Apple Might Be Forced to Bring Fortnite Back to U.S. App Store

[mcnallym]

If Apple shut down the App Store tomorrow but provided an easy way for users to install apps on its hardware a huge app ecosystem would still exist and thrive without Apple spending an additional dime and it would still make billions selling the hardware. Just not as many billions as it makes by both selling the hardware and using its market position to force 3rd party developers to use its app distribution channel and billing system.

Even before Apple released an SDK or launched the App Store people were already jail breaking phones and then installing and running 3rd party apps.

If Apple stopped allowing 3rd party apps at this point it would put itself out of the smart phone and tablet production business because now that the 3rd party app genie is out of the bottle there is no going back. Consumers would stop buying their devices in favor of Android devices or devices by some other competitor who allows for 3rd party apps.

Your argument simply doesn’t hold water. Apple isn’t being forced to do anything. It’s the one forcing others to do something and that is why it’s wound up in court and why the court is highly likely to ultimately rule in Epic’s favor almost across the board here.

An argument can and is being made that Apple is using its monopoly on the hardware in an anti-competitive manner to not only stop potential competitors in the app distribution and/or billing space which stifles competition but it’s also forcing third party developers that aren’t even trying to compete in that space to pay them to even have a presence in their ecosystem.

That’s something that might fly if we weren’t talking about the smart phone, a device that has become as close to ubiquitous as a device can be in terms of how it’s integrated into the daily lives of a huge portion of humanity and one that will only grow more so over time.

You do realise that no developers are forced to develop for iOS.
Consumers have had how many years of Android around with support for installing apps and 3rd Party App stores.
So if consumers would stop buying a system that doesn’t offer 3rd Party App Stores then how do you account for the people that apparently want all those things and could have had on an Android phone and yet are buying Apple Phones and complaining that doesn’t have those features.

If applied this to the cola duopoly then it is like saying I want the sweeter taste of Pepsi but I am going to buy a coke and then moan is not as sweet as Pepsi.

 

[mcnallym]

They can (possibly) do that, because they have no competition. You know, like a monopoly. If they had competition, the percentage might have gone down, because they had to compete with stores that were charging lower fees, or had better features or apps.

I already have acknowledged that Epic has deliberately violated the ToCs. But those ToCs were not lawful, and now, because Apple had to change their ToCs, Epic is complying with the ToCs.

Really so Apple have no competition. So what is Android as pretty sure that competes with iOS.

The consumer has always had the opportunity to buy an alternative to the iPhone.

The developer has always had the opportunity to develop on another platform if don’t like the terms and conditions for developing on iOS.

So consumer has a choice

iOS vs Android.

Once they have have chosen iOS now what’s been deemed that they will be able to choose an alternative App Store.

Why once I have chosen my alternative AppStore, will I be able to choose which payment provider to use within that alternative AppStore. If not why not? After all the EU and Courts already set a precedent that a choice by me should not restrict me.

Once I have chosen to install an App then within IAP then I will be able to choose my Payment Provider or forced to use who the developer wants. If not wny not?

At step two then the courts and EU have determined that choosing iOS should not restrict your choice as a consumer, so surely that your choice should not restrict drills down through the AppStore and also within the App.

 

[mcnallym]

They got banned for breaking the T&Cs at the time, not because Apple doesn't like Epic.

Apple is in it's position simply because nobody else came up with any better alternative to the iPhone with iOS. You bought your iPhone knowing that the App Store is the only App Store.

Apple is under no obligation to allow 3rd party app stores in their OS. It's their OS, they created it, they continue to develop it for their own money, and they can allow or not allow what they see fit. They created the iPhone and iOS for mainly their own profit, not mainly for Epic's profit.

I don't want to offend anyone but I sense a lot of entitlement from people on Epic's side of things. Apple doesn't owe you anything, you don't have and shouldn't have any power to dictate what Apple does with their OS. You bought their hardware knowing that Apple's licensed OS is the only OS you can use and you accepted these terms with your purchase.

It's not Apple's responsibility to allow devs to distribute their apps elsewhere, whether it's on their OS or in general. Apple created the ecostystem, AppStore where millions of developers can distribute their Apps and make some money. Epic should be grateful it had a chance to become as big as it is thanks to Apple's efforts to develop a word class hardware and operating system. If Apple doesn't want to allow 3rd party AppStores to be installed on iOS, even if it's because they won't earn money off that (which by itself is a very valid and reasonable argument), only Apple alone should have power over that decision.

