Epic argues it breached contract because Apple's terms are 'unlawful'

[Squid Surprise]

Tons? Give me a more real number, or are you just going to also be disingenuous here?
And stay on the whole "sideloading" topic. That's another thing you people can't seem to do when blindly defending a trillion dollar company lol

Arguing that iOS has sideloading (as competition so we don't need to worry about the App Store or having freedom on your device) is a BS argument in the context presented above.
As I've said, it's the exception, not the rule. And no argument presented so far even comes close to making it seem honest.

It was just under 4 million a few years ago:

What percentage of iPhones have been jailbroken?

Answer (1 of 5): Let me give you a more accurate answer: 3.75 million or 0.4% of all iPhones sold worldwide. Saurik (the developer of Cydia) disclosed the amount of people who opened Cydia between the 19th of September and the 19th of December 2016. He also revealed that 22,930 devices, or only...

www.quora.com

It's now substantially higher since Chekrain and Uncover...

I'd estimate at least 10 times that now - that's a fairly decent market, isn't it?

Not to mention you can actually sideload WITHOUT jailbreaking - so the market is even larger...

Just because you aren't doing it, doesn't mean no one is!

 

[m4a4]

It was just under 4 million a few years ago:

What percentage of iPhones have been jailbroken?

Answer (1 of 5): Let me give you a more accurate answer: 3.75 million or 0.4% of all iPhones sold worldwide. Saurik (the developer of Cydia) disclosed the amount of people who opened Cydia between the 19th of September and the 19th of December 2016. He also revealed that 22,930 devices, or only...

www.quora.com

It's now substantially higher since Chekrain and Uncover...

I'd estimate at least 10 times that now - that's a fairly decent market, isn't it?

Not to mention you can actually sideload WITHOUT jailbreaking - so the market is even larger...

Just because you aren't doing it, doesn't mean no one is!

0.4% in 2017, and higher percentages earlier than that.
It's probably still <1%, <4% if you want to be optimistic. Which is not very high, and it just keeps getting more annoying to jailbreak. As for the sideloading, I don't expect the new exploit to last long, or carry forward very far. It's also more complicated than it should be just to get a 3rd party app on your own device.

So, not a great way for users to get around the store in iOS. Which doesn't justify sideloading as an argument here.


Also, as an app developer, it's far more annoying than it ever should be. I can't even send a quick beta build to a team member without jumping through hoops. But Android? It's a breeze, even with the more tech illiterate people.
So, unless I can easily walk someone through sideloading an iOS app within minutes, it's not in a state worth defending Apple over.

 

[Endymio]

I hope you're getting paid by Apple to write those paragraphs, because it's kinda sad that you've went off topic so much.

Attacking me personally won't hide the fact that you have no substantive rebuttal. And how is elucidating the ethical justification for Apple's actions off topic in a thread about those very acts?

As I've said, [sideloading] is the exception, not the rule.

It doesn't matter whether it's the exception, the rule, or has never happened even once. The only thing that matters is whether or not Apple contractually prevents it. They do not, and you are free to do so if you wish.

 

[jonny888]

Epic does not demand anything like that from Apple. That's just your and Apple's straw man, because neither of you can attack Epic's actual argument.


What you meant to say was that both Apple's argument and also its/yours straw man that you used to replace Epic's actual argument are "fubar".

Epic's actual argument (ie. that Apple has no right to demand a cut of payment for no services/work rendered) on the other side is completely justified.

Erm, yes they are? They're demanding that they be allowed to operate outside of Apples Ts & Cs, the result of which would be that they cut Apple out of a share of their profits. I.e. They still want to be able to distribute all of their media onto Apple devices and run their own store front, but not give Apple any money for the privilege of doing so.

Don't get me wrong. There are certain precedents out there that do lend some support to Epic's claim, and if the issue were cut and dry it would be over already. But in this latest case, Epic's claims are BS. If Apple has no right to it's cut of their sales, then they have no right to Apple's platform. That's just plain old good business.

 

[m4a4]

...that you have no substantive rebuttal.

Correct! I will not argue against ramblings that go off topic. I thought I made that clear?

It doesn't matter whether it's the exception, the rule, or has never happened even once. The only thing that matters is whether or not Apple contractually prevents it. They do not, and you are free to do so if you wish.

Again, a deflect. Earlier you implied that sideloading was an easy thing that Apple "allowed" as an argument for them. That is the topic we're on (and the only one, because I don't care to address off-topics).

So, unless you know of an easy (magical?) way to install an iOS app outside of the App Store (like every other major mainstream OS allows), it's not worth using as an argument for Apple.

