7 ms·

You cannot install Fortnite skins/characters/emotes/etc without paying Epic. Epic has a monopoly on the Fortnite Store. It sounds pretty ridiculous to type th

by cwhiz 6y ago

You cannot install Fortnite skins/characters/emotes/etc without paying Epic. Epic has a monopoly on the Fortnite Store. It sounds pretty ridiculous to type that... but it's the same basic argument. Apple is a minority player in the smartphone market. Every single person on this (HN) site has a competitive alternative if they don't like Apple policies. If it should be illegal for Apple to have a monopoly on their own product then it stands to reason that it should be illegal for Epic to have a monopoly on their own product.

whatshisface 6y ago
>You cannot install Fortnite skins/characters/emotes/etc without paying Epic. Epic has a monopoly on the Fortnite Store. Honestly, it would not be all that bad if the community could mod Fortnite to add their own skins, like you can in many other games.
kinlan 6y ago
Epic's not a marketplace because it's all first party outside of licensed deals, its not the same thing.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- danielscrubs 6y ago
  Sounds like horrible monopolistic practices, they should open it up
  - pests 6y ago
    Next time you have a garage sale, can I drop off my junk too for you to sell?
    - scarface74 6y ago
      Well, looking at the App Store, that’s exactly what Apple does....
treesprite82 6y ago
> Apple is a minority player in the smartphone market They're the majority in the US (https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united...), which is relevant for US antitrust law. > If it should be illegal for Apple to have a monopoly on their own product then it stands to reason that it should be illegal for Epic to have a monopoly on their own product. Just because two cases can be abstracted to "monopoly on their own product" does not mean they are the same. Otherwise we'd already know the outcome from the US vs MS case.
- cwhiz 6y ago
  I am not sure of the source of that link but it is the only one I can find on the first page of DDG that suggests Apple has more than 50% of the smartphone market. Even if we take that link as fact it is not enough to constitute a monopoly. https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-share/ https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh... https://www.statista.com/statistics/620805/smartphone-sales-market-share-in-the-us-by-vendor/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/620805/smartphone-sales-... https://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market-share/vendor https://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market-share/vendor https://mobilestorm.com/digital-marketing-blog/u-s-smartphone-ownership-reaches-71-8-percent-mobile-market-penetration/ https://mobilestorm.com/digital-marketing-blog/u-s-smartphon... What percentage of the Battle Royale genre does Fortnite own? >Otherwise we'd already know the outcome from the US vs MS case Microsoft had over 95% of the market and two decades later people are still arguing whether they actually had a monopoly.
- nodamage 6y ago
  Statcounter is based on web analytics [1] and thus measures browser usage, not device sales. Market research firms indicate Apple has 46% of the smartphone market by devices sold. [2] Also, the outcome in the Microsoft case was predicated on them having 90% market share in the operating system market at the time, which does not apply here. [1] https://gs.statcounter.com/faq#methodology https://gs.statcounter.com/faq#methodology [2] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-share/ https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh...
tsycho 6y ago
Beyond a certain market share, that argument doesn't hold anymore. That's where anti-trust comes in. Which market share definition, you ask? IMHO it is the definition that defines decision making for app developers, on whether they can skip the Apple platform or not. So Apple's percentage of global smartphones doesn't matter, what matters is: - Apple's 2/3 share of app store revenues. - Apple's share of users in rich, developed markets such as US, Europe and Japan, which (source: ben-evans.com) varies between ~50-70%. It is unaffordable for app developers to skip the Apple platform, since that's where the majority of paying users are. And as a result, they should fall under anti-trust laws that protect small players.
- scarface74 6y ago
  Which market share definition, you ask? IMHO it is the definition that defines decision making for app developers, on whether they can skip the Apple platform or not. How many game developers will skip either Sony or MS unless they are paid for exclusives? Why can’t Google and all of the Android manufacturers convince people with money that they should buy Android phones?
- redwall_hp 6y ago
  And from a user perspective, there is vendor lock-in and a strong network effect keeping them on a platform. "Don't like being abused? Switch to a different platform, necessitating a $500+ hardware investment" is utter insanity. A phone is the average person's primary general computing device. Controlling what software they're "allowed" to run on it is wholly unacceptable, regardless of which laws are convenient to fix that issue.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
