Fortnite Coming Back to the App Store?
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney said over the weekend (via The Verge) that Epic will use its Epic Games Sweden account to submit Fortnite to the App Store in the U.S. Apparently, Sweeney has spoken to Apple about the issue, and based on his wording, it sounds like Apple could allow the plan, but he did not say that he has explicit approval from Apple.
Tim Sweeney (last week):
We will return Fortnite to the US iOS App Store next week.
Not Monday or Tuesday. Beyond that, we’re working as hard as possible and aren’t certain what day it will be ready.
If Apple were going to allow Fortnite back into the App Store they could have done so at any point in the last four years. And there’s nothing, not a word, in Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers’s decision last week that says Apple needs to reinstate Epic Games. I think Apple just stays the course and Fortnite remains persona non grata as far as the App Store is concerned.
It has cost Epic Games more than $100 million to challenge Apple’s App Store rules in the ongoing Apple vs. Epic Games legal battle, Epic CEO Tim Sweeney said today in an interview with Business Insider.
Sweeney said that Epic Games has paid “legal bills” in excess of $100 million, but that the dispute has cost the company a lot more.
But if you look at lost revenue, that’s another story. We can’t predict exactly how much we would have made on iOS, but in the two years that we were on the platform, Fortnite had made about $300 million on iOS. So you could have projected hundreds of millions of dollars of lost revenue as a result of the fight.
Previously:
Update (2025-05-12): Juli Clover (CNBC):
As promised, Epic Games today submitted Fortnite to the U.S. App Store, and if approved by Apple, it will mark the first time that the Fortnite app has been available in the United States since 2020.
[…]
Epic Games’ U.S. developer account has been banned since the initial Apple vs. Epic Games battle in 2020, so Epic Games is using the developer account that it established in Sweden to submit Fortnite to the App Store. Epic Games created a Swedish App Store account last year in order to create an Epic Games app marketplace in the European Union, as allowed by the Digital Markets Act.
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney said that the company has “conversed” with Apple about the plan, and that Apple is aware that Epic Games is submitting Fortnite using the Epic Games Sweden subsidiary that it established for the EU. Sweeney has not confirmed whether Apple said that’s okay, and it’s not clear if Apple will approve the App Store submission.
I too asked Apple for comment on this earlier in the week, and they had nothing to state. Maybe Apple will just allow this. I don’t know. But if I were a betting man, I’d wager that Apple does not allow Fortnite back. That last week’s injunction was a big loss for Apple doesn’t make it a win for Epic. If all were forgiven or forgotten, Epic wouldn’t need to submit this through their Swedish subsidiary, which has an Apple developer account only because the EU forced Apple to grant them one.
I’m sad to say that I continue to think Gruber is right that Apple doesn’t need to and indeed won’t let Fortnite return to the App Store.
Attached are some key passages from the court ruling. It affirms that Epic was guilty of breach of contract, and moreover that Epic’s standing in the case depends on being an industry competitor and not on having apps in the App Store.
I remain confused about how the Swedish subsidiary fits into this. On the one hand, it’s obviously still controlled by Epic, the company that Apple banned, and the courts said that was OK. On the other hand, given that the account exists and already has another app approved, what would be the legal rationale for rejecting Fortnite if it follows the guidelines? Does it come down to whether the EU wants to stand up for the rights of one of its companies to submit apps to the US store?
Apple has personal beef with Epic so they won’t let you play one of the most popular games on Earth on their devices that you spent thousands of dollars on. […] An Apple that cared about customer experience would be working towards a resolution that gets the most popular game on Earth back on their platforms.
Reminder that Epic’s stunt didn’t endanger customers in any way. Rather, it demonstrated that a nefarious developer could trivially get through App Review and cause actual harm. And, of course, the real sin was bypassing the 30%, which was a problem for Apple but actually good for customers (who could still choose IAP instead of a discount if they wanted). What Uber did was worse, and not only did Apple not ban them, but it gave them a special entitlement to record the user’s screen.
Previously:
- Apple Granted Uber a Background Screen Recording Entitlement
- Uber Used Private API to Access iPhone Serial Number
- Uber Whistleblower on Location Privacy
Update (2025-05-15): Tim Sweeney:
We need to release a weekly Fortnite update with new content this Friday, and all platforms must update simultaneously. So we have pulled the previous Fortnite version submitted to Apple App Review last Friday, and we have submitted a new version for review.
