11 ms·

Apple Blocks Fortnite's Return to iOS App Store, Epic Claims

120 points by tosh 2y ago

glimshe 2y ago
Not surprising. Apple suffered an epic defeat (pun intended) and now engages in its usual passive-aggressive behavior to avoid compliance.
- binarymax 2y ago
  According to the article, Apple won the right to ban Epic, so what is the defeat you mentioned? To be clear I think Apple is in the wrong here and the App Store tax is absurd. But what court decision says that Epic won?
  - kanwisher 2y ago
    Epic has won multiple times, and the second time the judge is suggesting criminal proceedings against executives for ignoring the first time they won https://techcrunch.com/2025/04/30/epic-games-just-scored-a-major-win-against-apple/ https://techcrunch.com/2025/04/30/epic-games-just-scored-a-m...
    - rafram 2y ago
      Tim Sweeney is good at PR, and the media tends to fall for it. The judge didn’t say Fortnite had to be let back on the App Store. She said that Apple needed to allow payments through external payment processors. Apple can’t force Epic to use their payment system anymore, but they absolutely still can decide they don’t want to distribute Fortnite on the App Store. It’s their store.
      - terinjokes 2y ago
        This seems to be true for the Apple App Store, but doesn't explain the lack of notorizing the update for Epic's own EU storefront.
    - vessenes 2y ago
      They lost on almost all counts actually; precisely the reason the judge was angry about failure to comply with the relief she did order. (In her opinion; appeals court will see. It looks colorable to me that she may feel Apple outsmarted her and just “technically” complied. But we will see during appeals.)
- hajile 2y ago
  Apple won 9 out of 10 issues. The one they lost about external payments is by far the least important issue of the case.
docdeek 2y ago
Doesn’t Apple usually offer a reason why they reject a app or a game? From the article and the linked tweet no reason is given.
- zuhsetaqi 2y ago
  I understood, that Apple did not reject it but just did nothing with the submitted app and didn't give any reply.
- anshumankmr 2y ago
  Pocket veto
- isleyaardvark 2y ago
  It's the same reason it has been since the judgement, Epic violated the TOS so Apple removed Fortnite. The court found for Apple on that count, and has never ordered Fortnite's reinstatement. Tim Sweeney is using language in a way to make it appear as though the recent ruling ordered Fortnite's reinstatement, and a lot of people are falling for it.
  - canuckintime 2y ago
    Apple themselves said during that the initial trial that they would reinstate Fortnite. Turns out Apple lied
    - zuhsetaqi 1y ago
      Could you give a source for that?
      - canuckintime 1y ago
        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-... https://mjtsai.com/blog/2025/05/07/fortnite-coming-back-to-the-app-store/#fortnite-coming-back-to-the-app-store-update-2025-05-15 https://mjtsai.com/blog/2025/05/07/fortnite-coming-back-to-t... >> Remember when Apple tried to tell the judge that they would be happy to welcome Epic back to the App Store once the court case was over and the issue adjudicated? I do, because I read the transcripts and listened to the hearings. >> I guess technically it’s not over yet because Apple has appealed. On the other hand, Apple made the offer, without the condition of the court case being over, after the legal battle had already begun. So it seems like it was never a serious offer and only meant to sway public opinion.
kanwisher 2y ago
This has been going on for 4 years, they have won multiple times in court. The last time the judge actively insulted apple for ignoring the previous engagements and even suggesting criminal proceedings on some of the executives, and now they ignore the courts again
- vessenes 2y ago
  By “they” you mean Apple, if you’ve read the opinions. And they did fly too close to the sun recently on one point. But that point was not about whether or not they have to let epic on their platform.
Gareth321 2y ago
Apple is just being petty now. They're legally allowed to keep Epic out, but why? As a message to others who might wish to legally contest Apple's monopolistic (or at least duopolistic) practises? You lost, Apple. Be a gracious loser. This action is only going to foment even more animosity from developers, gamers, customers, judges, and importantly, legislators. This absolutely will be used as a datapoint for future rulings, and cases are ongoing or being filed all over the world now.
- tesch1 2y ago
  No shoes, no shirt, no service. Epic wanted their own store and they got their own store. It cost them and Apple a bunch of money, which indirectly is not good for anyone's customers... my sense of justice is not perplexed as to why they are not allowed back in. Would you want to do business with someone who just sued you after breaking their previous contract with you?
  - kouteiheika 2y ago
    > Epic wanted their own store and they got their own store. They don't. Quoting the article: > "Apple has blocked our Fortnite submission so we cannot release to the US App Store or to the Epic Games Store for iOS in the European Union," Epic stated via its Fortnite account If someone prevents me from selling my own product in my own store then it's not my store.
    - smileybarry 2y ago
      I suspect they just put their eggs in one basket and used the same package identifier for the DMA version of Fortnite and the App Store version, and the app’s state in review limbo messed with the iOS notarization process (which is a minimal review and not an automated CLI like macOS). That’s something they could’ve avoided by using different IDs for different stores, like everyone else does on e.g. Amazon AppStore. (Maybe even Samsung and Play Store use different IDs) But that’s assuming they’re not just refusing to release anywhere until Apple relents in the US.
