But having another App Store introduces a number of issues that currently don’t exist.
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 Removes Fortnite From App Store [Update: Epic Files Lawsuit Against Apple]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But having another App Store introduces a number of issues that currently don’t exist.
You know that under the discussion is not the device business right? Of course Apple is entitled to sell as much iPhones as they can and quality... What is in the “courts” is not that in any shape or form.
I believe that Apple is a fabulous company. I absolutely appreciate their history. What they have done with every single product / device / Software is fully down to the value of their vision and engineering. Not the value of other tech businesses.
Still Apple going after a company because of a pear shape logo and many other things, is as legit and smart as a company(s) going after Apple to protect their customers.
If a company can be forced by courts to change their logo or name because it may hurt Apple business iis not considered state intervention, why than forcing a company to change their policies that aim to dip in other people value for nothing is considered anti capitalist?
Epic and others are just making sure that their customer can freely choose the devices they like as well digital services. Making sure that such a freedom is not eschewed with anti-competitive practices aimed to dip in the value created by others just because they are in a position to do so.
Last edited:
I thought Epic sued Apple for not allowing them to distribute their iOS app via other app stores where they can use different payment systems?
Google allows this so why are they seeing Google?
Do Epic want to remain in both app stores but be able to use different payment systems? If so, that seems to be a much more tenuous position.
Google allows this so why are they seeing Google?
Do Epic want to remain in both app stores but be able to use different payment systems? If so, that seems to be a much more tenuous position.
Epic tried this, but they realised that too few people were willing to venture beyond the google play store and take the trouble to sideload their app.
Epic wants their App Store to be made available front and centre on both iOS and android, so they can not only keep 100% of the earnings from their apps, but get a 12% cut of any games they sell through it as well.
It’s all about the money. And loads and loads of it if Epic gets its way.
Why? Just because you brand something as a Store it does not it is. What you call Store is in effect the only means user can install apps and have access to digital services in iOS, so it’s not really just a Store. Yes you can use the Web, but apps in whatever platform, meaning it’s not a value particular to iOS, has its advantages and disadvantages. The policy is hijacking both this and the general purpose computing devices, case in case iOS devices, people have payed for.
Has for Google, the reasons are different.
The general point I guess is at these business are acting as digital conglomerates leveraging on extremely powerful multiple distinct services and businesses that are otherwise independent.
My best guess, suing Google backs up their case against Apple in some way, by implying they are being impartial. I agree, considering Google allows alternative stores, direct downloading, and side loading, it doesn't seem they have a case.
At the end of the day, this is about the mobile gaming market. I've come to the conclusion that every major player is salivating over the potential, and are fighting each other tooth and nail for perceived future market share. Apple has put themselves in a position to be the first prey. I'm not sure of the reasons, my best guess is their limited role in data collection and sales makes them stand alone from other big tech firms, so they are an easy first target. Right now, they see an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone: limit Apple's future share in mobile gaming (maybe gaming in general), and keep regulator heat on Apple and off of them, at least for now.
If they are successful in limiting Apple, I'm sure they'll quickly move on and devour each other 'til few, if not one, is left standing. We all need to stop focusing on whether Apple is right or wrong, turning that opinion is not these companies' goal. They've found a weakness, and are exploding it.
It should be consumers' decision where they play, and they shouldn't have to make that decision when they're buying a device they also rely on for communication and more, even when ignoring exorbitant costs.
Last edited:
Interesting because when it comes to accounting and the argument of competition the businesses are argued as a separate thing by Apple. On the other hand if the App Store is not independent neither are than the apps it Gates. Tipical of a conglomerate.
Dependency by Policy, not due to some technological or accounting fatality, a fact of nature.
If indeed they are one in the same than the argument that there is some kind of competition going on in the App Store business services is than mute. There is competition in device business not the App Store services. Which seams the all point of Epic.
Last edited:
It's almost like these are questions jurists are being asked to decide. What are we talking about again? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd say we were arguing over legal matters with considerably less qualifications than those that have been assigned with making those decisions.
Last edited:
Epic do say what they want - although in general terms - by asking the that court finds in favour of Epic and:
"A. Issuing an injunction prohibiting Apple’s anti-competitive conduct and mandating that Apple take all necessary steps to cease unlawful conduct and to restore competition;
B. Awarding a declaration that the contractual and policy restraints complained of herein are unlawful and unenforceable;
C. Awarding any other equitable relief necessary to prevent and remedy Apple’s anti-competitive conduct; and
D. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper."
