The anticipated return of the popular battle royale game to Apple’s mobile operating system in the United States is a topic of considerable interest among gamers. The availability of this title on iOS devices offered a convenient and accessible way for players to engage with the game, fostering a large mobile player base within the US. The removal of the game from the App Store has left many users eager for its reinstatement.
The importance of this availability lies in accessibility for a wide demographic. iOS devices are widely used in the United States, and offering the game on this platform allows individuals without access to gaming consoles or high-end PCs to participate in the gaming community. Its previous presence created a significant revenue stream for the developers and Apple. The legal dispute between the game’s developer and Apple represents a major factor influencing its potential future on iOS.
The timeline for a potential re-release on iOS in the U.S. remains uncertain and is contingent upon the resolution of ongoing legal matters. Examining the key factors at play and the possible outcomes of legal proceedings is essential for understanding the future prospects of this game on Apple’s mobile platform.
1. Legal proceedings timeline
The legal proceedings timeline serves as the primary determinant for the return of the game to iOS in the United States. The lawsuit between Epic Games and Apple directly influences the app’s availability on the App Store. The progression, duration, and ultimate outcome of this litigation are critical factors; a ruling in favor of Epic Games, or a negotiated settlement, could pave the way for the game’s reinstatement, provided it complies with Apple’s revised policies. Conversely, a prolonged legal battle or a decision favoring Apple would likely delay, or potentially preclude, its reappearance on the platform.
Real-world examples of similar legal disputes illustrate the impact on app availability. Court decisions shape the landscape, often determining not only the availability of a specific app but also the broader regulations governing app store distribution. The length of these proceedings can vary significantly, extending from several months to multiple years, dependent on the complexity of the legal arguments and appeals processes. Understanding the anticipated legal milestones, such as summary judgment motions, trial dates, and potential appeals, offers insights into the possible timeline for resolution.
In summary, the legal proceedings timeline directly dictates the “when” of the game’s potential iOS return in the US. Monitoring the case’s progress, understanding the legal arguments presented, and recognizing the potential outcomes are essential for anyone seeking to estimate the app’s availability. This timeline introduces substantial uncertainty, underscoring the dependence of its iOS status on the resolution of the existing legal conflict.
2. Epic Games’ stance
Epic Games’ strategic position significantly influences the potential return of the game to iOS in the United States. The company’s willingness to comply with Apple’s App Store policies, or conversely, its insistence on challenging these policies, forms a critical determinant. A conciliatory stance, involving acceptance of Apple’s terms and a submission of a compliant version of the game, would expedite the process. However, Epic’s past actions demonstrate a willingness to contest Apple’s control, suggesting a compliance-oriented approach may not be immediately forthcoming. The degree to which Epic is willing to compromise, or continues to pursue alternative distribution methods, has a direct and measurable effect on the timing of its potential iOS reinstatement.
Consider, for example, Epic’s pursuit of cloud gaming distribution as an alternative to the App Store. This reflects a strategic diversification intended to bypass Apple’s control entirely. However, this approach introduces its own complexities, including technological challenges and user experience considerations. Another significant factor is Epic’s public messaging and legal arguments. A sustained, adversarial stance in court may hinder any potential for negotiation and compromise with Apple, thereby protracting the period before the game could be available on iOS. Conversely, a shift towards a more collaborative public posture could foster a more favorable negotiation environment.
In summary, Epic Games’ stance acts as a pivotal, independent variable in determining when the game will be available on iOS in the US. Its willingness to adhere to Apple’s regulations, its pursuit of alternative distribution, and its public communication strategy each contribute significantly. Understanding this relationship provides key insights into the timing, with a more conciliatory approach from Epic likely to shorten the waiting period, while continued resistance prolongs the uncertainty.
3. Apple’s App Store Policy
Apple’s App Store policies are central to the availability of the game on iOS in the United States. These policies govern the distribution, monetization, and operation of all apps within the Apple ecosystem, and adherence to them is a prerequisite for inclusion in the App Store. Understanding specific aspects of these policies is crucial in evaluating the potential timeline for its return.
