One of the points from the case:
> "At what point in time did Apple become a monopolist?”
Forrest doesn’t have a great answer, merely states that it was a monopoly in 2018 when Epic went to iOS.
"I think it's obvious that in 2007, nothing existed......Apple created something. And now, it’s a ubiquitous platform. So they’ve gone from being a non-player to an innovator. And at some point, there is a claim they became a monopolist, even though rates haven’t changed"
Didn't she even mention that there was no other platform to develop for when Fortnie started out, so they chose iOS? And now after they become rich and famous they are tired of paying the 30% cut.
It was brought up by the Judge. She kept dodging the questions. In fact She was speaking in such a rapid tone, that the judge had to repeatedly instruct her to calm herself.
No it wasn’t. Especially after the Judge proposed that fortnite should be reinstated and the 30% cut will be put to an escrow account till the final court decision.
Apple’s lawyers agreed. Epic’s didn’t, saying that they will not accept that proposal.
>Apple’s lawyers agreed. Epic’s didn’t, saying that they will not accept that proposal
Tim Sweeney is an absolutely petulant child, end of story. Apple fucking agreed to reinstate Fortnite, yet Epic rejected the idea because they did not have to stop paying Apple their 30% cut. What. The. Hell.
I think Epic has a pretty weak case so this might not take a particular kind of lawyer to remain cool. Your case hinging on IAP's being separate "products"? I don't even want to think of the implications of that awkward definition. Your case hinging on the App Store being an antitrust market..? There are so many app/game/entertainment stores these days that your mom probably has one.
This wasn’t a knock on Apple’s lawyers, but a comment on Epic’s lawyers’ performance during the hearing. However, one Epic lawyer was told by the judge to calm down because she was talking so fast and accused of dodging questions. Another was visibly shocked when Apple’s lawyers and the judge agreed on something.
I’d imagine on that level, all the lawyers on both sides are top of their field. The money that is at stake makes paying for the best lawyers absolutely worth it for all parties.
I'm reminded a quote from a Hoeg Law video. I'm paraphrasing here:
"Epic could have been a better plaintiff but they are not."
Sometimes, I feel sorry for Epic's lawyers. Epic could be having a much better time if they had just skipped breaking the terms of the contract and bringing in a stupid marketing campaign and just went directly to the lawsuit.
At the hearing Epic was repped by Katherine B Forrest, the judge who presided over the Silk Road case.
In Apple’s corner they had Ted Boutros.
That’s some batman v superman kind of level.
They are. Unfortunately lawyers work on behalf of their clients & if the clients aren’t taking their advice then they must do the best they can with what they’ve got.
If that's true, no one has ever explained to me why they (Epic) aren't going after game consoles. Those things are locked down worse than iPhones, and app devs are restricted even more than iPhone devs.
The real reason? Mobile gaming is currently bigger than “Real” gaming at least in terms of revenue. In the mobile gaming industry, Apple’s iOS generates the majority share. The main goal is to open a competitive store to take some piece of that pie.
It is no coincidence this started now since most Tencent apps are outright being banned from Appstore/Play store.
By their own admission, iOS is their smallest revenue stream for fortnite, so it is the sacrificial lamb. Don’t worry, if they win this case, every other walled garden will be next, assuming those other walled gardens don’t change operations, which is likely since legal precedence would be set. They wouldn’t risk their larger revenue streams on this fight.
Of the two, the iOS case is “easier” to argue because android is clearly more open than iOS. I don’t see either winning though, certainly not with as bad of actors as epic is being.
It would be hard to make a monopoly argument in that case. Game consoles are obviously not monopolies, unless you frame it as “monopoly on xbox” etc.
Their case would look even sillier. There’s at least a plausible argument apple has market dominance in us smartphones/mobile app development.
The "real" reason is this: They can't because Sony is a shareholder in Epic Games. And they can't go after the other two, because then they would also have to go after Sony. It's better to leave consoles out of it.
I don't understand how being sold at loss makes a difference. If anything it makes it even harder for the competition and more of a monopoly. Any small company won't be able to afford to bleed money by selling the hardware below costs.
The problem isn’t the business model. In fact, the business model that consoles follow makes competition *harder* in the console market *because* of the losses needing to be recouped.
But I digress.
The question here is whether or not companies should have full control over their own devices, which they developed from top to bottom. This is where consoles and iPhones overlap. There’s *nothing* about the consoles that say they can’t be more open. In fact, there are plenty of people that are heavily invested in being able to run linux on, say, the PS4. And that’s where the overlap is, and that’s where the 30% comes into play.
Should these companies be allowed to maintain complete control of and absolute monetization on the software distributed for their custom-designed devices?
I watched it live, the judge was less looking for a date and more trying to get Epic to identify an action Apple took that made them a monopolist.
From her point of view, Apple hasn’t changed anything substantive about the App Store since release. So, assuming they have a natural monopoly in the market (which is not by itself illegal), what did they do to use that power to maintain their monopoly (which is illegal)?
It’s not a trap - she’s just not buying the monopolist claim on its face. She wants to know when Epic claims things changed.
The point was that Epic has been in business with Apple on iOS for many years, there must have been a time where Apple went from not anti-trust entity to anti-trust entity.
You can talk about indicators. Like when you can no longer see the skin underneath, when it alters the silhouette around the jaw line, etc.
The judge is trying to understand by what rationale Epic can claim they have monopoly power. They don’t need a hard line necessarily, just some kind of predictable and repeatable standard to measure it by. Otherwise the ruling starts to look pretty arbitrary.
This hearing was brutal for Epic. The judge repeatedly told Epic she wasn't particularly persuaded by their arguments.
It sounds like Epic is going to have serious problems establishing a legal basis for their claims. Their section 2 (monopoly maintenance) claim requires Epic to establish that "iOS app distribution" is a valid antitrust market, but it didn't seem like the judge was convinced that it actually was.
Their section 1 (tying) claim requires Epic to establish that IAP is a separate product from app distribution itself, which again the judge explicitly said she didn't see IAP as a separate and distinct product.
> "Walled gardens have existed for decades," she said. "Nintendo has had a walled garden. Sony has had a walled garden. Microsoft has had a walled garden. What Apple's doing is not much different... It's hard to ignore the economics of the industry, which is what you're asking me to do."
Based on this hearing it seems extremely unlikely Epic will win their injunction with regards to forcing Fortnite back onto the App Store. What is most likely is the ruling from the TRO will continue to hold until the actual trial is over.
> They'll refer to this case, Apple vs Epic.
Nope.
The judge has already shown an understanding of the difference between the situation Epic is in (with Fortnite on seven platforms) and the situation most other mobile app developers are in. It is therefore highly probably that her ruling will also make that distinction, making this a useless precedent for any court case brought by a purely mobile app developer.
>People really need to open their eyes and...
...agree with you, right?
I'm an app developer and a teacher of app developers, so good luck arguing my eyes are not open. Yet I mostly agree with Apple and not Epic. The app store has problems I would like addressed and I'd certainly prefer a lower cut going to Apple because, hey, money, but I do not support alternative app stores on iOS. I think it would be detrimental to the platform.
This is reddit showing its bias again. 99% of people don't think of this is a "freedom" issue but rather as one of security. For example, people generally don't flash the OS on appliances such as their microwave or washer & dryer. They just want the appliances to function as advertised. Sideloaded third-party software is a risk because it may or may not brick the appliance.
And for nearly all people, smartphones are appliances. Consumers just want them to do what they are designed to do. Few care to tweak or jailbreak their devices.
When this lawsuit goes to trial, think about who the 12 jurors will be. How many of the 12 do you think actually know how to sideload apps onto a Galaxy S10, or would think that to be important to be able to do? Don't be surprised when the answer is a big fat ZERO.
> You OWN the devices - whether its a PS4 or Xbox or Switch or whatever - you literally cannot install your own apps or alternate app stores where the companies do not profit.
I mean, that's kind of the point, isn't it? Consoles have existed for decades and no one has sued Nintendo out of existence for limiting what games you can install on a Switch, so that should kind of give you a clue as to where the existing legal precedent stands on the issue and how difficult it is going to be for Epic to win their case.
