17 ms·

Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

253 points by amaBasics 5y ago

causality0 5y ago
I really hope the concept of "you can't be anti-competitive if you own the entire ecosystem" dies.
- slver 5y ago
  The slogans are easy but you need to define what "ecosystem" is so we understand the system-wide implications of these attitudes. Can I for example go to Walmart and setup my own store inside their store without having to ask them? Can I do the same in your local mom-and-pop store?
  - ginko 5y ago
    Why not? edit: You changed your comment and added your line about mom-and-pop stores. To which I reply that different rules should apply to multi-billion dollar corporations.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    It's interesting to consider what the effect of breaking up Walmart into constituent parts (either vertically or horizontally) would be. I'd be willing to bet it'd be a net-positive for the economy. The same is true for the majority of companies that large.
    - adam_arthur 5y ago
      Deleted
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    The kind of ecosystem/business model that Apple has created is so fundamentally different from everything else that real world analogies just don't work. We should avoid using them in this debate.
    - slver 5y ago
      I wasn't using an analogy. I was literally talking about: if this is a law, how it'll ACTUALLY impact every business. If you think what Apple has created is different, again, define it. Let's see how it's fundamentally different and where the line is.
      - cmeacham98 5y ago
        Can you please explain how you go from the hypothetical future of "Apple's 30% app store cut is found to be illegally anti-competitive" to "Walmart would be forced to allow random competitors to open stores physically inside them".
        slver 5y ago
        I was asking a question. (1) That we define what we mean, so... (2) We can analyze the impact. Here I'm going to do it again. What does it mean "30% store cut is illegally anti-competetive". What does that even mean? Why isn't Apple allowed to charge a fee for maintaining their own store? It's just entirely unclear what's the objection here. Is the objection Apple's cut is too big? Is 5% legal? Is 10%? Should it be 0%? How big should it be? What is everyone even saying? Or is everyone just whining about "big bad corporate is bad, punish bad corporate" and not thinking any deeper than this? Believe it or not, Walmart and all other grocery stores charge 50% for the same service. Even when you order online, actually. Should we sue them for this? If no, why. If yes, why? And the Walmart example came directly from Epic wanting to open a store inside iOS. You don't agree? Again, where's the definition that contradicts this interpretation. Define what you say, so it means something. Right now I just see bunch of emotion and absolutely nothing of substance being said.
        bussierem 5y ago
        Parent does have a point here. His point is not that you can or should compare the two. We know they are different. But the LAW doesn't. How do you define in LEGAL terms how apple and WalMart are different? You can't use the word "ecosystem" like we throw around for apple because it is meaningless in legal terms. So first you need to either find an existing legal term and apply it or you need to make a new one. If you make a new one (because obviously Apples thing doesn't have a normal analogy) then you have to be VERRRRRY CAREFUL how you define it and what exact terms you use because whatever that is will be used and abused by precedence for decades to come.
  - planetafro 5y ago
    Wouldn't it be more like any games you bought at GameStop would force you to pay a cut to Gamestop from inside the games in-game store? ...that GameStop has nothing to do with.
  - Spooky23 5y ago
    Obviously there’s a spectrum of scenarios. In the 80s and 90s breaking up AT&T local loop unbundling made a huge positive change in telco in the us. Requiring the power company to rent pole space has a positive benefit. I think the App Store is more like a utility pole than a Walmart. Forcing Apple to unbundle the infrastructure of delivery, payment and signing would allow for competitive forces and innovation. The AppStore is all built around PKI. My company already operates an internal enterprise store — the metaphor exists. It would be pretty straightforward to evolve it into something different and arguably better.
  - adam_arthur 5y ago
    I don't see this as an accurate comparison. You can already rent a space right next to Walmart and open your own store if you like. Yes, I may have to pay a landlord, but again, there's competition among owners of land that keeps rents at a market rate. You can think of the space within an ecosystem as virtual land. Apple has a monopoly on this virtual space. They can charge whatever they like, there is no competition. The argument of choose another phone is different, because it requires spending a large amount of money for the right to entry. To many people this is cost prohibitive. I don't have a personal stance on what the outcome should be either way, need to dig into it more.
    - nradov 5y ago
      You can buy a new unlocked Samsung smartphone for $180. That's hardly cost prohibitive. Especially if you already have an iPhone you can just sell it and buy something else.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - Someone 5y ago
      Apple’s argument is that their land has value because of the work they did/do. They also may argue that rents for their land are at market rate, as demand for it stays high. Of course, that may be (is for a large part, in my opinion) because of their market power, but that, I think, isn’t much different from Walmart. Market power and sales volume are how Walmart can negotiate lower prices with sellers. Theme parks such as Disney World may be even better examples. If you want to sell ice creams there, I bet you have to pay a huge sum of money to Disney. It wouldn’t even surprise me if that were a percentage of revenues.
    - slver 5y ago
      > I don't see this as an accurate comparison. You can already rent a space right next to Walmart and open your own store if you like. Opening a store in iOS is not "next to" it's "inside of". > The argument of choose another phone is different, because it requires spending a large amount of money for the right to entry. To many people this is cost prohibitive. This makes no sense, first because Androids tend to be cheaper than iPhones, and second no one forces you into buying an iPhone. Also "iPhone is too expensive" is not an argument for "I should be allowed to do X with it". If you don't like what an iPhone does, don't buy one. You don't get to buy a Tesla and complain how come it's so expensive and doesn't run also on oil, do you?
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    Are iOS devices Apple's private property?
    - slver 5y ago
      iOS is. It's a software and a set of associated services and apps provided to you under a license. If you wanna install your own OS, you can set up your own App Store.
      - matheusmoreira 5y ago
        > If you wanna install your own OS Yes, please. Who do I have to call at Apple to get an iPhone's bootloader unlocked?
        slver 5y ago
        I don’t work at Apple, do your own research. Also maybe next time do that research before buying a device and then complaining it doesn’t do what it never said it does.
        matheusmoreira 5y ago
        How about we make it illegal for corporations to lock down other people's devices instead? Much better than constantly moving the goalposts.
        slver 5y ago
        How about you phrase your statements with intellectual honesty, instead of wasting my time having to explain this is not a case of "corporations locking down other people's devices" but it's a case of "you bought this device with the idea it runs iOS, that's the only thing Apple promised it'll do, and that's precisely what it does". I'm not moving any goalposts. Your argument is this utterly ridiculous notion that you get to buy an iPhone and then whine it doesn't do what it never said it'll do. It's like buying a Tesla and complaining it doesn't run on oil. The responsibility is on you, as a buyer, to buy shit that does what you want it to do. It's full of phones that you can install whatever on. Buy one of those. "How about we make it illegal for corporations to control the product they themselves make" is a shitty, entitled, spoiled brat behavior that honestly disgusts me to my core.
  - trboyden 5y ago
    Except what you state already exists. I can load the Walmart app on iOS and order a TV from Walmart, not Apple. Apple is preventing Epic from doing the same - buy in-app merchandise through Epic's app on iOS.
    - drusepth 5y ago
      Can you buy any digital goods on iOS with the Walmart app?
      - trboyden 5y ago
        Yes, digital downloads for Nintendo, Xbox. Digital gift cards for Xbox, Playstation, and Nintendo, including credit for Playstation Store and Nintendo eStore.
