Apple Fires Back in Court, Says Epic Games CEO Asked For Special Treatment (cnbc.com) 163
Apple responded to Epic Games' lawsuit accusing it of anticompetitive behavior in how it controls the App Store, telling the court that the Fortnite maker violated Apple's rules and shouldn't be placed back into the store temporarily while the legal battle rages. From a report: In its filing, Apple alleges that Epic Games asked for an individual arrangement with Apple, producing three emails from Epic CEO Tim Sweeney that bolster its claim. This is Apple's first significant legal response to Epic Games after the dispute between the two companies spilled into the courts. It comes the week after Epic Games released a direct payment mechanism inside Fortnite designed to bypass the App Store's payment system, from which Apple takes a 30% cut. Apple subsequently removed Fortnite from its store for violating its policies. People who already have Fortnite installed on their iPhones can continue to play, but cannot update or download the app for the first time.
Samsung v. Apple v. Microsoft v. .... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Samsung v. Apple v. Microsoft v. .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Stuff happens, when these companies are not out for blood.
The problem with say Apple vs Samsung. Was that Apple was out to bankrupt Samsung, so the proposed punishment basically kept on going back and forth until it was manageable.
Justice isn't Revenge. The Justice System roll is to find a just ruling. If Epic has a strong case, Apple will probably do something out of court. If Apple has a strong case, then Epic may back down. If both have a strong case and it goes into full court the stakes are High especially for Apple as an entire business model is at risk.
But at this point Apple cannot back down.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't wait for nothing to happen.
Two companies are suing each other. Something always happens, whether money changes hands or contract terms change... just like the rest of the court cases.
Shocking! (Score:5, Funny)
They DARED to want to negotiate a deal instead of just swallowing whatever Apple wanted them to sign! Imagine that chutzpa!
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that they aren't legally allowed to do that.
The "chutzpah" is the fact that they're running that ridiculous ad campaign that makes them out to David versus Apple's Goliath. They only started pretending to give a shit about anyone else because they want the public to back them, when in reality it's just two giant, greedy companies duking it out.
Re: (Score:2)
-- In your world: --
Q: What does a poor person call any court case?
A: Just two rich people fighting.
--- END ---
That worldview fails to understand that the rule of law and how a discovery of justice in one place helps everybody, even though with less resources.
Re: (Score:2)
Tha's not how it unfolded it went more like:
EPIC: "hey we went to sell our game through your store!"
APPLE: "ok, just read our rules and if they look ok and you're going to follow them, sign up!"
(epic signs the contract)
(time passes)
(epic's game becomes one of the best sellers on the apple store)
EPIC: Yeah that deal we agreed on earlier, we're not making enough money, we want a bigger cu
Re: Shocking! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shocking! (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you signed a contract doesn't mean its legal or enforceable. And there are many situations that make that so. Courts have thrown out contracts that were willing signed by both parties before. At the end of the day they are only as good as the judge says they are.
Re: (Score:2)
it this case it was not really *willingly* signed.
Either they signed, or they did not do business with the apple store and were locked out of a section of the market. So sign and get 70% or don't sign and get 0%.
Re: (Score:2)
you dont get to determine *willingly* - no one held a gun to epics head and made them sign the contract. they either want in that market or they dont, and they have to play by the rules that control that market.
they arent offered to PC users anywhere but the epic store - how is this any different? they didnt like Steam store rules, so they built their own alternative.
Re:Shocking! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
PC isnt locked to one store, Apple hardware is. THAT is the difference. If Apple would allow competing storefronts, this would all go away. iOS is too big to allow Apple to be the sole curator of the platform forever.
Apple could literally decide to stop making iOS anything tomorrow. They won't, but Apple is the sole owner of iOS, and they don't even have remotely close to a majority of the mobile device market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
they didnt like Steam store rules, so they built their own alternative.
That you don't see the irony here is shocking.
Re: Shocking! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just to clarify. Does Steam get the 12% cut because Epic started their own store? That would seem odd to me.
