9 ms·

Fortnite will be blacklisted by Apple until all appeals exhausted

147 points by sornars 5y ago

twobitshifter 5y ago
It appears Epic asked to be back to get Fortnite on the Mac App Store but wasn’t going to release an iOS version of Fortnite. The Mac App Store has different terms but uses the same developer account. I think epic may just be trying to prove a point with this action and didn’t expect to be reinstated.
- dwaite 5y ago
  Epic's email to Apple also indicated they would not remove the code supporting in-app purchasing, but rather disable it server-side so that it remains hidden.
  - hermitdev 5y ago
    I don't think you read the same email I did. He said they "can't", not that they "would not". His wording indicating that they are unable to, your wording indicating they choose not to. I would suspect being unable to update the iOS versions of Fortnite might, oddly enough, be linked to it having been removed from the app store and their account being banned. If their account were reinstated and Fortnite allowed back into the store, I don't know what technical hurdles would remain preventing them from updating it. edit: Sweeney wrote: "Though we can't update the Fortnite version that users still have on their iOS devices, we've disabled Epic payments server-side[...]". This reads to me that he's stating how things are currently. That, they don't have a mechanism to update Fornite. Doesn't even read that they won't, if able to.
    - dwaite 5y ago
      Elsewhere, Sweeney indicated they had no intention of publishing a new iOS version that complied with the current Apple rules, instead targeting a hypothetical future where alternative in-app purchasing was allowed by Apple. Therefore, while they can't publish a new version at the moment because their account is disabled, they have zero intention of publishing a new version under the current iOS App Store rules. The version they were talking about publishing is a new Mac App Store version. I'm curious if people have any good hypothesis on why they would do this, as Epic wants to run their own store and be the one earning commissions.
josephcsible 5y ago
If a person gets convicted of a crime and sentenced to jail, they have to go to jail right after sentencing, even if they plan to appeal. Why is this situation different?
- conk 5y ago
  The court ruling didn’t require apple to reinstate epic’s developer account. Apple can still, at their discretion, decide who can and can’t develop apps for iOS and Mac app stores.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    In that case, why didn't they just say Epic is banned forever? What do appeals have to do with it?
    - zepto 5y ago
      The appeal might force Apple to reinstate Epic.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > why didn't they just say Epic is banned forever? Why would Apple ban a potent revenue source?
    - darkwizard42 5y ago
      I think they don't want to ban Epic forever over this kind of spat because it sets a bad precedent and could turn other developers away from them. Additionally I don't think it helps their public image and hurts the case they are making where they don't need regulation because they have fair rules (smacking someone out of the app store forever because they file a lawsuit wouldn't pass the smell test)
    - conk 5y ago
      I believe most companies would refrain from engaging in new business with a customer who has pending litigation against them. Apple may not want to ban them and is just waiting until the appeal process has settled before reengaging with Epic under whatever terms are ultimately agreed upon between both parties and the courts.
rideontime 5y ago
So now Tim says he won't come back to iOS until they're allowed to link directly to the external payment option from the app. My understanding of the court order was that Apple only had to allow apps to tell users that external payment was an option, not that they had to be able to link directly to it.
- jschenk 5y ago
  The court basically struck down rule 3.1.1 which is exactly the rule that prevents such links.
- elliekelly 5y ago
  Here's the exact language from the ruling: > Accordingly, a nationwide injunction shall issue enjoining Apple from prohibiting developers to include in their: Apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to IAP. > Nor may Apple prohibit developers from: Communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app. Full ruling [PDF]: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060696/epic-v-apple-ruling.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060696/epic-v-apple...
  - rideontime 5y ago
    My understanding seems to have been incorrect, if the words "external links" are in the ruling itself I don't know how Apple squirms out of that one. I guess by denying their return to the app store on other grounds.
    - floatingatoll 5y ago
      The ruling does not require Apple to permit those external methods of payment to be embedded within the app, rather than opened outside the app in the system web browser. Epic oversteps their rights by declaring to Apple that Apple must accept their 'alternative IAP' methodology. Apple is under no compulsion to define their terms to accept Epic's intentions as compliant with rules that they have 90 days to decide on and publish, and has many options available in their decisions that would both comply with the ruling while also continuing to prohibit Epic's declared intentions. The ruling also gives Apple 90 days to decide the exact specifics of how it will comply with the ruling, and until then, the Fortnite app's code would remain out of compliance with the current rules until they are updated within the 90 day period. Since Epic does not commit in their letter to Apple to removing that code, to comply with the rules as they are today, of course Apple chose not to accept them back into the store. If Epic had unwound their willful violation of the rules as they are today, they would have met Apple's stated terms for having developer services restored and likely would not have been asked to wait. Aside from the guidelines change, does the ruling specifically compel Apple to set aside Epic's contractual violation, or is Apple allowed if they so desire to simply let stand their standard normal permaban for "you knowingly lied to Apple and broke the rules" as the rules were defined at the time?