  - trboyden 5y ago
    I can also go into a mom and pop store, load Target's website on my phone, and order a pick-up order from Target. The Mom and Pop store can't stop you from doing that.
    - nodamage 5y ago
      You can also open an iPhone, load any website in Safari, and order whatever you want from the website. Apple can't stop you from doing that either.
      - trboyden 5y ago
        Except, as we have seen with Epic, and why we are talking about this case, is they can, by dropping your app from the App Store in retribution for offering an alternative. They can do that because there is no other app store on Apple and effectively prevents you from competing.
        slver 5y ago
        Epic wasn't dropped for offering sales on a site. Inform yourself.
        trboyden 5y ago
        Except, they did. Apple started the threats against Epic when Epic started lowering their prices for add-ons on other platforms, which made Apple look greedy. To bolster their anti-competitive case against Apple, Epic turned on the in-app store to which Apple then pulled Fortnite. Epic has to be able to show damages and anti-competitive actions in order to have a case. If they didn't force Apple to pull Fortnite, they wouldn't be able to show damages.
        nodamage 5y ago
        No, you are allowed to offer an alternative on your website. Netflix and plenty of other apps do this just fine. If you want to advertise the alternative inside your app, well, that's a bit like Target putting a sign inside that mom-and-pop store saying you can get a better deal at Target.
  - fooey 5y ago
    The closest comparable platforms are probably the consoles. Should Xbox/PlayStation/Nintendo be forced to allow 3rd party app stores on their devices?
    - throwaway3699 5y ago
      Why not? Everybody benefits from open marketplaces. The PC has been like this, and though Steam is dominant, it's not even close to a monopoly.
    - gbear605 5y ago
      Yes.
- skizm 5y ago
  I mean I really haven't heard a good argument against it. Everyone is just complaining that 30% is too high, or it shouldn't apply to IAP for some reason. None of the questions the judged asked really get to the heart of the matter: why should the government get to tell Apple how to run their app store? What makes app stores different than the xbox marketplace or ebay? If the app store was more specific with the types of apps they allow (ex. no more IAP apps), would that make it better or worse?
  - ssivark 5y ago
    Rather, the question is, how can Apple control access to a device they have sold to customers by forcing all app deployments through their App Store? They can run the App Store quite whimsically if they allow side loading apps and other app repositories.
    - skizm 5y ago
      It isn’t illegal to side load another OS with another App Store onto your phone. But Apple is also well within their rights to design their phones to brick if they detect something they deem a security risk being loaded onto a device they sold. They tell you up front, before you buy it, what the device is designed for and what it isn’t. Xbox doesn’t let you run Word and won’t support it if you somehow figure out a way to. Is that not the same thing?
  - Animats 5y ago
    why should the government get to tell Apple how to run their app store? Because Apple has a monopoly in that area. That's what antitrust law is all about - using monopoly power to raise prices.
    - skizm 5y ago
      They have a monopoly on what? Apps in the Apple App Store? I agree they shouldn’t be able to use their market dominance in the app marketplace space to stop other app marketplaces from competing with their App Store, but within their own ecosystem that is way too specific of a thing to apply anti-trust rules to. The reason the App Store is popular is because of the iron grip they keep on their apps. Telling them they can’t control their apps the way they want is like telling a chip maker they can’t use a certain architecture because it is too fast and other companies won’t be able to compete with them.
- mcphage 5y ago
  Who gets to define what the current ecosystem is?
- grishka 5y ago
  I really hope devices, services, and infrastructure get separated and also that it would become illegal for a device manufacturer to retain any kind of control over a device after it's been sold. Burning a public key into OTP ROM as trusted and not providing its private counterpart counts too. You want to set up cloud backups? You get a text box to put a domain in. You get to choose whose infrastructure you use. It might be pre-filled with apple.com, but that's as far as it can legally go. Protocols, not platforms.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    This right here. I like controlling my own DRM Free media. I imagined a system the other day where you can buy a pressing of a movie and on checkout you get the video file or enter the host you want it sent to so you can stream it. Or both. This would open up all kinds of different hosting services- an entire industry.
user3939382 5y ago
I’ve watched these big tech cases wind their way through the courts since US v Microsoft. I’ve learned, if there is a lot of money at stake, individual judges and decisions matter little because it will get dragged out for years. These big companies even have workarounds to the negative consequences of final decisions.
echelon 5y ago
Good! It's about time that our industry's monopoly of the ages is put to bed. Apple put us in the kettle and slowly turned up the heat. They delivered good hardware, good software, but at the same time demanded that nobody else have the ability to run JIT, other runtimes, first-class web, browsers, marketplaces, etc. Over time, Apple rose to 50% of the market, all the while exacting complete control and taxing all market activities. Unfortunately, iPhone is now responsible for a majority of its users' business activities. It's the single plane of control between a user and their banking, commerce, communication, entertainment, and social lives. We didn't allow this level of control with Microsoft in the 90's and 00's, and there's no reason we should allow the increased scope of control that Apple has now. They need to lose the App Store. They need to have an open platform. They can't run Apple Pay. Other browsers and JIT runtimes need to be allowed. Marketplaces, too. This needs to happen to Google as well. We don't pay the electric company for every app we install. We don't pay UPS for our Netflix subscriptions. Apple isn't providing any additional economic value. They're a tax, and that's it. They're also an impediment to repairing our own devices. It has to stop, and they have to start playing fair.
- kaiju0 5y ago
  They would just stop making the phone.
  - echelon 5y ago
    > They would just stop making the phone. Stop making their high margin hardware that integrates into paid Apple services? The same phone that works with other massively popular Apple hardware, such as Air Pods? Extremely doubtful. Apple will not cut off their nose to spite their face. Maybe you have less faith in Apple than I do. I believe they can succeed enormously without their monopoly. They make great products. Microsoft managed just fine (look at their market cap!) edit: I'm confused. Are the downvotes from Apple fans that think the hardware sucks without the monopoly? And that Apple can't survive without it?
    - StreamBright 5y ago
fxtentacle 5y ago
I really hope Epic will release a gaming phone. It appears they have enough cash, enough clever people, and a good connection to Chinese manufacturers through their partners. If they make it Android-based but Open Source, similar to how the Unreal Engine contains proprietary components while remaining easy to customize, that could be quite the popular move for grabbing market share from Apple and Google. I, at least, am unhappy with Apple's greedy behavior and also unhappy with Google's Data Kranken tendencies. So there's at least a niche market opening for a 3rd OS. And I'm not holding my breath for Linux. Instead, I think it'll be something like Lineage OS and its privacy protections but more professionally managed.
- pfisch 5y ago
  That will solve none of the problems that they are suing Apple for.
- slver 5y ago
  > I really hope Epic will release a gaming phone. Maybe think through what you're proposing. Do you believe most of Epic's customers will buy two phones, charge two phones and carry two phones just so they can play their games, while also having access to first-class OS services like Google and Apple offer? No.
  - fxtentacle 5y ago
    All the services that I rely upon on my Android phone are free 3rd party apps. Firefox, Banking, Authentication, Calendar So if the "Epic Phone" had the ability to install and run APKs, that'd be good enough.
    - nradov 5y ago
      Those APKs will only work on devices with licensed Google Play services. And that platform changes so rapidly that it's effectively impossible for a competitor to build compatible APIs without infringing on Google's IP.
rococode 5y ago
