[HN Gopher] Fortnite will be blacklisted by Apple until all appe...
___________________________________________________________________
Fortnite will be blacklisted by Apple until all appeals exhausted
Author : sornars
Score : 121 points
Date : 2021-09-22 16:27 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| morsch wrote:
| Has the unavailability of the game on iOS sold a meaningful
| number of Android devices?
| mcphage wrote:
| Probably not--Epic stated in the court hearing that mobile was
| a small percentage of their sales; most of their business was
| on consoles.
| bnt wrote:
| Rich guy complaining about another Rich guy. I don't care. If
| this was a small app developer complaining, I would care. The
| more little devs complain, the more can come together and sue the
| crap out of Apple. 1 big Co suing another big Co = nobody cares.
| Tim isn't helping the small developers, he just wants to make
| more money for himself. Small devs will still get screwed.
| cnst wrote:
| Did you not bother to look at the facts of the case?
|
| I don't play games on iOS, I don't even develop on iOS, either.
|
| I do use both iOS and Android as a consumer, and I'm totally
| team Tim Sweeney on this one, even though I also own AAPL -- my
| freedoms as a consumer are more important to me than whoever is
| bankrolling this case and what their reasons may be. Besides,
| their reasons aren't that bad, either, and closely align with
| mine -- more choice for the consumer.
| simion314 wrote:
| Because of Epic now iOS users have more payment options
| (including the Platinum Apple with included Apple tax and
| protections), more options are good (except if you suffer of a
| brain illness that makes you unable to chose and have to always
| use a coin)
| aeyes wrote:
| No they don't, the only difference is that developers can now
| tell their users that they can pay on a different website.
|
| The Netflix app never had an Apple payment method. The first
| screen is the login screen with no way to sign up at all and
| no explanation how or where to do it.
| dwaite wrote:
| Netflix for several years allowed you to sign up on the
| front page of the App, giving apple a percentage of
| subscription revenue.
| simion314 wrote:
| So now you might get a link to Netflix website and some
| text, as a user lost nothing.
| api wrote:
| Yeah honestly neither of these two have our best interests in
| mind. Apple wants to keep their walled garden walled, and these
| game companies want to make it easier to exploit quasi-gambling
| "loot box" and similar revenue centers without paying Apple.
| There are also a lot of vendors who want to bypass Apple so
| they can bypass Apple's privacy protections.
|
| The entire mobile ecosystem is full of user-hostile business
| models and behavior.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51502592
| vernie wrote:
| Sweeney's out here fighting for the right of the little guy to
| groom young gambling addicts.
| simion314 wrote:
| Timmy from Apple could ban lootboxes if he cares, instead he
| is taxing them and makes ton of cache(it was revealed that
| Apple makes a lot more money from games then from apps)
| tapoxi wrote:
| Fortnite doesn't have lootboxes.
| ziml77 wrote:
| I had to look it up myself because I didn't believe you,
| but it really does appear to be the case that Fortnite
| doesn't have random loot boxes and they removed them from
| Rocket League after purchasing that game.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| A lawsuit helped them get there, but sweeney's gone on
| the record to state that random lootboxes should not be a
| thing. So... net good?
| lwansbrough wrote:
| What an incredibly lazy argument. Sweeney is a developer
| through and through, not some soulless suit like Cook.
| Relatively speaking, Epic Games is a "small app developer".
| You're talking about a billion dollar company with a single
| game they want to sell vs. a trillion dollar company that owns
| the entire ecosystem.
| literallyaduck wrote:
| Epic, Steam, and Framework should team up to build a user centric
| phone which runs Arch not Android and runs all their games.
| Factorium wrote:
| Valve are definitely not user-centred. They are profit centred.
| Valve provide no subsidised hardware (PC gamers still need to
| supply their own), and charge indie developers 30% commissions,
| a regressive 'tax' compared to the 20% they charge AAA.
|
| Per-employee, Valve is the most profitable company in America,
| and Gabe Newell the 97th richest American. They got there with
| forced exclusives (Half Life 2 could only be activated on
| Steam) and simply being first to market. They are no longer
| even bothering to curate their storefront.