Is Epic taking a 12% cut of the sales on their own store? That also seems a bit odd to me (but companies do this creative accounting all the time).
Re: (Score:2)
Though if you decide to publish through Epic Store there's a chance that your game will be free for anyone to take for a week. And they get to keep it free of charge. They typically don't do this with newer releases. But to put that into perspective, since I've used Epic Store, I've accumulated 90 free games of which I've played none so far.
Epic was also pulling unreleased games
Re: (Score:2)
Though if you decide to publish through Epic Store there's a chance that your game will be free for anyone to take for a week.
They negotiate the giveaways with developers. The developers get a lump sum payment in exchange for agreeing to the giveaway. That's how the PlayStation Plus and Xbox Games with Gold giveaways work too.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know only a few people have all the financial data to make an educated call there.
Though I strongly doubt that 30% are only there to cover the costs. Those 30% are used by way too many platforms with a much too diverse feature set for it to be always only to cover the costs of keeping things running.
It's much more likely that because everyone seems to do those 30% there's no a l
Re: (Score:2)
are YOU unaware of the situation?? they have no issue selling games for xbox, switch, ps4. there is no "right" to distribute to a popular platform regardless of who owns it.
Re: huh????? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Shocking! (Score:5, Insightful)
For a contract to be valid, there must be consideration [law.com]. Both sides have to give something of value to the other. So a contract where you agree to be my slave and hand over ownership of all your possessions to me, is not a valid contract. You're not getting anything in return. This is why you'll often hear about a contract to sell something for $1. If you just give it away for free, you could still end up legally liable for it. But selling it for $1 establishes a legal contract and transfer of ownership, and all liability.
In this case, I can think of two interpretations.
Re:Shocking! (Score:5, Informative)
The PC is the only platform Epic writes code for that they get all the money.
Epic is handing over 30% or more to Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo, and being forced to use MIcrosoft's, Sony's or Nintendo's payment system.
In other words, Epic's fight is because they hope Apple will fold, because they're more at the mercy of Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony than Apple. Which is true, because if they get kicked off those platforms, they have nothing. Fortnite on PC, sure, but Unreal Engine is now a worthless piece of code because other cross platform engines will take over.
Why do you think they're crying foul over Apple revoking their developer license? Because they know once that happens, they're extremely vulnerable to Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo doing the same.
In a competitive market, Unreal Engine is just one among many If they can't differentiate their case against Apple with what they already agree to with Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft, then developers will take note because they know if Epic does this with Apple, who's to say they won't with Sony/Nintendo?Microsoft? After all, Apple isn't so different from the console makers.
The only big difference is you can buy the games physically, but you still ante'd up some money to the console maker several times for that game to be on the shelf - including pressing (they can't just press a disc at any factory - they have to either buy it directly through Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo or an authorized facility who will bill the license fees)
So far, I think this is a case where it's more about PR and flagging sales of a dying product than actual real business values. Apple would be wise to request the licensing terms that they signed with Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony for their defense, and Epic would be between a rock and a hard place.
It's not black and white who's good and who's evil. It's not clear who might win. It's not even clear what might happen other than lawyers get rich. Because everything that happens will have impacts everywhere else. Apple has to cut their 30%? So will Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo/Steam. Apple has to open up? So will Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo/Steam/Epic.
Chances are, things will change. Apple reduce their fees - perhaps to 10% if your thing costs more than $20 which would impact Epic car more if Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo/Steam start doing same because now Epic's 12% looks less appealing.
What might happen is everyone has to open up turning all the stores into cesspools of malware and developers are forced to try to sell on their own. Which will be fun because then they can realize they're now at the mercy of how much Amazon will take in fees and all that because you want "fulfilled by Amazon" to get their free shipping.
