Epic Games Wins Appeal Against Apple in Australia

After Apple was initially granted their stay, Epic has appealed and won, which means in Australia the case is moving onward and upward.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Darkborn74d ago

I don't know how epic could win this. They clearly violated the terms of service they signed, and right after violating it, like a couple hours after being kicked off ios, they released a propaganda video that they clearly spent some time producing. It was fully acted and had CGI and all that. They had this video locked and loaded for what they expected to happen. They instigated this whole thing. They deserve to pay fines and still be locked out of their services.

74d ago Replies(3)
Krog01174d ago (Edited 74d ago )

Eh, IDK. They don't apply it evenly is their issue. You can buy things on the pre-installed Amazon app, Walmart app and Mcdonalds, and basically 90% of apps, none of those get removed. Those are all purchased in-app, but don't get removed.

If you have a policy, it is only really stand as a strong legal argument if you are consistent with it.

The other problem is, You cannot even install apps that aren't in the app store from your device. (used to be able to, not now, short of jail-breaking) Epic I assume would have been fine having to market and host their own app from a web-link. That is why this is primarily an Apple lawsuit and Google and other platforms are not mentioned. As Google, and Windows storefronts like steam allow you to install applications outside of that environment. I can install an APK free of the play store. I can install a game free of Steam. I cannot install any app on an iphone other than what is in the app store.

I don't get why anyone would support apple on this. Not saying you have to like Epic, but why would you want a $1200 piece of hardware that can only run what Apple says it can run?

Darkborn74d ago

Then don't buy an iphone. I survived 28 years with no apple products. They are super restrictive and that is for a reason. That's why they can boast on having a real hard time getting hacked or viruses on their devices. It's a closed ios and they only allow stuff that is certified in their Apple store, sometimes it takes months of extensive testing to get approved. It's a pro and a con, the pro is, whatever they release across all their platforms usually works and is very similar to use. The cons are they only let you use pre-approved things. Still, the argument could be made to epic that they are not doing a monopoly because like you said, fortnite can be bought and played elsewhere, just not on the device they designed and sold to you. It's like saying Nintendo has to allow Xbox games to be sold on their platform.

Vits74d ago

"I don't get why anyone would support apple on this. Not saying you have to like Epic, but why would you want a $1200 piece of hardware that can only run what Apple says it can run?"

I think that is a big part as to why so many people choose apple though.

I'm a Android guy myself and I really like to tinker with my phones (custom roms, fw, etc.) but the argument that I often see as to why Apple shouldn't lose. Is that the moment that the OS is more open. Is the moment that it's not the "Apple experience" anymore. Meaning that it will not be that much safer and curated environment that people cherish.

Personally I'm really torn about this. Because a more open iOS would be very nice for my use case. But on the other hand it's Epic that is on the other side... And I mean given how they behave on a much more open platform like Android and Windows. I don't really want to see they messing aroung with another one.

Krog01174d ago (Edited 74d ago )

@dark "Then don't buy an iphone. I survived 28 years with no apple products."

I don't, for multiple reasons, this being one. What does that have to do with it being demonstrably less consumer friendly and that they apply policies in completely inconsistent manners?

Saying "don't buy it then" is also one of the most stupid arguments in existence. this policy changed back in 2019, people owned devices already and were forced into this change. Also, people already spent money in the ecosystem that is not able to be moved out of Apple's ecosystem, so it is pretty much not a choice for many as it would be a high cost. Pointing out bad policies or legal inconsistencies shouldn't be dependent on me personally owning the product. I want them to lose, because I prefer those policies not to be adopted by what I do own.

@vits Going to a site and getting a giant warning that downloading this app may be dangerous is hardly "changing the apple experience." You can still only use the apple store just as easily. Apple devices allowed you to download 3rd party apps out of the store previously. You are just mimicking marketing talking points from Apple to defend them removing choice to increase THEIR revenue and remove developer and consumer options on their platform.

"And I mean given how they behave on a much more open platform like Android and Windows. I don't really want to see they messing aroung with another one."

How do they behave exactly? Creating their own platform or App package that they promote and deliver independent of other platforms? Point is, the Apple store does not do a great job of keeping threats off of it.

Darkborn74d ago (Edited 74d ago )

@krog the makers of a product have the right to design it. They also have the right to say what can and can't be done with it. Businesses love Apple products because of what I said. It's a more secure platform than Android. When I was in the military, Iphones were used as government phones after the blackberries were phased out. The reason why is because when sensitive information was emailed on these devices, it was more secure. This alone for Apple, with literally millions of these devices sold to the DoD alone, would be a reason to stay as a secure platform. Along with the business aspect.

Isn't the "don't buy it" movement what gamers have been doing for years with pre-orders or supposedly right now with "its not worth $70" with Sony games?