    - 2y ago
blibble 2y ago
they've started adding warnings to any apps daring to use external payments too https://www.gsmarena.com/apple_now_showing_warnings_on_eu_app_store_apps_with_alternative_payment_options_-news-67807.php https://www.gsmarena.com/apple_now_showing_warnings_on_eu_ap...
- tefkah 2y ago
  really hope they add to the fine for this, seems like Apple never learns.
- jillyboel 2y ago
  So pathetic, especially the red triangle. It's like they thought "well it's a warning, so we use the warning icon but we need to make it scary so it's red!!".
- anshumankmr 2y ago
  Though I am very pro Epic in this, I feel this is the least harmful way Apple can warn users who are apprehensive of alternative payment systems while those who want to go ahead can. Like Fortnite's user base would not be deterred by this.
  - candiddevmike 2y ago
    > This app does not support the App Store’s private and secure payment system. It uses external purchases It's poorly worded for maximum FUD.
    - macintux 2y ago
      Apple proposed reducing the scare factor months ago. The EU told them to hold off. https://daringfireball.net/2025/05/that_eu_app_store_warning_about_external_purchases_is_not_new https://daringfireball.net/2025/05/that_eu_app_store_warning...
      - fenomas 2y ago
hortense 2y ago
This is why devs are afraid of publicly criticizing Apple, let alone testifying against them in the court. Apple has shown that they will then prevent you from accessing 50%+ of the US market. In short Apple is a bully, has been for more than a decade now, and it has worked out well for them.
- jillyboel 2y ago
  This is why apple needs to be broken up into a software company and a hardware company. They're so, so clearly abusing their current position.
  - horsawlarway 2y ago
    Just take the app store away. From all of them - take it away from Google too. Frankly - Microsoft never actually got much buy in for their store, but take it away from them as well. Hardware that has only a single approved distribution channel for software, that is owned by someone other than the owner of the hardware, shouldn't be legal. Further - if you own a piece of hardware, you legally should own EVERY fucking key. If there's a lock in that device, hardware or software based, that has a key - you get a damn copy. --- Some physical comparisons that show how outrageously unethical this setup is: You buy a home, but your realtor gets the only copy of the keys. "Don't worry" they say, "I'll just pop by and open er up whenever you need to get in and out. Oh, and by the way, I don't like Ikea - so I won't open the door if you're trying to move Ikea furniture in. Great working with you guys, enjoy your new home!". You've just bought a new car, you tried turning into your neighborhood, but suddenly the car stops. You call the dealer: "Oh, I see your neighborhood road was paved by PavingCo, They don't pay our manufacturers' yearly inspection fee, so we can't certify that our car can safely drive on that road. So we disable it when the GPS detects you're about to drive there." --- This is fundamentally about ownership. Hardware manufacturers are playing with utter fire here, because this is the first time in history there exists enough infrastructure that a device can phone home and ask "Is this ok?" to the maker, rather than operating as the owner desires. As far as I'm concerned - you don't own a device that does that. You're just renting it, and the manufacturer can and will extort you with rent-seeking behavior at EVERY turn. Phones are only the first stop - this is going to spread to absolutely everything that uses electricity unless this gets extinguished real fast. We're already starting to see the same games in Cars, IoT devices, TVs, etc... I'm eagerly awaiting the day my drill stops working because I'm not trying to drill the manufacturers' overpriced screws with it...
golondon 2y ago
Man, just let it go. More you try to block Epic or any other, more you are pushing people away from yourself. Be Apple, innovate, give us second iPhone moment so you wouldn't worry so much about revenue drop in services. Or make payment via Apple so good, your customers would go for it even with price difference. Just stop stupid, monopolistic tactics.
- resource_waste 2y ago
  That is how the world Ought to be, not how the world Is. As I do with Microsoft, I only use Apple products when its absolutely necessary. My personal choices are whatever is best, Fedora for my home OS(Don't call Fedora Linux, Fedora is so far and beyond Linux, you don't want to associate them). My Pixel phone... Idk, looking for something new. But at least I have been using Fdroid and its pretty amazing. But yeah I bend to their will when I'm doing corporate stuff, never personal.
- strogonoff 2y ago
