I understand Apple's decision to do this. They want to stick it to Epic. Completely understandable desire on Apple's part. But, sadly, Apple is letting their desire to get vengeance outweigh the interests of their users in having all the games they want to play on their devices.
I have been realizing lately that my loyalty to Apple has been waning over the years after having invested heavily in the ecosystem. This is another representation to me of how Apple's ecosystem is something you have no control over, and you are at the whim of Apple's legal team in situations like that to be able to play the games you want to play on your devices.
Apple remembered their corporate games they were playing and forgot who their real customer and focus should be: the end users. This decision doesn't benefit their end users in any meaningful way. It hurts end users to score points in their feud with Epic.
> But, sadly, Apple is letting their desire to get vengeance outweigh the interests of their users
Of course they are, that's Apple's standard business relationship practice. See also why Mac's still don't have an Nvidia GPU option, because Apple & Nvidia got in some spat a decade ago and Apple has been holding a grudge ever since.
The more Apple brings stuff in-house the less this matters to the bottom line, but it shouldn't be surprising. Unless not having Fortnite begins to seriously impact iPhone & iPad sales, Apple isn't going to care regardless of whether or not it's hurting their customers.
I think it was a system design issue because of lack of proper cooling from the integrator (Apple). Maybe someone can look it up, I'm going off of memory here..
Yeah, inadequate cooling caused the BGA to pop free, with the recall "fix" being to just add some rubber to smash it down. iirc Apple tried to blame Nvidia for it and Nvidia didn't take it, blaming instead Apple's design.
Since then Apple has repeatedly had inadequate cooling and power delivery issues, just typically resulting in throttling instead of recalls. Sooo Nvidia was probably accurate and it was Apple's fault. But regardless of whose fault it was, the end result is consumers were stuck with some truly second-tier GPUs for many years
Apple has a long history of inadequate cooling, ostensibly because Steve Jobs hated fans. The apple II overheated, the apple III famously overheated (causing the motherboard to warp and chips to pop out), the original macintosh had no fan either. For decades there was a suite of aftermarket fans for Apple computers, although that's less practical with a laptop.
No, this was 100% Nvidia material engineering fail and affected whole industry. Dell, HP, all heavyweights had huge costly recalls. Apple cooling strategy of having internals as close to 100C "to keep the fan noise down" might of contributed to earlier failures, but pretty much _every single_ Nvidia G84/G86 series GPU died in same way.
No multiple laptop manufacturers had this same issue. Toshiba and Sony were two of them. Heat was the cause but it was operating within the specs of the GPU manuafacturer. The issue that soured NVidia with these manufacturer was when it came to fixing the issues they told them to go suck it. Example when Seagate had an entire batch of 2.5 drives dying within a year of manufacturing, they worked with Apple and HP to get them replaced and the cost was shared by both.
Also NVidia has issues with their driver development and refuse to let Apple have a say in it.
Apple's slavish obsession with passive cooling, indeed. It doesn't matter how many times it has been proven to be a bad idea, they're still going to use it.
I'm not sure it's such a bad idea. You can take it too far of course.
I for one love passive cooling. I select my (no Apple hardware in my house) hardware for silent operation where possible. Started with selecting the right fans and sound proofing my desktop PCs back when and now I'm only buying laptops that do well with the cooling noise. Meaning, if all I do is browsing HN, you better not turn on any fans on me. And when a fan is turned on, it has to be silent and have the right "sound profile". There's just some noise that's very very irritating and the decibels are just one aspect of it.
So if someone does everything they can to do without active cooling, I support that. Now if they can't, put the right kind of fan in there, sure. E.g. on a GPU I'm fine with some cooling noise, but it better only happen when I'm likely not to notice because I'm loudly slaying aliens or something like that.
Well liked yes, but it throttles due to overheating, though it will only typically be noticeable on long running tasks. Adding a simple thermal pad so it makes contact with bottom case cover makes a big improvement.
I saw a Linus tech tips video where they made that mod, and they found that it heated the chassis well beyond the regulation limits, while Apple’s original design falls just within it.
In no way thanks to Apple's insistence on using weak solder and forcing the device to be as thin as possible. I've heard people argue this up and down the street, but I have a hard time believing it when most Windows/Linux devices have no problem managing their thermals in a way that doesn't destroy their hardware.
Yes, but we are talking about the interests of users here. The idea that apple would prevent Nvidia GPUs from being used with their machines is further to the point of Apple putting its grudges ahead of the interests of their customers.
I honestly don't see how using NVIDIA would be in the interest of users.
e.g. AMD's GPUs have full documentation, and high quality open source drivers. Same deal with Intel.
NVIDIA, you have to deal with their blob, and tough luck if it doesn't work, especially if NVIDIA has decided not to support your hardware anymore. They do that fairly quickly. In that sense, their GPUs are comparable with PowerVR, and your average shitty android SoC.
Flash was absolutely NOT killed by Apple. Adobe killed Flash, and it was unrelated to Steve Job's letter.
Source: me. Was working at Adobe at the time, probably at the thing that actually led to the demise of Flash (not that it was my intention in any way to contribute to the death of Flash, the decision to kill it was a surprise to me as much as it was to anybody else).
I didn't leave _that_ long ago, and don't want to look up my contract/NDA to see when it expires, so I don't want to go into too much detail.
Flash cost Adobe a lot to develop (it was a big team). At some point, I speculate[+] that Adobe simply decided they no longer need the runtime, since the browsers have/will soon have all the capabilities that they need, natively. So why waste the money?
[+] I don't know for sure (e.g. I didn't participate directly in the decision); but still, I believe my speculation is much more informed that the typical net user who just noticed the coincidence and wanted to believe the narrative.
"Adobe simply decided they no longer need the runtime, since the browsers have/will soon have all the capabilities that they need, natively."
I think that ignores a very very significant reason for the browsers getting to that point of being able to supplant Flash being that is was terrible and security nightmare and Apple had shifted mindshare against it and shown it wasn't needed in a mainstream platform. It wasn't just Adobe graciously terminating a successful platform that gave them a lot of influence.
Never claimed that it was without problems. But look at the timeline: Steve Jobs letter was April 29, 2010. About a year later Adobe stopped development of Flash on mobile (that's when they really killed it, the next 10 years were necessary to implement the decision basically). You really think that letter shifted mindshare in 1 year? Trust me, the opposite was true, there were some really big players that wanted to announce flash support on mobile and were caught completely off guard.
Using flash cc several years before EOL, it just wasn't a particularly consistent environment to develop in regardless of target device, and if you wanted to make ipad apps you ran into lots of limitations on what you could actually do with a release build, not sure if flash ever got the opportunity to use runtime interpreted actionscript 3 on release builds for iOS... that would have been nice to have.
> The main reason flash was killed by Apple was also spite toward Adobe
Prior to and subsequent to Flash (a Macromedia product, fwiw) Apple & Adobe have had extensive relationships and interaction that are in no way indicative of spite.
The main reason Flash died is because performance & power consumption on mobile never got past garbage, despite the platform wars going borderline nuclear on the topic.
> they made valid excuses sure,
Perhaps it's my becoming an ol' fogey, but it's crazy to see the Apple haters of yesteryear also move toward historical revisionism.
While the best approach is to just ignore such FUD like "valid excuses, sure", it's also important the record not be owned by zealots and those who preach spite.
I mean, for a company eagerly (and correctly) removing the headphone jack for phones, it's the least surprising thing to remove GPU options. All that's left is RAM and HDD.
I briefly tried to use that. The Lightning port is centered in the case, so it's impossible to use the device in landscape without your hand knocking the connector loose. No, it doesn't work.
I don't necessarily agree with Apple here, but couldn't your same arguments be made against Epic? They want to "stick it" to Apple and are harming their customers in the mean time?
What this comes down to is an argument over money, and what percentage apple should get of that money. I don't think either company has a moral high ground in their negotiations on what percentage apple deserves.
Epic is the customer here also and they want to be able to provide a convenient and cheaper way for their customers. Their asks are not only reasonable, they are consumer friendly.
The judge did say Apple has a right to collect a commission , but did't rule if 30 % was fair.
"First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission.
Indeed, while the Court finds no basis for the specific rate chosen by Apple (i.e., the 30% rate) based on the record, the Court still concludes that Apple is entitled to some compensation for use of its intellectual property. As established in the prior sections, Apple is entitled to license its intellectual property for a fee, and to further guard against the uncompensated use of its intellectual property. The requirement of usage of IAP accomplishes this goal in the easiest and most direct manner, whereas Epic Games’ only proposed alternative would severely undermine it. Indeed, to the extent Epic Games suggests that Apple receive nothing from in-app purchases made on its platforms, such a remedy is inconsistent with prevailing intellectual property law."
Yeah - I think Apple's 30% cut is a racket and a bad incentive for them. They should make money by shipping incredible products, not taxing everyone who builds for them.
That said, I like the app store rules they can enforce like IAP - I just don't think they should be taking a cut. If they want to charge a flat one time fee of like $100 to publish then fine, but profit sharing seems wrong to me.
My worry is their aggressiveness in defending their tax will cause blow back that damages their ability to leverage their rules. A worse outcome is one where they keep the tax, but app devs are allowed around the rules. This is starting to happen (an admittedly tiny bit) by them being forced to allow links out to sign up off of the phone.
If they just forced people to use IAP for their user's benefit (easy cancellation, easy account subscription tracking and privacy, easy payment), but didn't take a cut that would be the best outcome for their users and it'd be an easier argument to win in the public eye.
Commission does not matter. It could be 300%. What matters is whether users can use another method of payment without artificial difficulties. If I can press "Apple Pay" and pay $120 or I can press "Paypal" and pay $40, I'd choose Paypal. If it would be $41 vs $40, I'll consider Apple. But that's me. Some people surely value Apple services more than me. So when competition is allowed, Apple will be able to price their commission competitively.
Apple only was slapped down on anti-steering to other payment options, NOT in collecting a commission.
That includes potentially changing their developer agreement to now require developers to meter and perhaps even audit external payments to submit Apple's commission.
Because they can no longer differentiate payments made independent of the app (because the anti-steering clauses are gone) this could result in required commission to apple in cases which it formerly was not required.
Imagine you want to sell a valuable, consumer friendly product that is cheaper than some alternatives and will save people money, but in this case, in a brick and mortar store.
The brick and mortar store says "we agree to stock your product, and will take 30% off the top for our troubles."
Would we be saying the same things? It's the same dynamic, in my view.
Except that it's not. The ruling clearly stated that Apple has to allow other payment providers inside the apps, but obviously anything sold on the App Store can still attract the 30% payment fee.
In your example, it's like if you bought a TV from Walmart, took it home, and then any content you wanted to buy on that TV had to have a 30% fee paid to walmart since....that's where you bought it originally? It doesn't make sense there, and it doesn't make sense here. When epic sells you a fortnite skin within fortnite, apple provides literally no value to this transaction, other than being a gatekeeper between two legitimate sides wishing to engage in a business transaction - so that's why Epic wanted to make sure they can process their own payments within the app(and the court has agreed).