Re: (Score:2)
Epic has two major points: that Apple is suppressing competition (and hurting consumers) by locking down their platform (and it's real
Re: (Score:2)
With the second point about Apple Pay, Epic has a strong legal argument that Apple is engaging in anti-competitive behavior (explicitly illegal under the Cartwright act if the court finds that Apple Pay is a separate product from the App Store). With first point about locking down their platform, Epic has a strong case that it hurts consumers, but the argument will likely revolve around word definitions that were written in the 1800s, and how those words apply to computers.
A correction - it's not Apple Pay, which is a wallet and payment system for NFC, similar to Google Pay and others. It's about Apple's In-App-Purchase (IAP), which is used to pay for items in apps (duh) obtained through the App Store. Apple Pay is certainly a separate product from the App Store, but it's not involved in this issue. In-App-Purchase does not appear to be - you don't launch it as a separate app, it can't be downloaded or used separately from the app store, etc.
Re: Shocking! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
you know thats not the point
they tried to negotiate, failed, signed a contract at the agreed upon terms and then decided years later they didnt like it and threw a hissy fit
You mean like how Apple agreed to Qualcomm's patent royalties but later threw a hissy fit and reneged on those contract terms because Apple decided they were excessive?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. They "signed" the contract years ago but the emails under discussion were earlier this year.
So rather than a 'hissy fit' they determined that the Apple T&Cs were not suitable, contact Apple to seek a change and, when it failed, chose to no longer comply with those T&Cs.
Not that they signed anything. I don't walk into an Apple store and sign a contract to post apps to the app store. I merely click a button indicating that I'm aware of their licence terms.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that they DID sign it. Made lots of money. Now they want even more, so they want to REnegotiate the contract they already signed. AND they want Apple to change their policy, too, but that's just smoke and mirrors.
Actually, the only thing that really matters is whether Apple's policy constitutes an anti-trust violation, so it is hardly smoke and mirrors.
Re: (Score:3)
so they want to REnegotiate the contract they already signed.
There is nothing wrong with that.
Re: Shocking! (Score:2)
so they want to REnegotiate the contract they already signed.
There is nothing wrong with that.
There is when one of the "negotiators" start using the "therefore, I will just ignore the contract" tactic, like Epic did.
Which is precisely what got them thrown off of both Apple's and Google's App Stores; as well it should have.
I don't see that as exonerating Apple.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Epic didn't like the terms and find them unreasonable. They sought at least an exception. Sure it would have been *nice* if they asked for the terms to change across the board, but generally you aim your sights a bit more realistic.
I don't see how Epic seeking a unique exception to unreasonable terms detracts from their claim that the terms were unreasonable. It may slightly make them less altruistic looking, but their legal arguments would seem to be unaffected either way by such a reality.
Contracts (Score:5, Insightful)
Are they making a legal argument that the terms of the contract are unfair? That's a strange position to take, as they were OK with them until this point. Are the terms of the contract illegal? Epic has entered into similar contracts with Microsoft and Sony (they get cuts of in-game sales as well - Microsoft also takes 30% of X-Box sales.)
Re: (Score:2)
The argument is probably that the state of all those software store terms are illegally anti-competitive.
It'd be like "if you agree to accept Visa at all, then you will refuse to accept cash or Mastercard and force all customers to use Visa".
Epic Games on PC and on Android at least have the option of offering a sideloaded channel for their 'store' if they don't like the store but still want access to the customers of the platform. For iPhone, and game consoles, they don't really have that luxury.
Re: (Score:3)
it has nothing to do with "loading the game" - it has everything to do with V-bucks (Fortfucks fake currency)
Epic doesnt like that Apple demands a 30% cut so they implemented their own way for kiddies to buy their V-bucks without giving 30% to Apple (and then flipped them off and now were here). thats the story, Epic wants to rent a room in Apples hotel, but doesnt want to pay to stay there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except it isn't Apple's hotel, it is my hotel (device). I bought it and it is mine. While the store is Apple's, if they don't allow any other option for me to put software on it,
Apple made clear from their legal filing that they consider your device (at least from the OS up, as far down as they can grab) to be theirs.
