27 ms·
Apple responds to Epic Games lawsuit, says CEO asked for special treatment
- ponker 6y agoVery surprised to see that trillion dollar lawyers addressing judges still use lazy analogies like “it’s just like shoplifting.”
- arvindch 6y agoIt wasn't even an accurate analogy. Compared apples to oranges. Heh.
- michalu 6y agoThat's because there's jury and in the US in some states you don't even need legal education to be a judge so in general it's a good practice to translate technical terms into laymen and 5th grader language, if you actually want to convince them about your point. Naturally lawyers exaggerate or manipulate the words ... they're not there to gain justice (although that's their intended purpose) but they're paid to get the decision.
- galuggus 6y agoYou don't need a legal education to be a judge? Very interesting. Could you give some more information about this. Are judges elected or bureaucrats? How does someone become a judge? What parts of the US have this system?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- michalu 6y agoGood article: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/when-your-judge-isnt-a-lawyer/515568/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/when-yo... Also federal judges don't need to be lawyers.
- ac29 6y agoIn some states you don't need a law degree to be a lawyer, either: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/education/edlife/how-to-learn-the-law-without-law-school.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/education/edlife/how-to-l...
- goldcd 6y agoIndeed. I have no sympathy for either side - but this analogy is ridiculous. Mainly as the counter argument is "Well the only reason our players have to enter your store at all, is because you make them. We'd be perfectly happy if you could let them shop with us in our store - and then you wouldn't have to worry about the shoplifting in yours"
- ponker 6y agoI’m not even concerned with the substance of the analogy. I thought law at this level wouldn’t need such intellectual crutches.
- gridlockd 6y agoThis headline makes it sound like there has been a change of heart, but Tim Sweeney has been a vocal critic of walled gardens like the App Store and the Microsoft Store, well before Fortnite was a success. The "special deal" here wouldn't have been some sort of fee waiver, it would've been to let Epic open their own store on iOS. In other words, having Apple give up its monopoly on iOS app publishing, just what the current lawsuit intends to achieve. Obviously, they weren't going to get that, but it's worth asking for it before starting a billion dollar lawsuit.
- pjmlp 6y agoApparently he doesn't have any issues with the walled gardens from game consoles.
- jimbobimbo 6y agoDo consoles take a cut for subscriptions made from consoles?
- jmccaf 6y agoFor new game purchases anyways, consoles collect platform royalties. $7 out of $60 game purchase (12%), according to 10-year old https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/02/anatomy-of-a-60-dollar-video-game.html https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/...
- jimbobimbo 6y agoWhat about IAPs and requirement to subscribe for services only from consoles?
- gridlockd 6y agoIt doesn't matter. Obviously, Epic would like to pay 0% royalties on everything and be able to publish unlicensed games on consoles. The problem is that Atari already failed in court against Nintendo back in the eighties, so the chances of winning that suit appear slim.
- jonny_eh 6y agoThis doesn't seem like a big deal. I imagine every CEO of such a big company would dare to ask for special treatment from Apple. Not doing so would be a dereliction of duty to their shareholders.
- anorphirith 6y agoI agree, I'm having a hard time understanding why people are defending Apple ... Epic is one of the few companies who could afford this fight, kudos they initiated it.
- woofie11 6y ago<sarc> Yes. Very much special treatment: "we hope that Apple will also make these options equally available to all iOS developers" </sarc> Epic seems to be fighting the good fight against a company abusing market power. I hope they win.
- randiantech 6y agoBut Tim S. explicitly said that he did not ask for special treatment. This is just that.
- SkyBelow 6y agoYou could take an interpretation that big players getting a different rate than small players isn't special treatment but normal procedure, so a big player not being given the big player rate is the special treatment. The problem with any language dealing with equality is that there are different ways to define equal and very specific definitions can result in different results. This is also true for the concept of random and there is even a mathematical paradox related to this (which is great for stripping off all the baggage that real world examples bring with them). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_paradox_(probability) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_paradox_(probability)
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jmisavage 6y agoAre they abusing market power though? 30% seems to be the standard rate for online stores. Google and Apple do it. Steam is 30%. And it’s been report that Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo also take a 30% cut. Physical store such as GameStop, Best Buy, and Walmart take 30% too. Epic only takes 12% which is great, but they’re also locking up games in exclusive deals which I think is way worse. Edit: I pulled these numbers from IGN’s article. Although I’ve seen another report that matches the 30% in most places. https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut-is-actually-the-industry-standard https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut...
