North Dakota rejects anti-Apple App Store bill drafted by Epic Games lobbyist

Posted:
in General Discussion edited February 16
The North Dakota State Senate has voted against a bill that would have forced Apple to allow developers and users to bypass the App Store for app payments and downloads.

Credit: AppleInsider
Credit: AppleInsider


In a 11-36 vote on Tuesday, North Dakota's lawmakers rejected the legislation that was initially drafted by an Epic Games lobbyist. The lobbyist, Lacee Bjork Anderson, was also paid by the Coalition for App Fairness.

Ahead of the vote, Anderson admitted that the bill may not have the votes to pass. According to the North Dakota Senate floor calendar, the bill was listed as a "do not pass" per committee recommendations.

Even though the bill has failed in North Dakota, the fight over app store rules is far from over. The New York Times reports that lawmakers in Georgia and Arizona are considering nearly identical legislation. A state representative in Massachusetts said he was considering introducing a similar bill, and app store legislation is also being pushed in Wisconsin and Minnesota.

The legislation is just part of a broader fight over control of mobile app ecosystems. Apple and Epic Games, for example, are in the midst of a dispute over a violation of developer guidelines that resulted in "Fortnite" being pulled from the App Store.

The legal fight between Apple and Epic Games will go to trial on May 3, 2021 in a U.S. District Court in California.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 57
    Epic fail by Epic. Such attempts are likely to fail everywhere whether it is because legislatures won't pass them or Federal courts strike them down. States  don't have to jurisdiction to regulate interstate commerce. If the Feds pass a law/regulation it may be different, but for now it is unlikely to go anywhere.

    As soon as the first bill passes, years of litigation and court tests will begin.
    edited February 16 longpathwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 57
    bluefire1bluefire1 Posts: 1,159member
    Good!!!!!!!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 57
    Just imagine the precedent that would set.
    It's like declaring that all stores are merely showrooms, be damned the store owner's operational expenses.

    Sure some stores are just showrooms, but not all stores are showrooms.
    viclauyycwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 57
    Good. Lawmakers -- even state-level ones -- don't like to be made to feel like they're pawns for someone else's agenda (even if it is often the case that they may be pawns in legislation that does get passed -- the public nature of it, thanks to Epic's boorishness, is always a non-starter).

    This was entirely predictable (and predicted)!
    edited February 16 watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 57
    I just love that this lobbyist is getting paid by Epic twice (the second time indirectly through the Coalition), knew that there was a good chance the attempt would fail, and is still working on this doomed endeavour.

    I wonder if someone hired for attitude, not skills? :D
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 57
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,274member
    “Drafted by Epic Games Lobbyist.” I dont’ recall reading this in the initial reports. Any bill drafted by a company lobbyist against the company’s competition should be automatically trashed. I can’t think of a case where this would make good legislation 
    longpathwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 57
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,870member
    Epic waste of time. 
    qwerty52watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 57
    The Trump of the gaming world. 
    Dogpersonmystigohammeroftruthwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 57
    jungmark said:
    Epic waste of time. 
    ...... and money!
    Sweeney is lucky that he is the CEO of Epic, otherwise he has been fired a long time ago. He is destroying Epic, just because of 
    his personal ego ambitions.
    Epic has lost much more money to pay lawyers, from missed revenue from AppStore sales and from the loss of customers, than if Epic has kept paying the AppStore commission, like it did it over the last ten years.
    viclauyycagilealtitudewatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 57
    I guess calling it "Anti-App Store" is one way of spinning it. "Pro-consumer" is an equally correct way of spinning it. There's no reason why I should have to ask for Apple's permissions to install an app on a device I paid for with my own money. It would be no different than Subaru telling me I can only install kayak racks I bought from a Subaru dealer on my car. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 11 of 57
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,763member
    What kind of supplier arrogance does it take to think your customers’ customers are yours and that you can dictate their operating model or product/service architectures?
    Or is it ‘Client Responsibility’?
  • Reply 12 of 57
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,770member
    tylersdad said:
    I guess calling it "Anti-App Store" is one way of spinning it. "Pro-consumer" is an equally correct way of spinning it. There's no reason why I should have to ask for Apple's permissions to install an app on a device I paid for with my own money. It would be no different than Subaru telling me I can only install kayak racks I bought from a Subaru dealer on my car. 
    You can do whatever you can do with your iPhone.  Use it to mash potatoes or squash mosquitoes if you want.  But you only have a license to use iOS and and the terms you agreed to was that Apple has ultimate control of what can and cannot be loaded on iOS.

