Fortnite has been banned from the Apple and Google app stores, in one of the most high-profile disputes between companies in recent tech history.

On the one hand, the dispute is out of the hands of anyone using any of the companies products: customers have little say in any of these issues, and the discussion is really about how the billions of dollars generated through the app stores are distributed.

On the other, the argument has affected Fortnite fans in the most direct way possible. They are now not able to get the game in the same way as they did before – and if the dispute continues and takes in more companies, other apps and platforms could be affected too.

What happened?

The problem began when Fortnite began offering two ways of spending money in-game: either you could do so through the app store, and pay the full price, or you could do so by cutting out Apple and Google's payment system entirely, and developers Epic Games would give you a discount, equivalent to the fee normally taken from the store.

Such a move is forbidden on both app stores. Apple and Google both stipulate that purchases of this kind must go through the app store, and developers pay a 30 per cent cut on those.

Soon after, Fortnite began to disappear from app stores. First, Apple removed it, and Epic Games sued; then Google did the same, and the developers did the same too.

The games are still available in some form: if it has already been downloaded on an iPhone, or through other app stores on Google. But the decision means that probably the biggest game in the world is no longer available on perhaps the two biggest computing platforms in the world.

It is fairly clear that Epic Games knew its update would force Apple and Google to remove the app. And it is already trying to leverage the frustration of fans who are now unable to get hold of it, using the hashtag "FreeFortnite" and encouraging them to make their frustrations known.

What are Apple and Google's arguments?

Apple and Google both argue that buying through the app store is safer and easier, both for developers and customers. By allowing the two large companies to manage the transactions, customers can check out without having to know their credit card details and being sure that their transaction is safe, and developers don't need to set themselves up with payment systems or handle complicated issues such as foreign exchange conversions; they argue that the 30 per cent cut helps pay for the payment systems, security checks, marketing fees and other costs associated with running the platform.

What's more, Apple and Google make the operating system and run the app stores that take users to those games. The companies presumably believe they should be compensated for that.

What is Epic Games's argument?

That this represents an unfair stranglehold on customers and Epic Games themselves, and that they are taking a step to limit the power of the platform owners. It said in its legal filing against Apple, for instance, that the company had become a "behemoth seeking to control markets, block competition, and stifle innovation".

They are not alone in this, at all. In recent months, questions have begun to be asked by both regulators and other companies who use the app store about whether Apple, Google and other platform companies are abusing their dominance of those platforms, arguing that it is not fair to customers that they have no choice about where their software comes from, and it is not fair that developers have to pay up for access to their own customers.

What happens now?

It is very difficult to say: Google, Apple and Epic games are three of the biggest companies in the world, and they have fallen out over a problem with two of the most powerful platforms in the world. What's more, there's no obvious compromise position, since Apple and Google must either relent on the fees, either for Epic or for everyone, or miss out on having Fortnite in their stores.

Previous disputes of this kind have led to a compromise in the end. When a much smaller email app called Hey complained that it was unfair that it could not encourage people to sign up and pay through its own systems, for instance, it came upon a solution with Apple wherein it would offer a free trial to iPhone users that could be later upgraded, in what appeared to be a decision specifically calculated so that everyone could save face.

It is not clear how everyone could save face in this situation. The scale of the dispute and its zero-sum nature means that someone, presumably, is going to lose.

Apple could relent and allow Epic Games specifically to either pay less of a fee, or none at all, for instance. Or it could undertake a more profound change that might also get it out of trouble with antitrust investigators, such as letting iPhone users install apps through other means than the App Store.

On the other hand, Epic Games could relent and come back to the app store without any change in the fee structure. That happened in the past, when it went through a public argument with Google that ended with Epic being convinced that it would after all have to keep giving a cut ot the Play Store.

Or, of course, nothing could happen at all. Fortnite might never return to the iPhone, and only be available on Android devices through workarounds; that would be a dramatic conclusion, but perhaps the only one that would allow all three of the companies not to give up on their publicly voiced principles.

Whatever happens, the conclusion is not going to effect only Fortnite. Epic Games has already been supported by other companies such as Spotify and Tinder, all of whom have to give Google and Apple a cut of revenue too, and antitrust investigations are ongoing in the US and Europe – the Fortnite saga will almost certainly set a precedent that will be followed closely across the world.

Read More