57 ms·

Epic Games steps up Apple fight with EU antitrust complaint

656 points by mikesabbagh 6y ago

pjmlp 6y ago
Good luck, iDevices are a very tiny portion of European mobile market. Looking forward to the EpicOS Phone, running yet another SDL/Qt variant.
- DiabloD3 6y ago
  Even so, Apple has gotten far more whacks for violating EU law than anyone else in this space. Not only that, winning a case against a company in EU over antitrust often bolsters your defense in the US due to courts preferring to hear about established case law by other courts with similar laws.
  - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
    >Even so, Apple has gotten far more whacks for violating EU law than anyone else in this space. What are you referring to here? Antitrust? If so, please provide some pointers. There're a lot of cases, not aware of many wins.
    - metiscus 6y ago
      Note that I am not asserting that Apple has more than anyone else, that would require more research than this. What I have found in recent history is one major case from France: Apple fined 1.23 Billion for Price-Fixing in France https://venturebeat.com/2020/03/16/apple-fined-record-1-23-billion-in-france-for-price-fixing-scheme/ https://venturebeat.com/2020/03/16/apple-fined-record-1-23-b... Apple also has 4 open Antitrust investigations (all opened on the same date and likely interrelated) going on in the EU (irrespective of actions that members may be taking): https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=1_40437 https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.c... https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=1_40452 https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.c... https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=1_40652 https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.c... https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=1_40716 https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.c...
      - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
        So, to be clear, there's no successful antitrust prosecution of Apple under EU law, nor one that relates to iOS or the App Store. On the other hand, there is a €4.34bn fine for Google for market abuses relating to bundling of Google services in Android, as well as a €2.4bn fine for favoring Google Shopping in its search product, and a €1.4bn fine for abusive practices in Google AdSense.
  - halostatue 6y ago
    > Apple has gotten far more whacks… [citation required]
- drinkcocacola 6y ago
  If I were a mobile phone manufacturing company, I won't call 30% of European market a "tiny portion".
  - oaiey 6y ago
    Especially considering that the iPhone is an enabler for all other Apple devices.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    True, but it makes it irrelevant for Epic baby cries from law point of view.
- wwtrv 6y ago
  According to StatCounter it’s ~30% while it’s two times smaller than in the US (~60%) I wouldn’t say it’s “tiny”.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Not enough for "monopolies".
    - detaro 6y ago
      Neither the article nor any of the comments you reply to use the word you quote.
      - pjmlp 6y ago
        I know, Epic is trying to dodge its use in an vain attempt to actually have a case.
        enragedcacti 6y ago
        You seem to really know a lot about EU laws and regulations, where did you get your law degree?
        pjmlp 6y ago
        The same place as everyone else thinking that Epic has a case.
        detaro 6y ago
        Antitrust is wider than monopolies, so it totally makes sense that they are not talking about that, and weird to insist on the term. (and no, I don't think they have a particularly high chance of actually getting anywhere useful with this)
- T-A 6y ago
  31% in Europe, much more in some markets (54% in Sweden): https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/sweden https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/sweden
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Which doesn't matter when talking about monopolies and such.
    - T-A 6y ago
      But does when somebody claims that "iDevices are a very tiny portion of European mobile market."
ehvatum 6y ago
There is room for 3rd party app stores. Epic will argue that Apple does an absolutely ghastly terrible job of curating the Apple app store, as Apple really has little incentive not to suck completely. The EU court will agree. Apple will spend a year or two saying “it can’t be done”, then issue a signing certificate to Epic.
- gwd 6y ago
  > There is room for 3rd party app stores. The "Apple Tax" pays for the maintenance of the Apple ecosystem. Epic wants access to this amazing ecosystem, but resents having to help pay to support it. Either "third party" app stores will also pay to support this ecosystem, in which case Epic will be paying the same amount either way; or they'll fail to support the ecosystem, in which case Apple will be forced to turn to other sources to make revenue (like selling personal information). Right now I, as the consumer, can choose between an ecosystem whose business model is based on selling personal information (Android) or an ecosystem whose business model is based on the end user paying more (Apple). Don't take that choice away from me.
  - chii 6y ago
    > Either "third party" app stores will also pay to support this ecosystem, in which case Epic will be paying the same amount either way how did you work out that the amount apple gets paid (30%) is the "correct" amount? The only way to find out is via competition. But due to the monopolistic powers of apple, there cannot be competition on their platform. Thus, we do not know the true cost of maintaining this platform - only that apple is able to maintain it with at least 30%. > Don't take that choice away from me. nobody is forcing you to use the third party app store if it does exist. If you continued to use apple's curated store, you will continue to get the existing benefits. Adding an extra option can't possibly hurt you.
    - darknessmonk 6y ago
      > how did you work out that the amount apple gets paid (30%) is the "correct" amount? The only way to find out is via competition. But due to the monopolistic powers of apple, there cannot be competition on their platform. Thus, we do not know the true cost of maintaining this platform - only that apple is able to maintain it with at least 30%. 30% is industry standard. > nobody is forcing you to use the third party app store if it does exist. If you continued to use apple's curated store, you will continue to get the existing benefits. Adding an extra option can't possibly hurt you. It hurts the ecosystem - and all its users. Splitting the apps in multiple app stores is a nightmare I don't get the point: the whole idea of Apple is to have everything under their control. Nobody is forcing anyone to use Apple devices
uncledave 6y ago
I assume this doesn't affect the UK any more?
- chromanoid 6y ago
  > Epic Games has also complained to the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal and to the Australian watchdog.
  - uncledave 6y ago
    I read the entire article and missed that entirely. More coffee! Thanks for quoting it.
desmap 6y ago
Epic has too much money and IDK if Tim Cooks plays in the same league with and once Jobs, Sweeney and Huateng. Plus Zuck who just got started. I wouldn't want to be in a war with them together. Tim is not dumb, not at all but he just maintained one of the industry's strongest network effect/lock-in, not more. Beyond M1 there is not a lot that is not from Jobs' inheritance. Ah yes, broken keyboards for more than three years.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
aboringusername 6y ago
It feels a bit hypocritical when Apple laughs at FB for complaining about their new tracking pop-up yet when the shoe's on the other foot and Apple may actually have to compete on its own platform they double down and defend their right to be judge, jury and executioner. Apple competing with third party app stores on iOS is going to be amazing. No computer platform should be allowed to prevent sideloading or other stores from competing. This isn't the case on Windows. This isn't the case on Android. Or Linux for that matter. It's more disappointing it takes 10 years for regulators to step-in and say "that's bad, no more, open up your platform".
- zpeti 6y ago
  One of the absolutely obvious hypocritical things for me is that they don't allow anyone to say in their app that "Apple gets 30% of this fee" That's the equivalent of the IDFA message for Facebook. Which everyone will see, its worded in a very negative way, and it's a must.
  - newbie578 6y ago
    Good point. Would love to hear the Apple fanatics on HN defend this. So much for respecting privacy...
    - asimpletune 6y ago
      I don’t know if this is a defense per se, but the reason they do this is to prevent app makers from using that to try and steer customers to out of band ways of subscribing. I guess the analogy would be if a brand forbade a retailers from revealing their margins, so customers don’t go to secondary markets and potentially/almost-certainly have a worse experience. Like counterfeit products or just in general to be subjected to dark patterns. As far as my personal opinion regarding this I am completely fine with it. I think they’ve created something remarkable in the sense that everyday people are starting to pay for software, because they’ve created a valuable ecosystem. Sometimes I think we forget that in the past everyday people wouldn’t really pay for digital products in the same way they’d pay for physical ones. The one thing I’d say though is that maybe the 30% is high, but given they have the small business program that argument is mostly gone. Any way now I’m rambling but that’s my best attempt to honestly explain why they do that.
Wowfunhappy 6y ago
> Apple said its rules applied equally to all developers and that Epic had violated them. All developers except Amazon, they mean. Now that it has happened, I'm actually surprised it took Epic this long to file suit in the EU. Given Europe's stronger antitrust enforcement and general skepticism of tech giants, Epic likely has a stronger case there than in the US. If I were Epic, I'd have wanted to have both lawsuits ready to go simultaneously.
- dpkonofa 6y ago
  What do you mean by that? The rules apply to Amazon just the same as to anyone else.
  - adamdusty 6y ago
    Do they? All in app purchases have to be made through Apple's payment system. If you can buy amazon prime through the app then Apple should be taking a 30% cut. They might already do that, I have no idea, but it seems unlikely Amazon would agree to it.
    - dpkonofa 6y ago
      You can't buy Amazon Prime through the app. What people are referring to is the fact that existing subscriptions are allowed to renew without the 30% cut. People are misframing that as an exception for Amazon even though there are several platforms in the same situation that already benefit from the same policy that Amazon now agrees to.
      - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
        Actually, I'm referring to the fact that Amazon Prime members can rent digital videos without Apple getting a cut. See the Verge article kevingadd posted below.
        dpkonofa 6y ago
newbie578 6y ago
Full support to Epic! Time to bring some balance. Would also love to have Apple allow api access to PWAs, they are hindering progress of PWAs just because of the App Store money. Would love to hear Tim Apple's opinion on this stuff, on being in this position. I remember quite fondly how he berated Facebook and Zuck personally, by saying he as a CEO would never be in such a situation regarding media scrutiny and regulatory issues. Oh how the tables turn.. As a dev, I do not like Apple an ounce more than Facebook. So kudos to Tim Sweeney..
api 6y ago
There are no good guys here. Apple wants to tax everyone in the world 30% for almost every software transaction while Epic wants to bring more loot box gambling to iOS and keep all the money.
dleslie 6y ago
I'm not excited by the proposition of either party coming out on top. I hope the EU sees the forest for the trees and understands that the situation is a lot more complicated than either party would claim. Apple is acting as a leader in reducing the footprint of general computing hardware; albeit their devices have among the longest service lives, they continue to be further restricted in their operation over time. There is a danger here with the population switching en masse from using PCs to using Phones as their primary computing devices. Forcing it to allow third party marketplaces might be a start in reversing that trend. Epic is a leader in the development of anxiety-driven consumer software. Fortnite's primary capital isn't the player's competitive standing, it's the uniqueness of their cosmetic gear. They target the most vulnerable and maleable markets, tweens and children, and ply them with social anxiety; one of the most insidious and emotionally distressing devices for that age group. See also, yesterday's lengthy discussion. [0] So I kind of hope that the EU allows third party stores, but allows Apple to place curation constraints on the sort of purchases that are available to users. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26153331 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26153331
- mhh__ 6y ago
  Why should I believe that Apple actually care in anyway about their users? Fortnite and co. are going to be regulated severely in the coming years - probably not by Apple. Have they not hosted Fortnite right up until they wouldn't pay their rent?
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  Candy Crush Saga is in the list of Top Free Games on the App Store. So was Fortnite, up until Epic decided they were tired of paying the Apple Tax. Apple isn't defending users from games with manipulative business models, and in fact is actively profiting from them. This lawsuit is about Apple's ability to profit from them.
