Of course it makes sense for them (Apple) to cut all ties. They wanted nothing to do with Epic after the stunt they pulled and they view it as the same entity.
To me it reads more like "the case will continue regardless but you both can just return to how it was until then and we wouldn't need to be here" but I could be wrong as well.
So Apple are better because at least you know they're going to act like assholes?
They had their game pulled and the losses associated with that. There's your negative consequence.
I dunno, reading it back you sure made it sound like Apple are always shitty but Epic are worse because they are sometimes shitty.
seems like the most reasonable one.
interesting.
From a developer standpoint they probably are in this exact situation due to how reckless they acted with the potential to drag a lot of innocent people down with them. It doesn't inspire business confidence to put your trust in them. That's simply my point about the whole UE thing, and as the Judge got to hear it could've easily swung the other way with another judge and then what (see below)? No UE support for a year? That's absolutely terrible but also entirely self made from Epic.
On Apple's side, it's all one account. Breaching rules on that account to the point the account get closed impacts everything tied to it, it's not like they were targeting UE (although they were happy that it did.) They can't just split the account either as then Epic would need to pay two fees.
Because Epic really did not give a fuck about their clients that are dependent on their engine on IOS. If they would have, then what you said would have been the first course of action in respect to their customer base.
Why would it? Epic makes fuckloads of money as it is, they didn't start the direct payment thing because money was tight.
But It's not gone, this is only the temporary restraining order, the matter will be settled in court which may still decide to put all Epic products off the App store. Though there's always the possibility of them settling before that.
Probably because they're a shell company to avoid taxes in Luxembourg or Switzerland.
No, it's not over yet.
err no? Your conclusions seem totally divorced from what happened. The judge seems to agree that Apple might have the authority to ban the UE license they just need to provide more evidence than they were able to for the TRO.
That's exactly what I was thinking. People calling it a "good ruling" or congratulating the judge just because they agree with the decision even though it was purely professional.
Fortnite was already using Apple's billing system except on the day it got pulled from the App Store. I don't see why going back to the way things were two weeks ago would prompt a price increase on Unreal Engine.
The latter.
Yes, but some people cared more about this aspect of the case more than the actual legal issue of the case itself. And it's still a decision. There's no procedural ruling that judges have to allow Unreal to keep going. The judge chose to make the companies do something one way. People agree with that choice, regardless of how the rest of everything else may go down.
Unreal Engine is logically too big to fail. It would be a massive loss for Apple to actually stop future updates.
I see, and you get to keep the 15% for the subsequent years (3rd year, 4th year, etc.)?
Gaming is a comparatively small portion of Apple's business as far as I can find. The latest info I can find is that in 2018, gaming revenue accounted for approximately $9.45 billion in revenue in 2018, out of a total of $265.5 billion reported revenue in 2018.