One thing never been able to get a clear answer on is other then apple specific apps then what is it that can do on an iPhone/iOS device that cannot do on an Android Device.

what is it that makes you buy an iPhone over the competition when is so locked down and restricted.

ie cannot run iMessage is not a valid answer as there are other apps that have the same functionality as iMessage.

 

[thiscatisfat]

One thing never been able to get a clear answer on is other then apple specific apps then what is it that can do on an iPhone/iOS device that cannot do on an Android Device.

what is it that makes you buy an iPhone over the competition when is so locked down and restricted.

ie cannot run iMessage is not a valid answer as there are other apps that have the same functionality as iMessage.

The main reason is the OS it's running. Android is a horrible OS with a bad UI, much like Windows. It's not really as locked down and restricted as Android users make it out to be.

 

[Baslea]

Business 101. There are other platforms if they don’t want to pay the going rate. But yeah keep believing the devs own the platform.

Sure there is, but there are also competitive-laws they have to be compliant with. And yes, devs in a certain way own the platform. A Smartphone without Apps is just useless. And even a company like Apple doesn't have the capacity to re-create every popular app.

 

[I7guy]

Sure there is, but there are also competitive-laws they have to be compliant with. And yes, devs in a certain way own the platform. A Smartphone without Apps is just useless. And even a company like Apple doesn't have the capacity to re-create every popular app.

And devs wouldn’t make money without a marketplace. It’s like selling a Costco. Agree to the rules or not.

 

[Baslea]

And devs wouldn’t make money without a marketplace. It’s like selling a Costco. Agree to the rules or not.

It's not that easy if there is no alternatives. And no, selling in the PlayStore is not an alternative (to reach iOS users).

 

[I7guy]

It's not that easy if there is no alternatives. And no, selling in the PlayStore is not an alternative (to reach iOS users).

It is that easy. There are a multitude of alternatives. Each phone manufacturer has an App Store. Game hardware manufacturers. Tv manufacturers. And web.

And yes the play store is an alternative.

 

[surferfb]

It's not that easy if there is no alternatives. And no, selling in the PlayStore is not an alternative (to reach iOS users).

Why do you feel developers are entitled to reach iOS users?

 

[Baslea]

It is that easy. There are a multitude of alternatives. Each phone manufacturer has an App Store. Game hardware manufacturers. Tv manufacturers. And web.

And yes the play store is an alternative.

Then tell me how the Play Store is an alternative. Can I install Apps from the Play Store to my iOS device? No? Then how tf can that be an alternative.

Why do you feel developers are entitled to reach iOS users?

Because iOS users are often wealthier = bring more money. If you want success and popularity you need to bring your app to iOS. And Apple knows that, yet it's no reason to exploit this situation. On the other hand Apple profits a lot as well from developers, which bring "life" to the device. The only difference is that Apple could even afford making losses for consecutive years, while small developers can't. - Therefore are practically forced to accept the dumb and immoral rules.
When one company owns the platform, sets the rules, and takes a cut from every transaction, we’re no longer talking about a free market where users got the choice. That's why the EU’s Digital Markets Act now classifies Apple as a gatekeeper and demands more open access.

 

[I7guy]

Then tell me how the Play Store is an alternative. Can I install Apps from the Play Store to my iOS device? No? Then how tf can that be an alternative.

The play store is a distribution mechanism, period. Apple owns the App Store. There is no requirement in the US and most of the world to provide “competition” to Apple.

Because iOS users are often wealthier = bring more money. If you want success and popularity you need to bring your app to iOS. And Apple knows that, yet it's no reason to exploit this situation. On the other hand Apple profits a lot as well from developers, which bring "life" to the device. The only difference is that Apple could even afford making losses for consecutive years, while small developers can't. - Therefore are practically forced to accept the dumb and immoral rules.
When one company owns the platform, sets the rules, and takes a cut from every transaction, we’re no longer talking about a free market where users got the choice. That's why the EU’s Digital Markets Act now classifies Apple as a gatekeeper and demands more open access.

Fully disagree with the above and this topic been debated until the cows come home in various threads over the last several years.