What about in app payments in XBox or PS4? It will not surprise you to know they also take 30%.
I can't help but notice that Fortnite is also available in the PS4 store as well.
This is simply Epic doing their own money grab against the the platform they can most afford to alienate:
>The documents show that from March 2018 to July 2020, the
>breakdown of Fortnite revenue by platform was as follows:
>PS4: 46.8%
>Xbox One: 27.5%
>Android, Switch, PC: 18.7%
>iOS: 7%
This is a flyer for Epic to try to take a bigger percentage from their ecosystem partners and devalue them. Commoditize your complement. And they simply started with the one they could afford to alienate.
I don't have links handy but Sweeny directly addressed this. Sony and Microsoft are willing to negotiate with Epic. They get to find a middleground that both sides are happy with. Apple does not negotiate, a developer that has $5 in sales get's the same deal as Epic. Sweeny stated that if Apple had been willing to negotiate similar to Microsoft and Sony then we wouldn't be here.
That's a good point. Not a big Apple fan, in fact I hate most what they do, but for that particular thing I don't agree with Epic. Those things are anti-competetive and hurt everyone else.
> What about in app payments in XBox or PS4? It will not surprise you to know they also take 30%.
What about it? It's the same kind of anticompetitive practice. Except that Apple devices are used by billions every day across whole software market and consoles are entertainment devices used with much narrower market impact. Punishing them is less urgent.
What if the TV manufacturer didn't even need retail distribution because they have their own warehouses, trucks, etc and will gladly send you a TV for $0 and charge on-device subscription fees to cover it.
But sadly, you bought your home in a neighborhood with an HOA, and even though you own your home, the HOA requires all retail purchases have to go through them, and they take a 30% cut of everything and they won't let you order that TV directly from the manufacturer to put in your house.
But this is ok, because this is what you agreed to when you bought your home.
Then you’d have a different situation. The warehouses, trucks etc are the app store and iPhones. In order for that TV manufacturer to have their own, they’d have to build their own devices, OS and cloud services.
The iPhone is your house -- you own that. The HOA is Apple -- the people who make the rules. The trucks and warehouses are the servers and the internet.
Epic already runs a store they don't need the app store to distribute their apps and do payments. They're only required because Apple gives them no other option.
Apple isn’t an HOA, HOAs dictate what people can do with houses that the HOA had no hand in building. Apple built the houses and the logistics network that made building and selling them possible.
Also, the majority of people do not own their houses, banks do. Try financing a house and then stop servicing your loan. That’s essentially what Epic has done: breached contract.
Epic’s “store” is an app, and evidently they do need Apple to distribute it to Apple devices, unless you can tell me how to install it right now on my device?
You're muddying the issue here on purpose. Mortgages are irrelevant to the analogy. The logistics network is irrelevant. If you buy a TV, there is a big logistics network in making and building them too -- so what?
> unless you can tell me how to install it right now on my device?
This is the dictionary definition of begging the question. You can't install apps on the iPhone because you can't install apps on the iPhone -- that's not an argument.
Software distribution and installation, historically, not required an "app store". That's a relatively new invention.
They definitely entered into that contract without duress.
But the majority of other neighborhoods are also run by HOAs with similar terms. There are a few neighborhoods that are completely free of HOAs that but those houses are not as nice and neighborhoods not as nice. If you want a nice house in a nice neighborhood, an HOA is your only option.
I'm positive some people, if they had the option, would prefer to buy their current house free of the HOA. Others, on the other hand, like that HOA protects their neighborhood and don't care that they can't paint their house a different color or buy TV's directly from manufacturers.
Sadly, the house and neighborhood you want determines whether or not you'll have to enter into that contract with a particular HOA.
> There are a few neighborhoods that are completely free of HOAs that but those houses are not as nice and neighborhoods not as nice.
I think the HOA tries to argue that this isn't coincidence - its the HOA's policies and governance that have resulted in the niceness (we can cite examples that both support this and contradict this, of course, so its hard to assess whether this is true).
Folks might argue that it isn't fair that the most desirable goods are encumbered, but then its kind of up to them to create or support institutions that can manufacture the unencumbered version. That's the promise of a market opportunity where we can create brand new neighborhoods to test your hypothesis that people will prefer the nice-but-no-HOA version (I think the recent buzz around the Framework laptops is an example of this).
Well but that TV requires power lines to operate, and fiber to get its content. Insofar as the neighborhood (or whoever) paid for those, they deserve a cut too.
The HOA forces you to use their power and fiber, so in that case sure. But if you could get power and fiber directly from the TV manufacturer or someone else, then the HOA doesn't need a cut.
In this case, the TV manufacturer already has all that infrastructure and they use it in neighborhoods without an HOA. It would be no cost to you or the HOA for you use it but the HOA just doesn't allow it. For obvious reasons, of course, because then they wouldn't get their cut.
You want a nice home in a nice neighborhood or a nice phone with a nice OS. Maybe you want to avoid an HOA but the home/phone you want isn't available without it. You can always choose another phone/home in another HOA controlled neighborhood. Or alternatively you could get a PinePhone or a crack house.
> The ruling clearly stated that Apple has to allow other payment providers inside the apps
This was widely misreported as true, but is in fact not what the judge ruled. If you read the full ruling rather than just the single page injuction, it seems that the only thing that Apple is being forced to allow is in-app communication about / linking to places outside the App where purchases can be made.
In fact, the Judge goes so far as to say that Apple can still legally use their contracts with developers to require Apps to pay commission on out of app purchases. This case was a far bigger win for Apple than was initially reported.
To fix this, we need new legislation. The courts seem clear so far that they can't reign in this behavior using the existing laws on the books.
> The ruling clearly stated that Apple has to allow other payment providers inside the apps, but obviously anything sold on the App Store can still attract the 30% payment fee.
Incorrect.
The ruling said that Apple cannot have anti-steering provisions that prevent developers from advertising alternative payments on content outside the app (web pages, emails).
- Apple is still allowed to forbid in-app purchasing through alternative systems
- Apple still has the option to require commission on purchases made externally in the future. Currently they do not, but they were previously able to draw a clear line using anti-steering provisions.
Apple has used other techniques like minimal usability to pressure apps to support in-app payments - e.g. Hey.com was rejected because their app was unusable on download because they did not support in-app subscriptions and anti-steering meant they did not refer people to instructions on how to sign up. Presumably anti-steering solves this - right up until Apple changes their rules to say that the external payment needs to result in a commission payment.
There are only two chains of brick and mortar store in the world and one with double digit market share (Apple) has decided to take 30% off the top for all goods sold in all of their stores and have banned products from having any indication on their packaging that they can be purchased elsewhere for different pricing. Entering any store also requires an extremely expensive chain-specific device that most people purchase on credit every few years, eliminating the ability to easily shop around at both chains.
If this were to happen outside of tech, the perpetrator would get crushed by anti-monopoly legislation.
An App distributed on the immensely popular iOS platform can be used to advertise alternative platforms at different pricing. The “fair” price if this was allowed to happen would be a 0% cut since no one in their right mind would pay any amount extra if given the option.
The only real restriction Apple currently has is that apps should do no such advertising of alternative platforms (payment methods).
> An App distributed on the immensely popular iOS platform can be used to advertise alternative platforms at different pricing. The “fair” price if this was allowed to happen would be a 0% cut since no one in their right mind would pay any amount extra if given the option.
Prior to the recent ruling, this was untrue (unless I'm mistaken).
It's even worse than that, because each of the stores are in different cities and if your customers want to patronize the other store they first have to move to the other city.
Disagree. Adding 100 files on an FTP site is nowhere near as complicated as adding 100 boxes of frozen yogurt in a grocery store. Physical goods occupy space, need (sometimes) specific storage conditions, packaging, etc. We need to re-evaluate these concepts for digital-only goods. I'm not denying that running a store has costs, but grabbing 30% of sales for a digital-only good is immoral IMHO.
To make the analogy accurate it would need to be stipulated that this brick and mortar store is the only place that customers can go to buy products.
edit: I wouldn't even say "two chains" like a sibling comment suggests because the reality is that customers have to invest hundreds of dollars on an exclusive membership to one or the other, picking and choosing from both is not an option.
> What this comes down to is an argument over money, and what percentage apple should get of that money
A lot of things have been litigated in this dispute, this is not one of them. What this comes down to is questions about control over iPhones and contents of apps, questions the court was asked to answer were things along the lines of:
- Whether Apple can restrict iPhones to only installing software received via Apple.
- Whether Apple can control how software installed through their platform collects in app payments.
- Whether Apple can control how software installed through their platform informs users about not-in-app ways to pay.
...
Not "what cut is appropriate". That wasn't the legal or moral point.
That sounds like "sticking it to them" to me. The alternative is that Apple lets them back on, stops paying for an expensive lawsuit, and gets extra revenue from fortnite.
Mobile Fortnite has been dying for over a year before all this started so not much of an income. Note: Most gamers move over to a non-mobile device for these games or at least a Nintendo Switch.
I tried to explain the details to my son, but he's just disappointed that he can't play a game he liked. He wants to buy a Windows computer and is saving up for it.
Trying to get him interested in writing a bit of code, which to me is more fun in some ways than playing games, without pushing it too hard, and so far no luck.
Maybe let him try modding existing games? Steam's community workshop pages are thriving, especially for easily modded titles like Bethesda games.
Back in the day, Warcraft III had a built-in script and level editor and people thrived on making mods and entire new types of games with it (murder mysteries, tower defense, battle royale, DOTA...). It's how I got my start as a coder, modding games that I enjoyed without the boring pressure of "business logic".
I think there's a slight distinction to be made between "games that have built-in low/no-code content editors" and "games that can be modded via an SDK, but you have to code".
The former are good for any creative kid (or adult!) and don't require you to learn a programming language, just logical thinking (as in logic gates/flows). The latter, depending on tooling, can require everything from simple Lua scripts (a common game modding language) all the way up to learning UnrealEngine or Unity.
Games with built-in content editors:
* Warcraft & Starcraft series (oldies but goodies)
In particular I'd check out Warcraft, Neverwinter Nights' DM mode, and the DOS editor for a good sampling of what the industry can offer. They are a great stepping stone to actual programming, with triggers, conditionals, and other flow control structures all wrapped behind a veneer of fantasy gaming.
(edit: sorry for potato formatting. no idea how HN handles text formatting)
Side note, but fun fact! Fortnite, the uberpopular battle royale game, is actually itself a mod of the original Fortnite (now called "Fortnite: Save the World").
Originally a tower defense game (you build structures and traps to defend your base against invading alien zombies), some Epic & Unreal Tournament developers decided to fork it into a PvP (competitive player-vs-player) battle royale game instead, loosely based off Player Unknown's Battlegrounds.
