56 ms·

Apple ordered to not block Epic’s Unreal Engine, Fortnite to stay off App Store

409 points by jmsflknr 6y ago

dbetteridge 6y ago
https://9to5mac.com/2020/08/24/fortnite-ban-unreal-engine-apple-restrained/ https://9to5mac.com/2020/08/24/fortnite-ban-unreal-engine-ap... Non techcrunch link (as I can't access those with ublock/cookie wall blocker)
- ffpip 6y ago
  https://web.archive.org/web/20200825071539/https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/24/apple-ordered-to-not-block-epic-games-unreal-engine-but-fortnite-to-stay-off-app-store/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200825071539/https://techcrunc...
- ergwwrt 6y ago
  always use http://cachedview.nl/ http://cachedview.nl/ to see blocked sites
  - 1f60c 6y ago
    How have I never heard of this site before? Thanks!!
floatingatoll 6y ago
Dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24268176 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24268176
causality0 6y ago
A victory for sanity. Apple threatening developmental licenses and anyone who used the Unreal Engine was nothing short of mafia-esque, and just as obviously Fortnite being restored to the app store is a matter for Epic's lawsuit against apple.
- philliphaydon 6y ago
  Huh, Apple said it would disable Epic's developer accounts? They never threatened anyone using Unreal Engine, and I don't believe they specified UE Developer accounts. We can only speculate that UE Developer accounts would have been terminated as we don't really know if Apple was going to terminate those too as they belong to a separate company according to the court documents.
  - modeless 6y ago
    Blocking Epic from developing Unreal Engine is a threat to anyone using it.
    - kergonath 6y ago
      Come on. “We’ll remove your license if you keep misbehaving” is in no way similar to “we’ll go after your users and remove their license”. It’s a threat in the long term, if Epic and Apple cannot negotiate something satisfying (which they will eventually, there’s just too much to lose for both of them), but let’s keep some perspective.
      - klmadfejno 6y ago
        If Apple does not allow Epic to develop Unreal Engine, and Unreal Engine 5 is subsequently not released for Apple computers, that feels like a substantial "threat to anyone using it" to me.
      - mantap 6y ago
        The effects are similar. iOS 14 will be out soon. Epic needs to prepare Unreal Engine to be compatible with it. How can they do this without any developer tools?
        kergonath 6y ago
        No, the effects are not similar. If Apple removed the developers’ licenses, they could not put anything on the AppStore. If an update to the Unreal Engine gets delayed (I have no doubt it will be resolved at some point), then the current version keeps working on the OS on which it was tested, and the developer’s other applications can still be bought. There is no need for hyperbole.
jamesdhutton 6y ago
Can anyone explain exactly how Apple "blocks" Unreal Engine? I was under the impression that it's a 3rd-party library, available directly from Epic, that anybody is free to link their game to. So I'm struggling to understand the mechanism by which Apple blocks it. Any clarity on this would be appreciated.
- compsciphd 6y ago
  they revoked Epic's developer account. if Epic is restricted from getting the tools needed to further develop Unreal Engine, that effectively prevents Epic from doing further development on it.
  - misnome 6y ago
    Aren’t the tools freely available without a developer account?
    - eru 6y ago
      Even those come with a license, and Apple could probably have specifically revoked that license from Epic. (I'm just speculating here.) It's not so much about what's technically possible, but about what's legally allowed.
    - pavlov 6y ago
      While you can download Xcode with just a regular Apple ID, you can't really test your code on an iOS device without an Apple developer account, so the usefulness would be limited.
      - dep_b 6y ago
        I have to use my own developer account basically every time I build an app for a customer until they got around to either inviting me to their team or creating their personal developer account. Unless Epic is filled with developers that never ever launched their own application not being part of the Epic developer account is an annoyance (and a familiar one for most iOS developers) at most. You don't need to deploy an SDK the only thing you would deploy are test builds of games that use the updated SDK.
pjmlp 6y ago
Epic is just the new gang in town establishing themselves while trying to get some shops under their control, by playing being against the long time block owners.
- appleflaxen 6y ago
  yes but you can't pre-bust monopolies. apple's market position is causing higher prices for consumers. therefore it should be busted. we just need to keep the same standard (or better: make it more strict; apple has been abusive for a long time) for when epic becomes the monopoly.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Apple market size is only relevant in North America and a couple of tier 1 western countries, hardly a monopoly.
    - jpambrun 6y ago
      No monopoly is a monopoly until it's a worldwide monopoly?
      - LexGray 6y ago
        Not current numbers but some old projections put 2020 projected android users would be around 127 million users in US. iOS projected 110 million in 2021 in US. Does 50% market share when achieved even equal a monopoly?
        withinboredom 6y ago
        > Does 50% market share when achieved even equal a monopoly? In the US, yes. Defacto monopoly.
    - cma 6y ago
      Monopoly on customers with lots of expendable income, who account for most App Store revenue.
IvanK_net 6y ago
I still wonder why so many people buy devices, where the only software you could run has to be approved by the manufacturer. I think we should speak more about this fact, so that people think twice before they buy some device. I only make websites, but I am worried, that at some point, Apple would want me to pay them, so that my website is openable on their devices.
- m-p-3 6y ago
  > I still wonder why so many people buy devices, where the only software you could run has to be approved by the manufacturer. Because most of them don't really care until it directly impacts them, and because Apple spends a huge amount of money on their marketing.
- foxdev 6y ago
  I only do a handful of things on my phone, and I need it to do those things reliably. My new laptop, on the other hand, opens with a Philips head screwdriver and almost everything can be replaced or upgraded. Different priorities for different needs.
- Broken_Hippo 6y ago
