Apple Ordered To Not Block Epic Games' Unreal Engine, But Fortnite To Stay Off App Store (techcrunch.com) 207
A district court denied Epic Games' motion to temporarily restore Fortnite game to the iOS App Store, but also ordered Apple to not block the gaming giant's ability to provide and distribute Unreal Engine on the iPhone-maker's ecosystem in a mixed-ruling delivered Monday evening. From a report: U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said Apple can't retaliate against Epic Games by blocking the gaming firm's developer accounts or restrict developers on Apple platforms from accessing the widely-used Unreal Engine tools. "The record shows potential significant damage to both the Unreal Engine platform itself, and to the gaming industry generally, including on both third-party developers and gamers," she said, adding that even as Epic Games violated App Store's guidelines, it did not breach any contracts related to Unreal Engine and developer tools.
"Apple has chosen to act severely, and by doing so, has impacted non-parties, and a third-party developer ecosystem," said Rogers. But the ruling was not a complete win for Epic Games, which had also requested the sleeper hit title Fortnite to be restored on the iOS App Store. Rogers said the game will remain off the App Store unless Epic Games attempted to bring it back in accordance with App Store guidelines.
"Apple has chosen to act severely, and by doing so, has impacted non-parties, and a third-party developer ecosystem," said Rogers. But the ruling was not a complete win for Epic Games, which had also requested the sleeper hit title Fortnite to be restored on the iOS App Store. Rogers said the game will remain off the App Store unless Epic Games attempted to bring it back in accordance with App Store guidelines.
Play by the rules... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What a short sighted view.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue at hand in the lawsuit is not about the rules in their app store. They can have whatever rules they want. The issue is being FORCED to use their app store, and agree to their rules, if you want access to the 1.5 billion IOS devices out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, have all the restrictions you want on the App Store.
Do not block other avenues to allow customers to run software on iOS, so that if a company so chooses to directly service iOS platform customers without using the App Store as a middle man, they could.
People keep speaking as if Epic utterly and desperately wants App Store access when they really want to run on iOS, but Apple has tied the two things together where their competition in handsets have not.
Re: (Score:2)
Since Apple is not anywhere close to being a global smartphone monopoly, none of that matters. You aren't owed anything.
Re: (Score:2)
The defintion of what the market is is pretty much the central point of the whole case.
Apple, of course, would like the market defined as widely as possible, at least every mobile platform. Epic would like it defined narrowly - the market in this case is just IOS devices.
So the court will consider things from a 'reality' standpoint, not a 'technical' standpoint. For instance, suppose someone has a monoply on something in your country, but other countries have other options. You can't really claim it is n
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They have a 'monopoly' on the iOS platform and are extending that monopoly to application deployment onto iOS through mandating use of their infrastructure to purchase and distribute content without supporting an alternative.
This is anti-competitive, whether it is tolerable depends upon how narrowly you define the market (iOS versus all handsets) and their market share (controlling half of all handsets in the country in discussion is a pretty large share, though it is not Microsoft level of market share).
Th
Re: (Score:3)
Of course they do.... that's THEIR OWN bloody platform. It isn't Apple's fault if a company can't figure out how to make a profit while dealing with them. Plenty of others do.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course AT&T has a monopoly on phone service, it's THEIR OWN bloody network.
Of course Microsoft has a monopoly on Windows, it's THEIR OWN bloody OS.
It isn't Apple's fault if a company can't figure out how to make a profit while dealing with them. Plenty of others do.
Note that Epic still makes money, but they are forfeiting hundreds of millions of dollars for services they don't actually want to use, but are currently mandated by Apple as a tie-in to the iOS (which is one of the prominent anti-competitive practices that are cited, e.g. Internet Explorer being tied into Windows).
Re: (Score:2)
They created a market place, and are now subject to the UCC and antitrust acts.
The law is actually quite clear on this matter. The only question that really exists is whether Apple can re-define a market place to include basically 2 separate market places (An argument that "you can simply switch to Android" will fail, as it always has in the past in similar cases.)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sensible (Score:5, Insightful)
Fairly clear that the banning of Unreal Engine from iOS was a pure pressure move that had nothing to do with the actual issue they're arguing about. Unreal Engine just happens to be made by the same company, but is completely distinct from the sales commission on Fortnite. If Apple are going to be the sole arbiter of the entire App Store, they are asking for regulation by acting like this.
Yes it's their walled garden, but eventually a garden can become so big and well used, that it's a public park.
