Epic Games Sues Apple (unrealengine.com) 431
Epic Games has filed legal papers in response to Apple, read more here (PDF). From the filing: Epic brings this suit to end Apple's unfair and anti-competitive actions that Apple undertakes to unlawfully maintain its monopoly in two distinct, multibillion dollar markets: (i) the iOS App Distribution Market, and (ii) the iOS In-App Payment Processing Market. Epic is not seeking monetary compensation from this Court for the injuries it has suffered. Nor is Epic seeking favorable treatment for itself, a single company. Instead, Epic is seeking injunctive relief to allow fair competition in these two key markets that directly affect hundreds of millions of consumers and tens of thousands, if not more, of third-party app developers.[....]
Contrast this anti-competitive harm with how similar markets operate on Apple's own Mac computers. Mac users can download virtually any software they like, from any source they like. Developers are free to offer their apps through the Mac computer App Store, a third-party store, through direct download from the developer's website, or any combination thereof. Indeed, on Macs, Epic distributes Fortnite through its own storefront, which competes with other third-party storefronts available to Mac users. App developers are free to use Apple's payment processing services, thee payment processing services of third parties, or the developers' own payment processing service; users are offered their choice of different payment processing options (e.g., PayPal, Amazon, and Apple). The result is that consumers and developers alike have choices, competition is thriving, prices drop, and innovation is enhanced. The process should be no different for Apple's mobile devices. But Apple has chosen to make it different by imposing contractual and technical restrictions that prevent any competition and increase consumer costs for every app and in-app content purchase -- restrictions that it could never impose on Macs, where it does not enjoy the same dominance in the sale of devices. It doesn't have to be like this. [...]
Apple has become what it once railed against: the behemoth seeking to control markets, block competition, and stifle innovation. Apple is bigger, more powerful, more entrenched, and more pernicious than the monopolists of yesteryear. At a market cap of nearly $2 trillion, Apple's size and reach far exceeds that of any technology monopolist in history. Epic just streamed this video to its users.
Contrast this anti-competitive harm with how similar markets operate on Apple's own Mac computers. Mac users can download virtually any software they like, from any source they like. Developers are free to offer their apps through the Mac computer App Store, a third-party store, through direct download from the developer's website, or any combination thereof. Indeed, on Macs, Epic distributes Fortnite through its own storefront, which competes with other third-party storefronts available to Mac users. App developers are free to use Apple's payment processing services, thee payment processing services of third parties, or the developers' own payment processing service; users are offered their choice of different payment processing options (e.g., PayPal, Amazon, and Apple). The result is that consumers and developers alike have choices, competition is thriving, prices drop, and innovation is enhanced. The process should be no different for Apple's mobile devices. But Apple has chosen to make it different by imposing contractual and technical restrictions that prevent any competition and increase consumer costs for every app and in-app content purchase -- restrictions that it could never impose on Macs, where it does not enjoy the same dominance in the sale of devices. It doesn't have to be like this. [...]
Apple has become what it once railed against: the behemoth seeking to control markets, block competition, and stifle innovation. Apple is bigger, more powerful, more entrenched, and more pernicious than the monopolists of yesteryear. At a market cap of nearly $2 trillion, Apple's size and reach far exceeds that of any technology monopolist in history. Epic just streamed this video to its users.
So we might get to find out ... (Score:5, Interesting)
who owns the iphones: Apple or the users who bought them.
Re:So we might get to find out ... (Score:4, Funny)
Oooh, ooh, I know this one, I know this one.... pick me...
Apple
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So we might get to find out ... (Score:5, Informative)
Except that Google's and Apple's rules are VERY different...
Google allows the use of alternate payment options, including the links to these. ...)
Google allows the presence of alternate stores (including samsung's store, amazon store,
Google allows the installation of applications coming from outside any store
The comparison between the two environments really don't favor Apple...
Pretty clear (Score:4, Insightful)
who owns the iphones: Apple or the users who bought them.
You own your iPhone of course. You can sell it at any time, you can make use of it in whatever way you like.
Apple owns the system that distributes extra third party applications, as well as housing the payment processing and storage system which means securing payment data and correctly authorizing payments while combating fraud.
For a percentage of whatever you charge, Apple lets you leverage that vast infrastructure to let people send you money via a click and a wink.
It is basically no difference than a credit card processing center taking a cut of transactions that go through that infrastructure, it just has more capability.
