Judge Orders Fortnite Back On iOS After Apple Exec Rages That "It's Our F****ING STORE"
A five-year court battle between tech titans Apple and Epic Games may finally be coming to a close.
After months of explosive back-and-forth that went as high as the Supreme Court, Apple has reinstated Epic Games' landmark game, Fortnite, back onto its App Store.
Fortnite — a free-to-play game which makes money from gamers spending cash on flashy cosmetics — began prompting users to bypass Apple's iOS payment system and pay Epic directly back in August, 2020. The move helped Epic get around Apple's 30 percent fee, a flat tax it charged all developers for selling on the App Store.
Apple didn't like that, as Fortnite had over 116 million downloads through the App Store at the time. Apple argued Epic's payment portal violated the App Store's terms of service, and took the massively popular game off its platform.
In response, Epic filed suit against Apple on antitrust grounds, launching an admittedly corny "Free Fortnite" campaign, which nonetheless posed a serious question: does Apple have the right to restrict developers' access to the billions of devices that exclusively use the iOS App Store?
It's a question that took years to answer, and more twists and turns than a viral Fortnite dance. Apple countersued Epic, seeking damages from Epic's terms of service violation. In September 2021, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued a split decision, ruling with Apple on nine of ten counts, but awarding Epic a crucial injunction ordering Apple to allow apps to link to external payment platforms.
Notably, Gonzalez Rogers found that Apple wasn't a monopoly, but rather a duopoly alongside Google, which was engaged in a similar legal battle with Epic over the Google Play store. She likewise ordered Epic to pay Apple $3.6 million in damages.
Unhappy with the decision, both companies appealed, eventually escalating the issue to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear either appeal. Forced to allow developers to bypass Apple Pay, the company begrudgingly complied, but with on caveat. Apple now required developers to fork over 27 percent of the revenue made this way within 7 days of each transaction — a tactic known as malicious compliance.
That, of course, spawned another series of lawsuits in March 2024, as Epic vowed to continue the fight and prove that Apple was acting in bad faith.
Though Apple put on a cooperative face as the next phase kicked off, it would later emerge that the company's execs withheld documents, delayed proceedings, misled the court, and lied under oath.
On the final day of that trial, Epic introduced a series of messages between senior PR executives at Apple, showing the tech giant's frustration at having to follow the law.
"How is this still going," wrote Apple corporate communications worker Hannah Smith during an earlier day of trial.
"I have no idea. I am stunned," replied Marni Goldberg, Apple's director of public affairs, and former press secretary for Senator Joe Manchin. "It's our F****ING STORE," she roared in a message minutes later. "This is very much pissing me off."
Now knowing exactly who she was dealing with, Judge Gonzalez Rogers issued her scathing ruling on April 30, 2025, finding Apple "in willful violation" of the court's earlier decisions.
"In stark contrast to Apple's initial in-court testimony... documents reveal that Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompetitive option," Gonzalez Rogers wrote.
"To hide the truth, Vice-President of Finance, Alex Roman, outright lied under oath," the judge found. Though Roman testified that Apple decided on the 27 percent fee in January 2024 — a split-second decision made after the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal — other records prove the tech giant was plotting it as early as July 2023.
The ruling found that the decision to ignore the injunction went as high as Apple CEO Tim Cook, who ignored advice to follow the court's decision, and instead went with his "finance team," which convinced him to go through with the 27 percent fee. As Gonzalez Rogers wrote: "Cook chose poorly."
Somehow, that wasn't enough hot water. After the April 30 decision, Apple began quickly approving updates to apps linking to third-party payment platforms, according to antitrust journalist Matt Stoller. However, there was one exception: Epic's Fortnite, which Apple had "determined not to take action on the Fortnite app submission" until after all lingering legal appeals were done.
Presumably at her wit's end, Gonzalez Rogers issued a brutal one-page order, demanding Apple either make amends with Epic, or else sacrifice an Apple executive to the full wrath of the law.
