51 ms·

Apple just kicked Fortnite off the App Store

• mwnivek 6y ago
  Main discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24146902 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24146902
  • nailer 6y ago
    Also Vox media is a clickbait site - the same one that attacked people for social distancing to avoid Covid earlier this year as 'tech bros'. Most of articles on Verge/Vox are blogspam around other sources adding little to no value. Engadget covers gadgets, Ars Technica covers wider issues, the rest probably won't be popular on HN.
    • sjwmozilla 6y ago
      Entire verge/vox are long form tabloids but with sophisticated wording which is deliberately contrarion. I've read polygon only once and they did come across as very, very good.
    • dang 6y ago
      On HN we go by article quality, not site quality. The big sites all have occasional good stuff among reams of...less good stuff. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22article%20quality%22%20%22site%20quality%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• sushshshsh 6y ago
  What happened to the days where everyone controlled their own domains/IP addresses/servers? Why would anyone want to risk being deplatformed? I trust ICANN more than I trust Apple and ${CLOUD_PROVIDER}
  • nip180 6y ago
    > Why would anyone want to risk being deplatformed? App stores give you incredible access to new users. You literally don’t have a way to get unto iOS devices w/o the App Store.
    • oblio 6y ago
      > App stores give you incredible access to new users. You literally don’t have a way to get unto iOS devices w/o the App Store. They give you "incredible access" because they're basically the only access. Their OSes would be complete flops if app stores were the only option and nobody would use them...
      • Spivak 6y ago
        The "incredible" part is the access to Apple customer base.
        • sushshshsh 6y ago
          Dreaming of a world where everyone can press a button and buy a flashed phone with an open standards operating system much like I can do on most laptops with Linux
    • grishka 6y ago
      > You literally don’t have a way to get unto iOS devices w/o the App Store. Yes, and that's the problem that needs solving. If Apple allowed sideloading apps, every single of their justifications about App Store rules would start making sense. You either pay 30% and get a nice listing and discoverability, or you pay nothing but are completely on your own.
      • s3r3nity 6y ago
        Or, you know, go to Android with 70%+ global market share.[1] If you really want to make a radio for Lamborghini's, but they say no, then you go to a different manufacturer. "oh but Lambo owners have so much spend/revenue per owner" doesn't really hold water. [1] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide
• lordleft 6y ago
  Imagine if Microsoft did this on PCs. a) prohibiting the installation of non-windows store software (sideloading) and b) insisting that all purchases done via apps give them a 30% cut. I think this is a ridiculous practice on the behalf of Apple.
  • KMnO4 6y ago
    Doesn’t Windows on ARM only allow apps through the Windows Store?
    • opencl 6y ago
      No, you can install software outside the store. Either native ARM (though there isn't much available) or emulated x86 code. It does default to "S mode" which prevents installing apps from outside the store but it's just a settings toggle away like Android's "Unknown Sources".
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
      That was "Windows RT" (not to be confused with "WinRT").
  • rvz 6y ago
    Even worse. Imagine if the World Wide Web was not open and you had to go through a closed WWW like AOL and websites were "under review" by the providers and would take a 30% cut of your revenues or clicks on your web app or subscription service and websites require going only through that provider. Thank goodness that wasn't the case.
    • Seirdy 6y ago
      It could be the case if AMP grows dominant; given the market share of Google Search, it could be enough to create a controlled (er, "curated") web in a similar spirit.
• Findeton 6y ago
  I don't think this should be regulated at all. Apple should be able to impose their rules in their systems. Let's be clear about this, if people are choosing to buy these black-box closed handheld computing devices, there are consequences that come with that choice.
  • mmm_grayons 6y ago
    Exactly. There are pros and cons to this sort of model. The pro is that the security model of an iphone is better than probably anything else one could buy. The con is that apple makes the rules about what goes and stays. Given the popularity of this app, I could see a kid wanting an android instead for this reason. On the other hand, Apple could easily make the case that this is to prevent scams, maintain parental controls, etc.
    • heavyset_go 6y ago
      > The pro is that the security model of an iphone is better than probably anything else one could buy. Exploits for iOS are cheaper than exploits for Android because exploits for iOS are so plentiful.
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  • infinityplus1 6y ago
    Plenty of people have no idea what they are getting into when they buy Apple devices as a status symbol.
    • AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
      Yeah, so let's impose our will upon them. For their own good!
    • mulmen 6y ago
      Please. Whatever strawman you are trying to construct is missing the point. I do not buy Apple products as a status symbol. I buy them because they work. I won't even say the products are good, there are a lot of things I'd like to see change. But they are the best thing on the market for getting my work done. My laptop and phone are my hammer and workbench. The iPhone and MacBook are far and away the best product for the work I do, which is not iOS or MacOS development. They're simply the best general computing solution on the market right now.
• downvoteme1 6y ago
  I think that Apple will prevail in this legal fight . Apple is in good terms with this administration. Even when the social media has taken the blame by Congress, it has been google, Facebook and Twitter that have come under fire - but Apple not so much. And currently the US is in a position where how heavy handed the treatment is dependent on your relationship with the administration.
  • Jellyd 6y ago
    Regulation isn't done by the administration. There is a specific bipartisan antitrust committee that handles these issues.
  • rleigh 6y ago
    They may win the battle but still lose the war. How many companies will look at situations like this and decide not to bother with developing for Apple platforms? I've already stepped back my efforts to support MacOS (I don't target iOS at present). Too many hoops, too much control freakery, and no real comeback if they ever decide that they don't want me to publish on their platform. The balance of power in the relationship is simply skewed too far in favour of them, and a tiny misunderstanding could end my business. These companies have far too much unchecked and unregulated power.
• mrspeaker 6y ago
  If I go to the App Store on my phone, and go to my "Purchased" list, Fortnite is still listed there. I wasn't up to date, and clicking on "update" gives the message: "Fortnite" No Longer Available. The developer has removed this app from the App Store. Interesting wording. I wonder if they only have one message for pulled-by-Apple vs pulled-by-dev?
  • jeffrallen 6y ago
    Wonder if that false message could get them in trouble with consumer rights laws?
    • java-man 6y ago
      I hope it does. Monopolies lead to stagnation, rising prices, and inferior product quality. Even though Apple is not a monopoly in the strict sense, I think we consumers will benefit from alternative app store - or Apple opening up the platform. I believe one can still have (moderately) secure ecosystem without it being a walled garden.
      • Zenbit_UX 6y ago
        If you have an iPhone the Appstore is unquestionably a monopoly. At least Google can make the case you can install other app stores so the monopoly claim is weaker.
        • qeternity 6y ago
          The mere mention of Google, a perfectly suitable competitor, leads me to believe you don’t understand what a monopoly is...
          • spanhandler 6y ago
            Hell, from my perspective the app store is part of the competition. I buy i-devices over Android for a few reasons but high on the list is the set of restrictions Apple places on developers, including their payment restrictions. Those aren't harming me, they're giving me one OS where ~ none of my mind ever has to be dedicated to considering a bunch of stuff that it does on other platforms. One platform safe for less-computer-savvy relatives, that also still lets them do basically anything they might want to do and operate independently. That is choice, the fact that I can choose that.
• whalesalad 6y ago
  You don't bite the hand that feeds.
• jeffrallen 6y ago
  The bigger the bully, the harder they eventually fall.
• andreasley 6y ago
  Epic Games has filed a lawsuit [1] and published a Fortnite-themed parody of Apple's "1984" [2] to get some publicity for it. [1] https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-complaint-734589783.pdf https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-complaint-734589783.pdf [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euiSHuaw6Q4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euiSHuaw6Q4
  • coldcode 6y ago
    They will lose as the TOS clearly indicates the rules and Epic agreed to them. This is basic contract law. Apple has a massive team of experienced lawyers.
    • bluedevil2k 6y ago
      TOS can't violate laws though. A contract that is in violation of the law isn't enforceable. Epic is looking for a judgement to make it illegal.
      • the-pigeon 6y ago
        Expanding on this. The idea that a large platform like iOS can only have apps loaded through a market place controlled by the hardware manufactured is clearly in violation of the spirit of anti-trust laws. However there's no legal precedent on this because no one with deep enough pockets to fight Apple has been angry enough to do it yet. Meaning this could be great news for everyone if this goes to court and Apple loses as they should.
        • dpiers 6y ago
          I don't think that's true. Almost no one is complaining about Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo's "monopolies" on what software runs on their video game consoles. The big differentiator is that phones have become the most frequently used personal computing device for many people, and we expect the freedom to use it how we want.
          • 6y ago
• atarian 6y ago
  If Apple allowed other payment methods, that would incentivize developers not to go through Apple at all. Even paid apps would switch over to an unlock model in order to avoid the 30% cut. So I think it's very unlikely that Apple will allow other payment options. It's more likely for their 30% to go down, but even that's questionable.
  • winter_blue 6y ago
    Android allows developers to integrate Stripe and take customer's credit cards and bypass the 30% cut. Yet, many apps choose have direct Play Store purchases, since that convenience might translate to a higher conversion rate. Android also allows third party apps to be installed. Your argument doesn't hold up in light of all of this.
    • atarian 6y ago
      >Android allows developers to integrate Stripe and take customer's credit cards and bypass the 30% cut. You are completely wrong. https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/9/21003553/google-play-store-fortnite-epic-games-30-percent-cut-dispute https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/9/21003553/google-play-stor...
      • erklik 6y ago
        > You are completely wrong. Not really. Not being allowed to host on the Google Play Store does not mean not being allowed to install the app on an Android. https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/3/17645982/epic-games-fortnite-android-version-bypass-google-play-store https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/3/17645982/epic-games-fortni...
        • atarian 6y ago
          I said you cannot bypass the 30% cut on the Google Play Store. Hosting your app elsewhere is not the same thing as hosting it on the Google Play Store.