Not sure why this distinction seems to be so unclear to people.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Apple doesn't let you the phone owner or the other vendors use any other method but their own to get software on the phone. Which leads to people questioning who actually owns the device. Because Apple sure acts like they do.
If Apple allowed sideloading of apps like Android does then there wouldn't be a case at all. There is a difference between not actively supporting other methods of software installation and actively preventing them.
Re:Pretty clear (Score:5, Interesting)
The "if Apple allowed side loading" is nonsense. All these corporations that are striking against Apple wouldn't give a rat's bony ass about that. What they want is the ability to force people to use only their payment system so that then they get all that sweet sweet customer private data and then sell it to who knows what kind of terrible companies.
If Epic actually cared about the fees, why aren't they suing MS and Sony over the Xbox and Playstation stores? Those are the only stores for their respective platforms and also take a hefty cut of the sale price. You can't side load on those platforms either. It's because MS and Sony are much more free in the user data they share with app developers.
Re: (Score:2)
If Epic actually cared about the fees, why aren't they suing MS and Sony over the Xbox and Playstation stores? Those are the only stores for their respective platforms and also take a hefty cut of the sale price. You can't side load on those platforms either. It's because MS and Sony are much more free in the user data they share with app developers.
As much as I'm 100% certain that Epic (their sugardaddy Tencent, more directly) would like that data, I don't think that's the issue: Apple banned Fortnite, Sony and MS haven't.
Re:Pretty clear (Score:5, Interesting)
Sony and MS take far more than 30% for in-store transactions
It was never about fees It was user data. Apple gives developers zilch about their users. The developer doesn't even get an email address.
And companies like Apple make it way too easy to subscribe and unsubscribe from services - and the service doesn't even get a chance to pass the request to retention "Please would you reconsider your unsubscription? I'll knock off a buck!" nor do they get user information so they can spam you daily for the next year begging to resubscribe.
Plus, you toggle an easily found switch to unsubscribe - they can't hide the "Yes, I really want to cancel" link in black text on black background among the dozens of offers they are floating on your screen at the same time.
Why do you think there's a law in California saying subscriptions obtained online must be cancellable online? Far too many services let you sign up online, and then make you go through an hours-long process on the phone to cancel.
Re:Pretty clear (Score:5, Insightful)
The "if Apple allowed side loading" is nonsense. All these corporations that are striking against Apple wouldn't give a rat's bony ass about that.
They don't care about paying Apple a 30% cut? In what universe do you live? Epic doesn't make their money off customer data, they make it off microtransactions. They make a fuckton of money off microtransactions: $1.8 billion last year, to be specific. I'm not even sure what personal information you think Epic gets by moving away from the Apple store: they already have an app installed on users phones. They already know everything about how you play and how you pay for Fortnite. What they want that extra few hundred million dollars that Apple is taking as a percentage, because duh, of course they do.
Re: (Score:2)
You can already run apps on an iPhone without needing access to the App Store. You just need to make sure what you compile is appropriately test signed. I can easily see Apple opening this up further to allow notarised production signing for easier side loading with the caveat of revocation the moment a vulnerability is found in it or any associated libraries.
I'm not a developer, but I seem to remember that Apple REDUCED the number of installation that are allowed with a test signed app a while ago. Which is exactly the opposite of what you're "easily seeing".
That being said, and limit on the amount of installations makes this alternative you're proposing impractical for companies like Epic. How many million users are there for Fortnight on iOS?
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I don't see the credit card companies offering the same products that, say Amazon does, then using different rules for themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you can make use of it in whatever way you like.
No, you can't. There's numerous limitations that Apple places on their use.
Re: (Score:2)
It is basically no difference than a credit card processing center taking a cut of transactions that go through that infrastructure, it just has more capability.
So it's actually quite different: The credit card companies only do one thing. Apple does a number of things and forces you to use all of Apple services if you want (or need) to use one of those. You cannot have one without the other.
When Microsoft tried that everybody was rightfully up in arms. When Apple does it it's different because... "Apple is not a monopoly"?
Well, who takes the biggest part of the revenue made from selling apps? Its not Google with it's huge Android install base, and it's not Microso
Re:Pretty clear (Score:5, Insightful)
I would like to pay for Fortnite directly through Epic Games and save 20%. Oh... wait. Despite having purchased my phone, Apple has decided I can't do that can I?
