Epic being greedy with cost them dearly. They should not have waken the sleeping bear. Apple likely feels betrayed and the App Store profit and support threatened by these companies. Watch as they start buying up and coming game studios to build first shooter game etc for Arcade and aggressively compete with Epic and others in gaming. Epic will not exist as it stands now in 5 year
There aren't that many iOS games in here, and none that I want to play, but it won't do Apple any favours to cause collateral damage to a bunch of other developers.
That list is very much incomplete.
For example, it doesn't even list one of the flagship Apple Arcade games that Apple themselves used heavily to promote the service:
Essentially the judge called Bull on what she sees as Apple's bullshit contention that the iPhone has not created a monopolistic market that it exploits with the App Store.
The courts have already ruled in the Psystar lawsuit that an OS can't be viewed as an illegal monopoly. Psystar was arguing that Apple had an illegal monopoly by not allowing hardware competitors to sell computers with Apple's OS installed. How is that different from Epic arguing that Apple has an illegal monopoly by not allowing a competing app store on iOS?
My understanding was that Apple was going to pull Epic’s enterprise developer account for violating terms of the enterprise account agreement.
If so, the problem with what the judge has done is that it leaves the question of when and how Apple can enforce it’s agreements with ALL enterprise customers. Does this mean all enterprise developers that have third party customers themselves can safely ignore the enterprise agreement and do whatever they like? I.e. enterprise accounts are for deploying applications within the enterprise organisation and are not for distributing applications to third parties. Can enterprise developers now violate this fundamental agreement without worry?
I don’t expect Epic’s partial win to last long, Epic may have temporarily swayed the judge by conflating the two separate issues (Fortnite and Unreal) but I expect sanity to prevail eventually.
Apple actually won (for now) on their main point: the judge agreed that Epic had engineered the situation themselves and that Apple says what goes on their store. You don’t sign a contract and then deliberately break it.
I agree that Apple shouldn’t have cut developer support for the Unreal Engine however, even if it was warranted. Harming your own customers is a dick move worthy of Epic. Apple shouldn’t be doing it. Hopefully the judge’s words have opened their eyes to this.
Apple never actually cut off developer support. They gave Epic a 14 day warning that they would terminate their accounts. Usually they just terminate immediately, so Epic was already being treated better than most developers.
We don’t know if Apple would have gone through with termination of all accounts or just the one attached to Fortnite.
Apple should state in their terms that egregious violations will result in a permanent ban from the App Store. That could make anyone tempted to take a gamble in the future think twice.
According to Reuters, Apple got blasted for its App Store policies in "terse" exchanges between the judge and Apple's lawyer:
"During a terse exchange with Apple counsel Richard Doren at a hearing
on Monday, the judge said she saw “no competition” to Apple’s App Store
on the iPhone.
“The question is, without competition, where does
the 30% (App Store commission) come from? Why isn’t it 10? 20? How is
the consumer benefiting?” she asked.
Doren replied that consumers had choices when deciding to buy an Android device or an iPhone.
“The
competition is in the foremarket,” he said, reiterating an argument
that has been central to Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook’s defense during
Congressional antitrust hearings.
Gonzalez Rogers replied that there was “plenty of economic theory” to show that switching brands imposed costs on consumers.
She at one point muted Doren in the virtual proceedings."
Essentially the judge called Bull on what she sees as Apple's bullshit contention that the iPhone has not created a monopolistic market that it exploits with the App Store.
My personal thoughts on it are that Apple needs to go beyond (or drop) its claim that it has not created any sort of monopoly and iPhone users are free to go over to Android and claim (correctly) that the Apple Store is an integral part of what makes the iPhone private, secure and stable.
Bullshit.
Judges always talk like this - they play devil’s advocate. When questioning Apple they will appear in favor of Epic and when questioning Epic they would appear in favor of Apple.
You pretending that Apple is in the wrong because of how the conversation went shows you don’t understand how this works, and are simply looking for anything to show Apple in a negative light.
Apple should state in their terms that egregious violations will result in a permanent ban from the App Store. That could make anyone tempted to take a gamble in the future think twice.
These things are clearly stated in Apple’s legal agreement for developers one must sign prior to being able to submit apps to the App Store. Epic thought they were above contractual agreements and could bluff their way out of following the rules.
According to Reuters, Apple got blasted for its App Store policies in "terse" exchanges between the judge and Apple's lawyer:
"During a terse exchange with Apple counsel Richard Doren at a hearing
on Monday, the judge said she saw “no competition” to Apple’s App Store
on the iPhone.
