Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Will Not Reinstate Epic’s Fortnite Developer Account

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 468 posts

Re: Apple Will Not Reinstate Epic’s Fortnite Developer Account

#271

Post by jdminhbg »

nixpulvis wrote: post #158
turdnagel wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> simply reciting tired anti-trust

That's the judge's job. They're not supposed to come up with novel solutions, they're supposed to apply the relevant case law.

Re: Apple Will Not Reinstate Epic’s Fortnite Developer Account

#272

Post by jungturk »

gambiting wrote: post #254
dimitrios1 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ma…

What if the TV manufacturer could set a $0 retail price on the television and then charge the user on-device subscription fees to recoup a profit?

Would Walmart be interested in that? Seems like their retail cut would be sliced to $0 in that situation despite doing the retail work.

Re: Apple Will Not Reinstate Epic’s Fortnite Developer Account

#273

Post by wayneftw »

p2t2p wrote: post #184
wayneftw wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just a lack of imagination. Apple's app store grip prevents whole industries from taking shape.

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…

Nobody scales an app business just on Android. When you have to target both, you'll follow Apples rules.

Where are my PWA notifications on iPhone? Where is my replacement app launcher? Where are my programming apps? Where are my porn apps?

Re: Apple Will Not Reinstate Epic’s Fortnite Developer Account

#274

Post by kbenson »

abbub wrote: post #208
mattcantstop wrote: post #193

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…

Meh. In the grand scheme of things, Apple doesn't even make the top ten list of shady businesses this modern lifestyle forces me to engage with. :/

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.

Re: Apple Will Not Reinstate Epic’s Fortnite Developer Account

#275

Post by AnthonyMouse »

sam0x17 wrote: post #251
dimitrios1 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This analogy only works if you modify it: 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 c…

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.

Re: Apple Will Not Reinstate Epic’s Fortnite Developer Account

#276

Post by nixpulvis »

jdminhbg wrote: post #271
nixpulvis wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> simply reciting tired anti-trust That's the judge's job. They're not supposed to come up with novel solutions, they're supposed to apply the relevant case law.

A judge makes judgements.

Re: Apple Will Not Reinstate Epic’s Fortnite Developer Account

#277

Post by eldaisfish »

judge2020 wrote: post #221
maxsilver wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

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” https://regmedia.co.uk/2021/09/10/epic-v-apple.pdf

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.

Re: Apple Will Not Reinstate Epic’s Fortnite Developer Account

#278

Post by rdsnsca »

kerng wrote: post #240
cortesoft wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Apple is just being a bully.

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."

Re: Apple Will Not Reinstate Epic’s Fortnite Developer Account

#279

Post by smachiz »

gambiting wrote: post #254
dimitrios1 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ma…

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.

Re: Apple Will Not Reinstate Epic’s Fortnite Developer Account

#280

Post by InGoodFaith »

notafraudster wrote: post #123
InGoodFaith wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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] 1: https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/9/21492334/epic-fortnite-ap...

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. T…

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.

Post reply on HN