Judge blocks Apple from retaliating against Unreal Engine, Fortnite to remain off App Stor...

Posted:
in General Discussion edited October 2020
A federal judge on Friday granted Epic Games' petition to prohibit any action by Apple against the Unreal Engine, but denied the game maker's bid to reinstate Fortnite to the App Store.




In her ruling, Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers granted in part and denied in part Epic's preliminary injunction that sought to both protect an affiliate developer account that maintains the Unreal Engine and force Apple to restore Fortnite after it was pulled for implementing a rule-breaking direct payment option.

The ruling cements an earlier decision from August and ensures the current state of affairs remains unchanged throughout a pending bench trial.

Following an initial attempt to return Fortnite to the App Store, Epic launched a second legal effort in September. During in-court hearings, Gonzales Rogers was largely unpersuaded to take early action by either party. She noted a heavy burden fell on Epic to prove Apple's alleged antitrust misconduct, and the company simply failed to piece together a cogent argument.

"While consumers are feeling the impact of this litigation, the fact remains: these are business disputes. A putative class action on behalf of all developers on these exact same issues was already in progress when Epic Games breached the agreements," Gonzales Rogers said in today's ruling. "Yet, Epic Games has never adequately explained its rush, other than its disdain for the situation. The current predicament is of its own making."

Likewise, Apple failed to successfully argue that maintaining Epic's affiliate developer account -- Epic International -- poses risk of irreparable harm. Removing the account, however, would deprive developers of access to the Unreal Engine.

"Apple's aggressive targeting of separate contracts in an attempt to eradicate Epic Games and its affiliates fully from the iOS platform was unnecessary and imperiled a thriving third-party developer ecosystem," the jurist wrote.

Apple issued a statement on the ruling to AppleInsider:

Our customers depend on the App Store being a safe and trusted place where all developers follow the same set of rules. We're grateful the court recognized that Epic's actions were not in the best interests of its own customers and that any problems they may have encountered were of their own making when they breached their agreement. For twelve years, the App Store has been an economic miracle, creating transformative business opportunities for developers large and small. We look forward to sharing this legacy of innovation and dynamism with the court next year."

Apple and Epic in late September agreed the case should be decided by the court instead of a jury. Proceedings are tentatively slated to begin in July 2021.

Recapping Epic events

The disagreement between Apple and Epic Games publicly commenced on August 13, after Epic updated "Fortnite" on iOS and Android with an independent payment method for in-app purchases, bypassing rules for the App Store that required them to go through Apple's mechanism. Epic also discounted purchases made via the new system to encourage its use.

Within hours, Apple pulled "Fortnite" from the App Store for ignoring its App Store guidelines. Not long after, Epic filed a lawsuit demanding it make changes to the App Store guidelines, including a reduction of its 30% in-app purchase commission and allowing competing app stores to exist on iOS.

Epic also indicated the app change, the fallout, and the lawsuit were all expected by the company, as it also released a video parody of Apple's "1984" Super Bowl commercial. The parody, which used "Fortnite" characters, framed Epic as breaking Apple's control over the App Store and the iOS ecosystem.

The marketing push, to try and get its players to side with Epic, continued later with the "FreeFortnite Cup" tournament, which offered a special skin and other prizes for taking part. It also released a graphic for players to apply to their own clothing, sharing the same "Free Fortnite" message.

On Aug. 17, Apple threatened to stop Epic from being able to access its developer accounts and tools for iOS and Mac by August 28, which would have affected both "Fortnite" and the Unreal Engine. Epic then filed a request for a temporary restraining order, that would prevent Apple from continuing to delist the "Fortnite" app and preventing "any adverse action" against the company.

Responding to the request, Apple said it was a "problem Epic has created for itself," and one that could easily be fixed with a compliant game update. Apple wouldn't "make an exception for Epic because we don't think it's right to put their business interests ahead of the guidelines that protect our customers."

