Dozens of US States Say Apple Stifles Competition, Back 'Fortnite' Maker Epic (reuters.com) 113
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Apple is stifling competition through its mobile app store, attorneys general for 34 U.S. states and the District of Columbia said on Thursday, as they appealed against a ruling that let the iPhone maker continue some restrictive practices. While dozens of state attorneys general have filed recent antitrust lawsuits against other big tech companies, including Facebook owner Meta Platforms and Alphabet's Google, none had so far taken aim at Apple. Thursday's remarks, led by the state of Utah and joined by Colorado, Indiana, Texas and others, came in a lawsuit in an appeals court against app store fees and payment tools between "Fortnite" video game maker Epic Games and Apple. "Apple's conduct has harmed and is harming mobile app-developers and millions of citizens," the states said. "Meanwhile, Apple continues to monopolize app distribution and in-app payment solutions for iPhones, stifle competition, and amass supracompetitive profits within the almost trillion-dollar-a-year smartphone industry." [...] The states said in their filing that the lower court erred by failing to adequately balance the pros and cons of Apple's rules and also by deciding that a key antitrust law did not apply to non-negotiable contracts Apple makes developers sign. "Paradoxically, firms with enough market power to unilaterally impose contracts would be protected from antitrust scrutiny -- precisely the firms whose activities give the most cause for antitrust concern," they said.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
I think his point is that, were the situation reversed, (and inevitably at this point it will be) Epic would do the same exact shit, and is neither deserving of nor in need of any protection. He's wrong because that's still an illegal stance to take on the matter, mind you, but the fact of the matter is that even if Apple is punished for this one crime there will still be no semblance of fairness or justice in how or when these laws have been sporadically enforced. It seems like the people making the laws
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
When do the people actually win for a change, rather than in this case, Epic? Epic is big enough as it is.
As it turns out, if Epic wins this, then we win. The same precedent will be usable against Epic.
Re: (Score:3)
How would that work? Epic isn't forcing any games or applications in their store to use the "Epic Wallet ", and nothing but the "Epic Wallet".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Epic isn't forcing any games or applications in their store to use the "Epic Wallet ", and nothing but the "Epic Wallet".
See? It's working already.
Re: (Score:2)
I see no problem with shaming my friends and family who have bought Apple products. Turn about is fair play.
Epic can't piss off their customers like Apple does. Gamers are fickle. Not like Apple fanboyz. Apple is like a cult.
Re: (Score:2)
Epic can't piss off their customers like Apple does. Gamers are fickle. Not like Apple fanboyz. Apple is like a cult.
Yep. Make a valid criticism of Epic, people say, okay. I agree that Epic is crap. But make it reality-based. Make a valid criticism of Apple and people say, you aren't even an Apple user. I was an Apple user before almost any of them, but they're sure they know more about Apple than I do.
Re: (Score:2)
Publishers and developers who agree to that contract are then offering their game only on Epic Store for a year or so, often when the game is still in Early Access, before releasing it on Steam.
To some people (a good number of them here on Slashdot) that's worse than Hitler.
Re: (Score:2)
To some people (a good number of them here on Slashdot) that's worse than Hitler.
To some people, comparing a slight loss of income to genocide could be offensive. Don't get me wrong though, funny, funny stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless, that is how some people act, while suddenly becoming all supportive of Apple, their mind somehow twisting the richest corporation on the planet into the 'little guy'.
Don't get me wrong. Epic are not saints. They've been a horrible company in the past plenty of times. But siding with Apple's practices? Come on!
Re: (Score:3)
Regardless, that is how some people act, while suddenly becoming all supportive of Apple, their mind somehow twisting the richest corporation on the planet into the 'little guy'.
You're anthropomorphizing two corporations. There's no "guy" here. Just stockholders and various corporate execs that stand to make more or less money. Who you side with should be wholly based on what stock you hold.
Corporations want you to think of them as people with morals, souls, political leanings, social responsibilities, etc. because that builds brand loyalty. They have none of those. They are money making machines, and nothing else.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides of that, I do agree with the rest of the comment.
