
- zaxu 6y ago
  Is this sarcasm? Epic has been huge since the early 2000s.
  - enraged_camel 6y ago
    No, nothing like they are today. Fortnite made them literally billions -- more than all of their previous titles combined.

outside1234 6y ago

It seems like the better approach here is to go the EU route. They will be much more likely to act as this is anticompetitive (and plus it is a non-EU company).

catsarebetter 6y ago

What if Apple already has paperwork prepared too lol

metiscus 6y ago
Unless they somehow are suing Epic directly, it would be ill advised to submit paperwork in response to a claim that does not address the specific claims made.
Rebelgecko 6y ago
This looks pretty similar to a lawsuit that was filed against them last year by individual developers, so they probably already do have paperwork to respond to accusations re: Sherman Antitrust Act and CA competition laws
- catsarebetter 6y ago
  I'm not mad at this though, they really do have a monopoly with their marketplace and it's killing the growth of the mobile app industry.

artembugara 6y ago

I think apple has the right to make TOS as they want. The only way for Epic to "win" is to make others join their side and leave App Store. Then, Apple will have to decrease their cut under the pressure.

Someone 6y ago
I think they legally have that right, too, but the issue at hand isn’t legal. It’s whether “the public” still finds that fair. Laws exist to serve people, not the other way around. Maybe laws have to change. That’s the nut that regulators will have to crack. Do “we” think this isn’t acceptable and if so, why? Controlling what software runs on the devices you sell can’t be the only criterion, or many other platforms would have to be opened up (smart TVs, game consoles, etc)
Dahoon 6y ago
They can likely write whatever they want but (at least in the EU) by law you cannot sign away your rights, so even agreeing to whatever someone write in TOS or EULA doesn't mean it will hold up in court.
- artembugara 6y ago
  Of course, but setting up your cut is totally legal everywhere. So, 30% or 99%. Whatever it is. Apple put it there. It is legal. If you don’t like just don’t accept. Go distribute your app somewhere else (also, App Store does not qualify for monopoly)

nevezen 6y ago

Just FYI, Tencent owns a 40% stake in Epic Games.

Dahoon 6y ago
Please take the China bashing aka. racism back to Reddit.
- nevezen 6y ago
  How is that racist?
Rebelgecko 6y ago
FYI some dude named Tim owns like 55%

awinder 6y ago

So what does epic games do while this is being litigated? Isn’t this the cash cow, I know they’ve got other games but still (as a windows gamer I look forward to all of you who have found in Epic your David; what a bs company). Do you try to force your way back in without the offending thing or what? This whole thing seems super coordinated but with some real confusing missing pieces, but should be fun to watch!

ErikAugust 6y ago
Fortnite is multi-platform. Is Fortnite for iOS their cash cow? Maybe not.

huac 6y ago

Epic appears to have retained Cravath's antitrust team; e.g. https://www.cravath.com/cvarney/ https://www.cravath.com/cvarney/, who "is the only person to have served as both the U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust and as a Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission."

Talyen42 6y ago

Can someone explain to me why Apple's 30% tax is so different from every B&M retailer providing shelf space? I can't sell stuff in walmart without paying Walmart "But you can't sell apps on iOS outside the app store" I can't sell stuff on ANY platform/device without the permission of the platform/device maker. I also can't create my own platform within another platform, without permission of that platform. I can't open an Amazon store and ask Amazon to list or fulfill my goods but not charge me a fee. Monopoly argument? with like 20-30% global user share? C'mon now

ngngngng 6y ago
I can install anything I want from any platform/device maker on my Windows computer, my Android phone, my Macbook, and my Linux laptop. Apple phones are the outlier here.
- Talyen42 6y ago
  yeah, I get that, and the only reason I picked an iphone for my grandpa is because it's a curated closed platform. i'm glad it exists as an option, and it's not the most popular one, but it seems insane to make it illegal to create a closed software platform
- threeseed 6y ago
  a) Phone is not considered by most people to be a computer. b) I can't install anything I want on my PS4, Switch, Tesla, Shopify store etc. So actually Apple isn't the outlier at all.
- babypuncher 6y ago
  But you don't have to buy an Apple phone.
r3muxd 6y ago
>I can't sell stuff on ANY platform/device without the permission of the platform/device maker. you sure? i can think of at least three major platforms where you can sell your stuff without permission, namely Android (sideloading), the entire Windows market, and the entire Mac market

Animats 6y ago

Epic has a good argument that Apple is engaging in illegal "tying" - requiring that to buy B, you must also buy A, where A and B are not inherently tied tightly together AT&T lost that one decades ago. At one time phone users could only use a rented AT&T phone. (Or modem, and AT&Ts modems were huge, expensive, and included a dial and handset.) See "Carterphone decision".