Re:Pretty sensible (Score:5, Informative)
Unreal Engine just happens to be made by the same company, but is completely distinct from the sales commission on Fortnite.
Actually, the reason that Epic can keep access to the developer tools to develop Unreal Engine is because it is not made by the same company. Unreal Engine is made by Epic International while Fortnite is made by Epic Games. The judge ruled that Epic International is not in breach of contract. but Epic Games is.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the reason that Epic can keep access to the developer tools to develop Unreal Engine is because it is not made by the same company.
According to TFA it's not because of that:
....even as Epic Games violated App Store's guidelines, it did not breach any contracts related to Unreal Engine and developer tools...
Re: (Score:3)
Quote from actual ruling:
Apple’s reliance on its “historical practice” of removing all “affiliated” developer accounts in similar situations or on broad language in the operative contract at issue here can be better evaluated with full briefing. For now, Epic International appears to have separate developer program license agreements with Apple and those agreements have not been breached.
Of course its just one of the aspects that the judge considered and likely not the most important one.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course its just one of the aspects that the judge considered and likely not the most important one.
Remember that a ruling was needed for/against an action happening three days from now. So the judge will not give a ruling that will be correct when all arguments are properly evaluated, but one where possible damage needs to be prevented. Apple could quite possibly go to the court, ask for permission to throw out Unreal's developer account, and then the court has all the time it needs to decide, not just three days.
Re: (Score:2)
Be Wary of the Precedent (Score:3)
For example, suppose a developer wanted to host code on the Apple Store that contained exploitable vulnerabilities, or leaked PI, or did some other unpleasant thing. The chances are that we'd be OK if we had Apple there to defend us against things like that.
Today, apple "curates" the App Store, ensuring that certain minimum controls are observed by content it hosts. In return for that, Apple charge
Re: (Score:2)
Well, this is exactly what the suit is about. It is not about forcing Apple to allowing anything in to the App Store, it is about Apple being forced to open the app market to competing stores.
Re: (Score:2)
"But the Apple Store is a guarantee of the security of the product."
I'm fairly sure there is no such guarantee, explicit or implicit. Doing so would open Apple up to liability for the stuff that inevitably slips through the cracks, and I'm quite sure Apple lawyers wouldn't (knowingly) allow Apple to be put in such a position.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, Apple is keeping us safe from the bad, bad internet.
How about that: They get to say "don't install this app, it's bad for you" but I get to decide whether I want to. Deal?
Re: (Score:3)
What 'company' are you talking about? 'Company' security policies are set by the company, not Apple. The company I work for allows Apple and Android devices, and has security policies for those devices. None of those policies trust that the app store or anyone else is ensuring security of the apps.
Re: (Score:2)
The only 'security' that policy is aiding is the security of Apples profits. What makes you think Apples security policy is perfect, or that a competitor may not have a better security policy? What makes you think a consumer shouldn't be allowed to pick what policies he likes, given a choice?
Re: (Score:2)
The only 'security' that policy is aiding is the security of Apples profits.
So you honestly see no security benefit from Apple controlled app review?
Ok man, we'll just have to agree you know absolutely nothing about security.
Remember part of security is not just about what the app can do on device because of system permissions, but what calls it can make externally. All of those present opportunities for risk, even if that risk is just loss of privacy.
True security policy does not rely on any one aspect, b
Re: Not a better choice if you think about it (Score:2)
"Shouldn't a company be allowed to tighten down a platform as much as they like and define how it works?"
Probably, but Apple doesn't allow this. IT departments constantly complain about the problems introduced by personal devices and the complete lack of centralized management tools for company iDevices.
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody at Apple was in a shitty mood and probably still drunk from last night's bender when they did that. Banning Unreal hurts Apple, lots of innocent third parties, and is pretty much impossible to justify.
Re: (Score:2)
Fairly clear that the banning of Unreal Engine from iOS was a pure pressure move that had nothing to do with the actual issue they're arguing about.
Well the Unreal Engine specifically is a red herring. Apple banned Epic's developer account. It's fairly clear that you typically boot out people from your platform when those people deliberately break the rules, and then those people sue you. That the Unreal Engine itself got caught in the crossfire was Epic's own lack of forethought.
Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
Now please I'm going to come over and hit you and when I do you should be a good boy and say "thankyou very much", lack of compliance will
Re: (Score:3)
Your alternative for Epic is... what? Just sit and take it? Epic is the littleguy here, they have to act from a position of weakness. Apply are the $2tn behemoth and I would have hoped that they would have a bit more restraint. Tim Cook was sitting in congressional hearings just a few weeks ago - way to justify the invite.
30% is a big cut, maybe it can be justified but the point is Apple don't have to justify it because they control the whole thing. It's textbook monopoly. The "you can buy another phone" is
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Epic is the littleguy here
Nope. Epic is a spoit little brat wanting access to someone's private playground despite all the other kids paying for it.
Apple is big, no doubt. That doesn't make Epic any less of a whiny little shit. 30% is 30%. It's the cost of entry. I find a $200000 for a Ferrari to be too expensive too, that doesn't mean I should steal one from the showroom floor and complain because I find the cost too high and feel like am somehow special among Ferrari customers that I deserve to have the car for less.
Apple doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
How, exactly, is my phone Apple's 'private playground'. Here's a hint - it isn't.
You fanboys keep going on about how the 'App Store' is a closed platform with limited access. No shit. Nobody claims otherwise. The suit is not about access to the App Store, it is about access to the USERS of IOS systems. Apple has no right to say the consumer may only purchase apps from them, but that is exactly what they do.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it's their walled garden, but eventually a garden can become so big and well used, that it's a public park.
And even when it's as big as an island or an estate you would still be done for trespassing if the owner wanted you kicked out. There are only a couple of countries in the entire world where people have some right to access privately owned property simply because it's size.
The USA isn't one of them. Neither is Switzerland (Epic International's tax haven).
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it's their walled garden, but eventually a garden can become so big and well used, that it's a public park.
And even when it's as big as an island or an estate you would still be done for trespassing if the owner wanted you kicked out. There are only a couple of countries in the entire world where people have some right to access privately owned property simply because it's size.
The USA isn't one of them. Neither is Switzerland (Epic International's tax haven).
I don't want to belabour this analogy too much because it's already creaking... but even large landowners have to deal with rights-to-roam / access rights / public footpaths, etc.
When a corporation becomes too big, we regulate it. That's the only wan capitalism can work is by continually breaking up monopolies, at some point the control becomes too much and is harmful.
Re: (Score:2)
but even large landowners have to deal with rights-to-roam / access rights / public footpaths, etc.
There's a reason I specifically mentioned the USA and France. Neither has a right to roam. Both allow private to exclude access, and public footpaths are universally on public land (you don't own all the land down to the road).
Specifically in the USA the only exception being something has been public in the past. The App store never was.
The analogy is good, because the size of something has nothing to do with access requirements. Just because I build a park better than Disneyland in my walled garden doesn't
Re: Pretty sensible (Score:2)
There are plenty of places in the U.S. with right to roam. We just don't have a single system or rule that applies.
Re: (Score:2)
That would also be the Fortnite store which had 1.8 billion revenue last year.
Re: (Score:2)
Totally agree, and we even just had a very clear example of the contrast with WordPress - while the WordPress app was also blocked from updating due to the same rule Epic was violating, Apple did not pull the app nor did they ever threaten to revoke the WordPress developer license!
Huge difference. WordPress sent an app for review that didn't meet the review criteria, so it was rejected, fixed, submitted again, reviewed again and accepted. Everything completely in the open. Epic sent an app for review that was built to change it's behaviour after some time. What reviewers saw did meet their review criteria. What users saw some time later didn't because the app changed it's behaviour. And that kind of trickery _is_ mentioned in the developer guidelines as "may/will cost you your accoun
Rogers did not and could not have said that (Score:5, Informative)
" the game will remain off the App Store unless Epic Games attempted to bring it back in accordance with App Store guidelines" as it depends the outcome of the lawsuit.
She was only referring to the situation until trial is over.
Funny video on this hot mess (Score:3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
This video sums up the situation pretty nicely (though it's now slightly out of date thanks to news like this).
Also, I hadn't considered just how unfair Apple's attack on Epic via Unreal Engine really was. This judgement is spot on.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I hadn't considered just how unfair Apple's attack on Epic via Unreal Engine really was. This judgement is spot on.
I know. It's unfair when a store kicks out an abusive customer. The only reason the judgement actually went in Epic's way is because technically there are two different corporate identities running two different developer accounts at play. If Epic Games were the ones who published the engine rather than Epic International then the Unreal Engine would have been booted without issue.
