Epic Games Asks Apple to Restore Fortnite in South Korea Following Ban on In-App Purchase Requirement [Update]

[Aydo2000]

Yeah, what's cute. But, no, this will not stand in Economics or in court.

Just based on the fact that there are no barriers to entry, disregarding all else, this would be called "perfectly competitive", not "monopolistic".

Thank you once again for contradicting yourself with your own words. Just like anyone can sign in here, any developer can also join App Store. Mac Rumors doesn’t prevent you from posting comments but it does serve the right to remove your comment or in extreme cases remove your account if you don’t stick to their guidelines. Same applies to App Store rules.
Just like Mac Rumors does not prevent you from posting comments in other sites, Apple also does not prevent developers from developing and distributing their apps on other platforms.

By your own definition, App Store - as well as Mac Rumors - is “perfectly competitive”.

 

[Wollombi]

I never understood why Epic didn't do what Amazon did long ago.

Amazon didn't want to be charged 30% on every Kindle ebook they sold... so they just stopped it altogether. And people had to go to Amazon's website to buy Kindle ebooks.

Epic could have done something similar. Even though they couldn't (then) have a link to a website in the app... I'm pretty sure gamers would have figured it out.

You need an Epic Games account to play Fortnite anyway, right? So you already have a login and password to Epic's website and store.

That seems like a better option than suing the two major mobile platforms.

Still the most annoying thing to me in Kindle on iOS. On Android I can find the book, purchase and download it in seconds, but on iOS i have to open the browser, log in (with 2-factor authentication), search for the book, purchase it, then go back to the Kindle app, show my entire library, and download the book before I can read it. Yeah, it's a 1st world problem, for sure, but as Apple says they want it to "just work" and promoting an "effortless experience" I've always found this scenario to be blatantly counter to that goal (and it's still a PITA, even if it's one of the better PITA's to have in this world).

 

[Aydo2000]

I don't know what you are trying to achieve with sophistry.

Showing your hypocrisy and double standards. I think it is obvious to anyone who reads our exchange that you apply different rules to different situations. What is normally acceptable for you becomes totally unacceptable when there is "Apple" in the argument.

 

[Wollombi]

The timing of this will probably determine Apple's move.

Today is the 9th, & Apple's BIG event is on the 14th.

Hard to say what they think is their best course of action.

IMO, Epic clearly stepped-out of bounds.

But, Apple clearly also has had too much control of it ALL, & that's about to change !

Antitrust legislation is making its way thru Congress, & Tim Cook knows that !

And NOT just here in the States !

Apple's recent App Store changes impressed few, & Tim Cook knows that also !

NOT sure they'll accommodate Epic though.

Egos, NOT logic OR even common sense, drive most decisions in BIG companies.

You're right in that there are no clean hands in this. Apple is clearly wielding monopoly or near-monopoly power when it comes to telling end users what store they can use on their own devices that they paid for and own. Sure, you can still sell books and such via the app store, but only if you give Apple their tribute.

Contrast this to Android, or literally ANY distribution of *nix/BSD, and you see why this becomes an issue for the end user.

Yes, the app store offers (or at least used to offer) some advantages over side loading and other app stores, but at the moment, Google and Amazon are doing a better job than Apple of making sure scams and other malicious apps don't reside on their stores. So what is the benefit now of using the Apple store vs, say, an Amazon store for iOS, or an Epic store. We should be able to add whatever repositories we like on the devices we paid for and own.

 

[tgwaste]

Any money Apple loses will just be passed on to us with price increases.

 

[0924487]

Thank you once again for contradicting yourself with your own words. Just like anyone can sign in here, any developer can also join App Store. Mac Rumors doesn’t prevent you from posting comments but it does serve the right to remove your comment or in extreme cases remove your account if you don’t stick to their guidelines. Same applies to App Store rules.
Just like Mac Rumors does not prevent you from posting comments in other sites, Apple also does not prevent developers from developing and distributing their apps on other platforms.

By your own definition, App Store - as well as Mac Rumors - is “perfectly competitive”.

No?

In the market of iOS app distribution platforms, there is only one provider - the Apple App Store. There is a barrier to entry into the market as Apple, as the operating system operator, is actively preventing other distribution platforms from joining the market via internal and external means. This behaviour is called Rent-Seeking in Economics.