  Lack of realistic choice. If you are the average consumer looking to buy a smartphone, you have the choice of either Android or Apple. You get more choice with a PC, to an extent - the average consumer is going to get to choose between Microsoft, something like a chromebook, or apple. (Most folks buy mainstream, widely available products that work out of the box). I'm not sure the market for non-standard products is that high. A non-significant number of folks wouldn't put anything on their computer that hasn't been approved for fear of "bad things".
  - skohan 6y ago
    Windows, Apple and Chromebooks are all proprietary platforms. With PC you also have the choice to install Linux, which is the categorical difference. With smartphones there's not really an open choice available.
dgellow 6y ago
Could someone explain what was Apple trying to do? I really don't get their position in this story. It seemed obvious that trying to completely block Epic's Unreal Engine would be causing more legal issues. What is their strategy here? It feels that they actually wanted things to escalate, though I cannot see why they would do this.
- IvanK_net 6y ago
  Each app or game, which runs on iOS devices, should pay Apple 30% of their revenue. These are billions of dollars each year. The Fortnite game wanted to avoid this fee of 30% by making the game free to download, but the users could pay directly inside the game (the payment mechanism did not go through Apple). If more apps or games do that, Apple would lose a lot of money. Also, Apple App store is the only way to get apps and games into iOS devices. So if I make a game and I want you to play it, and you know me and my game and you want to play it too, Apple is a "third person", who can stop us from doing so.
  - dgellow 6y ago
    You're talking about the reason Apple had to remove Fortnite following Epic Game's decision to add their own payment option. That doesn't explain why they reacted so aggressively towards Epic's Unreal Engine by threatening to block it.
    - summerlight 6y ago
      I'm pretty sure that Apple wanted to send an obvious signal to its developers. After Spotify, apparently Apple has decided not to like this kind of antitrust challenges from third party developers, which might be harder than those from users. The simplest option would be threatening developers with retaliation, something like "If you piss me off, I'll make your life miserable". I don't have a gut to fight against such thing, and I guess the same thing may apply to more than 99.9% of other developers as well. This also happened to their internal employees (lawsuit against Gerard Williams III), so I'm not very surprised.
    - 6y ago
amelius 6y ago
Will this pave the way for Firefox using the Gecko engine instead of Webkit in its iOS browser? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_for_iOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_for_iOS
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  no, not in any way.
hellisothers 6y ago
I find a lot of the comments here split down “I want app regulation because I feel it provides a layer of safety and safety is good for the consumer” vs “I want more freedom and choice because choice is good and is better for the consumer”. Which brings to mind two things This sounds similar to the current brouhaha happening in the US over America’s inclination towards personal freedom at all cost even when govt regulation could/should step in the make things better. A concern that once “freedom of choice of App Store” is provided, where does it stop because ultimately those demanding choice will keep demanding aspects be “open up” “for fairness” until iOS isn’t special anymore. Part of what makes it special _is_ it’s regulation, if you don’t want that then “choose” elsewhere. This aspect feels like the problem in the US of big business battling for deregulation which... isn’t always so great. I’m not saying “Apple is doing it for the people!”, necessarily but Apple is doing it to be Apple, let’s not make everything the same.
- devwastaken 6y ago
  There's only two choices, which means the market is monopalized. If apple had been reasonable we wouldn't be having this discussion. Apple has shown it can no longer reasonably regulate its own market and will not be the Shepard. Their significant efforts of verticle integration from hardware to software shows their inclination to creating walled garden markets that compete at the economy of scale and are designed to eliminate competition. No company is allowed to control a market of other companies without oversight. Given that oversight from apple is corrupted it must be provided in other means.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    > There's only two choices, which means the market is monopalized. Literally not what monopolized means.
    - damnyou 6y ago
      Duopolized. The rest of the argument still holds, and a weaker form of it holds for Google as well, since stores like F-Droid can't do everything that Google Play can. Please steelman the arguments you disagree with.
shmerl 6y ago
They also should be blasted for forbidding competing browsers all this time.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
jaimex2 6y ago
Shame, blocking the Unreal engine would have hurt Apple a lot more than Epic though lets face it the real losers would have been developers.
- spott 6y ago
  How do you figure? Apple's customers usually have gaming as a pretty low priority for purchasing of Apple products. The PR hit?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
diebeforei485 6y ago
I'm always frustrated by journalists who never mention the case number (why not?), let alone link to a copy of the actual ruling. Here's a PDF of the ruling, I think it's worth reading: https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21814075/cf2dcbbf_4f0b_4762_94fc_6b0f42ede3ff.pdf https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21814075/c...
- henryfjordan 6y ago
  > why not? Easy: a link off their site doesn't earn them any money. They want to you stay on their domain.
  - alkonaut 6y ago
    Is there a news site that does the opposite? Always cites sources, provide ample links throughout text? that’s the site I’d subscribe to.
    - aptgetrekt 6y ago
      Exactly! Ars Technica usually does a pretty good job.
    - joshvm 6y ago
      Believe it or not, Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events
      - alkonaut 6y ago
        Thanks. That works for international news reporting. It's a bit thin on local coverage, and anything that is non-news but usually part of a newspaper (opinion/debate, reviews...) isn't there. The easier it is to get the news bit everywhere, the more important the other parts of a newspaper becomes to me.
    - scott31 6y ago
      There is something called Hacker News
zaroth 6y ago
