Apple Blocks Fortnite's Return to iOS App Store, Epic Claims

Who “Won” the Epic vs Apple Case?

• Several commenters argue Apple “won” 9 of 10 claims: it can ban Epic’s account and was never ordered by the court to reinstate Fortnite.
• Others insist Epic “won” key points: especially on external payments/anti‑steering, and note a judge has criticized Apple’s non‑compliance strongly enough to raise potential criminal exposure for executives.
• There is agreement that the ruling did not require Fortnite’s return to the App Store; confusion comes from PR framing suggesting otherwise.

Ban vs “Pocket Veto” and Fortnite’s Status

• Apple has not formally rejected the new Fortnite submission but appears to be sitting on it (“pocket veto”), which critics say is functionally a block.
• Defenders say Epic knowingly violated the developer agreement as a staged stunt, lost on that issue, and Apple is under no obligation to do business with them again.
• Others counter that if the underlying terms are illegal in California, the contract is not morally or legally binding.
• In the EU, Fortnite had been available via Epic’s own store and another alternative store; users now report it is unavailable, raising questions about Apple’s ability to indirectly block third‑party distribution and possible DMA violations. Technical confusion exists about bundle IDs and notarization.

External Payment Warnings and “Malicious Compliance”

• Apple’s EU warning badge for apps using external payments is seen by many as FUD—especially the red warning icon and phrasing that emphasize leaving Apple’s “private and secure” system.
• Others view it as a reasonable safeguard for less technical users who are vulnerable to scams.
• Court evidence of internal Apple chats about making external links “sound scary” is cited as proof of bad faith and “malicious compliance” with regulatory orders.

Power, Retaliation, and Regulation

• Many see Apple as a bully leveraging control over >50% of the US mobile market to punish critics and scare other developers into silence.
• Comparisons are made to hypothetical scenarios like Microsoft banning Steam on Windows or a house you own where the realtor keeps the only keys.
• Some call for structural remedies: breaking up Apple, banning single‑vendor app channels, or legally guaranteeing device owners all cryptographic “keys.”

Security/Convenience vs Openness/Ownership

• Pro‑Apple voices emphasize security, refunds, easy subscription management, and protection from dark patterns as justification for strict control and fees.
• Opponents frame Apple’s 27–30% cut and anti‑steering rules as classic rent‑seeking: “pay us for every dollar,” analogous to a hammer maker charging per nail.
• Broader concerns include lack of true ownership of digital goods (no resale, inheritance, or independence from platform bans) and spreading “phone home” control models to cars, consoles, and IoT devices.

Alt Stores, Piracy, and Who Benefits

• Some argue alternative stores mostly help pirates and giant publishers like Epic (who control their own backends), not small indies who depend on platform anti‑piracy.
• Others respond that even if Epic is self‑interested, its fight is forcing changes (open distribution, weakened anti‑steering) that materially benefit other developers and consumers.