Judge stops Apple's threat to the Unreal Engine, but Fortnite stays off App Store

[midian182]

What just happened? Epic Games has won an early partial victory in its battle against Apple. The former has been granted a temporary restraining order that means Cupertino cannot terminate Epic's Apple developer accounts and cut the company off from iOS and Mac developer tools.

Following an update that introduced an alternative payment method to Fortnite's iOS and Android versions, one that paid Epic Games directly and circumvented Apple and Google's 30 percent cut, the Battle Royale title was booted from the companies' respective stores.

Epic retaliated by suing Apple to have the game returned to the iOS App Store. The iPhone maker also promised to end Epic's involvement in the Apple Development Program on August 28, something Epic said would be catastrophic for its Unreal Engine business.

In a ruling yesterday, US District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said that Apple could not carry out its threat. "The record shows potential significant damage to both the Unreal Engine platform itself, and to the gaming industry generally, including on both third-party developers and gamers," she said, adding that Epic Games did not breach any contracts related to the Unreal Engine and developer tools.

"Apple has chosen to act severely, and by doing so, has impacted non-parties, and a third-party developer ecosystem," said Rogers. "Epic Games and Apple are at liberty to litigate against each other, but their dispute should not create havoc to bystanders."

It wasn't all good news for Epic, though. The company was unable to demonstrate that Apple's blocking of Fortnite will cause irreparable harm. Rogers said the game wouldn't be allowed back on the App Store until it adheres to Apple's guidelines, which means dropping the direct payment option.

The temporary restraining order will remain in place until the court issues an order on the motion for a preliminary injunction. The full hearing on the injunction takes place on September 28.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/86499-judge-stops-apple-threat-unreal-engine-but-fortnite.html

 

[Peter Farkas]

Wasn't the recent congress hearing exactly because of cases like this? I think apple was accused there that only they have the power to decide who stays on the app store and why and that they can change their reasoning and rules for banning anyone anytime and therefore this was anti-competitive power over that market.

I mean EPIC should not have tried evading the 30% fee towards apple, since they are reaching their customers through apple's platform. Moreover, they are contractually obliged to pay that fee to Apple.
Though I don't understand how the 2 companies could not settle this behind the scenes. Attacking each other like this publicly will hurt both business in the short term. I assume EPIC wants to make a point and change the whole system, probably with many backing them in this cause.

 

[Darth Shiv]

Wasn't the recent congress hearing exactly because of cases like this? I think apple was accused there that only they have the power to decide who stays on the app store and why and that they can change their reasoning and rules for banning anyone anytime and therefore this was anti-competitive power over that market.

I mean EPIC should not have tried evading the 30% fee towards apple, since they are reaching their customers through apple's platform. Moreover, they are contractually obliged to pay that fee to Apple.
Though I don't understand how the 2 companies could not settle this behind the scenes. Attacking each other like this publicly will hurt both business in the short term. I assume EPIC wants to make a point and change the whole system, probably with many backing them in this cause.

Apple would ignore any attempt to negotiate different terms.

 

[Peter Farkas]

Apple would ignore any attempt to negotiate different terms.

That is a surprise to me after that congress hearing. There needs to be legislation to control these practices in a fair and even way.

 

[MaxSmarties]

That is a surprise to me after that congress hearing. There needs to be legislation to control these practices in a fair and even way.

what about controlling scam sellers like Epic ?

 

[gigantor21]

what about controlling scam sellers like Epic ?

Why not both?

 

[MaxSmarties]

Why not both?

Because Apple is giving customers a (more or less) controlled store, while Epic is just selling crapware and silly moves for money.
I can see a difference here.
If Epic want to use enormous Apple (or Google) user base, they have to pay for it.

 

[Cubi Dorf]

Apple does not own user base. user are not slave. not property to be sold.

Because Apple is giving customers a (more or less) controlled store, while Epic is just selling crapware and silly moves for money.
I can see a difference here.
If Epic want to use enormous Apple (or Google) user base, they have to pay for it.

