6 ms·

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 co

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...
  - ribit 5y ago
    Except the demands were not met. Epic appealed the court decision, meaning that they are not ok with the demands.
    - nulbyte 5y ago
      Following the rules while protesting through a court case seems reasonable to me. Just because you flow the rules doesn't mean you think they are just. On the other hand, retaliating because someone genuinely believes they are being disadvantaged is quite the opposite of just.
      - notafraudster 5y ago
        If your position is "following the rules while protesting through a court case seems reasonable", then you agree Epic should have followed the rules while protesting through a court case instead of deliberately getting banned in order to sharpen their PR efforts in support of the court case they planned to file.
  - mattzito 5y ago
    But Epic then promptly turned around and appealed. Why should Apple let epic back in when they’re saying they will “play by the rules” in one breath and saying “we don’t accept the courts ruling on the rules” in another?
    - j56no 5y ago
      while they follow the rules there’s no objective reason. If Apple is doing so only because they don’t like Epic, they are abusing their position
      - mbreese 5y ago
        And Epic doesn’t like Apple. These are big companies and Epic is not under an existential treat by not having access to the AppStore. Epic started this whole mess by breaking their original agreement. And the court explicitly affirmed Apple’s right to terminate Epic’s developer account. If Apple were “abusing” their position, that implies they have monopoly power in that market, which was not what the court determined (rightly or wrongly). Which is the crux of Epic’s real goals, which they lost. You could argue that it’s not nice or that it’s a poor business choice (because people will still buy some VBucks through IAP), but it’s not abusive. Vindictive maybe, but not abusive. And really the only people getting hurt are the players who played Fortnite (exclusively?) on their phones or iPads. Which ironically includes me… I think this would be a much larger issue for smaller developers who are reliant on access to the iOS market. What would happen to a smaller developer that didn’t have more resources? I think that’s a more interesting question. But right now, this is still a Goliath vs Goliath situation.
evercast 5y ago
I believe the key element here is "if they promised to comply with the rules". Since Epic has already filed an appeal, they don't seem to express a lot of willingness to comply with the rules.
- concinds 5y ago
  I believe they have, explicitly: https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/phil-schiller-letter-2791x1969-1af75ff4f387.png https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/phil-schiller-letter-2791x1969...
  - zsmi 5y ago
    I think your mixing actually complying with the rules and promising to abide by the rules. In your quote Cook said "if they abided by the rules" but in the Sweeney letter you linked to he said "Epic promises that it will adhere to Apple’s guidelines". Sweeney didn't say they actually did it. Also, the daringfireball article includes the letter you linked to and covered this topic.
jacquesm 5y ago
> Cook said that Apple was not thinking about money at all, and Fortnite's revenue was not a consideration. That's a bald faced lie. Of course it is about the money.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- olouv 5y ago
  On the contrary, I think it is more about making an example out of Epic about the severe consequences of litigating against apple.
  - pram 5y ago
    pour encourager les autres
- simonh 5y ago
  Apple is giving up a lot of money, likely hundreds of millions, by not letting Fortnite back in. You could argue that in the long term Apple might be calculating that the fear effect on other companies might pay that back, but that's highly arguable. It's unarguable they are giving up a serious amount of reliable income to make this point.
  - elif 5y ago
    Ehh that is generous to the Fortnite fad. It's definitely a fraction of the memetic giant it was even when this litigation began. I would postulate that 80%+ of Fortnite revenue is now from the item shop. In which case apple is "sacrificing" 20% to try getting the 80%.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    Maybe tens of millions. Certainly a lot to us, not so much to Apple though I'm sure they want the money too (hence the whole lawsuit thing). Epic was ordered to pay $6mm from the case that they lost which was sales from pre-installed apps over around a 3 month period [1] [1] https://www.macrumors.com/2021/09/13/epic-games-pays-apple-6-million/
jasode 5y ago
>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. I think your post inadvertently makes things more confusing. In short, the situation changed and got a little more complicated after Tim Cook previously said they'd reinstate Epic's account. What are the new changes and complications created by the recent judge's ruling? Epic's "promise" has to be dissected into 2 component parts: (#1) _direct_ in-app-purchases. This was the mechanism that originally got Epic kicked off the App Store last year. (The court ruling still doesn't force Apple to allow this and indeed, they reaffirmed this by ordering Epic to pay back $6 million (the "lost" 30% commissions) to Apple for bypassing Apple's in-app-purchases.) (#2) _informing_ the user of alternative app payments via web links, etc. (the "anti-steering" in the court's ruling) Apple's current guidelines don't allow for either (1) & (2). However, Epic wants to be back in the App Store and immediately use option #2 because they feel the judge's ruling to stop Apple anti-steering policy should be followed now. Apple disagrees because they think they have a right to impose anti-steering. Hence, everybody is still in appeals process. Put another way, Sweeney's idea of "promise" does not match Cook's expectation of a promise which makes it invalid from Apple's perspective. Contrary to public perception, "anti-steering" is not always illegal and Apple's legal team is probably aware of previous cases such as American Express winning their anti-steering case with The Supreme Court: https://www.pymnts.com/legal/2018/supreme-court-amex-case-anticompetitive/ https://www.pymnts.com/legal/2018/supreme-court-amex-case-an...
