33 ms·

Apple wins antitrust court battle with Epic Games, appeals court rules

514 points by astlouis44 4y ago

phendrenad2 4y ago
So it seems like where we're at with this is... Apple can continue to charge a 30% fee on all transactions, but maybe can't prevent apps that direct users to sign up through a web browser to avoid the fees? (Pending further appeals)
- cpleppert 4y ago
  My understanding is that Apple can still contractually require developers to hand over the 30% even if developers use a third party service. The judge's ruling was pretty narrow; it essentially allows nothing more than a link to an alternative payment platform. I haven't seen any in-depth analysis of the case to suggest that this is any kind of 'loophole' that could be used to avoid paying apple.
  - judge2020 4y ago
    Most likely 27% like in the Netherlands: https://9to5mac.com/2022/02/04/apple-will-charge-27-commission-for-purchases-made-using-alternative-payment-systems-in-the-netherlands/ https://9to5mac.com/2022/02/04/apple-will-charge-27-commissi...
  - threeseed 4y ago
    This is exactly with happened in Netherlands with the dating apps [1]. Apple was forced to allow third party payment systems. And they did. But they were still allowed to keep their commission and in fact no regulator or court anywhere has said otherwise. [1] https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitlement/ https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl...
    - Spivak 4y ago
      This is why I think it's so misguided when people talk about and push for "alternative payment processors" or "alternative app stores" when what they really mean is "I don't want to pay 30%" and just hope it comes for free with the former. Okay cool you can have alternative app stores, you still need a business relationship with Apple, have to submit your apps for review to get your app signed, and turn over I guess 27% of all digital goods sold. But you can have your own storefront and downloader. Congrats.
      - smoldesu 4y ago
        Which really goes to demonstrate how ridiculous this is. The iPhone is a coin-operated software runtime. You pay for it at the register and buy the right to own the phone, but your ownership of the software is constantly jeopardized. Everything you use for free you take for granted, and everything you pay for is rent-extracted by the world's largest company. It's a harmful business. You can argue there are benefits, but the surcharge for simply using the Apple runtime is asinine. It should be loathed and shunned from the highest court, rendered unconscionable for any company of any size. Apple and Google can charge a 90% tax on their app stores for all I care. Those stores simply need competition to compel non-harmful practice. Otherwise, they're completely unaccountable. They've already proven this with their non-cooperation in the browser industry.
        lotsofpulp 4y ago
        > It's a harmful business. All I know is iOS/iPadOS have made it possible for my parents and all the non native English literate, mostly uneducated elders in my family able to use modern computing devices without me ever having to worry about malware. And there is no alternative.
        smoldesu 4y ago
        The alternative is a developer mode switch with a big "Don't Touch This, Grandma!" modal when you press it. People who want to install their own software do not conflict with your parents or the non-native English literate uneducated elders in your family.
- jbverschoor 4y ago
  Same for xbox, nintendo, playstation, right? Same for the unreal engine... The 30% is the max they charge, so it's not a completely fair number. After a year it's 15%, of which about 2-3% is card fees, and they handle taxes.
krackers 4y ago
But in Europe they are being forced to allow side-loading anyway.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Despegar 4y ago
  They'll still get their commission even with sideloading.
  - can16358p 4y ago
    How? If an app isn't installed through App Store it can't be rejected by Apple therefore developer can provide any payment method they want. Am I missing a point?
    - joshstrange 4y ago
      In the Netherlands dating apps won their case for third party payment processors but they still have to pay Apple something like 27% (instead of 30%). It's self-reported but you can bet Apple will come after them if it thinks they are fudging the numbers.
      - hbn 4y ago
        Those dating apps are still on the App Store though. How would Apple "come after" an app they're not hosting?
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        Spivak 4y ago
        Presumably, knowing Apple, sideloading will still require your app be signed by Apple and all the fanfare that comes with it. You're now just allowed to have your own storefront and distribute your app through it.
henryfjordan 4y ago
Decision: https://9to5mac.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2023/04/21-16506.pdf https://9to5mac.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2023/04/21-16...
- bdowling 4y ago
  Or directly from the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/04/24/21-16506.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/04/24/2...
asadlionpk 4y ago
This was bound to happen. I guess Epic's goal was just to stir some shit.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  I think they decided to play legal chicken and hoped Apple would blink, and Apple did not. The play wasn't entirely unfounded. A lot of current law around things like app stores is existing in the liminal space of "Are these restrictions legal? Nobody knows. Do you want to be the one who stakes all your company's money and your investors' money and your entire business model on finding out?" Epic did the calculus and seemed to conclude they wanted to be the ones to take the hit (possibly because since they also own their own app store, the math was a little win-win: any lock-in the courts find Apple has applies to the way Epic runs their store also). It hasn't worked out the way they'd hoped (though the anti-steering decision was interesting and a little surprising).
  - TillE 4y ago
    Apple makes a ton of money from the App Store, of course they were always going to fight this to the end in court. I think the most generous interpretation of this lawsuit is that it's a publicity stunt from Epic, not for consumers, but to pressure legislators.
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      The blinking would have been because Apple does make a ton of money in the App Store. So it would have been cheaper for them, hypothetically, to pay off Epic to go away or to make some nonsense carve-out in their TOS that was hyper-focused on allowing Fortnite to work while excluding all other stores-in-stores than to risk the Courts would say "Hmmm..... Y'know..... The way you run your store looks... a lot like a monopoly. Maybe you can't run it like that anymore. In fact... Maybe you can't run it at all. Maybe no company that makes the hardware also gets to dictate the software that runs on that hardware exclusively. How about we give you, oh, six months to divest the App Store into a separate company and re-tool the iPhone OS to allow loading multiple stores?" Perhaps not a likely scenario, but US law is highly path-dependent and at the end of the day, judges' interpretations of law and precedent are all that matters regarding the correctness of a court decision.
personjerry 4y ago
If I understand it correctly, they are reaffirming the decision that Apple has to allow developers to link to other payment options? Which mostly mollifies the issue IMO no? I can just create a link to my site for payment?
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  That aspect should work great for Epic re: Fortnite, as all the money there is in lootboxes and V-Bucks.
  - MBCook 4y ago
    They’re still allowed to require a cut through their developer agreement.
- judge2020 4y ago
  Yes, that's the only one they upheld. But it doesn't say that Apple can't still charge a fee for any users that come from the iOS app or otherwise use the iOS app (i.e. this doesn't mean Apple can never implement iOS licensing fees on a per-user basis), so they might still charge 27% of sales initiated/driven by their product, iOS.
- hendersoon 4y ago
  My read is you're permitted to link to your site for payments now, which was not permitted before, but this decision didn't force Apple to allow external in-app payments. So it only really impacts companies selling external subscriptions like Netflix. I'm sure the decision will be aggressively dissected over the next couple of hours by actual attorneys, anyway.
- elpool2 4y ago
  It's unclear to me if this only covers "check out mycompany.com for alternative payment options" links, or if your link could be a "Purchase Now" button that goes right to a payment form. If the latter is also allowed, then you could set up a pretty frictionless experiences that completely bypasses paying the 30% Apple tax.
darth_avocado 4y ago