  Companies do not innovate for fun. The point of innovation is getting to be able to profit from it. Apple has built the touchscreen smartphone that the world to date still could not move on from, and it still leads in that category. By working both hardware and software fronts, they have grinded out an ecosystem that was compelling and money-making to small developers (handling legal and tax logistics pretty much worldwide for you) and to the end users. Apple Pay is yet another example: you’d think somebody would have come up with a way to conveniently and securely pay with, say, a phone, and yet everybody needed for the teacher to do it first and only then jumped on copying the feature with barely enough creativity to call it “%SOME_BRAND_NAME% Pay” and put their logo on it. Now it’s incredibly convenient, it’s everywhere online, and it basically turns every shop out there into Amazon’s patented “one-click purchase” experience. Saying they should not be able to profit from their innovation because they just did too good of a job intuitively seems like the opposite of American values. This is not some rusty ISP monopoly with a geographically captive market, sitting on decades old software as secure as Swiss cheese, doing mostly nothing. People switch between ecosystems all the time, there are no strong lock-ins; you have to be on top of it to stay competitive, and Apple generally is. This is one of the rare cases where a company keeps generating and implementing (pretty well) idea after idea in multiple areas with a valuation, contrary to trends, built not on empty future promises but on a concrete, sound business model that provides real value to people who are willing to pay for it, despite having a lot of choice.
ygvamjq2ol 2y ago
epic violated an agreement years ago why let them off the hook?
rvz 2y ago
As expected [0], it isn't over yet and Apple doesn't care. They even went as far as to blocking downloads from third-party app stores: > The Verge has confirmed that the game is no longer available to download on iOS from the Epic Games Store or the alternative marketplace AltStore PAL in the EU, where it had previously been available. It’s not yet clear if Apple blocked the game’s availability through those stores, or if Epic itself chose to make it unavailable. We’ve reached out to both Apple and Epic for comment. That tells you the reach into how Apple can block app installs even from third-party app stores. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43896104 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43896104
umrashrf 2y ago
That’s why making stores like Apple for our own smartphone is on the cards for us
traspler 2y ago
The title is a bit misleading, Apple did not reject the submission, just not approved it (yet). I know ignoring a submission is practically the same as blocking or rejecting it; but I think this case is already messy enough so that these things should be read with more nuance. Also the situation is much more complicated. In the EU, Fortnite has been available for a while through their own Epic Games AppStore. This submission seems to have been for both, the EU distribution and the US AppStore. I am surprised that such a situation is even possible, I thought if you opt-in your app/account for EU alternative AppStores you are kind of blocked from the standard AppStore submission as the requirements for the alternative distribution path are different from the AppStore. At the same time it seems to give Epic more arguments for pressure on Apple as sabotaging the release in the EU might be against the DMA laws.
- gradiences 2y ago
  Are you sure about that? https://x.com/fortnite/status/1923293522234356169 https://x.com/fortnite/status/1923293522234356169
  - traspler 1y ago
    Maybe you are right. „blocked“ still is a strange term to use when normally people speak of „rejected“ so maybe they just told them they won‘t approve it. The latest news is that they were told to resubmit for EU only and that will get approved.
drcongo 2y ago
Good.
outcoldman 2y ago
I really hope that they will be forced to change "approval" to "verified" process. So most companies/devs will be able to just publish on App Store, and apple can after that "verify" that the app confirms with their standards.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  That won't happen. It's Apple's platform so they have the right to decide who gets onto it. Just like Walmart gets to decide whose products are sold through Walmart.
Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y ago
Well, I hope they keep pushing hard so that lawmakers notice how broken anything related to selling software is. I know, wishful thinking, but I'd love more ownership for the hardware I buy. A few days ago Nintendo announced that if you do anything outside of what they allow, they will BRICK YOUR NINTENDO SWITCH. Like, how's that even legal
- throwaway290 1y ago
  just checking, so you think selling software is broken, do you actually sell software? if you are an indie dev on app store, do you think apple allowing alt stores and basically unlocking piracy is how selling will become less broken for you? there are only two categories of people winning this: people who like to pirate things when they can, and shady corps like epic who are invulnerable to piracy even if alt stores are allowed (because they run their own billing servers) and who want to make a penny more on every predatory microtransaction in their games.
  - Fire-Dragon-DoL 1y ago
    The 3 biggest companies in the world are all 3 software companies. I guess you could consider Apple a hardware company, that leaves us with 2, but the appstore is an enormous source of revenue for Apple, so there is that. I guess "selling software" in my mind doesn't necessarily means a traditional transaction, so that's probably the source of disagreement. Yes, to me selling software is very much broken for the consumer. The fact that selling software for indie devs is hard doesn't justify that, selling to end users is hard in many businesses. In businesses, software is everywhere though
    - throwaway290 1y ago
      Selling software is (was) just fine for indie devs with app store. Actually I would say it was just fine and easier than anywhere else for users too. So I have no idea what "broken for consumer" means either.
      - 1y ago
lindnertim 2y ago
How did Apple win the lawsuit, but loose their grip on mentioning other payment options?

