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 Disputes Australian Court Finding of iOS App Store Monopoly in Epic Games Battle
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's not about Fortnite, Epic are are looking at future releases. Fortnite is just a test case.
That’s not really an accurate analogy: it would be more like if Big W sold appliances and only Woolworths could sell compatible food: the market definition is “software compatible with iOS”.
Really though the best solution would be to say that anything that has the same effect as tying, including third-line tying, is illegal regardless of how you create the tie or what inducement is used to encourage other parties to enforce it.
Gee, I wonder why Apple didn't agree? Funny that every jurisdiction is independently coming to the same conclusion on Apple's strong-armed business practice yet "they're doing nothing wrong".
Said Apple last month: "Apple faces fierce competition in every market where we operate,"
👉 Oh yeah... where do they face fierce competition for sales smartphone apps (and in-app transactions)?
👉 Oh yeah... where do they face fierce competition for sales smartphone apps (and in-app transactions)?
I bet there will be tons complaints crying the entire world is “rallied together to bring down Apple”. If only Apple could do something a bit differently based on the region they are operating in, rather than applying one rule that is only applicable to one country/region worldwide.
The PlayStore. Apple competes head-to-head with Android for developer releases and consumer app spend.
Following your logic, then Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo all face “no competition” because Xbox games don’t run on PS5 and Switch titles don’t run on Xbox, which is obviously ridiculous. Same thing here - users choose the platform first; distribution rules come with that choice.
If Meta pulled Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook from iOS over App Tracking Transparency or Netflix went Android-exclusive over anti-steering, are you seriously arguing significant numbers of users wouldn’t switch? Of course they would.
That doesn’t mean Apple is doing anything “wrong”. One jurisdiction can pass a law or make a regulation that makes a particular business practice “illegal” and start to fine companies breaking the new laws.
If that’s successful in one jurisdiction then others will likely follow as a way to either make some money from the company or force them to change their business practices to fit some perception of a better business model.
What the governments are doing might be what’s wrong.
Note that I’m not defending Apple, I’m just stating that just because multiple governments do something doesn’t make that automatically the right thing to do.
Last edited:
I don’t understand the logic in forcing Apple to allow third-party stores but not making the Nintendo Switch, Sony PS5, And Microsoft Xbox Series One X/Y do the same.
Outside of Usa, iPhone OS is not the most-popular phone with Android dominating. Meanwhile the Nintendo Switch has like half the console market share even though it has two other competitors.
Outside of Usa, iPhone OS is not the most-popular phone with Android dominating. Meanwhile the Nintendo Switch has like half the console market share even though it has two other competitors.
I never needed to buy a Playstation/Xbox/Nintendo for the video game market yet there's tons of competition. Ruling is unreasonable and nonsensical.
If they are irrelevant across 70% of the market after more than a decade, why do regulators think the solution is to add them to iOS?
So busy fighting jurisdictions across the world ... no wonder they can barely update any of their products anymore.
(Over ear headphone shopper who is sad the APMs have been left to languish)
(Over ear headphone shopper who is sad the APMs have been left to languish)
Lawyers are expensive. Granted, wouldn't need to spend all their money on them if they just, I dunno, followed the law, accepted court rulings, etc.
But then what would they spend that money on? Innovation or something? That's so 2000-and-late.
It just seems like such an uphill battle ... forever ... to constantly just insist that what so many countries are telling you to change is "wrong" and refuse to do it.
Ultimately Apple are just a company that does need to operate within the rules (and spirit of rules and direction) outlined in various regions.
They know this, of course, as they have very smart people and certainly do it just fine in China.
We know Apple spent over $31 billion in R&D in 2024 alone, and that Apple asked the court to make Epic pay $73 million for lawyer fees on the Epic case, which represents years of high legal costs for that case. And yes, there are a ton of cases, other legal responsibilities, but it's not even the same order of magnitude.
I agree Apple has to follow the laws of the jurisdictions it operates in, but they absolutely should challenge them if Apple thinks the laws are not legally sound/unconstitutional, are being misinterpreted by the court/government, will result in negative repercussions for its users, etc.
I mean, would you and everyone on here be telling Apple to "just follow the law" if, say, the UK passed a law mandating encryption backdoors on all iPhones? That they should either comply or just pull out of the UK if they didn't like it? Or would you want Apple to fight that law in the courts?
