7 ms·

> the Court doubts that an expert would suggest a zero percent alternative It's unfortunate that the percentage cut ends up overshadowing the real antitrust is

by shados 6y ago

> the Court doubts that an expert would suggest a zero percent alternative It's unfortunate that the percentage cut ends up overshadowing the real antitrust issue, which is that Apple (and Google) essentially has the power to make or break any arbitrary business that relies on their platform. They base it on vague and loosely enforced rules, which means companies never know if tomorrow is the end. Having a locked platform in itself isn't an issue. Having an expensive locked platform isn't an issue either. Having an oligopoly of locked platforms (that are important enough that companies can't ignore) with rules that can change or be selectively enforced and have the power to destroy your business model overnight, is a big problem. Reducing the cut to 0% still wouldn't change that.

Thorentis 6y ago
Nobody is forcing Epic to use Apple's platform though. It never used to be the case, that every device you own must be able to play every game you want. You can already play Fortnite on your PC. Apple cannot stop you from owning a PC, so Apple cannot stop you from playing Fortnite. Yes, Apple is a gatekeeper for its platform. But we've known this forever. Sony is a gatekeeper for the playstation, and Microsoft is a gatekeeper for the Xbox. If developers want the lowest friction possible when releasing games, use a platform where you can release your own store (which Epic already has).
- WWLink 6y ago
  I wish there was a law saying something like "If you sell a machine that claims to do X, it does X, no exceptions." This "We'll let you develop software for OUR X out of the goodness of our heart as long as you promise not to do Y and pay us Z" BS really gets under my skin. lol I have a feeling everyone here will hate me for saying that though.
- nick_kline 6y ago
  The ability to buy other hardware devices to avoid one company's control is not a real solution. Besides that, all the major vendors are trying to push you to buy things in their controlled gardens/app stores. Instead of buying more devices (practical maybe for rich computer programmers) how about we just prevent vendor purchase lock-in. I should be able to run or buy or sell to end-users whatever software I want on my devices.
- mrich 6y ago
  At some point the platform has to be considered common infrastructure, similar to power transmission lines, the railroad or the Windows OS. Just because you happened to build a successful platform should not imply that you can hold everyone hostage - that is why antitrust is a thing.
  - unknown2374 6y ago
    There are open platforms, and due to convenience of distribution developers have reluctantly chosen these platforms over open ones. Now while I am not defending Apple's position here, developers who have chosen to distribute only on such platforms for the past few decades are partly to blame too. The success of Apple (etc.) are due to choices that developers have made, closing themselves in and then citing anti-trust when they themselves locked the doors and gave away the keys.
    - ece 6y ago
      While this is even more true for consoles, the difference is in a specific purpose vs a general purpose. General purpose platforms that become overly closed have roundly been rejected or been forced to open up: Carterfone, AOL, Windows, carrier locked phones, etc.. even iOS itself didn't allow apps at first and now does. Closed platforms for a specific purpose like consoles, kindles, rokus, etc.. do a bit better because they are 1) more likely to have competitors, and 2) have more limited impact from being specific purpose platforms, though are still capable of maintaining monopolies/duopolies. The phone market is a iOS/Android duopoly, and both are being forced to open up more. Hardly surprising.
    - Thorentis 6y ago
      Exactly. Developers loved the gravy train while it lasted. 30% cut for being put into the hands of millions of people instantly was pocket change in the 2010s. Now that the market is saturated and developers have tougher competition, they're turning on Apple. Take your money, smile that it happened, and go work on open platforms from now on.
      - 6y ago
- shados 6y ago
  iOS + Android is at least as big of a deal as Windows was back in the IE vs Netscape days. The bar for antitrust isn't "you literally cannot live without the thing". Even if you make a case that for Epic it doesn't matter that much, the Hey mail case was another big one: if you try to make a new email service and ignore Apple/Google, you're dead on arrival. That's a problem.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  Why doesn't Windows take 30% whenever you try to play a game there? I don't know about legality, but philosophically it's offensive to me that Apple and Google get to be landlords leeching off app developers. I paid for my phone. It should run the software I want it to, and if I want to buy an app for it I shouldn't need to pay Apple for the privilege.
