Epic Sues Apple and Google due to Fortnite getting pulled [2020-08-13, 2021-05-03]

Discussion in 'Mobile Industry' started by eastmen, Aug 13, 2020.

  1. Ike Turner

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    2,295
    All those Apple lost/Epic won articles are literally one the most outrageous pieces fake news bollocks I've ever seen. None of those inbred twats masquerading as "journalists" actually took the time to read the full judgment (or are paid by Epic to make shit up?) it's simply amazing.

    Final Judgment: PDF

    Apple is still entitled to its commission/fee no matter what:
    [​IMG]

    Conclusion:

    [​IMG]

    Apple didn't loose a damn thing on the contrary. They even got Timmy the sociopath to cut them a $6M cheque for his failed stunt.
     
  2. pharma

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    4,545
    Likes Received:
    3,984
    The $6 million judgement was for that one instance back when Epic did violate Apple store policy, but now that policy no longer holds water.
    Now as it stands Apple can not stop developers from using their own payment systems.

    How Epic Games Made a Dent in Apple’s App Store Domination | The New Yorker
     
  3. BRiT

    BRiT (>• •)>⌐■-■ (⌐■-■)
    Moderator Legend Alpha

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    19,544
    Likes Received:
    22,532
    I think that just goes to Ike's point that no place has actually bothered to read the Final Judgment, specifically the highlighted sentence:

    "Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional."
     
  4. pharma

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    4,545
    Likes Received:
    3,984
    Agreed, but the good times are likely over for Apple since licensing fees won't amount to a 30% markup of using a developer's app.
     
  5. Malo

    Malo Yak Mechanicum
    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,550
    Likes Received:
    5,041
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    What does that mean exactly in this ruling? If an app for Netflix has a link to subscribe via their website, does that mean if the user subscribes via Netflix's website that they're still required to pay Apple the 30%? If that's the case, who is responsible for tracking the consumer's final purchase of the subscription, and that it was via the link from the iOS app?
     
  6. zed

    zed
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,797
    Likes Received:
    1,664
    Citations needed for the first point
    I'll let you have the 2nd point because perhaps you haven't seen much fake news
     
  7. wco81

    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Messages:
    6,760
    Likes Received:
    570
    Location:
    West Coast
    Well there doesn’t seem to be too much sympathy for Epic and Sweeney publicly complaining about not being reinstated to the App Store.
     
    milk likes this.
  8. idsn6

    Regular

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    505
    Likes Received:
    161
    Apple Lies About Epic Again

    I agree with this summary. Nothing requires Apple to give Epic its account back, but Apple absolutely lied when it kept claiming to the media that "agreeing to play by the rules" would get Epic reinstated.
     
    pharma likes this.
  9. Zaphod

    Zaphod Remember
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Messages:
    2,249
    Likes Received:
    143
    Meh. The wording of the Sweeny request is either stupidly petulant or a deliberate provocation. They either should have or absolutely did expect this very outcome.
     
    milk likes this.
  10. milk

    milk Like Verified
    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    3,811
    Likes Received:
    3,901
    As things should be.
     
  11. DSoup

    DSoup Series Soup
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    Messages:
    15,524
    Likes Received:
    11,609
    Location:
    London, UK
    It would be a lie if Apple refuse to allow Epic once the litigation is over. If you can avoid doing business with people you are in serious litigation with, you do. The court's verdict was that Epic had acted in a duplicitous manor, so why would Tim Apple trust Tim Epic at this time when Tim Epic immediately signalled his intention to appeal once he heard the verdict?
     
  12. idsn6

    Regular

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    505
    Likes Received:
    161
    I disagree. Activation of a developer account does not, and should not, have any relationship with the parties' legal actions against each other, per the agreement. Revoking or withholding accounts contingent upon litigation is a clear chilling effect on all developers, and on top of contradicting its own public statements is an example of Apple arbitrarily abusing its power over developers to stifle dissent and action.

    A legal appeal (including the floating of one) is not "duplicitous," that implication is societally offensive. In fact, any action on Epic's part contra the letter of the judgment would greatly threaten the success any such appeal, making Sweeney's promise to abide by the current rules all the stronger, and making Apple's rejection of said promise (after requesting it) all the more vindictive.
     
  13. DSoup

    DSoup Series Soup
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    Messages:
    15,524
    Likes Received:
    11,609
    Location:
    London, UK
    Nobody said it was. The court's view was of Epic's behaviour the last time they were allowed in the app store.

