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

IFireflyl said:
I don't believe that is correct, but feel free to show me where it said that.
Click to expand...

The ruling is essentially protecting Apple's right to charge a license fee, for a company to have customers use a paid product on the Apple device. (or unpaid really, Apple could charge a fee to free to play apps if they really wanted to)

That includes the software itself, or a single skin sold elsewhere. If that content "runs" on the Apple device, Apple can collect a license fee for it.

The judge remarked it is difficult or impossible to enforce, but the point was made to show how licensing laws work. Apple 100% has the right; while the judge find their 30% cut rather arbitrary and hard to justify, they also have the right to charge what they want to.
 
Swoopsail said:
I wonder when the courts last supported anti-competition rulings in favor of small middle-class wage businesses.... if we even have those anymore 😑
Click to expand...
A small business doesn't have to worry about anti-competitive practices... they don't have the power to do the kinds of things that are illegal.. only market leaders really have that kind of power.

If you have 1% of a market, you aren't going to be able to force companies or clients to do things that are unfair. That's why it's not illegal to have a large portion of a market, it's illegal to use that market position in certain ways.
 
IntentionalPun said:
It's not easily enforceable.

Sony does it but they have a limited set of 3rd parties doing cross-buy; likely asks them for financial disclosures.

But just the threat of it might stop companies from even trying to do any outside payment processing.
Click to expand...

ethomaz said:
Same way Sony can get money from Epic if the PS Store revenue is lower than what they expect from the playing userbase.

Or they can ask fee to allow purchases outside the iOS works on iOS.

There are several ways… Judge left it open to Apple and developer find the best way for both.
Click to expand...

Then I guess 100% of everyone that pay on netflix.com could be extorted of 30% by apple, because "you never know" if they one day want to login on the netflix-app on an apple product.
 
Mithos said:
Then I guess 100% of everyone that pay on netflix.com could be extorted of 30% by apple, because "you never know" if they one day want to login on the netflix-app on an apple product.
Click to expand...
It's the companies that get charged a license fee, not the customer.

But yes, the judge essentially ruled they have a right to collect license fees.

They aren't going to do that though.. the point by the judge was to remark how far their rights actually extend in this case.... they won't do that because Netflix would probably actually pull their app before ever giving up a cut of all of the customers who used iOS.

I'm pretty sure Apple already knew it would be their right to collect those fees even. Same way Sony knew it was their right to collect fees from Epic for cross buy. Now how much you want to piss off your business partners is the next question.
 
Last edited:
MrFunSocks said:
Apple couldn't care less, it's barely affecting them. They're the smallest user base for fortnight and the smallest in terms of revenue for it. They're one of the richest companies in the world. Saying they're losing money over this is like saying a billionaire is losing money over dropping their change and some of it rolling in the drain. It's a drop in the vast, vast ocean.

The funny thing is that the ruling actually helps Apple because it specifically said that Apple can charge a commission on purchases made outside of the Apple ecosystem, whereas before they didn't.
Click to expand...

IntentionalPun said:
The ruling is essentially protecting Apple's right to charge a license fee, for a company to have customers use a paid product on the Apple device. (or unpaid really, Apple could charge a fee to free to play apps if they really wanted to)

That includes the software itself, or a single skin sold elsewhere. If that content "runs" on the Apple device, Apple can collect a license fee for it.

The judge remarked it is difficult or impossible to enforce, but the point was made to show how licensing laws work. Apple 100% has the right; while the judge find their 30% cut rather arbitrary and hard to justify, they also have the right to charge what they want to.
Click to expand...

Yep, I found it in the court documents.


Page 150:
First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple's intellectual property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission.617

Indeed, while the Court finds no basis for the specific rate chosen by Apple (i.e., the 30% rate) based on the record, the Court still concludes that Apple is entitled to some compensation for use of its intellectual property. As established in the prior sections, see supra Facts §§ II.C., V.A.2.b., V.B.2.c., Apple is entitled to license its intellectual property for a fee, and to further guard against the uncompensated use of its intellectual property. The requirement of usage of IAP accomplishes this goal in the easiest and most direct manner, whereas Epic Games' only proposed alternative would severely undermine it. Indeed, to the extent Epic Games suggests that Apple receive nothing from in-app purchases made on its platform,618 such a remedy is inconsistent with prevailing intellectual property law.
Click to expand...

