7 ms·

Some choice sections: "...On Thursday, August 13, 2020, Epic Games made the calculated decision to breach its allegedly illegal agreements with Apple by activa

Some choice sections: "...On Thursday, August 13, 2020, Epic Games made the calculated decision to breach its allegedly illegal agreements with Apple by activating allegedly hidden code in Fortnite allowing Epic Games to collect IAPs directly. In response, Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store, where it remains unavailable to the date of this Order. Later that same day, Epic Games filed this action and began a pre-planned, and blistering, marketing campaign against Apple... " "...The Court finds that with respect to Epic Games’ motion as to its games, including Fortnite, Epic Games has not yet demonstrated irreparable harm. The current predicament appears of its own making... Epic Games admits that the technology exists to “fix” the problem easily by deactivating the “hotfix.” That Epic Games would prefer not to litigate in that context does not mean that “irreparable harm” exists..." "...Epic Games moves this Court to allow it to access Apple’s platform for free while it makes money on each purchase made on the same platform. While the Court anticipates experts will opine that Apple’s 30 percent take is anti-competitive, the Court doubts that an expert would suggest a zero percent alternative. Not even Epic Games gives away its products for free..." Ouch. Separately, the aspect of Apple pulling keys for the developer (e.g. Unreal Engine) platform access was granted a preliminary injunction. Which seems reasonable. I guess Epic has a couple days to decide whether to give in or not: "Fortnite’s next season starts on Thursday, August 27, 2020, and will require an update of the game to play."

trumpeta 6y ago
"...Epic Games moves this Court to allow it to access Apple’s platform for free while it makes money on each purchase made on the same platform. While the Court anticipates experts will opine that Apple’s 30 percent take is anti-competitive, the Court doubts that an expert would suggest a zero percent alternative. Not even Epic Games gives away its products for free..." Apple is arguing as if accessing their platform for free was a crime. This makes sense, since they have costs associated with reviews, code signing and distribution. But that is of their own making. Walled gardens should be outlawed.
- ben_w 6y ago
  It being a walled garden is the only way I’m willing to trust it for accessing all my account recovery emails, my 2FA SMSes, my bank details, and the sensor package that can listen to everything I do while GPS tracking me and monitoring my heart rate and gaze if I happen to be holding it where I can see the screen. Of course, that doesn’t mean I like being stuck with an American cultural hegemony that says sexual content is forbidden, or that needs an encryption export licence from the USA government for apps written by non-Americans for non-Americans, and which still demands annual reporting to the US government for using https. I’m happy with any walls that meet basic security standards, but I do want a wall, even if it would be nice to choose which wall.
  - roblabla 6y ago
    The walled garden is not what protects your email, 2FA SMSes or bank details. The OS sandboxing and permissions system do that. The two are often conflated, but the two concerns are orthogonal really. Heck, you could easily imagine a system where software distributed outside the app store can only access a subset of perms if security is such a concern, and that'd still be less anti-competitive
    - rimliu 6y ago
      > but the two concerns are orthogonal really. They are not, really.
    - threeseed 6y ago
      Due to the way iOS works (dynamic dispatch) private APIs can only be prevented through an App Store review process. And many of those APIs can be used to extract enough information to fingerprint the device, determine your location or steal your data e.g. accessing the list of WiFi networks or browser history. So no. The two concerns are very much related.
      - brmgb 6y ago
        > Due to the way iOS works (dynamic dispatch) private APIs can only be prevented through an App Store review process. That's complete nonsense. Dynamic dispatch has nothing to do with the ability or not of a program to access API. Dynamic dispatch is the selection at runtime of the correct version of a polymorphic function. Obviously, you can sandbox programs written in languages using dynamic dispatch.
modeless 6y ago
How about this one: "with respect to the Unreal Engine and the developer tools, [...] the contracts related to those applications were not breached. Apple does not persuade that it will be harmed [...] Apple has chosen to act severely, and by doing so, has impacted non-parties, and a third-party developer ecosystem. In this regard, the equities do weigh against Apple. Apple's behavior here was not reasonable and definitely deserved this restraining order.
- threeseed 6y ago
  Epic could have used the same developer account for both Unreal Engine and Fornite development knowing full well that Apple would have to either allow both or ban both. They had ads and lawsuits ready when they pulled the trigger on this chain of events so it wouldn't surprise me if they made sure that the Unreal Engine issue was included.
  - scq 6y ago
    They didn't use the same developer account, if I'm reading the order correctly the developer accounts used for Unreal Engine and Fortnite did not even belong to the same legal entity. * Epic Games, Inc. develops Fortnite and has an Apple developer account that it is released under. * Epic Games International, S.a.r.l. develops Unreal Engine and holds its own Apple developer account.
  - high_density 6y ago
    I don't think Epic use the same account on purpose -- I mean, why pay x2 the fees?
    - madeofpalk 6y ago
      well, the fee's are only like $99/year. a rounding error, really.
  - StavrosK 6y ago
    Apple can ban just Fortnite (and any other infringing app) a la carte, without banning the entire account, so they wouldn't need to ban or allow both in the first place.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
j-james 6y ago
> Not even Epic Games gives away its products for free... Do... do they not? The point being made in that paragraph seems valid regardless, but that's a strange comparison to end with - is Fortnite not free-to-play on Apple devices? It certainly is on all other platforms I've seen it on.
- syspec 6y ago
  How then exactly did epic make over a billion dollars off of fortnite last year? Free to play, does not mean they give away their products for free
  - garmaine 6y ago
    Doesn’t specify “give away some” vs. “give away all.” Either interpretation would be valid (but missing the point).
- zapzupnz 6y ago
  Fortnite is the highest grossing free-to-play game, and the Epic store also takes a cut of games sold on their store. It's not 30% but the actual amount doesn't matter in the context of that particular part of the order.