    Epic abused trust previously and they do not accept the court's view - hence the appeal. Given that, if I was Tim Apple I do not believe I would be greatly trusting in Epic's behaviour until the legal dust has settled for good.
     
  14. idsn6

    Regular

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    505
    Likes Received:
    161
    That makes no sense for the reason I stated: if Epic violated the rules after the court's decision then that would sink its own chances for an appeal, and thereby benefit Apple.

    "Playing by the rules" (as stated by Apple and accepted by Epic) is not predicated on never fighting those rules' validity, otherwise any developer who spoke up for better treatment could be summarily locked out of the platform. Apple moving its goalposts in response shows that the original stated terms for reinstatement were made in bad faith, for the benefit of PR.
     
  15. Zaphod

    Zaphod Remember
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Messages:
    2,249
    Likes Received:
    143
    If Epic had rolled over and bared its neck, I'm pretty sure Fortnite would have been back by now. Instead they made public a statement that, while on the surface benign, prodded, poked and provoked. Likely deliberately so. Almost daring Apple to tell them to fuck off. That's PR.

    It's probably a sound legal strategy for Apple to simply not deal with Epic as long as the appeals go on (unless apple Apple was completely and utterly confident in their eventual victory). They have their walled garden to protect, so any short term financial gain allowing Epic back would provide is probably some way short of worth it in the current cost/benefit scenario.

    Really no need to assign either punitive or vindictive motives to it.
     
  16. zed

    zed
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,797
    Likes Received:
    1,664
    Yes apple always puts their financial interests first and not the users of apple products (see china)

    couple of apple stories over the last week ( this sort of stuff just happens each week with apple, but apple supporters like trump supporters with trump for some reason think they can do no wrong no matter how much the facts disagree, it really is a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_distortion_field )
    https://arstechnica.com/information...researcher-frustrated-with-apples-bug-bounty/
    https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/202...s-to-require-all-mobile-devices-to-use-usb-c/

    WRT moral high ground the only big tech companies I rate worse than apple are facebook & uber & amazon. Others like Microsoft Google just seem to do better morally (of course both of those still do shitty thinks, as all big business does)
     
  17. DSoup

    DSoup Series Soup
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    Messages:
    15,524
    Likes Received:
    11,609
    Location:
    London, UK
    No it wouldn't, the appeal is entirely about revisiting the findings and merits of the original judgement. The appeal would not consider any new transgressions that Epic may engage in since that judgement. Apple would need to bring a case of their own.

    Apple's stance seems intended to deter Epic for proceeding with any further legal cases beyond the appeal and perhaps even intended to sway Epic from not proceeding with that.
     
  18. BRiT

    BRiT (>• •)>⌐■-■ (⌐■-■)
    Moderator Legend Alpha

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    19,544
    Likes Received:
    22,532
    https://www.reuters.com/legal/litig...ntitrust-orders-it-appeals-ruling-2021-10-08/

    Apple asks judge to pause Epic Games antitrust orders as it appeals ruling.

    Oct 8 (Reuters) - Apple Inc (AAPL.O) on Friday asked a U.S. federal judge to put on hold orders that could require it to change some of its App Store practices and said that it is also appealing the ruling in an antitrust case brought by "Fortnite" creator Epic Games, according to court filings.

    U.S. district Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in September largely ruled in Apple's favor after a weeks-long trial. But she did require one key concession: Apple starting Dec. 9 could no longer prohibit app developers from including buttons or links in their apps that direct users to means of paying beside Apple's in-app payment system, which charges a commission to developers.

    In her full 180-page ruling, Gonzalez Rogers expressed concern that developers were being prevented from communicating with iPhone users about alternative prices.

    Apple said in Friday's filing that complying with the order could cause it and consumers harm. It said it expects to win an appeal challenging the order and that it wants the legal process, which could last about a year, to play out first.

    ...
     
    pharma likes this.
  19. DSoup

    DSoup Series Soup
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    Messages:
    15,524
    Likes Received:
    11,609
    Location:
    London, UK
    It's a win when both billion-dollar companies feel they lost. Although not enough of a win for consumers.
     
  20. wco81

    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Messages:
    6,760
    Likes Received:
    570
    Location:
    West Coast
    DSoup likes this.
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...