Followed by this:

Page 168:
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.
Click to expand...

So basically the court said that moving away from IAP would still mean Apple would be able to collect commission (although it would be more difficult), and then they told Apple they had to allow developers to include external links and alternate payment methods in addition to IAP.

Alright, I misunderstood it. Thanks for setting me straight guys. :)
 
IFireflyl said:
Yep, I found it in the court documents.


Page 150:


Followed by this:
Click to expand...

Yup... and what I'm pretty sure Epic is doing in this email, is claiming that the ruling's "plain language" actually allows alternative IAP. It's what Imran Khan from Polygon kept babbling about, that "directing customers to other purchasing mechanisms" could somehow include... shopping carts inside the app.. lol

What the ruling really means is "link users to the web".. which it should have been clear on, but if you read the entire ruling.. there's no room to actually believe Apple has to allow anything but simple links to web sites.

Hell they can probably even be really restrictive; claim the links can't have prices, claim the links can't link directly to shopping carts, etc.
 
Mithos said:
Then I guess 100% of everyone that pay on netflix.com could be extorted of 30% by apple, because "you never know" if they one day want to login on the netflix-app on an apple product.
Click to expand...
That is not related with consumers.

The commission is between Apple and developer… consumer will pay the same no matter there is a fee or not.
 
Last edited:
IntentionalPun said:
Hell they can probably even be really restrictive; claim the links can't have prices, claim the links can't link directly to shopping carts, etc.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the ruling doesn't specifically give directions on how the "directions" have to be implemented. It's possible they could adjust their current rules to say the apps can link to an external webpage containing the purchasable items, and that's that.

On the flipside, the ruling seems to say that Apple "is not allowed to prohibit", not "has to allow". It's a different framing of the matter. The latter would mean that Apple has to provide for such means in their rules, even if it comes with restrictions; the former would mean that they have to allow whatever the devs come up with, so long as it falls within the stated limits (i.e. a button or link in the app going to external payment processing, not the whole system embedded into the app).
 
Sean Mirrsen said:
In the flipside, the ruling seems to say that Apple "is not allowed to prohibit", not "has to allow". It's a different framing of the matter. The latter would mean that Apple has to provide for such means in their rules, even if it comes with restrictions; the former would mean that they have to allow whatever the devs come up with, so long as it falls within the stated limits (i.e. a button or link in the app going to external payment processing, not the whole system embedded into the app).
Click to expand...

Hmm.. I have read it a bunch of times and don't really agree. They can't stop developers from doing what is laid out in the ruling, but to say you can't mention price isn't a prohibition on not being able to link to alternative payment methods. It's a limitiation/restriction.

I think we'll see though; Apple may try to be really restrictive and may get sent to court over it. I believe the injunction was immediate, and I don't think any apps have changed anything yet?
 
IntentionalPun said:
Hmm.. I have read it a bunch of times and don't really agree. They can't stop developers from doing what is laid out in the ruling, but to say you can't mention price isn't a prohibition on not being able to link to alternative payment methods. It's a limitiation/restriction.

I think we'll see though; Apple may try to be really restrictive and may get sent to court over it. I believe the injunction was immediate, and I don't think any apps have changed anything yet?
Click to expand...
I believe it was 90 days to Apple allow link/text to external stores… that means around December.
 
Last edited:
What this confirms beyond doubt, is that Epic is run by a bad humanbeing who can't act honest even for one second.

Look, you burned bridges with a buisness partner and they don't want anything more to do with you; just accept that and move on. It is the consequences of the choices you made, don't pretend to act like you deserve to still work with them afterwords.
 
ManaByte said:
Yea but all Apple cares about is their 30% cut on the App Store and when it comes to games they'd rather push people to pay $5 a month to Apple Arcade that's actually worse than EGS.

Did you know there's a new Castlevania game out? It's exclusive to Apple Arcade and not on consoles because Apple money-hatted Konami.

Click to expand...


Come on Konami. Where's the PS5/Switch versions.
 
Physiognomonics said:
Exactly this. Apple are using Epic lawsuit to show the others they'll protect their walled garden whatever the cost. Sweeny was really naive thinking he could win this and he should have predicted this.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Tim Sweeney and his team full of high priced lawyers thought through one or two contingencies before pursuing this.

Such a strange reaction here that I don't understand.
 
I'm an iPhone user, but that being said...

Two fuckhead companies bruising each other in the ring.

