19 ms·

Dozens of U.S. states say Apple stifles competition, back Epic

342 points by keleftheriou 5y ago

isodev 5y ago
Or Facebook has been recommending them content favouring Epic (because of the higher engagement) and nobody knows any better anymore. Also, let’s not neglect the huge investment in lobbying both parties are making behind the scenes to both government and media orgs. A lot of due diligence for us little people to fact check it all.
throwawaymanbot 5y ago
keleftheriou 5y ago
Also read Florian Mueller’s excellent analysis here: http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/01/35-us-states-and-microsoft-support-epic.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/01/35-us-states-and-microsof... > Epic's appeal is very much alive. Apple will use its market power and money to get support from all sorts of "friends of the court" as well, possibly even ridiculous astroturfing organizations. But it won't be able to counterbalance the support Epic received from 35 states, Microsoft, the EFF, and America's most cited and most authoritative antitrust law professor. It will probably be easy to see for the Ninth Circuit that those who support Epic do so because it's the right and necessary thing to do, while those who will support Apple are just going to have reasons to do Apple a favor. Update: The U.S. federal government has now filed a brief as well: > The United States enforces the federal antitrust laws and has a strong interest in their correct interpretation. The United States files this brief, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a)(2), to address errors in the district court’s analysis of the Sherman Act, which, if uncorrected, could significantly harm antitrust enforcement. The United States takes no position on the merits of the parties’ claims. Further analysis on the government’s brief specifically: http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/01/biden-administration-backs-epic-games.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/01/biden-administration-back...
- mullingitover 5y ago
  Florian Mueller's name rang a bell, then I remembered that it was discovered that he was a paid shill for Oracle a while back[1]. I wonder how much Epic is paying? [1] https://www.theverge.com/2012/8/17/3250148/oracle-tells-court-patent-blogger-florian-mueller-is-a-consultant https://www.theverge.com/2012/8/17/3250148/oracle-tells-cour...
  - belltaco 5y ago
    Florian Mueller was the only figure in tech journalism who correctly interpreted the major ruling in the case to be pro-Apple. And we didn't even know the identity of the person(s) behind Groklaw, much less if they were funded by a company, but that's totally fine because of the bias right?
    - mullingitover 5y ago
      > And we didn't even know the identity of the person(s) behind Groklaw This is a really strange and trivially disproven claim[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Jones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Jones
      - belltaco 5y ago
        Is this a joke? She wouldn't even confirm that it's her real name or not.
        mullingitover 5y ago
        I don't see why she'd want to do that when she had SCO personally harassing her and reporters doxxing her and her mother[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groklaw#Media_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groklaw#Media_controversy
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
google234123 5y ago
The reversal rate in the court of appeals is below 10% so I wouldn't bet on Epic.
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  Epic essentially won the case. A lot of people fail to understand that. They threw a dozen complaints at the court, and only needed one to stick. And that it did, which is why Apple is also appealing the case. Also, even had they lost the case, Epic still essentially won the case: They made the god bleed. The data revealed in the lawsuit which was previously outside the view of regulators is now public, and lawmakers and regulators will act on them, regardless of the decision of this particular case. A lawsuit is an excellent way to bring garbage to light that you were told you had to keep confidential. Even if Epic ultimately loses the suit, within a couple years the facts revealed in the case will render most of Apple's practices regarding the case illegal. Apple might win the case, but they also might have half a dozen countries pass laws to cap their app store tax rate at 3%.
olliej 5y ago
Again, the AppStore restrictions are no different from any console in the last 40 years. You’re not paying for transactions, you’re paying a platform commission. Calling it a transaction fee is simply an attempt to make it sound like they’re being overcharged.
- warning26 5y ago
  The key difference is that Apple iOS covers more than half of the general computing market in the US. Keep in mind that to many of the younger generation, smartphones are their singular computing device.
  - olliej 5y ago
    They can switch to Android. The App Store protections are part of the platform value proposition. Please don't respond with "they don't have to install third party store" nonsense, because for many people if (say) google docs puts itself in its own store they will have no choice.
    - warning26 5y ago
      Microsoft really should have used this defense back in the 90s. What, you don't like Internet Explorer? Apple exists, buy a Mac! Or better yet, delete Windows and install Linux! See, there's no monopolistic behavior at all, provided that number of competitors is greater than zero!
      - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
        > Microsoft really should have used this defense back in the 90s. They did. They were pointing to MacOS and Sun Solaris and all of them as supposed competitors, even though they didn't run on the same hardware as Windows did and apps for Windows didn't run on them. The court didn't buy it.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
thrwn_frthr_awy 5y ago
> Apple continues to monopolize app distribution and in-app payment solutions for iPhones Apple phones use Apple payment solutions and Apple's app store. What is wrong with this?
- kmeisthax 5y ago
  IMHO "the 30%" - the fact that you have to use Apple IAP when you ship on Apple's app store - isn't the problem with Apple's policies. It's just a convenient way to express that Apple has a lot of market power and is willing to wield it. If Apple had a change of heart tomorrow and opened up app distribution, they probably would still charge 30% - because everyone does, even things like Steam which runs on platforms Valve doesn't own. However, that doesn't change the fact that Apple can gain competitive advantage over their own partners by utilizing their app distribution chokepoint.
  - zepto 5y ago
    It’s not 30% for the vast majority of developers.
    - ComradePhil 5y ago
      They should be allowed to charge 99% if they want... But they should not be allowed to have exclusive apps or exclusive App Store.
    - Jensson 5y ago
      Pretty sure it is 30% for the majority of professional full time developers, as normally company size scales with revenue. If you meant majority of apps, sure.
      - marcellus23 5y ago
        Uh, where in his comment did he use the words “professional full-time”? He was just talking about developers.
    - 5y ago
echelon 5y ago
