Transcription
You might be like, "Why does this guy have this big ass [ __ ] eating grit on his face, huh?" Well, ladies and gentlemen, there's two things today. I just turned 43.
And also, ladies and gentlemen, god damn, Epic Games is actually winning against Apple. Actually did a pretty good backhand pimp slap. You know, it's always a funny day when I see big tech companies take a massive L and the world kind of shifts because of it.
Right now, Apple, you know, me me and Apple have never been the best of homies, obviously, as many of you guys can imagine, right? I've ragged on them through the years, but I've also given them their flowers whenever they needed it, right? Like, I guess that's a saying these days.
Now, uh I use an iPhone, not primarily because I enjoy the iPhone platform. Uh there's two things, iMessage, FaceTime that, you know, I utilize with other iPhone people. uh some people that will not consider switching to Android because it may be too difficult to learn even though not the case. But uh you know I really don't care what phone company you use or what phone brand you use at the end of the day. As long as this thing can browse the internet, you know, uh read an email, play some goddamn like gotcha games every once in a while cuz I know we're all degenerates like that. It that's all that really matters, right? Like who cares? You can have the cheapest phone or the most expensive phone. It really doesn't matter.
But uh you know whether you're iOS or team Android, I think we all agree watching this channel, we should own our phones and be allowed to put whatever we want on our phones. Okay.
Now, in some countries like the European Union, okay, some regions of the world, I wouldn't say the EU is a country, uh Apple lost so significantly that you, the user, can install third party app stores onto your phone and install emulators, play Fortnite, which is the focus of today's story. Okay.
Now, four years ago in 2020, uh, Epic Games decided to do the unthinkable. They defied Apple. Okay? So, what they did was if you actually had loaded up Fortnite on your iPhone, you would have seen a screen like this. How much do you want to pay? So, for a,000 V-Buckeroonies, which are valued around $8, if you go through Apple Store, which is basically the default uh, you know, way to go through, it's what Apple forces upon everyone, you have to pay $9.99.
Now, you might be like, "Well, Moodle, why is this significantly more than the $799?" It's because Apple is charging the 30% tax, which not just Apple, but Google and pretty much anybody with a uh storefront does. Okay? And even if you go to consoles like uh you know, PlayStation, Xbox, Nintendo, they do the same thing. If you go to PC platforms like Steam, Epic also, or really anything, they all do the same. The reason why it's so important on iPhone is that Apple is the only guy you can go through for downloading applications onto your phone as long as you're not in the EU, obviously.
Now, what Epic did was right underneath that option, they said, "Yeah, you can just pay $7.99 and get the same amount of e-ucks. So, you don't have to pay Apple's tax." Now, you can imagine Apple brought out the [ __ ] pimp cane and removed Fortnite from the app store. Okay? And this, ladies and gentlemen, triggered what is known as one of the biggest gaming controversies at the time. Free Fortnite. Okay.
Now, I believe they even made a whole skin in the game for it. And uh you know, if you ever looked at Apple's history, like if some of you are old like me, you probably noticed like Apple made ads parodying 1984. Like this was back in the day in the 80s when Apple was basically not the evil monopolistic crazy company that they are now. And uh you know obviously you know what is that one saying from the Batman movies? You either live long enough to you either die or live long enough to be the villain. Well, Apple decided to be the George Orwellian bad guy in this situation to the point where Epic Games decided, you know what, even though most of our audience isn't old enough to get the joke, they remade the exact same ad in Fortnite.
And uh this is what they had to say at the time after defying them. Epic Games has defied the Apple Store Monopoly. In retaliation, Apple is blocking Fortnite from a billion devices. Join the fight at Tilted Towers to stop 2020 from becoming 1984. You know, man, I I love that [ __ ] you know, in some capacity, you have to love it when multi-billion dollar companies are going at each other with this level of like online beef and gamers are just kind of sitting and lapping it up, man. Like, I mean, there there is um you know, if you if you ever like if you ever have to like just sit outside the scope of this entire world and explain this to some normie, they just think you're crazy. They think you need to be in the goddamn looney bin.
But yeah, anyways, Fortnite was gone. And for years they had one of the biggest court battles, one of the biggest court cases going on legally, Apple versus Epic. Now, depending on who would win this case, this would be a severe either um reinforcement of shitty online store practices or if Epic won like they did today, a lot of these storefronts wouldn't have to pay Apple that 30% tax.
Now, before we go into this case, you might be like, "Well, Muda, shouldn't we be paying Apple that tax?" Because ultimately, it is their storefront. And to an extent, I kind of agree with you. But generally speaking, if you're the only player in town, it can also be construed as some level of extortion. Right? Remember, Epic Games produces the title, they run the server space, Apple handles distribution of the app, but they don't really do anything when it comes to distribution of an in-game microtransaction or, you know, micro DLC like that, too. So realistically, you might be like, why are we paying Apple 30% of these V-Bucks when all they do is just allow users from their platform to purchase from another storefront. Anyways, I mean, these are it's clearly Apple, you know, using the situation to get 30%, right? And it's not just Apple, like I said, it's Google, it's Nintendo, it's Sony, it's Microsoft, it's basically anyone with the storefront, Steam, Valve, whatever, right? This is not okay anywhere you go. But you have to start the battle kind of somewhere, you know? You know what I mean? Like you have to start the battle anywhere. And the battle started with Apple versus Epic. So the battle between two Tim started, Tim Cook and Tim Sweeney.