Epic won on a technicality. The judge ruled on a technicality. The abusive fuckwit customer causing a scene in the shop needs to
Re: (Score:3)
Not to defend Epic too much, as they're greedy jerks too (as outlined in the video), but Apple's response was over the top.
Assume that Unreal Engine did belong to Epic Games and this wasn't all decided by a technicality.
Isn't it a bit much to throw an entire developer out of the app store over their misbehavior around a single app? Does Apple normally go straight to scorched earth tactics when a developer steps out of line? Do they really go straight to the "public execution" phase over a single app from an
Fanbois (Score:2)
Apple and Fortnite fanbois go to war, there is not enough popcorn in the world for this drama.
lets compare this to something besides bits (Score:2, Insightful)
Sometimes it's hard to relate to electronic rights, and we need to put them in a more "familiar" setting, to make fair judgement. A more physical "analogy" if you will...
Say we have a company that manufactures sprockets, cogs, and widgets at three separate plants, and buys steel from the local mill. The company pays the bill for this month's steel for their cog and sprocket plants, but not their widgets plant.
So the steel mill says we're not going to send you any more steel until you've settled your bil
Re: (Score:2)
It's easy to say they're both Epic. But, the situation is more akin to two siblings. If you and your brother both do business with the same company and your brother stops paying they are not entitled to punish yo
Re: (Score:2)
So the steel mill says we're not going to send you any more steel until you've settled your bill, we have a contract that says we will suspend shipping to all your plants if you are behind on any of your payments.
Uhh ... no. From the actual ruling [courtlistener.com]:
As relevant here, Apple maintains separate developer agreements and developer program licensing agreements between Epic Games, Epic International and four other affiliated entities. Apple also maintains a separate agreement, âoeXcode and Apple SDKs Agreement,â regarding its developer tools (software development kits, or âoeSDKsâ).
Moreover
The relevant agreement, the Apple Xcode and Apple SDKs Agreement, is a fully integrated document that explicitly walls off the developer program license agreement.
and
For now, Epic International appears to have separate developer program license agreements with Apple and those agreements have not been breached.
So no, one company of the group (Epic Games) breaching an agreement apparently does not entitle Apple to in turn breach an unrelated (and walled off) agreement with a different company of the group (Epic International) regarding the SDK, company who had done no agreement breaching of its own.
Thus, in focusing on the status quo, the Court observes that Epic Games strategically chose to breach its agreements with Apple which changed the status quo. No equities have been identified suggesting that the Court should impose a new status quo in favor of Epic Games. By contrast, with respect to the Unreal Engine and the developer tools, the Court finds the opposite result. In this regard, the contracts related to those applications were not breached. Apple does not persuade that it will be harmed based on any restraint on removing the developer tools. The parties' dispute is easily cabined on the antitrust allegations with respect to the App Store. It need not go farther. Apple has chosen to act severely, and by doing so, has impacted non-parties, and a third-party developer ecosystem. In this regard, the equities do weigh against Apple.
You need to work on your analogies a bit more, it seems. That, and someone needs to bring the slashcode up from the last century concerning unicode support (no taking bets o
Re: (Score:2)
And the judge says since the innocent customers are being affected by the steel mill's broad "retaliation"
The judge didn't say anything of the sort. The ruling was thanks to a legal technicality. The developer behind Fortnite and the developer behind Unreal Engine are two different companies. The judge ruled that banning one due to actions of the other was considered "retaliation". In your example, not sending steel to another company who *are* paying their bills simply because they share a corporate overlord.
The thing is this ruling will only extend to the duration of the case. When the legal action is over Ap
ruling content (Score:2)
For those interested in what EXACTLY did the judge decide here is a full content of the order:
https://www.courtlistener.com/... [courtlistener.com]
A first step.. (Score:2)
But more is needed.
The app store is simply too locked down.
Example of stupid apple removals, I use the app DS Get, from Synology, for my NAS. It allows to send downloads task from the app to your NAS.
Well, Apple decided that the app was not worthy of their beautiful gold cage and remove it.
Synology didnt say why, but the rumor is that since you can send all kinds of tasks to your NAS, including bittorrent links, Apple said "think of the children" or some other used excuse and removed it.
That is a dangerous
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The government rules on contract disputes constantly, and private parties routinely ask them to do so.
What part of the Apple Developer [apple.com] program agreement did Epic violate? Not the App Store terms of service --
Re: (Score:3)
The bigger no-no is that they extended these contract terms knowing that the other party would then be entering contracts with third parties. That does not give them any leverage, instead it magnifies the damages to the other parties if they don't follow the agreed terms. It takes away their ability to use that access as leverage.
