13 ms·

Apple writes in their court filing: “Epic sought to enjoy all of the benefits of Apple’s iOS platform and related services while its ‘hotfix’ lined Epic’s pocke

Apple writes in their court filing: “Epic sought to enjoy all of the benefits of Apple’s iOS platform and related services while its ‘hotfix’ lined Epic’s pockets at Apple’s expense.” It seems that Apple has forgotten that each iPhone user already paid Apple hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars for the iPhone itself. It is reasonable to charge developers for development tools, but if that's what you want to do, just charge them for development tools. Meanwhile, I bought an iPhone so that I can run the software that I like. If it costs money to develop a platform, it doesn't seem that strange to just charge that upfront when someone buys an iPhone.

anm89 6y ago
While in principle I agree with you, if Epic signed an agreement that they owed Apple a percent based on initial terms, then that is out the window.
- kevingadd 6y ago
  Their whole argument is that the agreement shouldn't be enforceable, which is why they sued first. Naturally, that means they signed the agreement.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    Sounds like, at least temporarily, the court believes the agreement to be enforceable. >In a ruling late last month, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers largely rejected similar arguments Epic made in seeking a restraining order against Apple regarding Fortnite development on iOS. There was no "irreparable harm" to Epic, Rogers wrote, because "the current predicament appears of [Epic's] own making." > "Your client created this situation," Rogers told lawyers for Epic in an August hearing. "Your client does not come to this action with clean hands... in my view, you cannot have irreparable harm when you create the harm yourself." > "The court recommended that Epic comply with the App Store guidelines while their case moves forward, guidelines they’ve followed for the past decade until they created this situation," Apple said in a statement earlier this month." Epic has refused. Instead they "repeatedly submit Fortnite updates designed to violate the guidelines of the App Store." EDIT: @gpm The status quo you refer to is Epic abiding by the agreement they argue is unenforceable. I have to be mindful about my reply quantity, HN throttles me otherwise, hence the edit. https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/08/judge-issues-restraining-order-protecting-unreal-engine-development-on-ios/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/08/judge-issues-restrain...
    - gpm 6y ago
      Irreparable harm here means no harm that would be caused by not granting a temporary restraining order that could not be fixed by granting a preliminarily injunction later, or cured in a final ruling. It does not mean there is no harm (edit: Or that the agreement is enforceable). The idea is just that the judge is generally going to maintain the status quo during the TRO phase (this policy exists because there has been such little time for legal argument at the point that a TRO is requested). I don't see that any of these quotes are at all responsive to the person you are responding to. > EDIT: @gpm The status quo is Epic abiding by the agreement they argue unenforcable. Heh, just so you know you can reply to new comments by clicking on the timestamp and then clicking reply. Anyways, I think I must be missing your point? The person you replied to appeared to be arguing about what the final ruling should be not about whether or not a TRO should be granted (which is where the status quo arguments come in).
- kwanbix 6y ago
  That something is written on a contract does not means that is enforceable. If not I will create a contract that says you are now the president and you will still not be.
  - bad_user 6y ago
    The contract developers have with Apple involves use of Apple's property. A contract may not be enforceable, but only if it contradicts the law. In this instance, I don't see how.
    - kevingadd 6y ago
      What physical property of Apple's is involved here? There's intellectual property, but at the end of the day the purpose of their Intellectual Property Rights in this scenario is to ensure that after paying them $1000 for a phone they still get to collect 30% of all the purchases you make using that phone in perpetuity (as long as they can get away with it), while also limiting what you can do with your Physical Property that you paid for. I suppose if you don't like it you can go buy an Android phone and just give away all your data in addition to the 30%. Also worth considering: How much of Apple's intellectual property here could exist without them harvesting decades of free/open software development history unpaid? And now they're complaining that someone used their SDK after paying the license fees?