 

[tgwaste]

You're right in that there are no clean hands in this. Apple is clearly wielding monopoly or near-monopoly power when it comes to telling end users what store they can use on their own devices that they paid for and own. Sure, you can still sell books and such via the app store, but only if you give Apple their tribute.

Contrast this to Android, or literally ANY distribution of *nix/BSD, and you see why this becomes an issue for the end user.

Yes, the app store offers (or at least used to offer) some advantages over side loading and other app stores, but at the moment, Google and Amazon are doing a better job than Apple of making sure scams and other malicious apps don't reside on their stores. So what is the benefit now of using the Apple store vs, say, an Amazon store for iOS, or an Epic store. We should be able to add whatever repositories we like on the devices we paid for and own.

lol... no. The play store is the biggest junk yard on the planet and there's a lot of junk on the planet.

 

[jonblatho]

Then figure out how to get on your feet without Apple’s help if you have more faith in your own skills of promoting, distributing and monetizing your app. Try that with the operating cost of $99 a year which is what a developer account cost in iOS ecosystem.

The app is no longer available, but its binary is small enough that the costs of distribution would be trivial. (Amazing what you can accomplish when you don’t load an app down with useless crap.) Hosting is dirt cheap.

AWS would allow me to distribute the full app binary (pre-App Thinning) roughly 100 times for a grand total of three cents, so I could distribute it hundreds of thousands of times before I hit $99. If I distributed app-thinned binaries that number jumps to over a million distributions. We’ll run with that and since I’d cross $1M revenue based on that, we’ll say the cut is 30% instead of 15%. (At the time, the 15% cut wasn’t available.)

A link outside the app to pay $2.99 using Stripe would net me $0.50 extra per user versus a 30% cut to Apple. Multiply that by a million app distributions and I’ve got $500,000 extra in my pocket, which I can turn around and use for marketing, R&D, hiring on folks to help — and, you know, to make a living.

Obviously a simplistic view, but the kind of overheads we’re dealing with here should be clear from that.

 

[Aydo2000]

No?

In the market of iOS app distribution platforms, there is only one provider - the Apple App Store. There is a barrier to entry into the market as Apple, as the operating system operator, is actively preventing other distribution platforms from joining the market via internal and external means. This behaviour is called Rent-Seeking in Economics.

Why don't you apply the same "barrier to entry" rule for Mac Rumors then? As far as commenting on Mac Rumors, it is the ONLY provider for posting comments on its site. You as a user have the choice to take or leave it. You aren't forced or compelled to do anything. Mac Rumors is not legally or morally bound to give you the option to comment in their site from another site. Similarly, Mercedes is not bound to sell BMWs in their own dealers if they choose not to. What is so difficult to understand.

 

[0924487]

Showing your hypocrisy and double standards. I think it is obvious to anyone who reads our exchange that you apply different rules to different situations. What is normally acceptable for you becomes totally unacceptable when there is "Apple" in the argument.

That's an unfalsifiable statement.

 

[Aydo2000]

That's an unfalsifiable statement.

Is that why your logic and reasoning fall apart when analogies are presented?

 

[djphat2000]

I do not understand why Apple does not just allow side loading since that would end Epic's legal battle and possible legislation regarding their App Store. All they would do is mimic Google's rollout by having users manually enable side loading with a security warning.

It's a hard justification. So Apple would have to build a backdoor into their iOS. That would have to work across all versions of iOS or at least future versions going forward. That backdoor just by existing is a way in for ANYONE to get on the iDevice. Today, Jailbreaking an iOS device is done from vulnerabilities found in the device or iOS. This is one made to enter at any time. How can you protect the device/iOS from some rogue program/website/text/email attachment etc from enabling that feature and installing whatever malware/spyware/rootware/Ransomware/*.*ware? Just saying to do it, clearly does not mean it will happen.

Also note, that Apple stated privacy and security as reasons why while not allow this. It's not just your device that could be compromised from this. But, ALL your contacts. You know, the ones that didn't want this side-loading thing on their device to begin with. If your device gets hacked, you may not even know it happened. while they are pillaging your data and hacking away at other people you know.