And you know, when you go to the iPhone, you'll probably see like, you know, overall pretty decent phones. You look at the prices for these and it's like I want to just reinforce when you're paying like $1,000 for the most premium iPhone out there. I really think for $1,000, you the user should be allowed to install from any app store you want to. Okay? And Apple should probably tell you, "Hey, installing any app that's not from us could be ridden with malware." And you know what? Give users the freedom. It's crazy how people pay like laptop desktop PC prices for literal like smartphones which could easily be desktop laptop replacements for a lot of people and suddenly you have to be treated like you know you're you're the Fisher price of cell phones you know compared to Android where when you buy an Android phone you you literally can just install uh from any app store in fact with Android the beautiful part about it is you can just nuke the operating system for the most part and just reinstall it with a different ROM if the phone actually allows it. Um, I I don't understand how Apple can continue to do this and literally no one fights against this. Like, if Apple just gave the option for freedom on their phones, honest to God, I feel like a lot of the claims that Android users have against iPhones could easily be leveled. Like, why Apple doesn't take advantage of this is insane. And I honestly I do have to think it probably is due to the fact that Apple definitely generates million hundreds of millions like billions of dollars off of their app store obviously right like just beyond the cost of this phone.
So yesterday in this entire situation, one of the judges, the actual like presiding uh individuals, the presiding judge, I believe their name is Ivon Gonzalez, actually ended up getting in here and not only put Apple on blast, but even outright accuse them of actual lying. So, just to give you the overview, the court finds Apple in willful violation of this court's 2021 injunction which issued to restrain and prohibit Apple's anti-competitive conduct and anti-competitive pricing. Again, it's a monopoly in the storefront. You know, by way of background, after May 2021, the court issued a 180 page order which enjoined Apple's conducting Apple's conduct impeding competition with respect to inapp or out of app purchases. So what they have effectively said on April 24, 2023 in a 91page order um you know the court the 9th circuit reaffirmed on January 16, 2024, the Supreme Court declined review and the next day the injunction was issued. So Apple's response to the injunction strains creduly. After two sets of evidentiary hearings, the truth emerged. Apple, despite knowing its obligations there, thwarted the injunction's goals and continued its anti-competitive conduct solely to maintain its revenue stream cuz the money is that important. Remarkably, Apple believed that this court would not see through its obvious cover up, the 2024 evidentiary hearing. So, literally, the court is basically saying Apple thought they were so dumb they couldn't identify a coverup. And the court's like, "No, no, no, no, no. We we knew. We know. get out of here. To unveil Apple's actual decision-making process, not the one tailor made for litigation, the court ordered production of real-time documents and ultimately held a second set of hearings in 2025. So, literally, it feels almost as if it almost feels as if this is utilized like what the court is accusing is effectively Apple has lied. They they they lie to the courts and the court actually discovered the true nature of Apple's like anti-competitive policies, which I have to remind you this is a huge deal, okay? Like again, when you're caught like there, it's one thing to lie, okay? It's another thing to lie to courts like this where eventually I've heard that again when we go further into it, it could potentially get into some criminal civil litigation almost, right? But we we'll look at that closer towards the end.
So after the trial, the court found that Apple's 30% commission allowed it to reap supra competitive operating margins that were not tied to the value of its IP and thus was anti-competitive. Again, Apple didn't do anything to warrant that 30% cut, which is what the court's effectively saying. Apple's response charge a 27% commission again tied to nothing on off-app purchases where it had previously charged nothing and extend the commission for a period of 7 days after the consumer linked out of the app. Apple's goal, maintain its empty competitive revenue stream. Two, the court have prohibited Apple from denying developers the ability to communicate with and direct consumers to other purchasing mechanisms. So, when you go on to like, you know, a lot of these apps that you download off the storefront, what'll happen is, you know, sometimes when you're subscribing to a service, right, like Spotify for instance, I think Spotify, but it could be different, they'll often put the 30% like tax onto you, right? and they'll tell you if you want to save money, just go to spotify.com, subscribe through there, and then sign in through the app on iPhone so you're not paying that Apple premium. Some people do it, some people don't. But yeah, it's one of the things that Apple genuinely felt threatened by. Apple's responses here was to impose new barriers and new requirements to increase friction. M basically adding two, three extra steps to make somebody say, "Yeah, I'll just pay the 30%." And they had full page scare screens, static URLs, gener generic statements. Apple's goal to dissuade customer usage of alternative purchase opportunities to maintain the anti-competitive revenue stream, which is not something the court liked.
