Epic Games Asks Court to Allow Fortnite Back on the App Store

[deevey]

Just because there is a duopoly instead of just a monopoly, does not mean that your argument has weight. It embodies how anti-consumer and anticompetitive the smartphone market has become and makes a greater case, not smaller, for regulatory action. The sales numbers make it overwhelmingly clear: Smart Phones are the most widely available general computing devices on the planet. And yet Apple refuses to allow consumers to choose what they run on them. There's an open question of whether or not you will have that ability on ARM Macs moving forward. You don't own Apple devices anymore. You can't fix them. You can't choose what to run on them. Worse of all, the rest of the industry follows their lead, since they make a majority of the profits.

I'd hardly applies just to the smartphone market, on the non-serviceability front Apple followed the lead from others, as its been the mantra of many industries for years prior to the iPhone.

If my phone was designed to run some Opensource OS on a reasonably generic device (Android), I'd be more than a little peeved that I cant run what I want.

But when the entire device, hardware and software has been designed from the ground up and sold to me as a package deal, with those lockouts in place (with good reason IMHO) .. I certainly do not feel short changed even if I pay a little extra for the privilege.

Personally I feel that the Entire Apple Brand would be irreparably tainted at the very first instance that a widespread malware app was introduced through a third party Appstore, device slowdowns, database of users hacked , or daddy's credit cards emptied by some fake Appstore.

It would make zero difference to the public that Apple were only acting on a court order, it would ONLY matter that it happened at all and that it was on an Apple device in the first place. A scenario that could, and in my opinion should, be avoided at all costs.

I own an Apple device, I know its limitations, and I'm aware of the costs - I'm also well aware of far greater cost of sharing my data to untrusted third parties, and the lengths that third parties will go to in order to exploit loopholes in ANY slightly open system.

A cell phone at this point in time is, in most cases, a far more personal extension of a person than any computer and the information gathered far more exploitable.

Allowing third party apps to be side loaded, or third party App stores IMHO would simply level the playing field for that exploitation to take place.

 

[pasamio]

Just because there is a duopoly instead of just a monopoly, does not mean that your argument has weight. It embodies how anti-consumer and anticompetitive the smartphone market has become and makes a greater case, not smaller, for regulatory action. The sales numbers make it overwhelmingly clear: Smart Phones are the most widely available general computing devices on the planet. And yet Apple refuses to allow consumers to choose what they run on them. There's an open question of whether or not you will have that ability on ARM Macs moving forward. You don't own Apple devices anymore. You can't fix them. You can't choose what to run on them. Worse of all, the rest of the industry follows their lead, since they make a majority of the profits.

If you're upset that there is a duopoly then you need to address the company that truly has a monopoly on the smartphone operating system market and that's Google. Google undercut the smartphone operating system market by releasing the Android system for free. If you look at the platform marketshare before and after both iOS and Android's release you can see that Android grows significantly faster than iOS did:

Now we end up in a situation where iOS and Android are dominant. Microsoft gave up on their operating system, HP's webOS never really got to full speed and Blackberry's market evaporated to cheaper Android phones or more advanced iPhones. New entrants to the market have an uphill battle: how do you sell your phone operating system against Google that gives it away for free? Phone manufacturers are stuck in a place where they have only one operating system choice: Android. The problem here isn't iOS, Apple doesn't license it out for others to use, the problem is that the third party smartphone market was undercut by Google giving it a monopoly. Even if you were to build a new smartphone operating system you're left with the problem that you need to provide all support for the base level services. You have then figure out what you do for mapping, do you license Google Maps? Do you license Bing Maps? Do you use OpenStreetMap data? You have to work towards building your own mail client and supporting the platforms but you're at a disadvantage, on Android you could license Google's own apps but you have to build your own from scratch and you're up against Google's dominance in the services space. You also have Microsoft's services as well, you have to build apps to support that as well. All of this ends up being a lot of work, why not just use Android?

