Epic Games Wins Antitrust Lawsuit Against Google Play Store

[Carnegie]

He has a point. If you paid 30% copererate tax before paying income tax you would be pissed too.

That's the reality that owners of corporations face all the time. We impose an extra (and typically rather substantial) layer of taxation for owning a business through a corporate form rather than, e.g., as a partnership or DBA or an LLC. Profits are taxed as they are made (through corporate taxes) and then taxed again as they are distributed to owners - it is, in effect, double taxation of the same profits.

That said, Apple's commission isn't a tax - attempts to disparage it as such notwithstanding. Parties paying that commission are paying for something (they must consider to be) valuable. Most notably they're paying for the right to use Apple's IP. They don't have to do that. They choose to because the use of that IP allows them to do things they otherwise wouldn't be able to do. Apple is providing them the ability do things they otherwise wouldn't be able to do and in some cases they're able to make a lot of money (or a lot more money) because of it.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Parties paying that commission are paying for something (they must consider to be) valuable

„Gatekept“ access to customers.

Most notably they're paying for the right to use Apple's IP. They don't have to do that. They choose to because the use of that IP allows them to do things they otherwise wouldn't be able to do

There are lots of free apps that use Apple‘s IP to do things - say Facebook, Instagram, the Amazon store app or ticketing apps to „do things“.

None of them pay for use of Apple‘s IP (other than the yearly developer fee, and possibly when optionally using Apple‘s ad network). It‘s not a use-of-IP fee licensing fee. The rate also doesn’t scale depending on how much of Apple’s IP they use. Apple has chosen to license its IP for free. Neither do developers pay fees for app hosting and app review per app, per download or per review.

It‘s just a commission on (certain) revenue - which Apple can and does charge because they own the platform, can make its “laws“ and enforce them. They are also able to unilaterally set a uniform and non-negotiable rate.

👉 These characteristics make it very much tax-like

 

[webkit]

Of course not. But that's not what you did. You simply dismissed the result without any reasoning other than jury versus non-jury.

The fact that one case was decided by a jury and another by a judge can be meaningful but my main point has been that that I feel a company (Apple) blocking sideloading and alternative app stores on a major OS (iOS) is more anticompetitive than another company (Google) discouraging sideloading and alternative app stores on a major OS (Android) through incentives. At least Google still allowed for the possibility of app access competition on Android, Apple doesn't allow it on iOS. I am not saying Google isn't also being anticompetitive, I am saying Apple is being even more anticompetitive.

Sure. Your trying to equate your feelings with a legal definition even though your feelings were contradicted by the results of legal proceedings that were confirmed on appeal.

What "legal definition" states that blocking things like sideloading or competitor products like alternative app stores on a major OS platform can't be an antitrust violation in any country/region/case?

 

[webkit]

And as we have been trying to explain, that’s not what is being ruled here.

The specific scenario you are attempting to address is better off being tackled by new legislation being passed by congress, rather than try to legislate Apple into doing the right thing using existing anti-trust laws, because Apple apparently doesn’t seem to have broken any.

I am not saying the laws are perfect or that you have to like them. I am just saying that it is what it is. This is why legal decisions are not made on the basis of what people “feel” to be just or fair.

I wouldn’t necessarily take new legislation for a ruling in a case to conclude that blocking competitor products (such as app stores or browsers) on a major OS platform is an antitrust violation. My point here has been that I feel a company (Apple) blocking sideloading and alternative app stores on a major OS (iOS) is more anticompetitive than another company (Google) discouraging sideloading and alternative app stores on a major OS (Android) through incentives. At least Google still allowed for the possibility of app access competition on Android, Apple doesn’t allow it on iOS. I am not saying Google isn't also being anticompetitive, I am saying Apple is being even more anticompetitive.

