If you open your eyes and read you'll see the district court did exactly what Fortnite wanted (they wanted their own in app purchase option so their profit margin can be higher). California Unfair Competition Law prohibits "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice" and whether Apple is a monopoly or not simply does not matter.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Epic Games Wins Antitrust Lawsuit Against Google Play Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What Does It All Mean?: A Look at Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ Decision in the Epic Versus Apple Trial
Yesterday, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers decided Epic Games’ antitrust lawsuit against Apple, delivering a ruling in favor of Apple that comes with significant caveats. Although the Judge found that Apple‘s operation of the App Store isn’t an exercise of monopolistic power, she...
www.macstories.net
It's hard to see how Epic won the case against Apple in any meaningful way that mattered.
Apple was concluded to not be a monopolist. Nothing has changed with regards to alternative payment processing or developer fees, and sideloading is no more available on iOS today (for the US market at least) than it was 2 years ago. I think this sums it up best.
Yes, the rulings are the rulings, pending potential appeals, but just because Epic won a case (with the decision decided by a jury) against Google and lost a case (with a decision decided by judge) against Apple doesn't necessarily mean the same jury wouldn't have ruled against Apple here too.
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.
One (Apple/iOS) essentially blocks app access competition on a major mobile OS platform. The other (Google/Android) still allows app access competition.
I agree that it's not a crime to be a "monopoly" (alone) and I’ve stated that on here several times.
Apple's rules consistency is not necessarily relevant as what has change is the mobile OS marketplace. In the early years, Google/Android and Apple/iOS didn’t have near the dominance they do today. In that regard, the situation has changed.
Antirust cases typically deal with companies or products that have significant market share. Just because a large portion of a market may choose a particular product does not mean a company isn't being anticompetitive or potentially engaging in anticompetitive behavior. In fact, it's the large market share and related market power, market influence, market control, etc. that can raise concerns from antitrust regulators if/when anticompetitive activities are involved.
My point has been 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.
One (Apple/iOS) essentially blocks app access competition on a major mobile OS platform. The other (Google/Android) still allows app access competition.
Nothing has changed only for now. Apple was ordered to allow in app links to third party payment sites and the appeals court affirmed that decision. The appeals court PAUSED the enforcement of its ruling to allow for appeal to the Supreme Court. After Supreme Court either takes up the case or denies review, Apple WILL be ordered to allow in app links to third party payment sites.What Does It All Mean?: A Look at Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ Decision in the Epic Versus Apple Trial
Yesterday, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers decided Epic Games’ antitrust lawsuit against Apple, delivering a ruling in favor of Apple that comes with significant caveats. Although the Judge found that Apple‘s operation of the App Store isn’t an exercise of monopolistic power, she...
It's hard to see how Epic won the case against Apple in any meaningful way that mattered.
Apple was concluded to not be a monopolist. Nothing has changed with regards to alternative payment processing or developer fees, and sideloading is no more available on iOS today (for the US market at least) than it was 2 years ago. I think this sums it up best.
There’s another thing I forgot to mention about US antitrust law. It looks at harm to consumers, and developers are technically not Apple’s customers. People like you and me are.
And just as there are benefits to being able to sideload (supposedly), there are also benefits to having a walled garden denying users said functionality (improved security from malware and scams). Which is why in my opinion, it’s not so clear cut to assert that more freedom (in the form of sideloading) is automatically good and that a closed ecosystem is naturally bad.
It’s going to vary from user to user, and I still believe that apple’s walled garden is what results in the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of users. You can’t talk about the benefits of sideloading without also acknowledging the possible downsides (I have already provided numerous examples both here and elsewhere), and I won’t allow anyone to just brush it aside with just a token “you don’t have to sideload if you don’t want to” statement.
That’s why I disagree Apple is being anticompetitive if we look at a strict interpretation of said law (I know you have your feelings on this matter, but so do everyone and this discussion could simply just drag on forever).
You seem pretty confident of this. I guess we will just have to wait and see.
Epic already had its trial against Apple and lost. We are now waiting to hear if the Supreme court will look at Epic's appeal.
lol nope.
but I hope you enjoy typing in your credit card every time an iOS app decides to not use apple's solution.
If I don't like how Best Buy is placing my product in the corner of the shelf away hidden away from customer foot traffic while they promote Best Buy brands heavily, charging me 30% fees, and not allowing me to charge customer using my payment solution, you're saying I should go file a lawsuit? LOL
Well you know with a jury they're going to win because the average person doesn't care about the money Google gets from the "monopoly". The average person in the jury would love to be able to side-load apps and potentially save money.