- concinds 5y ago
  So you're saying that Apple won't be forced to comply with the anti-steering ruling because Epic's appealing, even though Apple didn't appeal? (and seemingly indicated that they won't) So Apple can indefinitely keep the anti-steering provision, until all appeals are exhausted? That would make sense. Otherwise, I believe the court gave Apple 90 days to comply, and I can't see anything in Epic's letter that shows they want to be let back in immediately, so I'm unsure what this changes. edit: I base my idea that "Apple hinted that they won't appeal" from this: https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/17/22679724/tim-cook-epic-apple-antitrust-ruling-employee-meeting https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/17/22679724/tim-cook-epic-ap..., and also based on the fact that Apple, in practice, didn't lose anything (they can still force devs to pay 30% on "steered" purchases made through the dev's website). But it seems some lawyers believe it's possible Apple will still appeal, so I shouldn't have been so definitive.
speeder 5y ago
Apple made not just a "promise", they made an offer, the judge then asked if Epic wanted it, Epic said no. Now Epic is changing their mind now that the judge ruled they did breach the contract, what they were expecting?
- 28626894 5y ago
  Yep. I’m confused. Do people think that Epic won the court case, and are therefore in some position to make demands? The court ruled in favor of Apple on 9 of 10 issues. Epic has proven itself to be a bad faith actor; recall, Epic could have remained in compliance and then sued for the right they just gained, and then implemented it. But they decided to purposefully break the rules they originally agreed to. This is the outcome they knew they would get.
  - horsawlarway 5y ago
    I agree that Apple won in court here, but I think they're losing the public perception game pretty badly. I've never been a big Apple fan - and I speak up about it on various forums - up until about two years ago, no one really cared. These last two years... The Anti-Apple sentiment is hitting HARD. Frankly - It was always an abusive company ("my way or the high way" seems like it could be their company motto), but now the products just aren't that good, and it shows. Maybe the M1 devices will buy them some time, lord knows they need it after the cluster fuck of a computer that is the latest 16 macbook pro (work issued, it's the worst laptop I've used in the last 12 years). But the phones are WAY too expensive for what you get - the UI is dissolving into a mess, the laptops are losing all the power user features that got folks interested in the first case, and the privacy-centric "User first" approach they market so hard is visibly turning into a pretty clear charade. My prediction - This is going to be a pyrrhic victory. They're going to fight tooth and nail to hang onto this revenue stream (which is clearly simple rent-seeking behavior), and it's going to taint developer and user opinion across their main market. I personally went from "neutral/negative" on Apple to "Will not touch with a 20' pole - will not do business with or develop for" Even at work - We have a large group of developers now asking to be issued something other than a macbook. I find that pretty damn telling.
simonh 5y ago
>the company offered to let Fortnite back in the App Store if it agreed to the App Store rules. Epic is not agreeing to the app store rules. They are appealing the decision because they *do not agree to the rules* and do not want to follow them. As long as that situation stands, Apple is not letting them back in. If Epic drops the appeal and agrees to comply, then Apple has indicated they would let them in.
- Closie 5y ago
  I think you are arguing semantics, and that 'Agree' usually means something different in this context. Agreeing in this sense usually means 'Agreeing to follow rules' rather than 'Agreeing that the rule should exist'. For instance - I'm sure plenty of developers don't agree that Apple should get a 30% cut and don't want to give the money to them, but agree to let this happen in order to use the store. Most developers probably think that they should be able to take platform on any payment platform they wish, but again agree not to do it because those are the T&C's. Agree usually means 'Agree to do or not do something' rather than 'Agree something is the right thing'.
  - simonh 5y ago
    It's not semantics. You're simply miss-understanding the nature of the offer because Epic is misrepresenting it. Apple was offering Epic to let them back in the app store if they dropped the case, that's what agreeing means, and they haven't dropped it. If Epic wins the appeal, the ruling will be overturned and Apple could lose on all points. That's not an acceptable situation for Apple and as long as Epic is holding that over their heads, Apple won't make a deal.
jmull 5y ago
I don’t think Apple is going to reinstate Epic’s dev account until the lawsuits are over. They aren’t going to enter into a new contract to do business with Epic while Epic’s breach of their last contract is still unresolved.
advanced-DnD 5y ago
> Apple lied... [1]: https://www.epicgames.com https://www.epicgames.com... Yeah, I don't think that is a reliable unbiased source. Moreover, wouldn't this invite defamation suit?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

