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

[MysticCow]

Will PlayStation and Xbox have to do the same thing?

Nope. This screams of a targeted POLITICAL attack. Don't expect them to actually make sense and say they ALL need it...it's just to score some points with Q or whoever against Tim Apple.

 

[bluespark]

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.

These aren't being filed by legislators, but rather by the states' attorneys general who have to balance the alleged technological benefit of a single app store approach with the competitive harms associated with what they view (correctly, in my view) as anti-competitive practices. Also, Apple can do just fine with a model that allows side-loading. We already have that ability on the Mac, and iOS already allows greater control over the technical aspects of its apps (which could be applied without taking the App Store premium). Besides, if Apple indeed is correct that the App Store offers unique benefits to developers and consumers, most would continue to use it.

Also, I don't understand your Netflix example. Do you think Netflix went through an antitrust breakup?

 

[PC_tech]

Which states? I smell something POLITICAL instead of actually looking into antitrust procedures...

And other various governments are in on this politically as well? ?

 

[Rogifan]

There is a way for Apple to solve this. Allow 3rd party payment options in the App Store and come up with another way of charging commissions that is more fair. A way where every app developer that uses Apple’s IP/dev tools/resources pays something but Apple isn’t taking a cut of business they weren’t responsible for. It makes no sense that some apps can exist in the store for basically nothing while others have to give Apple 30% of their revenues.

 

[Maximara]

You don’t think people are financially invested in the decisions they vote and advocate for?

Not really. Most people are afraid of change - they want to maintain the old order well past its use by date. Jim Sterling uses Dark Souls as an example of how through propaganda and manipulation people are encouraged to vote/take actions against the very things they are invested in and are in their best interest.

 

[nt5672]

There never was a reason to place all eggs in one basket. Apple was never a company to trust!

This is it. Once someone provides a secure open source linux phone then Apple will feel some hurt. How much? Don't know, but the handwriting is on the wall. Companies, like Apple, that are now mostly adhering to local government requirements have no choice but to implement spyware. Open source is the only freedom left. Lets hope the government does not figure out a way to stamp it out.

 

[mnsportsgeek]

You have it in the first place because there weren't other options. Netflix gave a large back catalog all in one place with shows you wanted to watch at the click of a remote. DVDs of the time could not compete with that nor could cable.

That seems stupid. Why pay $100 a month for something you don’t want when you could use that money to build your own collection?

 

[kirky29]

Then let me explain, it's simple, Apple is now a monopoly or monopoly-like, and now it needs to share with others. It's too big and has too much influence. This is to the detriment of the population.

It's like copyright laws (well - as intended anyway) - you get your exclusive rights for 20, 25 years, then it needs to be considered public. If something experiences amazing success during that time, the creator and original holder will benefit greatly, but at some point, it is in the public interest to release their works into the wilds.

This is not to take anything from anyone, but the system was designed like this to both benfit society at large, and to give enough benefits to individuals to create new things. I think it's very much fair like that.

Of course in reality copyright law, like most other laws, have been made into a farce, where Disney extends its mickey mouse copyright forever and ever through various tricks and bribes, same for other big brands.

At this point Apple must be considered a quasi monopoly in phones - just like Microsoft once was (and still is in PC operating systems).

It is therefore in the interest of society at large to let other people build on top of the platform. 3rd party app stores are more or less a no brainer.

For example, if I want to create software that runs on people's phones, but the one company that makes half of all phones does not let me, but they also legally and technically prohibit me then that's anti-competitive behavior.

Take the example of Cydia - it is a working app store; why should Apple be allowed to use all sorts of technical tricks to lock them out? I don't think Apple needs to go out of its way to support them - but going out of their way to remove all competition when you are a monopoly is not acceptable.

That's like Microsoft wiping out the competition with Word, by adding intentional incompatibilities with 3rd party apps into the code.

Nicely written, thanks!

 

[MysticCow]

And other various governments are in on this politically as well? ?

Why aren't they going for XBox/PS/etc? They all have "exclusive monopoly stores" with "commissions" also...

 

[PC_tech]

These politicians are meddling in a product that is secure, private, reliable and cherished by both users and developers. Politicians, please stop wasting taxpayer time and money and focus on more important matters.

Cherished by people? No, it’s a tool for the majority of people, you’ve got deep seeded issues if you “cherish” a product ????

