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

[Maximara]

Hopefully you’ve managed to keep the following quote from page one in mind, when saying Apple is not a monopoly. “Ultimately, after evaluating the trial evidence, the Court finds that the relevant market here is digital mobile gaming transactions.” The nature of the plaintiff’s particular business is the reason for the market being defined as such. That’s a different market than smartphone OS and application store market.

"It is the plaintiff’s burden to establish the relevant product and geographic markets."

"Epic Games constructs a framework to argue that there are three separate product markets at issue. In the foremarket, Epic Games identifies the product market as one for “Smartphone Operating Systems.” Epic Games contends in turn that there are two derivative and relevant aftermarkets that flow from this initial foremarket, including the “iOS App Distribution” market and “iOS In-App Payment Solutions.” Epic Games logic flows as follows: the iOS in-app payment solutions market is an aftermarket of the iOS app distribution market which is further an aftermarket of the smartphone operating systems foremarket."

"The Court begins with Apple’s product market definition as it more closely aligns with the Court’s conclusion. Then the Court discusses the reasons why Epic Games has not properly defined the relevant product market."

"Here, try as it might, Epic Games cannot avoid the obvious. Plaintiff only sells to iOS users through the App Store on Apple’s platform. No other channel exists for the transaction to characterize the market as one involving “distribution services.” Plaintiff’s reliance on Dr. Evans’ testimony to the contrary does not persuade." - (Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 812 Filed 09/10/21)

Epic argued the very point you are claiming and they lost. Never mind Fornite ran on the Mac so that OS is relevant and you can side load into oblivion on that platform and yet Epic said Apple in general was a monopoly as I have originally cited.

On every point for Epic you or anyone else can make falls to pieces as what Epic argued failed spectacularly and they have engages in high questionalble actives such as what Zanca, et al. v. Epic Games, Inc.. was about. Epic blinked in that one and settled.

 

[Maximara]

I'd believe they actually know what a monopoly is if they were to actually do something about the monopolies in their states. For instance...I can't get anything other than Comcast where I live. Comcast is a literal monopoly here...and it's getting more expensive! There are plenty of competitors to Comcast...but you can't get them here. I'm not even in a rural area. I'm in a metro area!!! Not a single bit of effort is being brought up by our AG to change that monopoly. A monopoly is either bad...or it's not.

If they actually gave a crap, they'd do something about all of them, because I can tell you right now...the monopoly I mentioned above...has a bigger impact on all of us than any perceived "monopoly" Apple supposedly has. And again...outside of MacRumors...I've never heard ANYONE complaining about this at all. But I sure do hear a lot of complaints about Comcast! Complaints that fall on deaf ears in our state.

This is the guts of what I have been pointing out - if the AG actually care a fig about the customer they would reign in the cable companies and ISPs that are monopolies in their region.

 

[macar00n]

That you think Apple is going to be childish enough like you to do that, says all we need to know about your mentality ???

Yeah, because it's not childish for a bunch of lawmakers to try to force Apple by law to change the port on their phone, or allow sideloading, when the majority of their users don't want this and options for users that do want it already exist? Your position is that all of these idiots should be able to take pot shots at Apple instead of creating useful laws, and Apple shouldn't be "childish" by protecting itself? See how long it takes after Apple threatens to withdraw its products from one of the countries/states threatening this, and the lawmakers dropping their proposals in the face of outcry from their citizens that mostly don't want this nonsense.

 

[Maximara]

Probably why people insist on using steam.

And Epic is convincing developers to engage in bait and switch tactics to get people on their platform. Last I checked bait and switch was illegal in the US. Where were these freaking AGs when that went down?

FYI. Mac App Store is practically dead as nobody wants to use it when steam is better in every way or other options

There are a handful of programs that are only on the Mac App Store. I use a handful of them.

And well Microsoft Xbox already allow side loading so probably not a good example

You can so the same with Swift or the iOS emulator for Intel Macs or native for M1 so this is a non argument.

