Epic Games Loses Again in Battle With Apple Over App Store Rules

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

Those who want to install apps outside the App Store already have multiple choices. Those of us that prefer the Apple model only have one choice, and you want the government to force Apple to eliminate that choice.

That's what this comes down to. Not fairness or antitrust concerns. It's simply that some people and companies want to use governments to force Apple to change their software to work the way they prefer.

More to the point, it's about billion dollar corporations using governments to force trillion dollar corporations to give them a cut. The "sideloading" argument is just window dressing to give the process the appearance of grassroots support. Outside of China, not even Android users choose sideloading or even third-party app stores in any significant numbers.

What laws like the DMA will enable is for large developers to have more leverage against consumers. I think we'll see crappier terms and higher prices to deal with the increased piracy and lower discoverability.

You will still have the App Store, and very few developers if any will leave the App Store. So you can still have your only one choice

And if a better choice comes around so be it. Competition is healthy and alternative app stores would push Apple to actually improve the App Store or else they'll get left behind.

I remember back in the 90s with United States vs Microsoft that Microsoft restricted web browsers to just Internet Explorer, everyone cheered when Microsoft was forced to allow other web browsers. If that case didn't happen, we wouldn't have Chrome or Firefox. Yet when Apple does it with app distribution (as well as web engines) suddenly it's not okay.

Most emulators are legal. Most people use them for piracy. It isn't a grey area. It's simply an excuse to justify taking advantage of the fact suing individuals for infringement isn't worth the effort.

To be clear, I don't care that people do it. I just don't think it justifies forcing Apple to allow emulators.

The Google Play Store allows emulators
Steam allows emulators
The Microsoft Xbox allows emulators via Dev Mode

Apple are literally the only ones who don't for the iPhone, yet they do for the Mac.

 

[mrat93]

The Google Play Store allows emulators
Steam allows emulators
The Microsoft Xbox allows emulators via Dev Mode

Apple are literally the only ones who don't for the iPhone, yet they do for the Mac.

Hijacking this comment to plug my conspiracy that Apple and Nintendo are in cahoots over emulation.

Switch emulation is available on Mac, Windows, and Android, and arguably can be a better experience than playing on original hardware. I’m inclined to think that Switch owners have more overlap with iOS than any other platform that can emulate Switch. If anybody can emulate Nintendo’s latest games on any device, that can actually be a threat for Nintendo.

 

[BaldiMac]

You will still have the App Store, and very few developers if any will leave the App Store. So you can still have your only one choice

Only until the first developer leaves the App Store. The choice that I currently have is everything available from one place. And it's been a tremendously pro-consumer choice with low prices and a wide variety of apps. Alternative app stores will benefit large developers. the emulator crowd, and a few fringe use cases. None of which benefits me.

And if a better choice comes around so be it. Competition is healthy and alternative app stores would push Apple to actually improve the App Store or else they'll get left behind.

And yet here you are proposing to interfere in a competitive market to get what you want.

If you really wanted to address competition directly, instead of just forcing your preferences on others, then governments should end the anticompetitive agreements that Google entered into with their horizontal competitors.

I remember back in the 90s with United States vs Microsoft that Microsoft restricted web browsers to just Internet Explorer, everyone cheered when Microsoft was forced to allow other web browsers. If that case didn't happen, we wouldn't have Chrome or Firefox. Yet when Apple does it with app distribution (as well as web engines) suddenly it's not okay.

Because you aren't considering the actual issues in the Microsoft case. It wasn't about Microsoft "restricting" web browsers to just Internet Explorer. It was about Microsoft interfering in competition by forcing PC makers to not install competitive web browsers by leveraging their 95% market share.

Apple (unlike Google) isn't entering into agreements with competitors to limit competition.

The Google Play Store allows emulators
Steam allows emulators
The Microsoft Xbox allows emulators via Dev Mode

Apple are literally the only ones who don't for the iPhone, yet they do for the Mac.

So? That's their choice. Everyone doesn't need to make the same decisions.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

Only until the first developer leaves the App Store. The choice that I currently have is everything available from one place. And it's been a tremendously pro-consumer choice with low prices and a wide variety of apps. Alternative app stores will benefit large developers. the emulator crowd, and a few fringe use cases. None of which benefits me.

So because you don't see a benefit for yourself you don't want it. Got it.

And yet here you are proposing to interfere in a competitive market to get what you want.

Phone hardware is competitive. Phone software is not. Phone software is a duopoly between iOS and Android where marketshare is almost 50/50. When Apple and Google are the only players in the smartphone space they don't get to make any decision they want.