BluSyn 6y ago

I really don't agree with the idea that "alternative payment processors" are pro-consumer. This only benefits the developer, and I have huge privacy concerns with trusting third-party devs to handle my payment information. There's a 100% certainty that such payment information would be used for advertising purposes in the best-case, and rampant identity theft or mass payment security breaches in the worst-case. I'm certain Apple would also get a share of the blame for these third-party issues, which further tarnishes their platform and user experience. For all Apple's faults, they've actually put a huge amount of effort to making payment processing seamless for the user, while also making it extremely transparent. I get regular notifications if I have a subscription trial about to expire, and it's super easy to manage ALL subscriptions through a single UI, and cancel them with a single click. This would not be possible through third-party systems, which I can guarantee would put huge effort into tricking users rather than making it easier for them. And yet again, Apple would receive the blame for allowing these Apps. All that said I also don't agree with Apple taking a huge 30% cut, especially for subscription services that directly complete with them such as Netflix. Though obviously there are costs to run this ecosystem, so Apple also can't just charge nothing. I see both sides of this argument, and I don't see a middle ground that can please all sides. There needs to be a reasonable compromise somewhere in the middle.

ajkjk 6y ago
Well the argument is they're pro-consumer in that the things you buy would end up costing less.
bgorman 6y ago
Theoretically some of the cost saving from an alternative payment processor would be passed on to the consumer.
- BluSyn 6y ago
  While that would certainly be true for indie developers, I think it's laughable to suggest a company like Epic would lower their prices in response. They want that 30% for themselves. So I would take any claims from Epic that they are doing this purely for the benefit of the consumer as just pure marketing. Though assuming that is true, there's an argument to be made that some consumers are willing to pay a premium for privacy. Though 30% is probably too high of a premium for most.

haunter 6y ago

Saw on reddit and agree 100% > I will say it's a VERY smart move by Epic to position Apple against customers by no longer making it "Apple is taking 30% from epic" to "Apple is taking 20% from you"

xendipity 6y ago

Woah - Epic says they would release a competing app store if it weren't for "Apple's illegal restraints". > But for Apple’s illegal restraints, Epic would provide a competing app store on iOS devices, which would allow iOS users to download apps in an innovative, curated store and would provide users the choice to use Epic’s or another third-party’s in-app payment processing tool." Part 16, in the Intro.

mike_d 6y ago
Which holds zero legal weight, because Apple can point to them doing exactly that on Android to avoid paying Google Pay fees. They abandoned the plan about a year later because consumers didn't want to use it.
- discardable_dan 6y ago
  To be fair, if Epic does this I won't want to use it (just like with their desktop client).
- supermatt 6y ago
  > They abandoned the plan about a year later because consumers didn't want to use it. Due to high friction caused by android treating third party stores (and the apps instalkled through them) differently to the google play store - which will most definitely be an upcoming complaint...
maps7 6y ago
I hope Apple are forced to allow this
- viro 6y ago
  why? so epic can make more money? they don't care about you ... they just want more money
  - gameswithgo 6y ago

Osiris 6y ago

> Epic is not bringing this case to recover these damages; Epic is not seeking any monetary damages. Well, that's interesting. > But for Apple’s illegal restraints, Epic would provide a competing app store on iOS devices, which would allow iOS users to download apps in an innovative, curated store and would provide users the choice to use Epic’s or another third-party’s in-app payment processing tool So, Epic doesn't want money, they want the ability to allow users to install an Epic App Store. They must assume there's a lot more money to be made by operating a competing store.