Apple could do many things without sacrificing safety as I have provided

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

"Thus, the Court finds that app distribution restrictions increase security in the “broad” sense by allowing Apple to filter fraud, objectionable content, and piracy during app review while imposing heightened requirements for privacy." - Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 812 Filed 09/10/21

 

[Ethosik]

No. They want to leave that choice - but allow users the choice to selectively override it as a(n additional) choice

Again, that is not the same thing we are discussing here. Android is not, no possible way anyone can claim it is a closed walled garden environment. iOS is. There it is, the choice is there. If iOS becomes the SAME AS ANDROID, we cannot say iOS is closed walled garden. Regardless of any toggles or settings. Android doesn't come with this enabled. You need to **GASP*** enable it. SO that throws out the entire argument that we still maintain our choice of a completely closed walled garden system.

To make if CRYSTAL CLEAR since it has been repeated many many many times before. Absolutely NO toggles or settings in iOS AT ALL. THIS is what is referred to a closed system. I will no longer have this choice.

 

[Ethosik]

I'd believe they actually know what a monopoly is if they were to actually do something about the monopolies in their states. For instance...I can't get anything other than Comcast where I live. Comcast is a literal monopoly here...and it's getting more expensive! There are plenty of competitors to Comcast...but you can't get them here. I'm not even in a rural area. I'm in a metro area!!! Not a single bit of effort is being brought up by our AG to change that monopoly. A monopoly is either bad...or it's not.

If they actually gave a crap, they'd do something about all of them, because I can tell you right now...the monopoly I mentioned above...has a bigger impact on all of us than any perceived "monopoly" Apple supposedly has. And again...outside of MacRumors...I've never heard ANYONE complaining about this at all. But I sure do hear a lot of complaints about Comcast! Complaints that fall on deaf ears in our state.

THANK YOU! I am so sick of being stuck with Spectrum - even expensive gigabit internet is HORRIBLE. But oh well let's go after Apple instead. Come on people.

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

Jailbreaking is what you need to do if you want to side load anything because apple doesn’t allow you to do it.

But if apple did allow side loading, then jailbreaking wouldn’t be needed anymore.

Cydia impactor can do anything a jailbroken phone can except provide root access.

Use a Mac, Xcode, and an Apple Dev Account and sideload away. Apple allows it.

 

[vipergts2207]

I'd believe they actually know what a monopoly is if they were to actually do something about the monopolies in their states. For instance...I can't get anything other than Comcast where I live. Comcast is a literal monopoly here...and it's getting more expensive! There are plenty of competitors to Comcast...but you can't get them here. I'm not even in a rural area. I'm in a metro area!!! Not a single bit of effort is being brought up by our AG to change that monopoly. A monopoly is either bad...or it's not.

If they actually gave a crap, they'd do something about all of them, because I can tell you right now...the monopoly I mentioned above...has a bigger impact on all of us than any perceived "monopoly" Apple supposedly has. And again...outside of MacRumors...I've never heard ANYONE complaining about this at all. But I sure do hear a lot of complaints about Comcast! Complaints that fall on deaf ears in our state.

That’s because folks like Senator Marsha Blackburn get paid a lot of money to ignore those monopolies. I certainly don’t like them anymore than you do.

 

[AppliedMicro]

To make if CRYSTAL CLEAR since it has been repeated many many many times before. Absolutely NO toggles or settings in iOS AT ALL. THIS is what is referred to a closed system. I will no longer have this choice.

- Is being denied choice an expression or exercise of (free) choice?
- And is adding a new choice an act of taking away choice?
- Does adding a new choice (the toggled) deny you of your choice to being denied a choice?

These are all great philosophical questions (no, really).
For all practical purposes and matters (even legal matters) though, they are barely of relevance.

I am so sick of being stuck with Spectrum - even expensive gigabit internet is HORRIBLE.

Why are you so sick of them?
You can just go and live somewhere else, can't you?

