Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

Unregistered 4U said:
Yes, they can be true. If your great-uncle was to leave you quite the considerable amount of money and you wanted to set up a business to challenge Amazon, such that you meet the SAME criteria Amazon meets in Apple’s rules, then you get the same deal.

The ”deal” with Netflix, Amazon and others is not “hey, I’ll do this for you.” It’s more “I’m going to do this for you BUT, I want YOU to understand that everyone else is going to get this same terms if they provide the same conditions.”

I’m convinced that one reason (absolutely not the biggest) why Epic has a problem is that they want an “exclusive” deal with Apple and the best Apple would ever do is define new rules and then any other Epic that comes along and follows the rules gets the same deal. Of course, it’s pretty clear now that Epic never wanted a deal and they actually plan to come out with an Epic branded OnePlus phone that provides access to their own store. :)
Click to expand...

www.theguardian.com

'This isn't the 1990s': Apple under pressure from app developers

Facebook, Amazon and Google all have their problems, but Apple is losing friends faster
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

“I ask that you clearly define the conditions that Amazon satisfied for its arrangement so that DCN’s member companies meeting those conditions can be offered the same agreement,” Kint’s letter concluded.

Is this a reasonable request?
 
Reindeer_Legal said:
The courts have traditionally distinguished "market power" and "monopoly power".
www.justice.gov

Monopoly Power and Market Power in Antitrust Law

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.
www.justice.gov www.justice.gov
Click to expand...

I wonder if you read the content you link to, or if you just scan the titles and assume it confirms you position.

From your article:

  • "we argue attempting to distinguish between market power and monopoly power creates a false dichotomy"
  • "We believe that market power and monopoly power are qualitatively identical concepts-both terms refer to anticompetitive economic power that ultimately can compromise consumer welfare."
  • "We can find no Supreme Court opinion that contrasts the terms 'market power' and 'monopoly power' deliberately and explicitly"
  • "Other Supreme Court opinions also appear to treat market power and monopoly power as identical concepts."
  • "Economists use both 'market power' and 'monopoly power' to refer to the power of a single firm or group of firms to price profitably above marginal cost."
The whole point of that article is that "market power" and "monopoly power" are the same.

That article was from 1987 and posted on the DoJ website. From the FTC site today:

www.ftc.gov

Monopolization Defined

The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power.
www.ftc.gov www.ftc.gov

  • "Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power."
 
Analog Kid said:
I wonder if you read the content you link to, or if you just scan the titles and assume it confirms you position.

From your article:

  • "we argue attempting to distinguish between market power and monopoly power creates a false dichotomy"
  • "We believe that market power and monopoly power are qualitatively identical concepts-both terms refer to anticompetitive economic power that ultimately can compromise consumer welfare."
  • "We can find no Supreme Court opinion that contrasts the terms 'market power' and 'monopoly power' deliberately and explicitly"
  • "Other Supreme Court opinions also appear to treat market power and monopoly power as identical concepts."
  • "Economists use both 'market power' and 'monopoly power' to refer to the power of a single firm or group of firms to price profitably above marginal cost."
The whole point of that article is that "market power" and "monopoly power" are the same.

That article was from 1987 and posted on the DoJ website. From the FTC site today:

www.ftc.gov

Monopolization Defined

The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power.
www.ftc.gov www.ftc.gov

  • "Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power."
Click to expand...

Whatever, market power doesn't mean "monopoly". It means "the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors" (from your quote). Apple's App Store certainly has that power:
If App Store raises their tax 10%, people will complain but there's nothing they can do => market power.
If iPhone is priced 10% more, people will buy other phones instead. => no market power.

Per that understanding, literal "monopoly" is not required in per se or rule of reason.
 
Last edited:
Reindeer_Legal said:
An antitrust complaint against Apple isn't on the side of consumers? Who are you fooling?
Antitrust complaints against big tech always benefit powerless consumers.
Click to expand...
Unless powerless consumers are being used as pawns in an effort to enhance the riches of a privately owned company by its billionaire founder. This isn't about what's good for consumers, it's about what's good for Epic.
 
Analog Kid said:
Unless powerless consumers are being used as pawns in an effort to enhance the riches of a privately owned company by its billionaire founder. This isn't about what's good for consumers, it's about what's good for Epic.
Click to expand...

Competition favors superior products. Nothing wrong about that.
 
Reindeer_Legal said:
Whatever, market power doesn't mean "monopoly". It means "the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors" (from your quote). Apple's App Store certainly has that power.
Click to expand...
You really can't read to the end of a sentence, can you...

