Epic Games Sought Side Deal for Fortnite Prior to Lawsuit, Apple Says in Court Filing [Updated]

[mrcloaked]

It's a strict system.

 

[nickgovier]

.

 

[smetvid]

If only it was that simple. You can have Mona Lisa with mustache. Buy it and draw the mustache. I bought my iPhone. Can I have my alternative app store now?

But why does it matter to you? You don't pay a single extra penny to get apps from the App Store.

This only affects developers.

Why is it so special to use an alternative App Store?

 

[Spectrum]

That is not antitrust. Apple 100% allows anybody even direct competitors like Microsoft and Google to create apps and distribute either for free or paid through the App Store. Even if a competitor outsold an Apple equivalent app Apple still wouldn't restrict it. Anybody is allowed to participate in the market place. There are no restrictions at all. Apple has a fee for that service much like a tax to keep that service in top shape. One doesn't run a market place of this scale for free.

Antitrust is to protect certain markets but never used as a way to crush one market just so others can exist. That is essentially what would happen if anybody could provide their own market place. Every developer would handle their own payments and app distribution or there would be 5000 Steam like market places meaning the App Store itself would likely cease to exist.

Should Target be forced to accept a Wal-mart gift card? Should Apple devices be forced to install Android OS? Should MacOS be allowed to be installed on any computer hardware? There is antitrust and then there is just complaining.

Apple isn't restricting Epic where they can't sell digital goods and earn money. Epic can sell as many digital goods as they want. Apple isn't really restricting any part of the market. Epic just doesn't want to pay the tax like a greedy corporation.

Lets say for a second Apple has to allow 3rd party payment methods. Apple would have to start charging rent instead of a tax. They would have to treat it like a web host provider where a developer pays monthly. That means any free apps would suddenly lose money. Any apps that earn very little money would also lose money. Nobody wins in that situation at all. What Apple did was create a fair system for all developers. If an app sells one copy at $0.99 Apple only ever gets 30%. If an app sells $1,000,000 then Apple gets $300,000. Yeah that may seem irritating to those apps that do sell that much but what is fair is fair. Its like taxes. Yeah the big corporations complain they have to pay so much in taxes but that's how the system works.

I completely agree! Epic appear to think Apple should provide the iOS AppStore infrastructure for free. Crazy!

 

[smetvid]

You need to read the updated article. It shows that Epic did actually ask for this deal to be available to all developers, and not just a special deal for Epic.

Because either way it benefits Epic and hurts Apple. Epic doesn't really care if other developers can do it because Fortnight has a self contained digital goods system. Nobody else would impact that if they did the same thing.

Gee I wonder if Epic would be ok if I wanted to sell Fortnight assets in Fortnight without giving a cut to Epic? You know bypassing their own payment requirements for developers to sell goods to users. Epic is doing the exact same thing as Apple just at a smaller scale. Epic wants Apple to get out of the way so Epic can make more money but I will bet you $1.00 Epic would be against allowing anybody to profit 100% by selling Fortnight assets in the game. Epic would argue that it needs to pay for its service and its their game. Bingo.

 

[Analog Kid]

I don't think Epic is arguing that Apple is a monopoly in the smartphone market in the first place and I'm quite sure they would be defeated if that's the basis for their lawsuit. AFAIK not all anti-trust regulations require a monopoly to be enforceable though: for some a significant position of strength in the market is enough.

To be clear, IMHO it will be difficult for Epic to prevail, but it doesn't mean I consider some of their complaints meritless.

https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-complaint-734589783.pdf

I get 45 matches for "monopoly".

What makes their claims meritless isn't that they claim Apple has a monopoly in smartphones, because they know they can't support that argument, it's that they claim Apple have "monopoly power in the iOS app distribution market".

If they can do that, then what's to stop them from defining a yet smaller market to find a monopoly power, and then keep scoping down and down until anyone they care to name is a monopolist?

They know they don't actually have much of a legal case, which is why they're also going big on the publicity stunts. They're hoping to cow Apple into making some form of concession or to convince one of the other platform vendors to make a concession as a way to curry Epics favor and stick a finger in the eye of a competitor: Apple.

 

[deevey]

You cite 15% market share for iOS: where does the number come from? E.g. a quick google search returns over 50% market share for iOS in the USA.

You do know we live on a planet that consists of many more countries than the USA right ?

iOS market share Globally is currently 13-15% depending on the source.

 

[mrcloaked]

Consider the revenue share.

 

[johnnyenv]

There is only one winner in this battle.

 

[Apple_Robert]

After this debacle, Websters will need to redefine “epic.”

 

[bsolar]

You do know we live on a planet that consists of many more countries than the USA right ?

iOS market share Globally is currently 13-15% depending on the source.

Sure, but as far as I understand the lawsuit is in the USA and the case will be based on US antitrust legislation which is obviously targeted at the US market.

 

[smoking monkey]

Both Parties are greedy. That's a given.
Who is wrong? Personally I'm siding with Apple on this one. What Epic are trying to do is chip away at the Walled Garden experience on Apple. Now, that's not a perfect system, but I'll take it over the wild west of Android.

Nobody has nailed the analogy so far, but I'll give it a whack...
Apple is the Landlord. Epic the renter. Epic have basically decided they want to sublet a room. That's a no-no.

 

[bsolar]

What makes their claims meritless isn't that they claim Apple has a monopoly in smartphones, because they know they can't support that argument, it's that they claim Apple have "monopoly power in the iOS app distribution market".

The way I understand it, the underlying complaint is that Apple is somehow "tying" IAP to iOS. "Tying" can be an antitrust violation and AFAIK it doesn't require the existence of a monopoly, only the existence of market power, which Apple definitely has.

I'm not sure why they are using the "monopoly within iOS" angle, I don't think it has any chance of succeeding unless it's some sort of PR way to present the "tying" argument, which will be IMHO the fundamental one.

I am also not sure whether the "tying" argument will fly, but it seems to me at least plausible whereas the "monopoly within iOS" is not.

 

[nixo]

I think the FBI an CIA wil try to manipulate te outcome
in the favor of Epic.
Then tis could be there entry point in to IOS an have
acces to all iPhone users info.
And probably China to.
They are affiliated with Tencent.

That is my biggest fear.

 

[Stevez67]

The purpose of the antitrust lawsuit filed by Epic against Apple app store policy is to provide choice instead of forced to use a 30% fee imposed by the Apple payment method for purchasing a subscription and in-app purchases.

Go back and read the lawsuit. What Epic wants is to be allowed to have their own App Store that Epic controls and profits from, without paying Apple a single penny for access to the iOS platform. Epic already has such a store but it's restricted to other platforms and routinely requires high-profile games to be exclusive in the Epic store and with discounts for using the Epic unreal engine.

 

[dantroline]

The way I understand it, the underlying complaint is that Apple is somehow "tying" IAP to iOS. "Tying" can be an antitrust violation and AFAIK it doesn't require the existence of a monopoly, only the existence of market power, which Apple definitely has.

I'm not sure why they are using the "monopoly within iOS" angle, I don't think it has any chance of succeeding unless it's some sort of PR way to present the "tying" argument, which will be IMHO the fundamental one.

I am also not sure whether the "tying" argument will fly, but it seems to me at least plausible whereas the "monopoly within iOS" is not.

Android has Google Play but if you want there are other reputable sources for software such as F-Droid. Nothing like that exists for iOS, even if a user is prepared to agree to a waiver, as you do when you trust non-Playstore apps. So, if someone wants to make a product for iOS they have to play by Apple's rules.

I'm happy to pay for quality and for safety (eg: the App Store provides this) but I am against closed hardware and closed software ecosystems out of principle, they are a kind of censorship and anti-freedom. If courts believe in the rights of the individual they would, I hope, find against Apple on this point alone. Epic is a business and they act in their own interests, of course, but maybe they have a point here.

 

[dantroline]

I completely agree! Epic appear to think Apple should provide the iOS AppStore infrastructure for free. Crazy!

Maybe Apple should experience some competition with its App Store. Who knows, it may even result in a better product.

 

[matrix07]

Sometimes I wish that Apple started charging 30% fee for Apple Card for all the fanboys to understand.

Now you’re being vengeful. Apple Card is for *purchases*. We pay. We didn’t earn. You (Epic) earn. That’s why you got charged 30%.
If I earn then of course I’m willing to get charged 30%. What’s there to understand further?

 

[MacModMachine]

I think the FBI an CIA wil try to manipulate te outcome
in the favor of Epic.
Then tis could be there entry point in to IOS an have
acces to all iPhone users info.
And probably China to.
They are affiliated with Tencent.

That is my biggest fear.

FBI and CIA have no say over the independent court system and this is a civil matter....matter in fact even if it was a proposed option trump would be against that. tiktok being a prime example.

 

[MacModMachine]

Now you’re being childish. Apple Card is for *purchases*. We pay. We didn’t earn. You earn. That’s why you got charged 30%.
Why should we got charged 30% more for doing you a favor by buying your app?

With this kind of thinking no wonder...

as a developer on the ecosystem. they take 30% of my profit. however provide :

support
marketing
development tools
development workshops
development help
payment processing (big one for liability)


thats a pretty good deal to me....most cant seem to see that because they do not develop software.

 

[TiggrToo]

Google Play doesn't have the same ridiculous iron curtain rules

Yet Epic are suing Google as well... 🤫

 

[Jury]

That is not antitrust. Apple 100% allows anybody even direct competitors like Microsoft and Google to create apps and distribute either for free or paid through the App Store. Even if a competitor outsold an Apple equivalent app Apple still wouldn't restrict it. Anybody is allowed to participate in the market place. There are no restrictions at all. Apple has a fee for that service much like a tax to keep that service in top shape. One doesn't run a market place of this scale for free.

Antitrust is to protect certain markets but never used as a way to crush one market just so others can exist. That is essentially what would happen if anybody could provide their own market place. Every developer would handle their own payments and app distribution or there would be 5000 Steam like market places meaning the App Store itself would likely cease to exist.

Should Target be forced to accept a Wal-mart gift card? Should Apple devices be forced to install Android OS? Should MacOS be allowed to be installed on any computer hardware? There is antitrust and then there is just complaining.

Apple isn't restricting Epic where they can't sell digital goods and earn money. Epic can sell as many digital goods as they want. Apple isn't really restricting any part of the market. Epic just doesn't want to pay the tax like a greedy corporation.

Lets say for a second Apple has to allow 3rd party payment methods. Apple would have to start charging rent instead of a tax. They would have to treat it like a web host provider where a developer pays monthly. That means any free apps would suddenly lose money. Any apps that earn very little money would also lose money. Nobody wins in that situation at all. What Apple did was create a fair system for all developers. If an app sells one copy at $0.99 Apple only ever gets 30%. If an app sells $1,000,000 then Apple gets $300,000. Yeah that may seem irritating to those apps that do sell that much but what is fair is fair. Its like taxes. Yeah the big corporations complain they have to pay so much in taxes but that's how the system works.

The antitrust lawsuit objective is to remove restrictions in order to provide alternative payment methods regarding subscription, in-app purchases. It is to protect the market that has the potential to abuse by corporations such as Apple for increasing every transaction fee from 30% to 50% and restriction on third party payment methods mean equality of opportunity is at stake as a whole.

The developer who are not using app store to sell the subscription and in-app content must not forced to use apple payment method irrespective if the application is bought through the apple app store. Therefore, Apple will have to make an amendment to the app store policy by allowing third party payment method to prevent antitrust law infringement.

 

[citysnaps]

as a developer on the ecosystem. they take 30% of my profit. however provide :

support
marketing
development tools
development workshops
development help
payment processing (big one for liability)


thats a pretty good deal to me....most cant seem to see that because they do not develop software.

I'm not an app developer, but that sounds like a great deal. As is keeping 70% of sales. You work hard and develop an excellent app, you get rewarded for your hard work, and Apple get's rewarded for creating the tools and secure system that makes it possible to reach millions of potential customers. A win-win.

 

[mcLamer]

as a developer on the ecosystem. they take 30% of my profit. however provide :

support
marketing
development tools
development workshops
development help
payment processing (big one for liability)

OK, vamos a ver

1. Support. No development support is included in 30% fee. You get two TSI (technical support incidents) with your development membership per year for $99 and can purchase additional TSI in packs (2 for $99 and 5 for $249)
2. Marketing. I don't see any marketing support from Apple. Oh, sorry, you may use Search Ads and pay $2 per download.
3. Development tools. Xcode is kind of nightmare for the developer. I submit 5-10 crash reports per day of development. No surprise it has 2.7 stars in Mac App Store.
4. Workshops? Help? WWDC for $1000 and to purchase a ticket which you need to win a lottery. Another joke. There are free recorded sessions in Developer App, but usually no sample code or any materials included.
5. Payment processing. A most popular thread in Apple Developer Forum is about payment problems for developers.

 

[Nacho1234]

So the Mac is a bad ecosystem and experience?

Well, compared to an iPhone and iPad, yes.