This another way of saying that, 5 days after submission, Apple had yet to approve or reject the app.
So Apple is now facing a situation where a ‘European company’ (Epic’s EU subsidiary) is submitting a new app that doesn’t break any current rules, from an upstanding dev account, and Apple’s previous rules under which their parent company was banned for infraction were outright illegal at the time. This is happening with 30 days until EU starts enforcing the DMA re anti steering.
[…]
But each week that goes by that Epic has to pull and resubmit is another piece of evidence for lawmakers, quantifiable ‘damage’ to account for, and proof that Apple is going to continue playing chicken until regulation closes in on them (again, most likely in the EU).
Remember when Apple tried to tell the judge that they would be happy to welcome Epic back to the App Store once the court case was over and the issue adjudicated? I do, because I read the transcripts and listened to the hearings.
I guess technically it’s not over yet because Apple has appealed. On the other hand, Apple made the offer, without the condition of the court case being over, after the legal battle had already begun. So it seems like it was never a serious offer and only meant to sway public opinion.
Previously:
- Critical Warning for External Purchases in App Store
- Apple Appeals Epic Anti-Steering Injunction
- Spotify Anti-Steering Stonewalling
- Briefs in App Store Limbo
9 Comments RSS · Twitter · Mastodon
Maybe I'm just old but this whole thing is just insane to me. Developer wants to distribute application on operating system platform, platform vendor disallows it through built-in technological means based on legal stipulations.
Did Stallman not warn us about EXACTLY this like 40 years ago?
Meanwhile I just had my first run in with the "You are not allowed to install this on your Mac, and there's no setting that you can change" experience.
Fucking hell. PowerPoint better be good, because in a few years I'll be a switcher.
@Kristoffer: I'm more or less resigned to ending up on Linux eventually. I've used macOS almost exclusively for personal stuff for years, but Apple keeps making it worse. I use Windows for work most of the time, but really would prefer something like Linux where some dumb corporate entity /can't/ impose terrible decisions.
@gildarts I tend to agree, but that still leaves us with open source projects imposing terrible decisions, or quitting. At least the incentives are more aligned.
Every time I try Linux again I run in to many of the same old pain points. Not quite full hardware support, applications I need technically being available but only through Java or in limited form, etc.
> ...leaves us with open source projects imposing terrible decisions, or quitting
True, but the beauty of open source is that if anything bad enough happens, the users can fork it and keep going. Obviously that is a high bar, but it is at least possible unlike with macOS or Windows.
Agreed on the papercuts, it is why my non-Mac dual boots Windows and Linux, but it is getting somewhat better. I also think that the general explosion in game support on Linux through Wine will also enable a lot of productivity type apps as well.
Why only to the US store?
“Effective immediately Apple will no longer impede developers’ ability to communicate with users nor will they levy or impose a new commission on off-app purchases.”
Does not limit it to US developers or the US store.
@Daniel Yeah, that’s an interesting question. It seems like the court would at least have jurisdiction over a US company impinging on the rights of US developers abroad.
@Michael Tsai,
I think the US has very few laws that extend outside of our borders — a few exceptions: anti-bribery laws (oops, unenforced as of 2025), taxes, some anti-child-abuse laws, etc.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RS22497
But there are only a few examples. If law regimes overlap, there can be adverse consequences.
Also, America is unlikely to regulate American businesses overseas, especially as we barely regulate them at home.
There’d also need to be some treaty to enforce civil judgements: https://harris-sliwoski.com/blog/will-your-u-s-judgment-be-enforced-abroad/ — a huge enforcement headache.
I believe we also try people in absentia (like drug kingpins, etc.) in American courts for things that happen overseas. Not sure what the logic is about that — that’s always struck me as odd.
Me: “I believe we also try people in absentia (like drug kingpins, etc.) in American courts for things that happen overseas. Not sure what the logic is about that — that’s always struck me as odd.”
I just realized drug lords are being prosecuted in absentia for things that happened in the USA (and not for things happening outside our borders).
