Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
android is a free license and is protected by open sources licensing and is built on Linux which is made by Linus tovald who created it and gave it away for free. your silly to think any one pays for linux or could sell it with out fundamentally changing the way open source licenses work. why was Microsoft not allowed to include office or an internet browser with out antitrust issues and then the subsequent split due to its monopolistic practices. yeah your logic makes no sense.

Many Android OEMs pay Google to license not the core operating system but the Google Mobile Services that run on top of it and provide much of what many people associate with Android (Google Play Store, Chrome, YouTube, Search, Maps, Photos and a few more). You're right in pointing out that Google's Android essentially took a bunch of open source projects (Linux, Apache Harmony, Eclipse) and fashioned them into an iPhone competitor which is something that is missed in "Google give Android away for free" arguments given that charging for what you paid nothing for is morally dubious to say the least.

Microsoft hasn't included Office with their operating system sales, Office as a product has always been sold separately and is it's own business unit within Microsoft. Microsoft were also allowed to include their browser, what they ultimate weren't permitted to do is give it access to private APIs that other browsers couldn't access thus using their operating system monopoly to attempt to gain a monopoly in the browser space. You'll note that Microsoft wasn't broken up and Internet Explorer has been a part of the operating system in the US ever since.


apple can do it but anyone else that does it is completely in the wrong. this is why I steer clear of apple products. its not worth it for subpar hardware and ideas that were taken from smaller devs and added to their own software to push them out. smh I hope epic kills it in a battle with an actual jury not a single judge that used to be a lying lawyer with control issues.

Looks like Epic Games doesn't actually want a jury trial. Neither party seem particularly interested in throwing it to a panel of uninformed and would much rather it be decided by the judge based on the merits presented. Given how much Epic has invested in marketing to sway the global mindshare against Apple, it does seem surprising that they don't want a jury but I suspect they realise they've put offside just as many as they might have gained perhaps with those who are on Epic's side not being old enough to sit on a jury anyway. Oops.
 
Many Android OEMs pay Google to license not the core operating system but the Google Mobile Services that run on top of it and provide much of what many people associate with Android (Google Play Store, Chrome, YouTube, Search, Maps, Photos and a few more). You're right in pointing out that Google's Android essentially took a bunch of open source projects (Linux, Apache Harmony, Eclipse) and fashioned them into an iPhone competitor which is something that is missed in "Google give Android away for free" arguments given that charging for what you paid nothing for is morally dubious to say the least.

Microsoft hasn't included Office with their operating system sales, Office as a product has always been sold separately and is it's own business unit within Microsoft. Microsoft were also allowed to include their browser, what they ultimate weren't permitted to do is give it access to private APIs that other browsers couldn't access thus using their operating system monopoly to attempt to gain a monopoly in the browser space. You'll note that Microsoft wasn't broken up and Internet Explorer has been a part of the operating system in the US ever since.




Looks like Epic Games doesn't actually want a jury trial. Neither party seem particularly interested in throwing it to a panel of uninformed and would much rather it be decided by the judge based on the merits presented. Given how much Epic has invested in marketing to sway the global mindshare against Apple, it does seem surprising that they don't want a jury but I suspect they realise they've put offside just as many as they might have gained perhaps with those who are on Epic's side not being old enough to sit on a jury anyway. Oops.

Apple previously indicated that it wanted a jury trial for all triable issues. But it doesn't necessarily have a right to a jury trial on Epic's claims because Epic only made equitable claims, it didn't make legal claims - i.e., it's asking for injunctive relief, not damages.

That being the case, and with Epic clearly not wanting a jury trial, Apple's choices were (1) to have its claims heard separately in a jury trial with Epic's claims being heard in a bench trial or (2) have a bench trial which heard Apple and Epic's claims together. So Apple agreed to not have a jury. I suspect it's okay with that in part because of what it's heard so far from Judge Rogers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pasamio
If Epic refuses to pay Apple's commission for in-app purchases, and Apple closes their account, then Apple loses $99 every single year.
Oh, good point. Though in honor of epic’s nonsense, I hereby pledge to spend $99 extra per year on apple products until the dispute is over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigMcGuire
If Epic refuses to pay Apple's commission for in-app purchases, and Apple closes their account, then Apple loses $99 every single year.

That was an interesting take on it. I was personally expecting that Apple in part is losing out on the 30% from Fortnite users, they were going to lose out on it anyway but it is in fact a measurable loss for the company (I'm not going to sneeze at hundreds of millions of dollars).
 