It became a surprise hit, propelling Fortnite from "niche DIY tower defense game" to global pop-culture phenomenon.
Have you been framing the coding as a way to make games? Basically the only reason I'm here was because I thought making games would be rad, then I realized programming on it's own is pretty rad, and then eventually adult life showed up and it was a natural step to make it a career.
Is that a good reason to give them a pass? By that reasoning, you probably shouldn't mind if you're out eating and someone walks up to you and just takes your plate of food for themselves. Honestly, it's probably not in the top ten of problems you deal with in a month or week.
> Apple is letting their desire to get vengeance outweigh the interests of their users in having all the games they want to play on their devices.
Post-NeXT (or at least post-iPod) Apple has always been about total control of user experience, not letting users do all of <whatever category of activity> that they want.
I don't think that vengeance is necessary to explain this.
It's literally just one game? Fortnite? Which is really a cash cow at this point. Epic couldn't care less about you, or smaller developers. Which is what is most disingenuous on their part, to pretend like they're the "small guy".
I think Apple is also risking what this all looks like to lawmakers. Lawmakers who currently seem to be in a frenzy around anti-trust and/or anti-competitive behavior.
Exactly this. I bought iPad Pro to play Fortnite with my nephew, and in less than a month it was removed. Epic broke the agreement, fine remove them from the App Store, but there's no reason to not being able to install the game from an external source except for Apple's greed. I, for one, not going to purchase anything from Apple anymore. I spent over 20k on Apple devices in the last 8 years or so.
On top of that, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that Fortnite is as much about socialization and open-ended interaction as it is a game. Apple banning what's potentially a next-generation social network from their platform isn't a great look.
A counter point is that it was an extremely reckless move for Epic to risk the banning of their next-generation social network (which to my kids, it definitely is) from the largest mobile store. Epic thought they were forcing Apple's hand, but they lost in court on the points they really cared about the most. And they got confirmation that Apple was well within their rights to cancel the developer account.
I'm not sure the risk was worth it... especially since they didn't need to take that risk to file the lawsuit.
From the first moments, Epic has been running a PR campaign, which doesn't really help you in court.
As an adult who's partner plays and plays occasionally, Its honestly really about group chatting (voice comms) with friends/relatives as much as it is about the game for us. I mean the game is silly and fun, but really its a group thing. I almost never play when not with friends.
And occasionally there are group events/ a concerts and movie screenings.
We're all on PCs/ Consoles, but if your a kid a free to play game your friends are on you could join in with a tablet, would be nice.
Fortnite notwithstanding, Epic also makes the Unreal Engine, which is one of the biggest ones alongside Unity -- especially for cross-platform games. Hindering iOS development of UE will affect a lot of other game devs, both huge and indie.
Unreal Engine is under a different developer license than the one Apple canceled, though the judge did rule it would be legal for Apple to cancel all of Epics licences.
"(2) a declaration that (i) Apple's termination of the DPLA and the related agreements between Epic Games and Apple was valid, lawful, and enforceable, and (ii) Apple has the contractual right to terminate its DPLA with any or all of Epic Games' wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities under Epic Games' control at any time and at Apple's sole discretion."
Epic's first-party games are often a showcase / development driver for new versions of UE, though (the way Unreal, the game, first popularized UE, the engine). If Epic can't publish their own games on iOS anymore, they would have less incentive/ability to iterate UE on that platform even if that license wasn't canceled.
It's a loss for cross-platform gaming altogether. Apple just really doesn't give a damn about their users =/
Think about what is important to the demographic that is playing Fortnite, is playing the game more important or is having an Apple device?
There are kids that are in elementary school that wear Fortnite clothing. The brand is everywhere. I am sure some actuary did the math on it so that Apple will come ahead, but the optics on something like this will sway brand loyalty for years in this demographic.
Where you are wrong is believing Apple considers its users customers...
They do not, this clear by the way they handle the ecosystem. See a customer buys something from a company, after which they own it
Apple on the other hand does not have customers, they can not because they do not sell anything, dont be fooled by the high prices, and verbiage that indicates you are "buying" something, marketing that in a sane and just society would be considered illegal as deceptive
No no, you simply rent the device from apple for a period of time determined by apple, and are given permission to use the device in ways only the owner (Apple) approves.
It's interesting to compare the situation Epic got itself into with previous episodes of Facebook & Google breaking Apple's rules.
When Facebook and Google misused Developer Enterprise certificates to go beyond internal testing and distribute apps to end-consumers, Apple revoked their accounts. Both Facebook & Google simply admitted they screwed up and Apple reinstated their accounts.[1] No lawsuits.
Epic broke Apple's in-app-purchase rules and now Epic promises they will comply but Epic didn't get their dev account reinstated yet. Big difference is that Epic rolled the dice by filing a lawsuit about Apple's unfair rules and because they thought there was enough anti-Apple sentiment that they'd get a sympathetic judgement in their favor. Their gamble didn't work and in the process, Tim Sweeny's defiant attitude just made Apple dig in their heels even further.
I'm reminded of that quote, "you come at the King, you best not miss."
EDIT reply to some comments saying Epic didn't make a "promise" to comply with Apple's rules:
>Did i miss something where they actually said that?
In this thread's Fireball blogpost is a link to Tim Sweeney's tweet of an email screenshot to Apple's Phil Schiller stating his "promise":
>Sep 16, 2021 at 5:01 PM; Subject: Fortnite and the App Store; To: Phil Schiller
>[..] Epic promises that it will adhere to Apple’s guidelines whenever and wherever we release products on Apple platforms.[...]
Not to put too fine a point on it, but for all practical purposes Apple can't boot Facebook or Google from the App Store, regardless of what they do.
Tim Cook's head would end up on the chopping block if several billion users suddently left iOS because FB, Instagram and the rest weren't available.
With Google, the userbase is potentially even bigger and some of what they do really is fundamental to most people's experience of the web. Users would certainly revolt.
The same might be true of Fortnite, but despite the fact that we now know most App Store revenue comes from games, Epic is still one of many, regardless of how popular their titles are.
I believe in the Facebook dispute Apple only disabled their Enterprise account because that's the one they were abusing.
Losing the Enterprise account wouldn't prevent Facebook from pushing their apps on to the store, but they would not longer be able to distribute internal apps outside the App store.
It would seem that Fortnite's demographic is preteen kids. Are they playing Fortnite on their parent's device or one they own? If it's the later then Apple could be fostering a lifelong mistrust or dislike for their platform. If it's the former then Parents might just install another App for them and that's the end of Fortnite.
I guess it comes down to how many people are willing to jump ship for Fortnite. I have a feeling Apple probably already knows the answer since Fortnite hasn't been in the App store for some time.
I think many of them (including me) were waiting for this to play out. I can remember walking into a cell phone store years and years ago to look around. I remember overhearing this:
Kid: I really like this phone.
Dad: That’s a Windows Phone, you don’t want that. It doesn’t have that many apps. You want an Android because you get all the apps out there.
I can see a similar argument for Android vs. Apple now. “Get Android, you’ll get all the apps. With Apple, you only get Apple approved apps, which includes malware, but not that game you like to play, what’s it called? Fortnight?”
Does this simply mean App Review screwing up and allowing questionable apps to be approved, dark patterns that encourage bad behavior, or something else?
Apple has been caught allowing malware (see Shlayer for a high profile case) and in their case with Epic, has alluded that they don’t even check iOS apps for malware so they don’t even know how much iOS malware is out there; if any.
Most of the cases I've seen either involve leaks of sensitive info (think diplomats, their governments, and the like) or well-known individuals who value privacy (CEO's, celebrities, etc.)
Most of the Gatekeeper protections in macOS are baked into the design of iOS, but I wonder if they will eventually need to surface them so users have more direct control over what runs.
If sideloading from the web ever comes to pass, I would expect this to be a fundamental building block of how it would work.
I don't think that quote is quite as apt though. Epic seems to be in far less trouble than Apple. Epic might not have gained what they wanted, but a lot of it is a giant like of evidence about Apple for other countries and cases.
How is the most wealthy company in the world in trouble? Epic made 5 billion last year most from a game that can easily be replaced and will eventually (they all eventually get replaced), Apple has 200 billion in cash just sitting there and makes 60 billion a year on average. They are not even close.
This lawsuit will cost Apple way more than Epic. It might not hurt Apple that much as a percentage, but in absolute terms it will hurt them plenty. There is a reason they fight this so fervently.
Apple's 30% cut is a cash printing press for them. Sure they have other business models like completely disposable, non-repairable, non-recyclable electronics, but the iTunes and App stores are significant profit centers.
> Rogers issued an injunction that said Apple will no longer be allowed to prohibit developers from providing links or other communications that direct users away from Apple in-app purchasing.
So Apple didn't "lose" their 30% exactly, but everyone is now free to do what Fortnite originally did and that's link to their own site for users to buy in-app currency instead. It's likely all but certain that every game with IAP will be deploying this over the next few months.
We won't know how the new law in South Korea will play out in practice yet and we won't for a few months (it's too recent). It will probably be at least a year before we know how it *really* will affect the commissions a company like Apple makes from the App Store.
Epic isn't going anywhere, the appstore wasn't a very significant part of their income. They wouldn't have picked this fight if they couldn't afford it.
To make more money. More is more even if it is not making their most important thing make more money.
Just like Apple has not killed most of their desktop offering just because they are not a very significant part of their income.
Also a big chunk of it is probably just Tim Sweeneys personal opinions (he owns over 50% epic by himself so what he says happens pretty much). Basically he is rather strongly (and very openly) against any walled garden platforms.
The difference is that nobody said Apple was done for as a company due to this lawsuit. Both Apple and Epic will lose money due to it, but both makes most of their money elsewhere so they can fight to their heart's content.
> EDIT reply to some comments saying Epic didn't make a "promise" to comply with Apple's rules…
There is no such promise.
There’s a pile of “if” Apple ignores the rulings and does what Epic wanted in the first place, including rewriting the rules(!), then Epic will comply with the rules rewritten Epic’s way:
”Whether Epic chooses to bring Fortnite back to iOS consumers depends on whether and where Apple updates its guidelines to provide for a level playing field between Apple In-App Purchase and other methods of payment.”
Read the letter again. Epic is saying that Apple changes the rules, it will resubmit Fortnite for iOS; if not, it will only resubmit Fortnite for Mac and use the account to internally test Fortnite for iOS; either way, it will follow the rules for what it does submit.
Did i miss something where they actually said that? My understanding is that in the past Sweeney's statements have consistently said they will not exclusively offer Apple's IAP which indicates they promise to not comply with the rules.
Continue reading. The next paragraph in the email from Sweeney:
> Whether Epic chooses to bring Fortnite back to iOS consumers depends on whether and where Apple updates its guidelines to provide for a level playing field between Apple In-App Purchase and other methods of payment.
Epic said "if you update your terms to something we would like to follow, we promise to follow them".
