12 ms·

Apple-Epic judge asks why offering iOS users a choice is bad

136 points by CrankyBear 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
noT1 5y ago
So the court should force Apple to implement advertising for others? Edit: Apple built the ecosystem. No one has to develop for it. You all want to be indie wonders? Go do that. You want to be unicorns? Build something novel. Wait, wait, I got you; release your source code. I want choice in how things run on my device. “But but but I made this IP!” On top of Apples infrastructure, and intellectual property. Circular grifting.
- R0b0t1 5y ago
  This is about people advertising in their own apps. Apple wants to prevent that using their monopoly power over their devices.
  - noT1 5y ago
    Apple would effectively be acting a distributor of apps that redirect people from their platform. I think you’re seeing this in terms of what some solo dev should be allowed to do when they have a choice; don’t sell iOS apps.
  - vlovich123 5y ago
    What about if Amazon prevented a seller from advertising “direct to sale at a discount” and bypassing Amazon on their product page?
    - void_mint 5y ago
      uhhh....this happens all the time already. Lots of Amazon sellers maintain web stores and purchasing options outside of Amazon.
      - enos_feedler 5y ago
        And do they link to those stores from their amazon product descriptions?
        void_mint 5y ago
        Can you point to an example of Epic doing that from an Apple-owned page (meaning, specifically, not from the app that Epic owns)? You're moving the goal posts further away from this example making sense.
        ntr-- 5y ago
        I think it's a bit disingenuous to imply that the example in question^1 is less extreme than Amazon allowing sellers to directly link to discounted options directly on their listings. The app in question was built, packaged, distributed, installed and runs on Apple funded SDKs after all. 1. https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/epic-direct-pay-apple-app-store-2045x979-730033169.png https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/epic-direct-pay-apple-app-stor...
        void_mint 5y ago
        The source of the app is owned and maintained by Epic. The source of an Amazon seller page is made through Amazon's portal.
        enos_feedler 5y ago
        Its splitting hairs to break this down into who compiled the code. The “source” of both experiences is maintained by the developer/seller. In one case it’s some configuration and the other case it’s Apple platform bitcode
        void_mint 5y ago
        > Its splitting hairs to break this down into who compiled the code. It's not. The difference between building your store and getting a booth in someone else's.
    - oh_sigh 5y ago
      That seller almost certainly signed a contract with amazon saying that they would give amazon most-favored nation status with regards to product prices. So they could absolutely say such a thing, but in the end they couldn't contractually offer anything at a cheaper rate than what they list it for on amazon.
      - vlovich123 5y ago
        That's identical to contracts Epic signs to be on the Apple Store in the first place.
        PeterisP 5y ago
        No, that's definitely not identical - no one, including Apple, is asserting that the fact that Fortnite users could by the same thing cheaper directly was a contract violation, the contentious issue was only that this cheaper price was being advertised on the iOS app.
        vlovich123 5y ago
        Right. Just as with Amazon. You don’t necessarily see Amazon with the lowest price for an item (the most favored nation thing may happen but I don’t know that that’s standard SOP for everything on the store, eg PlayStation may have discounts through other channels and for certain types of vendors they view as fungible without a brand they may not care at all). But you don’t see advertising for the cheaper option on the Amazon page.
  - noT1 5y ago
    What monopoly when their mobile OS is only 18% of the mobile market? You all want these corporations to learn a lesson? Stop giving them attention. There are more useful political conversations to be had. This is more David v Goliath crap bros use to seek Valhalla
- ericwooley 5y ago
  Nonsense. No where has anyone implied that. Apps should be able to offer a choice of how users can pay.
  - noT1 5y ago
    Why? They know what they signed up for. It’s a legal contract. Don’t like the terms, don’t sign up? I frankly don’t care about some small dev that could vanish when and take my paid app or service with it. If we as a culture cared about small business still we’d not have enabled this mess to begin with.
    - Turing_Machine 5y ago
      So, in your opinion, it should be legal to sell yourself into slavery? How about debt peonage? Society has determined that certain things are not allowed because they are inherently abusive, "legal contracts" or not.
- sorenjan 5y ago
  This is what the payment screen looked like in Fortnite which made Apple ban it. Why shouldn't it be allowed? https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/epic-direct-pay-apple-app-store-2045x979-730033169.png https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/epic-direct-pay-apple-app-stor... https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-mega-drop-permanent-discounts-up-to-20-percent https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-m...
  - Spartan-S63 5y ago
    Regardless of the behavior of selecting "Epic direct payment," this is a flagrant violation of App Store rules. I agree, it seems sensical to allow an app to mention that buying direct from their website might be cheaper than going through in-app purchases. It might even be reasonable to open that link automatically. I do think that it's reasonable to restrict third party payment processors, though. It's inconvenient, dangerous, and provides little in the way of antifraud measures if you're dealing with every app's purchase processor (assuming they don't all just use Stripe). I actually think Apple's, "only our payment system can be used," system is reasonable. The percentage is maybe steep and would be better served by a progressive scale. But I also don't think Apple should be able to prevent an app from advertising their own payment system out of the app.