On the one hand it’s bad that apple can continue to gatekeep it’s ecosystem, on the other, it does prevent other companies from doing nefarious things. We need to remember when Epic was engaged is scanning your computer for steam data. Leaving it up to individual companies, they’ll definitely try and do much more damage. And it gets especially worse when the devs are some obscure company in the corner of the world. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/epic-promises-to-fix-game-launcher-after-privacy-concerns/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/epic-promises...
- kitsunesoba 4y ago
  To me the bigger thing is having to jump through hoops to cancel subscriptions, as is often the case for subscriptions outside of the App Store. There should be regulations requiring that cancelling subscriptions be as easy as starting them is, with a readily visible button on each platform the service is available for that cancels with a single click and no further fuss. There should never be a need to hunt down an obscure link or worse.
  - me-vs-cat 4y ago
    https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/03/federal-trade-commission-proposes-rule-provision-making-it-easier-consumers-click-cancel-recurring https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/03/...
- Rhedox 4y ago
  The iOS sandbox prevents stuff like that anyway.
astlouis44 4y ago
WebGPU + WebAssembly is an alternative way around walled gardens, which would enable Epic to distribute Fortnite to iOS users via a client side web-app, enabling them to bypass Apple entirely.
- judge2020 4y ago
  > which would enable Epic to distribute Fortnite to iOS users via a client side web-app I'm sure Epic would be super excited to implement all of Unreal Engine in WebGPU.
  - m00x 4y ago
    They're already working on a WebGPU adapter :)
    - judge2020 4y ago
      They are? https://www.google.com/search?q=webgpu+unreal+engine https://www.google.com/search?q=webgpu+unreal+engine The top result there is a third party trying to achieve this. Not Epic themselves.
      - m00x 4y ago
        Such I've heard from some friends that work there. WebGPU isn't even released on most browsers, so it's unlikely we'll see it for several years. It's not that much different from Vulkan.
        boarnoah 4y ago
        It would certainly be a great thing if UE was to have a second try at this. Nothing on any of the public roadmap (https://portal.productboard.com/epicgames/ https://portal.productboard.com/epicgames/) or references in WIP code that suggests this. Lets hope your friends are correct :P I got the impression the HTML5 with WebGL platform was removed at least partly to minimize the scope of work with some of the large renderer changes Epic has made between 4.26 and 5. So now does seem like the right time for them to try to tackle the problem again.
nu11ptr 4y ago
> The App Store continues to promote competition, drive innovation, and expand opportunity, and we’re proud of its profound contributions to both users and developers around the world. How can the app store promote competition when it is a monopoly on iOS? (I suppose they could be talking between different apps, but that isn't what this case was about) UPDATE: The comments seem to imply I am giving my opinion on this case. I am not. I am commenting on the PR-speak given here. The app store does not, IMO, "promote" competition...it may arguably not hinder it, but given what the case is about, it is, I think, more competitive if others could use different methods of selling apps on iOS. That doesn't mean it is better, right, more fair, or anything else... just more "competitive" IMO. In short, I'm commenting on the wording in their press release only.
- iscrewyou 4y ago
  The competition (in Apple’s eyes and I agree with it because of how shady some of these companies are that want to make launchers for all their apps) isn’t about apps in the App Store. It’s the competition of being an App Store in itself compared to Google, Amazon, etc. If you read it with that lens, the line makes a lot more sense.
- Arcanum-XIII 4y ago
  'Cause you can have as many clone of the last en vogue game without any problem. So, competition. Not a very positive one, but still :\
- _boffin_ 4y ago
  > monopoly on iOS? Way to drill that category all the way down to IOS to ensure that you're able to use that "monopoly" keyword. The deli that's in my complex has a monopoly on buying and obtaining wine if i don't want to drive anywhere or use a phone to order some via some delivery app.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    I wonder why McDonalds has been allowed to have a monopoly on McChicken sandwiches for so long.
gjsman-1000 4y ago
Everybody talks about the 30% cut... however, I'm almost afraid to say "be careful what you wish for." A device that allows sideloading to avoid a 30% cut, is also a device that allows piracy. (I'm still in favor of sideloading, but I'm very pessimistic about developers recovering that 30% as increased profit.)
- wmf 4y ago
  You can't really pirate GaaS. All your v-bucks and skins live on the server.
  - vultour 4y ago
    Right, so the big players like Epic win, while the small indie devs making single player games can go fuck themselves.
- threeseed 4y ago
  Apple will still take their 30% cut. It's just that it will move from being taken automatically by the company to a model where third party App Stores/developers will need to pay it back to Apple on an ongoing basis. Apple already has a system in place that captures which applications are being launched.
  - shjake 4y ago
    The EU law doesn’t seem to allow that though.
alberth 4y ago
Given that Europe requires side loading apps now, did Apple really "win"?
- pb7 4y ago
  It’s still a win to them to have their biggest market not allow side loading or competing app stores.
- thesuperbigfrog 4y ago
  Sideloading will only be allowed where it is required by law: https://www.macworld.com/article/1794764/sorry-u-s-iphone-users-sideloading-in-ios-17-will-likely-be-limited-to-europe.html https://www.macworld.com/article/1794764/sorry-u-s-iphone-us...
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    So I can't buy an iPhone while on vacation in Europe and bring it to the US?
    - sixstringtheory 4y ago
      EU can’t enforce laws outside their legal jurisdiction. So I guess if you somehow trick Apple into seeing your phone as operating in the EU, then this would work. But I don’t know how you could do so if you use a cellular data connection.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
        So if I buy a phone in Europe and get it all set up then Apple will remove functionality when I return to the States?
        sixstringtheory 4y ago
        It would be very easy to do. They already control what you see on the app store depending on your locale. I’m not saying it’s a certainty. I don’t think it would be fair to do to EU citizens traveling in the US on vacation, eg.
Moldoteck 4y ago
Everyone talks about sideloading as something to circumvent 30% tax. While maybe true, I'm interested to see if sideloading would allow new browser engines, like gecko or chromium. This will open a ton of possibilities weakening even more the walled garden
- sharemywin 4y ago
  side loading doesn't work in the US.
  - madeofpalk 4y ago
    It doesn't work _anywhere_, as iPhone does not currently have sideloading. It's been reported that sideloading could come in iOS 17 later this year, in EU, but unannounced so far.
  - Moldoteck 4y ago
    It may potentially work in eu in the future, so at least for me, it's nice)
- brucethemoose2 4y ago
  It already did IIRC. In the olden days, other browsers were ported to Cydia, the jailbreak store. And there is tons of cool stuff people did, you can look back through the history of jailbreaking to see what sideloading would open up.
  - fastball 4y ago
    Worth noting that side-loading and rooting are not the same thing. Various aspects of the OS (APIs) would still be locked down, whether you can sideload apps or not. So you would not see all the cool tweaks that were (are?) available to jailbreakers.
    - brucethemoose2 4y ago
      Yeah this is true, but some of Cydia was just standalone apps that weren't allowed on the store.
bmurray7jhu 4y ago
Ninth Circuit opinion https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/04/24/21-16506.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/04/24/2...
amelius 4y ago
Why does Apple continue to have control over something they already sold? I bet the judge doesn't "own" an iPhone.
- npteljes 4y ago
  Why not? It makes a lot of money.
- bunbun69 4y ago
  maybe don't buy apple?
vivegi 4y ago