Tim Sweeney and Epic planned and executed an entire campaign (hilariously even given a secret code name as if Epic was either some super hero or villain) that was predicated on knowingly breaching a contract (read: a promise). Then they sued. Then they lost. Now they have a new promise?
Their promises are worth less than dogshit. Apple apparently isn’t in the market for dogshit.
Epic is very clearly and definitely not agreeing to follow the App Store rules. They are appealing the judgement precisely because they do not agree with the App Store rules. Trying to overturn them is not agreeing to them.
Epic are agreeing to comply with the court order, for now, but they are not agreeing to the rules. This is not semantics, Apple's offer was that if Epic dropped he suit, they would be let back in. Epic knows this perfectly well.
They are very clearly agreeing to follow the app store rules.
They're also trying to force them to change, but they are very clearly agreeing to follow whatever the rules are at all times.
The rules do not include "you cannot sue us" or "you cannot appeal decisions". If apple tried to put those in the rules, the court would quickly remove them from the rules, but also Apple did not, and almost certainly will not even attempt to put them in the rules.
It’s been perfectly clear all along, to anyone closely following the case and Apples deposition and legal statements exactly what Apples position was. Their conditions for letting Fortnite back in was Epic agreeing to drop the case and follow the rules. This has never changed.
The statement Apple made that most people are referring to was "As we've said all along, we would welcome Epic's return to the App Store if they agree to play by the same rules as everyone else." so it doesn't seem like "drop the case" was a condition, at least according to this one statement.
Epic didn’t promise that they will comply. Actually, Epic made it very clear that they do not want to comply. You can’t say „sure I’m ok with it“ while simultaneously filing an legal appeal on a court verdict forcing you to comply.
> You can’t say „sure I’m ok with it“ while simultaneously filing an legal appeal
They didn't say that. They said they will comply, not that they should comply. Complying doesn't preclude continuing a lawsuit because they believe they should not have to comply.
And thank "God" for people like him[1]. Life is unbearable under Tim Cook's "vision", the greed, arrogance and pettiness is at an all-time high, and it's not like it was low before..
[1] Also, nothing is black and white, of course Tim/Epic were looking to get more money from what their customers paid.
I dokt fully understand the dynamics here, but are those complaints independent of the issue being fought out between Apple and Epic? Ie, couldn't Epic still be engaging in "undercutting and delaying releases" whether or not they're paying 30% to Apple, or is that behavior somehow tangled up in this issue?
If it's not, then I don't see the contradiction here. Leaving aside people who make issues like this part of their identity, you can root for Epic in this specific case without deciding that you love Epic, with the focus on the impact of _this case_ on the industry. Just as you can root for Google in Google v Oracle without becoming a superfan of Google's.
My life under Tim Cook's "vision" is pretty sweet when it comes to electronic devices.
With a tap of a button I fill my house with lossless quality of music that is playing on astonishingly capable speakers. Those speakers also answer my questions and run automations on my phone which I can create in a very nice and user-friendly interface.
I'm currently watching an episode of a TV Series that is playing from my NAS on my mac through the only player on my Mac (I tried mpv, IINA and VLC) that is capable of playing 8k MKVs without hiccups - Infuse. That player is a port from an iPad app btw.
When I finished with my work I say "Hey, Siri, I'm done" and leave the room. Monitor's lightbar, other lights turns off. When it is getting dark my chosen lights turn on automatically, provided somebody's home. My printer doesn't consume electricity in the night because HomeKit automatically turns it off in the evening and turns it on in the morning. I don't need to worry about my daughter putting her fingers into shredder because it is always turned off. When I need it, I say "Hey Siri, turn on shredder". The shredder turns on and it then automatically turns off after 90 seconds.
When I get in my car I have a very nice screen on the dashboard that most of the time is capable of guessing where I'm about to go and suggests one-tap navigation. And the music starts playing from where I left off.
My photos are downloaded on several devices and backed up in the cloud. The albums are shared with my Mom who is very happy every time when I upload new photos of here granddaughter.
My private drm-free music collection is also uploaded to the cloud and synchronised to every device I've got.
I can say "Hey Siri, facetime Mom" and I'll see my mother's face over the distance of 17000km in a magnificent quality.
My books are synchronised and downloaded across all my devices as well and whenever I feel like reading one, it's right here. None of those books were bought from Apple btw, they are DRM-free.
The other day I was wondering if I should buy an iMac for my wife - would it fit in the kitchen or not? Well, there's AR technology on my phone that had no troubles presenting me how it would sit on the counter. Now there's also an AR app that helps me manage my arachnophobia.
I am an immigrant. In the past 5 years I had to do so many paperwork that it could fill a little closet. Luckily, compared to my peers I didn't have to print all of those PDFs out. I was able to sign them from my MacBook in Preview and using markup feature on my iPad.
I am also a software developer. I value and appreciate Unix core utils. Turns out my Mac is a certified Unix and I am able to automate a lot of things in my day-to-day job using small Unix tools that are imprinted into my fingers. All that while looking at _magnificent_ 4k monitor that delivers 100% of Adobe's gamut and doesn't make my eyes with weird font issues.
I love travelling into Australian Outback with my wife and we take some magnificent photos there with our iPhones without having to carry a lot of heavy equipment. We then are able to send this photos to each other whilst being completely off-the-grid, some hundreds of KM from nearest cell tower using AirDrop. It takes milliseconds. On the long drives my daughter can pick up here iPad and just watch some cartoons. iPad connects to the internet using my iPhone automatically when there's reception and Infuse has stuff that it downloaded form my Emby installation when there's none.
My podcasts are downloaded automatically without my intervention and put onto my watch. When I go for my walks I don't have to carry my phone. My watch and headphones suffice.
When I browse the web using my phone or my mac I don't see any advertisements and popups and auto-playing videos. Safari on my phone and mac is capable of having extensions and has APIs for adblocking applications. 1Blocker takes a good care of me when it comes to ads.
My phone provides me with tools to take care of my digital well-being. It lets me know which applications I used the most and when and lets me to block those applications for certain periods of time if I find an unhealthy habit.
I write my notes on my iPad. I don't need to cut trees anymore and it is more comfortable. With Notability I can zoom and cut my handwritten nodes and move them around and do all sorts of stuff I can't with regular pen and paper.
I recently bought an iPad for my Mom and added her into my Apple One subscription. Now she's in Russia and I'm in Australia and she is able to listen to her beloved old soviet decedent music virtually for free without needing to download it anywhere. I am calm and confident that she's safe using this device and probably of her getting scammed is quite a bit lower compare to any other device.
I'm looking forward to what other quality of life improvements Tim Cook's vision will bring to my life. I feel privileged that I have access to this magnificent technology and thankful for that.
If I pick up my Motorola I'll see that I can't even have an adblock for the default browser. And yet very soon my iPhone will receive an update that adds generic extensions support into safari. There's an extension that automatically changes amp links to real pages for example.
Android is open as it gets and yet somehow the diversity of software there is lacking. Try finding decent email client that is not Gmail and doesn't suck your data into cloud. iPhone has got multiple and one is OOB.
Thank you for not judging. In April this year one Sunday evening I realised that I've just spent about 40 hours over that weekend tinkering with my mutt and notmuch configuration instead of practicing smoking that beef roast as I wanted for some time
Monday morning I did several things:
- ordered mac mini M1 to replace my ThinkPad with Arch
- ordered iPhone to replace my rooted Motorola 5g Plus
- filed a ticket at work to switch myself from company issued precision 5540 with Arch to company issued 16 inch MacBook
- promised myself to never go that way again
I still am experiencing cravings sometimes. I saw someone made a Wayland port of dwm and immediately wanted to try it. Took a bit effort to distract myself from that and read a book instead.
I am a recovering addict and Keyboard Maestro is my replacement therapy
I did consider this. Having a single vendor is a risk factor. In my case it is mitigated by the fact that everything that is in their cloud is downloaded locally. Then it is backed up using time machine to my Synology and additionally syncthing also duplicates it there as simple files with history enabled. I believe our mitigated most of the risks. If I pull the router plug I'll still have access to my data. If my house burns down - I can download it from their cloud again.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
I really don't understand how people still think it is Sweeny's ideology playing here, when he literally emailed Apple for an exception for Epic alone.
In the Google case, it wasn't using the dev license to develop apps for the general public or "end-users".
Basically iOS is a very popular yet closed hardware and software platform and if others want to run anything on them it needs to go through Apple's approval process which might be both good and bad depending on your perspective.
>Big difference is that Epic rolled the dice by filing a lawsuit about Apple's unfair rules and because they thought there was enough anti-Apple sentiment that they'd get a sympathetic judgement in their favor.
I think they're doing a great service (at their cost) to raise the issue time and time again. After Apple, I think Steam and other platforms are next. Pretty much all developers who make money on the app store agree with Epic on the fact that Apple should not engage in a 30% money-grab.
Epic took a stand and we should be behind them 100%. This case was never about winning on the letter of the contract law, it was about moving the standard of practice and attempting to gain some ground against the evils of mega-Apple. If you are reading this Grubber post and thinking you agree, that's only because you are used to thinking this way by now.
The courts simply do not understand the power companies like Apple and Google have apparently. The startup cost of a competitor would be astronomical, as we've seen reflected in the quality, cost, and size of the small handful of other smartphone companies recently. Even if we seem new players become competitive, then what's to stop us from being back in this same situation in 10 years? 5 years? This is why we have Laws.
Not even to mention that the telecom companies are still working against progress and taking absurd cuts for themselves.
Hosting, platforming, and The Web are in crisis, as we're all aware. We should be firmly on the side of open access to our (developers) content. Why let the platforms eat our lunch? Maybe we should just be giving them a snack, or a little treat, but even that would just be for "services rendered", not as a condition for our meal.
I'm just so fucking done with this, sorry I can't help but be a bit angry.
> Why let the platforms eat our lunch? Maybe we should just be giving them a snack, or a little treat, but even that would just be for "services rendered", not as a condition for our meal.
I actually do think the platforms do a whole lot for developers; far more than they get credit for, in my opinion. For that reason, I think the best option is for them to unbundle their app store developer offerings into pieces that developers can pick & choose from. (eg. as a developer, would you be willing to share 4% extra for a smoother payment experience for users?)
> I actually do think the platforms do a whole lot for developers; far more than they get credit for, in my opinion.
I think the interesting question is not whether enormous monopolistic trillion-dollar corporations provide value to consumers. They clearly must provide some value or they wouldn't exist at all.
The real question is how much more value would consumers have in an alternate world where these anti-competitive practices were prohibited and these oligopolies were broken up into smaller competing companies?
Without a crystal ball, we can't answer that question with certainty, but we have to make educated guesses in order to have good judgement about the right way to govern the market.
Really, that's not what this lawsuit was about, and the courts aren't supposed to tip the scales based the size of companies, are they? It's clear we need new laws to deal with the problems at hand. The ruling seemed pretty even-handed based on the law, even if you disagree with it.
