Fortnite Remains Banned From Apple's App Store After Judge Refuses Epic's Request (bgr.com) 124
Epic Games "did not win its preliminary injunction in its antitrust action against Apple, which would have forced Apple to allow Fortnite back onto the iPhone, iPad, and Mac," reports BGR, calling it "the decision we warned you about a few weeks ago."
Gonzalez Rogers hinted during the injunction relief hearing a few weeks ago that she wasn't inclined to side with Epic when it comes to Fortnite. She pointed out at the time that Epic lied in its business relationship with Apple. "You did something, you lied about it by omission, by not being forthcoming. That's the security issue. That's the security issue!" Gonzalez Rogers told Epic. "There are a lot of people in the public who consider you guys heroes for what you guys did, but it's still not honest...."
Epic engineered a huge PR stunt to turn gamers against Apple over the expected Fortnite ban and then sued Apple for anti-competitive practices at the same time. Even if the antitrust case might have merit on its own, this doesn't change the fact that Epic breached its contract... The judge clarified that Epic has breached a contract unilaterally and cannot claim that it did it because of monopoly concerns. Judge Rogers also said that Epic's failure to show it's willing to work with Apple and the court to have the game reinstated proves that Epic isn't necessarily concerned with the well-being of iOS users. "Epic Games cannot simply exclaim 'monopoly' to rewrite agreements giving itself unilateral benefit..."
Epic did receive some good news in the ruling. "Epic Games is grateful that Apple will continue to be barred from retaliating against Unreal Engine and our game development customers," the company said in a statement which was quoted by Thurrott.com. "We will continue developing for Apple's platforms and pursue all avenues to end Apple's anti-competitive behavior."
And the same site also quotes Apple's own statement on the ruling. "We are grateful that the Court recognized that Epic's actions were not in the best interests of its own customers and that any problems they may have encountered were of their own making when they breached their agreement."
Epic engineered a huge PR stunt to turn gamers against Apple over the expected Fortnite ban and then sued Apple for anti-competitive practices at the same time. Even if the antitrust case might have merit on its own, this doesn't change the fact that Epic breached its contract... The judge clarified that Epic has breached a contract unilaterally and cannot claim that it did it because of monopoly concerns. Judge Rogers also said that Epic's failure to show it's willing to work with Apple and the court to have the game reinstated proves that Epic isn't necessarily concerned with the well-being of iOS users. "Epic Games cannot simply exclaim 'monopoly' to rewrite agreements giving itself unilateral benefit..."
Epic did receive some good news in the ruling. "Epic Games is grateful that Apple will continue to be barred from retaliating against Unreal Engine and our game development customers," the company said in a statement which was quoted by Thurrott.com. "We will continue developing for Apple's platforms and pursue all avenues to end Apple's anti-competitive behavior."
And the same site also quotes Apple's own statement on the ruling. "We are grateful that the Court recognized that Epic's actions were not in the best interests of its own customers and that any problems they may have encountered were of their own making when they breached their agreement."
When did that happen? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:When did that happen? (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple believes that companies should "...act in the best interest of their customers." ? I don't think so...
It happened years ago at Apple. For example when they designed a secure boot process they could not backdoor or otherwise workaround if they wanted to. And then told the FBI, no, we are not going to abandon this design goal.
Re: (Score:1)
Because they decided that privacy would be their new marketing angle. On the other hand they didn't seem to care much about their terrible keyboards, user-hostile OS, removing ports to force you to buy dongles and wireless battery powered headphones etc.
Re: When did that happen? (Score:3)
Because they decided that privacy would be their new marketing angle. On the other hand they didn't seem to care much about their terrible keyboards, user-hostile OS, removing ports to force you to buy dongles and wireless battery powered headphones etc.
Nice irrelevant, off-topic, Anti-Apple rant.
Re: (Score:2)
GP said that Apple values the interests of its customers. I say Apple doesn't, unless they happen to be a marketing opportunity. Otherwise it's a walled garden, deliberate incompatibility, removing features and functions you want, and producing sub-standard products and then denying there is any problem.
Completely on-topic.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:When did that happen? (Score:5, Insightful)
When they give their own services/applications preferential treatment over competitive alternatives (the exact anti-competitive behaviour that Microsoft was punished for) ...
You are mistaken. Microsoft was punished for such actions while having monopolistic control over the personal computer operating system market.
Apple has no such monopolistic control over the mobile device market nor the smart phone market.
The arbitrary 30% commission ...
You are mistaken. It is an industry standard fee applied by Apple, Google and others.
... they claim this is to pay for is obviously false given they actually provide these services for nothing to all the free apps ...
You are mistaken. A complete storefront, download and payment processing infrastructure has a cost. As does all the documentation and support facilities that help developers use these services. The fact that paid apps subsidize the free apps does not change this fact.
Re:When did that happen? (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple has no such monopolistic control over the mobile device market nor the smart phone market.
True. However Apple do have monopolistic control over the mobile software and service market on Apple devices. It may sound a bit strange, but legislators are increasingly inclined to treat these device ecosystems - encompassing such a wide array of important services - as a market in their own right, and may end up applying antitrust regulation within that market. It's ok for Apple to sell a device that only has their own software on it, but once it turns into a semi-open marketplace, it's subject to regulation.
Re: When did that happen? (Score:4, Insightful)
However Apple do have monopolistic control over the mobile software and service market on Apple devices. It may sound a bit strange, but legislators are increasingly inclined to treat these device ecosystems - encompassing such a wide array of important services - as a market in their own right, and may end up applying antitrust regulation within that market.