 

[Featherawr]

Imagine having to pay Microsoft 30% for every application installed on it's operating system

 

[candle_86]

Hopefully apple looses in court next month. Their attitude is very reminiscent of the mafia. Want to do bussiness in this neighborhood pay us 30% or else. Apple is basically behaving like the mafia and epic is tired of paying protection money.

 

[Dimitriid]

The solution seems to be so simple to me: Apple needs to be compelled by court to just allow side loading. Put all of the warnings you want on it, refuse support if the user tries side loading, etc. Basically just make sure a user *could* do the same thing he does on Android if he really wants to.

Simple, choice is there for consumer, Epic can direct side loading to install and be happy they get anything at all from all of this.

 

[MaxSmarties]

Apple does not own user base. user are not slave. not property to be sold.

I really hope you are just an hater being obtuse on purpose, otherwise your understanding capabilities would be very poor ...

Apple and Google have an enormous user base ( = customers that have access to the App Store and Play Store ), and Epic is using that user base to make money.
The App Store and the Play Store need hard work to be sustained, and Apple and Google are asking money to keep it a sustainable business.
We could debate about 30% being to much, maybe 20% would be fair enough, but surely it cant be for free.

 

[franticfrosty]

I really hope you are just an hater being obtuse on purpose, otherwise your understanding capabilities would be very poor ...

Apple and Google have an enormous user base ( = customers that have access to the App Store and Play Store ), and Epic is using that user base to make money.
The App Store and the Play Store need hard work to be sustained, and Apple and Google are asking money to keep it a sustainable business.
We could debate about 30% being to much, maybe 20% would be fair enough, but surely it cant be for free.

You're replacing profitable with sustainable, they can easily live on .5% of a fee, but they need those billions of profits to buy back shares, So they can prevent innovating for another generation of devices.

 

[Cubi Dorf]

A company should not have any right to control where people are allowed to shop for 3rd party product and what people are allowed to buying.

A company should be allow to sell their product without another company permission.

Being operating system maker does not grant government powers.

 

[MaxSmarties]

A company should not have any right to control where people are allowed to shop for 3rd party product and what people are allowed to buying.

A company should be allow to sell their product without another company permission.

Being operating system maker does not grant government powers.

Epic is free to create their own devices, their own operative system and their own store (the already have one).

In Apple ecosystem you are absolutely free to buy 3rd party software and hardware.

 

[MaxSmarties]

You're replacing profitable with sustainable, they can easily live on .5% of a fee, but they need those billions of profits to buy back shares, So they can prevent innovating for another generation of devices.

totally baseless assumption...

 

[Peter Farkas]

what about controlling scam sellers like Epic ?

I believe that is already controlled. They had contractual obligations towards each other. I am sure that EPIC intentionally violated those obligations because they saw huge revenue potential by doing so.
It is not mandatory to develop apps on iOS. However, if you do so and sell your product through the App Store then you have to follow the terms and pay apple.
There is no doubt about that in my opinion. Until there is a new legislation that tells otherwise... But for now, these are the rules and EPIC clearly violated it.

 

[MaxSmarties]

I believe that is already controlled. They had contractual obligations towards each other. I am sure that EPIC intentionally violated those obligations because they saw huge revenue potential by doing so.
It is not mandatory to develop apps on iOS. However, if you do so and sell your product through the App Store then you have to follow the terms and pay apple.
There is no doubt about that in my opinion. Until there is a new legislation that tells otherwise... But for now, these are the rules and EPIC clearly violated it.

that was exactly my point.

 

[Lounds]

Epic thinks it's one of the big boys now. This lawsuit could bankrupt them.

 

[franticfrosty]

totally baseless assumption...

So they're not buying back shares or making an insane amount of money from the fee's? hmm... yep.. you're probably right...

 

[franticfrosty]

Epic thinks it's one of the big boys now. This lawsuit could bankrupt them.

When they're earning billions, and have a $17Billion valuation, How exactly could a lawsuit bankrupt them? I'm not a math genius but basic calculator math would clearly show they unless they hired 300,000 lawyers for a single lawsuit it would hardly bankrupt them, even if said lawsuit went on for 5-10 years