'Fortnite' firm Epic Games planned Apple App Store dispute for months
Tim Sweeney, CEO of "Fortnite" developer Epic Games, says he spent months planning "Project Liberty" before launching his fight against Apple's App Store rules.
A still from Epic's parody of Apple's '1984' Super Bowl commercial
The now long-running App Store dispute between Apple and Epic Games, maker of hit app Fortnite, was said to begin in August 2020. That was when Apple pulled the game for violating App Store rules, and Epic Games immediately ran a prepared "1984" ad parody. However, it's only now that the amount of planning that went into the dispute has been revealed.
According to CNN Business, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney has said that his company spent months on the battle plan. Alongside the parody video, the company pre-prepared a 60-page lawsuit, and also christened the whole endeavor as "Project Liberty."
"Epic's frustration with Apple especially, and Google to some extent, had been building up for at least three years," Sweeney told CNN Business. "Ever since Fortnite grew to have a large audience, we felt stifled by several things."
"I grew up in a time in which anybody could make software," he continued. Referring to his old Apple II computer behind him in the CNN video interview, he said that it was from a time when anyone could program.
"You turn it on and it comes up with a programming language prompt," he said. "So I felt all along that open platforms are the key to free markets and the future of computing."
Reportedly, Sweeney says that this is what the dispute with Apple is really about -- free markets -- instead of just not wanting Apple or Google to take its 30% cut. Sweeney is also willing to invest heavily to pursue what he describes as an attempt to change the whole software industry.
"We're still a highly independent company who's not beholden to public markets in which we have to show ever-increasing profits," he said. "And anything like a fight like this [with Apple and Google], which loses us money for a year or more, would never be tolerated. So we have the financial independence to do that."
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney discusses App Store policy with CNBC in July. | Source: CNBC
Sweeney would not reveal what the dispute is costing in terms of legal fees, or of lost sales through the App Store and Google Play. However, he did say that the dispute with Apple was costing "lots and lots" of senior leadership time.
"Epic's problem is entirely self-inflicted and is in their power to resolve," Apple told CNN Business in a statement. "Epic has been one of the most successful developers on the App Store, growing into a multibillion dollar business that reaches millions of iOS customers around the world."
"We very much want to keep the company as part of the Apple Developer Program and their apps on the Store," continued Apple.
Google also responded saying that it would "welcome the opportunity" to resume talks about bringing "Fortnite" back to the Google Play store. But also, Epic wants Apple to ensure that it has "consistent policies that are fair to developers."
The dispute between Apple and Epic Games will go to trial in May 2021.
A still from Epic's parody of Apple's '1984' Super Bowl commercial
The now long-running App Store dispute between Apple and Epic Games, maker of hit app Fortnite, was said to begin in August 2020. That was when Apple pulled the game for violating App Store rules, and Epic Games immediately ran a prepared "1984" ad parody. However, it's only now that the amount of planning that went into the dispute has been revealed.
According to CNN Business, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney has said that his company spent months on the battle plan. Alongside the parody video, the company pre-prepared a 60-page lawsuit, and also christened the whole endeavor as "Project Liberty."
"Epic's frustration with Apple especially, and Google to some extent, had been building up for at least three years," Sweeney told CNN Business. "Ever since Fortnite grew to have a large audience, we felt stifled by several things."
"I grew up in a time in which anybody could make software," he continued. Referring to his old Apple II computer behind him in the CNN video interview, he said that it was from a time when anyone could program.
"You turn it on and it comes up with a programming language prompt," he said. "So I felt all along that open platforms are the key to free markets and the future of computing."
Reportedly, Sweeney says that this is what the dispute with Apple is really about -- free markets -- instead of just not wanting Apple or Google to take its 30% cut. Sweeney is also willing to invest heavily to pursue what he describes as an attempt to change the whole software industry.
"We're still a highly independent company who's not beholden to public markets in which we have to show ever-increasing profits," he said. "And anything like a fight like this [with Apple and Google], which loses us money for a year or more, would never be tolerated. So we have the financial independence to do that."
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney discusses App Store policy with CNBC in July. | Source: CNBC
Sweeney would not reveal what the dispute is costing in terms of legal fees, or of lost sales through the App Store and Google Play. However, he did say that the dispute with Apple was costing "lots and lots" of senior leadership time.
