24 ms·

Apple Will Not Reinstate Epic’s Fortnite Developer Account

427 points by robin_reala 5y ago

Jensson 5y ago
> Epic will resubmit Fortnite to the App Store if you adhere to the plain language of the court order and allow apps to include buttons and external links that direct customers to other purchasing mechanisms without onerous terms or impediments to a good user experience. That seems very reasonable, why wouldn't Apple be forced to comply with the court order?
- ribit 5y ago
  I guess it has to do with the fact that Epic has appealed the court verdict. I can understand that Apple doesn’t feel like doing business with someone who has an active legal case against them.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    That makes sense, thanks! The dispute isn't resolved yet, easy to understand. I assume if Epic accepted the court ruling then Apple would be forced to comply?
    - nyx-aiur 5y ago
      No, because in the ruling it was stated that apple has every right to not only ban epic but also to ban every epic subsidiary if they so desire.
    - ribit 5y ago
      I am not sure they can be forced to comply (if I remember correctly this particular court decision mentioned that Apple was within their right for terminating Epic’s account), but that’s just half of the story. It is true that Apple has promised to reinstate Epic once they agree to follow their rules. What I find really disingenuous about all this is Tim Sweeney‘s attitude - he appeals the decision while at the same time publicly blaming Apple for not following up on their part of the bargain. It’s just embarrassing at this point.
    - madeofpalk 5y ago
      Apple would be forced to comply with the court ruling, which does not require Apple to reinstate Epic's account and allow Fortnite back on the App Store.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  Apple is complying with court rulings, including the judgment that Apple's contract with Epic is valid and enforceable. Apple could hypothetically ban all of Epic's accounts forever, but only the Fortnite account is banned. This appears to be a win for... payment vendors. At this point Epic can only hope for legislative action. Also on the "reasonableness" of Epic's promises... I'm not sure why making a pinky promise in a non-legal setting is any more serious than a legal contract they already choose to break.
  - YPPH 5y ago
    >Apple could hypothetically ban all of Epic's accounts forever Is this mere conjecture or is it founded on what was said in the court's opinion?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - madeofpalk 5y ago
      Court's opinion was the Apple has the right to enforce it's contract and ban Epic's developer account.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    But wasn't Epic banned just because they broke that rule the court now ordered Apple not to enforce? Isn't it strange that this lawsuit would result in Apple now being able to enforce that rule only for Epic and they aren't allowed to enforce it for anyone else? Is that how it is supposed to work?
    - kevingadd 5y ago
      It certainly could be interpreted as contempt of court but in practice Apple has hundreds of vague rules in their developer policies and they use them on a daily basis to block apps or updates just because they feel like it. They would have no difficulty constructing a retroactive excuse for banning Epic (and all their customers, as they threatened previously) from the store.
- helsinkiandrew 5y ago
  > why wouldn't Apple be forced to comply with the court order? They seem to be waiting until all appeals have finished: "Apple will not consider any further requests for reinstatement until the district court's judgement becomes final and nonappealable." https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1440711772483186690 https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/144071177248318669...
  - londons_explore 5y ago
    Effectively telling Epic that if they are serious about this issue, they need to batten down for a multi-year court battle and give up selling games in the meantime.
- gehsty 5y ago
  A short summary of the ruling is that Apple has no ‘duty to deal’ with Epic (you can’t force someone to do business with someone), so they can let them in when they want. If Epic did not appeal, and submitted a version of fortnight that complied with App Store requirements I think they would be in the store rn.
- mbreese 5y ago
  Apple is complying with the court order (so far as we can currently tell). Not reinstating Epic’s developer account is a separate issue. It was explicitly stated in the court order that Apple was allowed to terminate Epic’s account and it was solely up to them if they wanted to reinstate it. Opening the payment mechanisms for other developers is a separate issue to whether or not Epic could still sell iOS apps on the AppStore.
- electriclove 5y ago
  Epic is appealing the decision. Sweeney is promising to follow the rules but is also trying to take Apple down. Definitely duplicitous. Apple does not have to let Epic back in.
- floatingatoll 5y ago
  It is very self-serving of Epic to offer Apple a legal interpretation of the court's decision free of charge, that delivers Epic all benefits it failed to receive in the court decision. Apple is, however, free to disregard Epic's input on interpretation, no matter how plausible Epic's phrasing may sound to others. Apple is not forced to comply with Epic's interpretation of the court order — Apple is forced to comply with Apple's interpretation of the court order, and has another ~10 weeks to decide how they will choose to comply with the order, assuming that it isn't suspended during the appeals process. If a court later decides that Apple has not complied, then Apple will be answerable to the court, not to Epic, for their interpretations.
hughrr 5y ago
No winners either side. And of course no winning for their customers either. I increasingly want nothing to do with battling corporate giants.
- isodev 5y ago
  Indeed. It was quite clear from the beginning this is more about Epic's bottom line than the interest of users or developers.
  - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
    I don't think it's very good for their bottom line. I'm pretty sure if they were a public company then their CEO would have been ousted by now.
    - kevingadd 5y ago
      According to the court disclosures, their iOS revenue wasn't as big as you'd think (less than 10%, iirc). If that's gross revenue, it would mean the net revenue is considerably lower. Once you factor in the costs to earn that revenue - maintaining the iOS client, OS-specific online services, etc - it probably wasn't too hard for them to stomach the hit, especially since the potential upside was pocketing more revenue in the future. They were also making a larger scale play here, they want to get rid of 30% cuts in general, which means they get to keep more of their Android revenue and likely more of their revenue on PlayStation and XBox (The court case revealed that Sony is basically charging extortion money to allow cross-platform play.)
  - croon 5y ago
    Of course, but Epic's bottom line isn't necessarily mutually exclusive to the interests of users or developers.
  - mschuster91 5y ago
    So what? Assuming that the battle does lead to an enforced (either via court or legislation) opening of the App Store or to massively reduced pricing for developers, the net outcome for users and developers is still positive. One might even argue that it did need Epic as one of the largest mobile software vendors to challenge Apple both in PR and the courts. Small developers have complained without any effect whatsoever for years about the App Store restrictions (especially adult/otherwise "not family friendly" content, or wishing to use an HTML renderer that is not full of bugs) or Apple booting out their existence with no reason or way of appealing.
me_me_me 5y ago
Oh poor epic, I am so saddened by their mistreatment. Is epic succeeding in their narrative as a poor little mistreated company sticking it to the man? I care very little about godzilla vs king kong lawyer fights.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  little people often cared a lot about godzilla fights because godzilla was protecting them from a giant monster
  - me_me_me 5y ago
    In this analogy small people care about the outcome, the fake drama and PR is just none important.
