Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Apple

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Epic Games Sues Apple

Comments Filter:
  • by Alain Williams ( 2972 ) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Thursday August 13, 2020 @02:49PM (#60398453) Homepage

    who owns the iphones: Apple or the users who bought them.

    • by NFN_NLN ( 633283 ) on Thursday August 13, 2020 @02:51PM (#60398465)

      Oooh, ooh, I know this one, I know this one.... pick me...

      Apple

      • Looks like you actually are holding it right.
    • Pretty clear (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Thursday August 13, 2020 @03:11PM (#60398561)

      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.

      • 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)

          by SkonkersBeDonkers ( 6780818 ) on Thursday August 13, 2020 @03:40PM (#60398747)

          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.

          • 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)

              by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <slashdot&worf,net> on Thursday August 13, 2020 @05:01PM (#60399119)

              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.

              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)

            by Baloroth ( 2370816 ) on Thursday August 13, 2020 @04:54PM (#60399087)

            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.

      • Funny, I don't see the credit card companies offering the same products that, say Amazon does, then using different rules for themselves.

      • by jythie ( 914043 )
        This. This is why I see Epic's move as sleezy. They want access to all that market and infrastructure, but because they rolled their own payment system they don't want to pay in like their competition. It is a collision of vertical integrations,
      • 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.

      • 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)

        by HumanEmulator ( 1062440 ) on Thursday August 13, 2020 @04:40PM (#60399021)

        You can sell it at any time, you can make use of it in whatever way you like.

        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 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.

        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, 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.

      • by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Thursday August 13, 2020 @03:53PM (#60398801) Journal

        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?

      • by jythie ( 914043 )
        This is a bit of a long standing problem with the OSS community with regard to embedded devices. Since little of the leadership works in that space but does buy such devices there is a strong community idea that since it is a physical device that is purchased all rules should go away once they own it, including how it interacts with online services. They don't want people to even have the option of walled system because it might restrict their freedom to buy what they want. Amusingly on the other hand s
      • 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.

    • by Sebby ( 238625 )

      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'.

  • by thereddaikon ( 5795246 ) on Thursday August 13, 2020 @02:57PM (#60398495)

    Because this would be a great time to use the Thriller Michael Jackson eating popcorn gif.

    • by aitikin ( 909209 )
      Perfect time. But we come to /. to remember a simpler time of forums.
      • 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.

    • by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Thursday August 13, 2020 @04:59PM (#60399113)

      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!

  • > 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)

    • And what part of your idea capitalism is lassez faire? Apple’s rules about their own store do not apply to the market. By the way, Apple’s share of the market is dwarfed by Google as any Android person will tell you.
  • by elohssa ( 317266 ) on Thursday August 13, 2020 @03:00PM (#60398519)

    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.

  • Great summary, I'll just go read sixty-five pages worth of legal argument in order to figure out what's going on.

    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
    • Well my comment doesn't make sense anymore, the summary was originally a single sentence which just said to read the document. They've changed the summary at least twice now after it went live.
    • Part of the problem of the summary is that everything Epic states is well known and was accepted by Epic previously when they developed their iOS app originally. It’s not that Apple has changed or hidden anything from Epic. I don’t think Epic is going to like how courts feel about parties that want to change their contracts "just because"
      • by bws111 ( 1216812 ) on Thursday August 13, 2020 @03:59PM (#60398829)

        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.

        • by vux984 ( 928602 )

          That was VERY well said.

    • 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.

  • 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

    • by Derekloffin ( 741455 ) on Thursday August 13, 2020 @03:22PM (#60398615)
      While I'm sure that is what Apple will argue, don't think it is anywhere near a silver bullet defense. Microsoft had the same kind of argument going for them, and even stronger, with their OS, yet it failed them in the courts. For MS, they just had one singular OS. You could install other OSs, you could use other hardware, you could even still could install other software. MS got bit because they used their market advantage to push their internet client. Apple has far more lock down than that. There main defense here actually will be they don't compete with Fortnite, as that's the only thing they got here the MS didn't, not really that other theoretical options exist.
      • Microsoft’s problem was that the government showed specific MS anticompetitive actions and how MS harmed other companies. For example interfering with Sun’s relationship with Intel; interfering with Netscape’s dealings with PC builders.
      • 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

        • A total monopoly is not a requirement to be guilty of anti-competitive practices. MS didn't have a total monopoly either (Apple, Linux, and numerous others existed you know). So appealing to that is not a valid legal argument. It particularly doesn't work because it is fairly easy to break that argument by simply changing what the nature of the product is. The product need not be 'generic cellphone' or even 'generic smartphone'. It can be 'phone running iOS verX' which is pretty important as that deter
      • 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.

    • by TFlan91 ( 2615727 ) on Thursday August 13, 2020 @03:24PM (#60398641)

      "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).

    • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

      I don't see what rational basis this lawsuit has, since Epic still has easy access to customers through Android, consoles, the PC...

      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.

      Apple is not gating anyone from reaching customers, so any notion they are b

  • by mykepredko ( 40154 ) on Thursday August 13, 2020 @03:07PM (#60398541) Homepage

    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]

    • 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)

    by Berkyjay ( 1225604 ) on Thursday August 13, 2020 @03:22PM (#60398625)

    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.

    • There is a huge difference between a developer willingly being exclusive for money and a developer being locked out of a market because the marketâ(TM)s structure extorts them.
  • learning who won the court case.

  • 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.

  • 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

    • 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.

  • I'll bet you that any company found to be deliberately violating EPIC's store policies would find their product pulled from the store....

    • exactly. Rules for thee but not for me!
      • 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?

  • Apple has become what it once railed against: the behemoth seeking to control markets, block competition, and stifle innovation.

    Well, yea. Jobs won, not Woz.

  • I love those types of comments - people also thought a failed real estate mongol reality TV "star" couldn't possibly become president.

Blinding speed can compensate for a lot of deficiencies. -- David Nichols

Working...