
Epic Games has filed legal papers in response to Apple [pdf] - warp
https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-complaint-734589783.pdf
======
BluSyn
I really don't agree with the idea that "alternative payment processors" are
pro-consumer. This only benefits the developer, and I have huge privacy
concerns with trusting third-party devs to handle my payment information.
There's a 100% certainty that such payment information would be used for
advertising purposes in the best-case, and rampant identity theft or mass
payment security breaches in the worst-case. I'm certain Apple would also get
a share of the blame for these third-party issues, which further tarnishes
their platform and user experience.

For all Apple's faults, they've actually put a huge amount of effort to making
payment processing seamless for the user, while also making it extremely
transparent. I get regular notifications if I have a subscription trial about
to expire, and it's super easy to manage ALL subscriptions through a single
UI, and cancel them with a single click. This would not be possible through
third-party systems, which I can guarantee would put huge effort into tricking
users rather than making it easier for them. And yet again, Apple would
receive the blame for allowing these Apps.

All that said I also don't agree with Apple taking a huge 30% cut, especially
for subscription services that directly complete with them such as Netflix.
Though obviously there are costs to run this ecosystem, so Apple also can't
just charge nothing. I see both sides of this argument, and I don't see a
middle ground that can please all sides. There needs to be a reasonable
compromise somewhere in the middle.

~~~
ianferrel
>I really don't agree with the idea that "alternative payment processors" are
pro-consumer. This only benefits the developer

I mean, in this case, the consumer is literally saving 20% for the same
purchase. Seems good to me.

> There needs to be a reasonable compromise somewhere in the middle.

Why isn't "let other stores sell software for iOS, and the market will set the
rent those stores can extract from software developers" the reasonable
compromise?

People who want the ease and security of Apple and are willing to pay their
extra fees can do so. Those who don't don't have to.

~~~
jdminhbg
> I mean, in this case, the consumer is literally saving 20% for the same
> purchase. Seems good to me.

In this case, you have to let your kid take your credit card and input it into
any sketchy gaming company's web form. What happens from there?

~~~
m3kw9
The 20% is temporary incentive to get away from iOS’s 30% it’s all about them
lineing their own pockets

~~~
wobblykiwi
It's permanent.

[https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-
fortnite-m...](https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-
mega-drop-permanent-discounts-up-to-20-percent)

------
Animats
This filing is clever on Epic's part. (Or someone at Cravath, more likely.)

What Epic is asking for is an injunction. They may well get a temporary
injunction quickly, compelling Apple to put their app back in Apple's store.
Then the case gets litigated on the merits, but starting from a de facto win
for Epic.

The standard required for a temporary injunction is low:

" _To justify a temporary injunction it is not necessary that the plaintiff 's
right to a final decision, after a trial, be absolutely certain, wholly
without doubt; if the other elements are present (i.e., the balance of
hardships tips decidedly toward plaintiff), it will ordinarily be enough that
the plaintiff has raised questions going to the merits so serious,
substantial, difficult and doubtful, as to make them a fair ground for
litigation and thus for more deliberate investigation."_[1]

Litigation on temporary injunctions is relatively fast. This part will be
decided in weeks, not years.

Epic might only win a rollback to the last uncontroverted state, though. That
is, apparently, before Epic's payment system went live on Apple platforms. If
Apple had allowed third party payments for a while, then removed the app, Epic
would be in a stronger position to insist that their own payment system remain
live.

[1]
[https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...](https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2013&context=dlj)

[2]
[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wiwd.39930/...](https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wiwd.39930/gov.uscourts.wiwd.39930.191.0.pdf)

~~~
calcifer
> Epic might only win a rollback to the last uncontroverted state, though.
> That is, apparently, before Epic's payment system went live on Apple
> platforms.

IIUIC the app itself wasn't updated, only the webview for payments was updated
on the server side.

~~~
Animats
Interesting. If that's correct, Epic is in an even stronger position. They can
claim that Apple retaliated against them for a competitive move which had no
bearing on the activities taking place in the arena Apple claims to control.

------
xendipity
Woah - Epic says they would release a competing app store if it weren't for
"Apple's illegal restraints".

> But for Apple’s illegal restraints, Epic would provide a competing app store
> on iOS devices, which would allow iOS users to download apps in an
> innovative, curated store and would provide users the choice to use Epic’s
> or another third-party’s in-app payment processing tool."

Part 16, in the Intro.

~~~
mike_d
Which holds zero legal weight, because Apple can point to them doing exactly
that on Android to avoid paying Google Pay fees. They abandoned the plan about
a year later because consumers didn't want to use it.

