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

[4743913]

Apple invented the iPhone and created an App store for it.

Actually, Jay Freeman (Saurik) invented the app store. Apple ripped him off. Learn your history.

 

[ksec]

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.

Finally, congratulation as the first to mention pull out of most US state on Macrumors.

 

[lazyrighteye]

Mind numbing.

We HAVE options: open and closed.
I have intentionally decided, with my wallet, what I see as a better option for me. And glad there is another option for those that feel differently. Here’s the wild part - you too can do the exact same. Pretty wild, huh?

P.S. - not sure if claiming an App Store is “harming millions of citizens” is more embarrassing, desperate or just flat out not true.

 

[Maximara]

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.

We really should have the Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 812 Filed 09/10/21 as our go to as why Apple is NOT a monopoly.

 

[vipergts2207]

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

Did you intentionally misunderstand my point? The Apple faithful have no problem with Apple lobbying the government. If another company were to lobby the government though, especially if it goes against Apple's desires, those same people claim those other companies are bribing the government and using underhanded practices. If I wanted to flip the script I'd ask an asinine question like "I wonder how much money Tim promised Ted Cruz in that phone call."

Case in point:

How much did Epic spend for this?

 

[ksec]

According to people Apple should only sell inside it's company.

Should stop selling to China because they copy everything, should get out of India market because of work condition ... then there was EU for their warranty policies then there was Russia because they steal data... you understand that if they withdrew from any market they have some issue with it will be the end of Apple.

If Apple did what you suggest it would only lose money.

It's a corporation, not a 2-year-old picking up its ball and leaving going home.

According to Macrumors's Apple supporter. Not "people". Only on macrumors would you see these kind of quality comments. And this is the first time someone mentioning Apple should pull out of US "State".

 

[bluespark]

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.

This is not a definition used by courts or by the Sherman Act, and the Sherman Act addresses more than pure monopoly. Also, within the scrutiny for "monopolization," which is more relevant that "monopoly," it's not a given that the market will be "all phones."

To your Fortnite example, you're focused on the lack of apparent harm to you, but this case is about harm to the developers. How the large fees charged by Apple to developers affect consumers is a secondary harm and much less obvious, but also likely significant (and something the court certainly will consider).

Also, you may realize this already, but an antitrust remedy almost certainly wouldn't end the App Store or the security benefits you are getting from using it. The most likely remedy would simply require Apple to allow one or more alternative paths that developers could provide to consumers wanting to install their apps. I would continue to use the App Store and I suspect most others would as well. But options are a good thing.

 

[Kkspire]

Ironically the rules have been the same, since inception. Feel bad for customers, because this is more about government and companies fearing someone has made too much money. Doesn’t matter how good the product is or how much people want it the way it is.

 

[robertts]

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

No one is arguing that it is too complicated. For most users, this change wouldn't even impact them and they will just stick w/ the App Store. But most users want to trust a single source of truth (the App Store) than to, let's say, have to search for Chrome for iOS using Google and then click on an ad which takes them to some random 3rd party distributor.

 

[PDavidAlexander]

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.

THIS! Apple is a wildly successful and profitable company... but in today's America success is vilified and we feel like we have to knock them down. But, as quoted, this is all just political grandstanding and a waste of our time and money. If people don't like Apple, don't use them, or develop for them. Period. But, as someone who has been an Apple user since the sledgehammer hit the big screen, I love how stable and secure it is. Yes, they control everything... hardware and software, but that is what makes the user experience so seamless and secure. Even if they are eventually forced to open to third-party app stores and/or payment methods, I will NEVER download for my Mac or Phone outside of the ecosystem. In the 37-ish years, I have been using Apple products, I have NEVER once had a virus. I have been a network administrator and work with PC's every day, and they are riddled with problems. In my personal life, nearly everything I use is Apple, because they have my TRUST. I love that this company focuses so much on security and the privacy of its users. That should be applauded, in my opinion.