  - swinglock 6y ago
    I'm sure they take a cut if you use the Microsoft Store. You know why Windows runs code not from the Microsoft Store. It's legacy. There wasn't always a Microsoft Store, running executable straight from floppy, CD-ROM or the Internet was the norm. Changing it now would be changing the product people already bought and break workflows. iPhone never had that legacy. From day 0 it only ran Apple code. Then it ran 3rd party code via the App Store. There was no such legacy. But there are older products with such a legacy. Didn't your old Nintendo have precisely the same rules from day 0 and so do modern consoles?
LoSboccacc 6y ago
why people keep dragging Google into this, when Android has plenty solutions for distributing APK outside their play store?
- anoncake 6y ago
  Android is better, but far from acceptable. Alternative app stores cannot install and update apps in the background. Without root that is – which Google also fights against.
  - nodamage 6y ago
    To be honest, it seems like a really bad idea to give third-party app installers root access to your phone though...
    - danielscrubs 6y ago
      You do it with Epic Game Store or Steam on Windows... why would it be any different here?
      - nodamage 6y ago
        As far as I am aware Steam does not need administrator privileges to install third-party games. I am not sure about Epic Game Store.
        jonny_eh 6y ago
        Shouldn’t that be possible on Android too then?
        anoncake 6y ago
        If Google would permit it, it would.
    - anoncake 6y ago
spott 6y ago
I mean the Microsoft Store charges 30% for games, Google play is 30%, Steam is 30%, I'm sure there are app stores I'm not thinking of that charge 30%. It seems to be the industry standard App Store cut.
- mekster 6y ago
  Maybe you just play some games and never were a developer but 30% sounds like a huge fee when you literally have no other way to sell than to use dominating platforms of iOS, Android and Steam. It was only natural that some successful company would start the fight on behalf of everyone else thinking the cut is too high. For users, it could mean the reduction of price but users are just too satisfied, they don't care what the developers think but be pets on the platforms.
- marcel-garus 6y ago
  The problem is that you can't get your software onto iOS any other way, but you can get programs on Windows without going through the Microsoft Store or Steam and Apps onto Android without going through the Play Store.
- shados 6y ago
  Yeah, the cut is basically irrelevant. It's the power Apple/Google holds that's a problem.
  - Zenbit_UX 6y ago
    No, it's highly relevant. Consider Spotify vs Apple music. If Spotify has to charge X + 30% to subscriber's on iPhone in order to make X then they absolutely can't compete on price if Apple simply charges X.
    - naikrovek 6y ago
      It's not relevant. The cut taken is not the point. It's that the app store is the only avenue onto an iOS device. EVERY OTHER meaningful computing platform (that is, not solely a gaming device) has multiple avenues to acquire and install software. Not iOS, and that's the issue. I don't know why I keep expecting users here to understand this. It's not going to happen.
himinlomax 6y ago
> It's unfortunate that the percentage cut ends up overshadowing the real antitrust issue The merits of the antitrust part are not supposed to be handled in a TRO. Its purpose is to maintain the status quo and limit possibly irreparable damages while the complex issues are debated in court. Here the 30% cut is important because it's a matter of deciding what a reasonable number would be. In the case most favorable to Epic, it could be reduced to a lower value after a lengthy court process, but it would not necessarily change the nature of the market / economy. In other antitrust cases, you could have situations where the continued infringement by a near monopolistic entity would indeed qualify for a restraining order as the final judgment would arrive after the smaller competitor would be long dead.
- panpanna 6y ago
  > In the case most favorable to Epic, it could be reduced to a lower value No. The most favourable outcome would be allowing Epic and others who already have their own sales and payment channels to use them alongside the app store payment system. I think that's the main reason this lawsuit exists. I don't think Epic or Spotify really want to creat their own iOS app store.
  - the_lucifer 6y ago
    Epic (Tim Sweeney) explicitly says that if not for App Store policies, they would launch an alternate App Store on iOS in the set of emails to Tim Cook that Apple submitted to the court: > 2. A competing Epic Games Store app available through the iOS App Store and through direct installation that has equal access to underlying operating system features for software installation and update as the iOS App Store itself has, including the ability to install and update software as seamlessly as the iOS App Store experience. [1] [1] 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..., Exhibit D, Page 2, Point 2.

