I hope Epic succeeds. Apple has managed to create a virtual ecosystem and they have absolute control over it. Yes, they did it by creating a great product at the right time (at the rise of much improved telecommunications technology). With a combination of HW, OS and digital store they created more than just a product, they have created a platform. Based on that platform, with a big contribution from third party developers, a virtual ecosystem has grown. Today, true value is in this whole ecosystem. And that is the point. Third party developers combined have probably contributed more man-hours/resources than Apple alone to increase the value of this ecosystem. Why should Apple have a total control of this ecosystem when they created only a part of it?
Take away the apps/services not created by Apple and the value of the platform drops considerably. Whole market is in a big catch 22 position. It is nearly impossible to compete and create a new smartphone platform, because even if a new player creates superior products compared to Apple, they don't have all the apps. They can't create the whole ecosystem by themselves, as the costs would be insane. Software developers also don't have much choice. There are two platforms that control all the market share. They have to accept the rules given to them or leave the industry (one they helped create).
Saying things like that every developer agrees to the App Store rules before releasing their applications is a major oversimplification of a complex situation. Apple can change the rules and they might not be the same at the time when developer makes an major investment to develop an app and when they release it. And rules might change again after they release it.
Apple did not create this whole virtual ecosystem, just the platform on which it is build upon. And this ecosystem has outgrown Apple. It's got so big, that Apple's contribution is only a part of it. Apple has been generously repaid for their efforts, and will continue to be so in the future. But maybe they shouldn't have a complete control over a virtual ecosystem this big, where their investments no longer represent the majority of it's value.
> Software developers also don't have much choice. There are two platforms that control all the market share. They have to accept the rules given to them or leave the industry (one they helped create).
To put this in perspective consider these stats.
In the US, iOS has 52.4% of the mobile OS market[1], and Android has 47%.
In the US, Apple's App Store is responsible for the majority of mobile app sales[2], and has 3 times the revenue of Google's Play Store.
It would be great for developers and users if there were real competition in app distribution. That way people can decide if the 30% fee is truly worth it compared to the competition that might be more efficient or offer more value, or that might charge less.
Correlation does not imply causation. If you consider Epic, they take only what was it, 18% of the sale. But they're not allowed to compete on Apple's platform...
You realize how your argument could apply to any monopoly right? They were able to get 100%, they have to provide significant value to reach that ;). Sadly it's more complicated than the size of their market.
I think people don't understand the perspective here because it's being normalized by all the big players.
To make it simpler to understand, apply this system to your computer. What if you couldn't install what you wanted and everything would have to go through a protected store? If the platform dislikes your app, they could just remove it from the store and no one could get it.
It adds a huge gate in front of the hardware that YOU paid for. You're essentially getting milked from both sides which is terrific for Apple, awful for the consumer.
Related point maybe worth bringing up, imagine if Windows had complete control over the distribution of videogames when the industry was in its infancy? Would we ever have gotten some of the more controversial games at the time that have become genre defining like Doom or Wolfenstein? And would we be better off if all game studios would have to pay 30% to Microsoft?
It's ridiculous. We grew up with the (relative, before someone starts a gnu/linux rant) freedom to install on our PCs what we wanted, why do kids today not deserve the same thing?
One huge subterranean component of this that we don't talk about -- we have overengineered platforms.
In the pre-90s, you bashed things out of the same primatives everyone else had access to.
Now, even getting a simple app up and running on Android or iOS requires abstraction-on-abstraction-on-boilerplate. And you still don't know what the lower layers are doing. And making it runnable requires a developer account, etc.
Are we surprised these days that kids (and everyone else) don't see "writing an app" as something they can just try?
And that the end consequence of that is that they don't value the ability to do so?
We've engineered our platforms to look like the companies that produced them: highly optimized, but simultaneously bloated and overly complex.
> Now, even getting a simple app up and running on Android or iOS requires abstraction-on-abstraction-on-boilerplate. And you still don't know what the lower layers are doing.
And there's plenty of people ready to write theses abstraction in the open source world.
> Are we surprised these days that kids (and everyone else) don't see "writing an app" as something they can just try?
It's just as easy and I see just as many kids trying than before. There's millions apps on the
> And making it runnable requires a developer account, etc.
Sure that's definitely not an artificial barrier added to control what gets made... You don't need one to develop on Android by the way ;), nor do you need one on Windows... Linux... Mac... well actually only iOS come to minds, any other?