Krog01174d ago (Edited 74d ago )

@dark "Businesses love Apple products because of what I said. It's a more secure platform than Android"

You do realize there is managed software for mobile devices for enterprise and business. They don't just hand out iPhones out of the box....

Sounds like you just don't understand how things work. Look up Mobile device management implementations like Intune, MAAS 360. None of those are apple specific and I don't know a single business that just hands out completely unmanaged mobile devices for business use. They separately manage what can and cannot be used on the devices, just like with PCs.

The goverment especially specifically manage these devices, even Apple devices. They do not just hand out Apple devices because they are so secure, I can assure you that.

iCloud and apple platforms have been compromised so many times it is hardly even worth mentioning how uninformed your argument is. Probably one of the least thought out things I have ever read on here.

@darkborn "I was in the military. Yes they hand out these devices to be used for government use just like government vehicles are used."

Ok, well now you are just lying, or or even more informed than I suspected originally.

Darkborn74d ago (Edited 74d ago )

@krog I was in the military. Yes they hand out these devices to be used for government use just like government vehicles are used. Not too sure about businesses, but if they are trying to be secure, they might push to Apple for the secure aspect. I didn't say they were uncrackable though. You decided to make stuff up. I. Said they are more secure than android. That is a fact. I worked at a top secret base. They did not want any breaches in data. They bought a few hundred iPhone where I worked and people used them on the job. That is a fact that I saw with my own eyes.

Krog01173d ago (Edited 73d ago )

Military posted article:

Article quoting DOD and military personel: “We’re charged with taking a commercial mobile device and getting it to a state where it was allowed on government networks,” Smith says. “There are a lot of challenges to work through, especially security requirements to meet to get not just the hardware devices but applications and our mobile device management ready for this environment.”

Military posted article:
"To manage devices across the enterprise, DMUC uses the Mobile Device Manager (MDM) to ensure enterprise enforcement of security policies, such as password requirements, making sure encryption standards are current, and the implementation of new policies as standards and requirements change."

Not to mention market share in US not matching your argument (and globally getting demolished):

Sephiroushin73d ago

iOS is basically a closed system, whoever dont buy it because of being apple buy it because its a closed system

CS773d ago

You are so wrong:

1. Apple never allowed apps from outside the App Store
2. Google is also being sued by Epic.

The iPhone was a consumer hit BECAUSE it was locked down. A locked down OS means Apple gets to fine tune practically everything to an extremely high standard. Consumers loved this high standard and voted with their wallets.

I don't care about Apple as a company, but I want my iPhone to remain an iPhone. That is: closed and secure.
The day I change my mind there is Android for me to tinker with, but the app quality and stability of the iOS platform has been tremendous and I don't want it opened to Epic for them to start making Epic Game Store exclusive apps and other nonsensical moves.

If they want access to an OS let them build it themselves.

Please stop limiting consumer choice. There is a closed mobile OS and an open mobile OS, please stop trying to make them both open. You are eliminating consumer choice. If Epic wins the consumer loses.

thecodingart73d ago

Apparently, you don’t understand why people purchase Apple devices. They may not be for you, but don’t shove your personal philosophies the wrong way…

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 73d ago
Atom66673d ago

They haven't won yet, this is just lifting the stay. It just addresses that Australian courts can hear the case about digital storefronts available in Australia, even though neither Epic or Apple are based in Aus.

But Epic's video doesn't matter. They don't deny that they did this w/full knowledge of what will happen. Hell, not only did they have the video and press releases ready, they had the lawsuits ready to file the next day.

I'm not sure I follow this slippery slope argument. I'm also not sure I've ever seen consumers advocate for maintaining the sanctity of a trillion-dollar corporation's TOS before...

But the TOS doesn't mean much here. Epic's actions in all of this were done to show that Apple's (and Google's) practices violate antitrust laws. It's still gray, and never trust any court to understand the tech industry, but their arguments clearly aren't frivolous.

Here in the U.S., the DOJ has been going after Google and Apple for awhile for similar reasons. We know Apple's long been on their list after they went after them for price fixing a few years back (Apple paid $400m for that one). Now multiple federal agencies across the globe are sniffing around these App practices.

TOS doesn't allow Apple or Google to violate the law. And just because you own a storefront, doesn't mean you don't have to follow the same laws.

Darkegg73d ago

Wasn’t this the country that didn’t know how the hell to argue against the pay difference with news organizations and decided to make a crude “pay us more upfront” code law so they could get more from google? Which then Microsoft, in silly fashion, backed them up likely to increase market penetration? Australia likely only cares about understanding USA tech companies not about justice. They allowed this so they can gain understanding how to keep more Australian money to themselves and would likely want to do their own thing. I don’t like Apples terms for developers but Epic should play by the rules laid out and let it be. They knew the rules. Like it or leave it.

Willelmus73d ago

If terms and conditions are illegal, everyone is allowed to bypass them.