"a 'monopolist' is a firm with significant and durable market power."

And, as I said in an earlier post that probably had too many words, the "long term ability to raise price" means they can raise their prices sustainably without losing customers at the margin. If you think no one has switched to Android because they don't like Apple's prices, then you haven't been in these forums very long...

And Apple has no means to prevent another firm from creating a smartphone.
 
Reindeer_Legal said:
An antitrust complaint against Apple isn't on the side of consumers? Who are you fooling?
Antitrust complaints against big tech always benefit powerless consumers.
Click to expand...
Not in the real world. It could hurt or benefit.

Reindeer_Legal said:
An operating system is designed to run every compatible executable that you want.
Apple took that functionality away from you.
Apple degraded your product for their own benefits.
Click to expand...
Oh please. Why are you even on this forum? There is no such thing as a degraded product. There is a product, either you like it or not. If you don't, just buy something else. If it was "degraded", it would mean I bought a phone with certain feature and that feature, LATER ON, was taken away. Sorry, it didn't happen.

You want iOS to be the same as other OS? Why? If you prefer other OS, just buy phone with other OSs, nobody will care. That's your decision and we are all, ALL good with it.

If you give the ability to run other store on the iPhone, you are degrading my iPhone, because I like the iPhone the way it is, I don't want other stores, I don't want the ability to run any other executable and I find it better this way.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: m11rphy, Alan Wynn and cyb3rdud3
D4vidrim said:
If you give the ability to run other store on the iPhone, you are degrading my iPhone, because I like the iPhone the way it is
Click to expand...

Literally false. A product cannot be degraded by having more functionality, unless the added functionality interferes with other functionality. Allowing you to run other stores does not affect whatsoever the functionality to use App Store.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: cyb3rdud3
Reindeer_Legal said:
Literally false. A product cannot be degraded by having more functionality, unless the added functionality interferes with other functionality. Allowing you to run other stores does not affect whatsoever the functionality to use App Store.
Click to expand...
It could be from a consumer's perspective. For example; currently, I only have to look in the App Store if I am after a particular application to download, but what if there are multiple stores, in your future I would have to go to the Facebook store to download Instagram and Facebook, go to the Twitter store for Twitter, go to the Microsoft store for Office, Teams, Azure, and so on. So to me, the product is degraded into a fractioned mess. And I haven't even begun about enforcing UI design standards and integration with the platform services. Today I know that I can use my own password manager and that every App will comply with it. Same for payment as I don't have to give away my payment details. Etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacCheetah3
cyb3rdud3 said:
It could be from a consumer's perspective. For example; currently, I only have to look in the App Store if I am after a particular application to download, but what if there are multiple stores, in your future I would have to go to the Facebook store to download Instagram and Facebook, go to the Twitter store for Twitter, go to the Microsoft store for Office, Teams, Azure, and so on. So to me, the product is degraded into a fractioned mess. And I haven't even begun about enforcing UI design standards and integration with the platform services. Today I know that I can use my own password manager and that every App will comply with it. Same for payment as I don't have to give away my payment details. Etc.
Click to expand...

Just download from the App Store. Nobody is forcing you to use the Facebook store or whatever.
Plus you scenario is purely a figment of your imagination. Does any other operating system have the problem you described?
Do you have to download Facebook from the Facebook Store on Android?
 
Reindeer_Legal said:
Just download from the App Store. Nobody is forcing you to use the Facebook store or whatever.
Plus you scenario is purely a figment of your imagination. Does any other operating system have the problem you described?
Do you have to download Facebook from the Facebook Store on Android?
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, this is false, because if you allow different stores, there will be the case of apps that I need and are not on the App Store anymore, forcing me to use the other one, even if I don't want to.
That is degrading my iPhone. I want my iPhone with the features that pushed me to buy it. You take them away, you degrade my experience, my product.

Please do not think your desire is what everyone want. You want other stores? Buy other phones. It is really simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: m11rphy and cyb3rdud3
Reindeer_Legal said:
Just download from the App Store. Nobody is forcing you to use the Facebook store or whatever.
Plus you scenario is purely a figment of your imagination. Does any other operating system have the problem you described?
Do you have to download Facebook from the Facebook Store on Android?
Click to expand...
Nice edit ;) Your original reply was almost reasonable, yet now you've added a dig to it ;)

That is to say that the application I want is being carried by all stores on the platform. If they aren't then you'd have to go to different stores.