This is a win / win...for us spectators :)
 
Men_in_Boxes said:
I'm sure Tim Sweeney and his team full of high priced lawyers thought through one or two contingencies before pursuing this.

Such a strange reaction here that I don't understand.
Click to expand...
The high priced lawyers that acted like amateurs to the point to even Judge get angry to them lol

They create a case where their any evidence for anything they claimed lol
 
Last edited:
Tim Sweeney can run back to Tencent for another round of cash infusions I guess.

China's plan to destabilize American technology companies by using their own court system against them now lies in ruins.

Before the next China-backed stooge tries to go after Apple on their home turf, they should maybe read a tiny bit of Apple's company history first. Steve Jobs was notorious for holding grudges, something which permeated the company's culture to such an extent that even a decade after he died you do not want to fuck with Apple. Because Apple never forgets and never forgives. Epic actually thinking they can just waltz back onto the App Store after this lawsuit is hilarious, imagine being this completely ignorant about your opponent.
 
Last edited:
IntentionalPun said:
A small business doesn't have to worry about anti-competitive practices... they don't have the power to do the kinds of things that are illegal.. only market leaders really have that kind of power.
Click to expand...
Cant Speak Nathan Fillion GIF
 
ReBurn said:
Fourtnight from Epac Games coming to Apple devices soon.
Click to expand...
You joke, but I wonder if they did license the game to another publisher for exclusive IOS distribution it would be allowed. I don't think the game itself is banned, it is the publisher. If they did a deal with another reputable publisher that would vouch for them (and put their account on the line) then maybe it would pass.
 
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...

It's not just for Apple because they are suing Google also. And he just isn't going after consoles NOW. If he wins the ruling will 'change his mind'. Guaranteed.
 
Unknown Soldier said:
Tim Sweeney can run back to Tencent for another round of cash infusions I guess.

China's plan to destabilize American technology companies by using their own court system against them now lies in ruins.

Before the next China-backed stooge tries to go after Apple on their home turf, they should maybe read a tiny bit of Apple's company history first. Steve Jobs was notorious for holding grudges, something which permeated the company's culture to such an extent that even a decade after he died you do not want to fuck with Apple. Because Apple never forgets and never forgives. Epic actually thinking they can just waltz back onto the App Store after this lawsuit is hilarious, imagine being this completely ignorant about your opponent.
Click to expand...
Oh, if Steve Jobs were still here, especially with the resources of modern Apple, he'd set out to destroy Unreal Engine and Epic like he did Flash. And if he could kill Flash, he could kill Unreal Engine.

He'd probably do things like ban Unreal Engine from Apple's ecosystem entirely (which, given its size, would force developers onto Unity and other engines) and have a team at Apple create a gaming engine to undersell Unreal Engine and disrupt it. He'd even allow iGameDev to run on Android too.
 
Swoopsail said:
I wonder when the courts last supported anti-competition rulings in favor of small middle-class wage businesses.... if we even have those anymore 😑
Click to expand...

Epic broke the terms of the contract they agreed to initially.

Now there are consequences for that.

I know it's difficult for some people to understand that when you agree to a contract you're expected to follow those terms...
 
Last edited:
They deleted the game from my purchase history. And when I got the iPhone 13 Pro. I got " this game isnt on the play store. Has to be deleted. " message. I never really played the game. BUT STILL.
 
DeltaPolarBear said:
What this confirms beyond doubt, is that Epic is run by a bad humanbeing who can't act honest even for one second.

Look, you burned bridges with a buisness partner and they don't want anything more to do with you; just accept that and move on. It is the consequences of the choices you made, don't pretend to act like you deserve to still work with them afterwords.
Click to expand...

Quoted for relevance.

Everything Epic is going through right now is Epic's own doing.

They agreed to follow the terms of a contract that allowed Epic to design and sell Fortnite on Apple's platform then proceeded to break the terms of the contract.

No one should feel sorry for a greedy Epic. Epic was trying to screw the partner that gave them the tools and a platform that allowed them to make millions of dollars.
 
ArtHands said:
Tim trying to make his way back into the Apple ecosystem

b21.png
Click to expand...

This is trough Apple's own web browser, meaning they won't earn a single dollar from Nvidia or Epic. If Apple allowed cloud service apps trough their store, they would at least get 30% of the subscription fee.
 
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
857
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
103
saintjules replied
Top Bottom