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

[Maximara]

Why are you trying to draw a compare to AT&T that owned everything? Apple wouldn’t own, in this hypothetical example the cell phone market…just the smartphone market. Flip phones, etc would still be a thing in this hypothetical example.

Never mind iOS runs on iPads so it is NOT just the smartphone market but the smartphone and tablet market.

 

[Maximara]

Again, stop playing semantics and technicalities.

That is what the law revolves around so no one is playing semantics and technicalities.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Never mind iOS runs on iPads so it is NOT just the smartphone market but the smartphone and tablet market.

Never mind it’s all based off the underpinnings of macOS!

MY GOSH! It’s all related!

 

[Maximara]

The fact that all of the closed platforms take 30% is indicative of lack of competition.

Steam, GOG, and Microsoft are closed platforms?! How on Earth did you pull that from the linked article?

 

[nastysailboat]

But it’s nothing like that. It like going to Target and getting the things you want, then going next door to Walmart and getting the things you werent able to find at Target. No one is suggesting the App Store should host another store inside it, we’re saying that you shouldn’t be limited to only one store because that store might not actually have what you want or need.

The phone is not the store.

But you have to leave Target so if you want a different store why wouldn't you leave the iPhone

 

[Maximara]

Nothing about security will be impacted at all

The California case this appeal is all about said otherwise:

"Thus, the Court finds that centralized distribution through the App Store increases security in the “narrow” sense, primarily by thwarting social engineering attacks."

"Since then, security and privacy have remained a competitive differentiator for Apple. Mr. Cook testified that privacy is “a very key factor, one of the top factors who people choose Apple.” The documents bear this out: internal surveys show that security and privacy was an important aspect of an iPhone purchasing decision for 50% to 62% of users in most countries— and over 70% in India and Brazil—and an important part of an iPad purchasing decision for 76% to 89% of users. Indeed, Mr. Sweeney himself owns an iPhone in part because of its better security and privacy than Android.

Second, there is evidence that Apple’s restrictions benefit users. As noted above, many users value their iOS devices for their privacy and security. As the result of having a trusted app environment, users make greater use of their devices, including by storing sensitive data and downloading new apps. The witnesses are unanimous that user security and privacy are valid procompetitive justifications."

Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 812 Filed 09/10/21

I find it interesting that no one who wants force Apple into side loading wants to address this part of the court's ruling.

 

[Maximara]

You would make a great point if the majority of phones were iPhones but unfortunately they are not. iOS accounts for less than 30%, with Android at 70% and the rest attributable to other OS.

On the other hand, Windows is now on around 74% of computers. I’m sure if Microsoft could have established itself in a similar manner as Apple with regard to the App Store they probably would have, but 30 years ago there was no way you were going to be downloading Office off a 56k modem. In fact, the strategy Microsoft used was the strategy everyone had been using since the beginning of the personal computer revolution, open systems that allow the user to do whatever they like and install whatever they want.

Flawed comparison because unless you bought an Apple or Amiga you got DOS/Windows which was payed for by the company you bought the PC from. And since Microsoft knew the ins and outs of their own operating system any software they wrote had a leg up on any competitor.

Never mind 30 years ago (1990s) Microsoft was in trouble with the FTC which culminated in United States v. Microsoft Corporation, 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001). Never mind the shady BS Microsoft pulled to prevent DrDOS from gaining marketshare. Windows of the 1990s wasn't an "open" system; just ask Netscape.

 

[Maximara]

nobody is forced to use steam. notebook/desktop computer operating systems allow for any software. the same cannot be said for app store.

Here is a quandary for you - by the legal definition does a iPad (which runs iOS) with magic keyboard qualify as a computer?

 

[Maximara]

I've said it before and I will say it again.... if a court forces Apple to make iOS an open platform where anybody can sell whatever they want however they want and not pay anything to Apple, then Epic should be made to make Fortnite an open platform where third parties can sell their own character skins or in-game digital gear or whatever they want and not have to pay Epic a dime.

It really works both ways. When you build a platform that has a marketplace then you should be allowed to be the gatekeeper of that marketplace. Nintendo, Sony and X-Box have done this for years. You cannot go out and write a game for Nintendo Switch and sell it without paying something to Nintendo.

But that is the Epic dream:

“What the world really needs now is a single store that works with all platforms. Right now software ownership is fragmented between the iOS App Store, the Android Google Play marketplace, different stores on Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch, and then Microsoft Store and the Mac App Store.”

According to Sweeney, Epic are currently working with developers and service providers to create a system that will allow users “to buy software in one place, knowing that they’d have it on all devices and all platforms."

If you think for a moment Epic will pay the normal rate for access to those platforms you can look at what they wanted with Apple to show how that would likely turn out.

One App to rule them all - Sauron 2.0

 

[boss.king]

But you have to leave Target so if you want a different store why wouldn't you leave the iPhone

Nope. Like I said, the phone is not the store.