"Obviously, Apple is fully capable of resolving this issue without further briefing or a hearing," the judge raged. "However, if the parties do not file a joint notice that this issue is resolved, and this Court's intervention is required, the Apple official who is personally responsible for ensuring compliance shall personally appear at the hearing."
Within a day of that final order, Apple folded, and has officially allowed Fortnite back on the app store (it's now estimated that the five year legal battle cost Apple $1 billion in lost revenue and legal fees.) Though the appeals battle still rages with Google, this one's a major win for software developers, publishers, and phone gamers everywhere.
More on Apple: Tim Cook Has a Strange Obsession
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Inside The Disney-Inspired Office Campus with 13,000 Employees
Epic is the leading provider of electronic medical records in the U.S.-- but its headquarters looks nothing like a typical tech Wisconsin HQ features treehouses, yellow brick roads, and even air-tagged sheep. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Tom's Guide
21 minutes ago
- Tom's Guide
I ditched my AirTag for this smarter key tracker — and I love it
Everyone I know raves about how helpful it is for them to attach an AirTag on their keychain to keep track of their keys, but my issue is that AirTags are quite obvious — which gives potential thieves a quick opportunity of removing them. That's why I ditched mine in favor of this smart key tracker that doubles as a handy key organizer. The KeySmart iPro is a smart key organizer that neatly organizes my keys together, while also acting as a lifesaving tool in the event it goes missing thanks to its Find My support. Essentially, it's an AirTag disguised as a key organizer and I love it. For less than the cost of two AirTags, I think the KeySmart iPro still has value. I'd go far to say it's one of the best key finders around. Here's why. Keep your keys organized and in one place with the KeySmart iPro, which also supports Apple's Find My function to keep track of its location in the event it's lost or missing. There's also a built-in flashlight when you need check: $49 @ KeySmart I have so much stuff on my keychain that it's gotten so out of control in the last year, so I needed a change — but still want the peace of mind that an AirTag offers. I got all of that and more when I finally switched to the KeySmart iPro because of how it better organizes my keys. In fact, it can support up to 14 keys thanks in part to its design that lets me quickly expand it. While I don't have that many keys on me, I did manage to get the six main keys I need for my home. Much like a Swiss Army Knife, all the keys fold inside of it — but it typically accommodates standard keys that are uniformly flat. Meaning, I can't install my car key because of how the fob has a thicker base for its controls. Despite this, I managed to get all my other keys to fit inside of the KeySmart iPro after carefully figuring out how to best place them inside. What I really love most about it is how it supports Apple's Find My function, which practically gives it the same tracking abilities of the AirTag — but in a discreet design. Through the Find My app, I can see its location on a map and even play a sound to help me track it down easier around my home if I forgot where I put it last. On top of that, I really appreciate the notification I get every time it senses that I've left it behind. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. Unlike other smart key finders, like those from Tile or Nomad's Tracking Card, it doesn't rely on a battery I need to replace — nor does it require a proprietary charging cable. Instead, the KeySmart iPro features a USB-C port covered by a plastic flap that's much more convenient in my opinion. Not only is it rated for up to 30 days of battery life, but the simple fact it's a USB-C port makes it more ideal because I can charge it just about anywhere. There's also a built-in flashlight, which isn't as powerful as my phone's flashlight, but nonetheless helpful when I can't find anything else around. Now that I've been using this, I don't plan on going back to a regular keychain with an AirTag attached to it. For its $49 cost, I think it justifies its value over other smart key finders, especially when it actually organizes my keys. And yes, it comes with a bottle opener as well so now I don't have to ask a waiter for one at a BYOB restaurant.