~~~
discardable_dan
To be fair, if Epic does this I won't want to use it (just like with their
desktop client).

------
Osiris
> Epic is not bringing this case to recover these damages; Epic is not seeking
> any monetary damages.

Well, that's interesting.

> But for Apple’s illegal restraints, Epic would provide a competing app store
> on iOS devices, which would allow iOS users to download apps in an
> innovative, curated store and would provide users the choice to use Epic’s
> or another third-party’s in-app payment processing tool

So, Epic doesn't want money, they want the ability to allow users to install
an Epic App Store. They must assume there's a lot more money to be made by
operating a competing store.

~~~
mike_d
Exactly this. At the end of the day, Epic is a publisher. If studios can go
directly to the platform they are no longer the gatekeeper and stand to lose
money.

Epic wants your choice to be Apple store for non-games, and Epic store for
games. Period.

------
ErikAugust
A little "speculative execution" here by Epic.

They anticipated Apple's action would be to ban them, and they prepared a
lawsuit and PR campaign in anticipation.

~~~
partiallypro
They absolutely baited Apple to do this, I'm actually glad they did it. It's
time someone takes a stand. I think this will be more significant than people
think. Remember it was Netscape that helped bring about Microsoft's anti-
trust.

~~~
outworlder
It's kinda hypocritical since Epic has a very similar business model for
anything that's built using the Unreal Engine.

~~~
ronsor
Unreal Engine costs less and it's not mandatory to use it in order to make
games.

~~~
canttestthis
For those reading along, Unreal Engine fees is 5% after the first million.

~~~
Cu3PO42
Or 0% on sales through EGS.

------
huac
Epic appears to have retained Cravath's antitrust team; e.g.
[https://www.cravath.com/cvarney/](https://www.cravath.com/cvarney/), who "is
the only person to have served as both the U.S. Assistant Attorney General for
Antitrust and as a Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission."

------
jandrese
Going after Apple for antitrust violations has a big hill to climb in the form
of the Google Play Store.

More than that, a ruling against Apple here would have huge implications for
any company running an app store on their device. Smart TV manufacturers,
companies like Roku, Automobile manufacturers, etc... If you can be considered
a monopolist because you control your platform then there will be a LOT of
monopolies out there.

I'm not expecting Epic to get any real traction on this suit. The best they
can hope for is Apple working out some system where they'll reduce their cut
in certain circumstances, but given how unlikely this case is to go anywhere I
don't think Apple is feeling any pressure.

~~~
pgrote
>form of the Google Play Store.

You can get Android apps from many locations other than the Google Play Store.

~~~
surfpel
> Smart TV manufacturers, companies like Roku, Automobile manufacturers,
> etc...

It’s more than just the Google Play Store.

~~~
mhermher
Good. Force them too open up as well.

~~~
jandrese
What I'd like to happen and what the law supports aren't always in sync.

------
echelon
Apple is about to get bitten hard for being a monopoly.

I hope the government considers the harshest punishment of all: splitting up
Apple into hardware and software+services entities.

This is absurd that Apple has built a fiefdom on America's most popular
generic computer device. It's a threat to freedom! We can only compute what
the overlords allow and can tax? What a crock!

The fact that Apple thinks they can extort more protection money from
developers than the government does in taxes is an affront. But the freedom
aspect should have everyone out with their pitchforks.

This after Apple created an environment where its users, many of whom have
lots of disposable income for buying goods and services, expect apps to be
$0.99 and come with free updates for life. Meanwhile Apple's own products are
luxury priced. And they still take 30%.

US Government, please force Apple to open up iPhone to any software we want to
install. It's a generic computer. It's how we communicate, do banking, do
basic shopping, dating, business ... everything. Apple can't be the
gatekeepers of 21st century life. It's incredibly damaging to our ability to
innovate and succeed as small business owners and entrepreneurs.

Apple, you are the tyrant king. Long have we suffered under your rule. We
won't stand for it any longer and we demand our freedom.

~~~
comboy
> US Government, please force Apple to open up iPhone to any software we want
> to install. It's a generic computer.

You have bazillion types of generic computers to choose from. People pay huge
overhead to apple exactly because apple makes choices for them - regarding
what settings are reasonable to have, what software they want you to use etc.

Personally I don't understand monopoly arguments. If we are talking about some
ISP, something like Nestle or even social network/apps, I can somewhat
understand it. But here? Users are people who bought Apple hardware to use it
based on rules set up by Apple.

I'm not much fan of Apple, I sincerely want to understand the monopoly
argument. It seems to me as if people would want to split BMW because .. I
don't know we want to be able to install our own custom AC. Because
maintenance of the stock one is too expensive.

