22 ms·

I can't see how Epic wins this. If Stripe can claim Wells Fargo doesn't want to process porn payments, and that's legal, how can an American court rule for Epi

I can't see how Epic wins this. If Stripe can claim Wells Fargo doesn't want to process porn payments, and that's legal, how can an American court rule for Epic? Epic are obviously going to lose, and lose hard, or set a precedent that's going to screw every payment provider in America and open a flood gate for fraudulent payments. You can't force someone to sell something they don't want to, especially because Apple is nowhere near a monopoly in games or gaming sales, they can just point at steam. If somehow the American courts arrive at that judgement, and I am a non-lawyer, I put my hands up, but surely it's going to set all sorts of nasty precedents? Edit: The more I think about it the more absurd this is. It's as if some random brand of Mayo is suing Wallmart for not stocking their brand on their shelves. There is absolutely no way they can win this, unless American courts are going to start allowing "mom & pop" random ketchup brand to force Wallmart to stock it on their shelves. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on phones, it doesn't have a monopoly on games, it's got a store front you can buy stuff from, and if you don't want to play by their rules, then bye-bye. Wallmart choose their suppliers, and sets the markup, why can't Apple?

_qulr 6y ago
The iPhone is not a store. The App Store is a store. Epic wants to be on the iPhone, but not necessarily in the App Store. Ideally, Epic wants to run its own store on the iPhone. In any case, App Store is the only store in town, where the "town" is the 1.5 billion iOS users. If there's only 1 store, with no competing stores, that's an entirely different situation legally.
- Spivak 6y ago
  Apple will do just fine arguing that their devices are no different from Xbox, PlayStation, Switch, Roku, Cable Boxes, Keurig, Vzw feature phones. I would be extremely surprised if the courts just up and anti-Tivo’d every device on the planet. You try to make a case about how phones are somehow special but they’re really not. You have millions of people who only have an Xbox and so you can’t reach them unless you contract with MS.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    The case is not about closed platforms in general, it's about monopolistic behavior. In the US (the legal jurisdiction), Apple is the largest smartphone vendor by far, with ~50% market share. Epic is trying to show that Apple is abusing its market dominance. That's the case.
    - bmarquez 6y ago
      Apple has 52.4% mobile marketshare in the US[1] The Justice department has said that more that 50% is generally required to be considered a monopoly power, but 70% is a stronger case[2] (not a lawyer, if someone can parse this better please do) [1]https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held-by-smartphone-platforms-in-the-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held... [2]https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-2 https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-...
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - Spivak 6y ago
      The PS4 has 58% of the gaming console market currently. I’m trying to figure out where the monopoly argument comes from. Apple hasn’t demonstrated that they have monopoly pricing power since even the Windows store takes 30% and they’re obviously using their dominance in the smartphone space to advantage themselves in… the smartphone space.
      - ViViDboarder 6y ago
        Windows and the Apple App Store don’t complete with each other. Also, if PlayStation has control of that much of the market, perhaps there ought to be some regulations there as well. Does Sony similarly force all in game sales to use their payment processor and forbid you from mentioning it or encouraging folks to pay you directly?
- treeman79 6y ago
  Monopoly. At some point this will head to regulators
- jonny_eh 6y ago
  Similarly, if I can buy an iPhone from a store (like Target), and it contains a store… why can't I get Fortnite from the App Store then buy V-Bucks from Fortnite?
  - JiNCMG 6y ago
    You can also before leave Target you can pickup a vbucks card that cost Epic 30% as well.
    - jonny_eh 6y ago
      But on the iPhone, I don't buy V-bucks in the App Store, I buy it in Fortnite, and if Epic can go through the trouble of processing the payment, they deserve all the proceeds.
    - romanoderoma 6y ago
      Conversely, if you sell iPhones you only get 10% at most by Apple (Retailers' margins have been reduced to 4.5 per cent from 6.5 per cent, and it further reduces to 1.5-2 per cent if the customer opts to pay by card for the iPhone X). Why?
- Aeolun 6y ago
  Yeah, I bought a $1000 device, but somehow Apple gets to decide what I run on it? I just cannot see how that is a desireable situation.
  - mcphage 6y ago
    It's true for every video game console, which have run to up to $600. I'm not sure if $400 makes that much of a difference.
    - Causality1 6y ago
      A game console is not a general-purpose computer.
      - yladiz 6y ago
        What is the definition of "general purpose computer"?
        Causality1 6y ago
        One that is advertised as not constrained to a single genre of use. Game consoles are for entertainment. Consumption. That's why I can say "game console" and you know exactly what I'm talking about. Smartphones are for anything and everything. "There's an app for that."
        JiNCMG 6y ago
        Not a legal classification.
        Causality1 6y ago
        I'm making a moral argument, not a legal one. Legally Apple can do whatever they want and I give Epic's lawsuit a very low chance of doing anything at all.
        6y ago
- Fezzik 6y ago
  Think of the iPhone as a mall then - it still gets to pick its tenants by whatever criteria it sees fit (that are not illegal, and fees are not illegal). Epic is not winning this one. Edit: added the bit about fees.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    > Think of the iPhone as a mall then Why?
    - Fezzik 6y ago
      Because the comment I was replying to was saying to think of the iPhone as a store... I was following the analogy and expanding on it because I thought it was inaccurate.
      - _qulr 6y ago
        You were replying to my comment, which said "The iPhone is not a store."
        Fezzik 6y ago
        Ha, you are obviously correct! I stand by my Mall analogy ; )
    - dannyr 6y ago
      But there are only 2 malls! Iphone and Android.
  - ViViDboarder 6y ago
    Sure, but does that one mall capture 50% of all physical good sales nationwide? This is an issue of monopoly power, which depends on scale. If you use an analogy that doesn’t demonstrate the same market power, of course it’s going to seem absurd.
    - Fezzik 6y ago
- lstroud 6y ago
  Can’t Epic build their own phone? Are their barriers to entry that Apple has put in place to prevent them from building and selling a phone?
  - sabujp 6y ago
    surely you jest. Has samsung been able to get a flagship phone sold without android?
    - uberduper 6y ago
      Samsung made phones before Android existed.
    - Twisell 6y ago
      Well the point being that the smartphone market is suffering from poor alternative. If so many people here seems to believe that neither iOS, nor Android, provide both flexibility and privacy they seek market opportunity might be ripe for new competitors.
      - woko 6y ago
        The issue is that new competitors have to go against... Apple and Google. Given what happened to Epic (retaliation on Unreal Engine after #FreeFortnite), you can be sure that any competitor which would get a little bit of traction would be hammered into the ground by some Apple/Google money-powered shenanigans.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      Plenty, Symbian, Bada OS before Android was born, and Tizen is a thing in Asian.
- sbuk 6y ago
  Why do they have a right to be on the platform?
- boublepop 6y ago
  I would also like to run my own store in the corner of Walmart’s buildings. Obviously I can’t force that through a lawsuit or by claiming that wallmart is abusing their monopoly on space in their buildings by only allowing their own store to operate in their buildings.
ryandrake 6y ago
Yea, I just don't understand Epic's endgame here. Even if they win, Apple will never let them back on the AppStore. They sued them! If I owned a grocery chain and one of my suppliers sued me, I would never choose to sell their products again in my store, regardless of the outcome. Suing someone is like burning the bridge. What is Epic hoping for here? Unless they are counting on the judge actually forcing a store to sell Epic's products, which would be a very scary precedent!
- _qulr 6y ago
  > Apple will never let them back on the AppStore. Apple's statement today: "We hope that we can work together again in the future". Also, Apple requested that Epic submit a new rule-compliant version of Fortnite. I think Apple would be happy to have Epic back and paying 30%, which is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It won't break Apple if they don't get that money, but it's still nice money, with little work required from Apple.