 

[Baslea]

The play store is a distribution mechanism, period.

So is my local oil station. Is that now the alternative to "prove" that Apple is not a monopolist? .

You're completely free to disagree as much as you want, but that doesn't change the facts that it has been discussed for so long already. Apple owns the only "gate" (= AppStore) to reach iOS users, yes. But how they're behaving its not normal competition.
But I get it, as Apple is about to get forced to open up (in mid-long-term) even in the US you try to fight with both tooth and nail to justify/defend your narrative. At the end it doesn't matter what you or I think, in the end it matters which argumentation the FTC/DOJ follows. And spoiler: it looks like they're following the "communists"(= aka EU, how they're often portrayed by people like you) view.

 

[I7guy]

So is my local oil station. Is that now the alternative to "prove" that Apple is not a monopolist? .

You're completely free to disagree as much as you want, but that doesn't change the facts that it has been discussed for so long already. Apple owns the only "gate" (= AppStore) to reach iOS users, yes. But how they're behaving its not normal competition.
But I get it, as Apple is about to get forced to open up (in mid-long-term) even in the US you try to fight with both tooth and nail to justify/defend your narrative. At the end it doesn't matter what you or I think, in the end it matters which argumentation the FTC/DOJ follows. And spoiler: it looks like they're following the "communists"(= aka EU, how they're often portrayed by people like you) view.

You can argue this all you want in the US there is not a requirement to compel Apple to provide competition for its own assets.

Spoiler: The ftc/doj doesn’t win them all. Like the epic vs Apple lawsuit the App Store model stands. Although I’d argue it’s better if Apple had control of the payment mechanism and let there be multiple app stores.

 

[Bungaree.Chubbins]

What I don't understand is how a 27% market share is a monopoly.

 

[surferfb]

Because iOS users are often wealthier = bring more money. If you want success and popularity you need to bring your app to iOS. And Apple knows that, yet it's no reason to exploit this situation. On the other hand Apple profits a lot as well from developers, which bring "life" to the device. The only difference is that Apple could even afford making losses for consecutive years, while small developers can't. - Therefore are practically forced to accept the dumb and immoral rules.
When one company owns the platform, sets the rules, and takes a cut from every transaction, we’re no longer talking about a free market where users got the choice. That's why the EU’s Digital Markets Act now classifies Apple as a gatekeeper and demands more open access.

I love how it never occurs to anyone that the reason Apple has attracted this large, desirable demographic is in large part BECAUSE its closed ecosystem has made it attractive to said desirable demographic.

If I build a high-end, luxury shopping mall that is THE destination for wealthy people to shop in my city, my store can't force its way into the mall just because I want access to to the mall's wealthy customers. In large part, the mall has become the destination BECAUSE they're selective about what stores they let in. And I certainly don't get to set up a table, use the mall's utilities, and not pay them rent, even if they won't let my store in because I think I "deserve" access to the mall's customers without abiding by the mall's rules.

 

[ToothBlueth]

Really so Apple have no competition. So what is Android as pretty sure that competes with iOS.

The consumer has always had the opportunity to buy an alternative to the iPhone.

The developer has always had the opportunity to develop on another platform if don’t like the terms and conditions for developing on iOS.

So consumer has a choice

iOS vs Android.

Once they have have chosen iOS now what’s been deemed that they will be able to choose an alternative App Store.

Why once I have chosen my alternative AppStore, will I be able to choose which payment provider to use within that alternative AppStore. If not why not? After all the EU and Courts already set a precedent that a choice by me should not restrict me.

Once I have chosen to install an App then within IAP then I will be able to choose my Payment Provider or forced to use who the developer wants. If not wny not?

At step two then the courts and EU have determined that choosing iOS should not restrict your choice as a consumer, so surely that your choice should not restrict drills down through the AppStore and also within the App.

You ignored the part where I specified that they don't have competition on iOS app distribution and where I clarify that iOS or Android is not really choice in the broad sense of the word. App stores are not the sole reason to chose one over the other, and with only two competitors they thus have significant control over the market.

Developers are businesses and they need access to the market. Niche developers may chose to only make apps for one, but larger developers are more likely to be expected to have apps on either platform by their users.

It is easy to simplify all these things when you are all in on a platform and can no longer take an objective step back to see the complicated situation anymore. Only if this fact is recognised can their be a fair discussion about this.

