3 ms·
There is a material difference between costing Apple revenue by doing something they're allowed to do and costing Apple revenue by breaching their agreement. Th
by Traster 6y ago
There is a material difference between costing Apple revenue by doing something they're allowed to do and costing Apple revenue by breaching their agreement. They cost Apple revenue by circumventing the in-app purchase system and Apple will naturally want the lost revenue. My guess is they'll produce figures saying "We made 30% of X revenue from in-app purchases over Y time frame, this dropped to 30% of Z revenue after Epic breached our terms, so they owe us 30% of X-Z + punitive damages because they did this deliberately".
- invalidusernam3 6y agoBut surely that position would only apply if Apple hadn't removed the game from the app store? If myself as an indie dev breaches the TOS and my app store account is suspended, surely Apple can't sue me for lost revenue because they opted to suspend my account? Imagine the precedent that would set: Apple could sue you for lost income if you break the store TOS causing your app to be removed. I think Apple would have had much more of an argument for lost revenue if they had kept the game on the store. It would be directly quantifiable, they could say "look, the game made x million and we received $0, we should have received $y".
- Traster 6y agoOh, I see where you're coming from. No, the way that Epic have been suspended is such that they can't put out any more updates, but people who already have the game installed still have it, the game doesn't get deleted from your phone, so people are still using it and still buying stuff direct from Epic.
- invalidusernam3 6y agoAh yeah that makes sense. In that case, Apple does have a pretty strong case here, will be interesting to see the result