-
In-App Purchase (IAP) Requirements
Apple mandates that all digital goods and services sold within apps on its platform must use Apple’s In-App Purchase system, through which Apple levies a commission, typically 30%. Epic Games’ circumvention of this system was a primary catalyst for the game’s removal. Compliance with IAP requirements is essential for reinstatement. Should Epic Games agree to utilize IAP, it would signify a critical step towards the game’s potential return. Without adherence to this policy, the app cannot legally operate within the Apple ecosystem.
-
Developer Guidelines and Review Process
Apple enforces strict developer guidelines concerning app functionality, content, and user experience. All apps undergo a review process to ensure compliance with these guidelines. Deviation from these guidelines can result in rejection or removal from the App Store. For the game to be reinstated, it must demonstrably comply with all current developer guidelines, not only in terms of IAP but also with respect to aspects like data privacy, security, and appropriate content. A successful navigation of the app review process represents a non-negotiable step towards reappearance.
-
Control Over Distribution and Monetization
Apple maintains absolute control over app distribution and monetization within its ecosystem. This control extends to the right to remove apps for policy violations and to dictate the terms of app distribution. The implication is that Apple holds the power to decide whether or not the game is permitted on its platform, irrespective of legal outcomes. Even if a legal ruling favors Epic Games, Apple could still choose to enforce its policies in a manner that prevents the game’s return, highlighting the paramount importance of aligning with Apple’s strategic vision for its App Store.
These facets of Apple’s App Store policy underscore its decisive role in dictating the game’s availability on iOS in the United States. Compliance with IAP requirements, adherence to developer guidelines, and acknowledgment of Apple’s control over distribution and monetization channels are not merely procedural steps but fundamental prerequisites for its reinstatement. The timeline for its return is thus inextricably linked to how Epic Games navigates these policy constraints and, more importantly, whether Apple deems the app’s revised approach acceptable within its ecosystem.
4. Potential policy changes
Potential modifications to Apple’s App Store policies represent a critical, albeit uncertain, factor influencing when the game might return to iOS in the United States. Changes in these policies could remove existing barriers that currently prevent the game’s distribution, or conversely, introduce new challenges. The nature and extent of these potential changes directly affect the likelihood and timeframe for its reinstatement.
For example, regulatory pressure from antitrust authorities globally has prompted scrutiny of Apple’s App Store practices. If such pressure were to result in policy adjustments mandating greater openness, such as allowing alternative payment systems or app stores on iOS, Epic Games could potentially distribute the game without complying with Apple’s current In-App Purchase system. Real-world precedents include ongoing investigations by various governments into Apple’s market power and the potential for legislative action to address these concerns. The practical significance lies in the understanding that changes instigated by external factors could fundamentally alter the App Store landscape, creating new opportunities for distribution and diminishing the importance of current restrictions. However, it is equally important to acknowledge the possibility of Apple proactively modifying its policies in a way that offers limited concessions while maintaining overall control. This scenario might involve reduced commission rates for certain types of apps or the introduction of programs designed to incentivize developers to remain within the Apple ecosystem, but that would still require agreement from Epic to comply to whatever guidelines they set in place.
In summary, the potential for App Store policy modifications holds significant implications for the future of the game on iOS in the U.S. While the timing and nature of these changes remain uncertain, their influence cannot be overstated. Monitoring regulatory developments, understanding Apple’s strategic responses, and assessing the potential impact of policy adjustments are essential for gauging when, and under what conditions, the game might become available on iOS once more. This introduces a layer of complexity, as the return is not solely dependent on the legal outcome or Epic’s actions but also on the evolving regulatory environment and Apple’s strategic response.
5. Alternative distribution methods
Alternative distribution methods represent a crucial consideration when evaluating the potential timeframe for the game’s return to iOS in the United States. Since the conventional App Store route faces significant legal and policy hurdles, exploring alternative avenues becomes paramount in assessing the possibility of its future availability on Apple’s mobile devices.
-
Cloud Gaming Services
Cloud gaming services, such as Xbox Cloud Gaming or NVIDIA GeForce Now, offer a means to bypass the App Store entirely. By streaming the game to iOS devices, users can access it without downloading the app directly from Apple’s store. A primary advantage is the circumvention of Apple’s In-App Purchase policies and distribution control. A potential drawback lies in the dependence on a stable, high-bandwidth internet connection for optimal gameplay. For instance, if Epic Games were to partner with an existing cloud gaming provider or launch its own service compatible with iOS, the game could become accessible relatively quickly, contingent on the technical implementation and user adoption rates. This method would provide a workaround, independent of the legal proceedings between Epic and Apple, but user experience and subscription costs could influence adoption rates.