~~~
surfpel
> People pay huge overhead to apple exactly because apple makes choices for
> them...

That’s exactly why I use Apple products. I don’t have time to mess around with
third party stores and risk security issues when I need an app that doesn’t
want to be on the App Store. I’m ok with paying 30% more as a consumer for the
simplicity and peace of mind.

This isn’t the consumers getting angry - it’s developers. That’s why this
comment and other dissenting opinions always get downvoted on HN. Not saying
devs don’t matter, but there is another side to this that people here don’t
want to consider.

~~~
janoc
The thing is, if Apple alienates developers enough/makes them go bankrupt, the
only applications you will be able to use would be the first party Apple ones.
That won't be a very enjoyable thing, would be?

That's the entire problem. If a shopping mall was charging every store 30% of
their revenue (not profit, revenue!), it would be very quickly going broke and
empty. Yet Apple (and to a lesser degree Google, Facebook and a few others) is
getting away with this - exactly because unlike the shopping mall, the
developers don't have a choice. It is either play by Apple rules - or be
excluded from a very sizeable part of the mobile market.

When Microsoft was playing dirty and abusing its market dominance to put a
squeeze on companies trying to ship other than Microsoft's software, they got
hammered in court pretty bad. The anti-monopoly/abuse of dominant market
position laws are there for a reason, even if you, as a consumer, don't see it
(yet).

~~~
s3r3nity
>That's the entire problem. If a shopping mall was charging every store 30% of
their revenue (not profit, revenue!), it would be very quickly going broke and
empty.

If the same were true for Apple, they would reduce the 30% fee to reverse the
trend. The fact that the app ecosystem continues to be rich is a signal that
either:

1) most developers are ok with this price to access Apple's "marketplace" of
users, and/or

2) developers are irrational - you could always instead focus on Google's
platform, which has more users.

Revenue or profits is not a good indicator of market share at all, as then
parent's BMW argument comes into play: just because you want BMW over Honda,
because the owners of the former have more disposable income, does not make
BMW a monopoly.

>When Microsoft was playing dirty and abusing its market dominance...

Microsoft's market dominance at the time is MULTIPLES higher than what Apple
owns of the mobile OS market.

~~~
rurp
You're discussing mobile apps as if they exist in a robust free market, but
it's actually a platform duopoly covering a nearly essential service. As long
as Google doesn't decide to compete on price there is very little incentive
for Apple to lower prices.

> The fact that the app ecosystem continues to be rich is a signal that either

How do you know it couldn't be vastly better? I know I would be extremely
hesitant to develop an iPhone app given Apple's behavior, and would bet many
others feel the same.

------
Animats
Epic has a good argument that Apple is engaging in illegal "tying" \-
requiring that to buy B, you must also buy A, where A and B are not inherently
tied tightly together

AT&T lost that one decades ago. At one time phone users could only use a
rented AT&T phone. (Or modem, and AT&Ts modems were huge, expensive, and
included a dial and handset.) See "Carterphone decision".

------
dbetteridge
Summary

1) iOS devices are a large market (Over 1.5 BILLION devices)

2) iOS users spend more then Android users

3) Apps must be independently developed for each platform

4) Apple’s Monopoly Power in the iOS App Distribution Market. (p20) As it is
the sole means by which apps are distributed to consumers in the iOS Market.

5) Non-iOS app distribution platforms do not constrain Apple’s monopoly power
in the iOS App Distribution Market because they are not compatible with iOS
devices, they cannot provide iOS users with apps for their devices, and they
do not contain iOS compatible apps.

6) Apple imposes unreasonable restraints and unlawfully maintains a monopoly
in the iOS App Distribution Market through several anti-competitive acts,
including technical restrictions \- Cannot download alternative app stores

\- App store is preinstalled

\- Contractual restrictions on distributing iOS apps outside the app store

\- Section 3.3.2(b) of the Developer Agreement prohibits “Application[s]” that
“create a store or storefront for other code or applications”. (p25 C75)

7) Apple’s anti-competitive conduct harms all would-be app distributors by
foreclosing them from competing in the iOS App Distribution Market. (p26 D88)

8) Apple has a monopoly over the iOS In-App Payment Processing Market and, in
the alternative, over the iOS Games Payment Processing Market, as it has a
100% market share.

9) The cost of alternative electronic payment processing tools, which Apple
does not permit to be used for the purchase of in-app digital content, can be
one tenth of the cost of In-App Purchase.

Electronic Payment Processing Tool, Base U.S. Rate

PayPal 2.9%

Stripe 2.9%

Square 2.6%-3.5%

Braintree 2.9%

------
haunter
Saw on reddit and agree 100%

> I will say it's a VERY smart move by Epic to position Apple against
> customers by no longer making it "Apple is taking 30% from epic" to "Apple
> is taking 20% from you"

------
rafaelturk
IMO The key takeaway is that developers are no longer afraid of Apple. Epic
Games move would be unthinkable a few years ago. Looks like this will become
common practice. Epic Games joins Spotify, what will be joined by X, Y.

Maybe at some point multiple developers will also follow and also file legal
actions.

