I think your post inadvertently makes things more confusing.

In short, the situation changed and got a little more complicated after Tim Cook previously said they'd reinstate Epic's account.

What are the new changes and complications created by the recent judge's ruling? Epic's "promise" has to be dissected into 2 component parts:

(#1) _direct_ in-app-purchases. This was the mechanism that originally got Epic kicked off the App Store last year. (The court ruling still doesn't force Apple to allow this and indeed, they reaffirmed this by ordering Epic to pay back $6 million (the "lost" 30% commissions) to Apple for bypassing Apple's in-app-purchases.)

(#2) _informing_ the user of alternative app payments via web links, etc. (the "anti-steering" in the court's ruling)

Apple's current guidelines don't allow for either (1) & (2). However, Epic wants to be back in the App Store and immediately use option #2 because they feel the judge's ruling to stop Apple anti-steering policy should be followed now. Apple disagrees because they think they have a right to impose anti-steering. Hence, everybody is still in appeals process.

Put another way, Sweeney's idea of "promise" does not match Cook's expectation of a promise which makes it invalid from Apple's perspective.

Contrary to public perception, "anti-steering" is not always illegal and Apple's legal team is probably aware of previous cases such as American Express winning their anti-steering case with The Supreme Court: https://www.pymnts.com/legal/2018/supreme-court-amex-case-an...

Otherwise, I believe the court gave Apple 90 days to comply, and I can't see anything in Epic's letter that shows they want to be let back in immediately, so I'm unsure what this changes.

edit: I base my idea that "Apple hinted that they won't appeal" from this: https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/17/22679724/tim-cook-epic-ap..., and also based on the fact that Apple, in practice, didn't lose anything (they can still force devs to pay 30% on "steered" purchases made through the dev's website). But it seems some lawyers believe it's possible Apple will still appeal, so I shouldn't have been so definitive.

  [1] https://www.macrumors.com/2021/09/13/epic-games-files-appeal-against-apple-ruling/
  [2] https://www.macrumors.com/2021/09/22/fortnite-not-returning-to-app-store-until-legal-battle-ends/

Now Epic is changing their mind now that the judge ruled they did breach the contract, what they were expecting?

I've never been a big Apple fan - and I speak up about it on various forums - up until about two years ago, no one really cared.

These last two years... The Anti-Apple sentiment is hitting HARD. Frankly - It was always an abusive company ("my way or the high way" seems like it could be their company motto), but now the products just aren't that good, and it shows.

Maybe the M1 devices will buy them some time, lord knows they need it after the cluster fuck of a computer that is the latest 16 macbook pro (work issued, it's the worst laptop I've used in the last 12 years).

But the phones are WAY too expensive for what you get - the UI is dissolving into a mess, the laptops are losing all the power user features that got folks interested in the first case, and the privacy-centric "User first" approach they market so hard is visibly turning into a pretty clear charade.

My prediction - This is going to be a pyrrhic victory. They're going to fight tooth and nail to hang onto this revenue stream (which is clearly simple rent-seeking behavior), and it's going to taint developer and user opinion across their main market. I personally went from "neutral/negative" on Apple to "Will not touch with a 20' pole - will not do business with or develop for"

Even at work - We have a large group of developers now asking to be issued something other than a macbook. I find that pretty damn telling.

Outside of HN and other niche media properties this is an extremely obscure battle.

> …now the products just aren't that good, and it shows.

Does it though? Apple recently reported an almost-50% YoY increase in iPhone sales. The iPad had its best June quarter in nearly a decade. The Mac set a new June quarter revenue record. The last four quarters have been the Mac's best four quarters ever. Subjectively, Apple products have never been better.

Right now, Apple is still middle of the road - The money in their apps ecosystem is holding a lot of developers there, but I think they're royally fucked in every legal district except the US with regards to the current software distribution model. And honestly - that's simply because anti-trust/monopoly regulation in the US is an unfathomable joke at the moment (it helps that we house most of the tech monopolies, so from a nationalistic perspective, I understand that the status quo is making a lot of people a lot of money).

So does it matter this quarter? Eh - almost certainly not. Will it matter in 10 years? Almost certainly yes.