  - Aeolun 6y ago
    > We hope that we can work together again in the future That doesn’t surprise me at all. Apple wants 30% of that sweet sweet pie.
  - ribosometronome 6y ago
    >with little work required from Apple. Outside of the billions of dollars and a decade spent developing and marketing a platform on which Fortnite can be consumed.
    - _qulr 6y ago
      Sure, the platform takes a lot of money to create, but the marginal costs of adding or subtracting an individual developer in the App Store are almost nothing.
- stephc_int13 6y ago
  I don't think this fight is 100% rational here. There is a good chance they will only lose money. It seems like Tim Sweeney is taking it personally, he is rich enough and has enough power at Epic to take the risk. As an indie game developer I can tell you that the AppStore is a pain and everyone would thank Epic if they manage to break or even change it, at this would lead to a large domino effect.
hakfoo 6y ago
> Wallmart choose their suppliers, and sets the markup, why can't Apple? But, at the end of the day, Walmart can't prevent customers from proceeding to Kroger down the street to get the products or deals they want. That's the market regulator of last resort in most circumstances. You say "Apple doesn't have a monopoly on phones or games". In the broad view, you may be right, but they've spent significant effort in creating a closed ecosystem with non-trivial switching costs, inside of which they DO have complete gatekeeping power. They may not have a full "prevent the customers from going to Kroger" power, but they can basically say "here's a several hundred dollar toll to leave our store, and BTW, we won't let you back in for anything else we sell", which is a pretty high barrier. Is the only available counterweight for their behaviour "drop everything and buy a new $500 phone to express your discontent?" Google gets out of this with their hands much cleaner-- they can retreat to "Well, you can sideload apps". Epic proved they can make that a viable business that way on Android. But iOS offers nothing resembling that without asking consumers to jailbreak their devices, which is probably beyond reasonable accommodation. I'm sort of amazed they're so desperate to cling to the no-sideload mentality. Offering sideloading with a lot of big angry red warnings immediately defuses the vast majority of anti-competition complaints, while still being scary enough that most name-brand software isn't going to immediately drop off the App Store. I'd also think it presents a welcoming option for some hobby developers, where even the $100 annual developer fees are prohibitive, until they can show there's enough of a business there to justify going to the real App Store.
- ribosometronome 6y ago
  Using cost of switching as an alternative would seemingly have ramifications that could be applied to almost everything from Fortnite skins to membership stores to video game consoles to state governments.
  - JiNCMG 6y ago
    I have all $1000s invested in XBox platform but I want to play on the PS4. Can I sue MS?
    - 6y ago
sfifs 6y ago
> You can't force someone to sell something they don't want to, especially because Apple is nowhere near a monopoly... The case is going to not about that. The case is going to be about Apple not allowing developers to tell their users that they can buy subscriptions and in-app goods for cheaper through alternative payment mechanisms where Apple cannot take a cut. Payments is what is this is about (also see the FB release today). Apple doesn't have to sell anything it doesn't want to but what it's doing is also preventing apps from telling users where they can buy these goods outside of Apple store unless Apple is offered a cut. This behavior has a high chance of failing on anti-trust if it goes to a jury trial which is what Epic is trying to force (and likely others like Facebook will join or also sue) because Apple store is the only way people can install apps on iOS.
- bobdole12345 6y ago
  Yeah, it's really unfair that the farmer got so angry when I was banging his daughter while staying at his house. I don't think I should have to listen to the farmers rules when he's got such a sweet daughter there.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - smichel17 6y ago
    I think this is a surprisingly good analogy. Let's make it explicit (now in two ways) -- the daughter here seems to represent iPhone owners. So, getting to the crux of the disagreement -- the way you've stated it, fair enough. What about when the farmer is actually the owner and landlord of just over half the homes in the US? Assuming enthusiastic consent from the daughter to [play Fortnite], it's not so reasonable to require her to "just move into a property your dad doesn't own", especially if the 50% he owns make up the nicer half. There's a bunch of other places you can take this analogy. I like Epic as a pickup artist here -- in it for their enjoyment, not any caring for the daughter. And some users (daughters?) have chosen to live on Dad's property precisely because he gets to keep the less savory types away, even if it means they have a more limited choice of partners. At the end of the day, I'm personally against the farmer-baron (thus, temporarily and uneasily allied with the pickup artist). It's the daughter's body, and I believe she should be able to make her own choices. Partiarchy is one solution to unsavory suitors, but I don't think it's the best one.
gnopgnip 6y ago
This is like in Amazon sold a fridge and said you can only shop at Whole Foods. Epic wants users to be able to shop at stores other than Whole Foods, not to be carried at that store without a markup
- nodamage 6y ago
  The remedy in this scenario is to simply not buy Amazon fridges, not have the government step in and force Amazon to change its fridges. Legal intervention should not occur unless Amazon was the only fridge seller in the world.
  - alexashka 6y ago
    You've described a monopoly. Please google duopoly now. Also feel free to familiarize yourself with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L... By your logic, companies should be able to price fix and collude in any way they see fit because it's more than one company. Facepalm.
    - nodamage 6y ago
      Nothing I said has anything to do with price fixing and collusion, so I am not sure why you are bringing it up. > Facepalm. This kind of snark is really unnecessary.
      - alexashka 6y ago
        > Nothing I said has anything to do with price fixing and collusion Let me take a breath and collect myself. > The remedy in this scenario is to simply not buy Amazon fridges, not have the government step in and force Amazon to change its fridges. If we have two companies that sell fridges and they've both agreed to not lower their prices and to not let people repair them, your solution is to not buy from company A? How does that solve anything when they're colluding with company B? That's called a duopoly - something I asked you to google. > Legal intervention should not occur unless Amazon was the only fridge seller in the world. Do you understand why this is wrong given what I've said above?
Stevvo 6y ago
"How can an American court rule for Epic?" It's unlikely, but In an EU court, it's a different kettle of fish. Maybe Epic's play for a favourable ruling in Spotify Vs Apple in the EU?
newbie578 6y ago
How many times do we have to repeat ourselves regarding Apple and monopoly here on HN. For the love of god, don't go spouting stuff and saying there is no way Epic can win when your whole premises is simply wrong. First, learn what a monopoly is. It is when a company has over 50% marketshare in a certain market/industry (although sometimed an even lesser market share is required to call for anti-trust). Second, learn what is Apple's marketshare in the U.S. Hint: it is around 51%. And no, it doesn't matter if Apple is under 20% worldwide, the U.S. courts don't care for the world's marketshare, but the U.S. market and consumer, just like the EU looks after EU citizens. Q.E.D. Apple has monopolistic power in the U.S. and needs to be dealt with. Let's not even get started trying to compare Nintendo and Apple on the same playing field. Try going a week without your Switch, or a week without your smartphone. Like it or not, having a smartphone in the 21st century has become a necessity and I would dare say a basic modern human right, since are lives are intertwined with it. Our phones have become our wallets, keys, health regulators, entertainment, cameras, connectors to other people and so much more. It has become a tool far too important to leave unchecked. Sorry If I came as rude, but I am exhausted by people repeating the same (wrong) points in defending Apple and spreading missinformation. The day Apple feels the hammer of justice, is the day I get drunk and celebrate like New Year's Eve
- kalleboo 6y ago
  > Hint: it is around 51% And if you look at App Store revenue share, which is probably more relevant in this case (developers need to target the platform where the revenue is), it's closer to 70%
- jkelleyrtp 6y ago