trumpeta 6y ago

"...Epic Games moves this Court to allow it to access Apple’s platform for free while it makes money on each purchase made on the same platform. While the Court anticipates experts will opine that Apple’s 30 percent take is anti-competitive, the Court doubts that an expert would suggest a zero percent alternative. Not even Epic Games gives away its products for free..." Apple is arguing as if accessing their platform for free was a crime. This makes sense, since they have costs associated with reviews, code signing and distribution. But that is of their own making. Walled gardens should be outlawed.

ben_w 6y ago
It being a walled garden is the only way I’m willing to trust it for accessing all my account recovery emails, my 2FA SMSes, my bank details, and the sensor package that can listen to everything I do while GPS tracking me and monitoring my heart rate and gaze if I happen to be holding it where I can see the screen. Of course, that doesn’t mean I like being stuck with an American cultural hegemony that says sexual content is forbidden, or that needs an encryption export licence from the USA government for apps written by non-Americans for non-Americans, and which still demands annual reporting to the US government for using https. I’m happy with any walls that meet basic security standards, but I do want a wall, even if it would be nice to choose which wall.
- roblabla 6y ago
  The walled garden is not what protects your email, 2FA SMSes or bank details. The OS sandboxing and permissions system do that. The two are often conflated, but the two concerns are orthogonal really. Heck, you could easily imagine a system where software distributed outside the app store can only access a subset of perms if security is such a concern, and that'd still be less anti-competitive
  - rimliu 6y ago
    > but the two concerns are orthogonal really. They are not, really.
  - threeseed 6y ago
    Due to the way iOS works (dynamic dispatch) private APIs can only be prevented through an App Store review process. And many of those APIs can be used to extract enough information to fingerprint the device, determine your location or steal your data e.g. accessing the list of WiFi networks or browser history. So no. The two concerns are very much related.
    - brmgb 6y ago
      > Due to the way iOS works (dynamic dispatch) private APIs can only be prevented through an App Store review process. That's complete nonsense. Dynamic dispatch has nothing to do with the ability or not of a program to access API. Dynamic dispatch is the selection at runtime of the correct version of a polymorphic function. Obviously, you can sandbox programs written in languages using dynamic dispatch.

modeless 6y ago

How about this one: "with respect to the Unreal Engine and the developer tools, [...] the contracts related to those applications were not breached. Apple does not persuade that it will be harmed [...] Apple has chosen to act severely, and by doing so, has impacted non-parties, and a third-party developer ecosystem. In this regard, the equities do weigh against Apple. Apple's behavior here was not reasonable and definitely deserved this restraining order.

threeseed 6y ago
Epic could have used the same developer account for both Unreal Engine and Fornite development knowing full well that Apple would have to either allow both or ban both. They had ads and lawsuits ready when they pulled the trigger on this chain of events so it wouldn't surprise me if they made sure that the Unreal Engine issue was included.
- scq 6y ago
  They didn't use the same developer account, if I'm reading the order correctly the developer accounts used for Unreal Engine and Fortnite did not even belong to the same legal entity. * Epic Games, Inc. develops Fortnite and has an Apple developer account that it is released under. * Epic Games International, S.a.r.l. develops Unreal Engine and holds its own Apple developer account.
- high_density 6y ago
  I don't think Epic use the same account on purpose -- I mean, why pay x2 the fees?
  - madeofpalk 6y ago
    well, the fee's are only like $99/year. a rounding error, really.
- StavrosK 6y ago
  Apple can ban just Fortnite (and any other infringing app) a la carte, without banning the entire account, so they wouldn't need to ban or allow both in the first place.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

j-james 6y ago

> Not even Epic Games gives away its products for free... Do... do they not? The point being made in that paragraph seems valid regardless, but that's a strange comparison to end with - is Fortnite not free-to-play on Apple devices? It certainly is on all other platforms I've seen it on.

syspec 6y ago
How then exactly did epic make over a billion dollars off of fortnite last year? Free to play, does not mean they give away their products for free
- garmaine 6y ago
  Doesn’t specify “give away some” vs. “give away all.” Either interpretation would be valid (but missing the point).
zapzupnz 6y ago
Fortnite is the highest grossing free-to-play game, and the Epic store also takes a cut of games sold on their store. It's not 30% but the actual amount doesn't matter in the context of that particular part of the order.