11 ms·

“There is nothing anticompetitive about charging a commission for others to use one’s service,” Apple said in the filing. What about forcing someone or some co

“There is nothing anticompetitive about charging a commission for others to use one’s service,” Apple said in the filing. What about forcing someone or some company to use a service (apple's payment systems)?

strictnein 6y ago
Such a weird argument too, as if there was a different service Epic could use to reach > 50% of the US mobile market.
- supernova87a 6y ago
  But what is the market? That's a really important question. If the market is video games in general, Apple is but a tiny sliver of control of that market. If the market is iOS devices, yes of course Apple controls 100% of that. Where does the line get drawn? How many outlets does Epic have to sell what it develops? I think that's for the FTC/SEC to determine.
- kbenson 6y ago
  If Epic was able to install their own app as a store (what they actually want), they would have at least a few tens of millions of users to start with (there's 116 million iOS Fortnite players). Epic's in the fairly unique position of having a "killer app" that a large portion of the iOS user base would want to install to get the ball rolling on a competing store. Given their rates a much better than Apple's, I imagine a lot of game studios would want to distribute through them, and they could offer cheaper prices and still make more profit, so people would be incentivized to install and use the competing store. You know, actual competition.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    If is such a killer app, Epic is free to create their own phone OS, it would sell like hot pancakes. You know, actual innovation.
    - kbenson 6y ago
      > If is such a killer app, Epic is free to create their own phone OS, it would sell like hot pancakes. Creating a phone OS wouldn't actually let them compete on the same level, because you can't run anything but iOS on Apple hardware. The only companies that actually compete at the same level as Apple and Google and Amazon, since they both create the hardware, run an OS on it, and provide a store on it. Any while it's a pain to do (and they take steps to make it not work well, even if it does work), you can install their stores on each other (Amazon Fire store on Android, and Google Play store on Kindle Fire devices). Not to say that those companies are paragons of openness in their platforms, but Apple is quite it bit farther along the spectrum in locking down their devices, in that you can't run any software other than what they approve on them (unless you jailbreak, but I'm but sure that's legal in many jurisdictions). > You know, actual innovation. There are plenty of locations to innovate. Why should epic have to create an OS (which they can't actually run on the hardware the people they are trying to reach are using) just so they can try to provide a better store experience for people. They could "innovate" be being more deterministic in what they accept or reject than Apple and being cheaper. Those are innovations that many customers and developers would welcome.
      - gpm 6y ago
        But you know, arguably the same arguments Epic is making in terms of the app store also apply to the OS, so maybe Apple should be forced to open up IPhones to other OSes as well ;) I'm sure Apple will be thrilled with this line of reasoning and will definitely argue it (/s). (In case it's not clear, I'm agreeing with the person I'm responding to, sarcasm over the internet is hard).
        kbenson 6y ago
        > But you know, arguably the same arguments Epic is making in terms of the app store also apply to the OS, so maybe Apple should be forced to open up IPhones to other OSes as well ;) Yep. That's the argument I've been making for a couple weeks now. Mainly, that Apple's actions are anti-competitive, even if they may not match the current definition of monopoly. If the harm is great enough though, then we should maybe think about extending the definition of monopoly or enacting some more specific laws restricting anti-competitive actions that match the modern market more accurately. It's not like the current laws from the the constitution, they were added in the late 1800's and early 1900's. At a minimum, some consumer laws that protect us from people locking down hardware to specific software in some instances (and thus allowing competition on Apple hardware) may help in some small ways overall, even if it doesn't directly address the App Store and OS coupling. Being able to (legally) run Android (or something else) on an Apple phone would change quite a lot, IMO, even if it took a while to do so.