I'm sure there's places where internet providers are cheap and really fast.
You do have a choice where to live and you've have made it - so no reason to be so sick of it, is there?

 

[vipergts2207]

"It is the plaintiff’s burden to establish the relevant product and geographic markets."

"Epic Games constructs a framework to argue that there are three separate product markets at issue. In the foremarket, Epic Games identifies the product market as one for “Smartphone Operating Systems.” Epic Games contends in turn that there are two derivative and relevant aftermarkets that flow from this initial foremarket, including the “iOS App Distribution” market and “iOS In-App Payment Solutions.” Epic Games logic flows as follows: the iOS in-app payment solutions market is an aftermarket of the iOS app distribution market which is further an aftermarket of the smartphone operating systems foremarket."

"The Court begins with Apple’s product market definition as it more closely aligns with the Court’s conclusion. Then the Court discusses the reasons why Epic Games has not properly defined the relevant product market."

"Here, try as it might, Epic Games cannot avoid the obvious. Plaintiff only sells to iOS users through the App Store on Apple’s platform. No other channel exists for the transaction to characterize the market as one involving “distribution services.” Plaintiff’s reliance on Dr. Evans’ testimony to the contrary does not persuade." - (Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 812 Filed 09/10/21)

Epic argued the very point you are claiming and they lost. Never mind Fornite ran on the Mac so that OS is relevant and you can side load into oblivion on that platform and yet Epic said Apple in general was a monopoly as I have originally cited.

On every point for Epic you or anyone else can make falls to pieces as what Epic argued failed spectacularly and they have engages in high questionalble actives such as what Zanca, et al. v. Epic Games, Inc.. was about. Epic blinked in that one and settled.

No my point, perhaps unclear, is that Epic by themselves weren’t in a great position to argue the broader point of Apple’s power over general smartphone app distribution. However, had the case been brought by several different companies with disparate types of software, such as games, productivity, and social media they could more effectively make a case against Apple. Epic may have tried to argue the broader case, but since they only make games, it would probably be hard for a judge not to narrow the market to one of games since that’s all Epic makes. You keep saying the judge ruled Apple wasn’t a monopoly, but that pertains to the market as the judge herself defined it, not what Epic may have tried to define it as, which the judge herself rejected as the relevant market. Do you somehow believe the judge ruled that Apple was not a monopoly in a market that she did not even believe was the relevant market?? Read more of what the judge said below.

“Having defined the relevant market as digital mobile gaming transactions, the Court next evaluated Apple’s conduct in that market.

She even stated what I’m saying. She evaluated Apple’s conduct in the digital mobile gaming market, not the smartphone application distribution market.

 

[PC_tech]

See how long it takes after Apple threatens to withdraw its products from one of the countries/states threatening this, and the lawmakers dropping their proposals in the face of outcry from their citizens that mostly don't want this nonsense.

Apple isn't going to do such a thing because Apple isn't an angry, childish poster on the internet like some on here.. ?

 

[dk001]

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.

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

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.

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.

Some of Apple’s behavior makes me wonder if their long term plans move the business model to SAAS as the predominate money maker instead of hardware.

 

[I7guy]

No my point, perhaps unclear, is that Epic by themselves weren’t in a great position to argue the broader point of Apple’s power over general smartphone app distribution. However, had the case been brought by several different companies with disparate types of software, such as games, productivity, and social media they could more effectively make a case against Apple. Epic may have tried to argue the broader case, but since they only make games, it would probably be hard for a judge not to narrow the market to one of games since that’s all Epic makes. You keep saying the judge ruled Apple wasn’t a monopoly, but that pertains to the market as the judge herself defined it, not what Epic may have tried to define it as, which the judge herself rejected as the relevant market. Do you somehow believe the judge ruled that Apple was not a monopoly in a market that she did not even believe was the relevant market?? Read more of what the judge said below.

“Having defined the relevant market as digital mobile gaming transactions, the Court next evaluated Apple’s conduct in that market.