That was an interesting take on it. I was personally expecting that Apple in part is losing out on the 30% from Fortnite users, they were going to lose out on it anyway but it is in fact a measurable loss for the company (I'm not going to sneeze at hundreds of millions of dollars).

Yeah, Apple isn’t getting its rightful commission on IAPs being made in version 13.40 of Fortnite on iOS devices. That’s part of why Apple made counterclaims.
 
You contradicted yourself here. You had said you didn’t want to use their store at the start, then suddenly changed to saying you want to use their store here.
No, I didn't. There are two separate things here. 1) Epic wants to sell games to iOS users without using the App store. 2) Epic wants to sell IAP's in the games they DO have in the iOS App Store. They just doesn't want to pay Apple anything. Epic direct - IAP.

1) Is sideloading or 3rd party app store 2) is using your own payment processor for IAP's

So what I'm saying is 1) I want to co-opt Epic's own store (they have a monopoly on anyone that uses their Epic Store). 2) I want to sell emotes and outfits directly to Fortnite players themselves, in-game, that's 350 million users. (They have a monopoly selling Emotes and outfits in-game)

That is if Epic can just appropriate Apple's iPhones and iPads to sell directly to their users - Then they don't get to claim I can't appropriate their games to sell directly to their users. Likewise, I get to attach my own store to their Epic store. Epic's own Epic Game Launcher has to recognize and launch the games that I sell to their users in my own store without scary warning messages.

But, we're not done here. Because Epic also makes the claim that even if they do sell in Apple's App store (perhaps because the court disagrees and sides with Apple about no 3rd party App stores or sideloading): 30% commission is just too much and it drives prices for games up.

Now it's great that Epic, benevolently offers to only take a 12% commission in games sales in their Epic store. That is their prerogative, they can choose to try to court business by offering to not charge as much commission. But, they're conveniently not saying that Apple isn't charging anymore then anyone else. Neither will they say that Apple wasn't the one to establish the 30% cut themselves. That existed before they started their App store (they just published it). While also sweeping aside (ignoring) that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) itself states, regarding the Sherman Act, section 2 (on Monopolies) "it is not illegal for a company to have a monopoly, to charge "high prices," or to try to achieve a monopoly position by what might be viewed by some as particularly aggressive methods." That's straight off the FTC website.

We're taking things to their logical extent here, though. If the argument is that 30% is too much and necessitates that developers either increase costs to the consumer, accept losing 30%, or just pass the costs on, then I'm going to say even 12% is too much. I don't want to pay anything over what my own payment processor charges me, but if the court says I have to pay something for your trouble. I dunno, 1, maybe 2% is easier to swallow and more fair my customers and I.

And while we're at it, I just have to point out how conveniently Epic is giving video game console makers (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo) a pass. Even though they shouldn't be. I mean, duh, Epic really doesn't want to get Fortnite tossed off of those systems, as well. Epic would really be in trouble then. Not to mention, further hurting their bottom line. However, Epic (and critics or concerned individuals, such as you) are ultimately trying to argue that Apple's mobile device hardware should be treated no different from PCs and laptops (i.e. it's just a common platform) And I have to ask, why are video game consoles granted their own category when they're literally using CPUs and GPUs from AMD. Even prior console systems used either Intel CPUs or PowerPC processors. They're just regular computers, too. There for they should just be treated as regular PCs, as well. So, I should be able to step aside of terms and conditions I don't like. Likewise, questions and arguments come in (can be made) that 30% increases game prices, gets passed on, is unfair to the developer, etc. Again, since these are functionally equivalent to gaming PCs or Laptops, likewise, I should just as well be able to skip physical disk distribution and have my own online 3rd party Playstation, Xbox, or Nintendo game store, too.
 
I'm not a lawyer but the basics of U.S. antitrust law are pretty easy to sort out for those who wish to. And most people can read case law to gain a more nuanced understanding of how it applies if they're really interested.

The answer to your first question is: No, there isn't any provision of U.S. antitrust law which specifically prohibits not allowing side loading. As is the case in many areas of law, the actual statutory provisions are quite general and don't refer to specific practices - e.g., not allowing side loading. Case law builds up around those general provisions and provides greater clarity on what they mean and how they might be applied to different situations, and then based on such guidance from case law case-by-case decisions are made as to whether particular practices by particular parties are illegal.

There are two kinds of Sherman Act violations at issue here. (There are other provisions of U.S. antitrust law, but these Sherman Act violations are the ones at issue here.) There's a Section 1 violation and a Section 2 violation, and both sections are generally worded:

Section 1:



Section 2:



So, looking at Section 2, it makes it illegal to monopolize or attempt to monopolize any part of trade or commerce. The wording is very general and doesn't refer to specific practices which might constitute monopolization. But case law tells us more about what constitutes illegal monopolization. In U.S. v Grinnell Corp (1966), e.g., the Supreme Court said:



Put another way, a violation of Section 2 requires (1) monopoly power, (2) exclusionary conduct and (3) a casual connection between the exclusionary conduct and the monopoly power. Monopoly power, by the way, doesn't necessarily mean complete control of a market. Something considerably less, even 60% market share, can constitute sufficient market power for Section 2 purposes.

So to answer the query in your second paragraph, Apple not allowing side loading of apps in iOS could (thought I'm not suggesting it should) constitute the exclusionary conduct required for a Section 2 violation. The argument would be that Apple unlawfully maintains its monopoly power in the iOS app distribution market (I won't get lost in antitrust market definition here, that's another aspect of the consideration) by creating technical and contractual barriers to competition. Its iOS software is designed to prevent, not always but generally, the loading of apps other than through the App Store. And Apple requires would-be iOS developers to agree not to distribute their apps other than through the App Store.

I want to be clear that I don't think Apple should be found to have violated antitrust laws in this way. But that is, more or less, the Section 2 argument you are asking about. It's why Apple's efforts to block side loading might, without regard to the 30% commissions it charges, be an antitrust problem. If it's decided that iOS app distribution is in itself a relevant antitrust market, then Apple could easily be found to have engaged in illegal exclusionary conduct meant to help it maintain its monopoly in that market. One question would be, does the anticompetitive conduct (i.e the technical and contractual barriers to competition) have procompetitive justifications? In other words, is Apple doing those things just to block competition in iOS app distribution? Or is it doing those things for other, legal, reasons - e.g., to provide better security for its customers.

The problem is trying to define the market as being so narrow as to only encompass one manufacturers product.

Of course Apple have a monopoly on their own products....just like Macdonalds have a monopoly on Big Macs and Ford have a monopoly on F150’s.

When you define the actual market (mobile app distribution), Apple isn’t a monopoly therefore isn’t abusing a monopoly position and fails any claim against the Sherman Act.
 
And while we're at it, I just have to point out how conveniently Epic is giving video game console makers (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo) a pass. Even though they shouldn't be. I mean, duh, Epic really doesn't want to get Fortnite tossed off of those systems, as well. Epic would really be in trouble then. Not to mention, further hurting their bottom line. However, Epic (and critics or concerned individuals, such as you) are ultimately trying to argue that Apple's mobile device hardware should be treated no different from PCs and laptops (i.e. it's just a common platform) And I have to ask, why are video game consoles granted their own category when they're literally using CPUs and GPUs from AMD. Even prior console systems used either Intel CPUs or PowerPC processors. They're just regular computers, too. There for they should just be treated as regular PCs, as well. So, I should be able to step aside of terms and conditions I don't like. Likewise, questions and arguments come in (can be made) that 30% increases game prices, gets passed on, is unfair to the developer, etc. Again, since these are functionally equivalent to gaming PCs or Laptops, likewise, I should just as well be able to skip physical disk distribution and have my own online 3rd party Playstation, Xbox, or Nintendo game store, too.

Not only are they regular computers, you can run Linux on the PS4 and the original Xbox dev machine was Apple's old G5 tower. I've always found it quirky that Epic regards the device you can install Linux onto as special purpose whilst the device that has a super customised proprietary CPU architecture is supposedly "general purpose".
 
The problem is trying to define the market as being so narrow as to only encompass one manufacturers product.

Of course Apple have a monopoly on their own products....just like Macdonalds have a monopoly on Big Macs and Ford have a monopoly on F150’s.

When you define the actual market (mobile app distribution), Apple isn’t a monopoly therefore isn’t abusing a monopoly position and fails any claim against the Sherman Act.

Epic's argument, which I believe will be found not to fly, is that it's more like Ford having a monopoly on spare parts for Fords.
 
The problem is trying to define the market as being so narrow as to only encompass one manufacturers product.

Of course Apple have a monopoly on their own products....just like Macdonalds have a monopoly on Big Macs and Ford have a monopoly on F150’s.

When you define the actual market (mobile app distribution), Apple isn’t a monopoly therefore isn’t abusing a monopoly position and fails any claim against the Sherman Act.

Existing case law and the right circumstances allow relevant antitrust markets to be defined so as to only encompass single brand products or services. In most situations that wouldn't be the case. But Apple's situation is one where it's a possiblity.

We can get into the case law if you'd like. But based on Supreme Court and, relevant here, 9th Circuit decisions iOS app distribution could be considered a relevant antitrust market. As I've indicated elsewhere, I'd bet against it being found to be a relevant antitrust market in itself. But it's a realistic possibility.
 
Based on what? Please, tell us all about your retail expertise, about how you transformed the online sales industry to operate on lower margins.

I'll wait......

I don't need any expertise to know that 30% is too much. 30% is crazy. Sorry it is. 🤷‍♂️
 
So no concept of value for money nor awareness of what you are getting in return. I guess you don’t run a business and don’t do due dilligence. I mean going into negotiations and just saying it’s too much without understanding the issue is not getting you anywhere. Heck not just business, that is just life in general.

It need more substance other than saying it’s too much. And looking how rich another legal entity is has nothing to do with it. Should rich legal entities not be allowed to make the same margins as poorer legal entities? What about richer people, shall we make them pay more? Dude you’ve got a seriously warped view of the world and a bit of a chip on your shoulder.

What are you talking about? It's 30%!!! If that is not clearly too much I really don't know what is too much. I'm amazed how many people here are not able to think reasonable. 😳 It's sad.

And btw of course rich people or entities should contribute more to society from which they got their money in the first place.
 
What are you talking about? It's 30%!!! If that is not clearly too much I really don't know what is too much. I'm amazed how many people here are not able to think reasonable. 😳 It's sad.

And btw of course rich people or entities should contribute more to society from which they got their money in the first place.
35% would be a bargain, given the laundry list of services and support Apple provides.
 
I realize that many people here love Apple very much. Guess that's why this site is called macrumors. People love Apple so much that they are no longer able to think clearly or reasonably.

Unfortunately I don't have the time to discuss with half a dozen people to enlighten them.

So let's just conclude that I will keep my critical and impartial thinking and you keep your love for Apple.

Cheers 😎
 
What are you talking about? It's 30%!!! If that is not clearly too much I really don't know what is too much. I'm amazed how many people here are not able to think reasonable. 😳 It's sad.

And btw of course rich people or entities should contribute more to society from which they got their money in the first place.
Sometimes I really wonder how people manage to breathe by themselves...

30% is to much without any context, no recognition as to what you are getting for it, no acknowledgment nor understanding of what the costs would be if you were to do this yourself, etc. Just but it is 30% it is too much...Sigh...

The last sentence just says it all, just take take take...
 
I realize that many people here love Apple very much. Guess that's why this site is called macrumors. People love Apple so much that they are no longer able to think clearly or reasonably.

Unfortunately I don't have the time to discuss with half a dozen people to enlighten them.

So let's just conclude that I will keep my critical and impartial thinking and you keep your love for Apple.

Cheers 😎
Again you are totally missing the point; this is not about whether people love Apple or not. It is about running a business and realizing whether it is a good deal or not. As I've already highlighted previously, I couldn't obtain global reach, invoicing, distribution, tax handling, etc for less money if I had to do this myself. It would cost a lot more. And previously when using other means of distribution it was quite normal to only retain about 30%.

So you may think you have critical and impartial thinking, but what you seem to be missing is actual knowledge and experience to apply that. Business isn't based on just feelings, and opinion, there are some simple comparisons, calculations, and due diligence that come into play. For some, it makes sense to do it by themselves as they are already a company with a global presence, for others it may not. And let us not forget that EPIC can do this themselves, what they cannot do is use someone else's market to advertise that they are doing this themselves. Now, why is that unreasonable and loving Apple very much?
 
That Apple can ask for 30% is simply prove that Apple indeed holds a monopoly in this market or if you count in Google, which also takes 30%, a duopoly.

...only if you ignore MacOS/Windows (inc. Steam), XBox, Playstation, Nintendo, Linux and increasingly capable standard web technologies - which are all perfectly viable alternatives for both games distributors and players - and gloss over the fact that, even if you focus on the mobile market, iOS only has about 25% share of that. Reminder: Acme inc. are allowed to have a monopoly on Acme Brand portable holes.

Would you say that Apple is a company that hardly makes any profit and therefore needs to take 30% out of the revenue of other companies? I don't think so.