danudey 6y ago
Does the Epic Store allow for games which are free downloads, but where you pay for content directly from the developers rather than through Epic Store purchases? Would that be allowed? Perhaps game developers should ship their games on the Epic Store, and use Epic's resources for management, distribution, discovery, and so on, but handle all transactions themselves so that Epic doesn't get any money out of it. That sounds fair, right?
hrktb 6y ago
> Epic has a monopoly on the Fortnite Store. This will be relevant when Fortnite becomes a general purpose platform hosting third party applications that is integrated into people’s life. Wechat could be a better example, and yes, if we had the equivalent of wechat we’d be asking the same questions about their relations with third party apps.
bnolsen 6y ago
Fortnite isn't a platform, it's only a game and has merchandising for that game. Based on your argument any movie franchise has no right to own rights to merchandise involving the movie.
- mr_toad 6y ago
  > Fortnite isn't a platform, it's only a game I doubt that the accountants and marketing see it that way.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> You cannot install Fortnite skins/characters/emotes/etc without paying Epic. Epic has a monopoly on the Fortnite Store. If the only thing in the "Fortnite Store" is Epic's own products, that obviously isn't saying much and is incomparable to a store distributing third party software. If the "Fortnite Store" is distributing third party software, and there is no viable alternative way to distribute that software, then it is a monopoly, because that's what a monopoly is. It's a thing with no reasonable substitutes. The issue isn't that Apple has a monopoly on "their app store" but rather that they have a monopoly on distribution of apps to the set of customers with iOS devices. If there were competing app stores that could reach those customers or some other viable competing distribution method then they wouldn't have a monopoly on that market even if they still had complete control over "their app store" -- what makes it a monopoly is that there are no viable alternatives to it. It's the same way that Comcast has a monopoly on the network path to Comcast subscribers and uses it to collect rents from e.g. Netflix. Netflix can't reach those subscribers through any other path, there is no competition. You can't reach Comcast subscribers by peering with Verizon.
- nodamage 6y ago
  > The issue isn't that Apple has a monopoly on "their app store" but rather that they have a monopoly on distribution of apps to the set of customers with iOS devices. You keep saying this but it's unlikely that the courts will see it this way. The US legal system generally doesn't consider an aftermarket of a single brand's product to be a valid antitrust market unless specific exceptions are met. I've explained why in detail elsewhere. [1] Because it would be inappropriate to punish a firm for its natural monopoly in its own products, courts embraced a sweeping prohibition against analyzing alleged anticompetitive activity by focusing on single-brand relevant markets: "[A]bsent exceptional market conditions, one brand in a market of competing brands cannot constitute a relevant product market." [2] The court held that “the aftermarket is the relevant market for antitrust analysis only if the evidence supports an inference of monopoly power in the aftermarket that competition in the primary market appears unable to check.” [3] When a manufacturer lacks market power in the primary market, an aftermarket restriction set forth in a purchase contract is generally safe from challenge under the antitrust laws. Numerous courts have rejected aftermarket claims based on contract provisions that exclude competition in an aftermarket. Because such restrictions are disclosed to customers at the time of purchase, customers can understand and plan for the aftermarket restriction before they are locked in. [4] > what makes it a monopoly is that there are no viable alternatives to it. The court will (correctly) point at Android and ask, "why isn't that a viable alternative"? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24193731 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24193731 [2] https://casetext.com/case/metzler-v-bear-automotive-service-equipment-co https://casetext.com/case/metzler-v-bear-automotive-service-... [3] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/us-submissions-oecd-2010-present-other-international-competition-fora/aftermarkets.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/us-submissions-... (This is an excellent read for anyone curious about how aftermarkets are treated in antitrust law, btw.) [4] https://eu-competitionlaw.com/competitionantitrust-challenges-in-technology-aftermarkets/ https://eu-competitionlaw.com/competitionantitrust-challenge...
swiley 6y ago
The difference is that I fortnight isn't the only easy way to use my bank account or talk to my friends. Fortnight also isn't sold as a personal computer like the iphone is.