> And that the end consequence of that is that they don't value the ability to do so?
The consumer aren't aware of that, most of them doesn't want to makes apps, most of them doesn't know the barrier added actually affect their ability to access content.
The problem is not that your premise is too complicated for others to understand, it's that the 'walled garden' is a trade-off which people disagree about.
Walled gardens are safer, and usually have some implicit or explicit quality guarantee (like the Nintendo seal of quality).
Open platforms allow for more flexibility and innovation by new entrants.
On top of this disagreement, we have the meta-issue of whether business model innovation should be allowed; the USA generally permits new business models, whereas European governments are more restrictive.
> Walled gardens are safer, and usually have some implicit or explicit quality guarantee (like the Nintendo seal of quality).
And consumers who want to limit themselves to the safety of Apple's app store are free to do so. But Apple goes a step beyond this, and prevents consumers who don't want to be locked-in this way, from using "unauthorized" stores or apps.
It's false to claim that the only way to offer safety is to take away user freedom.
Freedom and computer security are in fundamental opposition. It’s the same basic question as GC vs manual memory management.
The only way to offer safety on a platform is to secure that platform. If Apple disables the API’s which lets apps access users contacts then they can be sure 3rd party iOS stores don’t compromise user’s privacy. If they allow API access and don’t vet stores then guess what that directly means breaches will occur.
PS: If you disagree try and come up with some supporting argument.
> PS: If you disagree try and come up with some supporting argument.
I downvoted you rather than giving you an argument. Here's why:
You've edited your post at least four times. Three of those times was when I was trying to offer a counter-argument. The problem was, you kept changing yours. I'm honestly not sure what you believe, both because you changed it so many times, but also because you haven't defined your terms (e.g.whose freedom?). Finally, you make some bold claims, but you don't really support those claims with anything I find credible.
In any case, the 'security' argument (and the associated 'reputation' argument you made in one your iterations) rings particularly hollow with me since Apple itself has already had—for decades—great success with a platform that is reasonably secure and relatively free compared to iOS: the Mac.
Objectively Mac OS has had more serious security issues than iOS, so at most you can say the trade off is worth it to you not that doesn’t exist.
As to freedom, that was specifically used by the post I was responding to. But, if you’re unsure, consider it in terms of raw assembler vs python. Raw assembler allows more freedom, but that freedom comes at a clear cost.
PS: And yes I edited to specific wording a few times for clarity. That’s a holdover from the days when hacker news would eat comments that where being edited for to long. Reputation is a major concern for Apple as a business, but outside of the scope of this discussion.
> Freedom and computer security are in fundamental opposition.
Only if you interpret "freedom" as "freedom for apps" instead of "freedom for the user". None of what you said precludes the user (I won't say "owner") being able to override Apple, or take Apple's place in deciding what their device may do.
In your mind, is a platform only "secure" when ultimate control is with the manufacturer, and not the user?
How much more "secure" were Apple's users in Hong Kong, after Apple decided to disable the app they were using to track the police?
> ultimate control is with the manufacture, and not the user.
There are a host of ways of describing computer security, but in my mind the most fundamental idea is minimizing the amount of surprises a user faces. A brick might not be a useful stake knife, but it’s secure. Anyone can want more features, but features aren’t security.
If someone goes to a knitting blog they don’t expect it to have access to their exact location via GPS, phone contacts, social security number, bank routing number etc. As such for users to have meaningful control it’s generally 3rd parties not manufactures or users that security needs to deal with. If you want to use online banking you need to trust the device to not be sharing login information with random other apps you happen to have installed, that’s incompatible with allowing such random apps to connect with your bank account.
PS: Hong Kong users benefited from having devices not compromised by the CCP, that’s what I am referring to. Clearly more app stores would let various other apps in, but how may of them would have actually been compromised?
What’s your specific objection here? Is it somehow not acting as you assumed it would when you bought it, because that’s what surprise means not simply being annoyed with someone’s business model.
Shouldn't the user get to decide whether an app gets access to the contacts API? I should not have to trust that apple is right in saying whether I want an app to have that access.
Microsoft went down that path with Windows Vista, users want very high level permissions, which thus end up being all or nothing.