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...
- ribit 5y ago
  Except the demands were not met. Epic appealed the court decision, meaning that they are not ok with the demands.
  - nulbyte 5y ago
    Following the rules while protesting through a court case seems reasonable to me. Just because you flow the rules doesn't mean you think they are just. On the other hand, retaliating because someone genuinely believes they are being disadvantaged is quite the opposite of just.
    - notafraudster 5y ago
      If your position is "following the rules while protesting through a court case seems reasonable", then you agree Epic should have followed the rules while protesting through a court case instead of deliberately getting banned in order to sharpen their PR efforts in support of the court case they planned to file.
- mattzito 5y ago
  But Epic then promptly turned around and appealed. Why should Apple let epic back in when they’re saying they will “play by the rules” in one breath and saying “we don’t accept the courts ruling on the rules” in another?
  - j56no 5y ago
    while they follow the rules there’s no objective reason. If Apple is doing so only because they don’t like Epic, they are abusing their position
    - mbreese 5y ago
      And Epic doesn’t like Apple. These are big companies and Epic is not under an existential treat by not having access to the AppStore. Epic started this whole mess by breaking their original agreement. And the court explicitly affirmed Apple’s right to terminate Epic’s developer account. If Apple were “abusing” their position, that implies they have monopoly power in that market, which was not what the court determined (rightly or wrongly). Which is the crux of Epic’s real goals, which they lost. You could argue that it’s not nice or that it’s a poor business choice (because people will still buy some VBucks through IAP), but it’s not abusive. Vindictive maybe, but not abusive. And really the only people getting hurt are the players who played Fortnite (exclusively?) on their phones or iPads. Which ironically includes me… I think this would be a much larger issue for smaller developers who are reliant on access to the iOS market. What would happen to a smaller developer that didn’t have more resources? I think that’s a more interesting question. But right now, this is still a Goliath vs Goliath situation.

