Epic vs. Apple Takes a Twist As 35 US States and Department of Justice Weigh in to Back 'Fortnite' Maker

[MysticCow]

So here are THE STATES, including Washington, DC, which is not technically a state but a district:

Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C. (I'm not taking a position on the controversial question of statehood here), Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah (submitter), Vermont, and Washington.

RED: Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah

BLUE: Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Washington DC, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state

WAFFLE: Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania

 

[dandy1117]

Exactly

Which would hopefully lead to Apple actually making the terms of their App Store COMPETITIVE in the marketplace of options.

The world you want to live in here is where developers are choosing to stay in the first party App Store because the offering, payment terms, tools and features are so compelling (for developers and their customers alike)

Think for a second what you're saying here. You're saying the Apple first party store terms are so onerous that, right now, given literally any other option -- developers would bail and make their customers use an alternative store.

That tells you, to some degree, how unfair the terms are in the first party store are right now.

My point is that there will be unintended consequences that could change the entire landscape. The app store is built on a "progressive tax" policy model. Large developers subsidize the smaller and free apps. Apple chose this model, presumably, to encourage a large app ecosystem primarily of free and low-cost apps as a tool to increase the value of their iOS device sales.

I suspect that large developers would leave both Android and iOS app stores and invest in their own proprietary mobile app distribution platforms. For example, "Meta App Marketplace" will be the only place to download Instagram and WhatsApp and purchase in-app services from Facebook. Similarly, Microsoft, Adobe, and Nintendo would lock their mobile apps behind a paywall from their online properties. So, it may not be a competitive landscape for app distribution as you envision.

Further, if large developers off the App Store, it would ghettoize the smaller developers who remain. As a result, the primary drivers of App Store revenue would not only stop subsidizing the cost of the App Store, but consumers would be less likely to visit the App Store to download popular apps and games and receive updates.

Assuming Apple decides to maintain App Store and not reduce features and services, developers with free apps would have to subsidize the store. If developer prices go up, there would be fewer free apps on the App Store, changing the current value proposition for consumers!

Again, there are ramifications to decisions made. I don't know if they will ultimately be positive or negative, but neither do those who are so assured there will only be positive outcomes.

 

[Wildkraut]

View attachment 1950550
Looking forward to day when my family and friends are actually in danger of scams like this because Tencent Tim wasn’t making as much money off of children as he wanted.

Well, better make money of children playing games than of child workers like Apple.

 

[a104375]

I hope Apple withdraws from states that do this until their technologically inept dinosaur legislators are forced to backpedal due to public backlash. If sideloading were allowed, immediately every garbage company/institution will withdraw from the app store and force you to sideload their app as the only way to get it. It'll be like when Netflix, a single beautiful cable TV replacement, was cut up into 100 individual annoying services because a bunch of companies got greedy.

I mean that did happen to netflix, every network has their own plus service, and netflix keeps losing the 3rd party content to the 1st party platform.

 

[HiVolt]

I hope Apple withdraws from states that do this until their technologically inept dinosaur legislators are forced to backpedal due to public backlash. If sideloading were allowed, immediately every garbage company/institution will withdraw from the app store and force you to sideload their app as the only way to get it. It'll be like when Netflix, a single beautiful cable TV replacement, was cut up into 100 individual annoying services because a bunch of companies got greedy.

Heh, this is what all you apologists always say. "Apple should leave so and so jurisdiction" because something they dont like.

Actually I would very much welcome if all the garbage apps would leave the App store.

Legitimate developers could always have a two-tiered approach to selling apps for the iPhone, accepting Apple's 15-30% cut depending on revenue, or selling it for less on an alternative store platform or directly to the user via side load.

I think the choice should be up to the user, not Apple - like it is on computers and the competing smartphone platform.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Apple chose this model

The model mostly just "happened" honestly.

Also, it's not really "large vs small" doing the funding -- it's scammy crapware game revenue vs everything else.

The real reason Apple doesn't want change is because their huge cut of ENORMOUS crapware game revenue is at risk.

 

[macfacts]

I’m no expert, but this just sounds like they don’t like one company getting too rich. Surely that could be fixed other ways (taxes? forcing changes to fee structures?) without breaking up the security and homogeneity the App Store offers?

Breaking up the App Store might be good economically, but I feel it’s terrible in terms of security and consistency and reliability.

Then again, the App Store isn’t perfect. There’s a lot of crap on there if you scroll further down the lists.

Maybe this could actually help make the App Store become more niche: the best if the best, and whittle out the crap?

What security is provided by having only apple as the payment processor vs payal?

 

[Maximara]

Actually based on all the time I have spent reading comments on this MacRumors and the AppleInsider discussion forums I assume that Apple’s iPhone customer base is less technically sophisticated than average. The Apple ecosystem is the equivalent of the nanny state.

