Protocol | Policy

What Apple’s App Store settlement means for the Epic Fortnite lawsuit

Apple's $100 million class-action settlement didn't concede much of anything.

An image of the Apple App Store icon on an iPhone.

Apple just muddied the waters around the App Store antitrust fight.

Photo: James Yarema via Unsplash

Apple's developer settlement Thursday night significantly muddied the waters of the ongoing App Store antitrust fight, and it just might threaten the eventual outcome of Epic Games' Fortnite case.

The class-action settlement was widely reported as a "concession" from Apple to please developers by allowing them to email users about alternative payment options that bypass its 30% App Store commission. It also included a few minor commitments and a $100 million payout to small developers, of which $30 million would go to the lawyers involved if approved.

Except it wasn't much of a concession at all. The wording in Apple's press release and the reality of its existing policies don't translate into any meaningful new changes for iOS app makers, and therein lies the problem.

Apple has agreed to something it already allows. The company's new App Store guidelines, released in June during its WWDC event, outlined that developers were in fact allowed to contact users about alternative payment options (something some developers were already doing). Yet Apple made clear the contact info had to be obtained with explicit user consent for the purpose of that communication and not, say, for the purpose of creating a new account within the app.

  • This is critical for understanding the bounds of Apple's anti-steering restrictions. The company is not meaningfully changing those rules in any way as part of the settlement, but instead simply "clarifying," as it wrote in its press release, "that developers can use communications, such as email, to share information about payment methods outside of their iOS app."
  • The email clause is the key addition — here's the existing rule to compare — and it means developers might have an easier time contacting users if they know they won't be penalized for using email. But it's far from a momentous change or concession.
  • Developers are still banned from advertising within an app that there are cheaper alternative payment options elsewhere. Developers also can't email users directly with an email on file to advertise those cheaper options unless they ask first.

Companies like Netflix and Spotify have been doing this for years, after removing the option to sign up for their platforms from within their respective iOS apps. Both companies can point users to the web, but they are not allowed to link to or advertise cheaper prices.

  • Both companies and many others can and do so via email and only if they've acquired user permission to communicate about these offers and deals, which is in part why you might see that listed as a separate option on a list of communication preferences. Very few app makers do this because it's much harder to convert a free user into a paying customer if the user has to leave the app to make the purchase.
  • If the settlement agreement is approved, Apple says it will no longer ban developers from advertising cheaper prices outside the App Store using methods like email. Yet that rule was not seemingly enforced with any kind of regularity and certainly not against companies like Netflix or Spotify.
  • Developers must still obtain user permission to email an offer, and only after that are they allowed to email a user advertising, for instance, 20% off a monthly subscription or a purchase of in-game digital currency.

A number of reports overplayed the significance of the settlement. That was to be expected. Apple making anything even looking like a concession is certainly a newsworthy event, but the company went above and beyond to ensure the settlement terms were portrayed as a victory for developers.

  • The company held a call with reporters to communicate these "App Store updates that will support businesses and maintain a great experience for users" and its press release is rife with further wording painting this as a big win for app makers.
  • Apple, a master marketer and media manipulator, was able to get headlines such as "Apple will let developers accept payments outside the App Store, in major concession." The New York Times' Jack Nicas, who criticized the tech media's misreading of the news, wrote, "I don't see how this changes much. Some companies pretty much already do what Apple says it is suddenly allowing."
  • In reality, not much has changed. Bloomberg's Mark Gurman added a more accurate, sobering take: "Apple Settles With App Developers Without Major Concessions."

It's a thorny road ahead for Epic. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is responsible for approving this class-action settlement. She's also responsible for issuing a verdict in the Epic v. Apple antitrust lawsuit that went to trial in May.

  • Epic is not a party in the class-action lawsuit and the settlement changes nothing about the claims Epic made in court and the changes it wants Apple forced to make around the App Store and iOS at large.
  • Epic wants Apple to allow sideloading of apps on iOS and to allow alternative app stores, like the one Epic distributes on PC. A lesser but still important victory for Epic would be a full-scale removal of Apple's anti-steering rules that prohibit advertising or linking to alternative payment options within an app itself.
  • Gonzalez Rogers identified Apple's anti-steering rules as a primary point of contention during the Fortnite trial and signaled she might rule in a way that aims to please both sides without shaking up the status quo.
  • But this class-action settlement complicates the matter, especially if Gonzalez Rogers views Apple's settlement terms and its June policy change as proper concessions, even when Epic and fellow Apple critics think the changes do very little to address the structural problems of the App Store.

This is a big win not for developers, but for Apple. The company was able to pay $100 million to squash what could have been a rather threatening class action lawsuit striking at the heart of its App Store business, which last year is estimated to have generated between $64 billion and $72 billion in revenue. On top of that, the settlement covers only U.S.-based developers, leaving intact whatever restrictions Apple imposes on international app makers.

One interesting revelation from the settlement is that Apple's Small Business Program, which cuts its 30% commission to 15% for developers making less than $1 million a year, costs Apple about $59 million per year in lost revenue. One of the commitments Apple has made as part of this settlement is that it will keep the program running for at least the next three years. In combination with the other terms, it's a pretty paltry fine for Apple to carry on as usual and protect the App Store in the process.