You are mistaken.
The Courts have long ago decided in Apple v. Psystar that an Operating System (e.g. iOS) is not a âoeMarketâ nor a âoeSubmarketâ, and therefore cannot form the basis for a claim of monopolistic behavior.
All of this âoeanti-trustâ bloviating has already been found wanting, and for the exact same reasons. Apple should be calling for a Directed Verdict, as this is a case where the essential facts simply cannot be in dispute, and the case can be disposed of purely by the application of existing law.
So, IOW, your argument is over before it begins.
https://sites.google.com/a/wob... [google.com]
Re:When did that happen? (Score:5, Informative)
True. However Apple do have monopolistic control over the mobile software and service market on Apple devices.
No, that's a misuse of the word "monopoly". Over time the word has become commonly used in every scope and scale - "McDonalds has a monopoly over the items sold in their store". However the legal and business term is of an entire market scope - a sector or industry. Apple Devices are a proprietary world owned by Apple, and they are not an entire "sector" or "industry". If Apple had a monopoly on all phones, then that is a different thing. Microsoft had a monopoly on operating systems used by the general public, thus what they did within that OS was automatically at that scale as well, so the government intervened. Thanks to Android and others, there are clear and available alternatives to iOS. There's your choice, so no monopoly. In reality, I'm sure Apple is quite happy Android exists and is open and exactly the way it is, so iOS is still very well differentiated yet totally controlled by Apple.
Re:When did that happen? (Score:4, Insightful)
When they give their own services/applications preferential treatment over competitive alternatives (the exact anti-competitive behaviour that Microsoft was punished for) ...
You are mistaken. Microsoft was punished for such actions while having monopolistic control over the personal computer operating system market.
Apple has no such monopolistic control over the mobile device market nor the smart phone market.
A monopoly is not a requirement to be found guilty of anti-competitive behavior. All players in a market are supposed to play fair.
Apples behavior in regards to the iPhone ecosystem reminds me of the factory towns of yore: Build a big factory out in nowhere. Build housing and grocery stores etc. nearby. Force your employees to rent from you, buy in your stores at inflated prices and get insanely rich while keeping your employees piss poor.
The arbitrary 30% commission ...
You are mistaken. It is an industry standard fee applied by Apple, Google and others.
"Everybody else is doing it, too!" is not an excuse if what everybody is doing is illegal.
... they claim this is to pay for is obviously false given they actually provide these services for nothing to all the free apps ...
You are mistaken. A complete storefront, download and payment processing infrastructure has a cost. As does all the documentation and support facilities that help developers use these services. The fact that paid apps subsidize the free apps does not change this fact.
The fact that Apple takes home billions in profit each year from the app store alone even after providing those services for free to free apps gives some credence Epics argument that 30% are to high.
Re: (Score:2)
"Everybody else is doing it, too!" is not an excuse if what everybody is doing is illegal.
If it were illegal for the operator of a single approval process for all applications on a device to charge a 30% royalty, then how did Verizon (Get It Now), other CDMA2000 cellular carriers, Nintendo (Wii Shop Channel, eShop), Sony Computer Entertainment (PlayStation Store), and Microsoft (Xbox Live Marketplace) get away with it?
Re: (Score:2)
You are mistaken. Microsoft was punished for such actions while having monopolistic control over the personal computer operating system market.
Apple has no such monopolistic control over the mobile device market nor the smart phone market.
A monopoly is not a requirement to be found guilty of anti-competitive behavior. All players in a market are supposed to play fair.
And yet the court findings of facts in the Microsoft case made the existence of a monopoly a central component of their case.
You are mistaken. It is an industry standard fee applied by Apple, Google and others.
"Everybody else is doing it, too!" is not an excuse if what everybody is doing is illegal.
Actually it is only illegal **if** there was collusion between Apple, Google and others.
You are mistaken. A complete storefront, download and payment processing infrastructure has a cost. As does all the documentation and support facilities that help developers use these services. The fact that paid apps subsidize the free apps does not change this fact.
The fact that Apple takes home billions in profit each year from the app store alone even after providing those services for free to free apps gives some credence Epics argument that 30% are to high.
What are your or Epic's numbers on App Store revenue vs App Store related costs? What is the legal basis for a 30% fee being inherently too high? In truth, all we really have is Epic wants a lower fee. Its not about legality. Its about Epic trying to generate bad press to force fees down. Its nothi
Re: (Score:2)
Apples and oranges. It's not comparable to the fee applied by Google and others because Google and others allow you to easily bypass it if you wish. With Google/Android, you can sell your app through a different store, sell it via your own website and have your customers side-load it to escape the 30% commission, or even set up your own store (as Amazon has done). If you don't want to both
Re: (Score:2)
It's not comparable to the fee applied by Google and others because Google and others allow you to easily bypass it if you wish.
Not so. It is not easily bypassed. Sideloading requires extra knowledge on behalf of the user and there are spooky warnings from Android that doing so can compromise the security of your device.
There are non-preinstalled apps whose downloads from the play store numbers in the billions. Paid apps whose downloads number in the millions. The Google Play Store is not something developers can just bypass.
But the argument falls apart when it comes to in-app sales.
