Epic Games Files Complaint to Support UK Antitrust Watchdog's Apple Probe

[shplock]

Good luck to Epic. The App Store is evil, and it needs to be destroyed bit by bit no matter who does it.

No! The App Store is a market place and as such there are rules to follow. It is not a free for all where you can get what you want and not contribute.
It is like you staying in a friends's house, they put you up, feed you and look after you. Yet you refuse to pay a single penny in return and demand to be carried for free.
I do not think so!

 

[shplock]

Apple uses the data privacy barrier here but really it’s for control and profit. iOS itself does many great things to ensure that your data is safe; little is actually done by the App Store in that respect.

Rubbish! Why do you think that Apple is introducing privacy report in the App Store then?

 

[shplock]

I believe it’s just a matter of time before the hammer drops and Apple is found to be in violation of the law. I just don’t see how Apple can win against antitrust concerns on a long term basis if it continues on a campaign of restricting trade between users and app developers. Some developers may have a very different vision to Apple of what an app can be. Who is Apple to restrict this innovation? Who is Apple to restrict trade?

Apple profits off of being the sole App Store operator; it is an iOS App Store operator monopoly, and it takes a cut of all in-app payments for electronic goods. Curious that Apple doesn’t take a cut for physical goods like Uber or Lyft. Why the distinction? What is the basis?

Users should be given the choice to get their apps from wherever they please. If iOS is opened up to allow other app stores to operate, nothing is forcing users who are fearful of potentially bad app stores to use them. Android allows the use of other app stores besides the Google Play Store, but you don’t have to use them if you don’t want to.

Yes there may be concerns of user privacy if iOS users download apps from other app stores, but users of macOS face this same problem, and yet Apple hasn’t locked that platform down.

Will be interesting to see what happens in this space.

Actually consumers have PLENTY of choice, they can go elsewhere if they so wish.
App Store is a market place and as such no company such as Epic should be entitled to dictate how that market place owner/manager conducts business and should not expect a free ride.
Kind of like having a market stall and demanding never to pay for your pitch!

 

[shplock]

The trend world-wide in competition policy, is in fact the opposite. iOS as a platform is being defined as a self-contained market. Android as a platform is being defined as a self-contained market.

Apple is being judged for how it, as the gatekeeper for one of those markets, restricts competition for alternatives to Apple's services (payment processing, app binary download hosting, storefront sales) within that market. Just as if they prevented alternative email or camera applications.

Competition law is not the simplistic thing Apple's supporters would like to believe it is, and "Smartphones" as a whole, is not some arbitrary stopping point to the level of granularity that competition law is designed to regulate.

Actually it is very simple! Governments target Apple because they are richer than they are and rather than balance the books better they just see Apple as an easy target.

 

[hans1972]

Apple will still be able to offer an Appstore, they will still be able to offer their own purchasing platform. If these things are truly valued by developers and consumers, if they are good enough to thrive in a competitive marketplace, they will thrive. I can't see why you would be worried, if they're as good as Apple claim.

The current situation is not the best for all developers. That's why I want Apple to force them to use the App Store since one App Store with some tight rules is what I want. I don't want what is valued by developers since I don't care about them.

I want developers to be treated like a second-class citizen and their wants to prioritised extremely low.

 

[hans1972]

And if you absolutely HAVE to use an app from a developer using a non-Apple billing system, do you really think they're going to make it any worse in terms of friction to Apple's system already? I can already use touchiD on my iPhone, to make purchases with my credit card on my Mac. That's exactly the experience you'll get with 3rd party appstores or payment processors - it'll be just like buying with Apple Pay on the web.

The danger is that you can get hundreds of app stores for iOS like Android has because developers wants to avoid paying a fee. And it might be even worse on iOS since Google allows the developer their own payment system and still be on the Google Play Store, except for games.

What you will see is that the free apps will be on the App Store but the big developers will put the apps which are paid for in other stores.

I am pretty sure that companies like Epic, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Adobe, Spotify will make their own app stores with exclusives titles.

iOS will become like Android, Windows and the Mac.

 

[Ubuntu]

Rubbish! Why do you think that Apple is introducing privacy report in the App Store then?