Earlier up in the injunction Epic says that what it wants is to host its own App store on iOS - it's taking aim at Apple's monopoly on iOS app distribution (Epic calls it the "iOS App Distribution Market"). It also says that it is targeting the requirement for all Apps to use Apple's payment processing system (which is where the chunky fees come in), which it calls the "iOS In-App Payment Processing Market".
Epic would like to win both points, but I think the latter is the bigger one in terms of $$$.
If it won on both points then I expect it wants users to be able to navigate to Epic's website, download the Epic Games Store app directly and then buy games (or DLC) through it. Essentially mirroring the position on Windows and MacOS.
Yes. But vertical integration that harms competition in any if it’s layers is illegaL Apple with 50% market share US is indeed in such a position. Because it’s this market share that shield their ability to dip into the value of any digital services the company may feel like in the mobile space with such integration. In fact, they do precisely that with their Policies. A company that charges for value not delivered in such a large scale it’s indeed harming competition.
Last edited:
It’s odd that epic are trying to define the market as the ‘iOS app distribution’ market as opposed to the ‘app distribution’ market, although I guess using the correct terminology hurts their position.
I presume the lawsuit will just get thrown out on that basis.
It’s like going to the grocery/hardware/bike store.
its true one could setup accounts with all the different distributors, bicker about saving $.10 on your lettuce and now have delivered to your door. It’s all in one place, you have your choices or different stores for say, better veggies. Sometimes there’s flyers to tell you whats on sale for crap you don’t need. Most of those stores are doing online ordering too now and rest assured they are making way more than 30%. But buying direct doesn’t always save you $. In epics case they will not lower their costs 30% if apple opened the door for free.
as a consumer, I’m looking for the best product, delivered fast, reliable and know my personal contact and banking info is safe. I don’t see any advantage for the consumer with this situation brought forth.
its true one could setup accounts with all the different distributors, bicker about saving $.10 on your lettuce and now have delivered to your door. It’s all in one place, you have your choices or different stores for say, better veggies. Sometimes there’s flyers to tell you whats on sale for crap you don’t need. Most of those stores are doing online ordering too now and rest assured they are making way more than 30%. But buying direct doesn’t always save you $. In epics case they will not lower their costs 30% if apple opened the door for free.
as a consumer, I’m looking for the best product, delivered fast, reliable and know my personal contact and banking info is safe. I don’t see any advantage for the consumer with this situation brought forth.
Last edited:
You are right that the court's determination as to the definition of the relevant market will be very important.
Apple clearly has a dominant position in the iOS App Distribution Market. It (probably) does not have a dominant position in the wider software app market.
I suspect the court will slice the market more narrowly than all software markets when assessing Apple's dominance, perhaps to include all mobile software (so basically Apple and Android together).
A donkey may look like a horse at a distance but it’s not really a horse. This is to say stating the App Store is like the stores you enumerated is like saying that donkeys and horses are the same thing. The fact is that the economics digital businesses are fundamentally different from analog.
Take hosting site on the web. The cost is no way close to hosting a analog store in some piece of land or building. Yet even than no land lord requires 30% revenue of your business in that space. So there you go so you know.
Last edited:
I think epic quite nicely define the market themselves in terms of all the places fortnite is available.
There’d be some juicy irony if epic’s case gets dismissed precisely because they have proven themselves that the market for apps is much wider than just the ‘iOS app store’.
Sii amigo, but again, just as stores are going to online shopping and delivery, a lower cost still does not come to consumer. It only profits the distributor.
or like MasterCard, does absolutely nothing but offer convenience and maybe some protection. I can complain all I want of the interest they charge, even leave and try visa, or some lesser convenience approach.
As a consumer, the whole concept of making someone else more $ doesn‘t matter to me.
If your going to make me make another login, upload all my stuff and monitor another transaction, then I want a deal. I’m thinking of this for all apps, not just Epic.
If apple stopped charging 30% to everyone and just donated their infrastructure to app developers, not one app would lower their cost, in-app or subscription.
It is not cheaper to play fortnite on a ps4, Xbox, Mac/PC or iOS etc?
