By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Apple removes Fortnite from app store, cant connect to servers. Epic Games Sues.

JWeinCom on 24 August 2020
AsGryffynn said:
JWeinCom said:

That's the way the legal system works. If Apple wins in this case, that case becomes an authority. So, if another team comes with a case, apple will say "In Epic Games v. Apple (or w/e) it was ruled that the App Store is not a monopoly". Then the other side has the additional burden of demonstrating why this case is different and that ruling shouldn't apply.

Apple's cut btw is 30%, but drops to 15% for subscriptions longer than a year. 

I know that much. But this case is extremely hard to defend against specifically because of it. This happened before, remember? Like, do people forget the shit MSFT got into in the early 00's? 

The claim in that case wasn't really similar to this one besides both being antitrust cases. 



Around the Network
kirby007 on 24 August 2020

YGR: "With respect to Unreal Engine, that seems like an overreach." Says that the contract with Epic International is not in breach, even if the contract with Epic Games is. Says that it looks retaliatory to her.

whoops



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

Rhonin the wizard on 25 August 2020

^How about putting some full quotes.

In regards to Fortnite.

Your client created the situation. Your client doesn't come to this court with clean hands. Epic made a strategically and calculated move to breach, and decided to breach right before a new season. So in my view, you cannot have irreparable harm when you create a harm yourself.

All Epic has to do is take it back to the status quo and no one suffers any harm. And you can have a trial date in the spring. Flip the switch to the way it was August 3rd and return everybody back to where they were.

In regards to the Unreal engine.

The contract with Epic International has not been breached. Apple reached beyond its one contract with Epic Games and is using its hard leverage. It's slammed Epic Games with this additional penalty. It does to me look retaliatory. I don't see any harm to Apple to restrain you from not impacting the Unreal Engine on that platform or the developer's engine. It looks like overreach to me.

Comment towards the end.

There's some measure of a lack of competition and high barriers to market entry. That said, there appears to be evidence that everyone that uses these kind of platforms to sell games is charging 30%. Whether Epic likes it, the industry and not just Apple seem to be charging that. Right now, Epic is paying Apple nothing. Epic itself charges third parties. This battle won't be won or lost on a TRO, and Apple has a reputation of going the distance so it's not surprising they acted the way they did here, but like I said, they overreached.

Source

So  in regards to the TRO the judge is inclined to side with Apple on Fortnite, but with Epic on the Unreal Engine. I would like to point out that Apple could still have the option of deciding they no longer want to deal with Epic and give them a 30 day notice as per their agreement.

Edit #1

Here are a few more snippets.

Edit #2

Here is Order on Motion for TRO, denied on Fortnite, granted on Unreal Engine.

Last edited by Rhonin the wizard - on 25 August 2020

LurkerJ on 25 August 2020

Perfectly reasonable ruling. Epic will have to comply and update their game to be back into the Play store and the App store, which obviously they will.

Any long-term plans Sweeny had at bedtime are now be put to rest. His long-term plans, of course, would've involved taking Nintendo & Sony to court because he doesn't want to pay them 30% and they desperately want their store to be on more platforms.



kirby007 on 25 August 2020
RolStoppable said:
padib said:

Apple is monopolistic, of that there is no doubt.

The problem is that this case gives Apple more ground to behave how it already does.

Apple is no saint, but Epic is handing them legitimacy on a silver platter. No one company should have so much control over the usage of software over such a large portion of the population, and be allowed to enforce such strict rules that gauge money out of those forced to use their platform, and forces competition out of the race.

There's an issue with Apple, the government is already on the case of all big IT companies (there was a hearing at the beginning of the month). This case with Epic is just making things worse for consumers, because in the end it just means we pay more and more goes into Apple's pockets and, over the long run, we have less options due to less competition.

Apple is not monopolistic. Neither the iPhone nor iOS hold a level of marketshare where monopolistic practices could be applied, because companies and consumers alike can choose between plenty of alternatives in the smart device market. Remember, Apple did not raise royalty fees and what they charge isn't above the industry standard.