Sounds like the judge had some very sharp questions, big props to her. It seemed to me like Tim Cook and Apple were not as prepared as they should've been. They didn't have any particularly unexpected/novel arguments, it was basically just constantly repeating the same bland things they've been saying all along about IP and fraud and convenience.
- nradov 5y ago
  Novel arguments aren't needed. If the precedents are on your side then it makes sense to repeat bland arguments instead of confusing the issue. I don't necessarily support Apple's business policy here, but strictly from a legal standpoint Fortnite's case has always been a long shot.
  - mbg721 5y ago
    "A good lawyer knows the law; a great lawyer knows the judge." It sounds like this was a rare blindsiding.
- teruakohatu 5y ago
  The article made it sound like Cook (and Apple legal) were not expecting a grilling from the judge. She asked him questions for longer than any other witness.
- ksec 5y ago
  >Sounds like the judge had some very sharp questions, big props to her. In following some court cases in Tech ( mostly Apple ) this is the first time I have seen a US judge actually doing their job properly. May be this is also because it is the first case Apple is a defendant. All the other case Apple brought forward, the judge was unapologetically Pro Apple. It was uncanny.
GloriousKoji 5y ago
There's a lot of debate and fine tuning of what should be allowed regarding things like the size of apple's cut, side loading or allowing a 3rd party appstore but it's painfully clear to me that banning app developers from even mentioning an alternate payment method is very anti-consumer.
- kevingadd 5y ago
  The judge did seem to be coming back to the anti-steering rule in particular multiple times over the course of testimony. If only one thing changes as a result of her ruling, I feel like it's probably the anti-steering rule going away. IMO that is probably the worst policy of the bunch. In particular Apple punishing Facebook for trying to disclose the 30% was really vile and unnecessary. For context: Facebook was being required to pay a 30% cut when allowing in-app RSVPs for paid events, even if the events were charity events. In some of these cases, Facebook was not taking anything - so it was 30% Apple, 70% event operator. Facebook tried to add a disclaimer noting that Apple was taking 30%, and Apple blocked the update. "The feature lets Facebook users buy tickets for online events directly through the app. Apple’s rules say that purchases of digital content have to use the App Store’s payments system, giving Apple 30 percent of the total. Facebook says it asked Apple to waive this fee so that all of the revenue could go to event organizers, but Apple refused. The feature is now available, but without the message about Apple’s 30-percent cut." https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/28/21405140/apple-rejects-facebook-update-30-percent-cut https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/28/21405140/apple-rejects-fa...
  - kiawe_fire 5y ago
    This is the rule that bothers me the most, so it’s the one big change I would be happy with. This is also, AFAIK, the biggest thing that differentiates Apple’s platform from every other mobile and game console app store regarding fees and whatnot. In general, my biggest problem with Apple is their heavy handed approach to content. Whether it’s policing political content in a one-sided manner, or telling companies like Amazon they aren’t allowed to inform customers of other means of purchasing content, these policies seem more abusive, anti-customer, and anti-choice than anything else. (That said, as a user, I would also love easier app side loading support, I just don’t think I’d like the consequences of that coming from a court ruling).
alex_young 5y ago
Remember that when the iPhone was launched there was no app store. All you could do was 'install' a web app. Now we have progressive web apps with full offline functionality, but installing them is a nightmare. You have to dig through the share menu from Safari (tough luck if you use another browser) to install one, and Apple removes it after some time limit. Maybe a half measure would be to make that process less restrictive and allow companies to directly distribute software to their users again...
- ec109685 5y ago
  Push notifications also don't work with web apps. Totally hamstrung platform.
  - alex_young 5y ago
    Isn’t that an os issue? Push notifications work on desktop websites…
    - skynet-9000 5y ago
      It is absolutely an OS issue, but neither mobile OS has any incentive at all to do anything to make PWA's actually work. In fact, they have every incentive to make sure they don't work. You can see this in their constant regressions in areas that only actually matter to PWA's. I will say this: Google has been a lot more fair and open to PWA's and related tech (like WebRTC) than Apple. Apple absolutely hates the idea of any web app that might survive outside of the app store. In fact, for a very, very long time you couldn't even upload a photo on Craigslist with a standard HTML "Browse" button, because "IOS doesn't have a filesystem." It was a conscious decision to not allow the camera to be accessed except from within an IOS app.
cheeze 5y ago
Anywhere I can watch a VOD of it?
jmole 5y ago
I can buy a book directly on the Amazon iOS app, but I can't buy an ebook. That seems like the most fundamental problem to me and a clear case that this is anticompetitive behavior.
- Moto7451 5y ago
  One bit of context to add: Amazon opted out selling ebooks one the app due to the the 30% fee imposed on purchasing in app/digital goods. They’re not disallowed from selling ebooks. I mention this because it’s both an important distinction and the same subject as Epic’s lawsuit.
  - mcphage 5y ago
    Along the same lines, Comixology removed their ability to buy issues in-app when Amazon bought the company.
  - jmole 5y ago
    But I can also fund a Robinhood account directly from my bank account through the iOS app and buy cryptocurrency. Or I can go on the ebay iOS app and buy a PDF ebook from a seller. The mechanism of "in-app purchases" doesn't scale to ebay or Amazon or any other store where you might have millions of SKUs. Not to mention that you can't even buy Kindle books on the iOS app, even if you already have credit on Amazon (gift card, rewards points, etc.).
- crenwick 5y ago
  I agree that it's a fundamental problem and anticompetitive behavior but I don't think it's as clear of a court case as this Epic v Apple. Users don't need to install the Amazon iOS app, instead they can use Safari where they can buy books and ebooks directly. Games like the ones Epic makes, however, cannot run in Safari. They are forced to go through Apple store and play by Apple's rules.
- nonameiguess 5y ago
  This weirded me the heck out when I switched from Android last year. I can't buy for my Kindle from the iOS Amazon app, but I can log into amazon.com, buy for the Kindle there, and then read in my Kindle app on iOS. It suggests a way anyone can circumvent Apple's restrictions too. Introduce an app whose only job is to act as a content player but has no content of its own, then have customers go to your website to buy the content, and then download it to your app. Epic can sell one game that is empty and make every actual game DLC.
kaycebasques 5y ago
I was not expecting that "gaming industry subsidizing other industries" argument. Are there any legal precedents around this idea?
m463 5y ago
The best result for customers is that there are alternate ways of putting apps on their own phones that do not require apple's permission. Then the customers that trust apple to protect them will just stay with the app store. The customers that try the alternate ways may find problems, but they will also find enormous positive changes in their ability to do new things on their phone. Personally, I would like the ability to see what apps - including apple apps - are doing, and firewall my phone.
- fartcannon 5y ago
  I'd like to use these unbelievably powerful portable computers like general purpose computers. Develop applications right on device! My dream.
  - Angostura 5y ago
    You can, there are plenty of development environments on iOS. What you can't do is distribute those apps. They are stick on your phone.
    - saagarjha 5y ago
      They also don’t make standalone apps.
  - fooey 5y ago
    The pretty obvious solution is to not buy Apple devices I have never owned an Apple device, but they clearly believe locking them down is part of the appeal of the devices in the first place. If you want an impartial platform get an android; if you want a curated ecosystem get an apple
    - skohan 5y ago
      > but they clearly believe locking them down is part of the appeal of the devices in the first place. Do they believe that? Their behavior and stance could equally be explained by pursuing their economic best-interest
brailsafe 5y ago
In other news, it seems like protocol simply shows nothing if I have ghostery turned on.
adam_arthur 5y ago