 

[Cal Jeffrey]

I think what the argument really boils down to is not so much that Epic has a problem paying Apple a cut of game sales to distribute from the App Store. I think what is really at play here is that not only is Apple taking a cut of game sales, it is forcing developers to pay them for sales made through their game platforms, which Apple has nothing to do with regarding distribution. It would be like GameStop demanding 30% of all in-game transactions for any hardcopy games that they sell.

The in-app merchandise is not Apple's property. The sales are not conducted on Apple servers. The sales are not even completed on Apple-owned property since they sell iPhones rather than leasing them. So what Epic is saying is that once the sale of the game is complete, all further transactions belong to the developers.

It is further arguing that in order to continue this shakedown of in-game storefronts, Apple uses its policies to get devs to pay up under threat of being completely banned from the App Store. Since the App Store is the only way to distribute software to two entire platforms (iPhones and iPad) Epic is saying Apple is exercising monopolistic control over the market.

As an example, imagine it if it were physical rather than digital. XYZ Computers manufactures and sells all PCs. To distribute software, it creates a division called XYZ Software Stores. It says that developers can only sell software for XYZ computers through XYZ Stores. It demands that no other stores like Walmart (analogous to Cydia App Store) can sell PC software and if it does, XYZ will push firmware updates to disable the software. It further says, in not so many words, that all software sales are NOT FINAL and that any profit made after the sale of the software through subscriptions to services or microtransactions, it must get paid a cut or it will disable the software and stop selling all software from that developer.

Now Epic Store, Steam, and others might take cuts from microtransactions too (I don't know for sure, to be honest), but that situation is different. None of them control an entire platform and transactions are not forced through those stores. That is to say, they do not force through policy transactions to be conducted through their stores. In other words, if a developer sets up a website to sell subscriptions or whatever, it does not have to worry about being banned from Steam, etc. There are many other avenues to get games on PC--physical sales, Steam, Humble Bundle, Epic, Microsoft Store, etc. Not quite as much competition for Google Play on Android but there are other options, including sideloading--certainly more options than on iOS.

I think this is the crux of Epic's beef.

 

[Cal Jeffrey]

Sure you can. Have you never heard of sideloading? Apple simply refuses to assist you in the process.

Apple does not allow sideloading in iOS, aside from jailbreaking, which Apple also does not allow and enforces by voiding warranties and pushing updates to constantly throw a wrench into the currently popular jailbreak.

 

[Squid Surprise]

0.4% in 2017, and higher percentages earlier than that.
It's probably still <1%, <4% if you want to be optimistic. Which is not very high, and it just keeps getting more annoying to jailbreak. As for the sideloading, I don't expect the new exploit to last long, or carry forward very far. It's also more complicated than it should be just to get a 3rd party app on your own device.

So, not a great way for users to get around the store in iOS. Which doesn't justify sideloading as an argument here.


Also, as an app developer, it's far more annoying than it ever should be. I can't even send a quick beta build to a team member without jumping through hoops. But Android? It's a breeze, even with the more tech illiterate people.
So, unless I can easily walk someone through sideloading an iOS app within minutes, it's not in a state worth defending Apple over.

Even if it’s only 2% (and with the latest publicized exploits, it’s probably higher) that’s about 50 milllion iPhones and iPads...
I know the % seems small - but it’s a really big number!!
And again, sideloading doesn’t actually require jailbreaking - so it’s even higher...

The checkrain exploit applies to all versions of iOS by the way - and is hardware based - so will always work...


Just admit you’re wrong and move on...

 

[m4a4]

Well said.

The in-app merchandise is not Apple's property. The sales are not conducted on Apple servers. The sales are not even completed on Apple-owned property since they sell iPhones rather than leasing them. So what Epic is saying is that once the sale of the game is complete, all further transactions belong to the developers.

Though I don't know what you're implying here. Implementing IAP's on iOS, you are forced to use Apple's software tools and for it to be verified by Apple servers...

 

[m4a4]

Even if it’s only 2% (and with the latest publicized exploits, it’s probably higher) that’s about 50 milllion iPhones and iPads...
I know the % seems small - but it’s a really big number!!
And again, sideloading doesn’t actually require jailbreaking - so it’s even higher...

just admit you’re wrong and move on...

What are you even arguing anymore? Because I'm not sure you even know lol.

My point is that sideloading is the exception. And such a low percentage still doesn't make it the rule. Why do you need to have it the other way?

 

[Squid Surprise]

What are you even arguing anymore? Because I'm not sure you even know lol.

My point is that sideloading is the exception. And such a low percentage still doesn't make it the rule. Why do you need to have it the other way?