Because it’s possible to have both. I totally believe that there are people with a genuine concern for privacy at apple but there are also people who will use that as an excuse for retaining control. Take a look at what the OS does for you and what the App Store does.

 

[qoop]

No, not even close. The post you replied to is correct.

How close would you say it was?

 

[qoop]

Yes, it is called the Union Jack and is the flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The point being that the U.K government is looking into Apple and it's alleged abuse of power.
The clue is that Northern Ireland considers itself and wants to be part of the U.K, most citizens there do that is, some do not.

Diolch yn fawr.

 

[theotherphil]

As soon as Apple loses one case, or one legislative change in any jurisdiction, anywhere in the world, and a law or judgement is written that Apple has to allow alternative payment options in their appstore, or alternative appstores on iOS, the jig will be up everywhere.

Apple has to win every case.
Epic need only win once.

Seeing as though you want to explore hypothetical scenarios…

Apple don’t have to offer any alternative payment methods in those jurisdictions, if they completely disallow any in-app payments.

People seem to forget that Apple own the platform and cannot be compelled to offer any App Store or any of their services if they choose not to…imagine a world where Apple says “sorry, due to legal reasons, we do not support downloading of apps on our devices in this jurisdiction“. This could be at the state/ regional/ country level. Look at how quickly the Australian government did an about turn when Facebook turned off some of it’s features in Australia. There is no law that compels a private entity to provide it’s services.

People seem to forget that these consumer watchdogs look at the impact to consumers and not developers. The consumers here have a lot of power, and iPhone users/ Apple users are usually in the upper end of the power/ influence/ education/ income brackets. They would disproportionately be more likely to kick up a stink to the law makers if Apple chose to not support any app downloads due to locally restrictive laws.

 

[mattspace]

Look at how quickly the Australian government did an about turn when Facebook turned off some of it’s features in Australia. There is no law that compels a private entity to provide it’s services.

That was more about the fact that Facebook turned off local news providers, and noone cared, because we hate our local news providers, more than we hate facebook. Everyone I know actually preferred Facebook when news article linking was disabled.

Certainly there's no law compelling a company to provide specific services, but governments can compel all sorts of things as the cost of doing business in their market at all - Russia makes Apple include government apps, China dictates every aspect of the Appstore - Apple could threaten to turn off apps entirely in a market, that market could just ban Apple's products, hold their intellectual property invalid, and hell while we're entertaining any idea you like, most governments hold for themselves the sovereign right to stage, ahem, executive solutions to problematic individuals.

Companies are weak compared to governments, they are merely allowed to believe otherwise. That's why here in Australia, Macbook Pros have ~4 year warranties and Applecare+ is effectively just accidental breakage insurance.

People seem to forget that these consumer watchdogs look at the impact to consumers and not developers.

The consumers of Apple's App hosting, payment processing & storefronts services are developers. Competition law contains nuance for these things.

 

[mattspace]

No, I'm afraid of developers being so cheap they use a subpar payment system that compromises my personal financial data because those systems don't want to invest in the level of safety, security, and ease of use like Apple's native system is.

There's no evidence they're doing that on macOS, why would you assume they'd do it on iOS?

Developers are going to get a ice cold bucket of water dumped on their heads if this gets dismantled when they realize what operating like Android does to their profits.

Mac developers have largely abandoned the Mac App Store, because it's more profitable to sell direct. Selling direct means they can sell with upgrade pricing - the thing they've been screaming for since the appstore first opened, and which Apple refuses to provide. Upgrade pricing, which customers generally support, is the basis of indy app developers' financial stability, because consumers generally don't like subscription pricing.

Piracy is going to happen regardless of what store infrastructure is in place. Piracy already happens on iOS. In a world of multiple app stores, Apple can use Fairplay as a competitive advantage to convince developers that their appstore is worth the money. Everyone wins.

There is a reason why the App Store is more profitable than the Play Store. and it comes down to Piracy. Why pay for an app when you can just download a cracked copy of it and install it super easy (complete with spyware and malware!) Just watch as developers lose money.