 

[ToothBlueth]

There is no such thing as a gatekeeper in the US. This would require new laws to be created. A judge does not have that power.

Maybe not in as defined in law, but in practice Apple and Google are gatekeepers, and this could stil be of relevance in cases relating to market competition.

 

[spazzcat]

Maybe not in as defined in law, but in practice Apple and Google are gatekeepers, and this could stil be of relevance in cases relating to market competition.

Judges can only rule on laws and if a person/company is violating them.

 

[ToothBlueth]

Judges can only rule on laws and if a person/company is violating them.

Indeed, all I am saying is 'gatekeeping' is describing an action, that could come to relevance in antitrust cases. For example, it could support a claim in an antitrust case.

 

[I7guy]

You ignored the part where I specified that they don't have competition on iOS app distribution and where I clarify that iOS or Android is not really choice in the broad sense of the word. App stores are not the sole reason to chose one over the other, and with only two competitors they thus have significant control over the market.

I’ll posit you can’t determine why an iOS sale is made or a phone that runs android is chosen. Maybe it’s the App Store that drives the sale. Maybe it’s airdrop? Maybe it’s google?

Developers are businesses and they need access to the market. Niche developers may chose to only make apps for one, but larger developers are more likely to be expected to have apps on either platform by their users.

It is easy to simplify all these things when you are all in on a platform and can no longer take an objective step back to see the complicated situation anymore. Only if this fact is recognised can their be a fair discussion about this.

What fair discussion? The courts have ruled the iOS App Store is legal in epic vs Apple.

 

[ToothBlueth]

I’ll posit you can’t determine why an iOS sale is made or a phone that runs android is chosen. Maybe it’s the App Store that drives the sale. Maybe it’s airdrop? Maybe it’s google?

I assume it is a combination of factors and feelings (humanbeings only like to think they act rationally), and sometime positive, other times negative. To explain the latter, some people just want something, accumulatively. Say, somebody wants a good camera and iMessage, they could choose iOS (highly simplified, as there are tons of other things to consider). Others want things to be absent, subtractive. For example I don't want to be tracked, nor want a company to prescibe my wants and needs. You see, neither iOS (too limited) or Android (too tracky) give me both requirements. For me, there is no good choice.

What fair discussion? The courts have ruled the iOS App Store is legal in epic vs Apple.

I am talking about discussion here on MR. For developers iOS is a significant market, even if they don't really want to make apps for it.

 

[I7guy]

[…]

I am talking about discussion here on MR. For developers iOS is a significant market, even if they don't really want to make apps for it.

A dev has to opt-in. It’s a significant market because Apple has aggregated the best in the customer base, and provided all of the bookkeeping and tools.

So depending on your business plan iOS can be a gold mine, if a devs service or product takes off.

 

[Macaholic868]

You do realise that no developers are forced to develop for iOS.
Consumers have had how many years of Android around with support for installing apps and 3rd Party App stores.
So if consumers would stop buying a system that doesn’t offer 3rd Party App Stores then how do you account for the people that apparently want all those things and could have had on an Android phone and yet are buying Apple Phones and complaining that doesn’t have those features.

If applied this to the cola duopoly then it is like saying I want the sweeter taste of Pepsi but I am going to buy a coke and then moan is not as sweet as Pepsi.

That’s faulty logic that doesn’t apply hear due to anti-trust laws we have on the books in the USA. More on that in a moment.

iOS is one of the two dominant smart phone operating systems in this country and has more than 50% market share in the USA (57.66% according to this article … the numbers vary a bit by the source, the time frame during which the data represents, etc. but in general it’s more than 50% and most sources I’ve seen have it pegged as the number #1 mobile OS in the USA).

The exact numbers don’t matter so much because while Apple is not a monopoly in the sense that it controls the entire smart phone operating system market on its own here in the USA, between iOS and Android there is an effective monopoly, so parts of the Sherman Act and other anti-trust related laws and legal presidents do apply to it in a way that they do not with Apple when it comes to MacOS, WatchOS, VisionOS, tvOS, etc.

Since the App Store is currently the only way for third party developers to distribute their apps to iOS based devices Apple has knowingly and willingly painted itself into this corner.

