Wow, this really got out of hand quickly.

I can't imagine myself walking into grocery store and starting to sell my stuff there 😀 Not that I like Apple's closedness. But who is ultimate judge here that decide if Apple can have closed platform? Users. And they did support it with their wallets.

Fox2232:

I can't imagine myself walking into grocery store and starting to sell my stuff there 😀 Not that I like Apple's closedness. But who is ultimate judge here that decide if Apple can have closed platform? Users. And they did support it with their wallets.

But Epic was selling things in their own app, not apple store. Even though Epic store was distributed through apple store. I kinda dislike both companies, but I'd say that the claim is ridiculous. It would be theft if Epic didn't pay apple 30% on sales that they did through apple's app store, but that isn't what apple is claiming.

The problem with this whole Apple vs Epic fight is two fold. First monopoly are not forbidden by law, but abusing a dominant (market wise) position is (whatever you have a "perfect" monopoly or not). On the consumer side Apple have definitively a dominant position, they are the sole provider of App for their own device, and yes consumer can use another system (android), but it come with a cost for them (buying a new device), The same way, if your local electric company is charging you abusive rate for electricity, you could move to escape those rate but again this has a cost. This to the judge to decide, taking in account de cost of moving, how much the company is abusive, and how much the average consumer new about it before making his purchase. On The developer side, this is tricky, because while apple device don't have a dominant position for market share (at least worldwide, don't remember the US market share), they have a dominant market share for revenue made from mobile. So when an App developer refuse to accept the Apple App store rule, he cut himself from a significant part of potential income. A judge could decide that Apple App store rule are too restrictive and abusive, and because the App store is the biggest source of income for App worldwide, Apple is abusing of its position.

Lawyers are getting rich, that's the only thing for sure with this topic.

Backstabak:

But Epic was selling things in their own app, not apple store. Even though Epic store was distributed through apple store. I kinda dislike both companies, but I'd say that the claim is ridiculous. It would be theft if Epic didn't pay apple 30% on sales that they did through apple's app store, but that isn't what apple is claiming.

Except it is Apple's platform. Store being secondary issue of no importance. Same as getting Unreal Engine and not paying once you reach revenue after which you should pay... By claiming that revenue limit is per product, and this exactly same game which is datadisc for previous is different product. When user agrees to paying for making money on someone's platform, they should pay as they make money.

sbacchetta:

The problem with this whole Apple vs Epic fight is two fold. First monopoly are not forbidden by law, but abusing a dominant (market wise) position is (whatever you have a "perfect" monopoly or not). On the consumer side Apple have definitively a dominant position, they are the sole provider of App for their own device, and yes consumer can use another system (android), but it come with a cost for them (buying a new device), The same way, if your local electric company is charging you abusive rate for electricity, you could move to escape those rate but again this has a cost. This to the judge to decide, taking in account de cost of moving, how much the company is abusive, and how much the average consumer new about it before making his purchase. On The developer side, this is tricky, because while apple device don't have a dominant position for market share (at least worldwide, don't remember the US market share), they have a dominant market share for revenue made from mobile. So when an App developer refuse to accept the Apple App store rule, he cut himself from a significant part of potential income. A judge could decide that Apple App store rule are too restrictive and abusive, and because the App store is the biggest source of income for App worldwide, Apple is abusing of its position.

Its Apple's device, and Apple's app store - Tim Swhiney is being childish and its costing the company and shareholders money, I can see Tencent removing him if Apple holds its ground... Epic "Stole" money from Apple by "removing" Apple's comission. Sounds dumb, Apple knows its dumb, but legally, it could work.

If Apple really made a statement saying those the rules of 30% of income and enforcing everything to go through the App Store are to make customers safe, wouldn't it mean any malware received through App Store would mean a customer could sue Apple successfully for damages? On the other hand if the EULA has a statement Apple is not responsible for third party malware, it means Apple lied in this statement. I'm not an Apple user and will never be, so I don't really care personally, but I dislike all those holier-than-thou statements from companies, when everyone and their dogs & cats know it's all about profit. Apple could just say, like Sodastream back in the day, that it's their way of making money, so they aren't willing to change it.

mameira:

Its Apple's device

its the end users device.

mameira:

Its Apple's device, and Apple's app store - Tim Swhiney is being childish and its costing the company and shareholders money, I can see Tencent removing him if Apple holds its ground... Epic "Stole" money from Apple by "removing" Apple's comission. Sounds dumb, Apple knows its dumb, but legally, it could work.