120 points by tosh 2y ago

Not surprising. Apple suffered an epic defeat (pun intended) and now engages in its usual passive-aggressive behavior to avoid compliance.

binarymax 2y ago
According to the article, Apple won the right to ban Epic, so what is the defeat you mentioned? To be clear I think Apple is in the wrong here and the App Store tax is absurd. But what court decision says that Epic won?
- kanwisher 2y ago
  Epic has won multiple times, and the second time the judge is suggesting criminal proceedings against executives for ignoring the first time they won https://techcrunch.com/2025/04/30/epic-games-just-scored-a-major-win-against-apple/ https://techcrunch.com/2025/04/30/epic-games-just-scored-a-m...
  - rafram 2y ago
    Tim Sweeney is good at PR, and the media tends to fall for it. The judge didn’t say Fortnite had to be let back on the App Store. She said that Apple needed to allow payments through external payment processors. Apple can’t force Epic to use their payment system anymore, but they absolutely still can decide they don’t want to distribute Fortnite on the App Store. It’s their store.
    - terinjokes 2y ago
      This seems to be true for the Apple App Store, but doesn't explain the lack of notorizing the update for Epic's own EU storefront.
  - vessenes 2y ago
    They lost on almost all counts actually; precisely the reason the judge was angry about failure to comply with the relief she did order. (In her opinion; appeals court will see. It looks colorable to me that she may feel Apple outsmarted her and just “technically” complied. But we will see during appeals.)
hajile 2y ago
Apple won 9 out of 10 issues. The one they lost about external payments is by far the least important issue of the case.

docdeek 2y ago

Doesn’t Apple usually offer a reason why they reject a app or a game? From the article and the linked tweet no reason is given.