 

[Rogifan]

Apple's stayed out of gaming in any meaningful way so as not to compete with all the free-to-play games on the App Store – the overwhelming bulk of their App Store revenues (and, in turn, a giant portion of their $19.5B services business).

If Apple is forced to give up their giant cut of every in-app purchase, they'll want a piece of that sweet gaming industry money – as a software, services, and iPhone/Computer/AppleTV maker, they'd be crazy not to. It's far bigger than anything AppleTV+ or AppleMusic could net them. And they'll no longer be constrained by not being able to compete with their IAP cash cow. Further, they'll have all the other games companies – competitors like Microsoft – making lots of gaming money on their devices. They'd be free to buy up companies like Nintendo (and whoever else isn't owned by Tencent, Sony, and Microsoft at that point. In fact, I think they'd be compelled to.

Apple might get dragged by this, kicking and screaming by anti-trust, into being an actual big player in the games space.

I don’t think there’s anything Apple could do in the gaming space that would equal the $$ they get from game IAP. They’re never giving that up. I’d love to see Apple change how they charge developers for use of their IP/dev tools etc. but at a minimum they could allow non game apps to offer 3rd party IAP (along with Apple’s so customers can choose which one they want to use). They have the best argument around commission/rent/tax from games anyway. Though I suppose games that are cross platform would argue differently.

 

[vipergts2207]

Maybe it shouldn't be. If you make a dumb decision and **** up your phone doing something you were told could compromise it...that's your own fault. You were warned of the risk and did it anyway. Actions have consequences ?‍♂️

It’s clear you don’t understand. The act protects you from having your warranty voided arbitrarily. If you download malware and break your phone because of it, Apple isn’t required to warranty your phone. Just like an automaker isn’t required to warranty my broken engine because I used olive oil in an oil change. However an automaker can’t void my warranty on my properly cared for engine that blew up because I installed a roof rack on the car.

 

[I7guy]

Right, when Apple lobbies they’re “just doing their job.” When other companies lobby, they’re accused of bribing and being underhanded. No double standard there.

So making a phone call is equivalent to bribery for companies that aren’t apple?

 

[nt5672]

For all of you that think side loading is too complicated for your family, that is what Jitterbug is for.

 

[MysticCow]

I don’t think there’s anything Apple could do in the gaming space that would equal the $$ they get from game IAP. They’re never giving that up. I’d love to see Apple change how they charge developers for use of their IP/dev tools etc. but at a minimum they could allow non game apps to offer 3rd party IAP (along with Apple’s so customers can choose which one they want to use). They have the best argument around commission/rent/tax from games anyway. Though I suppose games that are cross platform would argue differently.

They missed the boat by not buying Activision/Blizzard. I mean, imagine Macs preloaded with GAMES like the iMac G3/G4 had. Or Macs preloaded with an "at no additional cost" three month subscription to Warcraft?

Apple doesn't give two craps about games or anyone who plays them and the evidence has been on the wall for a long time now.

I miss being able to have fun with a Mac right out of the box like that...

 

[Vespi]

Thankfully, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act makes crap actions like this illegal.

I dont care, make it a switch and once activated ypu cant deactivate it even by resetting phone, I would never buy a used phone with sideloading enabled

 

[IamTimCook]

Then why did you have cable in the first place? TV shows and movies have been available to purchase long before Netflix.

To pay with a single subscription fee of $9 (originally), duh. You know how much all those TV shows and movies would cost if I had to buy separately?

 

[Maximara]

Thankfully, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act makes crap actions like this illegal.

But don't car manufacturers pull this same kind of stuff even with the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act around?

 

[mnsportsgeek]

To pay with a single subscription fee of $9 (originally), duh. You know how much all those TV shows and movies would cost if I had to buy separately?

Huh? We’re talking pre-Netflix here. If Netflix is a cable replacement then that implies one had previously had cable. Why were people stupidly paying $100 a month for cable if they didn’t want live content? The value in cable is the live content. $100 a month goes a long way towards building a sweet collection if you don’t care about sports or any live broadcasting.

 

[4743913]

And their voters are bamboozled by propaganda into electing them into office.

Actually, the propaganda is coming from Apple.. their whole anti sideloading argument is propped up by ignorant phone people. Our macs survive just fine being able to install apps directly from the developers and our phones will too.

