7 ms·

And in the meantime Epic is accruing quite the sizable damages claim against Apple. Obviously not as large an amount as Apple stand to lose once a court decide

And in the meantime Epic is accruing quite the sizable damages claim against Apple. Obviously not as large an amount as Apple stand to lose once a court decides they are stealing from developers, but a tidy bundle for Epic for standing up for us.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
geerlingguy 6y ago
I don't think Epic is standing up for 'us'. They have their own self-interests in mind, and they stand to gain a boatload of money (from developers like 'us') if they can get a victory.
- DarkmSparks 6y ago
  I'm 100% sure they have their own self interest in mind. But if it was solely that they could easily have negotiated a fee cut and left everyone else in the lurch. Or perhaps they tried and this was the next step. Either way we all stand to gain from google and apple stores being forced to play by the same rules everyone else has to abide by.
  - viscanti 6y ago
    No business is forced to deal with anyone else. So google and apple stores are playing by the same rules as every other store in the world. Companies can't win a lawsuit against Whole Foods for not allowing their products to be sold in Whole Foods. Apple and Google have both seen how the completely open app download model works (it's been how PCs have worked for a long time). Most consumers want their phones to work and not have any risk of downloading spyware or viruses or apps that brick their phone. Most consumers don't want to research every app to see if the app is trustworthy enough to trust with their identity information or payment information. That said, there's probably a middle ground between where Apple/Google are now and a completely open marketplace that gets most customers what they're hoping to get while also giving larger app developers more of what they want.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > No business is forced to deal with anyone else. Actually, if the company has significant market power, which does not require a monopoly, then anti-trust law can absolutely force a company to do business with others. And in this case, Apple has about 50% of the US smartphone market, which is within the realm of when anti-trust law applies. To give a relevant example, if microsoft banned all browsers from being installed on a windows PC, that did not go through their app store, then this would be clearly illegally anti-competitive. > ompanies can't win a lawsuit against Whole Foods for not allowing their products to be sold in Whole Foods. If whole foods had significant market power, then they absolutely could be forced to allow products to be sold in their stores. They don't have this much market power, that this would be illegal, though.
      - viscanti 6y ago
        > To give a relevant example, if microsoft banned all browsers from being installed on a windows PC, that did not go through their app store, then this would be clearly illegally anti-competitive. The FTC case against Microsoft was specifically that Microsoft was a monopoly. It's clear that there's a duopoly right now with Apple and Google in the US mobile phone OS space.
        stale2002 6y ago
        > The FTC case against Microsoft was specifically that Microsoft was a monopoly This is a misrepresentation of how section 2 of the sherman anti trust law works. It is a very common misconception, though, so don't worry. The sherman anti-trust act does not require a literal monopoly. Instead, it only requires significant market power. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... "Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct" So, according to the officially released government information and guidance from the experts on the matter, the previous point still stands. Apple can still be illegally using market power, even if they do not have a literal monopoly. As a literal monopoly is not required, under section 2 of the sherman anti-trust act. It is a completely uncontroversial statement, backed up by the information released by the government, that a literal monopoly is not required, for something to be covered by section 2 of the sherman anti trust act, and that, instead, only significant market power is required. 50% of the market share, in the US, is within the realm of market share, where anti-trust law may apply.
  - zepto 6y ago
    What makes you think Apple would have ‘easily’ given them a few cut? There is nothing altruistic about anything Epic is doing.
- Applejinx 6y ago
  Have they finished crushing Steam yet? How's that going?
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    They've progressed to the "Literally giving away games for free" phase on their store. No idea if it's working.
    - mywittyname 6y ago
      I've still managed to hold out. I mean, I don't love Steam, but I absolutely don't want a fragmented marketplace either.
      - xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
        The way things are going, Valve will roll out a subscription-based model for Steam and then we'll be truly screwed. A fragmented marketplace is so good for competition. Look at all the indie studios that have been funded just because Epic wants to challenge the status quo. I'm no fan of their store, but the ecosystem is benefitting from their competition.
pjmlp 6y ago
Only on the mind of FOSS hippies is Apple stealing. 30% vs 80% was a very generous gift.
ballenf 6y ago
And Apple has a few weeks of damages accruing in the other direction while Fortnite on iOS has/had a 3rd-party payment option. Technically, I think you can still launch a pre-installed Fortnite and buy stuff even if you can't play the latest season. But agree that Fortnite's 70% of IAP in presumed perpetuity is going to be a larger number than Apple's 30% for a limited window (the time during which Epic's own payment solution continued to work).
beached_whale 6y ago
Epic will get nothing. They were leaving anyways(their own words said it is not a sizable portion of their revenue at around 5%, I think). Apple has no obligation to help Epic make money on their platform. Now, if anyone has a claim, it could be the users of the devices themselves. They are stuck between two Titans throwing mountains at each other. In addition, the more they lose is an argument for Apple helping them make money.
- diminish 6y ago
  it's not their platform, it's users' platform. such a twisted mindset is the real reason why all the a$pl monopoly hurts.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    When you buy into the Apple mobile ecosystem, it's very much because it's Apple's platform, and that's the value-add Apple brings to the table. Rewinding the clock: The iPhone hit a market that was full of low-quality hardware running lower-quality software. Apple brought to the consumer a tightly-controlled ecosystem that came with a quality guarantee. For my relatives who don't want to think hard about their phone working, I still recommend they buy Apple; pay Jobs's company the money, and they'll take care of you, from extended warranties to an app store designed to tamp down as best it can on scams and crap apps.
    - newbie578 6y ago
      While what you are saying is true, those facts don't matter if the law has been broken. Apple's rules are not the law, it is a set of arbitrary rules which have to be enforced in the court of law. And Epic is currently trying to do just that, make the law say that those "arbitrary rules" are non-valid and anti-competitive. Even if it is the Apple ecosystem, "the Apple platform which brings value", if they engage in anti-competitive behaviour, they need to be dealt with. Some might argue that there were people who enjoyed using Bell Systems and were content with the value it was providing, it also had a "vertical integration" in the communications systems, and yet they were forced to comply with the anti-competitive laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System )
dpkonofa 6y ago
>Epic for standing up for us Epic isn't standing up for anyone except their own shareholders. This isn't some play to help consumers. It's a play to collect more money from a customer-base that is not theirs.
- kbenson 6y ago
  That's true, but in this case their actions are to promote competition, and increasing competition in an area where it was arbitrarily suppressed is likely to benefit consumers. Whether they are doing it for us or not, we are likely to benefit through reduced store fees, and thus reduced cost of goods in the store, if they succeed.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