- m3kw9 6y ago
  Just because you state this stat doesn’t allow Epic to accuse Apple of being a monopoly. The 50% us probably false based on all platforms totalled together
- baconandeggs 6y ago
  Nintendo does it, or at least tries to. The switch is their play at the mobile market. You are not entitled to reach on any other market. It is completely unfair for epic to demand what Hershey had to build on their own, or Tesla, or H&M, or yes even Apple. They can compete if they think they are so worthy of existing, and I think if they do we will all better as consumers.
- valuearb 6y ago
  iPhones market share is less than 20%.
  - tempodox 6y ago
    20% of what? That number doesn't mean anything without context. Also, references?
    - valuearb 6y ago
      Unit sales. Reference: google.
    - strictnein 6y ago
      20% of global market share. ~50% of units sold in the US. > 50% of the app market share. For units sold: https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-share/ https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh...
  - strictnein 6y ago
    Globally, yes. But this is a US legal argument and the courts will care about the US market. Apple has ~50% cell phone share and > 50% app market share in the US.
jclardy 6y ago
The sad part to me as an iOS developer is that Apple is essentially calling iOS a "service." I'm a huge Apple fan, but they have been digging themselves a grave in terms of developer goodwill with their reaction to these lawsuits.
- tmotwu 6y ago
  This should alarm any developer. Any iOS developer could be at risk to pay Apple punitive damages whenever they determine their rules have been broken.
  - kingnothing 6y ago
    That's exactly how contract law works.
  - m3kw9 6y ago
    If they are dumb enough to pull this Epic move and sue Apple you bet they will sue back
  - simonh 6y ago
    The punitive damages are not for simply breaking the rules, this is made very clear in the filing, they are for knowingly and deliberately breaking them with a full understanding of the legal consequences for doing so.
    - pier25 6y ago
      The punitive damage could as simple as Apple putting you out of business if you rely mostly on your iOS app to survive. We've seen this many times, it's not exclusive to the case against Epic.
      - DonaldPShimoda 6y ago
        Apple is explicitly stating that they retaliated so hard against Epic specifically because Epic (1) asked for permission to break the contract, and then (2) broke the contract when they did not receive permission (even going so far as to send upper Apple leadership a letter informing them of the decision). So Apple's argument is that Epic was deliberately trying to start a big dramatic issue, and Apple wants compensation for being dragged into it. --- Please note that I have not weighed in on whether I think Apple or Epic is in the right (legally or otherwise). I'm just informing you of their justification, and why they claim this isn't a danger for other developers who may accidentally (or, perhaps, much more minorly) break the terms of service.
parasubvert 6y ago
No one is forced to use it: just stop developing for iOS. Same goes for any other platform like Google Play, Xbox, Nintendo, etc. Or selling concert tickets through Ticketmaster.
- pier25 6y ago
  Technically yes, in reality you can't ignore iOS if you're in the mobile space. You think people would keep using say Evernote or Spotify if it didn't have an iOS app? Also, it's not only about the App Store. You can't simply tell the iOS users of your mobile web app to use an Android device.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    They would, because there are countries where iOS has 0% market presence, and they also offer Web variants of those apps.
- fomine3 6y ago
  It doesn't solve issue because it's duopoly antitrust issue.
m3kw9 6y ago
You can also say by agreeing to the terms of service, you are being forced.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