If you really wanted to address competition directly, instead of just forcing your preferences on others, then governments should end the anticompetitive agreements that Google entered into with their horizontal competitors.

No one is changing your preferences. You can choose not to use sideloading. The Apple App Store isn't going away. The addition of the option (not requirement, the option) to sideload outside of the Apple App Store does not change your preferences.

Because you aren't considering the actual issues in the Microsoft case. It wasn't about Microsoft "restricting" web browsers to just Internet Explorer. It was about Microsoft interfering in competition by forcing PC makers to not install competitive web browsers by leveraging their 95% market share.

Apple (unlike Google) isn't entering into agreements with competitors to limit competition.

Oh they aren't are they?

Google Paid Apple Billions To Dominate Search On iPhones, Justice Department Says

An agreement worth up to $12 billion made Google the de facto choice for online search on millions of iPhones. Justice officials say the deal may be anticompetitive under U.S. law.

www.npr.org

So? That's their choice. Everyone doesn't need to make the same decisions.

Again, if there were more than two "mobile operating systems" you'd be right. However with Apple and Google having a duopoly over the entire smartphone industry they don't get that decision.

 

[Wildkraut]

Yes EPIC lost, but they didn’t.

They opened the eyes of regulators and contributed to EU’s Digital Market Act, sideloading “free installation of software from any source” will come to the whole EU, UK and soon to the US, too. The more Apple wins here, the more they feed the regulators in the US, and the harder they will get hit.

The bipartisan bill is still rolling.

 

[BaldiMac]

So because you don't see a benefit for yourself you don't want it. Got it.

Yep. I prefer the current system. Just like you don't want the current system because you prefer an alternative.

Phone hardware is competitive. Phone software is not. Phone software is a duopoly between iOS and Android where marketshare is almost 50/50. When Apple and Google are the only players in the smartphone space they don't get to make any decision they want.

Which ignores the reason for the duopoly (Google's anticompetitive agreements with its horizontal competitors), and the obvious fact that Android isn't a monolithic system controlled by Google. Google Play is. And Google Play is on almost all android devices because of Google's anticompetitive agreementss. But android is various forks of the android open source project by individual phone manufacturers.

Apple shouldn't be punished for Google's anticompetitive behaviour.

No one is changing your preferences. You can choose not to use sideloading. The Apple App Store isn't going away. The addition of the option (not requirement, the option) to sideload outside of the Apple App Store does not change your preferences.

I already addressed this, but you are repeating the same assertion. It certainly will affect me.

Oh they aren't are they?

Google Paid Apple Billions To Dominate Search On iPhones, Justice Department Says

An agreement worth up to $12 billion made Google the de facto choice for online search on millions of iPhones. Justice officials say the deal may be anticompetitive under U.S. law.

www.npr.org

No. Your example is neither relevant to the App Store, nor an example of Apple forcing third-parties to limit competition.

Again, if there were more than two "mobile operating systems" you'd be right. However with Apple and Google having a duopoly over the entire smartphone industry they don't get that decision.

There are certainly more than two mobile OSs. And again, Apple shouldn't be punished for Google actions.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

Yes EPIC lost, but they didn’t.

They opened the eyes of regulators and contributed to EU’s Digital Market Act, sideloading “free installation of software from any source” will come to the whole EU, UK and soon to the US, too. The more Apple wins here, the more they feed the regulators in the US, and the harder they will get hit.

The bipartisan bill is still rolling.

What bill? I thought the Open App Markets Act died in committee.

 

[Wildkraut]

What bill? I thought the Open App Markets Act died in committee.

Yes and No…

The Open App Markets Act is dead, long live the Open App Markets Act

The United States Congress has practically concluded its 117th term without passing the Open App Markets Act (OAMA) into law. But one of the...

www.fosspatents.com

 

[boyarka]

Only to the uneducated 😊

Educate me on how EU has shoved it's regulation deep uo Apple's lightening port when it comes to app stotes and payments.

This is... really the tragic thing. You know a while ago I watched a YT video on how a muslim convert left islam. Now he was a westerner, VERY muslim... knew Qur'an almost verse by verse, spoke perfect arabic. And he found a verse where prophet Muhammad was asked by his followers after a battle if or not it was halal to take the wived of slain and still living evemies as their own and... do the ol' in out in out. Muhammad said that he "just so happened" to receive a revelation from Allah that after a time of waiting it was ok to do so. By "time" it was implied to see if they were pregnant or not. The ex-muslim's reaction was shock, disbelief, and finally he left this religion. Meanwhile, countless muslims commented on how learning of this made them even stronger in their religion.

