Apple Says Epic Is 'Saboteur, Not a Martyr' in App Store Battle (bloomberg.com) 272
Apple is asking a court to reject Epic Games's latest bid to get Fortnite back on the App Store, saying the game maker is acting as "a saboteur, not a martyr" in its challenge to Apple's payment system. From a report: In an overnight filing, Apple said "Epic started a fire, and poured gasoline on it, and now asks this court for emergency assistance in putting it out." Epic can fix the problem "by simply adhering to the contractual terms that have profitably governed its relationship with Apple for years." Epic sued Apple on Aug. 13, claiming the removal of the Fortnite app from the App Store was "retaliation" for the game maker's decision to offer in-app purchases through its own marketplace, circumventing Apple's payment system. Epic has renewed a request for a court order that would reinstate the app on the store. Apple last week filed a countersuit to stop the game maker from using its own payment system for Fortnite, escalating one of the most closely watched legal battles in the tech sector. Citing the #freefortnite campaign, Apple said Epic isn't suffering reputational harm due to the fight. "Epic has engaged in a full-scale, pre-planned media blitz surrounding its decision to breach its agreement with Apple, creating ad campaigns around the effort that continue to this day."
That's already clear (Score:5, Interesting)
Epic came in ready for a fight. That's not a martyr. They knew exactly what they were doing and that's OK. I'm not sure Apple is making this sound as bad as they're aiming for.
Contracts (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not an argument for the general public. It's an argument for the judge. Epic is arguing that they should be reinstated to the app store, because it's damaging their business. Apple's response is that, if they adhere to the terms of the contract they agreed to, they would be reinstated. It's all legal maneuvering by Epic. It's difficult to successfully sue over contract terms you believe are unfair, if you agreed those terms and are actively profiting from them.
Re: (Score:2)
It might be in front of the judge, but they expect more pressure to come out of the court of public opinion than their legal posturing. Unless they are trying to argue that it's an "unconscionable contract," their argument holds no legal weight.
More than that - Epic argues its an emergency (6%) (Score:4, Insightful)
Epic's argument in the overall case is one thing. They might win the case in the end.
Here Apple is responding to Epic's motion for a preliminary injunction. Epic is asking the court to allow them to violate the policies and side-step Apple until the case is resolved. The argument is "make Apple stop hurting us until the case is over and we see who wins". They argue that the damage from NOT being in the Apple store while the case is tried is too grave to be tolerated.
Which is laughable as a matter of law because it was Epic that added the discounted "skip Apple" payment option on August 13th, thereby choosing to get kicked out of the Apple store. If, as they claim, not being in the Apple store is killing their business, they could get back in today by just using Apple's checkout rather than their own.
More than that, Epic offered the games at a price 20% lower if you bypass Apple. So buying through Apple:
Game $10 in the Apple store. Epic gets $7 of that.
Scheme they introduced in August:
Game costs $8. Epic pays maybe 4% for payment processing and gets $7.68.
The difference is 68 cents. Is Epic arguing that 68 cents is an emergency, 6.8% of the sale price is an emergency? Because if not being in the Apple store is an emergency, its an emergency that Epic created and Epic can fix any time they want to. Just let people *buy* it in the app store until the case is resolved one way or another.
You don't get to create a problem, a problem you can solve, then use a preliminary injunction to force the other party to solve the problem you created.
Again, Epic may win the case in the end. They probably have some strong arguments in larger case. For this injunction - garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the motion for an injunction is proper, regardless of who wins the full suit. If Apple wins, there's no damage from being forced to allow Epic to exist in the store, and they will likely profit from doing so.
On the other hand, if Epic wins they will certainly be presenting to the court the losses incurred during the period when Apple started blocking them and once the case is finally adjudicated. Given that Apple won't be earning that money, it's a total loss for them. If on the other hand, they'
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're right on point, but so is Apple. Epic knew what they were getting themselves into, so whining to the courts that they are in this position being silly is precisely Apple's point.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I see no reason why I should pay Amazon, E-bay or Walmart when I sell the products I make in their store fronts. I made the products. They benefit from the prestige they get from selling my fine wares.