Given the way sites try to scare people into downloading malware (you have been infected by viruses - download and install this software) and how often they succeed having a nanny the makes it hard for user from doing something dumb is a good thing.

 

[Wildkraut]

And Apple will never allow sideloading.

True, they won't freely allow, they will be forced by law.

 

[turbineseaplane]

True, they won't freely allow, they will be forced by law.

And I very much welcome that day with open arms

Can't come soon enough

 

[vipergts2207]

So here are THE STATES, including Washington, DC, which is not technically a state but a district:

Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C. (I'm not taking a position on the controversial question of statehood here), Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah (submitter), Vermont, and Washington.

RED: Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah

BLUE: Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Washington DC, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state

WAFFLE: Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania

Yup, taking issue with Apple’s business practices is very bipartisan.

 

[macfacts]

The model mostly just "happened" honestly.

Also, it's not really "large vs small" doing the funding -- it's scammy crapware game revenue vs everything else.

The real reason Apple doesn't want change is because their huge cut of ENORMOUS crapware game revenue is at risk.

Some evidence to support this claim, apple makes more money from the %30 cut on iOS games than the %100 cut that Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft make combined https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2021-10-04-apple-estimated-to-earn-more-from-gaming-than-sony-microsoft-and-nintendo#:~:text=The WSJ's own analysis claims,, Nintendo, Microsoft and Activision.

 

[Wildkraut]

Hopefully, if they are forced to allow sideloading, every time you task to a side-loaded app you have to agree to understand that the app was not downloaded from the app store. Every. Single. Time. Prompt them if the app is in the App Store to download it from there, and if it's not, tell them about alternatives in the app store. Every single time the user switches to the app, even if it's already running. Make sure the user never forgets they got the app from outside the app store and it might be an issue.

They can try doing this, and they will be sued again.

 

[StupidOpinion]

You can’t make the market so narrow. This is like saying Steam Video Game Developers have no choice but to pay Steam their cut. It’s not iOS developers but it’s mobile developers. There is Android.

no companies are forced to use steam. desktop/mobile computer operating systems allow for games to operate on any software they choose

 

[TheDauterive]

Yes, the arguments are what they were and the verdict was what it was. Having the states and DOJ weigh in won't change the legal merits of the case?

No, it won't change the merits of the case.

But unless you believe that this particular district judge is somehow infallible, then the emerging consensus of district attorneys (from red and blue states), the DOJ, and the European Union that Apple's practices are (1) unfair and (2) illegal (under their respective sets of laws) is good reason to doubt that the case is as cut and dry as many people in this comment section imagine. I think the case against Apple is strong, but the legal merits are complicated, and I don't pretend to be an expert.

That being said, I think most of the people talking about this issue around the water cooler (and in this comment section) are making moral arguments about what they think is fair, and on that question there just seems to be a fundamental disagreement about the extent to which big companies should be able to unilaterally dictate terms to consumers and their competitors.

 

[The Phazer]

Hopefully, if they are forced to allow sideloading, every time you task to a side-loaded app you have to agree to understand that the app was not downloaded from the app store. Every. Single. Time. Prompt them if the app is in the App Store to download it from there, and if it's not, tell them about alternatives in the app store. Every single time the user switches to the app, even if it's already running. Make sure the user never forgets they got the app from outside the app store and it might be an issue.

Fair enough. As long as every time a user downloads an app from the app store they get a similar warning, every single time, that Apple's editorial control is dangerous, that the app store has a long track record of permitting scams despite the so called checking, that Apple have a long track record of censorship and discrimination against sexual minorities on the app store, that Apple's anti-competitive stewardship of the app store has permitted poorer quality Apple software to be insulated from the market and not sink without trace etc etc etc.

That would be the fair thing to do.

 

[vipergts2207]

My point is that there will be unintended consequences that could change the entire landscape. The app store is built on a "progressive tax" policy model. Large developers subsidize the smaller and free apps. Apple chose this model, presumably, to encourage a large app ecosystem primarily of free and low-cost apps as a tool to increase the value of their iOS device sales.

Except in the case of Facebook, Netflix and other multi-billion dollar corporations. I think folks would take less issue with this whole thing if Apple weren’t skimming such a high percentage off the top and other billion dollar companies weren’t also getting a free ride.

 

[iOS Geek]

wut?

lmao

2+2 = 3 for you apparently

What about that was confusing to you? We currently have a choice between a closed system (Apple) and an open system (Android). If Apple is forced to open up, the options are open system (Apple) and yep...open system (Android). For those who prefer the closed system...they no longer have that option.

 

[vipergts2207]

They can try doing this, and they will be sued again.

Seriously, suggestions like that one and Apple leaving large markets would have Apple acting like a 3-year old throwing a temper tantrum rather than the most valuable company in the world lmao.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Looking at the original "trustbusters" - Teddy Roosevelt and the "Square Deal", even the re-regulation of the Bell Telephone system and long distance calling in 1982 - the government recognized there were areas of the free market that, left to their own devices - stop acting like a market because one company or interest controls it all.

