Apple Disabling 'Sign in with Apple' for Epic Games on September 11

Post by nodamage » Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 7:52 PM UTC

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #176

judge2020 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly what they're fighting. Surely Epic winning will mean a court order to reinstate Fortnite and other of Epic's games onto the App Store. They should have sued and never have done their "pay direct" thing if they wanted to stay operational on Apple platforms during the lawsuit. Apple couldn't retaliate at that point since any termination attempt would be reversed by a court order.

> They should have sued and never have done their "pay direct" thing If they did that, any court hearing the lawsuit would throw it out because Epic would not have standing. Epic had to do it this way to have any hope of a court hearing their case.

Post by henryfjordan » Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 8:08 PM UTC

nodamage wrote: post #601

henryfjordan wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your comment makes it sound it sound like Apple is breaking the law. Epic is alleging that Apple is breaking the law. That's the whole point of the antitrust lawsuit, to decide if they are or are not. > Epic could have brought on this lawsuit while still complying with the App Store rules No they could not. They needed standing to sue. "Apple is doing what the contract says and we don't like it" does not establish…

Epic already had standing to sue from the $300 million in Fortnite IAP fees Apple has collected. They already "suffered harm", they did not need to do anything further in order to sue.

Post by nodamage » Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 9:06 PM UTC

maxsilver wrote: post #582

nodamage wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Console ecosystems are already open-by-law, based on past cases from the 80s and 90s. I'm curious what cases you think actually established this precedent? Keep in mind that a court saying "reverse engineering is not copyright infringement" is not the same thing as a court saying "a hardware manufacturer is legally obligated to permit the distribution of third-party software on its hardware" . > You can already pub…

> I'm certainly not aware of any games that have been published in physical stores without the publisher having signed a publishing agreement with Nintendo or Sony. They did put commercial unlicensed software into US retailers, without any agreement from Nintendo or Sony. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade (1992) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Galoob_Toys,_Inc._v._Nin... . (1992) (TL/DR: you are allo…

Post by cryptica » Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 9:22 PM UTC

mvanbaak wrote: post #298

cryptica wrote: post #279

Games are often very low margin products, so it makes completely sense that Apple's one-size-fits all 30% fee wouldn't be suitable for a lot of companies. What doesn't make sense is how Apple got away with it for so long. The ad '1984' by Apple has become the biggest, most hypocritical piece of propaganda every created.

> Games are often very low margin products Yeah, so, did you check how much Epic earns with fortnite? I wont call this 'low margin' at all.

Post by Razengan » Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 9:36 PM UTC

procombo wrote: post #351

schmichael wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish Mozilla would join them by publishing a Firefox for iOS with their own renderer and Javascript (which they have been prevented from doing). Get booted and join the lawsuit. That's the activist Mozilla I can get behind.

You think Mozilla still has it in them? As a long time Apple user, and open software advocate I'd literally cry tears of joy. I'd also have to throw Zuck a bone if FB joined. I really just want Apple to separate their code signing (Developer) service with their advertising and distribution service (App Store).