  I don't see a way in which Apple is abusing its monopolistic threshold within its competition. Apple slides in at 45% of phone purchases in the US market. That's 122 million people choosing something else. Now, that's not marketshare, but Apple has convinced consumers that their product is worth the markup - clearly evident by the increased marketshare. I don't understand the desire to regulate a business that has clearly demonstrated value in a highly competitive market - if you don't want an iPhone, join the other 122 million Americans or 2.3 Billion people with an android. _You_ may believe > Q.E.D. Apple has monopolistic power in the U.S. and needs to be dealt with. but by and large, monopolistic control and anti-trust cases are only brought to court if they are used to negatively impact consumers. In Apple's position, they believe they are doing the better thing for the consumer. If their argument holds water in court, then who is the US government to tell Apple if that business strategy is sound? If the market wants something different or better, then it will decide. Things would be different if Apple were attacking other platforms, but instead, they're simply moderating their own.
phendrenad2 6y ago
Even if they lose, they win. "Oh you can't play Fortnite on IPhones" is a seriously bad place for Apple to be. Don't even get me started on "Oh you can't use the most popular game engine to make games for IPhone". It'll shift market share toward Android, where presumably some users will learn to sideload and save Epic some money.
- sharken 6y ago
  My thoughts exactly, games matter to buyers. If users know they save on in-game purchases then they will sideload where it matters, e.g. Fortnite. Am getting an Android phone the next time, which is about the only effective thing a consumer can do about this.
- LexGray 6y ago
  More likely it will shift market share to consoles. Epic will still lose their 30% cut and Apple will still sell what they did before. I do not foresee “can play Epic Games” as a phone marketing strategy.
  - hrktb 6y ago
    > phone marketing I find it interesting that we still call those “phones” when for a sizeable part of the population they are mostly portable gaming machine to kill time when they’re bored. Not Fortnite, of course, more easier games.
LanceH 6y ago
Epic has installs on phones which paid the iPhone tax. Those can't be updated and are made worthless, causing damage to Epic. Removing an app in violation is one thing. Removing them as a developer and preventing them from updating apps which have been paid for may violate something, somewhere. I'm sure Apple's contract absolves themselves of all responsibility, but there is at least some argument there. That's the best I can come up with. Personally I won't run an iPhone.
SkyPuncher 6y ago
> If Stripe can claim Wells Fargo doesn't want to process porn payments, and that's legal, how can an American court rule for Epic? 1. Stripe is a minor player overall. Lots of other credit card processors 2. Stripe is not preventing you from collecting payments from your customers. You can use a different payment processors.
- gwd 6y ago
  > You can use a different payment processors. And you can use a different device to play Fortnite; for instance, a laptop/desktop or an Android tablet w/ sideloading capabilities.
  - SkyPuncher 6y ago
    You might be able to, but not every consumer can. You're presenting a fundamentally different argument than a business changing which provider they use to collect credit card payments.
- LexGray 6y ago
  You can load vBucks directly through the Epic website now. Apple is not preventing that. They are preventing advertising it on device and bypassing their on device payment processing. All Epic needed to do was disable in-app purchases like Netflix did if they wanted to get their money directly. Customer wants to get vBucks. Epic support site says go here. Inconvenient? Certainly. But it is clearly delineated who you are giving money to and how. You are leaving the app ecosystem and entering the open web with the need for additional caution. Short of a warning pop up where you need to type your passcode I would not want less from the current system. Say Epic decides to auto bill you every time you open a loot box?
wsc981 6y ago
I doubt Apple could or would really want to ban the Unreal engine, right? I guess at some point Epic could create a new Apple account again (perhaps after some court order by a judge) and just continue testing their engine on devices. They don't need to release games themselves on the AppStore, as long as 3rd party devs can release software based on the Unreal engine on the AppStore. I think what Epic wants to see gone is Apple's condition that IAP sold on the AppStore should be priced the same on any other outlets (e.g. websites, Play store, etc...). And I can see a judge agreeing this is unfair of Apple to ask. As for me, I mostly like the idea of the AppStore. As a consumer I feel more confident downloading software from the AppStore as compared to e.g. the Play store. What I don't like about the AppStore is that discovery of new products is very hard. And there also doesn't seem to be an easy way to look for apps that are ad-free or that becomes ad-free by paying a 1 time IAP fee.
- ramy_d 6y ago
  mobile game discovery is big pain point for devs as well, and that none of Apple/Google seem to do anything about is frustrating. This is in sharp contrast to, say, steam, where discovery is something they are constantly trying to improve.
  - JiNCMG 6y ago
    Funny cause both stores (App and Play) are always promoting games to me. Usually crap like Fortnite which stinks on any mobile device. Yes devs have to pay for those promos but just like in Steam, Retail and all the console markets you pay for marketing.
    - ramy_d 6y ago
      Yes you can pay for promotional spots on both mobile stores and steam, but that is not to say that they are remotely similar in terms of discoverability. Discoverability would include things like a recommendation algorithm but also filtering features, promotional spotting, social graph relevance (do my friends own this game? do they want to?) and general UI accessibility, to name some factors. Steam has put so much work into making sure users can find a title (regardless of that title's marketing budget) that fits their arbitrary preferences that they are now LEAGUES ahead of mobile stores on that metric. One example that is easiest to point out is the main carousel (and entire front page) of the steam store. Everyone's carousel is customized to their profile and will show both old games and new based on an algo that weighs your preferences against a title's relevance and performance metrics. The irony that google, a company that made its name in SEARCH, has an app store who's discoverability is so abysmal that i can't find certain titles without explicitly typing in the name or digging through 100s of "more titles like this" lists is not lost on me. It's just really bad. The game categories are too few in numbers, and there's no tagging to speak of so finding something remotely hybrid is a pain and the categories themselves have become unhelpful.
stormdennis 6y ago
Walmart and Apple are not equivalent examples. A better analogy for the iphone would be your house. Apple sells you a house and then takes a cut of everything you buy for it. It's able to do that because you can only buy stuff for your house through their shop. To a very meaningful extent your house is not your own despite the fact that it is your property.
jurip 6y ago
Someone commented that it seems unlikely that Epic gets a legal victory out of this, but they may get a legislative victory. It's very possible Apple will win the case, but all the App Store fights that have been in the news more or less every day recently should at least be looked at when the US and EU consider new regulations.
Animats 6y ago
This is new legal territory. I was talking to an Silicon Valley antitrust lawyer today. There are no clear precedents in this area. Whatever is decided here will affect many later cases. So this case is being followed closely by lawyers in the antitrust community. Is this tying? We don't know. It's not a form of tying that's come up before. That doesn't mean it's not tying. Antitrust law is very general. This case is taking a different path than most antitrust cases. The plaintiff is asking for an injunction. It's not about money damages. It's going to be very interesting. Tying in general is insisting that customers buy thing B, which they don't want, to get thing A, which they do want. The term "B picture" in movies comes from such an arrangement. Exhibitors had to run B pictures to get A pictures. That was knocked down by a lawsuit from Syufy, who went on to build dome-shaped theaters in Silicon Valley such as the ones near Google HQ. At one time the film studios owned many of their own theaters, which is why you see big old theaters named Warner, Paramount, or Fox. That was ended by an antitrust decision. Tying cases are rare. You can look them up.[1] They come in many shapes and sizes. Examples of tying include trailer park operators requiring new land lessors to purchase a new trailer from them, similar cases involving marina boat slips and boat maintenance, Visa requiring merchants accepting their credit card to also accept their debit card, telcos requiring or deceptively inducing customers to pay for inside wire maintenance, and the one people here may remember, Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. It is definitely, as the judge said, not a slam dunk for either side. [1] http://app3.naag.org/antitrust/search/advSearchCivil.php http://app3.naag.org/antitrust/search/advSearchCivil.php