She even stated what I’m saying. She evaluated Apple’s conduct in the digital mobile gaming market, not the smartphone application distribution market.

And the appeals process is likely not going to change the definition of the relevant market, which could put a damper on the hopes that Epic would gain some traction in the appeals process. It also could mean no matter how many states or the DOJ that weigh in, their weigh-in might not be relevant.

If Apple prevails it also means that trying to conjure up some relevant market to show Apple is a monopoly, might be very, very difficult.

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

Apple isn't going to do such a thing because Apple isn't an angry, childish poster on the internet like some on here.. ?

I worry that Apple is acting petty and childish over this whole thing. Whether justified or not, they have chosen to die on the hill of App Store commissions, money which they absolutely do not need. And if the government gets involved, they could issue orders that go far beyond changing commissions or enabling third party stores. Things that could really hurt iOS as a platform for consumers, and Apple’s ability to exert control over their own product.

 

[Ethosik]

- Is being denied choice an expression or exercise of (free) choice?
- And is adding a new choice an act of taking away choice?
- Does adding a new choice (the toggled) deny you of your choice to being denied a choice?

The ONLY reason I spend $1,000+ on an iPhone vs a much better and cheaper Android phone is due to the completely locked down environment. That is MY CHOICE. And MY SOLE reason for iOS. Android is far better in pretty much every other way, but it is not locked down.

You simply cannot have this both ways. After all of this is done iOS essentially becomes Android. You cannot sit here saying Android is NOT closed but at the same time still give me a false sense of whatever you are dreaming that iOS --- which will be EXACTLY like Android --- still be a "closed walled garden environment". My choice will be GONE.

I really can't understand why there are a few people on this site saying iOS will still remain closed and a walled garden, yet have said so themselves that Android is NOT closed and walled garden. And when this all ends, iOS "opens" just like Android and just basically frame their argument just to fit their narrative.

If Android is not consider closed, neither will iOS once side-loading is enabled.

Again, YES OR NO here......the fact that Android has a TOGGLE and SETTING you MUST enable (what you and other are advocating for) means Android is a closed and walled garden environment?! It just boggles my mind the thought process.

Windows is closed and walled garden. MacOS is closed and walled garden.........if you choose to treat it that way! That is not what the others that want to keep iOS as-is are talking about. I specifically chose iOS due to the no setting or toggle for side-loading. Where will that choice go if iOS opens up?

 

[I7guy]

I worry that Apple is acting petty and childish over this whole thing. Whether justified or not, they have chosen to die on the hill of App Store commissions, money which they absolutely do not need. And if the government gets involved, they could issue orders that go far beyond changing commissions or enabling third party stores. Things that could really hurt iOS as a platform for consumers, and Apple’s ability to exert control over their own product.

Whose determination is it that Apple doesn't need the money? Why should Apple not fight this. Apple is fighting loss of control over their intellectual property, with the government coming and attempting take it from Apple and give it to the people. If it does come to pass, Apple will have done all it can do.

 

[Ethosik]

Why are you so sick of them?
You can just go and live somewhere else, can't you?

Wow.....it just boggles my mind how conversations are framed just to fit a narrative. Okay, let me say the same thing to you.

Why are you so sick of iOS App Store only? You can just go and buy Android instead, can't you?

Leave iOS alone. Just like you want me to leave Spectrum monopoly alone?! What is going on here?!

 

[vipergts2207]

And the appeals process is likely not going to change the definition of the relevant market, which could put a damper on the hopes that Epic would gain some traction in the appeals process. It also could mean no matter how many states or the DOJ that weigh in, their weigh-in might not be relevant.

If Apple prevails it also means that trying to conjure up some relevant market to show Apple is a monopoly, might be very, very difficult.

Those very well could be true or not. Regardless, I think it’s critical info to remember what market exactly the judge’s monopoly statement was referring to.