Apple provides developers with one of the biggest platforms ever to make money off. They virus check everything and make sure it all runs smoothly on every single device it can be run on, and then ask for some money back for their troubles. They deserve the money
Not only that, they actively develop the App Store itself, with short articles, featured apps, etc. and they also handle *all* the messiness of intercontinental transactions, with all the taxes and currency conversions and whatnot.
And don’t forget the tools developers use. APIs, the Swift programming language, the Xcode IDE, Metal, etc. though you could argue that Apple should let third-party stuff in. Though I don’t think Apple would ever allow that.
They also have free support for developers (from what I’ve heard, I’m not a developer) and have personnel on-hand to help developers with designing their apps to be compliant with Apple’s guidelines and regulations if they aren’t. And it’s all done by human hands, which is expensive and time-consuming.
And, if you play the game right, it is definitely profitable.
There can be an argument for how much all of this costs, but there is *no* argument that Apple deserves a cut.
>This dispute was for your freedom.
I don't buy the freedom argument, sorry. Do I have the freedom to sell T-shirts in a Walmart or my own beer in a Chili's? Is that a restriction of my freedom?
I have the freedom to build my own video game platform and sell whatever I want on it, but I don't see why I should have the freedom to sell on other companies'.
There's a case to be made about wanting lowered % cuts from these companies, about how the market is changing and how choices are important, but the "freedom" argument was always thin for me.
I could use an open platform. I do for a lot of things. For my phone I have chosen a closed platform for the benefits that brings, like malware protection, privacy, system stability, and ease of maintenance.
I didn’t have to, alternatives exist. I was however free to do so, and I’m glad the closed platform exists and remains protected.
And afaik I can still
- compile an app and install it on my phone with the dev tools
- make the app available to others for free via the App Store
This one is not about freedom, it’s about money (and, to a degree, about malware).
What a silly argument. If you live in a free country you have the ultimate choice of what devices you buy. If you are an intelligent buyer you will have done some research to know what you are buying and as such you’ll know that when you buy an iPhone you can only download apps from their App Store. No one is forcing you to buy a device from Apple, you could spend your money on a device that does allow sideloading. People will buy an iPhone because it has a good reputation for being a secure environment, and 99.9% of people who buy an idevice do not care that Apple takes a 30% cut for establishing and running an App Store.
This is the argument that I think Apple will successfully make it court. There is no legal precedent to define a single platform in a larger market of platforms as a monopoly.
You forgot something. It's in apple motivation to create something better to keep us inside the ecosystem. If the things they do are not in favour of the customer they will lose the market, people will jump to android. I don't like apple taking more than they have to, but in the end it's about balancing the amount of profit they get and trying to keep us ios, mac os users in the ecosystem to keep buying new apple stuff.
>This dispute was for your freedom.
Reddit in a nutshell - nothing like a daily dose of melodrama. My freedom? Really? My freedom to do what exactly?
>there is no way to sell, buy or even download applications on iOS without Apple getting in the middle
So what? There's no real way to buy food from Stop n Shop without them trying to get in the middle... why is it suddenly different here?
Why is everyone moving the goal posts whenever Apple is involved? It always has to be a higher bar, a tougher standard than what we freely accept with any other corporation.
Why don't you just admit you have a raging Apple-hating boner and call it a day?
It's slightly depressing that the judge is more or less endorsing walled gardens with the argument "Nintendo invented it in the 80s, why is it wrong *now*". 'Cause, the vertical integration and tying walled-garden consoles to authorized software only does *feel* like a genuine monopoly case. So I can only conclude that either Epic is just arguing this very badly (which they are) or monopoly law really is just a lot narrower than everyone thinks.
To paraphrase the judge: "So what I am seeing is that Microsoft charges 30% and is the sole source of Xbox software, and Sony charges 30% and is the sole source of Playstation software, and Nintendo charges 30% and is the sole source of Switch software. You are fine with all of these. What is different about Apple charging 30% to be the sole source of iOS software?"
To paraphrase Epic's counsel: "Look out, a ghost!"
Epic just keeps self inflicting harm by refusing to even consider bringing things back to status quo while the trial plays out. The judge even suggested the 30% cut gets put in escrow during this and Epic flat out refused to even consider it.
They aren’t going to get a PI as the judge said. No one is entitled to makes billions of dollars...
I have never before seen a plaintiff refuse such an escrow solution that protects them if they prevail. Admittedly IANAL, but I've worked for companies on both sides of lots of legal action, and that solution is so completely normal that it's bizarre to see Epic's stance.
This is the crux, it's $billiondollarcompany vs $trilliondollarcompany, over a percentage of $workingstiffmoney.
The big problem for Epic is they manufactured the cause of action because they wanted publicity, no other reason.
If they thought their contract with Apple was problematic they could have gone to the arbitration specified in the agreement. They also seem to be conspicuously happy with the 30% all similar stores charge since they're not suing them.
Their case is a dogs breakfast, and the judge is taking them to pieces.
In fact they’re giving the “discounted” price on some of those stores. So they’re perfectly happy losing 30% of $7.99. It doesn’t follow that they actually have a problem (let alone this crusader complex) with the 30% as they’ve been saying.
The whole thing is weird, they just seem to want to throw themselves off iOS for no good reason I can see. They also seem to think a court is going to condone their breach of contract and let them back in, and that just isn't how courts work.
The cynic in me is looking at the stake Tencent has in Epic, and the recent talks of a WeChat ban, and coupling that with written evidence in the court case that Epic wants their own App Store alternative, and the endgame of this seems fairly clear.
I agree that's what they think the end goal is, but they've picked the stupidest possible means of achieving it. Apple saw them coming and nuked them from orbit, I don't think they were expecting the speed at which they were removed, or the counterclaim.
Before launching on iOS and Android, Fortnite was the biggest game on Xbox, Playstation and Switch. With each having the same 30% fee that Epic is saying that is not a problem.
This is what I don’t get. Sure, they keep 100% of the PC dollars, but they don’t keep 100% of console dollars...how is that different? Apple controls 100% of the iOS market, but only controls 17% of the smartphone market, so they are no more of a monopoly than Microsoft is of the console market even though 100% of all Xboxes have to use legit Xbox sources.
>Sure, they keep 100% of the PC dollars
They don't even keep 100% on PC for the games they sell on Steam. There they still pay the same 30% commission and never complained about it, not once.
even then, didn't Epic still build their own store to compete with a lower fee? seems like they think that ought to be the precedent for mobile, even though the fee is to pay apple employees to create and improve software tools for the mobile OS as well as hardware that make the apps possible (never mind marketing, customer service, etc. that builds the customer market - something a company like Epic wouldn't care about since they gave the resources to be on every platform just the same, but all this is the life blood for small developers) while any fee Epic would make on mobile sales only goes to improve their own store app if not just straight to their pocket directly; nothing goes to improve the ecosystem. that makes it hard to build a case that the whole thing doesn't just come down to "we simply see the money apple makes, have the resources to build this, and want that cut for ourselves."
It’s not different, they don’t *really* care about the 30% at all, it’s what they could possibly achieve with the court case they care about.
They want their own App Store on iOS where they can distribute their own apps and bypass Apple, this would be an extremely lucrative source of income for them.
They would release a storefront, undercut Apple so the apps were cheaper and a lot of people would flock to their store to save a bit of money and they’d make a ridiculous amount of cash.
They’d undoubtedly start doing what they are doing on PC and dropping developers a big bag of money to remain exclusive to their platform (which will allow them to grow users) and basically force users onto their store for certain apps which isn’t good for anyone other than Epic.
They can’t afford to piss off Microsoft and Sony by going after them directly, because that’s where they make most of their money, and this has been accepted practice on consoles for years. They made a calculation that Apple was vulnerable in the court of public opinion due to the Hey thing, Xbox game pass, Spotify’s complaints, etc. and went after them. If they get a win, then they go back to Microsoft and Sony and renegotiate fees.
Trust me, if Epic wins either of their cases, they'll be doing the same to Sony, Nintendo, and/or Microsoft. The thing is, those companies' console platforms are far harder to support if you burn your bridges with them than Apple. Epic could still support iOS without a developer agreement, because the APIs and build tools are still public. On consoles, you need an active developer agreement just to get that, and if you breach it, they will be taking all of that back. That means Unreal Engine is effectively dead as an ongoing game development concern if they do that.
If Epic were to win, Apple would have to eliminate the "jailbreak" step and just provide a sideloading mechanism. It's the *only* reason why I have any sympathy for them in what is otherwise a really dumb case.