So the scenario is a "figment of my imagination"; hmmm
1. Do you honestly think that EPIC in addition to being allowed to have their own store also keeps their applications on the Apple App Store and thus pays the fees? Do you seriously believe that?
2. Something more practical; take a look at the ATV platform. The TV application provides nice integration across multiple streaming providers; with one search I get to see content not only from Apple but also from Amazon Prime, and from BBC iPlayer, and a few others. But notably, Netflix doesn't integrate with that one-stop-shop for my streaming, nor does NowTV. As such that ruins the experience and degrades the platform as I now have to go into different apps to select and find what I want to watch.

So no figment of my imagination, it is reality. And if you are an iOS user then you don't realize how good and well-integrated experience you have today. It is not something that should be dismissed easily.
 
  • Like
Reactions: m11rphy
D4vidrim said:
Please do not think your desire is what everyone want. You want other stores? Buy other phones. It is really simple.
Click to expand...

What an irony. People wanting to lock up iPhone telling those who do not.
Nobody's forcing you to use Facebook, or whatever. Want to only install apps from App Store? Don't use other apps. It's really simple.
 
Reindeer_Legal said:
What an irony. People wanting to lock up iPhone telling those who do not.
Nobody's forcing you to use Facebook, or whatever. Want to only install apps from App Store? Don't use other apps. It's really simple.
Click to expand...
Why do you want to degrade my experience and my iPhone?
 
cyb3rdud3 said:
Nice edit ;) Your original reply was almost reasonable, yet now you've added a dig to it ;)

That is to say that the application I want is being carried by all stores on the platform. If they aren't then you'd have to go to different stores.

So the scenario is a "figment of my imagination"; hmmm
1. Do you honestly think that EPIC in addition to being allowed to have their own store also keeps their applications on the Apple App Store and thus pays the fees? Do you seriously believe that?
2. Something more practical; take a look at the ATV platform. The TV application provides nice integration across multiple streaming providers; with one search I get to see content not only from Apple but also from Amazon Prime, and from BBC iPlayer, and a few others. But notably, Netflix doesn't integrate with that one-stop-shop for my streaming, nor does NowTV. As such that ruins the experience and degrades the platform as I now have to go into different apps to select and find what I want to watch.

So no figment of my imagination, it is reality. And if you are an iOS user then you don't realize how good and well-integrated experience you have today. It is not something that should be dismissed easily.
Click to expand...

1. If Epic has their own store, Epic would lose no money keeping their app on App Store. Only Apple wants to ban it.
2. Don't know what you are taking about. What's ATV?
3. You haven't answered whether you have to download from the Facebook on Android. (Spoiler: you don't)
4. Don't get me started on interoperability. Apple hates interoperability. Open source giants like Google fosters interoperability. Apple only wants things that exclusively work on Apple devices. Even Microsoft has done more for interoperability that Apple.
 
Reindeer_Legal said:
What an irony. People wanting to lock up iPhone telling those who do not.
Nobody's forcing you to use Facebook, or whatever. Want to only install apps from App Store? Don't use other apps. It's really simple.
Click to expand...
You are shifting the goal posts. This discussion began about degrading the product. Several of us have given you examples of how what you are proposing could cause that, including an example of where this is already happening due to similar “flexible” arrangements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: m11rphy
cyb3rdud3 said:
You are shifting the goal posts. This discussion began about degrading the product. Several of us have given you examples of how what you are proposing could cause that, including an example of where this is already happening due to similar “flexible” arrangements.
Click to expand...

What examples? I only saw imaginations.
 
Reindeer_Legal said:
1. If Epic has their own store, Epic would lose no money keeping their app on App Store. Only Apple wants to ban it.
2. Don't know what you are taking about. What's ATV?
3. You haven't answered whether you have to download from the Facebook on Android. (Spoiler: you don't)
4. Don't get me started on interoperability. Apple hates interoperability. Open source giants like Google fosters interoperability. Apple only wants things that exclusively work on Apple devices. Even Microsoft has done more for interoperability that Apple.
Click to expand...
1. Apple doesn’t want to ban it at all. They just request developers to stick to the rules.
2. ATV is Apple TV.
3. we aren’t talking about Android. If I want Android I’ll buy Android; spoiler I do have three Android devices as well. second spoiler Epic is also going for the Google play store.
4. You may want to educate yourself regarding what Apple contributes to opensource, before making sweeping statements like that.
[automerge]1598947236[/automerge]
Reindeer_Legal said:
What examples? I only saw imaginations.
Click to expand...
Then you better read it again, and try and understand what EPIC wants out of this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: m11rphy
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back