Though if they're shareholders, there's a conflict of interest between them and the consumers that ought to be pointed out. Consumers who think that growing consolidation resulting in oligopolies, and monopolies will benefit the consumer down the line are ignorant of pr
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Plenty of Free to Play games already do that. Valve's Steam handles it exactly the same way. They offer a Steam Wallet option to pay for the stuff, where they take a cut. But they allow you to use alternative pay methods as well, where they don't get a cut.
That is how it has always worked on tho
Re: (Score:1)
Independent artists can make their own Fortnite in Unity. Then have Epic host it on their store as a Free to Play game and then sell their own assets through their own payment systems besides of what Epic offers.
The comparison is the Fortnite economy and the Apple App Store economy. Fortnite is a closed economy, Completely closed. You can't play in it, at all. At least with Apple you get to play, it's just a matter of whether you think their cut is "fair".
You want the right to earn a living from the platform someone else built. If so, that should apply fairly to all platforms, whether it's K-cups, ink cartridges, Fortnite skins, or an app market.
Re: (Score:2)
Should Epic be forced to open up the Fortnite in-game store?
If you ask me, the answer is yes. Same with k-cups and Keurig machines, and HP printers.
Re: (Score:1)
Not yet, but you know very well that's the logical progression of this and they have exhibited no shame or restraint.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure you aren't conflating "Apple loses" into "we win"?
I don't think the lines to us winning are that easily drawn.
Apple creates markets (Score:2, Insightful)
There was no market for personal wysiwyg computers before mac. There was no important online digital music store before the iPod and iTunes. There was no significant consumer market for desktop publishing before the Apple laser writer. There was no apps or app stores before the iPhone.
These are multi trillion dollar revenue streams now.
There's tons of competition in all of these. Apple doesn't hold a monopoly on computers or phones or laser printers or graphical user interfaces or apps. They only contr
Re: Apple creates markets (Score:3)
There was street view for Apple before it in housed it. There were Intel processors for Apple before it in housed it. There was Office for Apple when they still needed it.
Apple benefited from more open markets before it could in house as much as possible. Let them dominate and all those opportunities Apple benefited from won't exist any more for potential competitors.
Re: (Score:3)
There was street view for Apple before it in housed it. There were Intel processors for Apple before it in housed it. There was Office for Apple when they still needed it.
Apple benefited from more open markets before it could in house as much as possible. Let them dominate and all those opportunities Apple benefited from won't exist any more for potential competitors.
Schrödinger's monopoly. How the company with far below the installed user base manages to control and dominate the whole market.
What amazes me is that people tell themselves and the world the little player is a controlling dominant monopoly, while what they really want is Apple crushed and put out of business.
A little truth in the ford versus chevy arguments.
Re: Apple creates markets (Score:2)
They have over half the US mobile phone market.
Re: (Score:1)
They have over half the US mobile phone market.
So? Their entire market presence is dwarfed by Android phones.
Occam's razor tells us that instead of the incredible gyrations and tap dancing that Apple haters do to call the little guy in the market the monopoly, it's more likely that the Apple haters just hate Apple, and want them destroyed.
Just imagine an Apple free world. After getting rid of the monopoly that in the form of Apple, is destroying any progress, - Android will be unleashed from the damage done to it by Apple, and with a virtual 1
Re: Apple creates markets (Score:4, Insightful)
Occam's razor tells us that instead of the incredible gyrations and tap dancing that Apple haters do to call the little guy in the market the monopoly...
What kind of incredible gyrations and tap dancing are you doing to say the richest (or 2nd richest) company in the world worth 3 Trillion Dollars is the "little guy"?
Re: Apple creates markets (Score:4, Interesting)
Occam's razor tells us that instead of the incredible gyrations and tap dancing that Apple haters do to call the little guy in the market the monopoly...
What kind of incredible gyrations and tap dancing are you doing to say the richest (or 2nd richest) company in the world worth 3 Trillion Dollars is the "little guy"?
Gyrations? Who held a gun to the people that Apple is harming and forced them to buy a product they like?
Some of us like their products - no one forced me to do anything, and if the company making the products I like profits - that's great. If you take a temper tantrum because your more popular phone isn't as profitable, then deal with it. You see, when a company produces a niche product, and in a total market of 1.5 billion devices, while Android has 2.5 billion devices, it might seem that instead of trying to destroy Apple, if you have a billion more devices - that's1,000,000,000 more for the numerically impaired, and yet you cannot make profit that utterly dwarf's Apple, well, there's competition, and there is attempts to eliminate your competition. If you can't compete, you choose the second.