Apple controls 50+% of modern American consumer computing. They tax it heavily. They scrutinize every program that wants to run on it, adding undue and unfair process, stress, and burden. They don't allow browsers other than artificially limited Safari. No runtimes. No auto updates outside of their control. Recent changes to tracking and ads sent billion dollar ripples through the industry, forcing Facebook to seek a new business model. Even if you hate ads, the scale of this force is a sure sign of a monopoly. And of course Apple is free to monopolize and take advantage of this data for their own purpose and profit. Apple never lets you form a business relationship with your customer. You'll have to use sign in with Apple, throwaway emails, Apple payments, subscriptions, etc. Customers are on loan, a grace from Apple, and you can be cut off anytime. Solid footing for any startup. Apple loves to clone app ideas, remove APIs, etc. There are countless stories of small app devs going out of business thanks to the platform they built upon. Apple is now becoming a payments company. Soon they'll own physical space and both sides of the relationship there too. They're also a movie studio, potential automaker, and gaming company. Companies shouldn't be able to get this big and control every aspect, every interface. Not of 50+% of American digital activity. The Internet is not Apple, and yet for many people, it is. I'm scared of Apple. They can do my business in on a whim. Yours too. We should ask for better regulation to support smaller business and innovation. We shouldn't have to run our ideas by Apple. We shouldn't have to pay them for providing no service or service we didn't ask for.
- warning26 5y ago
  > They don't allow browsers other than artificially limited Safari. This one alone strikes me as the worst offender. And to think, back in the 90s, people found it objectionable that Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer with Windows. Apple's behavior now would be like if in addition to bundling, Microsoft also completely blocked the installation of any competing browsers.
  - Sargos 5y ago
    The tech crowd was up in arms about Microsoft doing this in the 90s yet today Apple is acting even worse yet many self proclaim tech enthusiasts rush to their defense. Were the Microsoft defenders in the 90s this loud or has the tech community deteriorated?
aemreunal 5y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20220128035412/https://www.reuters.com/technology/dozens-us-states-say-apple-stifles-competition-back-fortnite-maker-2022-01-28/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220128035412/https://www.reute...
sudosushi 5y ago
Given Epic's premeditated nature of the initial contract break, and subsequent media campaign, I wouldn't rule out this is just the second wave of Epic's persuasion war. Apple just seems to be an odd foe for the U.S. to fight in this area. I'll get the tin foil.
- jjcon 5y ago
  > Apple just seems to be an odd foe for the U.S. to fight in this area. Apple? The largest company in the world? A company 7x larger than walmart? Why would it at all be odd to accuse them on antitrust grounds.
  - boardwaalk 5y ago
    Apple is power (money) and influence for the US, and there is increasing geopolitical tension. It's pretty easy to see this as shooting yourself in the foot.
    - arvinsim 5y ago
      Playing favorites will look odd in a supposedly free market.
    - javajosh 5y ago
      I am increasingly astounded at the creativity with which people find reasons to NOT hold power to account. This is a good one: because to hold a US business to account is to weaken the US. And the situation is so "tense" right now, how can we afford it? Is there anyone who actually believes this argument, and if they do, do they understand it implies that one should never hold a US firm to account, since there is always geopolitical tension? (The other one is the so-called "prosperity gospel" - basically, the rich and powerful could only possibly get that way if they were good and Godly people. Wealth and power become evidence for goodness! Incredible!)
      - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
        seems basically a restatement of the whole what's good for GM is good for America misquote https://blogs.loc.gov/inside_adams/2016/04/when-a-quote-is-not-exactly-a-quote-general-motors/ https://blogs.loc.gov/inside_adams/2016/04/when-a-quote-is-n... which is anyway from a different time when all of a company's production was centered in the country they headquartered at.
shmerl 5y ago
How is Apple still getting away with banning competing browsers on iOS? They should have been blasted by anti-trust for it a long time ago.
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  While Apple is definitely a monopolist, this is probably the one monopoly we all have to hope they're allowed to maintain. Safari on iOS is basically the sole defense of the open web. Once Apple is forced to fold on this, every website will be built solely to run on the Chromium code base exclusively. The fact web developers have to use open standards to support iOS is basically the only reason we have open standards on the web today.
  - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
    Imagine if Firefox had been allowed 16 years to become the premier iOS browser.
  - root_axis 5y ago
    I'd hardly call it "a defense of the open web", Apple has hamstrung Safari for years to keep the App Store on iOS competitive with the exploding capabilities of every other modern browser. Chromium is popular because people like it.
    - ocdtrekkie 5y ago
      This is exactly the narrative that Google's marketing folks have screamed to the heavens and any shill outlet that will publish it, yes. :) Chrome is not popular because people like it. Chrome is popular because Google forces over 80% of phones on the planet to ship with it as default, and because people trying to install Adobe Reader and Adobe Flash Player would suddenly discover their default browser was now Google Chrome. And then, once they had a decent install base... a lot of other people installed Chrome because some poorly written website that didn't follow web standards told them it'd only work well if they installed Chrome. Like Gmail, the world's most popular email client.
5ESS 5y ago
Sorry but I don’t buy into the Apple hatebonering. If someone wants to make their own competing OS and platform as good as Apple’s, they are 100% free to do so.
- Jensson 5y ago
  And if the government says that Apple engages in anti-competitive behavior, they are 100% free to take action against Apple. I don't see the point of that kind of argument.
- ta1643350375 5y ago
  Not without a patent + legal funds warchest to take on Apple, Microsoft, and the other tech giants they're not.
  - sergiotapia 5y ago
    Hell you can't even start a website to compete with these giants or you get smeared through their very long reaching tentacles or even banned at the DOMAIN LEVEL!
    - 5ESS 5y ago
      Ummm, you’re being ridiculous, and not supported by evidence. there are plenty of open source OS’s with accompanying hardware platforms wherein this doesn’t happen. Take PinePhone for a example. They aren’t being sued by any top players, and they certainly aren’t being banned at the domain level.
  - 5ESS 5y ago
    How about PinePhone then?
    - commoner 5y ago
      I support Pine64’s ongoing efforts to make the PinePhone into a viable Linux phone. But the existence of the PinePhone doesn't justify Apple's anti-competitive actions. If you want to exclusively download apps from the App Store and exclusively make in-app purchases through Apple's payment system, you are 100% free to do so, even if others are able to choose differently.
Goety 5y ago
Tencent has a 40% stake in Epic
- Gareth321 5y ago
  Apple uses Chinese child slave labour. Is this how we play this game?
- emptyparadise 5y ago
  What's your point?
- Dah00n 5y ago
  So?
cletus 5y ago