That's a nice straw man you have there, it'd be a shame if someone came along and knocked it down...
Epic arguing antitrust, Apple arguing contracts (Score:5, Insightful)
How's this? Epic signed a contract, and violated its terms. Apple took action according to the conditions of violating the terms in the contract.
True enough, and that is Apple's counterclaim.
But that is not what Epic is suing about. They are suing about violations of antitrust law and using the contract breach as evidence.
Epic freely admits they violated the contract. If they lose their antitrust claims then they'll have no defense about the countersuit. Having watched the situation build up for years, Epic is almost certainly going to win enough of the lawsuit that Apple's countersuit will fail.
As a whole Epic's claim is antitrust about violations --- and the case is quite strong --- that Apple is unlawfully using it's OS monopoly to enforce a second monopoly in the app distribution market, and then using both of those monopolies to enforce a third monopoly on payment processing. They needed the final denial from the app store to cement the antitrust claims, and Apple took the bait and ran with it. If Apple had ignored the bait and given Epic a waiver most of the lawsuit would have fallen apart. Instead, Apple's action played perfectly into the lawsuit's claims. Apple blocking the app directly reinforces counts 2-5 and 7-9. Apple's attempt to block Unreal serves as further evidence. Apple's move this week to block Microsoft's streamed games serves as evidence. I've said for years their walled garden is going to crumble under the law, this is probably the event to do it.
The first six claims are federal antitrust violations. Count 1 is unlawful monopoly maintenance of the iOS App distribution market. Count 2 is using their monopoly to deny essential facility in the iOS app market. Count 3 is unlawful trade restraints in the iOS app distribution market. Count 4 is the unlawful monopoly maintenance in payment processing. Count 5 is unlawful restraint of trade in payment processing. Count 6 is unlawful tying of app store market to payment processing markets.
The next three claims are California antitrust violations. Count 7 is illegal restraint of trade in app distribution against California law. Count 8 is similar but for payment processing. Count 9 is illegal tying of products under California law. The final count 10 is for unfair competition by leveraging everything above, and mostly serves as a catch-all for anything missed in the first 9 counts.
Apple's counter-claims revolve around the fact that Epic violated its contractual agreements. This only stands up if the contracts were legal in the first place. Apple is betting that the courts will define marketplaces differently. They're betting that instead of defining the Apple ecosystem as a marketplace, they're counting all computer systems that Fortnight runs on as a marketplace. It is a weak argument, especially given Apple's own marketing materials over the past two decades. Even so, if Epic loses on most of the antitrust counts (meaning the contract terms are legal) then yes, they would be bound to repay the damage they have done, and could even be required to pay triple damages because it was an intentional breach.
This brings us to the injunction.
If any of the claims have a likelihood of success then the judge will be legally bound to force the app back on the store. This is standard in injunctions because of the nature of permanent and irreparable harm. Breaking that down a bit...
There are two options for the sales (on the store, off the store), and there are two outcomes (Epic wins, Apple wins), so overall there are four boxes to evaluate for an injunction. If they are put on the store, if Epic wins they can keep the money they made, but if Apple wins Epic can pay them back; putting it on the store has minimal permanent harm either way. However, if it is taken off the store, if Epic wins they will have suffered permanent, irreparable harm by being removed, if Apple wins they would suffer harm but the harm wouldn't matter as it was self-inflicted. When i
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Actually vendors often pay to get floor space in the stores.
And of course stores pay the vendor a wholesale price, and charge consumers a retail price. The mark up is up to the store.
So Apple can just reword this as:
We pay Epic the wholesale price for the products sold in our store. We add a 30% markup in the retail price provided to the customer.
And because they annoyed us we will charge Epic 50 million/year to offer their product in our store.