From the ruling [1], the only thing Apple lost. > We now turn to Apple’s cross-appeal, beginning with its arguments concerning the UCL. The district court found that Epic suffered an injury sufficient to confer Article III standing, concluded that Apple’s anti-steering provision violates the UCL’s unfair prong, and entered an injunction prohibiting Apple from enforcing the anti-steering provision against any developer. Apple challenges each aspect on appeal. We affirm. i.e., the District Court found Apple to be violating CA Unfair Competition Law which Apple had appealed and the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concurs with the district court. Consequence of this ruling is limiting the ability of app developers to communicate the availability of alternative payment options to iOS device users is unlawful. As a result, alternate payment methods can no longer be restricted by Apple. The question of commission (30%) still remains because the ruling is silent on it except for observing what the district court said. > Because the district court accepted only a general version of Apple’s IP-compensation rationale (that Apple was entitled to “some compensation”), Epic at step three needed only to fashion a less-restrictive alternative calibrated to achieving that general goal, instead of one achieving the level of compensation that Apple currently achieves through its 30% commission. My reading of this is that the 30% commission can come under challenge from another plaintiff. Epic took a different tactic on this specific argument and failed to establish it. However, the Appeals court's observaton seems to indicate there is legal room for a challenger to attack this. [1]: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/04/24/21-16506.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/04/24/2...
- mFixman 4y ago
  If I read that correctly, does it mean that Epic can now direct you to a website to buy in-game currency outside of the reach of Apple's 30% bullshit tax? That sounds like a major win against Apple.
  - vivegi 4y ago
    Not so fast. The court affirmed the following-Epic can direct users to a website for alternate payment. But they left it ambiguous on whether Apple is entitled to compensaton at 30% of revenues. The courts (both district and appeals) seem to believe that Apple is entitled to some compensation under IP compensation theory. So, if the Netherlands dating apps case ruling is any indication (Apple discounted the 30% to 27% for dating apps in Netherlands for using alt payment methods in that suit), Apple is likely to do something similar here in cases where their In-app-payments are not used.
DueDilligence 4y ago
[dead]
shmerl 4y ago
Competition law is toothless today, so crooks like Apple get away with abusing it.
- glogla 4y ago
  Indeed. The evil always wins in the end, such is the nature of the world.
  - fastball 4y ago
    Then why have so many of the bad things (poverty/disease/famine) being going down steadily over the last 100 years?
    - menus 4y ago
      Conversely, one could bring up the literal war in a particular European country, downfall of women's rights and rising LGBT+ intolerance in a certain developed country, rising income inequality and climate change.
      - pb7 4y ago
        We are living in the most peaceful time in history and one war doesn't change that. You are a victim of media. Try reading Factfulness by Hans Rosling and getting off the internet, it will do you some good.
        menus 3y ago
        > one war doesn't change that It is a matter of perception. I can tell myself feel-good statistics while ignoring the reality for millions of people as well. You also conveniently glossed over the other points I brought up
      - fastball 4y ago
        Sure, you can cherry pick bad events that happen throughout history. But the truth is that: - the war in Ukraine is significantly less deadly / destructive / etc than basically every other major war in the last 100 years. - not even sure where to start with this one? Downfall of women's rights... where? - LGBT+ are more accepted globally (and in the US) than they've ever been. - Income inequality is a silly metric to care about when actual poverty is going down. - More people and companies care about climate change than at any other point in history. Are you seeing the trend? Just because some things might be "bad" by your standards doesn't mean they're not the best they've ever been, and doesn't mean they're not getting better.
olliecornelia 4y ago
I don’t know if this outcome is good for end users but happy to see Tim Sweeney lose.
- mproud 4y ago
  I’m surprised more people aren’t talking about Epic here. They basically are whining and complaining they have to pay the 30% fee for making more than $1 million sales, even though other stores are already doing that. To me, this was never about consumer freedom. This was about lost revenue to Epic.
  - cubefox 4y ago
    This is like saying the sky is green because Hitler said the sky is blue.
    - MBCook 4y ago
      (Avoiding Godwin…) Tons of people here hate Apple, but the GP’s point that Epic is not a very sympathetic defendant is very true. They’re not some small developer losing 30% that could help feed their family, they’re a huge company that is (arguably) exploiting children. They weren’t hurt by a sudden Apple price hike, they agreed to all the terms fairly then unilaterally said “screw you, my money!” In about the most blatant way possible. And it’s pretty obvious this isn’t because they want to save 30%, it’s because they want to be the store charging others a big percentage and taking game sales revenue. The moment they win this they would have launched suits against the console makers to try to get their way there too. Epic clearly only cared about themselves and only wrapped themselves in the cloak of “help all developers” for PR purposes. I suspect a lot of people don’t care one bit about Epic. They just happen to be the name on the plaintiff’s chair.
      - cubefox 4y ago
        My point was that somebody not being sympathetic doesn't mean they are wrong. There are strong arguments to the effect that Apple being able to force (what is effectively) a 30% tax through AppStore exclusivity is misusing their market power. This argument doesn't depend in any way on whether Epic has a clean slate, just as the sky doesn't get any less blue just because Hi...Trump said it was blue.
fsckboy 4y ago
https://archive.ph/IaCoO#selection-399.0-403.153 https://archive.ph/IaCoO#selection-399.0-403.153 for fellow uMatrix users (with a selection by me)
apatheticonion 4y ago
I yield to the arguments in the comments emphasizing the requirement of defining "the market" in the case of an antitrust case. Sure. I still think that Apple's dictatorial grip on their platforms broadly stifles innovation and has a negative impact on competition. That's not a monopolistic issue, that's just the systemic underregulation we have come to expect from the US.
- brookst 4y ago
  So here's the paradox: if more open platforms promote innovation that benefits everyone, why is Apple so dominant, and why aren't the more innovative, open platforms running circles around Apple?
  - animatethrow 4y ago
    Several billion dollars is the minimum initial investment cost to compete in this space, to deal with all the patents and legal and regulatory to make your own phone with its own marketplace. If I don't use an iPhone my non-technical family members can't conveniently share photos with me the only way they know how. My friends can't AirDrop me videos. Apple has ensured its products won't interop well with non-Apple products.
    - pb7 4y ago
      It's not abusive to build really good experiences for your customers and it's not a mystery why they don't waste their resources developing for the competition.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      It doesn’t take “billions” of dollars to become an Android OEM and use AOSP.
      - techdragon 4y ago
        How much does it take? I’ve pondered this a few times over the years for various business ideas, so yeah, I’m genuinely asking in a non snarky way… what does it cost to do an OEM phone ?
m3kw9 4y ago
Legit pricing vs pure greed(Epic) hiding in a knight in shining armour fighting for all developers. As a dev myself I know the tax is high but Apple does a great job and not gonna say should be arbitrary 8.5% lower or whatever Epic is trying to wring out
benced 4y ago
Apple is right on the law, wrong on the morality. Change the law.
nologic01 4y ago
People need to think very seriously about the market structure of the digital world and creating genuine alternatives in the interest of a healthy, innovative and less risky society. This is not a niche market and a cute little oligopoly. Tech touches, controls and even disrupts major parts of economy and social life and there is no visible counterbalance. E.g., in other recent news Apple was getting deeper into finance and banking. Where exactly does the conglomeration stop? Having let things reach such an advanced metastasized stage its not clear if there is a gentle way to turn things around. Which commercial entity would dare go against such a entrenched and systemically supported duopoly? Taking the axe and creating by brute force less dominant pieces is the approach that was used in the past. Another, maybe fanciful, idea is for governments to fund public goods that will undermine the commercial viability of certain business lines currently under the stranglehold of tech oligopolies. As it stands, reinforcing the concept of TINA, there is no alternative, acts as a millstone around society and effectively robs us from the potential of technology.
- abnercoimbre 4y ago