  - dleslie 6y ago
    Very good points. We can't trust Apple to curtail exploitative software. The EU has a proven track record of exploring innovative regulation; perhaps they will find a solution.
darknessmonk 6y ago
> Apple competing with third party app stores on iOS is going to be amazing. No computer platform should be allowed to prevent sideloading or other stores from competing. The walled garden is a selling point, a feature - I don't care about sideloading at all. You want to sideload? Grab and Android.
- mywittyname 6y ago
  If you don't care about sideloading? Don't sideload, just use the Apple Store. Users like you have zero skin in the game. Nothing in your workflow will change, other than you might get cheaper applications.
  - darknessmonk 6y ago
    Nope. Hurts overall experience. Not only the App's won't be curated the same as the other ones, but now I would have to maybe reach to some webside to download a .ipa file or to download a secondary App store to get a apps that otherwise would be available on App Store.
    - chungus_khan 6y ago
      Then keep using the curated store? It only hurts if Apple's store can't compete with alternative ones. There's no such problem on Android because developers and users are fine with the Play Store. Epic even tried doing a sideloaded Fortnite for Android and people didn't download it, so they came back.
      - zepto 6y ago
        This keeps getting repeated but is false. New stores will pay for exclusives rights to popular apps just as video streaming platforms do for video. Users will have no choice but to use a jumble of different stores.
        chungus_khan 6y ago
flenserboy 6y ago
I can't shake the feeling that Epic is a puppet, being used as a wedge to hash security on iOS devices. As much as it would be nice to have more control over one's iPhone, the horror of the Android marketplace is enough to give a body more than a little pause.
- chungus_khan 6y ago
  The contents of the Play Store have nothing to do with Android's ability to sideload.
- zepto 6y ago
  Look into who owns Epic .
  - enragedcacti 6y ago
    Tim Sweeney is the controlling shareholder of Epic. If Tim Sweeney decides to do something there is literally nothing TenCent could do to stop him outside of a lawsuit.
    - zepto 6y ago
      > there is literally nothing TenCent could do to stop him outside of a lawsuit Obviously false. TenCent controls Epic’s access to the Chinese market, which is much larger than the iOS market has ever been for Epic.
      - enragedcacti 6y ago
        I'm not saying they have no influence, I just have a problem with you _insinuating_ falsehoods with a statement like "Look into who owns Epic" as if you've just dropped the truth bomb exposing evil China as the mastermind behind two corporations fighting for who gets to make more money.
        zepto 6y ago
4eor0 6y ago
All this suggests to me is Epic has a limited path to growth without courts deciding they indeed are entitled to more profit without producing anything net new.
billysielu 6y ago
Does Apple pay tax on that 30% to the EU for sales in the EU?
- kmlx 6y ago
  well apple cannot pay tax to a group of institutions that don’t have any business collecting taxes. and this is because taxes are national matters. the EU can try some legal ways of forcing some countries to take more or less tax, but all of those tries are not only being litigated, but also pushed against by the national governments.
olivierduval 6y ago
Actually, Apple Store and Google Play (and Steam, yeah) are the same: they are monopolistic platform, either formally (Apple) or de facto (Google). A bit like IE browser in Windows in the 90's I think that each editor can still provide an App Store, with specific price model for editor/users, and have to allow competition (with different features... for example, less curation) by providing THE SAME access for the user. For example, every app store must include other main app store. Right now, if you want to use F-Droid, you cant do it as smoothly as using Google Play because it's not on Google Play (but Amazon apps are I think).
no_wizard 6y ago
It’s all about money. I don’t think epic wants a new App Store. In fact I do t think the majority of developers with legitimate complaints with the App Store want competing app stores. They all want, from what I can boil down to, the majority of the time, two things: 1. Control over payments (to cut out the 30%) 2. More control over releases and updates (particularly upgrade pricing) I think if Apple caved in on these all this would go away. Likely, that’s about all we will see from a successful lawsuit too. It’s never been about the App Store being the only game in town. It’s all about reviews, fees, release schedules and pricing mechanics. I don’t think the consumer wins if there are multiple App Stores. I do think the consumer and smaller developers may win if there is some shift around the above issues, though
- kevingadd 6y ago
  One argument in favor of multiple App Stores is that Apple has historically been very aggressive about globally banning entire product categories they dislike or apps that offend the governments of foreign countries. Apple can continue to exercise this discretion without harming consumer choice if they offer sideloading for end users (or at least make their browser more capable, with full support for PWAs and modern web APIs)
- pier25 6y ago
  I think 30% is excessive but as a developer my biggest gripe with the AppStore is definitely the tight grip Apple has over what's published. You might work for years on an app and all that effort can vanish into thin air if Apple decides they don't want it.
  - kevingadd 6y ago
    Retroactively! It'd be one thing if it was up-front rejections, but the internet is full of horror stories from developers who suddenly found that Apple had decided their product was no longer okay and that their customers didn't matter, blocking future updates. Not even necessarily taking it off the store, just ensuring it can never get bug fixes.
fhood 6y ago
Apple does not actually have a monopoly, Android exists, has more market share, more options and features, and a better ecosystem of compatible smart devices. If Apple is forced to allow third party app marketplaces it is clear what will happen. Every major player will make their own marketplace and force you to use it to access their software and whatever other software they have paid to make exclusive. Epic is one of the absolute worst offenders for this sort of behavior. So to everyone claiming "you will still be able to use the curated app store", I guess that's true but only technically. IOS will not be a better place should Apple be forced to go through with this. This is not being an "Apple apologist". I think we all agree that Apple will happily exploit the people forced to offer services through their platform. But if they are forced to take their hands off the wheel they will lose the power that allowed them to push through some fairly groundbreaking privacy protections, including sign-in with Apple, which I personally deeply appreciate.
- Qahlel 6y ago
  > Apple does not actually have a monopoly This is like saying water is not an essential liquid, there is coca cola and pepsi.
  - darkwizard42 6y ago
    Apple products are not at the level of necessity as water... A smartphone might be (big stretch)... of which there are plenty of choices. This is like saying Dasani (Apple) is the absolutely ONLY water brand out there, when you can get Aquafina (Android) and get nearly the same product. Yes, Dasani is only bottled at certain places (exclusive features like iMessage, FaceTime), but Aquafina has minerality (rooting your phone, deep integration with Google services) as well that make it unique.
  - toiletfuneral 6y ago
    I don't understand this analogy at all, can you explain?
  - buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
    So you're saying that somehow Google uses Apple as it's main ingredient for Android.. or something? More likely, I think you thought the comparison sounded catchy, despite the fact that it has nothing to do with the situation.
isodev 6y ago
Such vendors are free to create game catalogs for their games (Steam-like), taking the user to the App Store for downloads. They can also have IAPs, Subscriptions and alls kinds of payment options. Apple's own Arcade follows this same architecture so I don't see Epic's argument at all. When I am using my iPhone/iPad, I expect all apps to work with services connected to my Apple account. No user should be required to provide payment information to a shady 3rd party like Epic, Microsoft or whatever. It is clear that the "antitrust" action is designed to allow Epic (and similar) to push a solution which is fit for their business model. As a developer, I don't support the idea of alt-stores at all, it would mean that only big corps will have the resources to create and maintain such distribution channels. Nobody will go through the trouble of installing an alt store for my FooBar pet-project game. Also who is going to review these apps?
- enragedcacti 6y ago
  > I expect all apps to work with services connected to my Apple account. No user should be required to provide payment information to a shady 3rd party like Epic, Microsoft or whatever. Apple could make everyone happy tomorrow vis-a-vis IAPs by charging standard credit card processing fees (~2-3%)instead of 30% while still protecting your payment info from app developers.
  - isodev 6y ago
    The App Store is also a distribution channel. The 15% seems like a lot but I would have to pay, way, way more to achieve the same level of presence elsewhere (without nasty tracking ads).
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
williesleg 6y ago
Shhaaakeeeedooooowwwwnnnn time! Just levy the fine already, quit the charade!
maratc 6y ago
Anytime Epic/Apple thing comes up, a very relevant quote is what their judge (YGR) said on their case: > “Well plaintiffs always want me to define relevant markets as narrowly as possible. It helps their case. And defendants always want me to define markets as broad as possible, because it helps their case.” The big elephant in the room is gaming consoles. If you see iPhone more or less in line with PC/Mac, you may already have made up your mind on how "relevant markets" are defined, and so naturally pre-inclined to side with Epic. OTOH if you see it more or less in line with Xbox/Playstation/Switch (every one of them having a unique store that charges 30%), you may naturally be pre-inclined to side with Apple. The judges will eventually get to define what the "relevant market" is, and no amount of HN arguments will change that. If I were Apple, I would just make a version of an iPhone hardware-enabled to have alternative stores, and I would sell it for a surplus of $1000. This way both sides can have their cake, and the market can decide.
- ryukafalz 6y ago
  I also think people should be allowed to install whatever software they want on a gaming console that they own. Or a car, or a tractor, or...
  - casouniquo 6y ago
    I would like to have an option to install steam on PS5. But if sony were forced to do that, I don't think they can sell it for $499. Also, like samsung, apple will only be providing like 18 months of updates
  - sdfhbdf 6y ago
    It isn't illegal to jailbreak these. Just if you want the convince, security, ecosystem, support you can expect to also in the same price point start supporting all the possible malware you will be able to sideload to your car, tractor and iPhone.
- techpression 6y ago
  I like this idea, much like Windows N (that the EU fought years for boasting how good it was for consumers and yet nobody bought it) Apple could release a iPhone - insecure edition, offering no security features, just like how Microsoft removed media playback features. Let the actual consumers decide instead of heavy handed government. But I guess most commentators want to eat the cake, sell it and keep it at the same time.
dubcanada 6y ago
I can hardly wait to use Amazon App Store to install Amazon and then open up the Epic Game Store to install random game and then open up EA Game Store to install random game and then open up Facebook App Store to install Facebook and then open up the Apple App Store to install the Blizzard App Store to install Hearthstone and then go back to the Apple App Store and update the Blizzard App Store so I can get the latest Hearthstone updates. Going to be super fun! My gaming computer is already filled with like 8 different app stores each completely different then the other and a variety of privacy/security issues on each. All of them need their App Store running in order to play their games, so half the time my computer has 4-5 App Stores running in the background so I can play a single game. And they are all electron/qt webkit apps cause nobody builds apps anymore so each one consumes about 500mb of ram. And each App Store also has their own chat system along with the others like discord. I don't agree that Apple should have a complete monopoly, but the alternative is not better. And while Android does have the main Google Play Store, and there isn't to many "alternative" App Stores at the moment. Just give it time, the same thing that is happening to TV Streaming/Game App Stores will happen on Android.
- SCHiM 6y ago
  You install those yourself you know. I'd rather have a choice than not. I feel your pain in the sense that that I think user UX will take a hit, but I think that's less important than breaking the monopoly of the current app store. For example, I can't find apps with pornography or other types of things the high overlords at apple or Google have deemed inappropriate for me to have. That's bad. Apparently apps like Matrix fall under that category. It'd be nice if I can choose what I want to see.
  - BrianGragg 6y ago