That's already the case for iOS - piracy is rampant in the jailbreak scene, and malware is on Apple's app store. Piracy is a reality of any market for digital items, and you never win by building stronger locks - people who pirate, do so because they enjoy piracy, or because they didn't have the money for the app in the first place, and so were never part of the app's real addressable market.

Unfortunately it will affect all developers even if they are perfectly and rightly happy with Apple's current system.

If Apple's appstore is as good as their supporters claim, it will thrive with competition, if not, it will change to be as good as its supporters claim in order to survive. If consumers genuinely don't want to buy from non-Apple appstores, developers will find out about it, and offer apps on both. Serif sells the Affinity suite direct, or through the Mac App Store - you can even mix & match, and the sky hasn't fallen, the Mac isn't drowning in malware.

None of the things people quake in the boots about being terrible consequences for iOS if Apple lets it be more like the Mac, have happened on the Mac.

 

[sparkso]

Epic Games failing its epic way across the epic planet that is moving around the epic solar system that is orbiting the epic galaxy that is orbiting the epic universe that is on top of a giant epic turtle that is epically laughing at Epic Games.

HEY EPIC,

Why didn’t you stop Nazis and pedos from grooming kids in Fortnite when it was reporting a bazillion epic times?

Well they missed the chance to stop Nazis. They can, however, stop the CCP now unless CCP has stake in them.

 

[mrochester]

There's no evidence they're doing that on macOS, why would you assume they'd do it on iOS?



Mac developers have largely abandoned the Mac App Store, because it's more profitable to sell direct. Selling direct means they can sell with upgrade pricing - the thing they've been screaming for since the appstore first opened, and which Apple refuses to provide. Upgrade pricing, which customers generally support, is the basis of indy app developers' financial stability, because consumers generally don't like subscription pricing.

Piracy is going to happen regardless of what store infrastructure is in place. Piracy already happens on iOS. In a world of multiple app stores, Apple can use Fairplay as a competitive advantage to convince developers that their appstore is worth the money. Everyone wins.



That's already the case for iOS - piracy is rampant in the jailbreak scene, and malware is on Apple's app store. Piracy is a reality of any market for digital items, and you never win by building stronger locks - people who pirate, do so because they enjoy piracy, or because they didn't have the money for the app in the first place, and so were never part of the app's real addressable market.



If Apple's appstore is as good as their supporters claim, it will thrive with competition, if not, it will change to be as good as its supporters claim in order to survive. If consumers genuinely don't want to buy from non-Apple appstores, developers will find out about it, and offer apps on both. Serif sells the Affinity suite direct, or through the Mac App Store - you can even mix & match, and the sky hasn't fallen, the Mac isn't drowning in malware.

None of the things people quake in the boots about being terrible consequences for iOS if Apple lets it be more like the Mac, have happened on the Mac.

Even if lots of people chose to use another App Store, if that led to the apps I want no longer being available on the App Store, I have lost out as a consumer.

I do not want the decision made by others to impact how I want to use the product.

 

[WiseAJ]

There's no evidence they're doing that on macOS, why would you assume they'd do it on iOS?

People need to stop comparing iOS to macOS. While it was originally based off of it now a much different platform and serves different use cases. It’s comparing Apples to probably Pears.

iOS needs to be more locked down and secure than macOS because it contains a ton more of the average users personal data including health/financial/real-time location.

iOS also has a lot more users than macOS by a huge margin.

It’s frustrating that rather than doing the right thing and going to play in the proper playground (Android) the Minority want to ruin it for the Majority, that are just fine with how things are, and tarnish what makes iOS, iOS.

 

[mattspace]

Even if lots of people chose to use another App Store, if that led to the apps I want no longer being available on the App Store, I have lost out as a consumer.

I do not want the decision made by others to impact how I want to use the product.

Affinity are selling both independently, and via the Mac App Store. Game developers offer their products on multiple app stores. The world has not ended for PC gaming. The world has not ended for users of Affinity suite.

Apple's app stores are not in any way, absolutely safe. Arguably, they're a lot less safe than buying direct from a developer who's using Fastspring or Paddle to handle payment processing, because of the massive problems of imitation apps, and fake reviews.