It's clear the pricing is far above what a fair market competitive rate would be. I would guess their margins on the app store are 90% or higher. If somebody has the number, please provide. But it's clear the fee is significantly above the investment required to keep it running. Legal precedents regarding private spaces are going to have to change in a lot of ways over the coming decades, as we now live in a world where a single corporation can control major aspects around your entire life. I've been a strong free market proponent myself, but at a certain scale it becomes anti-competitive, which ultimately becomes anti-consumer. This may not be the case that alters regulations, but I would be very surprised if we don't see big changes to regulate social media/big tech "private spaces".
- fooey 5y ago
  Everything you buy has markup. Everything Digital stores have settled on a 30% standard. Different industries have different standards. It's notable that even on stores that don't charge 30%, like Epic Games Store, the price of the products offered are almost never at a lower price.
  - adam_arthur 5y ago
    Sure, that's true. I have no problem with businesses making money. But when a business can run an operation in a market with 90% (or whatever) profit margins, it's an indication that the market isn't open to competition. Which is exactly why anti-trust law exists. Why? Because competitors will see how much money Apple is making and move in to capitalize. I don't think computing devices should become walled gardens where companies are free to gouge their customers. Fees are most assuredly passed onto consumers. They cut into the providers bottom line. Providers must charge at least 30% markup just to break even when offering through the app store. This is simple math, and self evident. The app store itself is not a particularly great piece of technology either... it's simply a monopoly on the iPhone user audience. Could the app store improve if it had healthy competition? e.g. better searchability/functionality? Personally I'm amazed at how bad app discovery still is on both iOS and Android app stores.
  - pixl97 5y ago
berkut 5y ago
"We have 150,000 APIs to create and maintain" Really? API calls maybe, and a lot of them are barely documented in my experience.
rjayatilleka 5y ago
Why is a judge asking a witness questions? Isn't that normally either the prosecutor or defense counsels' job?
- dtrizzle 5y ago
  The Federal Rules of Evidence permit a judge to question witnesses in addition to the parties. See Rule 614 linked below. And I think you mean plaintiff. A prosecutor generally refers to a lawyer representing the government in a criminal prosecution. This case is dispute between private parties. https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-vi/rule-614/ https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-vi/rule-614/
musicale 5y ago
> gaming, and in particular in-app purchases for mobile games on the iPhone, generate the majority of the App Store's revenue Precisely. Based on revenue, the iPhone is primarily a handheld gaming device, and Apple strictly controls the platform – much as Nintendo does with the Switch. Arguments for Apple opening up the iOS app store apply equally to the eShop. Tim should note (and probably has noted) that Apple exerts strict control over its iOS platform so that 1) it can make more money 2) it can provide what it considers a better user experience - including better security, privacy, and battery life, and 3) it can have a lower iPhone support burden at genius bars. Another thing that Judge Rogers (and indeed Tim Cook) should note is that games are "sold" as "free to play with IAP" to make the game "free" to download and play (at least until you hit the first paywall.) Moreover (to make more money and drive users toward IAP) Apple does not offer timed trials of paid games and therefore free trials must use IAP. Users and developers would probably benefit from timed trials of paid games. Lastly, Judge Rogers should note (and Apple and Epic should admit) that much of mobile gaming operates on a "whale" model where certain high-spending players (including those who are susceptible to slot-machine like monetization schemes) are exploited in order to subsidize non-paying players. This approach has of course been used by Epic with great success in games like Fortnite and Rocket League.
mediocregopher 5y ago
I'm seeing two opposing and yet identical arguments showing themselves around this topic repeatedly: > If you don't like Apple's walled garden, then don't use an Apple product. > If you don't like the Epic app store, then don't use the Epic app store. I don't have a solution here (though i know which side i fall on), but it's worth noting that neither of these seem to useful arguments to base anything on. The judge here seems to be aiming for an argument based on Apple not having any real competition they need to respond to, which is probably more fruitful.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
alwon 5y ago
I imagine that regardless what the ruling is that it will be appealed. I have however noticed that a lot of the comments I have seen about this case seem to be spreading FUD. After the news about what happened with net neutrality I wonder if many of the comments are a result of astroturfing to manipulate public opinion. When I keep seeing comments about how this would affect consoles which to me seems incredibly unlikely, as my understanding of antitrust is that it is usually about leveraging a position in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another. It seems clear to me that consoles are focused on the digital entertainment market with a specialization in the gaming submarket. This is far different from the market that many of Apples devices like the iPhone are in; The iPhone competes in the mobile market, However as a platform it is not focused on any particular market, much like a windows PC it is general purpose. Because of this and the way the app store is setup, Apple gains an advantage in almost any market that can earn money through mobile apps and ecosystems. Further by restricting some APIs to their exclusive use they can Further give themselves an advantage like the recent case of tracking tags and tile only being to use features through apples app. This last example is something that Microsoft had to stop when they went through antitrust investigations. My own opinion is that what Apple and Google now do make what Microsoft was investegated for look like child's play. The idea that the app store faces competition from the play store is like saying your ISP faces competition because you can sell your house and move to get a different ISP. While the cost of switching is of course less the idea is the same the consumer must go spend a significant amount of money, face inconvenience, and use valuable time to see competition on a hidden cost.
protoman3000 5y ago
Apple could sell Bootloader unlocked iPhones and iPads at a higher premium and then tell Epic there’s your freedom. There’s literally no need to interface with iOS other than Epic wanting to tap into the iOS userbase and platform and to not pay for it.
- teruakohatu 5y ago
  I would pay the premium but I don't know how that would alleviate the anti-trust issues. Epic would just argue that is essentially a tax on users who want to use their app store.
  - protoman3000 5y ago
    Why is that a tax? How would a bootlocked iPhone not be Apple giving you a discount on their product if you buy into their ecosystems?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
I believe this is the most important line here: "The judge also hammered Cook over the App Store commission reduction last year, as part of its new small business program, saying it "seemed to be a result of the pressure that you're feeling from investigations, from lawsuits, not competition"
S_A_P 5y ago
What Ive noticed about this trial is that the judge has a lot to say. Is this normal? Reading this article it sounded like she doing Epics lawyers job for them. I get that this is a sort of David(Epic) vs Goliath(Apple) and the article may be editorializing, but why is the judge asking so many questions?
- symkat 5y ago
  https://www.oginski-law.com/faqs/can-a-judge-take-over-questioning-of-a-witness-at-trial.cfm https://www.oginski-law.com/faqs/can-a-judge-take-over-quest...
eqtn 5y ago
>"It's also quite lucrative." Is 30% the most lucrative way? Putting ads and tracking would be the most lucrative way!
jollybean 5y ago
"What is the problem with allowing users to have choice, especially in a gaming context, to find a cheaper option for content?" What's the point in this question? The answer is clear: that any company wants to limit choice to the extent it helps their business. Shouldn't the judge be more concerned about the specific nature of the legality of it all?
Hithredin 5y ago
This dicussion is missing the main advantage of an app store in iOS vs customer platform locking If you buy an app on iOS in a store present in both platform you can just switch OS with all your app.