Apple is still providing the infrastructure for the sale and any necessary additional content download. Pl
Isn't banning "Unreal Engine" BS red herring? (Score:5, Interesting)
Epic did receive some good news in the ruling. "Epic Games is grateful that Apple will continue to be barred from retaliating against Unreal Engine and our game development customers,"
Isn't banning "Unreal Engine" a BS red herring? How is it good news that your false accusation will not be enforced. It was never at risk of being enforced as it wasn't real in the first place?
Epic, through the loss of their developer account, would not get early access to new iOS and macOS APIs. They would have to wait for the public releases like everyone else. Oh, boo hoo. Irrelevant. Its not like Unreal Engine based games stopped working on the new iOS release. Such incompatibilities generally take many years to manifest, if at all. And even this is merely hypothetical as it is trivially worked around.
Its trivially worked around by an employee with a personal developer account building and fixing code in Unreal Engine. They could add new features too. Including support for new capabilities of the new version of iOS or macOS, although committing such code to Epic's source code repository *might* have to wait until release day, as would commits to a public repository.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's a real threat. Apple would simply remove all apps using Unreal Engine from the App Store and not let developers submit apps us
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's a real threat. Apple would simply remove all apps using Unreal Engine from the App Store and not let developers submit apps using it.
That is nonsense. There is no basis, no actual threat. Apple canceled Epic's developer account due to failure to comply with terms. That may complicate Unreal Engine development, causing it to wait for new APIs to become public. However there is no basis to removing apps with Unreal Engine binaries. Epic would have to do something monumentally stupid and unrelated to the current dispute, for example make undocumented API calls.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't banning "Unreal Engine" a BS red herring? How is it good news that your false accusation will not be enforced. It was never at risk of being enforced as it wasn't real in the first place?
No, it was real. Apple was pretty annoyed with Epic for cheating and trying to undermine the app review process. Therefore they decided to not just throw the offending app out, but to cancel any business they are doing with Epic.
What then happened was Epic trying to get preliminary injunctions, and the result is that Fortnite is removed from the store until the court case finishes in May, and Epic can continue to develop Unreal engine until the court case finishes in May. After May, Fortnite might be rei
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't banning "Unreal Engine" a BS red herring? How is it good news that your false accusation will not be enforced. It was never at risk of being enforced as it wasn't real in the first place?
No, it was real. Apple was pretty annoyed with Epic for cheating and trying to undermine the app review process. Therefore they decided to not just throw the offending app out, but to cancel any business they are doing with Epic.
That is unrelated to third parties using Unreal Engine binaries. Epic had their developer license canceled. That is required to publish on the store and it is required to get early access to unreleased APIs and other developer info. A developer account is **not** required to develop third party libraries, which is what Unreal Engine is.
What then happened was Epic trying to get preliminary injunctions, and the result is that Fortnite is removed from the store until the court case finishes in May, and Epic can continue to develop Unreal engine until the court case finishes in May. After May, Fortnite might be reinstated, or Unreal might be removed.
No, Unreal Engine is not under threat of removal. It is a third party library. Fortnite was removed because the developer account it was sold under had been canceled. A third
Re: (Score:2)
Epic did receive some good news in the ruling. "Epic Games is grateful that Apple will continue to be barred from retaliating against Unreal Engine and our game development customers,"
Isn't banning "Unreal Engine" a BS red herring? How is it good news that your false accusation will not be enforced. It was never at risk of being enforced as it wasn't real in the first place?
Apple hat threatened to ban the separate account used by the subsidiary of Epic that develops the Unreal engine. Without a ruling by the judge there was a real risk that Apple would have shut it down.
So a final decision on this is absolutely relevant and not a "red herring". It is important that Apples attempt to take a separate company and its product as well as all users of that product hostage has been denied.
Re: (Score:2)
Epic did receive some good news in the ruling. "Epic Games is grateful that Apple will continue to be barred from retaliating against Unreal Engine and our game development customers,"
Isn't banning "Unreal Engine" a BS red herring? How is it good news that your false accusation will not be enforced. It was never at risk of being enforced as it wasn't real in the first place?
Apple hat threatened to ban the separate account used by the subsidiary of Epic that develops the Unreal engine. Without a ruling by the judge there was a real risk that Apple would have shut it down. So a final decision on this is absolutely relevant and not a "red herring". It is important that Apples attempt to take a separate company and its product as well as all users of that product hostage has been denied.
And if that **Epic owned** account were to be canceled it would do nothing more than inconvenience Unreal Engine development, in theory but not in practice. At worst Unreal Engine dev's would have to wait for a new iOS to be released and it API to therefore become public. In reality Unreal Engine devs could update Unreal Engine for any compatibility issue (which are unlikely) using their personal accounts and wait for iOS release day to commit changes to Epic's corporate version control system to build and
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't banning "Unreal Engine" a BS red herring?
Yes it is. There are many games using that engine, and they are paying their 30% commission, so of course Apple is happy to keep them in the app store making them money. Epic was just handwaving and trying to raise the stakes in case a judge was ignorant enough to lump these things together and think they were in some way tightly coupled.
they can both DIAF (Score:5, Interesting)
Who owns the Apple platform (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
MS does not apply, there is no Apple monopoly (Score:3)
Their claim is that Apple has a monopoly on their own platform.
No. Just like the claim against Microsoft wasn't that they had a monopoly on their own platform. The claim here is the anti-competitive tactics employed (and they are inarguably anti-competitive: private APIs, product tying, pre-installation that doesn't allow removal, etc) should be illegal so developers have a level playing field.
