Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Demanded Sales Information on 30,000+ Games From Steam in Ongoing Lawsuit With Epic Games
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In a perfect world, true but you know that info will be leaked, regardless of the ethics, legality or penalty.
Microsoft prices with the physical media in stores and has sales all the time. This is very off base. Xbox and PS have msrp on gsmes just like boxed software does
Apple’s business practices continue to be pure straight trash. Can’t believe I’ve supported them all these years
Precisely. I’m more in love with my new Ryzen/RTX build than anything Apple’s put out in the last 10 years. Absolute joke of a company to think they’re entitled to this kind of information
No I don’t. I know of only one case in the last 15 years where that happened, and hundreds of cases where it did not. No attorney is going to risk his or her bar card to leak this stuff or give it to Apple.
What this absolutely shows is that two or more powerful stores can operate in competition which of course is everything Apple is resisting. I’m not sure this was a smart move by Apple.
and Epic still give away games...I am presently downloading Rage 2 (free until 25th)
Just Valve trying to hide how much money they scam out of people, nothing new
Yea...imagine only being able to buy your fuel from the car dealer who sold it to you.
Its a smart move because they want to change Epic's argument that the market is "iOS Apps" to "Video Games".
It’s something they’ve been doing forever now, every time they’ve been in legal hot water for denying refunds in countries that require them, or for not policing gambling on their games they immediately go full lockdown mode.
You cannot possibly be this naïve.
Steam & Burger King are store fronts.
There are other store fronts. There is McDonalds, there is Epic Games Store. Burger King isn't forced to sell McDonalds burgers in the same way Steam isn't forced to accept Vbucks.
If there was only "FOOD SHOP" and the only store front allowed to operate in it was Burger King, then you'd have point. But that isn't the case.
But Epic wants to put their store front INSIDE the iOS store front - essentially Burger King INSIDE a McDonalds.
And they must be thrilled at Apple's monopolistic behavior. Thankfully there are laws against this. It's time for enforcement.
Apple’s monopoly on cell phones? Of which there are many competitors with similar quality that allow sideloading?
A couple of opinions here.
First thought... Apple has total legal control over the apps allowed in the App Store, but they do not have a monopoly on the apps in the store. If there's an App Store Exclusive, it's a deal between Apple and the publisher. These are few and far between, and these apps aren't generally available on other platforms at all.
Evernote Premium is everywhere, for example. Angry Birds, YouTube, all of them.
The problem with the XBOX/Play Station analogy here is that you can choose *not* to buy a game through the XBOX online market place, and instead only buy physical copies from where ever. That option does not exist for apps of any kind through the Apple App Store. This is why the aforementioned are not considered monopolistic entities. There are tens of thousands of other options.
If you choose an Apple iPhone and want to install a binary app on it legally, you have to do that through the Apple App Store. Period, end of story. Which leads me to the...
Second thought... no one gave a crap about the App Store (or its rates) until it was successful and the place to be. Once users began to associate apps and the App Store 1:1 then "competitors" took note. When Apple introduced the App Store, the industry laughed. Then it generated billions of dollars in revenue, and fewer people laughed. Its success was taught in colleges and its model was replicated throughout the entire software industry. Everyone charges 30% to be in a store. Why? Apple made it standard.
Now... the question has to be... at what point does starting and growing your own exclusive store for your own devices become a monopoly? Is there a user count? Downloads? Device count in the market? Or is it simply when publishers decide that the value being provided by the store is no longer worth the 30% that made them hundreds of millions of dollars?
Third... Apple is asking Steam for numbers because they're looking for data to defend themselves against a lawsuit brought on by a (now) competitor in the space. Tim Sweeney isn't in this for the users, he's in it for Tim Sweeney and a few hundred million dollars he feels he's wasted over the years. There's one easy way to understand the value that the App Store brings to the market, and that's to voluntarily remove your apps until this matter is settled. But he won't ever do that. Why?
First thought... Apple has total legal control over the apps allowed in the App Store, but they do not have a monopoly on the apps in the store. If there's an App Store Exclusive, it's a deal between Apple and the publisher. These are few and far between, and these apps aren't generally available on other platforms at all.
Evernote Premium is everywhere, for example. Angry Birds, YouTube, all of them.
The problem with the XBOX/Play Station analogy here is that you can choose *not* to buy a game through the XBOX online market place, and instead only buy physical copies from where ever. That option does not exist for apps of any kind through the Apple App Store. This is why the aforementioned are not considered monopolistic entities. There are tens of thousands of other options.
If you choose an Apple iPhone and want to install a binary app on it legally, you have to do that through the Apple App Store. Period, end of story. Which leads me to the...
Second thought... no one gave a crap about the App Store (or its rates) until it was successful and the place to be. Once users began to associate apps and the App Store 1:1 then "competitors" took note. When Apple introduced the App Store, the industry laughed. Then it generated billions of dollars in revenue, and fewer people laughed. Its success was taught in colleges and its model was replicated throughout the entire software industry. Everyone charges 30% to be in a store. Why? Apple made it standard.
Now... the question has to be... at what point does starting and growing your own exclusive store for your own devices become a monopoly? Is there a user count? Downloads? Device count in the market? Or is it simply when publishers decide that the value being provided by the store is no longer worth the 30% that made them hundreds of millions of dollars?
Third... Apple is asking Steam for numbers because they're looking for data to defend themselves against a lawsuit brought on by a (now) competitor in the space. Tim Sweeney isn't in this for the users, he's in it for Tim Sweeney and a few hundred million dollars he feels he's wasted over the years. There's one easy way to understand the value that the App Store brings to the market, and that's to voluntarily remove your apps until this matter is settled. But he won't ever do that. Why?
Last edited:
Quite fundamental to this case is determining whether an iPhone is a marketplace in itself, or do they need to consider the entire mobile phone ecosystem including Android as the market Epic is competing in. Depending on how that falls, and from the court appearances last year it seems like it was going towards the later, Apple may be deemed to also not have any monopoly as iOS (and the App Store) may not end up being broad enough to be considered a market with the existence of Android (which has a majority market share).
Yes we have been around and around this 100 times. Yes you are right, as a consumer you WANT to have multiple stores available. Apple as the device manufacturer WANTS to control what is available on their device (AKA Monopoly).
It always ends the same. If you dont want Apple's monopoly-ridden device then dont buy Apple's device nobody forced you. Luckily there are multiple good devices to choose from as an option.
Now if there were ZERO options, (no alternative devices to choose from) well that would be different. Now we would have the microsoft dillema from the 90s where microsoft was not allowed to exist as the sole & only computer company & the governments would intervene appropriately.
It really is as simple as that. Apple is not wrong for saying "if you want to use our device you have to play by our rules or you can literally suck it". The reason they are allowed to say that is because REAL VIABLE ALTERNATIVES EXIST.
So end of the day GOOGLE IS TO BLAME!!!!!!!!!... because they created a competitive alternative to the Apple device.
As long as 2 different device options exist, THAT is the same as you having 2 different store fronts on your computer. You can easily have 2 different phones in your pocket. You have choices & it is a wonderful free world we have. I know you dont like it cause it means Apple is allowed to make money, but hey life aint fair.