 

[BaldiMac]

My point was that Apple is being more anticompetitive by preventing iOS app developers from even being able to do business with potential Apple (alternative iOS app store) competitors if they wanted to by restricting sideloading or alternative app stores on iOS. Android developers at least potentially still have the option to do so via sideloading or alternative app stores on Android.

However, my point again was that Apple is being more anticompetitive by preventing iOS app developers from even being able to do business with potential Apple (alternative iOS app store) competitors if they wanted to by restricting sideloading or alternative app stores on iOS. Android developers at least potentially still have the option to do so via sideloading or alternative app stores on Android.

I have simply been pointing out why I feel that a company (Apple) which blocks sideloading and alternative app stores is being more anticompetitive than a company (Google) that, while trying to incentivize companies to use their app store, doesn’t outright block sideloading and alternative app stores. At least Google still allows for the possibility of app access competition on Android, Apple doesn’t allow it on iOS.

my main point has been that that I feel a company (Apple) blocking sideloading and alternative app stores on a major OS (iOS) is more anticompetitive than another company (Google) discouraging sideloading and alternative app stores on a major OS (Android) through incentives. At least Google still allowed for the possibility of app access competition on Android, Apple doesn't allow it on iOS.

You're posts are set to repeat. I've understood how you "feel" about the situation for a long, long time.

The fact that one case was decided by a jury and another by a judge can be meaningful

These are weasel words. Lots of things "can be" but aren't.

What "legal definition" states that blocking things like sideloading or competitor products like alternative app stores on a major OS platform can't be an antitrust violation in any country/region/case?

More nonsense. Strawman on top of fallacies.

 

[Abazigal]

I wouldn’t necessarily take new legislation for a ruling in a case to conclude that blocking competitor products (such as app stores or browsers) on a major OS platform is an antitrust violation. My point here has been that I feel a company (Apple) blocking sideloading and alternative app stores on a major OS (iOS) is more anticompetitive than another company (Google) discouraging sideloading and alternative app stores on a major OS (Android) through incentives. At least Google still allowed for the possibility of app access competition on Android, Apple doesn’t allow it on iOS. I am not saying Google isn't also being anticompetitive, I am saying Apple is being even more anticompetitive.

It feels like a distinction without a difference.

I get your point, and I guess the response that I have been trying to elicit out of you is .... so? The fact remains that Apple has not violated any antitrust laws in the US, and barring new legislation being passed specifically targeting this, I really don't see what there is that can be done to Apple to address this particular concern.

 

[webkit]

It feels like a distinction without a difference.

I get your point, and I guess the response that I have been trying to elicit out of you is .... so? The fact remains that Apple has not violated any antitrust laws in the US, and barring new legislation being passed specifically targeting this, I really don't see what there is that can be done to Apple to address this particular concern.

So..... I think Apple’s actions are more anticimpetitive than Google's for reason's I've stated. I think cases and court rulings don't always get things "right."

What happens to Apple in the future in the U.S. or other countries/regions remains to be seen.

 

[MacBH928]

Do the Atari and DOS games have permission from the developer/copyright holder that they can be emulated?

There are no PS2 and Switch and GameCube emulators?

Depending on your local laws, you might or might NOT need permission from the developer/copyright holder to run the game in emulation if you paid for the copy of the game. If I own 50 Super Nintendo games, why won't they allow me to run it in emulation? I already paid for it.

What you are thinking is people downloading games they never paid for, at that point yes that is piracy.

There are ps2/switch/gamecube emulators.

 

[MacBH928]

quite literally everything when it comes to antitrust and complaining about a company being anti competitive. Spotify is one of the companies howling to the moon about how anticompetitive Apple is being, and it is pretty easy to be on Google's side while getting exclusive deals that no other developer has (besides a few that also have backdoor deals).

Did you even look at the lawsuit before commenting to me?

1- I didn't look at the lawsuit

2- If the lawsuit is about striking deals and not about disabling App Store competitors on iOS, you are correct

How is it not anticompetitive for Google to ask Spotify if they don't do XYZ then they won't have to pay the 15/30% cut that everyone else has to while being promoted on the top charts.