  You're pondering the challenges of our digital age and the seemingly unstoppable dominance of tech oligopolies. I'm all about shaking up the status quo and championing underdogs. Like it's literally what I do for a living [0]. (See the About page specifically.) Obviously this may sound like a marketing stunt, but you should really know there are those of us who want to see a different world. [0] https://handmadecities.com https://handmadecities.com
- SilverBirch 4y ago
  I am very sympathetic to your view that these massive companies mustn't be allowed to use their absurd concentration of power to be anti-competitive. But the thing that I've noticed over time with these tech companies is that whilst they are extremely profitable and at points can be extremely powerful, their power is unstable. When you look at other markets the contrast is stark, AT&T and the break up of Bell system - they were a monopoly for decades and acted terribly and were broken up by the government and have basically slowly morphed back into their old shape. Compare that to AOL - they were powerful sure, but that exploded pretty quick. Before Facebook it was Myspace, and after Meta something else will come. These industries just don't seem to form a stable equilibrium they continue to get disrupted. And the problem you have is that if the government is going act thoughtfully, they'll act slowly, and if they act slowly they'll almost certainly be too late.
nodamage 4y ago
In case anyone is interested in the legal background behind this decision I've read through the ruling and here are the key reasons why Epic's appeal failed: 1. The first reason involves Epic's attempt to define the relevant antitrust market as "iOS app distribution". Courts do not allow you to simply declare an arbitrarily narrow market consisting of a single company in order to claim that company has a monopoly over the distribution of its own product. In antitrust law these are known as "single-brand aftermarkets" and are generally considered the exception rather than the rule. There are very specific criteria that need to be met in order for a "single-brand aftermarket" to be allowed: > "In sum, to establish a single-brand aftermarket, a plaintiff must show: (1) the challenged aftermarket restrictions are “not generally known” when consumers make their foremarket purchase; (2) “significant” information costs prevent accurate life-cycle pricing; (3) “significant” monetary or non-monetary switching costs exist; and (4) general market-definition principles regarding cross-elasticity of demand do not undermine the proposed single-brand market." The burden of proof was on Epic to provide evidence for all four criteria, and they failed at step (1). In order for "iOS app distribution" to qualify as a "single-brand aftermarket", Epic would need to prove that consumers were unaware that they would be limited to purchasing apps from the App Store when they originally bought their iPhones. Because if they knew about that restriction ahead of time and bought iPhones anyway, then they did so willingly, despite having the option to purchase smartphones on the marketplace without such restrictions. 2. The second reason involves Epic's failure to prove that Apple's app distribution restrictions were unreasonable. Courts use a three-step process to analyze whether a competitor's behavior is considered an unreasonable restraint of trade: Step 1: The plaintiff first has to show that the restraints have an anti-competitive effect. Step 2: The defendant is then given the opportunity to show a pro-competitive justification for the restraint. Step 3: The plaintiff then has to show that those pro-competitive justifications could have been achieved via less restrictive alternatives. In this case, the court agreed with Epic that the constraints were anti-competitive. However, they also agreed with Apple that the restraints were justified because a) Apple is entitled to compensation for the use of their IP, and b) the restraints increase the security and privacy of their platform. At that point the burden is shifted back to Epic to show how (a) and (b) could have been achieved through less restrictive alternatives, which Epic failed to do.
Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
Well at least we would probably have sideloading in iOS soon, which would make the discussion about mobile app market monopoly irrelevant.
sneednfeed 4y ago
[flagged]
WastingMyTime89 4y ago
I don't really understand the commenters complaning here. Both of these two things can be true at the same time: companies operating "app stores" are indeed not monopolies under the Antitrust Act and yet "app stores" are an unacceptable distortion of the market. The solution seems pretty simple and is exactly what Europe did with the DMA: make a new law specifically targeted at digital stores.
yazaddaruvala 4y ago
Rather than allowing side-loading on iOS. I hope Apple is forced to open up its bootloader on iPhones. Step 1: Go to the Apple store and ask to unlock the bootloader, they give you a form to void the warranty and Apple Care, they then unlock the bootloader. Step 2: Wait for the Asahi Linux, Valve/Steam Proton, Google, and the Pinephone teams to showcase their skills.
- arunkant 4y ago
  Why should it void warranty? It must not void warranty unless apple can prove that unlocking/tinkering was the real cause of damange. Don't give up on your rights easily folks
  - derkades 3y ago
    Google for example allows easily unlocking the boot loader. The warranty is not void and security features like verified boot can still be used.
- unnouinceput 4y ago
  Eh, at this step you might just write your own OS to run on Apple hardware. I mean, this could be something. Buy Apple phones at discount, rebrand them and have your own OS. Lose Apple warranty but provide your own instead. A niche market but a market nevertheless.
HenriTEL 4y ago
The ability for the app store to take a percentage of each in-app purchase blows my mind. Same for the private copying levy that can take a percentage on each storage device sale. This is power abuse and it's a shame that the judges let it pass.
Gareth321 4y ago
I feel like this is a case of winning the battle but losing the war. Epic started a movement which has resulted in legislative changes all over the world.
bluesm 4y ago
“Monopolists lie to protect themselves. They know that bragging about their great monopoly invites being audited, scrutinized, and attacked. Since they very much want their monopoly profits to continue unmolested, they tend to do whatever they can to conceal their monopoly—usually by exaggerating the power of their (nonexistent) competition. Think about how Google talks about its business. It certainly doesn’t claim to be a monopoly. But is it one? Well, it depends: a monopoly in what? Let’s say that Google is primarily a search engine. As of May 2014, it owns about 68% of the search market. (Its closest competitors, Microsoft and Yahoo!, have about 19% and 10%, respectively.) If that doesn’t seem dominant enough, consider the fact that the word “google” is now an official entry in the Oxford English Dictionary—as a verb. Don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen to Bing. But suppose we say that Google is primarily an advertising company. That changes things. The U.S. search engine advertising market is $17 billion annually. Online advertising is $37 billion annually.” “The entire U.S. advertising market is $150 billion. And global advertising is a $495 billion market. So even if Google completely monopolized U.S. search engine advertising, it would own just 3.4% of the global advertising market. From this angle, Google looks like a small player in a competitive world.” “What if we frame Google as a multifaceted technology company instead? This seems reasonable enough; in addition to its search engine, Google makes dozens of other software products, not to mention robotic cars, Android phones, and wearable computers. But 95% of Google’s revenue comes from search advertising; its other products generated just $2.35 billion in 2012, and its consumer tech products a mere fraction of that. Since consumer tech is a $964 billion market globally, Google owns less than 0.24% of it—a far cry from relevance, let alone monopoly. Framing itself as just another tech company allows Google to escape all sorts of unwanted attention.” Excerpt From Zero to One: Notes on Startups, or How to Build the Future Peter Thiel
rvz 4y ago
My point still stands: >> Even after the Epic v Apple court case, Apple unfortunately still wins. Don't like it?, Maybe use PWAs or failing that build an alternative. Good luck. A predictable Epic failure and Apple still collects the 30% commission regardless. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29914414 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29914414
sledgehammers 4y ago
Considering the sorry state of democracy in the world, this doesn't surprise me at all, though is deeply saddening. Obviously the markets aren't functioning properly because of these massive monopolies hoarding wealth and controlling everything. Proper tech feudalism.
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
IANAL but they already won, the appeals court ruled that the lower court didn't make any glaring errors in reaching this judgement.