Re: (Score:2)
It's obvious what the 'free market' outcome is here - Apple is the gatekeeper and can and does charge whatever they want. The purpose of regulating monopoly power is to limit this.
Re: (Score:2)
That's where the monopoly argument comes in.
It's obvious what the 'free market' outcome is here - Apple is the gatekeeper and can and does charge whatever they want. The purpose of regulating monopoly power is to limit this.
How is Apple a monopoly in the smart phone market when their market share is 39%?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And Walmart has 100% control of its physical stores. You've not described a monopoly
Re: (Score:2)
Customers don't have to spend $800 for the right to stop buying from Walmart and start buying from Target instead. Not a fair comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
People pay a penalty for switching between platforms. Even highly technical people do. The question is whether it's enough of a barrier to count as a monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a monopoly, they could charge 30% 50% or 100% and apps would be forced to eat the cost. There aren't two ways to get an app on to an iphone.
Re: Walmart, E-bay, Amazon (Score:2)
And all vending machines charge 75+ cents for a can of 30 cent coke. Your point?
Re: (Score:2)
So far, fine and dandy, but that's not the end of it. How about a brick and mortar analogy.
Acme sells it's widgets through Target. Target wants a 30% cut of the retail price in return for providing the shelf space and services to facilitate the sale. Fair enough.
Acme widgets are packaged with an offer to buy replacement parts and add-ons for the widget direct from Acme. Imagine if, like Apple, Target demanded a 30% cut from those sales as well. Not so reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not so reasonable? If Target wanted that, Acme can just pack up and go elsewhere. Big stores like Target, Walmart and the like often ask for concessions like branded add-on services.
Re: (Score:3)
When iPhones allow side loading, you'll have a point.
Re: Walmart, E-bay, Amazon (Score:2)
I can go to Target and buy from Walmart or vice verse? --side loading.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You have a good imagination, because your description of what Apple is doing is also in your imagination. They're not taking a 30% cut from outside sales, they're taking a 30% cut of in game sales. And they're also saying a developer can't sell the same thing for less outside the App Store. So, their hook is that consumers will tend to buy in-game, because it's more convenient and costs the same or less.
So, using your analogy, it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The analogy is quite accurate. In game means within Epic's infrastructure, that is outside of Apple's infrastructure and so outside sales.
Re: (Score:2)
Vendors also have the option to sell in multiple stores/chains, and sell from their own website.
Epic does not have this option with IOS. They can only sell using Apple's App Store. You are comparing apples (no pun intended) to oranges.
Re: (Score:3)
The reason why you should pay them is because that is their policy.
If you don't want to accept their policy, you can sell your products through other channels, such as your own personal online store.
Of course, this analogy is misleading though. Customers are free to go to your own site and purchase your products. iOS though, is a walled garden, and as such, to target the hundreds of millions of iPhone/iPad users you MUST sell through Apple's app store. Android does not have such a restriction.
All that said,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think that's true. If they didn't perform the "stunt", then Apple would say they didn't have any standing to sue (having nothing to do with the App Store in the first place), and that they had no demonstrable damages (since they had no sales on iOS).
Re: (Score:2)
You realise you can raise a contract dispute without actively breaking the contract right? In Epic's own words they aren't in it to reclaim damages, they wanted the one sided contract changed, and you can do that at any time after a contract is signed and you don't need to wait for one party to break the terms.
Re:Walmart, E-bay, Amazon (Score:5, Informative)
IF the lawsuit was a contract dispute you might have a point. The lawsuit doesn't say anything about changing a contract. They don't want the contract at all. They want to be allowed to compete with the App Store in selling applications in the IOS market. Their exact words are:
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 (each as defined below). 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.
Antitrust law allows 'sufficiently affected' parties to bring an antitrust lawsuit. By daring to offer their own in-app purchase store, and being blocked by Apple from doing so, they have demonstrated they are sufficiently affected.