No, you are fundamentally mistaken. All of that was a problem because the court ruled that Microsoft had a monopoly on PC operating systems. Apple does not have a monopoly on mobile devices, nor smartphones, nor desktop computers and laptops. The Microsoft case just does not apply since there is no Apple monopoly.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In the same way Microsoft monopoly was recognized (i.e. excluding any device the OS could not run on) Apple has a monopoly. The court did not say Microsoft had a monopoly on desktop computers, they had to use a definition that excluded apple mac's etc so they went with IBM PC's that can have Windows installed. using that same method the only devices that Apple IoS or MacOS can be installed on they have a 100% monopoly
In the same way Microsoft monopoly was recognized (i.e. excluding any device the OS could not run on) Apple has a monopoly. The court did not say Microsoft had a monopoly on desktop computers, they had to use a definition that excluded apple mac's etc so they went with IBM PC's that can have Windows installed. using that same method the only devices that Apple IoS or MacOS can be installed on they have a 100% monopoly
If you look at the actual court findings of facts you will find out the macOS was considered.
You will also find that an ecosystem of applications and the resulting network effect is also a major factor. In the PC world these app created a sort of lock-in for Windows compared to macOS and Linux. However for iOS and Android both have large ecosystems of apps and many apps are available for both. The necessary lock-in that the court found in the PC case does not exist for smartphones.
The comparison to the M
Re: (Score:1)
> All of that was a problem because the court ruled that Microsoft
> had a monopoly on PC operating systems. Apple does not have
> a monopoly on mobile devices, nor smartphones, nor desktop
> computers and laptops.
Does Apple's Store have a monopoly on sales on the iOS device?
Apple will argue that the App Store is inextricable from the OS, just like MS did with IE. The courts will again disagree, and of course technically both are BS.
Unless Biden gets elected - then all the antitrust stuff goes awa
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.justice.gov/atr/us... [justice.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
The comparison to the MS antitrust case is flawed. Various conditions described in the court's findings of facts do not exist. For example the application ecosystems. iOS and Android enjoy comparable ecosystems, many apps available for both. This was not the case with Windows and that was a necessary condition for the court.
Apps being available for both systems doesn't help if you bought apps for one ecosystem and cannot transfer that over to the other ecosystem.
If somebody want's to switch from iOS to Android they not only have to by new hardware but also all the apps and they have to replace some of the services they use because many Apple services are not available on Android. And since Apple doesn't allow alternatives to some of their own services people had to buy into that.
The situation is clearly not as simple as you're
Re: (Score:2)
The comparison to the MS antitrust case is flawed. Various conditions described in the court's findings of facts do not exist. For example the application ecosystems. iOS and Android enjoy comparable ecosystems, many apps available for both. This was not the case with Windows and that was a necessary condition for the court.
Apps being available for both systems doesn't help if you bought apps for one ecosystem and cannot transfer that over to the other ecosystem.
That was not a point the court findings of fact addressed despite being applicable back then too. Their basis for monopoly was the lack of replacement apps.
Re: (Score:2)
iOS and Android enjoy comparable ecosystems, many apps available for both.
And many other apps exclusive to one or the other. How many people do you know who carry both an iPhone to run at least one iOS-exclusive app and an Android phone to run at least one Android-exclusive app?
Re: (Score:2)
iOS and Android enjoy comparable ecosystems, many apps available for both.
And many other apps exclusive to one or the other. How many people do you know who carry both an iPhone to run at least one iOS-exclusive app and an Android phone to run at least one Android-exclusive app?
But an exclusivity far less common than that the court identifies in its findings of fact. Compared to the vast number of people who had to run Windows those carrying both iOS and Android are quite rare. Its the commonality of the former that is part of the foundation of the MS monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
Their claim is that Apple has a monopoly on their own platform.
No. Just like the claim against Microsoft wasn't that they had a monopoly on their own platform. The claim here is the anti-competitive tactics employed (and they are inarguably anti-competitive: private APIs, product tying, pre-installation that doesn't allow removal, etc) should be illegal so developers have a level playing field.
No, you are fundamentally mistaken. All of that was a problem because the court ruled that Microsoft had a monopoly on PC operating systems. Apple does not have a monopoly on mobile devices, nor smartphones, nor desktop computers and laptops. The Microsoft case just does not apply since there is no Apple monopoly.
You are mistaken if you believe that only monopolies can be charged with anti-competitive behavior. Everybody is expected to play fair and by the rules, not just monopolies.
Re: (Score:2)
Their claim is that Apple has a monopoly on their own platform.
No. Just like the claim against Microsoft wasn't that they had a monopoly on their own platform. The claim here is the anti-competitive tactics employed (and they are inarguably anti-competitive: private APIs, product tying, pre-installation that doesn't allow removal, etc) should be illegal so developers have a level playing field.
No, you are fundamentally mistaken. All of that was a problem because the court ruled that Microsoft had a monopoly on PC operating systems. Apple does not have a monopoly on mobile devices, nor smartphones, nor desktop computers and laptops. The Microsoft case just does not apply since there is no Apple monopoly.
You are mistaken if you believe that only monopolies can be charged with anti-competitive behavior. Everybody is expected to play fair and by the rules, not just monopolies.
And yet in the case against Microsoft establishing the monopoly was a critical part of the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple does have a monopoly of the devices they sell, and thats the point.