514 points by astlouis44 4y ago

So it seems like where we're at with this is... Apple can continue to charge a 30% fee on all transactions, but maybe can't prevent apps that direct users to sign up through a web browser to avoid the fees? (Pending further appeals)

cpleppert 4y ago
My understanding is that Apple can still contractually require developers to hand over the 30% even if developers use a third party service. The judge's ruling was pretty narrow; it essentially allows nothing more than a link to an alternative payment platform. I haven't seen any in-depth analysis of the case to suggest that this is any kind of 'loophole' that could be used to avoid paying apple.
- judge2020 4y ago
  Most likely 27% like in the Netherlands: https://9to5mac.com/2022/02/04/apple-will-charge-27-commission-for-purchases-made-using-alternative-payment-systems-in-the-netherlands/ https://9to5mac.com/2022/02/04/apple-will-charge-27-commissi...
- threeseed 4y ago
  This is exactly with happened in Netherlands with the dating apps [1]. Apple was forced to allow third party payment systems. And they did. But they were still allowed to keep their commission and in fact no regulator or court anywhere has said otherwise. [1] https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitlement/ https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl...
  - Spivak 4y ago
    This is why I think it's so misguided when people talk about and push for "alternative payment processors" or "alternative app stores" when what they really mean is "I don't want to pay 30%" and just hope it comes for free with the former. Okay cool you can have alternative app stores, you still need a business relationship with Apple, have to submit your apps for review to get your app signed, and turn over I guess 27% of all digital goods sold. But you can have your own storefront and downloader. Congrats.
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      Which really goes to demonstrate how ridiculous this is. The iPhone is a coin-operated software runtime. You pay for it at the register and buy the right to own the phone, but your ownership of the software is constantly jeopardized. Everything you use for free you take for granted, and everything you pay for is rent-extracted by the world's largest company. It's a harmful business. You can argue there are benefits, but the surcharge for simply using the Apple runtime is asinine. It should be loathed and shunned from the highest court, rendered unconscionable for any company of any size. Apple and Google can charge a 90% tax on their app stores for all I care. Those stores simply need competition to compel non-harmful practice. Otherwise, they're completely unaccountable. They've already proven this with their non-cooperation in the browser industry.
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        > It's a harmful business. All I know is iOS/iPadOS have made it possible for my parents and all the non native English literate, mostly uneducated elders in my family able to use modern computing devices without me ever having to worry about malware. And there is no alternative.
        smoldesu 4y ago
        The alternative is a developer mode switch with a big "Don't Touch This, Grandma!" modal when you press it. People who want to install their own software do not conflict with your parents or the non-native English literate uneducated elders in your family.
jbverschoor 4y ago
Same for xbox, nintendo, playstation, right? Same for the unreal engine... The 30% is the max they charge, so it's not a completely fair number. After a year it's 15%, of which about 2-3% is card fees, and they handle taxes.

krackers 4y ago

But in Europe they are being forced to allow side-loading anyway.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Despegar 4y ago
They'll still get their commission even with sideloading.
- can16358p 4y ago
  How? If an app isn't installed through App Store it can't be rejected by Apple therefore developer can provide any payment method they want. Am I missing a point?
  - joshstrange 4y ago
    In the Netherlands dating apps won their case for third party payment processors but they still have to pay Apple something like 27% (instead of 30%). It's self-reported but you can bet Apple will come after them if it thinks they are fudging the numbers.
    - hbn 4y ago
      Those dating apps are still on the App Store though. How would Apple "come after" an app they're not hosting?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - Spivak 4y ago
        Presumably, knowing Apple, sideloading will still require your app be signed by Apple and all the fanfare that comes with it. You're now just allowed to have your own storefront and distribute your app through it.

henryfjordan 4y ago

Decision: https://9to5mac.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2023/04/21-16506.pdf https://9to5mac.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2023/04/21-16...

bdowling 4y ago
Or directly from the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/04/24/21-16506.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/04/24/2...

asadlionpk 4y ago

This was bound to happen. I guess Epic's goal was just to stir some shit.

shadowgovt 4y ago
I think they decided to play legal chicken and hoped Apple would blink, and Apple did not. The play wasn't entirely unfounded. A lot of current law around things like app stores is existing in the liminal space of "Are these restrictions legal? Nobody knows. Do you want to be the one who stakes all your company's money and your investors' money and your entire business model on finding out?" Epic did the calculus and seemed to conclude they wanted to be the ones to take the hit (possibly because since they also own their own app store, the math was a little win-win: any lock-in the courts find Apple has applies to the way Epic runs their store also). It hasn't worked out the way they'd hoped (though the anti-steering decision was interesting and a little surprising).
- TillE 4y ago
  Apple makes a ton of money from the App Store, of course they were always going to fight this to the end in court. I think the most generous interpretation of this lawsuit is that it's a publicity stunt from Epic, not for consumers, but to pressure legislators.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    The blinking would have been because Apple does make a ton of money in the App Store. So it would have been cheaper for them, hypothetically, to pay off Epic to go away or to make some nonsense carve-out in their TOS that was hyper-focused on allowing Fortnite to work while excluding all other stores-in-stores than to risk the Courts would say "Hmmm..... Y'know..... The way you run your store looks... a lot like a monopoly. Maybe you can't run it like that anymore. In fact... Maybe you can't run it at all. Maybe no company that makes the hardware also gets to dictate the software that runs on that hardware exclusively. How about we give you, oh, six months to divest the App Store into a separate company and re-tool the iPhone OS to allow loading multiple stores?" Perhaps not a likely scenario, but US law is highly path-dependent and at the end of the day, judges' interpretations of law and precedent are all that matters regarding the correctness of a court decision.

personjerry 4y ago

If I understand it correctly, they are reaffirming the decision that Apple has to allow developers to link to other payment options? Which mostly mollifies the issue IMO no? I can just create a link to my site for payment?

shadowgovt 4y ago
That aspect should work great for Epic re: Fortnite, as all the money there is in lootboxes and V-Bucks.
- MBCook 4y ago
  They’re still allowed to require a cut through their developer agreement.
judge2020 4y ago
Yes, that's the only one they upheld. But it doesn't say that Apple can't still charge a fee for any users that come from the iOS app or otherwise use the iOS app (i.e. this doesn't mean Apple can never implement iOS licensing fees on a per-user basis), so they might still charge 27% of sales initiated/driven by their product, iOS.
hendersoon 4y ago
My read is you're permitted to link to your site for payments now, which was not permitted before, but this decision didn't force Apple to allow external in-app payments. So it only really impacts companies selling external subscriptions like Netflix. I'm sure the decision will be aggressively dissected over the next couple of hours by actual attorneys, anyway.
elpool2 4y ago
It's unclear to me if this only covers "check out mycompany.com for alternative payment options" links, or if your link could be a "Purchase Now" button that goes right to a payment form. If the latter is also allowed, then you could set up a pretty frictionless experiences that completely bypasses paying the 30% Apple tax.

darth_avocado 4y ago

On the one hand it’s bad that apple can continue to gatekeep it’s ecosystem, on the other, it does prevent other companies from doing nefarious things. We need to remember when Epic was engaged is scanning your computer for steam data. Leaving it up to individual companies, they’ll definitely try and do much more damage. And it gets especially worse when the devs are some obscure company in the corner of the world. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/epic-promises-to-fix-game-launcher-after-privacy-concerns/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/epic-promises...