napolux 6y ago
And have their slice of the cake, which makes a lot of sense.
mike_d 6y ago
Exactly this. At the end of the day, Epic is a publisher. If studios can go directly to the platform they are no longer the gatekeeper and stand to lose money. Epic wants your choice to be Apple store for non-games, and Epic store for games. Period.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gridlockd 6y ago
It's not necessarily about making more money, it's about creating persistent returns. Making games is difficult, expensive, and risky. No company can just decide to create a franchise that will be successful indefinitely. Fortnite was a stroke of luck, the wise thing to do is not to invest that money back into the franchise, which may soon be tossed aside by the audience, nor would it be wise to undertake a massive new project. Valve figured out a long time ago that it's much better business to just sit back and let other people make games while you rake in the cash with zero risk. Epic is in a unique position to maybe pull that off as well.

dmix 6y ago

Can you create a platform then have a monopoly over various sub-operations within your own platform (specifically both payment processing and controlling internal app distribution) Or is it just a piece of the wider mobile apps market? The modern digital economy is so much different than the Oil giants of the late 1800's, for which the Sherman Act was written in 1890. I doubt this will be an easy case for Epic or government lawyers. This would be a landmark case even it ever goes anywhere (not so much this injunction as a wider anti-trust move).

totaldude87 6y ago

ok am going to put a highly objectionable comment. I buy stuff on apple store because its easy and SAFE. That safety point is more important than ever, if there was no app store or lets say having 10 other app stores , i wont have the same level of confidence and heck i wont even be spending any dollars out there. Over to Apple's 30 % cut, i dont know whats the call here, to make it 0%? ,10% , 20%? what if the same fortnite (or any other company) increases the bill to $9.99 next week :) Am saying this purely from a consumer perspective that i dont care how apple and devs split the money as long as it doesnt bite me ...

detaro 6y ago
Not all that objectionable IMHO, even if you think Apple should allow other app sources. Of course an app store having clear policies and a good reputation is an important factor for users installing apps from there - and thus for vendors picking one to sell in. You see that in action on Android to some degree. EDIT: In some ways the best option IMHO would be a package-manager like design, where the system is responsible for fetching and updating packages, verifying signatures, security prompts, ... and "app stores" just feed information into that, but I doubt we'll see that anywhere.
- contextfree 6y ago
  that's roughly how Windows works with MSIX?
sparker72678 6y ago
The alternative is to let developers offer other modes of payment, and let people choose whether or not to use them. Even if Apple required you to offer IAP in addition to any third party service, it’d be an improvement.
wpurvis 6y ago
If Epic somehow takes Apple to court and wins this you can still use the Apple app store. They could just do what android does and have the App store as default and have a toggle for 3rd-party stores if you're interested.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

neo2006 6y ago

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... I'm reading this and thinking, is just the fact that an iphone do not allow you to install another OS is considered as an infringement of the anti trust law?

megakwood 6y ago

The arguments aren't good ones, and I won't be surprised if Apple knocks this down easily. Epic is arguing here that Apple is charging them 30% for payment processing. They're not, they're charging them for a return on the billions of dollars they spend developing the OS, developer APIs and tools that Epic builds on. Most egregious is the fact that is is Epic's very business model! They provide a game engine, SDKs and tools to third parties and draw a % of the sales of those games. How would Epic like it if some of their customers stopped paying them? Their customers can make the same bad arguments: It's too expensive, and it's a monopoly because the switching costs are too high! Sure, the difference it's the users that are captive on the Apple ecosystem rather than the developer, but it's pretty easy to argue that the users choose the platform because of it's quality, and a large part of that quality is driven by the massive investment Apple makes into the ecosystem, for which it deserves a fair share. All that said, I really wish Apple would drop their cut to 15% or 20% which would do a lot relieve the bad taste in everyones mouth.

klik99 6y ago

This is bigger than Apple, it would be a massive precedent if they pull it off. And it gets to my major concern with the possible merging of iOS and MacOS. I don't mind curation on my phone, but it's a deal breaker for my PC

sebmellen 6y ago
The day Apple does this is the day they lose every developer in the MacOS ecosystem to Linux/maybe Windows.
- snazz 6y ago
  I highly doubt they’d do this in the first place, but even if they did, iOS developers would still be using Macs.

warp 6y ago

They've now posted an FAQ site to ask their fans to complain to Apple with the #FreeFortnite hash tag. https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/freefortnite https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/freefortnite (this beef is fascinating to watch)

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

aurizon 6y ago

This will prove to be the straw that broke the camel's back. I hereby demand that everyone who read this send me one micro-bitcoin....;)

Talyen42 6y ago

Can't wait to troubleshoot my parents iphones after courts force them to allow arbitrary code installs from any source without apple's curation. The whole value proposition of iOS is they BLOCK CRAP.