    The problem is the choice is taken away from you though. Just like he said with the game market. If you want to play Game A, you go and download/install Game A's publishing app store. If you want to then play Game B, rinse and repeat. You will be forced to use so many different app stores and won't have a choice to NOT use their app store "IF" it progresses like it has on the desktop. No proof it will/won't either.
tremon 6y ago
I know this isn't the first time this happens, but it's a curious thing when a large US company has to resort to using the EU court system to resolve their beef with another US company.
ralmidani 6y ago
I avoid being a persistent fanboy/hater toward any company, and try to consider each case on its merits. Some of the concerns regarding multiple app stores on the device (which raises issues of security, privacy, and even storage space) are valid. But they fail to address a huge problem: Apple's draconian policy on in-app purchases. If IAP were to be opened up and become more competitive, I might stick with Apple's just for security and convenience, but the alternatives would be there, and I personally wouldn't mind a lack of alternative app stores. Edit: to clarify, I'm saying I wouldn't mind having one app store if Apple's stranglehold on IAP could be relaxed (whether by choice or by law). Another edit: Apple could also allow one-off sideloading, but not allow an app to install other apps (i.e. become a separate app store). This would be a win-win for consumers. Assuming that's who everyone cares about, of course.
- cesarvarela 6y ago
  I think if you open up what you want you lose the security and convenience that would make you stick with Apple too.
  - zionic 6y ago
    I doubt any significant volume of people who sell their iPhones and go android if Apple allowed other app stores.
    - nxc18 6y ago
      Of course not. Not immediately. Just like you wouldn’t move cities if the police announced they’d no longer enforce traffic laws or investigate/attempt to prevent gun violence. Then after the homicide rate doubles, there’s shootings almost daily, and you can’t get from point A to point B without a reckless driver risking your life, you might get stressed. At first you’d consider moving to the suburb, but you can’t, because Epic’s lawsuit applied internationally and nationally, so actually no community is allowed to police itself in any way (Epic also sued Google for Google Play and I really don’t get why no one on HN is capable of remembering or considering that). And then you’d think, “if I can get murdered here or I could get murdered there, might as well save on rent”. And so, Epic has succeeded in destroying a large part of what makes the iPhone unique.
arendtio 6y ago
A bit OT, but I still fail to grasp why Apple is allowed to restrict all browsers on iOS to the Safari rendering engine. Microsoft had to pay big because they didn't asked their users properly for alternative browsers, yet Apple doesn't even give other browsers a fair chance to compete on iOS. Consumers suffer because Apple controls about 50% of the mobile market and if Apple decides a certain feature will not be available in Safari (e.g. Push API), no other browser vendor can even offer a solution. Sounds to me like totally abusing their market position to uphold their anti-competitive behavior.
- pojntfx 6y ago
  Absolutely. There should be an EU regulation forcing companies to 1) allow sideloading apps, without any certificate restrictions for things like feature approval (such as having to ask Apple nicely to be able to create a VPN) and 2) allow the user to run any code they want to on their device, including any browser engine. With the EU becoming basically an American software colony since COVID (Zoom, O365) it is about time for a "GDPR of software freedom".
- rgbrenner 6y ago
  50% in the US market (27% globally) is very far from the 98% global marketshare that Windows had in 2000. MacOS had the other 2% (thanks to being propped up by MS 2 years earlier). That was the entire competitive landscape. Linux existed, but if you used it back then (I did), it was difficult to get a desktop going, and virtually no one used it on the desktop. And while the DOJ might only care about the US market... the fact that Microsoft's domination extended worldwide means not only were there no US competitors, but there weren't foreign competitors to challenge them either. The fact that Android--with 50% US and 72% global marketshare--is so competitive with Apple makes it clear these two situations are not equivalent. Apple is more abusive/controlling in some ways, but they dont have the market power that Microsoft had.
  - Daho0n 6y ago
    No matter how many times it gets repeated it doesn't make it true: Market share is irrelevant. You can abuse your market position at both 15 and 50% market share. A few tiny companies working together to fix prices is still illegal and punished no matter if they together are only a tiny fraction of the market. Apple is abusing it's position, no doubt about it. If you doubt install another app store or avoid the 30% tax.
withinboredom 6y ago
I know of several apps in my local app store that have their own payment system instead of the in-app purchases. I don't see why Apple doesn't enforce this policy for all apps.
holstvoogd 6y ago
Epic needs to sit this one out honestly. They are only doing this because "we didn't get a special deeeeeaaalll :'(" Apple needs to get their head out of their asses and fix this before governments do. I will probably own apple devices for the rest of my life, but this kind of behaviour is damaging in the long run. Look at MSFT. At least iPhones dont come with a non-removable fortnite installer on the homescreen and 5k google spyware apps..
NorwegianDude 6y ago
A lot of people here seems to think that what Apple is doing is fine and that people knew how iOS works when they bought the device. Neither of those are true for most people. Just reading the comments on HN the last half year clearly shows that people are confused about what Apple demands. If the HN audience is confused then I feel I can safely state that very few people knows what they're getting themselves into when choosing iOS. Just the fact that you're not allowed by Apple to inform users about the cut Apple takes should be proof enough that Apple don't want users to know how much money Apple is costing them. And the fact that iOS doesn't have a decent browser also sucks. Also, users don't understand that Chrome isn't Chrome on iOS. Users have no idea what they're paying for, or that what they're using is being controlled by Apple. I hope Apple have to open iOS up so this can end.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tomxor 6y ago
At this point I wish there was a way that both could lose. It's the monopolist vs the predatory casino, both throwing out thinly veiled user centric arguments at the press while their true motives are greed and user exploitation.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
mucholove 6y ago
Why is everyone talking about allowing third-party app stores and not side-loaded apps?
- ihuman 6y ago
  Because Epic Games is in the title, and they already have a store on Mac+Windows.
orliesaurus 6y ago
the LotR quote "One ring to rule them all" has never been more appropriate!
doublejay1999 6y ago
Epic know they can't win this using the Law. Apple will argue they built a market of nBillion customers, which anyone can access for a fee. What Epic hope to do, is win commercial support and build pressure on apple to lower their fees. Might work too.
- gscott 6y ago
  Apple tried to wear Samsung down by suing them in different jurisdictions at the same time. Might work for Epic.
- mullingitover 6y ago
  It already worked, Apple lowered fees for smaller developers.[1] [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-app-store/apple-lowers-app-store-fees-for-small-developers-critics-see-little-impact-idUSKBN27Y1CF https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-app-store/apple-low...
shmerl 6y ago
Good, anti-trust action against Apple's policies is long overdue. Looking forward to competing browsers to become available for iOS users which should reduce Apple's ability to hinder Web standards.
lowbloodsugar 6y ago
Let's start with the obvious issue: Apple does not sell the most phones. It does not have the most phones on offer. It is not a majority, let alone a monopoly. Now the less obvious issue: I like what apple does and I am prepared to pay for it. I agree with those arguing for consumer choice, but I come to the exact opposite conclusion, and find those others hypocritical. I want an option to have a locked down environment. I want to have the choice to buy an Apple product. Given the choice between the Android system or the Apple system, I choose Apple. More people choose Android. The argument that we should use "consumer choice" to remove this choice from me, and instead to demand that every business must make the world look like Android users want, is not logical.
- gnopgnip 6y ago
  Antitrust regulation isn't just about monopolies, it is about the cost to entry and the harm to consumers
malka 6y ago
Should we force Nintendo as well to allow people to side load apps ? Because I don't see the difference with Apple.
- wazanator 6y ago
  There's a big difference between a personal cell phone that you use every day of your life and might be your only computer and is advertised as such and an entertainment console. That said I agree and think Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft should have to open up their platforms for side loading.
- 7786655 6y ago
  Yes.
mbreese 6y ago
I wonder if this isn’t going to have the opposite effect. If Apple doesn’t get to restrict application developers through the App Store, then will they follow the gaming console model of restricting access to the SDK? I mean, this isn’t a new issue. It’s been the bane of game distribution for as long as we’ve had independent game developers. But if you want to have some semblance of control over a software ecosystem, could there be a similar shift where users could install whatever software they’d like... but the developers would have to be better vetted by Apple first? For the sake of argument, let’s just assume there are legitimate security/privacy concerns here and ignore competitive issues a la Spotify for now.
ksec 6y ago
There are still a lot of people, especially on the general web stuck in the Steve Job's era believing in bad developers, quote; "What happens sometime though is that some people, uh, lie. Some people use unpublished APIs and their app gets rejected. Some people submit an app that they say does one thing, but really does something else. They try to hide it from us, they get very clever about that. They try to hide it from us and we find it and we reject it. And they run to the press and tell a story about oppression and it gets written up and they get their 15 minutes of fame because they hope it will convince us to change our minds which never does, but they keep trying to do that. And it’s unfortunate, but we take it in the chin. That part of what we do. We don’t run to the press and go, “This guys a son of a bitch liar.” " That was in All Things Digital D8 Conference 2010. Nearly 11 years ago. The landscape has changed, the context has changed. iPhone has only sold 50M unit in total since launch in 2007. These days Apple has 1 billion active user and Apple sell about as much iPhone per quarter. Smartphone and Apps went from nice thing to have to near or already a necessity in modern society. Surely you cant apply the same rules in a modern era, not to mention those App Store rules has evolved since Steve Jobs passed away. Many Apps that Apple used to exempt from the 30% cut now has to comply. I really wish HN folks read the great piece from Benedict Evans ( https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2020/8/18/app-stores https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2020/8/18/app-stores) and Matthew Ball ( https://www.matthewball.vc/all/applemetaverse https://www.matthewball.vc/all/applemetaverse ). It is by far the best I have seen on this issue. I submitted both a few times but never got on HN Front page. Hopefully after reading both, people will stop using it is Apple Store they could do whatever they want as argument. I think there are many things Apple could do as a compromise to satisfy vast majority of people and interest. Break the App Store into Game Store and App Store. Nearly 80% of App Store Revenue comes from Gaming. As long as all games are still going through Game Store, like console maker are doing which Apple should have a very strong case, they continue to keep the 80% of revenue ( or near raw profits ). Apple could also argue their continue investment into Metal API and the so called Apple's own GPU ( Which is still PowerVR ) as rational. Breaking this case would hurt lots of other interest including Microsoft's Xbox. Lower the App Store to a flat rate of 10%. And the same apply across all Apps. Software, Services, Subscription or not with an annual Cap of Fixed amount ( minus CC processing fees ) , say $1M per App per year. So Apple isn't rent seeking per se on your revenue. If you sold $100M, instead of $10M to Apple, you now pay $1M max per App. Work load for Apple per App is fixed and doesn't scale with how much revenue an App Generate. And very few Apps ( not games ) make that much money. With Subscription which generate long term revenue benefits the most. ( EU / AUS has ruled both MasterCard and Visa to lower their price. Compare to the ridiculously 2-5% processing fees, they are closer to 1% in both EU and AUS, There are no reason why other countries wont start looking at App Store from Apple and Google in similar fashion. i.e Those 30% from Apps will be gone sooner or later. Better to make some good will than to have no option in court.) Allow Side-loading of Apps in restricted mode. Where performance and Gaming Related APIs are limited. Access to Camera, Photos and Phonebook or any files requires consent everytime they try to access it with no option to disable or Dont ask again. The reality is 99% of user dont really need or want to side load Apps. And provides enough security and choice for its users. For a lot of Apps, this provide good enough for like News, Email, or other Subscription Apps which really is just a Web App accessing online information without needing the to go though Apple's permission for Apple Store. And finally, a clear, open, transparent process and pages for developers to App Store rejection. Which makes it much more of a PR problem for Apple that has their interest tied to provide best service. I really hope Apple do change. Tim Cook is far too focused on Apple's Services Revenue.