Another filing on August 21 from Apple included a chain of emails between the two companies, revealing Epic had warned it would implement a competing payment option in the game and an intention to create an Epic Games Store. Epic gave Apple two weeks to respond with an "in principle" confirmation to both concepts, otherwise it would just add the payment system anyway.

Apple's response to Epic pointed to how Epic had earned "hundreds of millions of dollars" from in-app content sales, before stressing the App Store guidelines promoted security, privacy, content, and quality standards.

Epic fired back saying it would "no longer adhere to Apple's payment processing restrictions," and would add the payment system to force Apple's hand on the matter. Later, Epic said Apple's argument against Epic's ban to prevent tool access was wrong, as it goes against Apple's contracts and would significantly affect developers using the tools, not just Epic.

For the first hearing on August 24, Epic wasn't able to demonstrate to the court that it would suffer irreparable harm from a ban, with the judge siding with Apple in that it was of Epic's own doing. The judge also ordered Apple not to take action against Epic Games International's developer account, used to manage the licensing of Unreal Engine.

Starting the second attempt on September 5, Epic filed with the court a formal petition that Apple was actively violating antitrust protections, and was forcing Epic to "abide by its unlawful restrictions."

Apple responded to Epic's filing on September 8 with a counterclaim, one that demanded Epic be held to account for a breach of contract, on top of banning its payment system across all of Epic's apps in the App Store. Apple also objected to Epic's portrayal of itself as a "modern corporate Robin Hood," but instead compared it to a "multi-billion dollar enterprise that simply wants to pay nothing for the tremendous value it derives from the App Store."

Epic started telling customers Apple was pulling access for Sign in with Apple on September 9, but by September 10, it changed its tune to say Apple had offered an "indefinite extension" for the feature. Apple issued a statement that it wasn't actively seeking to kill access to Sign in with Apple at all.

On September 16, Apple accused Epic of using its legal activity to market the game, which Apple thought was declining in popularity. Epic countered it by saying Apple had "cherry-picked" its data, and that by its own figures, daily users increased by "more than 39% over a matter of months.

During the second hearing on September 28, Epic seemed to be failing in its attempts to get the Judge to side with it, and was admonished multiple times. This included the judge highlighting it was an event of Epic's making and it could easily reduce any harm by reverting to the status quo.

Epic's forcing of Apple's hand was also bought up by the judge, including how Epic wasn't "forthright" with Apple in the first place. There was even some pushback on Epic's argument against Apple comparing a smartphone with a game console due to size and portability reasons, with the judge pointing out the Nintendo Switch exists.

Epic v. Apple Preliminary Injunction Ruling by Mikey Campbell on Scribd

Updated with statement from Apple.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 29
    tipootipoo Posts: 1,120member
    It probably shouldn't, but it somewhat impresses me that it reads like the judge has a firm handle on what's happening here. 

    Maybe I'm just used to congress people ask limp questions to tech CEOs. 


    Pretty happy with the results, I was worried for Unreal Engine particularly on Apple Silicon, but Fortnite was their own folly. 
    aderuttermuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 2 of 29
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,016member
    Just like Walmart, Costco, and Xbox live... I'm at a loss as to why some think it's okay to force your demands in anyone's place of business.  Apple own's the hardware and software on the iPhone.  It's the entire widget.  You freeloaders and wannabe developers can spin it any which way you want, but in the end you're condoning squatters entering someone's house and not paying rent.

    These people are an embarrassment. 
    aderutteredredleavingthebiggF_Kent_DDaRevAlex1Nmwhitepujones1rob53mdriftmeyer
  • Reply 3 of 29
    orthorim said:
    Yeah I think that Judge should simply force Apple to allow other app stores - meaning software can run on the phone that apple has no control over - and be done with it.

    Apple of course can do whatever they want in their app store. Protect people from Epic games, and whatever else they are up to. Sure.

    But it is monopolistic behavior to say, only Apple can provide software for the iPhone, the most popular platform on the planet. That's like saying, only Microsoft controls what goes on your Windows PC. Not cool, not OK, and not OK to get away with it.

