Apple Blocks Fortnite's Return to iOS App Store, Epic Claims
I don’t deny Apple’s pettiness… Nonetheless, can you provide a different example of why devs are afraid of publicly criticizing Apple?
Apple put themselves in the position that they have to do business with entities they don't approve of, thankfully the courts are reminding them of this. Soon one or more of the apple execs will wind up in prison.
Anyway, just look at how apple forced their payment service so they can take a 30% cut of every transaction made by any iPhone user. Then they banned price differences between Apple's own payment service and external, cheaper, ones. This forces companies to raise their prices by 30% everywhere. So we're all paying more to fund apple's greed. This is just one example of many, and you have to look beyond the apple vs epic fight since that is just the most public instance. Apple are the bullies.
Apple are involving themselves in business between their customers and companies those users have chosen to use. Apple are the bullies.
When was the last time you heard Sweeney admit they target dark patterns at children?
To be frank, I think this is an issue people only opportunistically care about.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonwosborne/2023/05/25/how-lo...
> You went nuclear on Apple, Epic. That's not going to make them interested in having you as a business partner.
this is unfortunately the same language abusers use when their victims try to gain support (pr campaign), seek help (use the courts), or fight back (violate unfair terms)
maybe epic just wants apple to stop abusing them and leave them alone while they interact with their customers on a platform that apple has been ordered several times to open up
not being abused shouldn't require you to "be nice" to your abuser, or to want to be their "business partner"
it is not for you to decide, though
also, I'm not really interested in being the subject of discussion, but if you're going to tell me what I'm doing, at least be right about it: I haven't followed any public statements from either party in the matter; I've only read court documents and rulings; and I have never patronized either company and have no plans or interest to do so. I think that makes me more impartial here.
I don’t deny Apple’s pettiness… Nonetheless, can you provide a different example of why devs are afraid of publicly criticizing Apple?
Every subscription service should have a banner on their pages saying signing up through iOS takes 30%. Many just disabled signing up.
Of course maybe this isn't the best example since Apple actually made it against their rules to tell users it'd be cheaper to purchase on their site.
Apple's rules undeniably cost end users money. Epic proved it by taking some of that 30% fee and giving it back to the consumer (you got more Fortnite credits buying on Epic store instead of Apple store).
Why people try to defend Apple I'll never understand, my guess is some people who own an iPhone have decided that's 'their team' and who wants to see their team lose? But I'm not sure.
Why people try to defend Apple I'll never understand, my guess is some people who own an iPhone have decided that's 'their team' and who wants to see their team lose
It's this. Apple somehow managed to cultivate cult-like behavior in their users, which I've also never understood.
Edit: fuck I just got trolled. According to jillyboel profile we are all just fascists. And dang is preventing him from spamming his trolls on HN.
Why people try to defend Apple I'll never understand, my guess is some people who own an iPhone have decided that's 'their team' and who wants to see their team lose? But I'm not sure.
Happy to help! It's because some of us are Apple's customers, not Apple's suppliers, contractors or "vendor partners".
We customers like that Apple plays hardball with the people who would otherwise try to fuck us over. Remember that dev a few weeks ago who was giving examples of the "ways that Apple's IAP sucks"? Most of the things he wanted to do were dark patterns that are bad for customers.
If devs have to raise their prices by 15%, so be it. I would much rather that one company has my PII than fifty, anyway.
As for different reason, how about this official policy from ~2015:
If your App is rejected, we have a Review Board that you can appeal to. If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150411105225/https://developer...
But Epic did go out of their way to ‘trash’ Apple in the press. For this and other reasons I can’t generally relate to Epic. (e.g. targeting kids with microtransactions, burning piles of money on Epic Games exclusives.)
I would also not want to do business with Epic
I would also not want to do business with Epic
So don't put yourself in the position where you have to do business with Epic, like forcing them to use your store to get software on the platform over a billion users use.
Apple could easily just do what various courts have ordered them to do: Open up the ecosystem and allow anyone to distribute apps. This has the added benefit of allowing apple to stop doing business with the entities they don't like, because they are no longer involving themselves in a transaction between the user and the business the user has chosen.
It will also save their executives from a prison sentence if they keep this up.
https://www.beuc.eu/reports/game-over-consumers-fight-fairer...
Your suggestion is that they sit on the sidelines and complain about the situation. That's what plenty of people have done, and it makes no difference.
I'm not a fan of Epic, I don't play their games. They did all this for their own benefit. But it's probably a good thing overall.
