As the legal battle between Epic Games and Apple is about to hold a hearing on September 28, the iPhone manufacturer has unabashedly opposed Epic’s request for a preliminary injunction, which will bring Fort night Back to the iOS App Store. In a 37-page motion filed on Tuesday night, Apple said that Apple needs to maintain its ability to punish “one of the cruelest sabotages that Apple and any developer have suffered.”
“Epic caught fire and put gasoline on it, and now asks the court for emergency assistance to put it out, although Epic can do so immediately for many years by simply complying with the terms of the contract that has already governed its relationship with Apple,” the motion part Say. “Epic is a destroyer, not a martyr.”
Apple advocates retention Fort night All the content on the App Store has not changed in any way, and it depends largely on the debate surrounding the security of the iPhone. When Apple first created the iOS App Store, it said: “Instead of rebuilding the Internet, Apple chose to create a safe and secure place for its iPhone customers to discover and download applications, and was confident that they would be seamless and secure with the tap. Work together. Fingers.”
Epic violated the contract terms of its developer agreement and inserted its Direct Payments option into the iOS version, thereby breaking this security method Fort night Through the “patch”, Apple cannot review it before release. Therefore, Apple stated that it cannot ensure that Epic, as usual, “has not made any changes to the payment system, nor has it bypassed the iPhone’s security features or privacy protection.”
For now, Fort nightDirect payment option (available to players who have downloaded previously and widely used Fort night Applicable to iOS) is not restricted by the iPhone’s built-in parental control restrictions on in-app purchases. The company wrote: “Apple assures customers that the App Store will be a safe and trustworthy place for customers to discover and download applications.” “By inserting secret and uncensored features into applications, Epic threatens Apple and iPhone The relationship between customers.”
Apple warns that if Epic succeeds in this argument, it will not prevent other developers from undermining Apple’s 30% reduction in in-app purchases. Apple wrote: “Epic insists that other developers will not follow its lead because they fear retaliation.” “However, if the court approves Epic’s ban and announces that all developers can brag about Apple’s rules, as long as they claim Apple’s rules are anti-competitive, so no one is afraid of Apple’s response.”
Still chasing Unreal Engine
Fort night In addition, Apple also argued that it must reserve the right to close all Epic’s iOS developer accounts. These include the reasons behind the development of Unreal Engine on iOS, which is currently protected by a restriction order.
Apple stated that it wants to close all Epic accounts, in part to prevent the transfer of so-called “shell game” applications from one developer account to another. But Apple said that this is also because the company now regards Epic’s Unreal Engine as a “potential threat”, which constitutes a second potential “Trojan horse” that will allow Epic to continue to bear its threat, destroy the App Store and insert other products. Authorized function. “
Apple believes that through Unreal Engine, Epic can “insert malware or other unauthorized features (such as alternative direct payment mechanisms) into “non-Epic applications that are available on the App Store and rely on Unreal Engine…” see Malicious applications that affect most iPhone operations in the world may severely damage the local or even global telephone system, as well as the wide range of the Internet itself.”
Apple’s main point is that it may be a bit far-fetched to talk about global Internet sabotage through game engines, and it can no longer provide Epic with the benefit of doubts about its iPhone security and iOS development contractual obligations. The company wrote: “Apple can’t wait to be fooled for the second time, terminating its subsidiary because of the bad behavior of its principal.”
Not a monopoly?
Apple’s remaining motions have largely changed the previous argument that Epic is unlikely to prove that Apple is a monopolist and exerts unreasonable control over the market. The fact that epics enjoy “alternative distribution methods” Fort night, “From console and PC to Android phone,”[s] An example of a textbook that “services are reasonably interchangeable when used for the same purpose.” “Apple wrote.
Not only that, even on iOS, Apple says that Epic has other options to profit Fort night Without paying Apple’s 30% in-app purchase fees. The company wrote: “Developers can make money through advertising, selling physical goods and services, and in many other ways, and this will not bring any commission to Apple.” The company wrote, adding that the app More than 80% of application stores in China use this business model.
Apple also reiterated its position, which was previously supported by the court, that Epic’s injury in this matter was self-inflicted and therefore does not require a preliminary injunction to correct it. Regarding the “reputation damage” claimed by Epic due to being forced to withdraw from the App Store, Apple pointed out: “Epic conducted a comprehensive pre-planned media blitz around its decision to violate the agreement with Apple, and launched advertising campaigns around this effort. Continued To this day. If Epic is truly worried that it will suffer reputational damage due to this dispute, it will not participate in these well-designed publicity efforts.”