    - spywaregorilla 5y ago
      I would be very happy if I could sell ios content and keep 88% (epic) vs. 70% (apple) of my own revenue. That's a 25% boost in my revenue. That's huge.
      - briandear 5y ago
        You already can keep 85%.
        spywaregorilla 5y ago
        Great! Thanks Epic. But that's not enough. I want actual market competition.
      - me_me_me 5y ago
        That is what i am saying, outcome and not the process. following epic vs apple fight - the whole play and dance, throwing mud etc etc. Its not worth your time, you cannot affect the outcome. Just ignore it all and learn about the outcome in the end.
tpmx 5y ago
As an aside: Gruber/Daring Fireball seems to be getting less and less popular: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%22daring%20fireball%22 https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%22darin...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dubcanada 5y ago
  I'm not sure going from an average of 25 searches to 5 really matters lol. Nobody really searches for him, they just read articles by him linked from somewhere else. Anyone who knows him is probably technical and just goes directly to his site.
  - pluc 5y ago
    Don't ever let marketers tell you facts
- danpalmer 5y ago
  Meanwhile the number of TV appearances he does and the amount he sells advertising on his site for have both gone up significantly. I think he's doing fine.
- magoon 5y ago
  Is it possible this graph also reflects that his readers are more likely to employ Safari’s tracker-blocking?
- yoz-y 5y ago
  Note also that he publishes all articles in full on RSS. There is not much need to search for it.
- sidibe 5y ago
  Hasn't crossed my newsfeeds in a long time. He is the original professional fanboy, Tesla has a whole bunch of people clamoring to be the Gruber of Tesla.
jasode 5y ago
It's interesting to compare the situation Epic got itself into with previous episodes of Facebook & Google breaking Apple's rules. When Facebook and Google misused Developer Enterprise certificates to go beyond internal testing and distribute apps to end-consumers, Apple revoked their accounts. Both Facebook & Google simply admitted they screwed up and Apple reinstated their accounts.[1] No lawsuits. Epic broke Apple's in-app-purchase rules and now Epic promises they will comply but Epic didn't get their dev account reinstated yet. Big difference is that Epic rolled the dice by filing a lawsuit about Apple's unfair rules and because they thought there was enough anti-Apple sentiment that they'd get a sympathetic judgement in their favor. Their gamble didn't work and in the process, Tim Sweeny's defiant attitude just made Apple dig in their heels even further. I'm reminded of that quote, "you come at the King, you best not miss." EDIT reply to some comments saying Epic didn't make a "promise" to comply with Apple's rules: >Did i miss something where they actually said that? In this thread's Fireball blogpost is a link to Tim Sweeney's tweet of an email screenshot to Apple's Phil Schiller stating his "promise": >Sep 16, 2021 at 5:01 PM; Subject: Fortnite and the App Store; To: Phil Schiller >[..] Epic promises that it will adhere to Apple’s guidelines whenever and wherever we release products on Apple platforms.[...] [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+reinstates+google+facebook+developer+account https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+reinstates+google+face...
- gameswithgo 5y ago
  Tim is in the fight for idealogical reasons, not calculated business ones.
  - PedroBatista 5y ago
    And thank "God" for people like him[1]. Life is unbearable under Tim Cook's "vision", the greed, arrogance and pettiness is at an all-time high, and it's not like it was low before.. [1] Also, nothing is black and white, of course Tim/Epic were looking to get more money from what their customers paid.
    - rawbot 5y ago
concinds 5y ago
This article doesn't mention the fact that Apple lied, and that Tim Cook "promised" in court that Epic would be let back in the app store if they promised to comply with the rules. Epic made that exact promise [1]. And now Apple's telling them: F you. What's going on at Apple? [1]: https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/news/apple-lied-breaks-its-promise-to-allow-fortnite-back-on-ios-under-its-rules https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/news/apple-lied-breaks-... and https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1440711467888615431 https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/144071146788861543... And the relevant quote from the Tim Cook testimony: > Apple has said that banning Epic Games was its only viable action, but at the same time, the company offered to let Fortnite back in the App Store if it agreed to the App Store rules. "Why would Apple do that if Epic is a bad actor?" the lawyer asked Cook. "It would benefit users to have them back on the store, if they abided by the rules," Cook said. "The user is trapped between two companies and it's not the right thing to do to the user." Cook said that Apple was not thinking about money at all, and Fortnite's revenue was not a consideration. From: https://www.macrumors.com/2021/05/21/tim-cook-epic-apple-trial/ https://www.macrumors.com/2021/05/21/tim-cook-epic-apple-tri...
- threatofrain 5y ago
  > (2) a declaration that (i) Apple’s termination of the DPLA and the related agreements between Epic Games and Apple was valid, lawful, and enforceable, and (ii) Apple has the contractual right to terminate its DPLA with any or all of Epic Games’ wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities under Epic Games’ control at any time and at Apple’s sole discretion. Lest anyone think Apple is ignoring the court.
  - concinds 5y ago
    The fact that Apple was allowed by the court to ban them indefinitely at their discretion, doesn't change the fact that making a public promise, in court (which was widely publicised at the time from what I recall) and reneging on it when their demands were met, is a little shocking, and certainly disappointing. The last time they made that promise was 8 days ago! > Apple says it won’t let Epic Games back in the App Store until they agree to “play by the same rules as everyone else.” From 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...
cblconfederate 5y ago
State of tech 2021: quarrelling about whose monopoly power is bigger
cmattoon 5y ago
This is from the company (Apple) who "mitigated" a zero-day with a case-sensitive string match so it could still be exploited? Like apple gives a shit about concealed code.
- mimsee 5y ago
  Apple cares about concealed code insofar as the code is being concealed from them. If Apple conceals code from the user, why would they care?
__void 5y ago
.
- yoz-y 5y ago
  A lot of people from here are reading the site so naturally they would post it here.
  - __void 5y ago
    yeah I just read here in some comments that he also makes television appearances... i didn't know that, i thought he was more of a "internet random guy"! ...you never stop learning
HatchedLake721 5y ago
That makes sense. Why would you do business ever again with someone who intentionally breached a contract, publicly smeared you with a calculated negative PR campaign and then sued you? After all this you offer them to allow Fortnite back if they reverse what they've done that breached the contract. Instead, they: - Reject the offer - Carry on smearing you - Lose the court case - Sweeney says they wouldn’t release iOS version with the pricing still being the same - Then they decide to do a PR stunt publicly sending a letter and ask to get back into App Store, while hinting they plan to toy with the courts ruling by attempting to put an in-app payment button that mimics Apple’s IAP And now they play a victim that they're not allowed back in to the App Store because they have no other avenue and they lost the court case. Tell me again why would _you_ do business with anyone like that?
- onion2k 5y ago
  Tell me again why would _you_ do business with anyone like that? me looking at the massive pile of money fortnite generates Yes.
  - smiley1437 5y ago