evercast 5y ago

I believe the key element here is "if they promised to comply with the rules". Since Epic has already filed an appeal, they don't seem to express a lot of willingness to comply with the rules.

concinds 5y ago
I believe they have, explicitly: https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/phil-schiller-letter-2791x1969-1af75ff4f387.png https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/phil-schiller-letter-2791x1969...
- zsmi 5y ago
  I think your mixing actually complying with the rules and promising to abide by the rules. In your quote Cook said "if they abided by the rules" but in the Sweeney letter you linked to he said "Epic promises that it will adhere to Apple’s guidelines". Sweeney didn't say they actually did it. Also, the daringfireball article includes the letter you linked to and covered this topic.

jacquesm 5y ago

> Cook said that Apple was not thinking about money at all, and Fortnite's revenue was not a consideration. That's a bald faced lie. Of course it is about the money.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
olouv 5y ago
On the contrary, I think it is more about making an example out of Epic about the severe consequences of litigating against apple.
- pram 5y ago
  pour encourager les autres
simonh 5y ago
Apple is giving up a lot of money, likely hundreds of millions, by not letting Fortnite back in. You could argue that in the long term Apple might be calculating that the fear effect on other companies might pay that back, but that's highly arguable. It's unarguable they are giving up a serious amount of reliable income to make this point.
- elif 5y ago
  Ehh that is generous to the Fortnite fad. It's definitely a fraction of the memetic giant it was even when this litigation began. I would postulate that 80%+ of Fortnite revenue is now from the item shop. In which case apple is "sacrificing" 20% to try getting the 80%.
- ericmay 5y ago
  Maybe tens of millions. Certainly a lot to us, not so much to Apple though I'm sure they want the money too (hence the whole lawsuit thing). Epic was ordered to pay $6mm from the case that they lost which was sales from pre-installed apps over around a 3 month period [1] [1] https://www.macrumors.com/2021/09/13/epic-games-pays-apple-6-million/

jasode 5y ago

>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. I think your post inadvertently makes things more confusing. In short, the situation changed and got a little more complicated after Tim Cook previously said they'd reinstate Epic's account. What are the new changes and complications created by the recent judge's ruling? Epic's "promise" has to be dissected into 2 component parts: (#1) _direct_ in-app-purchases. This was the mechanism that originally got Epic kicked off the App Store last year. (The court ruling still doesn't force Apple to allow this and indeed, they reaffirmed this by ordering Epic to pay back $6 million (the "lost" 30% commissions) to Apple for bypassing Apple's in-app-purchases.) (#2) _informing_ the user of alternative app payments via web links, etc. (the "anti-steering" in the court's ruling) Apple's current guidelines don't allow for either (1) & (2). However, Epic wants to be back in the App Store and immediately use option #2 because they feel the judge's ruling to stop Apple anti-steering policy should be followed now. Apple disagrees because they think they have a right to impose anti-steering. Hence, everybody is still in appeals process. Put another way, Sweeney's idea of "promise" does not match Cook's expectation of a promise which makes it invalid from Apple's perspective. Contrary to public perception, "anti-steering" is not always illegal and Apple's legal team is probably aware of previous cases such as American Express winning their anti-steering case with The Supreme Court: https://www.pymnts.com/legal/2018/supreme-court-amex-case-anticompetitive/ https://www.pymnts.com/legal/2018/supreme-court-amex-case-an...

concinds 5y ago
So you're saying that Apple won't be forced to comply with the anti-steering ruling because Epic's appealing, even though Apple didn't appeal? (and seemingly indicated that they won't) So Apple can indefinitely keep the anti-steering provision, until all appeals are exhausted? That would make sense. Otherwise, I believe the court gave Apple 90 days to comply, and I can't see anything in Epic's letter that shows they want to be let back in immediately, so I'm unsure what this changes. edit: I base my idea that "Apple hinted that they won't appeal" from this: https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/17/22679724/tim-cook-epic-apple-antitrust-ruling-employee-meeting https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/17/22679724/tim-cook-epic-ap..., and also based on the fact that Apple, in practice, didn't lose anything (they can still force devs to pay 30% on "steered" purchases made through the dev's website). But it seems some lawyers believe it's possible Apple will still appeal, so I shouldn't have been so definitive.

speeder 5y ago

Apple made not just a "promise", they made an offer, the judge then asked if Epic wanted it, Epic said no. Now Epic is changing their mind now that the judge ruled they did breach the contract, what they were expecting?