253 points by amaBasics 5y ago

causality0 5y ago

I really hope the concept of "you can't be anti-competitive if you own the entire ecosystem" dies.

slver 5y ago
The slogans are easy but you need to define what "ecosystem" is so we understand the system-wide implications of these attitudes. Can I for example go to Walmart and setup my own store inside their store without having to ask them? Can I do the same in your local mom-and-pop store?
- ginko 5y ago
  Why not? edit: You changed your comment and added your line about mom-and-pop stores. To which I reply that different rules should apply to multi-billion dollar corporations.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  It's interesting to consider what the effect of breaking up Walmart into constituent parts (either vertically or horizontally) would be. I'd be willing to bet it'd be a net-positive for the economy. The same is true for the majority of companies that large.
  - adam_arthur 5y ago
    Deleted
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  The kind of ecosystem/business model that Apple has created is so fundamentally different from everything else that real world analogies just don't work. We should avoid using them in this debate.
  - slver 5y ago
    I wasn't using an analogy. I was literally talking about: if this is a law, how it'll ACTUALLY impact every business. If you think what Apple has created is different, again, define it. Let's see how it's fundamentally different and where the line is.
    - cmeacham98 5y ago
      Can you please explain how you go from the hypothetical future of "Apple's 30% app store cut is found to be illegally anti-competitive" to "Walmart would be forced to allow random competitors to open stores physically inside them".
      - slver 5y ago
        I was asking a question. (1) That we define what we mean, so... (2) We can analyze the impact. Here I'm going to do it again. What does it mean "30% store cut is illegally anti-competetive". What does that even mean? Why isn't Apple allowed to charge a fee for maintaining their own store? It's just entirely unclear what's the objection here. Is the objection Apple's cut is too big? Is 5% legal? Is 10%? Should it be 0%? How big should it be? What is everyone even saying? Or is everyone just whining about "big bad corporate is bad, punish bad corporate" and not thinking any deeper than this? Believe it or not, Walmart and all other grocery stores charge 50% for the same service. Even when you order online, actually. Should we sue them for this? If no, why. If yes, why? And the Walmart example came directly from Epic wanting to open a store inside iOS. You don't agree? Again, where's the definition that contradicts this interpretation. Define what you say, so it means something. Right now I just see bunch of emotion and absolutely nothing of substance being said.
      - bussierem 5y ago
        Parent does have a point here. His point is not that you can or should compare the two. We know they are different. But the LAW doesn't. How do you define in LEGAL terms how apple and WalMart are different? You can't use the word "ecosystem" like we throw around for apple because it is meaningless in legal terms. So first you need to either find an existing legal term and apply it or you need to make a new one. If you make a new one (because obviously Apples thing doesn't have a normal analogy) then you have to be VERRRRRY CAREFUL how you define it and what exact terms you use because whatever that is will be used and abused by precedence for decades to come.
- planetafro 5y ago
  Wouldn't it be more like any games you bought at GameStop would force you to pay a cut to Gamestop from inside the games in-game store? ...that GameStop has nothing to do with.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  Obviously there’s a spectrum of scenarios. In the 80s and 90s breaking up AT&T local loop unbundling made a huge positive change in telco in the us. Requiring the power company to rent pole space has a positive benefit. I think the App Store is more like a utility pole than a Walmart. Forcing Apple to unbundle the infrastructure of delivery, payment and signing would allow for competitive forces and innovation. The AppStore is all built around PKI. My company already operates an internal enterprise store — the metaphor exists. It would be pretty straightforward to evolve it into something different and arguably better.
- adam_arthur 5y ago
  I don't see this as an accurate comparison. You can already rent a space right next to Walmart and open your own store if you like. Yes, I may have to pay a landlord, but again, there's competition among owners of land that keeps rents at a market rate. You can think of the space within an ecosystem as virtual land. Apple has a monopoly on this virtual space. They can charge whatever they like, there is no competition. The argument of choose another phone is different, because it requires spending a large amount of money for the right to entry. To many people this is cost prohibitive. I don't have a personal stance on what the outcome should be either way, need to dig into it more.
  - nradov 5y ago
    You can buy a new unlocked Samsung smartphone for $180. That's hardly cost prohibitive. Especially if you already have an iPhone you can just sell it and buy something else.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Someone 5y ago
    Apple’s argument is that their land has value because of the work they did/do. They also may argue that rents for their land are at market rate, as demand for it stays high. Of course, that may be (is for a large part, in my opinion) because of their market power, but that, I think, isn’t much different from Walmart. Market power and sales volume are how Walmart can negotiate lower prices with sellers. Theme parks such as Disney World may be even better examples. If you want to sell ice creams there, I bet you have to pay a huge sum of money to Disney. It wouldn’t even surprise me if that were a percentage of revenues.
  - slver 5y ago
    > I don't see this as an accurate comparison. You can already rent a space right next to Walmart and open your own store if you like. Opening a store in iOS is not "next to" it's "inside of". > The argument of choose another phone is different, because it requires spending a large amount of money for the right to entry. To many people this is cost prohibitive. This makes no sense, first because Androids tend to be cheaper than iPhones, and second no one forces you into buying an iPhone. Also "iPhone is too expensive" is not an argument for "I should be allowed to do X with it". If you don't like what an iPhone does, don't buy one. You don't get to buy a Tesla and complain how come it's so expensive and doesn't run also on oil, do you?
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Are iOS devices Apple's private property?
  - slver 5y ago
    iOS is. It's a software and a set of associated services and apps provided to you under a license. If you wanna install your own OS, you can set up your own App Store.
    - matheusmoreira 5y ago
      > If you wanna install your own OS Yes, please. Who do I have to call at Apple to get an iPhone's bootloader unlocked?
      - slver 5y ago
        I don’t work at Apple, do your own research. Also maybe next time do that research before buying a device and then complaining it doesn’t do what it never said it does.
        matheusmoreira 5y ago
        How about we make it illegal for corporations to lock down other people's devices instead? Much better than constantly moving the goalposts.
        slver 5y ago
        How about you phrase your statements with intellectual honesty, instead of wasting my time having to explain this is not a case of "corporations locking down other people's devices" but it's a case of "you bought this device with the idea it runs iOS, that's the only thing Apple promised it'll do, and that's precisely what it does". I'm not moving any goalposts. Your argument is this utterly ridiculous notion that you get to buy an iPhone and then whine it doesn't do what it never said it'll do. It's like buying a Tesla and complaining it doesn't run on oil. The responsibility is on you, as a buyer, to buy shit that does what you want it to do. It's full of phones that you can install whatever on. Buy one of those. "How about we make it illegal for corporations to control the product they themselves make" is a shitty, entitled, spoiled brat behavior that honestly disgusts me to my core.
- trboyden 5y ago
  Except what you state already exists. I can load the Walmart app on iOS and order a TV from Walmart, not Apple. Apple is preventing Epic from doing the same - buy in-app merchandise through Epic's app on iOS.
  - drusepth 5y ago
    Can you buy any digital goods on iOS with the Walmart app?
    - trboyden 5y ago
      Yes, digital downloads for Nintendo, Xbox. Digital gift cards for Xbox, Playstation, and Nintendo, including credit for Playstation Store and Nintendo eStore.
- trboyden 5y ago
  I can also go into a mom and pop store, load Target's website on my phone, and order a pick-up order from Target. The Mom and Pop store can't stop you from doing that.
  - nodamage 5y ago
    You can also open an iPhone, load any website in Safari, and order whatever you want from the website. Apple can't stop you from doing that either.
    - trboyden 5y ago
      Except, as we have seen with Epic, and why we are talking about this case, is they can, by dropping your app from the App Store in retribution for offering an alternative. They can do that because there is no other app store on Apple and effectively prevents you from competing.
      - slver 5y ago
        Epic wasn't dropped for offering sales on a site. Inform yourself.
        trboyden 5y ago
        Except, they did. Apple started the threats against Epic when Epic started lowering their prices for add-ons on other platforms, which made Apple look greedy. To bolster their anti-competitive case against Apple, Epic turned on the in-app store to which Apple then pulled Fortnite. Epic has to be able to show damages and anti-competitive actions in order to have a case. If they didn't force Apple to pull Fortnite, they wouldn't be able to show damages.
      - nodamage 5y ago
        No, you are allowed to offer an alternative on your website. Netflix and plenty of other apps do this just fine. If you want to advertise the alternative inside your app, well, that's a bit like Target putting a sign inside that mom-and-pop store saying you can get a better deal at Target.
- fooey 5y ago
  The closest comparable platforms are probably the consoles. Should Xbox/PlayStation/Nintendo be forced to allow 3rd party app stores on their devices?
  - throwaway3699 5y ago
    Why not? Everybody benefits from open marketplaces. The PC has been like this, and though Steam is dominant, it's not even close to a monopoly.
  - gbear605 5y ago
    Yes.
skizm 5y ago
I mean I really haven't heard a good argument against it. Everyone is just complaining that 30% is too high, or it shouldn't apply to IAP for some reason. None of the questions the judged asked really get to the heart of the matter: why should the government get to tell Apple how to run their app store? What makes app stores different than the xbox marketplace or ebay? If the app store was more specific with the types of apps they allow (ex. no more IAP apps), would that make it better or worse?
- ssivark 5y ago
  Rather, the question is, how can Apple control access to a device they have sold to customers by forcing all app deployments through their App Store? They can run the App Store quite whimsically if they allow side loading apps and other app repositories.
  - skizm 5y ago
    It isn’t illegal to side load another OS with another App Store onto your phone. But Apple is also well within their rights to design their phones to brick if they detect something they deem a security risk being loaded onto a device they sold. They tell you up front, before you buy it, what the device is designed for and what it isn’t. Xbox doesn’t let you run Word and won’t support it if you somehow figure out a way to. Is that not the same thing?
- Animats 5y ago
  why should the government get to tell Apple how to run their app store? Because Apple has a monopoly in that area. That's what antitrust law is all about - using monopoly power to raise prices.
  - skizm 5y ago
    They have a monopoly on what? Apps in the Apple App Store? I agree they shouldn’t be able to use their market dominance in the app marketplace space to stop other app marketplaces from competing with their App Store, but within their own ecosystem that is way too specific of a thing to apply anti-trust rules to. The reason the App Store is popular is because of the iron grip they keep on their apps. Telling them they can’t control their apps the way they want is like telling a chip maker they can’t use a certain architecture because it is too fast and other companies won’t be able to compete with them.
mcphage 5y ago
Who gets to define what the current ecosystem is?
grishka 5y ago
I really hope devices, services, and infrastructure get separated and also that it would become illegal for a device manufacturer to retain any kind of control over a device after it's been sold. Burning a public key into OTP ROM as trusted and not providing its private counterpart counts too. You want to set up cloud backups? You get a text box to put a domain in. You get to choose whose infrastructure you use. It might be pre-filled with apple.com, but that's as far as it can legally go. Protocols, not platforms.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  This right here. I like controlling my own DRM Free media. I imagined a system the other day where you can buy a pressing of a movie and on checkout you get the video file or enter the host you want it sent to so you can stream it. Or both. This would open up all kinds of different hosting services- an entire industry.