Therein lies the problem: not that Apple is locked down but that Google who weren't in the operating system business and weren't originally even making phones came in to destroy that market. Google now has most of the third party services, including their own, on their platform and they have an interest in limiting third party usage of their APIs and services. If anything is anti competition in the smartphone OS market, it's giving Android away for nothing.

 

[travelsheep]

60 % less iOS traffic because of Epic?

 

[bousozoku]

Nobody is asking for it to be on Apple's store for free. In fact, nobody would care if it was on Apple's store at all. What makes Apple's behavior an illegal monopoly is that there is currently NO OTHER WAY for me to install a piece of software on MY iPhone (not Apple's iPhone, MY iPhone, I own it, Apple does not own it) than for it to come from Apple's store. That has to change.

Apple has two choices here:

• Allow users to use other app stores and install apps from any source they want.

or

• Lose this lawsuit, hopefully a huge amount of money for actual and punitive damages, be hit with a class action from all other app developers, lose that too, and then allow users to use other app stores and install apps from any source they want.

Either way, Apple WILL lose this one, because they're wrong and they're behaving like criminals. The only question is how badly Apple loses this one.

I guess you didn't read any part of the licensing agreement when you got your phone.

You agreed to use their software.

It's your phone. Put someone else's software on it and deal with the consequences. Don't use any part of Apple's software and you'll be fine. You don't have to agree to anything.

 

[travelsheep]

Apple's fees is seriously problematic and unarguably anticompetitive

App price $ 10
Ruling party VAT $ 2
Apple tax $ 3
Ruling party income tax $ 4

Developer nets $ 1 (which is 10 % of app price) before expenses.

 

[Abazigal]

Nobody is asking for it to be on Apple's store for free. In fact, nobody would care if it was on Apple's store at all. What makes Apple's behavior an illegal monopoly is that there is currently NO OTHER WAY for me to install a piece of software on MY iPhone (not Apple's iPhone, MY iPhone, I own it, Apple does not own it) than for it to come from Apple's store. That has to change.

Apple has two choices here:

• Allow users to use other app stores and install apps from any source they want.

or

• Lose this lawsuit, hopefully a huge amount of money for actual and punitive damages, be hit with a class action from all other app developers, lose that too, and then allow users to use other app stores and install apps from any source they want.

Either way, Apple WILL lose this one, because they're wrong and they're behaving like criminals. The only question is how badly Apple loses this one.

You will be disappointed.

As is anyone who bet against Apple.

In hindsight, they miscalculated on multiple fronts.

The parody video was likely targeted more at tech reporters than anyone else. It seemed like a moment of pride for Epic management. They were finally standing up to what is apparently the evil status quo, but the problem is that most of its audience were not around to experience the world leading up to Apple’s 1984 ad.

Second was their decision to also go after google, which does allow side loading in android. With this, it has became painfully clear that Epic isn’t so much going after what they view as unfair or illegal App Store guidelines. Rather, they were looking for power on mobile operating systems.

Third, Epic is not going after console makers, because no surprise, Sony has a stake in Epic.

It’s sheer hypocrisy on Epic’s part. They aren’t going against the App Store to empower users or developers. The idea that Epic is looking out for the user is just a ploy. Instead, Epic is focused on grabbing more power.

As a consumer, I have absolutely zero reason to support Epic’s fight over the App Store in order for Epic to have its own iOS app store that is guided by Epic’s guidelines. How is that even a positive for me?

Epic, and those who stand with Epic, will find themselves on the wrong side of history.

You will see. You will all see.

 

[PickUrPoison]

App price $ 10
Ruling party VAT $ 2
Apple tax $ 3
Ruling party income tax $ 4

Developer nets $ 1 (which is 10 % of app price) before expenses.

Not sure what country you’re from but yeah if they’re taking 60% of the sales price for taxes, that sure would make it tough to make any money. Maybe time for a new party to rule?