28626894 5y ago
Yep. I’m confused. Do people think that Epic won the court case, and are therefore in some position to make demands? The court ruled in favor of Apple on 9 of 10 issues. Epic has proven itself to be a bad faith actor; recall, Epic could have remained in compliance and then sued for the right they just gained, and then implemented it. But they decided to purposefully break the rules they originally agreed to. This is the outcome they knew they would get.
- horsawlarway 5y ago
  I agree that Apple won in court here, but I think they're losing the public perception game pretty badly. I've never been a big Apple fan - and I speak up about it on various forums - up until about two years ago, no one really cared. These last two years... The Anti-Apple sentiment is hitting HARD. Frankly - It was always an abusive company ("my way or the high way" seems like it could be their company motto), but now the products just aren't that good, and it shows. Maybe the M1 devices will buy them some time, lord knows they need it after the cluster fuck of a computer that is the latest 16 macbook pro (work issued, it's the worst laptop I've used in the last 12 years). But the phones are WAY too expensive for what you get - the UI is dissolving into a mess, the laptops are losing all the power user features that got folks interested in the first case, and the privacy-centric "User first" approach they market so hard is visibly turning into a pretty clear charade. My prediction - This is going to be a pyrrhic victory. They're going to fight tooth and nail to hang onto this revenue stream (which is clearly simple rent-seeking behavior), and it's going to taint developer and user opinion across their main market. I personally went from "neutral/negative" on Apple to "Will not touch with a 20' pole - will not do business with or develop for" Even at work - We have a large group of developers now asking to be issued something other than a macbook. I find that pretty damn telling.

simonh 5y ago

>the company offered to let Fortnite back in the App Store if it agreed to the App Store rules. Epic is not agreeing to the app store rules. They are appealing the decision because they *do not agree to the rules* and do not want to follow them. As long as that situation stands, Apple is not letting them back in. If Epic drops the appeal and agrees to comply, then Apple has indicated they would let them in.

Closie 5y ago
I think you are arguing semantics, and that 'Agree' usually means something different in this context. Agreeing in this sense usually means 'Agreeing to follow rules' rather than 'Agreeing that the rule should exist'. For instance - I'm sure plenty of developers don't agree that Apple should get a 30% cut and don't want to give the money to them, but agree to let this happen in order to use the store. Most developers probably think that they should be able to take platform on any payment platform they wish, but again agree not to do it because those are the T&C's. Agree usually means 'Agree to do or not do something' rather than 'Agree something is the right thing'.
- simonh 5y ago
  It's not semantics. You're simply miss-understanding the nature of the offer because Epic is misrepresenting it. Apple was offering Epic to let them back in the app store if they dropped the case, that's what agreeing means, and they haven't dropped it. If Epic wins the appeal, the ruling will be overturned and Apple could lose on all points. That's not an acceptable situation for Apple and as long as Epic is holding that over their heads, Apple won't make a deal.

jmull 5y ago

I don’t think Apple is going to reinstate Epic’s dev account until the lawsuits are over. They aren’t going to enter into a new contract to do business with Epic while Epic’s breach of their last contract is still unresolved.

advanced-DnD 5y ago

> Apple lied... [1]: https://www.epicgames.com https://www.epicgames.com... Yeah, I don't think that is a reliable unbiased source. Moreover, wouldn't this invite defamation suit?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]