Not to be a broken record here (eg [1]) but IMHO Apple has made a strategic error here. You never, ever want a court to define the landscape you wish to operate in. it ties your hands and could easily go against you. You are almost always better off seeking settlement to avoid those outcomes. A 30% cut for small developers makes a certain amount of sense. It enables a lot of developers who would otherwise be unable to get a payment pipeline (or at least easily get one) to have a revenue model on the App Store. But it makes absolutely no sense to big publishers like Epic, Apple, Netflix or Amazon, who all have their own payment processors already. A 30% cut on billions a year in revenue is a big incentive for challenging Apple's payments monopoly. Apple instead should've offered volume discounts for "Partners", scaling down to 10% or even less. Being a Partner means abiding by certain contractual conditions. Challenging Partnership terms ends your sweetheart volume deal. This simply changes the math from: - Win: Pay less than 30% - Lose: Keep paying 30% (ie no loss). To anyone who thinks the likes of Amazon would be kicked off the App Store, you're crazy. to: - Win: Pay less than 10% (so the upside is smaller) - Lose: Have to pay 30% instead of 10% (huge downside). The truth is that Apple uses that 30% as a slush fund. it makes it's way back to bigger publishers in backroom deals ("incentives"). You, as a smaller publisher paying 30%, are paying for that. Unfortunately I believe short-term greed got a hold of Apple management. When it was 30% of a new, much smaller market it made more sense. There are costs involved in running the App Store, vetting apps, hosting apps, etc. But 30% now? It's become a huge profit center. So Apple may well lose control over payments because they're trying to hold on too tight to that cash cow. Personally I don't think users want or would benefit from alternative App Stores. But being able to buy digital goods on Amazon like I can with physical goods (which was another carved-out exception) with my Amazon payment information? That's entirely reasonable and I think Apple is making it inevitable. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28485655 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28485655
- mullingitover 5y ago
  > You, as a smaller publisher paying 30%, are paying for that. It's been 15% for over a year now[1]. Plus it's 15% for all subscription fees after one year for all developers. I think they actually forced Google to reduce developer fees to remain competitive. [1] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/11/apple-announces-app-store-small-business-program/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/11/apple-announces-app-s...
perfectstorm 5y ago
better late than never. surprised CA didn't join the 'club'. App Store and Play Store have no competitions and they have been milking the developers for too long. it's time to put a stop to it. either force them to allow third party app stores or provide third party payment options.
- jedberg 5y ago
  Apple Store and Play Store are both headquartered in CA and provide a lot of state tax funds. CA doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds it.
  - hparadiz 5y ago
    It doesn't harm Google's Play store profits so why would it harm Apple? Plus any sales on any store owes California taxes when someone in California actually made the purchase. So again this all falls flat on it's face. It's baffling that on HN of all places I see people actively making this argument that you should NOT be able to install whatever the hell you want on your personal pocket computer that just happens to have an Apple logo on it. It doesn't make you more secure. It just doesn't. A locked down operating system quite literally makes you LESS secure because there's fewer people poking holes. They JUST a few days ago patched a critical zero day. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/apple/apple-silently-fixes-ios-zero-day-asks-bug-reporter-to-keep-quiet/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/apple/apple-silently-f... The ubiquity of Apple devices makes them a gigantic target for hackers. As a developer I own both devices but the iPhone I have is quite literally a really really nice toy. All the apps I use are free. It's literally a social networking box with an excellent camera. Meanwhile my Android does the exact same thing but I install and use open source apps on it to read manga that are simply not available on iOS.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - gopher_space 5y ago
      As a citizen and consumer I agree with your perspective, but as a developer I'm starting to wonder where the public/private line is being drawn in everyone's mind. The whole "does twitter owe someone a platform" conversation is fascinating.
trixie_ 5y ago
Does this get me closer to being able to play Quake on my iPhone?
- ThatPlayer 5y ago
  It looks like there is a port of Quake onto iOS. You could technically run it right now. Last I checked though, GPL license isn't compatible with Apple's App Store license. But this is 10 years old so maybe things have changed. https://github.com/tomkidd/Quake-iOS https://github.com/tomkidd/Quake-iOS https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store...
  - iainmerrick 5y ago
    Huh, I'm confused by this. If I understand correctly: - GPL does not allow any restrictions on usage or distribution; - App Store restricts installation to 5 devices. So they're clearly incompatible. I was confused about why Apple would be the one to pull the app, as it's the GPL that's being broken, but I guess from Apple's perspective they just don't want the hassle of anyone claiming they're breaking the GPL. But can't it all be resolved just by having the App Store version of the app contain a link to the open source? Edit to add: is this a GPL vs LGPL thing, where the GPL build of an app would include some Apple code and they don't want to have that claimed by the GPL?
    - commoner 5y ago
      If you own the copyright to the app's source code, you can release it to anyone under any license you want. This means a GPL-licensed app can be released by the developer under a proprietary license that is compatible with and exclusive to the App Store. It's a form of dual licensing, and the app's source code is still free because it is still publicly available under a FOSS license. Things get trickier with multiple contributors. The app store submitter would need to get permission from all contributors to dual license the code for the App Store, and the easiest way to do this is to require each contributor to sign a CLA granting permission for this before accepting their pull request. If the submitter can't secure dual licensing permission from all contributors, the code needs to be refactored to remove the parts without the necessary permission. If this isn't possible, then the app can't be published in the App Store. The first conflict between the App Store terms of service and the GPL concerned the GNU Go app, which was removed from the App Store in 2010. The FSF explained the conflicting provisions: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store...
mrweasel 5y ago
While I understand the complaint, I can say that I believe a victory for Epic would benefit anyone besides Epic, a few larger companies and scammers. Sure, Apple should have reduced they cut to 5% years ago. I don't really see what service Apple provides that justify 15 or 30%. Allowing third party app stores, and alternative payment solutions, isn't something I can see benefiting anyone. There might be countries where credit/debit cards aren't accessible to most, and that's a problem Apple should have dealt with. Having multiple payment option and stores bypassing Apple will result in people getting scammed and that will hurt Apple. Right now people complain about Apple having total control over the platform. When a third party payment provider or alternative App Store starts selling information stealing credit card numbers or when Epic won't refund some kids $5,000 spending on in game purchases, Apple WILL be criticized for not doing more to protect users.