 

[0924487]

Why don't you apply the same "barrier to entry" rule for Mac Rumors then? As far as commenting on Mac Rumors, it is the ONLY provider for posting comments on its site. You as a user have the choice to take or leave it. You aren't forced or compelled to do anything. Mac Rumors is not legally or morally bound to give you the option to comment in their site from another site. Similarly, Mercedes is not bound to sell BMWs in their own dealers if they choose not to. What is so difficult to understand.

You are always dodging at least one of the requirements. That's why you feel I'm ambivalent.

This time, you are dodging the "market" requirement, i.e., the existence of a formal Economic "market" in this case study.

 

[ian87w]

Again, they get to do what they want on Apple's platform but, right at the end. They don't owe apple anything for the store they lived on just before the purchase was made. Many developers may not bother with this, true. But, the fact that it can happen means it will happen for enough of them. The only real solution to this is another store. Which in my very humble opinion is just wrong to force on these companies. Yes, you can do the same thing on a Mac or PC. However, these are not Mac's or PC's. They are designed very differently from each other. While merging many of the same features a PC/Mac has. It's still different. A motorcycle and a car are both forms of transportation, but that doesn't mean the are the same. They are built differently for different use cases. Yet for some reason there are those that think they are the same, and there will be no harm no foul to "making" Apple and Google come up with a complete redesign on how their relative stores "work".

Is it just a payment at the end that has people all angry? Cause if it is, then someone needs to answer my T-Shirt question/situation I proposed in this thread. I get to use everything your store has, but not owe the store owner or shop owner anything for selling my stuff there. That's just not how it works. I don't get to put a cash register in anyones store for which my merchandise is being sold in. Bypassing the stores register and well, paying anything to the store.

Clearly Apple is working on a solution as they are already preparing to allow a link out for reader apps. It could be as simple as this, and developers who use this for mere in-game purchases will find that most people wouldn't bite. There are ways for Apple to put barriers, eg. a charge for using certain APIs if you use your own payment system. This is an evolving thing, not set in stone.

 

[Aydo2000]

You are always dodging at least one of the requirements. That's why you feel I'm ambivalent.

This time, you are dodging the "market" requirement, i.e., the existence of a formal Economic "market" in this case study.

All I am doing is taking your very own rules that you set in your own head and apply it to equivalent cases. If the argument falls apart, that's because your fundamentals don't add up. Not because I fail to make my own argument. My argument is to prove your rules are double standard and it isn't how being tried in the eyes of the judicial system.

 

[0924487]

All I am doing is taking your very own rules that you set in your own head and apply it to equivalent cases. If the argument falls apart, that's because your fundamentals don't add up. Not because I fail to make my own argument. My argument is to prove your rules are double standard and it isn't how being tried in the eyes of the judicial system.

Why don't you make a formal self-contained statement in your own words?

I remind you about one requirement in a comment, then another in the next, every time, you pick up one, then ignore the previous, rinse and repeat.

 

[Vjosullivan]

That’s called market standard. Every product or service has a certain price point or industry standard they follow which is also regulated by governments. Same as every bank follows the same interest rate or car manufacturers pricing their cars based on what the competition or market allows. None of these examples are anticompetitive since none restrict the competion by any means. Developers are free to distribute their apps however they want. They aren’t forced to do anything but also don’t get to have a say how companies run their business. Don’t take it if you don’t like it. Same logic applies to everything in life. Sense of entitlement a personal issue. Not a worldwide flaw.

Absolutely it's a de facto cartel. Banks don't all charge the same interest rate, nor do similar cars cost the same amount.

Absolutely there are monopolistic practices at work, too. Don't like Apple's App Store? Good luck finding an independent App Store because Apple has banned those, too.

"My way or the high way" does not equal freedom of choice.

 

[Aydo2000]

Why don't you make a formal self-contained statement in your own words?

I remind you about one requirement in a comment, then another in the next, every time, you pick up one, then ignore the previous, rinse and repeat.

You should take your own suggestions. I am not the one who rewrites the rules of law and perfectly legal corporate structures. I don't own you an explanation. The burden of proof is on you, not me. That's also one of the rules of legal disputes. The plaintiff is supposed to prove its case. If you were the one suing Apple for being a "monopoly", then you would have to prove that it is. Apple is only responsible for defending its position. Hence the name "defendant". That's how courts operate. You make a claim, you assume the responsibility of proving your own claim.