Re: (Score:3)
You said:
demonstrate that it is not possible to be in the IOS market without being forced to use the app store
Everyone knows and understand the rules of doing business on iOS. It's stated in every contract signed by the 20 million developers that operate in the app store. If you meant that Epic's actions were to show it's illegal, then say that.
Breaking the contract is relevant, at least in the forum of public opinion. I (and the majority of other folks posting here) don't have sympathy for someone that enters into a contact and breaks it. You can challenge the legality of a contract without entering it. Y
Re: (Score:2)
hen Apple would say they didn't have any standing to sue (having nothing to do with the App Store in the first place), and that they had no demonstrable damages (since they had no sales on iOS).
The standing would be the 30% Apple charged on all iOS in-app purchases.
Re: (Score:3)
hen Apple would say they didn't have any standing to sue (having nothing to do with the App Store in the first place), and that they had no demonstrable damages (since they had no sales on iOS).
The standing would be the 30% Apple charged on all iOS in-app purchases.
IMO, you're both wrong, but you're wrong slightly more than the GP. :-)
The problem is not that Epic had no sales on iOS; they did. The problem is that the 30% number doesn't have any clearly calculable correlation with the damages to Epic.
If consumers wanted to sue over the 30%, they would have clear standing, because they paid an extra 27% or so on every purchase. But Epic didn't pay that fee.
The damages to Epic are in the form of lost sales because of the higher price point forced by the extra 27% in
Re: (Score:2)
Except there are MANY other examples of apps which process payments for services or goods NOT via the App store: Uber, Netflix, Venmo, Amazon just to name a few.
Apple is abusing it's position to profit from companies that it assumes can't, or won't, fight it.
Other than a Steve Jobs-esq need for absolute control, this is really a stupid approach that may finally be time to backfire.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I see no reason why I should pay Amazon, E-bay or Walmart when I sell the products I make in their store fronts. I made the products. They benefit from the prestige they get from selling my fine wares.
Nice to have a choice of where to purchase stuff from isn't it? If you happen to be an iPhone user this same choice is denied to you via intentional technical measures designed to enforce an anti-competitive captive market for software sales to a billion users.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the big question is why you would pay Amazon, E-bay or Walmart when you sell your products in your store front. No, Amazon does not benefit from the prestige you get from selling your own wares, because they aren't involved and neither you nor your customer want them to be part of the transaction, in any way.
What Apple learned is that they can preload malware on their videogame console which works against the owners' interests by making it so that their store must be used. Until that malware and it
Re: (Score:2)
I see no reason why I should pay Amazon, E-bay or Walmart when I sell the products I make in their store fronts.
Then don't sell the products you make in their store fronts. Build your own. It's a free country.
The problem is with the Apple ecosystem you''re locked into their store.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The problem is with the Apple ecosystem you''re locked into their store.
No, you're not. You don't have to sell anything on Apple's system. Last time I checked, I did not see any Apple Wiseguys running around putting a horse's head in people's beds to force those folks to sell anything on Apple's system.
Remember how Nokia dominated the cellphone market? Look where they are now.
Remember how Blackberry dominated the smartphone market? Look where they are now.
Remember how Firefox dominated the browser market? Look where they are now.
Remember how Apple dominated the smartphone
Re: (Score:2)
Remember how Apple dominated the smartphone app stores? Look where they will be after you successfully fund your startup and grow to be the next unicorn.
That's not the point. The point is that when you buy an Apple phone you can only buy app form Apple's store. If you want to change that you have to get either the SCOTUS or the European commission (preferably both) to kick Apple in the balls over this issue and mandate that Apple has to allow competing app stores and that's no easy thing to do and the costs of pushing that kind of a case all the way to its conclusion is very expensive. People point out Android with its bunch of alternative stores as an exam
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you can still load apps onto your own iOS device without using the app store at all if you happen to also have a Mac. The process for doing this could easily even be automated so that an app writer could distribute apps this way for Mac owners.
