Une bataille d’un an entre Apple et l’éditeur Fortnite Epic sur le fonctionnement de l’App Store a finalement atteint son paroxysme après un le juge fédéral a rendu une décision (voir ci-dessous) qui s’est largement rangé du côté du fabricant d’iPhone. Le juge a rejeté la plupart des plaintes contre Apple, bien qu’elle ait obligé l’entreprise à permettre aux développeurs d’informer les utilisateurs des moyens alternatifs de payer dans les applications.

Ce combat, qui inclut également Google dans un procès séparé, a commencé en août 2020 lorsque Fortnite a été lancé à la fois sur l’App Store et le Google Play Store après avoir tenté de contourner le 30% de frais Apple et Google facturent les développeurs. Il a immédiatement attiré l’attention des joueurs, des consommateurs et du monde de la technologie, puisque Fortnite avait été téléchargé plus de 250 millions de fois sur iOS seul. Epic contré par intenter des poursuites contre les deux sociétés. Il ne s’agit pas de demander de l’argent à l’une ou l’autre entreprise, mais simplement à abroger ce qu’Epic considère comme les pratiques monopolistiques des entreprises.

Le combat n’est pas simplement une bataille entre deux géants de la technologie – c’est une dispute sur le principe et le contrôle qu’une entreprise technologique a sur les produits vendus sur sa plate-forme. La décision intervient également à un moment où l’Europe et les États-Unis sont scruter le pouvoir d’Apple, de Google et d’autres géants de la technologie. Et ce n’est pas une victoire totale pour Apple, car l’ordonnance du juge représente une fissure dans le jardin clos qui est son écosystème d’applications de plusieurs milliards de dollars. Cette affaire pourrait avoir des ramifications sur la façon dont les législateurs considèrent Apple, ainsi que sur la bataille juridique distincte entre Google et Epic.

Il y a beaucoup de nuances dans cette décision. Nous décomposons ce qui s’est passé et ce que cela signifie pour vous.

Now playing:
Watch this:

Fortnite app banned on iOS, Android shops

6:11

So who won again?

Apple, for the most part, prevailed over Epic, with one major caveat. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the US District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed most of Epic’s claims, but in an injunction did force Apple to allow developers to inform their users of alternative ways to pay within the app.

Apple, unsurprisingly, applauded the judge’s decision, adding in a statement that it « faces rigorous competition in every segment in which we do business. »

« We remain committed to ensuring the App Store is a safe and trusted marketplace that supports a thriving developer community and more than 2.1 million U.S. jobs, and where the rules apply equally to everyone, » the company added.

What does Apple get?

Rogers said she agreed with Apple’s claim that Epic had violated its developer agreements, and awarded damages equal to 30% of the $12 million Epic collected from iOS users between August and October 2020, plus 30% of any such revenue Epic’s collected since then. 

What does Epic end up with?

Epic was seeking to upend the entire app model of charging a commission to sell programs and games on a platform. Rogers felt the argument was too broad and ultimately ruled against the game publisher. 

« Today’s ruling isn’t a win for developers or for consumers, » Epic CEO Tim Sweeney wrote in a tweet shortly after the ruling. 

What’s Epic doing about this?

Epic filed a notice of appeal on Sunday, signaling that this legal battle is far from over. 

What did the judge have to say about their arguments?

Rogers felt that Epic overreached in trying to dismantle the entire app commission system.

« Once acceptable, Apple’s commission rate is now questioned by some consumers and some developers, like Epic Games, as being overly burdensome and violative of competition laws. Indeed, two related lawsuits were already pending before the Court well before the commencement of this action, » the judge wrote as part of her ruling Friday. « The Court is not persuaded by Epic Games’ broad-brush argument that it should not be bound by certain portions of the agreement. »

Rogers, however, did criticize Apple’s business practices and suggested they could be anti-competitive. 

« Common threads run through Apple’s practices which unreasonably restrains competition and harm consumers, » she wrote. « Namely the lack of information and transparency about policies which effect consumers’ ability to find cheaper prices, increased customer service, and options regarding their purchases. »

She noted that Apple’s commission rate appears inflated, but that Epic didn’t seek to challenge that aspect. 

 « Rather, Epic Games challenged the imposition of any commission whatsoever. »

What does that mean for the tech world?

The case has huge ramifications across the tech world because many of the major companies, including Google, run lucrative platforms that charge a commission on apps. 

« For Big Tech, there’s a sigh of relief because the walls of their gardens will not come tumbling down today, even if this ruling tries to put some cracks in it, » said Paul Swanson, a lawyer at Holland & Hart who specializes in antitrust issues. « The main thrust of the Court’s ruling is that ‘success is not illegal.' »

What does this mean for me?