    - monocasa 5y ago
      > Regardless of the behavior of selecting "Epic direct payment," this is a flagrant violation of App Store rules. Yep, because they needed to flagrantly violate the rules if they thought the rules were not something that would stand up to legal scrutiny. The US court systems (particularly on the civil side) try not to rule on hypotheticals. They want to be discussing actual damages. Because of that, flagrantly violating the app store rules (to then get taken off the store) is the first step towards getting a judge to rule on if they were legal in the first place.
    - salamandersauce 5y ago
      But they already allow third party payment processors in physical goods retail apps e.g the Amazon app for example (and many other much smaller retailers). Is fraud a much bigger concern in digital only apps? Why should I trust a small retailer with an app over a big development house like EA?
- wernercd 5y ago
  As opposed to Apple forcing you to go through their gated options? When better payment, ad, search, email, browser, etc, etc, options exist? Apples OS is decent and their options are "solid"... but for each of their offerings, there are better options and their options aren't worth the 30% tax. Tons of companies have better payment options and should be allowed to use them without anti-competitive restrictions placed by Apple.
  - noT1 5y ago
    They forced developers to develop for iOS?
    - salamandersauce 5y ago
      No, but considering iOS is roughly 50% or more of the mobile market in the U.S, U.K, Japan, etc. any developer choosing to forgo iOS is essentially shitting away half the market in some very lucrative places.
      - ethbr0 5y ago
        More than that in terms of percentage of actual app revenue, since Google Play is such a $+#$show.
        no_wizard 5y ago
        This is the crux of the matter, for most developers. Its why Apple is the target and not Google, despite having remarkably similar structure for this. The one exception is around having alternative App Stores (if I recall correctly this is totally blessed by Google, see Amazon Appstore App For Android[0], though I don't think any alternative store that has been created this way has thrived, cautionary tale of whether consumers will care about alternative app stores). Its otherwise the same, as far as I can tell[1] structurally. [0]: https://www.amazon.com/gp/mas/get/amazonapp https://www.amazon.com/gp/mas/get/amazonapp [1]: https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/9858738?hl=en&ref_topic=9857752 https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
- Dah00n 5y ago
  Nothing in your comment is on topic? This is about app developers implementing something in their own app. Not Apple.
deep-root 5y ago
From the article: "The question was in relation to Apple's App Store anti-steering policy, which forbids apps from telling iOS users that they can purchase virtual goods or subscriptions cheaper elsewhere. [US Judge] Gonzalez Rogers was questioning why allowing this to be conveyed to App Store customers would be bad..." It's not so much about offering choice (implying the choice multiple app stores on iOS), as it is allowing users to be directed off iOS for purchases. This judge does actually seem to be looking for middle-ground between the parties.
- burlesona 5y ago
  I’m generally on Apple’s side in this debate, but on this point specifically I think Apple is in the wrong. It’s just silly that apps which don’t route payments through the App Store aren’t allowed to say so. And further, it degrades the user experience when you download an app, which Apple has reviewed and approved, but that app doesn’t work without a subscription etc. which you have to just “figure out” how to buy outside the app. That rule has always felt over the top to me.
  - hokumguru 5y ago
    Why would any store allow its products to advertise a cheaper price outside the establishment? What would be the point of even offering those products?
    - kemayo 5y ago
      Well, in Apple's case, it's because having e.g. Netflix available on iOS devices makes people more likely to buy their very-expensive hardware. If people couldn't get the assorted free service-client apps on iOS, that'd be a problem for Apple. Even with the store metaphor, "loss leaders" to draw people in so they'll spend money on other things are a popular technique.
    - PeterisP 5y ago
      Manufacturers can and do print some 'manufacturer's suggested retail price' on their products, and (in the absence of a specific contract prohibiting so) retailers can and do sell them for a higher price despite the company and product advertising that in general they are available cheaper.
cletus 5y ago
The middle ground here is to allow multiple certified backend processors for larger and more trusted providers who appear have that infrastructure. What Apple should’ve been doing (IMHO) is by controlling the conversation and thus the outcome. It’s going to be bad if a court decides this. Apple added a small developer program to reduce their cut. This is clearly just a PR move and shows it’s not about costs anymore (it would’ve been when this was a much smaller venture). It’s simply a profit center now. This move was completely backwards. If Apple had been willing to offer larger customers a smaller cut, scaling down to say 10% (remember this includes credit card processing) then I believe they could’ve completely avoided the risks of this lawsuit. Why? If someone sues you, you just kick them out of the discount program. Would Epic risk a lawsuit in this case? I have doubts.
- sircastor 5y ago
  I agree that the reduction is a PR move but I doubt any reduction for large shops would be received well. If the cut was 10% they’d want 5%. If the cut was 5% they want 3%. This debate is much less about expense than it is about principle.
- EricE 5y ago
  After what Apple did with Parlor I'm firmly in the camp that there needs to be a mechanism for alternative stores. And not Google's handling of alternative stores, but alternative stores that have an equal first party footing with Apple's store so they can't claim to support third party stores, but make the experience so shitty that they might as well not exist (Google's favorite trick).
tiagoleifert 5y ago
I think the answer is simple. If it was easy to advertise to the user other payment options, then what would stop developers from making free apps [0] that are unlocked in the developers website? Bypassing the Apple's cut. I don't agree with this but I think it would be a good argument by Apple. [0] Assuming that these free apps would be functional but very limited so they don't have the same problem as the Hey app.
- sfifs 5y ago
  Sure. That's also pretty much the definition of anti-trust. Using a dominant position in one market (distribution of apps on iOS) to gain an unfair advantage in others (payment processing) to make profits in a way that causes consumers to pay more - it's very easy to demonstrate in many apps you pay higher to buy exactly the same content in-app vs. on website. Apple's in very deep shit in this lawsuit and losing this will open a can of worms.
  - quackyodata 5y ago
    >Apple's in very deep shit in this lawsuit and losing this will open a can of worms. For example, is it okay to bundle a default web browser with an OS and forbid any other browsers from being installed? All iOS browsers are required to use Safari's WebKit under the hood, despite the appearance of choice in the app store. This cripples the features and performance of 3rd-party browsers like Firefox. And unlike this spat with Epic, there might be some strong precedence on that question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
    - simondotau 5y ago
      > For example, is it okay to bundle a default web browser with an OS and forbid any other browsers from being installed? There are hundreds (or depending on how you count them, thousands) of products where exactly this is the case. Try installing an alternative web rendering engine on your LG smart TV, or your Toyota, or your Playstation. > there might be some strong precedence on that question This precedent isn't analogous. Microsoft had an initial marketplace monopoly over desktop computer operating systems, which was not ideal, but legally fine. They then illegally buttressed and extended their monopoly by arm-twisting the largest OEMs to lock competitive operating systems out of the open market. Finally they used this illegal monopoly to force their way into an existing competitive market of commercial[0] web browsers. Had alternative operating systems such as OS/2 and Linux not been illegally suppressed, or had the question been asked in the iOS/Android era, Microsoft's actions around Internet Explorer wouldn't have justified the same level of scrutiny. For the analogy to hold, you'd have to show that Apple has used their market dominance to illegally suppress market access from its competitors. [0] It's often hard for us to remember in 2021, but web browsers weren't always entirely free. Netscape was commercial software; initially free for evaluation purposes only, then later free for non-commercial purposes only. Netscape was set to be a very successful company through commercial web browser sales.
cma 5y ago
Apple should let customers pay a $30 fee or so to lock out other stores from their phones. If the restriction is so valuable to customers and isn't really about being valuable to Apple they will gladly pay that much or more.
- swiley 5y ago
  People would immediately stop locking their phones to the Apple store though because there would be much better chat applications available outside of it.
simondotau 5y ago
Personally I think that Apple should settle this matter by lowering their revenue share of non-game apps to 10–15%. Google would have no choice but to immediately match Apple's move, eliminating any concern over competitor advantage. I also think Apple should give up on their awkward stance over "reader" content and treat content sales within reader apps identically to physical goods sales. Let the content providers use their own payment gateways. It's the right thing ethically, but Apple should also do this because it side-steps some of the stickier arguments from the likes of Spotify and Netflix, which Apple directly competes with. Apple might do well to avoid being in a position to lose a legal fight over those questions. But as long as the game consoles are entitled to charge a 30% revenue split for digital sales of games, I don't see why Apple should be forced into accepting a lower percentage for game sales. Games are games—whether you are playing them on a smartphone or a GameBoy or an Xbox. (It's also a very neat way whereby both Apple and Epic would comprehensively "lose" and that feels like a very satisfying outcome to me.)
bluesign 5y ago
Only solution is to allow other app stores, but it would be nightmare for users. Imagine you spent a lot of money on a store then it vanishes.
- SXX 5y ago
  How many times PC games / software store vanished without a trance in a known history while breaking all previously downloaded games / software? Yeah services do come and go, but they are mostly just distributors and not product owners. Any sane software developer will always gonna give you a key for software you previously bought, but for the new platform if something like that happens. On other side Apple do push developers off their platform all the time and old apps getting abandoned all the time when API breaking and App Store no longer sell the app.