It is in my belief a logical conclusion that Apple fanboyism is a religion. Because only a religious, fanatical mind rejoices when the religion BOTH advises something morally reasonable AND when it does the exact diametrical opposite. A religious mind takes not just the hook, linr and sinker - but the rod, the reel and the entire fisherman for that matter.
Apple trashes the planet by short product life and a model of business that almost demands constant uogrades - good! Apple has a monopoly and gets to (partially) keep it - a resounding fanboy cheer! Apple locks users in an OS that is deliberately platform-locked - cheers, yet again. So there you have it.

 

[boyarka]

It’s worth noting that being a monopoly in itself is not a crime. You have to also prove the harm to consumers (for US market) or harm to businesses (for EU markets).

Epic was not able to prove how the closed nature of the App Store constituted a net negative to consumers (because it’s not) and that is why Epic lost the lawsuit.

Once again, people bet against Apple to their own detriment.

Ah, yes. The US legal system. The same one where a murderer covered in blood can walk free if the lawyers are expensive enough, where the rich and affluent get literally diagnosed with "affluenza" and get reduced punishment for being rich and affluent, and where companies literally pay money to politicians and entire PACs to literally fight against consumer right to repair, where a "warranty" is (compared to EEZ) a bonus paid-for feature and where a company can litetally exclude not just software but payment systems, parts, accessories... even people... from using their services and where the "little man" has to PROVE that a market choke-hold with deliberate anticompetitive measures is 1) an actual monopoly and 2) causes any real harm to either competing businesses or end users.

To quote a certain fabled extraterrestrial entity well-experienced in both trade and dealing with those educated in the use of the Force: "Your Jedi mind tricks don"t work on me!"

Equally feeble are Apple's mind tricks on the EU. And fine, that's across the pond and all that. But when literally MOST OF THE WESTERN WORLD COLLECTIVELY SETS AN EXAMPLE by passing slecific legislation telling Apple that it better step down from it's pedestal US lawmakers will follow suit. If not entirely then in part.

This... "prove the obvious" argument you made. You know, this is like the labelling on US made products and warning in manuals. Akin to "dont point gun muzzle at yourself" or "Caution! Hot!" written on coffee cups... containing hot coffee. One has to put into perspective here that one is dealing with a nation made up half-way of those *that* stupid, and another half lawyering themselves into oblivion by statements like "monopoly is not a crime". Plus the fanboyism as icing on top of this cake.

 

[duffman9000]

Okay? I don’t care lol. Sometimes pirating is justified, even if it’s not legal. Illegal ≠ Immoral.

I’ll happily pay for software that’s available legally on a modern platform, but I’m not paying $200+ for an ancient console, games, and expensive adapters to make them work on my modern TV, when I can simply download them and enjoy them on the platform of my choice, and in better quality than the original release.

I’ll give you credit. At least you admit it.

 

[Wildkraut]

I’ll give you credit. At least you admit it.

Well, pirating is what made Adobe become what they are today, the same goes to Autodesk, Apple, Microsoft.

And just to quote it one more time…
Steve Jobs: „Good artists copy, great artists steal. And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.”

There is also a reason why the movie is called „Pirates of Silicon Valley“

 

[theotherphil]

THOSE ALREADY HAPPEN EVEN ON THE APP STORE. Gatekeeping iOS doesn't protect you. You can still get infected with malware through websites and you can still get subjected to scam apps on the app store as there's thousands of knockoff and scam apps that app review miss or just ignore

1) Please explain how an iOS device gets malware from a website.
2) Security isn't an all-or-nothing approach. It's not "if I can't have 100% perfection, I don't want any". Numerous studies out there show the benefit of the iOS security model vs Android (a simple google search shows multiple in the top 10 search results)....so much so that Android phones are not issued in any Australian Government Dept and iPhones are ubiquitous. I suspect you'll find the same in any western government.

Here is the Global Threat Report 2023...and whilst not covering mobile specifically, it does look at open vs closed systems with Linux being the worst and MacOS being the best. I'll take the closed model every day of the week thank you.

Saying that the iOS App store still has malware, so we should open it up further, is a straw man argument. It is so infinitesimally small that it doesn't effect 99.9% of >1Bn users.

 

[theotherphil]

I remember back in the 90s with United States vs Microsoft that Microsoft restricted web browsers to just Internet Explorer, everyone cheered when Microsoft was forced to allow other web browsers. If that case didn't happen, we wouldn't have Chrome or Firefox. Yet when Apple does it with app distribution (as well as web engines) suddenly it's not okay.