For comparison, in the US income tax is only charged on the profit, not the sales price. If you sell $10,000 and you have expenses of $8,000, you would pay income tax (maybe 20%) only on $2,000.

So maybe we would pay around $400 in income tax, instead of the $4,000 you pay for income tax in your country.

 

[PickUrPoison]

60 % less iOS traffic because of Epic?

No, no change to iOS traffic overall, across all developers, was claimed.

But the number of active daily iOS fortnite players is down >60%.

 

[Abazigal]

No, no change to iOS traffic overall, across all developers, was claimed.

But the number of active daily iOS fortnite players is down >60%.

I am surprised there are even people still playing the outdated version of fortnite.

 

[Analog Kid]

Just because there is a duopoly instead of just a monopoly, does not mean that your argument has weight. It embodies how anti-consumer and anticompetitive the smartphone market has become and makes a greater case, not smaller, for regulatory action. The sales numbers make it overwhelmingly clear: Smart Phones are the most widely available general computing devices on the planet. And yet Apple refuses to allow consumers to choose what they run on them. There's an open question of whether or not you will have that ability on ARM Macs moving forward. You don't own Apple devices anymore. You can't fix them. You can't choose what to run on them. Worse of all, the rest of the industry follows their lead, since they make a majority of the profits.

There's no reason Apple can't further lock down an Intel Mac. This idea that moving Mac to Apple Silicon is going to make Mac any more like iPhone is a bit odd. Apple may very well further lock down the Mac after the move to Apple Silicon, but that would essentially be coincidence. There's no reason Apple couldn't make the same moves on Intel.

If you're upset that there is a duopoly then you need to address the company that truly has a monopoly on the smartphone operating system market and that's Google. Google undercut the smartphone operating system market by releasing the Android system for free. If you look at the platform marketshare before and after both iOS and Android's release you can see that Android grows significantly faster than iOS did:

View attachment 950887

Now we end up in a situation where iOS and Android are dominant. Microsoft gave up on their operating system, HP's webOS never really got to full speed and Blackberry's market evaporated to cheaper Android phones or more advanced iPhones. New entrants to the market have an uphill battle: how do you sell your phone operating system against Google that gives it away for free? Phone manufacturers are stuck in a place where they have only one operating system choice: Android. The problem here isn't iOS, Apple doesn't license it out for others to use, the problem is that the third party smartphone market was undercut by Google giving it a monopoly. Even if you were to build a new smartphone operating system you're left with the problem that you need to provide all support for the base level services. You have then figure out what you do for mapping, do you license Google Maps? Do you license Bing Maps? Do you use OpenStreetMap data? You have to work towards building your own mail client and supporting the platforms but you're at a disadvantage, on Android you could license Google's own apps but you have to build your own from scratch and you're up against Google's dominance in the services space. You also have Microsoft's services as well, you have to build apps to support that as well. All of this ends up being a lot of work, why not just use Android?

Therein lies the problem: not that Apple is locked down but that Google who weren't in the operating system business and weren't originally even making phones came in to destroy that market. Google now has most of the third party services, including their own, on their platform and they have an interest in limiting third party usage of their APIs and services. If anything is anti competition in the smartphone OS market, it's giving Android away for nothing.

The smartphone market seems pretty competitive to me. These conversations keep going back to Microsoft, but remember that MS was found to hold 95% of their relevant market (OS licensing for Intel compatible PCs).

Android core is open source, so it's a lot easier to build your own OS if you choose to. Amazon did, for example. If Google keeps competing in the handset business, and swallowing up the lions share of services revenue through the Play Store, I wouldn't be surprised to see Samsung fork Android also. If the US keeps trade pressure on China, I wouldn't be surprised to see those companies fork as well. All of those companies have the resources to fill in the pieces that Google doesn't open up.

Building a mobile OS is a big undertaking for sure, but then so is building a mobile device.

 

[pasamio]

I am surprised there are even people still playing the outdated version of fortnite.

Clearly 40% of their player base doesn't care enough about their latest update, that's kinda telling in it's own way.