zuhsetaqi 2y ago
I understood, that Apple did not reject it but just did nothing with the submitted app and didn't give any reply.
anshumankmr 2y ago
Pocket veto
isleyaardvark 2y ago
It's the same reason it has been since the judgement, Epic violated the TOS so Apple removed Fortnite. The court found for Apple on that count, and has never ordered Fortnite's reinstatement. Tim Sweeney is using language in a way to make it appear as though the recent ruling ordered Fortnite's reinstatement, and a lot of people are falling for it.
- canuckintime 2y ago
  Apple themselves said during that the initial trial that they would reinstate Fortnite. Turns out Apple lied
  - zuhsetaqi 1y ago
    Could you give a source for that?
    - canuckintime 1y ago
      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-... https://mjtsai.com/blog/2025/05/07/fortnite-coming-back-to-the-app-store/#fortnite-coming-back-to-the-app-store-update-2025-05-15 https://mjtsai.com/blog/2025/05/07/fortnite-coming-back-to-t... >> Remember when Apple tried to tell the judge that they would be happy to welcome Epic back to the App Store once the court case was over and the issue adjudicated? I do, because I read the transcripts and listened to the hearings. >> I guess technically it’s not over yet because Apple has appealed. On the other hand, Apple made the offer, without the condition of the court case being over, after the legal battle had already begun. So it seems like it was never a serious offer and only meant to sway public opinion.

kanwisher 2y ago

This has been going on for 4 years, they have won multiple times in court. The last time the judge actively insulted apple for ignoring the previous engagements and even suggesting criminal proceedings on some of the executives, and now they ignore the courts again

vessenes 2y ago
By “they” you mean Apple, if you’ve read the opinions. And they did fly too close to the sun recently on one point. But that point was not about whether or not they have to let epic on their platform.

Gareth321 2y ago

Apple is just being petty now. They're legally allowed to keep Epic out, but why? As a message to others who might wish to legally contest Apple's monopolistic (or at least duopolistic) practises? You lost, Apple. Be a gracious loser. This action is only going to foment even more animosity from developers, gamers, customers, judges, and importantly, legislators. This absolutely will be used as a datapoint for future rulings, and cases are ongoing or being filed all over the world now.

tesch1 2y ago
No shoes, no shirt, no service. Epic wanted their own store and they got their own store. It cost them and Apple a bunch of money, which indirectly is not good for anyone's customers... my sense of justice is not perplexed as to why they are not allowed back in. Would you want to do business with someone who just sued you after breaking their previous contract with you?
- kouteiheika 2y ago
  > Epic wanted their own store and they got their own store. They don't. Quoting the article: > "Apple has blocked our Fortnite submission so we cannot release to the US App Store or to the Epic Games Store for iOS in the European Union," Epic stated via its Fortnite account If someone prevents me from selling my own product in my own store then it's not my store.
  - smileybarry 2y ago
    I suspect they just put their eggs in one basket and used the same package identifier for the DMA version of Fortnite and the App Store version, and the app’s state in review limbo messed with the iOS notarization process (which is a minimal review and not an automated CLI like macOS). That’s something they could’ve avoided by using different IDs for different stores, like everyone else does on e.g. Amazon AppStore. (Maybe even Samsung and Play Store use different IDs) But that’s assuming they’re not just refusing to release anywhere until Apple relents in the US.
  - 2y ago

blibble 2y ago

they've started adding warnings to any apps daring to use external payments too https://www.gsmarena.com/apple_now_showing_warnings_on_eu_app_store_apps_with_alternative_payment_options_-news-67807.php https://www.gsmarena.com/apple_now_showing_warnings_on_eu_ap...

tefkah 2y ago
really hope they add to the fine for this, seems like Apple never learns.
jillyboel 2y ago
So pathetic, especially the red triangle. It's like they thought "well it's a warning, so we use the warning icon but we need to make it scary so it's red!!".
anshumankmr 2y ago
Though I am very pro Epic in this, I feel this is the least harmful way Apple can warn users who are apprehensive of alternative payment systems while those who want to go ahead can. Like Fortnite's user base would not be deterred by this.
- candiddevmike 2y ago
  > This app does not support the App Store’s private and secure payment system. It uses external purchases It's poorly worded for maximum FUD.
  - macintux 2y ago
    Apple proposed reducing the scare factor months ago. The EU told them to hold off. https://daringfireball.net/2025/05/that_eu_app_store_warning_about_external_purchases_is_not_new https://daringfireball.net/2025/05/that_eu_app_store_warning...
    - fenomas 2y ago

hortense 2y ago

This is why devs are afraid of publicly criticizing Apple, let alone testifying against them in the court. Apple has shown that they will then prevent you from accessing 50%+ of the US market. In short Apple is a bully, has been for more than a decade now, and it has worked out well for them.