Maybe, in the socialist utopia, we'd all have better, more fulfilling lives, poverty would be banished and injustice would be forever banished... but I'm gonna bet that we'd have to do it without pocket supercomputers that only cost a week's wages and double in power every 18 months to keep you upgrading, because that is entirely driven by mass-market consumerism, economies of scale and the lure of windfall profits. If Apple couldn't make money hand-over-fist from iDevices (...and if Epic couldn't coin it in by selling in-app purchases to teens who have wheedled their parents into entering their credit card number) they wouldn't exist and this discussion would be moot. Whether that's a price worth paying is one for the politics section, but it's ridiculous to pretend that an IT world based on rainbows, unicorns and goodwill to all persons would necessarily give us iPhones and Fortnite.
 
I don't need any expertise to know that 30% is too much. 30% is crazy. Sorry it is.

What are you talking about? It's 30%!!! If that is not clearly too much I really don't know what is too much.
Wow, that is an incredibly uninformed statement. You admittedly have zero expertise but yet you stand high on your soap box dictating what is and what isn't a reasonable charge for services rendered.

"It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid that open it and remove all doubt" - Mark Twain (and others)
 
Last edited:
I realize that many people here love Apple very much. Guess that's why this site is called macrumors. People love Apple so much that they are no longer able to think clearly or reasonably.

Unfortunately I don't have the time to discuss with half a dozen people to enlighten them.

So let's just conclude that I will keep my critical and impartial thinking and you keep your love for Apple.

Cheers 😎
It's not about loving Apple or not and you are dismissing the value the app store provides* by wrapping it up in a explanation that only fans of Apple could not see the truth, because they "are no longer able to think clearly".

Frankly, unless one is a dev and has walked the walk and talked the talk, such opinions to me hold little water.

I think many have cognitive dissonance when it comes to Apple, the corporation people love to hate and completely lose their objectivity, especially when stated that a "bunch of people have to be enlightened".

*The 30% has been a standard fee in the software industry for years. This post provides a good overview of the services the app store provides to a developer...big or small for $99.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Scrip
I realize that many people here love Apple very much. Guess that's why this site is called macrumors. People love Apple so much that they are no longer able to think clearly or reasonably.

Unfortunately I don't have the time to discuss with half a dozen people to enlighten them.

So let's just conclude that I will keep my critical and impartial thinking and you keep your love for Apple.

Cheers 😎

You haven't even tried to explain why 30% is too high, you've only acted like you know it all. Here, why don't we try giving real info? Good Old Games uses 30% and barely makes a profit. If Apple used 25% or 20% that would actually be monopolistic practices because it would make competition nearly impossible for smaller companies.

The only reason epic can do 12% is because they have fortnite to subsidize their **** store (Well that and it's about as basic as you can get).
 
You haven't even tried to explain why 30% is too high, you've only acted like you know it all. Here, why don't we try giving real info? Good Old Games uses 30% and barely makes a profit. If Apple used 25% or 20% that would actually be monopolistic practices because it would make competition nearly impossible for smaller companies.

The only reason epic can do 12% is because they have fortnite to subsidize their **** store (Well that and it's about as basic as you can get).

Zellio no offense but do I also need to explain why it is bad to hold your hand into a fire?
 
The Next Web has an interesting walkthrough of the different costs with many situations taking more than half of the sale price to overheads. It disagrees with Apple’s premise but it does have a good explanation of the various situations. Of course if you listen to Tim Sweeney, the Steam Store (and by extension his own Epic Store) should be profitable with 8%. Of course it’s easier to say that someone else should be able to do something for less than to go do it yourself. Epic’s arrangement isn’t all inclusive as in many markets they add extra charges for payment to the customer.
 
You haven't even tried to explain why 30% is too high, you've only acted like you know it all. Here, why don't we try giving real info? Good Old Games uses 30% and barely makes a profit. If Apple used 25% or 20% that would actually be monopolistic practices because it would make competition nearly impossible for smaller companies.

The only reason epic can do 12% is because they have fortnite to subsidize their **** store (Well that and it's about as basic as you can get).

Epic don't even need to subsidise anything when it comes to v-bucks. Theres no product...its quite literally play money exchange and they are the banker charging whatever rate they deem fit.

They could charge nothing and still make a healthy profit. But they choose to charge.
 
Epic don't even need to subsidise anything when it comes to v-bucks. Theres no product... its quite literally play money exchange and they are the banker charging whatever rate they deem fit.

They could charge nothing and still make a healthy profit. But they choose to charge.

Exactly.

It's literally fake money that you pay real real money for. There no scarcity of VBucks... there's no manufacturing... it's the very definition of pure profit.

Yet Epic gets miffed when the platform owners set the rules.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.