Fortnite to be blacklisted from Apple ecosystem until the exhaustion of all appeals, could be up to 5 years.

Wouldn't it be easier and more profitable for epic to give Apple the money so they can then come back on the platform?
 
Last edited:
Sean Mirrsen said:
Epic lost the lawsuit. Apple has only been told they can't stop developers from linking out to other payment systems, a notion that they never cared for in the first place (because in-app purchases are far more impulse buy friendly). Apple was also told they were entirely in the right for taking Fortnite off their platform, and can keep doing so. And is also entitled to their 30% cut, regardless of payment methods used. So basically Apple won on all counts they cared for.
Click to expand...

I'm not concerned with Epics fees in all this. They're the 7th largest gaming company on planet earth thanks to Fortnite. They'll be fine.

"Apple can no longer require that online purchases made in games or apps on Apple devices go through its own App Store."

That's a win, small as it may be.
 
Men_in_Boxes said:
Joking about what?

Epic won the lawsuit which results in more money going directly to developers/game publishers and keeps Apples fingers out of the pot.

Apple didn't like losing, so they're acting petty by boycotting Fortnite from their devices.

Game makers still win. Epic is our champion. Apple has been defeated. Rejoice!
Click to expand...
It is the completely opposite.

The Judge said even from external sales now Apple can ask commission if they wish.
While Epic can't added a Store in iOS plus they can only link to a external web site.
 
Men_in_Boxes said:
I'm not concerned with Epics fees in all this. They're the 7th largest gaming company on planet earth thanks to Fortnite. They'll be fine.

"Apple can no longer require that online purchases made in games or apps on Apple devices go through its own App Store."

That's a win, small as it may be.
Click to expand...
It's completely false.

The ruling protected Apple's right to be the only in app purchasing system on their device.

Stop reading Kotaku.

It's not even true about the pre-ruling state in the first place.. as you could buy Fortnite skins via Safari before, on an iPhone.. and have them show up in Fortnite, on iPhone. Apple got zero cut.

What Epic couldn't do was tell users about that, inside the app. Now they can. That's it. The judge ruled... Apple can actually collect a cut legally on the web based purchases, a HUGE BLOW to Epic's ideals lol

Which is why Sweeney has been whining about their bad loss.





 
Last edited:
Men_in_Boxes said:
I'm not concerned with Epics fees in all this. They're the 7th largest gaming company on planet earth thanks to Fortnite. They'll be fine.

"Apple can no longer require that online purchases made in games or apps on Apple devices go through its own App Store."

That's a win, small as it may be.
Click to expand...
It's only a win because it's phrased so it can read like a win. Apple is still allowed to require that its own App Store payment system is the default, most convenient system present in any given app. They're just not allowed to prevent developers from making their own, less convenient options also available. Which very few developers bother with, because - as was the impetus for this whole thing with Epic - they really don't get anywhere near the same traffic going through them, even if the less convenient option is cheaper. It's effectively a Steam win, from a paradigm point of view - convenience and service beats price and freebies.
 
Sean Mirrsen said:
Apple has only been told they can't stop developers from linking out to other payment systems, a notion that they never cared for in the first place (because in-app purchases are far more impulse buy friendly). Apple was also told they were entirely in the right for taking Fortnite off their platform, and can keep doing so. And is also entitled to their 30% cut, regardless of payment methods used. So basically Apple won on all counts they c
Click to expand...

IntentionalPun said:
It's completely false.

The ruling protected Apple's right to be the only in app purchasing system on their device.

Stop reading Kotaku.

It's not even true in the first place.. as you could buy Fortnite skins via Safari before, on an iPone.. and have them show up in Fortnite. Apple got zero cut.

What Epic couldn't do was tell users about that, inside the app. Now they can. That's it.

Which is why Sweeney has been whining about their bad loss.





Click to expand...


Redirect Notice

www.google.com

David beat Goliath and the Goliath stans are pissed.
 
Last edited:
ethomaz said:
It is laughable that Tim thought they could back Fortnite to App Store like nothing happened lol
Click to expand...

I don't love Apple; but Tim is such a blowhard.

That's him just 2 weeks ago saying they wouldn't bring Fortnite back until Apple lets them use alternative in-app payments... which.. they haven't, because Epic lost their case.. now he is wanting back on the app store while still trying to appeal the ruling?

Apple's game here is to get Epic to drop their appeals.
 
ethomaz said:
It is laughable that Tim thought they could back Fortnite to App Store when they wished like nothing happened lol
Now he is crying he can't back :D :D :D
Click to expand...

woody-harrelson-wipe.gif
 
People rooting for one or the other are hilarious, like any of these companies give a shit.

In the end we got the possible outcome:

They both LOST.
 