Digital Trends
37 minutes ago
- Digital Trends
I tested 10 flagship phones. This one has the best battery
When it comes to selecting the best phones, three key areas are most important. The display and the best smartphone camera are integral parts of the experience on most phones — especially with the display on the best folding phones — but battery life is important to every smartphone user. Between different types of battery technology and a lot of variety in capacity and charging speeds, there's a lot to take into consideration when evaluating the best smartphone battery life, especially as usage patterns vary so wildly as well. Recommended Videos Yet, the question remains unanswered: which phone has the best battery life and charging? Since the iPhone launch last year, I've been testing the best phones as they've come into my possession. I've tested over 50 phones — folding and non-folding — over the past year, and here's what I've found. Understanding battery technology Before we dig into the testing, a quick primer on battery technology. For almost three decades, the smartphone industry has been using lithium-ion batteries to power phones and other electronic devices that require a battery. The next generation of smartphone batteries uses Silicon Carbon technology, which offers higher energy density, faster charging capabilities, and potentially a longer lifespan. This means you can fit a bigger battery in the same-sized phone or a bigger battery in a thinner device, making it ideal for the best thin phones. The first smartphone with a Silicon Carbon battery was the Honor Magic V5 Pro, which was introduced two years ago. Since then, we've seen many other Asian phone makers launch phones that utilize this battery technology. Samsung, Apple, and Google have yet to follow suit, but OnePlus launched the OnePlus 13 in January, making it the first smartphone in the US to utilize this architecture. Curating the best phones for testing There are so many phones released each year, both inside and outside the US, that testing every single device wouldn't be feasible, at least not for this mid-year test. However, the data I collected over the past year, combined with my own subjective experiences with each device, means it's possible to calculate which phones to include in these tests. To simplify the testing and results, I've split the shortlist into two categories: candybar phones and the best folding phones: Here's a quick overview of the key battery specs for the shortlist: Battery Size (mAh) Battery Type Charging Speed (W) Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max 4,685 mAh Lithium-Ion 37W Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra 5,000 mAh Lithium-Ion 45W Samsung Galaxy S25 Edge 3,900 mAh Lithium-Ion 25W Google Pixel 9 Pro XL 5,060 mAh Lithium-Ion 37W OnePlus 13 6,000 mAh SIlicon Carbon 80W Motorola Razr 60 Ultra 4,700 mAh SIlicon Carbon 68W Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 6 4,000 mAh Lithium-Ion 25W Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 6 4,400 mAh Lithium-Ion 25W Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold 4,650 mAh Lithium-Ion 21W Oppo Find N5 5,600 mAh SIlicon Carbon 80W How I tested these phones I have been reviewing phones for almost twenty years, and have been objectively testing phones since 2015. To reduce the number of variables, I ensured that these tests were run after a factory reset, with a specific test account installed on the phone. This helped limit any potential data corruption caused by a particular app or background data usage. Each phone underwent the same testing. Each test was conducted with the display set to 200 nits of brightness to minimize variations caused by auto-brightness or different display brightness controllers. For the folding phones, the tests were conducted on the cover display. To test the phones, I charged each to 100% and then ran various tests. The first involved browsing a looping set of websites and social feeds, while the second ran the same test, but with a looped video. The gaming test involved playing Genshin Impact for 60 minutes and extrapolating battery usage from there. The best battery life for web browsing and social media Let's first take a look at the results of the browsing and social media test for each of the five non-folding phones: Rank Phone Capacity Duration Points 1st Motorola Razr 60 Ultra 4,700 mAh 15:48 h 10 2nd Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max 4,685 mAh 15:42 h 9 3rd OnePlus 13 6,000 mAh 15:02 h 8 4th Google Pixel 9 Pro XL 5,060 mAh 11:58 h 7 5th Oppo Find N5 5,600 mAh 11:25 h 6 6th Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold 4,650 mAh 11:01 h 5 7th Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra 5,000 mAh 10:57 h 4 8th Samsung Galaxy S25 Edge 3,900 mAh 8:59 h 3 9th Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 6 4,400 mAh 8:58 h 2 10th Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 6 4,000 mAh 7:59 h 1 The biggest surprise through all of this testing is just how capable the Motorola Razr 60 Ultra battery proves to be. In this test, it outranks the iPhone 16 Pro Max, which lasted considerably longer than any other phone since the iPhone 15 Pro Max. Both of these devices outperform your expectations based on their capacity, whereas the opposite is true of the Galaxy S25 Ultra, which should be better. The best battery life for video playback Of course, web browsing and social media playback is only one test, albeit the most varied one I tried. A more strenuous test is video playback, especially as it engages the graphics card more strenuously than the simpler first test. Rank Phone Capacity Duration Points 1st OnePlus 13 6,000 mAh 23:21 h 10 2nd Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max 4,685 mAh 23:04 h 9 3rd Motorola Razr 60 Ultra 4,700 mAh 19:22 h 8 4th Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra 5,000 mAh 18:42 h 7 5th Samsung Galaxy S25 Edge 3,900 mAh 16:58 h 6 6th Oppo Find N5 5,600 mAh 15:01 h 5 7th Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 6 4,400 mAh 14:58 h 4 8th Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold 4,650 mAh 14:31 h 3 9th Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 6 4,000 mAh 14:21 h 2 10th Google Pixel 9 Pro XL 5,060 mAh 14:02 h 1 The OnePlus 13 unsurprisingly outperforms the competition here, as the larger capacity and software optimizations work their magic. The iPhone 16 Pro Max meets expectations here as Apple's software and hardware integration proves to be magical for endurance. It'll be interesting to see how the new background tasks feature in iOS 26 affects this. I'm very impressed by the Galaxy S25 Edge here, as it has the smallest battery in this list — unsurprising as it's the thinnest non-folding phone — but it ranks 5th in one of the more strenuous tests. If you watch a lot of movies, this phone will likely handle what you throw at it. The best battery life for gaming The first two tests have become progressively more strenuous, but how does each phone endure when tested under heavy gaming conditions? Where applicable, I enabled game mode (or a similar feature) but left the settings at their default values. Rank Phone Capacity Duration Points 1st Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra 5,000 mAh 9:42 h 10 2nd Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max 4,685 mAh 9:38 h 9 3rd Oppo Find N5 5,600 mAh 7:58 h 8 4th Motorola Razr 60 Ultra 4,700 mAh 7:42h 7 5th OnePlus 13 6,000 mAh 7:13 h 6 6th Google Pixel 9 Pro XL 5,060 mAh 7:03 h 5 7th Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 6 4,400 mAh 6:58 h 4 8th Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold 4,650 mAh 6:40 h 3 9th Samsung Galaxy S25 Edge 3,900 mAh 6:03 h 2 10th Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 6 4,000 mAh 6:02 h 1 I was taken aback by the Galaxy S25 Ultra's results here, but a retest revealed similar results, so this is a clear example of how a feature like Samsung's Game Booster can extend your battery life under heavy gaming conditions. This is made even more surprising, given that it shares the 8-core Snapdragon 8 Elite processor with the OnePlus 13, albeit Samsung has developed an optimized version of the processor for its flagship devices. The iPhone proves to be an endurance champion yet again, and the Find N5 and Razr 60 Ultra both continue to prove that folding phones can offer better battery life than non-folding phones. The rest of the results are as I expected: the Pixel 9 Pro Fold, Z Fold 6, and Flip 6 all rank low in most of the tests. Before we head to the charging tests, here's a quick look at the overall top 3 in the battery tests: iPhone 16 Pro Max (27 points), Motorola Razr 60 Ultra (25 points), and OnePlus 13 (24 points). The phones that charge the fastest Of course, when your battery is running low, you need fast charging, so which of these phones charges the fastest? First, a quick note about mAh/min. It's a metric I have been using for years, and it's designed to standardize charging speeds while eliminating the variability of battery capacity and charging speed. It also applies to the 15-minute reading, where we record the battery percentage reported by the phone and multiply it by the capacity to estimate the mAh charged during