"Epic's problem is entirely self-inflicted and is in their power to resolve," Apple told CNN Business in a statement. "Epic has been one of the most successful developers on the App Store, growing into a multibillion dollar business that reaches millions of iOS customers around the world."
"We very much want to keep the company as part of the Apple Developer Program and their apps on the Store," continued Apple.
Google also responded saying that it would "welcome the opportunity" to resume talks about bringing "Fortnite" back to the Google Play store. But also, Epic wants Apple to ensure that it has "consistent policies that are fair to developers."
The dispute between Apple and Epic Games will go to trial in May 2021.
Comments
So sick of the laissez-faire capitalism rhetoric from people who get to such a level of success that they decide they need more success, more profit, and therefore turn to claiming that the market just isn’t free enough... for them. So let’s throw an army of lawyers and insincere marketing at harming the company that brings them a good chunk of their income.
Astroturfing. Propaganda. Whining. The wealthiest of the wealthy, wasting society’s resources to kick and bite each other while both defending & crying foul at the economic system that made them wealthy (and is screwing the rest of us), just because they want an even bigger piece of the pie...
Apple isn’t immune to my ire, but this Tim Sweeney crap is so far off the mark of reasonableness and into self-entitlement that I absolutely cannot stand him. He is the epitome of what happens when antisocial tech geeks with no sense of perspective get some power via money and corporate muscle.
Look at me in my humble clothing and austere office - i‘m just like you, because I‘m fighting for you, dear friend!!1
Meanwhile the real Tim Sweeny has a net worth of approximately 5.5 Billion, for comparison that‘s roughly 5x that of Tim Cook.
"Not I, " said the cow
"Not I," said the duck.
"Not I," said the pig.
"Not I," said the goose.
"Then I will," said the little red hen. And she did. The wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain. "Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen.
"Not I," said the duck.
"Out of my classification," said the pig.
"I'd lose my seniority," said the cow.
"I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose.
"Then I will," said the little red hen, and she did. At last the time came to bake the bread. "Who will help me bake bread?" asked the little red hen.
"That would be overtime for me," said the cow.
"I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck.
"I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig.
"If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose.
"Then I will," said the little red hen.
She baked five loaves and held them up for the neighbors to see.
They all wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, "No, I can eat the five loaves myself."
"Excess profits," cried the cow.
"Capitalist leech," screamed the duck.
"I demand equal rights," yelled the goose.
And the pig just grunted.
And they painted "unfair" picket signs and marched round and around the little red hen shouting obscenities.
When the government agent came, he said to the little red hen, "You must not be greedy."
"But I earned the bread," said the little red hen.
"Exactly," said the agent. "That's the wonderful free enterprise system. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations productive workers must divide their products with the idle."
And they lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, I am grateful." But her neighbors wondered why she never again baked any more bread.
I mean, just think all of the things we did without when no one had any incentive to create or build or make anything at all.......
/s
Except in this case the Little Red Hen is willing to provide the garden, and the grain, but can't sell bread to the neighbours because "government regulation" aka "Apple" say they can only grow grain in Apple's garden.
"We very much want to keep the company as part of the Apple Developer Program and their apps on the Store," continued Apple."
I wonder if there was a wry smile in the mind of whoever said/wrote that.
I think you need to get on the phone right now and tell the Getty's, Astor's, Walton's, Ford's, Buffett's and many, many, many others that they shouldn't even exist, since they had no real economic incentive to create or build or accomplish anything.
Indeed, it's directly BECAUSE of freedoms that I support Apple's rights to install restrictions on developers who want to sell apps on APPLE'S OS. It's not the developer's OS, or the consumer's. It's Apple's.
The only way I would agree to remove Apple's freedoms to install restrictions is if Apple became a legal monopoly for selling smartphones. Then you will have my support.
See, you can't even take the time to understand my position before you start to attack it. I have no problem with Apple choosing whatever rules it likes to decide who should be allowed to sell apps on their App Store. It's their App Store. It's not their phone though, it's mine.
You mean if Apple can restrict which store I can buy and install apps from so I can only buy from theirs? That kind of monopoly?