That's the point of the case. Prove that the terms and conditions are abusive and therefore shouldn't apply.

Companies can't impose things that go against the general rule of law. But it's courts or Parliaments that decide what that general rule is.

Bender650273d ago

Yeah, maybe. However, there's occasionally a bigger picture that should be taken into account which may effect more than just Apple and Epic, and that's the greater good. Now I'm not making any legal argument, because I'm not qualified to do so, but sometimes if what's written in to a contract isn't at least fair and reasonable to all parties then it should at least be scrutinised.

An example that most of us encounter quite often is the concept of ' if you browse this website then you agree to all it's privacy policies'. Is that fair? Of course not, and in Europe at least,websites are not supposed to do this - although many still do. Now, I know my example has nothing to do with A&E, but it's just to illustrate that agreeing or signing any contract isn't necessarily the last word in a dispute. Especially, if that contract is unreasonable to start with.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 73d ago
TheRealTedCruz74d ago

Pretty dumb, if you ask me. All they're trying to do is circumvent 3rd part storefronts, while using it for visibility, and make sure they make all the money as the other company spends cast to host the.

Idiotic judgement if you ask me.

73d ago Replies(4)
fsfsxii74d ago

Australia pretty dumb these days with their lockdown rules, literally hunting down people who leave their house with dogs and choppers, so anything coming from that totalitarian state should taken with a grain of salt and a lot of skepticism

SockeyBoy74d ago

You're not wrong, as an Australian I can say my aunt tried to go buy some milk the police saw her and she ran. She was hunted like an animal. She tried to evade the police through the bush but was shot with a giant net and captured. $100 fine too. Poor aunt :(

Rebel_Scum73d ago

Calling major bs on this one

Darkborn74d ago

And that's what happens when a country takes your guns. They can keep you locked in your house or literally weld bars over your doors and windows like what happened in China.

TheLordOfStuff74d ago

I know plenty of people that own firearms, its just we do crazy things like actual in depth background checks and not selling assault weapons, ak47 is a little overkill for a roo or boar, I might suggest you just need to practice and be a better aim, full auto not required ;)

Darkborn74d ago (Edited 74d ago )

You miss the point, who said anything about a boar. The second amendment was designed to protect against a tyrannical government, not an overpopulation of pigs. The revolutionary war was fought because the settlers were doing all the work and still being taxed by the crown that did very little for them and expected the settlers to do anything it said without question. This is why the very things they used to win over their land and be free of that reign, were supposed to be allowed by all citizens to protect them in the future for what they knew would repeat again. This type of stuff has happened hundreds of times throughout history. If you can't defend yourself, you can't stand up for yourself. Self-defense is also a reason to own guns as well as the protection of your own property.

Think about this, do you think the gladiators in Roman times, who were supposedly really great fighters, would all purposely stay as slaves to fight and die for others and be starved if they had access to weapons more often to defend themselves? They had no access to real Weapons unless heavily guarded and right in the arena.

derek73d ago

@ Darkborn keep you gun, doesn't matter. If you are silly enough to believe any one individual or even a well armed militia can effectively oppose the military might of most modern states, I don't know what to tell you.

Darkborn73d ago

@derek go move to a country that has no guns. Mass stabbings are a thing, but besides the point. I don't know how people can not understand that if you have no right of self defense, you are just waiting to be taken advantage of. Look at all these countries currently and in the past that had gun restrictive laws. Every single one of them throughout history was taken advantage of. Why do you think the slave trade was a thing? Why do you think Egyptians has thousands of slaves? The government had the weapons and the common folk didn't. Go to Australia rignt now and walk down a street. You'd be in a jail cell within the hour.

73d ago
+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 73d ago
TheLordOfStuff74d ago

Yeah... that didn't happen, but you keep reading whatever right wing crap you subscribe to lol

Darkborn74d ago (Edited 74d ago )

Their are actual videos of it. Might not be available anymore though.

Edit* this is a year ago. Stop being a sheep. This is literally the first article I found Google searching it. I remember seeing this on the news for a few weeks last year. You know, the actual news that doesn't just talk about orange man bad 24 hours a day.

TheLordOfStuff73d ago (Edited 73d ago )


Im talking about the Australian parts of the rants, I could give a shit what happens over there, that place is messed up, also I assume your talking ppl shiting on trump? Why do you Americans think the rest of the world gives a shit about who you elect, that's just media hype...

SoulWarrior73d ago

Don't waste your breathe on these prehistoric gun toting idiots, there is no getting through to them lol

Teflon0274d ago

This is still not getting nowhere. There's literally no way to win this in the end. This just means the case isn't getting dropped and will be taken further. TBH how they allowed that in the first place? Don't know. Must be people who have kids on iphones that they want to shut up but they don't have their fortnite to play so they want to give epic an edge lol

Show all comments (55)
The story is too old to be commented.