Men_in_Boxes said:

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

David beat Goliath and the Goliath stans are pissed.
Click to expand...
So much bullshit.

The actual results:

+ Apple can block others iOS Stores (so App Store is the only one you can have on iOS).
+ Apple can't block to developers to put a link in the app to a web store page (something that is already in curse on iOS before this lawsuit)
+ Apple can ask a commission if they wish in sales done via the link that lead to web store.
+ Epic need to play the 30% cut to all transactions plus some more money.

What Epic won?
Epic can now add a link to a web store (something that was already planned for a future update in iOS)

What Apple won?
They can be the only Store on iOS.
They can ask a cut from sales made in the web store link.
The 30% cut from all transactions during the lawsuit.
Some more money related to the processual costs.

I mean Epic was really fucked by the Judge.
 
This is the definition of getting schooled. Imagine completely trashing a company's name with WW2-esque propaganda and then expecting to enjoy a healthy relationship with said company. Wankers.
 
I wonder if this will have a tangible difference in iPhone 13 vs Samsung Galxyx0129031295106598 sales this fall, or skew iOS/Android marketshare in NA, because forkknife.
 
Panajev2001a said:
Apple is going to keep this up until they get regulators to destroy digital ecosystems… dragging everyone along them like a bully.
Click to expand...

They should be smashed. Period.

Its unconscionable that they sell a general purpose device and then lock it down such that they are the only ones who can commercialize it. I mean, imagine if they had the sort of desktop marketshare that MS do and they took the same tack?

They sell smartphones and tablets at high levels of profit. There is no subsidization, no razors/razorblades model, its purely about their desire for absolute control. But then what do you expect from a company that denies access to something as simple and ubiquitous as a usb port!
 
Guilty_AI said:
if anything it just got stronger
Click to expand...

Nope. Apple liked life before this lawsuit more. This is a big win for people who support game developers. And a big loss for Apple stans.



The Epic Games hate boner is messing with your heads people. Think of the Seinfeld episode.
 
Last edited:
Clear said:
They should be smashed. Period.

Its unconscionable that they sell a general purpose device and then lock it down such that they are the only ones who can commercialize it. I mean, imagine if they had the sort of desktop marketshare that MS do and they took the same tack?

They sell smartphones and tablets at high levels of profit. There is no subsidization, no razors/razorblades model, its purely about their desire for absolute control. But then what do you expect from a company that denies access to something as simple and ubiquitous as a usb port!
Click to expand...
Okay, let's say they go for a compromise.
You buy the iPhone, and you can do whatever you want with it. Install anything, modify anything, etc. Apple can't stop you. Flipside? Apple cuts you off from all their services because you clearly don't want to play by their rules.

How far will you get with an iPhone with no updates, no Apple services, no warranty repairs or official parts (because they don't make parts), etc? You can buy the physical product Apple created, and you can own it, but you can't force Apple to provide their services to you since you won't abide by their terms of service.

How far will you get, actually treating an iPhone like a run-of-the-mill "general purpose" device, that isn't connected to a massive integrated service platform?
 
Last edited:
Men_in_Boxes said:
Nope. Apple liked life before this lawsuit more. This is a big win for people who support game developers. And a big loss for Apple stans.



The Epic Games hate boner is messing with your heads people. Think of the Seinfeld episode.
Click to expand...

Man read first the lawsuit results.

Epic can now add a link to external web store.
Apple can now ask a cut from sales from that link with external web store.

The opposite of what Jason said... devs now doesn't have any support to use external web store like Apple wanted.
Of course Apple may never ask anything from external web stores sales (after all they never bothered with that) but the Judge opened the door for Apple do if they want.

Dev "I don't want to have sales on App Store anymore and just put all my sales in a external web store"
Apple "Sure, you can but we will take a small tax for that"
Dev "But that will be the same for me?"
Apple "So you can stay on App Store and pay the tax and not bother with sales part... after all you are paying the tax in any case"
 
Last edited:
"Passing on those savings to consumers" -Sorry guys, I have to charge you $20 for a dance animation one of our artists rotoscoped from someone's viral tiktok feed because Apple wants a cut. I'd totally give it to you for $5 or less otherwise. Epic and Sweeny can get fucked.
 
Last edited:
Sean Mirrsen said:
Okay, let's say they go for a compromise.
You buy the iPhone, and you can do whatever you want with it. Install anything, modify anything, etc. Apple can't stop you. Flipside? Apple cuts you off from all their services because you clearly don't want to play by their rules.

How far will you get with an iPhone with no updates, no Apple services, no warranty repairs or official parts (because they don't make parts), etc? You can buy the physical product Apple created, and you can own it, but you can't force Apple to provide their services to you since you won't abide by their terms of service.