So, what they also said was to hide the truth, which this is never good for any court. The vice president of finance, Alex Roman, outright lied under o. Oh. Oh, man. You do not want that written on a court record. Internally, Philip Schiller had advocated that Apple comply with the injunction, but Tim Cook ignored Schiller and instead allowed chief financial officer Luca Mestri and his finance team to convince him otherwise. Cook chose poorly. The real evidence detail herein more than meets the clear and convincing standard to find a violation. The court refers the matter to the US attorney of North District of California to investigate whether criminal contempt proceedings are appropriate. So again, criminal contempt proceedings, this is not good. It just keeps getting probably the biggest L this year has been handed over to Apple.
All right. What's important here is the judge goes, "This is an injunction, not a negotiation. There are no doovers once a party willfully disregards a court order. Time is of the essence. The court will not tolerate further delays. As previously ordered, Apple will not impede competition. This is why I love the US like legal system like this. Like no matter how big of a company you are, sometimes when it clicks, you just get your balls cut. Okay, it is what it is. That is awesome [ __ ] to see.
Now, obviously, because of this, Fortnite has announced to come back globally on iPhones as of next week, which uh Apple probably is coping and seething about that. And honestly, like I wouldn't doubt that they would be, but uh there's nothing they can literally do, okay? It's like you're going to have to let Epic literally do what they need to. And uh you're just going to have to kind of take it, okay? You spend four years in the legal system trying to hold progress quite literally. And now it's just a matter of you absolutely going through and and just straight up like opening the doors. Like there there's no way around it anymore.
So to look further into the lies because I wanted to see how one of the executives the Ro Roman actually lied right. So what they said here was the court finds that Apple did consider the external cost developers faced when utilizing alternative payment solutions for linked out transactions which conveniently exceeded the 3% discount Apple ultimately decided to provide by a safe margin. Right? So what they said was Apple or sorry Mr. Roman didn't stop there. However, he also testified up until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what fee it would impose on linked out purchases. So, again, question that was asked and I take it that Apple decided to impose a 27% fee on linked purchases. Correct? Answer was the decision was made that day. It's your testimony that uh again, up until January 16, Apple had no idea. And of course, the answer from Roman is that is correct. So, again to go down further, another lie under oath. Contemporaneous business documents reveal on that that on the contrary, the main components of Apple's plan, including the 27% commission, were determined on July 2023. So neither Apple nor its council corrected the now obvious lies. They did not seek to withdraw the testimony or to have it stricken, although Apple did request the court strike other testimony. So again, such blatant lying is not something that the courts were tolerating. right now.
Obviously, you know, look, a court case like this has really huge implications. It has huge implications because going down the road, if this is a matter of what is now precedent, obviously Google's probably looking at their Play Store in a similar fashion. I'm sure that video game consoles are looking at their storefronts in a pretty similar fashion since, you know, the video game storefront and the smartphone gaming smart storefronts have some level of similar. In fact, I think most digital facing storefronts are going to have these similar issues. Now, again, the court isn't going on them about the 30% fee that is charged for paid applications, right? Let's say somebody prices an application at $10 on the app store. You give them 30% for that, right? Which is totally fine and understandable. Like again, you're handling the distribution of multiple gigabytes sometimes of data. And there's other features that you provide that you may include for free or behind a subscription. But when you open an application and you're buying like COD points or like you know microtransactions or anything of that nature, these sites, these storefronts are not entitled to that like easy revenue stream.
So again, if you're a gamer, if you're a software developer, you absolutely won against Apple. Like you have to take this as a as a massive win. And if you're Apple, the fact that you lied blatantly under oath, this could absolutely be a pretty bad situation for them going forward. But yeah, I mean this whole four-year saga, free Fortnite, ended with Epic literally on top, like quite literally just doing the like flossing on the corpse of like Apple like this. It's crazy. It's crazy [ __ ] to see. And uh honestly, I I I kind of did expect Epic Games to win this simply because from the inception of this lawsuit, it really felt like Apple was kind of on a losing ground anyways and they were kind of waffling their way through this, especially with how this first like exchange occurred. So, you know, if that was how it began, I wasn't really surprised with how it ended. But I am glad it ended literally in this fashion because ultimately anything that fights against anti-competitive practices is ultimately a net positive for you and me, the consumer. And in a day and age where Microsoft literally jumped up prices for Xboxes by like 30% in some cases, gamers kind of did need a little bit of a win. Now, I'm not somebody that is a microtransaction enjoyer, but I'm sure for somebody that wanted to play games like Fortnite on their phone. Uh, it's kind of awesome to see that, you know, regardless of how much Apple is kicking and screaming, it is coming back for every player on the iPhone platform. And you also don't have to give a a supreme tax to iPhone or Apple just for purchasing a subscription through a third party or buying a few V-Bucks. I mean, nobody should have done that in the first place, but you know, it needed a four-year long millions of dollars spent super mega court case, one that would define the future of digital devices and microtransaction purchases to actually happen. If you like what you saw, please like, comment, and subscribe. Dislike if you dislike it. I am