ianferrel 5y ago
"Just last week, Epic agreed with Apple that we would play by the same rules as everyone else." This is in the linked thread. But, if the legal challenge is ongoing, then I am skeptical that they've really agreed to anything. Writing an email to Apple saying "I agree to your terms" while continuing to fight in court over those terms is not an agreement of anything.
- ziml77 5y ago
  They can agree to follow the terms while at the same time believing that the terms are unfair. They don't have to break the ToS to get the ToS changed.
  - ianferrel 5y ago
    They could do that, and that appears to be what they want to do, but I tend to agree with Apple that continuing a legal attempt to overturn the terms doesn't constitute "agreeing" to the terms. There's an old joke about diplomacy being "the art of saying 'nice doggie' until you can find a rock". Apple is in my opinion correct that Epic is still looking for that rock, and is not bound to respect what Epic says while it does so. >They don't have to break the ToS to get the ToS changed. Might have been a good idea for Epic to consider that prior to doing so.
    - ziml77 5y ago
      Oh absolutely. I think Apple is making the correct move here.
- phone8675309 5y ago
  > Writing an email to Apple saying "I agree to your terms" while continuing to fight in court over those terms is not an agreement of anything. Especially since the court ruled Epic violated them once before.
bnt 5y ago
Rich guy complaining about another Rich guy. I don't care. If this was a small app developer complaining, I would care. The more little devs complain, the more can come together and sue the crap out of Apple. 1 big Co suing another big Co = nobody cares. Tim isn't helping the small developers, he just wants to make more money for himself. Small devs will still get screwed.
- api 5y ago
  Yeah honestly neither of these two have our best interests in mind. Apple wants to keep their walled garden walled, and these game companies want to make it easier to exploit quasi-gambling "loot box" and similar revenue centers without paying Apple. There are also a lot of vendors who want to bypass Apple so they can bypass Apple's privacy protections. The entire mobile ecosystem is full of user-hostile business models and behavior.
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51502592 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51502592
- vernie 5y ago
  Sweeney's out here fighting for the right of the little guy to groom young gambling addicts.
  - tapoxi 5y ago
    Fortnite doesn't have lootboxes.
    - ziml77 5y ago
      I had to look it up myself because I didn't believe you, but it really does appear to be the case that Fortnite doesn't have random loot boxes and they removed them from Rocket League after purchasing that game.
diebeforei485 5y ago
I think the court handed down a half-baked judgement in this case.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
morsch 5y ago
Has the unavailability of the game on iOS sold a meaningful number of Android devices?
- mcphage 5y ago
  Probably not—Epic stated in the court hearing that mobile was a small percentage of their sales; most of their business was on consoles.
wetjen 5y ago
This is simply savvy maneuvering by apple. Frequently these cases are appealed and new terms introduced to the judgement. Apple doesn’t want to give away any negotiating position until this is fully resolved.
- lwansbrough 5y ago
  Savvy is one way to put it. As an app developer it simply makes me not want to work with Apple at all, but of course I'm forced to for some reason.
  - verytrivial 5y ago
    As a user I don't buy Apple due to how it preys upon developers.
  - mdoms 5y ago
    No one is forced to work with apple. I've been developing software for 15 years and never once touched xcode or iOS. Working with apple is a choice you make.
    - lwansbrough 5y ago
      Yes well good for you. I'm not sure what kind of software you're developing but it obviously isn't consumer facing mobile apps. So perhaps your anecdata is irrelevant in this case, yes? Apple is a gatekeeper that no one who is buying their phones cares about. People buy iPhones because their friends have iPhones, that's it. But Apple treats developing for Apple as a special privilege and locks down their massive ecosystem. It should be illegal at the scale Apple has, but it isn't. So yes, we are forced to work with Apple in order to be competitive in industries that Apple has no business controlling. You don't have that problem with whatever you develop because (presumably) Microsoft doesn't exploit Windows' market advantage in the way Apple does.
      - dolni 5y ago
        > Apple is a gatekeeper that no one who is buying their phones cares about. I don't buy Apple devices primarily due to the way they administrate the app store and how they treat developers. I would consider buying an iPhone otherwise. So yes, there are people who care.
TheAdamist 5y ago
...and if the final appeal goes against apple it will coincidentally be blacklisted for an entirely unrelated and new reason shortly thereafter.
