8 ms·

Epic says Apple ‘has no rights to the fruits of Epic’s labor’ in latest filing

31 points by illuminated 6y ago

viburnum 6y ago
Not sure the labor theory of value is a legal argument, but it would set quite the precedent.
- wmf 6y ago
  App store taxation is theft, comrade! Wait, I think I'm getting my ideologies mixed up here.
zenincognito 6y ago
Going to fall on its head. Apple isnt asking for fruits of their labour but charging from device abuse, management of store and general device health.
- zxcmx 6y ago
  Credit card companies charge ~ 3% to manage a far more complex and fraud-prone ecosystem. It's Apple's sandpit and they make the rules, but I think it's hard to rationally justify their take other than "because they can".
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    I guess the 80% previously charged by mobile operators specific stores was much better then, how quickly people forget about how things were.
    - cercatrova 6y ago
      You said this on another comment, it's disingenuous to say that just because it was bad before that it's not bad now. Apple really shouldn't charge 30 percent for doing basically nothing except gate keeping.
      - pjmlp 6y ago
        They do more than gatekeeping and aren't the only ones doing 30%.
        cercatrova 6y ago
        You seem biased in favor of Apple. Why is that? > aren't the only ones doing 30%. Again, just because "other people do it" does not a compelling argument make. It's just an "argument to the people" logical fallacy. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
        pjmlp 6y ago
        Because I am no hippie pointing the finger to the man and they are entitled to their business. Don't like it? Give your money to someone else and stop complaining.
        cercatrova 6y ago
        If there are only two sellers of mobile apps, you can't just "give your money to someone else" because no one else exists. That's the essence of antitrust, whether it be monopoly, duopoly, or oligopoly. I'd agree with you if there were a free market of device OSes and app stores, but a market of only two is fundamentally unfree.
        pjmlp 6y ago
        If there are two, there is someone else, basic English grammar rules here. Then there are feature phones like those Nokias with KaiOS, Jolla, Tizen,... be the change you want the world to become, instead of giving the money and then feeling entitled to something it wasn't available right from the start.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- quelltext 6y ago
  I don't think the biggest issue is that the AppStore is the only distribution channel. The core issue that escalated this is that the distribution channel forces additional fees for no value in some cases (i.e. services/apps/games that have their own payment collection system in place). I don't think the fee is there to protect device health. There are plenty of free apps with no fees levied, so that point doesn't make sense. I think it's fair to charge a fee for using the store as a paid app distribution channel. If Apple takes on the burden of risk, funds flow management, etc. it's fair to take a cut. If Epic instead builds their own payment system, they shouldn't be charged for it or forced into using Apple's. Apple could claim that they need to cover hosting costs or review costs. And I think there's an argument here, but it's not made, and it would raise additional questions around fairness.
wmf 6y ago
It's easy to come up with such arguments but it's just as easy to come up with equal and opposite arguments like Epic has no right to run anything on iOS except by Apple's permission.
- teruakohatu 6y ago
  > Epic has no right to run anything on iOS except by Apple's permission. Epic should have every right to distribute apps and users every right to download them (outside the app store at no cost to Apple) . Unfortunately in our dystopian reality a couple of corporations get to decide who can run what.
  - darkwizard42 6y ago
    iOS is not an open platform. Apple has never marketed it as such, never promised as such, and there are a healthy number of alternatives (primarily Android) for those who are interested in it. iOS/Apple have no legal requirement to host Epic's content...or allow Epic to distribute without following Apple's rules...
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    They signed a contract willingly, no one forced them to. Also they are completely fine with the console stores.
    - saurik 6y ago
      And so then the question at hand is whether it was a legal contract due to constraints on what Apple is allowed to do as a market actor in their position.
      - pjmlp 6y ago
        Which as proven by other app stores, completely legal. Epic will fall flat on its face and the dreams of having their own 30% lost. But hey, they can always create their own Epic Machines.
    - 6y ago
gigatexal 6y ago
Epic smh. This is the same argument that people use to claim federal income taxes are illegal: it’s the cost of doing business in the USA to pay taxes. To be in the iOS ecosystem you gotta pay the App Store tax.
- Inityx 6y ago
  Taxation without representation is what caused the American Revolution
  - gigatexal 6y ago
    They are being represented: they’re treated equally in the store. But they chose to throw a fit. Also your linking this to that historical event doesn’t fit. There’s no ocean between the two parties: app review and email fix that. Communication is also instant. And most of all this isn’t a platform with a relationship that users can change. Users here being Epic a seller of software. It’s not a democracy and it need not be. It’s a platform that one can (and has in Epic’s case) agree to the terms and get access to billion users who are by far and a way much more likely to spend and who do spend more in apps than their Android counterparts.
PostThisTooFast 6y ago
And Epic has no rights to the fruits of Apple's labor, as fruity as they may be. Epic could've let people sign up via the Web, like everyone else who wants to circumvent Apple's rip-off, right?
supernova87a 6y ago
I wholeheartedly agree! And by that same token, I gladly await Epic refunding all of my payments, since they shouldn't take the fruits of my labor just to keep using their software. I am starting to regard Epic's legal team with the same kind of respect I have for political campaign spokespeople.
cik 6y ago
There's a reality that Epic doesn't have to like, no matter how bizarre. Apple is not the only gatekeeper of an App Store for iOS. Apple is the gatekeeper of the only certified App Store on iOS, that allows users to run on their fully warrantied device. Users can always choose to try to jailbreak and install Cydia, and Epic could release their games there.
- sci_prog 6y ago
  I've been wondering for a while why they haven't done this yet. It would probably make millions of users jailbreak their iPhones. It would be a big f u from epic to apple.
  - perryizgr8 6y ago
    I guess they have some trust in the judiciary yet.
sjg007 6y ago
App stores are going to get hit with anti-trust just wait. What we really need are freedom to tinker laws that allow software install.
supergirl 6y ago
It's amazing that people will defend apple on this. apple and others should not have gotten away with locking down paid for devices. It's ultimately the fault of the consumer. They bought an expensive device but still accept to pay 30% to apple for every app they buy, forever. Yes, ultimately it's still the consumer that pays for this (companies will of course factor in the store prices before launching). not to mention the censoring power that apple and google now wield; they can close down any app with "hey, you didn't abide by the T&C that we wrote ourselves and keep amending". also, consoles and phones are not the exactly same story. phones are ubiquitous now. everyone has a phone, not everyone has a PC and very few have consoles. it's one thing to get a cut of every transaction and another to get a cut of a few transactions. imagine your ISP is allowed to take a cut of every payment you make.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Apple phones aren't the only ones available on the planet, and portable gaming devices can also make phone calls over Internet connections. ISP were exactly allowed to do that, before Apple, most app stores were made available by mobile operators with rates all the way up to 80%.
LatteLazy 6y ago
"Person says thing in court" is almost always a terrible basis for an article. It usually represents lazy "journalism", the most extreme and one sided version of the case and allows no counterpoint.