Does Apple even have lawyers, or did they think they were doing themselves a favor by using a bobblehead for legal advice?
They didn't (Score:3)
> What part of the Apple Developer program agreement did Epic violate?
I realize this question was rhetorical, but for those wanting to see more detail on this, in the TRO that was granted in part and denied in part [vox-cdn.com], the judge seems to think that Epic has not violated the Apple Developer program agreement:
Re: (Score:3)
What part of the Apple Developer [apple.com] program agreement did Epic violate? Not the App Store terms of service -- the Developer program.
Well right now section 10 by asking a court to block Apple's right to terminate the Agreement at their sole discretion at any time, terms which Epic agreed to. ;-)
Re:Government app stores (Score:4, Insightful)
But they haven't violated that portion of the agreement because it doesn't impose any obligation upon them to do anything. Apple has attempted to reserve a right. But you cannot give yourself a right to terminate an agreement at your sole discretion at any time. The grounds for termination cannot violate statutory law, common law, or even according to many courts public policy considerations. This is simply another example of an unlawful tying of services that Apple is attempting to employ in an attempt to monopolize and control all iOS software.
"I'm going to make an example of you by cutting off all services generally available to others" is, in fact, subject to judicial scrutiny.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
10. Term and Termination. Apple may terminate or suspend you as a registered Apple Developer at any time in Apple’s sole discretion. If Apple terminates you as a registered Apple Developer, Apple reserves the right to deny your reapplication at any time in Apple’s sole discretion. You may terminate your participation as a registered Apple Developer at any time, for any reason, by notifying Apple in writing of your intent to do so. Upon any termination or, at Apple’s discretion, suspension, all rights and licenses granted to you by Apple will cease, including your right to access the Site, and you agree to destroy any and all Apple Confidential Information that is in your possession or control. At Apple’s request, you agree to provide certification of such destruction to Apple. No refund or partial refund of any fees paid hereunder or any other fees will be made for any reason. Following termination of this Agreement, Sections 1, 3-5, 7 (but only for so long as the duration specified by Apple for such usage), 10-19 shall continue to bind the parties.
Re: (Score:2)
They're copyrighted?
They're routinely updated by Apple?
You people keep circling back to the App Store and the anti-competition and antitrust issues. But that doesn't justify the retaliation involving the Apple Developer pro
Re:Why can't Epic just... (Score:5, Informative)
The decision is a bit more nuanced than that. Epic Games owns Fortnite but does not own the Epic Unreal engine.
The Fortnite maker decided to break their contract with Apple, so they no longer have access to the Dev Tools.
Apple argued that Epic is a shell company for Epic Games and there is no difference as they just pass stuff to each other (eg. Unreal engine uses the Epic Games logo), however the judge decided not to rule on the corporate status of Epic vs Epic Games at all and for the time being, Epic can continue to use the Dev Tools, whereas Epic Games, cannot.
Re:Why can't Epic just... (Score:4, Insightful)
So while you may be right that the judge didn't touch the corporate ownership issue- that wasn't the reason relief was granted.
Remember- this is a temporary injunction against an action Apple took.
Epic can continue to use the Dev Tool because Apple has been specifically blocked from denying them access- and particularly because of third-party involvement.
Re: (Score:2)
Ignore my other post, quoting on mobile sucks.
"You people keep circling back to the App Store and the anti-competition and antitrust issues. But that doesn't justify the retaliation involving the Apple Developer program, which does not require use of the App Store at all, if you recall.
So again, Apple decided to retaliate by denying Epic access to unrelated resources that it offers freely (I should have originally said uniformly, for $99 or $299 per year) to everybody else. Epic is riding for the standard f
Re: (Score:2)
There will be more hearings and then it'll probably go on for months or even years like a lot of these lawsuits.
I suppose we'll be getting more information along the way.
Re: Why can't Epic just... (Score:4, Interesting)
Either way, it was a pretty stupid move on Apple's part to block their developer account. If Epic was in need of strong evidence of anticompetitive behavior on the part of Apple, Apple just handed it to them on a silver platter.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You people keep circling back to the App Store and the anti-competition and antitrust issues. But that doesn't justify the retaliation involving the Apple Developer program, which does not require use of the App Store at all, if you recall.