-
Web-Based Access
Distributing the game as a web-based application, accessible through a mobile browser, represents another alternative. This approach circumvents the need for App Store approval and allows Epic Games to maintain direct control over distribution and monetization. A significant hurdle is the limitations of web technology compared to native apps, potentially impacting performance and features. Emulation of native app functionalities within a web browser could prove challenging and impact the user experience. Nevertheless, web-based distribution presents a viable option to reach iOS users without Apple’s direct intervention. Development complexities and performance considerations would directly affect the development timeline for a viable web-based iteration.
-
Sideloading (Hypothetical)
While not currently permitted on standard iOS devices, the possibility of future policy changes allowing sideloadinginstalling apps from sources outside the App Storecannot be entirely dismissed. Regulatory pressure or shifts in Apple’s business strategy could potentially open the door to sideloading. In this scenario, Epic Games could distribute the game directly to iOS users without needing App Store approval. However, this depends on hypothetical policy changes from Apple, which are presently speculative. The presence of sideloading would require users to actively seek and install the game, potentially limiting its reach compared to the App Store.
In conclusion, alternative distribution methods present varied pathways for the game’s potential return to iOS in the U.S., each with its own set of technical, economic, and political considerations. Cloud gaming and web-based access offer immediate, albeit imperfect, solutions, while sideloading remains a speculative possibility contingent on future policy shifts. The actual timeframe for its return will be determined by Epic’s strategic choices among these alternatives, influenced by factors such as user experience, cost-effectiveness, and the evolving regulatory landscape.
6. Public demand influence
Public demand exerts a noteworthy influence on the potential return of the game to iOS in the United States. The collective expression of player interest, expressed through various channels, can impact the decisions of both Epic Games and Apple, thus affecting the timeline for its possible reinstatement. This influence operates through multiple distinct facets, each contributing to the overall pressure on relevant stakeholders.
-
Social Media Campaigns and Online Petitions
Social media platforms and online petition sites serve as key avenues for demonstrating public demand. Organized campaigns, trending hashtags, and widely circulated petitions can amplify the message to a broad audience, including the decision-makers at Epic Games and Apple. The visibility generated by these efforts may influence corporate strategies, potentially expediting negotiations or prompting policy reconsiderations. For example, a sustained, high-profile social media campaign highlighting the desire for the game’s return could generate public relations pressure on Apple to find a resolution. Conversely, a lack of significant public outcry might signal a lower priority for both companies, slowing down any potential efforts towards reinstatement.
-
Media Coverage and Public Discourse
The extent and tone of media coverage significantly shape public perception and influence corporate decisions. Widespread media attention on the game’s absence from iOS, coupled with commentary emphasizing consumer dissatisfaction, can create pressure for both Epic Games and Apple to address the issue. Favorable media coverage portraying Epic Games as a consumer advocate or highlighting the negative impacts of Apple’s policies could sway public opinion and influence Apple’s willingness to compromise. Conversely, negative coverage focused on Epic’s actions or portraying Apple’s policies as reasonable may diminish public demand and reduce the urgency for resolution. The media landscape, therefore, acts as a crucial intermediary, shaping the narrative surrounding the game’s absence and influencing the perceptions of key decision-makers.
-
Investor and Shareholder Sentiment
While less direct, investor and shareholder sentiment can indirectly influence corporate behavior. If the prolonged absence of the game from iOS negatively impacts Epic Games’ revenue or Apple’s reputation, investors may exert pressure on company management to find a resolution. Publicly traded companies are sensitive to shareholder concerns, and a demonstrable decline in stock value or investor confidence can prompt strategic shifts. For example, if analysts attribute a decline in Epic Games’ valuation to the ongoing iOS dispute, shareholders may demand a more conciliatory approach towards Apple. Similarly, if Apple faces criticism from investors for alienating a significant segment of its user base, it may be more inclined to seek a mutually acceptable solution. The indirect influence of investor sentiment can thus act as a catalyst for change, potentially expediting the timeline for the game’s return.