Apple does not have control over a commodity (smartphones, computers, apps, etc) nor a service (app stores, cloud services, etc). They are merely one of various participants in all these markets. An important participant but not one controlling the market. The court findings of facts in the Microsoft case show numerous areas where the comparison against Apple fails. For example there is no lack of similar alternative apps on other platforms. Not only do similar apps exist between iOS and Android and between
Re: (Score:2)
This is particularly cogent to the discussion at hand, where one is trying to say that Apple's App Store, and Google Play belong in the same market.
Microsoft was specifically busted for monopolizing (and attempting to monopolize) the Intel x86 operating systems market.
You'll note how specific that is.
The App Store is a market in of itself.
There has been a growing belief for a
Re: (Score:2)
To the contrary, as I recall, Microsoft being an outright monopoly hinged upon Apple's Mac ecosystem being *a different market*.
You recall absolutely wrong. Microsoft was ruled to have a monopoly because MacOS had only a small market share in the relevant market, with Windows having 90 percent.
Re: (Score:2)
From the Justice Department filing.
MacOS had *no* share in the relevant market, because the relevant market was Intel x86 Operating Systems.
Sorry, I looked it up. I did not recall wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
the relevant market was Intel x86 Operating Systems.
On what basis was this determined to be the relevant market? And why is hardware platform not the relevant market in the case of smartphones, which are deliberately cryptographically locked to run one operating system, or for smartphone operating systems, which are deliberately cryptographically locked to run on one brand of phone?
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly, I was pointing out that the "other platforms" didn't matter for Microsoft, with regard to drnb's claim.
The market was confined to Intel x86 Operating Systems.
I do agree with you that smartphones aren't directly analogous, being locked down by design.
However, being that Macs being considered a separate market in the Microsoft filings would be worr
Re: (Score:2)
Search for Non-Intel-Compatible PC Operating Systems [justice.gov]
For example, users of Intel- compatible PC operating systems would not switch in large numbers to the Mac OS in response to even a substantial, sustained increase in the price of an Intel-compatible PC operating system.
and
Furthermore, consumer demand for Apple PC systems suffers on account of the relative dearth of applications written to run on the Mac OS. It is unlikely, then, that a firm controlling the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating systems would lose so many new PC users to Apple as the result of a substantial, enduring price increase as to make the action unprofitable. It is therefore proper to define a relevant market that excludes the Mac OS.
It seems the market was defined based upon how realistic it was to assume that people could respond to bad behavior by switching.
It seems to me that puts Apple in dangerous territory, as Apple and Google fit perfectly into the findings of fact, regardless of their relative market share (which wasn't considered in the court filing either- though they did mention that it wouldn't have changed things, even if they did, as Microso
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you stupid, or do you have a reading problem? If it's the latter, I'll go easier on you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You continue to respond with vacuous claims of it saying something else... somewhere... somehow... in some way that requires your own special understanding.
Seriously- you're very convincing.
Re: (Score:2)
I've already given lists proving this claim to be outright false.
I've already given lists proving this claim to be outright false.
Not really. You fail to address the lack of equivalent applications, the barriers to switching for users, the economic non-viability of the alternative OS platforms for developers, and various other issues that make the iOS/Android situation different than the Windows/MacOS/OS2 situation. All topics discussed in the court findings.
Re: (Score:2)
"Apple does not license the Mac OS separately from its PC hardware, however, and the package of hardware and software comprising an Apple PC system is priced substantially higher than the average price of an Intel- compatible PC system. Furthermore, consumer demand for Apple PC systems suffers on account of the relative dearth of applications written to run on the Mac OS. It
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps English isn't your first language?
Let's go over the bullet points.
A) "Apple does not license the Mac OS separately from its PC hardware, however, and the package of hardware and software comprising an Apple PC system is priced substantially higher than the average price of an Intel- compatible PC system." Check.
B) "Furthermore, consumer demand for Apple PC systems suffers on account of the relative dearth of applications written to run on
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to suffer from a reading comprehension problem.
LOL. Those points were the courts arguments as to why developing for platforms other than windows was not economically viable. Specifically that Mac OS was much more expensive than Windows and therefore limited to a smaller share of the market. That is where the comparison to Android fails. Android being the lower costs solution like Windows, iOS the pricier solution like Mac OS, and unlike Mac OS back then Android having a larger share of the market and being quite viable for developers to target, unlike
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. Those points were the courts arguments as to why developing for platforms other than windows was not economically viable.
No, they were not.
"Thus, for consumers who already own an Intel-compatible PC system, the cost of switching to a non-Intel compatible PC operating system includes the price of not only a new operating system, but also a new PC and new peripheral devices. It also includes the effort of learning to use the new system, the cost of acquiring a new set of compatible applications, and the work of replacing files and documents that were associated with the old applications. Very few consumers would incur these c
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, you can't even follow the legal terms in play here, so I'm not sure you're a good source on what is an erroneous interpretation or not. You should probably start with learning what a relative market is.
Oh I follow the terms just fine. As I said before you need to keep reading. The court considered Apple and Mac OS beyond the relative market. Note: "regardless of whether the Mac OS is regarded as being in the relevant market or not".
"The inability of Apple to compete effectively with Windows provides another example of the applications barrier to entry in operation. Although Apple's Mac OS supports more than 12,000 applications, even an inventory of that magnitude is not sufficient to enable Apple to pr
Re: (Score:2)
The court considered Apple and Mac OS beyond the relative market.
The relative market is what determines monopoly or not.