    I really do wonder why Epic doesn't make this argument, it makes a lot more sense than arguing against the terms and conditions that they signed up for themselves (huh?!???!)

    Apple need to give up control of the app store / allow 3rd party app stores. Yes there'll be some BS happening, just like on Android but I feel like when I buy an iPhone, for example, then I own it. I am not renting it from Apple. I own all that silicon in all that neat packaging. And I can do whatever I want with my property. I want to run whatever I want on it.

    And while my sympathy for Epic Games is rather limited, free app stores would also remove government control from the iPhone. Because right now the government is really controlling the app store. Anything the government doesn't like won't be on the app store. Doesn't matter if it's the Chinese government or the US government - same difference. If they don't like it, it's gone. 
    Wow you really don’t get Apple at all do you? Apple owns the hardware AND the software in your iPhone... they aren’t going to let someone else come in and run it for them. Your comparison makes no sense. Microsoft will NEVER control what software runs on a PC because they don’t manufacture the hardware that it runs on. That’s pretty simple logic.

     Since we have an abundance of different mobile device manufacturers, Apple can’t be considered a monopoly. It’s the same reason why Microsoft invested in Apple 20+ years ago... if the Mac OS would have died, Microsoft would have been brought in with anti-trust violations. By helping to keep Apple afloat, it saved their own skin. 

    Epic makes millions, but apparently that isn’t enough... whatever... follow the contract or get out of the mobile device market... ya think if Epic abandons the iOS that Apple is going under?? Dream on...
    leavingthebiggF_Kent_DAlex1NmwhiteDancingMonkeysrob53Rayz2016mdriftmeyerjahbladeequality72521
  • Reply 4 of 29
    F_Kent_DF_Kent_D Posts: 98unconfirmed, member
    If you don’t like Apple’s ways then don’t buy Apple. I don’t like Bill Gates’ ways so I choose not to purchase Microsoft products. It’s that simple. You cannot just “Force” a store to allow people to run around the isles possibly destroying your merchandise that you own and paid for much less force Apple to allow 3rd party app stores. This is the latest in socialism policy that doesn’t work in America or anywhere else for that matter. Force is not welcome. Free market and freedom period is. 
    mwhiteRayz2016mdriftmeyerequality72521aderutter
  • Reply 5 of 29
    mac_dogmac_dog Posts: 1,021member
    orthorim said:
    Yeah I think that Judge should simply force Apple to allow other app stores - meaning software can run on the phone that apple has no control over - and be done with it.

    Apple of course can do whatever they want in their app store. Protect people from Epic games, and whatever else they are up to. Sure.

    But it is monopolistic behavior to say, only Apple can provide software for the iPhone, the most popular platform on the planet. That's like saying, only Microsoft controls what goes on your Windows PC. Not cool, not OK, and not OK to get away with it.

    I really do wonder why Epic doesn't make this argument, it makes a lot more sense than arguing against the terms and conditions that they signed up for themselves (huh?!???!)
    You’re clueless and seem to be unclear on the definition of monopolistic behavior where Apple is concerned. 

    Maybe Apple should allow non AppStore apps on the iPhones. That means that devs will need to compile their apps/games with their own compilers or maybe Adobe will have to create something for them. 

    I suppose Apple could make a compiler available, but at a monthly fee—which I think is a perfectly fair idea—since rent ware seems to be the current business model. 

    They probably shouldn’t even allow developers access to Xcode. After that, these crybaby developers will need to find a way to get users to discover, then download their apps. They can keep 100% of their profits. No fucking problem. 

    Meanwhile, devs that want to stay with the App Store, can stay and feel confident that their apps are being vetted by Apple and they don’t have to worry about getting a storefront for their apps and they can start making a profit from the get go. 