user3939382 5y ago

I’ve watched these big tech cases wind their way through the courts since US v Microsoft. I’ve learned, if there is a lot of money at stake, individual judges and decisions matter little because it will get dragged out for years. These big companies even have workarounds to the negative consequences of final decisions.

echelon 5y ago

Good! It's about time that our industry's monopoly of the ages is put to bed. Apple put us in the kettle and slowly turned up the heat. They delivered good hardware, good software, but at the same time demanded that nobody else have the ability to run JIT, other runtimes, first-class web, browsers, marketplaces, etc. Over time, Apple rose to 50% of the market, all the while exacting complete control and taxing all market activities. Unfortunately, iPhone is now responsible for a majority of its users' business activities. It's the single plane of control between a user and their banking, commerce, communication, entertainment, and social lives. We didn't allow this level of control with Microsoft in the 90's and 00's, and there's no reason we should allow the increased scope of control that Apple has now. They need to lose the App Store. They need to have an open platform. They can't run Apple Pay. Other browsers and JIT runtimes need to be allowed. Marketplaces, too. This needs to happen to Google as well. We don't pay the electric company for every app we install. We don't pay UPS for our Netflix subscriptions. Apple isn't providing any additional economic value. They're a tax, and that's it. They're also an impediment to repairing our own devices. It has to stop, and they have to start playing fair.

kaiju0 5y ago
They would just stop making the phone.
- echelon 5y ago
  > They would just stop making the phone. Stop making their high margin hardware that integrates into paid Apple services? The same phone that works with other massively popular Apple hardware, such as Air Pods? Extremely doubtful. Apple will not cut off their nose to spite their face. Maybe you have less faith in Apple than I do. I believe they can succeed enormously without their monopoly. They make great products. Microsoft managed just fine (look at their market cap!) edit: I'm confused. Are the downvotes from Apple fans that think the hardware sucks without the monopoly? And that Apple can't survive without it?
  - StreamBright 5y ago

fxtentacle 5y ago

I really hope Epic will release a gaming phone. It appears they have enough cash, enough clever people, and a good connection to Chinese manufacturers through their partners. If they make it Android-based but Open Source, similar to how the Unreal Engine contains proprietary components while remaining easy to customize, that could be quite the popular move for grabbing market share from Apple and Google. I, at least, am unhappy with Apple's greedy behavior and also unhappy with Google's Data Kranken tendencies. So there's at least a niche market opening for a 3rd OS. And I'm not holding my breath for Linux. Instead, I think it'll be something like Lineage OS and its privacy protections but more professionally managed.

pfisch 5y ago
That will solve none of the problems that they are suing Apple for.
slver 5y ago
> I really hope Epic will release a gaming phone. Maybe think through what you're proposing. Do you believe most of Epic's customers will buy two phones, charge two phones and carry two phones just so they can play their games, while also having access to first-class OS services like Google and Apple offer? No.
- fxtentacle 5y ago
  All the services that I rely upon on my Android phone are free 3rd party apps. Firefox, Banking, Authentication, Calendar So if the "Epic Phone" had the ability to install and run APKs, that'd be good enough.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Those APKs will only work on devices with licensed Google Play services. And that platform changes so rapidly that it's effectively impossible for a competitor to build compatible APIs without infringing on Google's IP.

