Apple says Epic Games dispute is a 'marketing campaign' to boost 'Fortnite'
Apple has filed its legal declaration against Epic Games ahead of a court hearing and claims that the dispute was started following a decline in the popularity of "Fortnite."
Credit: Epic Games
Ahead of a hearing now scheduled in the US District Court for the Northern District of California on September 28, Apple has filed its legal documents outlining its response to the dispute with Epic Games. At the same time, Apple's Head of Games Business Development for the App Store, Mike Schmid has filed a supporting declaration saying that Epic Games has regularly threatened to withdraw its games from iOS.
"For reasons having nothing to do with Epic's claims against Apple, Fortnite's popularity is on the wane," says Apple's filing. "By July 2020, interest in Fortnite had decreased by nearly 70% as compared to 4 October 2019. This lawsuit (and the front-page headlines it has generated) appears to be part of a marketing campaign designed to reinvigorate interest in Fortnite."
After detailing how Apple has supported Epic Games in the App Store, the company's filing concludes with a rebuttal about how the games firm says its reputation has been damaged by Apple.
"Finally, a word about Epic's claimed reputational harm. Epic has engaged in a full-scale, pre-planned media blitz surrounding its decision to breach its agreement with Apple, creating ad campaigns around the effort that continue to this day," says Apple.
"If Epic were truly concerned that it would suffer reputational injury from this dispute, it would not be engaging in these elaborate efforts to publicize it," it continues. "From all appearances (including the #freefortnite campaign), Epic thinks its conduct here will engender goodwill, boost its reputation, and drive users to Fortnite, not the opposite. That is not harm."
While saying that Epic "has repeatedly leveraged the global phenomenon that was Fortnite to coerce platforms to change their rules," Schmid also says that Apple has made changes to the App Store to accommodate the game developer.
"In particular, Epic requested an exemption from Apple's then-in-place guideline against gifting within apps," he says. "As a general rule, Apple had prohibited live in-game gifting because such activity, if left unregulated, can be a major vector for fraud if not carefully monitored."
"Because of this, I worked closely with my team at the App Store-- in conjunction with Apple's executives and App Review team-- to create a new guideline that would allow for gifting when certain safety requirements are met," he continues. "After much consideration and listening to Epic's request, the leadership team decided that gifting could be allowed with certain protections."
Credit: Epic Games
Ahead of a hearing now scheduled in the US District Court for the Northern District of California on September 28, Apple has filed its legal documents outlining its response to the dispute with Epic Games. At the same time, Apple's Head of Games Business Development for the App Store, Mike Schmid has filed a supporting declaration saying that Epic Games has regularly threatened to withdraw its games from iOS.
"For reasons having nothing to do with Epic's claims against Apple, Fortnite's popularity is on the wane," says Apple's filing. "By July 2020, interest in Fortnite had decreased by nearly 70% as compared to 4 October 2019. This lawsuit (and the front-page headlines it has generated) appears to be part of a marketing campaign designed to reinvigorate interest in Fortnite."
After detailing how Apple has supported Epic Games in the App Store, the company's filing concludes with a rebuttal about how the games firm says its reputation has been damaged by Apple.
"Finally, a word about Epic's claimed reputational harm. Epic has engaged in a full-scale, pre-planned media blitz surrounding its decision to breach its agreement with Apple, creating ad campaigns around the effort that continue to this day," says Apple.
"If Epic were truly concerned that it would suffer reputational injury from this dispute, it would not be engaging in these elaborate efforts to publicize it," it continues. "From all appearances (including the #freefortnite campaign), Epic thinks its conduct here will engender goodwill, boost its reputation, and drive users to Fortnite, not the opposite. That is not harm."
Apple altered the App Store to help Epic Games
In App Store games head Mike Schmid's separate supporting declaration, he says that Epic Games has previously threatened similar moves. "On a variety of occasions, Epic personnel have told me that if Apple did not comply with its demands, Epic would simply terminate its relationship with Apple and remove its games off of the iOS platform," he says.While saying that Epic "has repeatedly leveraged the global phenomenon that was Fortnite to coerce platforms to change their rules," Schmid also says that Apple has made changes to the App Store to accommodate the game developer.
"In particular, Epic requested an exemption from Apple's then-in-place guideline against gifting within apps," he says. "As a general rule, Apple had prohibited live in-game gifting because such activity, if left unregulated, can be a major vector for fraud if not carefully monitored."
"Because of this, I worked closely with my team at the App Store-- in conjunction with Apple's executives and App Review team-- to create a new guideline that would allow for gifting when certain safety requirements are met," he continues. "After much consideration and listening to Epic's request, the leadership team decided that gifting could be allowed with certain protections."
Comments
It was likely a calculated move: Spend $100 million on TV commercials that people don't see, or $100 million on a lawsuit to tell people "Apple is evil"and hoped it would go viral regardless which side its users "support".
Why I’ve never thought about this before:
And all the time they were talking that it was not about money, but about freedom and fairness for the Epic’s users.
For me, Epic is even more dirty than I could imagine.
I used to play the Infinity Blade series and liked it, but they kept the story line so small and repeating. The graphics were amazing at the time, but it just got old because there were only a couple hours of actual content that got reused over and over.
71% of Fortnite players play on game consoles. In 2018 Fortnite was by far the most popular game video game on all 3 major game consoles. By mid 2019, it had drop to number 2. In 2020 so far, it has dropped to number 6 and lower. Along with the drops, an estimated over 40% drop in revenue from Fortnite, since 2017/18. Why haven't Epic gone after MS, Sony and Nintendo for the 30% "transaction fee" they have to pay, to be on those platforms? How can Epic idly ignore the 30% "transaction fee" they have to pay, for 71% of their players?
And if you had any critical thinking ability at all, you figure out that it would be counterproductive for Epic, economically wise, to give up all their 70% share of revenue from Fortnite players on iOS iDevices, to go after Apple 30% share. If that was a winning strategy, wouldn't going after MS, Sony and Nintendo 30% share be even more productive? Why is it that Epic can idly ignore the 30% "transaction fee" they have to pay, to be on game console platforms?
It's entirely a commercial push really - they just want the ability to peddle their unchecked software on every platform - with nobody taking a cut but them.
Curiously though, they appear to be willing to let Xbox, Playstation, and Nintendo games stores keep their 30%.
But the case more generally can be heard by a jury and Apple has asked to have it heard by a jury. As with so many legal issues, antitrust cases present both questions of law (for a judge to decide) and questions of fact (for juries, if requested, to decide).
Relevant market definition, e.g, involves both questions of law and questions of fact. A judge may make certain some legal decisions and advise a jury how the law applies when it comes to deciding whether something - e.g., iOS app distribution - constitutes a relevant antitrust market. But ultimately that's a question of fact to be determined, if necessary, by a jury.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.90.0.pdf
Mr. Sweeney filed another declaration in which he suggests that a lot of what Apple asserted in its opposition was inaccurate.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.86.0.pdf