They failed to even acknowledge the duopoly, simply reciting tired anti-trust. I'm by no means an expert, but surely someone must come along at some point and take a stand for something in order to implement the "new laws to deal with the problems at hand", no? Would we be living in a better world if only a different judge took the case?
If you have a problem caused by a system you are unwilling to change, you cannot be surprised by the perseverance of that problem.
I agree. Unfortunately the politicians who make the laws are deeply in the pocket of business and too busy with the political circus to actually make laws.
And bees make honey. What’s your point? Contrary to popular opinion, and as explained by the GP, judges only interpret the law, they don’t make it other than that their interpretations can later be cited as case law.
> Apple Inc. and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and any person in active concert or participation with them (“Apple”), are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from (i) including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing and (ii) communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app.
> Tim Sweeney is high as a kite.
I think not... keep shilling for Apple harder.
> Here’s where I think Sweeney garnered the legal “go fuck yourself”. Sweeney is arguing that Apple, which won the lawsuit, should interpret the court’s anti-steering injunction in a way that pleases Epic, which lost the lawsuit. That’s not how things work.
Is he really trying to argue that the "winner" and "losers" are absolute in this case?! Wild.
When I support game developers by buying their games/DLCs, I do want to maximize the amount that actually goes to the developer instead of being captured by rent seekers.
Epic does not own Apple's App Store. They bought a license to publish on that platform. Then they violated it and were banned. And the judge agree it's Apple's right to do so, within limits.
Why would you do business ever again with someone who intentionally breached a contract, publicly smeared you with a calculated negative PR campaign and then sued you?
After all this you offer them to allow Fortnite back if they reverse what they've done that breached the contract. Instead, they:
- Reject the offer
- Carry on smearing you
- Lose the court case
- Sweeney says they wouldn’t release iOS version with the pricing still being the same
- Then they decide to do a PR stunt publicly sending a letter and ask to get back into App Store, while hinting they plan to toy with the courts ruling by attempting to put an in-app payment button that mimics Apple’s IAP
And now they play a victim that they're not allowed back in to the App Store because they have no other avenue and they lost the court case.
Tell me again why would _you_ do business with anyone like that?
The problem with this logic, is that Apple isn't really a "business" in this case. Epic and Apple aren't really "business partners". Apple is an unregulated privately-owned quasi-government entity with none of the responsibilities or checks on authority that a real government has.
You can sue the Post Office, lose your case, and know they can't retaliate by stealing all your mail forever. You can sue the Department of Labour, lose a case, and still have the right to hire employees in the future. You can sue the Fire Department, lose a case, and still reasonably trust they won't burn down your house. You can sue your local Power Company, lose your case, and still trust that they can't unilaterally ban you from ever buying Electricity again.
But you can't ever sue Apple, over anything, ever, no matter how evil Apple is, no matter how heinous Apple's activity may be. Because no matter how valid or correct your complain is, no matter what happens, they'll just black-bag your entire digital existence in retaliation.
Apple is acting like a Government, Apple is ruling like a Government, but Apple has none of the oversight or accountability we'd demand from any reasonable Government.
Folks are thinking of Apple like it's just a video game console, when the more apt comparison is Comcast or AT&T. Apple shouldn't be allowed to control what does or does not live in the App Store, for the same reason that Comcast shouldn't even be allowed to decide what websites or services you do/don't use.
Your post would hold up if the court didn’t already decide that Apple is not, in fact, a monopoly. The market in the lawsuit was defined as “digital mobile game transactions”
The court made that decision under the existing legal framework. That does not mean, nor even imply, that the existing legal framework is fair & just nor that it has kept up with modern structures.
This is because courts in the U.S. tend to not try to 'legislate from the bench' - if you want laws changed you have to get legislators to do it, a lawsuit won't.
the court then has a limited understanding of what a fine line they are walking, both in legal and practical terms.
Many laws and tests - especially the one used to determine monopolistic practices - are horribly outdated and based on ideas and assumptions from before the internet age. That the court failed to see how an app store where an unregulated corporation makes rules without oversight, repercussions or much legal precents - is indeed skirting the line of what constitutes a monopoly is tragic.
Take a look at that judgement - not a single example exists there for digital monopolies. The insidious part of a digital monopoly - as already pointed out - is that there is no precedent and apple are now the digital equivalent of highwaymen.
Expect this to happen more often to the point where these laws and tests are updated for the modern age. One that i foresee is Amazon and their Basics line of products.
I agree with this, Epic is forcing Apple into a no-win situation where they either do what Epic wants or come off very poorly to regulators.
Epic doesn't need to win this specific court case to get what they want, all they need is for this to stay top of mind for lawmakers to change the rules in favor of developers.
>> Apple is acting like a Government, Apple is ruling like a Government, but Apple has none of the oversight or accountability we'd demand from any reasonable Government.
You just listed how Apple is not acting like a government: they’re retaliating. I don’t understand how you can say “Apple’s retaliatory and discriminatory practices in choosing who to do business with is the touchstone of government” at the same time you list four perfectly good examples of a government entity not being able to do exactly what you say is the touchstone of a government.
You’re wrong. Apple is a private company. Doing business with people you want to do business with, and not doing business with people you don’t want to do business with (barring certain discriminatory practices), is literally what distinguishes private companies from government entities. If you want to argue that the App Store or iPhones or iMacs or MacBooks are somehow critical public infrastructure that should be governed by, apparently, common carrier laws then you should do that directly.
> You just listed how Apple is not acting like a government: they’re retaliating.
Responsible governments doesn't retaliate, oppressive governments tend to retaliate a lot. So you are right, Apple isn't acting like a responsible government, but the argument was that it is acting like an oppressive one.
Somehow acting like Not-X makes you X? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is organized under state laws explicitly as a duck, and sits on top of the water like a duck, it’s an eagle?
No, the argument isn't "Apple is like a government since Apple is retaliating". The argument is "Apple is like a government and therefore shouldn't be allowed to retaliate".
And no, saying "They are retaliating and therefore not a government" is not a good defence to the argument "Apple is like a government and therefore shouldn't be allowed to retaliate".
I understand the definitional argument that is being made, but it still makes no sense. This was the statement: “ Apple is an unregulated privately-owned quasi-government entity with none of the responsibilities or checks on authority that a real government has.”
A quasi government isn’t a government. A privately owned and unregulated entity isn’t a government. That’s the whole point. If you beg the question by assuming Apple is like a government then of course Apple should be treated like a government. But on the face of the analysis, they’re not like a government. You need to support how they’re like a government. What about them is like a government? Everything the GP talks about are ways that Apple is NOT like a government. It does not support the argument that they ARE a government.
It’s like saying “Apple is a duck, but it isn’t acting like a duck because it’s acting like an eagle!” and then when someone says “but Apple is an eagle by law and has always been thought of as an eagle, how did they become a duck?” you responded with “you’re missing the point, I said they’re a duck so they should act like one!”
The comment makes no arguments for this point, though - it establishes an opinion (Apple acting like a government) then starts listing off facts like they support that argument.
> Apple is an unregulated privately-owned quasi-government entity
JFC
Apple allows 3rd-party shit on Macs. The App Store is a store, just like Google Play and Steam etc. And iPhones and iPads are a platform, just like the PlayStation, Xbox, or Nintendo Switch etc.
Show us one instance where someone violated the T&C of any other store or platform and were still allowed to continue to do business there.
> iPhones and iPads are a platform, just like the PlayStation, Xbox, or Nintendo Switch etc.
Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point. : Folks are thinking of Apple like it's just a video game console, when the more apt comparison is Comcast or AT&T.
Even if you think of it as a gaming platform (which it isn't)... there's Nintendo, Playstation, Xbox, PC, Mac, Steam (also on PC and Mac, but separate to itself)... I might have missed some niche platforms. As opposed to mobile, which is Apple and Android.
> The problem with this logic, is that Apple isn't really a "business" in this case. Epic and Apple aren't really "business partners". Apple is an unregulated privately-owned quasi-government entity with none of the responsibilities or checks on authority that a real government has.
Are there any parallels in history we can point to for stuff like this? Maybe Standard Oil? I've been thinking alot about these massive companies lately, they are so massive and so intertwined in our society that maybe we should consider a new class of laws and regulations for these companies.
I think we should have a new class of laws and regulation called "for the common good" or something like that, and apply it to companies that have more than say 100M users. The libertarian in me hates this, but I think we also have to consider that these companies are larger and more influential then we ever though possible.
> Apple doesn't forbid me from doing a private business exchange with Epic on my device
I don't think Apple can do that. What Apple can do, is to not allow Epic to use their distribution service, known as AppStore.
What you install on your iDevice is your own business and Apple cannot do anything about it. That's why jailbreaking your device is completely legal, you own your device you paid for and you can do whatever you like with it.
Epic can develop a jailbreak or use a jailbreak distribution service to distribute their Apps. You can hack your phone and if Epic's licensing allows that, you can install Epic games yourself. You can hack your phone, install a special distribution of Android to you iPhone and install it from there.
Apple can't do anything about it. Not easy as tapping a button you say? Well Apple is not obligated to make any of this easy. They make it very clear that they support app installation through Apple AppStore and and no point they promise to help you out to install apps through any other means. If you want to do that, you will have to do it without the help of Apple.
Or you know, don't buy Apple devices if the arrangement doesn't work for you.
This seems to be overstating Apple’s position as neutral here, they are actively hostile to jailbreakers, and Apple will try to stop you any way they can.
I agree. The practical result of the current situation is that Apple can choose what apps most people can install into the their devices but this needs to be framed correctly because Apple actually targets the developers and not the users when they practically control the app distribution to the devices they sold.
Why is it important? Because when described incorrectly, solutions will also be incorrect. Apple doesn’t control it because Tim Cook gets hard when doesn’t allow some apps into the phones of the customers. They do it because they want to be paid for the intellectual properties and opportunities they provide, they also want to be able to continue selling iPhones at premium prices and in this competitive environment they want to be able to control the working of the devices so to provide premium experience.
> they want to be able to control the working of the devices so to provide premium experience.
Well too fucking bad. They can offer their premium services as a fair competitor in the market and if people want that, they can choose it, and if they don't, they can choose other things.
> They can offer their premium services as a fair competitor in the market and if people want that, they can choose it, and if they don't, they can choose other things.
Yes, that's exactly the situation. If people don't like it, they go buy a Samsung, a Pixel, Xiaomi, a Huawei, a Sony etc. There's no need for Apple be compelled do anything, there are plenty of options when you don't like the Apple offerings.
And those alternatives are not like Bing to Google, these are very viable alternatives where Apple is actually a small minority of the market. It's %50 in the US and much, much less in the rest of the world.
Jailbreaking, by definition, is using exploits and vulnerabilities in the security of the device to bypass said security. Of course Apple is going to try and stop that. If they didn't, they'd be admitting that they don't care about the security of their devices which is a major factor in why people and companies buy their devices.
Hmm then possibly Apple could simply allow consenting users to install software by means other than their highly-regulated appstore cash grab.