- grishka 5y ago
  Not if a court decision or a new law forces Apple to finally allow sideloading apps on iOS.
  - cyanydeez 5y ago
    pretty sure the orznge menace lit the torch of litigate it to outrun it. only laws gonna come down reauire a bipartisan congress and that is easily staved off with enough lobbiests. having a split congress means you only need a couple of senstors in pocket.
- matt_heimer 5y ago
  They violated the feature flag part of the guidelines, does Apple really need another reason? https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/72176 https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/72176
- pankajdoharey 5y ago
  Apple is not a democracy nor is Epic, the one with most raw power generally wins in such scenario.
  - xg15 5y ago
    Sounds great for users...
    - pankajdoharey 5y ago
      Well stones do get ground up between milling stones.
Wowfunhappy 5y ago
I still don't understand what the Mac version has to do with this. Just ship a self-signed binary and make users let it through Gatekeeper. Yes, this is annoying for users, but not moreso than sideloading Android apps, and Epic is still updating the Android version even though it's not in the Play Store.
literallyaduck 5y ago
Epic, Steam, and Framework should team up to build a user centric phone which runs Arch not Android and runs all their games.
- Factorium 5y ago
  Valve are definitely not user-centred. They are profit centred. Valve provide no subsidised hardware (PC gamers still need to supply their own), and charge indie developers 30% commissions, a regressive 'tax' compared to the 20% they charge AAA. Per-employee, Valve is the most profitable company in America, and Gabe Newell the 97th richest American. They got there with forced exclusives (Half Life 2 could only be activated on Steam) and simply being first to market. They are no longer even bothering to curate their storefront.
  - 1_player 5y ago
    Of course Valve is not a charity, but of all companies in their space or close to them, they are miles ahead than any competition because users like using their product. Simple as that. Everybody prefers Steam to EGS not _only_ because they're stuck there, but because it's genuinely a better product. It's golden handcuffs, but a fantastic product nonetheless. In my opinion Valve has found the perfect balance between making gamers, a notoriously difficult category of people hard to please, happy and making serious money. Laughing all the way to the bank while single-handedly improving the status of Linux gaming and desktop in general. I'm more than OK with that.
emsy 5y ago
No Apple is definitely not abusing their market position by controlling (and taxing) the access to millions of customers.
- OldHand2018 5y ago
  That's exactly what the judge said.
  - ece 5y ago
    Exactly why there should be regulation like OAMA, EU DMA, etc..
tdeck 5y ago
This gives Apple something they can reluctantly renege on without compromising their revenue model. In a few months we'll see another flurry of stories about how Apple "caved" and let Epic back in to pay the 30% cut like everyone else.
matt_heimer 5y ago
Anyone know where Apple stated they'd "welcome Epic’s return to the App Store if they agree to play by the same rules as everyone else" as Tim states? I see where Apple said everybody should play by the same rules but given that Epic not only violated the policy (which has now been changed) but also purposely cheated on the review process it seems justified that they are still banned.
- max1cc 5y ago
  The only place I can find the quote is in an article from The Verge from a couple of weeks ago: https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22667069/fortnite-ios-return-apple-epic-ruling#:~:text=welcome%20Epic%E2%80%99s%20return%20to%20the%20App%20Store%20if%20they%20agree%20to%20play%20by%20the%20same%20rules%20as%20everyone%20else https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22667069/fortnite-ios-ret...
  - matt_heimer 5y ago
    Thanks, that article links to an earlier one https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22666146/apple-epic-korea-fortnite-developer-account-rules-response https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22666146/apple-epic-korea... which says: Apple, however, maintains it’s under no obligation to let Epic in the App Store at all. “As we’ve said all along, we would welcome Epic’s return to the App Store if they agree to play by the same rules as everyone else,” an Apple spokesperson says in a statement to The Verge. “Epic has admitted to breach of contract and as of now, there’s no legitimate basis for the reinstatement of their developer account.” So it sounds like it was in a statement to The Verge that was split into parts for the article and Tim is cherry picking the part that suits Epic. Seems impossible for Epic to play by the same rules as everyone else and be allowed back in since they broke more rules than the one that has now been changed. They really should have tried a legal approach first before sneaking their app store in.
dng88 5y ago
Being in business can apple just not do business with it as an ultimatum. It is not like it is a public entity that must do business with anyone. Wonder? Apple is not like steam charge more for lower tier developer. Usually differentiate pricing is a sign of monopoly. Or force bundle. Instead the court seemed to force price differential and lone developer would have to pay more (in the need to do external payment). Still hope sone economic monopoly argument. On top of marketing one.
naomeux 5y ago
I just hope that Epic Games will still release games related to Unreal Engine to apple store.