Long ago, I had a part time video and photo business. I started out trying to be inexpensive. Turns out the people who want as cheap as possible are a real pain in the ass. I even got calls from folks who wanted to pay me with only dinner at their reception for 8+ hours work, and one who wanted me to work for free if he bought the film.
I ditched that market for upscale, and tripled my bookings, and more than tripled my profit. Some folks in this world are willing to pay premium prices for premium work. A much better class of people, it turns out. Let's face it - if you get a rageboner because you think Apple is a monopoly, you just hate Apple, not have a functioning definition of a monopoly.
Re: Apple creates markets (Score:2)
If Apple wanted to dominate a market they would have to start by selling commodity goods rather than luxury goods. It does not matter how open their ecosystem is when they are not competing to control the entire market. Forbidding their closed ecosystem is just a way of stifling innovation.
When Apple monopolizes the PC or phone market I will take such complaints seriously. But that will not happen.
Re: Apple creates markets (Score:2)
They don't offer anything at the absolute bottom, but they do offer mid range. Which was enough for them to capture over half the US mobile phone market. In Western markets their price point isn't really an impediment for their growing monopoly power.
A monopoly much more dangerous than Microsoft ever was. When Apple's marketshare for mobile phones in the west follows the US, Quallcom's R&D budget will be decimated. Unlike Apple, any new competition won't be able to start on a level playing field hardwar
Re: (Score:2)
A monopoly much more dangerous than Microsoft ever was.
To this day 90%+ of businesses and governments use Microsoft products not because they choose them for being the best, but because they believe that they cannot function without Microsoft.
Microsoft, Google, and Facebook have established positions where their clients feel they have no choice (keep in mind FB clients are businesses, not users). When you look at Apple and Amazon (as much as I hate them) it's completely different. For every service those two companies offer a viable alternative exists on the ma
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not talking about fault, I'm talking about consequences.
Apple's coming monopoly is much more dangerous than any which came before, because it does not allow the ingredients for competition to arise to remain on the market. Ingredients Apple depended on.
Apple depended on Google Maps till they had an in house competitive product. Apple depended on Quallcom till they had an in house competitive product. Apple depended on Intel until they had an in house competitive product. Apple depended on Office until t
Re: Apple creates markets (Score:2)
Apple didn't need Office when it was the absolutely dominant application for computing because in an alternative universe Microsoft wouldn't have Office as a dominant application?
Re: (Score:3)
There was no market for personal wysiwyg computers before mac.
That depends on how you define market. If you define it by commerce actually occurring, that's true. If you define it by demand, it's false.
There was no important online digital music store before the iPod and iTunes.
That depends on how you define important. iTunes was clearly the first juggernaut.
There was no significant consumer market for desktop publishing before the Apple laser writer.
There was no significant consumer market for desktop publishing until long after the laserwriter, which cost more than a whole computer... unless that computer was a Macintosh II series. When my mother bought her first computer for DTP it was a Mac IIci with a two-page mono display, and ev
Re: Apple creates markets (Score:2)
"What I don't get is how people who hate Apple with a passion, get all compassionate on how Apple is harming their customers."
Passion? I don't care that much. What I hate with passion is stupid arguments. I do however care even about stupid people.
Re: (Score:1)
"What I don't get is how people who hate Apple with a passion, get all compassionate on how Apple is harming their customers."
Passion? I don't care that much. What I hate with passion is stupid arguments. I do however care even about stupid people.
I use Windows, Linux, Android, iOS and MacOS on a daily basis. I used ChromeOS for a while until an errant cop of coffee nuked my Chromebook. The Apple ecosystem is my daily driver, mainly because I require a lot of uptime in my personal computer activities, some of it being in involved in emergency work. Also, the ecosystem integrates iOS and MacOS nicely. The others? Linux is pretty good as long as I have the appropriate software. Windows is a slow motion train wreck. Android is pretty meh. I guess if I
Re:Apple creates markets (Score:4, Interesting)
HP beat Apple to it for the printer. Ventura Publisher running on the PC was a thing. iPod only exists because of Diamond's Rio (and Diamond's significant legal wrangling with the RIAA that tried to ban all MP3 players).