| tdeck wrote:
| This gives Apple something they can reluctantly renege on without
| compromising their revenue model. In a few months we'll see
| another flurry of stories about how Apple "caved" and let Epic
| back in to pay the 30% cut like everyone else.
| dng88 wrote:
| Being in business can apple just not do business with it as an
| ultimatum. It is not like it is a public entity that must do
| business with anyone. Wonder?
|
| Apple is not like steam charge more for lower tier developer.
| Usually differentiate pricing is a sign of monopoly. Or force
| bundle. Instead the court seemed to force price differential and
| lone developer would have to pay more (in the need to do external
| payment).
|
| Still hope sone economic monopoly argument. On top of marketing
| one.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| I think the court handed down a half-baked judgement in this
| case.
| [deleted]
| wetjen wrote:
| This is simply savvy maneuvering by apple.
|
| Frequently these cases are appealed and new terms introduced to
| the judgement. Apple doesn't want to give away any negotiating
| position until this is fully resolved.
| lwansbrough wrote:
| Savvy is one way to put it.
|
| As an app developer it simply makes me not want to work with
| Apple at all, but of course I'm forced to for some reason.
| redwall_hp wrote:
| Don't forget the long history of "Sherlocking." If you make a
| utility that enhances the experience enough, they'll simply
| imitate it and give you the middle finger.
|
| Or a $99/year fee to give away FOSS projects...
| m-p-3 wrote:
| Apple would at least get some goodwill of the FOSS
| community if they offered free publishing when an app is
| linked to an open-source code repository.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Why? I'm excited that a billon dollar company is not treated
| differently than an indie. I would have hated to negotiate
| specific terms with Apple and get a bad deal like the way it
| happens with cloud providers, for example.
|
| IMHO, if the commission of Apple or any other rule is to be
| changed, it should change for everyone(a regulation maybe?).
| I hated it when Epic simply steamrolled the external payment
| rule. I don't like others getting away with stuff simply
| because they can, I find it unfair.
|
| Apple could have let it happen, then maybe a few more giants
| like Netflix, Google and Amazon would have done and as a
| result we would end up with 2 tier business environment, like
| the way it is for most of the stuff outside of the AppStore.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| Feels like a weird cognizant dissonance to me. You should
| antagonize apple for abusing its position against all
| developers, not celebrate them for not doing it only
| against the little guy.
| mrtksn wrote:
| I don't think it's an abuse, it's simply a business.
| Apple holds the minority share of smartphones WW. It's
| perfectly possible not to do work on their platform if
| the terms are not good.
|
| I'm annoyed when they sherlock someone but not when they
| stick to the agreement they made with the developers.
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| In the vast majority of markets where having apps is
| simply secondary to the core business, it's rather
| impossible to succeed without both an android and an
| apple app.
|
| In the US its practically 50/50, and being forced to
| write off 50% of the US, who have no other way to install
| your app, is ridiculous. And a 30% cut is absolutely
| massive, for comparison, Walmarts profit margin in 2020
| was 3%.
|
| That it has been allowed to continue this long is simply
| a failure of government.
| mrtksn wrote:
| I agree that a regulation is needed for certain things.
| What I don't agree is Epic bullying it's way because that
| (assumed) they can.
|
| BTW the %30 is fine considering the service they give.
| They handle the international trade part of the business,
| which is vastly different from what Walmart does. If you
| were to sell directly to customers, you would have to
| incorporate in each and every country there is(because
| you need to pay taxes and comply to the laws where your
| clients are), which is something that Epic can do but
| small developers can't. Thanks to Apple, a kid with a
| computer can directly compete against international
| corporations. Also, Apple provides many if the technology
| that enables these apps. There's no comparison between
| what a supermarket does and Apple does.
| mdoms wrote:
| No one is forced to work with apple. I've been developing
| software for 15 years and never once touched xcode or iOS.
| Working with apple is a choice you make.
| lwansbrough wrote:
| Yes well good for you. I'm not sure what kind of software
| you're developing but it obviously isn't consumer facing
| mobile apps. So perhaps your anecdata is irrelevant in this
| case, yes?