Again, you've completely misunderstood what happed with Microsoft and IE and why it is different to Apple.

Microsoft was the dominant OS at the time, and they weren't making any hardware. MS was abusing it's position in the market to force other hardware manufacturers to include windows as a default option at threat of sanctions and then enforced the use of IE as the default browser. This was abuse of it's position in the market. You absolutely could install other browsers....I clearly remember using Mosaic, and later Netscape in the early 90's.

The difference here is a) Apple makes it's own hardware and software. b) Apple isn't forcing other hardware manufacturers to install iOS or even Safari. There's no abuse of it's market position as Apple owns the entire ecosystem. This has already been ruled on.

 

[Abazigal]

Ah, yes. The US legal system. The same one where a murderer covered in blood can walk free if the lawyers are expensive enough, where the rich and affluent get literally diagnosed with "affluenza" and get reduced punishment for being rich and affluent, and where companies literally pay money to politicians and entire PACs to literally fight against consumer right to repair, where a "warranty" is (compared to EEZ) a bonus paid-for feature and where a company can litetally exclude not just software but payment systems, parts, accessories... even people... from using their services and where the "little man" has to PROVE that a market choke-hold with deliberate anticompetitive measures is 1) an actual monopoly and 2) causes any real harm to either competing businesses or end users.

To quote a certain fabled extraterrestrial entity well-experienced in both trade and dealing with those educated in the use of the Force: "Your Jedi mind tricks don"t work on me!"

Equally feeble are Apple's mind tricks on the EU. And fine, that's across the pond and all that. But when literally MOST OF THE WESTERN WORLD COLLECTIVELY SETS AN EXAMPLE by passing slecific legislation telling Apple that it better step down from it's pedestal US lawmakers will follow suit. If not entirely then in part.

This... "prove the obvious" argument you made. You know, this is like the labelling on US made products and warning in manuals. Akin to "dont point gun muzzle at yourself" or "Caution! Hot!" written on coffee cups... containing hot coffee. One has to put into perspective here that one is dealing with a nation made up half-way of those *that* stupid, and another half lawyering themselves into oblivion by statements like "monopoly is not a crime". Plus the fanboyism as icing on top of this cake.

I don’t get what point you are trying to make.

Apple hasn’t broken any laws, I have been unequivocally clear about this from day 1 and have never wavered from this stance, and time has proven that I am on the right side of history.

How you feel the law ought to work doesn’t change how the law does currently work as written. I agree with the outcome of the lawsuit.

 

[duffman9000]

You will still have the App Store, and very few developers if any will leave the App Store. So you can still have your only one choice

And if a better choice comes around so be it. Competition is healthy and alternative app stores would push Apple to actually improve the App Store or else they'll get left behind.

I remember back in the 90s with United States vs Microsoft that Microsoft restricted web browsers to just Internet Explorer, everyone cheered when Microsoft was forced to allow other web browsers. If that case didn't happen, we wouldn't have Chrome or Firefox. Yet when Apple does it with app distribution (as well as web engines) suddenly it's not okay.



The Google Play Store allows emulators
Steam allows emulators
The Microsoft Xbox allows emulators via Dev Mode

Apple are literally the only ones who don't for the iPhone, yet they do for the Mac.

You are so awfully wrong about MS in the 90s. It’s as if you misread the cliff notes of the trial summary.

 

[tripsync]

Explain Android then, because Android is a "mobile operating system" yet it can install applications from anywhere.

Not only that but iPadOS has a desktop mode and can be plugged into an external monitor, albeit with a worse ui and control scheme compared to macOS. (All the more reason I want a macOS dualboot mode for the iPad Pros)

Oh almost forgot to mention, Samsung's builds of Android has a desktop mode on the phone called DeX. Plug your Galaxy phone into a monitor and the UI changes to a desktop format.

So just because iOS is a "mobile operating system" does not excuse it from restricting all software to just one app store. When I can do my taxes and banking and stock trading from my iPhone, it ceases being just a "mobile operating system"

Sounds like you should switch to Android if you need sideloading so badly.

(And before you say "just buy an Android then," switching to the other duopoly also is not a valid excuse and never has been)

It's not an excuse. It's literally a solution to your problem. Meanwhile those that don't care about sideloading don't have this problem.

THOSE ALREADY HAPPEN EVEN ON THE APP STORE. Gatekeeping iOS doesn't protect you. You can still get infected with malware through websites and you can still get subjected to scam apps on the app store as there's thousands of knockoff and scam apps that app review miss or just ignore

Nobody said iOS has perfect, impenetrable security. It minimizes the occurrence and severity.

The option to install apps outside of the app store is a choice, a choice you don't have to take when it's enabled in iOS 17. You wanna stay to the app store that's fine. Those who want to install apps outside of the app store can have their choice.

Except when Microsoft leaves App Store because it's suddenly lucrative to create a store for both Android and iOS since before, setting up shop for just Android wasn't worth the risk of losing customers.

Xbox Cloud and Nvidia GeforceNow for example is available on Android but not iOS because Apple doesn't allow game streaming apps for some reason while Google does.

Been using xCloud and Geforce Now via web on iOS for a while now.

 

[frownface]

Epic keeps losing the battle.

But judging by the legislative changes and antitrust suits around the world; they've been successful in doing their damage.

 

[boyarka]

I don’t get what point you are trying to make.

Apple hasn’t broken any laws, I have been unequivocally clear about this from day 1 and have never wavered from this stance, and time has proven that I am on the right side of history.

How you feel the law ought to work doesn’t change how the law does currently work as written. I agree with the outcome of the lawsuit.

And that's why EU actually keeps adopting anti-monopoly laws and laws that force consumer rights and privacy - while US keeps talking that they are "ahead". The ultimate doublethink of USA: claiming to be for free market and for consumer choice - by allowing companies making the market less free and limiting consumer choice.

Hey, just out of curiosity: don't use a search engine and try naming ONE other phone mfg from the US from memory.

 

[Abazigal]

And that's why EU actually keeps adopting anti-monopoly laws and laws that force consumer rights and privacy - while US keeps talking that they are "ahead". The ultimate doublethink of USA: claiming to be for free market and for consumer choice - by allowing companies making the market less free and limiting consumer choice.

The DMA is for the benefit of businesses, not consumers. It’s basically a thinly-veiled form of protectionism (notice how the legislation all impact US companies?). The EU knows they can’t compete in this area, so they enact this sort of laws so their own homegrown industries at least have a fighting chance.

I understand why the EU is doing all this, and I still think it’s stupid.

Maybe I should start calling it the Spotify Boost Act instead.

Hey, just out of curiosity: don't use a search engine and try naming ONE other phone mfg from the US from memory.

Google?

 

[AppliedMicro]

Yeah, keep dreaming.....

It’s a very vivid dream, I tell you. Though less amusing than the attempts at outsmarting EU regulators I’m reading on this forum (outlining how Apple could undermine or circumvent this legislation).

The fact is, everyone has a choice at the moment, buy Apple and be more secure or buy Android and be slightly less secured!

The fact is: I don‘t have a (reasonable) choice where to download my apps from - since I own an iPhone.

The DMA is for the benefit of businesses, not consumers. It’s basically a thinly-veiled form of protectionism (notice how the legislation all impact US companies?). The EU knows they can’t compete in this area, so they enact this sort of laws so their own homegrown industries at least have a fighting chance.

It certainly benefits businesses directly. With the intent of benefitting consumers indirectly (through more choice and competition). I would not call it protectionism though…

Maybe I should start calling it the Spotify Boost Act instead.

There‘s three companies that spring to mind as being vocal and (legally) pushing for more openness or „fairness“ in app markets:

- Epic Games
- Spotify
- Match Group

Two of them are American.

Similar regulatory and/or legislational efforts are also being made in the U.S. And they don’t need propping up their homegrown industry against foreign competition.

 

[Detnator]

No. All gardens should be open free and safe.

How is that choice? Why do you seek to deny me the choice of a walled garden?

 

[fermat-au]

We already live in a world where there are far too many rules and regulations that get in the way of companies. Governments and organisations like the EU should not be interfering in business to this extent. Nobody is forced to by an Apple!

Also Apple is not forced by the EU to sell the iPhone there, but if Apple want to sell iPhones in the EU they must do so under EU law. If the EU enforces side-loading, Apple have two choice: Allow side-load or don't sell the iPhone in the EU.

 

[Detnator]

Good thing I don't shop at Walmart because alternative marketplaces are available. You're right, I'll just find an alternative marketplace on my iPhone and...oh wait

Yeah not the same situation as a physical store or even a virtual one selling physical goods, it's like arguing that you shouldn't be able to buy an iPhone at Walmart and browse Target's website using that same iPhone because that's what Apple does to developers...

Really? How does apple stop users from browsing devs websites? Apple doesn’t want to have to advertise devs alternative stores, and shouldn’t be required to, any more than Walmart is required to advertise Target’s website or prices.

 

[Detnator]

Well, you do not have permission to come into my garden, that's private property.

And iOS is Apple’s intellectual property. So why should you get to stomp all over that?