    > Tell me again why would _you_ do business with anyone like that? > me looking at the massive pile of money fortnite generates Yes. Even if it risks your future earnings of literally hundreds of billions of dollars? Apple made about 100 million (0.1 billion) from Fortnite. A lot of money, to be sure. https://fortune.com/2021/05/19/apple-fortnite-epic-games-100-million-revenue-app-store/ https://fortune.com/2021/05/19/apple-fortnite-epic-games-100... But 2020 App store gross revenue was 72 billion, 30% of that is 21 billion and it's growing rapidly. https://www.statista.com/statistics/296226/annual-apple-app-store-revenue/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/296226/annual-apple-app-... Making another 0.1 billion to risk losing hundreds of billions in the future seems like a poor strategy.
    - jfoster 5y ago
      Your premise seems to be that Epic being back on the app store increases the risk of change for Apple, but I would argue that making some degree of peace with Epic definitely decreases the risk of change for Apple. The only way I can rationalise Apple not allowing them back on is that Apple would like for that to be part of a settlement agreement.
locallost 5y ago
Sure, it's a f--- you move and Apple might like it, but if they keep it up, they will keep making enemies until they have no more friends. For every homer like Gruber there are many more people that just want to do something useful with Apple's technology. Like play Fortnite.
syspec 5y ago
Lest people think Apple must allow alternative IAP, or bypassing their commission. From the court ruling: > At step three, Epic Games has identified no suitable less restrictive alternative for Apple’s use of IAP based on the current record. The only alternative that Epic Games proposes is that Apple be barred from restricting or deterring in any way “the use of in-app payment processors other than IAP.” This proposed alternative is deficient for several reasons: > First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. > Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission > Indeed, while the Court finds no basis for the specific rate chosen by Apple (i.e., the 30% rate) based on the record, the Court still concludes that Apple is entitled to some compensation for use of its intellectual property.
- londons_explore 5y ago
  Epic totally picked the wrong way to approach this... They should have taken up the issue with the EU competition commission and asked them to issue big fines to Apple per day they don't allow competing app stores.
moonchrome 5y ago
What happened to that proposed US regulation that they will mandate alternate app stores on iPhone and make Google style strong-arming against other stores illegal. This sounds like the best solution by far. Nothing changes for Apple walled garden users and happy Google Play users. The rest of us get better choices.
- floatingatoll 5y ago
  How would this change the fact that Epic knowingly and intentionally violated a contract? The judge didn’t prohibit Apple from enforcement responses to the willful rule breaking by Epic. Apple said they’d reinstate Epic if Epic uploads a guidelines-compliant build. Epic instead said they’d upload a build that doesn’t comply with today’s guidelines. Apple declined Epic’s offer as it does not met the terms they presented, and withdrew the offer of early reinstatement. If Epic hadn’t decided to posture and had just uploaded a build that complies with today’s guidelines - which do not, and are not yet required to, allow external purchasing links - then they would have had their account reinstated. They chose not to do so, in a flashy and demanding way, having no leverage left against Apple. Bad choice. ps. This entire post is a dupe, rehashing the same discussions from yesterday. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28618332 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28618332
  - moonchrome 5y ago
    I don't really care about Apple store ? Like I don't care about Play Store - both have limitations I don't like. Android is more lax about permitting custom software installed on the phone but Google strongarms OEMs to prevent any competing stores. There's good money in maintaining appstores I'm certain someone will do it better than Apple and Google, I would very much welcome Steam mobile for example.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - floatingatoll 5y ago
      I think my reply went to the wrong parent comment, and I apologize for my error. You can safely disregard.
Invictus0 5y ago
Once you get past their family friendly PR, Apple has always been a pretty ruthless company. That said, Epic has also massively overplayed their hand and they shouldn't be surprised that Apple's called the bluff.
sigzero 5y ago
"Tim Sweeney is high as a kite." is my favorite line out that whole thing.
nixpulvis 5y ago
Epic took a stand and we should be behind them 100%. This case was never about winning on the letter of the contract law, it was about moving the standard of practice and attempting to gain some ground against the evils of mega-Apple. If you are reading this Grubber post and thinking you agree, that's only because you are used to thinking this way by now. The courts simply do not understand the power companies like Apple and Google have apparently. The startup cost of a competitor would be astronomical, as we've seen reflected in the quality, cost, and size of the small handful of other smartphone companies recently. Even if we seem new players become competitive, then what's to stop us from being back in this same situation in 10 years? 5 years? This is why we have Laws. Not even to mention that the telecom companies are still working against progress and taking absurd cuts for themselves. Hosting, platforming, and The Web are in crisis, as we're all aware. We should be firmly on the side of open access to our (developers) content. Why let the platforms eat our lunch? Maybe we should just be giving them a snack, or a little treat, but even that would just be for "services rendered", not as a condition for our meal. I'm just so fucking done with this, sorry I can't help but be a bit angry.
- nixpulvis 5y ago
  P.S. This is all part of the broader "Right to Repair" laws, just at the software level...
  - ncr100 5y ago
    No. Epic does not own Apple's App Store. They bought a license to publish on that platform. Then they violated it and were banned. And the judge agree it's Apple's right to do so, within limits.
- turdnagel 5y ago
  Really, that's not what this lawsuit was about, and the courts aren't supposed to tip the scales based the size of companies, are they? It's clear we need new laws to deal with the problems at hand. The ruling seemed pretty even-handed based on the law, even if you disagree with it.
nikochiko 5y ago
epic games should do "tit vs tat" and ban apple's account from playing fortnite
- nikochiko 5y ago
  /s
  - nikochiko 5y ago
    ban tim cook, or his kids
mattcantstop 5y ago
I understand Apple's decision to do this. They want to stick it to Epic. Completely understandable desire on Apple's part. But, sadly, Apple is letting their desire to get vengeance outweigh the interests of their users in having all the games they want to play on their devices. I have been realizing lately that my loyalty to Apple has been waning over the years after having invested heavily in the ecosystem. This is another representation to me of how Apple's ecosystem is something you have no control over, and you are at the whim of Apple's legal team in situations like that to be able to play the games you want to play on your devices. Apple remembered their corporate games they were playing and forgot who their real customer and focus should be: the end users. This decision doesn't benefit their end users in any meaningful way. It hurts end users to score points in their feud with Epic.
- Paianni 5y ago
  How do Epic's games benefit users in meaningful ways over any of the other non-exploitative games on the App Store?
  - SeanA208 5y ago
    > How do Epic's games benefit users in meaningful ways over any of the other games on the App Store? They benefit the users who want to play those games. Fortnite in particular is huge.
    - bashinator 5y ago
      On top of that, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that Fortnite is as much about socialization and open-ended interaction as it is a game. Apple banning what's potentially a next-generation social network from their platform isn't a great look.
      - lkois 5y ago
        But it has guns so it makes the children violent. Social gun violence (aka gangbanging) is not the rule of moral
blowski 5y ago