App stores on the other hand can actually differentiate between an app that only accesses contacts locally, and one that uploads that information etc. That’s not to say Apple actually does this diligently, but it’s at least possible.
Really it’s a question of deceptive apps. Suppose someone makes a AI based photo manipulation app which reasonably asks for permissions to your photos. And then quietly does a facial recognition search or just tried to find and uploaded nude photos without notifying users. You can catch that crap with human reviewers not so much permissions and automated systems.
That's not a particularly compelling argument to me. I'd rather see direct comparisons made. Do gaming platforms require a 30% cut of all sales on the platform, including subscriptions? Do they forbid applications from discussing other subscription options? Etc.
I'd say the GP isn't really playing devil's advocate, because he hasn't shown the comparison is apt nor that if it is apt, the gaming platforms aren't also a problem for consumers.
The 30% 'platform tax' originated with Nintendo. It included the cost of cartridge manufacturing, but nowadays, 'everyone' (Apple, Google, Nintendo, Sony, Valve, Microsoft) takes it. [1]
I have no idea how their pricing models differ regarding in app purchases, subscription, etc, and feel disinclined to investigate for a one-off comment...
Well in some cases there are tax implications. No clue whether it's the case here, but by example in the EU, a 'Computer' has different import duties/etc compared to a 'Game Console' (there was some speculation that the PS3's 'Other OS' mode was an attempt to get that better classification.)
So my question would be whether there are tax implications.
Software is software. What it does isn't the point here. If Apple's use of the Apple store is illegal, so are all the game consoles and they'll be forced to allow people to run any apps they want on them and have competitor app stores.
Sidestepping the whole apple/freedom/consistency argument, are consoles actually good for consumers?
Consoles are fundamentally locked down, as the platform-holder (Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony) sell the console at a loss to drop the market price (impossible for commodity hardware that can be used for other purposes), then recoup their money by taking a fee from every copy of every game sold for their console.
This used to make sense because consoles used to be unique specially-designed hardware that kind of necessitated purpose-designed codebases, but nowadays consoles don't really have a difference compared to commodity PCs. In fact, the latest generation moved to x86 specifically so that they would be more similar to PCs! That was for the sake of letting devs use PC dev tools and it, but IMO there wouldn't be much loss if the consoles were actually 100% compatible OOTB with normal PC applications.
The main reason consoles exist with broken compatibility is:
1. Simpler, potentially more reliable purchasing experience (there's only 1-3 hardware devices that can run your console game, thereby sidestepping the paradox of choice)
2. Social-network lock-in (bad for consumers IMO)
3. Slightly lower upfront costs. Except that's basically not true, it only applies for a specific arbitrary standard of minimum graphical fidelity. A Raspberry Pi will always be cheaper, and a cheap x86 PC should be able to run 2010 games just fine. Batman: Arkham Asylum was from 2009, and is no slouch in terms of graphics. Arguably, consoles are better upfront value for money.
4. Potentially simpler dev target - only one configuration, means QA is easier.
5. Exclusives. In theory it gives devs the chance to make something they wouldn't have made otherwise, or gives them the chance to develop the game specifically around the one hardware architecture, but I'm not convinced either of these are real problems.
6. This isn't related to compatibility but debatably consoles have a better UI than HTPCs. Also, being gamepad-only means you don't get rekt when joining a lobby with KB+M players in FPSes.
Personally, I don't think so. There's more analysis to be done but I'm ending this comment here.
+1 this. Just because we are used to specific business model with gaming consoles, it doesn't mean that it's the only one available or even that it is the best one.
What would happen if game consoles would need to open up? Price of consoles would go up and price of games would come down. Net result for the consumer wouldn't be that much different. Of course, the whole dynamics of game consoles business would change much more than this simplified example, but all in all it probably wouldn't be worse, just different.
However, there isn't just an option to completely eliminate walled gardens. There are many possibilities, like limiting what rules are legal, or requiring that equal rules/fees apply to all developers, or limiting max fees, or allowing small fee to be charged even if official store is not used, or requirement that all apps that are available via 3rd party stores are also available on the official store and that base price is the same (markup being the only variable)... I think platform creator should still be acknowledged in some way, just not by having a complete and total control over the platform.
If we take away the whole 30% store fees, the dev's revenues jump by ~43%. For example, instead of earning $100m, same developer would earn $143m. With 30% fees, if a game developer earns 100m revenue, store owner gets 43m.
