This seems fair. Although Epic should separate its Unreal business from Fortnite to avoid these in the future.
Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]
11–20 of 121 posts
Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]
#12It seems some of the decision hinged around this fact from the article: "self-inflicted wounds are not irreparable injury". I wonder if there could have been a better sequence of events (e.g. sue first rather than sneaking it in)?
I don't think that would have changed anything. The court still wouldn't have granted Epic special permission to break App Store rules before the lawsuit is resolved. Epic isn't in a worse position for trying it. Unless Apple refuses to let them back in after reversing the payment changes, in retaliation for filing a lawsuit. In which case I think the court should intervene.
Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]
#13Some choice sections: "...On Thursday, August 13, 2020, Epic Games made the calculated decision to breach its allegedly illegal agreements with Apple by activating allegedly hidden code in Fortnite allowing Epic Games to collect IAPs directly. In response, Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store, where it remains unavailable to the date of this Order. Later that same day, Epic Games filed this action and began a pr…
"...Epic Games moves this Court to allow it to access Apple’s platform for free while it makes money on each purchase made on the same platform. While the Court anticipates experts will opine that Apple’s 30 percent take is anti-competitive, the Court doubts that an expert would suggest a zero percent alternative. Not even Epic Games gives away its products for free..."
Apple is arguing as if accessing their platform for free was a crime. This makes sense, since they have costs associated with reviews, code signing and distribution. But that is of their own making. Walled gardens should be outlawed.
Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]
#14Ooph. I'm betting that Epic was expecting to get to stay on the app store during the trial. That's an expensive difference. I would guess that Epic will retract its change and ask to be relisted on the app store (and if that doesn't happen, seek rapid redress in the court, since this TRO decision explicitly lists Epic's ability to be reinstated as a rationale for why there is no risk of irrevocable harm).
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...
Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]
#15This 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.
Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]
#16Ooph. I'm betting that Epic was expecting to get to stay on the app store during the trial. That's an expensive difference. I would guess that Epic will retract its change and ask to be relisted on the app store (and if that doesn't happen, seek rapid redress in the court, since this TRO decision explicitly lists Epic's ability to be reinstated as a rationale for why there is no risk of irrevocable harm).
I'd take that bet. I think Epic (Tim Sweeney, really) was prepared to lose that revenue to win the war. This ruling is what I expected and seems quite reasonable. Epic doesn't get temporary special privileges to break App Store rules (even though they are alleged to be illegal), but also Apple can't retaliate against them in other areas. If Epic does reverse the payment changes in an attempt to return Fortnite to the…
People seem to act like this is the first App Store dispute.
There have been many over the last decade and Apple's behaviour has been consistent i.e. they will simply allow Epic to come back onto the store and pretend like nothing ever happened. Exactly like we saw recently with the Hey app.
Apple doesn't want to punish developers but they will play hard ball if they don't abide by the rules.
Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]
#17Some choice sections: "...On Thursday, August 13, 2020, Epic Games made the calculated decision to breach its allegedly illegal agreements with Apple by activating allegedly hidden code in Fortnite allowing Epic Games to collect IAPs directly. In response, Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store, where it remains unavailable to the date of this Order. Later that same day, Epic Games filed this action and began a pr…
How about this one:
"with respect to the Unreal Engine and the developer tools, [...] the contracts related to those applications were not breached. Apple does not persuade that it will be harmed [...] Apple has chosen to act severely, and by doing so, has impacted non-parties, and a third-party developer ecosystem. In this regard, the equities do weigh against Apple.
Apple's behavior here was not reasonable and definitely deserved this restraining order.
Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]
#18This 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, and seemed clearly an attempt to use their power to shake down Unreal customers as retaliation for the dispute.
I'm not surprised that Epic started this: they want their game store on iOS, and the only way that happens is via an antitrust lawsuit — and you can't bring an antitrust lawsuit unless you show evidence of harm (aka, lost Fortnite sales). Epic wanted Fortnite to be banned so that they could sue Apple.
I'm curious why Apple escalated, though. It seemed to me like they were playing into Epic's hand: they're currently under multiple antitrust investigations by the US and the EU, and using their market power on iOS to corral developers on macOS seems like a pretty obvious violation, and a novel one: when they banned XCloud from iOS, for example, they didn't also ban MS Office from running on Macs. Why would they try to do it now? When I first saw it I wondered if Apple knew something we didn't (since Epic would pretty obviously attempt to contest this in court), and that Apple was playing its own 4D chess game against Epic, secure in the knowledge that the court wouldn't grant the injunction on the macOS tools. But... Now it just looks like a fit of pique? Apple had already banned Fortnite when it issued the second threat to ban Unreal; the second threat ended with them getting nothing (the court prevented them from following through) and left looking like monopolists during the antitrust investigations. I don't get it.
Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]
#19Some choice sections: "...On Thursday, August 13, 2020, Epic Games made the calculated decision to breach its allegedly illegal agreements with Apple by activating allegedly hidden code in Fortnite allowing Epic Games to collect IAPs directly. In response, Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store, where it remains unavailable to the date of this Order. Later that same day, Epic Games filed this action and began a pr…
"...Epic Games moves this Court to allow it to access Apple’s platform for free while it makes money on each purchase made on the same platform. While the Court anticipates experts will opine that Apple’s 30 percent take is anti-competitive, the Court doubts that an expert would suggest a zero percent alternative. Not even Epic Games gives away its products for free..." Apple is arguing as if accessing their platform…
It being a walled garden is the only way I’m willing to trust it for accessing all my account recovery emails, my 2FA SMSes, my bank details, and the sensor package that can listen to everything I do while GPS tracking me and monitoring my heart rate and gaze if I happen to be holding it where I can see the screen.
Of course, that doesn’t mean I like being stuck with an American cultural hegemony that says sexual content is forbidden, or that needs an encryption export licence from the USA government for apps written by non-Americans for non-Americans, and which still demands annual reporting to the US government for using https.
I’m happy with any walls that meet basic security standards, but I do want a wall, even if it would be nice to choose which wall.
Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]
#20Some choice sections: "...On Thursday, August 13, 2020, Epic Games made the calculated decision to breach its allegedly illegal agreements with Apple by activating allegedly hidden code in Fortnite allowing Epic Games to collect IAPs directly. In response, Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store, where it remains unavailable to the date of this Order. Later that same day, Epic Games filed this action and began a pr…
How about this one: "with respect to the Unreal Engine and the developer tools, [...] the contracts related to those applications were not breached. Apple does not persuade that it will be harmed [...] Apple has chosen to act severely, and by doing so, has impacted non-parties, and a third-party developer ecosystem. In this regard, the equities do weigh against Apple. Apple's behavior here was not reasonable and defi…
Epic could have used the same developer account for both Unreal Engine and Fornite development knowing full well that Apple would have to either allow both or ban both.
They had ads and lawsuits ready when they pulled the trigger on this chain of events so it wouldn't surprise me if they made sure that the Unreal Engine issue was included.