- echelon 5y ago
  Even if Apple charged 0%, they shouldn't be allowed to have a say in what software can be run on what is now effectively "America's computer". Imagine in the limit that 100% of computing was Apple iPhone. If you couldn't do anything without Apple's blessing. Totally absurd and nonsensical, right? It's a dark ages fiefdom. Now scale that back to a gentle 60% of Americans, because that's the grip Apple has over our country and our small businesses. Apple shouldn't be able to keep my "Steve Jobs is a Dingo" game off of their devices. That's just not their job in a well regulated economy. They also shouldn't be able to tell me when I can or cannot emergency hot fix my "Serious Business Software" when there's a bug that needs to be fixed yesterday. They have no place between me and my critical business function. Apple has gone too far, and it's time to roll back to a sane, regulated, and fair position. It isn't going to hit their bottom line at all.
  - threeseed 5y ago
    > effectively "America's computer" iPhone had 47% market share in the US last quarter. So shouldn't it be that an Android is America's computer ?
    - 5y ago
perryizgr8 5y ago
They should add a simple new heuristic to determine an abusive monopoly. If a company is imposing a volume surcharge instead of a volume discount to its biggest customers, it means there exists an abusive monopoly and regulatory intervention is needed. There is absolutely no reason in a well functioning market for this to occur.
- Gareth321 5y ago
  This is a surprisingly salient point and I'm surprised it hasn't occurred to me until now. When market forces are operating backwards this is a giant flashing neon sign that healthy dynamics are long gone.
- Danieru 5y ago
  I was about to disagree with you, with the counter point that electric rates for industry and consumers is often inverse to volume. Then I realized electric distribution is a canonical example of natural monopolies.... So instead you've convinced me inverse pricing is at least a good heuristic.
nodamage 5y ago
After reading the brief I think it's important to point out that even if the appeals court fully agreed with the arguments made by the states, that does not automatically mean Epic would win their case. This is because the arguments made in this brief are fairly limited in scope to specific procedural details for how antitrust analysis should be conducted in cases like these, and in essence can be summarized as: "the district court needs to go back and analyze this in more detail". To elaborate further, the two arguments made are: > 1. The district court erred in holding that Section 1 of the Sherman Act does not apply to “unilateral contracts.” A section 1 claim requires the plaintiff to prove (1) the existence of an agreement and (2) that the agreement was an unreasonable restraint of trade. The district court ruled that Epic had not satisfied (1) because the agreement was a "unilateral contract". The states disagree. Even if they are right, Epic still faces the uphill burden of moving to the next step and actually proving (2). > 2. The district court’s rule-of-reason analysis failed to balance the overall competitive effects of Apple’s restraints. Under the rule of reason the district court applied a "three-part burden-shifting" test to the question of whether Apple's contractual restraints of trade were unreasonable. First, the burden was on Epic to prove that the restraints had an anti-competitive effect. The court agreed. Second, the burden shifted to Apple to prove there was a pro-competitive justification for the restraints. The court agreed. Third, the burden shifted back to Epic to prove that those pro-competitive justifications could have been achieved through less restrictive means. Here, the court did not agree with Epic and thus the three-part test failed. The states argue that, after having failed that test, the district court needs to take the additional step of analyzing the anti-competitive effects vs the pro-competitive justifications to determine whether the net result is pro or anti-competitive. In other words, they are asking for the appeals court to remand the case back to the district court for further analysis. Again, there is no guarantee that this analysis would come out in Epic's favor. Of course, all this is predicated on the appeals court agreeing with the arguments made in the brief. They may very well disagree, in which case this whole argument is moot. Overall I believe Epic is still fighting a huge uphill battle here and the current antitrust laws (not to mention the current makeup of the Supreme Court) are not likely to be on their side.
spywaregorilla 5y ago
Apple's 30% revenue cut is absurd rent seeking behavior. Good on these states. Let's keep it going and continue to dismantle similar systems at other companies. Apple can continue to mandate Apple payment options are as an option in every app, but let's watch as that 30% drops to nothingness once they face real competition.
- threeseed 5y ago
  Apple charges 15% for all developers earning less than $1m per year. And I think you're confused because Apple will still receive their commission irrespective of which payment provider a developer chooses to use.
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    > Apple charges 15% for all developers earning less than $1m per year. Still absurd rent seeking behavior without real competition > And I think you're confused because Apple will still receive their commission irrespective of which payment provider a developer chooses to use. Keep pushing then
    - muro 5y ago
      They will try to keep as much of their revenue as possible. Doesn't mean they will get it.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    > Apple charges 15%... * Announced as a change by Apple in November 2020, after this lawsuit was filed in August 2020.
  - MisterSandman 5y ago
    LOL, you're replying with this stupid comment on every comment without realizing that the 15% came AFTER the lawsuits so Apple could save face.
    - 5y ago
qwerty456127 5y ago
I don't really care about Epic (because they are far from being a dream company you are likely to sympathize today - they hardly care about anybody's rights actually, just about their own revenue) but once I have an iPad/iPhone I want alternative browser engines, terminals, emulators/VMs and being able to write and run an app of my own without having to even inform (let alone pay) Apple about this. I also believe 30% is too much for an app developer to pay the device manufacturer anyway.
- threeseed 5y ago
  a) If you are willing to pay Apple for the developer program then you are free to run whatever applications you like on your phone. It's how many of us are running terminals, emulators etc. b) Apple charges 15% for developers earning less than $1m a year.
  - salamandersauce 5y ago
    What do they charge developers that make more than $1m revenue again? 30%? Oh and it's $1m revenue, not earnings. Big difference.
  - qwerty456127 5y ago
    Nice to know. Thank you. I don't understand how even as low as 15% of all the apps revenue can be less than $1m a year though and, if it is, why would Apple even bother collecting it.
    - matt_kantor 5y ago
      I think you misinterpreted this: > Apple charges 15% for developers earning less than $1m a year. As this: > Apple charges 15% for developers, earning less than $1m a year. When it actually means this: > Apple charges 15% to developers who earn less than $1m a year (and still charge 30% to developers who earn more than that).
      - qwerty456127 5y ago
ronbarr 5y ago
As long as any ruling includes Sony, Microsoft and Steam I’m for it.