Regarding the footnote, are lawyers covering their arse in some way by having "VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL" when they send emails like this? Or is that just a convention from the 90s that nobody has bothered changing.
mikl 5y ago
I understand that Apple is pissed at Epic, but this is just petty spite. They are a big megacorp now, the need to abandon the habit of thinking themselves the underdog. It’s unbecoming.
Program_Install 5y ago
I am sick of Epic honestly, these companies always feeling entitled to someone else's work. With this fake "level playing field" nonsense. No one is forcing you to use iOS as your delivery platform. Epic is extremely disingenuous in this case, if they don't like it they have all the resources to create their own mobile device and platform.
- UnpossibleJim 5y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Apple_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Apple_Inc. They have a section on Apple's anticompetitive behavior and a link to quashing smaller companies viewed as competition in the past. I do admire your get up and go, though and I do think more people should put up more competition. I'm very break up monopoly, which we have quite a few examples of in America, using exorbitant market pressures to stifle competition.
- CharlesW 5y ago
  A surprising number of people who think of themselves as capitalists believe the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
outside1234 5y ago
Sounds like retaliation and is anti-competitive. Hope the EU is watching.
- sigzero 5y ago
  Nope. EPIC knowingly and intentionally violated the contract. End of story. It's up to the "good will" of Apple to let them back in at this point.
rhacker 5y ago
Next epic lawsuit: Apple must have a justified reason for banning a game / account that is outlined in their TOS. And the exact specific reason must be given in writing so it can be clearly addressed. I mean think about it. It's not just about a feud, the games are literally barred on all computers of a specific type (iOS computers). That's like 1/5 (probably more) of the computing screen that is looked at daily by all people. I mean at a certain point banning that is like banning eating. People gotta eat. Doesn't anyone else think it's weird that one organization can ban software from being on 1/5 of all computers in the world? Computing got a lot weirder than it was when I was a kid.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- valparaiso 5y ago
  > Next epic lawsuit: Apple must have a justified reason for banning a game / account that is outlined in their TOS. Do you have a dementia? Court clearly ruled Apple is not obligated to reinstate Fortnite/Epic in Apple Store because they breached the contract and court can't force one business to work with another. It's not communist Russia.
- darkwizard42 5y ago
  20% of computers that you can CHOOSE to use. I think the main part of the lawsuit is that Apple is not the only choice that is available (readily, easily, affordably) to consumers. Subway has the most franchise stores in the USA; that doesn't mean they HAVE to serve you. You can get a sandwich at a number of other places and more abstractly, you can get food at a number of other places. They don't need to give you a reason why they won't let you in, though politely they might (i.e. please wear shoes in the store)
  - rhacker 5y ago
    Your example doesn't exactly compare that well. If Subway was one of 6 places you can get a sandwich (or any food at all) I think most people would not want Subway to ban them. That would be crazy.
fmakunbound 5y ago
By the time this gets resolved, the world may have moved on from Epic’s Fortnite cash cow.
Mikeb85 5y ago
And this is why I refuse to give Apple any money whatsoever (also Microsoft for past shenanigans). User freedom matters. At least on Android, you can sideload apps (very easily too these days) if Google (or Samsung or Huawei or whichever app store you have) decides to ban an app. And Linux of course is completely free.
- stiltzkin 5y ago
  Good luck playing Fortnite on a Linux smartphone.
  - swebs 5y ago
    It would be a reasonable possibility if Tim Sweeny wasn't such a raging hypocrite.
  - Mikeb85 5y ago
    Anyhow, I referenced Linux as an example of a free OS since I mentioned all Apple products and MS (ie. Windows) as examples of non-free platforms. And Fortnite does run on Android.
twirlock 5y ago
It doesn't matter because within six months people will start realizing that the game fucking sucks.
some_other_time 5y ago
As a developer, I can understand wanting to have a separate IAP, but this should add another level. If I create something for sale within Fortnite, I don't want to share that profit with Epic. I want to use my own IAP. If Apple has to provide alternative IAP for creators/developers on their platform, the developers should also have to provide alternative IAP for creators within their platform/app.
Animats 5y ago
I would not be surprised if Epic launched a phone to compete with Apple. Epic partners with Tencent in China for games. Tencent sells a "gamer phone", the Black Shark.[1] 90Hz display, liquid cooled. All Epic needs to do is offer that in the US. With a bit of marketing effort, Epic could make their phone the one the cool middle school kids want. Instead of one of those slow Apple old-people phones. [1] https://www.gizchina.com/2020/03/03/tencent-black-shark-3-and-pro-gaming-phones-uncovered/ https://www.gizchina.com/2020/03/03/tencent-black-shark-3-an...
- rchaud 5y ago
  Epic already has a games store competing with Steam. Steam Deck is on the way this winter, and will succeed in locking down users to a Steam ecosystem (majority won't bother replacing SteamOS w/ windows). An Epic-made handheld gaming device wouldn't be out of the question.
- ncr100 5y ago
  This is possible. Epic has not started doing hardware, as far as I know. And they're "hot" on the metaverse, which has a strong opportunity for new hardware (AR, etc). So that could be the future of Tim.
- cheeze 5y ago
  > liquid cooled What!? That's interesting. Guessing it's 'vapor cooled'?
  - Animats 5y ago
    Probably a heat pipe to spread the CPU and GPU heat around.
spzb 5y ago
Starting to sound like Epic have bitten off more than they can chew.
achenatx 5y ago
There is no such thing as "fair". There is only what two sides in a transaction can agree to and what is legal. In this case apple is not a monopoly, epic has many other avenues to sell their product. I personally dont like the apple ecosystem, but if they can get away with charging 30% they should, until the market doesnt support it anymore.
yarcob 5y ago
I've been an Apple user for more than 20 years, and I really like their products, but every year I am feeling more and more fleezed. It pisses me off that they overcharge on storage and memory, leading to a situation where everyone who is on a budget struggles with artificially limited machines. I understand that they need to offer multiple price points to cover the market, but I actually preferred it when they just charged more for black. It annoys me that they arbitrarily block content to enforce their weird standards (eg. no nudity allowed) or just whenever they feel someone is not paying them enough of their revenue. It annoys me that their overarching goal is no longer to make the best products, but instead the goal is to make you keep buying accessories and services even after you already bought their stuff. I dunno. For my home computer I already switched to Windows. There's probably lots to complain about with Microsoft as well, but I'm surprised how nice some things are after years of thinking Apple was so far ahead.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
CalChris 5y ago
The applicable legal maxim is Justice delayed is justice denied. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_delayed_is_justice_denied https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_delayed_is_justice_d...
dirkg 5y ago
Is anyone surprised? Apple is one of the most vengeful and anti-competition companies ever and their goal is to lock consumers into their ecosystem and rip them off, and god help any company that tries to get in the way. They are a bully and can act this way because Epic to them is meaningless. Theres only a handful of companies who can actually threaten Apple with their same medicine at this point, and unfortunately this means consumers suffer.
snigacookie 5y ago
I want a secure system fuck epic

