Apple doesn't own the phones. Apple sold them to customers. Allowing Apple to dictate where apps are permitted to come from is like your realtor dictating where your furniture comes from.
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 Retains Gibson Dunn Lawyers From Samsung Case to Combat Epic Games
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple doesn't own the phones. Apple sold them to customers. Allowing Apple to dictate where apps are permitted to come from is like your realtor dictating where your furniture comes from.
No it’s not. It’s like your homeowner’s association insisting that you abide by the covenants, codes and restrictions that were attached to your deed and to which you consented as part of the purchase.
If there wasn't a monopoly, there would simply be other app stores, all with competitive pricing to attract the developers. And yep, the devs could skip all those app stores and simply market it themselves if they preferred. Or they could continue to use the Apple app store if they preferred to pay more and go with Apple's big name store. Which is exactly what happens when you write a macOS application.
No one has to use Xcode to write iOS apps. There are a lot of other choices. There is, however, no choice except the Apple app store with it's horrendous 30% cut, in order to get your app onto anyone's iPhone/iPad.
There isn’t a monopoly. Just because there is only one of something does not make it a monopoly.
Has Apple won a single lawsuit in the last decade? It seems they have been sued a lot lately and lost most of the lawsuits. Unless they get lucky and get their pocket judge Lucy Koh to preside over this trial, they are screwed.
No, it's more like HOA taking 30% fee from all your furniture purchases. Have you seen such HOAs?
Maybe saying “Adding absolutely nothing” of value is a bit of a blanket statement or probably not seeing beyond the tapping the get app button.
I know almost nothing, but at least from the top of my head I can see the things that Apple provides (either for free for free apps or with the 30% for each app sold or in app purchase sold):
Hosting of the application on many data centers around the world, the right localization for the right users around the world, digital certification and signing, anti piracy protection, cloud based settings saving storage (provided the dev supports it), push notification to users when an update is available, review and score system, any currency payment support, it actually hosts many versions of the app for target devices (the dev makes a bundle with the provided dev tools: universal, iPhone, iPad, ATV, etc).
That’s only on the ‘hosting’ and business to business side of things, if we go onto the research and dev that goes into tools, algorithms, kits, tutorials, documentation, samples, forums, etc etc etc to allow a developer to make its software as less painful as possible... don’t know, I kinda see a lot more than ‘nothing of value added’.
Like someone commented before, I hope that when everything comes to an end, there’s the option for developers to choose from and not all shut down... because at least if I start today, I’ll want access to absolutely all of that for the 30% fee.
Hum... On one hand, I'm a shareholder of Apple, much 💗 and thanks for the 💵
On the other hand, it took then 10 f-----g years to update the Cheesegrater, but at least they did. I mean, as a customer I strongly believe they need to defrost one of Steve Jobs' clones, right away, if not sooner. They're iterating, they're not innovating anymore. They're... highly profitable, and pretty boring, but I lack a viable option to jump ship to, because they're still the least-worst thing going, and I've been here since the Apple ][ (with a brief detour to NeXT).
On the third hand, I don't care about Tencent, play Fortnite, and Epic isn't a PubCo; I'm not a shareholder in Epic, so, therefore, obviously, they can go down in flames -- but they won't -- because their existence makes 0 difference in my life personally.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.
On the other hand, it took then 10 f-----g years to update the Cheesegrater, but at least they did. I mean, as a customer I strongly believe they need to defrost one of Steve Jobs' clones, right away, if not sooner. They're iterating, they're not innovating anymore. They're... highly profitable, and pretty boring, but I lack a viable option to jump ship to, because they're still the least-worst thing going, and I've been here since the Apple ][ (with a brief detour to NeXT).
On the third hand, I don't care about Tencent, play Fortnite, and Epic isn't a PubCo; I'm not a shareholder in Epic, so, therefore, obviously, they can go down in flames -- but they won't -- because their existence makes 0 difference in my life personally.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.
I do realize that, and I’ve attended the in-person program in a prior year. I’m not sure, though, that the costs really cover the total expense of the program when including the time invested by all the Apple engineers (and other staff) for the time of the event and preparations for the event. Certainly, this is on top of the cost of the venue, food, etc...