• AcerbicZero 6y ago
  Interesting how quickly this gained traction today, and how some of the initial reports came from sites with direct ties to Tencent subsidiaries. Oh, Tencent has a large stake in Epic? Who knew.
  • notatoad 6y ago
    in what universe is apple banning fortnite not a huge story? the eagerness with which people jump to conspiracy theories around chinese influence is nuts.
• the-pigeon 6y ago
  This could be great news. Might finally get the ball rolling on a court case to stop the huge app store abuses by Apple and Google.
• jaeming 6y ago
  ... the developer on Thursday implemented its own in-app payment system that bypassed Apple’s standard 30 percent fee. ...1,000 V-bucks, which is roughly equivalent to $10 in-game Fortnite currency, now costs just $7.99 if you use Epic direct payment instead of the standard Apple payment processing. Normally, that amount of currency costs $9.99. Epic says, in this case, customers keep the extra savings, not the company. That cast the new arrangement as a pro-consumer move instead of a greedy power play. My math skills aren't the best but it seems like epic is still pocketing almost an extra dollar there than previously (almost 10%), indicating that this is move motivated by financial gain (if not greed). Of course Apple stands out as the bigger case of "highway robbery". I am somewhat curious on how much apple spends on maintaining the app store and how much of that %30 is net profit.
  • SolarNet 6y ago
    I mean, in theory third party payment processors still take a cut. I don't think it's a dollar on a 7 dollar payment. But it's also not marginal. The credit card companies themselves charge 3.00%+0.10 at the reasonable maximum (or roughly $0.31). That is still not even counting the payment processor's fees (which pay the credit card company's fees for you). I mean the "7 dollar price" is all artificial anyway, it doesn't really cost Epic anything to make the product of those 7 dollars (it's economic rent extracted from the intellectual property they maintain). Either way Epic is making more money on this move even if the whole extra dollar is fees.
    • csharptwdec19 6y ago
      I'd also guess that the Processor/CC Companies likely charge a bit more for this specific 'industry'; Processors and CC Companies often look at the products you are selling and what the overall risk is for things like chargebacks. This is part of why a lot of mom & pop shops still have a 5 or 10 dollar minimum for card transactions; When I worked at a computer shop in an almost-sketchy neighborhood our minimum fee was Two whole dollars. Given the frequency of refunds and the like, I'd assume Epic is probably not making much, if anything extra on top of this. This may actually close a ban-hopping/stalling gap. I've seen people claim that if you do a refund for an App store purchase, the publisher may not even know about the refund for 2-3 months after it was requested/granted. This likely shortens Epic's time to react and ban people for requesting fraudulent refunds.
• rndmze 6y ago
  finger crossed. Fortnite is not really the hill I have seen this battle take place. For example Apple also rejected the satirical app of a Pulitzer winning journalist (it does not make their app good but suggests that the content was probably not just a fart joke). Still, people should be able to install whatever they want on their phones, without Apple playing walled garden. It is not good for devs getting squeezed by the platform owners, it is not good for people being able to install whatever they want, and quite frankly it is not good for freedom of speech either. I am not including Google here since their policy is a bit more defendable, you can sideload apps without too much trouble, I even believe that Epic uses that mechanism to do not have to pay the 30%.
  • cableshaft 6y ago
    Epic has the massive financial war chest to see this through, though. If anyone can afford to push this through the legal process, it's Epic.
    • martin8412 6y ago
      This will cost Epic more money than it will Apple. Either company can end up dragging the legal battle on for years. In the meantime Epic's game won't be available on Apple platforms. By the time that battle is over, the game is probably not popular anymore.
      • Covzire 6y ago
        That's what I thought of Fortnite over a year ago, it's proven to have surprising longevity and seems to be rivaled only by Minecraft for capturing the attention of young people.
      • FactCore 6y ago
        Honestly Fortnite has been consistently popular for a few years now. I'm betting on it becoming another Minecraft type of game where it could be still popular in 5-10 years from now.
      • 013a 6y ago
• nytesky 6y ago
  How much of a security risk is side loading apps? It seems pretty large to me, even on a fortified system like iOS.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • lern_too_spel 6y ago
    Pretty tiny. Consider that the Apple App Store has infected more users (with Xcodeghost malware) than all the sideloaded apps on Android combined.
• splatcollision 6y ago
  Such a staged drama by Epic Games. They even had a video ready to go!
  • drno123 6y ago
    Not staged drama, more like 4D chess
  • hu3 6y ago
    Big corps don't take those decisions lightly. Obviously stakeholders and lawyers were involved. Marketing saw an opportunity and jumped in.
  • whywhywhywhy 6y ago
    >They even had a video ready to go! The beauty of their main technology product, a realtime engine is that it can create videos like that on much smaller timelines than traditional CG or a live shoot. Honestly with the right talent that could have been pulled together surprisingly fast.
• eecc 6y ago
  Ok, lets just set aside our strawmen for a second and ask: why did Apple do this and what's the big deal anyway? * Why did Apple trounce these folks? My first thought is, ridiculously intrusive anti-cheat? * Then, assuming that's the case and you're ok with letting someone else remote-admin your machine, can't you just install Fortnite directly anyway? So what's the big deal exactly?
  • smiley1437 6y ago
    1. Epic violated Apple's ToS (apparently intentionally, to start a legal battle that they want to have right now due to EU investigations into abuse of monopoly power by large tech companies like Apple and Google) 2. Apple has to enforce their ToS (there is legal precedent that if you don't enforce your own rules, then you don't care about them - so it's a good idea to follow your own rules) so they had to boot Fortnite from the App store The big deal is that this might trigger significant legal judgements that may determine what tech giants can or cannot do on their platforms.
• papito 6y ago
  I want to start reading "Evil Geniuses: The Unmaking of America: A Recent History", which covers the now failed anti-trust system in the United States, but I am worried for my blood pressure, as it covers many other ways in which our government almost exclusively works for its corporate owners. We may think of how Europe deals with big business as extreme and radical, but it's only because we got so far away from the reasonable middle ground of big money and citizenry coexisting without f---ing each other over.
  • angio 6y ago
    Another book that touches on the subject is "The Great Reversal: How America Gave Up on Free Markets" by Thomas Philippon.
  • JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > We may think of how Europe deals with big business as extreme and radical What has Europe done in the last decade in anti-trust? Vestager brought a series of suits that got overturned by the courts, or charged monopolists peanuts for brazenly violating the law.
    • dahfizz 6y ago
      > What has Europe done in the last decade in anti-trust? They have been squeezing billions of dollars out of Facebook and Google, for one thing.
• jmull 6y ago
  I’m fine with a gated App Store, and the store has real benefits and real costs and it makes sense to charge developers for that. But Apple needs to align the charges more closely with the benefits and costs. Charge developers for costs they incur. Make the benefits opt-in and charge them for that too. And let them go their own way if they don’t want to opt-in.
• dang 6y ago
  I see the duplicate threads but am out hiking today and can't merge them (that's a laptop job). Sorry all. Maybe someone can list the discussions.
  • bdibs 6y ago
    Posted a list, have a nice hike!
  • myrloc 6y ago
    Hire me to make this a mobile job.
    • dang 6y ago
      I don't need fewer ways to escape from Hacker News.
• gigatexal 6y ago
  in the end i think apple relents and opens the app store in order to keep subscription revenue from music, tv, etc., because all of these high profile attacks are basically death by a thousand cuts. In the end everyone loses but the lawyers.
• ryanSrich 6y ago
  I think I’m completely fine with Apple doing this. It’s a clear violation of the TOS and Epic clearly knows that. They likely also knew well before making the update and perhaps thought Apple would bluff and only threaten a take down. Platforms aren’t free.
  • tyingq 6y ago
    Why would Epic have a heavily produced video and lawsuit ready if they thought Apple would bluff?
    • ryanSrich 6y ago
      You always have a plan B.
  • newbie578 6y ago
    TOS is not the law, it is a set of arbitrary rules set by Apple, and Epic wants to challenge those rules. Which I am completely fine with Epic doing this.
    • ryanSrich 6y ago
      I’m fine with that as well. I’m good with both Apple taking the game down as well as Epic filing a lawsuit.
• nodesocket 6y ago
  I don't see the problem, Epic explicitly went around the app store's payment process and terms of service. It's within Apple's right to pull Fortnite. They are also suing Apple as well. Why should Epic get a “special arrangement” from all other developers? If you don't like the terms, then don't be on the Apple App store, but of course your missing a huge swath of the population thus the 30% fee. Being on the App store is essentially unlimited marketing and exposure for your app. Cost of doing business.
  • kqvamxurcagg 6y ago
    As a consumer, why can't there be an alternative App Store on IoS if I don't like the Apple terms? Apple shouldn't force consumers and developers to provide them with 30%.
    • ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      There is - buy the more popular, larger market share Android phone and your problem is solved.
      • RussianCow 6y ago
        And have the same issue with Google Play? They also take a 30% cut.
        • ernst_klim 6y ago
          Install F-droid, or one of the Chinese markets.
        • ntsplnkv2 6y ago
          Android can easily sideload applications or use other app stores. It simply isn't a problem there.
        • SyneRyder 6y ago
          Google Play is allowing Epic to do it. Fortnite is still on the Google Play store. (The writing has been on the wall and Google is already adapting - they sent out surveys last month to some developers about dropping the 30% fee and charging developers an annual listing fee instead - possibly also fees for bandwidth/storage used like a hosting company does. The survey also mentioned plans to spin off the Google Play store as a separate non-Google company.)
• prvc 6y ago
  For those complaining about their misuse of "1984", it's merely a mockery of Apple's previous misuse of it (an effective one, too!). "1984" is a satire of Bolshevism and the Stalin regime, but became of a victim of its own success, and has been appropriated as a weapon against many unrelated or very loosely related things.
• bdibs 6y ago
  More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24147486 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24147486 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24146902 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24146902 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24143346 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24143346 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24148548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24148548
• mapgrep 6y ago
  You could argue about Apple's rights, or citizens' free speech rights, or consumer rights, under existing law. It would be an interesting discussion because I think it's a lot more complicated an issue that most people appreciate. But really why not talk about how we think things should work on platforms like iOS? What should the law be? What protects essential human rights, encourages creativity, and allows business to function to some extent? Personally, I would argue that consumers should have a legal right to install whatever software they wish on a product they have purchased, including onto the bundled operating system. I don't think it should be permissible for a company like Apple (or Microsoft or whoever) to sell me a gadget and then use various sorts of locks to try to keep me from putting whatever apps or app stores or services I like on it. Does anyone have any argument for why this right would be a bad thing? People would get bad software on their phones, but last I checked, this is happening already, including on iOS. Apple would lose some margin, but last I checked, their investment in creating and maintaining iOS has been handsomely rewarded and would surely continue to be.
  • admiral33 6y ago
    Separate hardware and software. If you buy an iPhone, you have the right to put whatever software you want on it. Similarly - Apple can restrict whatever software they provide to you on those devices in return. Future software updates, App store, iCloud etc.
    • fastball 6y ago
      The problem is that a lot of people actually like how hard it is to sideload content onto an iPhone, because it effectively bricks stolen ones, which is a pretty good deterrent.
      • tomxor 6y ago
        That same type of control bricks it for you at the OS level when they decide your device is too old (aka you haven't paid them often enough).
• muzika 6y ago
  Apple wouldn’t be in this mess if only they had the foresight to charge less than 30% as fees. 10% would have been much more reasonable.
• djsumdog 6y ago
  Someone did a satire of the Apple 1984 ad with Fortnite characters. Is surprisingly well made, and hilarious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqTNO8LTggI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqTNO8LTggI
• mensetmanusman 6y ago
  Has anyone tried having work meetings on Fortnite custom rooms? Seems like a fun concept, not sure how it works in practice (are there other games that would be better for avatar-based private meetings?)
  • jpindar 6y ago
    Sinespace is trying to sell companies on this, I don't know how successful they've been. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1nBlm2HKKY&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1nBlm2HKKY&feature=youtu.be
• mrandish 6y ago
  I love that Epic is doing this as it could finally drive the regulatory question of whether Apple's app store is a monopoly requiring intervention. I'm not even sure I know exactly where I come down on the issue as I can see reasonable arguments on both sides. But I do think it deserves being tested. (Note: obviously it IS a monopoly and does have huge negative effects. The question is whether the courts will find that it technically violates specific anti-trust definitions sufficiently to be successfully prosecuted.
• blisseyGo 6y ago
  I think the main thing which really needs to be done is allow a non-apple App Store which hosts the apps on non-apple servers. Only reason I can see Apple's 30% cut (15% would be better) justified is that they host the download files for apps and also review them. So I can see why they need a cut - 30% is too much imo. Of course that comes with its on risks as Apple won't be able to control what apps get installed but if Google can do it, then so can Apple. This way Apple can keep their App Store guidelines consistent across all developers and developers who don't want to go through the sometimes tiresome review process plus give apple the 30% share, can use this alternate App Store.
  • hyperbovine 6y ago
    Suggested name: Crap Store.
• fumar 6y ago
  I just ordered my first Android phone in years just to play XCloud. Apple needs to rethink its gaming and app policies.
• no_wizard 6y ago
  I wonder if this would all go away if Apple had a blessed 3rd party payment processing sdk and the ability to sell in app upgrades (which a lot of developers have wanted for nearly the entire existence of the App Store) this would allow them to not have to remove the restriction about mentioning outside of the app payment options, which I actually think prevents a lot of abuse and businesses really care about having control over their payments processor like using Stripe, say, to avoid the 30% cut) Really this comes down to those two issues, I see it over and over again. I know as an aside a lot of people want to be able to also ship binaries outside the App Store. The reality I have found talking to quite a few app developers that sell on the App Store, very few (I can recount one out of 13) actually want to be able to sell their app outside the App Store and ship a binary outside the App Store. I know some on HN want this and I get it, but I think reality is different from ideals on that particular issue. Though I think it has merit I also think it’s not a requirement to make nearly all parties involved happy with an outcome that would dramatically improve things for developers in respect to issues with the App store
• vondur 6y ago
  Yikes. I can imagine a bunch of people are pissed off that the can’t access Fortnite.
• Maha-pudma 6y ago
  I hope apple lose the lawsuit. It's about time their monopoly was broken.No different from what Microsoft did in the passed and Google are doing now.
• dwaite 6y ago
  Apple has not disallowed goods bought online or via other PC/mobile/consoles to be brought over. Or setting different prices depending on whether you buy through the iOS app or directly through a company. The restriction Epic violated is specifically around taking third party payments in-app. So this isn’t even necessarily that Apple is rent seeking on their platform - it is that Apple is charging more for the marketing and convenience of having things available directly on their platform than Epic likes.
• shoulderfake 6y ago
  Fuck apple
• andy_ppp 6y ago
  Let’s be honest, this has been coming for a while, like the ever increasing length, irritation and regularity of YouTube ads, Apple has been training you to accept an App Store only Mac. My guess is the Arm Macs will knock everyone’s socks off with freakish thinness, unreal battery life and performance, be extremely cheap and completely lock down the computer to Apple taking 30% of every piece of software you purchase and Apple being the only way to install software.
  • speedgoose 6y ago
    I don't think Apple want to be seen as a producer of cheap products. But I agree, there is a risk that Apple locks down its platform even more.
    • andy_ppp 6y ago
      There are rumours the new Macbook will be $799, them being cheaper with the same profit margin means Apple makes more money. So still not cheap but extremely good value rather than premium pricing will sell more units.
• tomohawk 6y ago
  Similar to the old AT&T monopoly. You were not allowed to connect any non-AT&T equipment to the network. You could buy an answering machine, but could not (legally) hook it up as it was not invented by AT&T, and they did not have one until the patents expired. Most people ended up renting their phones and other equipment from AT&T. In some cases, that was the only option. Being able to buy a phone was a novel experience for many people. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1983/01/31/ma-bells-breakup-means-big-changes-ahead-for-phone-users/185c55de-505f-4f1b-98e8-e1e2bf3b67b2/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1983/01/31/m... Breaking up AT&T led to a lot of innovation, and communication options that were at most science fiction at the time. The monopoly was probably necessary at one point, but lasted way too long. Let's not let these monopolies last too long.
• mulmen 6y ago
  I get hung up in the semantics of monopoly. I don't think it really applies here because Android exists. But if we frame this as an anti-competitive question I think it is very clear Apple's practices are anti-competitive. I'm not a fan of diluting the term "monopoly", I think we need modern laws to encourage competition. Maybe I just need to get over my pedantry.
  • hu3 6y ago
    Android lets you install apps from any site without hassle. And those apps can charge you money without giving Google a single dime.
    • mulmen 6y ago
      Sure but does that mean Apple's actions are not anti-competitive?
• cptskippy 6y ago
  I have a feeling Apple is going to argue a ToS violation other than related to Payments. Something like concealing functionality from reviewers or something.
• jiggawatts 6y ago
  I have a stupid question: If Apple pulls an app from the store, but doesn't forcibly uninstall it from phones, what happens if that app then needs a security update? Can the developer still update their app, or is it stuck in update limbo?
  • cloogshicer 6y ago
    Dev with iOS experience here. Depends a bit on the case, but usually it means stuck in update limbo. You can request faster reviews for critical security bugs, but as far as I know, if you're rejected for guideline violations, you're stuck until you alleviate those violations. This is actually another problem with the whole review process: There often isn't a clear guideline/way to tell. You can submit an update that goes through quickly, or wait for months, without knowing why. Valve, the company that runs Steam, also had horror stories about this. They published the Steam Chat app (not a store) and had to wait for months for approval, apparently without being able to talk to anyone at Apple.
• wnevets 6y ago
  Didn't epic go through this with google play store? I'm assuming secret negotiations are taking place so epic gets a much better deal than everyone else's 30%.
• cromwellian 6y ago
  "iPhone/iPad is a console" A $1000+ device with a moniker "Pro" is not a console. If you're trying to sell me the concept that something is "Pro" to be used for work, and can even replace a laptop, don't try to tell me its equivalent to a games console.
  • pb7 6y ago
    https://www.playstation.com/en-us/explore/ps4-pro/ https://www.playstation.com/en-us/explore/ps4-pro/ "Pro" means absolutely nothing. It is a marketing label. Also the price means nothing. What's $1,000 (iPad Pro) to you is $500 (PS4 Pro) to me.
    • cromwellian 6y ago
      So Apple isn't pitching the iPad Pro as a laptop replacement, and is instead pitching it as a games console? Funny, I seem to member the announcements, and Apple showing iPhone Pro's shooting movies, doing professional photography, video editing, etc. This this a game console? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7krzWNOXrFY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7krzWNOXrFY Gimme a break. Rent-seeking behavior dressed up in a security credit.
      • pb7 6y ago
        What do games consoles have to do with this? I'm showing you a similar walled garden app ecosystem (PlayStation) with a "Pro" label since you went down that path. iPad doesn't have to be a games console to be subject to the same rules.
        • cromwellian 6y ago
          Tim Cook and many of the Apple bloggers are using the console analogy to defend a closed walled garden App Store that takes an extremely high fee. Tim Cook brought it up in his congressional testimony even.
        • whywhywhywhy 6y ago
• minton 6y ago
  I get that I am in the minority here. I also get that 30% is a lot (maybe too much). However, I do worry about getting legislation involved as usually they tend to make things worse. For example, imagine the EU mandated a universal port back when USB-A was all we had. I’m just hoping they don’t force Apple to open the iPhones. I really don’t want to deal with having to “redo” phones for family members regularly.
• vortico 6y ago
  I'm a software developer considering releasing a mobile version of my software. Is there a way to completely bypass the iOS app store and allow users to download and install iOS apps from Safari? I hear stories like this all the time and don't want to touch the App Store one bit. Can this be done with Android? Perhaps I could release for Android-only and allow the app to be downloaded with Chrome.
  • jkepler 6y ago
    On iOS a user would have to jailbreak their device, voiding their warrantee. Only other way I can think of would be a 100% web app, not an installable app, if you want to avoid the Apple App store. On Android you can distribute your app via the f-droid app store (if its libre/free/open source), or other 3rd party stores like Amazon's app store. You can also allow users to directly download you .apk file from your own website.
  • hu3 6y ago
    Android's let's you download the app from any website. No questions asked. And the app can charge you without giving Google a single dime. For example I can go to itch.io and download this game directly to my phone: https://majorariatto.itch.io/pureya https://majorariatto.itch.io/pureya
    • askvictor 6y ago
      Not quite no questions asked - you first need to enable a setting, then get through the warnings. That said, Android comes with an ability to install other _App Stores_
      • osn9363739 6y ago
        Does that setting also stop you from using some apps? such as banking apps etc. I recall something like that. (sorry, Apple user here)
        • hu3 6y ago
• jkepler 6y ago
  A June 21 podcast episode interviewing Basecamp regaeding their fight against Apple's pulling their Hey! email app for the same reasons: https://www.whatbitcoindid.com/podcast/is-apple-abusing-its-monopoly-power-with-david-heinemeier-hansson https://www.whatbitcoindid.com/podcast/is-apple-abusing-its-... Isn't Apple's 30% cut way more than even the mafia charge local businesses when they force folks to pay protection fees? Or is that standard for monopolists?
• kebman 6y ago
  Hm. An exemption for big friends sounds eerily like cartel activity. Am I missing something here? How is this legal?
• pensiveharsh 6y ago
  I wish Novell, Canonical, Red Hat and other open-source leaders would form an alliance to build an alternative OS for phones. Even if it takes 20 years to reach the same market-share that Linux currently has on the desktop, it would be a win. At least, we'd have an option. I am not a Linux expert and apps crash sometime but I never feel BULLIED by the Linux ecosystem.
• nouveaux 6y ago
  For those who are arguing that Apple should allow third party developers to have their own marketplace without Apple taking a cut, should: - Ebay allow for a third party marketplace to exist without them getting a cut? -PayPal, chase, stripe allow third party developers to offer up their own payment services without the respective companies take a cut? Also by the same token, Amazon is a monopoly by taking a percentage fee and should allow competitors to sell on their platform without taking a listing fee. Is this not the same thing?
  • ffggvv 6y ago
    you’re comparing hardware to software which i don’t think is fair. apple creates the marketplace, the OS, and the hardware. it’s a much more complex issue which is more analogous to if windows required all users to use internet explorer, which we know is monopolistic. there’s also much more friction switching software like stripe than hardware like your iphone
    • nouveaux 6y ago
      I'm not sure why it's not the same. Apple could just sell the hardware. Here Apple is selling the hardware and providing a marketplace for apps. There is virtually no difference between the App Store and using the browser to buy things from Amazon. The argument is that Apple should provide the ability to sell things on the App Store with out a cut. Amazon by the same argument should be forced to do the same. You can argue that Amazons web Shopping market share is larger than Apple's cellphone market share and should be subject to the same monopoly regulation.
      • ffggvv 6y ago
        my argument is consumers should be free to get apps from other sources than the app store. just like people can shop at ebay or amazon. with apple, their hardware locks you into one choice for apps. i think we should be able to download any app directly from websites that make them
      • fastball 6y ago
• anderspitman 6y ago
  The more AAPL and GOOG lock down their platforms, the more basic features like installing software you want start to look like killer apps. There may be hope yet for a truly OSS phone.
• thatguy0900 6y ago
  Epics making such a hard push onto getting a steam competitor running, and is taking such a big loss losing out on ios money even temporarily, I have to assume they're using fortnite to establish precedent than planning on opening a competing app store or something. They're milking fortnite to play the long game before fortnite stops wing as huge,I think
• Terretta 6y ago
  > “Apple, Google, and Android manufacturers make vast, vast profits from the sale of their devices and do not in any way justify the 30 percent cut.” > Epic launched a game store on PC in which it takes only 12 percent of revenue as a way to try to encourage a similar change in competitor Valve’s Steam marketplace. "Do not in any way"? Well, in at least 12% of a way, right, Epic? And Apple, after acquiring you a new customer by selling them an ecosystem, drops 30% to 15% in year two. So, Epic, you're quibbling over 3% which -- I've seen theirs, and I've seen yours, and it's more than 3% difference in value.
  • dannyw 6y ago
    The 15% only applies to subscriptions after 1 year and would never apply to something like the sale of V-bucks which is transactional. For subscriptions, everyone knows the majority of revenue happen in the first year due to churn.
    • Terretta 6y ago
      > v-bucks I also find it satisfying that Epic gets so bent about “value” of App Store or Play Store taking 30% shipping and handling fee on ... virtual expendables.
• dutch3000 6y ago
  fortnite is a drug anyway. my kid is a freaking zombie from that stupid game.
• 627467 6y ago
  Another battle front opening against Apple. Grabbing the popcorn to see who else joins in. The fact is: mobile software as a market has plateaued and everyone in the ecosystem is looking around and seeing lots of profits being made by the 2 world largest digital brokers: apple and google, and very little options. It just makes economical sense to become letigious and look for other allies against the State of affairs. I'm sure Epic also took into consideration that any blocking of their app on the store will have little inmediate impact on their bottom line (since they are already very popular and already installed by most who would want to install). Those who already have the update can already start sending epic money without paying "apple tax". Sure, epic won't be able to release updates until this situation is resolved but I don't think this has much short term impact on their business for reason states above. Apple could resort to erasing apps from people's device but that would only help Epic (and EU, and Spotify and all those who are shouting "Monopoly" at Apple).
• chipotle_coyote 6y ago
  One of the biggest hurdles in trying to take antitrust action against Apple, I suspect, will be in proving that App Store policies cause harm to consumers rather than developers. There seem to be HN-favored narratives of "iOS users would rise up against the walled garden if they only understood" and "iOS users are too stupid and sheeplike to understand and rise up," but there is a more prosaic narrative of "iOS users like having one place to go that offers hundreds of thousands applications that are, by the standards of just fifteen years ago, dirt cheap." Epic is implicitly making the case that consumers are harmed by having to pay $9.99 instead of $7.99 for in-game tchotchkes, but even as someone who's grown pretty skeptical of Apple's approach to the App Store in recent years, that strikes me as a reach. They were manifestly not losing money under the existing pricing agreement, and their fight here sure seems to be "we don't want to share that much revenue with Apple" rather than something akin to Hey's "Apple's revenue share materially harms our business". In-app purchase policies are arguably where Apple's policies are at their worst, but I have serious doubts whether Epic Games is a great standard-bearer to line up behind in a fight for fair business practices.
  • dannyw 6y ago
    Epic Games can argue that a cheaper price results in more demand, ie more profits for them even if the unit price is the same. But I don’t think they need to argue that. The cornerstone of US antitrust law is cheaper prices for consumers. This example demonstrates that.
    • risyachka 6y ago
      But the point of business is making money. Apple has no monopoly in smartphone market. There are many choices. And if the court will force them to lower prices - will it start forcing price policy on other non-monopoly companies?
      • victords 6y ago
        The monopoly is not in the smartphone market. It’s about the monopoly behavior within the applications marketplace. Google can have the argument that you can install different stores in their OS (or even apps directly), and so you’re not locked into the Apps provided by their store. Apple can not make the same argument.
• fsociety 6y ago
  It’s scary to see people come to Apple’s defense, and to talk about justifications. Our conversations should be about what is good for the consumer, not what is good for Apple. Some of the arguments are that Apple’s closed ecosystem allows them to offer better products and security. I don’t really buy that. If it was true my day job wouldn’t have me so worried about iOS and MacOS security. Exploits wouldn’t be so cheap for iOS right now too..
• StavrosK 6y ago
  > Apple has removed Epic Games’ battle royale game Fortnite from the App Store after the developer on Thursday implemented its own in-app payment system that bypassed Apple’s standard 30 percent fee > 1,000 V-bucks, which is roughly equivalent to $10 in-game Fortnite currency, now costs just $7.99 if you use Epic direct payment instead of the standard Apple payment processing. Normally, that amount of currency costs $9.99. Epic says, in this case, customers keep the extra savings, not the company. Either I can't count or Epic can't.
  • CamelCaseName 6y ago
    Epic still has payment processing costs, ones that were contained within Apple's 30% fee, and probably some other costs I'm not familiar with. They may have rounded those costs up to the nearest $X.99 for clean numbers.
    • rvnx 6y ago
      Or just kept 10% as extra profit :)
• smiley1437 6y ago
  As of 7:30 ET, Matchmaking on Fortnite for IOS doesn't seem to be working anymore, so while it's possible to log into the lobby, it's not possible to play a game anymore.
• albertTJames 6y ago
  Apple thinks content creators owe a third of everything they make on their platform. Forever. End of story. Is it justifiable from a moral standpoint? no. Is it good business? yes. Will Epic loose in court? yes.
• fabioyy 6y ago
  i worked on a book store here in Brazil, and while we could sell ebooks on Apple plataform paying the 30% cut, apple did the same with ibooks... with lower price since they don't have to pay the 30% fee
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• dman 6y ago
  I hope this goes all the way and phones get opened up to work with PCs - users have root, can install their own software, and run software written in the language of their choice.
• artur_makly 6y ago
  my 7yr old son just came up to me super excited to see some mysterious trailer when he ran the app today. He thought he was about to see some cool new upcoming mod and instead he had to watch their propaganda campaign to Free Fortnight. As a parent, having to be forced to explain to your 7yr old son the dark-side of gaming/technology is not something I was prepared to do as a bonding event this fine evening.
• pjfin123 6y ago
  This seems like something Apple may regret if it leads to anti-trust action.
• CarbyAu 6y ago
  The problem here is Apples user market capture. Through iOS devices Apple has created a market of users they are the very protective gatekeeper for. Windows PC user market. Not locked down. Though MS has a store you have Steam, EGS, GOG, Origin, UBS etc for games alone. Let alone productivity apps. Android market. Not locked down. Though google play store is the gorilla other stores exist. I like F-Droid. EPICS Unreal game engine? Doesn't have a locked down market of users. It would lock the business into a payment scheme though. Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo consoles. I fear they are similar in terms of gatekeepering to users and should be subject to whatever outcome Apple is. They seem a bit more open to begin with though so are likely to be less affected. It also makes them not the prime offender, though offenders all the same. Ultimately, want to sell to an Apple iOS user? One choice. Separately then, is this anti-competitive or simply smart business? I'd answer : Why not both? The business wants to make money and until the law steps in, they will do it.
  • aikah 6y ago
    What Apple achieved is very rare in the industry. They achieved both complete horizontal and vertical integration for all their products. Even Microsoft kind of failed to do this. Most computers sold running Windows are not built by Microsoft.
    • nvarsj 6y ago
      Well, the government used to enforce antitrust laws. Microsoft got into a huge anti-trust battle over simply bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. Compare this to the state of iOS, which is in far worse shape - internal APIs that only Apple apps can use, Safari can never be completely removed or replaced, the App store shenanigans, etc. It's a testament to the complete capture of Washington by corporate lobbyists that Apple gets away with it.
  • Whatarethese 6y ago
    Having to launch games from 5 different shitty desktop programs is terrible for the user.
    • 6y ago
• nullc 6y ago
  Scamming children was fine but scamming children and not giving apple a cut is an unforgivable sin.
• rmrfrmrf 6y ago
  Thinking about the team(s?) at Epic that had to work 120hr weeks in endless crunch just so that their CEO could troll another CEO.
• ccktlmazeltov 6y ago
  I'm tired of this kind of bullshit. I can't buy books on the kindle app, I can't play Apple music on my google mini, I can't install the PAX app for my vape on iOS, and now that. Yet there isn't enough abuse from Apple to make us switch to another platform. Without regulation this situation will never be fixed.
  • sealthedeal 6y ago
    regulation is not the answer. The market aka the consumer will solve this on its own.
    • ccktlmazeltov 6y ago
      So you believe in anarchy? You don't believe in any regulation? It sounds a bit naive.
      • missedthecue 6y ago
        Referring to this situation.
      • sealthedeal 6y ago
        I believe in as little government regulation as we need to keep this country from imploding, but just enough to make us the #1 country in the world (w/e that means)
        • ccktlmazeltov 6y ago
          you're at the bottom of the list currently my dude
    • sircastor 6y ago
      I like to think that this would be resolved by the market, but if that were the case, why hasn’t It happened. Apple has been acting this way for 12 years. They haven’t changed their tune. The singular real market alternative is android, which still suffers from fragmentation issues. Microsoft, one of the most powerful companies in the world, couldn’t make their option work. Amazon, one of the most powerful companies in the world couldn’t get people onboard with their non-google version of Android. BlackBerry, the most powerful company in the space before Apple couldn’t keep their devices competitive. Palm, the leader before BlackBerry couldn’t make their OS stick.
• throwaway140820 6y ago
  Apologies for the extreme swearing that ensues. Wow, I would have hoped for better support from the HN community. Instead there are apologists after apologists. So what if Epic is big. Really, seriously shouldn't we have had alternative app stores available form the official ones. Why is this even a point of debate? All the time we hear stories of people one of our own getting fucked by these app stores and their lordship and now that we have an opportunity to make some noise, this is the response? Fuck that. Maybe we deserve these lords. Fuck your security and fuck your walled gardens. Fucking no alternative browser allowed. Fuck that, fuck you apple and fuck you google. Fuck your monopoly and chokehold on the devs.
  • calimac 6y ago
    Why not sign this with your username
  • blunderkid 6y ago
    fuck yeah brother.
  • banachtarski 6y ago
    I'm sure the mods won't take kindly to your swearing but I agree with both you and your sentiment 100%
  • wmichelin 6y ago
    I'm right with you. This is much worse than what Microsoft got in trouble for many years ago. They know what they're doing in wrong and I sure hope Epic gets their day in court. It's predatory and anti-consumer. Apple can eat shit.
    • throwaway6000 6y ago
      Fortnite for Android just got axed from the Google Play Store too https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/13/fortnite-android-google-kicked-out/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/13/fortnite-android-google-ki... Oops! Apple Bad, Google Good? ;)
• crobertsbmw 6y ago
  Can we wave the Havel at Amazon too? I feel like they are more predatory and anti-consumer than Apple is. They take at least 30% bu the time you consider that you are practically forced to buy their ads, FBA, deal with (amazon’s) counterfeits etc.
  • selimthegrim 6y ago
    Havel is too peaceful for the matter at hand :p
• sigzero 6y ago
  Apple should permanently ban Epic and then drop their cut to 20%. lol
• hannibalhorn 6y ago
  If I were Epic, I wouldn't even pick up the phone tonight. Let Apple sweat, and soon enough it'll be before a Congressional panel. The app store certainly adds value by screening out abusive behaviors that can't be simply sandboxed; but 30% of revenue? That's just too much. At a minimum, we need to allow for competing app stores that can also earn the right to be trusted by consumers.
• sali0 6y ago
  Epic is releasing a new game mode[1] called Nineteen Eighty-Fortnite. This is the most epic (no pun intended) ad campaign in history. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euiSHuaw6Q4&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euiSHuaw6Q4&feature=youtu.be
• tommymachine 6y ago
  This all sounds very misguided on Fortnight's end.
• tigerbelt 6y ago
  Indubitably Bad
• shahbaby 6y ago
  This is why I could never get interested in any Apple products. They can keep their walled garden to themselves.
• xupybd 6y ago
  My first thought was that this had more to do with the order against Tencent than violating Apple policy. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/08/13/pompeo-trump-executive-orders-are-broader-than-just-tiktok-wechat.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/08/13/pom...
• chadlavi 6y ago
  This makes me feel a million years old.
• orionblastar 6y ago
  https://youtu.be/7iCXcCFXAhE https://youtu.be/7iCXcCFXAhE
• irjustin 6y ago
  "You either die a hero or live long enough to see your self become the villain."
• whiddershins 6y ago
  All I want is a system preference that says ‘allow apps from other sources than the apple App Store.’ And I want that setting to work exactly as you imagine. And then everything else problematic about this debate would disappear.
  • pfranz 6y ago
    I don't think it's that clear-cut. Specifically because this is coming from Epic. I've avoided some of the Assassin's Creed games on PC because I don't want to create a Uplay account, app launcher, or whatever. I'll play them on console and I'll probably buy a disc. I'm bummed about games being "X app store exclusive." It also muddies things like moving to a new phone, parental controls, iCloud save/syncing, and things like refunds or expired subscriptions. I'm not saying Apple isn't wrong here. I'm just pessimistic about what Epic is pushing for. It's way more in their interest than mine. It's going to really suck when a normal office computer will need an OS, an "Adobe store" app (just for Photoshop), a "Microsoft store" app (just for Office), and a separate store app/account for any company big enough to push it on their users.
  • mrsalt 6y ago
    Being able to get root access to your phone just like you do with a normal computer would also be nice. We are increasingly losing the right to actually control our devices as time goes on, and it scares me. Especially since you can't really DIY this kind of hardware to remove these protections. It makes me sad to think there's a pretty a good chance of this lawsuit going Apple's way. Even more sad is the fact that many actually support these ever-increasing walled gardens.
  • dodobirdlord 6y ago
    If that system preference ever gets added I want Apple to continue selling a version of iPhone that doesn't have it, with no way to enable it and with a promise to never add it in a future update. I consider not being able to sideload software onto an iPhone to be an important feature! I like knowing that if someone malicious with moderate but not extraordinary technical ability gets ahold of my unlocked phone they are limited in their ability to compromise it in a way that persists through a restart. I.e. what any border guard can demand on entering any country I can think of. If I used an Android phone I would destroy it if it left my sight unlocked and I didn't know what had happened while it was away. I have root access to plenty of hardware devices. I don't need root access to every hardware device I own. What am I going to do with that capability on an iPhone, sideload Fortnite? No thanks, this is the device I use to check my email.
• risyachka 6y ago
  I have been and iOS developer for many years and my main problem with Apple is that it treats small and big developers very differently. Their policies are not applied to all, just like with Google. But as far as I understand Apple is not a monopoly. So why should they allow users to install app from any source if they made their OS specifically in a way that doesn't allow it? It is a product feature. And pricing policy - sure I'd love do get 10% cut of 30%. But again, they made a product and allow you do develop apps just take a cut. A big cut? Sure. But shouldn't it be their right to price their products as they see fit as long as they don't have a monopoly? I am thinking that if I start a company, why should the court force my price policy or tell me what features to implement (obviously as long as they don't harm users, break laws etc) if a consumer has many alternatives?
  • xnyan 6y ago
    The monopoly Apple has is the paid mobile software market. The difference between software sales on the Google play store and and the iOS App Store are pretty staggering. I have no expertise in the law so I can’t tell you that’s it a monopoly in the US legal sense (if i had to guess, no) but it absolutely is one in practice. It makes sense that developers, particularly powerful ones like epic, would argue that it is.
    • tomgp 6y ago
      That's a good point re the fact that Apple offers the only viable mobile paid software market place. For me it raises the question of whether forcing them via law/regulation to change their model would in practice have the knock on effect of destroying that market, making iOS more android like in terms of developer profitability for all but the Epic-like titans.
• dilse 6y ago
  Genuine question: Do flight travel booking companies pay commission to Apple for any bookings made via App? If not, isn't this a differential treatment?
  • jlbnjmn 6y ago
    Or buying things in the Amazon app. Are they charged 30%? Perhaps Epic could argue that their app is actually a shopping platform with game like features. I'm sure there are many other apps that are free to sell products without paying a cut to Apple. That would make it seem like this is targeting games and subscriptions.
  • y2bd 6y ago
    IIRC Apple doesn’t require in-app purchases for “physical” goods. Obviously a JPG of a barcode that lets me on a plane or into a movie theater itself isn’t a physical good, but I guess it’s in service of one. There are a couple of exceptions though for digital goods (I think Amazon has an exception for their Video service, but not Kindle. People rumor this was part of a deal to get Apple TV onto Amazon Fire products.)
• ss3000 6y ago
  I wonder why Fortnite doesn't also make a WebAssembly version of Fortnight and deploy it on fortnite.com? Then Apple would get jack shit from any sales there, so they can fight this battle with them while still offering access to the game for Apple users. I'm probably missing some esoteric limitation Apple places on web-based games to cripple this use case.
  • m4rtink 6y ago
    AFAIK Apple prevents this by forcing every browser app to use the half broken Safari engine that does not implement many modern web APIs and standards.
    • ffdjjjffjj 6y ago
      I don’t know if that’s true otherwise but webgl is supported by safari on iOS.
      • AndrewUnmuted 6y ago
        Making a first-class gaming experience will require considerably more than this on iOS, and as far as I am aware, Safari's implementation is spotty at best. My company spent years getting a passable Safari/iOS mobile web 360 video player working, a whole game like Fortnite would be another beast entirely.
  • shaykk 6y ago
    Why doesn't everyone make a WebAssembly version of their game and host on their own servers? I'm pretty sure there are a thousand big problems with this idea.
    • lvturner 6y ago
      Mostly latency around WebSockets.
  • mhh__ 6y ago
    I would assume someone has tried somewhere at Epic but I think the issue is not only targeting WebGL (as opposed to VK/OpenGL/D3D) but the sheer size of the assets a game like Fortnite has. Epic has the money to fund development to make it happen on the technical side, but currently you'd need to download so much stuff that you'd be doing the same thing as their game launcher anyway.
• NoblePublius 6y ago
  I am not a lawyer but I’m pretty sure it’s a violation of anti-trust law when Walmart tells me I’m not allowed to set up for free a lemonade stand in the middle of their store.
  • ifmpx 6y ago
    I'm sure it is if I'm only allowed to shop at walmart for all my food. I hope Apple looses.
• LeicaLatte 6y ago
  A lot more developers would come sell on the store if it’s 15%. Apple has a real chance to take the App Store to the next level. This is a failure of imagination on their part and those are the worst kinds of mistakes a creative organization can make.
  • cynix 6y ago
    You’re saying those developers currently would rather make 0% than 70%?
• electro_blah 6y ago
  And google https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368079/fortnite-epic-android-banned-google-play-app-store-rule-violation https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368079/fortnite-epic-an...
• shallowthought 6y ago
  Because they were bypassing the approval process, which exists for a good reason, otherwise they wouldn't expend so many resources on it, sorry for being reasonable and obvious, we can all go back to scouring the shadows now.
• Abishek_Muthian 6y ago
  I'm all in for the support of 3rd party Appstores like FDroid on iOS and its inevitable to not compare Android ecosystem support for that. But, situation is not that comfy with ChromeOS. If we need to side-load an .apk, we have to enable developer mode (which means powerwash) thereby Google explicitly making it an Anti-feature. Interestingly, android 10 on mobile allows direct install/update from FDroid making it no different from Playstore. Now why this double stand when it comes to side-loading android apps in ChromeOS vs Android? The obvious statement would regarding security and that's exactly what Apple uses to prevent side-loading apps. Now coming back to Apple, it has been allowing side-loading .ipa onto iOS devices(Although not as easy as in android) and it has also removed the need for $99 developer license which was needed earlier to side-load .ipa! So, the line between android vs iOS w.r.t side-loading apps is getting thinner at least w.r.t ChromeOS.
  • camhart 6y ago
    Sideloading ipa's on iOS require sideloading every 7 days. And doesn't it require a computer to do it? On android sideloading is much easier, though still not as easy as GPS.
• butterisgood 6y ago
  They had a commercial all ready to go mocking Apple. They know what they’re doing and they wanted a war.
• vmh1928 6y ago
  Apple has plenty of funding to fight a lawsuit. They can divert some of the share-buyback funds. https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/apple-launches-unprecedented-second-bond-offering-fund-billions-buyback-how-much-will-fed https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/apple-launches-unprecedent...
  • metalliqaz 6y ago
    A lawsuit isn't Apple's biggest concern. It's being set upon by the government for antitrust.
• thrownoone 6y ago
  I hope Apple stays its course. - It's really hard to mess up apple devices for non-tech savvy people. - I have learnt the importance of "It just works" and familiarity when my family got tired of Android and just bought everything Apple. - I hope/wish to see Apple Pay/login implemented everywhere on web as well. Would a tier system like the tax brackets help small developers?
• sriku 6y ago
  From a financial perspective, it appears unfair to also charge 30% for in-app purchases after the safety guarantees of the app have been established by apple, thereby invalidating their claim that charging a cut of in-app purchases is also towards ensuring platform safety for their users. Thing is, if apple lifted the in-app purchase cuts, then all apps would essentially switch from "pay to install" to "pay after install" and the apps would get their "safety certification" some for free - i.e. at apple's cost. What seems fair in this case is to pay the platform vendors a fee for the certification and network costs (charged like aws perhaps) instead of the leeching that's happening. Even the _option_ of doing that over giving a 30% cut seems fairer than what's happening.
  • eqtn 6y ago
    Then apple will probably start charging for API requests between iphone and ios for apps that have implemented alternative payment options.
• blunderkid 6y ago
  What Apple is going is just obnoxious and as clear a case of anti-trust as has ever been. 30% of revenue for no services offered, just because they can, is the definition of extortion. The only thing stopping them from asking 30% off of your Amazon orders placed via Safari is because the consumer has a choice of another browser for free. Otherwise these high priests of design and aesthetics would make the shirt on your back cost 30% more. Your app can't even tell the consumer that they can pay outside and avoid paying the Apple tax infinitely AFTER paying for their really expensive device. This is keeping the consumer in the dark to exploit them. This isn't capitalism. This is monopoly abuse.
• bnj 6y ago
  So if fortnight was allowed to have their own App Store would it need to be downloaded via the App Store? I see people on both sides of this issue and I know it’s heated, but I’m honestly a bit confused about how it would work in practical terms. The iOS platform has been deliberately engineered —- for better or worse —- to have this blurring of the hardware/software divide... how do you overcome that if this challenge went all the way through? It doesn’t seem like it would be as simple as downloading the storefront from epic.
• nromiun 6y ago
  This is the number one reason I don't use iPhones. Their privacy policy is very good (compared to Android) but it is a very airtight walled garden. Android has many problems, like no updates after two years and Google's draconian user support. But at least you can use alternative app stores (like F-Droid, Fortnite). At least you can compile and run your own code on your device without asking Google for permission.
• darthrupert 6y ago
  Will Epic's games be soon available in Steam, then?
• binthere 6y ago
  Simple question to whoever is honestly defending Apple: What if Windows prevented people from installing anything on their computer except from the Microsoft Store. Then Microsoft forced every app to use their payment system and then charged an excessive 30% fee for each transaction. Would you think that's an abusive and illegal practice?
  • asien 6y ago
    Thats already the case , it’s Windows S. But you have the choice between regular Windows and Locked down version.
    • imtringued 6y ago
      Not on ARM. There you only have a choice between Microsoft store apps or emulated x86 applications. You're not going to use Firefox on Windows on ARM unless you download the x86 version which will perform very poorly.
      • jackbrookes 6y ago
        No, you can run native ARM apps sourced from outside the windows store.
      • whywhywhywhy 6y ago
        Not true here is the download to the exe for Windows Firefox ARM build. Took me 10 seconds to Google it.... https://download-installer.cdn.mozilla.net/pub/firefox/releases/80.0b8/win64-aarch64/en-GB/Firefox%20Setup%2080.0b8.exe https://download-installer.cdn.mozilla.net/pub/firefox/relea...
  • BoboDupla 6y ago
    I might be mistaken, but wasn't this the policy Apple had since the beginning of AppStore? Every developer and user knew from the beginning what they are getting into. With Windows it is different, no? It would be a drastic change to a product, which operated differently at the beginning.
• notSupplied 6y ago
  If I were a congressman and had a shot at grilling Apple 2 weeks ago, I would have said this to them: --- I was a Mac user and an Apple fan in the 90s and early 2000s, and we all know that was a rough time to be a Mac user: Because it was clear that Windows had won. If you asked a typical PC buyer why they chose Windows, their answer would go something like this: "All the software I need is on Windows. Windows has the REAL version of Office. Windows has IE6, the REAL internet. Windows has all my games, and my work software." Like the iPhone, the Mac was technologically superior in many ways, but that did not stop the Mac from shrinking to only a 5% market share, ceding its place in PC history to Windows. Today, the iPhone enjoys the breadth of 3rd party software the Mac could only dream of. People pay $1000, sometimes every year, for a phone! This has transformed Apple's fortune from a struggling company into the most valuable company in the world. Why are people willing to pay so much for a phone? Because it is so much more than a phone. And why is it so much more than a phone? Because of the all 3rd party software expanding what the smartphone could do beyond what anyone thought was possible. So, why on earth would you put a tax on something that helps you so much, that it likely made the difference between being the distant loser in the PC era, vs being one of two major winners in the smartphone era? --- There's a lot of different angles people arguing about this, but this is my favorite: Which is that the FLOW OF VALUE GOES BOTH WAYS. I find the tone that Apple takes on this arrogant: They really believe they are doing developers this huge favor by creating the iPhone and the AppStore and the flow of value flows massively in one direction, from Apple-to-Developer. But I sincerely do believe that 3rd party software is what made the difference between the fate of the Mac and the fate of the iPhone, and the respective difference in Apple's fortune. For as much as one could gush about iPhone's incredible hardware and software lead, the Mac had those same things going for it and still lost to Windows because of the software. For Apple to turn around an rent-seek against one of the core reasons why the iPhone is successful, is to me, an incredible betrayal, and made possible only because of the gross difference in power and market concentration.
• ksolanki 6y ago
  There is a potential solution: how about an app like fortnite to charge the users 30% more and be transparent about it if they use the App Store to buy? Is that against the App Store TOS? There has to be a way for the costs to be made transparent so users can make an informed choice. It doesn’t have to be these large lawsuits?
  • eqtn 6y ago
    That is against TOS.
• randomsearch 6y ago
  Apple fighting a losing battle here, I think. Probably best approach is to reduce their cut. They may find total revenue increases in the long term anyway.
• dang 6y ago
  All: don't miss that there are multiple pages of comments in this thread. That's what the More link at the bottom points to. Or click these: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24146987&p=2 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24146987&p=2 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24146987&p=3 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24146987&p=3
• fantasticsid 6y ago
  As an iPhone user I much prefer any payment to go through apple payment UI, it’s just safer and hassle free, I don’t need to worry about scammy payment traps. As a developer I can see the financial reasoning behind implementing third party payment methods.
• hijklmno 6y ago
  It's not Apple vs. Fortnite. It's actually Apple vs. Users. Apple has been taking us for a ride this whole time. We pay damn much and buy the phone. It is the user's property from then on. What the user install's and uninstall's from his phone should be his decision. Taking a cut of say, 3%, to keep the app store running is forgivable. But 30% digging into users pocket is unpardonable. Apple is no longer the underdog that it was 40 years ago, and some fanboys pretending it to be is despicable. It's a monopoly and the only thing it cares is it's profitability. Despite all the sugarcoated lies Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google have been saying to the senate, they are a monopoly. Stop letting them deceive us. Let's take the power back. Stop enabling such deception. Death of a country is determined by it's governance. Death of a society is determined by it's culture and greedy monopolies. The way we can claim our power is by raising awareness to the point that the powers that are will take note and take action.
  • mojuba 6y ago
    > We pay damn much and buy the phone. It is the user's property from then on. Sure, the App Store and its services however are not the user's property.
    • fastball 6y ago
      Right, but Apple prohibits the installation of apps that are not from their app store.
      • mojuba 6y ago
        True, but you are free to install only free apps, or no apps, or only your own apps pushed directly onto the phone. In fact you are free to fully operate without iCloud/AppStore (if I'm not mistaken)
        • saagarjha 6y ago
          Buying a general-purpose computing device to run a handful of built-in applications is not really fully operating it.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• freakynit 6y ago
  All apps should just get together and remove themselves from AppStore unless Apple bends it's draconian rules. iOS is nothing without apps.
• jamesblonde 6y ago
  Hey HN mods! "spanhandler" is making a lot of cogent arguments in favor of Apple in this thread, like the voice of somebody with 20+ years in the industry. He also has a karma of 700+ after only opening the account 16 days ago. His entire comment history is to bash people arguing for open standards - see this thread, firefox threads, etc. I cannot think of any motivation for any techie to create an account to spread propaganda (masquerading as informed opinion) unless that individual is getting something in return from Apple et al. HN, "spanhandler" user is a symphtom of why HN has become a servant of power.
  • czzr 6y ago
    You want to shut down someone making, in your words, “cogent arguments”, because you disagree with their point of view and because other people seem to agree with them?
    • jamesblonde 6y ago
      Cogent arguments is not the point. In school, we were trained to debate - take both sides of the argument. I could easily write more cogent points in favor of Apple. The point is - what motivation would somebody have to create an account 16 days ago and post like crazy on everything anti open-source and with the aid of voting rings, get up to 700+ karma? This was not done for some pseudonymous reason. He's being paid to write this propaganda, IMHO.
      • czzr 6y ago
        It’s the internet - people invest time in all sorts of things, arguing their beliefs high among them. I’ve now read the actual comments - frankly whether you agree with them or not they seem perfectly reasonable arguments to consider and I think the discussion is better if people wrestle with both sides of the debate.
  • jamesblonde 6y ago
    To build on my point, i was upvoted for the first few mins, but now (a ring?) has started downvoting me....
• reallydontask 6y ago
  Is the issue the cut or the percentage? I'd imagine that a sliding scale would be far more palatable for big companies, say every order of magnitude increase above say 1000 in installs, the cut drops by 5%, so if you have 1 million installs, any extra would be 15%. I suppose there is the possibility of fake accounts but at this scale, likely hundreds of millions, is it going to be a big difference?
  • jamil7 6y ago
    I feel like the percentage isn't that important, it's more the fact that you're not even allowed to direct users to your own website or payment processor to have them sign up. I think changing that tiny rule as a starting point would go a long way.
• eqtn 6y ago
  What is preventing apple from renting the phone instead of selling it? If they do that, can they do whatever they want?
• blobbers 6y ago
  This was probably a bad move given this whole monopoly inquiry. I'm going to guess Tim Cook may fire someone over this if he wasn't directly involved.
  • weixiyen 6y ago
    they have to do this though or risk setting a precedent for how they run their entire services business. Apple is stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place, and the only way out is to win multiple legal battles.
• skc 6y ago
  Ehh, this is the bed the tech press made, quite frankly. Yes, I'm still bitter at how any attempts at a third mobile platform were brutally laughed off by the tech media, often unfairly and with undertones of glee. Now we are in this very strange situation where Apple can rightfully claim not to be a monopoly, Google can simply ape what Apple does, and fans of either platform can tell naysayers to kick rocks if they don't like it. Sad.
• torgian 6y ago
  Title is slightly misleading because Google Play also removes them from the Play store. The title is there to generate instant emotions strictly against Apple for some reason.
  • marrone12 6y ago
    At the time this thread was submitted, Google had yet to ban Fortnite from the store.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• brainless 6y ago
  This is not about a monopoly What it boils down to is that a computer (iOS device) can not run apps even when I own it. So technically I do not own the device, right? Never?
• ricardobayes 6y ago
  What I can't get my head around is that MS was fined millions of dollars because it shipped and made default IE and windows media player. Could someone elaborate why it isn't the case with Apple?
• victords 6y ago
  With Google now also kicking them out of the store, I don’t think that’s a battle they will win. However, I really hope they do. Against both. That would be a great victory for the consumers.
• 8fingerlouie 6y ago
  I don't get the problem. The App Store (Apple or Google) is a software distribution platform run by the owner of the platform. The platform has rules to cover costs and generate profit. Participation is entirely voluntary. Epic Games has violated the TOS of the platform, and for this both Google and Apple has removed their app(s) from their platforms. Again, participation is entirely voluntary, but if you participate you're expected to follow the rules of the platform. It's really not down to Apple keeping a walled garden, or Apple vs. Users, or Google spying on you.. again, Participation is entirely voluntary, that also goes for users.
  • nabla9 6y ago
    Just because company creates and operates a market does not mean that they can act without restrictions or disregard competition law once the market becomes economically important. I'm not very familiar with the US wording in the US law but EC defines relevant market as: "A relevant product market comprises all those products and/or services which are regarded as interchangeable or substitutable by the consumer by reason of the products' characteristics, their prices and their intended use" A relevant market in this case is iOS App store and the payment system. Not smartphone market. Epic is not selling phones. (I don't know where you get the voluntary participation argument, maybe that's some idealistic political viewpoint, but it's not the only thing that matters in competition law and antitrust)
• fastball 6y ago
  To everyone that is supporting Apple's position, let me run this hypothetical by you: You buy a Nespresso machine on Amazon. Some amount of the purchase price goes to Amazon for facilitating the transaction and delivering it to you, some goes to Nespresso for actually making the device. Cool. Then you get a pod subscription from Nespresso – let's say there is a touch screen on the coffee machine itself where you enter your details to subscribe. Now, Nespresso ships pods to your house every month. Amazon then says that because the machine was originally bought on Amazon, they are entitled to a 30% cut of that ongoing subscription price, even though the subscription is neither facilitated nor fulfilled by Amazon. I think we can all agree that would be ridiculous. That is what Apple is doing.
  • BillinghamJ 6y ago
    That is inaccurate. Your comparison would be closer if the purchase of pods was handled by Amazon Any comparison with physically shipped goods isn't going to be particularly relevant here
    • fastball 6y ago
      Ok, so to make the analogy near perfect, we need to add in the detail that Amazon doesn't allow Nespresso machines with this touch screen + subscription service to be sold on Amazon at all if Nespresso doesn't use Amazon to process the payment. But that is exactly how Amazon would require a 30% cut for a service they have no hand in. I wouldn't be happy about Amazon saying you can't sell a Nespresso machine with that feature on Amazon. It would be a ridiculous thing to do. Epic providing digital currency to their users costs Apple literally nothing. Apple does not participate in it. If Apple wants to charge Epic for whatever it costs them to distribute Fortnite to users (e.g. bandwidth costs) then power to them.
      • BillinghamJ 6y ago
        > Epic providing digital currency to their users costs Apple literally nothing It's important to understand that this definitely isn't true. It probably doesn't cost them (anywhere near) 30%, but fraud, handling upset parents, providing a ubiquitous gift card system, etc etc. does have real operational and monetary cost. It's not just basic payment processing
• Razengan 6y ago
  Does Epic allow players to buy Fortnite content from outside of Fortnite, without giving Epic any money? Do Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo allow other stores on their consoles? How much % do they take from console game sales?
• xondono 6y ago
  I’ve seen a lot of comments similar to “I don’t understand how users can be in favor of this”. I’m not just in favor, I love that they do that. Yes, for the small percentage of the population that knows what’s doing (which nicely overlaps with HN), having freedom to install whatever you choose is great. For >90% of the population it isn’t. Even with all of the improvements Windows has seen, for me it’s still a regular situation to feel like I won’t put one of my pen drives into the average Joe’s computer. The freedom to install anything is the biggest security hole in most personal computers. By not allowing it I can trust my parents and the rest of my family with phones knowing that they won’t do crazy stuff with the same device they use to log into their bank accounts and manage their authentication. What inflames the 0.1% is a blessing for >90%.
  • romanoderoma 6y ago
    That's not true. Being limited in what you can do with your properties is never a blessing. Hammers are dangerous yet they are sold in supermarkets. Hell, in US even guns are sold in supermarkets so that kids can kill other kids at school and nobody stops them and we are arguing about installing apps on a phone? Apple could make it clear that it's risky and that would be it. The rhetoric of the "old parents that can't help themselves" is wrong and most of all agist. There's no risk of them installing dodgy apps, because they usually don't install new apps. My mom doesn't even know how to change time on her phone but she's smart enough to not break what's working. I installed WhatsApp on her phone and that's all she needed, there's no way she could install something bad by chance and she's on Android, according to the Apple fanboys she should be running around with a virus bomb in her purse. Guess what? She's completely fine. Another important point is that Apple is not competing with Android, Apple is competing with other smartphone producers. Apple is a monopolyst because it locks users in, you can't change OS on your phone, you can't install iOs on other brands, you can't move your apps and data from iOs to Android, while the contrary is pretty straightforward. You can't even use the web freely, because alternative browsers are forbidden on Apple Store. Apple is not competing in a free market, Apple is making impossible to switch to competitors and thanks to this lock they can charge any amount they want. I'm old enough to remember MS being bashed for proposing the TwC (trustworthy computing) in 2002 and now I have to watch people kneeling in front of the richest company around just because they don't want to help their parents? That must be a new low for our society.
• catdawg 6y ago
  Just hypothetically here, what would the App Store look like if it didn't take a cut? Let's say everything stays the same, obviously, Apple would earn less money but let's ignore that obvious impediment, I guess they would would care less about how much an app makes in revenue, and exclusively about the quality of it. Would that be better overall for the consumer? Would it be awful for app developers, because Apple could be a lot more (than it already is) picky about what goes into the AppStore? It could create extreme rules that it doesn't care at all about relaxing, since whether a new app is in the store or not, makes no difference revenue wise for Apple. Maybe they could finally properly tackle some predatory IAP practices, that I assume are still allowed due to the revenue they bring in.
• anupamchugh 6y ago
  Despite, Apple's App Store monopoly, I believe in this case, its Epic Games fault. They knew the consquences and still went ahead with it. Make no mistake, its a marketing stunt and would put Apple in the spotlight but in the end the 30% tax won't change for indie developers. Even if Fornite manages to go past it like HEY, Netflix and Spotify.
• ngcc_hk 6y ago
  The whole point I buy in Apple is not side-load of app. Others are minor. There is always Android if you side loaded.
• nodamage 6y ago
  I am curious if any lawyers can weigh in on whether or not the reasoning in Blizzard Entertainment Inc. v. Ceiling Fan Software LLC (https://casetext.com/case/blizzard-entmt-inc-v-ceiling-fan-software-llc https://casetext.com/case/blizzard-entmt-inc-v-ceiling-fan-s...) would apply to the antitrust claims made in Epic's lawsuits. For those unfamiliar with the case, Blizzard filed suit against Ceiling Fan Software for selling a World of Warcraft bot against the WoW EULA. Ceiling Fan Software filed a countersuit claiming Blizzard's monopolistic actions in the market of "add-on hardware/software for WoW" violated antitrust laws. Blizzard argued that Ceiling Fan Software could not establish an antitrust claim because WoW users voluntarily consented to their EULA and knew the ahead of time when they purchased WoW that they would not be allowed to use third-party bots. The court agreed: > Blizzard raises this argument in its motion, contending that Defendants cannot establish antitrust claims based on its users' voluntary consent to the EULA and TOU. (Mot. Br. 22–23.) Although Blizzard does not argue this point in the market power analysis, the Court finds that this discussion is applicable to whether the market power requirement is established. Blizzard cites Newcal, Queen City Pizza, Inc. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 124 F.3d 430, 441 (3d Cir.1997), and Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 586 F.Supp.2d 1190, 1201 (N.D.Cal.2008), to show that Defendants cannot base its claims on the aftermarket restrictions. ( See Opp'n Br. 17.) These cases explain that the law prohibits an antitrust claimant from asserting an antitrust claim “resting on market power that arises solely from contractual rights that customers knowingly and voluntarily gave to the defendant” when they purchased the initial tying product. ... > Based on the allegations in the FACC, users agreed to the terms of the EULA and TOU during the initial contract they sign with Blizzard regarding the use of WoW. Blizzard is entitled to condition the use of WoW on such restrictions, and any resulting market power in the aftermarket cannot be the basis for antitrust claims. The only reason why Blizzard or its licensees allegedly hold market power in the aftermarket is because Blizzard users agree not to use any unauthorized WoW add-ons. It can be inferred that users therefore agree to only use authorized WoW add-ons that advance play, and agreeing to this inherently gives Blizzard power over any market for such products. Based on the case law discussed, it is clear that such a contractually mandated monopoly over an aftermarket is not a legally cognizable market. Because the market power allegations fail, Defendants have not adequately plead antitrust counterclaims under the Sherman and Clayton Acts. Moreover, since Defendants' UCL counterclaim is based those antitrust claims, that counterclaim also fails. If the reasoning in that case applies here, I don't see how Epic doesn't lose both lawsuits? If Apple's App Store policies are known by the consumer in advance of purchasing an iPhone, and Apple's "market power" in the aftermarket of "iOS App Distribution" is based on the iPhone's EULA saying you can only install apps from the Apple App Store, wouldn't the same reasoning apply and Epic's antitrust claim would fail because "a contractually mandated monopoly over an aftermarket is not a legally cognizable market"? Note: the Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp (https://casetext.com/case/apple-2 https://casetext.com/case/apple-2) case cited above is also highly relevant, possibly even moreso than the Blizzard case. It's about whether or not "Mac OS" and "computer hardware that runs Mac OS" are two separate markets and whether Apple's monopoly over the distribution of Mac OS results in antitrust liability in the aftermarket of "hardware that runs Mac OS". The court ruled in Apple's favor, concluding similarly that Apple's market power in the latter market was derived from its EULA and therefore was not an allowable basis for an antitrust claim, because customers "knowingly agree to the challenged restraint."
• alec_kendall 6y ago
  I wonder where within management this decision was made. I can’t help but wonder if decisions like this are made without considering the impact it will have, given their current circumstances.
• BishamonSr 6y ago
  That's a huge loss in my opinion.
• panpanna 6y ago
  Most folks on Twitter are siding with apple on this. I think this is mostly thanks to Epics horrible way of explaining this. I feel they could have gone with this much simpler explanation and everyone would be happy; "We have no problem giving apple 30% if we use their infrastructure. But if we use our own and save 30%, we want to be able give our customers lower prices" Btw, the ad mostly confused their (mostly young ) players.
• arendtio 6y ago
  Time and time again I wonder how Apple manages to avoid rules/laws which are applicable for all other players in the market. More than a decade ago the EU forced manufacturers of mobile phones to commit to one standard for power plugs. Everybody used micro USB except Apple. Microsoft had to pay a huge fine because the didn't let the user choose which browser they wanted to use and simply brought the Internet Explorer as the default with every Windows. Apple still doesn't even allow users to install alternative browsers. Yes, from the outside it looks like you can install a Firefox, but inside it is still a Safari for which Apple denies building critical APIs like e.g. the Push API [1] (which is available for all major browsers except Safari and the use cases go far beyond push notifications, like chat apps and background synchronization of data). The App Store is yet another example. Many other platform providers allow you to install additional Software through other means than the default source (Android, Windows, Linux, etc.). I am glad a major player like Epic takes the issue head-on and hope, that in the end the eco-system will benefit as a whole. [1]: https://caniuse.com/#feat=push-api https://caniuse.com/#feat=push-api
• aabbcc1241 6y ago
  Why this kind of article again? Apple rules the apple app store, we can, and we do have alternative way to deliver apps.
• prepend 6y ago
  Hopefully this helps to get rid of the free to play market. I think free to play games are a blight, so while it’s harsh that companies have to pay Apple 30%, that’s the price to be on iPhone and android devices. The deal, that many choose not to take, is that Apple gets 30% of things sold on their platform. Whether that’s 30% of a one time $100 fee to purchase or 30% of $1/week in digital Scooby snacks or whatever for the rest of your life.