 

[Maximara]

What is this telling us? Units sold per year? Active units? Units used to a specific website? Units running a specific OS? Units running a specific app? Phone surveys? Three college kids standing outside LAX? I can not figure out how they got this data so I have no idea how to interpret it.

It is right their in their FAQ: "Our tracking code is installed on more than 2 million sites globally." (...) "In September 2015, our global sample consisted of 16.3 billion page views (US: 2.7 billion); 2.3 billion of these were search engine referrals (US: 404 million); 576 million of these were social media referrals (US: 155 million)."

They even have a break down based on version though they are having a little bit of a problem with MacOS versions.

 

[Maximara]

Are you Ayn Rand?

How about Andrew Ryan? And we all know how well Rapture turned out.

 

[AppliedMicro]

A limitation that can be circumvented by simply flicking a switch is no limitation at all.

Yes it is.

It is a limitation that prevents third-party apps from running on your device.
It's just not a technical limitation but one that the user can consciously (yet should not accidentally) override.

 

[Abazigal]

But that is the Epic dream:

“What the world really needs now is a single store that works with all platforms. Right now software ownership is fragmented between the iOS App Store, the Android Google Play marketplace, different stores on Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch, and then Microsoft Store and the Mac App Store.”

According to Sweeney, Epic are currently working with developers and service providers to create a system that will allow users “to buy software in one place, knowing that they’d have it on all devices and all platforms."

If you think for a moment Epic will pay the normal rate for access to those platforms you can look at what they wanted with Apple to show how that would likely turn out.

One App to rule them all - Sauron 2.0

So Epic simply wants their own App Store on iOS where they can not only get out of paying Apple their 30%, but also host other apps and charge these developers a commission.

The more some things change, the more they stay the same, it seems.

 

[AppliedMicro]

So Epic simply wants their own App Store on iOS where they can not only get out of paying Apple their 30%, but also host other apps and charge these developers a commission.

Maybe. In any case, I'm pretty sure that they'd want to distribute app on iOS themselves if they could

In any case, the concept of having multiple competing stores is well accepted in most societies and seen as mostly beneficial to consumers (and suppliers alike).

 

[Abazigal]

Maybe. In any case, I'm pretty sure that they'd want to distribute app on iOS themselves if they could

In any case, the concept of having multiple competing stores is well accepted in most societies and seen as mostly beneficial to consumers (and suppliers alike).

Let me know when other platforms like switch or PlayStation allow competing app stores as well.

Some will argue that iOS is a general computing platform and should be more like windows, but I feel that since Apple makes the hardware and software, they get to call the shots as to whether they wish to allow apps on their platform, and how.

And personally, I feel I am still better served by there being one App Store where all apps are subject to Apple’s own rules, which will far from being perfect, is still better than not having any rules at all.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Until an app stops being available in the App Store and needs to be downloaded from a third party App Store where it may presumably not be subject to the same oversight. We would, amongst other things, lose the ability to track subscriptions, ATT, and Sign In with Apple.

A limitation that can be circumvented by simply flicking a switch is no limitation at all.

Or have we already forgotten the stunt Epic initially pulled on the Google play store with their Fortnite app?

i guess you don't like using the iOS platform anymore considering you can right now use Cydia Impactor to install third party apps, you only need an Apple developer account to use them longer than 7 days.

i think it would be better if you didn't need to pay apple 99$ a year to do that

 

[Abazigal]

i guess you don't like using the iOS platform anymore considering you can right now use Cydia Impactor to install third party apps, you only need an Apple developer account to use them longer than 7 days.

i think it would be better if you didn't need to pay apple 99$ a year to do that

I have no interest in jail breaking my device.

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

I understand the argument that no single company, like Apple should have a unilateral right over distribution of Apps in such a critical part of the digital economy. But if you want to change that you need to change the law.

I don’t get the Epic argument that Apple is a monopoly under current law. I read the Epic brief and the supporting amicus briefs and the argument fundamentally is that Apple has a monopoly over app distribution and payment processors on iOS. Well, yes. Apple has a monopoly over its own product. How is that a problem? Apple invests billions of dollars into every aspect of the iPhone and created an incredibly lucrative platform for developers to tap into. In doing so it unlocked a multi-billion dollar business for millions of devs. The alternative to the App Store wasn’t going to be that devs got to keep 100% of revenue, it was no revenue at all because there was no platform. Apple poured its heart and soul into the iPhone, its flagship product, and they are spitting in its face.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The California case this appeal is all about said otherwise:

"Thus, the Court finds that centralized distribution through the App Store increases security in the “narrow” sense, primarily by thwarting social engineering attacks."

"Since then, security and privacy have remained a competitive differentiator for Apple. Mr. Cook testified that privacy is “a very key factor, one of the top factors who people choose Apple.” The documents bear this out: internal surveys show that security and privacy was an important aspect of an iPhone purchasing decision for 50% to 62% of users in most countries— and over 70% in India and Brazil—and an important part of an iPad purchasing decision for 76% to 89% of users. Indeed, Mr. Sweeney himself owns an iPhone in part because of its better security and privacy than Android.