~~~
enraged_camel
>>IMO The key takeaway is that developers are no longer afraid of Apple. Epic
Games would be unthinkable a few years ago.

Well yes, Epic Games was a small and relatively unknown studio until they hit
jackpot with Fortnite.

~~~
zaxu
Is this sarcasm? Epic has been huge since the early 2000s.

~~~
enraged_camel
No, nothing like they are today. Fortnite made them literally billions -- more
than all of their previous titles combined.

------
jasonhansel
> Apple has asserted that blocking third-party app distribution platforms is
> necessary to enforce privacy and security safeguards. [...] A simple
> comparison to how Apple handles third-party software on its Mac personal
> computers illustrates how baseless its justifications are.

Clever. Now Apple will either need to (1) state that Macs are insecure and bad
for privacy, or (2) admit that there is no privacy/security benefit from the
App Store rules.

------
totaldude87
ok am going to put a highly objectionable comment.

I buy stuff on apple store because its easy and SAFE.

That safety point is more important than ever, if there was no app store or
lets say having 10 other app stores , i wont have the same level of confidence
and heck i wont even be spending any dollars out there.

Over to Apple's 30 % cut, i dont know whats the call here, to make it 0%? ,10%
, 20%? what if the same fortnite (or any other company) increases the bill to
$9.99 next week :)

Am saying this purely from a consumer perspective that i dont care how apple
and devs split the money as long as it doesnt bite me ...

~~~
detaro
Not all that objectionable IMHO, even if you think Apple should allow other
app sources. Of course an app store having clear policies and a good
reputation is an important factor for users installing apps from there - and
thus for vendors picking one to sell in. You see that in action on Android to
some degree.

EDIT: In some ways the best option IMHO would be a package-manager like
design, where the system is responsible for fetching and updating packages,
verifying signatures, security prompts, ... and "app stores" just feed
information into that, but I doubt we'll see that anywhere.

~~~
contextfree
that's roughly how Windows works with MSIX?

------
merrvk
Seems like they were prepared to do this all along

~~~
akmarinov
They knew this will cost them millions until Fortnite is back on the store and
they still did it.

~~~
uncoder0
Sounds like they'll have lots of damages to point to.

------
minimaxir
A 65 page lawsuit? How long was Epic planning this, and how did they manage to
time it right after Apple's antitrust hearing?

~~~
saagarjha
I mean, they had full control over when to release their update…

~~~
minimaxir
Right, but timing is especially important with this kind of stunt and there's
a lot of variables outside of Epic's control that could have weakened it.

~~~
ianferrel
Such as?

------
coded
Go Epicgames! The #freefortnite campaign is bold; it’ll require users being
proactive for it to maintain its momentum.

I love the the things that both companies make, but I’m not in favor of the
App Store’s monopoly. I’m excited to see the outcome of this lawsuit but not
very excited to wait for a long, drawn out process that the US legal system
lends itself to.

------
AcerbicZero
I have zero interest in replacing one tyrant with another. Epic games doesn't
care about what Apple is doing, they just want to do it themselves.

They keep trying to buy the PC gamer market, and it doesn't take much of an
imagination to guess what they'd do if they got control of it.

------
infinityplus1
It will be funny to read Apple's excuses how they are not a monopoly and how
consumers are benefiting from their no competition allowed policy.

~~~
zackkitzmiller
Xfinity (in my neighborhood) is a monopoly. I literally cannot get any other
fast internet service at my apartment.