Ultimately there is a platform that already exists in the direction iOS is being forced to head into. Apple doesn’t want iOS to be that platform and it seems logical as to why they are legally challenging some of these regulations.
Last edited:
It's more like buying a car and not being able to load any app you want onto the infotainment system. The car can go anywhere. Your iPhone can call / text anyone. The car maker may have additional apps you can install from THEIR install library (or application store). Apple provides an install library (App Store) for its "car".
Such is the way with most licenses. Windows does the same thing when you first log into a new PC / handheld. There is no license agreement printed on the box. It has to be agreed to before you can continue with the setup.
No bait and switch. If you turn on the iPhone / Mac / PC and actually read the presented license and do not agree you are perfectly free to say no, turn off the device, and return it for something else. I would bet that the same policy of needing to review and agree at initial start is in place for Android phones too.
And, yes, you can read the license before you buy the iPhone. Here is the iOS 16 license: https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iOS16_iPadOS16.pdf
iPhone owners can not use the Play Store. And the Play Store isn’t one single store, with their combined market share accounting for 95% or more - a de facto duopoly. It also has basically the same pricing.
That’s anything but “fierce competition”.
Why ridiculous? That’s fact. Users commit to a platform by a hundreds dollar hardware purchase - and then subsequently only buy games for that platform. That’s why they’re getting away with charging 30%.
Instagram or WhatsApp, maybe even Facebook?
The most important, dominant social network platforms in the world, that are designated as gatekeepers themselves for good reason? That doesn’t signify fierce competition.
There is no legal right to return in many stores in many jurisdictions.
Neither is there a contractual one.
I bought it - so I‘m entitled to use it for its advertised and intended purpose.
Subject to the terms I agreed to at the time of sale.
Everything else is bait and switch - or me being deprived of ownership rights and use post-sale.
Irrelevant - since it’s not properly incorporated into the contract of sale at the time of sale.
PS: it obviously depends on the jurisdiction though. There are of course jurisdictions in the world that prioritise big businesses‘ monetisation rights over consumer rights and protection of consumers.
Last edited:
iPhone owners can access the Play Store by choosing Android exactly like PlayStation owners can access Mario games by choosing Nintendo or people in McDonalds can access the Whopper by choosing Burger King.
You keep treating platform choice as if it’s not real competition, but companies spend billions on platform exclusives precisely because users will switch platforms for content they want.
Someone should tell Sony and Microsoft to stop paying for exclusivity rights for games then. Since there’s no competition in consoles that sounds like a massive waste of money.
Replace Meta with Spotify, Netflix, or any major app then. The point stands. If there’s truly no competition and users are locked in as you claim, then developers leaving would be meaningless. But we both know that’s not true. Any of those apps leave and millions switch.
Ok, but Apple offers it, no questions asked. If that changed then maybe your point matters, but as of right now it doesn’t.
Sure. But I’d argue the “advertised and intended purpose” of an iPhone has always included a curated, secure app experience where apps are only available through the App Store. That’s literally a major selling point Apple has marketed for 15+ years. And if you don’t like it you can, as noted above, return the device upon reading the EULA on device launch.
The EU already requires cookie banners on every website. I’m surprised they haven’t regulated a solution to this problem: adding mandatory reading, acknowledgment, and agreement to the EULA at point of sale!
It would be perfectly on-brand: more regulatory theater that makes everyone’s experience worse while solving a non-existent problem.
McDonald’s users did not spend hundreds of dollars to access the McDonald’s platform.
Nor many hours of set-up and learning/muscle memory how to properly eat their burgers.
Yeah, why is that? Because they know that consumers commit to a platform with their hardware purchase. And they make it up through higher margins on future software purchases. The oft-cited 30% market rate is higher than it would under competition (where Playstation owner could also buy games from Xbox or Epic’s stores).
Let’s take after very popular game like Fortnite then: did they switch?
The choice for a computing platform - like many products - isn’t based on just one single factor (sideloading/just one store/access to app X, e.g. Fortnite). I’ve stayed on iOS for years, despite certain Android apps being unavailable that I would have wanted to have.
…within 14 days after purchase, in the U.S. But many people don’t buy their phone from them.
Yes, the ability to install from non-App Store sources isn’t advertised (at least not for consumers).
Which is why it doesn’t need any mention in EULA or terms of service.