Re: Contracts (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The point being that by blocking 'loading the game' except through the store, the blocking for direct payment doesn't offer an alternative.
If they did this against Google, Google could say "if you don't find value in Play store, then fine, tell all your players to sideload". Google Play payment processing is not a hard requirement to make your software available to users with Google devices, though users will have to agree to scary warnings making sure they understand what it is potentially doing.
So the arg
Re: (Score:2)
they did do this against Google, and Google simply removed them as well.
plenty of other companies/apps find ways to extract payments from users without breaching contract. Epic did this willingly knowing exactly what they were doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Contracts (Score:2)
OS cannot have only one store forever, its an untenable situation.
Why?
I would wager that close to 99% of Apple's Users are completely fine with the App Storeâ(TM)s âoeCompany Store" policy; and, unlike the whiners at Slashdot (99% of which who coincidentally don't even have standing; because they use Android), understand that you cannot have a platform as blissfully malware-free as iOS. (and its progeny), and allow alternate sources of Apps.
Why? Because Apple (and its Users) know that it won't matter to the public is someone got malware from sideloading an App;
Re: (Score:2)
The existence or nonexistence of a signed contract here is immaterial.
The actual complaint is here https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/... [unrealengine.com]
Here is one of the relevant laws in California
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that while they are removed from Google's store, they are still able to install on Google devices. Therefore going after Google is a high risk of being utterly fruitless because they have a viable alternative to Google's store to reach Google handsets (they just have to provide their own infrastructure and basically inflict zero burden on Google and users are clearly notified about what they are risking or not, and the platform security model does a good job in general of containing the risk).
Be
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think its that simple. Its more to do with the fact that Apple (or whoever) don't just want a cut from the initial sale; they also want a cut of all sales within the app as well. The hotel analogy is pretty poor, but running with it anyway - its more like renting a room in Apple's hotel and they also want a cut from any business deals you make whilst staying there.
I can see their dilemma. If they don't take a cut then everyone will give their app away and charge fees inside the app. But it still fee
Re: (Score:2)
it has nothing to do with "loading the game" - it has everything to do with V-bucks (Fortfucks fake currency)
Epic doesnt like that Apple demands a 30% cut so they implemented their own way for kiddies to buy their V-bucks without giving 30% to Apple (and then flipped them off and now were here). thats the story, Epic wants to rent a room in Apples hotel, but doesnt want to pay to stay there.
Yeah. One of the problems with Epic's argument is that they need to claim that Apple has a monopoly on distributing apps to iOS - it has to be that narrow, because if the market is "software" or even "mobile apps", there are lots of other marketplaces, and Apple clearly doesn't have a monopoly. The only place they could have a monopoly is on selling apps to iOS users.
... but if you start defining the market that narrowly, Epic has a monopoly on selling in-game items to Fortnite users. You have to use V-buc
Re: (Score:2)
While I disagree that antitrust law sensibly applies here, my understanding is that Epic is saying it does apply. So therefore it's possible that Apple wasn't a monopoly a few years ago when Epic agreed to the contract, but some statistic changed in the interim, thus causing them to become one recently. (e.g. maybe some competing console/phone/computer manufacturers went out of business a few weeks ago, and most of us simply missed
Re: (Score:2)
You do not have to have a monopoly to violate antitrust laws. In the Apple ebook pricing case Apple was found guilty of antitrust violations even though they had virtually zero market share in ebooks. What matters is not if you are a monopoly or not, but if you are engaging in anticompetitive behavior. The claim here is that, by not allowing any way for a developer to release an app other than going through the App Store, Apple is engaging in anticompetitive behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Here are their legal arguments.
https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/... [unrealengine.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Are they making a legal argument that the terms of the contract are unfair?
No, they are making a legal argument that Apple has violated antitrust law (through their contract, but also through technological means, locking down their platform).