I can, however, chose to buy a different phone.

~~~
sangnoir
Why not choose a new home in a location served by your preferred internet
provider? What's that - you like your home, but not the service it comes with?
/s

------
figgyc
This is a bit cynical of me but I thought it was interesting: In the PDF their
legal says this: > in the years since, Fortnite has topped 350 million players
and has become a global cultutral phenomenon. Interestingly, this 350 million
players number appears to have been announced back in May [0]. Of course it is
somewhat likely that their legal team just Googled this number instead of
sourcing an updated figure from Epic, but could it potentially be that
Fortnite's growth has stagnated? It definitely feels as though it has left the
zeitgeist compared to years gone by, and it could be that Epic has calculated
that the payoff of this suit could exceed the amount of V-Bucks they were
expecting to sell through the iOS version of Fortnite. Certainly a big gamble,
but it's possible that the situation may be dire enough to make it worth it.
Of course they attempt to make it look like this isn't what they want by not
demanding a cash payoff, but the obvious play is that if they win then a) they
will be able to sell V-Bucks again for presumably a higher margin, and b) they
will launch their own Epic app/game store and take a small cut of those
transactions.

[https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/6/21249497/fortnite-350-mill...](https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/6/21249497/fortnite-350-million-
registered-players-hours-played-april)

~~~
calcifer
I think you are reading wayyy too much into this. The most likely explanation
is that the document was being worked on for a long time and the figure was
added back then.

------
TheRealSteel
I have zero sympathy for a corporation that thinks everyone should have to pay
them a 30% cut of everything, but that they shouldn't have to pay any tax
themselves.

------
azuriten
Looks like this was the plan all long. Now to see whether or not the risk of
implementing their own payments system for V-Bucks is worth the potential
revenue loss they will incur with the app being removed from the store.

~~~
azuriten
Adding to this, Epic/Fortnite are planning a short which goes live in 10mins
called Nineteen Eighty-Fortnite. Most likely to be a parody of the 1984 Apple
ad. Yup, it's a marketing stunt.

[https://twitter.com/FortniteGame/status/1293984290326433792](https://twitter.com/FortniteGame/status/1293984290326433792)

~~~
dmix
Seems like it's broadcast in-game? I don't know much about Fortnite. But it's
been 10mins.

~~~
VRay
It was just an exact copy of the famous Apple 1984 ad, except the guy on the
screen had an apple for a head and the person who attacked the screen was a
rainbow Fortnite character throwing a Fortnite donkey head staff

------
bearjaws
I feel like its only a matter of time until the EU pins something to Apple, if
the US won't address this issue, the EU will.

------
warp
They've now posted an FAQ site to ask their fans to complain to Apple with the
#FreeFortnite hash tag.

[https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-
US/news/freefortnite](https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-
US/news/freefortnite)

(this beef is fascinating to watch)

------
young_unixer
As someone without legal knowledge, it surprised me that the NATURE OF THE
ACTION section reads more like a blog post than what I would expect in a legal
document.

------
rdiddly
I've reached point 7 and so far I'm seeing a lot of demagoguery. Not that I'm
in love with Apple or its business practices, but for example is "tax" the
right word for something that isn't a government entity? Or e.g. does a judge
care what happened in 1984 or what that ad campaign looked like? That one's in
there (point 1, right at the top) for the press, I suppose.

Demonstrate some relevant facts and just let them be what they are, and if
they aren't how you want, that's called being "wrong?" I dunno, maybe I'm
being naive or maybe my courtroom (if I were a judge) would be a hell of a
place to try that horseshit.

------
klelatti
Most of the focus on the legal position but the damage to Apple's brand
shouldn't be underestimated here. Hey was a big deal for a small group but
Fortnite will hit a much, much wider audience.

The 1984 video was a clever and calculated move.

------
klik99
This is bigger than Apple, it would be a massive precedent if they pull it
off. And it gets to my major concern with the possible merging of iOS and
MacOS. I don't mind curation on my phone, but it's a deal breaker for my PC

~~~
sebmellen
The day Apple does this is the day they lose every developer in the MacOS
ecosystem to Linux/maybe Windows.

~~~
snazz
I highly doubt they’d do this in the first place, but even if they did, iOS
developers would still be using Macs.

------
rvz
Epic is trying to sue an near $2 trillion dollar company. It's very dangerous
to sue them alone. You need Microsoft and Facebook to back you guys up given
that they kicked their apps out too.

Unfortunately, this app store sheriff is unreal.

~~~
partiallypro
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Netscape sued Microsoft and got its
way. Size doesn't often matter, just visibility. Apple was already under the
microscope.

