4 ms·

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 Ep

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.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- didibus 5y ago
  > Is that how it is supposed to work? Yup, the judge ordered Epic to pay some millions to Apple in damages. So it said something like, Epic was wrong to do what they did and did break their contract, but also said from now on that Apple can't prevent devs from steering customers to outside the App Store payments.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  No, Epic directly offered in-game payment options for the Epic currency. The judge ordered Apple to allow in-game links to online purchase options, not to directly allow in-app purchases from 3rd parties.
Jensson 5y ago
> 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. Apple said they would reinstate Epic based on a pinky promise, they just wanted more in the promise they didn't question the promise itself. Pinky promises are absolutely a thing, not sure why you are ridiculing that part here.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  Legal contracts are also a thing? In terms of seriousness, if you're willing to violate legal contracts, then what is the value of a pinky promise? The value of any promise is the sum of your credibility.
  - Aeolun 5y ago
    Well, violating the legal contract is just a cost of doing business, that’s why Epic shrugs and pays 6M. I’d argue that the pinky promise means more.
    - madeofpalk 5y ago
      What is a contract if not a slightly more legally binding pinky promise?
      - salawat 5y ago
        Something prone to procedural weaponization in the sense that strategic refusal to even consider redlined terms (the entire point of meeting of the minds) is rife. I'd like to direct your attention to every piece of software's license agreement to which the answer to "decline" or "disagree" is to cease execution. Not to figure out what the person is actually okay with, and modifying execution from there. Network effects are explicitly exploited (see "economies of scale") to lock in what the provider specifically wants. Hence why FLOSS is so important for it's role of providing BATNA.
Dah00n 5y ago
>Apple could hypothetically ban all of Epic's accounts forever That is just plain wrong. There's no difference in Apple banning all Epic accounts over this and Apple Banning Microsoft or you for what Epic did. Epic is not one company, each account is a different business. Banning different companies in different countries and continents because of a brand name would get Apple sued into oblivion and would likely be the nail in the coffin for a closed app store.
- 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. Why do you think this is plain wrong?
  - InGoodFaith 5y ago
    As you might recall - Apple did retaliate previously by also banning an associated Epic Account (for Unreal Engine and such) but was later legally forced not to [1] 1: https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/9/21492334/epic-fortnite-apple-lawsuit-restraining-order-unreal-engine https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/9/21492334/epic-fortnite-ap...
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - notafraudster 5y ago
      That was a temporary restraining order [1] and later certified in a preliminary injunction [2], which is what occurs before a trial in order to best preserve the pre-trial status quo and protect parties from harm pending trial. You will note that the preliminary injunction vacates the temporary restraining order and notes that it will "remain in force until the disposition of this case". The case has been disposed. The final ruling explicitly allows "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." I seriously recommend not relying on blog analysis of a court case and instead reading the court documents, and if you are unable to do so (understandable!) to avoid participating in the conversation in the manner of correcting someone. 1: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.48.0_3.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36... 2: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.118.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36...
fxtentacle 5y ago
In reality, though, Apple would be throwing half of their game developers under the bus if they disable the Unreal Engine account. So if Epic can bait them to do that, they'll have plenty of frustrated developers to push public anti-Apple sentiment.
- dkonofalski 5y ago
  As long as those developers can still test their games on the platform, there will only be anti-Epic sentiment. Every game developer using the Unreal Engine is seeing this play out just like we are and they're seeing that it's Epic's actions that are causing that issue. With the state of game engines today, many may even consider moving away from Unreal for future games specifically because of Epic's actions.
  - fxtentacle 5y ago
    I've been involved with a few game projects and their developers. In general, everyone likes dealing with Epic because you can reach the actual developers quickly and they'll provide timely bug-fixes. Also, they are famously laid-back while your revenue is <$1 mio per game .. so most Indie developers experience them more as a charity than as a business. Apple, on the other hand, is widely known as arbitrary, both on technical things and on what content or what games are allowed. So if you tell a random game developer that Apple and Epic are fighting, most people will assume that it's Apple's fault because Epic has built up a lot of goodwill in that community.
    - dkonofalski 5y ago
      We don't need assumptions. We have actual evidence that everyone can see. Epic started this fight and lost.