    - gpm 6y ago
      > I don't see how. I suggest you read up on this dispute then, because the whole cause of this dispute is that Epic believes the contract violates anti-trust law.
  - parasubvert 6y ago
    Apple’s contract is completely normal though. Resale distribution channels for locked in platforms aren’t new: Ticketmaster, PlayStation, Nintendo, Xbox, etc The only difference is people want to change the rules because they feel Apple (and Google) have won the game forever and App Stores should now be regulated like utilities.
- summerlight 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability It's called an unconscionable contract. Epic's argument is that you cannot enforce unfair things even if you signed on it. Of course, the court is going to decide if it's really unfair, neither Epic nor Apple.
  - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
    Unconscionable is not the same as "unfair" in the commonly understood sense. I would be interested to see a solid case decided on unconscionability where both parties are multi-billion dollar companies with substantial resources to spend on negotiating contracts. If "I really want what you're selling, but it's kinda expensive" is the new standard for unconscionability, then we're all in big trouble.
untog 6y ago
"at Apple's expense" really surprised me in that statement, too. Certainly, Epic's move denied Apple money they would have earned, but "at their expense" makes it sound like Epic was going to bankrupt them.
- gpm 6y ago
  I think from Apple's perspective here Epic's move did two things. It denied both Apple and Epic revenue by decreasing sales. It moved revenue from Apple to Epic by moving the commission on the sales that did happen from Apple to Epic. I believe this is what they're complaining about with the "lined Epic’s pockets at Apple’s expense", i.e. they are arguing that they are entitled to that commission on the transactions that went through the 3rd party payment provider.
  - salawat 6y ago
    Ah yes, the mythical "lost potential sale/revenue" quantum ogre. Truly the fiercest of courtroom opponents.
- Hippocrates 6y ago
  Hmm, "at their expense" sounds incredibly accurate to me, but outside of the literal interpretation, this is usually used in a more dramatic way.
noahtallen 6y ago
> just charge them for development tools Thing is, Apple still charges $100 USD per year for a developer license which lets you distribute your app, so this is already happening! :)
- dgellow 6y ago
  Even worse. $100 is for individual developers, it’s $299 per year for organizations. Google asks for $25, once, for a team that can be an individual or an organization, as you wish.
  - hinkley 6y ago
    Even wor... really? That is less than the coffee bean budget for a month at most of these organizations. They probably spend more than that a year on parts and labor for the coffee equipment. That organization fee is a token fee. A little friction so that it makes you serious and it stings a bit if it gets cancelled. To maybe not faff about and get down to shipping a product. A few bucks to cover things like CA maintenance and help fund some outreach programs I suspect. $100 for individuals might be a bit on the steep side, I'll grant you. Or a stick to get you to become an organization as soon as possible.
    - zakki 6y ago
      Even worse is in relation with 30% cut. They charge $100 per year for the development tools. Yet, the outcome of the development tools must be sold in Apple market with 30% cut.
    - dgellow 6y ago
      It’s 10 times the $25 from Google Play, and is per year. That’s in addition to the $100 that you have for the Apple store as far I understood their documentation.
      - hinkley 6y ago
        I mean, that's 12x, but last I heard you also make about 8x as much money on iOS as you do on Google Play, so dickering over $274 is still petty.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
supernova87a 6y ago
Well to be specific, buying the iPhone comes with access to apps through the the App Store, not any software that you like. That's clear to almost everyone I would think. And it comes without any statement/guarantee about how Apple charges the developers or the agreements there. Most people have no idea, and don't care. Some apps choose to make their apps free, others choose to charge fees. Some want to have their in-app purchases charged 30%, others don't. Lots of products charge you an upfront fee, and then more fees for various things in addition. I don't think you've got much of a leg to stand on with that argument. That would be like saying, I paid for my cell phone, I don't think that cellular carriers should charge me again for the monthly service -- they should bundle it all one. It's a design and pricing choice. And you buy in or you don't.