I don't think stopping Unreal Engine is right, but it isn't unjustified. Epic used some rather backhanded approach to get Fortnite on the AppStore with purchases options that would have never passed a review, by having the option built into the app but not activating it until some time later. That kind of thing (trying to deceive the reviewers) is according to the T&Cs a reason to throw you off the store. And here's where the justification comes in, it also means Apple doesn't want to do any business wi
Re: (Score:2)
That's the definition of retaliation
Re:Ummm,... (Score:4, Informative)
Epic does distribute their own frameworks. At issue is that you have to have Apple's developer tools to BUILD those frameworks, so if Epic (the library vendor) loses access to Apple's developer tools, then it cannot release new versions of its own frameworks because it would have no way to compile them.
Re: (Score:3)
...that Apple is somehow blocking Epic from distributing the Unreal frameworks.
THAT IS A LIE.
How is that a lie? If Epic can't compile the frameworks, how can it possibly distribute them?
Oh, you mean that they could continue to distribute the existing versions without being able to ever fix any bugs, no matter how serious? Well, they probably can't do that, either, thanks to derivative works issues in copyright law, but it's a legal grey area.
I hope Apple sues Epic for this criminally false claim, has the CEO incarcerated, and ends up OWNING the company lock, stock, and barrel.
I hope Apple sues Epic for that, too. That way Epic can file a SLAPPback for malicious prosecution and greatly increase the chances of Apple being on the re
Re: (Score:2)
...just serve the developer tools from their own server? You know, the same server they were using to take out of game payments. Oh I forgot.
You think you're being clever, but since Apple is the one who doesn't allow that, it doesn't help them; it merely underlines that if they don't follow the contract terms they set out, then it harms the developer even more than it would harm them otherwise. It simply magnifies the damages.
Re: (Score:2)
...just serve the developer tools from their own server?
Because that would be a gross violation of copyright law? Because Apple doesn't let them? It's one thing to incur the wrath of getting kicked off the App store, it's a whole other nightmare to violate Apple copyright by redistributing their stuff.
They want to ride free and get all the benefits on the infrastructure and customer base Apple spent DECADES developing, and not pay a single thing.
To actually run the game Epic has a massive amount of infrastructure, the delta to cover the part Apple currently does would be an unnoticeable trivial increment. However Apple won't allow it. If they were going toe to toe with Google those arguments would carry
Re: Why can't Epic just... (Score:3)
People want to be controlled like this. They said so with their wallets.
Can't get the game you want because Apple says no? Too bad. You gave up your control to Apple, now live with it.
Re:Government app stores (Score:4, Interesting)
More realistically, they'll have to be regulated to only be able to take a certain amount of profit.
There's plenty of precedent for this. For example, many countries regulate other privately owned natural monopolies, such as railroads and electric grids to cap profit at a certain value.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Except Apple isn't a monopoly... not anywhere close. They control the iOS platform, which has only a slim majority in the USA and a minority virtually everywhere else.
Whining about how Apple chooses to conduct its own business when a viable alternative exists is like complaining that Burger King doesn't sell Big Macs.
Re: Government app stores (Score:3)
Antitrust laws are not exclusively used to fight monopolies. They fight predatory business practices, even those practiced by non-monopolies. Monopolies just happen to have a greater likelihood of being a target of these laws because they have enough market power to get away with these practices without government interference.
But monopolies aren't the only problem. The smartphone app market is more of a duopoly, with only Apple and Android having a viable app market. If even a company the size of Microsoft
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How is it "predatory" to have exclusive control over THEIR OWN frickin' platform?
Apple has made clear in their court filings that they don't only own the App Store, they also own all the iPhones in the world. That is predatory, anti-competitive, and not nice.
Let people side-load apps if they want to. It's the right thing to do, and soon we will find out it's the legal thing to do.
Re: Government app stores (Score:4, Insightful)
Replace "apple with ford" and "epic with Michelin tires". Should ford be able to force Michelin (with hardware dongles) to sell in Ford's stores and take a 30 % cut?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Replace "apple with ford" and "epic with Michelin tires". Should ford be able to force Michelin (with hardware dongles) to sell in Ford's stores and take a 30 % cut?
Yes, Ford should be able to stipulate that they are going to take a 30% cut of any Michelin tires that are sold in Ford's stores. Michelin can (and should) sell their tires elsewhere, and some of those stores will probably take less of the revenue. If Michelin feels that it isn't profitable to sell tires in Ford's stores, they should stop doing that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Michelin can (and should) sell their tires elsewhere
And if Ford made it so it was impossible for Michelin to sell tires for Fords anywhere but the Ford store, that would be OK?