342 points by keleftheriou 5y ago

Or Facebook has been recommending them content favouring Epic (because of the higher engagement) and nobody knows any better anymore. Also, let’s not neglect the huge investment in lobbying both parties are making behind the scenes to both government and media orgs. A lot of due diligence for us little people to fact check it all.

throwawaymanbot 5y ago

keleftheriou 5y ago

Also read Florian Mueller’s excellent analysis here: http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/01/35-us-states-and-microsoft-support-epic.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/01/35-us-states-and-microsof... > Epic's appeal is very much alive. Apple will use its market power and money to get support from all sorts of "friends of the court" as well, possibly even ridiculous astroturfing organizations. But it won't be able to counterbalance the support Epic received from 35 states, Microsoft, the EFF, and America's most cited and most authoritative antitrust law professor. It will probably be easy to see for the Ninth Circuit that those who support Epic do so because it's the right and necessary thing to do, while those who will support Apple are just going to have reasons to do Apple a favor. Update: The U.S. federal government has now filed a brief as well: > The United States enforces the federal antitrust laws and has a strong interest in their correct interpretation. The United States files this brief, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a)(2), to address errors in the district court’s analysis of the Sherman Act, which, if uncorrected, could significantly harm antitrust enforcement. The United States takes no position on the merits of the parties’ claims. Further analysis on the government’s brief specifically: http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/01/biden-administration-backs-epic-games.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/01/biden-administration-back...

mullingitover 5y ago
Florian Mueller's name rang a bell, then I remembered that it was discovered that he was a paid shill for Oracle a while back[1]. I wonder how much Epic is paying? [1] https://www.theverge.com/2012/8/17/3250148/oracle-tells-court-patent-blogger-florian-mueller-is-a-consultant https://www.theverge.com/2012/8/17/3250148/oracle-tells-cour...
- belltaco 5y ago
  Florian Mueller was the only figure in tech journalism who correctly interpreted the major ruling in the case to be pro-Apple. And we didn't even know the identity of the person(s) behind Groklaw, much less if they were funded by a company, but that's totally fine because of the bias right?
  - mullingitover 5y ago
    > And we didn't even know the identity of the person(s) behind Groklaw This is a really strange and trivially disproven claim[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Jones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Jones
    - belltaco 5y ago
      Is this a joke? She wouldn't even confirm that it's her real name or not.
      - mullingitover 5y ago
        I don't see why she'd want to do that when she had SCO personally harassing her and reporters doxxing her and her mother[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groklaw#Media_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groklaw#Media_controversy
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]

google234123 5y ago

The reversal rate in the court of appeals is below 10% so I wouldn't bet on Epic.

ocdtrekkie 5y ago
Epic essentially won the case. A lot of people fail to understand that. They threw a dozen complaints at the court, and only needed one to stick. And that it did, which is why Apple is also appealing the case. Also, even had they lost the case, Epic still essentially won the case: They made the god bleed. The data revealed in the lawsuit which was previously outside the view of regulators is now public, and lawmakers and regulators will act on them, regardless of the decision of this particular case. A lawsuit is an excellent way to bring garbage to light that you were told you had to keep confidential. Even if Epic ultimately loses the suit, within a couple years the facts revealed in the case will render most of Apple's practices regarding the case illegal. Apple might win the case, but they also might have half a dozen countries pass laws to cap their app store tax rate at 3%.

olliej 5y ago

Again, the AppStore restrictions are no different from any console in the last 40 years. You’re not paying for transactions, you’re paying a platform commission. Calling it a transaction fee is simply an attempt to make it sound like they’re being overcharged.

warning26 5y ago
The key difference is that Apple iOS covers more than half of the general computing market in the US. Keep in mind that to many of the younger generation, smartphones are their singular computing device.
- olliej 5y ago
  They can switch to Android. The App Store protections are part of the platform value proposition. Please don't respond with "they don't have to install third party store" nonsense, because for many people if (say) google docs puts itself in its own store they will have no choice.
  - warning26 5y ago
    Microsoft really should have used this defense back in the 90s. What, you don't like Internet Explorer? Apple exists, buy a Mac! Or better yet, delete Windows and install Linux! See, there's no monopolistic behavior at all, provided that number of competitors is greater than zero!
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      > Microsoft really should have used this defense back in the 90s. They did. They were pointing to MacOS and Sun Solaris and all of them as supposed competitors, even though they didn't run on the same hardware as Windows did and apps for Windows didn't run on them. The court didn't buy it.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

thrwn_frthr_awy 5y ago

> Apple continues to monopolize app distribution and in-app payment solutions for iPhones Apple phones use Apple payment solutions and Apple's app store. What is wrong with this?

kmeisthax 5y ago
IMHO "the 30%" - the fact that you have to use Apple IAP when you ship on Apple's app store - isn't the problem with Apple's policies. It's just a convenient way to express that Apple has a lot of market power and is willing to wield it. If Apple had a change of heart tomorrow and opened up app distribution, they probably would still charge 30% - because everyone does, even things like Steam which runs on platforms Valve doesn't own. However, that doesn't change the fact that Apple can gain competitive advantage over their own partners by utilizing their app distribution chokepoint.
- zepto 5y ago
  It’s not 30% for the vast majority of developers.
  - ComradePhil 5y ago
    They should be allowed to charge 99% if they want... But they should not be allowed to have exclusive apps or exclusive App Store.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    Pretty sure it is 30% for the majority of professional full time developers, as normally company size scales with revenue. If you meant majority of apps, sure.
    - marcellus23 5y ago
      Uh, where in his comment did he use the words “professional full-time”? He was just talking about developers.
  - 5y ago

echelon 5y ago

Apple controls 50+% of modern American consumer computing. They tax it heavily. They scrutinize every program that wants to run on it, adding undue and unfair process, stress, and burden. They don't allow browsers other than artificially limited Safari. No runtimes. No auto updates outside of their control. Recent changes to tracking and ads sent billion dollar ripples through the industry, forcing Facebook to seek a new business model. Even if you hate ads, the scale of this force is a sure sign of a monopoly. And of course Apple is free to monopolize and take advantage of this data for their own purpose and profit. Apple never lets you form a business relationship with your customer. You'll have to use sign in with Apple, throwaway emails, Apple payments, subscriptions, etc. Customers are on loan, a grace from Apple, and you can be cut off anytime. Solid footing for any startup. Apple loves to clone app ideas, remove APIs, etc. There are countless stories of small app devs going out of business thanks to the platform they built upon. Apple is now becoming a payments company. Soon they'll own physical space and both sides of the relationship there too. They're also a movie studio, potential automaker, and gaming company. Companies shouldn't be able to get this big and control every aspect, every interface. Not of 50+% of American digital activity. The Internet is not Apple, and yet for many people, it is. I'm scared of Apple. They can do my business in on a whim. Yours too. We should ask for better regulation to support smaller business and innovation. We shouldn't have to run our ideas by Apple. We shouldn't have to pay them for providing no service or service we didn't ask for.