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.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
didibus 5y ago
> Is that how it is supposed to work? Yup, the judge ordered Epic to pay some millions to Apple in damages. So it said something like, Epic was wrong to do what they did and did break their contract, but also said from now on that Apple can't prevent devs from steering customers to outside the App Store payments.
tsimionescu 5y ago
No, Epic directly offered in-game payment options for the Epic currency. The judge ordered Apple to allow in-game links to online purchase options, not to directly allow in-app purchases from 3rd parties.

Jensson 5y ago

> 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. Apple said they would reinstate Epic based on a pinky promise, they just wanted more in the promise they didn't question the promise itself. Pinky promises are absolutely a thing, not sure why you are ridiculing that part here.

threatofrain 5y ago
Legal contracts are also a thing? In terms of seriousness, if you're willing to violate legal contracts, then what is the value of a pinky promise? The value of any promise is the sum of your credibility.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  Well, violating the legal contract is just a cost of doing business, that’s why Epic shrugs and pays 6M. I’d argue that the pinky promise means more.
  - madeofpalk 5y ago
    What is a contract if not a slightly more legally binding pinky promise?
    - salawat 5y ago
      Something prone to procedural weaponization in the sense that strategic refusal to even consider redlined terms (the entire point of meeting of the minds) is rife. I'd like to direct your attention to every piece of software's license agreement to which the answer to "decline" or "disagree" is to cease execution. Not to figure out what the person is actually okay with, and modifying execution from there. Network effects are explicitly exploited (see "economies of scale") to lock in what the provider specifically wants. Hence why FLOSS is so important for it's role of providing BATNA.

Dah00n 5y ago

>Apple could hypothetically ban all of Epic's accounts forever That is just plain wrong. There's no difference in Apple banning all Epic accounts over this and Apple Banning Microsoft or you for what Epic did. Epic is not one company, each account is a different business. Banning different companies in different countries and continents because of a brand name would get Apple sued into oblivion and would likely be the nail in the coffin for a closed app store.

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. Why do you think this is plain wrong?
- InGoodFaith 5y ago
  As you might recall - Apple did retaliate previously by also banning an associated Epic Account (for Unreal Engine and such) but was later legally forced not to [1] 1: https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/9/21492334/epic-fortnite-apple-lawsuit-restraining-order-unreal-engine https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/9/21492334/epic-fortnite-ap...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - notafraudster 5y ago
    That was a temporary restraining order [1] and later certified in a preliminary injunction [2], which is what occurs before a trial in order to best preserve the pre-trial status quo and protect parties from harm pending trial. You will note that the preliminary injunction vacates the temporary restraining order and notes that it will "remain in force until the disposition of this case". The case has been disposed. The final ruling explicitly allows "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." I seriously recommend not relying on blog analysis of a court case and instead reading the court documents, and if you are unable to do so (understandable!) to avoid participating in the conversation in the manner of correcting someone. 1: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.48.0_3.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36... 2: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.118.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36...

fxtentacle 5y ago

In reality, though, Apple would be throwing half of their game developers under the bus if they disable the Unreal Engine account. So if Epic can bait them to do that, they'll have plenty of frustrated developers to push public anti-Apple sentiment.

dkonofalski 5y ago
As long as those developers can still test their games on the platform, there will only be anti-Epic sentiment. Every game developer using the Unreal Engine is seeing this play out just like we are and they're seeing that it's Epic's actions that are causing that issue. With the state of game engines today, many may even consider moving away from Unreal for future games specifically because of Epic's actions.
- fxtentacle 5y ago
  I've been involved with a few game projects and their developers. In general, everyone likes dealing with Epic because you can reach the actual developers quickly and they'll provide timely bug-fixes. Also, they are famously laid-back while your revenue is <$1 mio per game .. so most Indie developers experience them more as a charity than as a business. Apple, on the other hand, is widely known as arbitrary, both on technical things and on what content or what games are allowed. So if you tell a random game developer that Apple and Epic are fighting, most people will assume that it's Apple's fault because Epic has built up a lot of goodwill in that community.
  - dkonofalski 5y ago
    We don't need assumptions. We have actual evidence that everyone can see. Epic started this fight and lost.