“The question is, without competition, where does
the 30% (App Store commission) come from? Why isn’t it 10? 20? How is
the consumer benefiting?” she asked.
Doren replied that consumers had choices when deciding to buy an Android device or an iPhone.
“The
competition is in the foremarket,” he said, reiterating an argument
that has been central to Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook’s defense during
Congressional antitrust hearings.
Gonzalez Rogers replied that there was “plenty of economic theory” to show that switching brands imposed costs on consumers.
She at one point muted Doren in the virtual proceedings."
Essentially the judge called Bull on what she sees as Apple's bullshit contention that the iPhone has not created a monopolistic market that it exploits with the App Store.
My personal thoughts on it are that Apple needs to go beyond (or drop) its claim that it has not created any sort of monopoly and iPhone users are free to go over to Android and claim (correctly) that the Apple Store is an integral part of what makes the iPhone private, secure and stable.
If the Reuter’s quote from the judge was accurate, she just took herself out of the proceeding. This was not a hearing on the merits, so she went outside of the facts necessary to make a TRO decision.
But, now the parties know an aspect of what the judge will want to hear when the merits come before her. Why is it 30% and not 20% or 10%?
Apple actually won (for now) on their main point: the judge agreed that Epic had engineered the situation themselves and that Apple says what goes on their store. You don’t sign a contract and then deliberately break it.
I agree that Apple shouldn’t have cut developer support for the Unreal Engine however, even if it was warranted. Harming your own customers is a dick move worthy of Epic. Apple shouldn’t be doing it. Hopefully the judge’s words have opened their eyes to this.
👍🏽 I came here to say these same things... though I don’t agree that it was warranted for Apple to cut developer support for Unreal Engine. That just hurts everyone: Epic, Apple, third-party developers, probably customers of all three...
According to Reuters, Apple got blasted for its App Store policies in "terse" exchanges between the judge and Apple's lawyer:
"During a terse exchange with Apple counsel Richard Doren at a hearing
on Monday, the judge said she saw “no competition” to Apple’s App Store
on the iPhone.
“The question is, without competition, where does
the 30% (App Store commission) come from? Why isn’t it 10? 20? How is
the consumer benefiting?” she asked.
Doren replied that consumers had choices when deciding to buy an Android device or an iPhone.
“The
competition is in the foremarket,” he said, reiterating an argument
that has been central to Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook’s defense during
Congressional antitrust hearings.
Gonzalez Rogers replied that there was “plenty of economic theory” to show that switching brands imposed costs on consumers.
She at one point muted Doren in the virtual proceedings."
Essentially the judge called Bull on what she sees as Apple's bullshit contention that the iPhone has not created a monopolistic market that it exploits with the App Store.
My personal thoughts on it are that Apple needs to go beyond (or drop) its claim that it has not created any sort of monopoly and iPhone users are free to go over to Android and claim (correctly) that the Apple Store is an integral part of what makes the iPhone private, secure and stable.
All the judge did was note that that reasonable minds could disagree as to whether there were triable facts. In the order, however, she states:
Based on a review of the current limited record before the Court, the Court cannot conclude that Epic has met the high burden of demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits, especially in the antitrust context
If Epic had any facts or law to support its ridiculous antitrust claim, it would have included them in the application for a TRO. The odds of Epic winning this lawsuit are about the same as Elvis singing at your birthday.
My understanding was that Apple was going to pull Epic’s enterprise developer account for violating terms of the enterprise account agreement.
If so, the problem with what the judge has done is that it leaves the question of when and how Apple can enforce it’s agreements with ALL enterprise customers. Does this mean all enterprise developers that have third party customers themselves can safely ignore the enterprise agreement and do whatever they like? I.e. enterprise accounts are for deploying applications within the enterprise organisation and are not for distributing applications to third parties. Can enterprise developers now violate this fundamental agreement without worry?
I don’t expect Epic’s partial win to last long, Epic may have temporarily swayed the judge by conflating the two separate issues (Fortnite and Unreal) but I expect sanity to prevail eventually.
Epic didn't "violat[e] the terms of the enterprise account agreement." Moreover, the Epic that did violate the separate agreement for its own apps, is not the same legal entity that entered into the agreeements relating to Unreal Engine.