136 points by CrankyBear 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

noT1 5y ago

So the court should force Apple to implement advertising for others? Edit: Apple built the ecosystem. No one has to develop for it. You all want to be indie wonders? Go do that. You want to be unicorns? Build something novel. Wait, wait, I got you; release your source code. I want choice in how things run on my device. “But but but I made this IP!” On top of Apples infrastructure, and intellectual property. Circular grifting.

R0b0t1 5y ago
This is about people advertising in their own apps. Apple wants to prevent that using their monopoly power over their devices.
- noT1 5y ago
  Apple would effectively be acting a distributor of apps that redirect people from their platform. I think you’re seeing this in terms of what some solo dev should be allowed to do when they have a choice; don’t sell iOS apps.
- vlovich123 5y ago
  What about if Amazon prevented a seller from advertising “direct to sale at a discount” and bypassing Amazon on their product page?
  - void_mint 5y ago
    uhhh....this happens all the time already. Lots of Amazon sellers maintain web stores and purchasing options outside of Amazon.
    - enos_feedler 5y ago
      And do they link to those stores from their amazon product descriptions?
      - void_mint 5y ago
        Can you point to an example of Epic doing that from an Apple-owned page (meaning, specifically, not from the app that Epic owns)? You're moving the goal posts further away from this example making sense.
        ntr-- 5y ago
        I think it's a bit disingenuous to imply that the example in question^1 is less extreme than Amazon allowing sellers to directly link to discounted options directly on their listings. The app in question was built, packaged, distributed, installed and runs on Apple funded SDKs after all. 1. https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/epic-direct-pay-apple-app-store-2045x979-730033169.png https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/epic-direct-pay-apple-app-stor...
        void_mint 5y ago
        The source of the app is owned and maintained by Epic. The source of an Amazon seller page is made through Amazon's portal.
        enos_feedler 5y ago
        Its splitting hairs to break this down into who compiled the code. The “source” of both experiences is maintained by the developer/seller. In one case it’s some configuration and the other case it’s Apple platform bitcode
        void_mint 5y ago
        > Its splitting hairs to break this down into who compiled the code. It's not. The difference between building your store and getting a booth in someone else's.
  - oh_sigh 5y ago
    That seller almost certainly signed a contract with amazon saying that they would give amazon most-favored nation status with regards to product prices. So they could absolutely say such a thing, but in the end they couldn't contractually offer anything at a cheaper rate than what they list it for on amazon.
    - vlovich123 5y ago
      That's identical to contracts Epic signs to be on the Apple Store in the first place.
      - PeterisP 5y ago
        No, that's definitely not identical - no one, including Apple, is asserting that the fact that Fortnite users could by the same thing cheaper directly was a contract violation, the contentious issue was only that this cheaper price was being advertised on the iOS app.
        vlovich123 5y ago
        Right. Just as with Amazon. You don’t necessarily see Amazon with the lowest price for an item (the most favored nation thing may happen but I don’t know that that’s standard SOP for everything on the store, eg PlayStation may have discounts through other channels and for certain types of vendors they view as fungible without a brand they may not care at all). But you don’t see advertising for the cheaper option on the Amazon page.
- noT1 5y ago
  What monopoly when their mobile OS is only 18% of the mobile market? You all want these corporations to learn a lesson? Stop giving them attention. There are more useful political conversations to be had. This is more David v Goliath crap bros use to seek Valhalla
ericwooley 5y ago
Nonsense. No where has anyone implied that. Apps should be able to offer a choice of how users can pay.
- noT1 5y ago
  Why? They know what they signed up for. It’s a legal contract. Don’t like the terms, don’t sign up? I frankly don’t care about some small dev that could vanish when and take my paid app or service with it. If we as a culture cared about small business still we’d not have enabled this mess to begin with.