-
Usage Data and Market Trends
Data reflecting user behavior and market trends provide tangible evidence of public interest. Metrics such as downloads on other platforms, search engine queries related to the game on iOS, and social media engagement rates can quantify the demand for its return. Epic Games and Apple likely monitor these metrics to assess the potential impact of its absence on their respective businesses. High download numbers on alternative platforms, coupled with strong search interest for an iOS version, would indicate a substantial unmet demand. This data-driven evidence can strengthen Epic Games’ negotiating position or prompt Apple to reassess the market opportunity. Conversely, declining usage rates or diminishing search interest might suggest a waning public appetite, reducing the urgency for resolution. Real-world data, therefore, acts as an objective indicator of demand, informing strategic decisions and influencing the timeline for the game’s potential reinstatement.
In conclusion, public demand operates as a multifaceted influence on the timeline for the game’s return to iOS in the U.S. Social media campaigns, media coverage, investor sentiment, and usage data each contribute to the overall pressure on Epic Games and Apple. The strength and direction of these influences ultimately shape the strategic decisions of both companies, expediting or delaying the possibility of its reinstatement. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for anyone seeking to assess the potential timeframe for the game’s return and its future within Apple’s mobile ecosystem.
7. Competitor landscape
The competitive environment within the mobile gaming market significantly influences the potential timing for the game’s return to iOS in the United States. The presence and success of rival titles directly impact strategic decisions made by both Epic Games and Apple, thereby affecting the urgency and potential timeline for re-establishing its presence on Apple’s mobile platform.
-
Market Share Dynamics and User Retention
The extent to which competing games capture market share and retain players directly influences the impetus for the game’s return. If rival titles successfully fill the void left by its absence, attracting a significant user base and establishing strong retention rates, the incentive for both Epic Games and Apple to resolve their dispute diminishes. For example, the sustained popularity of similar battle royale games on iOS could reduce pressure on Apple to compromise on its App Store policies. Conversely, if these competing games fail to resonate with players or exhibit high churn rates, the potential for a successful return increases, potentially expediting negotiations between the involved parties. The degree to which alternative games effectively serve the mobile gaming audience is a key determinant in shaping the timeline for its possible reinstatement.
-
Innovation and Feature Parity
The rate of innovation and feature parity among competing titles affects the perceived value of its potential return. If rival games introduce innovative features or enhancements that surpass the game’s offerings, the perceived urgency for its reinstatement on iOS diminishes. Apple may see less value in accommodating the game if its features are readily available in other titles. For instance, if a competitor successfully integrates advanced cross-platform play or implements novel gameplay mechanics, the competitive advantage it once held may erode. This necessitates a continuous assessment of the competitive landscape and a potential reevaluation of its feature set to ensure its return is compelling. Failure to maintain a competitive edge could prolong the absence from iOS.
-
Marketing and Promotional Strategies
The marketing and promotional strategies employed by competing game developers directly impact the visibility and perceived value of its potential return. Aggressive marketing campaigns, strategic partnerships, and exclusive content offerings from rivals can capture player attention and solidify their market position. This heightened competition can either spur Epic Games and Apple to expedite their negotiations or dissuade them from doing so, depending on the perceived impact on the overall market. If competitors successfully leverage marketing initiatives to establish brand loyalty and attract new players, the urgency for the game to regain its lost ground on iOS will likely increase, potentially shortening the timeline for its reinstatement. Effective marketing efforts by competitors thus create a dynamic environment that influences the strategic calculations of the parties involved.
-
Platform Exclusivity and Cross-Platform Availability
The exclusivity arrangements and cross-platform availability of competing titles influence the attractiveness of its potential return to iOS. If key competitors remain exclusive to other platforms, the absence of the game from iOS becomes more pronounced. A competitors game available across multiple platforms including console, PC and Android devices makes the iOS absence even more glaring. Conversely, if rival games are already widely accessible on other platforms, the incentive for Apple to make exceptions diminishes. The presence of cross-platform play, in particular, allows users to seamlessly transition between devices, potentially reducing the reliance on any single platform. The strategic decisions regarding platform availability among competitors create a fluctuating landscape that dictates the perceived urgency of its reinstatement on Apple’s mobile operating system.
In summary, the competitive landscape acts as a dynamic force, shaping the strategic considerations of both Epic Games and Apple. Market share dynamics, innovation, marketing strategies, and platform exclusivity each contribute to the overall pressure influencing the potential timeline for the game’s return to iOS in the United States. Understanding these competitive dynamics is crucial for gauging the likelihood and timeframe for its re-emergence on Apple’s mobile platform.