- belltaco 6y ago
  >That would be like saying, I paid for my cell phone, I don't think that cellular carriers should charge me again for the monthly service -- they should bundle it all one. Bad analogy, it'd be like buying the cell tower and getting charged for using it.
  - XMPPwocky 6y ago
    I bet this happens- I'm sure somebody will sell you, say, a 1-year license for software required to run an eNB or whatever. Don't pay? No working cell tower for you.
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  > your buying the iPhone comes with access to apps through the the App Store, not any software that you like And that's a problem. I am buying an iPhone, per Apple, not renting it. Therefore I should be allowed to run whatever I please on my hardware.
  - supernova87a 6y ago
    > Therefore I should be allowed to run whatever I please on my hardware. Well, that can definitely be your opinion. But whether that's fact or supported by our current laws is not at all certain. Let's at least be clear what's fact and what's desire.
swivelmaster 6y ago
What is boggling my mind about this is that Apple CLEARLY has a case because Epic violated the TOS, but they're stretching waaaaaay out there with the dramatic language and seeking punitive damages. (Especially since... come on, punitive damages for something that was live for less than 24 hours?)
- erendrake 6y ago
  I'm guessing that apple is trying to push their claim as far as they can to set case law as far out as they can. This kind of case decided in their favor can move that overton window quite a bit
- jdlshore 6y ago
  High-stakes legal battles don't work the way you think they should.
- CubsFan1060 6y ago
  It's still live. Just can't be downloaded or updated. But you can still make purchases with it if you've already got it on your phone.
- parasubvert 6y ago
  This isn’t mind boggling, this is how legal arguments are made. The punitive damages are about the what was caused by the ad campaign. Judges have a lot of leeway here if they don’t like how companies act.
- simonh 6y ago
  This is simply par for the course business as usual. Apple can’t let Epic simply deny them revenue, and they also can’t let them do so knowingly and deliberately without punishment. It would be amazing and shocking if they didn’t do this, it’s simply, a logical consequence of their legal position.
Traster 6y ago
> It is reasonable to charge developers for development tools, but if that's what you want to do, just charge them for development tools. This isn't how the software development eco-system works. There are tonnes of examples of providing free development tools with restrictions on use and revenue sharing agreements. For example, there's this little known company called Epic Games which provides the Unreal Engine for free- but with the following clause: > This license is free to use and incurs 5% royalties when you monetize your game or other interactive off-the-shelf product and your lifetime gross revenues from that product exceed $1,000,000 USD. And Epic doesn't even provide quality control, a discovery mechanism, or payment processing.
- kevingadd 6y ago
  Well, if they were charging 30% maybe you could expect those services.
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  You pay Apple a developer fee. It's not free.
- beaner 6y ago
  They seem not quite the same to me. A game built with Unreal Engine is essentially powered by it and would not exist otherwise. A game deployed to an iPhone could theoretically be acquired through an alternative app store or just direct download. Apple's app store provides no utility to developers other than being the forced walled monopoly that all developers must list through. The proper analogy to Epic charging for its game engine is Apple charging for its developer licenses - which it already does separately from the app store.
  - simonh 6y ago
    So if stores don’t provide any utility over side loading, how come Epic gave up on relying on side loading on Android, which allows it, and ended up on the Play Store? It’s literally that exact scenario.
    - 6y ago
nullc 6y ago
The customer is the product isn't just limited to advertising companies. It follows naturally that Apple considers you their property and believes they can control others doing business with you. Which, in fact, they can-- if you use their products. There is, however, a straightforward way to stop them: Don't use their products.
- simonh 6y ago