geerlingguy 6y ago

I don't think Epic is standing up for 'us'. They have their own self-interests in mind, and they stand to gain a boatload of money (from developers like 'us') if they can get a victory.

DarkmSparks 6y ago
I'm 100% sure they have their own self interest in mind. But if it was solely that they could easily have negotiated a fee cut and left everyone else in the lurch. Or perhaps they tried and this was the next step. Either way we all stand to gain from google and apple stores being forced to play by the same rules everyone else has to abide by.
- viscanti 6y ago
  No business is forced to deal with anyone else. So google and apple stores are playing by the same rules as every other store in the world. Companies can't win a lawsuit against Whole Foods for not allowing their products to be sold in Whole Foods. Apple and Google have both seen how the completely open app download model works (it's been how PCs have worked for a long time). Most consumers want their phones to work and not have any risk of downloading spyware or viruses or apps that brick their phone. Most consumers don't want to research every app to see if the app is trustworthy enough to trust with their identity information or payment information. That said, there's probably a middle ground between where Apple/Google are now and a completely open marketplace that gets most customers what they're hoping to get while also giving larger app developers more of what they want.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > No business is forced to deal with anyone else. Actually, if the company has significant market power, which does not require a monopoly, then anti-trust law can absolutely force a company to do business with others. And in this case, Apple has about 50% of the US smartphone market, which is within the realm of when anti-trust law applies. To give a relevant example, if microsoft banned all browsers from being installed on a windows PC, that did not go through their app store, then this would be clearly illegally anti-competitive. > ompanies can't win a lawsuit against Whole Foods for not allowing their products to be sold in Whole Foods. If whole foods had significant market power, then they absolutely could be forced to allow products to be sold in their stores. They don't have this much market power, that this would be illegal, though.
    - viscanti 6y ago
      > To give a relevant example, if microsoft banned all browsers from being installed on a windows PC, that did not go through their app store, then this would be clearly illegally anti-competitive. The FTC case against Microsoft was specifically that Microsoft was a monopoly. It's clear that there's a duopoly right now with Apple and Google in the US mobile phone OS space.
      - stale2002 6y ago
        > The FTC case against Microsoft was specifically that Microsoft was a monopoly This is a misrepresentation of how section 2 of the sherman anti trust law works. It is a very common misconception, though, so don't worry. The sherman anti-trust act does not require a literal monopoly. Instead, it only requires significant market power. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... "Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct" So, according to the officially released government information and guidance from the experts on the matter, the previous point still stands. Apple can still be illegally using market power, even if they do not have a literal monopoly. As a literal monopoly is not required, under section 2 of the sherman anti-trust act. It is a completely uncontroversial statement, backed up by the information released by the government, that a literal monopoly is not required, for something to be covered by section 2 of the sherman anti trust act, and that, instead, only significant market power is required. 50% of the market share, in the US, is within the realm of market share, where anti-trust law may apply.
- zepto 6y ago
  What makes you think Apple would have ‘easily’ given them a few cut? There is nothing altruistic about anything Epic is doing.
Applejinx 6y ago
Have they finished crushing Steam yet? How's that going?
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  They've progressed to the "Literally giving away games for free" phase on their store. No idea if it's working.
  - mywittyname 6y ago
    I've still managed to hold out. I mean, I don't love Steam, but I absolutely don't want a fragmented marketplace either.
    - xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
      The way things are going, Valve will roll out a subscription-based model for Steam and then we'll be truly screwed. A fragmented marketplace is so good for competition. Look at all the indie studios that have been funded just because Epic wants to challenge the status quo. I'm no fan of their store, but the ecosystem is benefitting from their competition.

