Apple Removes Fortnite From App Store [Update: Epic Files Lawsuit Against Apple]

[Reindeer_Legal]

We can take this to the extreme, harming the ecosystem could cause devs to leave apple, causing a downward spiral and ruining the resale value (which causes me harm).

So this is not up to me to decide, and I've already voiced my views. However, I don't understand why people care so much about apples margins and app store fees. Nobody but a dev should care.

To me if people feel constricted there is android. But don't go into the ecosystem, knowing what the way it works and then determine it's an unfair monopoly. Start out on a different platform.

1. Devs will leave Apple because now they can sell products to consumers without Apple's rent? Without paying $99 or more for distributing their apps? Plus, you'd be naive if you think Apple's monopoly is destroyed overnight. Apple is the f**king developer of iOS. They can engineer anything to benefit App Store rather then third-party distributor. I imagine plenty of people will stick with Apple Music even when Spotify doesn't have 30% tax. Now that's real consumer choice and real competition.

2. Devs pass on 30% tax to consumers. That's why monopoly eventually harms consumers. BTW Supreme Court has ruled that, although indirectly harmed by monopoly in this way, consumers can sue Apple (their argument is also the passing on of 30% tax).

3. Microsoft tried to force everyone to use IE. In the end they are forced to share proprietary interfaces with third-party developers. Ecosystems are anti-competitive and illegal.

 

[I7guy]

1. Devs will leave Apple because now they can sell products to consumers without Apple's rent? Without paying $99 or more for distributing their apps? Plus, you'd be naive if you think Apple's monopoly is destroyed overnight. Apple is the f**king developer of iOS. They can engineer anything to benefit App Store rather then third-party distributor. I imagine plenty of people will stick with Apple Music even when Spotify doesn't have 30% tax. Now that's real consumer choice and real competition.

2. Devs pass on 30% tax to consumers. That's why monopoly eventually harms consumers. BTW Supreme Court has ruled that, although indirectly harmed by monopoly in this way, consumers can sue Apple (their argument is also the passing on of 30% tax).

3. Microsoft tried to force everyone to use IE. In the end they are forced to share proprietary interfaces with third-party developers. Ecosystems are anti-competitive and illegal.

Microsoft had a near monopoly, nowhere near Apple market share. It's up to the courts to decided if the narrow definition of the ios app store is a monopoly based on Apple's market share. Since both android and ios have similar end-user functionality, check facebook, get email. Both have WSJ app etc, saying the ios app store is a monopoly is a stretch, in my lay opinion.

As far as your second point, you can't prove there is any majority that devs pass on the 30% price or not. The real test, if the 30% goes away, how the prices of IAP or apps come down. My guess, little if none.

Epic should get it's hat handed to them the way they handled this. Apple's policies should prevail.

 

[Reindeer_Legal]

Microsoft had a near monopoly, nowhere near Apple market share. It's up to the courts to decided if the narrow definition of the ios app store is a monopoly based on Apple's market share. Since both android and ios have similar end-user functionality, check facebook, get email. Both have WSJ app etc, saying the ios app store is a monopoly is a stretch, in my lay opinion.

As far as your second point, you can't prove there is any majority that devs pass on the 30% price or not. The real test, if the 30% goes away, how the prices of IAP or apps come down. My guess, little if none.

Epic should get it's hat handed to them the way they handled this. Apple's policies should prevail.

1. Microsoft's bundling of IE with Windows was ruled illegal (anti-competitive conduct), not Windows' market dominance.

2. Epic's IAP through is $9.99, their banned direct payment is $7.99. And you still say devs don't pass on the 30% tax? Did Spotify pass on the 30% tax? Yes, and because of that, they are less competitive than Apple music. Competition drives prices down. Why you cannot understand basic economics baffles me.

 

[I7guy]

1. Microsoft's bundling of IE with Windows was ruled illegal (anti-competitive conduct), not Windows' market dominance.

2. Epic's IAP through is $9.99, their banned direct payment is $7.99. And you still say devs don't pass on the 30% tax? Did Spotify pass on the 30% tax? Yes, and because of that, they are less competitive than Apple music. Competition drives prices down. Why you cannot understand basic economics baffles me.

Microsoft had a near monopoly along with anticompetitive behavior, such as using internal apis. And I used the word “majority”. One or two does not constitute a majority.

In this case competition in my opinion doesn’t benefit the consumer.

 

[springsup]

It fails every so often for no reason, so you have to force kill the App Store and restart. Unlike true patches, you still have to download the entire app. It would be nice if it was a real patch system.

hmm, I can’t say I share your experience of AppStore updates failing. Perhaps it’s an issue with your device.

But the AppStore has been using a delta-update System for years (basically only downloading the bits that changed).