  - Turing_Machine 5y ago
    So, in your opinion, it should be legal to sell yourself into slavery? How about debt peonage? Society has determined that certain things are not allowed because they are inherently abusive, "legal contracts" or not.
sorenjan 5y ago
This is what the payment screen looked like in Fortnite which made Apple ban it. Why shouldn't it be allowed? https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/epic-direct-pay-apple-app-store-2045x979-730033169.png https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/epic-direct-pay-apple-app-stor... https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-mega-drop-permanent-discounts-up-to-20-percent https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-m...
- Spartan-S63 5y ago
  Regardless of the behavior of selecting "Epic direct payment," this is a flagrant violation of App Store rules. I agree, it seems sensical to allow an app to mention that buying direct from their website might be cheaper than going through in-app purchases. It might even be reasonable to open that link automatically. I do think that it's reasonable to restrict third party payment processors, though. It's inconvenient, dangerous, and provides little in the way of antifraud measures if you're dealing with every app's purchase processor (assuming they don't all just use Stripe). I actually think Apple's, "only our payment system can be used," system is reasonable. The percentage is maybe steep and would be better served by a progressive scale. But I also don't think Apple should be able to prevent an app from advertising their own payment system out of the app.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    > Regardless of the behavior of selecting "Epic direct payment," this is a flagrant violation of App Store rules. Yep, because they needed to flagrantly violate the rules if they thought the rules were not something that would stand up to legal scrutiny. The US court systems (particularly on the civil side) try not to rule on hypotheticals. They want to be discussing actual damages. Because of that, flagrantly violating the app store rules (to then get taken off the store) is the first step towards getting a judge to rule on if they were legal in the first place.
  - salamandersauce 5y ago
    But they already allow third party payment processors in physical goods retail apps e.g the Amazon app for example (and many other much smaller retailers). Is fraud a much bigger concern in digital only apps? Why should I trust a small retailer with an app over a big development house like EA?
wernercd 5y ago
As opposed to Apple forcing you to go through their gated options? When better payment, ad, search, email, browser, etc, etc, options exist? Apples OS is decent and their options are "solid"... but for each of their offerings, there are better options and their options aren't worth the 30% tax. Tons of companies have better payment options and should be allowed to use them without anti-competitive restrictions placed by Apple.
- noT1 5y ago
  They forced developers to develop for iOS?
  - salamandersauce 5y ago
    No, but considering iOS is roughly 50% or more of the mobile market in the U.S, U.K, Japan, etc. any developer choosing to forgo iOS is essentially shitting away half the market in some very lucrative places.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      More than that in terms of percentage of actual app revenue, since Google Play is such a $+#$show.
      - no_wizard 5y ago
        This is the crux of the matter, for most developers. Its why Apple is the target and not Google, despite having remarkably similar structure for this. The one exception is around having alternative App Stores (if I recall correctly this is totally blessed by Google, see Amazon Appstore App For Android[0], though I don't think any alternative store that has been created this way has thrived, cautionary tale of whether consumers will care about alternative app stores). Its otherwise the same, as far as I can tell[1] structurally. [0]: https://www.amazon.com/gp/mas/get/amazonapp https://www.amazon.com/gp/mas/get/amazonapp [1]: https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/9858738?hl=en&ref_topic=9857752 https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
Dah00n 5y ago
Nothing in your comment is on topic? This is about app developers implementing something in their own app. Not Apple.