It would,however, be a total app store violation, and a company could be prohibited from dealing with the app store for any of their apps if they did this.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the point.
Well, OP was complaining about selling on a closed third-party platform.
The point is that when you buy an Apple phone you can only buy app form Apple's store.
Which is something that you know when you buy an Apple phone. If you don't like that, you have plenty of options to buy something else. Here is a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
If you want to change that you have to get either the SCOTUS or the European commission (preferably both) to kick Apple in the balls over this issue and mandate that Apple has to allow competing app stores
Why? Apple built the iphone from scratch. Apple wrote IOS from scratch. Apple does all the marketing, and has been very successful in bringing a product to a saturated market. Remember that when the iPhone was introduced (2007), Blackberry owned the smar
Re: (Score:2)
Your point is in fact reinforced by the fact that Epic is also suing Google claiming that while 3rd party app stores are supported on Android, they are not "economically viable".
It boils down to the 30% and alternative app stores and side loading are red herrings. Exactly what Epic, Spotify, etc want is to be in the official app stores precisely because they recognize the value of having placement there but they also don't want to pay Apple/Google one thin dime, i.e., they want to be able to run their own
Re: (Score:2)
You've willfully misrepresented things.
Apple says if you use our payment system, we get 30% whether it is for the original app purchase or for in-app purchases.
Epic wants to use their own payment system so that Apple doesn't get that cut. But Apple has rules that if you have your own payment system you have to support theirs as well and that you can't do anything to "push" customers towards your own.
This is because many customers don't want to give Epic or other 3rd parties their personal and payment data.
Re: (Score:2)
You're misrepresenting things, a bit, too. Apple's rules are that you may not make your own payment system accessible from the app at all, i.e. it
Re: Walmart, E-bay, Amazon (Score:2)
But if that is already in the contract between Dell & B&M why should we care? It would be odd but shouldn't be illegal. If Dell is that stupid to sign up, that is the bed they made.
Just don't sell there. Too bad if you lose out on the B&M Customers; they clearly are or aren't worth the terms. It's not a grey area. Complaining that they MUST sell in the B&M store without those terms is kind of stupid.
We aren't talking about 5 year olds here but grown adult corporations. Just because
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People point out Android with its bunch of alternative stores as an example of the ideal but the Google PlayStore is over three times the size of its nearest competitors GetJar and Aptoide and most of that is duplicate content with most developers apparently not even bothering with the competing stores. So, even if you do manage to force Apple to allow competing stores, there is no guarantee that the Apple app market will evolve to be any more competitive than the Android app market which is not exactly a whirling tornado of app store competition to begin with.
Google Store is bigger than GetJar and Aptoide? Kinda of like Walmart is bigger than Target? Or Amazon is bigger than Alibaba? So if Walmart or Amazon refuses to sell my product, should I sue them because I'm only left with selling at Target or Alibaba? That's not how free market works, I can not force someone to sell my product. If Walmart says "yes you can sell your product in our stores, but you must pay us the same 30% everyone else does" that actually sounds pretty good because they could really t
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you are locked in to their store, you can't sell an app on an apple product without going through apple. This is a new development in the last decade through multiple store fronts, and if you ask me the price of 30% is too high.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't tell if you're being intentionally misleading or simply don't have the world view to understand what you're saying.
Remember how Nokia dominated the cellphone market? Look where they are now.
Remember how Blackberry dominated the smartphone market? Look where they are now.
Remember how peak Nokia and Blackberry were nowhere near the scale of Apple? Even ignoring the app store, Blackberry peaked at 50m units in 2011 while Apple is hovering around the 200m mark the last few years.
When you factor in the related technology/support/etc. the barrier for entry is probably is easily in the billions, if not tens of billions of dollars.
Remember how Firefox dominated the browser market? Look where they are now.
Wait, what?