My understanding is that you can have a deal with any 2 companies. For example, Walmart may pay higher cost per unit to shelf Coca Cola if Coca Cola agrees to sell their products exclusively in Walmart. If this is illegal, I have no idea, I thought its a legal agreement.

Maybe its illegal if Google does not provide something in return, like "Sell Spotify app exclusively on Play Store or we will take your app down"

 

[Abazigal]

Maybe its illegal if Google does not provide something in return, like "Sell Spotify app exclusively on Play Store or we will take your app down"

Does nobody see the irony of claiming that Apple Music has an unfair advantage over Spotify because Apple doesn't need to pay 30% for its own music streaming service, only to turn around and argue that there is nothing wrong with Google waiving the App Store fees for Spotify (and only Spotify)?

I don't understand why everybody seems to have such a soft spot for Spotify here.

 

[MacBH928]

I don't understand why everybody seems to have such a soft spot for Spotify here.

I don't. I am just confused, and so does the legal system, about what is anti-competitive and what is not.

In your example, Apple Music does not have to pay fees vs Spotify which can make them profit more and maybe sell at lower price, but at the same time Apple does own App Store so if it was enforced that Apple Music to pay 30% it will only pay itself. Cobbled web 🤷‍♂️

 

[JonathanX64]

I can also turn this argument around on its head, by arguing that it should not be the duty of the people to prop up poor business models. If you need to charge a 30% cut in order to make up for your selling the gaming hardware at a loss, then maybe don't sell it at a loss in the first place?

From the perspective of the game developer, if I publish a game on both iOS and the Nintendo Switch App Store, and I know I will be paying 30% to the companies either way, I don't see the logic as to why I might have an issue with paying Apple their cut, but would otherwise be fine with paying Nintendo their 30%.

Likewise, I don't see what the price of the iPhone has to do with developers. They are not the ones paying for it in the first place, so what do they care? If anything, it's precisely because the iPhone costs so much that Apple customers are largely self-selecting, and developers get to target a lucrative user base for less effort compared to Android. I will argue that 30% is not an unreasonable rate to reflect the role Apple plays in growing the overall pie for App developers.

What Epic ultimately wants is the network effect of the App Store and free access to Apple's user base, while getting to use their own billing system (thus keeping 100% of revenue). In short, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They are not the heroes in this story.

I slightly disagree on the poor business model part. Everyone seems happy with it.

i.e. gaming PCs usually cost way more, but games on PC cost slightly less precisely because there's no 30% cut (Steam takes less + you can run your own store). So you pay $1000 for the hardware instead of $500 for the console, but get to buy games for $50 instead of $70, and don't have to pay for online. Reasonable deal.

But then we get to the point. I believe that developers are fine with big three console makers because

1. They produce console hardware, ship it to stores, run the marketing around it, do warranty replacements, etc. So kinda like Apple. But unlike Steam or Google Play, which does nothing of that (excluding Steam Deck or Pixel devices), yet still asks for the same draconian % cut.
2. People buy gaming consoles with expectation to buy games and play them, but people buy iPhone or Android just because everyone needs a phone.
3. => people buy games on App Store not because it's a good store, but simply because they've chosen iPhone in the first place. Apple did nothing to promote your game or to outcompete other stores, yet they still take the cut.
4. => listing in the Nintendo eShop is likely to bring you way more customers than listing in the App Store or Google Play, because customers come there looking only for games.
5. Big three do a lot of work to bring new customers into gaming industry, like releasing banger exclusives, running Game Pass, doing discounts on hardware, bundle deals, etc. Sure, it's profitable to them, but all this work also increases your chance of selling the game.

Essentially, I don't see much difference between Visa and Apple here. Visa takes something like 2 or 3% for processing payments, and that also considered draconian by the bank industry. Apple processes payments, provides SDKs and download bandwidth... and takes 10 times more than Visa? Why?