427 points by robin_reala 5y ago

> Epic will resubmit Fortnite to the App Store if you adhere to the plain language of the court order and allow apps to include buttons and external links that direct customers to other purchasing mechanisms without onerous terms or impediments to a good user experience. That seems very reasonable, why wouldn't Apple be forced to comply with the court order?

ribit 5y ago
I guess it has to do with the fact that Epic has appealed the court verdict. I can understand that Apple doesn’t feel like doing business with someone who has an active legal case against them.
- Jensson 5y ago
  That makes sense, thanks! The dispute isn't resolved yet, easy to understand. I assume if Epic accepted the court ruling then Apple would be forced to comply?
  - nyx-aiur 5y ago
    No, because in the ruling it was stated that apple has every right to not only ban epic but also to ban every epic subsidiary if they so desire.
  - ribit 5y ago
    I am not sure they can be forced to comply (if I remember correctly this particular court decision mentioned that Apple was within their right for terminating Epic’s account), but that’s just half of the story. It is true that Apple has promised to reinstate Epic once they agree to follow their rules. What I find really disingenuous about all this is Tim Sweeney‘s attitude - he appeals the decision while at the same time publicly blaming Apple for not following up on their part of the bargain. It’s just embarrassing at this point.
  - madeofpalk 5y ago
    Apple would be forced to comply with the court ruling, which does not require Apple to reinstate Epic's account and allow Fortnite back on the App Store.
threatofrain 5y ago
Apple is complying with court rulings, including the judgment that Apple's contract with Epic is valid and enforceable. Apple could hypothetically ban all of Epic's accounts forever, but only the Fortnite account is banned. This appears to be a win for... payment vendors. At this point Epic can only hope for legislative action. Also on the "reasonableness" of Epic's promises... I'm not sure why making a pinky promise in a non-legal setting is any more serious than a legal contract they already choose to break.
- YPPH 5y ago
  >Apple could hypothetically ban all of Epic's accounts forever Is this mere conjecture or is it founded on what was said in the court's opinion?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - madeofpalk 5y ago
    Court's opinion was the Apple has the right to enforce it's contract and ban Epic's developer account.
- Jensson 5y ago
  But wasn't Epic banned just because they broke that rule the court now ordered Apple not to enforce? Isn't it strange that this lawsuit would result in Apple now being able to enforce that rule only for Epic and they aren't allowed to enforce it for anyone else? Is that how it is supposed to work?
  - kevingadd 5y ago
    It certainly could be interpreted as contempt of court but in practice Apple has hundreds of vague rules in their developer policies and they use them on a daily basis to block apps or updates just because they feel like it. They would have no difficulty constructing a retroactive excuse for banning Epic (and all their customers, as they threatened previously) from the store.
helsinkiandrew 5y ago
> why wouldn't Apple be forced to comply with the court order? They seem to be waiting until all appeals have finished: "Apple will not consider any further requests for reinstatement until the district court's judgement becomes final and nonappealable." https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1440711772483186690 https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/144071177248318669...
- londons_explore 5y ago
  Effectively telling Epic that if they are serious about this issue, they need to batten down for a multi-year court battle and give up selling games in the meantime.
gehsty 5y ago
A short summary of the ruling is that Apple has no ‘duty to deal’ with Epic (you can’t force someone to do business with someone), so they can let them in when they want. If Epic did not appeal, and submitted a version of fortnight that complied with App Store requirements I think they would be in the store rn.
mbreese 5y ago
Apple is complying with the court order (so far as we can currently tell). Not reinstating Epic’s developer account is a separate issue. It was explicitly stated in the court order that Apple was allowed to terminate Epic’s account and it was solely up to them if they wanted to reinstate it. Opening the payment mechanisms for other developers is a separate issue to whether or not Epic could still sell iOS apps on the AppStore.
electriclove 5y ago
Epic is appealing the decision. Sweeney is promising to follow the rules but is also trying to take Apple down. Definitely duplicitous. Apple does not have to let Epic back in.
floatingatoll 5y ago
It is very self-serving of Epic to offer Apple a legal interpretation of the court's decision free of charge, that delivers Epic all benefits it failed to receive in the court decision. Apple is, however, free to disregard Epic's input on interpretation, no matter how plausible Epic's phrasing may sound to others. Apple is not forced to comply with Epic's interpretation of the court order — Apple is forced to comply with Apple's interpretation of the court order, and has another ~10 weeks to decide how they will choose to comply with the order, assuming that it isn't suspended during the appeals process. If a court later decides that Apple has not complied, then Apple will be answerable to the court, not to Epic, for their interpretations.

hughrr 5y ago

No winners either side. And of course no winning for their customers either. I increasingly want nothing to do with battling corporate giants.

isodev 5y ago
Indeed. It was quite clear from the beginning this is more about Epic's bottom line than the interest of users or developers.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  I don't think it's very good for their bottom line. I'm pretty sure if they were a public company then their CEO would have been ousted by now.
  - kevingadd 5y ago
    According to the court disclosures, their iOS revenue wasn't as big as you'd think (less than 10%, iirc). If that's gross revenue, it would mean the net revenue is considerably lower. Once you factor in the costs to earn that revenue - maintaining the iOS client, OS-specific online services, etc - it probably wasn't too hard for them to stomach the hit, especially since the potential upside was pocketing more revenue in the future. They were also making a larger scale play here, they want to get rid of 30% cuts in general, which means they get to keep more of their Android revenue and likely more of their revenue on PlayStation and XBox (The court case revealed that Sony is basically charging extortion money to allow cross-platform play.)
- croon 5y ago
  Of course, but Epic's bottom line isn't necessarily mutually exclusive to the interests of users or developers.
- mschuster91 5y ago
  So what? Assuming that the battle does lead to an enforced (either via court or legislation) opening of the App Store or to massively reduced pricing for developers, the net outcome for users and developers is still positive. One might even argue that it did need Epic as one of the largest mobile software vendors to challenge Apple both in PR and the courts. Small developers have complained without any effect whatsoever for years about the App Store restrictions (especially adult/otherwise "not family friendly" content, or wishing to use an HTML renderer that is not full of bugs) or Apple booting out their existence with no reason or way of appealing.

me_me_me 5y ago

Oh poor epic, I am so saddened by their mistreatment. Is epic succeeding in their narrative as a poor little mistreated company sticking it to the man? I care very little about godzilla vs king kong lawyer fights.