Epic is guilty of breaching their contract with Apple, there is no denying, but if Apple is judged for abusing of its position (see my first post) the contract could be void. Apple is just trying to frighten Epic with this lawsuit, and Epic is using its money and "fame" to fight the App store rules with all those recent action. I personally don't really care. I am more interested in the ongoing stuff between the EU and Apple which is more consumer side oriented.

Surely this could get very messy if the judge rules in favour of Epic? If Epic are't deemed to have violated Apples rules to pay Apple the 30% fee for all sales through the developers app, then surely that will bring about a whole load of claims from other developers who have paid Apple their 30% fee to get their money back!

Guru's, I called this months back and said the government/law will protect Apple. Next time you agree to terms and conditions for anything, just remember to read what you are signing, because once you 'agree' you are done. This is the same as the topic/thread I started on employment contract renegotiations years ago, and recently on working from home - read your contract before you sign it. Epic knew what they were doing, and just did not care. The law is on Apples side here, because ALL the legal team needs to do is walk into the courthouse and show the judge the contract they signed...*THUMP* will go the hammer.

Fox2232:

Except it is Apple's platform. Store being secondary issue of no importance.

Except that apple goes as far as saying that you cannot sell addons on another platform. It doesn't have to even be accessed through an iPhone, could just be a web browser, on a windows PC, you can't sell anything there thats directly for an iOS app. Should they be allowed to have that amount of control? Saying "users vote with their wallet" is always the easy way out. Users are idiots. Thats why we have consumer protection laws and anti-trust laws, to protect companies from taking advantage of users and smaller companies.

Loobyluggs:

The law is on Apples side here, because ALL the legal team needs to do is walk into the courthouse and show the judge the contract they signed...*THUMP* will go the hammer.

Just because you put something in a contract doesn't mean its actually legal and binding. You should check on that concept.

Fox2232:

Except it is Apple's platform. Store being secondary issue of no importance. Same as getting Unreal Engine and not paying once you reach revenue after which you should pay... By claiming that revenue limit is per product, and this exactly same game which is datadisc for previous is different product. When user agrees to paying for making money on someone's platform, they should pay as they make money.

I disagree, because apple's claim is that epic didn't pay them from purchases made in epic store, while apple themselves have no claim to the epic store. I'm not sure about the wording of the contract they have, but I doubt that the contract can reach beyond the purchases made through apple app store, especially if they have a clause that all the purchases must go through that app store. So to me it seems that it's likely that apple would be far more successful with a lawsuit for breach of contract where epic provides purchases that bypass the apple store, instead of demanding a cut from revenues made on another platform. But then again, I don't think they expect to make anything out of it and it's likely that both companies will just settle on both lawsuits long before the court hearing.

I don't know why people keep going on about the terms and conditions of the contract like they're ingrained in Law. This is about epic saying those terms and conditions are void. Epic lose almost nothing from this action (What Apple are going to say no thanks to a couple of hundred million a year for negligible work, I don't think so) but stand to gain a whole hell of a lot. At most epic lose a couple of hundred million in fees and concessions if they lose (probably out of court settlement), literally peanuts to them, they shit that kind of money.

Has anyone else noticed that Apple always has ongoing legal battles with huge clients and suppliers?

Won't Apple lose this then. Ignore the contracts and all that BS the legal definition of 'theft' is one individual taking the property of another. Since the percentage cut that Apple gets from the sales was never there's to start with how can Epic have committed 'theft' by stopping Apple from taking it? I guess if Apple was providing support and back end services for the in game Vbucks store they could accuse Epic of 'theft' in THAT regard but my understanding is that Apple provide the infra-structure that allows people to download a FREE game and after that all support, infra-structure and back end support is done on Epic's end.

Fox2232:

But who is ultimate judge here that decide if Apple can have closed platform?

Lucy Koh likely. She always ruling for Apple, so be sure she will legalize monopoly in USA.

screw apple, i don't understand why people keep buying that overhyped and overpriced crap