    Apple customers can still feel confident purchasing apps felon the App Store, knowing their best interests are covered. Everyone’s happy. Well, except those who still won’t be happy and will find yet another reason to complain. 
    tenthousandthingspulseimages
  • Reply 6 of 29
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,739member
    sflocal said:
    Just like Walmart, Costco, and Xbox live... I'm at a loss as to why some think it's okay to force your demands in anyone's place of business.  Apple own's the hardware and software on the iPhone.  It's the entire widget.  You freeloaders and wannabe developers can spin it any which way you want, but in the end you're condoning squatters entering someone's house and not paying rent.

    These people are an embarrassment. 
    It's worst than that.

    It's like a renter signing a one year lease agreeing to pay a certain amount of rent every month to live in a property they don't own and then part way through the lease, the renter decides that they are paying too much rent, so they stop paying the rent but continued to live there. Then when the landlord legally evicts them and toss their belongings out on the streets, the renter sues and wants the court to force the landlord into allowing them to remain living on the landlord's property rent free, until the matter is decided by a judge or jury. And all the while, the renter expects the landlord to pay for the gas, electricity, water, garbage, along with the cable, internet and mowing the front lawn.  

    Sorry Epic, until this is over, you can spend all your "Fortnites" conducting all your business for iDevices, from a tent on the streets. Being homeless in iOS is of your own making. 
    Mac512userRayz2016qwerty52equality72521aderutterthtpsych_guybeowulfschmidt
  • Reply 7 of 29
    Apple do allow 3rd party software in their App Store and yes they will take a payment for apps but so does Google with their App Store. Google does allow you to download 3rd party App Stores but they are usually for apps that have been altered so you can get them free rather than paying for them. That will probably make the Android operating system unsafe to use because you don’t know what else has gone into the app. At the end of the day Apple owns their software and they do allow 3rd party software into their App Store so where is the problem. I personally would not use a 3rd party App Store and I think Apple is in the right because that helps to make their products more secure. It’s quite simple really, if you want a 3rd party App Store buy an Android device rather than an Apple.
  • Reply 8 of 29
    orthorim said:
    Yeah I think that Judge should simply force Apple to allow other app stores - meaning software can run on the phone that apple has no control over - and be done with it. 

    Apple need to give up control of the app store / allow 3rd party app stores. Yes there'll be some BS happening, just like on Android but I feel like when I buy an iPhone, for example, then I own it. I am not renting it from Apple. I own all that silicon in all that neat packaging. And I can do whatever I want with my property. I want to run whatever I want on it.
    We might own the hardware but we only licensed the iOS without which, the phone is just a phone. So go buy an Android instead and enjoy the “some BS” all of your own. 🤪
    aderutterStrangeDays
  • Reply 9 of 29
    orthorim said:
    Yeah I think that Judge should simply force Apple to allow other app stores - meaning software can run on the phone that apple has no control over - and be done with it.

    Apple of course can do whatever they want in their app store. Protect people from Epic games, and whatever else they are up to. Sure.

    But it is monopolistic behavior to say, only Apple can provide software for the iPhone, the most popular platform on the planet. That's like saying, only Microsoft controls what goes on your Windows PC. Not cool, not OK, and not OK to get away with it.

    I really do wonder why Epic doesn't make this argument, it makes a lot more sense than arguing against the terms and conditions that they signed up for themselves (huh?!???!)

    Apple need to give up control of the app store / allow 3rd party app stores. Yes there'll be some BS happening, just like on Android but I feel like when I buy an iPhone, for example, then I own it. I am not renting it from Apple. I own all that silicon in all that neat packaging. And I can do whatever I want with my property. I want to run whatever I want on it.

    And while my sympathy for Epic Games is rather limited, free app stores would also remove government control from the iPhone. Because right now the government is really controlling the app store. Anything the government doesn't like won't be on the app store. Doesn't matter if it's the Chinese government or the US government - same difference. If they don't like it, it's gone. 
    I can't imagine loading software from some 3rd party App Store on my phone or iPads. I rely on stuff working, some substantive assure that software I use doesn't break my devices, doesn't hack my data, doesn't bleed the battery, doesn't make calls behind my back, etc.