------
dzonga
in seeking moderate profits, apple has put themselves into a corner. they
literally sold the cow, to pay for the donkey's medicine. apple can't argue
that users having alternative means to install apps is insecure, as they allow
to that on the mac. they also can't argue about anti-competitive practices and
monopoly tendencies e.g 30% cut. only way out was if the 30% was a cut
directly to the gvt. whoever is running apple services is one of the most
sighted exec's in history.

~~~
scarlac
> apple can't argue that users having alternative means to install apps is
> insecure, as they allow to that on the mac

I don't agree with this evaluation. They can argue it, as all macs are shipped
with only access to the app store. You need to specifically opt out.

macOS does have security issues, perhaps moreso than iOS, and that's an
argument they could make: Allowing Epic to run a store would compromise the
phones of kids and open them up to tracking, aggressive adware, etc. I think
it's a fair argument, even if I think 30% is a steep price to pay for what
they provide.

------
davidjade
I choose Apple devices because I believe Apple looks out for my interests. I
say that as a consumer and a developer who publishes on the App Store as a
business. I've seen the kind of nightmare that Android can be and no thanks.
If this requires 30% for Apple to afford to keep the review bar high then so
be it. But even if it doesn't, its their platform - their rules. If I didn't
like it I'd switch to something else but I am thankful that iOS devices for my
family aren't a risky proposition to use because app developer are reasonably
restricted in what they can do.

My worry is, if the doors get opened to non-Apple app stores and non-Apple
reviewed apps, what happens when enough of the top tier apps like Facebook,
IG, etc.. move to a store that has less oversight and restrictions? Users
essentially get forced to give up what Apple gives them (and what they may
have chosen Apple devices for) in terms of oversight and privacy control to
use those apps. You can say, "just don't use those apps or stores" but that
doesn't match the reality when your friends and family expect you to be
connected because they use those apps. So while this may be about fees now,
what's to stop if from being about privacy and other bad behavior that Apple
doesn't currently allow?

------
megakwood
The arguments aren't good ones, and I won't be surprised if Apple knocks this
down easily.

Epic is arguing here that Apple is charging them 30% for payment processing.
They're not, they're charging them for a return on the billions of dollars
they spend developing the OS, developer APIs and tools that Epic builds on.

Most egregious is the fact that is is Epic's very business model! They provide
a game engine, SDKs and tools to third parties and draw a % of the sales of
those games. How would Epic like it if some of their customers stopped paying
them? Their customers can make the same bad arguments: It's too expensive, and
it's a monopoly because the switching costs are too high!

Sure, the difference it's the users that are captive on the Apple ecosystem
rather than the developer, but it's pretty easy to argue that the users choose
the platform because of it's quality, and a large part of that quality is
driven by the massive investment Apple makes into the ecosystem, for which it
deserves a fair share.

All that said, I really wish Apple would drop their cut to 15% or 20% which
would do a lot relieve the bad taste in everyones mouth.

------
Simulacra
It’s about time someone is standing up to apples smug anticompetitive
behavior. Hopefully more major developers and game platforms will join suit.

------
rednerrus
Does this mean we'll get buying options on the Switch, Xbox, and Playstations?

------
bpsh
That was fast

~~~
uncoder0
Almost like it was the plan all along. You don't write a 65 page legal filing
in an hour.

~~~
furyofantares
Right, it looks to me like they violated Apple’s policies in order to bring
this lawsuit. It isn’t the other way around. I don’t think this is primarily
about the 30% cut in Fortnite — Epic wants to run their own iOS App Store.

~~~
uncoder0
Epic games store for iOS. Automatically accessible from all games packaged for
mobile built on the unreal engine. I imagine that is their goal as well.

------
dmix
Can you create a platform then have a monopoly over various sub-operations
within your own platform (specifically both payment processing and controlling
internal app distribution) Or is it just a piece of the wider mobile apps
market?

The modern digital economy is so much different than the Oil giants of the
late 1800's, for which the Sherman Act was written in 1890. I doubt this will
be an easy case for Epic or government lawyers.

This would be a landmark case even it ever goes anywhere (not so much this
injunction as a wider anti-trust move).

------
Talyen42
Can't wait to troubleshoot my parents iphones after courts force them to allow
arbitrary code installs from any source without apple's curation.

The whole value proposition of iOS is they BLOCK CRAP.

------
patal
What's up with the layout though? For one, the text alternates between serif
and sans-serif fonts, like someone came in and edited the prewritten
complaint, but didn't care about formatting. Second, they have problems
matching the text to the line number template, e.g. on pages 31, 38, 42, etc.

Is that common for complaints, or is this just hastily written? I remember
reading others and noticed peculiar layouts there, too.

------
Osiris
It was never mentioned in the complaint, but I thought Apple also had a policy
that required in-app purchases to be priced the same or lower than prices
offered outside the store...

I found an article from 2011 saying they tried to do this but backed away. Are
apps allowed to price, say subscriptions, higher on iOS than on the web? And
if they aren't allowed to advertise the lower price on the web, isn't that
anti-competitive, forcing iOS uses to pay more?

------
redm
Maybe I'm missing something, but why can't Epic and other developers just
raise the price of the games on the App Store by 30% and pass the cost along
to customers. Customers on Apples Ecosystem will just need to pay a premium,
just like they do for their devices.