Epic's argument that Apple should not get to decide who can use their own product and in which way makes as much sense as the demand that any creator of an IP should not have the right to monetize their own creation. For example, the Final Fantasy IP should not be Square-Enix's alone; everyone who wants to profit off of Final Fantasy should be allowed to make their own video games or merchandise without having to pay S-E anything, because it would be monopolistic if only S-E can rule over the Final Fantasy IP which they themselves have created.

jezus rol if i even saw a shit analogy from you its gotta be this one, compareable with the example that was used that MS could charge for every steam sale made on windows

EDIT: whose posting on your account



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

Around the Network
kirby007 on 25 August 2020
RolStoppable said:
kirby007 said:

jezus rol if i even saw a shit analogy from you its gotta be this one, compareable with the example that was used that MS could charge for every steam sale made on windows

Microsoft doesn't make PCs, so your example isn't the same thing.

so every manufacturing brand should get 30% on any sale made on their PC?



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

kirby007 on 25 August 2020
Ka-pi96 said:
padib said:

The way it works is by marketshare. Suppose a company has 100% marketshare and they dictate all the rules, then people would have no choice but to bend to those rules. That's what a monopoly is. So your government would actually have a leg to stand on depending on Apple's marketshare of smart OSs in the United Kingdom.

Not really. My point was that the government has an enforced monopoly on 100% of the TV market and makes everybody give them money from it. So if they were to criticise Apple in any way, regardless of their marketshare, then they'd be massive hypocrites. Plus I'm sure Apple's marketshare would be quite a bit less than 100%.

Fact is that on the iOS environment the apple app store is the only option (thus a 100% marketshare on iOS) for 1. downloads and 2. payments in apps ( unless the app opens safari for you and refers you towards a website for iDeal or whatever payment system )



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

kirby007 on 25 August 2020
RolStoppable said:
kirby007 said:

so every manufacturing brand should get 30% on any sale made on their PC?

30% on any game sale if they make both the hardware and the software (read: the OS).

i fail to see how that stands vs only having developed the OS, aside from the idea that we are comfortable ( used ) with.
its time for change



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

LurkerJ on 25 August 2020

Is Nintendo monopolistic for charging developers 30% over eShop sales? eShop is the only option on the Switch after, worse, unlike iOS, the Switch remains unchallenged by an Android-like competitor in the handheld-gaming space (and crushing competitors in the console space but that's irrelevant for the sake of this topic now )



LurkerJ on 25 August 2020
padib said:
LurkerJ said:

Is Nintendo monopolistic for charging developers 30% over eShop sales? eShop is the only option on the Switch after, worse, unlike iOS, the Switch remains unchallenged by an Android-like competitor in the handheld-gaming space (and crushing competitors in the console space but that's irrelevant for the sake of this topic now )

Nintendo's overall marketshare for games is too small relatively speaking. Also, iOS is a multi-function OS, so it encompasses everything from Productivity apps to leasure software.

In other words, you're drawing lines where it's convenient for you to draw them?

If anything, the fact that iOS allows you to do a lot more than just gaming and without charging the consumers or the developers most of the time, makes iOS a lot friendlier environment to developers than eShop.

  • Apps that are free to you aren’t charged by Apple.
  • Apps that earn revenue exclusively through advertising — like free games & Youtube — aren’t charged by Apple.
  • App business transactions where users sign up or purchase digital goods outside the app aren’t charged by Apple (including Spotify).
  • Apps that sell physical goods — including ride-hailing and food delivery services, to name a few — aren’t charged by Apple
  • 84 percent of the apps in the App Store pay nothing to Apple when you download or use the app

And again, this laser-focus criticism of Apple when they only have less than 25% market share globally makes no sense whatsoever.

To clarify, I don't believe the Switch is a monopoly for creating the sole exciting handheld environment that devs profit from, because that environment wouldn't have existed without their product in the first place.