by cwhiz 6y ago

whatshisface 6y ago

>You cannot install Fortnite skins/characters/emotes/etc without paying Epic. Epic has a monopoly on the Fortnite Store. Honestly, it would not be all that bad if the community could mod Fortnite to add their own skins, like you can in many other games.

kinlan 6y ago

Epic's not a marketplace because it's all first party outside of licensed deals, its not the same thing.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
danielscrubs 6y ago
Sounds like horrible monopolistic practices, they should open it up
- pests 6y ago
  Next time you have a garage sale, can I drop off my junk too for you to sell?
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Well, looking at the App Store, that’s exactly what Apple does....

treesprite82 6y ago

> Apple is a minority player in the smartphone market They're the majority in the US (https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united...), which is relevant for US antitrust law. > If it should be illegal for Apple to have a monopoly on their own product then it stands to reason that it should be illegal for Epic to have a monopoly on their own product. Just because two cases can be abstracted to "monopoly on their own product" does not mean they are the same. Otherwise we'd already know the outcome from the US vs MS case.

cwhiz 6y ago
I am not sure of the source of that link but it is the only one I can find on the first page of DDG that suggests Apple has more than 50% of the smartphone market. Even if we take that link as fact it is not enough to constitute a monopoly. https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-share/ https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh... https://www.statista.com/statistics/620805/smartphone-sales-market-share-in-the-us-by-vendor/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/620805/smartphone-sales-... https://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market-share/vendor https://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market-share/vendor https://mobilestorm.com/digital-marketing-blog/u-s-smartphone-ownership-reaches-71-8-percent-mobile-market-penetration/ https://mobilestorm.com/digital-marketing-blog/u-s-smartphon... What percentage of the Battle Royale genre does Fortnite own? >Otherwise we'd already know the outcome from the US vs MS case Microsoft had over 95% of the market and two decades later people are still arguing whether they actually had a monopoly.
nodamage 6y ago
Statcounter is based on web analytics [1] and thus measures browser usage, not device sales. Market research firms indicate Apple has 46% of the smartphone market by devices sold. [2] Also, the outcome in the Microsoft case was predicated on them having 90% market share in the operating system market at the time, which does not apply here. [1] https://gs.statcounter.com/faq#methodology https://gs.statcounter.com/faq#methodology [2] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-share/ https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh...

tsycho 6y ago

Beyond a certain market share, that argument doesn't hold anymore. That's where anti-trust comes in. Which market share definition, you ask? IMHO it is the definition that defines decision making for app developers, on whether they can skip the Apple platform or not. So Apple's percentage of global smartphones doesn't matter, what matters is: - Apple's 2/3 share of app store revenues. - Apple's share of users in rich, developed markets such as US, Europe and Japan, which (source: ben-evans.com) varies between ~50-70%. It is unaffordable for app developers to skip the Apple platform, since that's where the majority of paying users are. And as a result, they should fall under anti-trust laws that protect small players.

scarface74 6y ago
Which market share definition, you ask? IMHO it is the definition that defines decision making for app developers, on whether they can skip the Apple platform or not. How many game developers will skip either Sony or MS unless they are paid for exclusives? Why can’t Google and all of the Android manufacturers convince people with money that they should buy Android phones?
redwall_hp 6y ago
And from a user perspective, there is vendor lock-in and a strong network effect keeping them on a platform. "Don't like being abused? Switch to a different platform, necessitating a $500+ hardware investment" is utter insanity. A phone is the average person's primary general computing device. Controlling what software they're "allowed" to run on it is wholly unacceptable, regardless of which laws are convenient to fix that issue.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

danudey 6y ago

Does the Epic Store allow for games which are free downloads, but where you pay for content directly from the developers rather than through Epic Store purchases? Would that be allowed? Perhaps game developers should ship their games on the Epic Store, and use Epic's resources for management, distribution, discovery, and so on, but handle all transactions themselves so that Epic doesn't get any money out of it. That sounds fair, right?