How far will you get, actually treating an iPhone like a run-of-the-mill "general purpose" device, that isn't connected to a massive integrated service platform?
Click to expand...

How do Microsoft manage, how do Google? Its not like they are hurting for money providing free support for users of their devices and operating systems!

Its sheer greed. Allowing other storefronts does not render theirs obsolete, and there's nothing stopping them from promoting its use by making it the exclusive portal for whatever they want. You know, like Epic do with their storefront!

See the difference is in the scenario I described above, they would actually need to compete with the wider industry. But of course, they don't want that, because holding a monopoly is way more valuable than having to compete in the open, where those pesky market forces may eat into their margins.
 
rofif said:
sure. I really don't see why Apple could not have their own rules on their own store. It's a private company.
Same as epic has on their store.

All in all - it will be a bigger loss for apple since iphone must have been a hugely popular device for fortnite
Click to expand...
its a bigger loss for Epic. 7% when you make $2 billion a year is a lot. $140 million in lost revenue over petty squabbles.
 
IntentionalPun said:
It's completely false.

The ruling protected Apple's right to be the only in app purchasing system on their device.

Stop reading Kotaku.

It's not even true about the pre-ruling state in the first place.. as you could buy Fortnite skins via Safari before, on an iPhone.. and have them show up in Fortnite, on iPhone. Apple got zero cut.

What Epic couldn't do was tell users about that, inside the app. Now they can. That's it. The judge ruled... Apple can actually collect a cut legally on the web based purchases, a HUGE BLOW to Epic's ideals lol

Which is why Sweeney has been whining about their bad loss.





Click to expand...

This fucking guy. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 
Men_in_Boxes said:
False.

Epic won the lawsuit.

Apple now acting petty because Robin Hood exposed them.
Click to expand...

smbu2000 said:
Epic has to pay Apple for the money they collected when they bypassed Apple's IAP before Fortnite was removed from the store. They still had to give Apple their 30% commission from the revenue that they made during that time as they were under contract.
Click to expand...
I see.

But... Is the conclusion that devs can bypass the apple store and get 100 percent commission for them selves?

Would sucks for Microsoft and Sony if they get the same law suit.
 
Clear said:
How do Microsoft manage, how do Google? Its not like they are hurting for money providing free support for users of their devices and operating systems!

Its sheer greed. Allowing other storefronts does not render theirs obsolete, and there's nothing stopping them from promoting its use by making it the exclusive portal for whatever they want. You know, like Epic do with their storefront!

See the difference is in the scenario I described above, they would actually need to compete with the wider industry. But of course, they don't want that, because holding a monopoly is way more valuable than having to compete in the open, where those pesky market forces may eat into their margins.
Click to expand...

Everything these companies do is for greed.. to create a product they think will be the most profitable. Android is more open because Google is first and foremost an advertising company.

The entire "well they could afford to do it" thing is just not how any publicly traded company works. Apple would do that if they think it would grow their business; same reason Google makes their OS more open.

From a legal standpoint it's about what companies should/shouldn't be able to do. They are all greedy.. and if their action appears to be not greedy.. it's because they think being "open" will make them more money.. thus.. again.. greedy lol
 
Clear said:
How do Microsoft manage, how do Google? Its not like they are hurting for money providing free support for users of their devices and operating systems!

Its sheer greed. Allowing other storefronts does not render theirs obsolete, and there's nothing stopping them from promoting its use by making it the exclusive portal for whatever they want. You know, like Epic do with their storefront!

See the difference is in the scenario I described above, they would actually need to compete with the wider industry. But of course, they don't want that, because holding a monopoly is way more valuable than having to compete in the open, where those pesky market forces may eat into their margins.
Click to expand...
My question isn't how they will manage. How will you? The scenario I described, it's not hypothetical. Apple physically can't stop you from altering your device. They just aren't required to facilitate you doing so. Imagine that you have a blank iPhone. No OS, no nothing. Where and how are you going to get things for it? Who will write the custom new OS and apps, who will make the new ecosystem outside of the protected Apple one that makes the Apple devices so desired?
 
The_Mike said:
I see.

But... Is the conclusion that devs can bypass the apple store and get 100 percent commission for them selves?

Would sucks for Microsoft and Sony if they get the same law suit.
Click to expand...

They already could bypass the Apple In App Payment system and keep 100% cut.

Epic was selling Fortnite Bucks / Skins on their web site, and you could play with those or spend the e-bucks on iOS and Apple didn't get a cut.

You could not tell users about that from within the iOS version of the game, or the description in the iOS App Store. Now Apple has to let you do that, and let you provide a link to go buy elsewhere.