 

[strayts]

So, all the time I spent staring at the editor, all the time I spent banging my head against the desk, thinking how to solve the programming problems, how to implement this, how to connect this to that, all of that...belongs to Apple???

I'm certainly not saying I agree with them. But that's verbatim how they view it.

 

[theotherphil]

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).

And this is a really interesting concept as it’s not illegal to have a “monopoly” on your own products....that’s expected. Of course Apple have a “monopoly” on selling Macs. Of course they have a “monopoly” on selling iPhones. As has already been discussed, the iOS App Store is a fundamental part of iOS - it IS THE PRODUCT....it is not a seperate entity and never has been. People arguing that a vertically integrated company should change their business to accomodate other businesses wanting a slice of Apple’s income is laughable. There’s no free lunch.

What’s even funnier is Epic has an App Store and charges devs to be in their store. They have rules the devs must adhere to or they will face sanctions. They have special terms for some devs but not others where in exchange for more payment, they get special treatment. Yep, this is common business practice in ANY business.

A friend of mine owns a retail store for car Audio/ electronics/ customisation. He routinely gets paid more by suppliers to have a better position in his store or for him to in some way use their products. It’s an arrangement that benefits them BOTH.

If Epic are trying to argue that some devs getter special treatment it’s because it is an agreement that mutually benefits BOTH parties. Epic wants an agreement that benefits ONLY THEMSELVES. They want to be on Apple’s devices, pay Apple nothing in return yet sell their own products whilst taking a cut from devs. Hahahahahahaha, you can’t make this up.

 

[theotherphil]

But, with so many customers choosing Apple’s hardware, the ONLY way to increase market share of rival hardware is to literally force folks to not buy Apple. Since no one is going to take the personal responsibility to not buy Apple (“Yes, Apple should have less marketshare as it’ll increase competition, but, you know, OTHER people should buy other products... I’m going to buy Apple”), then the government needs to step in to regulate how many iPhones and iPads get sold.

If the sticking point really is “Apple has too much marketshare in the US”, then it’s a fairly simple resolution. It will take time to reduce their share, but it could be done with just a few small tweaks.

Increasing competition cannot happen by handicapping the competition who happens to have better products. By very definition, that’s no longer competition.

 

[theotherphil]

How about you pay your 30% tax and leave me alone? But Apple doesn't leave me alone, and your support continues to enable Apple to force me to pay for an unfair deal. If there is any real competition, consumers can bargain the 30% tax to at most 5%, or perhaps less. The problem is that the current deal is the result of monopoly.



Developers will lower their price in competition with each other because consumers prefer lower costs.

If Apple dropped their cut to 0%, it could be argued that this is abusing their huge bank balance, power and income support from their other income streams (such as hardware sales) to destroy ALL competing App Stores on ALL competing platforms. When Google, Sony, MS, Nintendo, Epic and Steam all charge fees, and some of which ONLY have these fees as an income model, it would drive ALL devs to move to Apple. These fee reductions however wouldn’t be passed on to the consumer, they’d still pay the same and only the devs would win.

The competing platforms would die because they now have no income stream and all the Apps/ Games are now on Apple Hardware and all consumers would be only buying Apple hardware.

That’s OK and completely not monopolistic behaviour? /s


Apple‘s current policies maintain a healthy ecosystem where competition can exist and there’s many choices of platforms and App Stores.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I'm certainly not saying I agree with them. But that's verbatim how they view it.

ALL of that NEVER belongs to Apple at all. 30% of the sales of it belongs to Apple ONLY if you want access to Apple’s App Store customers. Deploy it to Android, macOS, Windows, Linux, consoles or anywhere else and NONE of it belongs to Apple.

 

[Reindeer_Legal]

If Apple dropped their cut to 0%, it could be argued that this is abusing their huge bank balance, power and income support from their other income streams (such as hardware sales) to destroy ALL competing App Stores on ALL competing platforms. When Google, Sony, MS, Nintendo, Epic and Steam all charge fees, and some of which ONLY have these fees as an income model, it would drive ALL devs to move to Apple. These fee reductions however wouldn’t be passed on to the consumer, they’d still pay the same and only the devs would win.

The competing platforms would die because they now have no income stream and all the Apps/ Games are now on Apple Hardware and all consumers would be only buying Apple hardware.

That’s OK and completely not monopolistic behaviour? /s


Apple‘s current policies maintain a healthy ecosystem where competition can exist and there’s many choices of platforms and App Stores.

You are daydreaming. Apple Services (most importantly App Store) revenue is half of their iPhone revenue in 2020 Q3. Apple will not make free their lucrative App Store.