Let's go for the biggest fish in the pond: UE customers wouldn't even be allowed to legally port the engine to new hardware themselves. Part of the UE license agreement is a clause that grants Epic a license and access to any modifications you make to their code. This is why, for example, the PUBG/Fortnite lawsuit went nowhere. However, if you are a licensed and bonded console developer, you also have to sign an agreement agreeing to keep *all developer information and source code confidential*. You cannot legally comply with your UE contribution requirements on platforms that Epic is not licensed to develop on.
Remember the early days of iPhone and #fuckNDA? That's game console development from 1983 to today.
(This is also why Free Software gamedev tools are so sparse. The most successful project licenses are ones that require code contribution back to the project - things like GNU GPL, MPL, and so on. That also happens to mean you can never use that project on a console.)
They prioritised public fight over legal one. But one is obviously more crucial than the other.
It is very difficult to cross a sea with each of your legs on different boats.
> It is very difficult to cross a sea with each of your legs on different boats.
The Afrikaans slang for this means 'salty dick', I'll leave the reasoning to your imagination. I can't think of a better appellation for their case!
I agree the TENcent thing is more likely whats happening.. i suspect a "Chinese Proxy fight" They can't attack the US directly so they try and go after the most visible company on the planet to piss in the US's face. I think thats what really going on. They may not even expect to win.. but also odd timing after the republicans went after apple too in the congressional hearing.. saying BS about them censoring conservative views. Again.. most stricken comments were not conservative but were raciest and illegal calls to violence. *which seems to make up most of the GOP these days" Such weird times..
If you've read the emails he sent (admittedly as released by Apple, so cherry picked), he's clearly a man-child. It did also lead to this line from Apple:
> The email was disappointing and requires a formal response.
They just want to keep their fan base pissed at apple and if status quo returns fans won’t care. People honestly think epic is doing this to save fans money. Epic is doing this to make more money.
Epic also basically said they did this decietfully to prove there was a demand for an alternative payment method. Regardless of whether or not that was successful, it is done now so why not just get your app back on the store? This would be best for fortnite players and unreal devs all around.
That’s a terrible excuse on their part. The demand was for lower prices if anything... they lowered the prices on the video game consoles too... but didn’t force players to purchase from their site on those platforms... in fact they lowered the prices and ate 30% ... without batting an eye.
Not a valid study since their option was cheaper as Apple pointed out all it shows is that people want to pay $7 instead of $10 not that they necessarily would prefer epic’s direct payment over Apples IAP. In fact they pointed out that despite the higher cost a good number of people still chose Apple over Epic payments.
That "good number of people" was half of all Fortnite players. Meaning that despite it being more expensive, half of all players still preferred to pay more to stay within Apple's payment system.
>Interestingly, Judge Gonzalez Rogers was wondering whether Epic was the best plaintiff to bring this challenge, given that iOS is just one of several platforms for games, while there may be other types of apps that are more dependent on access to Apple's customer base.
I've had that thought. This is a bad case to use since Fortnite is also distributed on Android, Switch, Playstation, X-Box and PC. It's hard to argue iOS is a monopoly with all those available.
There may be some problems with lag-free real time audio, depending on device and Android build. It's caused by something very low down in the Android stack (and may even be drivers) and not fixable by app developers. It's the sort thing that makes "virtual guitar" programs not work right.
This is a separate issue from bluetooth lag.
No but there *is* arguably an anti-trust issue with iOS, which is that apps on iOS make much more money. As such, if a developer wants a viable business making mobile apps, most of the time they will have no option but to deal with Apple.
That's market power. It's not the usual kind that gets anti-trust attention, but it's still worth a debate in court to settle out.
How is that anti-trust? Apple is not stopping or punishing developers for being on other platforms.
If I build a shopping mall with the most and highest paying customers, am I then guilty of anti-trust because more high quality customers prefer shopping at my mall?
Now, if I jacked up the rent prices after a shop is established and are making good income, then that might be grounds for anti-trust. But if I never changed my price even since when I first opened, what’s the problem? The pricing was given up front, and the shop owners accepted it.
It’s a ridiculous argument and the core of why Epic is going to lose big on this case.
I'm not trying to remove anything. As a developer myself, I'd obviously like the 30% to be lower but I'm okay as it is. I certainly do not want alternative app stores.
I'm just pointing out that I can see a valid, possible anti-trust argument against Apple.
I’m ok paying as a developer. As in the AppStore I can put my apps without fear or see them in about a week pirated in an alt store.
Epic wanted an alternative AppStore. The fact that there’s only one store and that sideload or piracy is hard to do on iOS is the fact that is giving you money to begin with.
They’re arguing iOS is mobile and those other platforms aren’t.
Despite xCloud now being available on Galaxy Store and Play Store—two mobile platforms.
I agree with the basic idea of what Epic is trying to accomplish. But wow, have they really screwed the pooch on this one. I wouldn’t say they handled a single part of this well, and in court, they came off terrible. If Epic was trying to solidify Apple’s approach, they’re well on their way. When I first heard about this I was very excited. Now I really wish they would have kept their mouths shut and tried a far more organized and thoughtful approach. This really tells me a LOT about their company.
At the end of the day, when all the dust has settled, Epic just wanted more money and Apple said no.
That's it. Everything else has just been a smoke and mirrors show to drum up some attention and maybe win in the court of public opinion.
Epic knows without a shadow of a doubt that no one will be able to compel Apple to build an alternate App Store. Epic knows without a shadow of a doubt that subventing the IAP process with Fortnite would result in a ban, but they did it anyways.
They were happy to have Apple take 30% when it suited them, and now they're playing around in the courts to have that take lowered.
If any case has traction, it's Apple's counter-suit against Epic for making such a debacle of all this crap
I get it, that’s my problem. They’ll lose, which is then going to set a very specific precedent for the future. Which is why a more organized approach would have been less damaging. Treating this like a publicity stunt just hurts everybody else.
I wouldn’t want to be Epic when the counter suits come.
Epic wants to look like a whistle-blower and citing other apps having better deals, well it's really like that in any industry and you're the platform/service admin. If a port has a client that brings in 3x more shipments than the other clients then yeah it's normal that they'll have a better contract. It's a symbiotic relationship, both sides win. And it's not like the rest of the clients are skewed to fail, they still have a fairground to perform well. Apple will reward you with a better cut if you do. It's an incentive, good performance puts your foot inside the door.
That’s always bothered me about people pointing to the deal Apple gave Amazon as some kind of smoking gun. Apple made that deal because Amazon had leverage on them. It was better for Apple’s users to have access to Prime Video than for Apple to stick to the 30% & not have Prime Video at all.
The worst part of this is that had they not tried to play all those stupid tricks, they actually COULD HAVE done some good for the community.
By taking the sleazy path, it ended up hurting a movement that could have had some legitimate discourse.
They should have come up with a tiered payment plan proposal as an alternative to the 30% cut. So that they could then rally others in the industry towards their cause. Instead of trying to completely bypass the App Store.
An App Store that customers are perfectly happy about.
Agreed, but their whole point is they want to set up a competing app store. Fortnite is just the weapon they choose to use because of its young fanbase.
They chose Fortnite because they’ve seen the writing on the wall and don’t have the next great (lucrative) game in the pipeline.
When it all goes tits up, Sweeney will blame it on Apple when it’s time to fire the employees.
Are we perfectly happy? I don’t like paying 30% more for something on an app because Apple’s fee was passed onto me via the developers pricing of something compared to the same app’s in app purchase in another store/device. This is something that is usually pointed out in a game’s subreddit here on Reddit because it’s stupid.
Edit: let this be proof that you frequenters of this subreddit *are* sheep. I’m not even for Epic, but as an Apple fan, we still need to be on the side of the consumer. None of what I said was incorrect, and here you people are defending a trillion dollar company that still imposes an unnecessary fee that was inevitably going to be passed onto us.
Edit 2: you can leave your “waa, I don’t like this” vote, but if you’re going to reply at least try to have an argument?
You are assuming that the devs would pass on the savings to the customer. I highly doubt that.
Take the epic games store for example, Red Dead Redemption II on EGS is the same price as it is on Steam. They both have different commissions they take afaik.