147 points by sornars 5y ago

It appears Epic asked to be back to get Fortnite on the Mac App Store but wasn’t going to release an iOS version of Fortnite. The Mac App Store has different terms but uses the same developer account. I think epic may just be trying to prove a point with this action and didn’t expect to be reinstated.

dwaite 5y ago
Epic's email to Apple also indicated they would not remove the code supporting in-app purchasing, but rather disable it server-side so that it remains hidden.
- hermitdev 5y ago
  I don't think you read the same email I did. He said they "can't", not that they "would not". His wording indicating that they are unable to, your wording indicating they choose not to. I would suspect being unable to update the iOS versions of Fortnite might, oddly enough, be linked to it having been removed from the app store and their account being banned. If their account were reinstated and Fortnite allowed back into the store, I don't know what technical hurdles would remain preventing them from updating it. edit: Sweeney wrote: "Though we can't update the Fortnite version that users still have on their iOS devices, we've disabled Epic payments server-side[...]". This reads to me that he's stating how things are currently. That, they don't have a mechanism to update Fornite. Doesn't even read that they won't, if able to.
  - dwaite 5y ago
    Elsewhere, Sweeney indicated they had no intention of publishing a new iOS version that complied with the current Apple rules, instead targeting a hypothetical future where alternative in-app purchasing was allowed by Apple. Therefore, while they can't publish a new version at the moment because their account is disabled, they have zero intention of publishing a new version under the current iOS App Store rules. The version they were talking about publishing is a new Mac App Store version. I'm curious if people have any good hypothesis on why they would do this, as Epic wants to run their own store and be the one earning commissions.

josephcsible 5y ago

If a person gets convicted of a crime and sentenced to jail, they have to go to jail right after sentencing, even if they plan to appeal. Why is this situation different?