Remember how Fire
Re: (Score:2)
The core problem with this 'this is anti-consumer' argument is that it seeks to remove that choice from consumers so that all
Re: Walmart, E-bay, Amazon (Score:2)
Then don't make a product to sell to Apple customers if you can't make a good business model around it? Protection from failure is not a right you or I or Epic enjoys.
There are plenty of devs who can't figure out a viable business model at 15%, 10%, 5%, 1%, -5%... We aren't having multiple /. postings on them...
Should we increase YouTube ad payouts because too many folks can't afford making the content without a Patreon or go fund me?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Walmart, E-bay, Amazon (Score:5, Insightful)
As soon as iPhones allow side loading without being rooted, you'll have a point.
Re: (Score:3)
If Epic hadn't sued Google for the same in-app purchase issue, you'd have a point.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay let's make the analogy more clear for you. Suppose I just sell an empty box, say for a game, for 1 penny or for free in walmart. The back of the box tells you how to buy the real item on-line directly from me and I'll e-mail it to you. I'm getting the benefit of having my product in the store but not giving them anything. Why would they use their store space for that?
Re: (Score:2)
well, at least someone noticed.
Hmmm (Score:3)
Just like the difference between freedom fighter and terrorist?
Luke, you will find out that most truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view....
Re: (Score:2)
This fight is needed! (Score:4, Interesting)
iPads and iPhones are nice devices, but the extreme lock down nature and the insane censorship on apple side needs to change.
Example of their whimsical decisions, Synology DS Get app was removed from the app store with no notification.
The rumor is that because you can use your already paid for iDevice to send bittorrent links to your already paid for Synology device is the reason for the removal.
Sorry, but this is insane. I paid for both devices, apple has no business in telling me how i can use it or not.
Why seek to destroy the most secure option? (Score:5, Insightful)
iPads and iPhones are nice devices, but the extreme lock down nature and the insane censorship on apple side needs to change.
Why though?
Apple has made what is THE most secure option you can give to a non technical user.
As it stands, it's the only possibly device, traditional computers 100% included, where you can be pretty sure a non-tech user is not going to install scam or spyware within a week or month that will infect the whole system.
There are already other unlocked platforms where you can do anything you like. Why is that not enough? Why must the only option I have as a technical person to give to my friends and family who do not and cannot understand device security, why must that option be destroyed?
The rumor is that because you can use your already paid for iDevice to send bittorrent links to your already paid for Synology device
From what I can see the rumor is more that it's sending Bluetooth to non-certified devices [reddit.com]. Are you seriously arguing that you want a world where apps can just randomly connect and talk to custom Bluetooth devices without your knowing? It would be an amazing tool for what appeared to be a harmless app to do some great data collection from users that you'd never find using a network proxy..
As it stands, Synology says the app will be back, it's not like it's gone forever. They simply have to abide by the rules that help keep the platform safe for non-technical users.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
iPads and iPhones are nice devices, but the extreme lock down nature and the insane censorship on apple side needs to change.
Why? Consumers are free to shop elsewhere if they don't like the walled garden. And unfortunately for Epic no one owes anyone else access to a walled garden. Things are a little different on Android what with Google being a gatekeeper to 3rd parties on an otherwise open platform. But just like Apple, Google could also produce a completely locked down Pixel and no one would have any standing to argue against them.
When you are your own ecosystem and you've never let anyone else play, you're the boss. Epic has
Re: (Score:3)
Once again, you act as if 'walled gardens' and 'closed ecosystems' have some basis in law.
Except they do by exclusion. Anti-trust laws applies to competitive market places. Closed ecosystems are by definition not those.
My back yard is literally a walled garden, but that doesn't mean I am free to do whatever I want in it including breaking laws.
You'd be amazed the many MANY fuckton of things you can do in your backyard that you can't do on the street. Many laws only apply to public places, just like antitrust laws only apply to markets. So without understanding why you re-enforced my point very well.