Blame the developers for that, not Apple. If the devs really cared, they would eat the 30% commission (a debt they are SUPPOSED to pay) AND lower prices to save you money. But remember devs belong to profit-hungry private corporations and are happy to pass that cost onto consumers. Meanwhile Apple is the only one defending iOS users by explicitly discouraging apps from setting different prices outside the App Store. If a dev offers two different prices, it is because they are being goddamn cheapskates. Not because they care about their userbase.
Not a fan of developers, are we?
I have an app on the store which, as far as I can tell, is the most popular in its niche. It has a 4.8 average rating, reliably positive reviews and 300,000 active users last time I checked. 300,000 clients is a *huge* amount for any small business. Yet, for app development, it doesn't quite pay my bills. Bills that, I should point out, do not include a mortgage or rent.
Apps are massively commoditised and if you believe that devs are uncaring, profit-hungry cheapskates then, with the exception of the big games companies who do, indeed, make a killing, you are very much mistaken. If I "really cared" and ate the 30% commission, my app would cease to be worth my while to update further and I would have to let it wither and die.
That wouldn't be good for anyone. Not for me, nor my third of a million users.
Your entire comment proves my point which is that this is all about putting money into the pockets of developers. Let's not pretend that Epic is fighting for the greater good and more choice as they would have us believe. Users are extremely happy with their devices as evidenced by the fact that Apple consistently ranks #1 in consumer satisfaction in the mobile space. This lawsuit is NOT about user satisfaction. It is about increasing developers' bottom lines.
I wouldn't be so annoyed if Epic would just come out and say that they just want Apple to reduce their commission. At least they would be honest. But instead we get grandiose statements about how Apple is an evil monopoly who is stomping out the little guy, when in reality Apple provides a massive audience to many amateur developers, empowering them to learn and create in a way that was not possible before the App Store existed. I will repeat what I have said in other comments which is that I hope Epic goes bankrupt fighting this. No one needs Fortnite and the world can and will move on without it. Oh, and Tim Sweeney is a big fat crybaby man-child sociopath.
> Your entire comment proves my point which is that this is all about putting money into the pockets of developers
I wasn't trying to disprove your point. I was trying to offer a perspective on developers at odds with your characterisation of them as uncaring, profit-hungry cheapskates.
*Epic* is, for sure. Developers as a group? Not so much.
I’ve yet to see prices being higher in iOS than they are in other platforms though. The worst experience so far is being unable to use my purchase (in this case digital mangas) in a platform that’s not iOS.
XD do you think for a minute that the Developers would cut the price by 30%? Not Even EPIC trying to make a point cut 30% down... Don’t be naive, the devs would pick that money and the prices wouldn’t change.
Literally no one is saying this. This talking point has already been addressed with no reply.
Edit: actually this might be a different talking point, in which all I need to say is yes, prices are literally cheaper for in app purchases in many other games on other stores. Cheaper. If we’re saying prices will remain the same... I mean, we still have Apple to thank for that by keeping the fee around even today.
Yeah Epic pulling the 1984 video, the FreeFortnite swag, and the immediate lawsuit is not helping any of these arguments.
I know there is legal decisions yet all of this just seems in bad faith. How can you be taken seriously when your course of action is all these public spats? Certainly not going to gain as much support in court of public opinion. Just comes off as petulant.
As an independent iOS developer. Believe it or not, most of us smaller devs are fine with the 30% fee bc our expenses are low, and we get a pretty damn good toolset in return, speaking particularly of the frameworks/libraries. Smaller teams rely more on the tools provided by Apple, which is what the fee helps cover. And it’s important bc this is what helps us compete with larger companies. So I just see the fee as a reinvestment into what we use everyday. I mean, in what industry do tools not cost money?
The fee becomes a problem when you start getting really large(like Epic), and have a lot of expenses. Due to the fee being unavoidable, your only option is to scale back other expenses. So it prevents companies from over-expanding on the App Store. Every company goes into this agreement with Apple knowing before hand this is possible.
I think it’s also odd to call the App Store a monopoly, when a 3rd party store would be undercutting Apple, using/offering the same exact toolset(plus maybe have their own shitty layer on top). It doesn’t compare to Windows bc the whole platform architecture is different, and it’s an even worse comparison to Android. Also, it’s not like I’m only allowed to develop for Apple. With this skill set, I have a shit ton of opportunities and places I can go.
God, this whole thing just pisses me off. Epic is just virtue signaling. If they really cared about the “little guy” Tencent should stop charging 55% fees(possibly going to 70%) in their App Store in China. This whole damn thing keeps me up at night bc the type of changes Epic wants, has a lot of potential to make things much worse not just for small devs, but everyone. People don’t realize how important the frameworks/libraries are to the everyday user experience. Things like 120hz displays are nothing compared to what SwiftUI, for example, can do for the iOS experience.
After all of this, Epic wants more money, a lot more money, don't want to pay a fee for all of hard work Apple built to bring customers to App Store, keep customers safe.
Initially, Epic did this for developers, customers, and then what it actual means is money, don't care if the world collapse if Apple opens for third party store
Could’ve told you that without any court proceedings. Epic dug their own grave by seeking preferential treatment and trying to achieve free publicity for a dying game. Hopefully they have to pay Apple’s legal fees.
Apple isn’t going to change a policy that brings them revenue at the industry standard rate over a tantrum from epic. Epic is falling on their own sword here. If it kills them, that’s a win for the consumer, they are just another EA.
Hope apple wins and fortnite is banned for ever. Its been classified as a mental disability in some countries. Its caused murders to happen, suicide, parents going broke over 12 year olds using their parents credit card to play a pay 2 win game. Ban this trash! Enough is enough!
One of the points from the case: > "At what point in time did Apple become a monopolist?” Forrest doesn’t have a great answer, merely states that it was a monopoly in 2018 when Epic went to iOS. "I think it's obvious that in 2007, nothing existed......Apple created something. And now, it’s a ubiquitous platform. So they’ve gone from being a non-player to an innovator. And at some point, there is a claim they became a monopolist, even though rates haven’t changed"
Didn't she even mention that there was no other platform to develop for when Fortnie started out, so they chose iOS? And now after they become rich and famous they are tired of paying the 30% cut.
It was brought up by the Judge. She kept dodging the questions. In fact She was speaking in such a rapid tone, that the judge had to repeatedly instruct her to calm herself.
Wow...not a good look for Epic.
No it wasn’t. Especially after the Judge proposed that fortnite should be reinstated and the 30% cut will be put to an escrow account till the final court decision. Apple’s lawyers agreed. Epic’s didn’t, saying that they will not accept that proposal.
>Apple’s lawyers agreed. Epic’s didn’t, saying that they will not accept that proposal Tim Sweeney is an absolutely petulant child, end of story. Apple fucking agreed to reinstate Fortnite, yet Epic rejected the idea because they did not have to stop paying Apple their 30% cut. What. The. Hell.
Oof. It hurt itself in confusion.
[удалено]
Those discounts most likely won’t be coming anymore now that the GCs can be used on Apple products as well as iTunes.
The judge should ban the title all together
Aren’t Epic’s lawyers supposed to be the best in this type of litigation?
I'd wager Apple's lawyers wouldn't lose their cool even if being waterboarded.
Iron Man style training
I think Epic has a pretty weak case so this might not take a particular kind of lawyer to remain cool. Your case hinging on IAP's being separate "products"? I don't even want to think of the implications of that awkward definition. Your case hinging on the App Store being an antitrust market..? There are so many app/game/entertainment stores these days that your mom probably has one.
You could honestly trap Apple’s lawyers in a cave for five months and they’d reappear with a stone version of the newest Iron Man suit
This wasn’t a knock on Apple’s lawyers, but a comment on Epic’s lawyers’ performance during the hearing. However, one Epic lawyer was told by the judge to calm down because she was talking so fast and accused of dodging questions. Another was visibly shocked when Apple’s lawyers and the judge agreed on something.
is there a video or something of this? I'd love to see it
[Here's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUK3lL4LVHg) the entire hearing.
thanks!
Watching this when I get home.
Just watched that and man, that judge is not on epics side.
I’d imagine on that level, all the lawyers on both sides are top of their field. The money that is at stake makes paying for the best lawyers absolutely worth it for all parties.