It would be nice if everyone could start by agreeing that that there's actually a nuanced discussion to be had about how "anti-competitive" a company can be, and also how that answer might change based on the size and profitability of the company under discussion. If your position is that your opinion is absolutely correct and there's no room for discussion, why post at all? It's just ideological battle. With that said, I am naturally inclined to believe that businesses should have a lot of control over the products they create. My baseline is that I want to be as unencumbered as possible in my product vision and the experience I offer my users, and I'd like minimal government restrictions on my desired UX unless consumers' physical health or safety is on the line. I see the choice of how third parties should be able to create and sell code that runs on a platform I have created as sacrosanct, from the drawing board, up to the day the first unit is shipped, the developer gets to decide. As my code is my own written word, it is akin to my First Amendment right to free speech. However, I'm willing to accept that somewhere along the journey from that very first prototype, to the 1,000,000,000th unit shipped, the equation shifts. Most products, that is to say non-open source software, by their very nature, are non-trivially anti-competitive in some way. It is the same thing to say that the product is differentiated. I have a BA in Economics, but I'm a long time out of school, so I may be clobbering this definition, but "a product is differentiated in the marketplace to the extend that a product has a feature or benefit or functionality that is not equivalently provided by every other substitute in that market." In order for a product to remain differentiated, it therefore must be non-trivially "anti-competitive". Maybe it makes sense to dive into the definition of that word more deeply, but I don't want to waste your time. My point is simply that "anti-competitive" is synonymous with any market that is not perfectly commoditized. Hopefully it's uncontroversial to claim that "anti-competitive" is not fundamentally bad per se. It's well recognized that anti-competitive behavior which at one scale is fundamental to a diverse marketplace of products and services which drives innovation, value, and consumer choice, at another scale is used to lock-out potential new market entrants, and enable excessive profitability or rent-seeking behavior. The words "monopoly" and "duopoly" usefully describes the ultimate/penultimate theoretical states of such a market, but they don't adequately describe that various ways we can approach such a limit in the real world. Apple is not a monopoly, but that does not mean that there should not perhaps be elevated limits on acceptable anti-competitive behavior on their part based on the specific facts of their market position. I think it is also self-evident that it is an extraordinary remedy to judicially limit anti-competitive behavior targeted at a specific company in a competitive market. Indeed when we enjoin a company from making their products function in ways that are quite central to that product's highly differentiated user experience, yes it may grant choice to some customers of that product to operate it in new ways, it is also taking choice away from customers who may have chosen the product for exactly the functionality being target. This to me is an extremely heavy handed remedy, and should only be deployed against a company if it is absolutely warranted based on unlawful conduct by that company. While the case before the judge today was simply a preliminary hearing on a injunction, and therefore not by any means a ruling on the fundamental issue, we can see this balancing act being employed in the current case. The contract that Epic willingly entered into with Apple and willingly violated is placed in one corner (blocking Fortnite) while the separate contract(s) of developers using Epic's Unreal Engine is placed in another corner. All we know today is that this judge was not willing to allow Apple to retaliate against the violating of one contract by withdrawing from the others, and that the judge was not willing to stop Apple from terminating the first contract after it was willfully violated by Epic. The larger discussion will likely take years to play out.
yupyup54133 6y ago
I'm confused. Why doesn't Apple just use their "Termination for Convenience" clause that lets them terminate any contract with a 30 day notice?
- diebeforei485 6y ago
  Two points- (1) Presumably Apple wanted to try to send a very quick message to others to not try to make similar moves (and to reassure other developers that Epic wasn't getting a special deal) instead of waiting 30 days. (2) I've said this before and it's important to understand this: just because a contract says Apple can do something (terminate the contract with Unreal Engine), that does not mean they can do it. If that were the case, the entire field of Contract Law need not exist.
  - echelon 6y ago
    Per item 1, now would be a good time for every single developer on the app store to revolt in unison. Collective bargaining.
    - dawnerd 6y ago
      and for every dev that left you'd have a shady one step in the fill the void.
      - meowface 6y ago
        "Apple: Think Moloch"
      - scarface74 6y ago
        You mean like all of the shady developers who are already in the App Store selling in app purchases for loot boxes, useless virtual currency and play to win games? I’m surprised (not really) that people are defending Epic but would never defend King (Candy Crush) or the makers of FarmVille. I would much rather see BaseCamp (Hey) or the company that was selling virtual workouts with real trainers take them to court. If Apple was really about protecting users and cared about the quality of the App Store they would prohibit in app purchases for games with consumables.
627467 6y ago
If Apple wanted (and they probably are doing it) they could heavily delay the approval of any apps that make use of an engine they seem "risky"... Effectively increasing the costs of those developers using "rogue" engines.
- 7tsfmCAusrQ 6y ago
  Of course the "risk" is primarily to Apple's own business interests - competition with Apple's own apps and services.
rolph 6y ago
i wonder if fortnite could be wrapped into an unreal SDK so there is some example code and tutorial materials. to wit fortnite code becomes part of the engine
Bender_Donaghy 6y ago
Change My Mind - I currently agree with Apple's strategy with blocking Unreal Engine. Why is it that a big company (like Epic) thinks it's no longer subject to the Apple Tax while us small guys thrive with the platform for which we wouldn't have the audience/opportuity without Apple. Are we all subject to the same cycle if we "make it", we'll buck against the 30% cut and bite the hand that fed us. This is bad business, it's going to create a stronger reaction by Apple that will only hurt the smaller guys. Plus is Epic doing anything to help us smaller developers in the mean time besides wasting money in a court system? Are they creating a fund for us help bridge us to a different system if their appeal fails? So please let me know your opinion, and if I'm wrong, please let me know why.