Re: (Score:3)
Epic didn't like the terms and find them unreasonable. They sought at least an exception. Sure it would have been *nice* if they asked for the terms to change across the board, but generally you aim your sights a bit more realistic.
I don't see how Epic seeking a unique exception to unreasonable terms detracts from their claim that the terms were unreasonable. It may slightly make them less altruistic looking, but their legal arguments would seem to be unaffected either way by such a reality.
I feel like this is virtue signaling on behalf of Apple more than anything. Apple's trying to get out in front and say, "You were the ones asking for special treatment, we're just trying to treat all developers equally*. We're not the bad guys here!"
*That being said, the Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Primes of the world have different payment terms from what I understand, so that's not going to fly very well
Regardless, could someone pass the popcorn?
Re: I don't see that as exonerating Apple.. (Score:2)
They're really playing up the altruism angle, though. Oh, Epic just wants a better deal FOR ALL developers.
Really, Tim Sweeney the Benificent wants you to stop making Apple and Google rich by paying them 30% and instead make HIM rich by paying 12%. Stop buying your games from Steam, buy them from Tim. Lock-in is bad unless Epic is doing it.
I don't even mind being locked into a system, I just hate his faux concern for customers, like this isn't about him getting slightly richer.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it would have been *nice* if they asked for the terms to change across the board,
They did. Check the lawsuit, page 2, section six: [unrealengine.com]
"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."
Re: I don't see that as exonerating Apple.. (Score:2)
"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."
They don't have standing to represent those parties, sorry.
It just underscores how disingenuous Epic's lawsuit is. And how stupid their legal team is.
Summary Judgment time!
Re: (Score:2)
They don't have standing to represent those parties, sorry.
This shows such a misunderstanding that you shouldn't have written it. The document I linked to describes carefully why they have standing, and specifically why they have standing in the particular court they chose.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how Epic seeking a unique exception to unreasonable terms detracts from their claim that the terms were unreasonable.
It depends on what you're exonerating Apple for. Most of the court cases and investigations into Apple are the result of Apple treating companies differently to each other. That is something potentially illegal.
This here is nothing more than evidence that Epic thinks they are special and above the ToS that apply equally across the board. It's not an exoneration, it's just a piece of evidence in a larger case. This will not end well for Epic since Apple doesn't owe Epic shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you seem really emotionally committed to Apple. Corporations are not your friend. Corporations are never your friend. Apple just wants your money, there's no reason to be loyal to such a thing. Epic of course also just wants your money, equally dumb to be a fanboy either way.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. that's a courageous stance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand that this is basically the entirety of the complaint, right? That Apple has 100% control over who can sell what for the iOS market. The constant harping on 'they signed the contract' has no bearing, as being forced to sign the contract is the whole issue being challenged.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh, you don't understand.
That man shouldn't throw a hissy fit just because someone stole his watch.
That store owner shouldn't throw a hissy fit just because someone burned her premises down.
That girl shouldn't throw a hissy fit just because someone raped her.
That mother shouldn't throw a hissy fit just because someone killed her son.
That business owner shouldn't throw a hissy fit just because another business owner broke anti-trust law.
"Special Treatment" (Score:2)
Isn't anyone who refuses the standard terms of a huge corporation asking for "special treatment?" I don't see that as a very strong argument.
Having said that, iProduct users bought a seat in the walled-garden and I'm not convinced that fairness demands that Apple give vendors a better deal than they can extract.
If Amazon got a deal, why not everyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/2... [cnbc.com]
Apple offered Amazon a special deal in 2017, only making the e-commerce giant pay a 15 percent fee on customer subscriptions for Amazon’s Prime Video app via the App Store. Other developers pay a 30 percent fee for most in-app purchases.
Re: If Amazon got a deal, why not everyone? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
But if there's been a law violated, I say let them set the precedent that'll backfire on them.
The same goes for Epic. Breaking Apple's walled garden open, might have other people want Epic's walled garden broken open as well.