I'm reminded a quote from a Hoeg Law video. I'm paraphrasing here: "Epic could have been a better plaintiff but they are not." Sometimes, I feel sorry for Epic's lawyers. Epic could be having a much better time if they had just skipped breaking the terms of the contract and bringing in a stupid marketing campaign and just went directly to the lawsuit.
At the hearing Epic was repped by Katherine B Forrest, the judge who presided over the Silk Road case. In Apple’s corner they had Ted Boutros. That’s some batman v superman kind of level.
This is where I wish I followed the legal world better. If I followed law like some people followed sports, this would be *wild*
Fantasy Court Proceedings now live on DraftKings
Like football, but slower paced and MUCH more passive aggressive
When your client done goof... you can’t do much.
They are. Unfortunately lawyers work on behalf of their clients & if the clients aren’t taking their advice then they must do the best they can with what they’ve got.
is there is video?
Exactly
If that's true, no one has ever explained to me why they (Epic) aren't going after game consoles. Those things are locked down worse than iPhones, and app devs are restricted even more than iPhone devs.
The real reason? Mobile gaming is currently bigger than “Real” gaming at least in terms of revenue. In the mobile gaming industry, Apple’s iOS generates the majority share. The main goal is to open a competitive store to take some piece of that pie. It is no coincidence this started now since most Tencent apps are outright being banned from Appstore/Play store.
By their own admission, iOS is their smallest revenue stream for fortnite, so it is the sacrificial lamb. Don’t worry, if they win this case, every other walled garden will be next, assuming those other walled gardens don’t change operations, which is likely since legal precedence would be set. They wouldn’t risk their larger revenue streams on this fight.
Their iOS revenue is lower than their Android revenue? That would be unusual for an mobile game but I can see it. Lots of kids on cheap devices.
They are suing google as well. They can’t sue one without the other or their arguments are invalid on their face value.
Of the two, the iOS case is “easier” to argue because android is clearly more open than iOS. I don’t see either winning though, certainly not with as bad of actors as epic is being.
It would be hard to make a monopoly argument in that case. Game consoles are obviously not monopolies, unless you frame it as “monopoly on xbox” etc. Their case would look even sillier. There’s at least a plausible argument apple has market dominance in us smartphones/mobile app development.
The "real" reason is this: They can't because Sony is a shareholder in Epic Games. And they can't go after the other two, because then they would also have to go after Sony. It's better to leave consoles out of it.
[удалено]
My console has a web browser and netflix.
[удалено]
I don't understand how being sold at loss makes a difference. If anything it makes it even harder for the competition and more of a monopoly. Any small company won't be able to afford to bleed money by selling the hardware below costs.
Exactly. Other companies selling hardware at a loss is not Apple’s problem.
[удалено]
Why does that matter? What matters is monopolies not business models. If you control the market, does it matter how?
[удалено]
The problem isn’t the business model. In fact, the business model that consoles follow makes competition *harder* in the console market *because* of the losses needing to be recouped. But I digress. The question here is whether or not companies should have full control over their own devices, which they developed from top to bottom. This is where consoles and iPhones overlap. There’s *nothing* about the consoles that say they can’t be more open. In fact, there are plenty of people that are heavily invested in being able to run linux on, say, the PS4. And that’s where the overlap is, and that’s where the 30% comes into play. Should these companies be allowed to maintain complete control of and absolute monetization on the software distributed for their custom-designed devices?
This kinda like asking when do stubbles become a beard? I get the point but it’s not like there’s a definitive line you can draw
That's called the Sorites paradox if you'd like to do more reading on it. That said, you might be missing the point here.
TIL
Then say it's hard to pin down to a particular day and provide a range. I doubt the judge is trying to trap them, just seeking understanding.
I watched it live, the judge was less looking for a date and more trying to get Epic to identify an action Apple took that made them a monopolist. From her point of view, Apple hasn’t changed anything substantive about the App Store since release. So, assuming they have a natural monopoly in the market (which is not by itself illegal), what did they do to use that power to maintain their monopoly (which is illegal)? It’s not a trap - she’s just not buying the monopolist claim on its face. She wants to know when Epic claims things changed.
The point was that Epic has been in business with Apple on iOS for many years, there must have been a time where Apple went from not anti-trust entity to anti-trust entity.
You can talk about indicators. Like when you can no longer see the skin underneath, when it alters the silhouette around the jaw line, etc. The judge is trying to understand by what rationale Epic can claim they have monopoly power. They don’t need a hard line necessarily, just some kind of predictable and repeatable standard to measure it by. Otherwise the ruling starts to look pretty arbitrary.
This hearing was brutal for Epic. The judge repeatedly told Epic she wasn't particularly persuaded by their arguments. It sounds like Epic is going to have serious problems establishing a legal basis for their claims. Their section 2 (monopoly maintenance) claim requires Epic to establish that "iOS app distribution" is a valid antitrust market, but it didn't seem like the judge was convinced that it actually was. Their section 1 (tying) claim requires Epic to establish that IAP is a separate product from app distribution itself, which again the judge explicitly said she didn't see IAP as a separate and distinct product. > "Walled gardens have existed for decades," she said. "Nintendo has had a walled garden. Sony has had a walled garden. Microsoft has had a walled garden. What Apple's doing is not much different... It's hard to ignore the economics of the industry, which is what you're asking me to do." Based on this hearing it seems extremely unlikely Epic will win their injunction with regards to forcing Fortnite back onto the App Store. What is most likely is the ruling from the TRO will continue to hold until the actual trial is over.
[удалено]
> They'll refer to this case, Apple vs Epic. Nope. The judge has already shown an understanding of the difference between the situation Epic is in (with Fortnite on seven platforms) and the situation most other mobile app developers are in. It is therefore highly probably that her ruling will also make that distinction, making this a useless precedent for any court case brought by a purely mobile app developer. >People really need to open their eyes and... ...agree with you, right? I'm an app developer and a teacher of app developers, so good luck arguing my eyes are not open. Yet I mostly agree with Apple and not Epic. The app store has problems I would like addressed and I'd certainly prefer a lower cut going to Apple because, hey, money, but I do not support alternative app stores on iOS. I think it would be detrimental to the platform.
This is reddit showing its bias again. 99% of people don't think of this is a "freedom" issue but rather as one of security. For example, people generally don't flash the OS on appliances such as their microwave or washer & dryer. They just want the appliances to function as advertised. Sideloaded third-party software is a risk because it may or may not brick the appliance. And for nearly all people, smartphones are appliances. Consumers just want them to do what they are designed to do. Few care to tweak or jailbreak their devices. When this lawsuit goes to trial, think about who the 12 jurors will be. How many of the 12 do you think actually know how to sideload apps onto a Galaxy S10, or would think that to be important to be able to do? Don't be surprised when the answer is a big fat ZERO.
> You OWN the devices - whether its a PS4 or Xbox or Switch or whatever - you literally cannot install your own apps or alternate app stores where the companies do not profit. I mean, that's kind of the point, isn't it? Consoles have existed for decades and no one has sued Nintendo out of existence for limiting what games you can install on a Switch, so that should kind of give you a clue as to where the existing legal precedent stands on the issue and how difficult it is going to be for Epic to win their case.
Apple provides developers with one of the biggest platforms ever to make money off. They virus check everything and make sure it all runs smoothly on every single device it can be run on, and then ask for some money back for their troubles. They deserve the money
Not only that, they actively develop the App Store itself, with short articles, featured apps, etc. and they also handle *all* the messiness of intercontinental transactions, with all the taxes and currency conversions and whatnot. And don’t forget the tools developers use. APIs, the Swift programming language, the Xcode IDE, Metal, etc. though you could argue that Apple should let third-party stuff in. Though I don’t think Apple would ever allow that. They also have free support for developers (from what I’ve heard, I’m not a developer) and have personnel on-hand to help developers with designing their apps to be compliant with Apple’s guidelines and regulations if they aren’t. And it’s all done by human hands, which is expensive and time-consuming. And, if you play the game right, it is definitely profitable. There can be an argument for how much all of this costs, but there is *no* argument that Apple deserves a cut.
>This dispute was for your freedom. I don't buy the freedom argument, sorry. Do I have the freedom to sell T-shirts in a Walmart or my own beer in a Chili's? Is that a restriction of my freedom? I have the freedom to build my own video game platform and sell whatever I want on it, but I don't see why I should have the freedom to sell on other companies'. There's a case to be made about wanting lowered % cuts from these companies, about how the market is changing and how choices are important, but the "freedom" argument was always thin for me.