Epic will be under Apple's most powerful microscope for the foreseeable future. If Epic so much as blinks, Apple will be there to drop a big hammer on its head, and rightfully deserved.
Trolls and Apple-haters are accusing Apple of screwing its customers, when it was all Epic's doing, and trying to drag Apple's name in the mud. Apple did nothing wrong. Epic's CEO felt he was in a position to call the shots, and bet wrong in a spectacular fashion.
Even though this was a preliminary injunction ruling, it still means Fortnight will be off the App Store at least another month, likely significantly longer, even if Epic ultimately wins the suit. By that point there’s not a small chance it won’t matter anyway because people have moved on to other games.
According to Reuters, Apple got blasted for its App Store policies in "terse" exchanges between the judge and Apple's lawyer:
"During a terse exchange with Apple counsel Richard Doren at a hearing
on Monday, the judge said she saw “no competition” to Apple’s App Store
on the iPhone.
“The question is, without competition, where does
the 30% (App Store commission) come from? Why isn’t it 10? 20? How is
the consumer benefiting?” she asked.
Doren replied that consumers had choices when deciding to buy an Android device or an iPhone.
“The
competition is in the foremarket,” he said, reiterating an argument
that has been central to Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook’s defense during
Congressional antitrust hearings.
Gonzalez Rogers replied that there was “plenty of economic theory” to show that switching brands imposed costs on consumers.
She at one point muted Doren in the virtual proceedings."
Essentially the judge called Bull on what she sees as Apple's bullshit contention that the iPhone has not created a monopolistic market that it exploits with the App Store.
My personal thoughts on it are that Apple needs to go beyond (or drop) its claim that it has not created any sort of monopoly and iPhone users are free to go over to Android and claim (correctly) that the Apple Store is an integral part of what makes the iPhone private, secure and stable.
I agree with you on this.
Just because there's "plenty of economic theory" to show that switching brands imposed costs on customers isn't an argument to open up the iPhone to more App Stores. There is a cost to the consumer to switch from Android to iPhone or PC to Mac and thousands of examples across a plethora of industries and consumer goods.
My personal view is that 30% at the outset of the App Store may have been reasonable, but as with everything the market moves on and this level of "commission" is perhaps too high now that the store has been established and it's start up costs likely covered. 15% seems more realistic, especially as 15% is the "commission" rate for ALL subscription apps from year 2 onwards. This level should more than cover payment fees, bandwidth costs, hosting, development tools, etc.
The biggest issue is what is the "cost" of providing App Store access to the mountain of free apps that pay nothing except the $99 annual developer fee?
Comments
For example, it doesn't even list one of the flagship Apple Arcade games that Apple themselves used heavily to promote the service:
I don’t expect Epic’s partial win to last long, Epic may have temporarily swayed the judge by conflating the two separate issues (Fortnite and Unreal) but I expect sanity to prevail eventually.
We don’t know if Apple would have gone through with termination of all accounts or just the one attached to Fortnite.
Judges always talk like this - they play devil’s advocate. When questioning Apple they will appear in favor of Epic and when questioning Epic they would appear in favor of Apple.
You pretending that Apple is in the wrong because of how the conversation went shows you don’t understand how this works, and are simply looking for anything to show Apple in a negative light.
Losing money is almost never irreparable, since a money judgment will make you whole.
The engine decision was equally easy. Third party licensees were placed in untenable positions by Apples decision.
If the Reuter’s quote from the judge was accurate, she just took herself out of the proceeding. This was not a hearing on the merits, so she went outside of the facts necessary to make a TRO decision.
If Epic had any facts or law to support its ridiculous antitrust claim, it would have included them in the application for a TRO. The odds of Epic winning this lawsuit are about the same as Elvis singing at your birthday.
Just because there's "plenty of economic theory" to show that switching brands imposed costs on customers isn't an argument to open up the iPhone to more App Stores. There is a cost to the consumer to switch from Android to iPhone or PC to Mac and thousands of examples across a plethora of industries and consumer goods.
My personal view is that 30% at the outset of the App Store may have been reasonable, but as with everything the market moves on and this level of "commission" is perhaps too high now that the store has been established and it's start up costs likely covered. 15% seems more realistic, especially as 15% is the "commission" rate for ALL subscription apps from year 2 onwards. This level should more than cover payment fees, bandwidth costs, hosting, development tools, etc.
The biggest issue is what is the "cost" of providing App Store access to the mountain of free apps that pay nothing except the $99 annual developer fee?