I mentioned this in another comment, but I don’t really think of my interactions with my smartphone as the same as my computer. I might do some similar things with both, but I think I treat a phone much more like an appliance these days.
Because of that, I find I still purchase iPhones, but never Apple computers anymore.
> Based on that platform, with a big contribution from third party developers, a virtual ecosystem has grown. Today, true value is in this whole ecosystem. And that is the point. Third party developers combined have probably contributed more man-hours/resources than Apple alone to increase the value of this ecosystem. Why should Apple have a total control of this ecosystem when they created only a part of it?
This sounds like a point that would come up often in critiques of capitalism.
> Software developers also don't have much choice. There are two platforms that control all the market share. They have to accept the rules given to them or leave the industry (one they helped create).
This is very true. Microsoft tried to turn the Apple/Google smartphone duopoly into a... triopoly? (Is that even a word?)
> this ecosystem has outgrown Apple. It's got so big, that Apple's contribution is only a part of it.
I feel like apart from 2-3 clients for other web services (eg: Twitter, Slack, etc.) I rarely purchase or download any apps. The last time I can remember installing one was the contact tracing app for where I live.
I think I use the iPhone more as an appliance than a general-purpose computer. If I wanted the latter, I’d buy something else.
You'd buy an android phone. Android phones remain general purpose computers - you can write software that runs on the device, using nothing but the device (and a tool like AIDE, which is on the Play store, and a website you can install it from).
Android has been slowly locking things up. As just one example, checkout the top comment on this thread about an Android terminal app. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24979258
There should be a Nobel Prize for lawyers- awarded for the most ridiculous tortured or absurd legal arguments made with a straight face - maybe name it the Cochran prize in honor of the Chewbacca defense.
I once read about a lawyer who argued that a person's name could not be used in court because they first heard their own name from someone else, thus it was hearsay. I'm probably butchering the hilarious story, but if anyone knows what I'm talking about, I'd hugely appreciate a name I can look up or more info on it.
Maybe you’re thinking of the frivolous legal tactic of sovereign citizens to assert that when their name appears in all caps in court documents, it does not refer to themselves.
Right. Theft would require Apple had something (like money) already in their possession and Epic took it from them. This isn't what happened here regardless of the stipulations in the contracts between those two parties.
Honestly, I think Apple's in the right here. Every developer agrees to the App Store rules before releasing their applications. Apple created guidelines for their developers and they're simply taking advantage of that in court. Not saying I agree with it, but it doesn't go without reason.
That's not really the core of the argument here. Epic is arguing that Apple's terms themselves (taking a cut of the revenue that's a direct result of Epic's team's efforts with zero options to do anything else) are not fair and should be unenforceable given its market position. Basically, breach of contract is only a valid legal basis when the contract itself is deemed legally acceptable. Ex. you can't force someone to sign a ridiculous contract at gunpoint and then sue them for breach later.
Where you come down on this issue should really be based on whether you think a marketplace cut of revenue with extremely onerous conditions that prevent even minor bypasses should be legal or not when distribution on said marketplace constitutes 50% of the consumer market in the sector (mobile gaming in this case). Whether or not someone previously agreed to the terms is not the issue.
> Where you come down on this issue should really be based on whether you think a marketplace cut of revenue with extremely onerous conditions that prevent even minor bypasses should be legal or not when distribution on said marketplace constitutes 50% of the consumer market in the sector
This is a court case. Not a legislative session.
Where you come down on it should be based on the law. I believe the law should be changed. But based on existing law, it is difficult to find for Epic. Epic's strategy is, in effect, a high-risk lobbying endeavor.
The Sherman Act is pretty general in phraseology[0] -- it is a courts job to determine if that description of forbidden business practices from the year 1890 apply to the specific actions Apple is taking today.
Courts can and do make new laws and undo laws all the time. Whether or not they should is another matter entirely, but it is well within the court's power to reinterpret laws quite liberally.
> Where you come down on it should be based on the law.
The comment that you responded to included facts that would support the idea that Apple's behavior is against the current law.
When they said that " said marketplace constitutes 50% of the consumer market"
This is a reason as for why Apple is breaking the law. It is an argument that Apple has significant market power, and is engaging in anti-competitive actions, which is illegal.
What courts will need to decide is what constitutes a "market."