spywaregorilla 5y ago
little people often cared a lot about godzilla fights because godzilla was protecting them from a giant monster
- me_me_me 5y ago
  In this analogy small people care about the outcome, the fake drama and PR is just none important.
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    I would be very happy if I could sell ios content and keep 88% (epic) vs. 70% (apple) of my own revenue. That's a 25% boost in my revenue. That's huge.
    - briandear 5y ago
      You already can keep 85%.
      - spywaregorilla 5y ago
        Great! Thanks Epic. But that's not enough. I want actual market competition.
    - me_me_me 5y ago
      That is what i am saying, outcome and not the process. following epic vs apple fight - the whole play and dance, throwing mud etc etc. Its not worth your time, you cannot affect the outcome. Just ignore it all and learn about the outcome in the end.

tpmx 5y ago

As an aside: Gruber/Daring Fireball seems to be getting less and less popular: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%22daring%20fireball%22 https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%22darin...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dubcanada 5y ago
I'm not sure going from an average of 25 searches to 5 really matters lol. Nobody really searches for him, they just read articles by him linked from somewhere else. Anyone who knows him is probably technical and just goes directly to his site.
- pluc 5y ago
  Don't ever let marketers tell you facts
danpalmer 5y ago
Meanwhile the number of TV appearances he does and the amount he sells advertising on his site for have both gone up significantly. I think he's doing fine.
magoon 5y ago
Is it possible this graph also reflects that his readers are more likely to employ Safari’s tracker-blocking?
yoz-y 5y ago
Note also that he publishes all articles in full on RSS. There is not much need to search for it.
sidibe 5y ago
Hasn't crossed my newsfeeds in a long time. He is the original professional fanboy, Tesla has a whole bunch of people clamoring to be the Gruber of Tesla.

jasode 5y ago

It's interesting to compare the situation Epic got itself into with previous episodes of Facebook & Google breaking Apple's rules. When Facebook and Google misused Developer Enterprise certificates to go beyond internal testing and distribute apps to end-consumers, Apple revoked their accounts. Both Facebook & Google simply admitted they screwed up and Apple reinstated their accounts.[1] No lawsuits. Epic broke Apple's in-app-purchase rules and now Epic promises they will comply but Epic didn't get their dev account reinstated yet. Big difference is that Epic rolled the dice by filing a lawsuit about Apple's unfair rules and because they thought there was enough anti-Apple sentiment that they'd get a sympathetic judgement in their favor. Their gamble didn't work and in the process, Tim Sweeny's defiant attitude just made Apple dig in their heels even further. I'm reminded of that quote, "you come at the King, you best not miss." EDIT reply to some comments saying Epic didn't make a "promise" to comply with Apple's rules: >Did i miss something where they actually said that? In this thread's Fireball blogpost is a link to Tim Sweeney's tweet of an email screenshot to Apple's Phil Schiller stating his "promise": >Sep 16, 2021 at 5:01 PM; Subject: Fortnite and the App Store; To: Phil Schiller >[..] Epic promises that it will adhere to Apple’s guidelines whenever and wherever we release products on Apple platforms.[...] [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+reinstates+google+facebook+developer+account https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+reinstates+google+face...

gameswithgo 5y ago
Tim is in the fight for idealogical reasons, not calculated business ones.
- PedroBatista 5y ago
  And thank "God" for people like him[1]. Life is unbearable under Tim Cook's "vision", the greed, arrogance and pettiness is at an all-time high, and it's not like it was low before.. [1] Also, nothing is black and white, of course Tim/Epic were looking to get more money from what their customers paid.
  - rawbot 5y ago

concinds 5y ago

This article doesn't mention the fact that Apple lied, and that Tim Cook "promised" in court that Epic would be let back in the app store if they promised to comply with the rules. Epic made that exact promise [1]. And now Apple's telling them: F you. What's going on at Apple? [1]: https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/news/apple-lied-breaks-its-promise-to-allow-fortnite-back-on-ios-under-its-rules https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/news/apple-lied-breaks-... and https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1440711467888615431 https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/144071146788861543... And the relevant quote from the Tim Cook testimony: > Apple has said that banning Epic Games was its only viable action, but at the same time, the company offered to let Fortnite back in the App Store if it agreed to the App Store rules. "Why would Apple do that if Epic is a bad actor?" the lawyer asked Cook. "It would benefit users to have them back on the store, if they abided by the rules," Cook said. "The user is trapped between two companies and it's not the right thing to do to the user." Cook said that Apple was not thinking about money at all, and Fortnite's revenue was not a consideration. From: https://www.macrumors.com/2021/05/21/tim-cook-epic-apple-trial/ https://www.macrumors.com/2021/05/21/tim-cook-epic-apple-tri...

threatofrain 5y ago
> (2) a declaration that (i) Apple’s termination of the DPLA and the related agreements between Epic Games and Apple was valid, lawful, and enforceable, and (ii) Apple has the contractual right to terminate its DPLA with any or all of Epic Games’ wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities under Epic Games’ control at any time and at Apple’s sole discretion. Lest anyone think Apple is ignoring the court.
- concinds 5y ago
  The fact that Apple was allowed by the court to ban them indefinitely at their discretion, doesn't change the fact that making a public promise, in court (which was widely publicised at the time from what I recall) and reneging on it when their demands were met, is a little shocking, and certainly disappointing. The last time they made that promise was 8 days ago! > Apple says it won’t let Epic Games back in the App Store until they agree to “play by the same rules as everyone else.” From 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...

cblconfederate 5y ago

State of tech 2021: quarrelling about whose monopoly power is bigger

cmattoon 5y ago

This is from the company (Apple) who "mitigated" a zero-day with a case-sensitive string match so it could still be exploited? Like apple gives a shit about concealed code.

mimsee 5y ago
Apple cares about concealed code insofar as the code is being concealed from them. If Apple conceals code from the user, why would they care?

__void 5y ago

yoz-y 5y ago
A lot of people from here are reading the site so naturally they would post it here.
- __void 5y ago
  yeah I just read here in some comments that he also makes television appearances... i didn't know that, i thought he was more of a "internet random guy"! ...you never stop learning

HatchedLake721 5y ago

That makes sense. Why would you do business ever again with someone who intentionally breached a contract, publicly smeared you with a calculated negative PR campaign and then sued you? After all this you offer them to allow Fortnite back if they reverse what they've done that breached the contract. Instead, they: - Reject the offer - Carry on smearing you - Lose the court case - Sweeney says they wouldn’t release iOS version with the pricing still being the same - Then they decide to do a PR stunt publicly sending a letter and ask to get back into App Store, while hinting they plan to toy with the courts ruling by attempting to put an in-app payment button that mimics Apple’s IAP And now they play a victim that they're not allowed back in to the App Store because they have no other avenue and they lost the court case. Tell me again why would _you_ do business with anyone like that?