As a developer and consumer who doesn't own stakes in any of these corporations, I see this as a win-win if they succeed in their lawsuits.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple offered Amazon a special deal in 2017, only making the e-commerce giant pay a 15 percent fee on customer subscriptions for Amazon’s Prime Video app via the App Store. Other developers pay a 30 percent fee for most in-app purchases.
Ironically this is because Amazon were the ones abusing their market power to get the deal.
7-11 used to charge a debit and ATM fee (Score:3)
Then 7-11 got so big it stopped. What happened?
7-11 negotiated with their credit processors and ATM vendors. Basically telling them, "Hey, if you're in our store we should be charging YOU money for advertising. Don't like it? We'll go elsewhere!"
That's the biggest problem with app stores. There is no elsewhere. Despite this being 2 money grubbing assholes I'm glad one of them is putting apple in their place.
Re: (Score:2)
Epic is not a money grabbing asshole. Or maybe in your world all money is bad, I can't argue in that case.
But Epic is well known for Fortnite which does NOT prey on people with pay-to-win. I don't even play they game or own Epic, but I respect that this is way better than other game companies.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no elsewhere.
No one owes you shelf space in a store. No one owes you a podium. And no one owes you a special place in the iOS app store with a special set of rules that apply only to you.
Market power ultimately helps in negotiation, but fundamentally that doesn't change anything underlying in a company. 7-11's efforts had no influence outside 7-11 and it only happened because the credit processors needed 7-11 more than the other way around. There is nothing different here. Amazon got a special deal from Apple as they we
"make these options equally available to all devs" (Score:2)
We want a special deal, that we hope you also give everybody else. So much for a special deal.
Re: (Score:2)
"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."
Page 2.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. Without the details of the emails cited, it's quite possible that what happened was:
- Give us a deal
- no
- Ok. Court, give everybody a deal.
Negotiations on a contract would typically be between the two sides in the negotiation. Court action alleging a breach of the law must perforce address that breach, which benefits all impacted parties.
Re: (Score:2)
Now it's up to the court to decide if Apple's rejection is anticompetitive behavior. The facts are not in dispute, only the interpretation of the law related to the facts.
Customer Asks for better pricing. Not Odd (Score:2)
But Epic had to expect this, what is their next move? You do not do something like this with out a plan of some kind.
Re: (Score:2)
It is fair. Epic is provided with a massive customer base, pre-filtered to run their game satisfactorily.
Apple worked for those credit card accounts, maintains them securely, and handles all of epic's
account management for them for iPhone and iPad customers.
Those micro transaction fort-bucks all run thru systems that Epic didn't have to build or maintain or host. Epic knows this. They just want to kill competition both big and small.
No App Store? Then Xcode will cost $2,500/yr per seat, like in the old day
Re: (Score:2)
Epic doesn't need Apple to handle all of those details. They have their own systems for all of that. The only thing they need is Apple's blessing to be executed on their platform. I can't speak to whether a court will eventually find this to be illegal, but it should because none of this is in the consumer's interest. It's all for vendor lock-in.
I understand the argument that the user agreed to the terms and conditions, but it's really not in the people's best interest to allow these restrictions. Google's
Re: (Score:2)
If they need it, then pay the asking price.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't speak to whether a court will eventually find this to be illegal, but it should because none of this is in the consumer's interest. It's all for vendor lock-in.
IMO that is the strength of the Epic case filing. They've done a good job showing that the Apple lock-down hurts consumers.
Re: (Score:2)
then I stop using XCode/Doing Apple Development in any way.
I abandoned Windows Development because of the big MSDN price hikes(first 2999.00 goes to MS every year) back in the day. I can do the same with iOS and OS X development.
Think about it, over my 30 years of being an independent work for hire developer. The government takes 35% - 37%, If Apple takes 30%, If Google takes their ??%, Amazon takes their 8%-15%(based on product category) usually keeps switching to
Re: (Score:2)
But Epic had to expect this, what is their next move? You do not do something like this with out a plan of some kind.