Once the injunction goes into effect (in 90 days), you could start to see larger app developers advertise payment options on their own websites with discounts that equate to the commission fee. Of course, an appeal could also delay the effect of the injunction. It’s still unclear at this point. 

How did this get started?

It all came down to Fortnite’s success on phones and how Epic makes money. Fortnite is a free-to-play game, meaning it’s free to download and Epic makes money from in-game purchases. Players can buy V-Bucks, in-game currency, which are used to acquire new outfits, weapons and skins. It’s a hugely profitable business model. Fortnite generated $4.2 billion over 2018 and 2019.

But Epic never approved of the 30% cut taken by Apple and Google on their respective app stories, so it set up a direct payment system allowing players to buy V-Bucks for less through Epic, circumventing Apple and Google. When buying 1,000 V-Bucks, players were given a choice of paying $9.99 via the App Store or $7.99 through Epic.

Apple wasn’t having that, so in August 2020, it pulled Fortnite from the App Store. Google followed hours later. Android gamers can still download the game directly through Epic — and if you previously downloaded it on iOS, you can still re-download it, but you won’t be able to update it or play new seasons.

That kicked off the lawsuits?

Yep.

Hours after Fortnite was booted off the App Store, Epic filed a lawsuit against Apple in US District Court in California that accused Apple of anti-competitive practices for app distribution and app-related payments. The company stresses it’s not looking for compensation or special treatment from Apple, but for Apple to roll back its anti-competitive practices and allow for « fair competition. » 

« To reach iOS users, » reads Epic’s filing, « Apple forces developers to agree to Apple’s unlawful terms contained in its Developer Agreement and to comply with Apple’s App Store Review Guidelines, including the requirement iOS developers distribute their apps through the App Store. These contractual provision unlawfully foreclose the iOS App Distribution Market to competitors and maintain Apple’s monopoly. »

The filing argued that Apple, in charging a 30% fee to publishers, take 10x more than companies like « PayPal, Stripe, Square or Braintree, which typically charge payment processing rates of around 3%. » 

Apple’s full reply, in which they said the App Store is an ecosystem that benefits developers and creates a level playing field, is below.

« Epic Games took the unfortunate step of violating the App Store guidelines that are applied equally to every developer and designed to keep the store safe for our users. As a result their Fortnite app has been removed from the store. Epic enabled a feature in its app which was not reviewed or approved by Apple, and they did so with the express intent of violating the App Store guidelines regarding in-app payments that apply to every developer who sells digital goods or services.

Epic has had apps on the App Store for a decade, and has benefited from the App Store ecosystem – including the tools, testing, and distribution Apple provides to all developers. Epic agreed to the App Store terms and guidelines freely and we’re glad they’ve built such a successful business on the App Store. The fact that their business interests now lead them to push for a special arrangement does not change the fact that these guidelines create a level playing field for all developers and make the store safe for all users. We will make every effort to work with Epic to resolve these violations so they can return Fortnite to the App Store. »

Now playing:
Watch this:

Fortnite maker sues Apple in battle over direct payments

1:54

The suit escalated when Epic said in a court filing that Apple is threatening to ban the Unreal Engine code that Epic licenses to other game developers. This would affect dozens of apps, including a Fortnite competitor, PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds.

« Not content simply to remove Fortnite from the App Store, Apple is attacking Epic’s entire business in unrelated areas, » Epic said in its filing. « If the Unreal Engine can no longer support Apple platforms, the software developers that use it will be forced to use alternatives. »  

Apple fired back, releasing a cache of emails between Epic CEO Tim Sweeney and Apple, showing that the Fortnite maker was seeking special treatment. Specifically, Epic wanted to run a competing app store and process payments itself rather than relying on Apple’s App Store and its in-app purchase system that takes a commission of up to 30% on all sales made on an iOS app.

« Sweeney expressly acknowledged that his proposed changes would be in direct breach of multiple terms of the agreements between Epic and Apple. Mr. Sweeney acknowledged that Epic could not implement its proposal unless the agreements between Epic and Apple were modified, » Phil Schiller, an Apple Fellow and former head of worldwide marketing, said in a statement filed with the court. « Apple has never allowed this, » Apple said in its filing. « We strongly believe these rules are vital to the health of the Apple platform and carry enormous benefits for both consumers and developers. »

I remember something about a 1984 commercial back when this all started?

Along with the lawsuit, Epic also released a video parodying Apple’s famous 1984 ad. Apple’s ad, released in late 1983, promoted the upcoming launch of the Macintosh, railing against then-entrenched brand IBM. Epic’s video says Apple has become the new Big Brother of industry — a hugely powerful and overbearing entity.