Too many devs have their livelihood at the mercy of Apple's(and Google's) Damocles's sword. At least with Google you can easily sideload.
If even megacorpos like Epic have issues with Apple imagine what being an indie dev or small company will be like.
The politicians of course only care about the PR stunt and give them concessions either way.
Job creation, retention or destruction is a powerful political tool that companies use everywhere as leverage to get politicians to do what they want. You can see the auto sector in Germany. So the US defending Apple is understandable. All countries protect their domestic big players.
Not only did they do this, they then filed suit to say that Apple shouldn't have been allowed to suspend their account—and lost (though arguably won the broader war since anti-steering is currently dead).
There are a ton of things Apple is doing wrong around developer stuff and anti-steering rules and all of it, but I dunno, I feel pretty good about them saying to a specific developer, “actually, you've shown yourself to be willing to ignore the legal agreements you sign, so we're not going to be doing business with you any longer“. Epic's stunt should cost them, if they then want to talk about how they've martyred themselves for developers everywhere. Good work, but a martyr who comes back to life isn't really a martyr, right?
Devs are more afraid of breaking the rules because the rules change all the time, and they know Apple is petty and cares more about money than being good to customers and developers.
The outrage would be massive, that would be giant scandal
Should Microsoft ever make a move now, Valve isn't completely at their mercy.
They should have made it attractive for developers already targeting UNIX like systems, with PlayStation and Android NDK, to actually bother shipping GNU/Linux builds of their games.
Instead, they translate Windows games.
Valve is still at the Microsoft's mercy to tolerate Proton's existence.
No, they aren't. Valve is way, way too big a bear for Microsoft to poke. If they banned Steam, the backlash would be severe.
It would also result in even more users switching to Linux to keep access to the games they've already paid for, and which work under Linux due to proton.
Microsoft is at Valve's mercy. Valve doesn't need Microsoft, but Microsoft very badly needs Steam around to keep gamers on windows.
To a platform emulating Windows? (no need to correct me on how WINE works)
If at all they would be migrating to Nintendo and Sony consoles, if not having second thoughts about XBox consoles and cloud/GeForce Now.
Additionally, most of what Valve stands for will be gone the day Gabe is no longer at the company, enjoy while it lasts.
From all of them - take it away from Google too. Frankly - Microsoft never actually got much buy in for their store, but take it away from them as well.
Hardware that has only a single approved distribution channel for software, that is owned by someone other than the owner of the hardware, shouldn't be legal.
Further - if you own a piece of hardware, you legally should own EVERY fucking key. If there's a lock in that device, hardware or software based, that has a key - you get a damn copy.
---
Some physical comparisons that show how outrageously unethical this setup is:
You buy a home, but your realtor gets the only copy of the keys. "Don't worry" they say, "I'll just pop by and open er up whenever you need to get in and out. Oh, and by the way, I don't like Ikea - so I won't open the door if you're trying to move Ikea furniture in. Great working with you guys, enjoy your new home!".
You've just bought a new car, you tried turning into your neighborhood, but suddenly the car stops. You call the dealer: "Oh, I see your neighborhood road was paved by PavingCo, They don't pay our manufacturers' yearly inspection fee, so we can't certify that our car can safely drive on that road. So we disable it when the GPS detects you're about to drive there."
---
This is fundamentally about ownership. Hardware manufacturers are playing with utter fire here, because this is the first time in history there exists enough infrastructure that a device can phone home and ask "Is this ok?" to the maker, rather than operating as the owner desires.
As far as I'm concerned - you don't own a device that does that. You're just renting it, and the manufacturer can and will extort you with rent-seeking behavior at EVERY turn.
Phones are only the first stop - this is going to spread to absolutely everything that uses electricity unless this gets extinguished real fast. We're already starting to see the same games in Cars, IoT devices, TVs, etc...
I'm eagerly awaiting the day my drill stops working because I'm not trying to drill the manufacturers' overpriced screws with it...
Epic wanted their own store and they got their own store. It cost them and Apple a bunch of money, which indirectly is not good for anyone's customers... my sense of justice is not perplexed as to why they are not allowed back in.
Would you want to do business with someone who just sued you after breaking their previous contract with you?
Epic wanted their own store and they got their own store.
They don't. Quoting the article:
"Apple has blocked our Fortnite submission so we cannot release to the US App Store or to the Epic Games Store for iOS in the European Union," Epic stated via its Fortnite account
If someone prevents me from selling my own product in my own store then it's not my store.
That’s something they could’ve avoided by using different IDs for different stores, like everyone else does on e.g. Amazon AppStore. (Maybe even Samsung and Play Store use different IDs)
But that’s assuming they’re not just refusing to release anywhere until Apple relents in the US.
As I say above, Apple is legally permitted to do this, but I think they're inviting additional and heavy-handed legal interdiction. They're burning so much of their brand and goodwill on this war against developers. They went so far as to risk actual prison time for their executives, just so they could screw developers out of as much money as possible.
A few days ago Nintendo announced that if you do anything outside of what they allow, they will BRICK YOUR NINTENDO SWITCH. Like, how's that even legal
if you are an indie dev on app store, do you think apple allowing alt stores and basically unlocking piracy is how selling will become less broken for you?
there are only two categories of people winning this: people who like to pirate things when they can, and shady corps like epic who are invulnerable to piracy even if alt stores are allowed (because they run their own billing servers) and who want to make a penny more on every predatory microtransaction in their games.
I guess "selling software" in my mind doesn't necessarily means a traditional transaction, so that's probably the source of disagreement.
Yes, to me selling software is very much broken for the consumer. The fact that selling software for indie devs is hard doesn't justify that, selling to end users is hard in many businesses. In businesses, software is everywhere though
These kind of things that you can do with physical items
That kind of stuff
if you can pass it to your kids then it also breaks the above. I have some nice non-appstore indie apps I bought as one time purchase, they still call some billing API. they work if I block them with a firewall but they probably will stop working after a reinstall and if billing api dies they are forever in trial mode. do I blame the dev for make a living?
But seriously in ideal world
- subscription offers like adobe will be outcompeted by better one-time sale indie software
This aint happening unless indie devs can reliably make enough money and are protected
- indie dev can open source their stuff in case they quit the business/retire (unless their kids take over and keep billing api working) or for people who can't afford it.
Projects did it because you couldn't just take someone's xcode project and publish it. But now with now alt stores you can
So yeah Epic push for alt stores kills both of the above, all because they want to shave a cent more from each microtransaction they lure your kids into
Be Apple, innovate, give us second iPhone moment so you wouldn't worry so much about revenue drop in services. Or make payment via Apple so good, your customers would go for it even with price difference. Just stop stupid, monopolistic tactics.
Apple has built the touchscreen smartphone that the world to date still could not move on from, and it still leads in that category. By working both hardware and software fronts, they have grinded out an ecosystem that was compelling and money-making to small developers (handling legal and tax logistics pretty much worldwide for you) and to the end users.
Apple Pay is yet another example: you’d think somebody would have come up with a way to conveniently and securely pay with, say, a phone, and yet everybody needed for the teacher to do it first and only then jumped on copying the feature with barely enough creativity to call it “%SOME_BRAND_NAME% Pay” and put their logo on it. Now it’s incredibly convenient, it’s everywhere online, and it basically turns every shop out there into Amazon’s patented “one-click purchase” experience.
Saying they should not be able to profit from their innovation because they just did too good of a job intuitively seems like the opposite of American values. This is not some rusty ISP monopoly with a geographically captive market, sitting on decades old software as secure as Swiss cheese, doing mostly nothing. People switch between ecosystems all the time, there are no strong lock-ins; you have to be on top of it to stay competitive, and Apple generally is. This is one of the rare cases where a company keeps generating and implementing (pretty well) idea after idea in multiple areas with a valuation, contrary to trends, built not on empty future promises but on a concrete, sound business model that provides real value to people who are willing to pay for it, despite having a lot of choice.
I don't care if they're "rusty" or or not. Sell a good hammer, make money selling the hammer: Everything is fine.
Sell a good hammer, double dip with rent seeking and charge for every nail the user drives? Fuck off. Happy to see them get wrecked in the court system.
If you like this one, with all the futuristic tech it brings, don’t get on a high horse whenever those who dare to innovate also dare to make money from it. Have the brains and the balls to do it yourself and be as flush as they are.
This isn’t “rent”—landlords don’t have to incessantly innovate.
I'm less interested in a future where hammer manufacturers charge rent for every nail the user drives. I don't consider that "innovation" to be good for humankind.
0) don’t speak for all humankind,
1) when there is no extractive behavior—defined as taking a fee without producing even remotely proportionate value in return—do not misuse the word “rent” (as I said: landlords don’t innovate), and
2) when innovation is actually innovation, don’t put it in quotes.
Unless your hammer comes with a team of security engineers that work round the clock pushing security updates against zero-day vulnerabilities, or a selection of millions of expansions that expand its functionality in various ways, etc., no amount of mental gymnastics would make your hammer anything like a supercomputer that fits in the palm of your hand. The analogy you decided to repeat works against you; the fact that such a supercomputer costs only 20x more than a really good hammer costs today is amazing.
This seems like a disingenuous and fallacious response. Would you like to try replying in a more good faith manner? It might convince others to keep reading, rather than stopping at the first sentence.
It certainly did not seem to convince anyone that a hammer manufacturer which charges rent for every nail the user drives (in addition to charging for the hammer) is better than a regular hammer pricing model, and I still don't consider that rent-seeking "innovation" to be good for humankind.
I am the one trying to maintain a constructive argument here. It is not coincidental that people upholding the other side very rarely do.
Your claim that a hammer manufacturer's "pay us for every nail" model is not a suitable metaphor for the apple's "pay us for every dollar" payment processing model, was respectfully communicated (thank you for that) and heard. The case you made for that claim, was not persuasive enough to convince the people who think it is. I think no more meta-arguing (or meta-insisting) need be done regarding whether a metaphor is perfect or not: I will be the first to admit that none are (because comparing a thing to itself is useless), but some are illustrative.
To wit, this metaphor illustrates that the world would be a better place without apple asking to be paid for every dollar accepted in-app which is distributed in the app store, just like the world would be a better place without a hammer manufacturer asking to be paid for every nail driven by the hammer.
Maybe one might think otherwise if apple showed data that explained how their 27-30% cut of others' sales was necessary to allow payments? We understand that making 2 hammers costs ~2x as much as making 1 hammer, but does allowing an app to accept $2 cost ~2x as much as allowing an app to accept $1? What is the magnitude of that cost? Remember that compensation for distribution (which covers the costs of running the app store, and need not be correlated with in-app payments) can happen separately.
Your claim that a hammer manufacturer's "pay us for every nail" model is not a suitable metaphor for the apple's "pay us for every dollar" payment
Great job at goalpost moving (and putting words in my mouth).
No amount of mental gymnastics will turn your hammer into a sophisticated device that gains new features after you buy it, so powerful that it can be used by ill-intentioned people to compromise entire livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of customers if it’s not patched in a timely manner after they bought it. All of them expect this ongoing service, and many of them do not pay a cent for it, never using any paid apps or in-app purchases.
However, I’m repeating myself.
TL;DR: The reason your business model works for a hammer is because it is a damn hammer. Come back with a better analogy, reply to my points in the comment upthread, and start finally making sense—or, to quote the comment whom you are so hell-bent on defending, “get outta here”. The overhwelming majority of people worldwide use Android; go join their ranks and be happy.
No amount of mental gymnastics will turn apple's "pay us for every dollar you make" payment extortion model into an innovation good for humankind, nor will it make that model any more innovative. It's simply a vig, one of the oldest business models in history. No change, no innovation. Same ol' "give us a cut of everything you make [or else]" that it's always been. The extortion model is not necessary for the app store, it's not necessary for devices, it's not necessary for security, it's not necessary for anything except making more profits. Apple could start demanding 1% of every dollar spent in an app, instead of 27-30%, and still continue providing the same service. Your deafening silence on the topic of their actual incurred costs speaks volumes here: One would be forgiven for concluding that you agree with me, that it has no justification to speak of, other than greed and might-makes-right.
As for your claim that a hammer manufacturer's "pay us for every nail" model is not a suitable metaphor for the apple's "pay us for every dollar" payment processing model: It was respectfully communicated (thank you for that) and heard. Unfortunately, the case you made for that claim was not persuasive enough. You could try to come back and make a better case, but I think no more meta-arguing (or meta-insisting) need be done regarding whether a metaphor is perfect or not: I will be the first to admit that none are (because comparing a thing to itself is useless), but some are illustrative.
To wit, this metaphor illustrates that the world would be a better place without apple asking to be paid for every dollar accepted in-app which is distributed in the app store, just like the world would be a better place without a hammer manufacturer asking to be paid for every nail driven by the hammer.
Maybe one might think otherwise if apple showed data that explained how their 27-30% cut of others' sales was necessary to allow payments? We understand that making 2 hammers costs ~2x as much as making 1 hammer, but does allowing an app to accept $2 cost ~2x as much as allowing an app to accept $1? ---> What is the magnitude of that cost? <--- Remember that compensation for distribution (which covers the costs of running the app store, and need not be correlated with in-app payments) can happen separately.
As I do with Microsoft, I only use Apple products when its absolutely necessary.
My personal choices are whatever is best, Fedora for my home OS(Don't call Fedora Linux, Fedora is so far and beyond Linux, you don't want to associate them).
My Pixel phone... Idk, looking for something new. But at least I have been using Fdroid and its pretty amazing.
But yeah I bend to their will when I'm doing corporate stuff, never personal.
https://www.gsmarena.com/apple_now_showing_warnings_on_eu_ap...
Its about freedom and openness of platforms.
‘It’s fine because people will ignore it’ doesn’t make something okay.
Would you be okay for Google to warn anyone when entering a website on chrome that they are taking a risk because they offer payment options other than Google pay? Its about freedom and openness of platforms.‘It’s fine because people will ignore it’ doesn’t make something okay.
I can give an anecdotal example of my father who is bit old, knows some basic tech, but had been at the receiving end of some financial fraud (some clowns pretended to be stock trading experts, thankfully nothing happened as he figured it out before any money was sent).
You and I might be technologically sophisticated enough to know what's what. That being said I feel the likelihood of scammy apps like those on App store for iOS a lot less likely but not zero. That being said, on Chrome, one does have many many options for reliable payment gateways and not using them can be an easy way to figure out if it is risky or not.
If Google were to force Google Pay on Chrome, that would be clearly wrong. Options should exist.
And I feel Apple should allow Fortnite for that very reason. You cannot ban someone for not wanting to use Apple Pay, the same way Chrome cannot and should not ban a website if they are using a non Google related payment gateway.
This app does not support the App Store’s private and secure payment system. It uses external purchases
It's poorly worded for maximum FUD.
In Slack communications dated November 16, 2021, the Apple employees crafting the warning screen for Project Michigan discussed how best to frame its language. Mr. Onak suggested the warning screen should include the language: “By continuing on the web, you will leave the app and be taken to an external website” because “‘external website’ sounds scary, so execs will love it.” [...] One employee further wrote, “to make your version even worse you could add the developer name rather than the app name.” To that, another responded “ooh - keep going.”
from https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36... (page 36)
these people should be jailed for contempt
https://daringfireball.net/2025/05/that_eu_app_store_warning...
And fwiw we have hard evidence of Apple acting in bad faith. Gruber keeps giving Apple PR the benefit of the doubt but they absolutely do not deserve it.
Also the situation is much more complicated. In the EU, Fortnite has been available for a while through their own Epic Games AppStore. This submission seems to have been for both, the EU distribution and the US AppStore. I am surprised that such a situation is even possible, I thought if you opt-in your app/account for EU alternative AppStores you are kind of blocked from the standard AppStore submission as the requirements for the alternative distribution path are different from the AppStore. At the same time it seems to give Epic more arguments for pressure on Apple as sabotaging the release in the EU might be against the DMA laws.
Tim Sweeney is using language in a way to make it appear as though the recent ruling ordered Fortnite's reinstatement, and a lot of people are falling for it.
https://mjtsai.com/blog/2025/05/07/fortnite-coming-back-to-t...
Remember when Apple tried to tell the judge that they would be happy to welcome Epic back to the App Store once the court case was over and the issue adjudicated? I do, because I read the transcripts and listened to the hearings.I guess technically it’s not over yet because Apple has appealed. On the other hand, Apple made the offer, without the condition of the court case being over, after the legal battle had already begun. So it seems like it was never a serious offer and only meant to sway public opinion.
To be clear I think Apple is in the wrong here and the App Store tax is absurd. But what court decision says that Epic won?
The judge didn’t say Fortnite had to be let back on the App Store. She said that Apple needed to allow payments through external payment processors. Apple can’t force Epic to use their payment system anymore, but they absolutely still can decide they don’t want to distribute Fortnite on the App Store. It’s their store.
So most companies/devs will be able to just publish on App Store, and apple can after that "verify" that the app confirms with their standards.
They even went as far as to blocking downloads from third-party app stores:
The Verge has confirmed that the game is no longer available to download on iOS from the Epic Games Store or the alternative marketplace AltStore PAL in the EU, where it had previously been available. It’s not yet clear if Apple blocked the game’s availability through those stores, or if Epic itself chose to make it unavailable. We’ve reached out to both Apple and Epic for comment.
That tells you the reach into how Apple can block app installs even from third-party app stores.