warning26 5y ago
> They don't allow browsers other than artificially limited Safari. This one alone strikes me as the worst offender. And to think, back in the 90s, people found it objectionable that Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer with Windows. Apple's behavior now would be like if in addition to bundling, Microsoft also completely blocked the installation of any competing browsers.
- Sargos 5y ago
  The tech crowd was up in arms about Microsoft doing this in the 90s yet today Apple is acting even worse yet many self proclaim tech enthusiasts rush to their defense. Were the Microsoft defenders in the 90s this loud or has the tech community deteriorated?

aemreunal 5y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20220128035412/https://www.reuters.com/technology/dozens-us-states-say-apple-stifles-competition-back-fortnite-maker-2022-01-28/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220128035412/https://www.reute...

sudosushi 5y ago

Given Epic's premeditated nature of the initial contract break, and subsequent media campaign, I wouldn't rule out this is just the second wave of Epic's persuasion war. Apple just seems to be an odd foe for the U.S. to fight in this area. I'll get the tin foil.

jjcon 5y ago
> Apple just seems to be an odd foe for the U.S. to fight in this area. Apple? The largest company in the world? A company 7x larger than walmart? Why would it at all be odd to accuse them on antitrust grounds.
- boardwaalk 5y ago
  Apple is power (money) and influence for the US, and there is increasing geopolitical tension. It's pretty easy to see this as shooting yourself in the foot.
  - arvinsim 5y ago
    Playing favorites will look odd in a supposedly free market.
  - javajosh 5y ago
    I am increasingly astounded at the creativity with which people find reasons to NOT hold power to account. This is a good one: because to hold a US business to account is to weaken the US. And the situation is so "tense" right now, how can we afford it? Is there anyone who actually believes this argument, and if they do, do they understand it implies that one should never hold a US firm to account, since there is always geopolitical tension? (The other one is the so-called "prosperity gospel" - basically, the rich and powerful could only possibly get that way if they were good and Godly people. Wealth and power become evidence for goodness! Incredible!)
    - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
      seems basically a restatement of the whole what's good for GM is good for America misquote https://blogs.loc.gov/inside_adams/2016/04/when-a-quote-is-not-exactly-a-quote-general-motors/ https://blogs.loc.gov/inside_adams/2016/04/when-a-quote-is-n... which is anyway from a different time when all of a company's production was centered in the country they headquartered at.

shmerl 5y ago

How is Apple still getting away with banning competing browsers on iOS? They should have been blasted by anti-trust for it a long time ago.

ocdtrekkie 5y ago
While Apple is definitely a monopolist, this is probably the one monopoly we all have to hope they're allowed to maintain. Safari on iOS is basically the sole defense of the open web. Once Apple is forced to fold on this, every website will be built solely to run on the Chromium code base exclusively. The fact web developers have to use open standards to support iOS is basically the only reason we have open standards on the web today.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  Imagine if Firefox had been allowed 16 years to become the premier iOS browser.
- root_axis 5y ago
  I'd hardly call it "a defense of the open web", Apple has hamstrung Safari for years to keep the App Store on iOS competitive with the exploding capabilities of every other modern browser. Chromium is popular because people like it.
  - ocdtrekkie 5y ago
    This is exactly the narrative that Google's marketing folks have screamed to the heavens and any shill outlet that will publish it, yes. :) Chrome is not popular because people like it. Chrome is popular because Google forces over 80% of phones on the planet to ship with it as default, and because people trying to install Adobe Reader and Adobe Flash Player would suddenly discover their default browser was now Google Chrome. And then, once they had a decent install base... a lot of other people installed Chrome because some poorly written website that didn't follow web standards told them it'd only work well if they installed Chrome. Like Gmail, the world's most popular email client.

5ESS 5y ago

Sorry but I don’t buy into the Apple hatebonering. If someone wants to make their own competing OS and platform as good as Apple’s, they are 100% free to do so.

Jensson 5y ago
And if the government says that Apple engages in anti-competitive behavior, they are 100% free to take action against Apple. I don't see the point of that kind of argument.
ta1643350375 5y ago
Not without a patent + legal funds warchest to take on Apple, Microsoft, and the other tech giants they're not.
- sergiotapia 5y ago
  Hell you can't even start a website to compete with these giants or you get smeared through their very long reaching tentacles or even banned at the DOMAIN LEVEL!
  - 5ESS 5y ago
    Ummm, you’re being ridiculous, and not supported by evidence. there are plenty of open source OS’s with accompanying hardware platforms wherein this doesn’t happen. Take PinePhone for a example. They aren’t being sued by any top players, and they certainly aren’t being banned at the domain level.
- 5ESS 5y ago
  How about PinePhone then?
  - commoner 5y ago
    I support Pine64’s ongoing efforts to make the PinePhone into a viable Linux phone. But the existence of the PinePhone doesn't justify Apple's anti-competitive actions. If you want to exclusively download apps from the App Store and exclusively make in-app purchases through Apple's payment system, you are 100% free to do so, even if others are able to choose differently.