onion2k 5y ago
Tell me again why would _you_ do business with anyone like that? me looking at the massive pile of money fortnite generates Yes.
- smiley1437 5y ago
  > Tell me again why would _you_ do business with anyone like that? > me looking at the massive pile of money fortnite generates Yes. Even if it risks your future earnings of literally hundreds of billions of dollars? Apple made about 100 million (0.1 billion) from Fortnite. A lot of money, to be sure. https://fortune.com/2021/05/19/apple-fortnite-epic-games-100-million-revenue-app-store/ https://fortune.com/2021/05/19/apple-fortnite-epic-games-100... But 2020 App store gross revenue was 72 billion, 30% of that is 21 billion and it's growing rapidly. https://www.statista.com/statistics/296226/annual-apple-app-store-revenue/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/296226/annual-apple-app-... Making another 0.1 billion to risk losing hundreds of billions in the future seems like a poor strategy.
  - jfoster 5y ago
    Your premise seems to be that Epic being back on the app store increases the risk of change for Apple, but I would argue that making some degree of peace with Epic definitely decreases the risk of change for Apple. The only way I can rationalise Apple not allowing them back on is that Apple would like for that to be part of a settlement agreement.

locallost 5y ago

Sure, it's a f--- you move and Apple might like it, but if they keep it up, they will keep making enemies until they have no more friends. For every homer like Gruber there are many more people that just want to do something useful with Apple's technology. Like play Fortnite.

syspec 5y ago

Lest people think Apple must allow alternative IAP, or bypassing their commission. From the court ruling: > At step three, Epic Games has identified no suitable less restrictive alternative for Apple’s use of IAP based on the current record. The only alternative that Epic Games proposes is that Apple be barred from restricting or deterring in any way “the use of in-app payment processors other than IAP.” This proposed alternative is deficient for several reasons: > First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. > Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission > Indeed, while the Court finds no basis for the specific rate chosen by Apple (i.e., the 30% rate) based on the record, the Court still concludes that Apple is entitled to some compensation for use of its intellectual property.

londons_explore 5y ago
Epic totally picked the wrong way to approach this... They should have taken up the issue with the EU competition commission and asked them to issue big fines to Apple per day they don't allow competing app stores.

moonchrome 5y ago

What happened to that proposed US regulation that they will mandate alternate app stores on iPhone and make Google style strong-arming against other stores illegal. This sounds like the best solution by far. Nothing changes for Apple walled garden users and happy Google Play users. The rest of us get better choices.

floatingatoll 5y ago
How would this change the fact that Epic knowingly and intentionally violated a contract? The judge didn’t prohibit Apple from enforcement responses to the willful rule breaking by Epic. Apple said they’d reinstate Epic if Epic uploads a guidelines-compliant build. Epic instead said they’d upload a build that doesn’t comply with today’s guidelines. Apple declined Epic’s offer as it does not met the terms they presented, and withdrew the offer of early reinstatement. If Epic hadn’t decided to posture and had just uploaded a build that complies with today’s guidelines - which do not, and are not yet required to, allow external purchasing links - then they would have had their account reinstated. They chose not to do so, in a flashy and demanding way, having no leverage left against Apple. Bad choice. ps. This entire post is a dupe, rehashing the same discussions from yesterday. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28618332 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28618332
- moonchrome 5y ago
  I don't really care about Apple store ? Like I don't care about Play Store - both have limitations I don't like. Android is more lax about permitting custom software installed on the phone but Google strongarms OEMs to prevent any competing stores. There's good money in maintaining appstores I'm certain someone will do it better than Apple and Google, I would very much welcome Steam mobile for example.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - floatingatoll 5y ago
    I think my reply went to the wrong parent comment, and I apologize for my error. You can safely disregard.

Invictus0 5y ago

Once you get past their family friendly PR, Apple has always been a pretty ruthless company. That said, Epic has also massively overplayed their hand and they shouldn't be surprised that Apple's called the bluff.

sigzero 5y ago

"Tim Sweeney is high as a kite." is my favorite line out that whole thing.

nixpulvis 5y ago

Epic took a stand and we should be behind them 100%. This case was never about winning on the letter of the contract law, it was about moving the standard of practice and attempting to gain some ground against the evils of mega-Apple. If you are reading this Grubber post and thinking you agree, that's only because you are used to thinking this way by now. The courts simply do not understand the power companies like Apple and Google have apparently. The startup cost of a competitor would be astronomical, as we've seen reflected in the quality, cost, and size of the small handful of other smartphone companies recently. Even if we seem new players become competitive, then what's to stop us from being back in this same situation in 10 years? 5 years? This is why we have Laws. Not even to mention that the telecom companies are still working against progress and taking absurd cuts for themselves. Hosting, platforming, and The Web are in crisis, as we're all aware. We should be firmly on the side of open access to our (developers) content. Why let the platforms eat our lunch? Maybe we should just be giving them a snack, or a little treat, but even that would just be for "services rendered", not as a condition for our meal. I'm just so fucking done with this, sorry I can't help but be a bit angry.

nixpulvis 5y ago
P.S. This is all part of the broader "Right to Repair" laws, just at the software level...
- ncr100 5y ago
  No. Epic does not own Apple's App Store. They bought a license to publish on that platform. Then they violated it and were banned. And the judge agree it's Apple's right to do so, within limits.
turdnagel 5y ago
Really, that's not what this lawsuit was about, and the courts aren't supposed to tip the scales based the size of companies, are they? It's clear we need new laws to deal with the problems at hand. The ruling seemed pretty even-handed based on the law, even if you disagree with it.

nikochiko 5y ago

epic games should do "tit vs tat" and ban apple's account from playing fortnite

nikochiko 5y ago
/s
- nikochiko 5y ago
  ban tim cook, or his kids

mattcantstop 5y ago

I understand Apple's decision to do this. They want to stick it to Epic. Completely understandable desire on Apple's part. But, sadly, Apple is letting their desire to get vengeance outweigh the interests of their users in having all the games they want to play on their devices. I have been realizing lately that my loyalty to Apple has been waning over the years after having invested heavily in the ecosystem. This is another representation to me of how Apple's ecosystem is something you have no control over, and you are at the whim of Apple's legal team in situations like that to be able to play the games you want to play on your devices. Apple remembered their corporate games they were playing and forgot who their real customer and focus should be: the end users. This decision doesn't benefit their end users in any meaningful way. It hurts end users to score points in their feud with Epic.

Paianni 5y ago
How do Epic's games benefit users in meaningful ways over any of the other non-exploitative games on the App Store?
- SeanA208 5y ago
  > How do Epic's games benefit users in meaningful ways over any of the other games on the App Store? They benefit the users who want to play those games. Fortnite in particular is huge.
  - bashinator 5y ago
    On top of that, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that Fortnite is as much about socialization and open-ended interaction as it is a game. Apple banning what's potentially a next-generation social network from their platform isn't a great look.
    - lkois 5y ago
      But it has guns so it makes the children violent. Social gun violence (aka gangbanging) is not the rule of moral

blowski 5y ago

Regarding the footnote, are lawyers covering their arse in some way by having "VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL" when they send emails like this? Or is that just a convention from the 90s that nobody has bothered changing.

mikl 5y ago

I understand that Apple is pissed at Epic, but this is just petty spite. They are a big megacorp now, the need to abandon the habit of thinking themselves the underdog. It’s unbecoming.