Second, there is evidence that Apple’s restrictions benefit users. As noted above, many users value their iOS devices for their privacy and security. As the result of having a trusted app environment, users make greater use of their devices, including by storing sensitive data and downloading new apps. The witnesses are unanimous that user security and privacy are valid procompetitive justifications."

Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 812 Filed 09/10/21

I find it interesting that no one who wants force Apple into side loading wants to address this part of the court's ruling.

i and many have already addressed this. Allow competing payment methods(0% commission by apple) next to apple's payment system=same security. Apple can even take a small payment for every download to compensate from every app that is free to prevent abuse.

And/or allow App store apps that have already been approved to be sold directly from the developer's website and competing stores. Security is maintained, as they only work as long as apple's signature is maintained. this lowers apple's costs and allow competing prices and functions without compromising by sideloading

Edit: apple takes 30% cut of every app store sale. And developer keep 100% of every sale from their website, and x% from competing stores

Let me know when other platforms like switch or PlayStation allow competing app stores as well.

Some will argue that iOS is a general computing platform and should be more like windows, but I feel that since Apple makes the hardware and software, they get to call the shots as to whether they wish to allow apps on their platform, and how.

And personally, I feel I am still better served by there being one App Store where all apps are subject to Apple’s own rules, which will far from being perfect, is still better than not having any rules at all.

this is so tiering. Switch and PlayStation already allow this and have done it for years. You can purchase verified PlayStation/switch games from multiple websites and stores.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I have no interest in jail breaking my device.

Cydia impactor is not a jailbreak.
this is the literal procedure.
1: make an apple developer account.
2: Download Cydia impactor on your computer
3: sign the app with cydia impactor
4: install app on your iOS device

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I understand the argument that no single company, like Apple should have a unilateral right over distribution of Apps in such a critical part of the digital economy. But if you want to change that you need to change the law.

I don’t get the Epic argument that Apple is a monopoly under current law. I read the Epic brief and the supporting amicus briefs and the argument fundamentally is that Apple has a monopoly over app distribution and payment processors on iOS. Well, yes. Apple has a monopoly over its own product. How is that a problem? Apple invests billions of dollars into every aspect of the iPhone and created an incredibly lucrative platform for developers to tap into. In doing so it unlocked a multi-billion dollar business for millions of devs. The alternative to the App Store wasn’t going to be that devs got to keep 100% of revenue, it was no revenue at all because there was no platform. Apple poured its heart and soul into the iPhone, its flagship product, and they are spitting in its face.

That was actually how the iPhone started. Developers were going to make Web apps and keep 100% of the revenue. sadly, web apps are extremely limited compared to running it natively

 

[AppliedMicro]

That was actually how the iPhone started. Developers were going to make Web apps and keep 100% of the revenue. sadly, web apps are extremely limited compared to running it natively

But aren't web apps even more secure?

Apple should have that power cause it's all about security, that's the argument, isn't it?

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

Speaking of the web, no one is talking about what opening up iOS would mean for the open Web. Currently Apple is the lone holdout against Chromium (Firefox is a dead browser walking). Opening up iOS = Google Web monopoly. And unlike iOS’s restriction, which can easily be bypassed by switching to Android, this monopoly will be inescapable. This is what the courts should actually be looking at.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Only be customer benefits? Your solution would reduce the revenue of the App Store. Would Apple continue to provide services like App Store editorials on the App Store without the added income?

And why is it a customers or developers problem if Apple's revenue is reduced? Apple needs to improve their service then. And yes they will continue to do so for the simple fact it's convenient for consumers and makes their platform more attractive. Apple is a hardware company, not service company.

Would Apple invest in accessibility APIs (such as the functionality to provide Apple Watch controls with hand gestures) that offer value to many customers and increase app developers' addressable market? Would Apple increase the costs to developers, which developers would then, reasonably, pass on to users? There would be fewer free and low-cost apps in the App Store.

Yes, apple would continue to develop their APIs as it makes their hardware more appealing. Increased app developers' addressable market is Apple's direct interest. More good apps leads to more customers. Apple App store already contain 90% free apps, and most of the mare freemium, and developers will always pass the cost to consumers, if it's the members fee of 99$ a year that will be increased or their 30% cut twill increase is not our concern. If apple want to kill the app store by squeezing it for profits or make it attractive for developers and users to increase the sale of iOS devices by having a superior service will be their decision

Would regulators allow Apple to limit services for purchases made outside the current App Store model or deem it an unfair advantage for the platform vendor?

why would they? If developers aren't paying for it, then they don't have a right to extra services. If developers find better services with competing platforms, then apple would have to provide superior service to incentivize developers to stay on their platform.

You may turn out to be correct that any new regulations, in reality, turn out to be a net positive for consumers. However, I continue to point out that nothing is assured when you make changes to large economies. The App Store is an economy and not just an online service.

Absolutely, but these aren't the first large scale actions regulators have done that haven't impacted customers in overwhelmingly positive ways. But we will see.