It’s one Apple could easily get out of by either allowing third party App Stores, which they now have the technology in place for since they were forced to allow them in the EU, or by allowing anyone to side load apps. That’s ultimately what Apple will be forced to do here if they don’t back off and ease up on these fees.

The EU has pro-consumer anti-trust laws intended to protect consumers directly from the results of monopolistic business practices. Our laws here in the good old USA, on the other hand, aren’t about protecting consumers as much as they are about protecting other businesses that are hurt as a result of monopolistic business practices.

At the end of the day that means that Epic and other 3rd party developers are going to come out on top here. Which they have by being allowed to include links to sell their software and services without Apple taking a cut.

Apple would do well to combine the outcome here with a reductionnin their fees.

If it’s shown that they continue to try an abuse their market position our courts just might force them to allow 3rd party app stores so other business can compete in the iOS app distribution and app/subscription billing soave which would be an even worse outcome for them.

For Apple it’s all about leveraging their partial-monolopy in the smart phone OS market and total monopoly in the iOS distribution and payment/subscription services market to prevent competition thatvallows them under many circumstances to extract artificially high fees.

That’s borderline illegal in the USA, Apple knows this and it’s why they wisely decided to finally let Fortnite back into the US App Store pending appeal.

If they are smart they’ll continue to take their medicine, appeal and hope they win that appeal instead of further poking the judge in the eye on this issue when it’s clear the judge had enough of their antics.

 

[BaldiMac]

That’s faulty logic that doesn’t apply hear due to anti-trust laws we have on the books in the USA. More on that in a moment.

iOS is one of the two dominant smart phone operating systems in this country and has more than 50% market share in the USA (57.66% according to this article … the numbers vary a bit by the source, the time frame during which the data represents, etc. but in general it’s more than 50% and most sources I’ve seen have it pegged as the number #1 mobile OS in the USA).

The exact numbers don’t matter so much because while Apple is not a monopoly in the sense that it controls the entire smart phone operating system market on its own here in the USA, between iOS and Android there is an effective monopoly, so parts of the Sherman Act and other anti-trust related laws and legal presidents do apply to it in a way that they do not with Apple when it comes to MacOS, WatchOS, VisionOS, tvOS, etc.

Since the App Store is currently the only way for third party developers to distribute their apps to iOS based devices Apple has knowingly and willingly painted itself into this corner.

It’s one Apple could easily get out of by either allowing third party App Stores, which they now have the technology in place for since they were forced to allow them in the EU, or by allowing anyone to side load apps. That’s ultimately what Apple will be forced to do here if they don’t back off and ease up on these fees.

The EU has pro-consumer anti-trust laws intended to protect consumers directly from the results of monopolistic business practices. Our laws here in the good old USA, on the other hand, aren’t about protecting consumers as much as they are about protecting other businesses that are hurt as a result of monopolistic business practices.

At the end of the day that means that Epic and other 3rd party developers are going to come out on top here. Which they have by being allowed to include links to sell their software and services without Apple taking a cut.

Apple would do well to combine the outcome here with a reductionnin their fees.

If it’s shown that they continue to try an abuse their market position our courts just might force them to allow 3rd party app stores so other business can compete in the iOS app distribution and app/subscription billing soave which would be an even worse outcome for them.

For Apple it’s all about leveraging their partial-monolopy in the smart phone OS market and total monopoly in the iOS distribution and payment/subscription services market to prevent competition thatvallows them under many circumstances to extract artificially high fees.

That’s borderline illegal in the USA, Apple knows this and it’s why they wisely decided to finally let Fortnite back into the US App Store pending appeal.

If they are smart they’ll continue to take their medicine, appeal and hope they win that appeal instead of further poking the judge in the eye on this issue when it’s clear the judge had enough of their antics.

Except the judge in the Epic case ruled that Apple doesn't violate any federal or state antitrust laws, so none of that has a legal basis here in the US.

 

[ToothBlueth]

Except the judge in the Epic case ruled that Apple doesn't violate any federal or state antitrust laws, so none of that has a legal basis here in the US.

I am not sure if Rogers judged over whether the App Store in itself is a monopoly or not. Following Wikipedia "Rogers identified that the market of concern was [...] digital mobile gaming transactions." On that she decided that Apple does not have a monopoly. Correct me if I am wrong.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple