Depending on how narrow one makes the definition of monopoly...yes. The question is, will the courts see this in the same say as MR poster? We will find out the answers to some of this shortly.
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.
Microsoft Supports Epic Games, Says Apple Blocking Access to Unreal Engine Would Harm Game Creators
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Rather than leave it as an exercise to the reader, can you give me a clear statement of what market Apple holds a monopoly over?
That's a mighty claim. It might take me a while to examine every other platform on the planet to confirm your statement, but until I finish my exhaustive search I'll proceed on the assumption that you're wrong. There is too much diversity in computing platforms for me to believe they all operate on that one simple principle.
Last edited:
Part of the challenge is that the update app may already be out in the wild. Apple hasn’t utilised a kill switch yet (could still happen). EPIC should stick to the rules, revert their Application update. And try and change the rules before breaking them.
It is a normal point in the terms and conditions to remove the developers account. EPIC shouldn’t have been so daft to keep it under the same account organisation.
I wouldn’t want my payment details to constantly different with different game providers. In my guess the Apple App Store would in such a scenario become like the Android Play store and just not place where real money is spent.
As a developer I really don’t like these developments and demands.
Try and error is a slow painful way towards knowledge. Seeing others' mistakes and avoiding them is way more efficient.
Xbox is essentially a Windows PC without interchangeable parts. I can't imagine something closer to a PC.
Access to 1 billion 70%'s is a lot of potential money.
70% of 'something.'
vs
100% of 'nothing.'
Azrael.
70% of 'something.'
vs
100% of 'nothing.'
Azrael.
So what about every other digital store from Xbox, PlayStation, and GooglePlay ? They all charge 30% They all host stores that focus apps ONLY through that store. Why special treatment for Apple?
They broke the rules, they are at fault. Fix the problem by taking out the in-app payments. Then negotiate with Apple in good faith. They may very well work with EPIC on a lower price. BUT sure as heck not now.
I dunno. I can't download apps on my Samsung smart TV from any other place other than the Samsung TV app store. Maybe my Samsung TV has a bug? /s
What's with all that in app nickel and dime-ing. I guess they make 'good' money on that and don't want to pay commission on it? Or as much commission?
Don't Epic have their own store rules?
Azrael.
Don't Epic have their own store rules?
Azrael.
Wow, a video from 8 years ago. Absolutely nothing has changed since 2012, just ask President Tru... oh right, everything's changed.
Apple fanboys, always good for a laugh!
Epic signed the program contract a few years before 2012 and one of the key complaints in the lawsuit stated that Epic felt forced to signed the contract, yet 0 complaints were made about the contract until Epic got very wealthy.
But go ahead and carry on with your typical baseless Apple bashing. Doesn’t sound like you listen to reason so I’m done talking with you.
The big companies really demand free reign over Apple's user base... A user base already providing over 70% of their profit in the mobile space...
Apple has a $1 billion legal budget. Do you really think they’re doing blanket TOS??? These TOS are as legally tight as possible to avoid lawsuit.
Also, you’ve got it backwards. Epic gave Apple no options when it violated the TOS which they’ve been abiding by for years. Apple had no recourse but to suspend Epic’s dev license and possibly kick them out of the dev program altogether.
Microsoft only takes 15%, and allows purchases through the web where it takes only a 5% cut. Additionally, Microsoft allows for purchases through physical stores completely independent of its digital marketplace. It's not the same thing.
Epic is arguing that Apple holds a monopoly as it relates software distribution on iOS devices, that it leverages that monopoly to gain an unfair advantage in digital payment processing, and that such action is illegal. If the court agrees, they could remedy that by allowing software outside of the app store or allow payment processing from alternate sources.
Microsoft has already remedied this as there are a variety ways to purchase Xbox titles, either digitally or through a physical store, outside of the Xbox Marketplace.
Epic is arguing that Apple holds a monopoly as it relates software distribution on iOS devices, that it leverages that monopoly to gain an unfair advantage in digital payment processing, and that such action is illegal. If the court agrees, they could remedy that by allowing software outside of the app store or allow payment processing from alternate sources.
It is not relevant of the terms of service are blanket or not or whether Epic agreed if the court determines that the agreement itself is illegal due to violating anti-trust legislation. It would be comparable to agreeing to a 1,000% annual interest rate on a loan. Though the terms are specific to you and you signed said agreement, the agreement offered itself is illegal (in most if not all states) and the contract would be voided. In some states, you would be responsible for repaying the principal only, in others you would not be responsible for repayment of either the interest or the principal.
Ultimately, the question is are the terms offered and agreed to legal and therefore part of a legally binding agreement.
Edit to add: The size of the legal budget is not inconsequential, however it is by no means a guarantee that they will win a case, are impervious to being served with a lawsuit (obviously based on the lawsuit), or that they will win any such lawsuit. Many companies with excessive legal budgets have lost such cases in the past (Google in the EU, Microsoft in the US then later in the EU for quick tech examples).
The problem is that Apple eventually won't win here. There are dozens of Governments, States, and regulatory agencies that are threatening Apple with anti-competitive lawsuits. Even if you and I agree that they are wrong, the momentum is on their side. That's exactly the reason why Epic pulled their stunt.... because Epic realizes that Apple is already under siege by countless anti-competitive lawsuits.
Epic knows that they allied themselves with the side that is likely to win in the long run. And if the Regulators and Government lawsuits win, they will impose sanctions and crushing regulations to App Store on the Government's terms. Not on Apple's terms. The Government's terms.
Let us remember that Regulators and Government lawyers and bureaucrats are technologically ignorant people (just like the average US Senator, who depend on their grandchildren to troubleshoot their iPhones). If their lawsuits prevail, and likely it will, they will crack Apple's App Store like cracking an egg with a hammer, shattering it in many pieces. They won't understand the harm done to the ecosystem, to the hundreds of millions of Apple customers, and the harm done to many small developers that actually benefit from the existence of the current App Store ecosystem. All the Regulators and Government Lawyers will understand is that their lawsuit won.
Sweeney, August 13: "I’m writing to tell you that Epic will no longer adhere to Apple’s payment processing restrictions." (and concludes with a statement that they intend to maintain the conflict "for many years").
That's literally "Epic" [is not going to abide by the license agreement, going forward], not "Epic's Fortnite division" or "the Epic account specifically tied to Fortnite...". Yet here we are with a 12-page filing arguing the picayune details of which precise Epic developer account should see retaliatory action, leaving any and all others unaffected.
Epic further represents that Apple's impending actions "jeopardize the work of thousands of developers" – every one of whom has a priori weighed the obligations of both the App Store terms plus Epic's mandatory royalty terms against their own individual business plans and accepted them as workable, whether grudgingly or otherwise.
As supporting argument, the legal team provides an anecdote from an on-again/off-again developer so representative of the industry that she doesn't have a computer capable of running 64-bit macOS, and a statement from a trillion-$ company stating "if Unreal Engine doesn't support iOS going forward, yes, that will impact our plans for developing an iOS product using Unreal Engine, duh".
Epic (Sweeney in particular) seems really REALLY bad at this.
That's literally "Epic" [is not going to abide by the license agreement, going forward], not "Epic's Fortnite division" or "the Epic account specifically tied to Fortnite...". Yet here we are with a 12-page filing arguing the picayune details of which precise Epic developer account should see retaliatory action, leaving any and all others unaffected.
Epic further represents that Apple's impending actions "jeopardize the work of thousands of developers" – every one of whom has a priori weighed the obligations of both the App Store terms plus Epic's mandatory royalty terms against their own individual business plans and accepted them as workable, whether grudgingly or otherwise.
As supporting argument, the legal team provides an anecdote from an on-again/off-again developer so representative of the industry that she doesn't have a computer capable of running 64-bit macOS, and a statement from a trillion-$ company stating "if Unreal Engine doesn't support iOS going forward, yes, that will impact our plans for developing an iOS product using Unreal Engine, duh".
Epic (Sweeney in particular) seems really REALLY bad at this.
Last edited:
Apple removed it, however it's still on people's phones and people are still using the Epic pay direct option.
So Epic got 8 years of benefits out of the contract and decided to complain only now? Despicable.
They do... brick and mortar stores. I hear you can also purchase games through direct url links outside of the xbox marketplace. This *may* require download from the Xbox marketplace, but Microsoft's cut drops to 5%.
It's fair for you, because it solves payment processing, marketing, and customer acquisition. For a large developer with an already established brand that already heavily invests in marketing, payment processing, and has a robust customer acquisition model they aren't getting the same value but are paying significantly more. If you became a large developer you might not find the policy as fair.
Ultimately, whether it's fair or not is irrelevant. What matters is will the court agree that Apple has a monopoly in mobile software distribution. If so, has it abused it's position in that market to gain an unfair advantage in another market. The argument is simple if the scope of the market can be narrowed to just the iOS ecosystem. If not, customers and developers are free to choose competing platforms such as Android which works in Apple's favor. However, you can still argue that Apple maintains a monopoly position as roughly 65% of mobile software revenue is handled through the iOS App Store.
Personally, I've never been a fan of Apple's "We need to protect you from yourself" mentality. The inability to download applications from outside of the app store. I've always seen it as a rationalization provided to force use of Apple's services. I think the similar suit brought against Google will be much more difficult to win as consumers have the ability to download apps directly from developers or from competing digital storefronts.
Pale or prevail.
Which ever way this winds up MacRumors will implode from all of the activity.