 

[mrochester]

Affinity are selling both independently, and via the Mac App Store. Game developers offer their products on multiple app stores. The world has not ended for PC gaming. The world has not ended for users of Affinity suite.

Apple's app stores are not in any way, absolutely safe. Arguably, they're a lot less safe than buying direct from a developer who's using Fastspring or Paddle to handle payment processing, because of the massive problems of imitation apps, and fake reviews.

As long as you can guarantee any change will not result in apps I need/want being removed from the App Store then I am happy for anything else to be changed. Just don’t ruin my experience in the process else I’ll be pissed.

if you can’t guarantee my experience won’t be impacted, then leave it alone.

 

[mattspace]

People need to stop comparing iOS to macOS. While it was originally based off of it now a much different platform and serves different use cases. It’s comparing Apples to probably Pears.

iOS needs to be more locked down and secure than macOS because it contains a ton more of the average users personal data including health/financial/real-time location.

My iPhone contains no health data, and can be searched by any cop for any reason they like. Only an idiot would think their iPhone is "secure". My Mac contains decades of financial records and personal correspondence, and would require a judge-issued search order to investigate.

"Security through Appstore Control" is just a variation of "Security through obscurity".

iOS doesn't need to be locked down, you personally may need the feeling of security through only getting your apps from Apple. But the truth is, that Appel's control of the App store has not eliminated malware from iOS, as that poor bastard who lost 600k from an app that Apple had already been told was a scam app by the makers of the proper one found out.

It’s frustrating that rather than doing the right thing and going to play in the proper playground (Android) the Minority want to ruin it for the Majority, that are just fine with how things are, and tarnish what makes iOS, iOS.

Once again, other people having the ability to get apps from third parties will not effect you, unless Apple's app store is so toxic, so badly run, that developers will abandon it the moment an alternative is available.

Currently, iOS security is built on an assumption that every app on the device is honest and trustworthy. We know for a fact that every app on the appstore is not honest and trustworthy. For iOS to be secure enough to deal with the malware on Apple's appstore, it will by necessity be secure enough to deal with malware from any other source. You will have a more secure iOS when there are multiple appstores.

 

[mattspace]

As long as you can guarantee any change will not result in apps I need/want being removed from the App Store then I am happy for anything else to be changed. Just don’t ruin my experience in the process else I’ll be pissed.

if you can’t guarantee my experience won’t be impacted, then leave it alone.

You don't get guarantees from Apple that an app you get from their Appstore will be safe to use, you don't get guarantees that the reviews for apps are genuine reviews, you don't get guarantees from Apple that the next iOS update won't ruin your experience by forcing UI / UX changes onto you that you don't like.

Why would you expect a guarantee for developers staying on an appstore, if it's not good enough to keep them in a competitive landscape?

 

[WiseAJ]

Once again, other people having the ability to get apps from third parties will not effect you

And once again those people can and should buy an Android. A OS that’s is designed to do just that.

I’m not going to buy a gas powered car and demand that the car maker make it suddenly run on electricity just because I want it to. If I want an electric car I’m going to buy an electric car.

if someone wants a phone with multiple app stores then they need to buy a phone with multiple app stores.

It’s not rocket science. iPhones didn’t suddenly stop allowing multiple app stores. It went from no App Store to just one. You can’t blame Apple for you buying the wrong device or changing how it operates. You buy an iPhone you are accepting Apple’s terms and limitations. Don’t like it? Don’t buy it. Sell your iPhone that you seem to hate and buy an Android. I’m sure you’ll be much happier.

 

[mrochester]

You don't get guarantees from Apple that an app you get from their Appstore will be safe to use, you don't get guarantees that the reviews for apps are genuine reviews, you don't get guarantees from Apple that the next iOS update won't ruin your experience by forcing UI / UX changes onto you that you don't like.

Why would you expect a guarantee for developers staying on an appstore, if it's not good enough to keep them in a competitive landscape?

You are missing the point of why I want to use the App Store; I want to minimise the number of places that hold my personal and payment information, and the number of places that will mine and analyse my data for commercial purposes.