    I may be believing the Apple Alternative Reality Field that Apple's processes do result in well-behaving products, but there it is. And if Apple discovers malware in their App stores, they can and will kill the app. 

    On my other Macs, downloading software from 3rd parties is just fine by me. It's a real computer with plenty of horsepower, and the ability of me to scan for nefarious software that might be installed. On a Mac there is not the hardware and software limitations that must be present on iPhones and iPads to allow them to be functional. Macs simply do not need to be comprised to fit within the confines of limited power devices. 
  • Reply 10 of 29
    The sooner Amazon and Microsoft bring their streaming game services to iOS devices via PWA the sooner everyone will see that Apple does not prevent people running software on iOS devices that hasn’t been vetted by Apple, isn’t in the app-store and Apple receives zero income from. 
  • Reply 11 of 29
    aderutter said:
    The sooner Amazon and Microsoft bring their streaming game services to iOS devices via PWA the sooner everyone will see that Apple does not prevent people running software on iOS devices that hasn’t been vetted by Apple, isn’t in the app-store and Apple receives zero income from. 
    The truth about Microsoft is it wants the free-ride on the App Store not the Web. And, Microsoft is doing much to try breaking its way into the App Store and on iPhone for free. 

    It took Amazon’s Luna announcement to get Microsoft to go the browser route. This in my view is why Amazon will always be better at cloud services than Microsoft. For Amazon the cloud is not a second or third thought as it is with Microsoft. 

    Though Microsoft will follow Amazon via the cloud for video game streaming, Microsoft won’t be able to integrate a Twitch-like experience since its Twitch competitor was a failure and sold off. Yes Xbox players will flock to Microsoft’s streaming service and I am actually looking forward to the coverage of the service to see what Microsoft produces for players and to see how the coverage is written as an anti-Apple rant. 




  • Reply 12 of 29
    sflocal said:
    Just like Walmart, Costco, and Xbox live... I'm at a loss as to why some think it's okay to force your demands in anyone's place of business.  Apple own's the hardware and software on the iPhone.  It's the entire widget.  You freeloaders and wannabe developers can spin it any which way you want, but in the end you're condoning squatters entering someone's house and not paying rent.

    These people are an embarrassment. 

    Yes, that's EXACTLY what Apple is doing here, they've claimed that they own MY iPhone, even though I've bought and paid for it. 

    This isn't about Apple's app store.  As far as I'm concerned, they can charge whatever they want to sell an app through it.  But they have absolutely no right to make it the only place I can get an app for MY iPhone.  

    The fix is simple.  Apple already has it as a product.  All they have to do is make it available to all of us.  https://developer.apple.com/programs/security-research-device/


    crowleyelijahg
  • Reply 13 of 29
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,319member
    darkvader said:
    sflocal said:
    Just like Walmart, Costco, and Xbox live... I'm at a loss as to why some think it's okay to force your demands in anyone's place of business.  Apple own's the hardware and software on the iPhone.  It's the entire widget.  You freeloaders and wannabe developers can spin it any which way you want, but in the end you're condoning squatters entering someone's house and not paying rent.

    These people are an embarrassment. 

    Yes, that's EXACTLY what Apple is doing here, they've claimed that they own MY iPhone, even though I've bought and paid for it. 

    This isn't about Apple's app store.  As far as I'm concerned, they can charge whatever they want to sell an app through it.  But they have absolutely no right to make it the only place I can get an app for MY iPhone.  
    Wrong. This is about how the OS works (which you've only licensed). It's already been decided in court you can jailbreak your device and run other software on it. Have at it. But don't expect Apple to modify their OS to help random third-party developers.
    MplsP
  • Reply 14 of 29
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 3,216member
    One trick Apple has up its sleeve is to allow users to replace iOS with an operating system of their choice, perhaps Android or Linux. Apple already allows this with Macs running macOS and it hasn't hurt Mac sales. This will allow all the naysayers to "do whatever they want" with their hardware. (Of course, then they will say what they really want, eg, "We don't really want full control of our hardware, we want full control of Apple's operating system.")