m00x 6y ago
Microsoft didn't have a monopoly on computers, yet it was guilty of pushing all their users to use their apps over others. Apple and Google are the only major phone OS's. If they control what you can install on your phone, they have a monopoly. > Wallmart choose their suppliers, and sets the markup, why can't Apple? You're really comparing setting up a physical store to building world class operating system and phones? Almost anyone can set up shop and start selling things that Walmart isn't, or from suppliers who won't deal with Walmart, but it's not how tech worms. You're living in a different reality.
- nodamage 6y ago
  Microsoft had a monopoly over the operating system market (95% market share). > If they control what you can install on your phone, they have a monopoly. That's not how monopoly power is (legally) defined.
ArkVark 6y ago
Fortnite players on iOS might move to any other device instead to play, where Epic has lower commissions. That's a win.
MobiusHorizons 6y ago
If I understand correctly, the difference is that apple owns both the store and the payment processor, and require exclusive use of the payment processor (with associated uncompetitive fees) to gain access to the store. This would be somewhat akin to Wells Fargo also being in the business selling porn while not processing payments for anyone else who competes with their product. In the current climate, it seems unlikely a judge would rule against apple for anticompetitive behavior, but there are several reasonable cases to be made that this is anticompetitive and even anticonsumer.
StreamBright 6y ago
>> You can't force someone to sell something they don't want to, especially because Apple is nowhere near a monopoly in games or gaming sales, they can just point at steam. I think this depends on the basis of the rejection. If you can prove that they are not selling because of discrimination then you can force them. The question how can you prove it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
arvinsim 6y ago
Personally, I think that the concept of monopoly must be reevaluated in the context of the digital age we live in. Our current definition simply was not made with digital in mind.
belorn 6y ago
> or set a precedent that's going to screw every payment provider in America and open a flood gate for fraudulent payments. ... > but surely it's going to set all sorts of nasty precedents? Just going to comment on this part. Supreme court decisions has a long history of making very narrow decisions, and in that question there is a clear out that they could use. The precedent can be that apple can refuse epic if it is in order to prevent fraudulent payments, but not in order to enforce a 30% tax in an online market place. That would narrow the decision down and allow payment providers to operate like they do now, but not apple. It would also not force wallmart to stock "mom & pop" random ketchup brand, because it would not be a online market and the purpose would not be to enforce a 30% tax. Courts have a lot of room to narrow decisions down based on intent, on circumstances, and even the outcome on the specific market as a whole.
boudin 6y ago
The mayo comparison doesn't hold. People go to multiple shop. Apple only allows one shop. It's definitely the first step of a fight. It's hard to know what the end game is for Epic, but there's several possibilities I can think of: - moving towards gettibg their own app store, they did this move on computers already. Apple and google start to get under scrutiny for their monoply. - being on one platforn using their games to bargain the 30% cut on android (android is bigger user base than iphone and users who mainly play there game can change phone). Now that apple did the move of removing all epic games, it makes this bargain more interesting. I know that Epic sued Google as well but but it can always be settled or dropped.
- gwd 6y ago
  > The mayo comparison doesn't hold. People go to multiple shop. Apple only allows one shop. It would hold up if you said Costco or Sam's Club instead of Walmart. People who pay for a Sam's Club membership do a large amount of their shopping at Sam's Club. Sure they could go to other stores, but that's significantly limited. Also, people can play Fortnite on their laptop or their Android tablet.
  - boudin 6y ago
    There's no walmart or sam's club where i live so I don't really know what you're talking about, but to buy one product i definitely have multiple choice, i don't have to join a club or something. On my computer it's kinda the same, i can install software from several sources. I buy games from several sources., i don't need to buy a new computer...
adonese 6y ago
>Epic are obviously going to lose, and lose hard, or set a precedent that's going to screw every payment provider in America and open a flood gate for fraudulent payments. Users have always been (and still are) subject to all kind of fraudulent. It is about the freedom to do whatever you want with your computing device. The idea that Apple has an absolute control of what goes in into their mobile devices, and that they can claim whatever policies they see fit scares me. Neither apple nor anyone should have this control.
- unishark 6y ago
  It's hard for me to feel scared about the control a company has over a product I can choose not to buy. Of course I do think you should have every right to jailbreak/root your device and vendors should have every right to cease updating or warranty repairs in return. Personally what I find scarier is courts and other govt institution deciding what products companies are allowed to make or sell me.
bambax 6y ago
> The more I think about it the more absurd this is. It's as if some random brand of Mayo is suing Wallmart for not stocking their brand on their shelves. Yes it is, but they would have a point.
bumblebritches5 6y ago
> If Stripe can claim Wells Fargo doesn't want to process porn payments, and that's legal, how can an American court rule for Epic? Because Stripe, and Wells Fargo have competition. Don't like Stripe? use Square. Don't like Square? use one of the other dozens of competitors. Don't like Wells Fargo? Use Bank of America, or one of the thousands of other banks and credit unions in the country. Apple has no competition, it is in fact a monopoly, and this is monopoly abuse.
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
If I can buy groceries, flights, concert tickets, and random Amazon items without paying an in-app fee, why I can't I buy game content? If I can buy in-app content in an iOS browser, why can't I buy it inside the app? (Because some app makers have decided they would rather make it unavailable inside an app than pay the Apple tax.) This is fundamentally consumer-hostile behaviour. Of course Apple will argue it has to vet apps and in-app content. And then all a lawyer has to do is point to the various exploits and it's game over for that argument.
drdebug 6y ago
Apple seems to prevent a company from having a line of text in their app that says: oh, by the way, you can purchase this texture pack or that asset on our website. I think it's the key to the problem. It seems difficult for Apple to argue that it is not anti-competitive.
- nojito 6y ago
  They aren't a monopoly. Being a monopoly, is the first test that the courts will implement.
  - Twixes 6y ago
    That depends on the definition of the market. Big Co.s under antitrust scrutiny like to present themselves as being just small parts of some huge markets, like Jeff Bezos recently saying that Amazon is actually not that big when you compare it to _all_ commerce in the US. But that doesn't make it less incredibly huge in e-commerce. Apple with iOS is in a much clearer situation though. Simply put, they have an _absolute_ monopoly on app distribution on iOS, and iOS is part of a powerful duopoly. Americans still can choose buying outside of Amazon (though maybe less conveniently), half phone-owning Americans can't choose anything else than the App Store.
devit 6y ago
Apple has a monopoly on distributing and selling mobile apps to customers that chose to carry an iPhone. You can't distribute or sell mobile apps to a large percentage of the US public without going through Apple, and they should definitely not be allowed to prevent anyone from doing that (for reasonable terms, which means no 30% tax). The fact that this is even a discussion is pretty ridiculous: if Apple were a person, their behavior would lead them to be ostracized from all communities and have no friends. If it's not illegal, the law needs to be changed.
kovacs_x 6y ago
How about- it goes to EU/US's court for anti-monopoly and dominatory behaviour and Apple is ordered to separate it's HW business from SW business and allow other "appstores" as well?

_qulr 6y ago

The iPhone is not a store. The App Store is a store. Epic wants to be on the iPhone, but not necessarily in the App Store. Ideally, Epic wants to run its own store on the iPhone. In any case, App Store is the only store in town, where the "town" is the 1.5 billion iOS users. If there's only 1 store, with no competing stores, that's an entirely different situation legally.

Spivak 6y ago
Apple will do just fine arguing that their devices are no different from Xbox, PlayStation, Switch, Roku, Cable Boxes, Keurig, Vzw feature phones. I would be extremely surprised if the courts just up and anti-Tivo’d every device on the planet. You try to make a case about how phones are somehow special but they’re really not. You have millions of people who only have an Xbox and so you can’t reach them unless you contract with MS.
- _qulr 6y ago
  The case is not about closed platforms in general, it's about monopolistic behavior. In the US (the legal jurisdiction), Apple is the largest smartphone vendor by far, with ~50% market share. Epic is trying to show that Apple is abusing its market dominance. That's the case.
  - bmarquez 6y ago
    Apple has 52.4% mobile marketshare in the US[1] The Justice department has said that more that 50% is generally required to be considered a monopoly power, but 70% is a stronger case[2] (not a lawyer, if someone can parse this better please do) [1]https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held-by-smartphone-platforms-in-the-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held... [2]https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-2 https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-...
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - Spivak 6y ago
    The PS4 has 58% of the gaming console market currently. I’m trying to figure out where the monopoly argument comes from. Apple hasn’t demonstrated that they have monopoly pricing power since even the Windows store takes 30% and they’re obviously using their dominance in the smartphone space to advantage themselves in… the smartphone space.
    - ViViDboarder 6y ago
      Windows and the Apple App Store don’t complete with each other. Also, if PlayStation has control of that much of the market, perhaps there ought to be some regulations there as well. Does Sony similarly force all in game sales to use their payment processor and forbid you from mentioning it or encouraging folks to pay you directly?
treeman79 6y ago
Monopoly. At some point this will head to regulators
jonny_eh 6y ago
Similarly, if I can buy an iPhone from a store (like Target), and it contains a store… why can't I get Fortnite from the App Store then buy V-Bucks from Fortnite?
- JiNCMG 6y ago
  You can also before leave Target you can pickup a vbucks card that cost Epic 30% as well.
  - jonny_eh 6y ago
    But on the iPhone, I don't buy V-bucks in the App Store, I buy it in Fortnite, and if Epic can go through the trouble of processing the payment, they deserve all the proceeds.
  - romanoderoma 6y ago
    Conversely, if you sell iPhones you only get 10% at most by Apple (Retailers' margins have been reduced to 4.5 per cent from 6.5 per cent, and it further reduces to 1.5-2 per cent if the customer opts to pay by card for the iPhone X). Why?
Aeolun 6y ago
Yeah, I bought a $1000 device, but somehow Apple gets to decide what I run on it? I just cannot see how that is a desireable situation.
- mcphage 6y ago
  It's true for every video game console, which have run to up to $600. I'm not sure if $400 makes that much of a difference.
  - Causality1 6y ago
    A game console is not a general-purpose computer.
    - yladiz 6y ago
      What is the definition of "general purpose computer"?
      - Causality1 6y ago
        One that is advertised as not constrained to a single genre of use. Game consoles are for entertainment. Consumption. That's why I can say "game console" and you know exactly what I'm talking about. Smartphones are for anything and everything. "There's an app for that."
        JiNCMG 6y ago
        Not a legal classification.
        Causality1 6y ago
        I'm making a moral argument, not a legal one. Legally Apple can do whatever they want and I give Epic's lawsuit a very low chance of doing anything at all.
        6y ago
Fezzik 6y ago
Think of the iPhone as a mall then - it still gets to pick its tenants by whatever criteria it sees fit (that are not illegal, and fees are not illegal). Epic is not winning this one. Edit: added the bit about fees.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > Think of the iPhone as a mall then Why?
  - Fezzik 6y ago
    Because the comment I was replying to was saying to think of the iPhone as a store... I was following the analogy and expanding on it because I thought it was inaccurate.
    - _qulr 6y ago
      You were replying to my comment, which said "The iPhone is not a store."
      - Fezzik 6y ago
        Ha, you are obviously correct! I stand by my Mall analogy ; )
  - dannyr 6y ago
    But there are only 2 malls! Iphone and Android.
- ViViDboarder 6y ago
  Sure, but does that one mall capture 50% of all physical good sales nationwide? This is an issue of monopoly power, which depends on scale. If you use an analogy that doesn’t demonstrate the same market power, of course it’s going to seem absurd.
  - Fezzik 6y ago
lstroud 6y ago
Can’t Epic build their own phone? Are their barriers to entry that Apple has put in place to prevent them from building and selling a phone?
- sabujp 6y ago
  surely you jest. Has samsung been able to get a flagship phone sold without android?
  - uberduper 6y ago
    Samsung made phones before Android existed.
  - Twisell 6y ago
    Well the point being that the smartphone market is suffering from poor alternative. If so many people here seems to believe that neither iOS, nor Android, provide both flexibility and privacy they seek market opportunity might be ripe for new competitors.
    - woko 6y ago
      The issue is that new competitors have to go against... Apple and Google. Given what happened to Epic (retaliation on Unreal Engine after #FreeFortnite), you can be sure that any competitor which would get a little bit of traction would be hammered into the ground by some Apple/Google money-powered shenanigans.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Plenty, Symbian, Bada OS before Android was born, and Tizen is a thing in Asian.
sbuk 6y ago
Why do they have a right to be on the platform?
boublepop 6y ago
I would also like to run my own store in the corner of Walmart’s buildings. Obviously I can’t force that through a lawsuit or by claiming that wallmart is abusing their monopoly on space in their buildings by only allowing their own store to operate in their buildings.

ryandrake 6y ago

Yea, I just don't understand Epic's endgame here. Even if they win, Apple will never let them back on the AppStore. They sued them! If I owned a grocery chain and one of my suppliers sued me, I would never choose to sell their products again in my store, regardless of the outcome. Suing someone is like burning the bridge. What is Epic hoping for here? Unless they are counting on the judge actually forcing a store to sell Epic's products, which would be a very scary precedent!

_qulr 6y ago
> Apple will never let them back on the AppStore. Apple's statement today: "We hope that we can work together again in the future". Also, Apple requested that Epic submit a new rule-compliant version of Fortnite. I think Apple would be happy to have Epic back and paying 30%, which is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It won't break Apple if they don't get that money, but it's still nice money, with little work required from Apple.
- Aeolun 6y ago
  > We hope that we can work together again in the future That doesn’t surprise me at all. Apple wants 30% of that sweet sweet pie.
- ribosometronome 6y ago
  >with little work required from Apple. Outside of the billions of dollars and a decade spent developing and marketing a platform on which Fortnite can be consumed.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    Sure, the platform takes a lot of money to create, but the marginal costs of adding or subtracting an individual developer in the App Store are almost nothing.
stephc_int13 6y ago
I don't think this fight is 100% rational here. There is a good chance they will only lose money. It seems like Tim Sweeney is taking it personally, he is rich enough and has enough power at Epic to take the risk. As an indie game developer I can tell you that the AppStore is a pain and everyone would thank Epic if they manage to break or even change it, at this would lead to a large domino effect.

hakfoo 6y ago

> Wallmart choose their suppliers, and sets the markup, why can't Apple? But, at the end of the day, Walmart can't prevent customers from proceeding to Kroger down the street to get the products or deals they want. That's the market regulator of last resort in most circumstances. You say "Apple doesn't have a monopoly on phones or games". In the broad view, you may be right, but they've spent significant effort in creating a closed ecosystem with non-trivial switching costs, inside of which they DO have complete gatekeeping power. They may not have a full "prevent the customers from going to Kroger" power, but they can basically say "here's a several hundred dollar toll to leave our store, and BTW, we won't let you back in for anything else we sell", which is a pretty high barrier. Is the only available counterweight for their behaviour "drop everything and buy a new $500 phone to express your discontent?" Google gets out of this with their hands much cleaner-- they can retreat to "Well, you can sideload apps". Epic proved they can make that a viable business that way on Android. But iOS offers nothing resembling that without asking consumers to jailbreak their devices, which is probably beyond reasonable accommodation. I'm sort of amazed they're so desperate to cling to the no-sideload mentality. Offering sideloading with a lot of big angry red warnings immediately defuses the vast majority of anti-competition complaints, while still being scary enough that most name-brand software isn't going to immediately drop off the App Store. I'd also think it presents a welcoming option for some hobby developers, where even the $100 annual developer fees are prohibitive, until they can show there's enough of a business there to justify going to the real App Store.

ribosometronome 6y ago
Using cost of switching as an alternative would seemingly have ramifications that could be applied to almost everything from Fortnite skins to membership stores to video game consoles to state governments.
- JiNCMG 6y ago
  I have all $1000s invested in XBox platform but I want to play on the PS4. Can I sue MS?
  - 6y ago

sfifs 6y ago

> You can't force someone to sell something they don't want to, especially because Apple is nowhere near a monopoly... The case is going to not about that. The case is going to be about Apple not allowing developers to tell their users that they can buy subscriptions and in-app goods for cheaper through alternative payment mechanisms where Apple cannot take a cut. Payments is what is this is about (also see the FB release today). Apple doesn't have to sell anything it doesn't want to but what it's doing is also preventing apps from telling users where they can buy these goods outside of Apple store unless Apple is offered a cut. This behavior has a high chance of failing on anti-trust if it goes to a jury trial which is what Epic is trying to force (and likely others like Facebook will join or also sue) because Apple store is the only way people can install apps on iOS.

bobdole12345 6y ago
Yeah, it's really unfair that the farmer got so angry when I was banging his daughter while staying at his house. I don't think I should have to listen to the farmers rules when he's got such a sweet daughter there.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- smichel17 6y ago
  I think this is a surprisingly good analogy. Let's make it explicit (now in two ways) -- the daughter here seems to represent iPhone owners. So, getting to the crux of the disagreement -- the way you've stated it, fair enough. What about when the farmer is actually the owner and landlord of just over half the homes in the US? Assuming enthusiastic consent from the daughter to [play Fortnite], it's not so reasonable to require her to "just move into a property your dad doesn't own", especially if the 50% he owns make up the nicer half. There's a bunch of other places you can take this analogy. I like Epic as a pickup artist here -- in it for their enjoyment, not any caring for the daughter. And some users (daughters?) have chosen to live on Dad's property precisely because he gets to keep the less savory types away, even if it means they have a more limited choice of partners. At the end of the day, I'm personally against the farmer-baron (thus, temporarily and uneasily allied with the pickup artist). It's the daughter's body, and I believe she should be able to make her own choices. Partiarchy is one solution to unsavory suitors, but I don't think it's the best one.

gnopgnip 6y ago

This is like in Amazon sold a fridge and said you can only shop at Whole Foods. Epic wants users to be able to shop at stores other than Whole Foods, not to be carried at that store without a markup

nodamage 6y ago
The remedy in this scenario is to simply not buy Amazon fridges, not have the government step in and force Amazon to change its fridges. Legal intervention should not occur unless Amazon was the only fridge seller in the world.
- alexashka 6y ago
  You've described a monopoly. Please google duopoly now. Also feel free to familiarize yourself with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L... By your logic, companies should be able to price fix and collude in any way they see fit because it's more than one company. Facepalm.
  - nodamage 6y ago
    Nothing I said has anything to do with price fixing and collusion, so I am not sure why you are bringing it up. > Facepalm. This kind of snark is really unnecessary.
    - alexashka 6y ago
      > Nothing I said has anything to do with price fixing and collusion Let me take a breath and collect myself. > The remedy in this scenario is to simply not buy Amazon fridges, not have the government step in and force Amazon to change its fridges. If we have two companies that sell fridges and they've both agreed to not lower their prices and to not let people repair them, your solution is to not buy from company A? How does that solve anything when they're colluding with company B? That's called a duopoly - something I asked you to google. > Legal intervention should not occur unless Amazon was the only fridge seller in the world. Do you understand why this is wrong given what I've said above?

Stevvo 6y ago

"How can an American court rule for Epic?" It's unlikely, but In an EU court, it's a different kettle of fish. Maybe Epic's play for a favourable ruling in Spotify Vs Apple in the EU?

newbie578 6y ago

How many times do we have to repeat ourselves regarding Apple and monopoly here on HN. For the love of god, don't go spouting stuff and saying there is no way Epic can win when your whole premises is simply wrong. First, learn what a monopoly is. It is when a company has over 50% marketshare in a certain market/industry (although sometimed an even lesser market share is required to call for anti-trust). Second, learn what is Apple's marketshare in the U.S. Hint: it is around 51%. And no, it doesn't matter if Apple is under 20% worldwide, the U.S. courts don't care for the world's marketshare, but the U.S. market and consumer, just like the EU looks after EU citizens. Q.E.D. Apple has monopolistic power in the U.S. and needs to be dealt with. Let's not even get started trying to compare Nintendo and Apple on the same playing field. Try going a week without your Switch, or a week without your smartphone. Like it or not, having a smartphone in the 21st century has become a necessity and I would dare say a basic modern human right, since are lives are intertwined with it. Our phones have become our wallets, keys, health regulators, entertainment, cameras, connectors to other people and so much more. It has become a tool far too important to leave unchecked. Sorry If I came as rude, but I am exhausted by people repeating the same (wrong) points in defending Apple and spreading missinformation. The day Apple feels the hammer of justice, is the day I get drunk and celebrate like New Year's Eve

kalleboo 6y ago
> Hint: it is around 51% And if you look at App Store revenue share, which is probably more relevant in this case (developers need to target the platform where the revenue is), it's closer to 70%
jkelleyrtp 6y ago
I don't see a way in which Apple is abusing its monopolistic threshold within its competition. Apple slides in at 45% of phone purchases in the US market. That's 122 million people choosing something else. Now, that's not marketshare, but Apple has convinced consumers that their product is worth the markup - clearly evident by the increased marketshare. I don't understand the desire to regulate a business that has clearly demonstrated value in a highly competitive market - if you don't want an iPhone, join the other 122 million Americans or 2.3 Billion people with an android. _You_ may believe > Q.E.D. Apple has monopolistic power in the U.S. and needs to be dealt with. but by and large, monopolistic control and anti-trust cases are only brought to court if they are used to negatively impact consumers. In Apple's position, they believe they are doing the better thing for the consumer. If their argument holds water in court, then who is the US government to tell Apple if that business strategy is sound? If the market wants something different or better, then it will decide. Things would be different if Apple were attacking other platforms, but instead, they're simply moderating their own.