31 points by illuminated 6y ago

viburnum 6y ago

Not sure the labor theory of value is a legal argument, but it would set quite the precedent.

wmf 6y ago
App store taxation is theft, comrade! Wait, I think I'm getting my ideologies mixed up here.

zenincognito 6y ago

Going to fall on its head. Apple isnt asking for fruits of their labour but charging from device abuse, management of store and general device health.

zxcmx 6y ago
Credit card companies charge ~ 3% to manage a far more complex and fraud-prone ecosystem. It's Apple's sandpit and they make the rules, but I think it's hard to rationally justify their take other than "because they can".
- pjmlp 6y ago
  I guess the 80% previously charged by mobile operators specific stores was much better then, how quickly people forget about how things were.
  - cercatrova 6y ago
    You said this on another comment, it's disingenuous to say that just because it was bad before that it's not bad now. Apple really shouldn't charge 30 percent for doing basically nothing except gate keeping.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      They do more than gatekeeping and aren't the only ones doing 30%.
      - cercatrova 6y ago
        You seem biased in favor of Apple. Why is that? > aren't the only ones doing 30%. Again, just because "other people do it" does not a compelling argument make. It's just an "argument to the people" logical fallacy. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
        pjmlp 6y ago
        Because I am no hippie pointing the finger to the man and they are entitled to their business. Don't like it? Give your money to someone else and stop complaining.
        cercatrova 6y ago
        If there are only two sellers of mobile apps, you can't just "give your money to someone else" because no one else exists. That's the essence of antitrust, whether it be monopoly, duopoly, or oligopoly. I'd agree with you if there were a free market of device OSes and app stores, but a market of only two is fundamentally unfree.
        pjmlp 6y ago
        If there are two, there is someone else, basic English grammar rules here. Then there are feature phones like those Nokias with KaiOS, Jolla, Tizen,... be the change you want the world to become, instead of giving the money and then feeling entitled to something it wasn't available right from the start.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
quelltext 6y ago
I don't think the biggest issue is that the AppStore is the only distribution channel. The core issue that escalated this is that the distribution channel forces additional fees for no value in some cases (i.e. services/apps/games that have their own payment collection system in place). I don't think the fee is there to protect device health. There are plenty of free apps with no fees levied, so that point doesn't make sense. I think it's fair to charge a fee for using the store as a paid app distribution channel. If Apple takes on the burden of risk, funds flow management, etc. it's fair to take a cut. If Epic instead builds their own payment system, they shouldn't be charged for it or forced into using Apple's. Apple could claim that they need to cover hosting costs or review costs. And I think there's an argument here, but it's not made, and it would raise additional questions around fairness.