conk 5y ago
The court ruling didn’t require apple to reinstate epic’s developer account. Apple can still, at their discretion, decide who can and can’t develop apps for iOS and Mac app stores.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  In that case, why didn't they just say Epic is banned forever? What do appeals have to do with it?
  - zepto 5y ago
    The appeal might force Apple to reinstate Epic.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > why didn't they just say Epic is banned forever? Why would Apple ban a potent revenue source?
  - darkwizard42 5y ago
    I think they don't want to ban Epic forever over this kind of spat because it sets a bad precedent and could turn other developers away from them. Additionally I don't think it helps their public image and hurts the case they are making where they don't need regulation because they have fair rules (smacking someone out of the app store forever because they file a lawsuit wouldn't pass the smell test)
  - conk 5y ago
    I believe most companies would refrain from engaging in new business with a customer who has pending litigation against them. Apple may not want to ban them and is just waiting until the appeal process has settled before reengaging with Epic under whatever terms are ultimately agreed upon between both parties and the courts.

rideontime 5y ago

So now Tim says he won't come back to iOS until they're allowed to link directly to the external payment option from the app. My understanding of the court order was that Apple only had to allow apps to tell users that external payment was an option, not that they had to be able to link directly to it.

jschenk 5y ago
The court basically struck down rule 3.1.1 which is exactly the rule that prevents such links.
elliekelly 5y ago
Here's the exact language from the ruling: > Accordingly, a nationwide injunction shall issue enjoining Apple from prohibiting developers to include in their: Apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to IAP. > Nor may Apple prohibit developers from: Communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app. Full ruling [PDF]: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060696/epic-v-apple-ruling.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060696/epic-v-apple...
- rideontime 5y ago
  My understanding seems to have been incorrect, if the words "external links" are in the ruling itself I don't know how Apple squirms out of that one. I guess by denying their return to the app store on other grounds.
  - floatingatoll 5y ago
    The ruling does not require Apple to permit those external methods of payment to be embedded within the app, rather than opened outside the app in the system web browser. Epic oversteps their rights by declaring to Apple that Apple must accept their 'alternative IAP' methodology. Apple is under no compulsion to define their terms to accept Epic's intentions as compliant with rules that they have 90 days to decide on and publish, and has many options available in their decisions that would both comply with the ruling while also continuing to prohibit Epic's declared intentions. The ruling also gives Apple 90 days to decide the exact specifics of how it will comply with the ruling, and until then, the Fortnite app's code would remain out of compliance with the current rules until they are updated within the 90 day period. Since Epic does not commit in their letter to Apple to removing that code, to comply with the rules as they are today, of course Apple chose not to accept them back into the store. If Epic had unwound their willful violation of the rules as they are today, they would have met Apple's stated terms for having developer services restored and likely would not have been asked to wait. Aside from the guidelines change, does the ruling specifically compel Apple to set aside Epic's contractual violation, or is Apple allowed if they so desire to simply let stand their standard normal permaban for "you knowingly lied to Apple and broke the rules" as the rules were defined at the time?

ianferrel 5y ago

"Just last week, Epic agreed with Apple that we would play by the same rules as everyone else." This is in the linked thread. But, if the legal challenge is ongoing, then I am skeptical that they've really agreed to anything. Writing an email to Apple saying "I agree to your terms" while continuing to fight in court over those terms is not an agreement of anything.

ziml77 5y ago
They can agree to follow the terms while at the same time believing that the terms are unfair. They don't have to break the ToS to get the ToS changed.
- ianferrel 5y ago
  They could do that, and that appears to be what they want to do, but I tend to agree with Apple that continuing a legal attempt to overturn the terms doesn't constitute "agreeing" to the terms. There's an old joke about diplomacy being "the art of saying 'nice doggie' until you can find a rock". Apple is in my opinion correct that Epic is still looking for that rock, and is not bound to respect what Epic says while it does so. >They don't have to break the ToS to get the ToS changed. Might have been a good idea for Epic to consider that prior to doing so.
  - ziml77 5y ago
    Oh absolutely. I think Apple is making the correct move here.
phone8675309 5y ago
> Writing an email to Apple saying "I agree to your terms" while continuing to fight in court over those terms is not an agreement of anything. Especially since the court ruled Epic violated them once before.