- wvenable 6y ago
  > We wouldn't have the audience/opportuity without Apple Is that worth 30% till the end of time? Your argument is like crabs in a bucket -- one crab tries to get a better deal and you pull him down because you have to pay. Lets say, somehow, Epic manages to get that fee lowered to something more reasonable for everyone. Would you not be happy with that?
  - parasubvert 6y ago
    This is the crux of the matter: is it anticompetitive to setup an ecosystem where you always get a cut? Generally, historically, no, this is not anticompetitive, especially given there is another ecosystem with far more market share (but maybe not profitability because more people spend money on iOS apps). Inserting yourself to take a cut for a service or a key component is good business practice, and built the empires that every student in business school or in tech entrepreneurship is taught to emulate. So long as the wealth pie grows, it isn’t rent seeking to keep taking your cut. What amazes me is that people think iOS and Apple (and even Android and Google) are near-permanent fixtures that should be regulated as utilities, rather than a temporary incumbent that will eventually be disrupted as the world changes. Microsoft’s reign of dictating terms to ISVs a lasted around 20 years. They’re still incredibly profitable and still take a cut of almost every PC sale (or XBox game / movie / tv show sale). They don’t have the clout they used to because the tech changed. At some point, new things will come, such as AR/VR, and we may see companies such as Valve and Oculus/Facebook become the new tech ecosystem dictators. The winner takes all dynamics of platforms seem to make this inevitable. Why enshrine Apple and Google as utilities now, when they’ll be less relevant in 10 years?
Betelgeuse90 6y ago
Some of my highlights: - "Irreparable Harm: The issue of irreparable harm focuses on the harm caused by not maintaining the status quo, as opposed to the separate and distinct element of a remedy under the likelihood of success factor. Here the court's evaluation is guided by the general notion that “self-inflicted wounds are not irreparable injury.” - "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." - "The Court further recognizes that during these coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) times, virtual escapes may assist in connecting people and providing a space that is otherwise unavailable. However, the showing is not sufficient to conclude that these considerations outweigh the general public interest in requiring private parties to adhere to their contractual agreements or in resolving business disputes through normal, albeit expedited, proceedings." - "With respect to the Unreal Engine and the developer tools, the calculus changes. The record shows potential significant damage to both the Unreal Engine platform itself, and to the gaming industry generally, including on both third-party developers and gamers. The public context in which this injury arises differs significantly: not only has the underlying agreement not been breached, but the economy is in dire need of increasing avenues for creativity and innovation, not eliminating them. Epic Games and Apple are at liberty to litigate against each other, but their dispute should not create havoc to bystanders."
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- treis 6y ago
  >"Irreparable Harm: The issue of irreparable harm focuses on the harm caused by not maintaining the status quo, as opposed to the separate and distinct element of a remedy under the likelihood of success factor. Here the court's evaluation is guided by the general notion that “self-inflicted wounds are not irreparable injury.” To add more color to this, the court refused an injunction to force Apple to enable Fortnite with the Epic payment processing. Epic can remove that and be admitted back to the App store. If Apple refuses at that point Epic would likely win an injunction to force them.
syspec 6y ago
Is the fact that epic has its own store on desktop, where they also take a cut, and also do not allow games to bypass their payment system relevant if this goes to trial? It seems a bit hypocritical even if the percent is lower
- redxdev 6y ago
  I'm not sure if Epic requires you to use their payment processor for IAPs, but even if they do it's not hypocritical in the slightest. The Epic Store isn't the only realistic way to sell a game/app/whatever on PC. That's the issue here - not that the store takes a cut, but that if you don't like the cut you have absolutely no way to try and go with an alternative. If I don't like the cut Epic takes in their store I can go with Steam. Or gog.com. Or itch.io. Or sell things myself on my own website. If I don't like the cut Apple takes in their store on iOS I can go with... nothing.
GeekyBear 6y ago
Epic seems to be asserting that access to Apple's developer tools requires a developer account. Since XCode is freely downloadable by anyone, does anybody know which tools they are talking about?
- t-writescode 6y ago
  Mac OS X?
- Mtinie 6y ago
  Code signing requires an Apple Developer account. Without being about to sign a package you can't publish to the App Store. You can develop apps for iOS and OS X, and then publish to (a) test device(s) from XCode without one, but that's about it.
  - GeekyBear 6y ago
    If I write an app that includes the Facebook SDK, that doesn't mean that Facebook is involved with submitting my app. As long as my developer account is valid, Facebook's account doesn't enter the equation when I am submitting an app that includes their SDK in any way I can see. Can someone shed more light on this?
    - LeifCarrotson 6y ago
      Facebook can't give you their SDK without having their own developer account.
      - GeekyBear 6y ago
        They don't appear to be having any difficulty sharing their SDK code publicly through GitHub. https://github.com/facebook/facebook-ios-sdk https://github.com/facebook/facebook-ios-sdk Or, more conveniently, through a dependency manager like CocoaPods. https://developers.facebook.com/docs/ios/componentsdks https://developers.facebook.com/docs/ios/componentsdks
    - 6y ago
UhDev 6y ago
I'd hate apple a lot less if I didn't have to target their shitty browser on any projects.
onetimemanytime 6y ago
Just wow: 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. Plus the more or less: why is this an emergency when you decided yourself when to violate the agreement?
dang 6y ago
Related discussion of the court ruling: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24268176 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24268176.
jiveturkey 6y ago
unfortunate, IMHO. Epic violated the terms, willfully. Apple should be able to evict them. Epic can bring a suit while adhering to the terms ...