 

[I7guy]

Did you intentionally misunderstand my point? The Apple faithful have no problem with Apple lobbying the government. If another company were to lobby the government though, especially if it goes against Apple's deesires, those same people claim those other companies are bribing the government and using underhanded practices. If I wanted to flip the script I'd ask an asinine question like "I wonder how much money Tim promised Ted Cruz in that phone call."

Case in point:

I didn't intentionally misunderstand your point, I categorically disagreed with the premise. Do you have some backup for your assertion (or fact) that "they’re accused of bribing and being underhanded. No double standard there"...not by one MR poster, but by a large enough universe that it's really a thing?

 

[Stratus Fear]

In a given area you have Comcast and Verizon ISP for example. Don’t like Comcast’s draconian data cap? Well you’ve got Verizon’s egregious data privacy policies to contend with.

Comcast and Verizon wireline services are largely municipally approved and regulated monopolies. It's kind of a false equivalence. However if you want to talk about FCC regulations in another thread, I am all ears (personally, I am against data caps).

That something else is Android

What's your point?

Going with “mums and pops” google and “voting with your
Dollars” isn’t really going to show Apple anything in terms of the way of being open. Alternatively going with Apple isn’t going to show Google anything in terms of squashing bugs and a higher quality homogenized UI experience

This is entirely subjective; you can't possibly know one way or the other, but traditionally, companies do scramble to change if there's an impact to their bottom line. Also, from a legal perspective, Apple isn't required to be open, nor is Google required to have a 100% bug free product. Again, you have choices. Just because you don't like them does not mean someone has to appease your sensibilities.

A duopoly is just a dressed up monopoly layered with a cat and mouse game of one leads and the other shuffled into following bad policy that people will eventually if not immediately be numb and indifferent too.

This doesn't change anything from a legal perspective. The solution isn't to hand down dubious rulings from the courts that aren't really based in law. The solution is to vote for people who will write better legislation. As the judge said in the first big Epic v Apple case, having a successful business model in itself is not illegal.

 

[Grohowiak]

It's terrifying how many people have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
The scaremongering is almost hilarious if not for the fact that some actually believe it.
What's even crazier that the word CHOICE is an alien concept because being controlled in every way is so magical and revolutionary.

You folks need to google what the words "option" and "choice" mean.
Like how hard is it to understand that you can still use only appstore if you chose to and this will not affect you in absolutely any way?

 

[4jasontv]

The constant claims that Apple is doing no wrong or that governments won’t have the will to make changes to the laws so that they apply properly to the digital economy is rather contradicted when 35 states, as disparate in political leanings as Texas, Idaho, Kentucky, Colorado, New York, and Washington all agree on this.

I wonder if these states also force online taxes for interstate trade.

Senators aren't personally calling Tim Cook requesting what they want to see in the newest device, at least as far as I know. And if they did, that too would be inappropriate.

Not privetly, no but Sen McCain and Sen Hawley did so publicly. However, Barbra did call Tim personally.

 

[Maximara]

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.

That is no different from Ford not selling or servicing Toyotas. Also Apple wasn't make "half of all phones"

Apple 29.24%; Samsung 26.93%; Xiaomi 11.52%; Huawei 7.19%; Oppo 5.31%; Vivo 4.13% and before you complain about that being mobile devices iOS runs on iPad and so is relevant.

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.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers threw Cydia's nonsense of a lawsuit out on its ear. Sure they have refile options but that judge already ruled on what Apple's market was and it was NOT iPhones

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

Improper comparison as Apple has never had a majority (>50%) in any general market. Nevermind there have been alternatives for Word from the get go. Apple had Macwrite and WordPerfect for Mac and on PC there was WordStar (1978) which had its last stable release when open source alternatives like OpenOffice, Abiword, and the like came out (1998-1999)

 

[reyesmac]

If its own rules were universal there would be no case and hardly and issue. But if Apple can give large corporations like google and amazon different deals than it gives companies who are smaller there will always be a company just left out of that loop that will not like it and have the power to push back. Either give more companies the sweet Amazon deal or give all companies a flat fee they can't wiggle out of.