wmf 6y ago

It's easy to come up with such arguments but it's just as easy to come up with equal and opposite arguments like Epic has no right to run anything on iOS except by Apple's permission.

teruakohatu 6y ago
> Epic has no right to run anything on iOS except by Apple's permission. Epic should have every right to distribute apps and users every right to download them (outside the app store at no cost to Apple) . Unfortunately in our dystopian reality a couple of corporations get to decide who can run what.
- darkwizard42 6y ago
  iOS is not an open platform. Apple has never marketed it as such, never promised as such, and there are a healthy number of alternatives (primarily Android) for those who are interested in it. iOS/Apple have no legal requirement to host Epic's content...or allow Epic to distribute without following Apple's rules...
- pjmlp 6y ago
  They signed a contract willingly, no one forced them to. Also they are completely fine with the console stores.
  - saurik 6y ago
    And so then the question at hand is whether it was a legal contract due to constraints on what Apple is allowed to do as a market actor in their position.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      Which as proven by other app stores, completely legal. Epic will fall flat on its face and the dreams of having their own 30% lost. But hey, they can always create their own Epic Machines.
  - 6y ago

gigatexal 6y ago

Epic smh. This is the same argument that people use to claim federal income taxes are illegal: it’s the cost of doing business in the USA to pay taxes. To be in the iOS ecosystem you gotta pay the App Store tax.

Inityx 6y ago
Taxation without representation is what caused the American Revolution
- gigatexal 6y ago
  They are being represented: they’re treated equally in the store. But they chose to throw a fit. Also your linking this to that historical event doesn’t fit. There’s no ocean between the two parties: app review and email fix that. Communication is also instant. And most of all this isn’t a platform with a relationship that users can change. Users here being Epic a seller of software. It’s not a democracy and it need not be. It’s a platform that one can (and has in Epic’s case) agree to the terms and get access to billion users who are by far and a way much more likely to spend and who do spend more in apps than their Android counterparts.

PostThisTooFast 6y ago

And Epic has no rights to the fruits of Apple's labor, as fruity as they may be. Epic could've let people sign up via the Web, like everyone else who wants to circumvent Apple's rip-off, right?

supernova87a 6y ago

I wholeheartedly agree! And by that same token, I gladly await Epic refunding all of my payments, since they shouldn't take the fruits of my labor just to keep using their software. I am starting to regard Epic's legal team with the same kind of respect I have for political campaign spokespeople.

cik 6y ago

There's a reality that Epic doesn't have to like, no matter how bizarre. Apple is not the only gatekeeper of an App Store for iOS. Apple is the gatekeeper of the only certified App Store on iOS, that allows users to run on their fully warrantied device. Users can always choose to try to jailbreak and install Cydia, and Epic could release their games there.

sci_prog 6y ago
I've been wondering for a while why they haven't done this yet. It would probably make millions of users jailbreak their iPhones. It would be a big f u from epic to apple.
- perryizgr8 6y ago
  I guess they have some trust in the judiciary yet.

sjg007 6y ago

App stores are going to get hit with anti-trust just wait. What we really need are freedom to tinker laws that allow software install.

supergirl 6y ago

It's amazing that people will defend apple on this. apple and others should not have gotten away with locking down paid for devices. It's ultimately the fault of the consumer. They bought an expensive device but still accept to pay 30% to apple for every app they buy, forever. Yes, ultimately it's still the consumer that pays for this (companies will of course factor in the store prices before launching). not to mention the censoring power that apple and google now wield; they can close down any app with "hey, you didn't abide by the T&C that we wrote ourselves and keep amending". also, consoles and phones are not the exactly same story. phones are ubiquitous now. everyone has a phone, not everyone has a PC and very few have consoles. it's one thing to get a cut of every transaction and another to get a cut of a few transactions. imagine your ISP is allowed to take a cut of every payment you make.

pjmlp 6y ago
Apple phones aren't the only ones available on the planet, and portable gaming devices can also make phone calls over Internet connections. ISP were exactly allowed to do that, before Apple, most app stores were made available by mobile operators with rates all the way up to 80%.

LatteLazy 6y ago

"Person says thing in court" is almost always a terrible basis for an article. It usually represents lazy "journalism", the most extreme and one sided version of the case and allows no counterpoint.