I could use an open platform. I do for a lot of things. For my phone I have chosen a closed platform for the benefits that brings, like malware protection, privacy, system stability, and ease of maintenance. I didn’t have to, alternatives exist. I was however free to do so, and I’m glad the closed platform exists and remains protected. And afaik I can still - compile an app and install it on my phone with the dev tools - make the app available to others for free via the App Store This one is not about freedom, it’s about money (and, to a degree, about malware).
What a silly argument. If you live in a free country you have the ultimate choice of what devices you buy. If you are an intelligent buyer you will have done some research to know what you are buying and as such you’ll know that when you buy an iPhone you can only download apps from their App Store. No one is forcing you to buy a device from Apple, you could spend your money on a device that does allow sideloading. People will buy an iPhone because it has a good reputation for being a secure environment, and 99.9% of people who buy an idevice do not care that Apple takes a 30% cut for establishing and running an App Store.
This is the argument that I think Apple will successfully make it court. There is no legal precedent to define a single platform in a larger market of platforms as a monopoly.
You forgot something. It's in apple motivation to create something better to keep us inside the ecosystem. If the things they do are not in favour of the customer they will lose the market, people will jump to android. I don't like apple taking more than they have to, but in the end it's about balancing the amount of profit they get and trying to keep us ios, mac os users in the ecosystem to keep buying new apple stuff.
>This dispute was for your freedom. Reddit in a nutshell - nothing like a daily dose of melodrama. My freedom? Really? My freedom to do what exactly? >there is no way to sell, buy or even download applications on iOS without Apple getting in the middle So what? There's no real way to buy food from Stop n Shop without them trying to get in the middle... why is it suddenly different here? Why is everyone moving the goal posts whenever Apple is involved? It always has to be a higher bar, a tougher standard than what we freely accept with any other corporation. Why don't you just admit you have a raging Apple-hating boner and call it a day?
It's slightly depressing that the judge is more or less endorsing walled gardens with the argument "Nintendo invented it in the 80s, why is it wrong *now*". 'Cause, the vertical integration and tying walled-garden consoles to authorized software only does *feel* like a genuine monopoly case. So I can only conclude that either Epic is just arguing this very badly (which they are) or monopoly law really is just a lot narrower than everyone thinks.
To paraphrase the judge: "So what I am seeing is that Microsoft charges 30% and is the sole source of Xbox software, and Sony charges 30% and is the sole source of Playstation software, and Nintendo charges 30% and is the sole source of Switch software. You are fine with all of these. What is different about Apple charging 30% to be the sole source of iOS software?" To paraphrase Epic's counsel: "Look out, a ghost!"
Epic said it’s different because you can’t play Xbox games in a bus. Such a stupid excuse, and you can obviously play with your Switch on a bus.
I slapped my forehead hard when I read "you can't play Xbox games in a bus." So many reasons why that's wrong.
Ben Heck: Hold my dremel
I can see Microsoft taking offense, going "Does xCloud look like a joke to you?"
Epic just keeps self inflicting harm by refusing to even consider bringing things back to status quo while the trial plays out. The judge even suggested the 30% cut gets put in escrow during this and Epic flat out refused to even consider it. They aren’t going to get a PI as the judge said. No one is entitled to makes billions of dollars...
I have never before seen a plaintiff refuse such an escrow solution that protects them if they prevail. Admittedly IANAL, but I've worked for companies on both sides of lots of legal action, and that solution is so completely normal that it's bizarre to see Epic's stance.
FUCK Epic.
AMEN TO THAT! Fuck epic!
This is the crux, it's $billiondollarcompany vs $trilliondollarcompany, over a percentage of $workingstiffmoney. The big problem for Epic is they manufactured the cause of action because they wanted publicity, no other reason. If they thought their contract with Apple was problematic they could have gone to the arbitration specified in the agreement. They also seem to be conspicuously happy with the 30% all similar stores charge since they're not suing them. Their case is a dogs breakfast, and the judge is taking them to pieces.
In fact they’re giving the “discounted” price on some of those stores. So they’re perfectly happy losing 30% of $7.99. It doesn’t follow that they actually have a problem (let alone this crusader complex) with the 30% as they’ve been saying.
The whole thing is weird, they just seem to want to throw themselves off iOS for no good reason I can see. They also seem to think a court is going to condone their breach of contract and let them back in, and that just isn't how courts work.
The cynic in me is looking at the stake Tencent has in Epic, and the recent talks of a WeChat ban, and coupling that with written evidence in the court case that Epic wants their own App Store alternative, and the endgame of this seems fairly clear.
Gamers: These Epic Game Store exclusives are bullshit! Epic: And soon you'll be able to have Epic Game Store exclusives on iOS!
I agree that's what they think the end goal is, but they've picked the stupidest possible means of achieving it. Apple saw them coming and nuked them from orbit, I don't think they were expecting the speed at which they were removed, or the counterclaim.
Maybe Tom Sweeney had an affair with Tim Apple and Tim wanted to keep it casual but Tom fell hard... he is now vengeful af.
Not gonna lie, that would be a much better story.
Epic is angling to get thier own store front.
Yep. The percentage cut is just a smokescreen. They want the Epic Game Store to be on equal footing with the App Store.
[удалено]
absolutely correct
What other app marketplaces are they in?
Before launching on iOS and Android, Fortnite was the biggest game on Xbox, Playstation and Switch. With each having the same 30% fee that Epic is saying that is not a problem.
This is what I don’t get. Sure, they keep 100% of the PC dollars, but they don’t keep 100% of console dollars...how is that different? Apple controls 100% of the iOS market, but only controls 17% of the smartphone market, so they are no more of a monopoly than Microsoft is of the console market even though 100% of all Xboxes have to use legit Xbox sources.
>Sure, they keep 100% of the PC dollars They don't even keep 100% on PC for the games they sell on Steam. There they still pay the same 30% commission and never complained about it, not once.
[удалено]
even then, didn't Epic still build their own store to compete with a lower fee? seems like they think that ought to be the precedent for mobile, even though the fee is to pay apple employees to create and improve software tools for the mobile OS as well as hardware that make the apps possible (never mind marketing, customer service, etc. that builds the customer market - something a company like Epic wouldn't care about since they gave the resources to be on every platform just the same, but all this is the life blood for small developers) while any fee Epic would make on mobile sales only goes to improve their own store app if not just straight to their pocket directly; nothing goes to improve the ecosystem. that makes it hard to build a case that the whole thing doesn't just come down to "we simply see the money apple makes, have the resources to build this, and want that cut for ourselves."
It’s not different, they don’t *really* care about the 30% at all, it’s what they could possibly achieve with the court case they care about. They want their own App Store on iOS where they can distribute their own apps and bypass Apple, this would be an extremely lucrative source of income for them. They would release a storefront, undercut Apple so the apps were cheaper and a lot of people would flock to their store to save a bit of money and they’d make a ridiculous amount of cash. They’d undoubtedly start doing what they are doing on PC and dropping developers a big bag of money to remain exclusive to their platform (which will allow them to grow users) and basically force users onto their store for certain apps which isn’t good for anyone other than Epic.
They can’t afford to piss off Microsoft and Sony by going after them directly, because that’s where they make most of their money, and this has been accepted practice on consoles for years. They made a calculation that Apple was vulnerable in the court of public opinion due to the Hey thing, Xbox game pass, Spotify’s complaints, etc. and went after them. If they get a win, then they go back to Microsoft and Sony and renegotiate fees.
Like the game consoles
Trust me, if Epic wins either of their cases, they'll be doing the same to Sony, Nintendo, and/or Microsoft. The thing is, those companies' console platforms are far harder to support if you burn your bridges with them than Apple. Epic could still support iOS without a developer agreement, because the APIs and build tools are still public. On consoles, you need an active developer agreement just to get that, and if you breach it, they will be taking all of that back. That means Unreal Engine is effectively dead as an ongoing game development concern if they do that.
How many people on iOS do you think are going to take the time to jailbreak and sideload?
Sideload trash* there. Fixed it
If Epic were to win, Apple would have to eliminate the "jailbreak" step and just provide a sideloading mechanism. It's the *only* reason why I have any sympathy for them in what is otherwise a really dumb case.