    Another trick Apple has up its sleeve is to shut down the Third Party App Store completely in any jurisdiction where it loses control of iOS. Once people realize how much they really want iOS, the laws will probably be changed to give control of iOS back to Apple. Then maybe Apple will come back. Maybe.

    But I don't think Apple has the nerve to put up a fight. Apple will probably just do whatever the local authorities request, as they already do in China. 
    edited October 2020
  • Reply 15 of 29
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,815member
    Judge knows it is not legal to break the contract but hey judge wants to portray as nice person to both party. That is not how justice system should work but there is always gray area.
  • Reply 16 of 29
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,266member
    aderutter said:
    The sooner Amazon and Microsoft bring their streaming game services to iOS devices via PWA the sooner everyone will see that Apple does not prevent people running software on iOS devices that hasn’t been vetted by Apple, isn’t in the app-store and Apple receives zero income from. 
    The truth about Microsoft is it wants the free-ride on the App Store not the Web. And, Microsoft is doing much to try breaking its way into the App Store and on iPhone for free. 
    From what I know, MS wouldn't have any issues paying Apple for being in the App Store,

    "When asked about why Microsoft has spoken out against Apple's policies, Spencer said that it wasn't a financial issue related to Apple's 30% of in-app purchases."
    https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/09/21/microsoft-remains-committed-to-bringing-xbox-game-pass-to-iphone

    And I haven't seen MS having issues with MS Office or other apps.  I don't see how MS wants to be for free in the App Store as you said.  
    It took Amazon’s Luna announcement to get Microsoft to go the browser route. This in my view is why Amazon will always be better at cloud services than Microsoft. For Amazon the cloud is not a second or third thought as it is with Microsoft. 
    Could it be that MS saw that a native iOS / iPad OS app had a better experience that an browser app?  Yes, Amazon have some cloud services that are better than MS, but the same can be said of some MS cloud services being better than what Amazon offers.  
    Though Microsoft will follow Amazon via the cloud for video game streaming, Microsoft won’t be able to integrate a Twitch-like experience since its Twitch competitor was a failure and sold off. Yes Xbox players will flock to Microsoft’s streaming service and I am actually looking forward to the coverage of the service to see what Microsoft produces for players and to see how the coverage is written as an anti-Apple rant. 
    Can you blame them, considering Apple is the reason we don't have a native cloud gaming app for Stadia, Xbox Cloud Gaming, Nvidia GeForce Now and Luna?
    elijahg
  • Reply 17 of 29
    danvm said:
    aderutter said:
    The sooner Amazon and Microsoft bring their streaming game services to iOS devices via PWA the sooner everyone will see that Apple does not prevent people running software on iOS devices that hasn’t been vetted by Apple, isn’t in the app-store and Apple receives zero income from. 
    The truth about Microsoft is it wants the free-ride on the App Store not the Web. And, Microsoft is doing much to try breaking its way into the App Store and on iPhone for free. 
    From what I know, MS wouldn't have any issues paying Apple for being in the App Store,
    Actually, Microsoft's president Brad Smith stated on July 20, 2020 that the 30% rate was way too high and Apple should be found guilty of being a monopoly:
    "[Apple] impose[s] requirements that increasingly say there is only one way to get on to our platform and that is to go through the gate that we ourselves have created. In some cases they create a very high price per toll - in some cases 30% of your revenue has to go to the toll keeper. The time has come - whether we are talking about D.C. or Brussels - for a much more focused conversation about the nature of app stores, the rules that are being put in place, the prices and the tolls that are being extracted and whether there is really a justification in antitrust law for everything that has been created [by Apple]."

    The statement is nonsensical. Apple's requirements do not "increasingly say" they have "steadfastly said from the beginning." In the above quote Microsoft's president is calling on the US and EU to use anti-trust laws to "destroy everything Apple has created." Microsoft's position is more hypocritical than Epic's, for reasons that should be so obvious I won't mention them here.