 

[playtech1]

I saw the news today about the chair of the U.S. House Antitrust Committee saying, following a recent hearing involving Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google, that "The kind of common theme is the abuse of their market power to maintain their market dominance, to crush competitors, to exclude folks from their platform and to earn monopoly rents."

It mentioned that one option would be prevent companies that operate a platform from competing on that platform themselves. I think that would mean Apple having to spin off its 1st party apps (hello again to Claris!).

I think Apple need to very careful to placate lawmakers and devs with the same issues as Epic, MS and Spotify, etc.

If Apple cut its processing fees substantially (say, in half), gives up on excluding categories of apps and allows 3rd party payment options (perhaps require an Apple Pay option, but permit others), that seems like the far better option for Apple compared to the prospect of an adverse ruling against it that totally opens up the platform, or the government wading in to break it up.

 

[I7guy]

....If Apple cut its processing fees substantially (say, in half), gives up on excluding categories of apps and allows 3rd party payment options (perhaps require an Apple Pay option, but permit others), that seems like the far better option for Apple compared to the prospect of an adverse ruling against it that totally opens up the platform, or the government wading in to break it up.

I think law makers have to be careful that what they do can’t be challenged successful in the Supreme Court.

 

[playtech1]

I think law makers have to be careful that what they do can’t be challenged successful in the Supreme Court.

The constitution didn't do a lot for Bell or more recently for the investment banks split under Glass-Steagall. And if it's not the US that does this it might be the EU, which is more manageable for Apple in terms of not hitting the domestic market, but is still a big chunk of revenue. Apple needs to try and avoid getting whacked full stop.

 

[I7guy]

The constitution didn't do a lot for Bell or more recently for the investment banks split under Glass-Steagall. And if it's not the US that does this it might be the EU, which is more manageable for Apple in terms of not hitting the domestic market, but is still a big chunk of revenue. Apple needs to try and avoid getting whacked full stop.

Correct and hopefully we’ve learned since Bell. That Apple is “popular” but not a monopoly may help somewhat stem the tide.

 

[gregohb]

You are wrong. No one is talking about getting "FREE " apps. THey are talking about 2 things, 1 the cut APple is getting is too high (30%) , If you sell services, through your app, they will take 30% of ALL YOUR SERVICES, which is ridiculous, and there is no way to buy an app for iOS unless it is through the App Store. That is a complete anti competitive monopoly.

When Tom Cruise stars in a movie, or Lebron James signs a new contract, they pay some hefty percentage to an agent for their services. When you win a lawsuit for your pain and suffering, the lawyer might take 50% commission. You pay a commission on real estate and stocks sales. I might agree with you that 30% is too much, but the consumers are coming to this software/services company through Apple. They didn't just create a website and hope people all over the world show up and buy their services.

 

[gregohb]

Because that's not their whole intent. The idea is to have your own store, complete with the customer data that you want. The money from those data is way huge than some millions for lawsuits. I mean they are learning form the best, Tencent.

Their goals seems to make more money, and they are trying to start a revolution with other developers. If successful they would dismantle the App Store. Everyone would post a free version of their app with a private link to upgrade, and apple would get nothing. Then there goes the budget for their staff that makes Xcode and all the API's. So then all apps start getting crap development tools, then consumers have more bad experiences with apps ... its an entire downward spiral

 

[ian87w]

Their goals seems to make more money, and they are trying to start a revolution with other developers. If successful they would dismantle the App Store. Everyone would post a free version of their app with a private link to upgrade, and apple would get nothing. Then there goes the budget for their staff that makes Xcode and all the API's. So then all apps start getting crap development tools, then consumers have more bad experiences with apps ... its an entire downward spiral

But that doesn’t matter to them as long as they get the customer data for themselves. They don’t care about the platform. User data is the gold mine here.

 

[ipedro]

‪Now would be a good day for #PUBG to get promoted on the AppStore. 😏‬

LMAO, this is exactly what Apple just did!

 

[Maximara]

Epic's claim of a monopoly a load of bull as there is Steam Mobile for iOS and Google Play allows access to Steam on android so there is already competition on both those platforms as long as you follow the policies of Apple and Google.for such store fronts*. Nevermind with Apple beginning the transfer to ARM they can present the Mac which as Steam, Origin, Spotify, and yes even Epic as providing alternative store fronts.

I doubt the court would allow it but it would fun to have Apple go "This case is about how no Apple device that runs iOS apps natively has access to the Epic store, correct?", have the Judge agree, and then follow it up by wheeling in a ARM Mac and fire up their App store, Steam, Origin, Spotify, and even Epic's own store front. "As you can see, Your Honor, we do allow a device that runs iOS software natively with alternative store fronts." At which point Epic's case does a major crash and burn.

To add to the fun Apple Apple just terminated Epic's developer account effectively eliminating everything but Fortnite.