Every major cosumer 'computer' in history has allowed this as far as I can tell. Yet for some reason now in the last few years its unthinkable on specifically Apple devices. I'm sure it's merely a coincidence they make billions of dollars off of this overly draconian "security" framework.
I think this just highlights the problem inherent in allowing Apple to be the sole arbiter of what can run on a device you paid for. I should be able to easily install apps that Apple hasn't approved, or in this case, has a legal beef with the company in question.
It's complicated. Right now Apple makes $0 from Fortnite, if they allow them back they will at least get something. Don't let emotions get in the way of business- there is still money to be made. This feels petty on Apple's part unless they are using this to send a message to anyone else who wants to sue them.
I’m fairly certain this was calculated. Someone crunched the numbers and included this into the equation and sticking it to epic came on top. This isn’t a purely emotional decision even though it seems that way.
The landscape is changing so fast that Apple probably will lose control of their app store in the not too distant future.
Despite still being twice as large as iOS, the Android ecosystem isn't doing very well. If Apple isn't a monopolist today and trends continue, it's only a matter of time before it unquestionably is. At that point they aren't going to be able to dictate terms any longer.
> If Apple isn't a monopolist today and trends continue, it's only a matter of time before it unquestionably is.
That's exactly what the judge said.
> In sum, given the totality of the record, and its underdeveloped state, while the Court can
conclude that Apple exercises market power in the mobile gaming market, the Court cannot
conclude that Apple’s market power reaches the status of monopoly power in the mobile gaming
market. That said, the evidence does suggest that Apple is near the precipice of substantial
market power, or monopoly power, with its considerable market share. Apple is only saved by
the fact that its share is not higher, that competitors from related submarkets are making inroads
into the mobile gaming submarket, and, perhaps, because plaintiff did not focus on this topic.
Your premise seems to be that Epic being back on the app store increases the risk of change for Apple, but I would argue that making some degree of peace with Epic definitely decreases the risk of change for Apple. The only way I can rationalise Apple not allowing them back on is that Apple would like for that to be part of a settlement agreement.
Lest people think Apple must allow alternative IAP, or bypassing their commission.
From the court ruling:
> At step three, Epic Games has identified no suitable less restrictive alternative for Apple’s use of IAP based on the current record. The only alternative that Epic Games proposes is that Apple be barred from restricting or deterring in any way “the use of in-app payment processors other than IAP.” This proposed alternative is deficient for several reasons:
> First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property.
> Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission
> Indeed, while the Court finds no basis for the specific rate chosen by Apple (i.e., the 30% rate) based on the record, the Court still concludes that Apple is entitled to some compensation for use of its intellectual property.
Epic totally picked the wrong way to approach this...
They should have taken up the issue with the EU competition commission and asked them to issue big fines to Apple per day they don't allow competing app stores.
> Epic will resubmit Fortnite to the App Store if you adhere to the plain language of the court order and allow apps to include buttons and external links that direct customers to other purchasing mechanisms without onerous terms or impediments to a good user experience.
That seems very reasonable, why wouldn't Apple be forced to comply with the court order?
Apple is complying with court rulings, including the judgment that Apple's contract with Epic is valid and enforceable. Apple could hypothetically ban all of Epic's accounts forever, but only the Fortnite account is banned. This appears to be a win for... payment vendors.
At this point Epic can only hope for legislative action.
Also on the "reasonableness" of Epic's promises... I'm not sure why making a pinky promise in a non-legal setting is any more serious than a legal contract they already choose to break.
In reality, though, Apple would be throwing half of their game developers under the bus if they disable the Unreal Engine account. So if Epic can bait them to do that, they'll have plenty of frustrated developers to push public anti-Apple sentiment.
As long as those developers can still test their games on the platform, there will only be anti-Epic sentiment. Every game developer using the Unreal Engine is seeing this play out just like we are and they're seeing that it's Epic's actions that are causing that issue. With the state of game engines today, many may even consider moving away from Unreal for future games specifically because of Epic's actions.
I've been involved with a few game projects and their developers. In general, everyone likes dealing with Epic because you can reach the actual developers quickly and they'll provide timely bug-fixes. Also, they are famously laid-back while your revenue is <$1 mio per game .. so most Indie developers experience them more as a charity than as a business.
Apple, on the other hand, is widely known as arbitrary, both on technical things and on what content or what games are allowed.
So if you tell a random game developer that Apple and Epic are fighting, most people will assume that it's Apple's fault because Epic has built up a lot of goodwill in that community.
> Also on the "reasonableness" of Epic's promises... I'm not sure why making a pinky promise in a non-legal setting is any more serious than a legal contract they already choose to break.
Apple said they would reinstate Epic based on a pinky promise, they just wanted more in the promise they didn't question the promise itself. Pinky promises are absolutely a thing, not sure why you are ridiculing that part here.
Legal contracts are also a thing? In terms of seriousness, if you're willing to violate legal contracts, then what is the value of a pinky promise? The value of any promise is the sum of your credibility.
Something prone to procedural weaponization in the sense that strategic refusal to even consider redlined terms (the entire point of meeting of the minds) is rife.
I'd like to direct your attention to every piece of software's license agreement to which the answer to "decline" or "disagree" is to cease execution. Not to figure out what the person is actually okay with, and modifying execution from there.
Network effects are explicitly exploited (see "economies of scale") to lock in what the provider specifically wants. Hence why FLOSS is so important for it's role of providing BATNA.
>Apple could hypothetically ban all of Epic's accounts forever
That is just plain wrong. There's no difference in Apple banning all Epic accounts over this and Apple Banning Microsoft or you for what Epic did. Epic is not one company, each account is a different business. Banning different companies in different countries and continents because of a brand name would get Apple sued into oblivion and would likely be the nail in the coffin for a closed app store.
> (2) a declaration that (i) Apple’s termination of the DPLA and the related agreements between Epic Games and Apple was valid, lawful, and enforceable, and (ii) Apple has the contractual right to terminate its DPLA with any or all of Epic Games’ wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities under Epic Games’ control at any time and at Apple’s sole discretion.
As you might recall - Apple did retaliate previously by also banning an associated Epic Account (for Unreal Engine and such) but was later legally forced not to [1]
That was a temporary restraining order [1] and later certified in a preliminary injunction [2], which is what occurs before a trial in order to best preserve the pre-trial status quo and protect parties from harm pending trial.
You will note that the preliminary injunction vacates the temporary restraining order and notes that it will "remain in force until the disposition of this case". The case has been disposed. The final ruling explicitly allows "Apple has the contractual right to terminate its DPLA with any or all of Epic Games’ wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities under Epic Games’ control at any time and at Apple’s sole discretion."
I seriously recommend not relying on blog analysis of a court case and instead reading the court documents, and if you are unable to do so (understandable!) to avoid participating in the conversation in the manner of correcting someone.
edit: I am not the original GP who said it's plain wrong - perhaps I should lead with that
---
I really appreciate your analysis. Perhaps my comment was unclear, but it was in reference to the GP asking
> Why do you think this is plain wrong?
Since from my understanding the injunction should still be in effect (as mentioned by another commenter). Of course with the added disclaimer that I am not a corporate lawyer.
> I seriously recommend not relying on blog analysis of a court case and instead reading the court documents, and if you are unable to do so (understandable!) to avoid participating in the conversation in the manner of correcting someone.
I appreciate your candor - while I may exhibit elements of imposter syndrome, I believe I didn't add noise to the SNR of this post since it was my intention to expand on the aformentioned GP's question.
… in a preliminary injunction that "[...] will remain in force until the disposition of this case" (pg 38, bottom), so once the appeals process has run its course, Apple is no longer bound by this.
But wasn't Epic banned just because they broke that rule the court now ordered Apple not to enforce? Isn't it strange that this lawsuit would result in Apple now being able to enforce that rule only for Epic and they aren't allowed to enforce it for anyone else? Is that how it is supposed to work?
No, Epic directly offered in-game payment options for the Epic currency. The judge ordered Apple to allow in-game links to online purchase options, not to directly allow in-app purchases from 3rd parties.
Yup, the judge ordered Epic to pay some millions to Apple in damages.
So it said something like, Epic was wrong to do what they did and did break their contract, but also said from now on that Apple can't prevent devs from steering customers to outside the App Store payments.
It certainly could be interpreted as contempt of court but in practice Apple has hundreds of vague rules in their developer policies and they use them on a daily basis to block apps or updates just because they feel like it. They would have no difficulty constructing a retroactive excuse for banning Epic (and all their customers, as they threatened previously) from the store.
Effectively telling Epic that if they are serious about this issue, they need to batten down for a multi-year court battle and give up selling games in the meantime.
I guess it has to do with the fact that Epic has appealed the court verdict. I can understand that Apple doesn’t feel like doing business with someone who has an active legal case against them.
That makes sense, thanks! The dispute isn't resolved yet, easy to understand. I assume if Epic accepted the court ruling then Apple would be forced to comply?
I am not sure they can be forced to comply (if I remember correctly this particular court decision mentioned that Apple was within their right for terminating Epic’s account), but that’s just half of the story. It is true that Apple has promised to reinstate Epic once they agree to follow their rules. What I find really disingenuous about all this is Tim Sweeney‘s attitude - he appeals the decision while at the same time publicly blaming Apple for not following up on their part of the bargain. It’s just embarrassing at this point.
Apple would be forced to comply with the court ruling, which does not require Apple to reinstate Epic's account and allow Fortnite back on the App Store.
A short summary of the ruling is that Apple has no ‘duty to deal’ with Epic (you can’t force someone to do business with someone), so they can let them in when they want.
If Epic did not appeal, and submitted a version of fortnight that complied with App Store requirements I think they would be in the store rn.
Apple is complying with the court order (so far as we can currently tell). Not reinstating Epic’s developer account is a separate issue. It was explicitly stated in the court order that Apple was allowed to terminate Epic’s account and it was solely up to them if they wanted to reinstate it.
Opening the payment mechanisms for other developers is a separate issue to whether or not Epic could still sell iOS apps on the AppStore.
It is very self-serving of Epic to offer Apple a legal interpretation of the court's decision free of charge, that delivers Epic all benefits it failed to receive in the court decision. Apple is, however, free to disregard Epic's input on interpretation, no matter how plausible Epic's phrasing may sound to others. Apple is not forced to comply with Epic's interpretation of the court order — Apple is forced to comply with Apple's interpretation of the court order, and has another ~10 weeks to decide how they will choose to comply with the order, assuming that it isn't suspended during the appeals process. If a court later decides that Apple has not complied, then Apple will be answerable to the court, not to Epic, for their interpretations.
Epic is appealing the decision. Sweeney is promising to follow the rules but is also trying to take Apple down. Definitely duplicitous. Apple does not have to let Epic back in.
And how are those two not related? Epic is a developer, therefore their bottom line is literally in the interest of developers. Furthermore, if a company has less fees to deal with then they can charge lower prices for the same product.