I use the Mac App Store and an increasing amount of my software comes from the MAS. Dev's obviously don't have to bother with the MAS or iOS App Stores if they don't want a cut of that market...perhaps that's the value it provides?
For me the value of the MAS is that I can buy it on my laptop and then if I need it on my iMac I can quickly get it there. If I end up needing an app later, I generally look to my list of already purchased apps first. It handles updates for me, no needing to fight with Sparkle getting confused or corrupt downloads and having to go figure out the developers site again to redownload things. I'm the first to admit that this is all a convenience however your contention was it's worthless and as a consumer I personally find it increasingly useful.
How do you write an iOS app without using any Apple provided tooling or Apple provided APIs?
I agree, I looked at the cost of the conference and wondered how they made it all work with all of the employees, the conference venue, the evening events, the food, the bash and the band for that. Throw into that the tickets they give away for free to students as well as I believe travel support for that, Apple isn't making a profit out of WWDC. Hotel room costs in SF were almost as much as the WWDC ticket.
How Fortnite’s epic battle with Apple could reshape the antitrust fight - The Verge 8/19/20
When Tim Cook finished up his appearance in front of the House Judiciary panel in July, the conventional wisdom was that the Apple CEO had gotten off easy. He was joined by Sundar Pichai, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos, and each one seemed to have more to worry about. In the face of Google’s looming indictment and Facebook’s terrifying history of election interference, who could really care about App Store policies?
But after Epic’s dramatic attack on those same App Store policies, the questions directed at Cook feel a little more pointed — with one exchange, in particular, standing out. About an hour into the hearing, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) started questioning Cook about App Store policies, specifically the decision in April to let Amazon Prime video rentals skirt the commission.
“Is that reduced commission, such as the one Amazon Prime gets, available to other app developers?” Johnson asked.
“It’s available to anyone meeting the conditions, yes,” Cook replied, an elegant dodge.
Johnson went back and forth with Cook, focusing specifically on the company’s payment processing requirements — a point that was raised in Epic Games’ antitrust lawsuit.
Johnson finished with a question that now seems almost prophetic: “Has Apple ever retaliated against or disadvantaged a developer who went public with their frustrations with the App Store?”
“Sir, we do not retaliate or bully people,” Cook said flatly. “It’s strongly against our company culture.”
The last week has put that culture to the test. Since Epic’s lawsuit was filed on Thursday, Apple has threatened to cut off Epic’s ability to distribute developer tools, according to a recent court motion. The fight has escalated far beyond the question of in-app purchase fees, and it’s hard to see it as anything other than retaliation for the lawsuit.
It’s a sign of how heated the App Store fight has become in just a few short days and how fiercely Apple is willing to defend its commission system. That 30 percent commission is baked into the core of Apple’s business. Epic’s project of unwinding it is a major antitrust undertaking, one that Cook will fight at every step.
But Epic won’t be fighting alone. The tech antitrust hearing covered many of the same points as Epic’s lawsuit — some in the same exact language. That’s not proof of collusion, exactly. (These ideas have been circulating for years in tech critic circles.) But it’s a sign of how much support those ideas have in Washington and how likely it is that regulators will intervene on Epic’s side.
It’s a major test of the ideas we heard in the tech antitrust hearing — and there are plenty of other challenges waiting if Epic finds success. Yelp has been trying to stage a similar moment with Google for a solid decade, and there are plenty of companies that would like to take on Amazon in a similar way. Apple was the first target, and the easiest, but it won’t be the last.
When Tim Cook finished up his appearance in front of the House Judiciary panel in July, the conventional wisdom was that the Apple CEO had gotten off easy. He was joined by Sundar Pichai, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos, and each one seemed to have more to worry about. In the face of Google’s looming indictment and Facebook’s terrifying history of election interference, who could really care about App Store policies?
But after Epic’s dramatic attack on those same App Store policies, the questions directed at Cook feel a little more pointed — with one exchange, in particular, standing out. About an hour into the hearing, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) started questioning Cook about App Store policies, specifically the decision in April to let Amazon Prime video rentals skirt the commission.
“Is that reduced commission, such as the one Amazon Prime gets, available to other app developers?” Johnson asked.
“It’s available to anyone meeting the conditions, yes,” Cook replied, an elegant dodge.