It's actually very different from a credit card processor, because Apple has tied ownership of one thing to requiring you to use another different thing. The analogy would be if I bought a TV at Best Buy, and Best Buy required that I use my Best Buy credit card to pay for any movie or game I ever bought to use on that TV. I guess I don't know why that unfair tying would be unclear to you.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not made to be able to do that. You could also ask how to use the bag of spaghetti you bought to put together the IKEA table you bought - you own both things but no one ever said you'd be able to use them together simply because that's not what they were made for.
That is not to say I approve of Apple's system - but it doesn't exactly come with a promise that you can install anything you want with it.
Re:Pretty clear (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a difference between "it's not made to be able to do that" and "it's made to not be able to do that".
Windows won't run any iOS app. It's not made to be able to do that. It doesn't have the required libraries, for a start.
iOS won't run an unapproved iOS app. It is made to not be able to do that. It has everything that is required to run the software, but it also has code to check that the software is signed with a valid certificate, and refuse to run it if that condition isn't met.
Re:Many options (Score:4, Informative)
I want to install software not listed in Apple's App Store. How do I do that?
Just checked, you can still download Xcode. It's free to compile apps yourself on device, it just requires an account registration.
There's also a pretty wide berth of people sending out TestFlight builds.
And of course, there's always jailbreaking.
So, we're free to install any software on our iOS devices -- as long as we have a user base of only a few hundred user that are willing to jump to all kinds of hoops to install our software and are willing to void their warranty. Got'cha.
Do you honestly believe that your arguments are valid and relevant in the real world, or do you know that you are talking BS and just don't care?
Re:Many options (Score:4, Interesting)
If Apple blocked that (blocked sideloading), Epic would have a cut-and-dry case in court.
Sideloading on iOS is not actually feasible, for three reasons:
So I think it's pretty cut-and-dried. Unless something has changed recently, there is no way to do side-loading-based app distribution for iOS without violating one or more Apple licensing agreements.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your list is an excellent addition of light rather than heat to the topic, but much if not all of this is an undesired offering. For example, both Amazon and Epic are capable of managing every single one of the things on this list without assistance from Apple -- and do. (They provide almost all of it, or can replace it in other forms such as your final point).
If there is no particular value for these companies in what Apple forces on them, then 30% (20%) seems rather unreasonable.
The tricky issue is that A
Re:Capabilty (Score:5, Insightful)
Fair enough, they do provide more than a normal payment gateway would provide. But its a huge fee, and it is unavoidable, which is where the problem is. Apple is crowbarring itself into other companies' business models, and some businesses (maybe Epic, maybe not, but see earlier stories about the Hello app) can't withstand it.
If there were an alternative store for iOS devices, developers would likely flock there. As an app developer myself, I can say from experience that Apple is not a great company to do business with.
For Android devices, there are plenty of options outside the Google Play Store. Amazon has its own app store which anyone can download on their device, and there are others like F-Droid. Or you could direct your customers to download your software directly from your website if you wanted, and not have to deal with any of the app marketplaces.
Neither consumers nor developers would accept this level control over a laptop or desktop. Imagine if Dell wanted a cut of your software sales every time one of "their users" wanted to buy it.
iOS users don't belong to Apple, they're consumers in a supposedly free market. The walled garden approach is fine if that's how they want to run their store but they can't also make that the only garden in town.
For me it boils down to this: Are iDevices general-purpose computing devices or are they not?
Re: (Score:3)
It's also an example of hyperbole.
I won't copy/paste a definition because I assume you know what the word means, but I also assume you missed the point.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I own my iPhone which I bought partly on based on the fact that I chose to let Apple decide what goes in the App Store or not and so I can rest a little easier at night and not have to fret over every app I download/purchase.
What you people are saying is that Apple product purchasers don't have the right to make their own decisions that may not align with yours or with those of 3rd party corporations.
Re:So we might get to find out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I own my iPhone which I bought partly on based on the fact that I chose to let Apple decide what goes in the App Store or not and so I can rest a little easier at night and not have to fret over every app I download/purchase.
How would allowing you to sideload prevent you from staying within the walled garden if that's what you want?
Re: (Score:3)
How would allowing you to sideload prevent you from staying within the walled garden if that's what you want?
For the same reason that I don't want backdoors built into encryption for use by governments no matter how good (pffft) their intentions might be. Once you have a backdoor, it's a risk.
Sideloading is not a backdoor. It's not a risk unless you choose to use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you people are saying is that Apple product purchasers don't have the right to make their own decisions that may not align with yours or with those of 3rd party corporations.