"When you choose to use Epic direct payments, you save up to 20% as Epic
passes along payment processing savings to you."

Apparently they already were, they just want to lower the price for consumers.

~~~
Cu3PO42
This is correct. Earlier today they pushed a Fortnite update adding the option
to use "Epic direct payment" which charged 20% less. In response Apple removed
Fortnite from the App Store, which then triggered this law suit to be filed.

------
neo2006
[https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-
guidance/guide-a...](https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-
guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined) I'm
reading this and thinking, is just the fact that an iphone do not allow you to
install another OS is considered as an infringement of the anti trust law?

------
lousken
I don't understand - epic deliberately chooses to avoid the most open platform
(Linux) and yet they don't like being wall gardened? Quite ironic

~~~
bob1029
Epic's reasons for avoiding Linux are substantially different from their
reasons for circumventing Apple's restrictions.

See examples such as:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18845205](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18845205)

I do not think the irony holds in this case.

~~~
lousken
If this was true why would Steam even bother? Secondly, Nvidia and AMD both
invested tons of money into fixes for games in their drivers for windows and
it just shows. Also epic is spending money left and right, why couldn't they
invest into the platform just like steam? And even with that little investment
steam put into linux(compared to windows) it shows a really good potential.

------
heimatau
I'm curious how this will shake out.

On one hand Epic (and any developer) is building their business on Apple's
property/ecosystem. On the other hand, Apple has demonstrated anti-competitive
behavior in numerous instances.

Due to all the political turmoil in the USA with the technology industry, I
don't think Apple has enough political capital to prevent a massive/historic
prohibitive ruling against Apple.

~~~
colechristensen
Apple’s property?

This computer in my hand is mine, that argument works if you’re building your
business on top of somebody else’s SaaS or social network, even then it has
limitations.

------
awinder
So what does epic games do while this is being litigated? Isn’t this the cash
cow, I know they’ve got other games but still (as a windows gamer I look
forward to all of you who have found in Epic your David; what a bs company).
Do you try to force your way back in without the offending thing or what?

This whole thing seems super coordinated but with some real confusing missing
pieces, but should be fun to watch!

~~~
ErikAugust
Fortnite is multi-platform. Is Fortnite _for iOS_ their cash cow? Maybe not.

------
outside1234
It seems like the better approach here is to go the EU route.

They will be much more likely to act as this is anticompetitive (and plus it
is a non-EU company).

------
justizin
It is painfully clear that almost nobody, if anybody commenting here, actually
read the fairly clearly written complaint. :)

------
Despegar
Epic is going to lose this case.

~~~
grumple
Seems unlikely. Microsoft lost with a far more open situation than what
Apple's got.

~~~
threeseed
Given that you have a complete misunderstanding of why Microsoft lost their
case I don't think your opinion holds much weight.

There is no law that says a platform must be open.

------
Apocryphon
It's good to remember that Apple isn't just a potential monopoly, but a
monopsony-

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22051915](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22051915)

------
shmerl
Simple solution. Require Apple to allow alternative stores. That's a basic
anti-trust issue. Not that Epic is much better in the sense of doing anti-
competitive shenanigans, but Apple is simply infamous in that regard.

------
m3kw9
Epic just want more profits, making things very inconvenient for users but
having to sign up for their own payment processing. Once they got enough users
on the platform they want to cut Apple out.

------
lapcatsoftware
It looks like the HN moderators have kicked this out of #1, indeed all the way
off the front page, and are starting to do the same with related stories too.

Welp, it was fun while it lasted (a few hours).

~~~
camhart
Why are they doing that?

~~~
lapcatsoftware
"certain stories routinely get tons of upvotes regardless of how good they are
for HN—e.g. anything sensational, indignant, or meta. If we didn't have a
compensating factor, those stories would dominate the front page every day"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13857086](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13857086)

------
NicoJuicy
So, this is obvious that they knew they were violating terms and conditions.

How can they win? It's so clear that they have been preparing for this. The ad
in-game in fortnite makes it too obvious.

------
Talyen42
Can someone explain to me why Apple's 30% tax is so different from every B&M
retailer providing shelf space? I can't sell stuff in walmart without paying
Walmart

"But you can't sell apps on iOS outside the app store"

I can't sell stuff on ANY platform/device without the permission of the
platform/device maker. I also can't create my own platform within another
platform, without permission of that platform. I can't open an Amazon store
and ask Amazon to list or fulfill my goods but not charge me a fee.

Monopoly argument? with like 20-30% global user share? C'mon now