This is part of the pre-fight. Epic asked to be allowed back onto the Apple store without modifying their app, until the court case ends. Apple counter-argued that they should not be allowed back on the store until they modify their app. If the ruling is against Epic, they can either disable the code and get back on the Apple store, or stay off the Apple store until later.
Eventually the main fight comes. Is Apple a monopoly? Epic says yes, for ten different reasons [unrealengine.com], that Apple has violated federal antitru
Re: (Score:2)
The next move is that Amazon Video Streaming got a special deal.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/... [theverge.com]
So it is not unprecedented. The little deals are for the little guys. There is clearly special treatment for big players.
Popcorn (Score:2)
Watching Apple and Fortnite fanbois go to war, there is not enough popcorn in the world for that.
But I can't get over it! (Score:3)
Walled garden, walled garden!!
I can't get over it, I can't get under it! No fair, no fair!
Sounds more like engineers with no balls and no skills.
With the manufacturing and component resources these days, and with all this bitching about
Apple is not worth paying anyway, get your own damn phone built.
If iPhones are just fanboi products, it should be easy to leap past everything they make.
Then load what ever you want, put your address book and email and bank info on it.
Download some drivers (again). Tweak some config files. Apply some patches. Reboot.
Send Epic some money. Knock yourself out.
Re: (Score:3)
That's my point. Making the iPhone an overwhelming success was hard.
So Apple gets to set the rules, and the 30% was one of the rules that made it work.
You can't have Falstaff and not have him fat.
Re: (Score:2)
Making the iPhone an overwhelming success was hard. So Apple gets to set the rules
US antitrust law says that's not how it works. If you're hurting consumers, then you have to change your rules. Maybe it's not fair to Apple, but it's the law.
Boardroom- (Score:2)
How much was the i-Bill this month?
25m bought us into the walled garden, sir. This is a monthly expense.
How much is the legal bill this month?
10m, all they did was write a couple EULAs, sir. This is a monthly expense.
How much revenue this month?
250m, the mob loves us, sir. We expect more next month.
Why the @$%@ am I paying these lawyers 10m for nothing? Put them to work on the i-Bill!
Yes sir.
(Pulled the numbers out of my ass, but you get the idea)
Playing Out Predictably (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Antitrust law does not require a monopoly. It regulates anticompetitive behavior. Apple lost the ebook pricing antitrust case even though they had virtually no market share.
Re: (Score:2)
True but price-fixing laws are independent of anti-trust law and do not apply at all in this situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no. They were prosecuted under the Sherman Antitrust Act, which is pretty much THE antitrust law for the US. While this case does not involve price fixing, it still involves other violations of the Sherman act.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Epic has a leg to stand on in this case. If Apple had around 80% or more of the smartphone and/or tablet marketshare, then Apple's actions could be considered in violation of US anti-trust laws, but since that is not the case, I fully expect Epic to lose this case.
Epic literally responded to this point in their filing [unrealengine.com], and said that since it's hard for users to switch to another phone manufacturer, under the law the rest of the smartphone market doesn't count as a direct competitor.
Ford doesn't let me change the SW in my car (Score:2)
You bring the pitchforks, I'll get the torches.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Apple TV.
does apple take an 30% vig on sports book apps? (Score:2)
does apple take an 30% vig on sports book apps?
".. And The Horse You Rode In On" (Score:2)
Could that famous old expression apply to both contenders?
The lawyers must be loving this stuff. Well, Apple has plenty of cash; donno about Samsung and Epic Games so much.
Glass houses (Score:2)
There's more to this. (Score:2)
I can guarantee this more about forcing Apple's hand into court so it can get a decision that a third party store should be allowed on iPhones and such. That way, Epic store can be loaded, then an exclusivity war can be started between Epic and Apple.
Oh, the times we live in - exclusives keeping me from playing a game at release on PC, and soon the same on iPhones.