Johnson went back and forth with Cook, focusing specifically on the company’s payment processing requirements — a point that was raised in Epic Games’ antitrust lawsuit.
Johnson finished with a question that now seems almost prophetic: “Has Apple ever retaliated against or disadvantaged a developer who went public with their frustrations with the App Store?”
“Sir, we do not retaliate or bully people,” Cook said flatly. “It’s strongly against our company culture.”
The last week has put that culture to the test. Since Epic’s lawsuit was filed on Thursday, Apple has threatened to cut off Epic’s ability to distribute developer tools, according to a recent court motion. The fight has escalated far beyond the question of in-app purchase fees, and it’s hard to see it as anything other than retaliation for the lawsuit.
It’s a sign of how heated the App Store fight has become in just a few short days and how fiercely Apple is willing to defend its commission system. That 30 percent commission is baked into the core of Apple’s business. Epic’s project of unwinding it is a major antitrust undertaking, one that Cook will fight at every step.
But Epic won’t be fighting alone. The tech antitrust hearing covered many of the same points as Epic’s lawsuit — some in the same exact language. That’s not proof of collusion, exactly. (These ideas have been circulating for years in tech critic circles.) But it’s a sign of how much support those ideas have in Washington and how likely it is that regulators will intervene on Epic’s side.
It’s a major test of the ideas we heard in the tech antitrust hearing — and there are plenty of other challenges waiting if Epic finds success. Yelp has been trying to stage a similar moment with Google for a solid decade, and there are plenty of companies that would like to take on Amazon in a similar way. Apple was the first target, and the easiest, but it won’t be the last.
EPIC VS. APPLE: WHY ECONOMISTS THINK THE FORTNITE CREATOR IS WINNING - Inverse 8/19/20
For Edward Castronova, a Professor of Media at Indiana University Bloomington who specializes in virtual economies, that this fight is happening at all shows that there are major changes coming to the state of gaming as we know it — and that Epic has a serious shot at either winning the lawsuit that Apple is practicing monopolistic tendencies or at least the public debate will permanently affect the industry.
"I think it’s interesting we’re even putting those two companies together in the same sentence," Castronova tells Inverse. "When I started studying video games, the idea that there could be a game company that would have significant market power over a company like Apple. No one would have believed it. Yet, here we are."
-- - - -- - -- - -- - - - - - -
Castronova, a Ph.D.-trained economist, has been studying video games for almost two decades, and he believes the mobile monopoly on gaming is overdue for the shakeup. His first book on the subject, Synthetic Worlds, was released in 2005 and examined the economies within games like EverQuest and World of WarCraft and how these experiences bled into reality. Since then, he’s written several books on gaming, including 2014’s Wildcat Currency: The Virtual Transformation of the Economy.
While other developers like Blizzard have also seen a great deal of financial success, Castronova says that Epic has a “scale of operations that makes Apple care about what they do." Apple may have an estimated market cap of nearly $2 trillion, which dwarves Epic Games' paltry $17 billion. And yet, $17 billion is more than enough to make Apple pay attention to what Epic does, even before they slashed the price of V-Bucks.
"It’s like that old saying," Castronova says. "If you owe the bank $1,000, the bank owns you. If you owe the bank a million dollars, you own the bank. ... I don’t think this is going to hurt their bottom line very much. Apple can’t do anything to them.”
-------------------------------
“Game companies are bigger than anyone realizes,” he tells Inverse. “People should pay attention to the transition that’s been underway for more than a decade. The role of games in daily life and the economy is getting bigger and bigger, and it ain’t gonna stop.”
The war between Epic Games and Apple is only the beginning.
For Edward Castronova, a Professor of Media at Indiana University Bloomington who specializes in virtual economies, that this fight is happening at all shows that there are major changes coming to the state of gaming as we know it — and that Epic has a serious shot at either winning the lawsuit that Apple is practicing monopolistic tendencies or at least the public debate will permanently affect the industry.
"I think it’s interesting we’re even putting those two companies together in the same sentence," Castronova tells Inverse. "When I started studying video games, the idea that there could be a game company that would have significant market power over a company like Apple. No one would have believed it. Yet, here we are."
