Yup. Their strategy using one of the most popular games ever and the court of public opinion to break them. It will not work.
Apple fires back in court, says Epic Games CEO asked for special treatment [Tim Sweeney Denies]
- Thread starter Xando
- Start date
Yup. Their strategy using one of the most popular games ever and the court of public opinion to break them. It will not work.
No way Apple is going to bend on this and Sweeney is going to blow shit loads of money in legal fees and straight up LOSE.
Also, notice the complete diss from Apple when Tim Cook and the others in that email didn't even respond to him. Went straight to legal. Cold as ice.
Also, notice the complete diss from Apple when Tim Cook and the others in that email didn't even respond to him. Went straight to legal. Cold as ice.
I can see the request being made insomuch as its a resource available to them, in the same line of appealing by default. But is it your opinion that there is any merit to the TRO ? They willingly created the circumstances, and Apple themselves told them they could/had to rollback the app and all would be well. They chose to ignore that and are now seeking a TRO.
I don't think Apple should necessarily lower their cut. I think the market and circumstances have materially changed since the App Store release, and that a discussion around whether the fees charged for being in that market should be reviewed is not unreasonable. But that discussion doesn't necessarily go in the publishers' favor for several reasons, such has the much increased costs of maintaining the infrastructure.
Even then, it would only work if Android had Fortnite available. Where do those Fortnite kids who abandon iOS over the #freefortnite campaign go?
Android has Fortnite available. Just exclusively as sideload (as it had for the vast majority of its lifetime in Android).
Apple can demand as much as they want, it's their store. But, Apple must be forced to allow sideloading. And no, it's not their system so they can do what they want with it. We were past that point long time ago. If Microsoft can be forced to include the possibility to install third party browsers right into their already open system, Apple must be regulated in this regard too.
Epic doing their job here (maybe for the wrong reasons) is the best thing that could happen to the consumers.
Epic doing their job here (maybe for the wrong reasons) is the best thing that could happen to the consumers.
Not that I disagree with your sentiment in any way, but I do wonder if this is actually the case. Windows (AFAIK) has always been an open platform that Microsoft was playing dodgy with, whereas iOS has always been a closed platform. Although MacOS is open, that is an entirely different product when compared to iOS.
Mac Catalyst - Apple Developer
Easily start creating a native Mac app from your current iPad app with Mac Catalyst.
That would hold water if Apple didnt have a unified code base to allow iOS apps to run on MacOS.
Im not sure if someone has already responded to this but wouldnt this exact same thing affect walled gardens known as consoles too? Like what would be say Sony's defence that would not be applicable here? That would be pretty wild.
Thinking about that Sony do allow different stores - they just have a single digital one. You can buy certified 'apps' at retail - there is an element of competition.
Mac Catalyst - Apple Developer
Easily start creating a native Mac app from your current iPad app with Mac Catalyst.developer.apple.com
That would hold water if Apple didnt have a unified code base to allow iOS apps to run on MacOS.
Interesting, but that's not a two-way arrangement, if you get what I mean? MacOS is the open one, not iOS. It doesn't really matter if the codebases are unified if they're still separate "products".
I'm no legal expert though, but I am excited to see how this turns out!
The whole idea of an "open" system is that you can completely bypass the certification from platform owner, though. As long as you legally obtained a Sony devkit, you can make games that play on the hardware, press your own disks and distribute them with 0 cut to Sony.
We're not seeing anything close to that on consoles.
Last edited:
Console manufacturers collect a license fee regardless of the retail channel used, so I don't think that would end up being their legal argument.
If it came down to it, you would likely see a discussion involving general vs. specialized computing, luxury goods vs. essential goods, and relative market share. I don't know how effective those arguments would be, but honestly I'm not expecting Epic to be successful enough to force that conversation in the first place.
If it came down to it, you would likely see a discussion involving general vs. specialized computing, luxury goods vs. essential goods, and relative market share. I don't know how effective those arguments would be, but honestly I'm not expecting Epic to be successful enough to force that conversation in the first place.
Not sure you can call an iPhone an essential good when there are a lot of cheaper smartphone alternatives on the market.
So if Apple would start doing that or let devs do that (while maintainen the the right to seal of approval and cut just like Sony in the example) there would be an element of competition?
Thats kinda what I thought as well
Like others said, you have certification costs with Sony. Not sure if it's scalable or a flat fee structure, but any ruling on that basis would just ensure that Apple enforce one moving forward rather than observe a potential ruling.
No, but you could conceivably argue that a cellphone is essential, whereas a game console is by definition a luxury.
Where does playing a game (or running any 3rd party app for that matter) on a cellphone count as essential?
Gaming is not essential, obviously. But having a general computing device in your pocket might be, and general computing devices play games in addition to other more essential functions, all of which apple collects a 30% fee on indiscriminately.
Like I said, I don't know if this is a winning argument, but it's likely what you would see sony , Nintendo, etc. argue should epic win and people started challenging their platforms.
Wierdly I do have a use case for this. To work from home my company requires a specific authentication app be installed on your phone.
Wouldn't any agreement from the Court towards Epic regarding the TRO mean that essentially precedent has been set towards a party being able to break their contractual agreement with another party with no consequences? That seems like a bad idea.
There's 0 chance a smartphone is going to be classified, legally, as an "essential good".
Even if they could prove owning a phone is essential, I think they'd struggle to prove that owning an Apple phone is essential, and certainly to prove that playing Fortnite on an Apple phone is essential.
I mean, we were discussing a theoretical situation where epic have already won this case. I've already said I think that's unlikely.
Yeah I wasn't disagreeing with you, just thinking out how it might play out.
Further to this point is that who said it has to be a phone? iOS/Android are also frequently used in tablets as well. Even if Epic could argue that phones are necessary, I doubt they'd be able to argue the same for tablets of which this case also would include by necessity.
I mean, unreal becoming unavailable for iOS and Mac development would be pretty catastrophic for a lot of people. It makes sense that MS wouldn't want that disruption in the industry.
That's not really a legal argument for Epic though, it's an argument for people picking more stable business partners.
Epic has already won in the hypothetical situation we're discussing, people like Sony/Nintendo are trying to argue that their products are different.
Ah okay, I didn't understand the hypothetical you were discussing. orz
Is that not the exact case for Apple developers as well? You can create tons of apps with a devout account and use them on your phone in TestFlight without having to charge stuff. That's the whole reason why Microsoft was able to beta test xcloud without charging. As far as distributing it, you are absolutely not allowed to distribute games made with a Sony dev kit without giving Sony their 30% cut.
Right, and this makes it different from an "open" ecosystem like PC, where you can make Windows programs without giving any cut to Microsoft. That was precisely my point. IF Epic wins (a huge if, btw), the implication is, it would become possible to make and distribute games that run on console hardware without having them be "certified" by the hardware developer (and, thus, without paying them a cut)
I can't imagine such a scenario - no certification would cause a myriad of issues, and most of all, it'll impact the customer negatively.
I would think this would end consoles. They wouldn't be able to increase hardware prices enough to make staying in the game worthwhile.