    And by the way, you can install any kayak rack on your car just as you can use any case, sticker, or external doodad with your iPhone.  But if you install your own engine control software or software add-on on your Subaru (assuming you can build one or find one that works), Subaru is no longer legally responsible for the safety and operability of your car.  Analogy crashes and burns.
    edited February 16 jdb8167qwerty52MisterKitviclauyyclongpathrob55gregoriusmhammeroftruthwatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 57
    qwerty52 said:
    jungmark said:
    Epic waste of time. 
    ...... and money!
    Sweeney is lucky that he is the CEO of Epic, otherwise he has been fired a long time ago. He is destroying Epic, just because of 
    his personal ego ambitions.
    Epic has lost much more money to pay lawyers, from missed revenue from AppStore sales and from the loss of customers, than if Epic has kept paying the AppStore commission, like it did it over the last ten years.
    Are you their accountant? Unless you are their accountant  or the CEO or a board member you have no idea what the numbers are or how they calculated how much they are willing to invest in following this path. They have obviously calculated the investment to pursue this path is worth the financial risk and if they are successful they see the payoff as huge. If they lose, the cost will be written off against their profits which on an estimated $1 billion of revenue with gross margins over  50% is huge. They can afford to lose. I doubt you have much knowledge about who controls Epic and has the biggest chunk of ownership. Simply put, you have no idea whatsoever what the numbers and returns are either way it comes out.

    No company goes into an action like this blind or without the support of its board.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 57
    Epic is going to get crushed. Epically. Epic needs to stop playing games. Or maybe they should make one more... “epic failure” 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 57
    tundraboy said:
    tylersdad said:
    I guess calling it "Anti-App Store" is one way of spinning it. "Pro-consumer" is an equally correct way of spinning it. There's no reason why I should have to ask for Apple's permissions to install an app on a device I paid for with my own money. It would be no different than Subaru telling me I can only install kayak racks I bought from a Subaru dealer on my car. 
    You can do whatever you can do with your iPhone.  Use it to mash potatoes or squash mosquitoes if you want.  But you only have a license to use iOS and and the terms you agreed to was that Apple has ultimate control of what can and cannot be loaded on iOS.

    And by the way, you can install any kayak rack on your car just as you can use any case, sticker, or external doodad with your iPhone.  But if you install your own engine control software or software add-on on your Subaru (assuming you can build one or find one that works), Subaru is no longer legally responsible for the safety and operability of your car.  Analogy crashes and burns.
    You can attempt to minimize this and position it all you like. The fact remains, Apple is dictating to its users how they may use their devices that THEY paid for. It’s ridiculous. 
    edited February 16
  • Reply 16 of 57
    Tim Sweeney said on Twitter that they had nothing to do with this. It was an independent action by the coalition for app fairness.
    edited February 16 watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 57
    Tim Sweeney said on Twitter that they had nothing to do with this. It was an independent action by the coalition for app fairness.
    He also has some great land in FL and a bridge in NY he can sell you.
    DogpersonEsquireCatsGG1watto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 57
    Wiseman said:
    Epic, in short are worst than communists
    Or even right-wing fascists!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 57
    It's not that hard to understand the issue. The problem is that developers has no other avenue to sell their apps to IOS users. You have to use the app store if you want to sell anything that can be installed on an IPhone or Ipad. It doesn't even matter if the developer has the money or expertise to host, manage and advertise their app on their own system. You could be a multi billionaire, you could own your own hosting facility, your own advertising team and at the end of the day the only way you can get your app to any IOS users is through the app store. I'm sorry but that does sound a bit like a monopoly. And before anyone says "oh you can sell to android users, it's not a monopoly". No, this is about selling to IOS users and there is only one way. 

    developers who produce Mac OS applications can sell it anywhere and macbook users can buy it, download it and install it without having to go to the app store on the mac. Yet on IOS, developers are told that they can only reach IOS users if they use the official app store. 



    williamlondon
  • Reply 20 of 57
    mrconfuse said:
    It's not that hard to understand the issue. The problem is that developers has no other avenue to sell their apps to IOS users. You have to use the app store if you want to sell anything that can be installed on an IPhone or Ipad. It doesn't even matter if the developer has the money or expertise to host, manage and advertise their app on their own system. You could be a multi billionaire, you could own your own hosting facility, your own advertising team and at the end of the day the only way you can get your app to any IOS users is through the app store. I'm sorry but that does sound a bit like a monopoly. And before anyone says "oh you can sell to android users, it's not a monopoly". No, this is about selling to IOS users and there is only one way. 

    developers who produce Mac OS applications can sell it anywhere and macbook users can buy it, download it and install it without having to go to the app store on the mac. Yet on IOS, developers are told that they can only reach IOS users if they use the official app store. 
    Or use alternate technologies. For the majority of applications, a progressive web app (PWA) is almost always sufficient. That is the direction that all of the online game systems are taking on iOS because Apple won't let them use the App Store without each game being individually reviewed by Apple. If the online games stores can use PWA so can most apps. Apple doesn't have a monopoly. They do have restrictions on one way to reach iPhone and iPad customers but developers have alternatives if they want to pursue them. If they want to rely on Apple's App Store infrastructure then they have to follow Apple's rules for the App Store.
    edited February 16 hammeroftruthwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.