pjmlp 6y ago

Only on the mind of FOSS hippies is Apple stealing. 30% vs 80% was a very generous gift.

ballenf 6y ago

And Apple has a few weeks of damages accruing in the other direction while Fortnite on iOS has/had a 3rd-party payment option. Technically, I think you can still launch a pre-installed Fortnite and buy stuff even if you can't play the latest season. But agree that Fortnite's 70% of IAP in presumed perpetuity is going to be a larger number than Apple's 30% for a limited window (the time during which Epic's own payment solution continued to work).

beached_whale 6y ago

Epic will get nothing. They were leaving anyways(their own words said it is not a sizable portion of their revenue at around 5%, I think). Apple has no obligation to help Epic make money on their platform. Now, if anyone has a claim, it could be the users of the devices themselves. They are stuck between two Titans throwing mountains at each other. In addition, the more they lose is an argument for Apple helping them make money.

diminish 6y ago
it's not their platform, it's users' platform. such a twisted mindset is the real reason why all the a$pl monopoly hurts.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  When you buy into the Apple mobile ecosystem, it's very much because it's Apple's platform, and that's the value-add Apple brings to the table. Rewinding the clock: The iPhone hit a market that was full of low-quality hardware running lower-quality software. Apple brought to the consumer a tightly-controlled ecosystem that came with a quality guarantee. For my relatives who don't want to think hard about their phone working, I still recommend they buy Apple; pay Jobs's company the money, and they'll take care of you, from extended warranties to an app store designed to tamp down as best it can on scams and crap apps.
  - newbie578 6y ago
    While what you are saying is true, those facts don't matter if the law has been broken. Apple's rules are not the law, it is a set of arbitrary rules which have to be enforced in the court of law. And Epic is currently trying to do just that, make the law say that those "arbitrary rules" are non-valid and anti-competitive. Even if it is the Apple ecosystem, "the Apple platform which brings value", if they engage in anti-competitive behaviour, they need to be dealt with. Some might argue that there were people who enjoyed using Bell Systems and were content with the value it was providing, it also had a "vertical integration" in the communications systems, and yet they were forced to comply with the anti-competitive laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System )

dpkonofa 6y ago

>Epic for standing up for us Epic isn't standing up for anyone except their own shareholders. This isn't some play to help consumers. It's a play to collect more money from a customer-base that is not theirs.

kbenson 6y ago
That's true, but in this case their actions are to promote competition, and increasing competition in an area where it was arbitrarily suppressed is likely to benefit consumers. Whether they are doing it for us or not, we are likely to benefit through reduced store fees, and thus reduced cost of goods in the store, if they succeed.