~~~
ngngngng
I can install anything I want from any platform/device maker on my Windows
computer, my Android phone, my Macbook, and my Linux laptop. Apple phones are
the outlier here.

~~~
threeseed
a) Phone is not considered by most people to be a computer.

b) I can't install anything I want on my PS4, Switch, Tesla, Shopify store
etc.

So actually Apple isn't the outlier at all.

------
aurizon
This will prove to be the straw that broke the camel's back. I hereby demand
that everyone who read this send me one micro-bitcoin....;)

------
catsarebetter
What if Apple already has paperwork prepared too lol

~~~
Rebelgecko
This looks pretty similar to a lawsuit that was filed against them last year
by individual developers, so they probably already do have paperwork to
respond to accusations re: Sherman Antitrust Act and CA competition laws

~~~
catsarebetter
I'm not mad at this though, they really do have a monopoly with their
marketplace and it's killing the growth of the mobile app industry.

------
camhart
How did this drop off the front page so fast?

------
somurzakov
that escalated quickly. some prominent names from the Epic side. it will be
interesting to follow this

------
asutekku
Wow, 65 pages in less than an hour. I knew epic was productive, but this must
be a new record.

~~~
bigpumpkin
They signed up for the GPT-3 beta and made an api call

~~~
jahabrewer
> An amazing games company files suit against an anachronistic monopoly, and
> their suit reads:

~~~
orangecat
Prompted with the first three paragraphs from the complaint, GPT-3 (Dragon
model on AIDungeon) continues:

    
    
      4.Apple's anticompetitive conduct harms consumers because it prevents new entrants into these markets from entering them at competitive prices, thereby raising the price of mobile apps and in-app content for consumers. It also harms competitors because it increases their costs of doing business by forcing them to pay higher prices for the same or similar products and services. Finally, it harms other businesses because it reduces their ability to compete by reducing the number of choices available to consumers.
    
      5.The Plaintiffs in this case seek to restore competition to these markets by challenging Apple's anticompetitive conduct. Plaintiffs bring claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, and common law unfair competition.
    
      6.This is a civil lawsuit. The Plaintiffs are not seeking criminal prosecution, nor are they seeking to have Apple break any agreements with other companies. They simply seek the right to compete with Apple on a level playing field.
    
      7.The Plaintiffs are seven individuals and companies who develop software applications for Apple's iOS operating system, which runs on all of its mobile devices, such as the iPhone and iPad. Apple's iOS is the second most popular mobile operating system in the world, with approximately 1.4 billion devices sold to date.

------
rednerrus
It'll be interesting to see how much revenue Forknife has generated in the app
store.

------
javieranton
Let's all go on strike and make our apps unavailable for 24 hrs

------
ss7pro
So they should remove Google drive as they also skip apple payments ...

------
artembugara
I think apple has the right to make TOS as they want.

The only way for Epic to "win" is to make others join their side and leave App
Store. Then, Apple will have to decrease their cut under the pressure.

~~~
Dahoon
They can likely write whatever they want but (at least in the EU) by law you
cannot sign away your rights, so even agreeing to whatever someone write in
TOS or EULA doesn't mean it will hold up in court.

~~~
artembugara
Of course, but setting up your cut is totally legal everywhere.

So, 30% or 99%. Whatever it is. Apple put it there. It is legal. If you don’t
like just don’t accept. Go distribute your app somewhere else (also, App Store
does not qualify for monopoly)

------
christkv
What got banned by apple ?

~~~
acephal
Fortnite for ducking fees

------
tiborsaas
What's the context and TLDR?

~~~
choeger
Context is that Apple has two things:

A) Devices, with a large market share, restricted to a particular app store,
where Apple takes a pay cut of 30%.

B) Strong restrictions on what is allowed inside this app store and no
hesitation to ban anyone from that app store for sometimes the weirdest
reason.

Naturally no one likes to pay apple the 30% cut and even more so no one likes
to be forced to play by Apple's rules to distribute software to iPhones etc.

Now Epic Games actually tries to fight back. Study law and read the documents
if you need more details ;).

My take on this: Apple is obviously acting in a manner that prevents fair
competition. They have a point to be paid and they have a point to enact
certain policies. But taken together with the outright ban of competing
stores, this is obviously a market dominating position. I guess they can have
two of the three and they should go for policies, single app store and a self-
cost price. But they probably will settle for single app store and high price.

------
nevezen
Just FYI, Tencent owns a 40% stake in Epic Games.

~~~
Dahoon
Please take the China bashing aka. racism back to Reddit.

~~~
nevezen
How is that racist?