  The other way to look at it is that I as a user hire Apple to vet and QA the apps released for iOS and manage my relationship with all those developers on my behalf. That’s the deal I knowingly enter into when I buy an iPhone and I’m quite happy with it. If others aren’t happy with it that’s fine too, just get a different phone. I don’t see any justification for coercing Apple into entering into commercial arrangements and developing product features they don’t want to support.
  - nullc 6y ago
    This way of looking at it doesn't justify _apple_ having a cause of action against epic for seeking to do business with you, consensually, without apple's intervention.
    - dodobirdlord 6y ago
      Sure it does, Apple has a cause of action against Epic for violating a contractual arrangement, which has nothing to do with anyone other than Epic and Apple. The only caveat is that the contractual relationship in question might be found to be illegal. But it's not as though this isn't a case between Apple and Epic about a contract dispute.
- cf_ 6y ago
  True, you could stop using their products, but you could also argue that when you buy a product (and not a software license), you should be able to do what you like with that product. It should certainly be within the customers rights to use a physical product the best way they see fit and not the best way the manufacturer sees fit. I mean: I paid for it outright, I received what essentially is a computer by all means and now the manufacturer would like to continue having a say in how I can use it. I‘ll admit that having the Apple iOS ecosystem is of certain value, but Apple doesn‘t even allow you to install your own OS. My point is that if I buy a hammer, should I be forced to use it only for hammering nails or could I use it for other things as well?
m3kw9 6y ago
What does user paying have to do with Epic lining their pockets with this move?
balls187 6y ago
> If it costs money to develop a platform, it doesn't seem that strange to just charge that upfront when someone buys an iPhone. Epic runs their own digital distribution platform, in which they also take a cut of the sales. Their terms are different than Apples, but they still do take a cut of sales. Epic also takes 5% royalties for any (non-free) game built with Epic's Unreal Engine. Epic and Apple have the same business model, however Epic's terms are not as high as Apples. On the other hand, Epic makes a lot of money selling "cosmetics" and loot boxes. In effect, you have a company that has profited immensely from gambling, going after a company that has profited immensely due to their own closed ecosystem. (also not to mention Epic blatantly ripped off the success of PUBG when they switched Fortnite to be a Battle Royale game)
- jrockway 6y ago
  It doesn't really matter what Epic is doing. Loot boxes, game engines, and game mechanics aren't the issue here. The issue is that I, a user of an iPhone, should be able to install whatever software I want. You know what? I played Fortnite and I hated it. I won't be installing Fortnite or buying any skins for it. But, Epic has the right to offer their product to me without interference. Apple already has $1000 of my money (actually wayyyy more than that), and now I don't want them involved in my life anymore. I think I'm entitled to that. > (also not to mention Epic blatantly ripped off the success of PUBG when they switched Fortnite to be a Battle Royale game) I think Epic did it better. That's why we don't give intellectual property rights to vague ideas like "100 players parachute into an island and shoot each other" or "after a certain amount of time a circle kills people outside of it". PUBG had their take -- super boring stakeouts to get hyper-realistic weapons. Fortnite had their take -- cartoony jumping around while you build forts. Players can choose which they want to play. (And, of course, there are like 8 billion other battle royales.)
  - balls187 6y ago
    > The issue is that I, a user of an iPhone, should be able to install whatever software I want. And, likewise, Apple, as the platform owner, should be able to deny access whatever software they want. You can of course, jailbreak your iphone, or install PWA's that work.
mstolpm 6y ago
The price the customer pays is clearly for the package of hardware, operating system and (some) services. The 30% cut developers pay is for a monetized access to Apples iOS APIs. The 99$ fee is for access to developer tools, review processing, "free" access to the platform and more. Different sides, different business concepts.
- caf 6y ago
  No, the 30% vig developers pay (both Apple and Google) is for access to the customers. It's what you're being sold for.
EGreg 6y ago
That’s like the argument for net neutrality because one side already paid for the service. Why can’t both sides pay? I am an advocate for open source, but I am just wondering in principle what is your argument exactly?