409 points by jmsflknr 6y ago

https://9to5mac.com/2020/08/24/fortnite-ban-unreal-engine-apple-restrained/ https://9to5mac.com/2020/08/24/fortnite-ban-unreal-engine-ap... Non techcrunch link (as I can't access those with ublock/cookie wall blocker)

ffpip 6y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20200825071539/https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/24/apple-ordered-to-not-block-epic-games-unreal-engine-but-fortnite-to-stay-off-app-store/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200825071539/https://techcrunc...
ergwwrt 6y ago
always use http://cachedview.nl/ http://cachedview.nl/ to see blocked sites
- 1f60c 6y ago
  How have I never heard of this site before? Thanks!!

floatingatoll 6y ago

Dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24268176 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24268176

causality0 6y ago

A victory for sanity. Apple threatening developmental licenses and anyone who used the Unreal Engine was nothing short of mafia-esque, and just as obviously Fortnite being restored to the app store is a matter for Epic's lawsuit against apple.

philliphaydon 6y ago
Huh, Apple said it would disable Epic's developer accounts? They never threatened anyone using Unreal Engine, and I don't believe they specified UE Developer accounts. We can only speculate that UE Developer accounts would have been terminated as we don't really know if Apple was going to terminate those too as they belong to a separate company according to the court documents.
- modeless 6y ago
  Blocking Epic from developing Unreal Engine is a threat to anyone using it.
  - kergonath 6y ago
    Come on. “We’ll remove your license if you keep misbehaving” is in no way similar to “we’ll go after your users and remove their license”. It’s a threat in the long term, if Epic and Apple cannot negotiate something satisfying (which they will eventually, there’s just too much to lose for both of them), but let’s keep some perspective.
    - klmadfejno 6y ago
      If Apple does not allow Epic to develop Unreal Engine, and Unreal Engine 5 is subsequently not released for Apple computers, that feels like a substantial "threat to anyone using it" to me.
    - mantap 6y ago
      The effects are similar. iOS 14 will be out soon. Epic needs to prepare Unreal Engine to be compatible with it. How can they do this without any developer tools?
      - kergonath 6y ago
        No, the effects are not similar. If Apple removed the developers’ licenses, they could not put anything on the AppStore. If an update to the Unreal Engine gets delayed (I have no doubt it will be resolved at some point), then the current version keeps working on the OS on which it was tested, and the developer’s other applications can still be bought. There is no need for hyperbole.

jamesdhutton 6y ago

Can anyone explain exactly how Apple "blocks" Unreal Engine? I was under the impression that it's a 3rd-party library, available directly from Epic, that anybody is free to link their game to. So I'm struggling to understand the mechanism by which Apple blocks it. Any clarity on this would be appreciated.

compsciphd 6y ago
they revoked Epic's developer account. if Epic is restricted from getting the tools needed to further develop Unreal Engine, that effectively prevents Epic from doing further development on it.
- misnome 6y ago
  Aren’t the tools freely available without a developer account?
  - eru 6y ago
    Even those come with a license, and Apple could probably have specifically revoked that license from Epic. (I'm just speculating here.) It's not so much about what's technically possible, but about what's legally allowed.
  - pavlov 6y ago
    While you can download Xcode with just a regular Apple ID, you can't really test your code on an iOS device without an Apple developer account, so the usefulness would be limited.
    - dep_b 6y ago
      I have to use my own developer account basically every time I build an app for a customer until they got around to either inviting me to their team or creating their personal developer account. Unless Epic is filled with developers that never ever launched their own application not being part of the Epic developer account is an annoyance (and a familiar one for most iOS developers) at most. You don't need to deploy an SDK the only thing you would deploy are test builds of games that use the updated SDK.

pjmlp 6y ago

Epic is just the new gang in town establishing themselves while trying to get some shops under their control, by playing being against the long time block owners.

appleflaxen 6y ago
yes but you can't pre-bust monopolies. apple's market position is causing higher prices for consumers. therefore it should be busted. we just need to keep the same standard (or better: make it more strict; apple has been abusive for a long time) for when epic becomes the monopoly.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Apple market size is only relevant in North America and a couple of tier 1 western countries, hardly a monopoly.
  - jpambrun 6y ago
    No monopoly is a monopoly until it's a worldwide monopoly?
    - LexGray 6y ago
      Not current numbers but some old projections put 2020 projected android users would be around 127 million users in US. iOS projected 110 million in 2021 in US. Does 50% market share when achieved even equal a monopoly?
      - withinboredom 6y ago
        > Does 50% market share when achieved even equal a monopoly? In the US, yes. Defacto monopoly.
  - cma 6y ago
    Monopoly on customers with lots of expendable income, who account for most App Store revenue.