If you look at the details of those, it wasn’t simply about the company getting big, it was about the company doing things like buying competitors and restricting access to publicly available resources in order and other activities in order provide no other option than for them to get bigger. Apple’s growth is because they made things that people wanted to buy. They didn’t pressure carriers to NOT carry other phones, they didn’t buy out and shut down Motorola or other competitors, they didn’t artificially lower the price of the hardware such that the competition was unable to match those prices (which are all analogs to what Bell and Standard were doing).

 

[bobenhaus]

Apple is behaving like petulant child - or an adult who can't learn and can't change.

Back in the day, when Apple was this small company that was about to die, they needed all the protection they could get; they needed full control of the app store; they needed all that.

But now, Apple is the most valuable company in the world, making more phones than anyone else, and also more profits than anyone else. Times have changed.

Apple doesn't need protection - other players need protection from apple. Apple has grown from the bullied child to the bully. So they must change. And these lawsuits will hopefully make this clear.

If they were smart they would use this to their advantage and create a fully decentralized app store

It would

- Get rid of censorthip, which benefits their products in the long run.
- Get rid of government interference ("Sorry we can't control these other app stores, that app that the HK protestors use to organize, we can't make it not work").
- Hand the power to the people

The idea that Apple needs to squeeze profits out of the app store, and therefore must keep a monopoly, is incorrect. Apple is building a platform, and the health of the platform is the number 1 concern - a platform supported by more independent app stores is more powerful!

The idea that Apple must keep an iron grip on what's running on iPhones is also flawed. The most benevolent dictator eventually turns bad - in the 20 year or 30 year view, a free and open platform will benefit Apple more.

Apple could create a decentralized review system with trust scores, like Uber ratings, or Airbnb ratings, they could create a token model where tokens are distributed to the best reviewers, where users rate apps, and help other users, and Apple can sit back, relax, and tweak the system every now and then to keep it working well.

This and many more opportunities. 3rd party app stores are a huge opportunity for Apple.

Only their stubborn insistence on the past prevents them from seeing that.

Ditto!!!! Right on!

 

[Wildkraut]

The sad thing is, Tim Crook & his Troop are destroying Apples reputation, and if they continue acting like that they maybe will even destroy Apple itself. Apple iPhone sells mainly because of fashion reasons, and fashion changes quickly, they have to be careful with their attitude and negative headlines.

The "What's on your iPhone, stays on your iPhone" Ads was already quietly removed by Apple because of CSAM, and now comes this and probably more in the future.

The worst thing is, regardless of the outcome, Tim Crook and Co. probably don't even cares for the outcome, they will go out as winners anyway. Every day more with an Apple lock-in and monopoly makes Tim Crooks & Co. pockets fuller.

He does not care for Apple at all...

 

[Unregistered 4U]

no companies are forced to use steam. desktop/mobile computer operating systems allow for games to operate on any software they choose

Companies that want to release a game via Valve’s Steam are forced to pay a cut to Valve because Valve has a monopoly on 100% of Steam software downloads.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Companies that want to release a game via Valve’s Steam are forced to pay a cut to Valve because Valve has a monopoly on 100% of Steam software downloads.

Steam doesn't control your entire PC software experience

Steam is an example of a third party App Store experience that many would welcome on iOS

 

[glockenSquish]

Let’s just remember how this all started:

Epic wanted a world where you’d be walking through a Target, and you’d see signs everywhere saying “This item is $5 cheaper at Amazon!” because Amazon has the right to put those signs there. Nevermind that you might’ve not even known that product existed if it weren’t for Target, and that Target spent money to stock it for you to find, or that Target’s buyers sorted through garbage products to only carry in store the products that won’t break after one use.

Take it a step further: Epic wants Target to stock FOR Amazon. “Take this home now from Target and pay Amazon later!” Think about it! I want to find an app that does a certain thing so I scroll through the “reviewed and safe” collection of iOS apps on Apple’s App Store. And developers have all learned that they can make more money by having Apple review, endorse, and publish their app for free, then charge for full features from their own website for 100% profit. And thus we watch as Target goes out of business. What was more “harmful” Epic, as you put it.

Epic says they’re doing all this to protect “the people” right? All of us Everyman developers? Most of us developers are paying Apple 15%. Not far off from the Epic Store’s 12%. Why is Epic’s 12% some kind of magic number? When Epic says Apple is “harming” developers, they’re only talking about the top 0.5% richest developers, like Epic. Not “the people”. And given that most iPhone users will probably not want to or even know about or care about sideloading, if a developer were to exclusively publish on Epic’s store, that would be “harmful” to the developer now wouldn’t it?