jillyboel 2y ago
This is why apple needs to be broken up into a software company and a hardware company. They're so, so clearly abusing their current position.
- horsawlarway 2y ago
  Just take the app store away. From all of them - take it away from Google too. Frankly - Microsoft never actually got much buy in for their store, but take it away from them as well. Hardware that has only a single approved distribution channel for software, that is owned by someone other than the owner of the hardware, shouldn't be legal. Further - if you own a piece of hardware, you legally should own EVERY fucking key. If there's a lock in that device, hardware or software based, that has a key - you get a damn copy. --- Some physical comparisons that show how outrageously unethical this setup is: You buy a home, but your realtor gets the only copy of the keys. "Don't worry" they say, "I'll just pop by and open er up whenever you need to get in and out. Oh, and by the way, I don't like Ikea - so I won't open the door if you're trying to move Ikea furniture in. Great working with you guys, enjoy your new home!". You've just bought a new car, you tried turning into your neighborhood, but suddenly the car stops. You call the dealer: "Oh, I see your neighborhood road was paved by PavingCo, They don't pay our manufacturers' yearly inspection fee, so we can't certify that our car can safely drive on that road. So we disable it when the GPS detects you're about to drive there." --- This is fundamentally about ownership. Hardware manufacturers are playing with utter fire here, because this is the first time in history there exists enough infrastructure that a device can phone home and ask "Is this ok?" to the maker, rather than operating as the owner desires. As far as I'm concerned - you don't own a device that does that. You're just renting it, and the manufacturer can and will extort you with rent-seeking behavior at EVERY turn. Phones are only the first stop - this is going to spread to absolutely everything that uses electricity unless this gets extinguished real fast. We're already starting to see the same games in Cars, IoT devices, TVs, etc... I'm eagerly awaiting the day my drill stops working because I'm not trying to drill the manufacturers' overpriced screws with it...

golondon 2y ago

Man, just let it go. More you try to block Epic or any other, more you are pushing people away from yourself. Be Apple, innovate, give us second iPhone moment so you wouldn't worry so much about revenue drop in services. Or make payment via Apple so good, your customers would go for it even with price difference. Just stop stupid, monopolistic tactics.

resource_waste 2y ago
That is how the world Ought to be, not how the world Is. As I do with Microsoft, I only use Apple products when its absolutely necessary. My personal choices are whatever is best, Fedora for my home OS(Don't call Fedora Linux, Fedora is so far and beyond Linux, you don't want to associate them). My Pixel phone... Idk, looking for something new. But at least I have been using Fdroid and its pretty amazing. But yeah I bend to their will when I'm doing corporate stuff, never personal.
strogonoff 2y ago
Companies do not innovate for fun. The point of innovation is getting to be able to profit from it. Apple has built the touchscreen smartphone that the world to date still could not move on from, and it still leads in that category. By working both hardware and software fronts, they have grinded out an ecosystem that was compelling and money-making to small developers (handling legal and tax logistics pretty much worldwide for you) and to the end users. Apple Pay is yet another example: you’d think somebody would have come up with a way to conveniently and securely pay with, say, a phone, and yet everybody needed for the teacher to do it first and only then jumped on copying the feature with barely enough creativity to call it “%SOME_BRAND_NAME% Pay” and put their logo on it. Now it’s incredibly convenient, it’s everywhere online, and it basically turns every shop out there into Amazon’s patented “one-click purchase” experience. Saying they should not be able to profit from their innovation because they just did too good of a job intuitively seems like the opposite of American values. This is not some rusty ISP monopoly with a geographically captive market, sitting on decades old software as secure as Swiss cheese, doing mostly nothing. People switch between ecosystems all the time, there are no strong lock-ins; you have to be on top of it to stay competitive, and Apple generally is. This is one of the rare cases where a company keeps generating and implementing (pretty well) idea after idea in multiple areas with a valuation, contrary to trends, built not on empty future promises but on a concrete, sound business model that provides real value to people who are willing to pay for it, despite having a lot of choice.