The app developer should focus on making the app run awesome, and want to be in every platform out there. There’s no question that Epic has made $ being on the App Store.
just as Apple is working on their stock split and Epic releases an update, there’s a sudden conflict that has come out of nowhere.
if i were the big game developer, mobile or computer platforms, I would see this as an opportunity to charge every game/app 30% if they aren’t already and Epic would have no choice to pay!
or like MasterCard, does absolutely nothing but offer convenience and maybe some protection. I can complain all I want of the interest they charge, even leave and try visa, or some lesser convenience approach.
As a consumer, the whole concept of making someone else more $ doesn‘t matter to me.
If your going to make me make another login, upload all my stuff and monitor another transaction, then I want a deal. I’m thinking of this for all apps, not just Epic.
If apple stopped charging 30% to everyone and just donated their infrastructure to app developers, not one app would lower their cost, in-app or subscription.
It is not cheaper to play fortnite on a ps4, Xbox, Mac/PC or iOS etc?
The app developer should focus on making the app run awesome, and want to be in every platform out there. There’s no question that Epic has made $ being on the App Store.
just as Apple is working on their stock split and Epic releases an update, there’s a sudden conflict that has come out of nowhere.
if i were the big game developer, mobile or computer platforms, I would see this as an opportunity to charge every game/app 30% if they aren’t already and Epic would have no choice to pay!
Last edited:
Which is why the FIRST thing Apple needs to do is take steps to decrease their market share in the US. If they’re able to decrease the number of people in the US that use the App Store (how much is enough? 40% 30% 10%?) then they wouldn’t be in that position. The agreement with the government should be that they can sell as many iPhones in other countries as they want, but in the US, for the sake of competition, they should limit sales to a couple million phones per year for 5 years (to tank their current market share) and then, maybe, only 5 million phones per year after that.
The only way to allow fair competition is for Apple NOT to compete.
Instead of knee-capping Apple, the US should foster a more competitive smartphone OS and ecosystem market. It should not be acceptable to only have iOS and android. Tie android to google phones only and make Samsung have their own OS and ecosystem, Sony have a different OS and ecosystem. That way the US consumer has a competitive market.
Apple feels a bit like Microsoft did in the 90s when it was challenged for pushing Internet Explorer by making it hard to uninstall and use a 3rd party equivalent. Microsoft lost that case but settled with the DoJ by allowing 3rd parties access to APIs. Before it was appealed, MS was at risk of breakup.
So the stakes are pretty high for Apple and I could see it unilaterally cutting its % and allowing a broader range of apps (including 'app store' apps) to stave off a court being asked to rule on the matter or risking the DoJ intervening.
So the stakes are pretty high for Apple and I could see it unilaterally cutting its % and allowing a broader range of apps (including 'app store' apps) to stave off a court being asked to rule on the matter or risking the DoJ intervening.
It may or not. Still, that is not the core issue. Devs customer are devs customers, Apple customer are Apple customers. If they overlap shouldn’t be an issue. Why should the Dev be forced to relinquish 30% of their revenue because they overlap on some context? Where is the value in that? It’s all down to the market share of a product that it’s down in the vertical integration that makes this unavoidable unless one decides to offer customer a worst experience, that does not happen in any other general purpose platform. When you or I buy an iPhone we have no idea that this is happening in “the other side of the planet, another layer in the integration”.
Epics case is anecdotal of this reality. No way Fortnite success is down to the amazing App Store or any other Store of the kind for a fact. The same for a Netflix, Spotify ... heck your digital business if you have one.
Considering market price prices for hosting apps and digital payment processing, the 30% revenue would be only reasonable if in fact the above was not the case.
Apple it’s an amazing and innovative company. Look what they have done in the software and mobile device space. Amazing job. But that is were the thing stops. They aren’t doing that good of a job in any other space really. If they want to get revenue for these other spaces they should than compete in those spaces like everyone else does. Innovate, invent, create like they do in the iOS / Device space. Or not, there is so much to do either way, their choice.
Last edited:
Because, in the first case, there’s no contractual agreement in existence between the first two parties. There WAS a contractual agreement between the second two and one, while initially in agreement, suddenly decided they weren’t in agreement anymore. Besides, the courts ruling in the first would be to obtain an agreement between companies that have no agreement. In the second, the courts would be, in effect, indicating that proper and legally binding contracts can be voided at any time which would be an interesting precedent to set.