This didn't start because Epic got kicked out of the store, it started because they pushed back against Apple's rules knowing the result would be getting kicked out.
Getting back in doesn't advance their position in any meaningful way.
I would bet that Epic could lose this suit, be forced to pay damages, and they would still have no real need of revenues from the Apple Store.
Most people with an iOS device probably have access to another device they can use to play Fortnite, and the only way the iOS 30% cut works out in their favor is if:
a. there exist some customers that will only license Fortnite on iOS and/or will buy an additional license for iOS.
b. at least 70% of these customers won't instead seek out another platform; e.g. buy a second tablet because Fortnite won't work on iPad, or use a device they already own which they may not like as much as the iPad but will work.
> some customers that will only license Fortnite on iOS and/or will buy an additional license for iOS.
Just a heads up, Fortnite is free to play and makes its money through microtransactions, selling things like characters to play as, dances to show off during the game, things like that.
Escrow doesn't really do anything between two established companies: Both knows the other will comply with a court order to pay up the share being fought over.
It was civil disobedience from the start. They wanted to this to become big. And to be honest, it was not like Apple was trying to compromise. Apple never compromises. Their definition of compromise is to not hold a grudge if you choose to accept their rules after all, and to re-instate you. But then they went too far with Unreal.
Apple has notably compromised with Netflix and a few others.
Epic may well have expected to lose, but they may well have thought that (1) they were big enough - search suggests Fortnite iOS revenue was slightly bigger than Netflix — and, (2) Apple was vulnerable enough after Basecamp and with antitrust, that they could force them to the table with the threat of another, much larger PR shitstorm hanging over their fall launches.
Epic doesn't want to be on the Apple App store. They want their own store on iOS and Android. Intentionally breaking TOS of those stores and subsequently being kicked off both platforms was already part of the plan from start.
Basically just a straight continuation of her decision regarding a TRO.
The 30% escrow offer I think misses the point for both Epic and Apple. Because while both want the money, Apple's entire argument is predicated on the "privacy and safety" of only going through their payment processing, whilst Epic's entire argument is predicated on that requirement being monopolistic and unfair and that third party processors must be allowed.
Neither wants the other's system to hold, even if the money is being held somewhere until the end of the case.
It does reveal that Epic doesn't have a "public interest" defense in the sense of getting their game back in consumers' hands, and a public interest defense is listed as a requirement for preliminary injunctive relief.
Is your point that Epic could/did argue that they need relief because escrow via Apple's payment systems provides no benefit to customers who want to use an alternative payment system?
I'm no expert but it would seem odd to grant "relief" that alters the status quo. That's granting automatic improvement over the original terms Epic signed up to.
> It does reveal that Epic doesn't have a "public interest" defense in the sense of getting their game back in consumers' hands
No, it doesn't. The public interest factor in injunctions is unrelated to defenses (and defenses aren't really something the plaintiff needs to have, generally.)
> and a public interest defense is listed as a requirement for preliminary injunctive relief.
No, the public interest must favor the injunction; this is aside from considering any defenses applicable to the causes of action in the case.
I have no legal training, but it seems the word "defense" may have a specific meaning, and you take issue with my inappropriate usage of the word.
But if you remove the word "defense" from my post, I don't understand what it is you are disputing, or if there is any remaining dispute. So for example, imagine I had said the following:
Epic doesn't seem to be able to establish an injunction is in the "public interest" in the sense of getting their game back in consumers' hands.
You do not fundamentally understand the argument, which is that a freer market with the ability to charge for and ship software outside of the app store (like is done on Windows/Mac) would be better for consumers.
I don't necessarily disagree when it comes to what the final outcome should be. But I'm specifically talking about the preliminary injunctive relief, not the final judgment to come. The court can't grant preliminary relief that forces Apple to provide a means to install apps from outside the App Store.
17 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 51.5 ms ] threadSeems like a very sensible approach that they refused.
Getting back in doesn't advance their position in any meaningful way.
Most people with an iOS device probably have access to another device they can use to play Fortnite, and the only way the iOS 30% cut works out in their favor is if:
a. there exist some customers that will only license Fortnite on iOS and/or will buy an additional license for iOS.
b. at least 70% of these customers won't instead seek out another platform; e.g. buy a second tablet because Fortnite won't work on iPad, or use a device they already own which they may not like as much as the iPad but will work.
Just a heads up, Fortnite is free to play and makes its money through microtransactions, selling things like characters to play as, dances to show off during the game, things like that.
They knew what they were getting into here and thought it was worth the cost.
Epic may well have expected to lose, but they may well have thought that (1) they were big enough - search suggests Fortnite iOS revenue was slightly bigger than Netflix — and, (2) Apple was vulnerable enough after Basecamp and with antitrust, that they could force them to the table with the threat of another, much larger PR shitstorm hanging over their fall launches.
The 30% escrow offer I think misses the point for both Epic and Apple. Because while both want the money, Apple's entire argument is predicated on the "privacy and safety" of only going through their payment processing, whilst Epic's entire argument is predicated on that requirement being monopolistic and unfair and that third party processors must be allowed.
Neither wants the other's system to hold, even if the money is being held somewhere until the end of the case.
Is your point that Epic could/did argue that they need relief because escrow via Apple's payment systems provides no benefit to customers who want to use an alternative payment system?
I'm no expert but it would seem odd to grant "relief" that alters the status quo. That's granting automatic improvement over the original terms Epic signed up to.
No, it doesn't. The public interest factor in injunctions is unrelated to defenses (and defenses aren't really something the plaintiff needs to have, generally.)
> and a public interest defense is listed as a requirement for preliminary injunctive relief.
No, the public interest must favor the injunction; this is aside from considering any defenses applicable to the causes of action in the case.
But if you remove the word "defense" from my post, I don't understand what it is you are disputing, or if there is any remaining dispute. So for example, imagine I had said the following:
Epic doesn't seem to be able to establish an injunction is in the "public interest" in the sense of getting their game back in consumers' hands.