40four 6y ago
These conversations always rapidly devolve into the same old generic iOS versus Android nonsense. But I'd like to try to keep a super narrow scope here. The specific problem Epic and others are fighting here is "App Store payment system and control over app downloads" Now to be fair, as far as 'App store payments' goes, both Google & Apple charge the 30% fee on all transactions. The reason Epic is battling Apple here mostly has to do with the 'walled garden', and the fact Apple's 'control over app downloads' is totally locked down. Epic avoids the Google play 30% fee by having users side-load the APK, so that's a fight for another day I suppose. Now, for the 30% fee problem. Does anyone really think that is fair an equitable? Come again? They hover up 3/10ths of all business transactions? It just seems so obvious to me that the answer is absolutely not. There is no way I can twist my brain to believe there is any justification for that. If the issue is that it costs Apple (& Google) a lot of money to maintain servers and infrastructure to provide the app store services, then there are other ways to charge developers to cover this cost, and even make some profit. Apple charges $100 a year for the 'Apple Developer Program'. This yearly fee model is the fair way to do this I think. You could add more tiers too this that scale with usage. $100 for the entry level package, and that covers 'X' amount of usage. There could be enterprise tiers for huge customers like Epic. They are using more of the resources of the app store, then they should pay more. I'm sure Epic would be happy to pay, IDK I'm just making up a number, something like $500K a year for their developer license instead of 30% of every transaction. I'm just spitballing here, I've not fully formed all these ideas, and I don't know what fair pricing for tiers & usage would exactly look like. But I think most of us can agree a system like that would be much more fair and equitable. I have just never heard a convincing argument of why Apple & Google deserves to own 3/10ths of all the business on their platforms.
- sdfhbdf 6y ago
  Just wondering if you've seen apple's pretty recent annoucement of the App Store Small Business Program which for the first $1 million reduces that "tax" to 15%. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/small-business-program/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/small-business-program...
- gretch 6y ago
  There is no such principle in our free society of what is and isn’t a fair and equitable business transaction. The only tool we have for that is what the market (supply and demand) will yield. I can take a tiny piece of carbon, call it a diamond and sell it for 50,000. Is it fair and equitable? Should that be allowed? I can take a white T shirt and print a red Supreme logo on it and sell it for 100x cost of production. Is that fair and equitable? Should it be allowed? The development cost for a book is about $10 dollars of ink and paper. Each copy is printed and distributed for 1 dollar. It took the author 10 hours to write. But the knowledge and insights are extremely valuable. Is it fair and equitable for the author to charge $100 for a copy of this book? If 30% isn’t allowed, is 29% okay? How about 28%? What exactly is this magic number where things become okay? Don’t businesses have the right to try and profit and not just break even? (If not why would anyone start a new business venture) If you would argue that we shouldn’t have a free market and the govt should set all the prices in the economy, well that’s a different philosophy entirely. It’s not very popular for a host of reasons
my_usernam3 6y ago
If epic were to win, any estimate on how long that would take?
- Strom 6y ago
  Two years absolute minimum.
jezebel_jonh 6y ago
I Agreed on most. But i still have some questions
enos_feedler 6y ago
Is Epic's fight technical or business related? I can't figure it out. Sometimes it's about payment processor choice, other times it's about the revenue share. Which is it? Even though Apple collects the revenue share through its payment processor, these seem like completely separate issues. Apple could easily let Epic transact using it's own payments infrastructure yet also invoice them for the 30% of those transactions.
- m463 6y ago
  It could be about self-determination.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
chmaynard 6y ago
Once you file a lawsuit, you have declared war. And all's fair in love and war. Who said that?
jimnotgym 6y ago
If a locked down app store is necessary for say safety, perhaps a good analogue is a water utility company. A water company has a monopoly in an area, due to the impractical nature of duplicate infrastructure. However, in return it may be heavily regulated in terms of its safety and pricing. If you have to have a single app store then their prices should be regulated, and crucially there should be proper recourse for developers denied access to the platform
- enos_feedler 6y ago
  The difference between regulating the price of water and the price of an app is the innovation curve. You can regulate the price of water because the creation, distribution and consumption of H20 hasn't changed in a long time. Meanwhile, every June Apple shows up with new APIs that developers can use to tap into the billions of hardware R&D they've invested for that year. Regulating price here is stifling innovation.
  - wernercd 6y ago
    it's also stifling innovation to be restricted to one store front. Imagine if all you had was Walmart, Target and KMart (iPhone, Android and Windows). "you can't build a new store because of all the R&D Walmart has put into their stores". You act like all the R&D isn't paid for with phone sales and development kits ($99/year). If you want to restrict the market? The price of that restriction should be regulation.
    - enos_feedler 6y ago
      Actually, imagine if you were Walmart and you've spent the past 25 years investing in your brand, real-estate, parking lots, buildings, advertising, signage, etc. Your goal is to build a thriving business for _your_ customers. A fertilizer company isn't happy with the placement they are getting in your stores, so they sue you and say you need to give them dedicated, premium space in the parking lot. They also think its annoying that customers coming to Walmart for fertilizer need to go into the store to pay for their product. They want these Walmart customers to pay cash in the parking lot, pocketing all the money for themselves. If this sounds ridiculous, it's because it is. Epic is the fertilizer company and this whole lawsuit is embarrassing.
saagarjha 6y ago
There's already a lot of discussion about alternative App Stores, but I was wondering if we could talk about how Apple keeps spouting this line: > the App Store guidelines that apply equally to every developer and protect customers This is not only subjectively false, it is objectively false, provable with just a few minutes of reverse engineering. You don't have to be a fly on the wall at some secret meeting between corporate giants to know it, or listen to the plight of app developers. You can literally just go to Apple Configurator and download an IPA file for an app and inspect it to see that Apple does not in fact apply its rules equally to all developers. So why do they keep repeating this? Who will be the first party to hold them liable for perjury?
tommyage 6y ago
> We as legislators need to ensure that these platforms who act as gatekeepers in the digital market have to respect a predefined set of rules in order to guarantee fair competition and balanced market powers,” he said in a statement. One of these rules is (hopefully), if i purchase a hardware gadget, all of its capabilities are my possession. Restricting the access on purpose is frault. Epic's case is just a consequence of the missing regulations when providing software AND hardware. long live the EU and their friends.
- leadingthenet 6y ago
  Good God, just buy an Android. You people act like Apple’s shoving iPhones down your throat.
  - tommyage 6y ago
    It is about my family, friends and people from business.
    - leadingthenet 6y ago
      What about them? They’ve made their choice, and you don’t get to impose your values on them. Believe it or not, people generally buy Apple devices knowing full well they’re entering a walled garden ecosystem. And they’re doing it for that reason specifically, not in spite of it. You might disagree, and you’re free to make a different choice, because it exists (and is more popular anyway). Everyone wins.
      - tommyage 6y ago
        People are more often forced to enter a specific ecosystem due to networking effects. There is no real choice for these common folk. They need to participate in their universe and outsiders cant join. Neither can they experience competition.
rajivjain 6y ago
Anti trust case against Apple in the US made sense due to Apple's dominance in both the share of users and the share of the app store revenue. EU may not be as clearcut. This news article does not mention anything about the basis for antitrust. Is it the marketshare of iOS phone users or it is the revenue. Seems like iOS marketshare as defined by the number of users is about 20%, revenue share should be higher.
egotripper 6y ago
This problem is not limited to Apple mobile devices, it is shared with every manufacturer curating all the software on their platforms. Apple, Nintendo, Sony, John Deere, and so on. Every manufacturer gatekeeping their platform for security, financial, community, repair, or quality standards. They should all instead bust the machines wide open, allow anyone's operating system software to be in control, and give up the notion that curation in exchange for restrictions is something anyone can willingly buy into. If you go after Apple, you go after all the other platform companies, because their justifications do not hold water either. If you go after just Apple, you have to convince the judge that there are good reasons Apple must conform while nobody else has to.
- kingsleyopara 6y ago
  This. I think a lot of people miss the bigger picture. If Epic win this, do you really think games consoles are safe? What about car infotainment systems etc.? An Epic win could effectively make all walled gardens illegal
summerlight 6y ago
I think the solution is pretty clear. * Platforms MUST display the amount of the processing fee taken from the payment in a clearly visible format inside of the app and/or the IAP flow. * Platforms MUST allow developers to implement alternative payment options (potentially cheaper due to lack of additional processing fee). * Platforms MUST allow advertisement of alternative payment options inside of the app and/or the IAP flow. * Platforms are allowed to reject apps if they think their alternative payment options are fraudulent but actionable feedback MUST be given within a reasonable time frame. * Platforms MUST provide a list of trusted payment alternatives which will be unconditionally approved during the app review process. To prevent cartel, the list MUST be periodically audited by FTC. If the convenience from the integrated IAP can justify the 30% fee, the users will keep using it. If not, the price will be brought down. Let the market decide.
xondono 6y ago
I hope Epic loses in a spectacular way. At this point, if Apple is forced to allow third parties, I'll lose one of the best time savers I have in my life. Having switched all of my family and close relatives to Apple gives me the freedom of not having to provide almost any support. They are trained to use the platform (and its UI has been stable for years), and I can trust that they won't do anything too crazy just because [insert social network] or [crappy game in vogue] want to sideload a lot of bloatware and spyware on their phones. When they had android phones, I would get regular phonecalls that went like this: "My friend X has an app that does [irrelevant stupidity that requires full permissions], how can I do that?" "You shouldn't, this will have access to all of your info" "I don't care, just tell me how to do it" Then 2 weeks later I'd get another call complaining of how full of ads everything is when they try to open a browser. I tried to disuade them by saying "Your phone can't do that", but that just meant that they ended up changing phones, because now they feel that their phone is inferior. When they switched to iPhones, i can just tell them "Your phone doesn't do that", and they had no problem. They realized that bragging for 10 minutes was an idiotic thing to do anyway, and they felt great, because they still have a flagship phone, "it's an iPhone!".
- somjeed 6y ago
  umm, just use the Apple App store then... and let others have a choice
  - xondono 6y ago
    “Choice” is precisely the problem. It’s not much of a choice when developers have all of the knowledge and users can’t even begin to understand how the apps work.
timwaagh 6y ago
EU probably won't pass up this opportunity to levy an extra tax on Apple. We already think they dodged too much with their Ireland construction.
jacklolo 6y ago
Shirt only $ 18 https://rdbl.co/37qNJy4 https://rdbl.co/37qNJy4