Re: (Score:2)
Read it again. I said 'sell tires for Fords', not 'sell tires for some car I don't own'. The analogy is correct.
Yeah, they can sell Fortnight for Android. How many IOS users are going to go out and buy an Android device just to play Fortnight? That is why the market for IOS apps and the market for Android apps are two different markets. And Apple has a 100% monopoly on the sales of IOS apps.
Re: Government app stores (Score:5, Informative)
The key issue is something called "Tying". This is an often illegal practice in which you sell or contract for one product or service as a mandatory addition to the purchase of a different product or service.
The law here is generally that if you have economic power compared to your customers, then you probably can't use legally use tying at all. Super important: your competition and whether you have a monopoly does not matter.
This concept goes all the way back to where antitrust law started, and the idea that if you wanted to contract with Rockefeller's oil distribution infrastructure, you had to also contract with Rockefeller's oil refineries. Microsoft argued that software is different (for security reasons, efficiency reasons, cost to the consumer reasons) and lost on all counts.
The arguments that Apple is making now (you can see them in the comments here) are not different from the arguments Microsoft made in the 90s. The core question (really, the only question) here is simply: is an OS or a phone different from an app store? If the answer is yes, then Apple can not require people who buy one of their products (the phone) to exclusively use another of their products (the app store) as a condition of the sale.
Re: (Score:2)
The only "economic power" that Apple has over developers is that despite not having anywhere close to a real monopoly, they still control enough percentage of the mobile app market to make a significant difference to possible revenue that could, for some companies, make or break them.
But the fact is that it is a compromise that some companies are still willing to make. If Epic isn't, that should be their own problem.
Re: (Score:3)
The only "economic power" that Apple has over developers is that despite not having anywhere close to a real monopoly, they still control enough percentage of the mobile app market to make a significant difference to possible revenue that could, for some companies, make or break them. But the fact is that it is a compromise that some companies are still willing to make. If Epic isn't, that should be their own problem.
Just like companies could have decided to not user Rockefeller's oil distribution infrastructure, but that would have made a significant difference to possible revenue that could, for some companies, make or break them. And as I mentioned earlier, having a monopoly is not a prerequisite to engaging in predatory business practices. Apple owns a large enough piece of the mobile market, and restricts access to their portion of the market enough, to wield the power necessary to force companies wanting to compet
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, you get the economic power thing then. Being able to "make or break" one of your customers by with holding access to your product/service unless that customer also buys a different product/service is exactly the situation this law was written for.
You're totally right to think that Epic violated their App Store contract and will be (and should be) held to that. However, that aspect of the dispute is about setting up legal standing for the next part. The point of this whole thing is to set up a criminal
Re: (Score:2)
Except Apple isn't a monopoly... not anywhere close. They control the iOS platform, which has only a slim majority in the USA and a minority virtually everywhere else.
Correct but your assertion doesn't even go far enough. Apple own and operate the entire ecosystem of their products. They are the sole gatekeeper with no competition. You can't have a "monopoly" on your own product. As long as Apple's ToS apply equally to all people on the App Store they aren't abusing their market power. They are more than welcome to charge 100% of revenue too, that also isn't abuse. No one owes you access to a closed ecosystem.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should that be a problem when their product is not a monopoly?
App developers are perfectly free to make their applications for Android only, for instance.
One company should not be able to dictate to another how they conduct their own private business practices just so that the former can make more money.
Re: (Score:2)
No you misunderstand. It's not a problem, I'm agreeing with you and making a point that even if the iPhone owned 100% market share in the USA, Apple doesn't owe a developer access.
Whether or not Apple are a monopoly or not doesn't come into this app store dispute at all. The only time market abuse can be referenced is if Apple then proceeded to compete on their platform. I.e. If Apple had complete market share, and created a Fortnite competitor, and booted Epic off, then that would be abuse of market share.
Re: (Score:2)
"Natural monopoly within their walled garden". Just like a grid operator is a natural monopoly within area of their grid. But certainly not in most of the world, where they don't own a grid.
And just like you're free to buy a different device, you're equally free to move to a region where your grid operator is different.
What court will have to figure out is if these two are sufficiently comparable to trigger relevant legal clauses.
US phone companies, when it was $1/minute (Score:2, Interesting)
> There's plenty of precedent for this.