 

[Eso]

No way Apple is going to reinstate it.

Epic Games… why not build your own platform.

They did? They have virtual concerts within the game for goodness sake. Anyone whose argument is “just go build your own smartphone” is delusional. Considering the contenders that have attempted and failed to enter the smartphone OS space, that hasn’t been a realistic strategy for at least a decade.

 

[djphat2000]

The thing that I hate about SK's approach is that it doesn't fix the real problem.

It's MY iPhone, not Apple's iPhone. I have the right to install software from any source of MY choosing on MY iPhone. Apple's illegal monopoly app store MUST be stopped.

I don't care if Apple charges 90% on their app store. I just demand the option to opt out of it.

You can do whatever you want with your phone. You "can't" force Apple to let you do whatever you want to their iOS. You license it, you don't own it. If you figure out a way to hack into that device, you can do so and make it do whatever you are able to make it do. But, with a license to use the operating system. You don't have any right to make it do whatever you want. very sorry. This same logic applies to purchasing music. You don't own it. You license it. Movies, you don't own it you license it.

 

[Stunning_Sense4712]

It's a hard justification. So Apple would have to build a backdoor into their iOS. That would have to work across all versions of iOS or at least future versions going forward. That backdoor just by existing is a way in for ANYONE to get on the iDevice. Today, Jailbreaking an iOS device is done from vulnerabilities found in the device or iOS. This is one made to enter at any time. How can you protect the device/iOS from some rogue program/website/text/email attachment etc from enabling that feature and installing whatever malware/spyware/rootware/Ransomware/*.*ware? Just saying to do it, clearly does not mean it will happen.

Also note, that Apple stated privacy and security as reasons why while not allow this. It's not just your device that could be compromised from this. But, ALL your contacts. You know, the ones that didn't want this side-loading thing on their device to begin with. If your device gets hacked, you may not even know it happened. while they are pillaging your data and hacking away at other people you know.

Being able to install an applications outside of the manufacturer's app store is not a backdoor.

 

[0924487]

You should take your own suggestions. I am not the one who rewrites the rules of law and perfectly legal corporate structures. I don't own you an explanation. The burden of proof is on you, not me. That's also one of the rules of legal disputes. The plaintiff is supposed to prove its case.

Antitrust investigations are not to find illegal things (except antitrust laws) the corporation is doing. It's to find what's not "fair" by Economic Analysis, then drive new legislation to curb or break the leading market powers. At the same time, we interpret and enforce the existing antitrust laws based on the result of the Economic Analysis to mandate penalties and changes to the leading market powers.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

It's already the cheapest way to do a IAP. It costs way more to do it alone or on the Epic game store. People just see 15% or 30% and think thats it, well that 15% or 30% is only the end of it if you are on the AppStore, Google Play, Microsoft Store, or Steam.

No it doesn’t cost more to do it alone. You can use Stripe or PayPal etc there are multiple services with a small fee.
If a fee of 12% exist it shows 15 or 30 is not the cheapest. Just an artificial limit.

 

[Aydo2000]

They did? They have virtual concerts within the game for goodness sake. Anyone whose argument is “just go build your own smartphone” is delusional. Considering the contenders that have attempted and failed to enter the smartphone OS space, that hasn’t been a realistic strategy for at least a decade.

You just proved why Epic is wrong with everything. This is a free market and just because something is difficult doesn't mean others should alter their own success to cater to your failures. Epic is a multi billion dollar company. They could have tried doing their own consoles just like Microsoft, Sony and others. 30% cut is justified when you, yourself, admit it is a difficult thing to achieve success. Apple spent billions of dollars and years of innovations to get where they are. If Epic can't make it without someone else's inventions and hardware, then that's their corporate problem.

 

[Aydo2000]

Antitrust investigations are not to find illegal things (except antitrust laws) the corporation is doing. It's to find what's not "fair" by Economic Analysis, then drive new legislation to curb or break the leading market powers. At the same time, we interpret and enforce the existing antitrust laws based on the result of the Economic Analysis to mandate penalties and changes to the leading market powers.

I have been in the business field for almost 30 years. I have done several years of work in international laws and data governance space. I think I know how antitrust laws work and I won't waste any more time reading your severely twisted concepts that don't apply in real life.