It is true that Apple took the Xerox Star and turned it in to something normal people could afford.
It's all well and good for a company to have it's own ecosystem, but barring others entry into it or exit from it is over the line.
Re: (Score:2)
HP beat Apple to it for the printer. Ventura Publisher running on the PC was a thing. iPod only exists because of Diamond's Rio (and Diamond's significant legal wrangling with the RIAA that tried to ban all MP3 players).
It is true that Apple took the Xerox Star and turned it in to something normal people could afford.
It's all well and good for a company to have it's own ecosystem, but barring others entry into it or exit from it is over the line.
Wouldn't it just be easier to force Apple out of business? Never has a more evil and harmful company existed, and they deserve to go the way of Enron - they are criminals. Then everything would become perfect overnight. No Apple, and the dreadful monopoly that controls the entire computing world. With them getting their deserved punishment, a new morning that will be left to the responsible companies like Microsoft, Google, and Samsung. Companies that will provide an experience that shows the difference
Re: (Score:1)
Never has a more evil and harmful company existed, and they deserve to go the way of Enron - they are criminals. Then everything would become perfect overnight.
Citation? ;-)
My predictions:
1. Everything would NOT become perfect overnight.
2. A new evil would arise, probably a. before things became perfect and/or b. from your list of responsible companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Never has a more evil and harmful company existed, and they deserve to go the way of Enron - they are criminals. Then everything would become perfect overnight.
Citation? ;-)
My predictions:
1. Everything would NOT become perfect overnight.
2. A new evil would arise, probably a. before things became perfect and/or b. from your list of responsible companies.
Damn - I should have put a 8^/ on that post.
I use some Android products. Never were perfect. They work, they have some issues. I look at it like the GUI. We might be on MS-DOS 35 at this point without someone kicking Microsoft in the ass.
And yes, a new "evil" would arise. Because a lot of people need enemies. Ford versus chevy. We're just another version of the rednecks at the corner gas.
Re: (Score:2)
There was no market for personal wysiwyg computers before mac. There was no important online digital music store before the iPod and iTunes. There was no significant consumer market for desktop publishing before the Apple laser writer. There was no apps or app stores before the iPhone.
These are multi trillion dollar revenue streams now. There's tons of competition in all of these. Apple doesn't hold a monopoly on computers or phones or laser printers or graphical user interfaces or apps. They only control their own device ecosystem.
Exactly. And noted that Samsung all by itself sold more Phones than Apple did in 2012, yet Apple manages to be monopolizing the smartphone market.
It's Schrödinger's Monopoly, simultaneously being the smaller outfit that has a deathgrip control of the market.
No, this is just one group of criminals trying to fuck with another. What I don't get is the programmers that want to even write for the smaller Apple masrket. I remember the days when windows desciples refused to write for Mac.
Re: (Score:2)
It's Schrödinger's Monopoly, simultaneously being the smaller outfit that has a deathgrip control of the market.
No, this is just one group of criminals trying to fuck with another. What I don't get is the programmers that want to even write for the smaller Apple masrket.
Although iOS might be the smaller market by number of users, AFAIK it has always been a much larger market when measured by app revenue. Basically, iOS users are more likely to have (and spend) disposable income.
Re: (Score:2)
It's Schrödinger's Monopoly, simultaneously being the smaller outfit that has a deathgrip control of the market.
No, this is just one group of criminals trying to fuck with another. What I don't get is the programmers that want to even write for the smaller Apple masrket.
Although iOS might be the smaller market by number of users, AFAIK it has always been a much larger market when measured by app revenue. Basically, iOS users are more likely to have (and spend) disposable income.
This is quite true. And like you say, Apple users are more likely to spend money. Which is why a person like myself just looks at any money involved with getting apps on the store is just a cost of doing business. I don't really want to go to sketchy sites to download apps. I don't want to get them near my phone.
And as I noted before in a post to someone earlier, when I had my part time video and photography business back in the 90's, I found out quickly that catering to the more wealthy who were not afra
Re:Apple creates markets, but that is irrelevant (Score:2)
Apple may have created markets, but that is totally irrelevant to the issue.