I realise a lot of people here just like to use words and make up definitions, but surely there should be a limit to how far one's dislike for Apple allows them to hallucinate their own reality.
A vertically-integrated company is not a monopoly. Apple did not disincentivise developers from developing third party app stores for iOS because it's literally not possible. When people buy an iPhone, they are buying into the premise of how Apple has set up the App Store. The next key point is that Apple hasn't changed its policy after a phone has been purchased in order to drive out competition.
This is why Google was found guilty while Apple wasn't. The Google Play Store was accessible by many different brands and Google went behind their backs to alter its core functionality. There are two very different situations legally and I don't understand why people keep trying to conflate the two.
It doesn't matter that there are people who think that Apple has a monopoly on the App Store. It's irrelevant. If the conditions of buying an iPhone with the App Store rules haven't changed, then Apple is not breaking the law because people knew what they were getting into when they bought an iPhone.
Definitions are definitions, and Apple is by definition not a monopoly by any definition which matters. This is very likely why Apple chose to have their case be decided by a judge, precisely because they knew they had a very strong case which absolutely needed someone well-versed with the nuances of anti-trust law to be able to put aside whatever personal feelings they may have on the matter and fully comprehend.
But fees are fees.
Are you telling me that Epic is happy paying 30% in fees to Sony and Microsoft... while taking Google and Apple to court trying not to pay those very same fees?
The developers can't have it both ways. Either they pay fees to all platforms... or none of the platforms.
Why stop there?
Wallmart as the most dominant supermarket chain should not be able to charge a fee too then. How dare stores make money?
If Apple and Google cannot make money from selling apps, might as well shut it down and have only the most popular apps natively installed (such as YouTube, Twitter / X, FaceBook, Instagram, …).
I don’t see why Google should continue to develop Android for all those smartphone companies if they cannot make money from it.
Last edited:
“Maybe Epic should try building their own phone platform” is a tired joke of a suggestion. We all know that isn’t feasible, so why even say it?
Why should someone who did not make the huge investment Google has done into Android, be entitled to launch their own Epic Game store (and also charge fees on every app it sells).
It makes no sense what so ever. You think it is fair that Google invests billions into developing and maintaining Android while everybody and their grandma can launch their own "Google Play"?
What's next? Steam also want to launch their app store on Android and make money just like Google Play does without having done the same investments Google has done?
And Epic has the resources to make their own smartphone, they are not a small company. They can partner up with Asus who makes Gaming smartphones to do this.
All this accomplishes is that Google will kill Android like what Google has done to many of it's products when it sees it doesn't bring the profit targets it wants.
Last edited:
Because that’s what Google promised. That was the whole selling point to smartphone OEMs and consumers, and then Google went about bribing people to not release their own third party app stores.
In theory, there is nothing stopping Epic from making their own android handset with the epic games store and Fortnite preloaded on it. It just probably wouldn’t sell very well.
If Google wasn’t willing to do so, then they should never have made android open in the first place. Keep it closed like iOS and we would be having a completely separate discussion right now.
In contrast, Apple made no such promise, and so Spotify cannot sue them for blocking app stores or sideloading, because there is literally no law that states Apple has to explicitly allow them. That’s why the EU had to create a new piece of legislation specifically to address this concern.
Suppose Walmart sets up a new superstore in New York, and it has to pay for:
- Rent or Purchase of Retail Space
- Technology and Systems
- Insurance
- Utilities
- Security
- Legal Fees
And just becuase Walmart is the dominant player, Costco, Target and so on ... are allowed to setup their own store within Walmart, and Walmart has to pay all the expenses of Costco, Target, ..... That makes no sense at all.
And Steam did the same with the SteamDeck. You don't need a full fledged phone, a handheld gaming device is enough as a mobile gaming device.
Epic simply wants all the benefits that Google has (the Epic Game Store) without any of the costs Google has. And let's be honest, Epic can out compete Google Play super easy as Epic doesn't have the same costs that Google has to develop and maintain Android.
Last edited:
Epic literally lost 9 out of 10 of their claims. How exactly did Epic win?
I’m not wrong. What good is software if it does nothing? You can install an emulator and put no ROMs on there. But that’s not what people are posting when they say “now I can install emulators”. They put ROMs on there which is the illegal part. An emulator that does nothing is useless. That’s not part of the arguments and discussions.
This whole “gotcha” attitude in conversations these days is just ridiculous. Take the context and subject matter of discussions in mind.