- WalterGR 6y agoApple gave Amazon special treatment to get Prime Video into App Store (newsbreak.com) 2 points by dschuetz 1 hour ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24238110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24238110 Not my submission so I can’t vouch for the site. Googling shows sites more well-known are reporting on this as well.
- robert_foss 6y agoSeveral other companies have been granted special treatment. Like Amazon for example. They pay 15% not 30% as everyone else. Way to reinforce their market dominance.
- chrisballinger 6y agoIf you keep a customer with a recurring subscription for a year, Apple reduces its cut to 15%. This applies to all developers: https://www.apple.com/ios/app-store/principles-practices/ https://www.apple.com/ios/app-store/principles-practices/
- chillacy 6y agoBut based on the articles I've read, it sounds like it's 15% for all new subscriptions too, not just recurring subscriptions over a year. https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/30/21348108/apple-amazon-prime-video-app-store-special-treatment-fee-subscriptions https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/30/21348108/apple-amazon-pri... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-29/apple-considered-taking-40-cut-from-subscriptions-emails-show https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-29/apple-con...
- giovannibajo1 6y agoYes but Apple has stated that it’s a special program for video subscriptions that other developers can and has joined even before Apple (eg: Canal+). The terms are not public but it looks like they’re made available as an option to developers that have apps in that market. It looks like the discount is available if your app implements all features in the Apple video ecosystem (AirPlay2, Apple TV native app, etc.)
- _qulr 6y agoRead the emails. "We hope that Apple will also make these options equally available to all iOS developers" https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21807251/epic_apple_emails.pdf https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21807251/e... This was never a "negotiation". It's pretty clear from the beginning that both Epic and Apple were writing their emails for public consumption, not to each other. Epic knew Apple wouldn't give in, and Epic wanted to sue Apple from the beginning.
- _qulr 6y ago"Subject: Consumer Choice & Competition" They might as well have made it "Subject: Antitrust" That email would have been a pretty rude opening for someone looking for a sweetheart special deal. Not "nice" at all.
- nodamage 6y agoIt is somewhat amusing that Tim Sweeney complains that Apple's response came from their legal team when it is pretty obvious his original email was not written in good faith and was obviously written for PR purposes.
- SmartestUnknown 6y ago"we will understand that Apple is not willing to make the changes necessary to allow us to provide Android customers with the option of choosing their app store and payment processing system." Did they intend to write iOS there? That's a pretty big typo in such an important email.
- _qulr 6y agoIt's wild that there were not 20 people proofreading it beforehand. Ah, to be a billionaire running a private company.
- Youden 6y ago> It's pretty clear from the beginning that both Epic and Apple were writing their emails for public consumption I don't know if you've worked in a large company but it's fairly typical guidance that all emails be written assuming that they could be made public. The guidance I was given was "always assume what you're writing could end up on the front of the New York Times".
- onion2k 6y agoI find it really surprising that Apple didn't grant the request given the potential outcome, if Apple loses (however unlikely), ranges from Apple's app store fees being capped to Apple losing their store monopoly to even Apple being broken up. Shareholders are going to be coming after Tim Cook with torches and pitchforks if he could have easily avoided that simply by giving Epic special treatment.
- xibalba 6y agoSpecial treatment may have exposed Apple to even worse antitrust liability. It is clear from their messaging that it is critical that they maintain the appearance of treating all developers the same. Tim Cook heavily emphasized this point in his recent Congressional testimony.
- scarface74 6y agoEvery company makes deals with other companies. It’s called business. It amazes me how many lawyers are on HN.
- anoncake 6y agoTIL when I buy groceries no business happens.
- scarface74 6y agoSo you’re saying that businesses don’t make special deals with other large businesses? I bet you also think that Beyoncé and Taylor Swift get the same record deals as the random up and comer a label found singing at the bar.