by shados 6y ago

Thorentis 6y ago

Nobody is forcing Epic to use Apple's platform though. It never used to be the case, that every device you own must be able to play every game you want. You can already play Fortnite on your PC. Apple cannot stop you from owning a PC, so Apple cannot stop you from playing Fortnite. Yes, Apple is a gatekeeper for its platform. But we've known this forever. Sony is a gatekeeper for the playstation, and Microsoft is a gatekeeper for the Xbox. If developers want the lowest friction possible when releasing games, use a platform where you can release your own store (which Epic already has).

WWLink 6y ago
I wish there was a law saying something like "If you sell a machine that claims to do X, it does X, no exceptions." This "We'll let you develop software for OUR X out of the goodness of our heart as long as you promise not to do Y and pay us Z" BS really gets under my skin. lol I have a feeling everyone here will hate me for saying that though.
nick_kline 6y ago
The ability to buy other hardware devices to avoid one company's control is not a real solution. Besides that, all the major vendors are trying to push you to buy things in their controlled gardens/app stores. Instead of buying more devices (practical maybe for rich computer programmers) how about we just prevent vendor purchase lock-in. I should be able to run or buy or sell to end-users whatever software I want on my devices.
mrich 6y ago
At some point the platform has to be considered common infrastructure, similar to power transmission lines, the railroad or the Windows OS. Just because you happened to build a successful platform should not imply that you can hold everyone hostage - that is why antitrust is a thing.
- unknown2374 6y ago
  There are open platforms, and due to convenience of distribution developers have reluctantly chosen these platforms over open ones. Now while I am not defending Apple's position here, developers who have chosen to distribute only on such platforms for the past few decades are partly to blame too. The success of Apple (etc.) are due to choices that developers have made, closing themselves in and then citing anti-trust when they themselves locked the doors and gave away the keys.
  - ece 6y ago
    While this is even more true for consoles, the difference is in a specific purpose vs a general purpose. General purpose platforms that become overly closed have roundly been rejected or been forced to open up: Carterfone, AOL, Windows, carrier locked phones, etc.. even iOS itself didn't allow apps at first and now does. Closed platforms for a specific purpose like consoles, kindles, rokus, etc.. do a bit better because they are 1) more likely to have competitors, and 2) have more limited impact from being specific purpose platforms, though are still capable of maintaining monopolies/duopolies. The phone market is a iOS/Android duopoly, and both are being forced to open up more. Hardly surprising.
  - Thorentis 6y ago
    Exactly. Developers loved the gravy train while it lasted. 30% cut for being put into the hands of millions of people instantly was pocket change in the 2010s. Now that the market is saturated and developers have tougher competition, they're turning on Apple. Take your money, smile that it happened, and go work on open platforms from now on.
    - 6y ago
shados 6y ago
iOS + Android is at least as big of a deal as Windows was back in the IE vs Netscape days. The bar for antitrust isn't "you literally cannot live without the thing". Even if you make a case that for Epic it doesn't matter that much, the Hey mail case was another big one: if you try to make a new email service and ignore Apple/Google, you're dead on arrival. That's a problem.
ALittleLight 6y ago
Why doesn't Windows take 30% whenever you try to play a game there? I don't know about legality, but philosophically it's offensive to me that Apple and Google get to be landlords leeching off app developers. I paid for my phone. It should run the software I want it to, and if I want to buy an app for it I shouldn't need to pay Apple for the privilege.
- swinglock 6y ago
  I'm sure they take a cut if you use the Microsoft Store. You know why Windows runs code not from the Microsoft Store. It's legacy. There wasn't always a Microsoft Store, running executable straight from floppy, CD-ROM or the Internet was the norm. Changing it now would be changing the product people already bought and break workflows. iPhone never had that legacy. From day 0 it only ran Apple code. Then it ran 3rd party code via the App Store. There was no such legacy. But there are older products with such a legacy. Didn't your old Nintendo have precisely the same rules from day 0 and so do modern consoles?

