Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Fortnite Returns to U.S. App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You know that apple got fined less then a month ago in EU because it failed to comply to the DMA because they are classified as gatekeepr?
You know the EU invented the term "gatekeeper" because calling a company with ~25% market share a "monopoly" is too much even for bureaucrats in Brussels who think browser choice screens and mandatory cookie pop ups are great ideas worth celebrating?
Apple has the monopoly of app distribution, since ALL apps must be apple approved.
And even if you downplay the role of 25% of the market (iirc is more 36% in total, 25% was the share of shipments in 2024) we are talking about millions of people who, in europe, have consumers rights.
Hahahaah.. not a gamer, but just take the L, cryOS and cryPadOS
No they didn't, and multiple monopoly cases have been successful in the EU with marketshare well below 50%.
If you're going to make stuff up at least try and make it sound plausible.
The issue here is "dominance" and whether the market suffers because of it.
Apple used to have a minority share of the US market. Maybe 20-30%. But they have grown in recent years to over 50% of the US market. Apple will argue that their market share has grown because of their policies on curating the store, verifying apps, no porn etc.. That the majority of US customers LIKE the way they do things and they want to preserve that.
Now that they have such a big share of the US market, they need to adapt to that. But I dont think the iPhone would be anywhere near as successful as it is if it had the policies you advocate for when it was released. Apple is meant to be the antidote to the "free for all" Wintel world. They "thought differently" about apps and how they are distributed and installed on a modern OS. Nokia didnt. Blackberry didnt. Google didnt.
I just get tired of people wanting everything to be like the trash they are used to. Let us have something different. Why does everything have to be the same? Where is the choice for us as users to have a more closed off secure system? In 10yrs time I will have to live with a failed eco-system because of this. I know what's going to happen because we've seen its before with Windows.
You know gatekeepers are not monopolies?
The Digital Markets Act: ensuring fair and open digital markets
Discover how the Digital Markets Act ensures large online platforms in the EU behave fairly, and allows new players to enter the market, thus developing a fast evolving digital sector.
Slow clap for Apple’s amazing inability to stop playing stupid, petty games. They’re torching their reputation for nothing
The word "unlikely" is carrying a lot of weight in your out-of-context quote there.
It would be less disingenuous if you quoted the entirety of the relevant paragraphs instead of picking out one sentence to suit your argument:
Apple checks a lot of boxes in the "dominance" assessment described in the article you quoted, even if their market share is below the unlikely threshold of 40%
- Very high barrier to entry - check.
- Long period of time with high market share - check.
- Low number of participants in market otherwise - check.
- Low countervailing buyer power - HUGE check.
- Large size and strength of company - VERY HUGE check.
Again, if Apple is clearly a monopoly, why didn't the EU use existing antitrust law rather than invent an entirely new, massively complicated law?
First of all, I did not say having a "monopoly". I said "monopolise the market".
Here, from the FTC, the U.S. antitrust regulator.
Not that a monopoly, from a legal and regulatory perspective, does not mean that there's literally only one supplier. It means a firm with "significant and durable market power". 👉 That certainly applies to Apple.
Also note that such monopoly don't require control of an entire national market. It can apply to sub-market, such as as certain geographical area. 👉 That also applies to Apple and the market for iOS applications (Similarly to geographic areas that have barriers for their residents to move away, there are barriers for consumers to switch from iOS to Android and vice versa.
You're welcome.
I sincerely doubt that you don't already know the answer to your own question, but regardless I'll help you as best I can by simply pointing out that the second-to-last item on my short list above is likely the most crucial of all of them. If you actually need an explanation on how the massive imbalance of power that Apple wields over its customers and vendors might warrant such a law, I'm not sure that there is any answer that I can give that will satisfy you.
Apple is not like the IRS. When one talks about imbalance of power that is the level of how any company should rise before a law is needed.
Apple is so far away from that level and not to mention it’s a for profit lifestyle company that electronic devices for mass consumption. They hold power. Of course they do. All companies who produce their products hold power.
What's wrong with regulating both the monopolies and and the gatekeepers? These are different terms for different types of potential abuse. Apple, the gatekeeper, fully controls access of iOS device owners to the apps. That's not in the interest of the consumers or the society in general. The Apple fans suggestion that every app developer that does not like Apple rules should develop their own phone/ecosystem is just plain stupid. Do they really want that people had Apple phone, Spotify phone, Fortnite phone etc.? EU did not want that hence the gatekeeper designation so that people could live with a single phone. This makes perfect sense to me.
No? It’s actually on the money.
Isn’t that competition?
Makes no sense to me. In fact the WSJ had an interesting article about the lack of innovation emanating from the EU. The DMA is a prime example of why.
Disagree, I think Apple fully controlling access is in the interest of Apple’s customers and society in general. Would think that if an open alternative didn’t exist? No. But one does, and it has 70+% market share in the EU. Switching phones is easy if that bothers you and you somehow bought an iPhone not realizing how it worked.
Instead the EU has declared “we know better, closed ecosystems aren’t allowed to exist”.
I don’t think a company’s intellectual property should be handed out like candy because big developers want to freeload. No one is forcing anyone to buy an iPhone or develop for one. Android exist and is fantastic. Web apps exist, and Apple allowed free apps to have off-app subscriptions. I’m even in support of linkouts (with an appropriate commission paid to Apple). They just need to pay their fair share.
This a very tired argument and is patently untrue. Most people who purchase an iPhone haven't the faintest clue how app distribution works outside of "open app store, get game." This is the same argument that Microsoft tried to use in the 1990s and it didn't work back then either, and at that time the "people" were actually OEM vendors and not end consumers.
Most people buy smartphones based on hardware features or based on the ecosystem that they've already bought into, and both smartphone camps (and yes, there are really only two) work very hard to try to lock their customers into their ecosystems knowing this.
This is where you are simply categorically wrong. The only way to be able to argue whether a contract provision is legal in front of a court is to first break that contract provision and then to get sued over it. There is really no way that "argue it in court" happens if "breaking the rules" doesn't. Hence, the only way forward for Epic to challenge the legality of the anti-steering provision of the developer contract is to break that contract.
As far as "not in public" goes - please, clench your rosary beads for something a bit more worthwhile than whether two monolithic faceless corporations or their respective fanbases get embarassed or have their feelings hurt. Everything that happens with large consumer-facing corporations should happen in public. This is an incredibly popular video game on a platform that dominates that game's major target demographic. Any competent CEO would know how crucial public perception of this situation would be, particularly if the courts failed to rule in their favour and would absolutely be stupid not to do whatever they can to sway the public's perception.
Both Tims involved in this whole case play the public perception came on the daily. Because it is their job.
Pretty sure this argument has been done to death. You should know the problem with that line of reasoning by now, you've been here long enough.
Switching phones costs $1000 bucks. Way more if you count the accessories and the ecosystem. Some people may have thousands dollars worth of apps. EU is protecting their investments. And all other countries are moving in that direction. AAPL shareholders' efforts to defend Apple on MR are futile.
...and time, as well as retraining muscle memory, relearning control gestures etc.
It's not.
Apple charges a yearly developer subscription and commissions for transactions in their stores.
Both at the fees/rates they've chosen.
There's no legal restriction on that.