8. Negotiation possibilities
Negotiation possibilities constitute a critical determinant in establishing a realistic timeframe for the game’s potential return to iOS in the United States. The willingness of both Epic Games and Apple to engage in constructive dialogue, exploring mutually acceptable compromises, directly impacts the likelihood and timing of its reinstatement on the App Store.
-
Financial Terms and Revenue Sharing Models
The primary point of contention revolves around financial terms, specifically revenue sharing models for in-app purchases. Apple’s standard 30% commission has been a central point of disagreement. Negotiation could explore alternative revenue sharing arrangements, tiered commission structures based on app revenue, or participation in Apple’s App Store Small Business Program (if eligibility criteria are met), which offers a reduced 15% commission. The success of these negotiations will dictate the financial viability of the game’s return, with an equitable agreement serving as a prerequisite for its reinstatement. For example, a compromise on a temporary reduced commission rate in exchange for adherence to Apple’s policies could accelerate its availability on iOS.
-
App Store Policy Adherence and Enforcement
Beyond financial terms, adherence to App Store policies and enforcement mechanisms are crucial negotiation points. Epic Games must demonstrate a commitment to complying with Apple’s guidelines regarding content moderation, data privacy, and app functionality. Negotiation could involve clarifying specific policy interpretations, establishing clear communication channels for addressing potential violations, and agreeing upon mechanisms for swift policy enforcement. A mutually acceptable understanding of these aspects is essential to prevent future disputes and ensure long-term stability. A well-defined agreement on policy adherence signals commitment and trust, facilitating a faster return to the iOS platform.
-
Alternative Distribution and Feature Considerations
Negotiations may extend to exploring alternative distribution methods or feature adjustments that allow the game to operate within Apple’s ecosystem while addressing Epic Games’ concerns. This could involve discussions regarding cloud gaming solutions, web-based access, or modifications to gameplay mechanics to align with Apple’s guidelines. Creative problem-solving in this domain could lead to innovative solutions that circumvent existing barriers. For example, integrating Apple’s Sign-In functionality and leveraging native iOS features could demonstrate a commitment to platform integration. Discussions related to exclusive in-game content or cross-promotion with Apple services may also create value for both parties, fostering a collaborative partnership. A successful resolution of distribution and feature considerations will pave the way for a smoother and potentially expedited return.
-
Legal Dispute Resolution and Future Partnerships
Negotiation must address the ongoing legal dispute and establish a framework for future partnerships. Reaching a settlement that resolves existing legal claims is essential to clear the path for reconciliation. The terms of this settlement may include mutual releases of liability, agreements on intellectual property rights, and commitments to future collaboration. Establishing a framework for ongoing communication and dispute resolution mechanisms is crucial for preventing future conflicts. A comprehensive legal settlement and a clear roadmap for future cooperation would signal a definitive end to the dispute, increasing the likelihood of a swift reinstatement and fostering a sustainable relationship between the two companies.
In summary, the negotiation possibilities directly shape the timeline for the game’s potential return to iOS in the U.S. Successful negotiations encompassing financial terms, policy adherence, alternative distribution, and legal resolution are critical to removing existing roadblocks and paving the way for a mutually beneficial agreement. The extent to which both Epic Games and Apple prioritize collaboration and compromise will ultimately dictate when, and under what conditions, the game can once again be accessed on Apple’s mobile devices.
Frequently Asked Questions
This section addresses common questions surrounding the availability of the game on iOS devices in the United States. The information presented aims to provide clarity based on currently available data and legal proceedings.
Question 1: What is the current status of the game on iOS in the US?
Currently, the game is unavailable for download or gameplay on iOS devices in the United States. This is due to an ongoing legal dispute between Epic Games, the developer, and Apple. The game was removed from the App Store in August 2020 following a violation of Apple’s in-app purchase policies.
Question 2: What are the primary reasons for its removal from the App Store?
The removal stems from Epic Games’ implementation of a direct payment system within the app, bypassing Apple’s standard In-App Purchase system. This violated Apple’s policies, which require all digital purchases within apps to be processed through Apple’s system, subject to a commission.
Question 3: Is there a confirmed date for its return to iOS?