IvanK_net 6y ago

I still wonder why so many people buy devices, where the only software you could run has to be approved by the manufacturer. I think we should speak more about this fact, so that people think twice before they buy some device. I only make websites, but I am worried, that at some point, Apple would want me to pay them, so that my website is openable on their devices.

m-p-3 6y ago
> I still wonder why so many people buy devices, where the only software you could run has to be approved by the manufacturer. Because most of them don't really care until it directly impacts them, and because Apple spends a huge amount of money on their marketing.
foxdev 6y ago
I only do a handful of things on my phone, and I need it to do those things reliably. My new laptop, on the other hand, opens with a Philips head screwdriver and almost everything can be replaced or upgraded. Different priorities for different needs.
Broken_Hippo 6y ago
Lack of realistic choice. If you are the average consumer looking to buy a smartphone, you have the choice of either Android or Apple. You get more choice with a PC, to an extent - the average consumer is going to get to choose between Microsoft, something like a chromebook, or apple. (Most folks buy mainstream, widely available products that work out of the box). I'm not sure the market for non-standard products is that high. A non-significant number of folks wouldn't put anything on their computer that hasn't been approved for fear of "bad things".
- skohan 6y ago
  Windows, Apple and Chromebooks are all proprietary platforms. With PC you also have the choice to install Linux, which is the categorical difference. With smartphones there's not really an open choice available.

dgellow 6y ago

Could someone explain what was Apple trying to do? I really don't get their position in this story. It seemed obvious that trying to completely block Epic's Unreal Engine would be causing more legal issues. What is their strategy here? It feels that they actually wanted things to escalate, though I cannot see why they would do this.

IvanK_net 6y ago
Each app or game, which runs on iOS devices, should pay Apple 30% of their revenue. These are billions of dollars each year. The Fortnite game wanted to avoid this fee of 30% by making the game free to download, but the users could pay directly inside the game (the payment mechanism did not go through Apple). If more apps or games do that, Apple would lose a lot of money. Also, Apple App store is the only way to get apps and games into iOS devices. So if I make a game and I want you to play it, and you know me and my game and you want to play it too, Apple is a "third person", who can stop us from doing so.
- dgellow 6y ago
  You're talking about the reason Apple had to remove Fortnite following Epic Game's decision to add their own payment option. That doesn't explain why they reacted so aggressively towards Epic's Unreal Engine by threatening to block it.
  - summerlight 6y ago
    I'm pretty sure that Apple wanted to send an obvious signal to its developers. After Spotify, apparently Apple has decided not to like this kind of antitrust challenges from third party developers, which might be harder than those from users. The simplest option would be threatening developers with retaliation, something like "If you piss me off, I'll make your life miserable". I don't have a gut to fight against such thing, and I guess the same thing may apply to more than 99.9% of other developers as well. This also happened to their internal employees (lawsuit against Gerard Williams III), so I'm not very surprised.
  - 6y ago

amelius 6y ago

Will this pave the way for Firefox using the Gecko engine instead of Webkit in its iOS browser? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_for_iOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_for_iOS

madeofpalk 6y ago
no, not in any way.

hellisothers 6y ago

I find a lot of the comments here split down “I want app regulation because I feel it provides a layer of safety and safety is good for the consumer” vs “I want more freedom and choice because choice is good and is better for the consumer”. Which brings to mind two things This sounds similar to the current brouhaha happening in the US over America’s inclination towards personal freedom at all cost even when govt regulation could/should step in the make things better. A concern that once “freedom of choice of App Store” is provided, where does it stop because ultimately those demanding choice will keep demanding aspects be “open up” “for fairness” until iOS isn’t special anymore. Part of what makes it special _is_ it’s regulation, if you don’t want that then “choose” elsewhere. This aspect feels like the problem in the US of big business battling for deregulation which... isn’t always so great. I’m not saying “Apple is doing it for the people!”, necessarily but Apple is doing it to be Apple, let’s not make everything the same.

devwastaken 6y ago
There's only two choices, which means the market is monopalized. If apple had been reasonable we wouldn't be having this discussion. Apple has shown it can no longer reasonably regulate its own market and will not be the Shepard. Their significant efforts of verticle integration from hardware to software shows their inclination to creating walled garden markets that compete at the economy of scale and are designed to eliminate competition. No company is allowed to control a market of other companies without oversight. Given that oversight from apple is corrupted it must be provided in other means.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  > There's only two choices, which means the market is monopalized. Literally not what monopolized means.
  - damnyou 6y ago
    Duopolized. The rest of the argument still holds, and a weaker form of it holds for Google as well, since stores like F-Droid can't do everything that Google Play can. Please steelman the arguments you disagree with.

shmerl 6y ago

They also should be blasted for forbidding competing browsers all this time.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

jaimex2 6y ago

Shame, blocking the Unreal engine would have hurt Apple a lot more than Epic though lets face it the real losers would have been developers.

spott 6y ago
How do you figure? Apple's customers usually have gaming as a pretty low priority for purchasing of Apple products. The PR hit?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

diebeforei485 6y ago

I'm always frustrated by journalists who never mention the case number (why not?), let alone link to a copy of the actual ruling. Here's a PDF of the ruling, I think it's worth reading: https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21814075/cf2dcbbf_4f0b_4762_94fc_6b0f42ede3ff.pdf https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21814075/c...

henryfjordan 6y ago
> why not? Easy: a link off their site doesn't earn them any money. They want to you stay on their domain.
- alkonaut 6y ago
  Is there a news site that does the opposite? Always cites sources, provide ample links throughout text? that’s the site I’d subscribe to.
  - aptgetrekt 6y ago
    Exactly! Ars Technica usually does a pretty good job.
  - joshvm 6y ago
    Believe it or not, Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events
    - alkonaut 6y ago
      Thanks. That works for international news reporting. It's a bit thin on local coverage, and anything that is non-news but usually part of a newspaper (opinion/debate, reviews...) isn't there. The easier it is to get the news bit everywhere, the more important the other parts of a newspaper becomes to me.
  - scott31 6y ago
    There is something called Hacker News