ygvamjq2ol 2y ago

epic violated an agreement years ago why let them off the hook?

rvz 2y ago

As expected [0], it isn't over yet and Apple doesn't care. They even went as far as to blocking downloads from third-party app stores: > The Verge has confirmed that the game is no longer available to download on iOS from the Epic Games Store or the alternative marketplace AltStore PAL in the EU, where it had previously been available. It’s not yet clear if Apple blocked the game’s availability through those stores, or if Epic itself chose to make it unavailable. We’ve reached out to both Apple and Epic for comment. That tells you the reach into how Apple can block app installs even from third-party app stores. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43896104 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43896104

umrashrf 2y ago

That’s why making stores like Apple for our own smartphone is on the cards for us

traspler 2y ago

The title is a bit misleading, Apple did not reject the submission, just not approved it (yet). I know ignoring a submission is practically the same as blocking or rejecting it; but I think this case is already messy enough so that these things should be read with more nuance. Also the situation is much more complicated. In the EU, Fortnite has been available for a while through their own Epic Games AppStore. This submission seems to have been for both, the EU distribution and the US AppStore. I am surprised that such a situation is even possible, I thought if you opt-in your app/account for EU alternative AppStores you are kind of blocked from the standard AppStore submission as the requirements for the alternative distribution path are different from the AppStore. At the same time it seems to give Epic more arguments for pressure on Apple as sabotaging the release in the EU might be against the DMA laws.

gradiences 2y ago
Are you sure about that? https://x.com/fortnite/status/1923293522234356169 https://x.com/fortnite/status/1923293522234356169
- traspler 1y ago
  Maybe you are right. „blocked“ still is a strange term to use when normally people speak of „rejected“ so maybe they just told them they won‘t approve it. The latest news is that they were told to resubmit for EU only and that will get approved.

drcongo 2y ago

Good.

outcoldman 2y ago

I really hope that they will be forced to change "approval" to "verified" process. So most companies/devs will be able to just publish on App Store, and apple can after that "verify" that the app confirms with their standards.

insane_dreamer 2y ago
That won't happen. It's Apple's platform so they have the right to decide who gets onto it. Just like Walmart gets to decide whose products are sold through Walmart.

Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y ago

Well, I hope they keep pushing hard so that lawmakers notice how broken anything related to selling software is. I know, wishful thinking, but I'd love more ownership for the hardware I buy. A few days ago Nintendo announced that if you do anything outside of what they allow, they will BRICK YOUR NINTENDO SWITCH. Like, how's that even legal

throwaway290 1y ago
just checking, so you think selling software is broken, do you actually sell software? if you are an indie dev on app store, do you think apple allowing alt stores and basically unlocking piracy is how selling will become less broken for you? there are only two categories of people winning this: people who like to pirate things when they can, and shady corps like epic who are invulnerable to piracy even if alt stores are allowed (because they run their own billing servers) and who want to make a penny more on every predatory microtransaction in their games.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 1y ago
  The 3 biggest companies in the world are all 3 software companies. I guess you could consider Apple a hardware company, that leaves us with 2, but the appstore is an enormous source of revenue for Apple, so there is that. I guess "selling software" in my mind doesn't necessarily means a traditional transaction, so that's probably the source of disagreement. Yes, to me selling software is very much broken for the consumer. The fact that selling software for indie devs is hard doesn't justify that, selling to end users is hard in many businesses. In businesses, software is everywhere though
  - throwaway290 1y ago
    Selling software is (was) just fine for indie devs with app store. Actually I would say it was just fine and easier than anywhere else for users too. So I have no idea what "broken for consumer" means either.
    - 1y ago

lindnertim 2y ago

How did Apple win the lawsuit, but loose their grip on mentioning other payment options?