Apple may not have a monopoly, but that is totally irrelevant as well.
One issue is that they own the iOS market and at the same time compete in it, which is stifling competition.
Second issue (which is what the article is about mainly) is that they force developers to use a payment system because it generates money for Apple, both in sales of apps and sales of subscriptions, where it is totally viable for other to use another paymen
Re: (Score:2)
" they own the iOS market and at the same time compete in it, which is stifling competition."
Hundreds of thousands of apps, many of them very similar, is an example of stifled competition?
"is that they force developers to use a payment system because it generates money for Apple"
Duh. Everyone does that. Companies are not charities.
"It reduces choice for end users and increases cost for end users"
Again, hundreds of thousands of app, many of them very similar. Also, increases costs for end users how? What is
Re: (Score:1)
One issue is that they own the iOS market and at the same time compete in it, which is stifling competition.
The same could be said of Microsoft, they own the MS Windows market and at the same time compete in it. You may be referring to the iOS app store. Microsoft does compete in the Microsoft store, offering Microsoft apps.
Re: (Score:2)
There was no market for personal wysiwyg computers before mac.
Some people do miss ms-dos, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:1)
We'll never know if there was a market for wysiwyg GUI computers before Macs, because Apple stole it all from Xerox. As for "important" digital music, Napster proved there was a market for MP3s and downloadable music, Apple just capitalized on it and was the first to bend over for the record industry DRM.
The reason Apple doesn't dominate your examples is that their cold hands were pried from them by either the courts or their own mismanagement and need to sell off assets to stay alive.
Regardless, it's apple
Re: (Score:2)
There's no way there "wasn't a market" for downloadable music before the iPod and iTunes.
He did not say the iTunes Store was the first. He said it was "important" which is a matter of opinion, but I would agree that iTunes had a major impact on the music industry.
Re: (Score:1)
Unintended Results (Score:2, Insightful)
I wonder if, at some point, Apple (or Google), will just decide to close the App Store and tell you to get web-apps? While they may lose a source of revenue, they also lose a major headache. At some point, as business owners will tell you, there isn't enough profit to be made from business, to stay in business.
Re: (Score:3)
Considering the primary profit generator in Apple's case, and almost entirely the profit generator in Google's case with respect to Android, of course they won't.
The 'major headache' amounts to *maybe* being forced to allow other parties to register their own stores independent of Apple and Google (Google already does allow this, but maybe someone would want the ability to have Google sign their store apk to reduce the stern wording of the 'uh oh you are adding a third-party app, you could get hacked!'.).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Primary profit for iPhone ecosystem that is specifically bound to iPhone (e.g. other things they sell are supported elsewhere). iPhones are revenue heavy, and decent profit margin on hardware, but the App Store is so much more profit margin than the rest of the iPhone ecosystem.
But either way you slice it, Apple shutting down the app store and presumably by extension app support on their platform at all would not be even vaguely in their interest, even if they have to make more accommodations for competiti
Re: Unintended Results (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure where 'App Store' falls in those, but there's two things to consider, revenue and margin.
The hardware is the lowest margin, they sell for a lot but they also require the most work and cost per unit. It's high margin by hardware standards, but low margin compared to other apple.
For the services, those are definitely high margin per user, but also represent significant development investment and acquiring rights to media content on the platform.
The App Store is pretty much free money. Relatively
Re: (Score:3)
No [investopedia.com], at least definitely not Apple. Google makes most of its money on ads, but Apple makes most of it on "services" including the App Store.
1) Your own link says 49% of net revenue was the iPhone not services (21%). 2) Services includes more than the App Store.
The would-be monopolist in the walled garden (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course it's nice someone's fighting Apple's monopolistic practices, but it's worth remembering that Epic is a would-be monopolist too - they blatantly use their powerful position in one market (game engines) to try to gain it in another (online game stores).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's nice someone's fighting Apple's monopolistic practices
You're begging the question. First you need to establish that Apple's practices are monopolistic. So far the only court to rule on the matter in the USA has explicitly said they aren't a monopoly.
