Apple Removes Fortnite From The App Store
high dynamic range
Apple has removed Epic Games’ battle royale game Fortnite from the App Store after the developer on Thursday implemented its own in-app payment system that bypassed Apple’s standard 30 percent fee...
Replies
This obviously has been a long time coming and an intentionally rebellious and theatric act and I'm here for it.
(On a Console I understand, its highly selective, there is actual promotion and direct support from the Console creators, the Hardware basically is only repaid through game sales, big difference)
yes but fortnite bad so I have to side with Apple, I'm sorry.
Makes sense to stick with Apple and Google for now, but if Epic wins, it'll be really interesting to see if anyone tries to go after consoles next.
But it's a very reasonable assessment that Apple and Google hold a monopoly over smart devices.
Epic Games has gone up against large tech companies in the past, but its antitrust litigation will be different. It’s looking to change the policies of companies that solidified themselves as market leaders in the industry, and neither Apple nor Google will want to let go of that. This litigation has a much larger scope than any of the other challenges that Epic Games has faced, like the Sony faceoff. Likewise, Epic Games is the “underdog,” if you can call it that. Although it’s valued at more than $17 billion, that’s significantly overshadowed by the trillion-dollar market capitalization of Alphabet (Google’s parent company) and Apple.
“Epic is going at the heart of the App Store monopoly, as well as Google’s comparable monopoly over the sale of Android apps,” Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at anti-monopoly research and advocacy group Open Markets Institute, told Polygon. “It’s challenging the practices by which [Apple and Google] acquired this dominant position and tried to leverage this dominant position into new markets. This is a major lawsuit.”
Vaheesan said Epic Games’ lawyers presented “detailed factual allegations” that rely on “strong legal theories,” which bodes well for the company. Epic isn’t asking the court to rewrite antitrust law as it stands — instead, it’s asking a judge to just enforce the law as it exists. It’s different, in that way, from the antitrust hearing in Congress last month, where government officials discussed potential changes to market power rules. (Epic’s lawsuit, however, is still important in that if Epic wins, it’ll make it clear that Apple’s and Google’s practices are illegal, and then those companies will be forced to change their practices.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Commission
One of the big issues I see is Apple is making competitors to products that already exist on the Apple Store (Ads Apple TV+, Apple Music), but Apple/Google have a huge advantaged of not having to give a 30% cut away on top of everything. Companies like Netflix and Spotify operate with tiny margins, those apps currently either make deals with Apple/Google, which smaller companies could not do, or they try to skirt around the rules and get away with things smaller apps can't. The rules that Apple and Google impose limit what Epic can do on their own stores and on other platforms, which seems so far over reaching, and an abuse of power. Those types of limitations might be okay in a partnership situation, but obviously Apple and Google aren't partners, they're gatekeepers and governing bodies of platforms that 80% of the developed world uses.
Sounds like Apple based Unreal Engine devs wont be able to develop/update games for iOS/Mac.
In the letter, Google Australia and New Zealand managing director Mel Silva said the code would severely impact Google and its subsidiary YouTube.
"A proposed law, the News Media Bargaining Code, would force us to provide you with a dramatically worse Google Search and YouTube, could lead to your data being handed over to big news businesses, and would put the free services you use at risk in Australia," the letter said.
"The law would force us to give an unfair advantage to one group of businesses — news media businesses — over everyone else who has a website, YouTube channel or small business.
I'm no way versed in the intricacies of the court but I had the opposite impression: It was no loss, and this judge seems more inclined to eventually side with Epic than with Apple.
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.
Epic isn't completely alone in this fight, by the way. Microsoft threw its support behind them a few days ago. (The Guardian)
Microsoft has joined the court battle between Apple and Epic Games, filing a legal brief supporting the Fortnite developer’s right to carry on developing software for Mac and iOS while the case continues.
Shortly before midnight on the Friday before Labor Day weekend, Epic Games pushed the button on its next legal action against Apple’s ban on the immensely popular Fortnite.
There was no question that Epic would file for a preliminary injunction against Apple in an attempt to force the iPhone maker to bring Fortnite back to the App Store — hearings were already scheduled for September 28th. But now, you can read the company’s full argument (here’s a PDF; it’s also embedded below) and decide whether you think Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is likely to be swayed.
You may remember that Judge Rogers was already unwilling to issue a temporary restraining order against Apple to protect Epic’s games, partly because Epic hadn’t proven it had actually been harmed, and partly because the judge felt that Epic “strategically chose to breach its agreements with Apple” and so was at least partially to blame.
But in the new filing, Epic argues that more than its reputation has been harmed: “Daily active users on iOS have declined by over 60% since Fortnite’s removal from the App Store,” Epic claims. (It measured through September 2nd, in case you’re curious; by that point Fortnite had effectively split into two different games.)
Epic says iOS is the biggest platform for Fortnite, too: 116 million registered users, or nearly a third of the 350 million registered users Epic says Fortnite has attracted in total. It also claims 63 percent of Fortnite users on iOS access Fortnite only on iOS, and that it’s the only way for many people to play the game.