That said, who knows - Apple is damn good at marketing still, and it's possible they can leverage the M1 machines into a dominant position.

---

As for this year - We're seeing consumer spending in electronics up across the board, mostly thanks to incentives from covid (cash infusions, more people using devices for school/work, more people feel stuck at home and consume digital services). And Apple has a good supply chain in place to whether the current chip shortages, pushing consumers to buy products from Apple simply because they're available. Hell, Lenovo revenue is also up 50% in the last year, and Samsung is up nearly 20% this last quarter. Selling digital devices is a good spot to be in during a lockdown of physical spaces.

Again, maybe Apple will be able to ride the wave with the M1 devices, but I think extrapolating out from sales during Covid isn't all that meaningful.

Of course Apple is too big to disappear the way BB did. But a lot of what made Apple products unique is no longer there. Jobs pointed out how OEMs had little brand identity and consistency because of the sheer number of variations of each product.

Apple today sells 7 different models of iPhone and 5 different models of iPads. It's on its way.

Epic is not agreeing to the app store rules. They are appealing the decision because they *do not agree to the rules* and do not want to follow them. As long as that situation stands, Apple is not letting them back in.

If Epic drops the appeal and agrees to comply, then Apple has indicated they would let them in.

Agreeing in this sense usually means 'Agreeing to follow rules' rather than 'Agreeing that the rule should exist'.

For instance - I'm sure plenty of developers don't agree that Apple should get a 30% cut and don't want to give the money to them, but agree to let this happen in order to use the store. Most developers probably think that they should be able to take platform on any payment platform they wish, but again agree not to do it because those are the T&C's. Agree usually means 'Agree to do or not do something' rather than 'Agree something is the right thing'.

If Epic wins the appeal, the ruling will be overturned and Apple could lose on all points. That's not an acceptable situation for Apple and as long as Epic is holding that over their heads, Apple won't make a deal.

Lest anyone think Apple is ignoring the court.

The last time they made that promise was 8 days ago!

> Apple says it won’t let Epic Games back in the App Store until they agree to “play by the same rules as everyone else.”

From https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22666146/apple-epic-korea...

Now, if Epic was not appealing, and Apple refused to let them back in, I would agree that is egregious.

No, it means the rules will be changed.

Epic started this whole mess by breaking their original agreement. And the court explicitly affirmed Apple’s right to terminate Epic’s developer account. If Apple were “abusing” their position, that implies they have monopoly power in that market, which was not what the court determined (rightly or wrongly). Which is the crux of Epic’s real goals, which they lost.

You could argue that it’s not nice or that it’s a poor business choice (because people will still buy some VBucks through IAP), but it’s not abusive. Vindictive maybe, but not abusive.

And really the only people getting hurt are the players who played Fortnite (exclusively?) on their phones or iPads. Which ironically includes me…

I think this would be a much larger issue for smaller developers who are reliant on access to the iOS market. What would happen to a smaller developer that didn’t have more resources? I think that’s a more interesting question.

But right now, this is still a Goliath vs Goliath situation.

That's a bald faced lie. Of course it is about the money.

You could argue that in the long term Apple might be calculating that the fear effect on other companies might pay that back, but that's highly arguable. It's unarguable they are giving up a serious amount of reliable income to make this point.

Epic was ordered to pay $6mm from the case that they lost which was sales from pre-installed apps over around a 3 month period [1]

  [1] https://www.macrumors.com/2021/09/13/epic-games-pays-apple-6-million/

I'm a bit surprised that this needs to be explained.

How would letting Fortnite back in the store, and taking their money, reduce their revenues from other developers? You’re not making any sense.

I would postulate that 80%+ of Fortnite revenue is now from the item shop. In which case apple is "sacrificing" 20% to try getting the 80%.

They aren’t going to enter into a new contract to do business with Epic while Epic’s breach of their last contract is still unresolved.

Yeah, I don't think that is a reliable unbiased source. Moreover, wouldn't this invite defamation suit?

In your quote Cook said "if they abided by the rules" but in the Sweeney letter you linked to he said "Epic promises that it will adhere to Apple’s guidelines". Sweeney didn't say they actually did it.

Also, the daringfireball article includes the letter you linked to and covered this topic.