That wasn’t the point though - in a contract, Apple simply has to prove that their AppStore isn’t the only way to get an app... and tens of millions of devices prove it... exception or not is irrelevant...

 

[Squid Surprise]

Apple does not allow sideloading in iOS, aside from jailbreaking, which Apple also does not allow and enforces by voiding warranties and pushing updates to constantly throw a wrench into the currently popular jailbreak.

They DO allow it - they simply disavow it. And you do NOT need to jailbreak your device in order to sideload.

 

[Cal Jeffrey]

Well said.

Though I don't know what you're implying here. Implementing IAP's on iOS, you are forced to use Apple's software tools and for it to be verified by Apple servers...

I wasn't really implying anything other than what I think Epic is driving at. I mean I could totally have it wrong, and maybe I do, but that's what it seems like the argument boils down to--that Epic is saying that Apple's dip into sales that it has nothing to do with and using its full control over the platform is monopolistic.

I cannot say that I totally agree. I see both sides of the argument. Digital marketplaces are a relatively new thing. It will take time for consumer law to catch digital commerce up to where brick-and-mortar commerce is. Hell for that matter, the sale of physical goods is still argued in courts daily, but at this point, it's easy to decide such cases based on precedence.

Digital, on the other hand, is just beginning to lay the legal groundwork for how businesses should conduct themselves. Laws over physical goods and services don't always easily translate to the digital realm. Epic v. Apple is just one of many cases that will become historical precedence no matter which way it goes.

 

[Zymuse]

And presumably Epic has no right to demand that Apple distribute their product for them for free on *their* hardware platform?

You forgot something in making this fallacy, Epic is claiming Apple is a monopoly. Doesn't exactly go the other way and Apple makes money by allowing Epic to be on their platform (even without the 30%). This lawsuit is about how Apple is using their position as a monopoly to deform the competition to their favor. It takes a blind person not to see that they are monopoly and that they harm the industry as a whole.

 

[Cubi Dorf]

I would never jailbreaking my phone. If jailbreak is Apple defense in court, they are absolute losing case.

 

[jonny888]

You forgot something in making this fallacy, Epic is claiming Apple is a monopoly. Doesn't exactly go the other way and Apple makes money by allowing Epic to be on their platform (even without the 30%). This lawsuit is about how Apple is using their position as a monopoly to deform the competition to their favor. It takes a blind person not to see that they are monopoly and that they harm the industry as a whole.

I have made no fallacies.

Apple is not a monopoly. They aren't even a majority. (roughly ~45% of smartphone users).

Also, their lawsuit isn't only against Apple. They also raised the same thing against Google.

Also, Epic isn't their competition in any market as far as I am aware. They are merely a dev/tech company with whom Apple had a standard app contract.

Also, please clarify what you mean by "the industry". Do you mean the hundreds of thousands of app developers who collectively make billions of dollars on a platform they could have never have hoped to make themselves? Because they seem to be doing okay out of it as far as I can see. Especially as app spending has traditionally always been higher on iOS.

TLDR: App developers want money. Apple want money. Epic, as an app developer, is trying to alter the terms so that they get more money, at the expense of Apple (and Google). Anything else is just PR from either side looking to sway people in their favour.

 

[Endymio]

Correct! I will not argue against ramblings that go off topic. I thought I made that clear?

Frankly, this is simply absurd. An explanation of why Apple's actions are both legal and ethical is not "off topic" -- it is the topic itself.

Earlier you implied that sideloading was an easy thing that Apple "allowed"

Read more carefully. I never stated, or even implied that sideloading was easy. Apple indeed does make it difficult. But the ease of sideloading isn't at issue here, only its legality. It isn't barred, by law or EULA, and thus your argument has no leg to stand upon.

 

[Ryan Barrett]

When you deem a law "unlawful", the process is to continue following the law while you protest/fight it... unilaterally deciding the law is "unlawful" is not in Epic's power - nor should it be!

The courts will (and should) decide this matter - until that time, Epic should be following the rules... that they aren't simply smacks of greed, not "good citizenship".

ToS cannot supersede the Constitution or state law. If a judge rules it's illegal so be it. Epic said they're prepared to pay the consequences. I have no problem with it. One of the main reasons I'm on Android.

 

[m4a4]

Frankly, this is simply absurd. An explanation of why Apple's actions are both legal and ethical is not "off topic" -- it is the topic itself.

The topic in this thread was a person sideloading onto their device, no argument about the legality or whatever other BS you wanted to throw in. You following?

