26
votes
Epic offers new direct payment in Fortnite on iOS and Android to get around app store fees, and is removed from both stores
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Apple just kicked Fortnite off the App Store
- Authors
- Nick Statt
- Published
- Aug 13 2020
- Word count
- 1164 words
One tub of popcorn isn't enough. This PR stunt has me considering supporting Epic, despite being on the anti-EGS bandwagon. It's so funny they had this sixty page legal complaint ready the literal minute Apple removed them.
Fortnite has now been removed from the Google Play store as well.
Epic has sued them as well now, and I find their case interesting. Apparently they struck a deal with some device manufacturers to preinstall their store but Google intervened; thus, they have no way of automatically updating their games in the background since they need privileges to do so. As an F-Droid user, this is an inconvenience, although I haven't thought much of it before.
I think a relevant piece is European Commission opening an antitrust investigation into Apple's App Store rules earlier in June.
These investigations and similar lawsuits may ultimately result in regulation against the App Store or Apple appeasing regulators by conceding and self-regulating to issues brought up.
Epic once again tries to get around the 30% App Tax, let's see how it plays out this time...
Apple has now removed Fortnite from the App Store in retaliation. (Maybe I should update the link to that one?)
Actually this is getting really interesting really quickly, Epic was completely ready for this:
Here's the short
Epic prepared to go to war over this.
I sympathize more with Epic than Apple here, but I can't be the only one who rolled their eyes while watching this short. Considering the rise of jingoist-inspired authoritarianism throughout the world, equating Apple demanding their 30% cut to 1984 is rather ridiculous. Frankly the advert demeans those living under actual 1984-like conditions.
I wouldn't read that much into it. It's a simple parody of Apple's 1984 ad, playing off the irony that Apple was once the underdog and has now switched to the opposite role.
I'm aware of the original ad, but I disagree that it's merely parody. Epic's intentionally fomenting outrage. The original ad compels people to be different; Epic's "parody" compels people to be angry, those people being mostly teenage Fortnite players. Young people have a great deal to be angry about, and obviously they have the right to choose what matters to them, but they shouldn't be the standard-bearers for a battle between billion-dollar corporations.
If not for the text at the end, I'd agree with you. I mean, yeah it's obviously a parody, but then they straight up compare Apple's practices to "1984"
The original ad made that comparison, it ends with this text:
This is actually really cool of Epic. I have long loathed how iOS doesn't allow side-loading, so if Epic manages to get Apple to break open their walled garden, that would undoubtedly be a win.
That said, Apple doesn't seem the kind of company to give up their paternalistic control over the devices they sell without a fight. If anything, I suspect they'll merely start heavily advertising alternative Battle Royale games in their store, and otherwise maintain radio silence.
It does.
That's an exploit though, it's not something iOS allows natively. Android specifically supports installing APKs from outside the app store, iOS actively tries to prevent it.
As @Moonchild said, AFAIK Cydia Impactor is technically not using any exploits; It uses the exact same protocol as Xcode (the official Apple dev IDE) to sideload apps, which is why it also requires iTunes to be installed and the user to have an apple dev account in order to work. The only difference between them is Impactor is an unlicensed/unofficial program which can also run on Windows, and it automatically renews the sideloaded apps certs (which would normally expire every 7 days with a free apple dev account, or every 12 months with a paid one) every time you connect your phone to your computer. Whereas Xcode is official but macOS only, and requires you to manually renew the certs.
Unlike Android, it is true that there is no "native" way to sideload apps on iOS via the device itself without jailbreaking though.
FWIW it only requires that on windows and mac; it works fine without on linux.
It's not an exploit. It uses the same protocol as xcode does for app development.
You're right, it's not an exploit, but it only runs on iDevices that have been jailbroken, which by definition requires users to use a known exploit. Exploits which Apple regularly takes measures to defeat.
I'm no legal expert, but jailbraking iPhones may or may not be illegal in the US under the terms of the DMCA.
It works on all idevices, not just jailbroken ones.
(You may be thinking of cydia, which is an on-device alternate app store, and which does require a jailbreak.)
Wow, they're actually trying to completely break open their walled garden. I'm glad they are doing this since the people who should be doing this are clearly uninterested in the public welfare, at least when it comes to monopolistic practices.
This actually changed my mind about them to a certain degree. Before this, I was just kind of irritated at Epic being unwilling to pay the piper because it seems rent-seeking.
This is true. Judging with how Epic is portraying it with their short, they're trying to also spin it as a positive PR piece. In reality they just want to increase their margins - albeit rightfully so, 30% "Apple tax" (and Google) on in-app purchases is massive.
Wow. Now I'm wondering what animated short they have prepped for Google if they took Fortnite off the Play Store.
You can easily sideload apps on android, so I don't think they'd have as strong of a case. In fact fortnite is already available through their website as a side-loadable app.
Well, sure, but I was wondering what Google specific animated short they would have had prepped since they had an Apple specific one.
I linked this in a separate top-level comment too, but Google's removed them now too, so I guess we'll see if they have a separate response ready for that, or if they were mainly aiming at Apple.
This is quickly turning into something bigger. I wonder where the lawsuit legally stands in the anti-competitive eyes of the law.
Go for it, it's an evolving story.
Latest from The Verge: Epic judge will protect Unreal Engine — but not Fortnite.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/25/21400240/epic-apple-ruling-unreal-engine-fortnite-temporary-restraining-order
"Protect" is doing a bunch of work in that sentence, so it's worth explaining exactly what it means (caveat: not a lawyer, just a casual interest in the law).
In this instance, the judge has granted a preliminary injunction, which basically means it's a temporary ruling while the case is still being tried. Preliminary injunctions are evaluated based on the following criteria:
Regarding the Unreal Engine (UE), Apple cutting-off third-party developers's access to UE clearly hurts those developers (imagine spending two years on an app and suddenly being unable to release it), meeting the conditions for (1); condition (2) is less obvious, but evidently the judge has sided with Epic here, so I'll let that speak for itself.
Regarding Fortnite, Epic has a much weaker claim for (1), hence the judge's decision. Epic's harm here is self-inflicted, having unilaterally broken the terms of agreement for the App Store. In fact, the harm is reversible, since Epic could simply undo the change that resulted in them being banned in the first place (as the judge notes).