I remember when cost $1/minute to call grandma. That was the rate under regulated pricing. While visiting Grandma, calling a place across town, in the other side of the city, cost about 25 cents/minute.
The government said profit could only be x%, so the only way for the phone company to increase profit was to increase prices and costs. 5% of 20 cents is a penny, 5% of $1 is five times as much profit.
Then it was de-regulated and I'll never forget how surprised and
No touch tone, no call waiting, no call forwarding (Score:3, Insightful)
> Easy fix. Cap the profit at a flat rate.
Sure, you can cap the profit at $250 million or whatever.
On which case the company / investors get their best return on investment by investing nothing more. Stick with crank-handle phones.
If they stick with 1920-era phone tech, they make $250 million.
If they invest $50 billion in building a nationwide fiber network, they still only make $250 million.
Their best move is to do nothing. Develop nothing, build nothing, improve nothing. Just collect the mone
Exactly: Regulation is not taking over (Score:2)
Government adjudicating disputes in a market place actually makes the market more valuable. Imagine if Apple could be more capricious and not offer a level playing field. This is the exact role for governments. Creating markets and improving their liquidity by keeping them uniform, predictable, and fair.
Re: (Score:2)
That is self evident. Managed market is the system that effectively every nation's internal market system is today. It's the type and degree of management that varies.
If you try to do unmanaged, it rapidly cycles through natural tendency of every free market to self-optimize into giant monopolies, as success enables successful actors to take over the less successful ones until monopoly is achieved.
Re: (Score:2)
Will we end up at the point where the government runs app stores. Companies are quick to scream private platform when it comes to free speech but when it comes to their own content they want the government to intervene. Will governments even provide official jail breaks to make their stores mandatory.
This is so moronic, you don't even need to turn in your nerd card. It has simply been cancelled.
Private parties having access to the courts is not the Gubermint telling everybody what to do. Even if you were drunk, if you're this stupid sometimes, you're not a nerd.
maybe an few rules like no / limited content block (Score:2)
maybe an few rules like no / limited content blocks?
Say apple must allow apps with any political material like Phone Story, NewsToons, Drone Strike Alert, etc
They can't force European magazines to be adapted the standards of Utah.
Apple must allow apps with lessons about Android / other systems.
They have to have an adults only area for legal porn.
Re: (Score:3)
I really don't see how you got from a court enforcing contractual law to the government taking over app stores.
It is good to see a court making a sensible decision.
What has this got to do with free speech?
What Epic did was a long shot, shaking the tree to see if anything fell out. I think if they want to complain, they should be complaining that whilst on Android anyone can install anything they want, on Apple they can't. But I don't think Epic really gives a rats ass about consumer choice. For instance, Ep
Re: (Score:2)
There's a distinction between being able to sell an app on Apple's store and being able to have customers use your app regardless of the app store. I got the impression that Epic are suing because they want their app on the Apple app store not because they can't get the app onto the phone in any other manner. Maybe Epic want to run a store in competition with Apple like how they run a store in competition with Steam, MS, Origin etc.
How big is Apple's mobile store market compared with PC stores markets if we
Re: (Score:2)
No, they are suing PRECISELY because there is no alternative to the App Store. They want to have their OWN store, but Apple won't allow it. All the stuff about the App Store (the 30% cut, being forced to used their payment processor, etc) is showing the harm that having to use the App Store causes, but what they want is the end of the App Store monopoly for the IOS market.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough, from the numbers I just saw, the Apple app store turns over more than the whole of the PC games market combined, so Epic does have a chance of winning.
I'd rather they fight to the death and both die though TBH, I don't like either company.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Another idiot that doesn't understand the issue. NOBODY is demanding special access to the App Store. They are demanding ALTERNATIVES to the app store, which Apple prohibits.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not Apple's phone, it's MINE. Apple has no right to say who can sell apps to me.
I suppose you think it is legal for Ford to tell me whose tires I have to buy, whose gas I have to use, etc because it is a Ford product and I can always buy a Chevy? Nope.
No. (Score:2)
Laws governing information are different from laws governing property.
It IS legal for Ford to tell you whose firmware you can install on the emissions control computer under the hood of the car you own. It is also legal for Ford to constrain the usage of the software they install there -- for example, you are not allowed to extract it and place it in a Chevy.
It is legal for you to buy a record pressing machine and sell records. It is not legal for you to dub someone else's record onto your own, and sell t