- anoncake 6y agoNo, you're saying a business that treats everyone equally is a charity.
- 6y ago
- pier25 6y agoHere's the actual email and response from Epic's CEO: https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1296918541627793411 https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/129691854162779341... > Apple's statement is misleading. You can read my email in Apple's filing, which is publicly available. I specifically said in Epic's request to the Apple execs, "We hope that Apple will also make these options equally available to all iOS developers..."
- graeme 6y agoNote that the bulk of developers would not be in a position to run their own appstores as epic wanted to. Their goal is to pay less revenue to Apple but also get rid of the level playing field of the App Store. Even if Apple agreed to the demands and made the options available to all developers, Epic would have an advantage. They also have the advantage of being a trusted brand, whereas the games space is full of scammy apps. There’s a reason google specifically requires IAP in that space. Right now you don’t have to trust a game developer on apple or google to pay them. With Epic’s change, big brands would get a trust afvamtage they could use to increase their dominance. So asking to make the changes Epic requested was more self serving than it seems. Lowering apple’s commission would benefit all developers. But own IAP and separate app stores would benefit big developers, like epic.
- tikhonj 6y agoOther companies would not be able to run an appstore, but they would be able to list their work on 3rd-party appstores (and maybe have their own direct distribution channel like a website?). The point is to allow competition. One thing that would enable is narrow appstores with active curation—sort of what Apple promises but, if the store is fully of scammy games, doesn't quite deliver. A company could run a game-specific store with much stricter requirements than Apple's store.
- _qulr 6y agoIt really depends on what "app store" means. Is an indie Mac developers's web store an app store? I'd say yes. They just sell their own apps, not the apps of other developers. I'm not sure why legally this would be restricted to only app stores that contain the apps of multiple developers.
- SyneRyder 6y agoThis is such a genius move by Epic / Tim Sweeney. Apple's case hinges on them being consistent with all developers - no special treatment. Apple even says as much in their filing to the court: "On July 10, Apple responded that "Apple has never allowed this... we strongly believe these rules are vital to the health of the Apple platform and carry enormous benefits for both consumers and developers."" Except, Apple does allow it. For the WeChat app from China's Tencent: CNET (2019): WeChat messaging app brings its own 'instant apps' storefront to iPhones and iPads "This is a big deal because WeChat's catalog contains over one million apps, separately from the iOS App Store. Ordinarily, Apple would strictly prohibit such a practice -- for security reasons at least, if not for platform cohesion -- but if a western company wants to do business in China, concessions must be made." https://download.cnet.com/news/wechat-messaging-app-brings-its-own-instant-apps-storefront-to-iphones-and-ipads/ https://download.cnet.com/news/wechat-messaging-app-brings-i... The former head of App Review for Apple, Phillip Shoemaker, even said this week "WeChat's continued presence on iPhones amounts to a special exception": Apple lets China's WeChat bypass its rules, former app review chief claims https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/08/15/apple-chinas-wechat-bypass-rules-former-app-review-chief-claims/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/08/15/apple-chin... If we've reached the point that former Apple executives could be testifying on behalf of Epic... wow, this got really interesting really quickly.
- glouwbug 6y agoI mean, Fornite pulling China into this has got to backfire though, right? China is a huge profit center, and apple plays China's game because, well, money. It's like ratting out your older brother and getting beat up in the backyard the next day
- Kednicma 6y agoNo, typically this sort of legal argument goes through because the exception exists; it doesn't matter exactly what the nature of the exception is. Epic's got a solid point: Either Apple does or does not grant exceptions, and this is an example of an exception which Apple granted.
- swiley 6y agoIt’s not about cost. It’s about not being able to run bash on your phone.
- glouwbug 6y agoMaybe it's time we _bash_ our phones
- Animats 6y agoThe first part of the filing reads like it was written by Apple's PR people, not their lawyers. The antitrust issue is tying. Apple may be able to insist on a cut of things you buy via Apple. But products which create their own world in which other non-Apple things can be bought are a separate market. Apple's use of their control over the first class of sales to demand a share of the second is tying a sale in one area to a sale in another. That's not permitted by US or EU antitrust law.