There is no confirmed date for the game’s return to iOS in the United States. The timing is contingent upon the resolution of the legal dispute between Epic Games and Apple. The duration and outcome of the legal proceedings remain uncertain, making a definitive prediction impossible.
Question 4: What legal factors could influence the return timeline?
The primary legal factor is the ongoing antitrust lawsuit between Epic Games and Apple. Court rulings or a negotiated settlement could potentially pave the way for the game’s return. The legal timeline introduces considerable uncertainty, as court proceedings can be lengthy and subject to appeals.
Question 5: Could alternative distribution methods, such as cloud gaming, offer a solution?
Cloud gaming services present a potential workaround, allowing users to stream the game to iOS devices without directly downloading it from the App Store. The feasibility of this approach depends on technical implementation, user experience, and Epic Games’ strategic decisions regarding partnerships with cloud gaming providers.
Question 6: What actions might expedite the process of its return?
A conciliatory approach from both Epic Games and Apple, coupled with a willingness to compromise on financial terms and policy adherence, could expedite the process. A settlement of the legal dispute and an agreement on mutually acceptable terms of distribution would be essential steps.
In summary, the return of the game to iOS in the United States remains uncertain and dependent on various factors, including the resolution of legal proceedings, strategic decisions by Epic Games and Apple, and potential shifts in App Store policies.
The next section will explore potential long-term implications and alternative gaming options for iOS users.
Navigating the Uncertainty
Understanding the potential return of the game to iOS devices in the United States requires a proactive and informed approach, given the uncertain timeline influenced by legal and policy variables.
Tip 1: Monitor Legal Developments Closely: Track the progress of the Epic Games v. Apple lawsuit. Court filings, rulings, and scheduled hearings provide essential clues regarding the dispute’s trajectory and potential outcomes. Reputable legal news sources and industry analysts offer reliable updates.
Tip 2: Stay Informed on App Store Policy Shifts: Remain vigilant regarding any alterations to Apple’s App Store policies. Official Apple announcements, developer conferences, and credible tech news outlets are crucial sources. Anticipate policy changes in response to regulatory pressure or antitrust scrutiny.
Tip 3: Explore Alternative Gaming Options: Familiarize yourself with alternative mobile gaming options available on iOS. Experiment with similar battle royale games or other titles that align with your gaming preferences. Diversifying your gaming portfolio can mitigate disappointment related to the uncertain return timeline.
Tip 4: Investigate Cloud Gaming Services: Research cloud gaming services compatible with iOS. Explore platforms like Xbox Cloud Gaming or NVIDIA GeForce Now, which may offer access to the game via streaming. Assess the performance and subscription costs to determine viability.
Tip 5: Temper Expectations: Maintain a realistic perspective regarding the likelihood and timing of the game’s return to iOS. The legal and policy landscape is complex and subject to change. Avoid reliance on speculative information from unverified sources.
Tip 6: Engage Constructively (If Desired): If inclined, participate in constructive discussions and feedback channels related to the game and App Store policies. However, avoid engaging in unproductive or inflammatory discourse. Focus on providing thoughtful input based on objective information.
These tips emphasize proactive engagement with reliable information sources and a realistic understanding of the complexities involved. While the future remains uncertain, informed preparation offers a strategic advantage.
In conclusion, maintaining a balanced perspective and exploring alternative avenues for mobile gaming can help navigate the period of uncertainty surrounding the potential return of this game to iOS in the US. This empowers users to make informed decisions and proactively adapt to the evolving landscape.
Conclusion
The preceding exploration of the question, “when will fortnite be on ios in the us,” reveals a multifaceted issue contingent upon legal proceedings, corporate strategies, and potential policy changes. The analysis underscores the interdependence of these factors, emphasizing the absence of a definitive timeline. Understanding the nuances of the legal battle between Epic Games and Apple, appreciating the potential influence of regulatory actions, and acknowledging the impact of competitor dynamics is essential for comprehending the complexities surrounding the potential return.
While the prospect of its reappearance on iOS remains uncertain, stakeholders and interested parties are encouraged to monitor legal developments, policy announcements, and industry trends. The information and analysis presented provide a framework for assessing future developments and understanding the potential implications for the mobile gaming ecosystem. The resolution of this matter will not only determine the fate of this game on iOS but may also shape broader industry practices regarding app distribution and revenue sharing.