And you can't have monopolistic practices if you're not a monopoly. What we have here is dozens of US States at the behest of Epic's lobbyists have decided they disagree with a court decision, and are doing so during an ongoing appeal. That is incredibly poor form. Either file a friend of the court brief, or they s
Re: (Score:2)
The only evidence people are able to provide that Apple is a monopoly is a feelings-based "I don't personally like how Apple operates and controls their own platform" response. This is not evidence of monopoly and it's not even evidence of wrongdoing and acting unethically.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm asserting that Apple's practices are monopolistic. It's dead obvious common sense, they lock down their devices, force everything to go through them, kick off competing products when they decide to go into a nice themselves, etc. I've considered the evidence, and I've ruled.
We're not obliged to wait until the courtroom creatures speak to judge for ourselves. We're not even obliged to call their opinion truth, or even to call it correct on their own terms. That's actually a more important lesson for
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm asserting that Apple's practices are monopolistic.
There's no such thing. If you want to use the word I think you're trying to use then the word is "anti-competitive". Good or bad commercial practices have zero to do with a monopoly, and there's nothing inherently bad about being a monopoly, and all of the things you describe can be done by any company regardless of size and market share.
We're not obliged to wait until the courtroom creatures speak to judge for ourselves.
Indeed, but judge about something that makes sense. When an actual monopoly engages in the activities you describe and you're forced to buy from them than it is generally c
Re: (Score:2)
but it's worth remembering that Epic is a would-be monopolist too
That's the biggest difficulty with monopoly power. Size matters. ;-)
When a company is small the practices are acceptable. The companies are not monopolies, there are alternatives, and consumers can choose. That means the decision to enter or avoid the agreements is a choice, and the contracts are not anti-competitive, merely a business choice.
When a company is large the same practices are unacceptable. The companies have become monopolies, there are no alternatives, customers cannot choose. That means th
Re: (Score:2)
The real difficulty for the courts is deciding which powerful people to side with, but coming up with a post-fact justification for it once they do is not difficult. Their education is all about learning that craft.
Re: (Score:2)
H. L. Mencken [quotationspage.com]
It's not exactly the same thing, but it's close. It would be justice to see Epic win against Apple, and then be slapped down themselves for their own practices.
I am confused (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
and also what states? If my state is involved in this, I want to let my representatives know to fuck off and stop wasting taxpayer time and money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Epic having lost hard their case in real court are using the court of public opinion any way they can. Turns out the judge wasn't swayed by a bunch of teenagers crying #freefortnite, and now are trying to up their game.
Privacy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh yes. That's a factor in all this.
No Epic games for me (Score:3)
Apple may end up being forced to accept other stores, but given how Epic screwed the goat when it came to the security of their app store on Android, I don't think I'd want their store on my phone. If it means no Epic games, because they don't care about security, then so be it.
I was working for a large US financial institution and it was the security model and single app-store that meant personal iPhones were allowed on the network before Android was considered. Part of the reason was that is was seen as being easier to root an Android phone and side-load software that could cause problems on the business network. Certainly things have certainly evolved on both sides, but I still don't trust Epic as caring enough about the security and protection of people phones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Worse than that. They are a monopoly position short of being an incredibly abusive monopoly. For all their posturing their actions are actually worse than those of the people they claim to be saving the world from. In many cases Apple and Steam have done far less damage to the mobile and PC gaming community at large than Epic has done which is impressive considering how little market influence they have.
Money talks. It's a shame Epic has money. We can just be damn glad they don't also have power.
Re: (Score:2)
Worse than that. They are a monopoly position short of being an incredibly abusive monopoly.
On the other hand Epic Games does not have a hardware platform. So there's no plausible way that they could ever approach a monopoly position, even if you device a market fairly narrowly, because there is almost zero barrier to an app developer deciding to stop supporting one online store and switch to a different one. They can be as abusive as they want to companies selling games through their store, and nobody should really care, because they cannot plausibly ever gain enough market power for any abuse
Re: (Score:2)
They can be as abusive as they want to companies selling games through their store, and nobody should really care
They aren't abusive to companies. They are abusive to customers. Their practices directly result in reduced consumer choice in the market as well as reduced functionality.