bnt 5y ago

Rich guy complaining about another Rich guy. I don't care. If this was a small app developer complaining, I would care. The more little devs complain, the more can come together and sue the crap out of Apple. 1 big Co suing another big Co = nobody cares. Tim isn't helping the small developers, he just wants to make more money for himself. Small devs will still get screwed.

api 5y ago
Yeah honestly neither of these two have our best interests in mind. Apple wants to keep their walled garden walled, and these game companies want to make it easier to exploit quasi-gambling "loot box" and similar revenue centers without paying Apple. There are also a lot of vendors who want to bypass Apple so they can bypass Apple's privacy protections. The entire mobile ecosystem is full of user-hostile business models and behavior.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51502592 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51502592
vernie 5y ago
Sweeney's out here fighting for the right of the little guy to groom young gambling addicts.
- tapoxi 5y ago
  Fortnite doesn't have lootboxes.
  - ziml77 5y ago
    I had to look it up myself because I didn't believe you, but it really does appear to be the case that Fortnite doesn't have random loot boxes and they removed them from Rocket League after purchasing that game.

diebeforei485 5y ago

I think the court handed down a half-baked judgement in this case.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

morsch 5y ago

Has the unavailability of the game on iOS sold a meaningful number of Android devices?

mcphage 5y ago
Probably not—Epic stated in the court hearing that mobile was a small percentage of their sales; most of their business was on consoles.

wetjen 5y ago

This is simply savvy maneuvering by apple. Frequently these cases are appealed and new terms introduced to the judgement. Apple doesn’t want to give away any negotiating position until this is fully resolved.

lwansbrough 5y ago
Savvy is one way to put it. As an app developer it simply makes me not want to work with Apple at all, but of course I'm forced to for some reason.
- verytrivial 5y ago
  As a user I don't buy Apple due to how it preys upon developers.
- mdoms 5y ago
  No one is forced to work with apple. I've been developing software for 15 years and never once touched xcode or iOS. Working with apple is a choice you make.
  - lwansbrough 5y ago
    Yes well good for you. I'm not sure what kind of software you're developing but it obviously isn't consumer facing mobile apps. So perhaps your anecdata is irrelevant in this case, yes? Apple is a gatekeeper that no one who is buying their phones cares about. People buy iPhones because their friends have iPhones, that's it. But Apple treats developing for Apple as a special privilege and locks down their massive ecosystem. It should be illegal at the scale Apple has, but it isn't. So yes, we are forced to work with Apple in order to be competitive in industries that Apple has no business controlling. You don't have that problem with whatever you develop because (presumably) Microsoft doesn't exploit Windows' market advantage in the way Apple does.
    - dolni 5y ago
      > Apple is a gatekeeper that no one who is buying their phones cares about. I don't buy Apple devices primarily due to the way they administrate the app store and how they treat developers. I would consider buying an iPhone otherwise. So yes, there are people who care.

TheAdamist 5y ago

...and if the final appeal goes against apple it will coincidentally be blacklisted for an entirely unrelated and new reason shortly thereafter.

grishka 5y ago
Not if a court decision or a new law forces Apple to finally allow sideloading apps on iOS.
- cyanydeez 5y ago
  pretty sure the orznge menace lit the torch of litigate it to outrun it. only laws gonna come down reauire a bipartisan congress and that is easily staved off with enough lobbiests. having a split congress means you only need a couple of senstors in pocket.
matt_heimer 5y ago
They violated the feature flag part of the guidelines, does Apple really need another reason? https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/72176 https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/72176
pankajdoharey 5y ago
Apple is not a democracy nor is Epic, the one with most raw power generally wins in such scenario.
- xg15 5y ago
  Sounds great for users...
  - pankajdoharey 5y ago
    Well stones do get ground up between milling stones.