The arguments against Apple all seem to hinge on the market being "people who own iOS devices," while the argument in favor of Apple all seem to hinge on the market being "people who own a smartphone."
In one of those, Apple is a monopolist. In the other, Apple isn't even the biggest company.
> In the other, Apple isn't even the biggest company.
Actually Apple would be the biggest company, in the market of people who have smartphones in the US. They just recently have a bit over 50% of that market.
Also, Apple does not need to be a literal, singular company for its actions to be illegal. Instead, it only needs to have significant market power. It doesn't even need to have a majority of the market.
> the argument in favor of Apple
Actually, no. Apple is making a much more silly argument that the market should be defined as "Things that can run video games", which can include things such as the XBox.
If the market is instead defined as the % of people who own an apple smartphone, in the US, then Apple is ~50% of that market.
This is my point exactly. What the judge in each case has to determine is how best to define the market. Whether "smartphone owners" or "devices that play videogames" or "App Store users" or "iOS devices" or "computers" or "phones" or any number of other ways. Do you determine it in the US only, or world-wide? (US courts have jurisdiction only here, but can determine a market based on any parameters) Do you determine the majority player based on units, or gross revenue, or profits? Is your primary concern when it comes to damages companies (like Epic) or end users? And so on.
People are blithely making cases here like all of these things are simple, but they're the key to this and all other similar cases, and it's not as clear as people seem to assume. Different judges might decide different things on different days, and none are necessarily wrong... or right!
Although the nitty gritty details of the situation may be complicated, I do think that the high level situation is pretty simple.
IE I am not sure how anyone could look at Apple's control over its market, and its policies, and disagree with the idea that Apple has significant control, and that its policies are anti-competitive.
Regardless over the exact definition of a market that you use, it is quite clear that Apple has pretty significant market power over something and that its actions cause app prices to be significantly higher than they would be otherwise, if they allowed competing app stores.
Yes, but please note how you described it first: "Apple's control over its market." Inasmuch as its Apple's market, its theirs to do with as they please. The question is, is it Apple's market? Or is the market something bigger or smaller, or belong to someone else (iOS users, for example, or smartphone users), in which case their needs should be prioritized.
Personally, I think Apple's too big, and I don't trust them (though my M1 Mac mini should arrive Tuesday nonetheless), and I think the government should act.
That said, antitrust has generally been focused on acquisitions and mergers, which don't seem to be the issue in Apple's case. Apple has genuinely made a product, mostly on their own, that has attracted enough users that it's become a problem. This seems like a radically different issue from other large tech companies, most of which have very large acquisitions that could be--and should be--undone.
And Epic is being disingenuous and inconsistent, and I don't think they're in the right here, either.
As I've said, I think Apple is too big. I hope we can find an argument to use against Apple.
However, I think you are misremembering the MS case. As I recall from the time, a lot of that case hinged on the fact that MS was a software maker, not a hardware maker. So "the market" was defined as "all PCs," and a lot of what got MS in trouble was leveraging their dominant market position with Windows to force PC manufacturer to pay them license fees even for computers that didn't have Windows pre-installed.
Since Apple makes their own hardware, the situation is not really analogous to the big MS case. As far as I can tell, Apple doesn't seem to be leveraging their market position (in any market) to force suppliers to pay Apple even when Apple isn't involved. That is, they aren't demanding any percentage of payment to Epic on non-iOS devices, right? So that's the center of the MS antitrust case with no obvious parallel.
As far as imagining, I think it's really easy to imagine more direct parallels with Epic's case. Sony makes their own gaming hardware and exerts tight control over the PlayStation sales channel, including demanding a large cut of both initial sales and IAP. Microsoft makes their own gaming hardware and exerts tight control over the Xbox sales channel, including demanding a large cut of both initial sales and IAP. One question that has come up in court already is why Epic is fighting against Apple on this, but not Sony or Microsoft. I think it's a good question.
Look, I've said repeatedly: I think Apple is too big. I believe something needs to be done, and maybe the iOS App Store is a good place to start. But I don't think Epic's case is any good at all, and I'm not sure there is a strong case against the iOS App Store other than: "we need to do something, and this annoys me." Which... I guess we just need to make that sound better.
> that MS was a software maker, not a hardware maker.
This doesn't matter. If microsoft built all of the computer hardware in the world, as well, then there is absolutely no way that society would let them engage in anti-competitive practices. Instead, that would be even worse, as it would show microsoft having even more market power.