phendrenad2 6y ago

Even if they lose, they win. "Oh you can't play Fortnite on IPhones" is a seriously bad place for Apple to be. Don't even get me started on "Oh you can't use the most popular game engine to make games for IPhone". It'll shift market share toward Android, where presumably some users will learn to sideload and save Epic some money.

sharken 6y ago
My thoughts exactly, games matter to buyers. If users know they save on in-game purchases then they will sideload where it matters, e.g. Fortnite. Am getting an Android phone the next time, which is about the only effective thing a consumer can do about this.
LexGray 6y ago
More likely it will shift market share to consoles. Epic will still lose their 30% cut and Apple will still sell what they did before. I do not foresee “can play Epic Games” as a phone marketing strategy.
- hrktb 6y ago
  > phone marketing I find it interesting that we still call those “phones” when for a sizeable part of the population they are mostly portable gaming machine to kill time when they’re bored. Not Fortnite, of course, more easier games.

LanceH 6y ago

Epic has installs on phones which paid the iPhone tax. Those can't be updated and are made worthless, causing damage to Epic. Removing an app in violation is one thing. Removing them as a developer and preventing them from updating apps which have been paid for may violate something, somewhere. I'm sure Apple's contract absolves themselves of all responsibility, but there is at least some argument there. That's the best I can come up with. Personally I won't run an iPhone.

SkyPuncher 6y ago

> If Stripe can claim Wells Fargo doesn't want to process porn payments, and that's legal, how can an American court rule for Epic? 1. Stripe is a minor player overall. Lots of other credit card processors 2. Stripe is not preventing you from collecting payments from your customers. You can use a different payment processors.

gwd 6y ago
> You can use a different payment processors. And you can use a different device to play Fortnite; for instance, a laptop/desktop or an Android tablet w/ sideloading capabilities.
- SkyPuncher 6y ago
  You might be able to, but not every consumer can. You're presenting a fundamentally different argument than a business changing which provider they use to collect credit card payments.
LexGray 6y ago
You can load vBucks directly through the Epic website now. Apple is not preventing that. They are preventing advertising it on device and bypassing their on device payment processing. All Epic needed to do was disable in-app purchases like Netflix did if they wanted to get their money directly. Customer wants to get vBucks. Epic support site says go here. Inconvenient? Certainly. But it is clearly delineated who you are giving money to and how. You are leaving the app ecosystem and entering the open web with the need for additional caution. Short of a warning pop up where you need to type your passcode I would not want less from the current system. Say Epic decides to auto bill you every time you open a loot box?

wsc981 6y ago

I doubt Apple could or would really want to ban the Unreal engine, right? I guess at some point Epic could create a new Apple account again (perhaps after some court order by a judge) and just continue testing their engine on devices. They don't need to release games themselves on the AppStore, as long as 3rd party devs can release software based on the Unreal engine on the AppStore. I think what Epic wants to see gone is Apple's condition that IAP sold on the AppStore should be priced the same on any other outlets (e.g. websites, Play store, etc...). And I can see a judge agreeing this is unfair of Apple to ask. As for me, I mostly like the idea of the AppStore. As a consumer I feel more confident downloading software from the AppStore as compared to e.g. the Play store. What I don't like about the AppStore is that discovery of new products is very hard. And there also doesn't seem to be an easy way to look for apps that are ad-free or that becomes ad-free by paying a 1 time IAP fee.

ramy_d 6y ago
mobile game discovery is big pain point for devs as well, and that none of Apple/Google seem to do anything about is frustrating. This is in sharp contrast to, say, steam, where discovery is something they are constantly trying to improve.
- JiNCMG 6y ago
  Funny cause both stores (App and Play) are always promoting games to me. Usually crap like Fortnite which stinks on any mobile device. Yes devs have to pay for those promos but just like in Steam, Retail and all the console markets you pay for marketing.
  - ramy_d 6y ago
    Yes you can pay for promotional spots on both mobile stores and steam, but that is not to say that they are remotely similar in terms of discoverability. Discoverability would include things like a recommendation algorithm but also filtering features, promotional spotting, social graph relevance (do my friends own this game? do they want to?) and general UI accessibility, to name some factors. Steam has put so much work into making sure users can find a title (regardless of that title's marketing budget) that fits their arbitrary preferences that they are now LEAGUES ahead of mobile stores on that metric. One example that is easiest to point out is the main carousel (and entire front page) of the steam store. Everyone's carousel is customized to their profile and will show both old games and new based on an algo that weighs your preferences against a title's relevance and performance metrics. The irony that google, a company that made its name in SEARCH, has an app store who's discoverability is so abysmal that i can't find certain titles without explicitly typing in the name or digging through 100s of "more titles like this" lists is not lost on me. It's just really bad. The game categories are too few in numbers, and there's no tagging to speak of so finding something remotely hybrid is a pain and the categories themselves have become unhelpful.

stormdennis 6y ago

Walmart and Apple are not equivalent examples. A better analogy for the iphone would be your house. Apple sells you a house and then takes a cut of everything you buy for it. It's able to do that because you can only buy stuff for your house through their shop. To a very meaningful extent your house is not your own despite the fact that it is your property.

jurip 6y ago

Someone commented that it seems unlikely that Epic gets a legal victory out of this, but they may get a legislative victory. It's very possible Apple will win the case, but all the App Store fights that have been in the news more or less every day recently should at least be looked at when the US and EU consider new regulations.

Animats 6y ago

This is new legal territory. I was talking to an Silicon Valley antitrust lawyer today. There are no clear precedents in this area. Whatever is decided here will affect many later cases. So this case is being followed closely by lawyers in the antitrust community. Is this tying? We don't know. It's not a form of tying that's come up before. That doesn't mean it's not tying. Antitrust law is very general. This case is taking a different path than most antitrust cases. The plaintiff is asking for an injunction. It's not about money damages. It's going to be very interesting. Tying in general is insisting that customers buy thing B, which they don't want, to get thing A, which they do want. The term "B picture" in movies comes from such an arrangement. Exhibitors had to run B pictures to get A pictures. That was knocked down by a lawsuit from Syufy, who went on to build dome-shaped theaters in Silicon Valley such as the ones near Google HQ. At one time the film studios owned many of their own theaters, which is why you see big old theaters named Warner, Paramount, or Fox. That was ended by an antitrust decision. Tying cases are rare. You can look them up.[1] They come in many shapes and sizes. Examples of tying include trailer park operators requiring new land lessors to purchase a new trailer from them, similar cases involving marina boat slips and boat maintenance, Visa requiring merchants accepting their credit card to also accept their debit card, telcos requiring or deceptively inducing customers to pay for inside wire maintenance, and the one people here may remember, Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. It is definitely, as the judge said, not a slam dunk for either side. [1] http://app3.naag.org/antitrust/search/advSearchCivil.php http://app3.naag.org/antitrust/search/advSearchCivil.php

m00x 6y ago

Microsoft didn't have a monopoly on computers, yet it was guilty of pushing all their users to use their apps over others. Apple and Google are the only major phone OS's. If they control what you can install on your phone, they have a monopoly. > Wallmart choose their suppliers, and sets the markup, why can't Apple? You're really comparing setting up a physical store to building world class operating system and phones? Almost anyone can set up shop and start selling things that Walmart isn't, or from suppliers who won't deal with Walmart, but it's not how tech worms. You're living in a different reality.

nodamage 6y ago
Microsoft had a monopoly over the operating system market (95% market share). > If they control what you can install on your phone, they have a monopoly. That's not how monopoly power is (legally) defined.

