Series of pre-trial hearings, Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple could in fact keep Fortnite off the App Store and prevent Epic from publishing new iOS versions and additional iOS apps for the duration of the trial, but Apple was barred from voiding Epic's developer agreement for the Unreal Engine. ![]() Video: YouTubeĪpple fired back by attempting to strip Epic of both its iOS developer access and the developer license it uses to distribute its Unreal Engine on the macOS platform, setting up early courtroom fireworks as Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California had to rule on what, if any, restrictions Apple could continue to impose on Epic and Fortnite prior to trial. The video Epic had ready as soon as Apple kicked Fortnite out of the app store. Epic filmed a video casting Apple as the very villain it once said it was rebelling against, using a parody of its iconic "1984" Ridley Scott-directed Macintosh ad, and even promoted its lawsuit within the world of Fortnite itself. Promptly removed by Apple and Google, an outcome Epic was well prepared for as it countered immediately with antitrust lawsuits against both companies and a carefully crafted media blitz under the hashtag #FreeFortnite. It would set the precedent that the App Store is as inextricable from the rest of the iPhone as its A-Series chip.Īlternative in-app payment system for Fortnite on iOS and Android to bypass Apple's 30% cut. What it would mean: If Apple can succeed in defending itself against Epic, it would make it much, much harder for anyone else to come after Apple on similar grounds. It says that without the app review process, without the software enhancements and OS-level functionality that come from approval and without the security and simplicity provided by the in-app purchase system, the iPhone would be a fundamentally different device and, in Apple's view, a worse one. What Apple wants: To prove that the App Store is a necessary and inseparable component of the entire iOS experience. Apple could be forced to give Epic and other developers ways around Apple's 15% to 30% commissions, or to open up the iPhone to side-loaded apps or even full-blown alternative app stores. What it would mean: A sweeping Epic win would both establish the App Store as a monopoly and advance the idea that Apple abuses that power to shut down other app markets. What Epic wants: To be able to sell V-Bucks to iOS-using Fortnite players without having to use Apple's in-app purchase tools, and to be able to operate its own app store on iOS. We'll be updating this page through the trial, but here's everything you need to know about Epic v. And no matter what happens, there will certainly be appeals. ![]() Or, as often happens in these cases, it could end up much more narrow than that. The outcome of this case could change how billions of dollars flows between tech companies and could provide hints as to how tech antitrust cases and regulations are likely to work in the coming years. At the heart of the case are arguments over whether Apple can and should exert total control over iOS and the App Store, or whether developers should be allowed to distribute apps over alternative marketplaces or simply bypass Apple's longstanding 30% commission on digital goods. Epic alleges that the iPhone maker's App Store and in-app purchase policies both violate antitrust law. This time, however, Apple is the one on defense. ![]() It's arguably the biggest courtroom showdown Apple has engaged in since its smartphone patent war with Samsung nearly a decade ago. The trial has been nearly a year in the making, following Apple's removal of Fortnite from the App Store in August 2020. On Monday, Apple and Epic Games will meet in court to decide one of the most consequential antitrust arguments in the history of the tech industry.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |