5 ms·

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.
        yazaddaruvala 6y ago
        This feels like the right compromise. Allow for non-iOS iPhones similar to booting into windows on a MacBook. How to deal with the warranty is the tricky part. Custom software can degrade the hardware. It seems fair that Apple should provide easier access to dev tools for bare-metal iPhone programming and jailbreaking but is no longer liable for the device.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      Replace iPhone with Wii, Switch, Vita, PSP, PS4, XBox, XBox 360....
  - 8note 6y ago
    I'm not clear why app store competition should be determined by phone features? The choice between fortnight and a good camera seems like a strange one. Why couldn't Netscape have just made their own computer, instead of relying on windows boxes?
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      Because app store should be an integral part of the OS, don't like it? Get another brand. Nothing prevented them to do so, in fact that is what ChromeOS and FirefoxOS are all about.
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.

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.
      - yazaddaruvala 6y ago
        This feels like the right compromise. Allow for non-iOS iPhones similar to booting into windows on a MacBook. How to deal with the warranty is the tricky part. Custom software can degrade the hardware. It seems fair that Apple should provide easier access to dev tools for bare-metal iPhone programming and jailbreaking but is no longer liable for the device.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Replace iPhone with Wii, Switch, Vita, PSP, PS4, XBox, XBox 360....
- 8note 6y ago
  I'm not clear why app store competition should be determined by phone features? The choice between fortnight and a good camera seems like a strange one. Why couldn't Netscape have just made their own computer, instead of relying on windows boxes?
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Because app store should be an integral part of the OS, don't like it? Get another brand. Nothing prevented them to do so, in fact that is what ChromeOS and FirefoxOS are all about.

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.