Epic Won Because Everyone Won, Because Apple Lost
This post by John Gruber would seem to serve as a good example of what I think people missed – and are still missing – about the play by Epic and Tim Sweeney here (well, at least in my read of the situation, which I think I nailed three-plus-years ago how this would all play out eventually). Here's Gruber:
I could be wrong, but my read is that while the ruling was clearly a significant and reputationally-damaging loss for Apple, that doesn’t make it a “win” for Epic at all. Just because the case is Epic v. Apple doesn’t mean Epic benefits by Apple’s excoriation. Apple won the original case. It was like a sidenote on that original case that Judge Gonzalez Rogers issued an injunction that Apple was required to allow developers to just freely link to alternative payment offerings on the web, outside the app. Basically, that if the App Store is not anticompetitive, apps at least must be able to inform users about competing options for purchases/signups.
It's certainly not a "win" for Epic in that there wasn't one company that won and one company that lost here. There was only a loser, Apple. And as a result of that loss, pretty much every other company is a winner, including, of course, Epic. That's because everyone can now direct users of their apps outside of the App Store ecosystem (notably, the payments infrastructure) to pay for things such as in-app purchases (likely via "packs" and other bundle-type purchases) and subscriptions without having to pay Apple their 27% cut – which actually was more expensive than going with Apple, because those developers had to handle certain fees, such as credit card processing fees, themselves.
With this ruling, which Judge Gozalez Rogers ordered into effect immediately, Apple is complying "immediately" (presumably as slowly as they can without being held in breach) while they appeal to hopefully get the order rolled back (or stayed). So yeah, that's a "win" not so much for Epic as it is for everyone.
And actually, it really might not be a win for Epic yet because... they're not yet back in the App Store, so they can't take advantage of that win.
None of this, as far as I can see, has anything to do with Epic Games or Fortnite at all, other than that it was Epic who initiated the case. Give them credit for that. But I don’t see how this ruling gets Fortnite back in the App Store. I think Sweeney is just blustering — he wants Fortnite back in the App Store and thinks by just asserting it, he can force Apple’s hand at a moment when they’re wrong-footed by a scathing federal court judgment against them.
Maybe Sweeney knows something I don’t, but I doubt it. I think this is just bluster, PR gamesmanship, and ought to be reported that way, at least for now. If there’s a single sentence in Gonzalez Rogers’s ruling that suggests Apple needs to reinstate Epic Games to the App Store, I missed it.
Tim Sweeney has been making a lot of noise (as you'd expect) about re-submitting Fortnite to the App Store and offering his own "peace deal" to Apple. But if you read his fine print, he's only willing to make peace if Apple makes these changes worldwide. This court order, of course, only applies to the US. And while the EC issued similar ones in Europe, Apple is not fully complying with those yet (as they're still making developers jump through hoops – including payment hoops – to be fully functional outside of the App Store ecosystem). So it's certainly possible – perhaps even probable – that Apple only rolls out these changes in the US.1
In fact, the only way I see Apple rolling out such changes worldwide is if they finally decided to read the goddamn room and realize that they've lost this war. Yes, they won their battle with Epic – congrats? – but they lost the war, as expected. The App Store is slowly getting carved into a million little pieces because Apple is trying to hang on to every last dime of their fees. They could have and should have gotten ahead of this by being more proactive in not only cutting those fees, but making them far more granular and developer-friendly. It's too late for that now. And it sealed their fate here.
But one potential path forward towards regaining developer trust could be rolling this US-mandated change worldwide. A bigger one would be opening up web distribution for developers, but that's undoubtedly still a bridge too far – then again, if they are really feeling the heat here...
Anyway, Sweeney knows that it's perhaps unlikely that Apple will roll this change out around the world, which is exactly why he made his "peace agreement" contingent on it! This is what he does – what he's been doing – applying continued pressure on Apple. And even just re-submitting Fortnite – which he's also done before! – is a form. He's daring Apple to accept him back, even though they don't technically have to because Epic did breach the rules around payments way back when. But Sweeney knows that if Apple rejects Fortnite, it's just another PR win for Epic and more bad press for Apple. He's calling their bluff.
But really, he's poking the bear. Again. And again. And again.
On one hand, it's silly because he's decidedly not helping his own business, Epic, in the short-term. But he's clearly playing a longer-term game here. And my point is that he's been winning it. Even if Epic did not technically win anything here.
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
1 Even more granularly, these changes were technically just required in California. But it's impossible to see how Apple would implement such a change in just one state. And all the other states would then sue for the same treatment anyway...