justizin 6y ago

It is painfully clear that almost nobody, if anybody commenting here, actually read the fairly clearly written complaint. :)

young_unixer 6y ago

As someone without legal knowledge, it surprised me that the NATURE OF THE ACTION section reads more like a blog post than what I would expect in a legal document.

coded 6y ago

Go Epicgames! The #freefortnite campaign is bold; it’ll require users being proactive for it to maintain its momentum. I love the the things that both companies make, but I’m not in favor of the App Store’s monopoly. I’m excited to see the outcome of this lawsuit but not very excited to wait for a long, drawn out process that the US legal system lends itself to.

heimatau 6y ago

I'm curious how this will shake out. On one hand Epic (and any developer) is building their business on Apple's property/ecosystem. On the other hand, Apple has demonstrated anti-competitive behavior in numerous instances. Due to all the political turmoil in the USA with the technology industry, I don't think Apple has enough political capital to prevent a massive/historic prohibitive ruling against Apple.

colechristensen 6y ago
Apple’s property? This computer in my hand is mine, that argument works if you’re building your business on top of somebody else’s SaaS or social network, even then it has limitations.

jasonhansel 6y ago

> Apple has asserted that blocking third-party app distribution platforms is necessary to enforce privacy and security safeguards. [...] A simple comparison to how Apple handles third-party software on its Mac personal computers illustrates how baseless its justifications are. Clever. Now Apple will either need to (1) state that Macs are insecure and bad for privacy, or (2) admit that there is no privacy/security benefit from the App Store rules.

AcerbicZero 6y ago

I have zero interest in replacing one tyrant with another. Epic games doesn't care about what Apple is doing, they just want to do it themselves. They keep trying to buy the PC gamer market, and it doesn't take much of an imagination to guess what they'd do if they got control of it.

Apocryphon 6y ago

It's good to remember that Apple isn't just a potential monopoly, but a monopsony- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22051915 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22051915

dbetteridge 6y ago

Summary 1) iOS devices are a large market (Over 1.5 BILLION devices) 2) iOS users spend more then Android users 3) Apps must be independently developed for each platform 4) Apple’s Monopoly Power in the iOS App Distribution Market. (p20) As it is the sole means by which apps are distributed to consumers in the iOS Market. 5) Non-iOS app distribution platforms do not constrain Apple’s monopoly power in the iOS App Distribution Market because they are not compatible with iOS devices, they cannot provide iOS users with apps for their devices, and they do not contain iOS compatible apps. 6) Apple imposes unreasonable restraints and unlawfully maintains a monopoly in the iOS App Distribution Market through several anti-competitive acts, including technical restrictions - Cannot download alternative app stores - App store is preinstalled - Contractual restrictions on distributing iOS apps outside the app store - Section 3.3.2(b) of the Developer Agreement prohibits “Application[s]” that “create a store or storefront for other code or applications”. (p25 C75) 7) Apple’s anti-competitive conduct harms all would-be app distributors by foreclosing them from competing in the iOS App Distribution Market. (p26 D88) 8) Apple has a monopoly over the iOS In-App Payment Processing Market and, in the alternative, over the iOS Games Payment Processing Market, as it has a 100% market share. 9) The cost of alternative electronic payment processing tools, which Apple does not permit to be used for the purchase of in-app digital content, can be one tenth of the cost of In-App Purchase. Electronic Payment Processing Tool, Base U.S. Rate PayPal 2.9% Stripe 2.9% Square 2.6%-3.5% Braintree 2.9%

figgyc 6y ago

This is a bit cynical of me but I thought it was interesting: In the PDF their legal says this: > in the years since, Fortnite has topped 350 million players and has become a global cultutral phenomenon. Interestingly, this 350 million players number appears to have been announced back in May [0]. Of course it is somewhat likely that their legal team just Googled this number instead of sourcing an updated figure from Epic, but could it potentially be that Fortnite's growth has stagnated? It definitely feels as though it has left the zeitgeist compared to years gone by, and it could be that Epic has calculated that the payoff of this suit could exceed the amount of V-Bucks they were expecting to sell through the iOS version of Fortnite. Certainly a big gamble, but it's possible that the situation may be dire enough to make it worth it. Of course they attempt to make it look like this isn't what they want by not demanding a cash payoff, but the obvious play is that if they win then a) they will be able to sell V-Bucks again for presumably a higher margin, and b) they will launch their own Epic app/game store and take a small cut of those transactions. https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/6/21249497/fortnite-350-million-registered-players-hours-played-april https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/6/21249497/fortnite-350-mill...

calcifer 6y ago
I think you are reading wayyy too much into this. The most likely explanation is that the document was being worked on for a long time and the figure was added back then.

m3kw9 6y ago

Epic just want more profits, making things very inconvenient for users but having to sign up for their own payment processing. Once they got enough users on the platform they want to cut Apple out.