This is something that Epic expounds more aggressively in its suit. « Apple has become what it once railed against: The behemoth seeking to control markets, block competition, and stifle innovation. Apple is bigger, more powerful, more entrenched, and more pernicious than the monopolists of yesteryear. At a market cap of nearly $2 trillion, Apple’s size and reach far exceeds that of any technology monopolist in history. »

What about Google?

Epic is suing Google, too. Epic followed its lawsuit against Apple hours later with a similar one against Google, arguing that it engaged in unlawfully anti-competitive practices related to app distribution and app-related payments. 

« Google acquired the Android mobile operating system more than a decade ago, promising repeatedly over time that Android would be the basis for an ‘open’ ecosystem in which industry participants could freely innovate and compete without unnecessary restrictions, » the filing reads. « Since then, Google has deliberately and systematically closed the Android ecosystem to competition, breaking the promises it made. Google’s anti-competitive conduct has now been condemned by regulators the world over. »

The suit argues that Android forms an effective monopoly for phone makers, like Samsung, LG and Sony, that have no real alternative to Android for their devices. Having achieved this monopoly, Epic says, Google then restricts the ability of companies to distribute apps in a way that competes with the Play Store.

« Epic’s experience with one [phone maker], OnePlus, est illustratif », lit-on dans la poursuite. Epic, a-t-il déclaré, a conclu un accord avec OnePlus pour rendre les jeux Epic disponibles sur ses téléphones via une application Epic qui aurait permis aux utilisateurs d’installer et de mettre à jour des jeux, y compris Fortnite, sans obstacles imposés. par le système d’exploitation Android de Google. Mais Google a forcé OnePlus à revenir sur l’accord, a indiqué la poursuite, citant la « préoccupation particulière » de Google concernant la possibilité pour Epic d’installer et de mettre à jour des jeux mobiles tout en « contournant le Google Play Store ».

Comme dans le procès d’Apple, Epic dit qu’il ne veut pas de paiement de Google. « Au lieu de cela, Epic demande une injonction qui tiendrait la promesse non tenue de Google : un écosystème Android ouvert et compétitif pour tous les utilisateurs et participants de l’industrie. Une telle injonction est absolument nécessaire. »

Avant le dépôt d’une plainte par Epic contre Google, Google a publié la déclaration suivante sur sa décision de retirer Fortnite du Play Store,

« L’écosystème Android ouvert permet aux développeurs de distribuer des applications via plusieurs magasins d’applications. Pour les développeurs de jeux qui choisissent d’utiliser le Play Store, nous avons des politiques cohérentes qui sont justes pour les développeurs et assurent la sécurité du magasin pour les utilisateurs. Bien que Fortnite reste disponible sur Android, nous ne peut plus le rendre disponible sur Play car il enfreint nos politiques. Cependant, nous nous félicitons de l’opportunité de poursuivre nos discussions avec Epic et de ramener Fortnite sur Google Play. « 

Qu’en pensent les autres entreprises ?

Epic est loin d’être le premier à se plaindre des pratiques anticoncurrentielles de Google et Apple.

En 2018, l’Union européenne a infligé une amende de 5 milliards de dollars à Google pour comportement monopolistique, qui comprenait la suite d’applications de Google, comme Chrome et Gmail, préinstallée sur tous les appareils Android. Spotify, quant à lui, a facturé qu’Apple facture 30 % pour les achats intégrés, tels que les abonnements à Spotify Premium, étouffe la concurrence avec les propres applications d’Apple, dans ce cas Apple Music. En juin 2020, l’UE a lancé un enquêter sur les pratiques de l’App Store d’Apple.

Alors que l’Union européenne a été plus énergique pour réglementer les titans de la technologie au cours de la dernière décennie, les États-Unis commencent à scruter ces entreprises géantes de la même manière. En juillet 2020, le PDG d’Apple, Tim Cook, a participé à une audience du Congrès aux côtés de Jeff Bezos, Sundar Pichai et Mark Zuckerberg, respectivement PDG d’Amazon, de Google, Alphabet et Facebook, lors d’une audience antitrust historique.

S’adressant au Congrès, Cook a rejeté l’idée que l’App Store favorise les propres applications d’Apple.

« Après avoir commencé avec 500 applications, l’App Store en héberge aujourd’hui plus de 1,7 million, dont seulement 60 sont des logiciels Apple », a déclaré Cook. « Clairement, si Apple est un gardien, ce que nous avons fait, c’est ouvrir la porte plus large. Nous voulons avoir toutes les applications possibles sur le magasin, pas les garder à l’écart. »

Ian Sherr de CNET a contribué à ce rapport.