kitsunesoba 4y ago
To me the bigger thing is having to jump through hoops to cancel subscriptions, as is often the case for subscriptions outside of the App Store. There should be regulations requiring that cancelling subscriptions be as easy as starting them is, with a readily visible button on each platform the service is available for that cancels with a single click and no further fuss. There should never be a need to hunt down an obscure link or worse.
- me-vs-cat 4y ago
  https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/03/federal-trade-commission-proposes-rule-provision-making-it-easier-consumers-click-cancel-recurring https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/03/...
Rhedox 4y ago
The iOS sandbox prevents stuff like that anyway.

astlouis44 4y ago

WebGPU + WebAssembly is an alternative way around walled gardens, which would enable Epic to distribute Fortnite to iOS users via a client side web-app, enabling them to bypass Apple entirely.

judge2020 4y ago
> which would enable Epic to distribute Fortnite to iOS users via a client side web-app I'm sure Epic would be super excited to implement all of Unreal Engine in WebGPU.
- m00x 4y ago
  They're already working on a WebGPU adapter :)
  - judge2020 4y ago
    They are? https://www.google.com/search?q=webgpu+unreal+engine https://www.google.com/search?q=webgpu+unreal+engine The top result there is a third party trying to achieve this. Not Epic themselves.
    - m00x 4y ago
      Such I've heard from some friends that work there. WebGPU isn't even released on most browsers, so it's unlikely we'll see it for several years. It's not that much different from Vulkan.
      - boarnoah 4y ago
        It would certainly be a great thing if UE was to have a second try at this. Nothing on any of the public roadmap (https://portal.productboard.com/epicgames/ https://portal.productboard.com/epicgames/) or references in WIP code that suggests this. Lets hope your friends are correct :P I got the impression the HTML5 with WebGL platform was removed at least partly to minimize the scope of work with some of the large renderer changes Epic has made between 4.26 and 5. So now does seem like the right time for them to try to tackle the problem again.

nu11ptr 4y ago

> The App Store continues to promote competition, drive innovation, and expand opportunity, and we’re proud of its profound contributions to both users and developers around the world. How can the app store promote competition when it is a monopoly on iOS? (I suppose they could be talking between different apps, but that isn't what this case was about) UPDATE: The comments seem to imply I am giving my opinion on this case. I am not. I am commenting on the PR-speak given here. The app store does not, IMO, "promote" competition...it may arguably not hinder it, but given what the case is about, it is, I think, more competitive if others could use different methods of selling apps on iOS. That doesn't mean it is better, right, more fair, or anything else... just more "competitive" IMO. In short, I'm commenting on the wording in their press release only.

iscrewyou 4y ago
The competition (in Apple’s eyes and I agree with it because of how shady some of these companies are that want to make launchers for all their apps) isn’t about apps in the App Store. It’s the competition of being an App Store in itself compared to Google, Amazon, etc. If you read it with that lens, the line makes a lot more sense.
Arcanum-XIII 4y ago
'Cause you can have as many clone of the last en vogue game without any problem. So, competition. Not a very positive one, but still :\
_boffin_ 4y ago
> monopoly on iOS? Way to drill that category all the way down to IOS to ensure that you're able to use that "monopoly" keyword. The deli that's in my complex has a monopoly on buying and obtaining wine if i don't want to drive anywhere or use a phone to order some via some delivery app.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  I wonder why McDonalds has been allowed to have a monopoly on McChicken sandwiches for so long.

gjsman-1000 4y ago

Everybody talks about the 30% cut... however, I'm almost afraid to say "be careful what you wish for." A device that allows sideloading to avoid a 30% cut, is also a device that allows piracy. (I'm still in favor of sideloading, but I'm very pessimistic about developers recovering that 30% as increased profit.)

wmf 4y ago
You can't really pirate GaaS. All your v-bucks and skins live on the server.
- vultour 4y ago
  Right, so the big players like Epic win, while the small indie devs making single player games can go fuck themselves.
threeseed 4y ago
Apple will still take their 30% cut. It's just that it will move from being taken automatically by the company to a model where third party App Stores/developers will need to pay it back to Apple on an ongoing basis. Apple already has a system in place that captures which applications are being launched.
- shjake 4y ago
  The EU law doesn’t seem to allow that though.

alberth 4y ago

Given that Europe requires side loading apps now, did Apple really "win"?

pb7 4y ago
It’s still a win to them to have their biggest market not allow side loading or competing app stores.
thesuperbigfrog 4y ago
Sideloading will only be allowed where it is required by law: https://www.macworld.com/article/1794764/sorry-u-s-iphone-users-sideloading-in-ios-17-will-likely-be-limited-to-europe.html https://www.macworld.com/article/1794764/sorry-u-s-iphone-us...
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  So I can't buy an iPhone while on vacation in Europe and bring it to the US?
  - sixstringtheory 4y ago
    EU can’t enforce laws outside their legal jurisdiction. So I guess if you somehow trick Apple into seeing your phone as operating in the EU, then this would work. But I don’t know how you could do so if you use a cellular data connection.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
      So if I buy a phone in Europe and get it all set up then Apple will remove functionality when I return to the States?
      - sixstringtheory 4y ago
        It would be very easy to do. They already control what you see on the app store depending on your locale. I’m not saying it’s a certainty. I don’t think it would be fair to do to EU citizens traveling in the US on vacation, eg.

Moldoteck 4y ago

Everyone talks about sideloading as something to circumvent 30% tax. While maybe true, I'm interested to see if sideloading would allow new browser engines, like gecko or chromium. This will open a ton of possibilities weakening even more the walled garden

sharemywin 4y ago
side loading doesn't work in the US.
- madeofpalk 4y ago
  It doesn't work _anywhere_, as iPhone does not currently have sideloading. It's been reported that sideloading could come in iOS 17 later this year, in EU, but unannounced so far.
- Moldoteck 4y ago
  It may potentially work in eu in the future, so at least for me, it's nice)
brucethemoose2 4y ago
It already did IIRC. In the olden days, other browsers were ported to Cydia, the jailbreak store. And there is tons of cool stuff people did, you can look back through the history of jailbreaking to see what sideloading would open up.
- fastball 4y ago
  Worth noting that side-loading and rooting are not the same thing. Various aspects of the OS (APIs) would still be locked down, whether you can sideload apps or not. So you would not see all the cool tweaks that were (are?) available to jailbreakers.
  - brucethemoose2 4y ago
    Yeah this is true, but some of Cydia was just standalone apps that weren't allowed on the store.

bmurray7jhu 4y ago

Ninth Circuit opinion https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/04/24/21-16506.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/04/24/2...

amelius 4y ago

Why does Apple continue to have control over something they already sold? I bet the judge doesn't "own" an iPhone.

npteljes 4y ago
Why not? It makes a lot of money.
bunbun69 4y ago
maybe don't buy apple?