The whole stunt was planned by Epic well in advance. Offering an outside payment option without lowering the price would have undermined their entire argument.
Make no mistake, when the dust settles, consumers will pay the same amount, but Epic will get to keep more of it.
There is nothing wrong with Epic wanting to increase its margins, but doing so under the rubric of helping the customer does get under my skin a bit.
Yes, Epic is a developer. So too is Tim Cook a user; does that mean that what's in Tim Cook's interest is in the interest of users, in general?
This doesn't logically follow; Epic's interests do not necessarily align with the interests of all developers, and they certainly don't necessarily align with the interests of users.
In particular, the whole point of this is that Epic wants to be more than just a developer: they want to be a platform owner, and run their own App Store. Most developers can't even dream of that—and probably wouldn't want to.
So what? Assuming that the battle does lead to an enforced (either via court or legislation) opening of the App Store or to massively reduced pricing for developers, the net outcome for users and developers is still positive.
One might even argue that it did need Epic as one of the largest mobile software vendors to challenge Apple both in PR and the courts. Small developers have complained without any effect whatsoever for years about the App Store restrictions (especially adult/otherwise "not family friendly" content, or wishing to use an HTML renderer that is not full of bugs) or Apple booting out their existence with no reason or way of appealing.
Isn't the "luck" in that case the spirit of having a competitive market?
In an effort to stifle off regulation, the self-interest of giant corporations are aligned with their otherwise powerless developers - even if coincidentally.
If the duopoly wasn't under scrutiny, this "luck" would have run out as there would be no real viable competition.
If the person or company suing Apple needs to have no ulterior motives, you'll never get a lawsuit, let alone a successful one. The court isn't going to care about hypothetical accusations, the lawsuit has to be brought by someone who was materially harmed by Apple's behavior. Epic pulled their stunt to set up a blatant example of what they believed to be inappropriate behavior, and on at least one count the court agreed with them.
Basically, the only way we would ever see action on this in the US is if a big player - like Epic - pulled a stunt like this to force their hand. As the evidence in the case showed, Apple was happy to try and pay people off to prevent them from filing a case like this, they offered Epic a sweetheart deal and eventually caved to pressure from Amazon.
Yes we do, it is one of the guiding principles of free markets.
But the US is going into a direction of giant all powerful corporations smothering any competition.
People love Apple I know but if other companies start doing this hopefully they'll reconsider.
According to the court disclosures, their iOS revenue wasn't as big as you'd think (less than 10%, iirc). If that's gross revenue, it would mean the net revenue is considerably lower. Once you factor in the costs to earn that revenue - maintaining the iOS client, OS-specific online services, etc - it probably wasn't too hard for them to stomach the hit, especially since the potential upside was pocketing more revenue in the future.
They were also making a larger scale play here, they want to get rid of 30% cuts in general, which means they get to keep more of their Android revenue and likely more of their revenue on PlayStation and XBox (The court case revealed that Sony is basically charging extortion money to allow cross-platform play.)
This article doesn't mention the fact that Apple lied, and that Tim Cook "promised" in court that Epic would be let back in the app store if they promised to comply with the rules. Epic made that exact promise [1]. And now Apple's telling them: F you.
And the relevant quote from the Tim Cook testimony:
> Apple has said that banning Epic Games was its only viable action, but at the same time, the company offered to let Fortnite back in the App Store if it agreed to the App Store rules. "Why would Apple do that if Epic is a bad actor?" the lawyer asked Cook. "It would benefit users to have them back on the store, if they abided by the rules," Cook said. "The user is trapped between two companies and it's not the right thing to do to the user." Cook said that Apple was not thinking about money at all, and Fortnite's revenue was not a consideration.
>Apple lied, and that Tim Cook "promised" in court that Epic would be let back in the app store if they promised to comply with the rules. Epic made that exact promise [1]. And now Apple's telling them: F you.
I think your post inadvertently makes things more confusing.
In short, the situation changed and got a little more complicated after Tim Cook previously said they'd reinstate Epic's account.
What are the new changes and complications created by the recent judge's ruling? Epic's "promise" has to be dissected into 2 component parts:
(#1) _direct_ in-app-purchases. This was the mechanism that originally got Epic kicked off the App Store last year. (The court ruling still doesn't force Apple to allow this and indeed, they reaffirmed this by ordering Epic to pay back $6 million (the "lost" 30% commissions) to Apple for bypassing Apple's in-app-purchases.)
(#2) _informing_ the user of alternative app payments via web links, etc. (the "anti-steering" in the court's ruling)
Apple's current guidelines don't allow for either (1) & (2). However, Epic wants to be back in the App Store and immediately use option #2 because they feel the judge's ruling to stop Apple anti-steering policy should be followed now. Apple disagrees because they think they have a right to impose anti-steering. Hence, everybody is still in appeals process.
Put another way, Sweeney's idea of "promise" does not match Cook's expectation of a promise which makes it invalid from Apple's perspective.
Contrary to public perception, "anti-steering" is not always illegal and Apple's legal team is probably aware of previous cases such as American Express winning their anti-steering case with The Supreme Court: https://www.pymnts.com/legal/2018/supreme-court-amex-case-an...
So you're saying that Apple won't be forced to comply with the anti-steering ruling because Epic's appealing, even though Apple didn't appeal? (and seemingly indicated that they won't) So Apple can indefinitely keep the anti-steering provision, until all appeals are exhausted? That would make sense.
Otherwise, I believe the court gave Apple 90 days to comply, and I can't see anything in Epic's letter that shows they want to be let back in immediately, so I'm unsure what this changes.
edit: I base my idea that "Apple hinted that they won't appeal" from this: https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/17/22679724/tim-cook-epic-ap..., and also based on the fact that Apple, in practice, didn't lose anything (they can still force devs to pay 30% on "steered" purchases made through the dev's website). But it seems some lawyers believe it's possible Apple will still appeal, so I shouldn't have been so definitive.
I think if Epic dropped the lawsuit after they lost the court case then Apple would let them back in the App Store. Continuing to fight makes it seem like there's no reason for Apple to reinstate Fortnite.
Yep. I’m confused. Do people think that Epic won the court case, and are therefore in some position to make demands? The court ruled in favor of Apple on 9 of 10 issues. Epic has proven itself to be a bad faith actor; recall, Epic could have remained in compliance and then sued for the right they just gained, and then implemented it. But they decided to purposefully break the rules they originally agreed to. This is the outcome they knew they would get.
I agree that Apple won in court here, but I think they're losing the public perception game pretty badly.
I've never been a big Apple fan - and I speak up about it on various forums - up until about two years ago, no one really cared.
These last two years... The Anti-Apple sentiment is hitting HARD. Frankly - It was always an abusive company ("my way or the high way" seems like it could be their company motto), but now the products just aren't that good, and it shows.
Maybe the M1 devices will buy them some time, lord knows they need it after the cluster fuck of a computer that is the latest 16 macbook pro (work issued, it's the worst laptop I've used in the last 12 years).
But the phones are WAY too expensive for what you get - the UI is dissolving into a mess, the laptops are losing all the power user features that got folks interested in the first case, and the privacy-centric "User first" approach they market so hard is visibly turning into a pretty clear charade.
My prediction - This is going to be a pyrrhic victory. They're going to fight tooth and nail to hang onto this revenue stream (which is clearly simple rent-seeking behavior), and it's going to taint developer and user opinion across their main market. I personally went from "neutral/negative" on Apple to "Will not touch with a 20' pole - will not do business with or develop for"
Even at work - We have a large group of developers now asking to be issued something other than a macbook. I find that pretty damn telling.
> …I think they're losing the public perception game pretty badly.
Outside of HN and other niche media properties this is an extremely obscure battle.
> …now the products just aren't that good, and it shows.
Does it though? Apple recently reported an almost-50% YoY increase in iPhone sales. The iPad had its best June quarter in nearly a decade. The Mac set a new June quarter revenue record. The last four quarters have been the Mac's best four quarters ever. Subjectively, Apple products have never been better.
I think it does matter - objectively. It doesn't matter how many consumers you have on your platform, if you don't have content creators you're on life support.
Right now, Apple is still middle of the road - The money in their apps ecosystem is holding a lot of developers there, but I think they're royally fucked in every legal district except the US with regards to the current software distribution model. And honestly - that's simply because anti-trust/monopoly regulation in the US is an unfathomable joke at the moment (it helps that we house most of the tech monopolies, so from a nationalistic perspective, I understand that the status quo is making a lot of people a lot of money).
So does it matter this quarter? Eh - almost certainly not. Will it matter in 10 years? Almost certainly yes.
That said, who knows - Apple is damn good at marketing still, and it's possible they can leverage the M1 machines into a dominant position.
---
As for this year - We're seeing consumer spending in electronics up across the board, mostly thanks to incentives from covid (cash infusions, more people using devices for school/work, more people feel stuck at home and consume digital services). And Apple has a good supply chain in place to whether the current chip shortages, pushing consumers to buy products from Apple simply because they're available. Hell, Lenovo revenue is also up 50% in the last year, and Samsung is up nearly 20% this last quarter. Selling digital devices is a good spot to be in during a lockdown of physical spaces.
Again, maybe Apple will be able to ride the wave with the M1 devices, but I think extrapolating out from sales during Covid isn't all that meaningful.
A lot of people claimed BlackBerry was finished in 2009, when it was still reporting record sales and profits.
Of course Apple is too big to disappear the way BB did. But a lot of what made Apple products unique is no longer there. Jobs pointed out how OEMs had little brand identity and consistency because of the sheer number of variations of each product.
Apple today sells 7 different models of iPhone and 5 different models of iPads. It's on its way.
>the company offered to let Fortnite back in the App Store if it agreed to the App Store rules.
Epic is not agreeing to the app store rules. They are appealing the decision because they *do not agree to the rules* and do not want to follow them. As long as that situation stands, Apple is not letting them back in.
If Epic drops the appeal and agrees to comply, then Apple has indicated they would let them in.
I think you are arguing semantics, and that 'Agree' usually means something different in this context.
Agreeing in this sense usually means 'Agreeing to follow rules' rather than 'Agreeing that the rule should exist'.
For instance - I'm sure plenty of developers don't agree that Apple should get a 30% cut and don't want to give the money to them, but agree to let this happen in order to use the store. Most developers probably think that they should be able to take platform on any payment platform they wish, but again agree not to do it because those are the T&C's. Agree usually means 'Agree to do or not do something' rather than 'Agree something is the right thing'.
It's not semantics. You're simply miss-understanding the nature of the offer because Epic is misrepresenting it. Apple was offering Epic to let them back in the app store if they dropped the case, that's what agreeing means, and they haven't dropped it.
If Epic wins the appeal, the ruling will be overturned and Apple could lose on all points. That's not an acceptable situation for Apple and as long as Epic is holding that over their heads, Apple won't make a deal.