If the App Store includes Google Play in its relative market, then Apple is not a monopoly.
If the App Store does not include Google Play in its relative market, then Apple is a monopoly.
Since the relative market is defined as being any market of interchangeable goods for which there is not a large barrier between changing, Apple is in legal jeopardy of being a monopoly. It all hinges upon whether or not the cost of switching ecosystems is considered
Re: (Score:2)
Since the relative market is defined as being any market of interchangeable goods for which there is not a large barrier between changing, Apple is in legal jeopardy of being a monopoly. It all hinges upon whether or not the cost of switching ecosystems is considered a large enough barrier. The court findings in US v Microsoft indicate that they will be.
You are mistaken. Keep reading the court findings. You will find that the barriers the findings describe between Windows and MacOS/OS2/etc back in the day were far more severe than the barriers between iOS and Android. The finding describe the near impossibility of switching from Windows back then while today people routinely switch between iOS and Android with only relatively minor inconvenience. The court findings show this with respect to the consumer perspective, the developer perspective, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The finding describe the near impossibility of switching from Windows back then while today people routinely switch between iOS and Android with only relatively minor inconvenience.
2 things. A major inconvenience isn't required. That there was one is not relevant. I already tried to point this out to you.
Second, you are not the determining factor of what inconvenience is inconvenient or not. Being the price of PCs was listed as one of the barriers to switching (remember- *any* barrier that is too steep to prevent monopolization of a market is a defining barrier of that market. What this means, is that if the court determines that not enough people would switch due to a commission pri
Re: (Score:2)
The finding describe the near impossibility of switching from Windows back then while today people routinely switch between iOS and Android with only relatively minor inconvenience.
2 things. A major inconvenience isn't required. That there was one is not relevant.
You misunderstand. That the inconvenience is minor speaks to the cost of switching being low.
Second, you are not the determining factor of what inconvenience is inconvenient or not. Being the price of PCs was listed as one of the barriers to switching
No. The price difference between a Mac and a PC was the barrier. Macs being inherently more expensive. In contrast Android based phones are at most comparable in price to iPhones, and some would argue that Android phones are less expensive. But for the sake of argument lets say they are comparable. The price is therefore not a barrier. Whether you choose iPhone or Android at upgrade time the device is costing you ab
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You just keep making the same fallacious argument. Like I said, your head is impervious to knowledge. And again, I'll suggest you learn about relevant markets and their determining litmus tests.
Sorry but you are projecting. The reality of the findings of facts is there is not a "litmus test", there is not a "checkbox". Its not a binary decision, it is an analog decision. The severity of the cost is an important consideration. That is where so many of your so-called points fail, where a severe cost existed in the Windows vs MacOS/OS2 case only a minor cost is found in the iOS vs Android case. A minor cost in both direction as many people switch Android to iOS and iOS to Android. Just as people expe
Re: (Score:2)
In Apple v. Pepper, the Supreme Court argued that plaintiffs had the right to sue Apple under the Clayton Antitrust Act.
Plaintiffs had the right to sue, but lost their case.
Anyone can _claim_ that Apple has a monopoly, that doesn't mean they have one. Not everyone can _sue_ Apple for having a monopoly, but only someone who would be damaged if indeed Apple _had_ a monopoly. Apple v. Pepper decided that customers could be damaged by a monopoly and therefore had the right to sue - but it turned out that Apple didn't have a monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
Plaintiffs had the right to sue, but lost their case.
You're a liar. The case is ongoing as 4:11-cv-06714 in the District Court N.D. California.
Anyone can _claim_ that Apple has a monopoly, that doesn't mean they have one.
It's not quite that easy.
I can tell you don't know what you're talking about, so I'll fill you in.
Apple v. Pepper determined that the plaintiffs had the right to sue, because the Illinois Brick doctrine disallowed suing an alleged monopolistic retailer unless you were a direct consumer.
Apple's argument for not being a monopolistic retailer was hinged upon the idea that they were not the retailer- they were merely a
Re: (Score:2)
while the court did not rule on whether or not Apple was a monopolistic retailer, their ruling leaves little way for Apple *not* to be found to be a monopolistic retailer
That is simply not true. The MS findings of facts relied heavily upon a lack of substitutes for applications found on WIndows. There is no such gross disparity between iOS and Android, only a minor disparity. That too is a defense that Apple may use. As well others.
Re: (Score:2)
The MS findings of facts relied heavily upon a lack of substitutes for applications found on WIndows.
Two points.
First, that was *1* of a large list of problems.
Two, that isn't even relevant, since for the "App Store" to be a relevant market, there merely needs to be a reasonable barrier to switching. Good luck arguing that there isn't.
The argument about count of applications was merely a reason given for the barrier of switching.
Nowhere in the Clayton Antitrust Act does it specify that your reason for not switching has to be because of some specific situation. It merely needs to be there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Today the barrier to switching between iOS and Android is entirely practical, many people do it every day. It is merely an annoying inconvenience today, as opposed to rarely doable at all.
Not remotely-
It requires the purchase of a rather expensive piece of hardware to be anywhere approaching parity.
To be in the same "relative market", one must be willing to switch over to an Android device over Apple's 30% markup. If a court does not find that people are willing to do that- then Google Play and the App Store will not be found to be in the same relative market.
Re: (Score:2)
Today the barrier to switching between iOS and Android is entirely practical, many people do it every day. It is merely an annoying inconvenience today, as opposed to rarely doable at all.