What you're saying is that other Apple product purchasers should not have the right to make their own decisions (like side-loading apps) that may not align with yours.
Re: (Score:3)
And I want to be able to use small utilities programmed by some guy in his spare time without those insane hoops. It's a general-purpose computer, not a consumption device. And yes - that applies to phones now too - not just PCs.
Re: (Score:2)
More on-point - who is responsible for the transaction?
Apple keeps wiggling out by saying that it's just a 'processor' of the payments, yet my CC statement shows Apple's name for it, not the developers'.
Too bad you cant embed images in /. posts (Score:3)
Because this would be a great time to use the Thriller Michael Jackson eating popcorn gif.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Perfect time. But we come to /. to remember a simpler time of forums.
We Slashdotters yearn for a simpler time. A time of barn dances and buggy rides... before the web was cheapened by UTF-8.
Re:Too bad you cant embed images in /. posts (Score:4, Funny)
It's an exciting game. The team of lawyers from Apple and the team of lawyers from Epic Games are all parachuting onto the island. And global climate change means that island is constantly shrinking. Who will be the winner? Oh no!
Team Apple is wasting their time buying cosmetic outfits, whereas Team Epic Games seems to be running face first into a cliff because of lag!
Hopefully capitalism is restored. (Score:2)
> Epic is not seeking monetary compensation from this Court for the injuries it has suffered. Nor is Epic seeking favorable treatment for itself...
Governments role in capitalism is to enforce contracts and maintain a fair market system where multiple buyers and sellers can freely engage in the exchange of goods and services and compete based on merit.
Hopefully, capitalism is re-established in this market.
(insert misguided views on what capitalism below)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hopefully capitalism is restored. (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple doesn't allow others to have their own stores. Apple isn't just controlling their store, but are also suppressing other stores.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Hopefully capitalism is restored. (Score:3)
What right do others have to make compatible tires for cars ford makes. It is ford's hard work that created the cars.
Re: (Score:3)
Epic is protesting what they believe to be an illegal provision in its contract with Apple.
And, if they win, developers will get to keep more of the money they earned. For the uninitiated, this is what good corporate competition looks like: Epic won't get to take a cut like Apple does; this hurts their opportunities like other companies'. What it does do is level the playing field.
Good on them, for this one.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Please tell me how Apple removing an app for a provision which they clearly spell out what it means and the consequences and what Epic agreed to is “crossing a line." My agreement with my landlord says "No pets". I get a pet and the landlord evicts me. Is that crossing a line?
OK, sure. Again, not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure this is how it goes... First, you can't put anything you want in a contract. You can add the words for a provision, but the provisions are not legally enforceable if they go against the law. What's legal will always take precedence over what's been put in a contract.
Epic chose to enter the agreement, but believed certain provisions of Apple's contract were illegal, and ultimately chose to not honor those provisions. If a court decides those provisions are i
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Already done (Score:5, Insightful)
Governments role in capitalism is to enforce contracts and maintain a fair market system where multiple buyers and sellers can freely engage in the exchange of goods and services
Yes.
Well, Epic broke the contract with Apple by not obeying Apple's conditions, so they are out. No issues there then.
Wrong. A major part of the government's role in maintaining a fair market is ensuring the illegality of contracts that operate against the freedom and fairness of that market. Anticompetitive contract terms inherently fall into that category.
Epic is free to sell on any other platform. No problem there then.
What you're missing is that Apple's platform is a tiny percentage of their revenue. I'm pretty sure they couldn't give a rat's a** about whether they are or are not allowed to make their app available on Apple's platform, at least from a business perspective. They care only about the fact that Apple is arbitrarily screwing a portion of their game's user base with arbitrary restrictions that harm consumers.
Millions of other apps continue to thrive on the App Store. No problem there then...
Millions of people thrived in Nazi Germany, too. The fact that a problem does not affect everyone does not mean that it isn't a problem, and it is downright silly to suggest otherwise.
Nothing left for the government to "re-establish".
Other than, you know, a free market.
Unless you want to claim that if I open a store, the governments role is to let people walk out with stuff at any price they chose instead of me?
No, but if you build a town, it is the government's role to ensure that that you cannot force everyone who lives in that town to buy things exclusively at your store, and prevent any other stores from coming into the town. The problem is not that Apple regulates what can go into their store. The problem is that Apple deliberately limits consumer choice in an anticompetitive fashion by preventing any sort of side-loading or the use of any other stores, up to and including banning folks from the enterprise developer program who attempted to use that program to create a competing app store.