ArkVark 6y ago

Fortnite players on iOS might move to any other device instead to play, where Epic has lower commissions. That's a win.

MobiusHorizons 6y ago

If I understand correctly, the difference is that apple owns both the store and the payment processor, and require exclusive use of the payment processor (with associated uncompetitive fees) to gain access to the store. This would be somewhat akin to Wells Fargo also being in the business selling porn while not processing payments for anyone else who competes with their product. In the current climate, it seems unlikely a judge would rule against apple for anticompetitive behavior, but there are several reasonable cases to be made that this is anticompetitive and even anticonsumer.

StreamBright 6y ago

>> You can't force someone to sell something they don't want to, especially because Apple is nowhere near a monopoly in games or gaming sales, they can just point at steam. I think this depends on the basis of the rejection. If you can prove that they are not selling because of discrimination then you can force them. The question how can you prove it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...

arvinsim 6y ago

Personally, I think that the concept of monopoly must be reevaluated in the context of the digital age we live in. Our current definition simply was not made with digital in mind.

belorn 6y ago

> or set a precedent that's going to screw every payment provider in America and open a flood gate for fraudulent payments. ... > but surely it's going to set all sorts of nasty precedents? Just going to comment on this part. Supreme court decisions has a long history of making very narrow decisions, and in that question there is a clear out that they could use. The precedent can be that apple can refuse epic if it is in order to prevent fraudulent payments, but not in order to enforce a 30% tax in an online market place. That would narrow the decision down and allow payment providers to operate like they do now, but not apple. It would also not force wallmart to stock "mom & pop" random ketchup brand, because it would not be a online market and the purpose would not be to enforce a 30% tax. Courts have a lot of room to narrow decisions down based on intent, on circumstances, and even the outcome on the specific market as a whole.

boudin 6y ago

The mayo comparison doesn't hold. People go to multiple shop. Apple only allows one shop. It's definitely the first step of a fight. It's hard to know what the end game is for Epic, but there's several possibilities I can think of: - moving towards gettibg their own app store, they did this move on computers already. Apple and google start to get under scrutiny for their monoply. - being on one platforn using their games to bargain the 30% cut on android (android is bigger user base than iphone and users who mainly play there game can change phone). Now that apple did the move of removing all epic games, it makes this bargain more interesting. I know that Epic sued Google as well but but it can always be settled or dropped.

gwd 6y ago
> The mayo comparison doesn't hold. People go to multiple shop. Apple only allows one shop. It would hold up if you said Costco or Sam's Club instead of Walmart. People who pay for a Sam's Club membership do a large amount of their shopping at Sam's Club. Sure they could go to other stores, but that's significantly limited. Also, people can play Fortnite on their laptop or their Android tablet.
- boudin 6y ago
  There's no walmart or sam's club where i live so I don't really know what you're talking about, but to buy one product i definitely have multiple choice, i don't have to join a club or something. On my computer it's kinda the same, i can install software from several sources. I buy games from several sources., i don't need to buy a new computer...

adonese 6y ago

>Epic are obviously going to lose, and lose hard, or set a precedent that's going to screw every payment provider in America and open a flood gate for fraudulent payments. Users have always been (and still are) subject to all kind of fraudulent. It is about the freedom to do whatever you want with your computing device. The idea that Apple has an absolute control of what goes in into their mobile devices, and that they can claim whatever policies they see fit scares me. Neither apple nor anyone should have this control.

unishark 6y ago
It's hard for me to feel scared about the control a company has over a product I can choose not to buy. Of course I do think you should have every right to jailbreak/root your device and vendors should have every right to cease updating or warranty repairs in return. Personally what I find scarier is courts and other govt institution deciding what products companies are allowed to make or sell me.

bambax 6y ago

> The more I think about it the more absurd this is. It's as if some random brand of Mayo is suing Wallmart for not stocking their brand on their shelves. Yes it is, but they would have a point.

bumblebritches5 6y ago

> If Stripe can claim Wells Fargo doesn't want to process porn payments, and that's legal, how can an American court rule for Epic? Because Stripe, and Wells Fargo have competition. Don't like Stripe? use Square. Don't like Square? use one of the other dozens of competitors. Don't like Wells Fargo? Use Bank of America, or one of the thousands of other banks and credit unions in the country. Apple has no competition, it is in fact a monopoly, and this is monopoly abuse.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

If I can buy groceries, flights, concert tickets, and random Amazon items without paying an in-app fee, why I can't I buy game content? If I can buy in-app content in an iOS browser, why can't I buy it inside the app? (Because some app makers have decided they would rather make it unavailable inside an app than pay the Apple tax.) This is fundamentally consumer-hostile behaviour. Of course Apple will argue it has to vet apps and in-app content. And then all a lawyer has to do is point to the various exploits and it's game over for that argument.

drdebug 6y ago

Apple seems to prevent a company from having a line of text in their app that says: oh, by the way, you can purchase this texture pack or that asset on our website. I think it's the key to the problem. It seems difficult for Apple to argue that it is not anti-competitive.

nojito 6y ago
They aren't a monopoly. Being a monopoly, is the first test that the courts will implement.
- Twixes 6y ago
  That depends on the definition of the market. Big Co.s under antitrust scrutiny like to present themselves as being just small parts of some huge markets, like Jeff Bezos recently saying that Amazon is actually not that big when you compare it to _all_ commerce in the US. But that doesn't make it less incredibly huge in e-commerce. Apple with iOS is in a much clearer situation though. Simply put, they have an _absolute_ monopoly on app distribution on iOS, and iOS is part of a powerful duopoly. Americans still can choose buying outside of Amazon (though maybe less conveniently), half phone-owning Americans can't choose anything else than the App Store.

devit 6y ago

Apple has a monopoly on distributing and selling mobile apps to customers that chose to carry an iPhone. You can't distribute or sell mobile apps to a large percentage of the US public without going through Apple, and they should definitely not be allowed to prevent anyone from doing that (for reasonable terms, which means no 30% tax). The fact that this is even a discussion is pretty ridiculous: if Apple were a person, their behavior would lead them to be ostracized from all communities and have no friends. If it's not illegal, the law needs to be changed.

kovacs_x 6y ago

How about- it goes to EU/US's court for anti-monopoly and dominatory behaviour and Apple is ordered to separate it's HW business from SW business and allow other "appstores" as well?