zaroth 6y ago

It would be nice if everyone could start by agreeing that that there's actually a nuanced discussion to be had about how "anti-competitive" a company can be, and also how that answer might change based on the size and profitability of the company under discussion. If your position is that your opinion is absolutely correct and there's no room for discussion, why post at all? It's just ideological battle. With that said, I am naturally inclined to believe that businesses should have a lot of control over the products they create. My baseline is that I want to be as unencumbered as possible in my product vision and the experience I offer my users, and I'd like minimal government restrictions on my desired UX unless consumers' physical health or safety is on the line. I see the choice of how third parties should be able to create and sell code that runs on a platform I have created as sacrosanct, from the drawing board, up to the day the first unit is shipped, the developer gets to decide. As my code is my own written word, it is akin to my First Amendment right to free speech. However, I'm willing to accept that somewhere along the journey from that very first prototype, to the 1,000,000,000th unit shipped, the equation shifts. Most products, that is to say non-open source software, by their very nature, are non-trivially anti-competitive in some way. It is the same thing to say that the product is differentiated. I have a BA in Economics, but I'm a long time out of school, so I may be clobbering this definition, but "a product is differentiated in the marketplace to the extend that a product has a feature or benefit or functionality that is not equivalently provided by every other substitute in that market." In order for a product to remain differentiated, it therefore must be non-trivially "anti-competitive". Maybe it makes sense to dive into the definition of that word more deeply, but I don't want to waste your time. My point is simply that "anti-competitive" is synonymous with any market that is not perfectly commoditized. Hopefully it's uncontroversial to claim that "anti-competitive" is not fundamentally bad per se. It's well recognized that anti-competitive behavior which at one scale is fundamental to a diverse marketplace of products and services which drives innovation, value, and consumer choice, at another scale is used to lock-out potential new market entrants, and enable excessive profitability or rent-seeking behavior. The words "monopoly" and "duopoly" usefully describes the ultimate/penultimate theoretical states of such a market, but they don't adequately describe that various ways we can approach such a limit in the real world. Apple is not a monopoly, but that does not mean that there should not perhaps be elevated limits on acceptable anti-competitive behavior on their part based on the specific facts of their market position. I think it is also self-evident that it is an extraordinary remedy to judicially limit anti-competitive behavior targeted at a specific company in a competitive market. Indeed when we enjoin a company from making their products function in ways that are quite central to that product's highly differentiated user experience, yes it may grant choice to some customers of that product to operate it in new ways, it is also taking choice away from customers who may have chosen the product for exactly the functionality being target. This to me is an extremely heavy handed remedy, and should only be deployed against a company if it is absolutely warranted based on unlawful conduct by that company. While the case before the judge today was simply a preliminary hearing on a injunction, and therefore not by any means a ruling on the fundamental issue, we can see this balancing act being employed in the current case. The contract that Epic willingly entered into with Apple and willingly violated is placed in one corner (blocking Fortnite) while the separate contract(s) of developers using Epic's Unreal Engine is placed in another corner. All we know today is that this judge was not willing to allow Apple to retaliate against the violating of one contract by withdrawing from the others, and that the judge was not willing to stop Apple from terminating the first contract after it was willfully violated by Epic. The larger discussion will likely take years to play out.

yupyup54133 6y ago

I'm confused. Why doesn't Apple just use their "Termination for Convenience" clause that lets them terminate any contract with a 30 day notice?

diebeforei485 6y ago
Two points- (1) Presumably Apple wanted to try to send a very quick message to others to not try to make similar moves (and to reassure other developers that Epic wasn't getting a special deal) instead of waiting 30 days. (2) I've said this before and it's important to understand this: just because a contract says Apple can do something (terminate the contract with Unreal Engine), that does not mean they can do it. If that were the case, the entire field of Contract Law need not exist.
- echelon 6y ago
  Per item 1, now would be a good time for every single developer on the app store to revolt in unison. Collective bargaining.
  - dawnerd 6y ago
    and for every dev that left you'd have a shady one step in the fill the void.
    - meowface 6y ago
      "Apple: Think Moloch"
    - scarface74 6y ago
      You mean like all of the shady developers who are already in the App Store selling in app purchases for loot boxes, useless virtual currency and play to win games? I’m surprised (not really) that people are defending Epic but would never defend King (Candy Crush) or the makers of FarmVille. I would much rather see BaseCamp (Hey) or the company that was selling virtual workouts with real trainers take them to court. If Apple was really about protecting users and cared about the quality of the App Store they would prohibit in app purchases for games with consumables.

627467 6y ago

If Apple wanted (and they probably are doing it) they could heavily delay the approval of any apps that make use of an engine they seem "risky"... Effectively increasing the costs of those developers using "rogue" engines.

7tsfmCAusrQ 6y ago
Of course the "risk" is primarily to Apple's own business interests - competition with Apple's own apps and services.

rolph 6y ago

i wonder if fortnite could be wrapped into an unreal SDK so there is some example code and tutorial materials. to wit fortnite code becomes part of the engine

Bender_Donaghy 6y ago

Change My Mind - I currently agree with Apple's strategy with blocking Unreal Engine. Why is it that a big company (like Epic) thinks it's no longer subject to the Apple Tax while us small guys thrive with the platform for which we wouldn't have the audience/opportuity without Apple. Are we all subject to the same cycle if we "make it", we'll buck against the 30% cut and bite the hand that fed us. This is bad business, it's going to create a stronger reaction by Apple that will only hurt the smaller guys. Plus is Epic doing anything to help us smaller developers in the mean time besides wasting money in a court system? Are they creating a fund for us help bridge us to a different system if their appeal fails? So please let me know your opinion, and if I'm wrong, please let me know why.