Power

How the creators of Spligate built gaming’s newest unicorn

1047 Games is now valued at $1.5 billion after three rounds of funding since May.

1047 Games' Splitgate amassed 13 million downloads when its beta launched in July.

Image: 1047 Games

The creators of Splitgate had a problem. Their new free-to-play video game, a take on the legendary arena shooter Halo with a teleportation twist borrowed from Valve's Portal, was gaining steam during its open beta period in July. But it was happening too quickly.

Splitgate was growing so fast and unexpectedly that the entire game was starting to break, as the servers supporting the game began to, figuratively speaking, melt down. The game went from fewer than 1,000 people playing it at any given moment in time to suddenly having tens of thousands of concurrent players. Then it grew to hundreds of thousands of players, all trying to log in and play at once across PlayStation, Xbox and PC.

Keep Reading Show less
Nick Statt
Nick Statt is Protocol's video game reporter. Prior to joining Protocol, he was news editor at The Verge covering the gaming industry, mobile apps and antitrust out of San Francisco, in addition to managing coverage of Silicon Valley tech giants and startups. He now resides in Rochester, New York, home of the garbage plate and, completely coincidentally, the World Video Game Hall of Fame. He can be reached at nstatt@protocol.com.

While it's easy to get lost in the operational and technical side of a transaction, it's important to remember the third component of a payment. That is, the human behind the screen.

Over the last two years, many retailers have seen the benefit of investing in new, flexible payments. Ones that reflect the changing lifestyles of younger spenders, who are increasingly holding onto their cash — despite reports to the contrary. This means it's more important than ever for merchants to take note of the latest payment innovations so they can tap into the savings of the COVID-19 generation.

Keep Reading Show less
Antoine Nougue,Checkout.com

Antoine Nougue is Head of Europe at Checkout.com. He works with ambitious enterprise businesses to help them scale and grow their operations through payment processing services. He is responsible for leading the European sales, customer success, engineering & implementation teams and is based out of London, U.K.

Protocol | Policy

Why Twitch’s 'hate raid' lawsuit isn’t just about Twitch

When is it OK for tech companies to unmask their anonymous users? And when should a violation of terms of service get someone sued?

The case Twitch is bringing against two hate raiders is hardly black and white.

Photo: Caspar Camille Rubin/Unsplash

It isn't hard to figure out who the bad guys are in Twitch's latest lawsuit against two of its users. On one side are two anonymous "hate raiders" who have been allegedly bombarding the gaming platform with abhorrent attacks on Black and LGBTQ+ users, using armies of bots to do it. On the other side is Twitch, a company that, for all the lumps it's taken for ignoring harassment on its platform, is finally standing up to protect its users against persistent violators whom it's been unable to stop any other way.

But the case Twitch is bringing against these hate raiders is hardly black and white. For starters, the plaintiff here isn't an aggrieved user suing another user for defamation on the platform. The plaintiff is the platform itself. Complicating matters more is the fact that, according to a spokesperson, at least part of Twitch's goal in the case is to "shed light on the identity of the individuals behind these attacks," raising complicated questions about when tech companies should be able to use the courts to unmask their own anonymous users and, just as critically, when they should be able to actually sue them for violating their speech policies.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky

Issie Lapowsky ( @issielapowsky) is Protocol's chief correspondent, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. She also oversees Protocol's fellowship program. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University's Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing.

Protocol | Workplace

Remote work is here to stay. Here are the cybersecurity risks.

Phishing and ransomware are on the rise. Is your remote workforce prepared?

Before your company institutes work-from-home-forever plans, you need to ensure that your workforce is prepared to face the cybersecurity implications of long-term remote work.

Photo: Stefan Wermuth/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The delta variant continues to dash or delay return-to-work plans, but before your company institutes work-from-home-forever plans, you need to ensure that your workforce is prepared to face the cybersecurity implications of long-term remote work.

So far in 2021, CrowdStrike has already observed over 1,400 "big game hunting" ransomware incidents and $180 million in ransom demands averaging over $5 million each. That's due in part to the "expanded attack surface that work-from-home creates," according to CTO Michael Sentonas.

Keep Reading Show less
Michelle Ma
Michelle Ma (@himichellema) is a reporter at Protocol, where she writes about management, leadership and workplace issues in tech. Previously, she was a news editor of live journalism and special coverage for The Wall Street Journal. Prior to that, she worked as a staff writer at Wirecutter. She can be reached at mma@protocol.com.
Protocol | Fintech

When COVID rocked the insurance market, this startup saw opportunity

Ethos has outraised and outmarketed the competition in selling life insurance directly online — but there's still an $887 billion industry to transform.

Life insurance has been slow to change.

Image: courtneyk/Getty Images

Peter Colis cited a striking statistic that he said led him to launch a life insurance startup: One in twenty children will lose a parent before they turn 15.

"No one ever thinks that will happen to them, but that's the statistics," the co-CEO and co-founder of Ethos told Protocol. "If it's a breadwinning parent, the majority of those families will go bankrupt immediately, within three months. Life insurance elegantly solves this problem."

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Signal at (510)731-8429.

Latest Stories