 

[robfoll]

the only way to get  to change their greedy ways is to sue them in court. Fortnight is epic's sacrificial lamb to get the ball rolling.
This lawsuit isn't about epic getting a better cut in the app store but bringing to attention that the whole business model of the App Store is "illegal" and wrong. They're not suing just for them but also for the thousands of iOS developers who've been ripped off too.

What nonsense, this is like building a business in a shop in the mall and then deciding not to pay the rent. Apple can do what the hell they like, no-one is forcing Epic to stay. Ss an ex developer I think 30% is a great deal to get a global shopfront, payment system and publicity.

 

[cupcakes2000]

App price $ 10
Ruling party VAT $ 2
Apple tax $ 3
Ruling party income tax $ 4

Developer nets $ 1 (which is 10 % of app price) before expenses.

The fee Apple charge is not a tax. It’s very frustrating that it keeps being described as one. The simple fact of the matter is that you can build the cost of their fee into your app price, therefore completely mitigating it. It’s a cost of doing business, and this is what you do every other cost associated with app development, so why is it so hard to understand?

 

[pasamio]

The smartphone market seems pretty competitive to me. These conversations keep going back to Microsoft, but remember that MS was found to hold 95% of their relevant market (OS licensing for Intel compatible PCs).

I was referring to Microsoft Windows Phone related mobile phone operating systems that the chart I linked referred to. It looks like Microsoft almost has half of the market the year the iPhone comes out. We forget that when the iPhone launched that Ballmer not only laughed at the iPhone but said he liked Microsoft's mobile strategy.

I don't disagree the smartphone market is competitive, if you re-read the post carefully I repeatedly emphasise the "smartphone operating system market". If it wasn't for iOS, it'd actually be a full monopoly of just Android. Apple are pushing the smartphone market forward, Samsung is responding and even Microsoft are now making Android powered smartphone devices.

Android core is open source, so it's a lot easier to build your own OS if you choose to. Amazon did, for example. If Google keeps competing in the handset business, and swallowing up the lions share of services revenue through the Play Store, I wouldn't be surprised to see Samsung fork Android also. If the US keeps trade pressure on China, I wouldn't be surprised to see those companies fork as well. All of those companies have the resources to fill in the pieces that Google doesn't open up.

Amazon is a great example of what happened trying to build on top of Android and the struggles they had because Google locked them out. Amazon had to implement copies of the Google APIs that a Google licensed Android device would have for stuff like maps (one of the examples I called out). Suffice to say they didn't work properly and had Amazon specific issues that Android devices that included Google's licensed platform didn't have. The core AOSP project is missing a large chunk of what most people would associate with an Android device.

Samsung in a sense have a heavily customised Android experience but even they still pay Google for Google's Store and related services on the device. Samsung, one of the biggest Android device producer, hasn't decided to fully cut off Google and go with the vanilla AOSP, they're still integrating Google's services stack.

The Chinese have already built their own Android ecosystem outside of Google anyway. Google and it's services have been blocked in China, it's maps are wrong anyway (put Beijing into Google Maps and then enable satellite photography to see how far away the roads are from the satellite pictures) and Google were realistically slow in adding comprehensive Chinese support anyway. The trade pressure on China threatens Apple far more than it does Google because Google's already blocked. A more broader problem for China is cutting off access to chip foundries which will only force the Chinese to diversify itself away from US and US backed countries technology towards their own home grown tech. If Trump instructs Apple to cut off WeChat then the phone is as good as dead there anyway. And of course Huawei have been reportedly working on their own HarmonyOS as well to ensure they're still able to ship devices because the US is trying to cut off access to technology.

Building a mobile OS is a big undertaking for sure, but then so is building a mobile device.

Agreed, which is what makes the Apple ecosystem in many respects that much more impressive. We also see Apple slowly making moves to remove dependency upon Google in their stack as well providing their own technologies and platforms. It's taken them years to get Apple Maps towards parity with Google Maps for example. Microsoft is one of the few companies I think who could make a compelling mobile operating system again but they need to see how Apple's Silicon Mac initiative goes and learn from that.