Wowfunhappy 5y ago

I still don't understand what the Mac version has to do with this. Just ship a self-signed binary and make users let it through Gatekeeper. Yes, this is annoying for users, but not moreso than sideloading Android apps, and Epic is still updating the Android version even though it's not in the Play Store.

literallyaduck 5y ago

Epic, Steam, and Framework should team up to build a user centric phone which runs Arch not Android and runs all their games.

Factorium 5y ago
Valve are definitely not user-centred. They are profit centred. Valve provide no subsidised hardware (PC gamers still need to supply their own), and charge indie developers 30% commissions, a regressive 'tax' compared to the 20% they charge AAA. Per-employee, Valve is the most profitable company in America, and Gabe Newell the 97th richest American. They got there with forced exclusives (Half Life 2 could only be activated on Steam) and simply being first to market. They are no longer even bothering to curate their storefront.
- 1_player 5y ago
  Of course Valve is not a charity, but of all companies in their space or close to them, they are miles ahead than any competition because users like using their product. Simple as that. Everybody prefers Steam to EGS not _only_ because they're stuck there, but because it's genuinely a better product. It's golden handcuffs, but a fantastic product nonetheless. In my opinion Valve has found the perfect balance between making gamers, a notoriously difficult category of people hard to please, happy and making serious money. Laughing all the way to the bank while single-handedly improving the status of Linux gaming and desktop in general. I'm more than OK with that.

emsy 5y ago

No Apple is definitely not abusing their market position by controlling (and taxing) the access to millions of customers.

OldHand2018 5y ago
That's exactly what the judge said.
- ece 5y ago
  Exactly why there should be regulation like OAMA, EU DMA, etc..

tdeck 5y ago

This gives Apple something they can reluctantly renege on without compromising their revenue model. In a few months we'll see another flurry of stories about how Apple "caved" and let Epic back in to pay the 30% cut like everyone else.

matt_heimer 5y ago

Anyone know where Apple stated they'd "welcome Epic’s return to the App Store if they agree to play by the same rules as everyone else" as Tim states? I see where Apple said everybody should play by the same rules but given that Epic not only violated the policy (which has now been changed) but also purposely cheated on the review process it seems justified that they are still banned.

max1cc 5y ago
The only place I can find the quote is in an article from The Verge from a couple of weeks ago: https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22667069/fortnite-ios-return-apple-epic-ruling#:~:text=welcome%20Epic%E2%80%99s%20return%20to%20the%20App%20Store%20if%20they%20agree%20to%20play%20by%20the%20same%20rules%20as%20everyone%20else https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22667069/fortnite-ios-ret...
- matt_heimer 5y ago
  Thanks, that article links to an earlier one https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22666146/apple-epic-korea-fortnite-developer-account-rules-response https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22666146/apple-epic-korea... which says: Apple, however, maintains it’s under no obligation to let Epic in the App Store at all. “As we’ve said all along, we would welcome Epic’s return to the App Store if they agree to play by the same rules as everyone else,” an Apple spokesperson says in a statement to The Verge. “Epic has admitted to breach of contract and as of now, there’s no legitimate basis for the reinstatement of their developer account.” So it sounds like it was in a statement to The Verge that was split into parts for the article and Tim is cherry picking the part that suits Epic. Seems impossible for Epic to play by the same rules as everyone else and be allowed back in since they broke more rules than the one that has now been changed. They really should have tried a legal approach first before sneaking their app store in.

dng88 5y ago

Being in business can apple just not do business with it as an ultimatum. It is not like it is a public entity that must do business with anyone. Wonder? Apple is not like steam charge more for lower tier developer. Usually differentiate pricing is a sign of monopoly. Or force bundle. Instead the court seemed to force price differential and lone developer would have to pay more (in the need to do external payment). Still hope sone economic monopoly argument. On top of marketing one.

naomeux 5y ago

I just hope that Epic Games will still release games related to Unreal Engine to apple store.