vivegi 4y ago

From the ruling [1], the only thing Apple lost. > We now turn to Apple’s cross-appeal, beginning with its arguments concerning the UCL. The district court found that Epic suffered an injury sufficient to confer Article III standing, concluded that Apple’s anti-steering provision violates the UCL’s unfair prong, and entered an injunction prohibiting Apple from enforcing the anti-steering provision against any developer. Apple challenges each aspect on appeal. We affirm. i.e., the District Court found Apple to be violating CA Unfair Competition Law which Apple had appealed and the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concurs with the district court. Consequence of this ruling is limiting the ability of app developers to communicate the availability of alternative payment options to iOS device users is unlawful. As a result, alternate payment methods can no longer be restricted by Apple. The question of commission (30%) still remains because the ruling is silent on it except for observing what the district court said. > Because the district court accepted only a general version of Apple’s IP-compensation rationale (that Apple was entitled to “some compensation”), Epic at step three needed only to fashion a less-restrictive alternative calibrated to achieving that general goal, instead of one achieving the level of compensation that Apple currently achieves through its 30% commission. My reading of this is that the 30% commission can come under challenge from another plaintiff. Epic took a different tactic on this specific argument and failed to establish it. However, the Appeals court's observaton seems to indicate there is legal room for a challenger to attack this. [1]: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/04/24/21-16506.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/04/24/2...

mFixman 4y ago
If I read that correctly, does it mean that Epic can now direct you to a website to buy in-game currency outside of the reach of Apple's 30% bullshit tax? That sounds like a major win against Apple.
- vivegi 4y ago
  Not so fast. The court affirmed the following-Epic can direct users to a website for alternate payment. But they left it ambiguous on whether Apple is entitled to compensaton at 30% of revenues. The courts (both district and appeals) seem to believe that Apple is entitled to some compensation under IP compensation theory. So, if the Netherlands dating apps case ruling is any indication (Apple discounted the 30% to 27% for dating apps in Netherlands for using alt payment methods in that suit), Apple is likely to do something similar here in cases where their In-app-payments are not used.

DueDilligence 4y ago

[dead]

shmerl 4y ago

Competition law is toothless today, so crooks like Apple get away with abusing it.

glogla 4y ago
Indeed. The evil always wins in the end, such is the nature of the world.
- fastball 4y ago
  Then why have so many of the bad things (poverty/disease/famine) being going down steadily over the last 100 years?
  - menus 4y ago
    Conversely, one could bring up the literal war in a particular European country, downfall of women's rights and rising LGBT+ intolerance in a certain developed country, rising income inequality and climate change.
    - pb7 4y ago
      We are living in the most peaceful time in history and one war doesn't change that. You are a victim of media. Try reading Factfulness by Hans Rosling and getting off the internet, it will do you some good.
      - menus 3y ago
        > one war doesn't change that It is a matter of perception. I can tell myself feel-good statistics while ignoring the reality for millions of people as well. You also conveniently glossed over the other points I brought up
    - fastball 4y ago
      Sure, you can cherry pick bad events that happen throughout history. But the truth is that: - the war in Ukraine is significantly less deadly / destructive / etc than basically every other major war in the last 100 years. - not even sure where to start with this one? Downfall of women's rights... where? - LGBT+ are more accepted globally (and in the US) than they've ever been. - Income inequality is a silly metric to care about when actual poverty is going down. - More people and companies care about climate change than at any other point in history. Are you seeing the trend? Just because some things might be "bad" by your standards doesn't mean they're not the best they've ever been, and doesn't mean they're not getting better.

olliecornelia 4y ago

I don’t know if this outcome is good for end users but happy to see Tim Sweeney lose.

mproud 4y ago
I’m surprised more people aren’t talking about Epic here. They basically are whining and complaining they have to pay the 30% fee for making more than $1 million sales, even though other stores are already doing that. To me, this was never about consumer freedom. This was about lost revenue to Epic.
- cubefox 4y ago
  This is like saying the sky is green because Hitler said the sky is blue.
  - MBCook 4y ago
    (Avoiding Godwin…) Tons of people here hate Apple, but the GP’s point that Epic is not a very sympathetic defendant is very true. They’re not some small developer losing 30% that could help feed their family, they’re a huge company that is (arguably) exploiting children. They weren’t hurt by a sudden Apple price hike, they agreed to all the terms fairly then unilaterally said “screw you, my money!” In about the most blatant way possible. And it’s pretty obvious this isn’t because they want to save 30%, it’s because they want to be the store charging others a big percentage and taking game sales revenue. The moment they win this they would have launched suits against the console makers to try to get their way there too. Epic clearly only cared about themselves and only wrapped themselves in the cloak of “help all developers” for PR purposes. I suspect a lot of people don’t care one bit about Epic. They just happen to be the name on the plaintiff’s chair.
    - cubefox 4y ago
      My point was that somebody not being sympathetic doesn't mean they are wrong. There are strong arguments to the effect that Apple being able to force (what is effectively) a 30% tax through AppStore exclusivity is misusing their market power. This argument doesn't depend in any way on whether Epic has a clean slate, just as the sky doesn't get any less blue just because Hi...Trump said it was blue.

fsckboy 4y ago

https://archive.ph/IaCoO#selection-399.0-403.153 https://archive.ph/IaCoO#selection-399.0-403.153 for fellow uMatrix users (with a selection by me)

apatheticonion 4y ago

I yield to the arguments in the comments emphasizing the requirement of defining "the market" in the case of an antitrust case. Sure. I still think that Apple's dictatorial grip on their platforms broadly stifles innovation and has a negative impact on competition. That's not a monopolistic issue, that's just the systemic underregulation we have come to expect from the US.

brookst 4y ago
So here's the paradox: if more open platforms promote innovation that benefits everyone, why is Apple so dominant, and why aren't the more innovative, open platforms running circles around Apple?
- animatethrow 4y ago
  Several billion dollars is the minimum initial investment cost to compete in this space, to deal with all the patents and legal and regulatory to make your own phone with its own marketplace. If I don't use an iPhone my non-technical family members can't conveniently share photos with me the only way they know how. My friends can't AirDrop me videos. Apple has ensured its products won't interop well with non-Apple products.
  - pb7 4y ago
    It's not abusive to build really good experiences for your customers and it's not a mystery why they don't waste their resources developing for the competition.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    It doesn’t take “billions” of dollars to become an Android OEM and use AOSP.
    - techdragon 4y ago
      How much does it take? I’ve pondered this a few times over the years for various business ideas, so yeah, I’m genuinely asking in a non snarky way… what does it cost to do an OEM phone ?

m3kw9 4y ago

Legit pricing vs pure greed(Epic) hiding in a knight in shining armour fighting for all developers. As a dev myself I know the tax is high but Apple does a great job and not gonna say should be arbitrary 8.5% lower or whatever Epic is trying to wring out

benced 4y ago

Apple is right on the law, wrong on the morality. Change the law.

nologic01 4y ago

People need to think very seriously about the market structure of the digital world and creating genuine alternatives in the interest of a healthy, innovative and less risky society. This is not a niche market and a cute little oligopoly. Tech touches, controls and even disrupts major parts of economy and social life and there is no visible counterbalance. E.g., in other recent news Apple was getting deeper into finance and banking. Where exactly does the conglomeration stop? Having let things reach such an advanced metastasized stage its not clear if there is a gentle way to turn things around. Which commercial entity would dare go against such a entrenched and systemically supported duopoly? Taking the axe and creating by brute force less dominant pieces is the approach that was used in the past. Another, maybe fanciful, idea is for governments to fund public goods that will undermine the commercial viability of certain business lines currently under the stranglehold of tech oligopolies. As it stands, reinforcing the concept of TINA, there is no alternative, acts as a millstone around society and effectively robs us from the potential of technology.