Program_Install 5y ago

I am sick of Epic honestly, these companies always feeling entitled to someone else's work. With this fake "level playing field" nonsense. No one is forcing you to use iOS as your delivery platform. Epic is extremely disingenuous in this case, if they don't like it they have all the resources to create their own mobile device and platform.

UnpossibleJim 5y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Apple_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Apple_Inc. They have a section on Apple's anticompetitive behavior and a link to quashing smaller companies viewed as competition in the past. I do admire your get up and go, though and I do think more people should put up more competition. I'm very break up monopoly, which we have quite a few examples of in America, using exorbitant market pressures to stifle competition.
CharlesW 5y ago
A surprising number of people who think of themselves as capitalists believe the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

outside1234 5y ago

Sounds like retaliation and is anti-competitive. Hope the EU is watching.

sigzero 5y ago
Nope. EPIC knowingly and intentionally violated the contract. End of story. It's up to the "good will" of Apple to let them back in at this point.

rhacker 5y ago

Next epic lawsuit: Apple must have a justified reason for banning a game / account that is outlined in their TOS. And the exact specific reason must be given in writing so it can be clearly addressed. I mean think about it. It's not just about a feud, the games are literally barred on all computers of a specific type (iOS computers). That's like 1/5 (probably more) of the computing screen that is looked at daily by all people. I mean at a certain point banning that is like banning eating. People gotta eat. Doesn't anyone else think it's weird that one organization can ban software from being on 1/5 of all computers in the world? Computing got a lot weirder than it was when I was a kid.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
valparaiso 5y ago
> Next epic lawsuit: Apple must have a justified reason for banning a game / account that is outlined in their TOS. Do you have a dementia? Court clearly ruled Apple is not obligated to reinstate Fortnite/Epic in Apple Store because they breached the contract and court can't force one business to work with another. It's not communist Russia.
darkwizard42 5y ago
20% of computers that you can CHOOSE to use. I think the main part of the lawsuit is that Apple is not the only choice that is available (readily, easily, affordably) to consumers. Subway has the most franchise stores in the USA; that doesn't mean they HAVE to serve you. You can get a sandwich at a number of other places and more abstractly, you can get food at a number of other places. They don't need to give you a reason why they won't let you in, though politely they might (i.e. please wear shoes in the store)
- rhacker 5y ago
  Your example doesn't exactly compare that well. If Subway was one of 6 places you can get a sandwich (or any food at all) I think most people would not want Subway to ban them. That would be crazy.

fmakunbound 5y ago

By the time this gets resolved, the world may have moved on from Epic’s Fortnite cash cow.

Mikeb85 5y ago

And this is why I refuse to give Apple any money whatsoever (also Microsoft for past shenanigans). User freedom matters. At least on Android, you can sideload apps (very easily too these days) if Google (or Samsung or Huawei or whichever app store you have) decides to ban an app. And Linux of course is completely free.

stiltzkin 5y ago
Good luck playing Fortnite on a Linux smartphone.
- swebs 5y ago
  It would be a reasonable possibility if Tim Sweeny wasn't such a raging hypocrite.
- Mikeb85 5y ago
  Anyhow, I referenced Linux as an example of a free OS since I mentioned all Apple products and MS (ie. Windows) as examples of non-free platforms. And Fortnite does run on Android.

twirlock 5y ago

It doesn't matter because within six months people will start realizing that the game fucking sucks.

some_other_time 5y ago

As a developer, I can understand wanting to have a separate IAP, but this should add another level. If I create something for sale within Fortnite, I don't want to share that profit with Epic. I want to use my own IAP. If Apple has to provide alternative IAP for creators/developers on their platform, the developers should also have to provide alternative IAP for creators within their platform/app.

Animats 5y ago

I would not be surprised if Epic launched a phone to compete with Apple. Epic partners with Tencent in China for games. Tencent sells a "gamer phone", the Black Shark.[1] 90Hz display, liquid cooled. All Epic needs to do is offer that in the US. With a bit of marketing effort, Epic could make their phone the one the cool middle school kids want. Instead of one of those slow Apple old-people phones. [1] https://www.gizchina.com/2020/03/03/tencent-black-shark-3-and-pro-gaming-phones-uncovered/ https://www.gizchina.com/2020/03/03/tencent-black-shark-3-an...

rchaud 5y ago
Epic already has a games store competing with Steam. Steam Deck is on the way this winter, and will succeed in locking down users to a Steam ecosystem (majority won't bother replacing SteamOS w/ windows). An Epic-made handheld gaming device wouldn't be out of the question.
ncr100 5y ago
This is possible. Epic has not started doing hardware, as far as I know. And they're "hot" on the metaverse, which has a strong opportunity for new hardware (AR, etc). So that could be the future of Tim.
cheeze 5y ago
> liquid cooled What!? That's interesting. Guessing it's 'vapor cooled'?
- Animats 5y ago
  Probably a heat pipe to spread the CPU and GPU heat around.

spzb 5y ago

Starting to sound like Epic have bitten off more than they can chew.

achenatx 5y ago

There is no such thing as "fair". There is only what two sides in a transaction can agree to and what is legal. In this case apple is not a monopoly, epic has many other avenues to sell their product. I personally dont like the apple ecosystem, but if they can get away with charging 30% they should, until the market doesnt support it anymore.

yarcob 5y ago

I've been an Apple user for more than 20 years, and I really like their products, but every year I am feeling more and more fleezed. It pisses me off that they overcharge on storage and memory, leading to a situation where everyone who is on a budget struggles with artificially limited machines. I understand that they need to offer multiple price points to cover the market, but I actually preferred it when they just charged more for black. It annoys me that they arbitrarily block content to enforce their weird standards (eg. no nudity allowed) or just whenever they feel someone is not paying them enough of their revenue. It annoys me that their overarching goal is no longer to make the best products, but instead the goal is to make you keep buying accessories and services even after you already bought their stuff. I dunno. For my home computer I already switched to Windows. There's probably lots to complain about with Microsoft as well, but I'm surprised how nice some things are after years of thinking Apple was so far ahead.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

CalChris 5y ago

The applicable legal maxim is Justice delayed is justice denied. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_delayed_is_justice_denied https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_delayed_is_justice_d...

dirkg 5y ago

Is anyone surprised? Apple is one of the most vengeful and anti-competition companies ever and their goal is to lock consumers into their ecosystem and rip them off, and god help any company that tries to get in the way. They are a bully and can act this way because Epic to them is meaningless. Theres only a handful of companies who can actually threaten Apple with their same medicine at this point, and unfortunately this means consumers suffer.

snigacookie 5y ago

I want a secure system fuck epic