656 points by mikesabbagh 6y ago

Good luck, iDevices are a very tiny portion of European mobile market. Looking forward to the EpicOS Phone, running yet another SDL/Qt variant.

DiabloD3 6y ago
Even so, Apple has gotten far more whacks for violating EU law than anyone else in this space. Not only that, winning a case against a company in EU over antitrust often bolsters your defense in the US due to courts preferring to hear about established case law by other courts with similar laws.
- NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
  >Even so, Apple has gotten far more whacks for violating EU law than anyone else in this space. What are you referring to here? Antitrust? If so, please provide some pointers. There're a lot of cases, not aware of many wins.
  - metiscus 6y ago
    Note that I am not asserting that Apple has more than anyone else, that would require more research than this. What I have found in recent history is one major case from France: Apple fined 1.23 Billion for Price-Fixing in France https://venturebeat.com/2020/03/16/apple-fined-record-1-23-billion-in-france-for-price-fixing-scheme/ https://venturebeat.com/2020/03/16/apple-fined-record-1-23-b... Apple also has 4 open Antitrust investigations (all opened on the same date and likely interrelated) going on in the EU (irrespective of actions that members may be taking): https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=1_40437 https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.c... https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=1_40452 https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.c... https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=1_40652 https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.c... https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=1_40716 https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.c...
    - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
      So, to be clear, there's no successful antitrust prosecution of Apple under EU law, nor one that relates to iOS or the App Store. On the other hand, there is a €4.34bn fine for Google for market abuses relating to bundling of Google services in Android, as well as a €2.4bn fine for favoring Google Shopping in its search product, and a €1.4bn fine for abusive practices in Google AdSense.
- halostatue 6y ago
  > Apple has gotten far more whacks… [citation required]
drinkcocacola 6y ago
If I were a mobile phone manufacturing company, I won't call 30% of European market a "tiny portion".
- oaiey 6y ago
  Especially considering that the iPhone is an enabler for all other Apple devices.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  True, but it makes it irrelevant for Epic baby cries from law point of view.
wwtrv 6y ago
According to StatCounter it’s ~30% while it’s two times smaller than in the US (~60%) I wouldn’t say it’s “tiny”.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Not enough for "monopolies".
  - detaro 6y ago
    Neither the article nor any of the comments you reply to use the word you quote.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      I know, Epic is trying to dodge its use in an vain attempt to actually have a case.
      - enragedcacti 6y ago
        You seem to really know a lot about EU laws and regulations, where did you get your law degree?
        pjmlp 6y ago
        The same place as everyone else thinking that Epic has a case.
      - detaro 6y ago
        Antitrust is wider than monopolies, so it totally makes sense that they are not talking about that, and weird to insist on the term. (and no, I don't think they have a particularly high chance of actually getting anywhere useful with this)
T-A 6y ago
31% in Europe, much more in some markets (54% in Sweden): https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/sweden https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/sweden
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Which doesn't matter when talking about monopolies and such.
  - T-A 6y ago
    But does when somebody claims that "iDevices are a very tiny portion of European mobile market."

ehvatum 6y ago

There is room for 3rd party app stores. Epic will argue that Apple does an absolutely ghastly terrible job of curating the Apple app store, as Apple really has little incentive not to suck completely. The EU court will agree. Apple will spend a year or two saying “it can’t be done”, then issue a signing certificate to Epic.

gwd 6y ago
> There is room for 3rd party app stores. The "Apple Tax" pays for the maintenance of the Apple ecosystem. Epic wants access to this amazing ecosystem, but resents having to help pay to support it. Either "third party" app stores will also pay to support this ecosystem, in which case Epic will be paying the same amount either way; or they'll fail to support the ecosystem, in which case Apple will be forced to turn to other sources to make revenue (like selling personal information). Right now I, as the consumer, can choose between an ecosystem whose business model is based on selling personal information (Android) or an ecosystem whose business model is based on the end user paying more (Apple). Don't take that choice away from me.
- chii 6y ago
  > Either "third party" app stores will also pay to support this ecosystem, in which case Epic will be paying the same amount either way how did you work out that the amount apple gets paid (30%) is the "correct" amount? The only way to find out is via competition. But due to the monopolistic powers of apple, there cannot be competition on their platform. Thus, we do not know the true cost of maintaining this platform - only that apple is able to maintain it with at least 30%. > Don't take that choice away from me. nobody is forcing you to use the third party app store if it does exist. If you continued to use apple's curated store, you will continue to get the existing benefits. Adding an extra option can't possibly hurt you.
  - darknessmonk 6y ago
    > how did you work out that the amount apple gets paid (30%) is the "correct" amount? The only way to find out is via competition. But due to the monopolistic powers of apple, there cannot be competition on their platform. Thus, we do not know the true cost of maintaining this platform - only that apple is able to maintain it with at least 30%. 30% is industry standard. > nobody is forcing you to use the third party app store if it does exist. If you continued to use apple's curated store, you will continue to get the existing benefits. Adding an extra option can't possibly hurt you. It hurts the ecosystem - and all its users. Splitting the apps in multiple app stores is a nightmare I don't get the point: the whole idea of Apple is to have everything under their control. Nobody is forcing anyone to use Apple devices

uncledave 6y ago

I assume this doesn't affect the UK any more?

chromanoid 6y ago
> Epic Games has also complained to the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal and to the Australian watchdog.
- uncledave 6y ago
  I read the entire article and missed that entirely. More coffee! Thanks for quoting it.

desmap 6y ago

Epic has too much money and IDK if Tim Cooks plays in the same league with and once Jobs, Sweeney and Huateng. Plus Zuck who just got started. I wouldn't want to be in a war with them together. Tim is not dumb, not at all but he just maintained one of the industry's strongest network effect/lock-in, not more. Beyond M1 there is not a lot that is not from Jobs' inheritance. Ah yes, broken keyboards for more than three years.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

aboringusername 6y ago

It feels a bit hypocritical when Apple laughs at FB for complaining about their new tracking pop-up yet when the shoe's on the other foot and Apple may actually have to compete on its own platform they double down and defend their right to be judge, jury and executioner. Apple competing with third party app stores on iOS is going to be amazing. No computer platform should be allowed to prevent sideloading or other stores from competing. This isn't the case on Windows. This isn't the case on Android. Or Linux for that matter. It's more disappointing it takes 10 years for regulators to step-in and say "that's bad, no more, open up your platform".

zpeti 6y ago
One of the absolutely obvious hypocritical things for me is that they don't allow anyone to say in their app that "Apple gets 30% of this fee" That's the equivalent of the IDFA message for Facebook. Which everyone will see, its worded in a very negative way, and it's a must.
- newbie578 6y ago
  Good point. Would love to hear the Apple fanatics on HN defend this. So much for respecting privacy...
  - asimpletune 6y ago
    I don’t know if this is a defense per se, but the reason they do this is to prevent app makers from using that to try and steer customers to out of band ways of subscribing. I guess the analogy would be if a brand forbade a retailers from revealing their margins, so customers don’t go to secondary markets and potentially/almost-certainly have a worse experience. Like counterfeit products or just in general to be subjected to dark patterns. As far as my personal opinion regarding this I am completely fine with it. I think they’ve created something remarkable in the sense that everyday people are starting to pay for software, because they’ve created a valuable ecosystem. Sometimes I think we forget that in the past everyday people wouldn’t really pay for digital products in the same way they’d pay for physical ones. The one thing I’d say though is that maybe the 30% is high, but given they have the small business program that argument is mostly gone. Any way now I’m rambling but that’s my best attempt to honestly explain why they do that.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago

> Apple said its rules applied equally to all developers and that Epic had violated them. All developers except Amazon, they mean. Now that it has happened, I'm actually surprised it took Epic this long to file suit in the EU. Given Europe's stronger antitrust enforcement and general skepticism of tech giants, Epic likely has a stronger case there than in the US. If I were Epic, I'd have wanted to have both lawsuits ready to go simultaneously.

dpkonofa 6y ago
What do you mean by that? The rules apply to Amazon just the same as to anyone else.
- adamdusty 6y ago
  Do they? All in app purchases have to be made through Apple's payment system. If you can buy amazon prime through the app then Apple should be taking a 30% cut. They might already do that, I have no idea, but it seems unlikely Amazon would agree to it.
  - dpkonofa 6y ago
    You can't buy Amazon Prime through the app. What people are referring to is the fact that existing subscriptions are allowed to renew without the 30% cut. People are misframing that as an exception for Amazon even though there are several platforms in the same situation that already benefit from the same policy that Amazon now agrees to.
    - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
      Actually, I'm referring to the fact that Amazon Prime members can rent digital videos without Apple getting a cut. See the Verge article kevingadd posted below.
      - dpkonofa 6y ago

newbie578 6y ago

Full support to Epic! Time to bring some balance. Would also love to have Apple allow api access to PWAs, they are hindering progress of PWAs just because of the App Store money. Would love to hear Tim Apple's opinion on this stuff, on being in this position. I remember quite fondly how he berated Facebook and Zuck personally, by saying he as a CEO would never be in such a situation regarding media scrutiny and regulatory issues. Oh how the tables turn.. As a dev, I do not like Apple an ounce more than Facebook. So kudos to Tim Sweeney..

api 6y ago

There are no good guys here. Apple wants to tax everyone in the world 30% for almost every software transaction while Epic wants to bring more loot box gambling to iOS and keep all the money.

dleslie 6y ago

I'm not excited by the proposition of either party coming out on top. I hope the EU sees the forest for the trees and understands that the situation is a lot more complicated than either party would claim. Apple is acting as a leader in reducing the footprint of general computing hardware; albeit their devices have among the longest service lives, they continue to be further restricted in their operation over time. There is a danger here with the population switching en masse from using PCs to using Phones as their primary computing devices. Forcing it to allow third party marketplaces might be a start in reversing that trend. Epic is a leader in the development of anxiety-driven consumer software. Fortnite's primary capital isn't the player's competitive standing, it's the uniqueness of their cosmetic gear. They target the most vulnerable and maleable markets, tweens and children, and ply them with social anxiety; one of the most insidious and emotionally distressing devices for that age group. See also, yesterday's lengthy discussion. [0] So I kind of hope that the EU allows third party stores, but allows Apple to place curation constraints on the sort of purchases that are available to users. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26153331 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26153331

mhh__ 6y ago
Why should I believe that Apple actually care in anyway about their users? Fortnite and co. are going to be regulated severely in the coming years - probably not by Apple. Have they not hosted Fortnite right up until they wouldn't pay their rent?
Wowfunhappy 6y ago
Candy Crush Saga is in the list of Top Free Games on the App Store. So was Fortnite, up until Epic decided they were tired of paying the Apple Tax. Apple isn't defending users from games with manipulative business models, and in fact is actively profiting from them. This lawsuit is about Apple's ability to profit from them.
- dleslie 6y ago
  Very good points. We can't trust Apple to curtail exploitative software. The EU has a proven track record of exploring innovative regulation; perhaps they will find a solution.