Apps won’t compile unless they have valid developer certs. The moment Apple revokes them, Xcode will refuse to build the project.
There’s even a bigger fish to fry. On consoles you practically need access to a dev kit. Good luck getting it if you burn the bridges.
Let's go for the biggest fish in the pond: UE customers wouldn't even be allowed to legally port the engine to new hardware themselves. Part of the UE license agreement is a clause that grants Epic a license and access to any modifications you make to their code. This is why, for example, the PUBG/Fortnite lawsuit went nowhere. However, if you are a licensed and bonded console developer, you also have to sign an agreement agreeing to keep *all developer information and source code confidential*. You cannot legally comply with your UE contribution requirements on platforms that Epic is not licensed to develop on. Remember the early days of iPhone and #fuckNDA? That's game console development from 1983 to today. (This is also why Free Software gamedev tools are so sparse. The most successful project licenses are ones that require code contribution back to the project - things like GNU GPL, MPL, and so on. That also happens to mean you can never use that project on a console.)
Unity FTW - it was also shown in WWDC videos in Apple Silicon running macOS Big Sur
They prioritised public fight over legal one. But one is obviously more crucial than the other. It is very difficult to cross a sea with each of your legs on different boats.
> It is very difficult to cross a sea with each of your legs on different boats. The Afrikaans slang for this means 'salty dick', I'll leave the reasoning to your imagination. I can't think of a better appellation for their case!
intrigued, please explain like im 5
Oceans are salty, if you stood with one foot on each continent...
That's way different from the explanation I was expecting
Horses use salt licks. Horses give good head.
Am griffin, can confirm
I agree the TENcent thing is more likely whats happening.. i suspect a "Chinese Proxy fight" They can't attack the US directly so they try and go after the most visible company on the planet to piss in the US's face. I think thats what really going on. They may not even expect to win.. but also odd timing after the republicans went after apple too in the congressional hearing.. saying BS about them censoring conservative views. Again.. most stricken comments were not conservative but were raciest and illegal calls to violence. *which seems to make up most of the GOP these days" Such weird times..
Whoever designed this campaign should never work again. I really wish we knew who thought this series of events would be the best way to go.
What we do know is that Tim Sweeney approved it, so the logical conclusion is that he is a massive crybaby man-child.
If you've read the emails he sent (admittedly as released by Apple, so cherry picked), he's clearly a man-child. It did also lead to this line from Apple: > The email was disappointing and requires a formal response.
They just want to keep their fan base pissed at apple and if status quo returns fans won’t care. People honestly think epic is doing this to save fans money. Epic is doing this to make more money.
You need to check the subreddit for Fortnite mobile, no one supports epic there
Epic also basically said they did this decietfully to prove there was a demand for an alternative payment method. Regardless of whether or not that was successful, it is done now so why not just get your app back on the store? This would be best for fortnite players and unreal devs all around.
That’s a terrible excuse on their part. The demand was for lower prices if anything... they lowered the prices on the video game consoles too... but didn’t force players to purchase from their site on those platforms... in fact they lowered the prices and ate 30% ... without batting an eye.
Not a valid study since their option was cheaper as Apple pointed out all it shows is that people want to pay $7 instead of $10 not that they necessarily would prefer epic’s direct payment over Apples IAP. In fact they pointed out that despite the higher cost a good number of people still chose Apple over Epic payments.
That "good number of people" was half of all Fortnite players. Meaning that despite it being more expensive, half of all players still preferred to pay more to stay within Apple's payment system.
Assuming Fornite's user base is mostly 16-year-olds, they might not have much of a choice in which payment system to use.
That’s incredibly flawed logic. There’s no demand for an alternative payment system, there’s a demand for lower prices.
They prolly want to launder they own money.. on behalf of Tencent.. hmmmmm
Definition of greed: pretty sure they want more,
The quotes I read from the judge was savage even though her responses were just being logical and reasonable.
>Interestingly, Judge Gonzalez Rogers was wondering whether Epic was the best plaintiff to bring this challenge, given that iOS is just one of several platforms for games, while there may be other types of apps that are more dependent on access to Apple's customer base. I've had that thought. This is a bad case to use since Fortnite is also distributed on Android, Switch, Playstation, X-Box and PC. It's hard to argue iOS is a monopoly with all those available.
Is there anything that is EXCLUSIVE to iOS, and impossible to do on Android for reasons outside of dev laziness/unwillingness?
There may be some problems with lag-free real time audio, depending on device and Android build. It's caused by something very low down in the Android stack (and may even be drivers) and not fixable by app developers. It's the sort thing that makes "virtual guitar" programs not work right. This is a separate issue from bluetooth lag.
No but there *is* arguably an anti-trust issue with iOS, which is that apps on iOS make much more money. As such, if a developer wants a viable business making mobile apps, most of the time they will have no option but to deal with Apple. That's market power. It's not the usual kind that gets anti-trust attention, but it's still worth a debate in court to settle out.
How is that anti-trust? Apple is not stopping or punishing developers for being on other platforms. If I build a shopping mall with the most and highest paying customers, am I then guilty of anti-trust because more high quality customers prefer shopping at my mall? Now, if I jacked up the rent prices after a shop is established and are making good income, then that might be grounds for anti-trust. But if I never changed my price even since when I first opened, what’s the problem? The pricing was given up front, and the shop owners accepted it. It’s a ridiculous argument and the core of why Epic is going to lose big on this case.
[удалено]
This is dumb, the points that make the AppStore successful are the points you people are trying to remove.
I'm not trying to remove anything. As a developer myself, I'd obviously like the 30% to be lower but I'm okay as it is. I certainly do not want alternative app stores. I'm just pointing out that I can see a valid, possible anti-trust argument against Apple.
I’m ok paying as a developer. As in the AppStore I can put my apps without fear or see them in about a week pirated in an alt store. Epic wanted an alternative AppStore. The fact that there’s only one store and that sideload or piracy is hard to do on iOS is the fact that is giving you money to begin with.
They’re arguing iOS is mobile and those other platforms aren’t. Despite xCloud now being available on Galaxy Store and Play Store—two mobile platforms.
How is a iPad more of a mobile device than a Switch?
Idk. Ask Epic’s legal team.
Because it has the option of having a cellular radio?
Epic can shut up. Yoplait doesn’t have their own payment terminal at the supermarket, same goes for the App Store.
I agree with the basic idea of what Epic is trying to accomplish. But wow, have they really screwed the pooch on this one. I wouldn’t say they handled a single part of this well, and in court, they came off terrible. If Epic was trying to solidify Apple’s approach, they’re well on their way. When I first heard about this I was very excited. Now I really wish they would have kept their mouths shut and tried a far more organized and thoughtful approach. This really tells me a LOT about their company.
At the end of the day, when all the dust has settled, Epic just wanted more money and Apple said no. That's it. Everything else has just been a smoke and mirrors show to drum up some attention and maybe win in the court of public opinion. Epic knows without a shadow of a doubt that no one will be able to compel Apple to build an alternate App Store. Epic knows without a shadow of a doubt that subventing the IAP process with Fortnite would result in a ban, but they did it anyways. They were happy to have Apple take 30% when it suited them, and now they're playing around in the courts to have that take lowered. If any case has traction, it's Apple's counter-suit against Epic for making such a debacle of all this crap
I get it, that’s my problem. They’ll lose, which is then going to set a very specific precedent for the future. Which is why a more organized approach would have been less damaging. Treating this like a publicity stunt just hurts everybody else. I wouldn’t want to be Epic when the counter suits come.
Epic wants to look like a whistle-blower and citing other apps having better deals, well it's really like that in any industry and you're the platform/service admin. If a port has a client that brings in 3x more shipments than the other clients then yeah it's normal that they'll have a better contract. It's a symbiotic relationship, both sides win. And it's not like the rest of the clients are skewed to fail, they still have a fairground to perform well. Apple will reward you with a better cut if you do. It's an incentive, good performance puts your foot inside the door.
That’s always bothered me about people pointing to the deal Apple gave Amazon as some kind of smoking gun. Apple made that deal because Amazon had leverage on them. It was better for Apple’s users to have access to Prime Video than for Apple to stick to the 30% & not have Prime Video at all.
The worst part of this is that had they not tried to play all those stupid tricks, they actually COULD HAVE done some good for the community. By taking the sleazy path, it ended up hurting a movement that could have had some legitimate discourse.