-- - - -- - -- - -- - - - - - -
Castronova, a Ph.D.-trained economist, has been studying video games for almost two decades, and he believes the mobile monopoly on gaming is overdue for the shakeup. His first book on the subject, Synthetic Worlds, was released in 2005 and examined the economies within games like EverQuest and World of WarCraft and how these experiences bled into reality. Since then, he’s written several books on gaming, including 2014’s Wildcat Currency: The Virtual Transformation of the Economy.
While other developers like Blizzard have also seen a great deal of financial success, Castronova says that Epic has a “scale of operations that makes Apple care about what they do." Apple may have an estimated market cap of nearly $2 trillion, which dwarves Epic Games' paltry $17 billion. And yet, $17 billion is more than enough to make Apple pay attention to what Epic does, even before they slashed the price of V-Bucks.
"It’s like that old saying," Castronova says. "If you owe the bank $1,000, the bank owns you. If you owe the bank a million dollars, you own the bank. ... I don’t think this is going to hurt their bottom line very much. Apple can’t do anything to them.”
-------------------------------
“Game companies are bigger than anyone realizes,” he tells Inverse. “People should pay attention to the transition that’s been underway for more than a decade. The role of games in daily life and the economy is getting bigger and bigger, and it ain’t gonna stop.”
The war between Epic Games and Apple is only the beginning.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Apple-Fortnite judge backed iPhone maker in a similar 2013 case - TheStar - 8/20/20
Apple Inc’s showdown with Fortnite maker Epic Games Inc over app store fees has landed with a judge who gave the iPhone maker a big victory seven years ago in a case raising similar antitrust issues.
US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California, took over the Epic case Aug 19 from another judge. Back in 2013, she dismissed a lawsuit claiming Apple’s apps monopoly cost consumers hundreds of millions of dollars in overcharges. Plaintiffs requested a new judge after the US Supreme Court revived the case in 2019, saying Rogers was too hostile to their legal position, but an appeals court denied their request.
Epic last week escalated a dispute over Apple’s longstanding insistence that games available on its app store must bill subscription fees and in-app-purchases through Apple, which charges a 30% fee. Epic began offering customers a way to directly buy items for Fortnite and circumvent the fees. Hours later, Apple pulled the app. Google followed suit later in the day, removing Fortnite from its Play app store. Epic then sued both companies.
In the 2013 case, consumers also attacked Apple’s 30% app store fee, arguing they would pay less if it weren’t for the "fixed” cost. Rogers reasoned that the cost is passed on to consumers by developers, rather than charged directly by Apple. Consumers don’t have a right to sue for antitrust violations over such passed-on charges, she ruled.
One legal expert said he doesn’t think Rogers will stop Epic from getting "its day in court”, because the facts in the game-maker’s case are "frankly more compelling” than the consumer case against Apple.
"I think Epic has done a really brilliant job of laying the groundwork for proof of consumer harm,” said John Newman, a former Justice Department antitrust attorney who is now a professor at the University of Miami School of Law. "It’s going to be hard for a judge to look at the discount offer, hear all the evidence, and still conclude that Apple preventing such offers somehow benefits consumers.”
It’s not uncommon in federal courts for cases addressing related issues to be assigned to the same judge.
Apple Inc’s showdown with Fortnite maker Epic Games Inc over app store fees has landed with a judge who gave the iPhone maker a big victory seven years ago in a case raising similar antitrust issues.
US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California, took over the Epic case Aug 19 from another judge. Back in 2013, she dismissed a lawsuit claiming Apple’s apps monopoly cost consumers hundreds of millions of dollars in overcharges. Plaintiffs requested a new judge after the US Supreme Court revived the case in 2019, saying Rogers was too hostile to their legal position, but an appeals court denied their request.
Epic last week escalated a dispute over Apple’s longstanding insistence that games available on its app store must bill subscription fees and in-app-purchases through Apple, which charges a 30% fee. Epic began offering customers a way to directly buy items for Fortnite and circumvent the fees. Hours later, Apple pulled the app. Google followed suit later in the day, removing Fortnite from its Play app store. Epic then sued both companies.