deep-root 5y ago

From the article: "The question was in relation to Apple's App Store anti-steering policy, which forbids apps from telling iOS users that they can purchase virtual goods or subscriptions cheaper elsewhere. [US Judge] Gonzalez Rogers was questioning why allowing this to be conveyed to App Store customers would be bad..." It's not so much about offering choice (implying the choice multiple app stores on iOS), as it is allowing users to be directed off iOS for purchases. This judge does actually seem to be looking for middle-ground between the parties.

burlesona 5y ago
I’m generally on Apple’s side in this debate, but on this point specifically I think Apple is in the wrong. It’s just silly that apps which don’t route payments through the App Store aren’t allowed to say so. And further, it degrades the user experience when you download an app, which Apple has reviewed and approved, but that app doesn’t work without a subscription etc. which you have to just “figure out” how to buy outside the app. That rule has always felt over the top to me.
- hokumguru 5y ago
  Why would any store allow its products to advertise a cheaper price outside the establishment? What would be the point of even offering those products?
  - kemayo 5y ago
    Well, in Apple's case, it's because having e.g. Netflix available on iOS devices makes people more likely to buy their very-expensive hardware. If people couldn't get the assorted free service-client apps on iOS, that'd be a problem for Apple. Even with the store metaphor, "loss leaders" to draw people in so they'll spend money on other things are a popular technique.
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    Manufacturers can and do print some 'manufacturer's suggested retail price' on their products, and (in the absence of a specific contract prohibiting so) retailers can and do sell them for a higher price despite the company and product advertising that in general they are available cheaper.

cletus 5y ago

The middle ground here is to allow multiple certified backend processors for larger and more trusted providers who appear have that infrastructure. What Apple should’ve been doing (IMHO) is by controlling the conversation and thus the outcome. It’s going to be bad if a court decides this. Apple added a small developer program to reduce their cut. This is clearly just a PR move and shows it’s not about costs anymore (it would’ve been when this was a much smaller venture). It’s simply a profit center now. This move was completely backwards. If Apple had been willing to offer larger customers a smaller cut, scaling down to say 10% (remember this includes credit card processing) then I believe they could’ve completely avoided the risks of this lawsuit. Why? If someone sues you, you just kick them out of the discount program. Would Epic risk a lawsuit in this case? I have doubts.

sircastor 5y ago
I agree that the reduction is a PR move but I doubt any reduction for large shops would be received well. If the cut was 10% they’d want 5%. If the cut was 5% they want 3%. This debate is much less about expense than it is about principle.
EricE 5y ago
After what Apple did with Parlor I'm firmly in the camp that there needs to be a mechanism for alternative stores. And not Google's handling of alternative stores, but alternative stores that have an equal first party footing with Apple's store so they can't claim to support third party stores, but make the experience so shitty that they might as well not exist (Google's favorite trick).