Apple (and its fanboys) constant claims of 'closed ecosystem' certainly lend credence to the idea that there are two distinct markets - one for Android apps and another for IOS apps - and that those markets are not interchangeable.
They are by nature not interchangeable. Even if they were compatible systems the fact that one is wholly owned and controll
Re: (Score:2)
iPads and iPhones are nice devices, but the extreme lock down nature and the insane censorship on apple side needs to change.
It's called Android.
If you don't want to be in Apple's walled garden, buy the competitor that doesn't have one. They even have a larger market share, so you'll be able to find the same/similar apps for it.
I spend enough time and effort managing security on my parent's and kid's computers. I do not want to also have to do that on their phones/tablets too.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you paid for something does not mean you own it. Unfortunately.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like Apple's software, go ahead and install your own.
The bootloader is locked. There is no free market. You have to buy a device from each vendor to gain access to each market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A free market doesn't protect some more than others. There is no free market. Just one example of this is copyright. It places restrictions that prevent you from "design, manufacture and sell your own product" that will access content without imposed restrictions from Apple and other copy right holders. You product can access but you are not permitted. A very clear example is that CBP has seized earbuds just because of IP. There is no free market. Hasn't been one in a long time. The incombent has access to
Re: (Score:2)
The reality is that if you buy a device, you should own it. In the lawsuit, Apple claims it's theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a solution to The John Deere Problem.
If you buy a John Deere in 2020, knowing about their approach to "right to repair", then you should shut up.
It's not like they don't have competition. Here is a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Epic App Store? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you have to have an entire store just to install an app? You're buying into Apple's thinking with that argument.
Re:Epic App Store? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That is EXACTLY what they are suing for.
Re: (Score:2)
They should be suing Apple for the right to have a competing app store that can be installed easily from a website download.
They are doing that with this lawsuit.
Re:Epic App Store? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure there are reasons, but why can't Epic make their own App Store app?
Because iOS doesn't allow 3rd party app stores.
My parents and kids require a walled garden on their devices. Currently, I can safely outsource that to Apple. If you allow easy side-loading or 3rd party app stores, then I have to build and maintain that walled garden. And I would prefer to not have to do that.
But fortunately for you, the market has created an alternative to Apple's devices called "Android". It even has a larger market share, so you don't have to worry much about developers not supporting it.
Is there an outcome where both lose? (Score:2)
Neither the controlling monopolistic app store behavior of Apple should be legal nor the addictive *free* pay-as-you-play crack that epic wants to sell in it. So I'd like both to lose please.
Re: (Score:3)
Neither the controlling monopolistic app store behavior of Apple should be legal nor the addictive *free* pay-as-you-play crack that epic wants to sell in it. So I'd like both to lose please.
Don't buy Apple products or use Epic software?
I would agree with Apple (Score:3)
if Epic could choose to be hosted in another app store, or even roll their own. After all, if they don't think Apple's deal is sweet enough, they should be free to cut their ties with Apple.
But they can't because Apple maintains a monopolistic access to their platform, meaning Apple can strongarm anybody who wants access to that particular market into submission.
So, fuck Apple, and I hope they get everything they deserve in court.
Having said that, I can't help noticing that, as always, it's the customers who end up being the losers in those petty corporate fights.
Re: (Score:2)
They can.
It's just not as economically viable, because the target demographic is too small for most companies to be satisfied with it. They would be restricted to dealing with customers who have both the ability and desire to load apps onto their own devices without using the app store. They could also face some ire from Apple for it, which may be predisposed towards blocking all of their other apps from the app store as w
Re: (Score:2)
Everything you said precisely demonstrates that Apple is a monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has a monopoly on THEIR OWN operating system... what's wrong with that?
If you, as a user, don't like it, then don't buy Apple products in the first place. There are other options.
If you, as a developer, don't like it, then don't whine about not being able to market to iOS owners. There are other options.
Re:I would agree with Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm torn here, because I do think multiple app stores being available for iOS would be an improvement.
But, to play devil's advocate...