- scarface74 6y agoIf that were the case is bundling any app with the OS illegal? Is Amazon Prime illegal? Are cable/internet bundles illegal? Could it possibly be that random people on HN don’t know the law?
- Animats 6y agoAre cable/internet bundles illegal? If the US had an Justice Department that wasn't totally out to lunch on antitrust enforcement, they would be. US antitrust law is far stronger in law than in practice. Wikipedia has a good summary of the history.[1] In the UK or EU, you usually have several choices for Internet or TV service. Their antitrust authorities didn't let them all merge. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_antitrust_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_antit...
- siscia 6y agoI thought it was the exact same case with the Basecamp product. But nobody is bringing it up, so there must be some qualitative differences, are there?
- m0zg 6y agoWhoever cut that sweetheart deal to Amazon is in so much trouble right now, career-wise. This is simply not going to happen for everybody else though. Apple will not forego billions of dollars in revenue for "fairness", "etchics" or whatever. This is the company which makes their product in Chinese sweatshops and benefits from Uyghur slave labor. They couldn't care less about "fairness". https://www.aspi.org.au/report/uyghurs-sale https://www.aspi.org.au/report/uyghurs-sale
- gumby 6y agoWhy should epic’s issues with its own products affect programs that embed the unreal engine? When I see an article (like this one) end with that comment it seems like a copy/paste from an Epic press release.
- ffpip 6y agoSame Apple Developer tools issued to Unreal Team?
- caiobegotti 6y agoNow I totally understand why Apple have piled up a huge mountain of cash and never spent a dime. They are going to accept anyone's challenge to court if necessary and use their 200M USD financial power to do whatever they can to keep the status quo at any price. I sincerely don't believe we as customers can win this one, fixing Apple (as we talk about here) would be something much bigger than what had been done to Microsoft in the 90s.
- graeme 6y agoYou need to re-examine how you think about things. Court is expensive, but it doesn’t take $200B dollars to go to court. Further, Apple has spent a lot of cash on buybacks. Plus its own regular spending: Apple is clearly willing to spend on R and D, production, etc Not every fact in the world has to tie together into a narrative. Falling for this is the first step in the road to conspiratorial thinking.
- caiobegotti 6y agoYou downvoted me with such condescending tone that borders an ad hominem because you did read too much on what I said and left zero space for debate. You must be proud.
- graeme 6y agoIf you think I’m wrong, feel free to present an argument that Apple has saved $200 billion in cash to fight court cases, and that they have in some way neglected to spend on priorities to fund this. Your response was ad hominem. I used a strong tone because you presented a very strong conclusion that I don’t believe to be supported by evidence. You linked a fact you don’t understand (Apple’s cash pile) to the topic de jour (Apple’s new court case). I really do think this is a starting point to conspiratorial thinking: grand conclusions on the basis of a couple ideas. Maybe the way I warned you wasn’t likely to succeed, but I meant it completely sincerely. Have a look at Apple’s stock buyback history: they spend $385 billion from 2012-2019: https://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2020/4/23/apples-460-billion-stock-buyback https://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2020/4/23/apples-460-billi... Dividends are harder to quickly find, but they seem to pay out about $12-$15 billion by year. The money paid out to investors dwarfs their cash pile. Two other facts: * A lot of Apple’s cash is overseas. They can’t easily repatriate without tax consequences * Apple has about $100 billion in debt. The cash offsets this > Now I totally understand why Apple have piled up a huge mountain of cash and never spent a dime. Given the fact above, your conclusion doesn’t seem very logical.
- Vaslo 6y agoI’ve worked for large food manufacturing companies. It is not unusual for the largest customers like Walmart and Target to ask for and receive better deals than everyone else. It’s just like any supply power situation. We had even given a Walmart a “Most favored nation” deal where if anyone were given a better net deal than anyone else, we would be forced to give Walmart the same deal. I know that calling Epic a customer is a little weird but they really are when you think about it.
- monadic2 6y ago"If we're going to extort our customers we have to do it equally"
- bobwernstein 6y agoyou mean just like Amazon?