 

[laptech]

The problem is many people cannot see that Apple does use anticompetitive behaviour with it's app store. If an app developer designed an app and made it free for all, Apple would not have a problem with that. The app stays on the store for many years, the app gets 1000's of downloads, still no problem. The app developer decides to make an update that allows players to purchase in game items, a feature to help keep the interest in the game alive. The app developer see's there are numerous pay systems available as well as Apples pay system and thus approaches one of the companies requesting the use of their pay system, because the app developer feels that company offers them the best option. The app developer codes the app accordinging and Apple immediatly bans the app for rule breaches because they did not use Apple's pay system but somebody elses and tells the app developer that they must use Apple's pay system if they want to be unbanned.

This people is anti competitive behaviour and Apple will get into trouble for it, regardless of how Apple writes it's rules.

 

[TiggrToo]

App price $ 10
Ruling party VAT $ 2
Apple tax $ 3
Ruling party income tax $ 4

Developer nets $ 1 (which is 10 % of app price) before expenses.

Except in the real world it doesn’t work that way.

If a developer sells an app at the 99c tier then Apple adds the appropriate sales tax to that price, it then remits that sales tax to the requisite taxation authorities.

At that point you can no longer use that 99c as a basis of calculating tax implications because it’s a single isolated sale and tax liabilities, both personal and corporate, are based on annual values.

So your “argument” totally falls apart.

 

[Analog Kid]

I was referring to Microsoft Windows Phone related mobile phone operating systems that the chart I linked referred to. It looks like Microsoft almost has half of the market the year the iPhone comes out. We forget that when the iPhone launched that Ballmer not only laughed at the iPhone but said he liked Microsoft's mobile strategy.

I don't disagree the smartphone market is competitive, if you re-read the post carefully I repeatedly emphasise the "smartphone operating system market". If it wasn't for iOS, it'd actually be a full monopoly of just Android. Apple are pushing the smartphone market forward, Samsung is responding and even Microsoft are now making Android powered smartphone devices.



Amazon is a great example of what happened trying to build on top of Android and the struggles they had because Google locked them out. Amazon had to implement copies of the Google APIs that a Google licensed Android device would have for stuff like maps (one of the examples I called out). Suffice to say they didn't work properly and had Amazon specific issues that Android devices that included Google's licensed platform didn't have. The core AOSP project is missing a large chunk of what most people would associate with an Android device.

Samsung in a sense have a heavily customised Android experience but even they still pay Google for Google's Store and related services on the device. Samsung, one of the biggest Android device producer, hasn't decided to fully cut off Google and go with the vanilla AOSP, they're still integrating Google's services stack.

The Chinese have already built their own Android ecosystem outside of Google anyway. Google and it's services have been blocked in China, it's maps are wrong anyway (put Beijing into Google Maps and then enable satellite photography to see how far away the roads are from the satellite pictures) and Google were realistically slow in adding comprehensive Chinese support anyway. The trade pressure on China threatens Apple far more than it does Google because Google's already blocked. A more broader problem for China is cutting off access to chip foundries which will only force the Chinese to diversify itself away from US and US backed countries technology towards their own home grown tech. If Trump instructs Apple to cut off WeChat then the phone is as good as dead there anyway. And of course Huawei have been reportedly working on their own HarmonyOS as well to ensure they're still able to ship devices because the US is trying to cut off access to technology.



Agreed, which is what makes the Apple ecosystem in many respects that much more impressive. We also see Apple slowly making moves to remove dependency upon Google in their stack as well providing their own technologies and platforms. It's taken them years to get Apple Maps towards parity with Google Maps for example. Microsoft is one of the few companies I think who could make a compelling mobile operating system again but they need to see how Apple's Silicon Mac initiative goes and learn from that.