 

[dandy1117]

No one is arguing that it is too complicated. For most users, this change wouldn't even impact them and they will just stick w/ the App Store. But most users want to trust a single source of truth (the App Store) than to, let's say, have to search for Chrome for iOS using Google and then click on an ad which takes them to some random 3rd party distributor.

This assumes that Apple could require developers to keep their apps in the App Store.

If regulators believe that the requirement would still give Apple an unfair advantage in the marketplace, then I assume that large developers would actually remove their apps from the App Store.

So, consumers would have to sideline to get popular apps like Instagram and Adobe photoshop. These large developers would have incentive to create new cross-platform, independent solutions to distribute and process their apps for both Android and iOS.

Users would learn how to sideload in order to get the new popular Sony mobile game from the “online PlayStation game store for iOS and Android” (and i assure you that there will be a ton of Macrumore how-to articles about enabling sideoading)

I have stated this before on these forums: there will always be unintended consequences if there are changes to the current App Store modes. We just have to hope that the changes are for the better. But if history is a guide, individual large developers are less likely to create less consumer-friendly solutions than platform creators.

 

[4jasontv]

Google required to have a 100% bug free product.

How this insanity became accepted is beyond me. Why does software get a pass on reliability? Because it’s hard? Boo hoo. If you can’t make it work make it free.

 

[MisterK]

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.

You're saying "They're never giving that [game IAP] up" but this thread is about how they might, in fact, be forced to give that up. If they are, then getting a cut of games industry money AND improving their ecosystem by having exclusive, good, and non F2P games across their devices is a good option. And it's a much surer shot than VR or smart speakers. It's a proven market bigger than sports and movies and where their ecosystem currently falls far behind competitors.

Macs don't have any games? They could make some. The iOS App Store has too many pay-to-win games? This could solve that. No content for the AppleTV or a games console? Here. They should buy Nintendo before Disney does.

 

[bobbie424242]

The Apple App Store is run as a ****ing extortion mafia, with its handful of god tier arrogant execs ruling a multi-billion mobile industry. And do not even get me started on Apple and Google colluding to maintain the status quo for as long as they can.
This needs to stop.

 

[4jasontv]

If its own rules were universal there would be no case and hardly and issue. But if Apple can give large corporations like google and amazon different deals than it gives companies who are smaller there will always be a company just left out of that loop that will not like it and have the power to push back. Either give more companies the sweet Amazon deal or give all companies a flat fee they can't wiggle out of.

It isn’t a concern because making iOS apps isn’t a right.

 

[Stratus Fear]

How this insanity became accepted is beyond me. Why does software get a pass on reliability? Because it’s hard? Boo hoo. If you can’t make it work make it free.

I made no value judgement on the reliability of software. But if you want me to, I will. Google's software tends to be more buggy, and they should do something about that in my opinion. From a legal perspective, they can focus on whatever they want.

 

[4jasontv]

The Apple App Store is run as a ****ing extortion mafia, with its handful of god-level arrogant execs ruling a multi-billion mobile industry.
This needs to stop.

Let’s make a deal. No fees to Apple but app crashes and undocumented behavior lead to executive and developer fees plus prison time per instance.

 

[Cosmosent]

IMO, the ONLY thing that will get Apple to the bargaining table is "fear of sideloading".

"If" everyone was to get behind sideloading, for posturing purposes if nothing else, Apple would begin to work on & promote a "middle-ground" solution !

My best guess, they would reduce their cut to 10% for ALL transactions made directly via their App Store !

 

[4jasontv]

I made no value judgement on the reliability of software. But if you want me to, I will. Google's software tends to be more buggy, and they should do something about that in my opinion. From a legal perspective, they can focus on whatever they want.

I agree, so long as they don’t profit from software that isn’t finished.