|
| Apple is a gatekeeper that no one who is buying their
| phones cares about. People buy iPhones because their
| friends have iPhones, that's it. But Apple treats
| developing for Apple as a special privilege and locks down
| their massive ecosystem. It should be illegal at the scale
| Apple has, but it isn't.
|
| So yes, we are forced to work with Apple in order to be
| competitive in industries that Apple has no business
| controlling. You don't have that problem with whatever you
| develop because (presumably) Microsoft doesn't exploit
| Windows' market advantage in the way Apple does.
| dolni wrote:
| > Apple is a gatekeeper that no one who is buying their
| phones cares about.
|
| I don't buy Apple devices primarily due to the way they
| administrate the app store and how they treat developers.
|
| I would consider buying an iPhone otherwise.
|
| So yes, there are people who care.
| mdoms wrote:
| I write consumer facing software among many other things.
| I do not and will not write iPhone software. Apple users
| can access a (single, Apple-provided) web browser.
| MikeDelta wrote:
| If you want to sell mobile apps that you cannot run from a
| browser, then choosing not to enter Apple's ecosystem will
| keep you from a very large user base.
|
| It is a choice you make, but with significant business
| consequences.
| verytrivial wrote:
| As a _user_ I don 't buy Apple due to how it preys upon
| developers.
| jlmorton wrote:
| Is it really that savvy? The golden goose is the iPhone itself,
| and the network effects of things like iMessage that keep
| people there. Services have a high margin, and make up a
| substantial chunk of Apple's profits, but they are dependent on
| a big iOS ecosystem.
|
| Fortnite has 116 million iOS users, and a lot of them are
| pretty into the game. I don't think keeping Fortnite off iOS is
| going to have an immediate impact on people's buying decisions,
| but each time a dispute like this happens, more and more people
| are going to take notice of the fact that they can't play
| Fortnite on an iPhone, they can't buy a Kindle book on an
| iPhone, etc. I doubt any of these individually amount to a
| purchasing decision, but over time Android might be seen as
| more broadly useful.
| barelysapient wrote:
| I bet you're right--Apple would prefer to have Fortnite and
| and corresponding revenue and userbase back on their
| platform.
|
| But this case isn't over. There's almost certain to be an
| appealed. Apple wants to maximize their position in the event
| the next judgement is less favorable. And the short-term cost
| of users and revenue is worthwhile hedge against the unknown.
| josephcsible wrote:
| If a person gets convicted of a crime and sentenced to jail, they
| have to go to jail right after sentencing, even if they plan to
| appeal. Why is this situation different?
| nradov wrote:
| This is a civil case, not criminal. And even in some low level
| criminal cases, convicts are sometimes allowed a few days to
| get their affairs in order before reporting to jail or prison.
| occamrazor wrote:
| That's not always true. Sentences can be, and frequently are,
| deferred while the appeal is evaluated.
| zepto wrote:
| Epic lost their case, but is trying to continue the fight by
| appealing.
|
| Apple has no reason to do them any favors.
| conk wrote:
| The court ruling didn't require apple to reinstate epic's
| developer account. Apple can still, at their discretion, decide
| who can and can't develop apps for iOS and Mac app stores.
| josephcsible wrote:
| In that case, why didn't they just say Epic is banned
| forever? What do appeals have to do with it?
| zepto wrote:
| The appeal might force Apple to reinstate Epic.
| conk wrote:
| I believe most companies would refrain from engaging in new
| business with a customer who has pending litigation against
| them. Apple may not want to ban them and is just waiting
| until the appeal process has settled before reengaging with
| Epic under whatever terms are ultimately agreed upon
| between both parties and the courts.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _why didn 't they just say Epic is banned forever?_
|
| Why would Apple ban a potent revenue source?
