I guess the judge's logic is that Epic could have sued without breaching the contract first, even if the contract was actually illegal. I don't agree that it should work that way, but the damages are immaterial. The bigger issue is: can/will Apple permanently terminate Epic's developer account for breach of contract and prevent them from releasing Fortnite despite this ruling, and possibly even cause problems for Unreal on Mac? It seems to me that they can.

> possibly even cause problems for Unreal on Mac?

I think this is unlikely. Mac gamers need Unreal more than games developed using Unreal need Mac users. Mac is an incredibly niche market for games - they're not going to rewrite their game using a different engine to run on Mac, and Apple knows that.

Of course, Apple could decide they don't give a shit about native Mac games, why don't you play our iOS games, but that just seems petty.

Apple is an incredibly spiteful company. They will happily cut off Unreal Engine to spite Epic even if it fucks over their users and developers. They did exactly the same to Nvidia and to Khronos group, and they will do it to Epic too.

Apple already terminated Epic's Mac developer account for Unreal, and refused to reinstate it until the judge forced them to with a restraining order earlier in the trial. So they've demonstrated willingness to retaliate in this way. And now that the trial is over I think they are not bound by the restraining order anymore.

> Apple could decide they don't give a shit about native Mac games

I think it's possible to make persuasive argument that this already took place around the time that they killed OpenGL support and/or refused to allow Vulkan support. Requiring a proprietary API that only works on a tiny subset of gaming devices* seems like they've already made their position on this topic very clear.

* I'm excluding mobile devices here since mobile games were called out as a different market in the parent comment.

The judge explicitly said, yes, they can (page 179):

The relief to which Apple is entitled is that to which Epic Games stipulated in the event that the Court found it liable for breach of contract, namely:

(1) damages in an amount equal to (i) 30% of the $12,167,719 in revenue Epic Games collected from users in the Fortnite app on iOS through Epic Direct Payment between August and October 2020, plus (ii) 30% of any such revenue Epic Games collected from November 1, 2020 through the date of judgment; and

(2) a declaration that (i) Apple’s termination of the DPLA and the related agreements between Epic Games and Apple was valid, lawful, and enforceable, and (ii) Apple has the contractual right to terminate its DPLA with any or all of Epic Games’ wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities under Epic Games’ control at any time and at Apple's sole discretion.

This may very well kill Epic's Unreal Engine business (at least on Apple platforms) if they no longer have the necessary licenses to use Apple's developer tools.

The ruling explains the logic near the last page of the decision -- it's basically "Epic didn't have to break their contract in order to sue". I think it's the judge slapping Epic on the wrist for grandstanding, even though they basically-won.

It is certainly a victory for junk legalese that you can write an illegal contract, have it ruled illegal, and still enforce it.

The logical ruling would be to force Apple to pay reparations to all the app developers that they have illegally forced to pay for the app store.

> It is certainly a victory for junk legalese that you can write an illegal contract, have it ruled illegal, and still enforce it.

From the ruling (page 172):

> In California, “where a single contract provision is invalid, but the balance of the contract is lawful, the invalid provision is severed, and the balance of the contract is enforced.”

In other words, even though the judge found the anti-steering provision of the contract to be illegal, the rest of the contract was still legal and enforceable, and Epic violating the other terms of the contract entitles Apple to damages.

It wasn't illegal until this ruling. She didn't make it retroactively illegal, so Epic were still in the wrong at the time. Seems pretty obvious to me.

Epic only has to pay out ~$4 million for their "damages" so it's largely moot and ceremonial for them. Nevertheless, I agree with you that it seems contradictory.

Taking one for the team.

They seem to have ruled only that you can’t prohibit links to alternative payment methods (which would not be IAPs). You can still prohibit alternative actually IAPs, so Epic’s alternative IAPs must pay the fee.

Edit: Note that this a descriptive statement regarding the ruling, not a normative statement of my opinion.

I am unclear about this actually. I think the actual injunction will be a separate document released soon. But here's the judge's description in the ruling:

> a nationwide injunction shall issue enjoining Apple from prohibiting developers to include in their Apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to IAP

Obviously this would seem to imply that developers are allowed to accept payment from alternative systems to unlock digital content in apps. But it doesn't explicitly say that. All it explicitly says is that developers can link to alternative payment systems. I hope the actual injunction is more explicit.

I doubt they’re saying you can link to methods of payment but can’t provide goods or services in return for that payment, even in app.

I think the question is "can I have an in-app flow for purchases outside of IAP, or do i need to redirect people to my safari site to purchase?"

It's not retroactive. It wasn't proscribed at the time Epic broke their contract so they still broke their contract.

I wonder if there is a "secret reason" of not ruling in favor of Epic closes the door on a ton of other lawsuits popping up.