Ok, I guess I'm missing the point you were making earlier. You were using words like "monopoly" and "duopoly", but you think there's plenty of competition and room for new entrants?

 

[cupcakes2000]

The problem is many people cannot see that Apple does use anticompetitive behaviour with it's app store. If an app developer designed an app and made it free for all, Apple would not have a problem with that. The app stays on the store for many years, the app gets 1000's of downloads, still no problem. The app developer decides to make an update that allows players to purchase in game items, a feature to help keep the interest in the game alive. The app developer see's there are numerous pay systems available as well as Apples pay system and thus approaches one of the companies requesting the use of their pay system, because the app developer feels that company offers them the best option. The app developer codes the app accordinging and Apple immediatly bans the app for rule breaches because they did not use Apple's pay system but somebody elses and tells the app developer that they must use Apple's pay system if they want to be unbanned.

This people is anti competitive behaviour and Apple will get into trouble for it, regardless of how Apple writes it's rules.

Firstly, the developers would already know this would happen on apples platform.

Secondly, the 30% is for way more than just a processing fee, all of which the developer would have been receiving previously for free when making no money. (Well, for a paltry 99€ per year).

Thirdly, this payment system rule is also in place to help protect users from fraudulent practices, which is also the reason we cannot side load apps and there are not alternative app stores.

 

[Colonel Blimp]

If an app developer designed an app and made it free for all, Apple would not have a problem with that. The app stays on the store for many years, the app gets 1000's of downloads, still no problem....

Apple don’t have a problem with that because there’s been a tradition of high-quality freeware apps on Macs and PCs, and Apple judged that it was worth the expense to them of making freeware available on iOS and thereby adding value to their platform.

Who do you think pays for the time of the reviewers who vet the freeware on the App Store? Who do you think pays for the bandwidth to serve it to thousands, millions, or even hundreds of millions of users?

When Steve Jobs introduced the App Store and announced that freeware apps would be available on the App Store for free, the developers in the hall cheered. Not many expected that. Apple could easily have insisted on a minimum price for each app to cover their hosting expenses.

…The app developer decides to make an update that allows players to purchase in game items, a feature to help keep the interest in the game alive. The app developer see's there are numerous pay systems available as well as Apples pay system and thus approaches one of the companies requesting the use of their pay system, because the app developer feels that company offers them the best option. The app developer codes the app accordinging and Apple immediatly bans the app for rule breaches because they did not use Apple's pay system but somebody elses and tells the app developer that they must use Apple's pay system if they want to be unbanned.

This people is anti competitive behaviour and Apple will get into trouble for it, regardless of how Apple writes it's rules.

Why should Apple be compelled to review, host, and serve at their own expense hundreds of millions of downloads of a game like Fortnite that has earned its developer billions of dollars? According to what legal or ethical theory is Apple being anti-competitive by insisting on being compensated for their work and for the use of their own resources?

 

[Analog Kid]

The problem is many people cannot see that Apple does use anticompetitive behaviour with it's app store. If an app developer designed an app and made it free for all, Apple would not have a problem with that. The app stays on the store for many years, the app gets 1000's of downloads, still no problem. The app developer decides to make an update that allows players to purchase in game items, a feature to help keep the interest in the game alive. The app developer see's there are numerous pay systems available as well as Apples pay system and thus approaches one of the companies requesting the use of their pay system, because the app developer feels that company offers them the best option. The app developer codes the app accordinging and Apple immediatly bans the app for rule breaches because they did not use Apple's pay system but somebody elses and tells the app developer that they must use Apple's pay system if they want to be unbanned.

This people is anti competitive behaviour and Apple will get into trouble for it, regardless of how Apple writes it's rules.

Many people can't see? I'm pretty sure that's the situation we've all been talking about since Epic sued Apple for exactly that. The point is that there's nothing illegal about it.

 

[laptech]

Many people can't see? I'm pretty sure that's the situation we've all been talking about since Epic sued Apple for exactly that. The point is that there's nothing illegal about it.

