Live data from Hacker News

Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

courtlistener.com

21–30 of 121 posts

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#21

This seems fair. Although Epic should separate its Unreal business from Fortnite to avoid these in the future.

You have to remember Epic has planned this all pretty carefully from the start. They benefit from being able to play the "if you ban us, you also ban all of the little mom & pop game developers" sympathy card.

That sounds like Epic abusing its “monopoly”[0] on game engines.

[0] in the same sense that Apple is a monopoly on smartphones, hence the air-quotes.

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#22

This seems like the predictable outcome. Epic knew Fortnite would get banned when they started this; Apple is innocent until proven guilty, so no court will force Apple to reinstate Fortnite unless Epic wins its antitrust suit. But similarly, Apple's subsequent, second threat to ban Epic from doing other lines of business via macOS tools (e.g. Unreal Engine development) seemed excessive compared to other app bans, an…

>you can't bring an antitrust lawsuit unless you show evidence of harm (aka, lost Fortnite sales)

I thought the point of antitrust is that it brings harm to the consumers and not just some lesser company?

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think Epic is making that much money from Fortnite on iOS to actually care, I think they are using Apple because a) its an easy target and if they win the ruling can be expanded to other platforms too where they currently make the most money on and b) while they aren’t a major source of revenue now Epic probably has bigger plans for mobile centric games down the line. Basically now it’s the best time for them…

It's possible that revenue has fallen off, but it appears that Fortnite Mobile revenue has been at least $500 million per year. If this trial goes on for two years, that's potentially a billion dollars in lost revenue. https://sensortower.com/blog/fortnite-mobile-revenue-1-billi...

Assuming they introduce the epic store and cut fees from 30% to 0% fees. It would take 6 years to pay the lost revenue back. It's entirely possible that the next hot thing will come out in 6 years and replace Fortnite.

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#24

This seems fair. Although Epic should separate its Unreal business from Fortnite to avoid these in the future.

It's already separately under Epic Games International, S.a.r.l (“Epic International”).

It was under a different agreement from the regular "Epic Games" that Apple decided to both terminate

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think Epic is making that much money from Fortnite on iOS to actually care, I think they are using Apple because a) its an easy target and if they win the ruling can be expanded to other platforms too where they currently make the most money on and b) while they aren’t a major source of revenue now Epic probably has bigger plans for mobile centric games down the line. Basically now it’s the best time for them…

It's possible that revenue has fallen off, but it appears that Fortnite Mobile revenue has been at least $500 million per year. If this trial goes on for two years, that's potentially a billion dollars in lost revenue. https://sensortower.com/blog/fortnite-mobile-revenue-1-billi...

Epic makes over $5B/year — and more than $680 million of that is from the Epic Game Store [1], which has always been banned from iOS due to Apple's policies against alternative stores. Fortnite Mobile makes them good money, but it's not their cash cow — and if they can trade a temporary ban on Fortnite for their store running on iOS, it seems like they'll take it.

1: https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattperez/2020/01/14/epic-games...

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#26
post #22

This seems like the predictable outcome. Epic knew Fortnite would get banned when they started this; Apple is innocent until proven guilty, so no court will force Apple to reinstate Fortnite unless Epic wins its antitrust suit. But similarly, Apple's subsequent, second threat to ban Epic from doing other lines of business via macOS tools (e.g. Unreal Engine development) seemed excessive compared to other app bans, an…

>you can't bring an antitrust lawsuit unless you show evidence of harm (aka, lost Fortnite sales) I thought the point of antitrust is that it brings harm to the consumers and not just some lesser company?

The harm to consumers is the higher price that they have to pay. Epic didn't just keep the 30% all for themselves, they lowered prices.

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#27
post #22

This seems like the predictable outcome. Epic knew Fortnite would get banned when they started this; Apple is innocent until proven guilty, so no court will force Apple to reinstate Fortnite unless Epic wins its antitrust suit. But similarly, Apple's subsequent, second threat to ban Epic from doing other lines of business via macOS tools (e.g. Unreal Engine development) seemed excessive compared to other app bans, an…

>you can't bring an antitrust lawsuit unless you show evidence of harm (aka, lost Fortnite sales) I thought the point of antitrust is that it brings harm to the consumers and not just some lesser company?

They showed that Apple forcing iOS apps to use their Payment Processor is bad for consumers by providing an alternative that is 20% cheaper. Which is what got them banned.

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#28
post #22

This seems like the predictable outcome. Epic knew Fortnite would get banned when they started this; Apple is innocent until proven guilty, so no court will force Apple to reinstate Fortnite unless Epic wins its antitrust suit. But similarly, Apple's subsequent, second threat to ban Epic from doing other lines of business via macOS tools (e.g. Unreal Engine development) seemed excessive compared to other app bans, an…

>you can't bring an antitrust lawsuit unless you show evidence of harm (aka, lost Fortnite sales) I thought the point of antitrust is that it brings harm to the consumers and not just some lesser company?

You would think so, but actually a company can't sue another for antitrust violations unless they show evidence that they were injured — and the injury has to pass a two-prong test [1] to be covered.

That being said, the government can investigate without a lawsuit. But just because the government investigates, that doesn't guarantee the government will prosecute; a lawsuit guarantees prosecution, unless it's so baseless it gets thrown out by the court (which Epic's hasn't been).

Hence why Epic took a step that would obviously result in a ban: they needed the correct type of evidence of injury in order to sue.

1: https://www.businessjustice.com/the-elements-of-antitrust-in...

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#29
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>you can't bring an antitrust lawsuit unless you show evidence of harm (aka, lost Fortnite sales) I thought the point of antitrust is that it brings harm to the consumers and not just some lesser company?

The harm to consumers is the higher price that they have to pay. Epic didn't just keep the 30% all for themselves, they lowered prices.

Of course they lowered the prices.

It was a PR exercise to show the world the wondrous benefits of a potential Epic Games Store on iPhone/Android.

And of course once they had such a store they pinky promise to never increase the prices in the future.

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think Epic is making that much money from Fortnite on iOS to actually care, I think they are using Apple because a) its an easy target and if they win the ruling can be expanded to other platforms too where they currently make the most money on and b) while they aren’t a major source of revenue now Epic probably has bigger plans for mobile centric games down the line. Basically now it’s the best time for them…

It's possible that revenue has fallen off, but it appears that Fortnite Mobile revenue has been at least $500 million per year. If this trial goes on for two years, that's potentially a billion dollars in lost revenue. https://sensortower.com/blog/fortnite-mobile-revenue-1-billi...

Those estimates are utterly out of touch with reality to the point of being a straight fabrication.

Fortnite brought Epic £1.8b in revenue for 2019, there is no way that 25% of that came from iOS based on actual player data and experience, if their iOS revenue is 10% of the total I will be in shock.

Post reply on HN