Osiris 6y ago

It was never mentioned in the complaint, but I thought Apple also had a policy that required in-app purchases to be priced the same or lower than prices offered outside the store... I found an article from 2011 saying they tried to do this but backed away. Are apps allowed to price, say subscriptions, higher on iOS than on the web? And if they aren't allowed to advertise the lower price on the web, isn't that anti-competitive, forcing iOS uses to pay more?

rednerrus 6y ago

Does this mean we'll get buying options on the Switch, Xbox, and Playstations?

Animats 6y ago

This filing is clever on Epic's part. (Or someone at Cravath, more likely.) What Epic is asking for is an injunction. They may well get a temporary injunction quickly, compelling Apple to put their app back in Apple's store. Then the case gets litigated on the merits, but starting from a de facto win for Epic. The standard required for a temporary injunction is low: "To justify a temporary injunction it is not necessary that the plaintiff's right to a final decision, after a trial, be absolutely certain, wholly without doubt; if the other elements are present (i.e., the balance of hardships tips decidedly toward plaintiff), it will ordinarily be enough that the plaintiff has raised questions going to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful, as to make them a fair ground for litigation and thus for more deliberate investigation."[1] Litigation on temporary injunctions is relatively fast. This part will be decided in weeks, not years. Epic might only win a rollback to the last uncontroverted state, though. That is, apparently, before Epic's payment system went live on Apple platforms. If Apple had allowed third party payments for a while, then removed the app, Epic would be in a stronger position to insist that their own payment system remain live. [1] https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2013&context=dlj https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article... [2] https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wiwd.39930/gov.uscourts.wiwd.39930.191.0.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wiwd.39930/...

calcifer 6y ago
> Epic might only win a rollback to the last uncontroverted state, though. That is, apparently, before Epic's payment system went live on Apple platforms. IIUIC the app itself wasn't updated, only the webview for payments was updated on the server side.
- Animats 6y ago
  Interesting. If that's correct, Epic is in an even stronger position. They can claim that Apple retaliated against them for a competitive move which had no bearing on the activities taking place in the arena Apple claims to control.

lousken 6y ago

I don't understand - epic deliberately chooses to avoid the most open platform (Linux) and yet they don't like being wall gardened? Quite ironic

fareesh 6y ago
You are framing the issue with one variable only (openness of platform) There are a multitude of variables to consider before deciding to release a product on a particular platform.
bob1029 6y ago
Epic's reasons for avoiding Linux are substantially different from their reasons for circumventing Apple's restrictions. See examples such as: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18845205 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18845205 I do not think the irony holds in this case.
- lousken 6y ago
  If this was true why would Steam even bother? Secondly, Nvidia and AMD both invested tons of money into fixes for games in their drivers for windows and it just shows. Also epic is spending money left and right, why couldn't they invest into the platform just like steam? And even with that little investment steam put into linux(compared to windows) it shows a really good potential.

TheRealSteel 6y ago

I have zero sympathy for a corporation that thinks everyone should have to pay them a 30% cut of everything, but that they shouldn't have to pay any tax themselves.

redm 6y ago

Maybe I'm missing something, but why can't Epic and other developers just raise the price of the games on the App Store by 30% and pass the cost along to customers. Customers on Apples Ecosystem will just need to pay a premium, just like they do for their devices. "When you choose to use Epic direct payments, you save up to 20% as Epic passes along payment processing savings to you." Apparently they already were, they just want to lower the price for consumers.

Cu3PO42 6y ago
This is correct. Earlier today they pushed a Fortnite update adding the option to use "Epic direct payment" which charged 20% less. In response Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store, which then triggered this law suit to be filed.

ss7pro 6y ago

So they should remove Google drive as they also skip apple payments ...

klelatti 6y ago

Most of the focus on the legal position but the damage to Apple's brand shouldn't be underestimated here. Hey was a big deal for a small group but Fortnite will hit a much, much wider audience. The 1984 video was a clever and calculated move.