 

[JonathanX64]

what?!?! a simple Google search "does Nintendo lose money on the switch" will show results of no they certainly make profit on the switch and even an article back in 2016 herehttps://venturebeat.com/games/nintendo-wont-sell-switch-at-a-loss-plans-to-ship-2-million-units-in-march/

"Kimishima also explained that the company will make a profit on Switch hardware, but it also wants to ensure that the device comes out at a price that is in line with consumer expectations."

I did not know that. Still, there is a difference between «not selling at loss» and «selling computers with 8 gigs of RAM for 2K euros».

 

[BaldiMac]

Essentially, I don't see much difference between Visa and Apple here. Visa takes something like 2 or 3% for processing payments, and that also considered draconian by the bank industry. Apple processes payments, provides SDKs and download bandwidth... and takes 10 times more than Visa? Why?

The difference between Apple and Visa for developers should be obvious. Visa just provides a payment network. Apple provides developers with a platform with billions of users, as well as an SDK, support, piracy protection, app review, bandwidth, hosted listing, new features and a single store that reaches every potential customer. And it processes payments. They also manage international pricing and tax payments. Why wouldn't that be significantly more valuable?

And it only charges the 30% to less that 2% of developers.

 

[cthompson94]

I did not know that. Still, there is a difference between «not selling at loss» and «selling computers with 8 gigs of RAM for 2K euros».

Wouldn’t this be comparing apples to oranges? They each have a different place in the market and target audience while both making a profit regardless. I am not justifying 8gb of ram in a modern day computer, but how many average users care? Companies adamantly keep track of sales and what sells and doesn’t, so evidently people buy the 8gb version. Even if you throw the whole using swap to boost the limited ram so that it’s deceiving really the only people affected would notice, the average person who bought the 8gb and uses swap probably still will get rid of the laptop before the health of the ssd fails.

Game manufacturers also know that they need to compete with themselves and the pc market (mainly to make sure most people don’t just swap). If Microsoft makes the beefed up version of an Xbox $500 Sony probably can’t get away with $600 Unless a lower model comes out that fits the masses or else people will just go with Xbox.

 

[JonathanX64]

Wouldn’t this be comparing apples to oranges? They each have a different place in the market and target audience while both making a profit regardless. I am not justifying 8gb of ram in a modern day computer, but how many average users care? Companies adamantly keep track of sales and what sells and doesn’t, so evidently people buy the 8gb version. Even if you throw the whole using swap to boost the limited ram so that it’s deceiving really the only people affected would notice, the average person who bought the 8gb and uses swap probably still will get rid of the laptop before the health of the ssd fails.

Game manufacturers also know that they need to compete with themselves and the pc market (mainly to make sure most people don’t just swap). If Microsoft makes the beefed up version of an Xbox $500 Sony probably can’t get away with $600 Unless a lower model comes out that fits the masses or else people will just go with Xbox.

What I am trying to say is that Nintendo has low profits on hardware and good profits on software. Apple has both good profits on hardware and good profits on software. That's why Apple came under scrutiny first.



In regards to completely different subject, which is 8gb MacBooks... I don't buy the «average user» argument. People don't buy computers in order to stare at an empty screen. Even if the person only browses web, it's pretty bloated nowadays and heavy on the ram. Add in some Excel into the mix, mail client, music app, light photo editing... well, you get the point.

Fun fact: my mother does not understand the concept of closing stuff on the computer after she's done with it. She always has like 50 tabs open, about 20 spreadsheets, and she never reboots the damn thing, just closes the lid. She did not like the macOS (I've tried 🥲), so I've bought her Surface Laptop 2 with i7/16gb (we don't have much money, and these computers have great prices on used market). And it works like a charm, never any issues, no slowdowns or anything, even after months of uptime.

I'm pretty sure that this average user would suffer with 8gb of RAM, even on the much faster M3 processor.