rococode 5y ago

Sounds like the judge had some very sharp questions, big props to her. It seemed to me like Tim Cook and Apple were not as prepared as they should've been. They didn't have any particularly unexpected/novel arguments, it was basically just constantly repeating the same bland things they've been saying all along about IP and fraud and convenience.

nradov 5y ago
Novel arguments aren't needed. If the precedents are on your side then it makes sense to repeat bland arguments instead of confusing the issue. I don't necessarily support Apple's business policy here, but strictly from a legal standpoint Fortnite's case has always been a long shot.
- mbg721 5y ago
  "A good lawyer knows the law; a great lawyer knows the judge." It sounds like this was a rare blindsiding.
teruakohatu 5y ago
The article made it sound like Cook (and Apple legal) were not expecting a grilling from the judge. She asked him questions for longer than any other witness.
ksec 5y ago
>Sounds like the judge had some very sharp questions, big props to her. In following some court cases in Tech ( mostly Apple ) this is the first time I have seen a US judge actually doing their job properly. May be this is also because it is the first case Apple is a defendant. All the other case Apple brought forward, the judge was unapologetically Pro Apple. It was uncanny.

GloriousKoji 5y ago

There's a lot of debate and fine tuning of what should be allowed regarding things like the size of apple's cut, side loading or allowing a 3rd party appstore but it's painfully clear to me that banning app developers from even mentioning an alternate payment method is very anti-consumer.

kevingadd 5y ago
The judge did seem to be coming back to the anti-steering rule in particular multiple times over the course of testimony. If only one thing changes as a result of her ruling, I feel like it's probably the anti-steering rule going away. IMO that is probably the worst policy of the bunch. In particular Apple punishing Facebook for trying to disclose the 30% was really vile and unnecessary. For context: Facebook was being required to pay a 30% cut when allowing in-app RSVPs for paid events, even if the events were charity events. In some of these cases, Facebook was not taking anything - so it was 30% Apple, 70% event operator. Facebook tried to add a disclaimer noting that Apple was taking 30%, and Apple blocked the update. "The feature lets Facebook users buy tickets for online events directly through the app. Apple’s rules say that purchases of digital content have to use the App Store’s payments system, giving Apple 30 percent of the total. Facebook says it asked Apple to waive this fee so that all of the revenue could go to event organizers, but Apple refused. The feature is now available, but without the message about Apple’s 30-percent cut." https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/28/21405140/apple-rejects-facebook-update-30-percent-cut https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/28/21405140/apple-rejects-fa...
- kiawe_fire 5y ago
  This is the rule that bothers me the most, so it’s the one big change I would be happy with. This is also, AFAIK, the biggest thing that differentiates Apple’s platform from every other mobile and game console app store regarding fees and whatnot. In general, my biggest problem with Apple is their heavy handed approach to content. Whether it’s policing political content in a one-sided manner, or telling companies like Amazon they aren’t allowed to inform customers of other means of purchasing content, these policies seem more abusive, anti-customer, and anti-choice than anything else. (That said, as a user, I would also love easier app side loading support, I just don’t think I’d like the consequences of that coming from a court ruling).

alex_young 5y ago

Remember that when the iPhone was launched there was no app store. All you could do was 'install' a web app. Now we have progressive web apps with full offline functionality, but installing them is a nightmare. You have to dig through the share menu from Safari (tough luck if you use another browser) to install one, and Apple removes it after some time limit. Maybe a half measure would be to make that process less restrictive and allow companies to directly distribute software to their users again...

ec109685 5y ago
Push notifications also don't work with web apps. Totally hamstrung platform.
- alex_young 5y ago
  Isn’t that an os issue? Push notifications work on desktop websites…
  - skynet-9000 5y ago
    It is absolutely an OS issue, but neither mobile OS has any incentive at all to do anything to make PWA's actually work. In fact, they have every incentive to make sure they don't work. You can see this in their constant regressions in areas that only actually matter to PWA's. I will say this: Google has been a lot more fair and open to PWA's and related tech (like WebRTC) than Apple. Apple absolutely hates the idea of any web app that might survive outside of the app store. In fact, for a very, very long time you couldn't even upload a photo on Craigslist with a standard HTML "Browse" button, because "IOS doesn't have a filesystem." It was a conscious decision to not allow the camera to be accessed except from within an IOS app.

cheeze 5y ago

Anywhere I can watch a VOD of it?

jmole 5y ago

I can buy a book directly on the Amazon iOS app, but I can't buy an ebook. That seems like the most fundamental problem to me and a clear case that this is anticompetitive behavior.

Moto7451 5y ago
One bit of context to add: Amazon opted out selling ebooks one the app due to the the 30% fee imposed on purchasing in app/digital goods. They’re not disallowed from selling ebooks. I mention this because it’s both an important distinction and the same subject as Epic’s lawsuit.
- mcphage 5y ago
  Along the same lines, Comixology removed their ability to buy issues in-app when Amazon bought the company.
- jmole 5y ago
  But I can also fund a Robinhood account directly from my bank account through the iOS app and buy cryptocurrency. Or I can go on the ebay iOS app and buy a PDF ebook from a seller. The mechanism of "in-app purchases" doesn't scale to ebay or Amazon or any other store where you might have millions of SKUs. Not to mention that you can't even buy Kindle books on the iOS app, even if you already have credit on Amazon (gift card, rewards points, etc.).
crenwick 5y ago
I agree that it's a fundamental problem and anticompetitive behavior but I don't think it's as clear of a court case as this Epic v Apple. Users don't need to install the Amazon iOS app, instead they can use Safari where they can buy books and ebooks directly. Games like the ones Epic makes, however, cannot run in Safari. They are forced to go through Apple store and play by Apple's rules.
nonameiguess 5y ago
This weirded me the heck out when I switched from Android last year. I can't buy for my Kindle from the iOS Amazon app, but I can log into amazon.com, buy for the Kindle there, and then read in my Kindle app on iOS. It suggests a way anyone can circumvent Apple's restrictions too. Introduce an app whose only job is to act as a content player but has no content of its own, then have customers go to your website to buy the content, and then download it to your app. Epic can sell one game that is empty and make every actual game DLC.

kaycebasques 5y ago

I was not expecting that "gaming industry subsidizing other industries" argument. Are there any legal precedents around this idea?

m463 5y ago

The best result for customers is that there are alternate ways of putting apps on their own phones that do not require apple's permission. Then the customers that trust apple to protect them will just stay with the app store. The customers that try the alternate ways may find problems, but they will also find enormous positive changes in their ability to do new things on their phone. Personally, I would like the ability to see what apps - including apple apps - are doing, and firewall my phone.

fartcannon 5y ago
I'd like to use these unbelievably powerful portable computers like general purpose computers. Develop applications right on device! My dream.
- Angostura 5y ago
  You can, there are plenty of development environments on iOS. What you can't do is distribute those apps. They are stick on your phone.
  - saagarjha 5y ago
    They also don’t make standalone apps.
- fooey 5y ago
  The pretty obvious solution is to not buy Apple devices I have never owned an Apple device, but they clearly believe locking them down is part of the appeal of the devices in the first place. If you want an impartial platform get an android; if you want a curated ecosystem get an apple
  - skohan 5y ago
    > but they clearly believe locking them down is part of the appeal of the devices in the first place. Do they believe that? Their behavior and stance could equally be explained by pursuing their economic best-interest

brailsafe 5y ago

In other news, it seems like protocol simply shows nothing if I have ghostery turned on.