hrktb 6y ago

> Epic has a monopoly on the Fortnite Store. This will be relevant when Fortnite becomes a general purpose platform hosting third party applications that is integrated into people’s life. Wechat could be a better example, and yes, if we had the equivalent of wechat we’d be asking the same questions about their relations with third party apps.

bnolsen 6y ago

Fortnite isn't a platform, it's only a game and has merchandising for that game. Based on your argument any movie franchise has no right to own rights to merchandise involving the movie.

mr_toad 6y ago
> Fortnite isn't a platform, it's only a game I doubt that the accountants and marketing see it that way.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> You cannot install Fortnite skins/characters/emotes/etc without paying Epic. Epic has a monopoly on the Fortnite Store. If the only thing in the "Fortnite Store" is Epic's own products, that obviously isn't saying much and is incomparable to a store distributing third party software. If the "Fortnite Store" is distributing third party software, and there is no viable alternative way to distribute that software, then it is a monopoly, because that's what a monopoly is. It's a thing with no reasonable substitutes. The issue isn't that Apple has a monopoly on "their app store" but rather that they have a monopoly on distribution of apps to the set of customers with iOS devices. If there were competing app stores that could reach those customers or some other viable competing distribution method then they wouldn't have a monopoly on that market even if they still had complete control over "their app store" -- what makes it a monopoly is that there are no viable alternatives to it. It's the same way that Comcast has a monopoly on the network path to Comcast subscribers and uses it to collect rents from e.g. Netflix. Netflix can't reach those subscribers through any other path, there is no competition. You can't reach Comcast subscribers by peering with Verizon.

nodamage 6y ago
> The issue isn't that Apple has a monopoly on "their app store" but rather that they have a monopoly on distribution of apps to the set of customers with iOS devices. You keep saying this but it's unlikely that the courts will see it this way. The US legal system generally doesn't consider an aftermarket of a single brand's product to be a valid antitrust market unless specific exceptions are met. I've explained why in detail elsewhere. [1] Because it would be inappropriate to punish a firm for its natural monopoly in its own products, courts embraced a sweeping prohibition against analyzing alleged anticompetitive activity by focusing on single-brand relevant markets: "[A]bsent exceptional market conditions, one brand in a market of competing brands cannot constitute a relevant product market." [2] The court held that “the aftermarket is the relevant market for antitrust analysis only if the evidence supports an inference of monopoly power in the aftermarket that competition in the primary market appears unable to check.” [3] When a manufacturer lacks market power in the primary market, an aftermarket restriction set forth in a purchase contract is generally safe from challenge under the antitrust laws. Numerous courts have rejected aftermarket claims based on contract provisions that exclude competition in an aftermarket. Because such restrictions are disclosed to customers at the time of purchase, customers can understand and plan for the aftermarket restriction before they are locked in. [4] > what makes it a monopoly is that there are no viable alternatives to it. The court will (correctly) point at Android and ask, "why isn't that a viable alternative"? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24193731 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24193731 [2] https://casetext.com/case/metzler-v-bear-automotive-service-equipment-co https://casetext.com/case/metzler-v-bear-automotive-service-... [3] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/us-submissions-oecd-2010-present-other-international-competition-fora/aftermarkets.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/us-submissions-... (This is an excellent read for anyone curious about how aftermarkets are treated in antitrust law, btw.) [4] https://eu-competitionlaw.com/competitionantitrust-challenges-in-technology-aftermarkets/ https://eu-competitionlaw.com/competitionantitrust-challenge...

swiley 6y ago

The difference is that I fortnight isn't the only easy way to use my bank account or talk to my friends. Fortnight also isn't sold as a personal computer like the iphone is.