Epic says it’s worried it “may never see these users again” (referring to the 60 percent decline); that its Fortnite community of players has been torn apart; and that some of its non-Fortnite customers have also been collateral damage. As we reported last week, some of Epic’s other games are no longer available to re-download, and Epic says that its Shadow Complex Remastered has been removed from the Mac App Store, too, after Apple terminated Epic’s developer account.
I really do hope that Epic wins this one, so that the phone market opens up more and gets treated as an open platform, and that the phone manufacturers are more of a Hardware seller. I personally despise the OS of both apple and Android, I would welcome more Operating systems with open arms .
Apple plans to call some of its highest profile executives to testify as part of its upcoming trial with Fortnite maker Epic Games due to start May 3. Apple said it plans to call its CEO, Tim Cook, software head Craig Federighi, and Apple fellow Phil Schiller, as well as employees who help combat fraud, manage payment processing and those who build developer tools for iPhone apps. Apple said it plans for all its witnesses to appear in person.
"Our senior executives look forward to sharing with the court the very positive impact the App Store has had on innovation, economies across the world and the customer experience over the last 12 years," Apple said in a statement after filing its witness list late on Friday. "We feel confident the case will prove that Epic purposefully breached its agreement solely to increase its revenues, which is what resulted in their removal from the App Store."
[...]
Epic didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. The gaming giant plans to call its CEO, Tim Sweeney, as well as other executives to discuss the company's business model, financial performance and the Epic Games Store. The company also plans to call Apple's former head of iOS software, Scott Forstall, to discuss the differences between mobile devices and PCs and the history of App Store policies and practices.
On April 9, Justice Perram announced his judgement on whether Apple would be granted a permanent stay of the case.
He ordered that the case be temporarily stayed for a period of three months. If Epic does not commence a suit in the US alleging contraventions to Australian Consumer Law within three months then the case will be permanently stayed.
Justice Perram also ordered that if Epic pursues this case in the US then the proceedings will continue to be stayed but can be brought back to Australian courts should the court in California decline to determine these allegations.
A spokesperson from Epic Games commented on the court’s recent decision, saying:
This puts the case between Apple and Epic in Australia on hold for now, with all eyes turning to the court case in the US.
The US side has heated up in the past week with both Apple and Epic filing their ‘proposed findings of fact’ documents for the court case. The case is set to take place in California on May 3.
The biggest antitrust trial involving a technology giant in more than two decades kicked off.
The case has wrapped for the day
The court has moved to a sealed session, closed off to the public and press, so for all intents and purposes, Epic v. Apple has wrapped for the day.
Monday’s proceedings were mostly opening statements by the plaintiff and defendant, followed by direct and cross examination of Epic CEO Tim Sweeney. Epic’s view of the case is that Apple has deliberately made iOS a walled garden; a suitable remedy would be to allow developers and users to interact with it as they would with an ordinary computer. Apple countered by citing Qualcomm (a precedent that foreshadows a difficult road for Epic) and arguing that Epic was trying to “force Apple to let into its App Store untested and untrusted apps.” You can read a more detailed breakdown in the live feed below.
The biggest revelations came from exhibits filed by both companies, which included emails, memos, slide decks and internal analytics long hidden from the public eye. These documents, which numbered in the hundreds, will provide ample fodder for discussion in the coming weeks and months.
The trial will resume tomorrow, at 11:30 a.m. Eastern time/8:30 a.m. Pacific time, according to the judge’s calendar.
In cross-examination of Epic CEO Tim Sweeney, Apple asks ‘Why now, and why Apple?’
Earlier today, Epic’s counsel asked CEO Tim Sweeney a series of questions that helped him lay out Epic’s side of the story. Now, it’s Apple’s turn to challenge Sweeney during cross-examination.
Early in his line of questioning, Richard Doren, counsel for Apple, grilled Sweeney on the fact that Epic hadn’t raised any issues with Apple’s policies when it originally joined the iPhone maker’s developer program. Apple’s 30 percent rate hasn’t changed since Epic began working with the company. In response, Sweeney noted he’d been a vocal opponent of walled gardens for years, even if he hadn’t directly confronted Apple. The questions echoed an earlier remark by Doren, in which he described “Fortnite” as a game that was growing less popular and lucrative over time. The implication: that Epic chose to launch its legal challenge against Apple to combat financial head winds.
Later, Doren repeatedly asked Sweeney to confirm details about other platforms’ policies regarding commissions. Sony, Doren noted, leveraged the exact same 30 percent rate on the PlayStation. The same is true for Xbox and on the Nintendo Switch, Doren had Sweeney acknowledge. In the courtroom, this was apparently a more visual exercise, which Doren walking Sweeney through a chart, item by item.
During the cross-examination, the audio fell silent on the public conference line — one of a litany of technical difficulties on the call so far. Eventually, those waiting and listening were greeted with an unceremonious announcement: “Your conference is ending now.”