 

[MacLawyer]

Not a lawyer, but didn't the contract exist prior to Apple having "monopolistic" power. Would a contract that was formed prior to having that type of "control" be now made invalid due to having that "control"? Especially if the terms had not changed to substantially to take advantage of that control. If I recall when the App Store was created (2008), Apple had a 19.2% smart phone market share. Since Apple's growth took place organically without changing the the contract terms, does the changing marketpower require a change in a static contract?

Courts have the authority to invalidate existing contracts for a variety of reasons. At least in the U.S.

 

[vipergts2207]

Funny thing is if even just ONCE...if I were to hear someone...ANYONE outside of MacRumors complain about this...I'd be more inclined to believe it's actually an issue. This is being made into a far bigger issue than it actually seems to be.

Oh, I guess the 35 state AG's don't count then.

 

[mielie]

Then let me explain, it's simple, Apple is now a monopoly or monopoly-like, and now it needs to share with others. It's too big and has too much influence. This is to the detriment of the population.

It's like copyright laws (well - as intended anyway) - you get your exclusive rights for 20, 25 years, then it needs to be considered public. If something experiences amazing success during that time, the creator and original holder will benefit greatly, but at some point, it is in the public interest to release their works into the wilds.

This is not to take anything from anyone, but the system was designed like this to both benfit society at large, and to give enough benefits to individuals to create new things. I think it's very much fair like that.

Of course in reality copyright law, like most other laws, have been made into a farce, where Disney extends its mickey mouse copyright forever and ever through various tricks and bribes, same for other big brands.

At this point Apple must be considered a quasi monopoly in phones - just like Microsoft once was (and still is in PC operating systems).

It is therefore in the interest of society at large to let other people build on top of the platform. 3rd party app stores are more or less a no brainer.

For example, if I want to create software that runs on people's phones, but the one company that makes half of all phones does not let me, but they also legally and technically prohibit me then that's anti-competitive behavior.

Take the example of Cydia - it is a working app store; why should Apple be allowed to use all sorts of technical tricks to lock them out? I don't think Apple needs to go out of its way to support them - but going out of their way to remove all competition when you are a monopoly is not acceptable.

That's like Microsoft wiping out the competition with Word, by adding intentional incompatibilities with 3rd party apps into the code.

A monopoly is a market with 'the absence of competition' as wiki puts it, creating a situation where a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular thing.

I just don't see how Apple has a monopoly. I would agree if everyone had to have an iPhone, but they don't. You might also consider that they had a monopoly if the iPhone was very cheap, but it is not. iPhones are premium products (in their market), anyone who buys one has a choice to buy something else, be that an Android phone or something completely different.

Apple also offers something completely different to Android, in that it is a closed wall ecosystem, whereas most Android based phones allow their users to install just about anything.

There will be many users, like myself, who have made a deliberate choice to have an Apple iPhone because of the closed and controlled nature of its operating system and App Store. It strikes me that by demanding Apple changes to be more like Android is actually removing choice for the consumer, not creating it. If I really wanted to play Fortnite on a mobile phone there is nothing stopping me from switching to Android. If everyone felt this way then they would all also switch and Apple would be forced to change their approach. This is called market force.

 

[rhaezorblue]

Apple invented the iPhone and created an App store for it. Why do developers think they should be able to tell Apple what payment system or app store they want to use? No one is forcing them to create an app in Apple's ecosystem. This arguement that Apple is so big that now we want them to play by different rules seems like such bs to me.

 

[Maximara]

Thankfully, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act makes crap actions like this illegal.

As Companies Can’t Legally Void the Warranty for Jailbreaking or Rooting Your Phone explains it isn't that simple.

'Samsung, meanwhile, notes in its Galaxy S7 warranty agreement that "defects or damage resulting from improper testing, operation, maintenance, installation, service, or adjustment not furnished or approved by SAMSUNG, including but not limited to installation of unauthorized software and unauthorized root access, both of which shall void this limited warranty."' Apple has similar confusing language in its warranty.

'"Manufacturers threaten to do things they cannot do legally but 99.9 percent of consumers have no idea of their actual rights," Gay Gordon-Byrne, executive director of the Repair Association, told me.'

"An FTC official told me that jailbreaking should not void the warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, but would not commit to taking any sort of action about the practice."

I may remind you this is the same FTC that will not do a blasted thing against the local monopolies cable providers have.