 

[PC_tech]

I worry that Apple is acting petty and childish over this whole thing. Whether justified or not, they have chosen to die on the hill of App Store commissions, money which they absolutely do not need. And if the government gets involved, they could issue orders that go far beyond changing commissions or enabling third party stores. Things that could really hurt iOS as a platform for consumers, and Apple’s ability to exert control over their own product.

In that respect yes, but the ignorance of stating they should pull out of countries, or states is, well, stupid and ignorant and to think Apple would even consider that is just beyond insane.

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

Whose determination is it that Apple doesn't need the money? Why should Apple not fight this. Apple is fighting loss of control over their intellectual property, with the government coming and attempting take it from Apple and give it to the people. If it does come to pass, Apple will have done all it can do.

No, Apple does not need the money. Is it entitled to it? Maybe. But it makes billions of dollars without it. It does not need it.

If Apple had compromised a few years ago it might not be in the mess it is now. But the bills coming out now seek not only to ban mandatory IAP, ban anti-steering, or even mandate alternate stores- it’s much worse. Competition and Innovation Act and other bills in EU could ban self-preferencing, could stop Apple apps from being default, force Apple to provide third-parties with equal access to hardware and private APIs, limit “sherlocking”, etc. Basically destroy what we love about iOS as a platform. I can deal with a few apps being in another store. I really don’t want to be forced to choose a “default flashlight app” or see Apple restricted from providing better first party solutions to things because some third party app already did it.

The integration of Apple’s hardware, software, and services is what makes Apple products so attractive to consumers, even if it sometimes harms third-parties. I don’t want to that “walled garden” destroyed.

 

[vipergts2207]

Wow.....it just boggles my mind how conversations are framed just to fit a narrative. Okay, let me say the same thing to you.

Why are you so sick of iOS App Store only? You can just go and buy Android instead, can't you?

Leave iOS alone. Just like you want me to leave Spectrum monopoly alone?! What is going on here?!

I believe they were spoofing the argument frequently made here, that you even reiterated, of moving to Android as a choice consumers have, never mind the expense and lock-in Apple created that make it difficult to switch.

 

[Ethosik]

I believe they were spoofing the argument frequently made here, that you even reiterated, of moving to Android as a choice consumers have, never mind the expense and lock-in Apple created that make it difficult to switch.

"Difficult to switch"

Yeah like selling a $250,000+ house and moving just to change ISP?! How is that comparable?! I can move to Android today....I can't do that with my house.

 

[I7guy]

No, Apple does not need the money. Is it entitled to it? Maybe. But it makes billions of dollars without it. It does not need it.

If Apple had compromised a few years ago it might not be in the mess it is now. But the bills coming out now seek not only to ban mandatory IAP, ban anti-steering, or even mandate alternate stores- it’s much worse. Competition and Innovation Act and other bills in EU could ban self-preferencing, could stop Apple apps from being default, force Apple to provide third-parties with equal access to hardware and private APIs, limit “sherlocking”, etc. Basically destroy what we love about iOS as a platform. I can deal with a few apps being in another store. I really don’t want to be forced to choose a “default flashlight app” or see Apple restricted from providing better first party solutions to things because some third party app already did it.

The integration of Apple’s hardware, software, and services is what makes Apple products so attractive to consumers, even if it sometimes harms third-parties. I don’t want to that “walled garden” destroyed.

“Need” is such a bad word, entitled is much better. Apple wouldn’t comprise to give control away…it’s not in their dna. They want to control the narrative. They’ll go down legally fighting.

 

[vipergts2207]

"Difficult to switch"

Yeah like selling a $250,000+ house and moving just to change ISP?! How is that comparable?! I can move to Android today....I can't do that with my house.

Point being, it’s not a choice that should have to be made in either scenario. Companies shouldn’t be able to force consumers into making such decisions because of their power and control of a market.

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

“Need” is such a bad word, entitled is much better. Apple wouldn’t comprise to give control away…it’s not in their dna. They want to control the narrative. They’ll go down legally fighting.

Sadly you’re right. Hopefully iOS doesn’t get destroyed in the process.