In the 2013 case, consumers also attacked Apple’s 30% app store fee, arguing they would pay less if it weren’t for the "fixed” cost. Rogers reasoned that the cost is passed on to consumers by developers, rather than charged directly by Apple. Consumers don’t have a right to sue for antitrust violations over such passed-on charges, she ruled.
One legal expert said he doesn’t think Rogers will stop Epic from getting "its day in court”, because the facts in the game-maker’s case are "frankly more compelling” than the consumer case against Apple.
"I think Epic has done a really brilliant job of laying the groundwork for proof of consumer harm,” said John Newman, a former Justice Department antitrust attorney who is now a professor at the University of Miami School of Law. "It’s going to be hard for a judge to look at the discount offer, hear all the evidence, and still conclude that Apple preventing such offers somehow benefits consumers.”
It’s not uncommon in federal courts for cases addressing related issues to be assigned to the same judge.
Last edited:
The HOA exists as a way for owners to control their neighbors, for the benefit of the owners.
What do I care what other iPhone users have on their phones or where they installed it from? Their non-Apple sanctioned apps do nothing to impair the functionality of my phone.
Try and look for example how much does it cost to send 100k emails for a notification or push about an update of an app to already existing costumers (that’s provided the ‘hosting’ is already all alive and well and properly programmed/tested to know which users with which devices actually need that update, also if they check it on an iPad they get the iPad file, on a Mac the Mac compatible one and on iPhone the iOS one. It also takes care of auto installing and auto upgrading).
There seems to be a confusion about hosting (a single file in a ftp server with no one knowing about its existence) and an actual full hosting service.
Hint: can be thousands of dollars.
Hint #2: the full hosting could be also thousands of dollars plus dev time whether it is successful or not. Me I would rather have infinite tryouts and pay the 30% when one hits.
Me, specifically? Or do you mean people in general...? Because I'm not complaining.. If I were a developer, I would think 30% is a little too steep, I'd go with 20%... And if they want developers to not complain about that, then quality control would make the store a more attractive place, perhaps making it so they are happier giving up more of their share. Either way I still think it should be less than 30%.
And the criteria for app acceptance would have to be decided by a team, I don't think "not cool enough" would fly if say 6 people were in charge of it. (what is cool to one is not cool to another)
It's not one extreme or the other... They needed more quality control. That's it. There were hundreds of thousands of trash apps in the App Store, there probably still are. Apps just overridden with ads and providing little value.
Still, that being said... "Imagine if they banned apps for simply not being “cool enough” or “different enough from other apps.” Ahh... thinking of the dangers of the meritocracy?
... it is dangerous.1 compromised iOS device, could very well mean MILLIONS of potential compromises.
If that App got on the device by what would be considered legal means (Epic App Store let say on the iOS device), and the device was then compromised by an app from that store. It would be a way "in" for any hacker to do the same. Fake Epic app store, with plenty of malware for you to not only pay for but, continue to get hacked with.
I also don't understand the logic that Epic is losing ANY money in the current setup. They charge $10 for some amount of vCash/Coin whatever via AppStore. As far as I know, people bought it. Never heard a bitch moan or complaint about it from a customer. They wanted to charge $7.99 for the same thing directly. Saving you about 20%. So if the up-charge for EPIC direct is 10%. On their own product and through their own platform. So you take that 10% out of the picture and the cost is about $6.99 for the vCoin/cash. They are not losing any money here. They charge more to cover the 30% Apple wants. They make their full amount, and Apple gets their full amount of 30% of the sale price.
WHAT IN THE HELL IS THE ISSUE HERE?
Any judge will look at the series of events and say "hey EPIC? Did you make this video knowing full well you will be breaking the rules you agreed to some 10 years ago. And continued to agree too, making dollar after YEN after Euro after Pound, and Peso? Did you have a master plan to get the company you legally contracted with into this, ah what some could call a compromising position. To shame them, defame them and slander them. And possibly ransom them into compliance with a new agreement? Did you??? Just want to know before I PIMP SMACK YOUR @$$!"
Well, maybe not the pimp smack part but, seriously. Who is going to side with EPIC with the way they crated this situation?
The game developer put in those thousands of hours knowing full well what the terms and conditions were PRIOR to any development work even starting.
They could have simply decided to stick with consoles and PC's but they instead decide it was in THEIR best interest to accept the terms of the App Store(s).