LoSboccacc 6y ago

why people keep dragging Google into this, when Android has plenty solutions for distributing APK outside their play store?

anoncake 6y ago
Android is better, but far from acceptable. Alternative app stores cannot install and update apps in the background. Without root that is – which Google also fights against.
- nodamage 6y ago
  To be honest, it seems like a really bad idea to give third-party app installers root access to your phone though...
  - danielscrubs 6y ago
    You do it with Epic Game Store or Steam on Windows... why would it be any different here?
    - nodamage 6y ago
      As far as I am aware Steam does not need administrator privileges to install third-party games. I am not sure about Epic Game Store.
      - jonny_eh 6y ago
        Shouldn’t that be possible on Android too then?
        anoncake 6y ago
        If Google would permit it, it would.
  - anoncake 6y ago

spott 6y ago

I mean the Microsoft Store charges 30% for games, Google play is 30%, Steam is 30%, I'm sure there are app stores I'm not thinking of that charge 30%. It seems to be the industry standard App Store cut.

mekster 6y ago
Maybe you just play some games and never were a developer but 30% sounds like a huge fee when you literally have no other way to sell than to use dominating platforms of iOS, Android and Steam. It was only natural that some successful company would start the fight on behalf of everyone else thinking the cut is too high. For users, it could mean the reduction of price but users are just too satisfied, they don't care what the developers think but be pets on the platforms.
marcel-garus 6y ago
The problem is that you can't get your software onto iOS any other way, but you can get programs on Windows without going through the Microsoft Store or Steam and Apps onto Android without going through the Play Store.
shados 6y ago
Yeah, the cut is basically irrelevant. It's the power Apple/Google holds that's a problem.
- Zenbit_UX 6y ago
  No, it's highly relevant. Consider Spotify vs Apple music. If Spotify has to charge X + 30% to subscriber's on iPhone in order to make X then they absolutely can't compete on price if Apple simply charges X.
  - naikrovek 6y ago
    It's not relevant. The cut taken is not the point. It's that the app store is the only avenue onto an iOS device. EVERY OTHER meaningful computing platform (that is, not solely a gaming device) has multiple avenues to acquire and install software. Not iOS, and that's the issue. I don't know why I keep expecting users here to understand this. It's not going to happen.

himinlomax 6y ago

> It's unfortunate that the percentage cut ends up overshadowing the real antitrust issue The merits of the antitrust part are not supposed to be handled in a TRO. Its purpose is to maintain the status quo and limit possibly irreparable damages while the complex issues are debated in court. Here the 30% cut is important because it's a matter of deciding what a reasonable number would be. In the case most favorable to Epic, it could be reduced to a lower value after a lengthy court process, but it would not necessarily change the nature of the market / economy. In other antitrust cases, you could have situations where the continued infringement by a near monopolistic entity would indeed qualify for a restraining order as the final judgment would arrive after the smaller competitor would be long dead.

panpanna 6y ago
> In the case most favorable to Epic, it could be reduced to a lower value No. The most favourable outcome would be allowing Epic and others who already have their own sales and payment channels to use them alongside the app store payment system. I think that's the main reason this lawsuit exists. I don't think Epic or Spotify really want to creat their own iOS app store.
- the_lucifer 6y ago
  Epic (Tim Sweeney) explicitly says that if not for App Store policies, they would launch an alternate App Store on iOS in the set of emails to Tim Cook that Apple submitted to the court: > 2. A competing Epic Games Store app available through the iOS App Store and through direct installation that has equal access to underlying operating system features for software installation and update as the iOS App Store itself has, including the ability to install and update software as seamlessly as the iOS App Store experience. [1] [1] 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..., Exhibit D, Page 2, Point 2.