We're not talking about slightly anticompetitive behavior here. We're talking about grossly anticompetitive behavior on a regular basis at a level seldom seen in the entire history of technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you would enlighten us as to the distinction you hand wave at?
As an apple fan, I'm rooting for epic. (Score:4, Interesting)
I love how fast they filed suite. They had papers written and the lawyer at the court house just waiting for apple to pull fortnite.
Re: (Score:2)
These days I wonder if Apple's legal department has eclipsed IBM's.
Re: (Score:3)
Huh? Apple didn't file suit, Epic did.
Re: (Score:2)
These days I wonder if Apple's legal department has eclipsed IBM's.
... or ORACLE's
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:As an apple fan, I'm rooting for epic. (Score:5, Informative)
Informative summary (Score:2)
Or... maybe I'll just guess? Epic has been trying to leverage the popularity of Fortnight to do some monopoly busting. First with Steam and now, I assume, with Apple. Maybe Epic deliberately violated one of Apple's policies in order to provoke this?
Glancing at the document says that I'm right, apparently they really don't like the 30% rent-seeking fees that the platforms charge. Good for Ep
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Informative summary (Score:5, Informative)
It's not "just because". It is because Epic thinks Apples terms are (or should be) illegal. But that has to be determined by a court. And in order to get it in front of a court, you must show you have 'standing', which means you were harmed by the thing in question.
Before they accepted the terms, they had no standing. They had a choice, take Apples terms, or stay off iOS. No matter which they chose it was just a decision on their part, no harm was done, not possible to get those terms in front of a court. But once they accepted the terms, and then were kicked of for violating them, now they can show harm and thus have standing to sue.
If this was just a money grab (eg Epic sues Apple for $x billion) then yes, a court would probably take a dim view. But Epic is not asking for any money, just to get it declared that those terms are illegal. That changes things.
Re: (Score:2)
That was VERY well said.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you really this stupid? Yes, Epic certainly can make the claim that the terms are illegal, and the COURT will decide that issue. That is what I have told you three times now. But the COURT can't make that determination until a suit is brought, and a suit can't be brought until someone has standing to do so. And no-one has standing until they agree to and then violate the agreement and suffer consequences of that violation. Then, and only then, does the issue come before a court.
Stop being so dense.
Re: (Score:3)
Your idiotic position is basically that nobody can ever challenge the validity or legality of a contract in court. Which of course is 100% bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
The aren't 'prosecuting Apple'. They are claiming they are harmed by an illegal provision in a contract, and the seek to have that provision stricken. Yes, they have every right to do that (as does anyone else). No, there is absolutely NO requirement that the state go first.
Get your fanboi head out of your ass.
Re: (Score:2)
It's unfortunate that they don't get more support from the players on this.
That's because the players are well aware of Epic's monopolistic practices.
This isn't little guy Epic taking down big, evil Apple. This is Epic wanting to be the big evil guy too.
Lawsuit seems frivolous (Score:2)
I don't see what rational basis this lawsuit has, since Epic still has easy access to customers through Android, consoles, the PC...
Apple is not gating anyone from reaching customers, so any notion they are bing anti-competitive is kind of odd. If you don't like the terms Apple has for spelling through them, free to go elsewhere...
Everyone wants access to Apple's hard-won ease of payment features and customers that are used to actually paying for things, without wanting to pay access for it.
All sorts of ot
Re:Lawsuit seems frivolous (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's their silver bullet defense: Samsung, Sony, HTC, Huawei, Xiaomi, BBK, and many many other competitors to Apple exist and compete with Apple (redundancy intentional). Therefore, Apple does not remotely have anything close to a monopoly. Globally, Apple has anywhere from 10%-20% marketshare. They're doing well, considering they were only targeting 1% of the smartphone market... that was their original goal. So they did well and they have earned their rewards. Am I getting through? Do you see now how Ap
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
MS got bit because they used their market advantage to push their internet client
MS got bit because they had something like a 90% market share for their OS. And virtually everyone using their OS wanted a web browser.
Apple has around a 40-50% market share, and that's just for devices overall. The fraction of those that actually want to play an FPS on the device is tiny.
Re:Lawsuit seems frivolous (Score:5, Interesting)
"Apple is not gating anyone from reaching customers"
Might want to check on that statement. You're commenting on a story about Apple quite literally "gating" someone from reaching customers.