  • Reply 18 of 29
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,266member
    danvm said:
    aderutter said:
    The sooner Amazon and Microsoft bring their streaming game services to iOS devices via PWA the sooner everyone will see that Apple does not prevent people running software on iOS devices that hasn’t been vetted by Apple, isn’t in the app-store and Apple receives zero income from. 
    The truth about Microsoft is it wants the free-ride on the App Store not the Web. And, Microsoft is doing much to try breaking its way into the App Store and on iPhone for free. 
    From what I know, MS wouldn't have any issues paying Apple for being in the App Store,
    Actually, Microsoft's president Brad Smith stated on July 20, 2020 that the 30% rate was way too high and Apple should be found guilty of being a monopoly:
    "[Apple] impose[s] requirements that increasingly say there is only one way to get on to our platform and that is to go through the gate that we ourselves have created. In some cases they create a very high price per toll - in some cases 30% of your revenue has to go to the toll keeper. The time has come - whether we are talking about D.C. or Brussels - for a much more focused conversation about the nature of app stores, the rules that are being put in place, the prices and the tolls that are being extracted and whether there is really a justification in antitrust law for everything that has been created [by Apple]."
    Yes, MS may find in some cases that the 30% is too high, and based in their actions, very different from Epic, they were ready pay the Apple fee for GamePass and Xbox Cloud Gaming.  BTW, did you see that he said that it's in some cases?  Maybe he is right that there are cases where the 30% is too high.  
    The statement is nonsensical. Apple's requirements do not "increasingly say" they have "steadfastly said from the beginning." In the above quote Microsoft's president is calling on the US and EU to use anti-trust laws to "destroy everything Apple has created." Microsoft's position is more hypocritical than Epic's, for reasons that should be so obvious I won't mention them here.
    I don't think MS being hypocrite as you said.  Neither I think MS wants to "destroy everything Apple has created", considering they were ready to pay Apple fees for GamePass / Xbox Cloud Gaming and still developing excellent apps for the App Store.  BTW, the I didn't find the "destroy everything that Apple has created" line in the Brad Smith interview.  Where did you get that?
    elijahg
  • Reply 19 of 29
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 1,433member
    orthorim said:
    Yeah I think that Judge should simply force Apple to allow other app stores - meaning software can run on the phone that apple has no control over - and be done with it.

    Apple of course can do whatever they want in their app store. Protect people from Epic games, and whatever else they are up to. Sure.

    But it is monopolistic behavior to say, only Apple can provide software for the iPhone, the most popular platform on the planet. That's like saying, only Microsoft controls what goes on your Windows PC. Not cool, not OK, and not OK to get away with it.

    I really do wonder why Epic doesn't make this argument, it makes a lot more sense than arguing against the terms and conditions that they signed up for themselves (huh?!???!)

    Apple need to give up control of the app store / allow 3rd party app stores. Yes there'll be some BS happening, just like on Android but I feel like when I buy an iPhone, for example, then I own it. I am not renting it from Apple. I own all that silicon in all that neat packaging. And I can do whatever I want with my property. I want to run whatever I want on it.

    And while my sympathy for Epic Games is rather limited, free app stores would also remove government control from the iPhone. Because right now the government is really controlling the app store. Anything the government doesn't like won't be on the app store. Doesn't matter if it's the Chinese government or the US government - same difference. If they don't like it, it's gone. 
    Please explain to me why Apple should even continue to support the App Store in your model? It undermines everything they have worked for. The reason Apple platform works is because they continue to invest billions into it and the tools that support it. They create new technologies every year and introduce hundreds of new features and APIs. If they are not profiting they will not support it. They are a business not a charity and that is why they have been successful. They actually make real money from their store from end users, instead of selling data or licensing. These other models have not been successful which is why Android for instance has a much larger install base but the developers make a 3rd of what they do with Apple. Apple also actively markets their store which the others do not. 