those 15 minutes. Let's take a look, first, at the time taken for a full charge: Rank Phone Speed Full charge m/Ah min Points 1st OnePlus 13 80W 35 mins 171.4 10 2nd Oppo Find N5 80W 50 mins 112 9 3rd Motorola Razr 60 Ultra 68W 48 mins 93.8 8 4th Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra 45W 64 mins 78.1 7 5th Google Pixel 9 Pro XL 37W 78 mins 64.9 6 6th Samsung Galaxy S25 Edge 25W 67 mins 58.2 5 7th Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 6 25W 91 mins 48.4 4 8th Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold 21W 105 mins 44.3 3 9th Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max 37W 114 mins 41.1 2 10th Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 6 25W 102 mins 39.2 1 For more than a decade, one thing has been clear: companies like Huawei, Oppo, Honor, and OnePlus have all figured out how to recharge phones quickly and safely. This has been the case since long before the introduction of the new generation of Silicon Carbon batteries, and the technology is significantly faster than its competitors. The result is that it's no surprise that OnePlus and Oppo dominate the list. However, the biggest surprise comes from the Motorola Razr 60 Ultra and its new 68W charging, which significantly increases charging speeds. I don't know about you, but I often forget to charge my phone, or the battery runs low when I only have a short moment to recharge. For those times, I also noted the percentage each phone added to the battery after a 15-minute charge. Rank Phone Speed % at 15 m ~mAh Points 1st OnePlus 13 80W 55% 3,300 10 2nd Oppo Find N5 80W 42% 2,352 9 3rd Motorola Razr 60 Ultra 68W 48% 2,160 8 4th Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra 45W 40% 2,000 7 5th Google Pixel 9 Pro XL 37W 35% 1,771 6 6th Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max 37W 27% 1,265 5 7th Samsung Galaxy S25 Edge 25W 30% 1,170 4 8th Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 6 25W 26% 1,144 3 9th Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold 21W 24% 1,116 2 10th Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 6 25W 23% 920 1 This overall charging test is when Apple's core weakness becomes apparent. The battery life of the iPhone 16 Pro Max is fantastic, but the charging speeds leave much to be desired. As you'll see below, however, this is not always the case, and the slower overall iPhone charging speeds are usually due to the device charging more slowly (to protect the battery) once it reaches 80%. The phone with the best battery is… There's a lot more testing to do on these phones and many of the best upcoming folding phones like the Galaxy Z Fold 7 and Galaxy Z Flip 7, but where do Samsung's current folding phones stand? How about the new Galaxy S25 Edge? How does the thin body affect that battery compared to its beefier sibling? Let's look at the final results to find out! Rank Phone Total Points 1st OnePlus 13 44 2nd Motorola Razr 60 Ultra 41 3rd Oppo Find N5 37 4th Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra 35 5th Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max 33 6th Google Pixel 9 Pro XL 25 7th Samsung Galaxy S25 Edge 21 8th Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 6 17 9th Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold 16 10th Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 6 6 It's no surprise that the Galaxy Z Flip 6 comes last, especially given it's been there for most of these tests, but it does have me curious whether they'll be able to improve it in the upcoming Z Flip 7. The Galaxy S25 Edge performs admirably given the capacity constraints, especially as it has the smallest battery of all. In the top 5, Apple is the most interesting. Improving charging speeds would eliminate the gap to the top of the leaderboard, especially since it currently ranks first in the battery life tests. The Galaxy S25 Ultra is a solid contender, but it shows that there's still room for Samsung to improve. The top 3 are very interesting. The Oppo Find N5 has the best book-style folding phone battery life that I've tested, and this rings true in the testing. The same applies to the Razr 60 Ultra, which proves that flip phones can be just as capable as non-flip ones. I'm very surprised by just how capable the Razr 60 Ultra battery life proves to be in this test. The best phone for overall battery life, however, is the OnePlus 13, which continues the OnePlus trend of offering outstanding battery life and super-fast charging. This is the biggest and best battery in a OnePlus phone to date, and shows that Silicon Carbon is the smartphone battery future we've been waiting for.