anm89 6y ago

While in principle I agree with you, if Epic signed an agreement that they owed Apple a percent based on initial terms, then that is out the window.

kevingadd 6y ago
Their whole argument is that the agreement shouldn't be enforceable, which is why they sued first. Naturally, that means they signed the agreement.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  Sounds like, at least temporarily, the court believes the agreement to be enforceable. >In a ruling late last month, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers largely rejected similar arguments Epic made in seeking a restraining order against Apple regarding Fortnite development on iOS. There was no "irreparable harm" to Epic, Rogers wrote, because "the current predicament appears of [Epic's] own making." > "Your client created this situation," Rogers told lawyers for Epic in an August hearing. "Your client does not come to this action with clean hands... in my view, you cannot have irreparable harm when you create the harm yourself." > "The court recommended that Epic comply with the App Store guidelines while their case moves forward, guidelines they’ve followed for the past decade until they created this situation," Apple said in a statement earlier this month." Epic has refused. Instead they "repeatedly submit Fortnite updates designed to violate the guidelines of the App Store." EDIT: @gpm The status quo you refer to is Epic abiding by the agreement they argue is unenforceable. I have to be mindful about my reply quantity, HN throttles me otherwise, hence the edit. https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/08/judge-issues-restraining-order-protecting-unreal-engine-development-on-ios/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/08/judge-issues-restrain...
  - gpm 6y ago
    Irreparable harm here means no harm that would be caused by not granting a temporary restraining order that could not be fixed by granting a preliminarily injunction later, or cured in a final ruling. It does not mean there is no harm (edit: Or that the agreement is enforceable). The idea is just that the judge is generally going to maintain the status quo during the TRO phase (this policy exists because there has been such little time for legal argument at the point that a TRO is requested). I don't see that any of these quotes are at all responsive to the person you are responding to. > EDIT: @gpm The status quo is Epic abiding by the agreement they argue unenforcable. Heh, just so you know you can reply to new comments by clicking on the timestamp and then clicking reply. Anyways, I think I must be missing your point? The person you replied to appeared to be arguing about what the final ruling should be not about whether or not a TRO should be granted (which is where the status quo arguments come in).
kwanbix 6y ago
That something is written on a contract does not means that is enforceable. If not I will create a contract that says you are now the president and you will still not be.
- bad_user 6y ago
  The contract developers have with Apple involves use of Apple's property. A contract may not be enforceable, but only if it contradicts the law. In this instance, I don't see how.
  - kevingadd 6y ago
    What physical property of Apple's is involved here? There's intellectual property, but at the end of the day the purpose of their Intellectual Property Rights in this scenario is to ensure that after paying them $1000 for a phone they still get to collect 30% of all the purchases you make using that phone in perpetuity (as long as they can get away with it), while also limiting what you can do with your Physical Property that you paid for. I suppose if you don't like it you can go buy an Android phone and just give away all your data in addition to the 30%. Also worth considering: How much of Apple's intellectual property here could exist without them harvesting decades of free/open software development history unpaid? And now they're complaining that someone used their SDK after paying the license fees?
  - gpm 6y ago
    > I don't see how. I suggest you read up on this dispute then, because the whole cause of this dispute is that Epic believes the contract violates anti-trust law.
- parasubvert 6y ago
  Apple’s contract is completely normal though. Resale distribution channels for locked in platforms aren’t new: Ticketmaster, PlayStation, Nintendo, Xbox, etc The only difference is people want to change the rules because they feel Apple (and Google) have won the game forever and App Stores should now be regulated like utilities.
summerlight 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability It's called an unconscionable contract. Epic's argument is that you cannot enforce unfair things even if you signed on it. Of course, the court is going to decide if it's really unfair, neither Epic nor Apple.
- NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
  Unconscionable is not the same as "unfair" in the commonly understood sense. I would be interested to see a solid case decided on unconscionability where both parties are multi-billion dollar companies with substantial resources to spend on negotiating contracts. If "I really want what you're selling, but it's kinda expensive" is the new standard for unconscionability, then we're all in big trouble.

untog 6y ago

"at Apple's expense" really surprised me in that statement, too. Certainly, Epic's move denied Apple money they would have earned, but "at their expense" makes it sound like Epic was going to bankrupt them.

gpm 6y ago
I think from Apple's perspective here Epic's move did two things. It denied both Apple and Epic revenue by decreasing sales. It moved revenue from Apple to Epic by moving the commission on the sales that did happen from Apple to Epic. I believe this is what they're complaining about with the "lined Epic’s pockets at Apple’s expense", i.e. they are arguing that they are entitled to that commission on the transactions that went through the 3rd party payment provider.
- salawat 6y ago
  Ah yes, the mythical "lost potential sale/revenue" quantum ogre. Truly the fiercest of courtroom opponents.
Hippocrates 6y ago
Hmm, "at their expense" sounds incredibly accurate to me, but outside of the literal interpretation, this is usually used in a more dramatic way.

noahtallen 6y ago

> just charge them for development tools Thing is, Apple still charges $100 USD per year for a developer license which lets you distribute your app, so this is already happening! :)

dgellow 6y ago
Even worse. $100 is for individual developers, it’s $299 per year for organizations. Google asks for $25, once, for a team that can be an individual or an organization, as you wish.
- hinkley 6y ago
  Even wor... really? That is less than the coffee bean budget for a month at most of these organizations. They probably spend more than that a year on parts and labor for the coffee equipment. That organization fee is a token fee. A little friction so that it makes you serious and it stings a bit if it gets cancelled. To maybe not faff about and get down to shipping a product. A few bucks to cover things like CA maintenance and help fund some outreach programs I suspect. $100 for individuals might be a bit on the steep side, I'll grant you. Or a stick to get you to become an organization as soon as possible.
  - zakki 6y ago
    Even worse is in relation with 30% cut. They charge $100 per year for the development tools. Yet, the outcome of the development tools must be sold in Apple market with 30% cut.
  - dgellow 6y ago
    It’s 10 times the $25 from Google Play, and is per year. That’s in addition to the $100 that you have for the Apple store as far I understood their documentation.
    - hinkley 6y ago
      I mean, that's 12x, but last I heard you also make about 8x as much money on iOS as you do on Google Play, so dickering over $274 is still petty.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