Not remotely- It requires the purchase of a rather expensive piece of hardware to be anywhere approaching parity. To be in the same "relative market", one must be willing to switch over to an Android device over Apple's 30% markup. If a court does not find that people are willing to do that- then Google Play and the App Store will not be found to be in the same relative market.
Nope. That piece of hardware they have to purchase is often at a time of a regularly scheduled upgrade. They were getting a new device regardless of whether they stayed with their existing platform or switched platforms. The comparison to that old Microsoft era fails because while computer upgrades also occurred and they were a time to consider platform changes, the lack of apps on the alternatives to Windows pretty much decided the issue. The switch was just plain undoable back then, unlike today's mere in
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. That piece of hardware they have to purchase is often at a time of a regularly scheduled upgrade.
That is going to be your argument in front of a Judge?
Congratulations, you just lost. lol.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. That piece of hardware they have to purchase is often at a time of a regularly scheduled upgrade.
That is going to be your argument in front of a Judge? Congratulations, you just lost. lol.
I'm not making the argument to a judge. I'm making the argument to a random person on the internet that is pretending the consumer is not buying a new piece of hardware whatever choice they make. A new iPhone if they decide to stay with iOS, or a new Android phone if the decide to switch. Something that happens in the real world all the time with only minor inconvenience.
Re: (Score:2)
Something that happens in the real world all the time with only minor inconvenience.
Sorry, chief.
Having to switch ecosystems is a huge red mark in determination of relevant markets.
Being one has to re-buy all of their apps and new hardware? Na. You're a fucking dipshit. You know you're wrong at this point, you just can't give up.
Re: (Score:2)
Something that happens in the real world all the time with only minor inconvenience.
Sorry, chief. Having to switch ecosystems is a huge red mark in determination of relevant markets.
Nope, the court findings of facts examines the difficulty of switching, not merely if switching occurs. A single market, the smartphone market, can contain multiple ecosystems. Just as the console video game market contains multiple ecosystems.
Being one has to re-buy all of their apps and new hardware?
Again, the switches generally occur when people were buying new hardware regardless of whether they stayed or switched. Staying or switching merely changes whether the new hardware is from the current ecosystem or the other ecosystem. Plus a market does not require in
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, the court findings of facts examines the difficulty of switching, not merely if switching occurs. A single market, the smartphone market, can contain multiple ecosystems. Just as the console video game market contains multiple ecosystems.
I never said *merely*.
You're reframing arguments because you know you've lost.
The difficulty of the switch isn't even what's relevant, directly.
Technically speaking, it's as simple as this:
If the barrier to switching is enough that it does not stop Apple from monopolizing their market, then the barrer separates relevant markets.
This means, if the court believes that Apple can charge an arbitrary commission and get away with it without a significant amount of people switching to Android, then Android wi
Re: (Score:2)
If the barrier to switching is enough that it does not stop Apple from monopolizing their market, then the barrer separates relevant markets.
Which is not the case given the relative ease of switching between iOS and Android.
This means, if the court believes that Apple can charge an arbitrary commission and get away with it without a significant amount of people switching to Android, then Android will not be in Apple's relevant market. I'm pretty sure we all know that's the case, since they're already charging 30%.
That is your opinion. What the court used to determine a relevant market in the MS case is the severity of the cost switching between platforms. Note that your logic also fails given that Android charges that same 30% fee, both ecosystems have the same cost.
Re: (Score:2)
That is your opinion. What the court used to determine a relevant market in the MS case is the severity of the cost switching between platforms. Note that your logic also fails given that Android charges that same 30% fee, both ecosystems have the same cost.
Oh, I think you'll find it's more than just my opinion.
And my logic doesn't fail to account for that- I suspect that Google will get hit with this action as well.
It's only a matter of time. They're operating markets and trying to pretend like they're not. Apple v. Pepper showed the Judges in no way bought their horse shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple v. Pepper showed the Judges in no way bought their horse shit.
Apple v. Pepper only addressed standing, whether the buyers could sue Apple. That is something quite different than the court somehow embracing the idea that Apple is monopolistic. That was simply Apple trying to avoid even having the argument over monopoly come up.
Re: (Score:2)
To the contrary, as I recall, Microsoft being an outright monopoly hinged upon Apple's Mac ecosystem being *a different market*.
There is no need to recall. I provided a link to the court findings of fact. In it you will find numerous references to macOS.
In Apple v. Pepper, the Supreme Court argued that plaintiffs had the right to sue Apple under the Clayton Antitrust Act. Though the decision was not on the merit of whether or not Apple *was* a monopolistic retailer, the fact that the Illinois Brick Doctrine was found in favor of the plaintiffs is a strong indication that Apple will lose any suit where the merit of whether or not they are a monopolistic retailer *is* considered.
The ability to sue is quite liberal and the Brick Doctrine merely addresses a person's standing to sue, ie their ability to sue.
Epic should make a new Unreal Tournament game (Score:3)
...instead of being distracted by this stunt.
Unreal Engine 5 is just waiting for an FPS to show off it's capabilities.
It's a bit off topic but... (Score:1)
isnt it all just a publicity stunt? (Score:1)
Epic could surely not have imagined they would get legal backing for what happened, it seems pretty obvious. This is more like another soap box on which they can elevate their message and potentially get some public backing for the cause. I think they have succeeded in getting the message out there with regards the existing app store policies. The more we talk about this the more it will just seem silly that apple can insist on taking 30% of every in-app transaction. Or at least that's the long term plan.