abnercoimbre 4y ago
You're pondering the challenges of our digital age and the seemingly unstoppable dominance of tech oligopolies. I'm all about shaking up the status quo and championing underdogs. Like it's literally what I do for a living [0]. (See the About page specifically.) Obviously this may sound like a marketing stunt, but you should really know there are those of us who want to see a different world. [0] https://handmadecities.com https://handmadecities.com
SilverBirch 4y ago
I am very sympathetic to your view that these massive companies mustn't be allowed to use their absurd concentration of power to be anti-competitive. But the thing that I've noticed over time with these tech companies is that whilst they are extremely profitable and at points can be extremely powerful, their power is unstable. When you look at other markets the contrast is stark, AT&T and the break up of Bell system - they were a monopoly for decades and acted terribly and were broken up by the government and have basically slowly morphed back into their old shape. Compare that to AOL - they were powerful sure, but that exploded pretty quick. Before Facebook it was Myspace, and after Meta something else will come. These industries just don't seem to form a stable equilibrium they continue to get disrupted. And the problem you have is that if the government is going act thoughtfully, they'll act slowly, and if they act slowly they'll almost certainly be too late.

nodamage 4y ago

In case anyone is interested in the legal background behind this decision I've read through the ruling and here are the key reasons why Epic's appeal failed: 1. The first reason involves Epic's attempt to define the relevant antitrust market as "iOS app distribution". Courts do not allow you to simply declare an arbitrarily narrow market consisting of a single company in order to claim that company has a monopoly over the distribution of its own product. In antitrust law these are known as "single-brand aftermarkets" and are generally considered the exception rather than the rule. There are very specific criteria that need to be met in order for a "single-brand aftermarket" to be allowed: > "In sum, to establish a single-brand aftermarket, a plaintiff must show: (1) the challenged aftermarket restrictions are “not generally known” when consumers make their foremarket purchase; (2) “significant” information costs prevent accurate life-cycle pricing; (3) “significant” monetary or non-monetary switching costs exist; and (4) general market-definition principles regarding cross-elasticity of demand do not undermine the proposed single-brand market." The burden of proof was on Epic to provide evidence for all four criteria, and they failed at step (1). In order for "iOS app distribution" to qualify as a "single-brand aftermarket", Epic would need to prove that consumers were unaware that they would be limited to purchasing apps from the App Store when they originally bought their iPhones. Because if they knew about that restriction ahead of time and bought iPhones anyway, then they did so willingly, despite having the option to purchase smartphones on the marketplace without such restrictions. 2. The second reason involves Epic's failure to prove that Apple's app distribution restrictions were unreasonable. Courts use a three-step process to analyze whether a competitor's behavior is considered an unreasonable restraint of trade: Step 1: The plaintiff first has to show that the restraints have an anti-competitive effect. Step 2: The defendant is then given the opportunity to show a pro-competitive justification for the restraint. Step 3: The plaintiff then has to show that those pro-competitive justifications could have been achieved via less restrictive alternatives. In this case, the court agreed with Epic that the constraints were anti-competitive. However, they also agreed with Apple that the restraints were justified because a) Apple is entitled to compensation for the use of their IP, and b) the restraints increase the security and privacy of their platform. At that point the burden is shifted back to Epic to show how (a) and (b) could have been achieved through less restrictive alternatives, which Epic failed to do.

Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago

Well at least we would probably have sideloading in iOS soon, which would make the discussion about mobile app market monopoly irrelevant.

sneednfeed 4y ago

[flagged]

WastingMyTime89 4y ago

I don't really understand the commenters complaning here. Both of these two things can be true at the same time: companies operating "app stores" are indeed not monopolies under the Antitrust Act and yet "app stores" are an unacceptable distortion of the market. The solution seems pretty simple and is exactly what Europe did with the DMA: make a new law specifically targeted at digital stores.

yazaddaruvala 4y ago

Rather than allowing side-loading on iOS. I hope Apple is forced to open up its bootloader on iPhones. Step 1: Go to the Apple store and ask to unlock the bootloader, they give you a form to void the warranty and Apple Care, they then unlock the bootloader. Step 2: Wait for the Asahi Linux, Valve/Steam Proton, Google, and the Pinephone teams to showcase their skills.

arunkant 4y ago
Why should it void warranty? It must not void warranty unless apple can prove that unlocking/tinkering was the real cause of damange. Don't give up on your rights easily folks
- derkades 3y ago
  Google for example allows easily unlocking the boot loader. The warranty is not void and security features like verified boot can still be used.
unnouinceput 4y ago
Eh, at this step you might just write your own OS to run on Apple hardware. I mean, this could be something. Buy Apple phones at discount, rebrand them and have your own OS. Lose Apple warranty but provide your own instead. A niche market but a market nevertheless.

HenriTEL 4y ago

The ability for the app store to take a percentage of each in-app purchase blows my mind. Same for the private copying levy that can take a percentage on each storage device sale. This is power abuse and it's a shame that the judges let it pass.

Gareth321 4y ago

I feel like this is a case of winning the battle but losing the war. Epic started a movement which has resulted in legislative changes all over the world.

bluesm 4y ago

“Monopolists lie to protect themselves. They know that bragging about their great monopoly invites being audited, scrutinized, and attacked. Since they very much want their monopoly profits to continue unmolested, they tend to do whatever they can to conceal their monopoly—usually by exaggerating the power of their (nonexistent) competition. Think about how Google talks about its business. It certainly doesn’t claim to be a monopoly. But is it one? Well, it depends: a monopoly in what? Let’s say that Google is primarily a search engine. As of May 2014, it owns about 68% of the search market. (Its closest competitors, Microsoft and Yahoo!, have about 19% and 10%, respectively.) If that doesn’t seem dominant enough, consider the fact that the word “google” is now an official entry in the Oxford English Dictionary—as a verb. Don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen to Bing. But suppose we say that Google is primarily an advertising company. That changes things. The U.S. search engine advertising market is $17 billion annually. Online advertising is $37 billion annually.” “The entire U.S. advertising market is $150 billion. And global advertising is a $495 billion market. So even if Google completely monopolized U.S. search engine advertising, it would own just 3.4% of the global advertising market. From this angle, Google looks like a small player in a competitive world.” “What if we frame Google as a multifaceted technology company instead? This seems reasonable enough; in addition to its search engine, Google makes dozens of other software products, not to mention robotic cars, Android phones, and wearable computers. But 95% of Google’s revenue comes from search advertising; its other products generated just $2.35 billion in 2012, and its consumer tech products a mere fraction of that. Since consumer tech is a $964 billion market globally, Google owns less than 0.24% of it—a far cry from relevance, let alone monopoly. Framing itself as just another tech company allows Google to escape all sorts of unwanted attention.” Excerpt From Zero to One: Notes on Startups, or How to Build the Future Peter Thiel

rvz 4y ago

My point still stands: >> Even after the Epic v Apple court case, Apple unfortunately still wins. Don't like it?, Maybe use PWAs or failing that build an alternative. Good luck. A predictable Epic failure and Apple still collects the 30% commission regardless. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29914414 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29914414

sledgehammers 4y ago

Considering the sorry state of democracy in the world, this doesn't surprise me at all, though is deeply saddening. Obviously the markets aren't functioning properly because of these massive monopolies hoarding wealth and controlling everything. Proper tech feudalism.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

IANAL but they already won, the appeals court ruled that the lower court didn't make any glaring errors in reaching this judgement.