supernova87a 6y ago

Well to be specific, buying the iPhone comes with access to apps through the the App Store, not any software that you like. That's clear to almost everyone I would think. And it comes without any statement/guarantee about how Apple charges the developers or the agreements there. Most people have no idea, and don't care. Some apps choose to make their apps free, others choose to charge fees. Some want to have their in-app purchases charged 30%, others don't. Lots of products charge you an upfront fee, and then more fees for various things in addition. I don't think you've got much of a leg to stand on with that argument. That would be like saying, I paid for my cell phone, I don't think that cellular carriers should charge me again for the monthly service -- they should bundle it all one. It's a design and pricing choice. And you buy in or you don't.

belltaco 6y ago
>That would be like saying, I paid for my cell phone, I don't think that cellular carriers should charge me again for the monthly service -- they should bundle it all one. Bad analogy, it'd be like buying the cell tower and getting charged for using it.
- XMPPwocky 6y ago
  I bet this happens- I'm sure somebody will sell you, say, a 1-year license for software required to run an eNB or whatever. Don't pay? No working cell tower for you.
AsyncAwait 6y ago
> your buying the iPhone comes with access to apps through the the App Store, not any software that you like And that's a problem. I am buying an iPhone, per Apple, not renting it. Therefore I should be allowed to run whatever I please on my hardware.
- supernova87a 6y ago
  > Therefore I should be allowed to run whatever I please on my hardware. Well, that can definitely be your opinion. But whether that's fact or supported by our current laws is not at all certain. Let's at least be clear what's fact and what's desire.

swivelmaster 6y ago

What is boggling my mind about this is that Apple CLEARLY has a case because Epic violated the TOS, but they're stretching waaaaaay out there with the dramatic language and seeking punitive damages. (Especially since... come on, punitive damages for something that was live for less than 24 hours?)

erendrake 6y ago
I'm guessing that apple is trying to push their claim as far as they can to set case law as far out as they can. This kind of case decided in their favor can move that overton window quite a bit
jdlshore 6y ago
High-stakes legal battles don't work the way you think they should.
CubsFan1060 6y ago
It's still live. Just can't be downloaded or updated. But you can still make purchases with it if you've already got it on your phone.
parasubvert 6y ago
This isn’t mind boggling, this is how legal arguments are made. The punitive damages are about the what was caused by the ad campaign. Judges have a lot of leeway here if they don’t like how companies act.
simonh 6y ago
This is simply par for the course business as usual. Apple can’t let Epic simply deny them revenue, and they also can’t let them do so knowingly and deliberately without punishment. It would be amazing and shocking if they didn’t do this, it’s simply, a logical consequence of their legal position.

Traster 6y ago

> It is reasonable to charge developers for development tools, but if that's what you want to do, just charge them for development tools. This isn't how the software development eco-system works. There are tonnes of examples of providing free development tools with restrictions on use and revenue sharing agreements. For example, there's this little known company called Epic Games which provides the Unreal Engine for free- but with the following clause: > This license is free to use and incurs 5% royalties when you monetize your game or other interactive off-the-shelf product and your lifetime gross revenues from that product exceed $1,000,000 USD. And Epic doesn't even provide quality control, a discovery mechanism, or payment processing.

kevingadd 6y ago
Well, if they were charging 30% maybe you could expect those services.
AsyncAwait 6y ago
You pay Apple a developer fee. It's not free.
beaner 6y ago
They seem not quite the same to me. A game built with Unreal Engine is essentially powered by it and would not exist otherwise. A game deployed to an iPhone could theoretically be acquired through an alternative app store or just direct download. Apple's app store provides no utility to developers other than being the forced walled monopoly that all developers must list through. The proper analogy to Epic charging for its game engine is Apple charging for its developer licenses - which it already does separately from the app store.
- simonh 6y ago
  So if stores don’t provide any utility over side loading, how come Epic gave up on relying on side loading on Android, which allows it, and ended up on the Play Store? It’s literally that exact scenario.
  - 6y ago

nullc 6y ago

The customer is the product isn't just limited to advertising companies. It follows naturally that Apple considers you their property and believes they can control others doing business with you. Which, in fact, they can-- if you use their products. There is, however, a straightforward way to stop them: Don't use their products.