It's certainly a loss for Apple; they never wanted to allow this.. and fought lawsuits in other countries specifically about this issue.. but they lost those lawsuits in those other countries already.. and the writing was on the wall well before the Epic case that this would be something they'd have to change.

So Epic "won" a change that was already coming.
 
The_Mike said:
I see.

But... Is the conclusion that devs can bypass the apple store and get 100 percent commission for them selves?

Would sucks for Microsoft and Sony if they get the same law suit.
Click to expand...
Actually the lawsuit allowed Apple to ask commission even if the dev by pass the App Store.

So no matter where now Apple can ask a cut when before they could only ask on App Store.

The other part is that devs can now put a link with text on the App to direct to a external web store… that is a change already in progress for iOS (planned to early 2022)… it is something others lawsuits already made Apple change so you could not even put that in Epic bill.

Apple left this lawsuit with more power to get cut from 3rd party sales than before… in that point Epic lawsuit was bad for developers.
 
Last edited:
Men_in_Boxes said:
I'm not concerned with Epics fees in all this. They're the 7th largest gaming company on planet earth thanks to Fortnite. They'll be fine.

"Apple can no longer require that online purchases made in games or apps on Apple devices go through its own App Store."

That's a win, small as it may be.
Click to expand...
Not if they still get 30% from each purchase.
 
djkimothy said:
Tim Sweeney specifically said he would not pursue legal challenges to consoles or other platforms because they're "different.". This was his statement. So no. This is just specific for Apple. It's explained at 40:58 of video below.

Click to expand...

He may have said that but I don't see how all 3 consoles stores are different than Apple store. Maybe the judges don't either.
 
Here's the thing; any cross-platform dev who has an iOS/Android game or one that also plays w/ console (like how Fortnite is cross platform across EVERYTHING) could always have had their own store on their own website where they keep 100% of the cut.

The e-cash, skins, whatever they sold could then appear in the iOS version, without Apple getting a cut.. or the Android one, without Google getting a cut.. or the Xbox One without MS getting a cut..

Or the Playstation one.. well... without Sony getting a cut, as long as they have a contract in place w/ Sony where Sony gets some of the money in some scenarios lol

What you couldn't do on iOS (or on Playstation, or Xbox, but you could on Android) was tell people about this web site from within your game.

Thing is.. most games don't have such a web site.. hell.. I can't think of anyone but Epic doing this. Why? I dunno.. probably because most gamers would just pay for stuff on the device they are on anyways. So running a web store for that migth be a bigger expense than they want to deal with.

Reality is the rule was MOSTLY for reader apps on iOS, Apple wants those apps to have their digital stores built into the app itself, so that Apple gets a 30% cut. They want subscription based apps to sell subscriptions via iOS so they also get a 30% cut. So to play hardball they included that rule that "Well if you don't do that, then you can't even tell users of these apps that they can buy movies/songs/whatever on the web, to use the content in the app, and you certainly can't link them to it from the app."

All evidence points to that ruling barely even effecting games.. because... most games do not have alternative web based stores, and probably won't bother to create them lol
 
Physiognomonics said:
He may have said that but I don't see how all 3 consoles stores are different than Apple store. Maybe the judges don't either.
Click to expand...
The main argument is that they aren't "general purpose" so somehow they don't count.

Which I find rather silly... particularly as those devices have added features over the years outside of gaming.

And.. the only reason they aren't general purpose... is the manufacturers won't let you install all kinds of software, that surely would run just fine on the machines themselves lol.. so the argument is basically "well their rules are far MORE restrictive than Apple's, so therefore they are exempt."
 
K' Dash said:
People rooting for one or the other are hilarious, like any of these companies give a shit.

In the end we got the possible outcome:

They both LOST.
Click to expand...
Nah bruv
Epic fucked apple out of WAAAAY more cash in the long run then they can ever lose with not having forknight on the appstore.
Apple being forced to let devs accept payment outside of apple's bullshit walled garden is priceless.

outcome now

Apple : fuck you epic

Epic : Fuck you more Apple

True winner: costumers and devs
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Apple has blocked Fortnite from being released for iOS
News  2 3
142
2K
Chukhopops replied
Paul Tassi: Marathon needs to be in the top 5 NPD sales for the year, to be a 'success'
Rumor  2 3
100
2K
wipeout364 replied
[Insider Gaming] PlayStation 5 Price Hike Could be Next Due to Tariffs, Sony Warns
2
51
858
Crayon replied
Could Microsoft be the most evilest company to ever exist?
Social Drama  2 3 4 5
224
1K
AJUMP23 replied
  • Locked
Fantastic Fourskins are coming to Fortnite
3
104
saintjules replied
Top Bottom