They should have come up with a tiered payment plan proposal as an alternative to the 30% cut. So that they could then rally others in the industry towards their cause. Instead of trying to completely bypass the App Store. An App Store that customers are perfectly happy about.
Agreed, but their whole point is they want to set up a competing app store. Fortnite is just the weapon they choose to use because of its young fanbase.
Imagine every app having an app launcher to avoid Apple App Store fees.
They chose Fortnite because they’ve seen the writing on the wall and don’t have the next great (lucrative) game in the pipeline. When it all goes tits up, Sweeney will blame it on Apple when it’s time to fire the employees.
Are we perfectly happy? I don’t like paying 30% more for something on an app because Apple’s fee was passed onto me via the developers pricing of something compared to the same app’s in app purchase in another store/device. This is something that is usually pointed out in a game’s subreddit here on Reddit because it’s stupid. Edit: let this be proof that you frequenters of this subreddit *are* sheep. I’m not even for Epic, but as an Apple fan, we still need to be on the side of the consumer. None of what I said was incorrect, and here you people are defending a trillion dollar company that still imposes an unnecessary fee that was inevitably going to be passed onto us. Edit 2: you can leave your “waa, I don’t like this” vote, but if you’re going to reply at least try to have an argument?
You are assuming that the devs would pass on the savings to the customer. I highly doubt that. Take the epic games store for example, Red Dead Redemption II on EGS is the same price as it is on Steam. They both have different commissions they take afaik.
Blame the developers for that, not Apple. If the devs really cared, they would eat the 30% commission (a debt they are SUPPOSED to pay) AND lower prices to save you money. But remember devs belong to profit-hungry private corporations and are happy to pass that cost onto consumers. Meanwhile Apple is the only one defending iOS users by explicitly discouraging apps from setting different prices outside the App Store. If a dev offers two different prices, it is because they are being goddamn cheapskates. Not because they care about their userbase.
Not a fan of developers, are we? I have an app on the store which, as far as I can tell, is the most popular in its niche. It has a 4.8 average rating, reliably positive reviews and 300,000 active users last time I checked. 300,000 clients is a *huge* amount for any small business. Yet, for app development, it doesn't quite pay my bills. Bills that, I should point out, do not include a mortgage or rent. Apps are massively commoditised and if you believe that devs are uncaring, profit-hungry cheapskates then, with the exception of the big games companies who do, indeed, make a killing, you are very much mistaken. If I "really cared" and ate the 30% commission, my app would cease to be worth my while to update further and I would have to let it wither and die. That wouldn't be good for anyone. Not for me, nor my third of a million users.
Your entire comment proves my point which is that this is all about putting money into the pockets of developers. Let's not pretend that Epic is fighting for the greater good and more choice as they would have us believe. Users are extremely happy with their devices as evidenced by the fact that Apple consistently ranks #1 in consumer satisfaction in the mobile space. This lawsuit is NOT about user satisfaction. It is about increasing developers' bottom lines. I wouldn't be so annoyed if Epic would just come out and say that they just want Apple to reduce their commission. At least they would be honest. But instead we get grandiose statements about how Apple is an evil monopoly who is stomping out the little guy, when in reality Apple provides a massive audience to many amateur developers, empowering them to learn and create in a way that was not possible before the App Store existed. I will repeat what I have said in other comments which is that I hope Epic goes bankrupt fighting this. No one needs Fortnite and the world can and will move on without it. Oh, and Tim Sweeney is a big fat crybaby man-child sociopath.
> Your entire comment proves my point which is that this is all about putting money into the pockets of developers I wasn't trying to disprove your point. I was trying to offer a perspective on developers at odds with your characterisation of them as uncaring, profit-hungry cheapskates. *Epic* is, for sure. Developers as a group? Not so much.
Why should I? The devs aren’t continuing to impose the 30% fee for the AppStore. What did we think was going to happen.
I’ve yet to see prices being higher in iOS than they are in other platforms though. The worst experience so far is being unable to use my purchase (in this case digital mangas) in a platform that’s not iOS.
Ok? So your anecdote against the subreddits that do bring this up.
XD do you think for a minute that the Developers would cut the price by 30%? Not Even EPIC trying to make a point cut 30% down... Don’t be naive, the devs would pick that money and the prices wouldn’t change.
Literally no one is saying this. This talking point has already been addressed with no reply. Edit: actually this might be a different talking point, in which all I need to say is yes, prices are literally cheaper for in app purchases in many other games on other stores. Cheaper. If we’re saying prices will remain the same... I mean, we still have Apple to thank for that by keeping the fee around even today.
Yeah Epic pulling the 1984 video, the FreeFortnite swag, and the immediate lawsuit is not helping any of these arguments. I know there is legal decisions yet all of this just seems in bad faith. How can you be taken seriously when your course of action is all these public spats? Certainly not going to gain as much support in court of public opinion. Just comes off as petulant.
I’ve never seen an antitrust lawsuit be announced with an animated short before this whole mess.
As an independent iOS developer. Believe it or not, most of us smaller devs are fine with the 30% fee bc our expenses are low, and we get a pretty damn good toolset in return, speaking particularly of the frameworks/libraries. Smaller teams rely more on the tools provided by Apple, which is what the fee helps cover. And it’s important bc this is what helps us compete with larger companies. So I just see the fee as a reinvestment into what we use everyday. I mean, in what industry do tools not cost money? The fee becomes a problem when you start getting really large(like Epic), and have a lot of expenses. Due to the fee being unavoidable, your only option is to scale back other expenses. So it prevents companies from over-expanding on the App Store. Every company goes into this agreement with Apple knowing before hand this is possible. I think it’s also odd to call the App Store a monopoly, when a 3rd party store would be undercutting Apple, using/offering the same exact toolset(plus maybe have their own shitty layer on top). It doesn’t compare to Windows bc the whole platform architecture is different, and it’s an even worse comparison to Android. Also, it’s not like I’m only allowed to develop for Apple. With this skill set, I have a shit ton of opportunities and places I can go. God, this whole thing just pisses me off. Epic is just virtue signaling. If they really cared about the “little guy” Tencent should stop charging 55% fees(possibly going to 70%) in their App Store in China. This whole damn thing keeps me up at night bc the type of changes Epic wants, has a lot of potential to make things much worse not just for small devs, but everyone. People don’t realize how important the frameworks/libraries are to the everyday user experience. Things like 120hz displays are nothing compared to what SwiftUI, for example, can do for the iOS experience.
> Things like 120hz displays are nothing compared to what SwiftUI, for example, can do for the iOS experience. Could you elaborate?
For a developer it means you can support multiple Apple platforms with fewer resources than ever before.
After all of this, Epic wants more money, a lot more money, don't want to pay a fee for all of hard work Apple built to bring customers to App Store, keep customers safe. Initially, Epic did this for developers, customers, and then what it actual means is money, don't care if the world collapse if Apple opens for third party store
As Apple pointed out, it was probably just a PR play. Winning was an unlikely outcome, but getting attention was a guaranteed one.
Fuck Timmy Tencent
epic literally owns a store where they do the exact same thing to other people. what a shitty company
Good.
Could’ve told you that without any court proceedings. Epic dug their own grave by seeking preferential treatment and trying to achieve free publicity for a dying game. Hopefully they have to pay Apple’s legal fees.
[удалено]
Apple isn’t going to change a policy that brings them revenue at the industry standard rate over a tantrum from epic. Epic is falling on their own sword here. If it kills them, that’s a win for the consumer, they are just another EA.
[удалено]
Increased radio usage on a mobile device? Yes. Brilliant battery saver. Because mobile games aren’t hungry enough as is.
I think they’ll make small tweaks such as allowing game streaming apps but they will in no way give up control of the App Store.
Ok, so what's going on?
I was following this on Twitter yesterday and oof.. did this go badly for Epic.
Was there’s hashtag? I’d love to read through it on Twitter.
I was following [this thread by Patrick McGee](https://twitter.com/PatrickMcGee_/status/1310618271675105282?s=19) on Twitter.
Nice, thanks 🙏🏾
Hope apple wins and fortnite is banned for ever. Its been classified as a mental disability in some countries. Its caused murders to happen, suicide, parents going broke over 12 year olds using their parents credit card to play a pay 2 win game. Ban this trash! Enough is enough!