Goety 5y ago

Tencent has a 40% stake in Epic

Gareth321 5y ago
Apple uses Chinese child slave labour. Is this how we play this game?
emptyparadise 5y ago
What's your point?
Dah00n 5y ago
So?

cletus 5y ago

Not to be a broken record here (eg [1]) but IMHO Apple has made a strategic error here. You never, ever want a court to define the landscape you wish to operate in. it ties your hands and could easily go against you. You are almost always better off seeking settlement to avoid those outcomes. A 30% cut for small developers makes a certain amount of sense. It enables a lot of developers who would otherwise be unable to get a payment pipeline (or at least easily get one) to have a revenue model on the App Store. But it makes absolutely no sense to big publishers like Epic, Apple, Netflix or Amazon, who all have their own payment processors already. A 30% cut on billions a year in revenue is a big incentive for challenging Apple's payments monopoly. Apple instead should've offered volume discounts for "Partners", scaling down to 10% or even less. Being a Partner means abiding by certain contractual conditions. Challenging Partnership terms ends your sweetheart volume deal. This simply changes the math from: - Win: Pay less than 30% - Lose: Keep paying 30% (ie no loss). To anyone who thinks the likes of Amazon would be kicked off the App Store, you're crazy. to: - Win: Pay less than 10% (so the upside is smaller) - Lose: Have to pay 30% instead of 10% (huge downside). The truth is that Apple uses that 30% as a slush fund. it makes it's way back to bigger publishers in backroom deals ("incentives"). You, as a smaller publisher paying 30%, are paying for that. Unfortunately I believe short-term greed got a hold of Apple management. When it was 30% of a new, much smaller market it made more sense. There are costs involved in running the App Store, vetting apps, hosting apps, etc. But 30% now? It's become a huge profit center. So Apple may well lose control over payments because they're trying to hold on too tight to that cash cow. Personally I don't think users want or would benefit from alternative App Stores. But being able to buy digital goods on Amazon like I can with physical goods (which was another carved-out exception) with my Amazon payment information? That's entirely reasonable and I think Apple is making it inevitable. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28485655 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28485655

mullingitover 5y ago
> You, as a smaller publisher paying 30%, are paying for that. It's been 15% for over a year now[1]. Plus it's 15% for all subscription fees after one year for all developers. I think they actually forced Google to reduce developer fees to remain competitive. [1] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/11/apple-announces-app-store-small-business-program/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/11/apple-announces-app-s...

perfectstorm 5y ago

better late than never. surprised CA didn't join the 'club'. App Store and Play Store have no competitions and they have been milking the developers for too long. it's time to put a stop to it. either force them to allow third party app stores or provide third party payment options.

jedberg 5y ago
Apple Store and Play Store are both headquartered in CA and provide a lot of state tax funds. CA doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds it.
- hparadiz 5y ago
  It doesn't harm Google's Play store profits so why would it harm Apple? Plus any sales on any store owes California taxes when someone in California actually made the purchase. So again this all falls flat on it's face. It's baffling that on HN of all places I see people actively making this argument that you should NOT be able to install whatever the hell you want on your personal pocket computer that just happens to have an Apple logo on it. It doesn't make you more secure. It just doesn't. A locked down operating system quite literally makes you LESS secure because there's fewer people poking holes. They JUST a few days ago patched a critical zero day. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/apple/apple-silently-fixes-ios-zero-day-asks-bug-reporter-to-keep-quiet/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/apple/apple-silently-f... The ubiquity of Apple devices makes them a gigantic target for hackers. As a developer I own both devices but the iPhone I have is quite literally a really really nice toy. All the apps I use are free. It's literally a social networking box with an excellent camera. Meanwhile my Android does the exact same thing but I install and use open source apps on it to read manga that are simply not available on iOS.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - gopher_space 5y ago
    As a citizen and consumer I agree with your perspective, but as a developer I'm starting to wonder where the public/private line is being drawn in everyone's mind. The whole "does twitter owe someone a platform" conversation is fascinating.

trixie_ 5y ago

Does this get me closer to being able to play Quake on my iPhone?

ThatPlayer 5y ago
It looks like there is a port of Quake onto iOS. You could technically run it right now. Last I checked though, GPL license isn't compatible with Apple's App Store license. But this is 10 years old so maybe things have changed. https://github.com/tomkidd/Quake-iOS https://github.com/tomkidd/Quake-iOS https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store...
- iainmerrick 5y ago
  Huh, I'm confused by this. If I understand correctly: - GPL does not allow any restrictions on usage or distribution; - App Store restricts installation to 5 devices. So they're clearly incompatible. I was confused about why Apple would be the one to pull the app, as it's the GPL that's being broken, but I guess from Apple's perspective they just don't want the hassle of anyone claiming they're breaking the GPL. But can't it all be resolved just by having the App Store version of the app contain a link to the open source? Edit to add: is this a GPL vs LGPL thing, where the GPL build of an app would include some Apple code and they don't want to have that claimed by the GPL?
  - commoner 5y ago
    If you own the copyright to the app's source code, you can release it to anyone under any license you want. This means a GPL-licensed app can be released by the developer under a proprietary license that is compatible with and exclusive to the App Store. It's a form of dual licensing, and the app's source code is still free because it is still publicly available under a FOSS license. Things get trickier with multiple contributors. The app store submitter would need to get permission from all contributors to dual license the code for the App Store, and the easiest way to do this is to require each contributor to sign a CLA granting permission for this before accepting their pull request. If the submitter can't secure dual licensing permission from all contributors, the code needs to be refactored to remove the parts without the necessary permission. If this isn't possible, then the app can't be published in the App Store. The first conflict between the App Store terms of service and the GPL concerned the GNU Go app, which was removed from the App Store in 2010. The FSF explained the conflicting provisions: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store...

mrweasel 5y ago

While I understand the complaint, I can say that I believe a victory for Epic would benefit anyone besides Epic, a few larger companies and scammers. Sure, Apple should have reduced they cut to 5% years ago. I don't really see what service Apple provides that justify 15 or 30%. Allowing third party app stores, and alternative payment solutions, isn't something I can see benefiting anyone. There might be countries where credit/debit cards aren't accessible to most, and that's a problem Apple should have dealt with. Having multiple payment option and stores bypassing Apple will result in people getting scammed and that will hurt Apple. Right now people complain about Apple having total control over the platform. When a third party payment provider or alternative App Store starts selling information stealing credit card numbers or when Epic won't refund some kids $5,000 spending on in game purchases, Apple WILL be criticized for not doing more to protect users.