The legality of what Apple is doing is currently being put to the test. Over the years many app developers have complained about the app store rules but none of them have the resources to challege those rules in a court of law, Epic does and that is exactly what it is doing, testing the legality of the app store rules.

What many people forget is just because a company writes something down and says it's a 'rule' does mean it is legal. The courts have found many companies written terms and conditions to be illegal, the courts have also found many companies written rules on warranties are illegal. Why should Apple and it's app store rules be any different. Or is it the fact that because it is Apple, they are above the law when it comes to their written rules?

 

[Tech198]

All Epic has to do is add an "additional form" of payment as apposed to an "only payment outside the app store..'

Companies really like to place themselves in the too hard basket. Only the strong, survive, and Epic reckons its big enough to take Apple down.

It's the only reason why they are taking it this far, others would just walk away

 

[laptech]

Apple don’t have a problem with that because there’s been a tradition of high-quality freeware apps on Macs and PCs, and Apple judged that it was worth the expense to them of making freeware available on iOS and thereby adding value to their platform.

Who do you think pays for the time of the reviewers who vet the freeware on the App Store? Who do you think pays for the bandwidth to serve it to thousands, millions, or even hundreds of millions of users?

When Steve Jobs introduced the App Store and announced that freeware apps would be available on the App Store for free, the developers in the hall cheered. Not many expected that. Apple could easily have insisted on a minimum price for each app to cover their hosting expenses.

Why should Apple be compelled to review, host, and serve at their own expense hundreds of millions of downloads of a game like Fortnite that has earned its developer billions of dollars? According to what legal or ethical theory is Apple being anti-competitive by insisting on being compensated for their work and for the use of their own resources?

Your argument is flawed. Apple host and review millions of free apps at their own expense, apps that do not have in app purchases but yet they are still hosted and reviewed. Why should game Fortnite and it's developer be treated differently?

 

[laptech]

All Epic has to do is add an "additional form" of payment as apposed to an "only payment outside the app store..'

Companies really like to place themselves in the too hard basket. Only the strong, survive, and Epic reckons its big enough to take Apple down.

It's the only reason why they are taking it this far, others would just walk away

You do not get it, Epic is not allowed to offer ANY other payment form, it has to be Apples payment system only or nothing.

 

[TiggrToo]

The problem is many people cannot see that Apple does use anticompetitive behaviour with it's app store

I keep hearing this complaint, but scant little on what laws it’s meant to have broken.

You say “anticompetitive” - in what way?

Apple have a legal right to maintain a closed App Store. There’s not one single law that requires them to open it up.

And therein lies the issue. Y’all using emotive positions on this yet fail to grasp some of the grim realities - that having a monopoly is in and of itself not illegal - and there are plenty of sanctioned monopolies out there:

• Live in North Carolina? Duke Energy is your only choice.
• Wanna play pro baseball? Get ready to stump up fees to belong to MLB.
• Want to post some mail to someones mailbox? The USPS is your only method.

To show that the App Store is operating in a manner that’s against the anti-trust rules it’s not a simple as saying “it’s a monopoly” - far from it.

You can’t even use the excuse “it charges more to third party apps than it charges itself” because SCOTUS has ruled that is legal.

One has to prove the monopoly is operating in a predatory fashion - which is the exact OPPOSITE of what you’re accusing it of.

In fact, and here’s the eye opener, if Apple drop their fees so low that it can be seen to be undercutting everyone else, it then opens itself up to action under the Sherman AntiTrust (and others) because THAT is where predatory pricing kicks in.

Finally, take a look at the FTCs definitions as well

The monopolist may have a legitimate business justification for behaving in a way that prevents other firms from succeeding in the marketplace. For instance, the monopolist may be competing on the merits in a way that benefits consumers through greater efficiency or a unique set of products or services

TL;DR educate yourselves on the subject before making accusations. Debate on the legal merits not emotive thoughts.