darknessmonk 6y ago

> Apple competing with third party app stores on iOS is going to be amazing. No computer platform should be allowed to prevent sideloading or other stores from competing. The walled garden is a selling point, a feature - I don't care about sideloading at all. You want to sideload? Grab and Android.

mywittyname 6y ago
If you don't care about sideloading? Don't sideload, just use the Apple Store. Users like you have zero skin in the game. Nothing in your workflow will change, other than you might get cheaper applications.
- darknessmonk 6y ago
  Nope. Hurts overall experience. Not only the App's won't be curated the same as the other ones, but now I would have to maybe reach to some webside to download a .ipa file or to download a secondary App store to get a apps that otherwise would be available on App Store.
  - chungus_khan 6y ago
    Then keep using the curated store? It only hurts if Apple's store can't compete with alternative ones. There's no such problem on Android because developers and users are fine with the Play Store. Epic even tried doing a sideloaded Fortnite for Android and people didn't download it, so they came back.
    - zepto 6y ago
      This keeps getting repeated but is false. New stores will pay for exclusives rights to popular apps just as video streaming platforms do for video. Users will have no choice but to use a jumble of different stores.
      - chungus_khan 6y ago

flenserboy 6y ago

I can't shake the feeling that Epic is a puppet, being used as a wedge to hash security on iOS devices. As much as it would be nice to have more control over one's iPhone, the horror of the Android marketplace is enough to give a body more than a little pause.

chungus_khan 6y ago
The contents of the Play Store have nothing to do with Android's ability to sideload.
zepto 6y ago
Look into who owns Epic .
- enragedcacti 6y ago
  Tim Sweeney is the controlling shareholder of Epic. If Tim Sweeney decides to do something there is literally nothing TenCent could do to stop him outside of a lawsuit.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > there is literally nothing TenCent could do to stop him outside of a lawsuit Obviously false. TenCent controls Epic’s access to the Chinese market, which is much larger than the iOS market has ever been for Epic.
    - enragedcacti 6y ago
      I'm not saying they have no influence, I just have a problem with you _insinuating_ falsehoods with a statement like "Look into who owns Epic" as if you've just dropped the truth bomb exposing evil China as the mastermind behind two corporations fighting for who gets to make more money.
      - zepto 6y ago

4eor0 6y ago

All this suggests to me is Epic has a limited path to growth without courts deciding they indeed are entitled to more profit without producing anything net new.

billysielu 6y ago

Does Apple pay tax on that 30% to the EU for sales in the EU?

kmlx 6y ago
well apple cannot pay tax to a group of institutions that don’t have any business collecting taxes. and this is because taxes are national matters. the EU can try some legal ways of forcing some countries to take more or less tax, but all of those tries are not only being litigated, but also pushed against by the national governments.

olivierduval 6y ago

Actually, Apple Store and Google Play (and Steam, yeah) are the same: they are monopolistic platform, either formally (Apple) or de facto (Google). A bit like IE browser in Windows in the 90's I think that each editor can still provide an App Store, with specific price model for editor/users, and have to allow competition (with different features... for example, less curation) by providing THE SAME access for the user. For example, every app store must include other main app store. Right now, if you want to use F-Droid, you cant do it as smoothly as using Google Play because it's not on Google Play (but Amazon apps are I think).

no_wizard 6y ago

It’s all about money. I don’t think epic wants a new App Store. In fact I do t think the majority of developers with legitimate complaints with the App Store want competing app stores. They all want, from what I can boil down to, the majority of the time, two things: 1. Control over payments (to cut out the 30%) 2. More control over releases and updates (particularly upgrade pricing) I think if Apple caved in on these all this would go away. Likely, that’s about all we will see from a successful lawsuit too. It’s never been about the App Store being the only game in town. It’s all about reviews, fees, release schedules and pricing mechanics. I don’t think the consumer wins if there are multiple App Stores. I do think the consumer and smaller developers may win if there is some shift around the above issues, though

kevingadd 6y ago
One argument in favor of multiple App Stores is that Apple has historically been very aggressive about globally banning entire product categories they dislike or apps that offend the governments of foreign countries. Apple can continue to exercise this discretion without harming consumer choice if they offer sideloading for end users (or at least make their browser more capable, with full support for PWAs and modern web APIs)
pier25 6y ago
I think 30% is excessive but as a developer my biggest gripe with the AppStore is definitely the tight grip Apple has over what's published. You might work for years on an app and all that effort can vanish into thin air if Apple decides they don't want it.
- kevingadd 6y ago
  Retroactively! It'd be one thing if it was up-front rejections, but the internet is full of horror stories from developers who suddenly found that Apple had decided their product was no longer okay and that their customers didn't matter, blocking future updates. Not even necessarily taking it off the store, just ensuring it can never get bug fixes.

fhood 6y ago

Apple does not actually have a monopoly, Android exists, has more market share, more options and features, and a better ecosystem of compatible smart devices. If Apple is forced to allow third party app marketplaces it is clear what will happen. Every major player will make their own marketplace and force you to use it to access their software and whatever other software they have paid to make exclusive. Epic is one of the absolute worst offenders for this sort of behavior. So to everyone claiming "you will still be able to use the curated app store", I guess that's true but only technically. IOS will not be a better place should Apple be forced to go through with this. This is not being an "Apple apologist". I think we all agree that Apple will happily exploit the people forced to offer services through their platform. But if they are forced to take their hands off the wheel they will lose the power that allowed them to push through some fairly groundbreaking privacy protections, including sign-in with Apple, which I personally deeply appreciate.

Qahlel 6y ago
> Apple does not actually have a monopoly This is like saying water is not an essential liquid, there is coca cola and pepsi.
- darkwizard42 6y ago
  Apple products are not at the level of necessity as water... A smartphone might be (big stretch)... of which there are plenty of choices. This is like saying Dasani (Apple) is the absolutely ONLY water brand out there, when you can get Aquafina (Android) and get nearly the same product. Yes, Dasani is only bottled at certain places (exclusive features like iMessage, FaceTime), but Aquafina has minerality (rooting your phone, deep integration with Google services) as well that make it unique.
- toiletfuneral 6y ago
  I don't understand this analogy at all, can you explain?
- buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
  So you're saying that somehow Google uses Apple as it's main ingredient for Android.. or something? More likely, I think you thought the comparison sounded catchy, despite the fact that it has nothing to do with the situation.

isodev 6y ago

Such vendors are free to create game catalogs for their games (Steam-like), taking the user to the App Store for downloads. They can also have IAPs, Subscriptions and alls kinds of payment options. Apple's own Arcade follows this same architecture so I don't see Epic's argument at all. When I am using my iPhone/iPad, I expect all apps to work with services connected to my Apple account. No user should be required to provide payment information to a shady 3rd party like Epic, Microsoft or whatever. It is clear that the "antitrust" action is designed to allow Epic (and similar) to push a solution which is fit for their business model. As a developer, I don't support the idea of alt-stores at all, it would mean that only big corps will have the resources to create and maintain such distribution channels. Nobody will go through the trouble of installing an alt store for my FooBar pet-project game. Also who is going to review these apps?

enragedcacti 6y ago
> I expect all apps to work with services connected to my Apple account. No user should be required to provide payment information to a shady 3rd party like Epic, Microsoft or whatever. Apple could make everyone happy tomorrow vis-a-vis IAPs by charging standard credit card processing fees (~2-3%)instead of 30% while still protecting your payment info from app developers.
- isodev 6y ago
  The App Store is also a distribution channel. The 15% seems like a lot but I would have to pay, way, way more to achieve the same level of presence elsewhere (without nasty tracking ads).

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

williesleg 6y ago

Shhaaakeeeedooooowwwwnnnn time! Just levy the fine already, quit the charade!

maratc 6y ago

Anytime Epic/Apple thing comes up, a very relevant quote is what their judge (YGR) said on their case: > “Well plaintiffs always want me to define relevant markets as narrowly as possible. It helps their case. And defendants always want me to define markets as broad as possible, because it helps their case.” The big elephant in the room is gaming consoles. If you see iPhone more or less in line with PC/Mac, you may already have made up your mind on how "relevant markets" are defined, and so naturally pre-inclined to side with Epic. OTOH if you see it more or less in line with Xbox/Playstation/Switch (every one of them having a unique store that charges 30%), you may naturally be pre-inclined to side with Apple. The judges will eventually get to define what the "relevant market" is, and no amount of HN arguments will change that. If I were Apple, I would just make a version of an iPhone hardware-enabled to have alternative stores, and I would sell it for a surplus of $1000. This way both sides can have their cake, and the market can decide.

ryukafalz 6y ago
I also think people should be allowed to install whatever software they want on a gaming console that they own. Or a car, or a tractor, or...
- casouniquo 6y ago
  I would like to have an option to install steam on PS5. But if sony were forced to do that, I don't think they can sell it for $499. Also, like samsung, apple will only be providing like 18 months of updates
- sdfhbdf 6y ago
  It isn't illegal to jailbreak these. Just if you want the convince, security, ecosystem, support you can expect to also in the same price point start supporting all the possible malware you will be able to sideload to your car, tractor and iPhone.
techpression 6y ago
I like this idea, much like Windows N (that the EU fought years for boasting how good it was for consumers and yet nobody bought it) Apple could release a iPhone - insecure edition, offering no security features, just like how Microsoft removed media playback features. Let the actual consumers decide instead of heavy handed government. But I guess most commentators want to eat the cake, sell it and keep it at the same time.

dubcanada 6y ago

I can hardly wait to use Amazon App Store to install Amazon and then open up the Epic Game Store to install random game and then open up EA Game Store to install random game and then open up Facebook App Store to install Facebook and then open up the Apple App Store to install the Blizzard App Store to install Hearthstone and then go back to the Apple App Store and update the Blizzard App Store so I can get the latest Hearthstone updates. Going to be super fun! My gaming computer is already filled with like 8 different app stores each completely different then the other and a variety of privacy/security issues on each. All of them need their App Store running in order to play their games, so half the time my computer has 4-5 App Stores running in the background so I can play a single game. And they are all electron/qt webkit apps cause nobody builds apps anymore so each one consumes about 500mb of ram. And each App Store also has their own chat system along with the others like discord. I don't agree that Apple should have a complete monopoly, but the alternative is not better. And while Android does have the main Google Play Store, and there isn't to many "alternative" App Stores at the moment. Just give it time, the same thing that is happening to TV Streaming/Game App Stores will happen on Android.