adam_arthur 5y ago

It's clear the pricing is far above what a fair market competitive rate would be. I would guess their margins on the app store are 90% or higher. If somebody has the number, please provide. But it's clear the fee is significantly above the investment required to keep it running. Legal precedents regarding private spaces are going to have to change in a lot of ways over the coming decades, as we now live in a world where a single corporation can control major aspects around your entire life. I've been a strong free market proponent myself, but at a certain scale it becomes anti-competitive, which ultimately becomes anti-consumer. This may not be the case that alters regulations, but I would be very surprised if we don't see big changes to regulate social media/big tech "private spaces".

fooey 5y ago
Everything you buy has markup. Everything Digital stores have settled on a 30% standard. Different industries have different standards. It's notable that even on stores that don't charge 30%, like Epic Games Store, the price of the products offered are almost never at a lower price.
- adam_arthur 5y ago
  Sure, that's true. I have no problem with businesses making money. But when a business can run an operation in a market with 90% (or whatever) profit margins, it's an indication that the market isn't open to competition. Which is exactly why anti-trust law exists. Why? Because competitors will see how much money Apple is making and move in to capitalize. I don't think computing devices should become walled gardens where companies are free to gouge their customers. Fees are most assuredly passed onto consumers. They cut into the providers bottom line. Providers must charge at least 30% markup just to break even when offering through the app store. This is simple math, and self evident. The app store itself is not a particularly great piece of technology either... it's simply a monopoly on the iPhone user audience. Could the app store improve if it had healthy competition? e.g. better searchability/functionality? Personally I'm amazed at how bad app discovery still is on both iOS and Android app stores.
- pixl97 5y ago

berkut 5y ago

"We have 150,000 APIs to create and maintain" Really? API calls maybe, and a lot of them are barely documented in my experience.

rjayatilleka 5y ago

Why is a judge asking a witness questions? Isn't that normally either the prosecutor or defense counsels' job?

dtrizzle 5y ago
The Federal Rules of Evidence permit a judge to question witnesses in addition to the parties. See Rule 614 linked below. And I think you mean plaintiff. A prosecutor generally refers to a lawyer representing the government in a criminal prosecution. This case is dispute between private parties. https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-vi/rule-614/ https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-vi/rule-614/

musicale 5y ago

> gaming, and in particular in-app purchases for mobile games on the iPhone, generate the majority of the App Store's revenue Precisely. Based on revenue, the iPhone is primarily a handheld gaming device, and Apple strictly controls the platform – much as Nintendo does with the Switch. Arguments for Apple opening up the iOS app store apply equally to the eShop. Tim should note (and probably has noted) that Apple exerts strict control over its iOS platform so that 1) it can make more money 2) it can provide what it considers a better user experience - including better security, privacy, and battery life, and 3) it can have a lower iPhone support burden at genius bars. Another thing that Judge Rogers (and indeed Tim Cook) should note is that games are "sold" as "free to play with IAP" to make the game "free" to download and play (at least until you hit the first paywall.) Moreover (to make more money and drive users toward IAP) Apple does not offer timed trials of paid games and therefore free trials must use IAP. Users and developers would probably benefit from timed trials of paid games. Lastly, Judge Rogers should note (and Apple and Epic should admit) that much of mobile gaming operates on a "whale" model where certain high-spending players (including those who are susceptible to slot-machine like monetization schemes) are exploited in order to subsidize non-paying players. This approach has of course been used by Epic with great success in games like Fortnite and Rocket League.

mediocregopher 5y ago

I'm seeing two opposing and yet identical arguments showing themselves around this topic repeatedly: > If you don't like Apple's walled garden, then don't use an Apple product. > If you don't like the Epic app store, then don't use the Epic app store. I don't have a solution here (though i know which side i fall on), but it's worth noting that neither of these seem to useful arguments to base anything on. The judge here seems to be aiming for an argument based on Apple not having any real competition they need to respond to, which is probably more fruitful.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

alwon 5y ago

I imagine that regardless what the ruling is that it will be appealed. I have however noticed that a lot of the comments I have seen about this case seem to be spreading FUD. After the news about what happened with net neutrality I wonder if many of the comments are a result of astroturfing to manipulate public opinion. When I keep seeing comments about how this would affect consoles which to me seems incredibly unlikely, as my understanding of antitrust is that it is usually about leveraging a position in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another. It seems clear to me that consoles are focused on the digital entertainment market with a specialization in the gaming submarket. This is far different from the market that many of Apples devices like the iPhone are in; The iPhone competes in the mobile market, However as a platform it is not focused on any particular market, much like a windows PC it is general purpose. Because of this and the way the app store is setup, Apple gains an advantage in almost any market that can earn money through mobile apps and ecosystems. Further by restricting some APIs to their exclusive use they can Further give themselves an advantage like the recent case of tracking tags and tile only being to use features through apples app. This last example is something that Microsoft had to stop when they went through antitrust investigations. My own opinion is that what Apple and Google now do make what Microsoft was investegated for look like child's play. The idea that the app store faces competition from the play store is like saying your ISP faces competition because you can sell your house and move to get a different ISP. While the cost of switching is of course less the idea is the same the consumer must go spend a significant amount of money, face inconvenience, and use valuable time to see competition on a hidden cost.

protoman3000 5y ago

Apple could sell Bootloader unlocked iPhones and iPads at a higher premium and then tell Epic there’s your freedom. There’s literally no need to interface with iOS other than Epic wanting to tap into the iOS userbase and platform and to not pay for it.

teruakohatu 5y ago
I would pay the premium but I don't know how that would alleviate the anti-trust issues. Epic would just argue that is essentially a tax on users who want to use their app store.
- protoman3000 5y ago
  Why is that a tax? How would a bootlocked iPhone not be Apple giving you a discount on their product if you buy into their ecosystems?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

I believe this is the most important line here: "The judge also hammered Cook over the App Store commission reduction last year, as part of its new small business program, saying it "seemed to be a result of the pressure that you're feeling from investigations, from lawsuits, not competition"

S_A_P 5y ago

What Ive noticed about this trial is that the judge has a lot to say. Is this normal? Reading this article it sounded like she doing Epics lawyers job for them. I get that this is a sort of David(Epic) vs Goliath(Apple) and the article may be editorializing, but why is the judge asking so many questions?

symkat 5y ago
https://www.oginski-law.com/faqs/can-a-judge-take-over-questioning-of-a-witness-at-trial.cfm https://www.oginski-law.com/faqs/can-a-judge-take-over-quest...

eqtn 5y ago

>"It's also quite lucrative." Is 30% the most lucrative way? Putting ads and tracking would be the most lucrative way!

jollybean 5y ago

"What is the problem with allowing users to have choice, especially in a gaming context, to find a cheaper option for content?" What's the point in this question? The answer is clear: that any company wants to limit choice to the extent it helps their business. Shouldn't the judge be more concerned about the specific nature of the legality of it all?

Hithredin 5y ago

This dicussion is missing the main advantage of an app store in iOS vs customer platform locking If you buy an app on iOS in a store present in both platform you can just switch OS with all your app.