strictnein 6y ago

Such a weird argument too, as if there was a different service Epic could use to reach > 50% of the US mobile market.

supernova87a 6y ago
But what is the market? That's a really important question. If the market is video games in general, Apple is but a tiny sliver of control of that market. If the market is iOS devices, yes of course Apple controls 100% of that. Where does the line get drawn? How many outlets does Epic have to sell what it develops? I think that's for the FTC/SEC to determine.
kbenson 6y ago
If Epic was able to install their own app as a store (what they actually want), they would have at least a few tens of millions of users to start with (there's 116 million iOS Fortnite players). Epic's in the fairly unique position of having a "killer app" that a large portion of the iOS user base would want to install to get the ball rolling on a competing store. Given their rates a much better than Apple's, I imagine a lot of game studios would want to distribute through them, and they could offer cheaper prices and still make more profit, so people would be incentivized to install and use the competing store. You know, actual competition.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  If is such a killer app, Epic is free to create their own phone OS, it would sell like hot pancakes. You know, actual innovation.
  - kbenson 6y ago
    > If is such a killer app, Epic is free to create their own phone OS, it would sell like hot pancakes. Creating a phone OS wouldn't actually let them compete on the same level, because you can't run anything but iOS on Apple hardware. The only companies that actually compete at the same level as Apple and Google and Amazon, since they both create the hardware, run an OS on it, and provide a store on it. Any while it's a pain to do (and they take steps to make it not work well, even if it does work), you can install their stores on each other (Amazon Fire store on Android, and Google Play store on Kindle Fire devices). Not to say that those companies are paragons of openness in their platforms, but Apple is quite it bit farther along the spectrum in locking down their devices, in that you can't run any software other than what they approve on them (unless you jailbreak, but I'm but sure that's legal in many jurisdictions). > You know, actual innovation. There are plenty of locations to innovate. Why should epic have to create an OS (which they can't actually run on the hardware the people they are trying to reach are using) just so they can try to provide a better store experience for people. They could "innovate" be being more deterministic in what they accept or reject than Apple and being cheaper. Those are innovations that many customers and developers would welcome.
    - gpm 6y ago
      But you know, arguably the same arguments Epic is making in terms of the app store also apply to the OS, so maybe Apple should be forced to open up IPhones to other OSes as well ;) I'm sure Apple will be thrilled with this line of reasoning and will definitely argue it (/s). (In case it's not clear, I'm agreeing with the person I'm responding to, sarcasm over the internet is hard).
      - kbenson 6y ago
        > But you know, arguably the same arguments Epic is making in terms of the app store also apply to the OS, so maybe Apple should be forced to open up IPhones to other OSes as well ;) Yep. That's the argument I've been making for a couple weeks now. Mainly, that Apple's actions are anti-competitive, even if they may not match the current definition of monopoly. If the harm is great enough though, then we should maybe think about extending the definition of monopoly or enacting some more specific laws restricting anti-competitive actions that match the modern market more accurately. It's not like the current laws from the the constitution, they were added in the late 1800's and early 1900's. At a minimum, some consumer laws that protect us from people locking down hardware to specific software in some instances (and thus allowing competition on Apple hardware) may help in some small ways overall, even if it doesn't directly address the App Store and OS coupling. Being able to (legally) run Android (or something else) on an Apple phone would change quite a lot, IMO, even if it took a while to do so.
m3kw9 6y ago
Just because you state this stat doesn’t allow Epic to accuse Apple of being a monopoly. The 50% us probably false based on all platforms totalled together
baconandeggs 6y ago
Nintendo does it, or at least tries to. The switch is their play at the mobile market. You are not entitled to reach on any other market. It is completely unfair for epic to demand what Hershey had to build on their own, or Tesla, or H&M, or yes even Apple. They can compete if they think they are so worthy of existing, and I think if they do we will all better as consumers.
valuearb 6y ago
iPhones market share is less than 20%.
- tempodox 6y ago
  20% of what? That number doesn't mean anything without context. Also, references?
  - valuearb 6y ago
    Unit sales. Reference: google.
  - strictnein 6y ago
    20% of global market share. ~50% of units sold in the US. > 50% of the app market share. For units sold: https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-share/ https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh...
- strictnein 6y ago
  Globally, yes. But this is a US legal argument and the courts will care about the US market. Apple has ~50% cell phone share and > 50% app market share in the US.

jclardy 6y ago

The sad part to me as an iOS developer is that Apple is essentially calling iOS a "service." I'm a huge Apple fan, but they have been digging themselves a grave in terms of developer goodwill with their reaction to these lawsuits.

tmotwu 6y ago
This should alarm any developer. Any iOS developer could be at risk to pay Apple punitive damages whenever they determine their rules have been broken.
- kingnothing 6y ago
  That's exactly how contract law works.
- m3kw9 6y ago
  If they are dumb enough to pull this Epic move and sue Apple you bet they will sue back
- simonh 6y ago
  The punitive damages are not for simply breaking the rules, this is made very clear in the filing, they are for knowingly and deliberately breaking them with a full understanding of the legal consequences for doing so.
  - pier25 6y ago
    The punitive damage could as simple as Apple putting you out of business if you rely mostly on your iOS app to survive. We've seen this many times, it's not exclusive to the case against Epic.
    - DonaldPShimoda 6y ago
      Apple is explicitly stating that they retaliated so hard against Epic specifically because Epic (1) asked for permission to break the contract, and then (2) broke the contract when they did not receive permission (even going so far as to send upper Apple leadership a letter informing them of the decision). So Apple's argument is that Epic was deliberately trying to start a big dramatic issue, and Apple wants compensation for being dragged into it. --- Please note that I have not weighed in on whether I think Apple or Epic is in the right (legally or otherwise). I'm just informing you of their justification, and why they claim this isn't a danger for other developers who may accidentally (or, perhaps, much more minorly) break the terms of service.

parasubvert 6y ago

No one is forced to use it: just stop developing for iOS. Same goes for any other platform like Google Play, Xbox, Nintendo, etc. Or selling concert tickets through Ticketmaster.

pier25 6y ago
Technically yes, in reality you can't ignore iOS if you're in the mobile space. You think people would keep using say Evernote or Spotify if it didn't have an iOS app? Also, it's not only about the App Store. You can't simply tell the iOS users of your mobile web app to use an Android device.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  They would, because there are countries where iOS has 0% market presence, and they also offer Web variants of those apps.
fomine3 6y ago
It doesn't solve issue because it's duopoly antitrust issue.

m3kw9 6y ago

You can also say by agreeing to the terms of service, you are being forced.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]