SCHiM 6y ago
You install those yourself you know. I'd rather have a choice than not. I feel your pain in the sense that that I think user UX will take a hit, but I think that's less important than breaking the monopoly of the current app store. For example, I can't find apps with pornography or other types of things the high overlords at apple or Google have deemed inappropriate for me to have. That's bad. Apparently apps like Matrix fall under that category. It'd be nice if I can choose what I want to see.
- BrianGragg 6y ago
  The problem is the choice is taken away from you though. Just like he said with the game market. If you want to play Game A, you go and download/install Game A's publishing app store. If you want to then play Game B, rinse and repeat. You will be forced to use so many different app stores and won't have a choice to NOT use their app store "IF" it progresses like it has on the desktop. No proof it will/won't either.

tremon 6y ago

I know this isn't the first time this happens, but it's a curious thing when a large US company has to resort to using the EU court system to resolve their beef with another US company.

ralmidani 6y ago

I avoid being a persistent fanboy/hater toward any company, and try to consider each case on its merits. Some of the concerns regarding multiple app stores on the device (which raises issues of security, privacy, and even storage space) are valid. But they fail to address a huge problem: Apple's draconian policy on in-app purchases. If IAP were to be opened up and become more competitive, I might stick with Apple's just for security and convenience, but the alternatives would be there, and I personally wouldn't mind a lack of alternative app stores. Edit: to clarify, I'm saying I wouldn't mind having one app store if Apple's stranglehold on IAP could be relaxed (whether by choice or by law). Another edit: Apple could also allow one-off sideloading, but not allow an app to install other apps (i.e. become a separate app store). This would be a win-win for consumers. Assuming that's who everyone cares about, of course.

cesarvarela 6y ago
I think if you open up what you want you lose the security and convenience that would make you stick with Apple too.
- zionic 6y ago
  I doubt any significant volume of people who sell their iPhones and go android if Apple allowed other app stores.
  - nxc18 6y ago
    Of course not. Not immediately. Just like you wouldn’t move cities if the police announced they’d no longer enforce traffic laws or investigate/attempt to prevent gun violence. Then after the homicide rate doubles, there’s shootings almost daily, and you can’t get from point A to point B without a reckless driver risking your life, you might get stressed. At first you’d consider moving to the suburb, but you can’t, because Epic’s lawsuit applied internationally and nationally, so actually no community is allowed to police itself in any way (Epic also sued Google for Google Play and I really don’t get why no one on HN is capable of remembering or considering that). And then you’d think, “if I can get murdered here or I could get murdered there, might as well save on rent”. And so, Epic has succeeded in destroying a large part of what makes the iPhone unique.

arendtio 6y ago

A bit OT, but I still fail to grasp why Apple is allowed to restrict all browsers on iOS to the Safari rendering engine. Microsoft had to pay big because they didn't asked their users properly for alternative browsers, yet Apple doesn't even give other browsers a fair chance to compete on iOS. Consumers suffer because Apple controls about 50% of the mobile market and if Apple decides a certain feature will not be available in Safari (e.g. Push API), no other browser vendor can even offer a solution. Sounds to me like totally abusing their market position to uphold their anti-competitive behavior.

pojntfx 6y ago
Absolutely. There should be an EU regulation forcing companies to 1) allow sideloading apps, without any certificate restrictions for things like feature approval (such as having to ask Apple nicely to be able to create a VPN) and 2) allow the user to run any code they want to on their device, including any browser engine. With the EU becoming basically an American software colony since COVID (Zoom, O365) it is about time for a "GDPR of software freedom".
rgbrenner 6y ago
50% in the US market (27% globally) is very far from the 98% global marketshare that Windows had in 2000. MacOS had the other 2% (thanks to being propped up by MS 2 years earlier). That was the entire competitive landscape. Linux existed, but if you used it back then (I did), it was difficult to get a desktop going, and virtually no one used it on the desktop. And while the DOJ might only care about the US market... the fact that Microsoft's domination extended worldwide means not only were there no US competitors, but there weren't foreign competitors to challenge them either. The fact that Android--with 50% US and 72% global marketshare--is so competitive with Apple makes it clear these two situations are not equivalent. Apple is more abusive/controlling in some ways, but they dont have the market power that Microsoft had.
- Daho0n 6y ago
  No matter how many times it gets repeated it doesn't make it true: Market share is irrelevant. You can abuse your market position at both 15 and 50% market share. A few tiny companies working together to fix prices is still illegal and punished no matter if they together are only a tiny fraction of the market. Apple is abusing it's position, no doubt about it. If you doubt install another app store or avoid the 30% tax.

withinboredom 6y ago

I know of several apps in my local app store that have their own payment system instead of the in-app purchases. I don't see why Apple doesn't enforce this policy for all apps.

holstvoogd 6y ago

Epic needs to sit this one out honestly. They are only doing this because "we didn't get a special deeeeeaaalll :'(" Apple needs to get their head out of their asses and fix this before governments do. I will probably own apple devices for the rest of my life, but this kind of behaviour is damaging in the long run. Look at MSFT. At least iPhones dont come with a non-removable fortnite installer on the homescreen and 5k google spyware apps..

NorwegianDude 6y ago

A lot of people here seems to think that what Apple is doing is fine and that people knew how iOS works when they bought the device. Neither of those are true for most people. Just reading the comments on HN the last half year clearly shows that people are confused about what Apple demands. If the HN audience is confused then I feel I can safely state that very few people knows what they're getting themselves into when choosing iOS. Just the fact that you're not allowed by Apple to inform users about the cut Apple takes should be proof enough that Apple don't want users to know how much money Apple is costing them. And the fact that iOS doesn't have a decent browser also sucks. Also, users don't understand that Chrome isn't Chrome on iOS. Users have no idea what they're paying for, or that what they're using is being controlled by Apple. I hope Apple have to open iOS up so this can end.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

tomxor 6y ago

At this point I wish there was a way that both could lose. It's the monopolist vs the predatory casino, both throwing out thinly veiled user centric arguments at the press while their true motives are greed and user exploitation.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

mucholove 6y ago

Why is everyone talking about allowing third-party app stores and not side-loaded apps?

ihuman 6y ago
Because Epic Games is in the title, and they already have a store on Mac+Windows.

orliesaurus 6y ago

the LotR quote "One ring to rule them all" has never been more appropriate!

doublejay1999 6y ago

Epic know they can't win this using the Law. Apple will argue they built a market of nBillion customers, which anyone can access for a fee. What Epic hope to do, is win commercial support and build pressure on apple to lower their fees. Might work too.

gscott 6y ago
Apple tried to wear Samsung down by suing them in different jurisdictions at the same time. Might work for Epic.
mullingitover 6y ago
It already worked, Apple lowered fees for smaller developers.[1] [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-app-store/apple-lowers-app-store-fees-for-small-developers-critics-see-little-impact-idUSKBN27Y1CF https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-app-store/apple-low...

shmerl 6y ago

Good, anti-trust action against Apple's policies is long overdue. Looking forward to competing browsers to become available for iOS users which should reduce Apple's ability to hinder Web standards.

lowbloodsugar 6y ago

Let's start with the obvious issue: Apple does not sell the most phones. It does not have the most phones on offer. It is not a majority, let alone a monopoly. Now the less obvious issue: I like what apple does and I am prepared to pay for it. I agree with those arguing for consumer choice, but I come to the exact opposite conclusion, and find those others hypocritical. I want an option to have a locked down environment. I want to have the choice to buy an Apple product. Given the choice between the Android system or the Apple system, I choose Apple. More people choose Android. The argument that we should use "consumer choice" to remove this choice from me, and instead to demand that every business must make the world look like Android users want, is not logical.

gnopgnip 6y ago
Antitrust regulation isn't just about monopolies, it is about the cost to entry and the harm to consumers

malka 6y ago

Should we force Nintendo as well to allow people to side load apps ? Because I don't see the difference with Apple.

wazanator 6y ago
There's a big difference between a personal cell phone that you use every day of your life and might be your only computer and is advertised as such and an entertainment console. That said I agree and think Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft should have to open up their platforms for side loading.
7786655 6y ago
Yes.

mbreese 6y ago

I wonder if this isn’t going to have the opposite effect. If Apple doesn’t get to restrict application developers through the App Store, then will they follow the gaming console model of restricting access to the SDK? I mean, this isn’t a new issue. It’s been the bane of game distribution for as long as we’ve had independent game developers. But if you want to have some semblance of control over a software ecosystem, could there be a similar shift where users could install whatever software they’d like... but the developers would have to be better vetted by Apple first? For the sake of argument, let’s just assume there are legitimate security/privacy concerns here and ignore competitive issues a la Spotify for now.

ksec 6y ago

There are still a lot of people, especially on the general web stuck in the Steve Job's era believing in bad developers, quote; "What happens sometime though is that some people, uh, lie. Some people use unpublished APIs and their app gets rejected. Some people submit an app that they say does one thing, but really does something else. They try to hide it from us, they get very clever about that. They try to hide it from us and we find it and we reject it. And they run to the press and tell a story about oppression and it gets written up and they get their 15 minutes of fame because they hope it will convince us to change our minds which never does, but they keep trying to do that. And it’s unfortunate, but we take it in the chin. That part of what we do. We don’t run to the press and go, “This guys a son of a bitch liar.” " That was in All Things Digital D8 Conference 2010. Nearly 11 years ago. The landscape has changed, the context has changed. iPhone has only sold 50M unit in total since launch in 2007. These days Apple has 1 billion active user and Apple sell about as much iPhone per quarter. Smartphone and Apps went from nice thing to have to near or already a necessity in modern society. Surely you cant apply the same rules in a modern era, not to mention those App Store rules has evolved since Steve Jobs passed away. Many Apps that Apple used to exempt from the 30% cut now has to comply. I really wish HN folks read the great piece from Benedict Evans ( https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2020/8/18/app-stores https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2020/8/18/app-stores) and Matthew Ball ( https://www.matthewball.vc/all/applemetaverse https://www.matthewball.vc/all/applemetaverse ). It is by far the best I have seen on this issue. I submitted both a few times but never got on HN Front page. Hopefully after reading both, people will stop using it is Apple Store they could do whatever they want as argument. I think there are many things Apple could do as a compromise to satisfy vast majority of people and interest. Break the App Store into Game Store and App Store. Nearly 80% of App Store Revenue comes from Gaming. As long as all games are still going through Game Store, like console maker are doing which Apple should have a very strong case, they continue to keep the 80% of revenue ( or near raw profits ). Apple could also argue their continue investment into Metal API and the so called Apple's own GPU ( Which is still PowerVR ) as rational. Breaking this case would hurt lots of other interest including Microsoft's Xbox. Lower the App Store to a flat rate of 10%. And the same apply across all Apps. Software, Services, Subscription or not with an annual Cap of Fixed amount ( minus CC processing fees ) , say $1M per App per year. So Apple isn't rent seeking per se on your revenue. If you sold $100M, instead of $10M to Apple, you now pay $1M max per App. Work load for Apple per App is fixed and doesn't scale with how much revenue an App Generate. And very few Apps ( not games ) make that much money. With Subscription which generate long term revenue benefits the most. ( EU / AUS has ruled both MasterCard and Visa to lower their price. Compare to the ridiculously 2-5% processing fees, they are closer to 1% in both EU and AUS, There are no reason why other countries wont start looking at App Store from Apple and Google in similar fashion. i.e Those 30% from Apps will be gone sooner or later. Better to make some good will than to have no option in court.) Allow Side-loading of Apps in restricted mode. Where performance and Gaming Related APIs are limited. Access to Camera, Photos and Phonebook or any files requires consent everytime they try to access it with no option to disable or Dont ask again. The reality is 99% of user dont really need or want to side load Apps. And provides enough security and choice for its users. For a lot of Apps, this provide good enough for like News, Email, or other Subscription Apps which really is just a Web App accessing online information without needing the to go though Apple's permission for Apple Store. And finally, a clear, open, transparent process and pages for developers to App Store rejection. Which makes it much more of a PR problem for Apple that has their interest tied to provide best service. I really hope Apple do change. Tim Cook is far too focused on Apple's Services Revenue.