Re: isnt it all just a publicity stunt? (Score:1)
Why is it only silly that Apple is doing this, vs Google, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Samsung...
Re: (Score:2)
Given the alternative rates that get charged for a payment processing service I think it's pretty silly across the board, but looks like Epic are only choosing to go after the mobile market for now. I guess that it's a proof of concept to get the conversation going and in the public awareness.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So what exactly are they paying for that earns apple a 30% cut?
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it only silly that Apple is doing this, vs Google, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Samsung...
Epic is taking Google to court as well, it's just less published. As far as the others go, Epic makes less money from the AppStore than from other stores (I heard only 12% of their income), so worst case they lose 12% of their income, and winning would get them strong ammunition against the others. I have no idea how much they make elsewhere, but suing Sony or Nintendo might be a bigger financial risk.
I don't want an alternative App Store (Score:5, Insightful)
Epic has said they want alternative app stores on iOS, on Android they even made their own installer which had huge security problems. If alternative app stores did exist on iOS, developers would switch to them to avoid Apple's rules. There would be security problems, bad privacy practices, scams, etc, with no enforcement. Eventually, major apps like Facebook would switch to an alternative app store to avoid Apple's rules.
Epic has specifically demonstrated their opposition to rules that I like. Their "Coalition for App Fairness" says "Every developer should always have the right to communicate directly with its users through its app for legitimate business purposes." This is obviously targeted at restrictions like requiring opt-outs for marketing push notifications and the system-wide setting to disable review nags.
Apple's rules are a significant portion of the value I derive from their products. I hope Epic loses, badly.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, apps still nag me to rate in my old iPhone 6+ (iOS v12.4.8). :(
Re:I don't want an alternative App Store (Score:5, Informative)
They're enabled by default, prompts for ratings that bypass this setting violate the App Store rules. Enforcement isn't perfect, but the number of ratings request I get has dropped massively since the feature came out (and I never get prompted more than once), and you can always report violators.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, I see these prompts once in a while but still annoying enough like in YouVersion's Bible app. Where do I report?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't want an alternative App Store (Score:5, Interesting)
It's interesting to note that when Epic was doing this experiment, 50% of users still chose the more expensive Apple payment option. They could've all chosen the cheap option, but in the end refused.
Whether it's because they didn't want to give up their payment information to yet another company, or they don't trust Epic, it's seems hard to justify paying $2 more for the convenience of just buying the V-Bucks by using your fingerprint.
Or maybe it's because Apple makes it easier to cut people off? I mean, if Epic decides to bill everyone monthly for they V-Bucks, it's a lot harder to get it back from Epic, whereas you can block it easily on Apple, or even just give Apple a call and have them reverse it. Or when you block it, you're just flipping a toggle on the screen and won't be sent through endless loops of Retention offers and impossible to click "Yes I want to cancel" links in black on black text. If Apple needed to do anything, they need to fix their settings dialog to make these things even more obvious to find.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe it's because Apple makes it easier to cut people off? I mean, if Epic decides to bill everyone monthly for they V-Bucks, it's a lot harder to get it back from Epic
Not really. You just reverse the CC charge, and then Epic gets dinged, especially if a lot of people do it. This gives them incentive to be honest. But if you issue a chargeback against someone who is in charge of your access to lots of content or even your devices themselves, like Apple or Google (or even, say, Steam) then you risk losing access to all of those assets at least temporarily while they sort out whether they want you as a customer. That makes it a lot HARDER to get your money back from Apple,
Re: I don't want an alternative App Store (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
I mean shit, you were free to use Linux or MacOS 9 in 1999, but everyone knew that was a red herring.
At that time Apple fostered their 'trained monkey' flavor of Linux that would boot on Macs. But if you wanted to run an open source OS that was OS all the way down, like NetBSD, you had to boot it through a little stub of MacOS that ran like a launcher.
That is still true. You can't native boot NetBSD on an SE/30.
Re:Worse than Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet, what do people say in Apple's defense? Literally the same shit that shills said about Microsoft, with a little extra dash of "uh hey there's competition." I mean shit, you were free to use Linux or MacOS 9 in 1999, but everyone knew that was a red herring.
It was a red herring because MacOS and Linux combined maybe added up to 3% of the PC market.
Apple has what, 50% of the smartphone market in the US and 25% internationally?
Sorry, the red herring here is the comparison to Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
How much of the revenue and profits generated by app sales does Apple collect, across ecosystems?
Just looking at devices is a bit misleading, Apple is the giant that you can't get around when you want to make money through apps.
Re: (Score:2)
How much of the revenue and profits generated by app sales does Apple collect, across ecosystems? Just looking at devices is a bit misleading, Apple is the giant that you can't get around when you want to make money through apps.
The comparison to Microsoft still fails. In the Microsoft case the competition represented so small of a market that it was not economically viable to target anything other than Windows (see court findings of facts). However Android, despite lower revenue per user numbers, is still sufficient large (about 50% in the US and 75% internationally) that is represents an economically viable platform for developers.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. apple worshipper are so quick to throw around apple profit numbers when market share doesn't fit the lies they are trying to tell.
The comparison with the Microsoft case fails because the court finding of facts said that in the Windows case Mac OS, OS/2 and others represented such a small part of the market that they were not economically viable to develop for by most developers. Today Android is an economically viable market for developers, hence we have one of various points where the comparison fails.
Re: (Score:2)