echelon 5y ago
Even if Apple charged 0%, they shouldn't be allowed to have a say in what software can be run on what is now effectively "America's computer". Imagine in the limit that 100% of computing was Apple iPhone. If you couldn't do anything without Apple's blessing. Totally absurd and nonsensical, right? It's a dark ages fiefdom. Now scale that back to a gentle 60% of Americans, because that's the grip Apple has over our country and our small businesses. Apple shouldn't be able to keep my "Steve Jobs is a Dingo" game off of their devices. That's just not their job in a well regulated economy. They also shouldn't be able to tell me when I can or cannot emergency hot fix my "Serious Business Software" when there's a bug that needs to be fixed yesterday. They have no place between me and my critical business function. Apple has gone too far, and it's time to roll back to a sane, regulated, and fair position. It isn't going to hit their bottom line at all.
- threeseed 5y ago
  > effectively "America's computer" iPhone had 47% market share in the US last quarter. So shouldn't it be that an Android is America's computer ?
  - 5y ago

perryizgr8 5y ago

They should add a simple new heuristic to determine an abusive monopoly. If a company is imposing a volume surcharge instead of a volume discount to its biggest customers, it means there exists an abusive monopoly and regulatory intervention is needed. There is absolutely no reason in a well functioning market for this to occur.

Gareth321 5y ago
This is a surprisingly salient point and I'm surprised it hasn't occurred to me until now. When market forces are operating backwards this is a giant flashing neon sign that healthy dynamics are long gone.
Danieru 5y ago
I was about to disagree with you, with the counter point that electric rates for industry and consumers is often inverse to volume. Then I realized electric distribution is a canonical example of natural monopolies.... So instead you've convinced me inverse pricing is at least a good heuristic.

nodamage 5y ago

After reading the brief I think it's important to point out that even if the appeals court fully agreed with the arguments made by the states, that does not automatically mean Epic would win their case. This is because the arguments made in this brief are fairly limited in scope to specific procedural details for how antitrust analysis should be conducted in cases like these, and in essence can be summarized as: "the district court needs to go back and analyze this in more detail". To elaborate further, the two arguments made are: > 1. The district court erred in holding that Section 1 of the Sherman Act does not apply to “unilateral contracts.” A section 1 claim requires the plaintiff to prove (1) the existence of an agreement and (2) that the agreement was an unreasonable restraint of trade. The district court ruled that Epic had not satisfied (1) because the agreement was a "unilateral contract". The states disagree. Even if they are right, Epic still faces the uphill burden of moving to the next step and actually proving (2). > 2. The district court’s rule-of-reason analysis failed to balance the overall competitive effects of Apple’s restraints. Under the rule of reason the district court applied a "three-part burden-shifting" test to the question of whether Apple's contractual restraints of trade were unreasonable. First, the burden was on Epic to prove that the restraints had an anti-competitive effect. The court agreed. Second, the burden shifted to Apple to prove there was a pro-competitive justification for the restraints. The court agreed. Third, the burden shifted back to Epic to prove that those pro-competitive justifications could have been achieved through less restrictive means. Here, the court did not agree with Epic and thus the three-part test failed. The states argue that, after having failed that test, the district court needs to take the additional step of analyzing the anti-competitive effects vs the pro-competitive justifications to determine whether the net result is pro or anti-competitive. In other words, they are asking for the appeals court to remand the case back to the district court for further analysis. Again, there is no guarantee that this analysis would come out in Epic's favor. Of course, all this is predicated on the appeals court agreeing with the arguments made in the brief. They may very well disagree, in which case this whole argument is moot. Overall I believe Epic is still fighting a huge uphill battle here and the current antitrust laws (not to mention the current makeup of the Supreme Court) are not likely to be on their side.

spywaregorilla 5y ago

Apple's 30% revenue cut is absurd rent seeking behavior. Good on these states. Let's keep it going and continue to dismantle similar systems at other companies. Apple can continue to mandate Apple payment options are as an option in every app, but let's watch as that 30% drops to nothingness once they face real competition.

threeseed 5y ago
Apple charges 15% for all developers earning less than $1m per year. And I think you're confused because Apple will still receive their commission irrespective of which payment provider a developer chooses to use.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  > Apple charges 15% for all developers earning less than $1m per year. Still absurd rent seeking behavior without real competition > And I think you're confused because Apple will still receive their commission irrespective of which payment provider a developer chooses to use. Keep pushing then
  - muro 5y ago
    They will try to keep as much of their revenue as possible. Doesn't mean they will get it.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  > Apple charges 15%... * Announced as a change by Apple in November 2020, after this lawsuit was filed in August 2020.
- MisterSandman 5y ago
  LOL, you're replying with this stupid comment on every comment without realizing that the 15% came AFTER the lawsuits so Apple could save face.
  - 5y ago

qwerty456127 5y ago

I don't really care about Epic (because they are far from being a dream company you are likely to sympathize today - they hardly care about anybody's rights actually, just about their own revenue) but once I have an iPad/iPhone I want alternative browser engines, terminals, emulators/VMs and being able to write and run an app of my own without having to even inform (let alone pay) Apple about this. I also believe 30% is too much for an app developer to pay the device manufacturer anyway.

threeseed 5y ago
a) If you are willing to pay Apple for the developer program then you are free to run whatever applications you like on your phone. It's how many of us are running terminals, emulators etc. b) Apple charges 15% for developers earning less than $1m a year.
- salamandersauce 5y ago
  What do they charge developers that make more than $1m revenue again? 30%? Oh and it's $1m revenue, not earnings. Big difference.
- qwerty456127 5y ago
  Nice to know. Thank you. I don't understand how even as low as 15% of all the apps revenue can be less than $1m a year though and, if it is, why would Apple even bother collecting it.
  - matt_kantor 5y ago
    I think you misinterpreted this: > Apple charges 15% for developers earning less than $1m a year. As this: > Apple charges 15% for developers, earning less than $1m a year. When it actually means this: > Apple charges 15% to developers who earn less than $1m a year (and still charge 30% to developers who earn more than that).
    - qwerty456127 5y ago

ronbarr 5y ago

As long as any ruling includes Sony, Microsoft and Steam I’m for it.