40four 6y ago

These conversations always rapidly devolve into the same old generic iOS versus Android nonsense. But I'd like to try to keep a super narrow scope here. The specific problem Epic and others are fighting here is "App Store payment system and control over app downloads" Now to be fair, as far as 'App store payments' goes, both Google & Apple charge the 30% fee on all transactions. The reason Epic is battling Apple here mostly has to do with the 'walled garden', and the fact Apple's 'control over app downloads' is totally locked down. Epic avoids the Google play 30% fee by having users side-load the APK, so that's a fight for another day I suppose. Now, for the 30% fee problem. Does anyone really think that is fair an equitable? Come again? They hover up 3/10ths of all business transactions? It just seems so obvious to me that the answer is absolutely not. There is no way I can twist my brain to believe there is any justification for that. If the issue is that it costs Apple (& Google) a lot of money to maintain servers and infrastructure to provide the app store services, then there are other ways to charge developers to cover this cost, and even make some profit. Apple charges $100 a year for the 'Apple Developer Program'. This yearly fee model is the fair way to do this I think. You could add more tiers too this that scale with usage. $100 for the entry level package, and that covers 'X' amount of usage. There could be enterprise tiers for huge customers like Epic. They are using more of the resources of the app store, then they should pay more. I'm sure Epic would be happy to pay, IDK I'm just making up a number, something like $500K a year for their developer license instead of 30% of every transaction. I'm just spitballing here, I've not fully formed all these ideas, and I don't know what fair pricing for tiers & usage would exactly look like. But I think most of us can agree a system like that would be much more fair and equitable. I have just never heard a convincing argument of why Apple & Google deserves to own 3/10ths of all the business on their platforms.

sdfhbdf 6y ago
Just wondering if you've seen apple's pretty recent annoucement of the App Store Small Business Program which for the first $1 million reduces that "tax" to 15%. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/small-business-program/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/small-business-program...
gretch 6y ago
There is no such principle in our free society of what is and isn’t a fair and equitable business transaction. The only tool we have for that is what the market (supply and demand) will yield. I can take a tiny piece of carbon, call it a diamond and sell it for 50,000. Is it fair and equitable? Should that be allowed? I can take a white T shirt and print a red Supreme logo on it and sell it for 100x cost of production. Is that fair and equitable? Should it be allowed? The development cost for a book is about $10 dollars of ink and paper. Each copy is printed and distributed for 1 dollar. It took the author 10 hours to write. But the knowledge and insights are extremely valuable. Is it fair and equitable for the author to charge $100 for a copy of this book? If 30% isn’t allowed, is 29% okay? How about 28%? What exactly is this magic number where things become okay? Don’t businesses have the right to try and profit and not just break even? (If not why would anyone start a new business venture) If you would argue that we shouldn’t have a free market and the govt should set all the prices in the economy, well that’s a different philosophy entirely. It’s not very popular for a host of reasons

my_usernam3 6y ago

If epic were to win, any estimate on how long that would take?

Strom 6y ago
Two years absolute minimum.

jezebel_jonh 6y ago

I Agreed on most. But i still have some questions

enos_feedler 6y ago

Is Epic's fight technical or business related? I can't figure it out. Sometimes it's about payment processor choice, other times it's about the revenue share. Which is it? Even though Apple collects the revenue share through its payment processor, these seem like completely separate issues. Apple could easily let Epic transact using it's own payments infrastructure yet also invoice them for the 30% of those transactions.

m463 6y ago
It could be about self-determination.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

chmaynard 6y ago

Once you file a lawsuit, you have declared war. And all's fair in love and war. Who said that?

jimnotgym 6y ago

If a locked down app store is necessary for say safety, perhaps a good analogue is a water utility company. A water company has a monopoly in an area, due to the impractical nature of duplicate infrastructure. However, in return it may be heavily regulated in terms of its safety and pricing. If you have to have a single app store then their prices should be regulated, and crucially there should be proper recourse for developers denied access to the platform

enos_feedler 6y ago
The difference between regulating the price of water and the price of an app is the innovation curve. You can regulate the price of water because the creation, distribution and consumption of H20 hasn't changed in a long time. Meanwhile, every June Apple shows up with new APIs that developers can use to tap into the billions of hardware R&D they've invested for that year. Regulating price here is stifling innovation.
- wernercd 6y ago
  it's also stifling innovation to be restricted to one store front. Imagine if all you had was Walmart, Target and KMart (iPhone, Android and Windows). "you can't build a new store because of all the R&D Walmart has put into their stores". You act like all the R&D isn't paid for with phone sales and development kits ($99/year). If you want to restrict the market? The price of that restriction should be regulation.
  - enos_feedler 6y ago
    Actually, imagine if you were Walmart and you've spent the past 25 years investing in your brand, real-estate, parking lots, buildings, advertising, signage, etc. Your goal is to build a thriving business for _your_ customers. A fertilizer company isn't happy with the placement they are getting in your stores, so they sue you and say you need to give them dedicated, premium space in the parking lot. They also think its annoying that customers coming to Walmart for fertilizer need to go into the store to pay for their product. They want these Walmart customers to pay cash in the parking lot, pocketing all the money for themselves. If this sounds ridiculous, it's because it is. Epic is the fertilizer company and this whole lawsuit is embarrassing.

saagarjha 6y ago

There's already a lot of discussion about alternative App Stores, but I was wondering if we could talk about how Apple keeps spouting this line: > the App Store guidelines that apply equally to every developer and protect customers This is not only subjectively false, it is objectively false, provable with just a few minutes of reverse engineering. You don't have to be a fly on the wall at some secret meeting between corporate giants to know it, or listen to the plight of app developers. You can literally just go to Apple Configurator and download an IPA file for an app and inspect it to see that Apple does not in fact apply its rules equally to all developers. So why do they keep repeating this? Who will be the first party to hold them liable for perjury?

tommyage 6y ago

> We as legislators need to ensure that these platforms who act as gatekeepers in the digital market have to respect a predefined set of rules in order to guarantee fair competition and balanced market powers,” he said in a statement. One of these rules is (hopefully), if i purchase a hardware gadget, all of its capabilities are my possession. Restricting the access on purpose is frault. Epic's case is just a consequence of the missing regulations when providing software AND hardware. long live the EU and their friends.

leadingthenet 6y ago
Good God, just buy an Android. You people act like Apple’s shoving iPhones down your throat.
- tommyage 6y ago
  It is about my family, friends and people from business.
  - leadingthenet 6y ago
    What about them? They’ve made their choice, and you don’t get to impose your values on them. Believe it or not, people generally buy Apple devices knowing full well they’re entering a walled garden ecosystem. And they’re doing it for that reason specifically, not in spite of it. You might disagree, and you’re free to make a different choice, because it exists (and is more popular anyway). Everyone wins.
    - tommyage 6y ago
      People are more often forced to enter a specific ecosystem due to networking effects. There is no real choice for these common folk. They need to participate in their universe and outsiders cant join. Neither can they experience competition.

rajivjain 6y ago

Anti trust case against Apple in the US made sense due to Apple's dominance in both the share of users and the share of the app store revenue. EU may not be as clearcut. This news article does not mention anything about the basis for antitrust. Is it the marketshare of iOS phone users or it is the revenue. Seems like iOS marketshare as defined by the number of users is about 20%, revenue share should be higher.

egotripper 6y ago

This problem is not limited to Apple mobile devices, it is shared with every manufacturer curating all the software on their platforms. Apple, Nintendo, Sony, John Deere, and so on. Every manufacturer gatekeeping their platform for security, financial, community, repair, or quality standards. They should all instead bust the machines wide open, allow anyone's operating system software to be in control, and give up the notion that curation in exchange for restrictions is something anyone can willingly buy into. If you go after Apple, you go after all the other platform companies, because their justifications do not hold water either. If you go after just Apple, you have to convince the judge that there are good reasons Apple must conform while nobody else has to.

kingsleyopara 6y ago
This. I think a lot of people miss the bigger picture. If Epic win this, do you really think games consoles are safe? What about car infotainment systems etc.? An Epic win could effectively make all walled gardens illegal

summerlight 6y ago

I think the solution is pretty clear. * Platforms MUST display the amount of the processing fee taken from the payment in a clearly visible format inside of the app and/or the IAP flow. * Platforms MUST allow developers to implement alternative payment options (potentially cheaper due to lack of additional processing fee). * Platforms MUST allow advertisement of alternative payment options inside of the app and/or the IAP flow. * Platforms are allowed to reject apps if they think their alternative payment options are fraudulent but actionable feedback MUST be given within a reasonable time frame. * Platforms MUST provide a list of trusted payment alternatives which will be unconditionally approved during the app review process. To prevent cartel, the list MUST be periodically audited by FTC. If the convenience from the integrated IAP can justify the 30% fee, the users will keep using it. If not, the price will be brought down. Let the market decide.

xondono 6y ago

I hope Epic loses in a spectacular way. At this point, if Apple is forced to allow third parties, I'll lose one of the best time savers I have in my life. Having switched all of my family and close relatives to Apple gives me the freedom of not having to provide almost any support. They are trained to use the platform (and its UI has been stable for years), and I can trust that they won't do anything too crazy just because [insert social network] or [crappy game in vogue] want to sideload a lot of bloatware and spyware on their phones. When they had android phones, I would get regular phonecalls that went like this: "My friend X has an app that does [irrelevant stupidity that requires full permissions], how can I do that?" "You shouldn't, this will have access to all of your info" "I don't care, just tell me how to do it" Then 2 weeks later I'd get another call complaining of how full of ads everything is when they try to open a browser. I tried to disuade them by saying "Your phone can't do that", but that just meant that they ended up changing phones, because now they feel that their phone is inferior. When they switched to iPhones, i can just tell them "Your phone doesn't do that", and they had no problem. They realized that bragging for 10 minutes was an idiotic thing to do anyway, and they felt great, because they still have a flagship phone, "it's an iPhone!".

somjeed 6y ago
umm, just use the Apple App store then... and let others have a choice
- xondono 6y ago
  “Choice” is precisely the problem. It’s not much of a choice when developers have all of the knowledge and users can’t even begin to understand how the apps work.

timwaagh 6y ago

EU probably won't pass up this opportunity to levy an extra tax on Apple. We already think they dodged too much with their Ireland construction.

jacklolo 6y ago

Shirt only $ 18 https://rdbl.co/37qNJy4 https://rdbl.co/37qNJy4