wvenable 6y ago
> We wouldn't have the audience/opportuity without Apple Is that worth 30% till the end of time? Your argument is like crabs in a bucket -- one crab tries to get a better deal and you pull him down because you have to pay. Lets say, somehow, Epic manages to get that fee lowered to something more reasonable for everyone. Would you not be happy with that?
- parasubvert 6y ago
  This is the crux of the matter: is it anticompetitive to setup an ecosystem where you always get a cut? Generally, historically, no, this is not anticompetitive, especially given there is another ecosystem with far more market share (but maybe not profitability because more people spend money on iOS apps). Inserting yourself to take a cut for a service or a key component is good business practice, and built the empires that every student in business school or in tech entrepreneurship is taught to emulate. So long as the wealth pie grows, it isn’t rent seeking to keep taking your cut. What amazes me is that people think iOS and Apple (and even Android and Google) are near-permanent fixtures that should be regulated as utilities, rather than a temporary incumbent that will eventually be disrupted as the world changes. Microsoft’s reign of dictating terms to ISVs a lasted around 20 years. They’re still incredibly profitable and still take a cut of almost every PC sale (or XBox game / movie / tv show sale). They don’t have the clout they used to because the tech changed. At some point, new things will come, such as AR/VR, and we may see companies such as Valve and Oculus/Facebook become the new tech ecosystem dictators. The winner takes all dynamics of platforms seem to make this inevitable. Why enshrine Apple and Google as utilities now, when they’ll be less relevant in 10 years?

Betelgeuse90 6y ago

Some of my highlights: - "Irreparable Harm: The issue of irreparable harm focuses on the harm caused by not maintaining the status quo, as opposed to the separate and distinct element of a remedy under the likelihood of success factor. Here the court's evaluation is guided by the general notion that “self-inflicted wounds are not irreparable injury.” - "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." - "The Court further recognizes that during these coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) times, virtual escapes may assist in connecting people and providing a space that is otherwise unavailable. However, the showing is not sufficient to conclude that these considerations outweigh the general public interest in requiring private parties to adhere to their contractual agreements or in resolving business disputes through normal, albeit expedited, proceedings." - "With respect to the Unreal Engine and the developer tools, the calculus changes. The record shows potential significant damage to both the Unreal Engine platform itself, and to the gaming industry generally, including on both third-party developers and gamers. The public context in which this injury arises differs significantly: not only has the underlying agreement not been breached, but the economy is in dire need of increasing avenues for creativity and innovation, not eliminating them. Epic Games and Apple are at liberty to litigate against each other, but their dispute should not create havoc to bystanders."

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
treis 6y ago
>"Irreparable Harm: The issue of irreparable harm focuses on the harm caused by not maintaining the status quo, as opposed to the separate and distinct element of a remedy under the likelihood of success factor. Here the court's evaluation is guided by the general notion that “self-inflicted wounds are not irreparable injury.” To add more color to this, the court refused an injunction to force Apple to enable Fortnite with the Epic payment processing. Epic can remove that and be admitted back to the App store. If Apple refuses at that point Epic would likely win an injunction to force them.

syspec 6y ago

Is the fact that epic has its own store on desktop, where they also take a cut, and also do not allow games to bypass their payment system relevant if this goes to trial? It seems a bit hypocritical even if the percent is lower

redxdev 6y ago
I'm not sure if Epic requires you to use their payment processor for IAPs, but even if they do it's not hypocritical in the slightest. The Epic Store isn't the only realistic way to sell a game/app/whatever on PC. That's the issue here - not that the store takes a cut, but that if you don't like the cut you have absolutely no way to try and go with an alternative. If I don't like the cut Epic takes in their store I can go with Steam. Or gog.com. Or itch.io. Or sell things myself on my own website. If I don't like the cut Apple takes in their store on iOS I can go with... nothing.

GeekyBear 6y ago

Epic seems to be asserting that access to Apple's developer tools requires a developer account. Since XCode is freely downloadable by anyone, does anybody know which tools they are talking about?

t-writescode 6y ago
Mac OS X?
Mtinie 6y ago
Code signing requires an Apple Developer account. Without being about to sign a package you can't publish to the App Store. You can develop apps for iOS and OS X, and then publish to (a) test device(s) from XCode without one, but that's about it.
- GeekyBear 6y ago
  If I write an app that includes the Facebook SDK, that doesn't mean that Facebook is involved with submitting my app. As long as my developer account is valid, Facebook's account doesn't enter the equation when I am submitting an app that includes their SDK in any way I can see. Can someone shed more light on this?
  - LeifCarrotson 6y ago
    Facebook can't give you their SDK without having their own developer account.
    - GeekyBear 6y ago
      They don't appear to be having any difficulty sharing their SDK code publicly through GitHub. https://github.com/facebook/facebook-ios-sdk https://github.com/facebook/facebook-ios-sdk Or, more conveniently, through a dependency manager like CocoaPods. https://developers.facebook.com/docs/ios/componentsdks https://developers.facebook.com/docs/ios/componentsdks
  - 6y ago

UhDev 6y ago

I'd hate apple a lot less if I didn't have to target their shitty browser on any projects.

onetimemanytime 6y ago

Just wow: 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. Plus the more or less: why is this an emergency when you decided yourself when to violate the agreement?

dang 6y ago

Related discussion of the court ruling: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24268176 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24268176.

jiveturkey 6y ago

unfortunate, IMHO. Epic violated the terms, willfully. Apple should be able to evict them. Epic can bring a suit while adhering to the terms ...