simonh 6y ago
The other way to look at it is that I as a user hire Apple to vet and QA the apps released for iOS and manage my relationship with all those developers on my behalf. That’s the deal I knowingly enter into when I buy an iPhone and I’m quite happy with it. If others aren’t happy with it that’s fine too, just get a different phone. I don’t see any justification for coercing Apple into entering into commercial arrangements and developing product features they don’t want to support.
- nullc 6y ago
  This way of looking at it doesn't justify _apple_ having a cause of action against epic for seeking to do business with you, consensually, without apple's intervention.
  - dodobirdlord 6y ago
    Sure it does, Apple has a cause of action against Epic for violating a contractual arrangement, which has nothing to do with anyone other than Epic and Apple. The only caveat is that the contractual relationship in question might be found to be illegal. But it's not as though this isn't a case between Apple and Epic about a contract dispute.
cf_ 6y ago
True, you could stop using their products, but you could also argue that when you buy a product (and not a software license), you should be able to do what you like with that product. It should certainly be within the customers rights to use a physical product the best way they see fit and not the best way the manufacturer sees fit. I mean: I paid for it outright, I received what essentially is a computer by all means and now the manufacturer would like to continue having a say in how I can use it. I‘ll admit that having the Apple iOS ecosystem is of certain value, but Apple doesn‘t even allow you to install your own OS. My point is that if I buy a hammer, should I be forced to use it only for hammering nails or could I use it for other things as well?

m3kw9 6y ago

What does user paying have to do with Epic lining their pockets with this move?

balls187 6y ago

> If it costs money to develop a platform, it doesn't seem that strange to just charge that upfront when someone buys an iPhone. Epic runs their own digital distribution platform, in which they also take a cut of the sales. Their terms are different than Apples, but they still do take a cut of sales. Epic also takes 5% royalties for any (non-free) game built with Epic's Unreal Engine. Epic and Apple have the same business model, however Epic's terms are not as high as Apples. On the other hand, Epic makes a lot of money selling "cosmetics" and loot boxes. In effect, you have a company that has profited immensely from gambling, going after a company that has profited immensely due to their own closed ecosystem. (also not to mention Epic blatantly ripped off the success of PUBG when they switched Fortnite to be a Battle Royale game)

jrockway 6y ago
It doesn't really matter what Epic is doing. Loot boxes, game engines, and game mechanics aren't the issue here. The issue is that I, a user of an iPhone, should be able to install whatever software I want. You know what? I played Fortnite and I hated it. I won't be installing Fortnite or buying any skins for it. But, Epic has the right to offer their product to me without interference. Apple already has $1000 of my money (actually wayyyy more than that), and now I don't want them involved in my life anymore. I think I'm entitled to that. > (also not to mention Epic blatantly ripped off the success of PUBG when they switched Fortnite to be a Battle Royale game) I think Epic did it better. That's why we don't give intellectual property rights to vague ideas like "100 players parachute into an island and shoot each other" or "after a certain amount of time a circle kills people outside of it". PUBG had their take -- super boring stakeouts to get hyper-realistic weapons. Fortnite had their take -- cartoony jumping around while you build forts. Players can choose which they want to play. (And, of course, there are like 8 billion other battle royales.)
- balls187 6y ago
  > The issue is that I, a user of an iPhone, should be able to install whatever software I want. And, likewise, Apple, as the platform owner, should be able to deny access whatever software they want. You can of course, jailbreak your iphone, or install PWA's that work.

mstolpm 6y ago

The price the customer pays is clearly for the package of hardware, operating system and (some) services. The 30% cut developers pay is for a monetized access to Apples iOS APIs. The 99$ fee is for access to developer tools, review processing, "free" access to the platform and more. Different sides, different business concepts.

caf 6y ago
No, the 30% vig developers pay (both Apple and Google) is for access to the customers. It's what you're being sold for.

EGreg 6y ago

That’s like the argument for net neutrality because one side already paid for the service. Why can’t both sides pay? I am an advocate for open source, but I am just wondering in principle what is your argument exactly?