I would expect a guarantee because I am the consumer, I am supposed to hold the power over what does or does not succeed in the market, it should not be dictated to me by someone else.

 

[mattspace]

You are missing the point of why I want to use the App Store; I want to minimise the number of places that hold my personal and payment information, and the number of places that will mine and analyse my data for commercial purposes.

I would expect a guarantee because I am the consumer, I am supposed to hold the power over what does or does not succeed in the market, it should not be dictated to me by someone else.

I'm not missing the point at all, I just don't credit it as being an argument worthy of allowing Apple to manipulate an entire market in order to push overpriced services to developers (which they then pass on to consumers in the form of higher app prices). You generate a giant trail of identifying data in everything else you do outside of Apple's App store - the demographics you generate through buying apps is insignificant in comparison.

As it stands, you will have a solution - only buy apps from Apple. If 3rd party developers miss out on sales because you, and everyone like you constitutes more than a rounding error in their revenue, they'll either sell where you're willing to buy, or if discontent from their apps not being on Apple's is significant enough, Apple will alter the terms of their app store in order to win their business.

 

[mrochester]

I'm not missing the point at all, I just don't credit it as being an argument worthy of allowing Apple to manipulate an entire market in order to push overpriced services to developers (which they then pass on to consumers in the form of higher app prices). You generate a giant trail of identifying data in everything else you do outside of Apple's App store - the demographics you generate through buying apps is insignificant in comparison.

As it stands, you will have a solution - only buy apps from Apple. If 3rd party developers miss out on sales because you, and everyone like you constitutes more than a rounding error in their revenue, they'll either sell where you're willing to buy, or if discontent from their apps not being on Apple's is significant enough, Apple will alter the terms of their app store in order to win their business.

And that’s where we disagree because I think it’s a very good reason for Apple to have the level of control they currently do.

It will be a court of law that will decide whether Apple is entitled to have that level of control or not.

 

[mattspace]

And once again those people can and should buy an Android. A OS that’s is designed to do just that.

And in a world where Apple had not built a whole bunch of services that were tied to Apple branded hardware, like iMessage etc, that would be a reasonable argument - but every single vertical and horizontal integration Apple creates, every single "unique advantage" of Apple's iOS platform and market, weighs against the argument that Android is a movable equivalent.

On top of everything, the cases by Epic etc, are primarily about Apple using its control of a market (iOS in general), to prevent competition for a separate Apple commercial service - App vending, Binary hosting, and payment processing.

The ability of consumers to move to a different platform, does not change the fact that Apple is still acting within the iOS market with regards to developers, in a way that developers, and antitrust authorities, are arguing is against various competition laws.

Our Way of The Highway is, surprisingly, not a strong defence in antitrust law.

 

[mrochester]

And in a world where Apple had not built a whole bunch of services that were tied to Apple branded hardware, like iMessage etc, that would be a reasonable argument - but every single vertical and horizontal integration Apple creates, every single "unique advantage" of Apple's iOS platform and market, weighs against the argument that Android is a movable equivalent.

On top of everything, the cases by Epic etc, are primarily about Apple using its control of a market (iOS in general), to prevent competition for a separate Apple commercial service - App vending, Binary hosting, and payment processing.

The ability of consumers to move to a different platform, does not change the fact that Apple is still acting within the iOS market with regards to developers, in a way that developers, and antitrust authorities, are arguing is against various competition laws.

Our Way of The Highway is, surprisingly, not a strong defence in antitrust law.

The difficulty in your argument is your definition of these things as separate commercial entitles that are distinct from the ecosystem as a whole. Apple will be arguing that these are not separate commercial entities but are part of a single integrated package. You cannot apply a horizontal business model to a vertically integrated company. Leave horizontal business models to horizontally integrated companies (e.g., google).

The logical conclusion of someone considering different parts of the iOS ecosystem is individual commercial entitles would be for Apple to allow you to install a different operating system on the iPhone, which is clearly absurd, and would also be forcing Apple to make products it does not want to make (and also take away consumer choice to pick an option that is vertically integrated. Consumers can already pick a horizontally integrated product by choosing android, we don’t need/want regulators to force every company to be horizontally integrated).