Read more carefully. I never stated, or even implied that sideloading was easy. Apple indeed does make it difficult. But the ease of sideloading isn't at issue here, only its legality. It isn't barred, by law or EULA, and thus your argument has no leg to stand upon.

You implied it was a good alternative to installing apps outside of the App Store. Unless your "Have you never heard of sideloading?" was meant to go against the nuance of such a question and imply the opposite..?
Anyways, you can blindly defend the company to someone else.

 

[Endymio]

The topic in this thread was a person sideloading onto their device, no argument about the legality or whatever other BS you wanted to throw in. You following?

The topic of this thread is given in the story's headline:

"Epic argues it breached contract because Apple's terms are 'unlawful'"

This is what we're talking about. Perhaps next time try reading a thread before replying to it?

 

[lostinlodos]

That said, you're right that they're putting the cart before the horse. They should have contested the terms in court *before* breaking them. Because as you say, it puts them in a sticky situation if the terms are later deemed to be legal.

There’s also the meeting of minds issue with contract law. Epic followed the rules for some time. Even if the contract is overturned by law the agreement as placed before the court could still stand. That is because whilst the contract may not as a whole be legally binding if no individual part is illegal after a duration of time (by jurisdiction) the individual agreements, parts, of the whole could stand. Or the judge could solely strike what is unconstitutional.

I’m surprised the case hasn’t been tossed prima facia. There was an agreement. And a meeting of minds. The legal, or non-, design of the contract itself doesn’t change that.
Epic introducing this now hurts their case. Though I’m not impartial.

Personally I like the single billing method for its security and recording.
I would have gone ballistic if a random epic charge show up on my invoice.
Based solely on the court documents that are public:
Ultimately what epic did was not creating a second offering but hyjack an existing system.
Standing in court and yelling ‘they broke the law first’ doesn’t offer absolution.
Epic didn’t shoot them selves in the foot. They took a shot gun blast to the face and committed legal suicide. Now they’re on the hook for what could be considered computer fraud.
Way to forward the case!

 

[Xallisto]

And presumably Epic has no right to demand that Apple distribute their product for them for free on *their* hardware platform?

Both sides of this argument seem to be FUBAR. For every good point each side raises, they also shoot themselves in the foot. I actually suspect the verdict will be decided by whoever sabotages themselves the least.

Not their hardware though is it? Their platform is in fact millions of phones owned by those phone owners, not Apple.

Apple just abuses the fact that these phone owners dont know just how Apple is using them to **** over developers.

 

[Xallisto]

I have no idea why people do not understand this. It is literally just Apple hate. They have spent millions creating their ecosystem and brand. They can set whatever terms they want. Can they give other companies passes as well? Yup.

Yes, but they do not own the hardware do they? Phone owners do.

So if a phone owner wants to play fortnite on their hardware and then have monetary dealings with Epic, those dealings should be between the phone owner and Epic. Apple should not be able to reach into that transaction and apply a tax just because the phone owner has IOS on their phone.

Imagine if Microsoft behaved this way on their platform, forcing users to install programs though their store and then taxing every steam purchase, every Spotify subscription, every Ebay and Paypal transaction. Every transaction made on a windows platform.

Would u accept that behavior then? No, of course u would not so why should folks accept it from Apple.

 

[Endymio]

Not their hardware though is it? Their platform is in fact millions of phones owned by those phone owners, not Apple.

Oops! The platform in question is actually the servers and network comprising the Apple store. That's what hosts and distributes those apps. Apple hardware and software also handles the billing and payment as well.

if a phone owner wants to play fortnite on their hardware and then have monetary dealings with Epic, those dealings should be between the phone owner and Epic.

The transaction you describe is indeed between just you the phone owner and Epic. What you really want, though, is something else entirely: You want Apple to design iOS in such a manner to expedite the process.

You own a phone. Epic owns a game. You two figure out how to get it to work. Don't pretend Apple has some responsibility to assist you.

 

[Xallisto]

Oops! The platform in question is actually the servers and network comprising the Apple store. That's what hosts and distributes those apps. Apple hardware and software also handles the billing and payment as well.

The transaction you describe is indeed between just you the phone owner and Epic. What you really want, though, is something else entirely: You want Apple to design iOS in such a manner to expedite the process.

You own a phone. Epic owns a game. You two figure out how to get it to work. Don't pretend Apple has some responsibility to assist you.

You are missing the point so bad it's untrue, what Epic wants is for Apple to extricate itself from the whole process, this is the whole ****ing point mate.

Epic does not want apples store front, or its platform, or its assistance in anyway.

What Epic wants is for phone owners to be able to install it's software on thier phones without interference from whatever ******* happens to make the phones OS.