tiagoleifert 5y ago

I think the answer is simple. If it was easy to advertise to the user other payment options, then what would stop developers from making free apps [0] that are unlocked in the developers website? Bypassing the Apple's cut. I don't agree with this but I think it would be a good argument by Apple. [0] Assuming that these free apps would be functional but very limited so they don't have the same problem as the Hey app.

sfifs 5y ago
Sure. That's also pretty much the definition of anti-trust. Using a dominant position in one market (distribution of apps on iOS) to gain an unfair advantage in others (payment processing) to make profits in a way that causes consumers to pay more - it's very easy to demonstrate in many apps you pay higher to buy exactly the same content in-app vs. on website. Apple's in very deep shit in this lawsuit and losing this will open a can of worms.
- quackyodata 5y ago
  >Apple's in very deep shit in this lawsuit and losing this will open a can of worms. For example, is it okay to bundle a default web browser with an OS and forbid any other browsers from being installed? All iOS browsers are required to use Safari's WebKit under the hood, despite the appearance of choice in the app store. This cripples the features and performance of 3rd-party browsers like Firefox. And unlike this spat with Epic, there might be some strong precedence on that question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
  - simondotau 5y ago
    > For example, is it okay to bundle a default web browser with an OS and forbid any other browsers from being installed? There are hundreds (or depending on how you count them, thousands) of products where exactly this is the case. Try installing an alternative web rendering engine on your LG smart TV, or your Toyota, or your Playstation. > there might be some strong precedence on that question This precedent isn't analogous. Microsoft had an initial marketplace monopoly over desktop computer operating systems, which was not ideal, but legally fine. They then illegally buttressed and extended their monopoly by arm-twisting the largest OEMs to lock competitive operating systems out of the open market. Finally they used this illegal monopoly to force their way into an existing competitive market of commercial[0] web browsers. Had alternative operating systems such as OS/2 and Linux not been illegally suppressed, or had the question been asked in the iOS/Android era, Microsoft's actions around Internet Explorer wouldn't have justified the same level of scrutiny. For the analogy to hold, you'd have to show that Apple has used their market dominance to illegally suppress market access from its competitors. [0] It's often hard for us to remember in 2021, but web browsers weren't always entirely free. Netscape was commercial software; initially free for evaluation purposes only, then later free for non-commercial purposes only. Netscape was set to be a very successful company through commercial web browser sales.

cma 5y ago

Apple should let customers pay a $30 fee or so to lock out other stores from their phones. If the restriction is so valuable to customers and isn't really about being valuable to Apple they will gladly pay that much or more.

swiley 5y ago
People would immediately stop locking their phones to the Apple store though because there would be much better chat applications available outside of it.

simondotau 5y ago

Personally I think that Apple should settle this matter by lowering their revenue share of non-game apps to 10–15%. Google would have no choice but to immediately match Apple's move, eliminating any concern over competitor advantage. I also think Apple should give up on their awkward stance over "reader" content and treat content sales within reader apps identically to physical goods sales. Let the content providers use their own payment gateways. It's the right thing ethically, but Apple should also do this because it side-steps some of the stickier arguments from the likes of Spotify and Netflix, which Apple directly competes with. Apple might do well to avoid being in a position to lose a legal fight over those questions. But as long as the game consoles are entitled to charge a 30% revenue split for digital sales of games, I don't see why Apple should be forced into accepting a lower percentage for game sales. Games are games—whether you are playing them on a smartphone or a GameBoy or an Xbox. (It's also a very neat way whereby both Apple and Epic would comprehensively "lose" and that feels like a very satisfying outcome to me.)

bluesign 5y ago

Only solution is to allow other app stores, but it would be nightmare for users. Imagine you spent a lot of money on a store then it vanishes.

SXX 5y ago
How many times PC games / software store vanished without a trance in a known history while breaking all previously downloaded games / software? Yeah services do come and go, but they are mostly just distributors and not product owners. Any sane software developer will always gonna give you a key for software you previously bought, but for the new platform if something like that happens. On other side Apple do push developers off their platform all the time and old apps getting abandoned all the time when API breaking and App Store no longer sell the app.