    These companies want to cut Apple out, but if Apple loses interest and lets the platform die on the vine and stagnate they will be out of business because their only profitable platform will no longer support them. 

    When was the last time you played a Sony game on an Xbox? Microsoft is not a good analogy because until recently they didn’t make computers only the OS. So the problem was they were an outside company controlling what another company could put on their product. 

    This is more like buying a car from the Honda dealership but requiring them to sell 3rd party parts to modify the engine and then expecting them to continue to warranty the car. You will void it immediately. It’s your iPhone but if you want to do whatever then jailbreak it and you can have an Android experience, but without Apple’s support. 
    edited October 2020
  • Reply 20 of 29
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 3,216member
    danvm said:
    danvm said:
    aderutter said:
    The sooner Amazon and Microsoft bring their streaming game services to iOS devices via PWA the sooner everyone will see that Apple does not prevent people running software on iOS devices that hasn’t been vetted by Apple, isn’t in the app-store and Apple receives zero income from. 
    The truth about Microsoft is it wants the free-ride on the App Store not the Web. And, Microsoft is doing much to try breaking its way into the App Store and on iPhone for free. 
    From what I know, MS wouldn't have any issues paying Apple for being in the App Store,
    Actually, Microsoft's president Brad Smith stated on July 20, 2020 that the 30% rate was way too high and Apple should be found guilty of being a monopoly:
    "[Apple] impose[s] requirements that increasingly say there is only one way to get on to our platform and that is to go through the gate that we ourselves have created. In some cases they create a very high price per toll - in some cases 30% of your revenue has to go to the toll keeper. The time has come - whether we are talking about D.C. or Brussels - for a much more focused conversation about the nature of app stores, the rules that are being put in place, the prices and the tolls that are being extracted and whether there is really a justification in antitrust law for everything that has been created [by Apple]."
    Yes, MS may find in some cases that the 30% is too high, and based in their actions, very different from Epic, they were ready pay the Apple fee for GamePass and Xbox Cloud Gaming.  BTW, did you see that he said that it's in some cases?  Maybe he is right that there are cases where the 30% is too high.  
    The statement is nonsensical. Apple's requirements do not "increasingly say" they have "steadfastly said from the beginning." In the above quote Microsoft's president is calling on the US and EU to use anti-trust laws to "destroy everything Apple has created." Microsoft's position is more hypocritical than Epic's, for reasons that should be so obvious I won't mention them here.
    I don't think MS being hypocrite as you said.  Neither I think MS wants to "destroy everything Apple has created", considering they were ready to pay Apple fees for GamePass / Xbox Cloud Gaming and still developing excellent apps for the App Store.  BTW, the I didn't find the "destroy everything that Apple has created" line in the Brad Smith interview.  Where did you get that?
    You are polite, I'll grant you that. Most people are very hostile on this topic. Thanks for being polite.

    The quote from Brad Smith is on so many websites, I can't remember which site I got it from earlier today, but I googled it again and found it here: https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-president-brad-smith-its-time-for-apples-app-store-model-to-be-probed/ <--
    Also here: https://www.macrumors.com/2020/07/20/microsoft-antitrust-committee-apple-app-store/ <--

    The final two words in my quote "[by Apple]" were in brackets because they weren't in Brad's quote but were clearly a reference to "Apple's App Store". It is normal when quoting people to add brackets around words that weren't actually spoken but were clearly implied. I also used brackets in two other locations in that quote including the "[s]". I thought people would understand that brackets are inserted to show minor edits, usually to replace improper pronouns by proper pronouns. I don't think I was out of line by adding "[by Apple]" especially since I put it in brackets. If you don't think it meant that, what do you think it meant? I'm open to different explanations.

    I'll grant you that not everyone at Microsoft speaks as harshly against Apple as Brad Smith, but Smith is the president of Microsoft so that should count as something.
    edited October 2020
Sign In or Register to comment.