Nope... (Score:2)
No one is forcing anyone to buy and use Apple products.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the stink of this whole thing, isn't it? The solution is easy as pie: Let the consumer choose. If you like the "walled garden" approach that Apple takes, buy an iPhone. If you prefer the unregulated free-for-all approach favored by Google, buy an Android. Problem solved with no government intrusion necessary, and all these legal cases can be dropped now.
Of course, that will never happen. Lawyers want to rack up those billable hours and politicians want to feel important, after all.
Re: (Score:3)
That's coming closer to what the lawsuit was about. Neither side contested that the tying happened, everyone agrees it happens and it's perfectly clear in the contracts.
The lawsuits were about the gray boundaries of markets. Tying is perfectly legal for non-monopoly companies, but illegal for monopolists. Everything in the lawsuit hinged on the definition of the market.
Apple pushed hard to define the market as all game platforms and distributors. They wanted subpoenas for Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, App
Re: (Score:2)
Au contriare!
The sandbox that is Apple iDevices, however despised, is an order of magnitude in detrimental reliance precisely as a result of AAPL de facto monopoly.
Wall (Score:2)
I understand Fortnite's beef, but stifling the competition seems odd. What competition is being stifled?
It's increasing competition by making Android and other phones more attractive.
Shouod Fortnite be able to rent a large conference room at the Waldorf Astoria for the same price as at a Red Roof Inn?
Re: (Score:2)
I understand Fortnite's beef, but stifling the competition seems odd. What competition is being stifled?
The mobile payment systems market.
Re: (Score:2)
The lawsuit and rulings are public. They're about tying platform use, distribution methods, and payment methods.
Non-monopoly companies can tie things like that, monopolists cannot. The tying itself was never under dispute, instead, the definition of the market was in dispute. If the market was defined as Apple phones, then Apple was illegally tying and stifling competition with the marketplace. If the market was defined as all online game stores, then Apple has no monopoly and players have a choice of whe
Videogame consoles too, then (Score:2)
If Apple is beaten on this, surely all the other videogame consoles will be next?
I don't think anyone would dispute that Apple oppressively gatekeeps and skims when it comes to iOS. That's one of the very widely-known, unsurprising, disclosed-up-front, towering barriers against buying an iOS device in the first place. Before you buy one, you know for sure that you're definitely not going to be in the driver's seat, and that the device is deliberately intended to serve its manufacture's interests over your o
Re: (Score:2)
I second this motion. Can we take a vote?
Re: (Score:2)
If Apple is beaten on this, surely all the other videogame consoles will be next?
Hopefully.
That's why I generally don't see their shitty behavior as monopolistic.
It's not about monopolistic, it's about anticompetitive (or more precisely, violating antitrust law). You don't need to be a monopoly to do that.
Oh, boo hoo (Score:2)
IMHO, Epic is trying to boost its profitability ahead of an IPO. It would appear that they're having trouble doing that with their product so they're trying to reduce their overhead. That's not a good sign of a solid investment. That said, if Apple was smart, they'd pull a Microsoft and buy Epic before it goes public.
Watchmen and guards stifle criminals (Score:2)
Who would have thought..
Noise. Govt would need to change antitrust laws (Score:1)
"'Fortnite' Maker Epic" (Score:2)
Come on, they also did Epic Pinball, Jazz Jackrabbit, Xargon, Jill of the jungle and some other stuff
By design (Score:1)
"Paradoxically, firms with enough market power to unilaterally impose contracts would be protected from antitrust scrutiny -- precisely the firms whose activities give the most cause for antitrust concern,"
Pretty sure that's by design. You think these horrible court rulings always appear by accident? No. Someone is getting bribed and/or threatened, probably the judges.
Capitalism (Score:2)
The goal of Capitalism is Innovation, not Greed/Monopoly;
https://archive.is/Sltpn
Dozens of people had an opinion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Time for Apple to fight back [...] and play the 'Epic is backed by China' card'.
Practically everything Apple makes is made in China. That would be seriously fucking stupid. Tim Apple isn't that stupid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And for every stupid Republican there is, I can find a similar Democrat so lets just be smart here and not use political labels. The question that the courts need to answer is if Apple is operating as a monopoly under the current rules. If they are then bust that nut up, but if they aren't then stop busting Apple's nut about being a monopoly. Now if you as well as enough people still believe they are a monopoly then change the rules.