But here's the rub, none of these (including iOS) are actually monopolies (in the legally actionable sense), since you can choose a competing platform.
So as much as I would love to see multiple app stores on iOS, I don't really see how Epic has a leg to stand on here. Closed ecosystems are nothing new.
Look, if you don't like the terms for releasing... (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't agree with Apple that Epic should be effectively prohibited from mentioning, in the context of making purchases from the app, that Apple takes a 30% cut of fees from all in-app purchases... this is a statement that is *OBJECTIVELY* true, and it's absurd that Apple can effectively censor app writers from making true statements that cannot possibly have any actual bias against Apple because this is exactly Apple's own stated policy in their own words. It's a simple, true statement that happens to be contextually relevant at the point in the app where it appears. That a person might have already had the opportunity to be aware of it before that context does not mean that the statement is necessarily intended to convince people to seek alternatives (which would be an app store violation), it simply tells people where they money that they are going to spend will actually end up. And since it's the customer's own money, they bloody well *should* have a right to know this. The fact that they may be able to have otherwise known it from information readily available outside of the application is irrelevant.
BUT....
I agree totally with Apple that as long as Epic wants to not pay Apple's commission on in-app purchases from Fortnite, that the App should be barred from the App store. That's just part and parcel of what you agree to do by putting an App on the app store. If they want their app on the app store, then they have to play by the rules. Otherwise, too bad.
Re: (Score:3)
In the real world you don't get to set and enforce whatever terms you want in a contract. That is the point of Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice.
Re: (Score:2)
In the real world, there are things such as exclusivity contracts and non-competition agreements that are *FAR* more restrictive than the app store's restrictions. At least the app store allows you to still release apps (or even the same app) for competing devices, for instance.
So, uhm.... no. It's not illegal. Epic is just whining that it doesn't like the rules.
Re: (Score:2)
In the real world, there are things such as exclusivity contracts and non-competition agreements that are *FAR* more restrictive than the app store's restrictions.
OK, that might be relevant if this were about exclusivity contracts or non-compete agreements.
It's not. It's about anti-trust law. So, look that up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In the real world you don't get to set and enforce whatever terms you want in a contract.
Uh, yeah. You do.
A court could theoretically rule that the terms are not enforceable, but that doesn't mean you can put them in a contract. That's why contracts have severability clauses.
Exclusivity clauses aren't that uncommon. For example, Epic has exclusive distribution contracts with most of the software developers that sell on Epic's store. Those developers can't just one day decide "I wanna sell on Steam too!!" without violating their contract with Epic.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Apple invested billions that Epic did not, and they should rightly be compensated. People act like iOS and XCode and the App store came into being through magic. They did not. It's tens of billions in investment that made that come into being, be maintained and improved, and marketed to a group of desirable, affluent users who spend 50% more than Android users. That's 100% Apple's doing, and getting free unfettered access to that market isn't reasonable or fair.
Re: (Score:2)
There's this thing called "Android". You might have heard about it. It even allows 3rd party app stores and side-loading. And has ~80% of market share for phones.
DIsruption (Score:2)
-big company
I would call them "Agent Provocateur" (Score:2)
Or enfant terrible. Not saboteur.... ;-)
The only game in town (Score:2)
saying the game maker is acting as "a saboteur,
I am having difficulty seeing Apple as a victim here.
It is not as if Epic could put their products on a different app store for Apple users.So there is clearly an issue regarding the monopolistic status of Apple's store and the terms and conditions they apply.
Re: (Score:2)
Epic is not a client or a customer anymore. They had their account deleted by Apple.
Apple is not a monopoly. There's no chance the court will say they are, with less than 50% marketshare in the US and less than 20% worldwide. The reason they sued Google too is because they are arguing that Google + Apple is a duopoly on mobile operating systems, which is an argument that might have merit (or not -- does Apple consider Google their competitor, or Samsung/OnePlus/Nokia/etc?)