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| I think they don't want to ban Epic forever over this kind
| of spat because it sets a bad precedent and could turn
| other developers away from them.
|
| Additionally I don't think it helps their public image and
| hurts the case they are making where they don't need
| regulation because they have fair rules (smacking someone
| out of the app store forever because they file a lawsuit
| wouldn't pass the smell test)
| emsy wrote:
| No Apple is definitely not abusing their market position by
| controlling (and taxing) the access to millions of customers.
| OldHand2018 wrote:
| That's exactly what the judge said.
| twobitshifter wrote:
| It appears Epic asked to be back to get Fortnite on the Mac App
| Store but wasn't going to release an iOS version of Fortnite. The
| Mac App Store has different terms but uses the same developer
| account. I think epic may just be trying to prove a point with
| this action and didn't expect to be reinstated.
| dwaite wrote:
| Epic's email to Apple also indicated they would not remove the
| code supporting in-app purchasing, but rather disable it
| server-side so that it remains hidden.
| hermitdev wrote:
| I don't think you read the same email I did. He said they
| "can't", not that they "would not". His wording indicating
| that they are unable to, your wording indicating they choose
| not to.
|
| I would suspect being unable to update the iOS versions of
| Fortnite might, oddly enough, be linked to it having been
| removed from the app store and their account being banned. If
| their account were reinstated and Fortnite allowed back into
| the store, I don't know what technical hurdles would remain
| preventing them from updating it.
|
| edit: Sweeney wrote: "Though we can't update the Fortnite
| version that users still have on their iOS devices, we've
| disabled Epic payments server-side[...]". This reads to me
| that he's stating how things are _currently_. That, they don
| 't have a mechanism to update Fornite. Doesn't even read that
| they won't, if able to.
| rideontime wrote:
| So now Tim says he won't come back to iOS until they're allowed
| to link directly to the external payment option from the app. My
| understanding of the court order was that Apple only had to allow
| apps to tell users that external payment was an option, not that
| they had to be able to link directly to it.
| elliekelly wrote:
| Here's the exact language from the ruling:
|
| > Accordingly, a nationwide injunction shall issue enjoining
| Apple from prohibiting developers to include in their: Apps and
| their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to
| action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in
| addition to IAP.
|
| > Nor may Apple prohibit developers from: Communicating with
| customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from
| customers through account registration within the app.
|
| Full ruling [PDF]:
| https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060696/epic-v-apple...
| rideontime wrote:
| My understanding seems to have been incorrect, if the words
| "external links" are in the ruling itself I don't know how
| Apple squirms out of that one. I guess by denying their
| return to the app store on other grounds.
| jschenk wrote:
| The court basically struck down rule 3.1.1 which is exactly the
| rule that prevents such links.
| TheAdamist wrote:
| ...and if the final appeal goes against apple it will
| coincidentally be blacklisted for an entirely unrelated and new
| reason shortly thereafter.
| grishka wrote:
| Not if a court decision or a new law forces Apple to finally
| allow sideloading apps on iOS.
| ianferrel wrote:
| "Just last week, Epic agreed with Apple that we would play by the
| same rules as everyone else."
|
| This is in the linked thread.
|
| But, if the legal challenge is ongoing, then I am skeptical that
| they've really agreed to anything. Writing an email to Apple
| saying "I agree to your terms" while continuing to fight in court
| over those terms is not an agreement of anything.
| phone8675309 wrote:
| > Writing an email to Apple saying "I agree to your terms"
| while continuing to fight in court over those terms is not an
| agreement of anything.
|
| Especially since the court ruled Epic violated them once
| before.
| ziml77 wrote:
| They can agree to follow the terms while at the same time
| believing that the terms are unfair. They don't have to break
| the ToS to get the ToS changed.
| ianferrel wrote:
| They could do that, and that appears to be what they want to
| do, but I tend to agree with Apple that continuing a legal
| attempt to overturn the terms doesn't constitute "agreeing"
| to the terms. There's an old joke about diplomacy being "the
| art of saying 'nice doggie' until you can find a rock".
|
| Apple is in my opinion correct that Epic is still looking for
| that rock, and is not bound to respect what Epic says while
| it does so.
|
| >They don't have to break the ToS to get the ToS changed.
|
| Might have been a good idea for Epic to consider that prior
| to doing so.
| matt_heimer wrote:
| Anyone know where Apple stated they'd "welcome Epic's return to
| the App Store if they agree to play by the same rules as everyone
| else" as Tim states?
|
| I see where Apple said everybody should play by the same rules
| but given that Epic not only violated the policy (which has now
| been changed) but also purposely cheated on the review process it
| seems justified that they are still banned.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-22 23:03 UTC)