Simulacra 6y ago

It’s about time someone is standing up to apples smug anticompetitive behavior. Hopefully more major developers and game platforms will join suit.

shmerl 6y ago

Simple solution. Require Apple to allow alternative stores. That's a basic anti-trust issue. Not that Epic is much better in the sense of doing anti-competitive shenanigans, but Apple is simply infamous in that regard.

NicoJuicy 6y ago

So, this is obvious that they knew they were violating terms and conditions. How can they win? It's so clear that they have been preparing for this. The ad in-game in fortnite makes it too obvious.

rdiddly 6y ago

I've reached point 7 and so far I'm seeing a lot of demagoguery. Not that I'm in love with Apple or its business practices, but for example is "tax" the right word for something that isn't a government entity? Or e.g. does a judge care what happened in 1984 or what that ad campaign looked like? That one's in there (point 1, right at the top) for the press, I suppose. Demonstrate some relevant facts and just let them be what they are, and if they aren't how you want, that's called being "wrong?" I dunno, maybe I'm being naive or maybe my courtroom (if I were a judge) would be a hell of a place to try that horseshit.

camhart 6y ago

How did this drop off the front page so fast?

_qulr 6y ago

It looks like the HN moderators have kicked this out of #1, indeed all the way off the front page, and are starting to do the same with related stories too. Welp, it was fun while it lasted (a few hours).

camhart 6y ago
Why are they doing that?
- _qulr 6y ago
  "certain stories routinely get tons of upvotes regardless of how good they are for HN—e.g. anything sensational, indignant, or meta. If we didn't have a compensating factor, those stories would dominate the front page every day" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13857086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13857086

davidjade 6y ago

I choose Apple devices because I believe Apple looks out for my interests. I say that as a consumer and a developer who publishes on the App Store as a business. I've seen the kind of nightmare that Android can be and no thanks. If this requires 30% for Apple to afford to keep the review bar high then so be it. But even if it doesn't, its their platform - their rules. If I didn't like it I'd switch to something else but I am thankful that iOS devices for my family aren't a risky proposition to use because app developer are reasonably restricted in what they can do. My worry is, if the doors get opened to non-Apple app stores and non-Apple reviewed apps, what happens when enough of the top tier apps like Facebook, IG, etc.. move to a store that has less oversight and restrictions? Users essentially get forced to give up what Apple gives them (and what they may have chosen Apple devices for) in terms of oversight and privacy control to use those apps. You can say, "just don't use those apps or stores" but that doesn't match the reality when your friends and family expect you to be connected because they use those apps. So while this may be about fees now, what's to stop if from being about privacy and other bad behavior that Apple doesn't currently allow?

dzonga 6y ago

in seeking moderate profits, apple has put themselves into a corner. they literally sold the cow, to pay for the donkey's medicine. apple can't argue that users having alternative means to install apps is insecure, as they allow to that on the mac. they also can't argue about anti-competitive practices and monopoly tendencies e.g 30% cut. only way out was if the 30% was a cut directly to the gvt. whoever is running apple services is one of the most sighted exec's in history.

scarlac 6y ago
> apple can't argue that users having alternative means to install apps is insecure, as they allow to that on the mac I don't agree with this evaluation. They can argue it, as all macs are shipped with only access to the app store. You need to specifically opt out. macOS does have security issues, perhaps moreso than iOS, and that's an argument they could make: Allowing Epic to run a store would compromise the phones of kids and open them up to tracking, aggressive adware, etc. I think it's a fair argument, even if I think 30% is a steep price to pay for what they provide.

rednerrus 6y ago

It'll be interesting to see how much revenue Forknife has generated in the app store.

javieranton 6y ago

Let's all go on strike and make our apps unavailable for 24 hrs

patal 6y ago

What's up with the layout though? For one, the text alternates between serif and sans-serif fonts, like someone came in and edited the prewritten complaint, but didn't care about formatting. Second, they have problems matching the text to the line number template, e.g. on pages 31, 38, 42, etc. Is that common for complaints, or is this just hastily written? I remember reading others and noticed peculiar layouts there, too.