> (2) a declaration that (i) Apple’s termination of the DPLA and the related agreements between Epic Games and Apple was valid, lawful, and enforceable, and (ii) Apple has the contractual right to terminate its DPLA with any or all of Epic Games’ wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities under Epic Games’ control at any time and at Apple’s sole discretion.
The fact that Apple was allowed by the court to ban them indefinitely at their discretion, doesn't change the fact that making a public promise, in court (which was widely publicised at the time from what I recall) and reneging on it when their demands were met, is a little shocking, and certainly disappointing.
The last time they made that promise was 8 days ago!
> Apple says it won’t let Epic Games back in the App Store until they agree to “play by the same rules as everyone else.”
But Epic then promptly turned around and appealed. Why should Apple let epic back in when they’re saying they will “play by the rules” in one breath and saying “we don’t accept the courts ruling on the rules” in another?
Appealing a court decision still counts as "playing by the rules." Disagreeing about what the rules should be shouldn't count as a violation of the rules by itself.
Disagreeing about the rules is not a violation of those rules, I agree. But it is a statement of intent that you plan to not follow the rules if you win your court case, which means...you won't be playing by the rules. Seems perfectly reasonable to me that Apple wouldn't want to give Epic access to their user base back while Epic is trying to reverse the decision.
Now, if Epic was not appealing, and Apple refused to let them back in, I would agree that is egregious.
And Epic doesn’t like Apple. These are big companies and Epic is not under an existential treat by not having access to the AppStore.
Epic started this whole mess by breaking their original agreement. And the court explicitly affirmed Apple’s right to terminate Epic’s developer account. If Apple were “abusing” their position, that implies they have monopoly power in that market, which was not what the court determined (rightly or wrongly). Which is the crux of Epic’s real goals, which they lost.
You could argue that it’s not nice or that it’s a poor business choice (because people will still buy some VBucks through IAP), but it’s not abusive. Vindictive maybe, but not abusive.
And really the only people getting hurt are the players who played Fortnite (exclusively?) on their phones or iPads. Which ironically includes me…
I think this would be a much larger issue for smaller developers who are reliant on access to the iOS market. What would happen to a smaller developer that didn’t have more resources? I think that’s a more interesting question.
But right now, this is still a Goliath vs Goliath situation.
Following the rules while protesting through a court case seems reasonable to me. Just because you flow the rules doesn't mean you think they are just. On the other hand, retaliating because someone genuinely believes they are being disadvantaged is quite the opposite of just.
If your position is "following the rules while protesting through a court case seems reasonable", then you agree Epic should have followed the rules while protesting through a court case instead of deliberately getting banned in order to sharpen their PR efforts in support of the court case they planned to file.
Apple is giving up a lot of money, likely hundreds of millions, by not letting Fortnite back in.
You could argue that in the long term Apple might be calculating that the fear effect on other companies might pay that back, but that's highly arguable. It's unarguable they are giving up a serious amount of reliable income to make this point.
You are missing the wood for the trees here: Apple may give up some money for the Fortnite game, but meanwhile they get to hold on to the money they rake in on other parties' products. If they accepted the Fortnite change then they would lose that other money, which absolutely dwarfs the money made on Fortnite.
I'm a bit surprised that this needs to be explained.
Apple won the case, they don’t have to accept the Fortnite changes. In fact the court ordered Epic to follow the rules, if Fortnite goes back into the store.
How would letting Fortnite back in the store, and taking their money, reduce their revenues from other developers? You’re not making any sense.
What a utter lie Tim Cook said. Apple only sees money, do not try to make this about the user. I would love to have Ricky Gervais in the court replying to Tim, just like he did on the Golden Globes :D
I believe the key element here is "if they promised to comply with the rules". Since Epic has already filed an appeal, they don't seem to express a lot of willingness to comply with the rules.
I think your mixing actually complying with the rules and promising to abide by the rules.
In your quote Cook said "if they abided by the rules" but in the Sweeney letter you linked to he said "Epic promises that it will adhere to Apple’s guidelines". Sweeney didn't say they actually did it.
Also, the daringfireball article includes the letter you linked to and covered this topic.
What happened to that proposed US regulation that they will mandate alternate app stores on iPhone and make Google style strong-arming against other stores illegal.
This sounds like the best solution by far. Nothing changes for Apple walled garden users and happy Google Play users. The rest of us get better choices.
How would this change the fact that Epic knowingly and intentionally violated a contract? The judge didn’t prohibit Apple from enforcement responses to the willful rule breaking by Epic. Apple said they’d reinstate Epic if Epic uploads a guidelines-compliant build. Epic instead said they’d upload a build that doesn’t comply with today’s guidelines. Apple declined Epic’s offer as it does not met the terms they presented, and withdrew the offer of early reinstatement.
If Epic hadn’t decided to posture and had just uploaded a build that complies with today’s guidelines - which do not, and are not yet required to, allow external purchasing links - then they would have had their account reinstated. They chose not to do so, in a flashy and demanding way, having no leverage left against Apple. Bad choice.
I don't really care about Apple store ? Like I don't care about Play Store - both have limitations I don't like. Android is more lax about permitting custom software installed on the phone but Google strongarms OEMs to prevent any competing stores.
There's good money in maintaining appstores I'm certain someone will do it better than Apple and Google, I would very much welcome Steam mobile for example.
Next epic lawsuit: Apple must have a justified reason for banning a game / account that is outlined in their TOS. And the exact specific reason must be given in writing so it can be clearly addressed.
I mean think about it. It's not just about a feud, the games are literally barred on all computers of a specific type (iOS computers). That's like 1/5 (probably more) of the computing screen that is looked at daily by all people. I mean at a certain point banning that is like banning eating. People gotta eat. Doesn't anyone else think it's weird that one organization can ban software from being on 1/5 of all computers in the world?
Computing got a lot weirder than it was when I was a kid.
20% of computers that you can CHOOSE to use. I think the main part of the lawsuit is that Apple is not the only choice that is available (readily, easily, affordably) to consumers.
Subway has the most franchise stores in the USA; that doesn't mean they HAVE to serve you. You can get a sandwich at a number of other places and more abstractly, you can get food at a number of other places. They don't need to give you a reason why they won't let you in, though politely they might (i.e. please wear shoes in the store)
Your example doesn't exactly compare that well. If Subway was one of 6 places you can get a sandwich (or any food at all) I think most people would not want Subway to ban them. That would be crazy.
I would not be surprised if Epic launched a phone to compete with Apple.
Epic partners with Tencent in China for games. Tencent sells a "gamer phone", the Black Shark.[1] 90Hz display, liquid cooled.
All Epic needs to do is offer that in the US. With a bit of marketing effort, Epic could make their phone the one the cool middle school kids want. Instead of one of those slow Apple old-people phones.
Epic already has a games store competing with Steam.
Steam Deck is on the way this winter, and will succeed in locking down users to a Steam ecosystem (majority won't bother replacing SteamOS w/ windows).
An Epic-made handheld gaming device wouldn't be out of the question.
Is anyone surprised? Apple is one of the most vengeful and anti-competition companies ever and their goal is to lock consumers into their ecosystem and rip them off, and god help any company that tries to get in the way.
They are a bully and can act this way because Epic to them is meaningless. Theres only a handful of companies who can actually threaten Apple with their same medicine at this point, and unfortunately this means consumers suffer.
As a developer, I can understand wanting to have a separate IAP, but this should add another level. If I create something for sale within Fortnite, I don't want to share that profit with Epic. I want to use my own IAP. If Apple has to provide alternative IAP for creators/developers on their platform, the developers should also have to provide alternative IAP for creators within their platform/app.
I've been an Apple user for more than 20 years, and I really like their products, but every year I am feeling more and more fleezed.
It pisses me off that they overcharge on storage and memory, leading to a situation where everyone who is on a budget struggles with artificially limited machines. I understand that they need to offer multiple price points to cover the market, but I actually preferred it when they just charged more for black.
It annoys me that they arbitrarily block content to enforce their weird standards (eg. no nudity allowed) or just whenever they feel someone is not paying them enough of their revenue.
It annoys me that their overarching goal is no longer to make the best products, but instead the goal is to make you keep buying accessories and services even after you already bought their stuff.
I dunno. For my home computer I already switched to Windows. There's probably lots to complain about with Microsoft as well, but I'm surprised how nice some things are after years of thinking Apple was so far ahead.
Regarding the footnote, are lawyers covering their arse in some way by having "VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL" when they send emails like this? Or is that just a convention from the 90s that nobody has bothered changing.
And this is why I refuse to give Apple any money whatsoever (also Microsoft for past shenanigans). User freedom matters. At least on Android, you can sideload apps (very easily too these days) if Google (or Samsung or Huawei or whichever app store you have) decides to ban an app. And Linux of course is completely free.
That is what i am saying, outcome and not the process.
following epic vs apple fight - the whole play and dance, throwing mud etc etc. Its not worth your time, you cannot affect the outcome. Just ignore it all and learn about the outcome in the end.
yeah I just read here in some comments that he also makes television appearances... i didn't know that, i thought he was more of a "internet random guy"! ...you never stop learning
Sure, it's a f--- you move and Apple might like it, but if they keep it up, they will keep making enemies until they have no more friends. For every homer like Gruber there are many more people that just want to do something useful with Apple's technology. Like play Fortnite.
I understand that Apple is pissed at Epic, but this is just petty spite. They are a big megacorp now, the need to abandon the habit of thinking themselves the underdog. It’s unbecoming.
I am sick of Epic honestly, these companies always feeling entitled to someone else's work. With this fake "level playing field" nonsense. No one is forcing you to use iOS as your delivery platform. Epic is extremely disingenuous in this case, if they don't like it they have all the resources to create their own mobile device and platform.
They have a section on Apple's anticompetitive behavior and a link to quashing smaller companies viewed as competition in the past.
I do admire your get up and go, though and I do think more people should put up more competition. I'm very break up monopoly, which we have quite a few examples of in America, using exorbitant market pressures to stifle competition.
A surprising number of people who think of themselves as capitalists believe the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Once you get past their family friendly PR, Apple has always been a pretty ruthless company. That said, Epic has also massively overplayed their hand and they shouldn't be surprised that Apple's called the bluff.
I'm not sure going from an average of 25 searches to 5 really matters lol. Nobody really searches for him, they just read articles by him linked from somewhere else. Anyone who knows him is probably technical and just goes directly to his site.
Hasn't crossed my newsfeeds in a long time. He is the original professional fanboy, Tesla has a whole bunch of people clamoring to be the Gruber of Tesla.
I have been realizing lately that my loyalty to Apple has been waning over the years after having invested heavily in the ecosystem. This is another representation to me of how Apple's ecosystem is something you have no control over, and you are at the whim of Apple's legal team in situations like that to be able to play the games you want to play on your devices.
Apple remembered their corporate games they were playing and forgot who their real customer and focus should be: the end users. This decision doesn't benefit their end users in any meaningful way. It hurts end users to score points in their feud with Epic.