Please tell me of another way you can install Fortnite (or any other app) onto an iPhone (in a way that a layman can do it and not be frightened away).
Re: (Score:2)
I worry about whether they have standing for that reason. Essentially, their case is that Apple's behavior is harming their users. But ultimately, that means this case should have been brought as a class action on behalf of the users, with Epic just filing amicus briefs and perhaps paying the lawyers.
Epic reminds me of the Black Night in Holy Grail (Score:4, Funny)
Just reading the progression of the stories on /.
Epic Games Dares Apple to Shut them down: https://apple.slashdot.org/sto... [slashdot.org]
Apple Shuts them down: https://apple.slashdot.org/sto... [slashdot.org]
I expect when all this is over, Epic will be lying on the ground saying "All right, let's call this a draw": https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I'd argue Epic has the upper-hand. Fortnite has basically saturated the market, and the game still runs on every phone it's installed on. In the mean time, you can still buy V-Bucks in Fortnite on iOS, but chances are people will want to save money and buy them directly from Epic. That means Epic will make an extra 7% or so on every sale, and that extra 7% will likely make up for whatever's lost from no-new-installs while this plays out.
In the mean time, Apple inadvertently gave Epic standing to sue them, a
Hypocrites (Score:5, Interesting)
While I support the idea that Apple is being a bully and carrying out monopolistic actions. I think it's a bit rich that this is coming from Epic who routinely pays game developers for the exclusive rights to put their games on the Epic game store.
Re: Hypocrites (Score:3)
In a couple hours I look forward to (Score:2)
learning who won the court case.
Begun, The App Store Wars Have! (Score:2)
I would guess Google will similarly begin having similar issues.
There are many sides to this, but I guess the courts will eventually have to make some kind of decision, even if it takes years.
iOS offers "Over 1 billion high-paying app users" (Score:2)
From the lawsuit:
"The iOS userbase is enormous. There are nearly a billion iPhone
users worldwide and over 1.5 billion active iOS devices, including both iPhones and
iPads.
Typically, these users will use only iOS devices and will not also use mobile
devices with a different OS. In addition to its size, the iOS user base is also uniquely
valuable in that its user base spends twice as much money on apps as Android users.
This is consistent with Epic’s experience, as the average iOS Fortnite user spends
signif
Re: (Score:2)
One more thing Apple created— an app store that users are confident is vetted and does not pose significant risks to their information, privacy, or money. Which is why the whole thing works in the first place.
Allowing Epic to have a gateway of their own would mean any developer would have that right, and diminish the value created for the user in the app store.
Re: (Score:3)
Affluent consumers want this Apple product and are very loyal to it.
And if Android devices had apps but iPhones didn't, which phone do you think affluent customers would prefer? So when developers put an app in the App Store for the iPhone, who's creating value for who here?
Apple invests a lot in R&D, infrastructure, marketing, and support to keep this market thriving.
This is incorrect and why the comparison to macOS is so revealing: It's not Apple's investment in R&D and infrastructure that keep the App Store market thriving at all. What keeps the App Store "thriving" is the lack of competition. On what's technically an extremely similar platform, where Apple ha
I wonder if epic would do the same. (Score:2)
I'll bet you that any company found to be deliberately violating EPIC's store policies would find their product pulled from the store....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Illegal rules aren't actually rules. Epic is alleging illegal rules, thus they have no responsibility to follow them.
That's their argument, and they're going to have it decided in court. Isn't that how this is supposed to work?
duh (Score:2)
Well, yea. Jobs won, not Woz.
"This suit will fail" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's another option - don't restrict users to only one marketplace.
Wow, that was hard. How did that escape you?
Re: (Score:2)
In the U.S., iOS has about 59% market share.
Re: (Score:3)
A quick google search says iPhone has a 39% market share in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Damn there's still some people rocking windows phones all these years later. Given the average lifespan of smartphones I'm surprised any are still kicking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Why? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, even with that monopoly status, not leveraging it to force people to buy shit through their store, or pay their racket for access to customers.
Pretty sad when Google isn't the worst bad-faith actor in the room. And the way Epic set this up is beautiful - it looks like Apple stepped right in the bear trap. Why is it ok for people to buy fake money on a Mac without Apple getting a 30% taste, but not on iPhone?
Re:Cost of the App Store (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats just it, Epic wants to design, support, host, etc, it's _own_ app store on iOS. The direct cost to apple should be near zero with the exception of removing the artificial barriers they put up in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)