Take a look at the railroads as a similar example. The railroad companies built their own railroads.
But obviously, even though railroad companies built their own railroads, they still got hit with anti-trust. The railroad companies lost. Building the hardware, or railroads, is not a defense.
> Apple doesn't seem to be leveraging their market position (in any market) to force suppliers to pay Apple even when Apple isn't involved.
Sure they are. Once someone owns a phone, it now belongs to them. It no longer belongs to Apple. Apple is no longer involved in any way, with the hardware that the consumer now owns. That is now Apple getting involved in a different market.
> Sony makes their own gaming hardware
From a high level I would not say that Sony has nearly the same amount of market power as Apple does. Thats why the same arguments don't apply. It has nothing to do with them making hardware.
But, on the other hand, if there were only 1 major game platform, then anti-trust law would absolutely apply. If only xBoxes existed, then they would have significant market power.
> but not Sony or Microsoft. I think it's a good question.
The reason is because Apple has way more market power than the playstation and the xbox. Thats it.
> a strong case against the iOS App Store
The very strong case is that it is very clear that Apple has significant market power. That is the only thing that matters. The only thing that matters, at all, is that Apple clearly has significant market power, and that means that it cannot engage in certain actions.
There is nothing at all in the sherman anti-trust act that says "If you build the hardware entirely, then you can engage in anti-competitive actions".
Please show be the paragraph in that law, that says that. It does not exist. The only thing that matters is market power.
> I think Apple is too big
I don't care about them being big. Instead what I want is for them to not engage in anti competitive practices.
> we need to do something, and this annoys me
What we need to do is end the anti competitive practices, and force apple to allow all major 3rd party app stores to be installed on the iphone.
That is not a vague proscription. It is very specific.
The government needs to force Apple to allow 3rd party app stores in the same way that they forced microsoft to allow people to easily choose a different web browser.
We agree on about 90% here, so I'm not sure why you keep making false statements about verifiable history. The fact is that the MS anti-trust case in the US absolutely did hinge on the fact that MS was a software maker, forcing hardware makers into illegal contracts.
If you want to talk about European antitrust actions against MS, okay, go ahead, but those are not a precedent for the US DOJ.
If you want to talk about a hypothetical reality in which the case against MS went differently, okay, go ahead, but that isn't what happened in the US in real-life history.
You're acting as if your perception of moral right and wrong are somehow winning arguments in court, and that's just not how it works. It's not how any of this works. The letter of the Sherman Antitrust Act would have resulted in so so so many companies broken up, and yet very few have been broken up at all, and rarely along the strict lines of the Act itself. The DOJ will need to make a legal case against Apple, and they'll need to answer Apple's legal arguments in defense, and precedent matters.
Reading the history of the DOJ's case against MS, and how badly that went for the DOJ, would be helpful.
Again, for the third and final time, I think that Apple has too much power. But saying that Sony isn't an antitrust case because MS exists, but Apple is an antitrust case despite Samsung and Google existing, that's not the sort of thing that seems very convincing. Once you get into the weeds on how to measure the market power of various companies, well, in those weeds is where Apple wants the conversation to go, which is literally what I said on my very first comment on this thread. It's still true.
Apple sells a minority of smartphones worldwide and hovers around 50% in the US. That's what makes this a tough case to win. I think they have too much power, and you think they have too much power, but they have a reasonable defense argument that will need to be overcome. It's not clear that a judge, and the majority of an appeals court, will agree.
P.S. Assuming you get past the hurdles and manage to make a case that Apple requires remedies, "allow third-party app stores" has a ton of legal issues as well. This is very different from what MS was required to do in the EU, which itself was seen as beyond what US law could require them to do.
> You're acting as if your perception of moral right and wrong
These are not moral argument, lol. These are legal arguments.
The arguments are, that according to the sherman anti-trust law, what matters is market power. Thats it. That is a legal argument. It has nothing to do with morals.
> The DOJ will need to make a legal case against Apple
Yes, they have to make a legal argument. And the legal things that matter, in an anti-trust case, is market power.
> But saying that Sony isn't an antitrust case
I already told you why this is the case. it is because Apple has way more market power than Sony does. That is a legal argument, not a moral arugment.
But even if we want to say that the same precedent should apply to the playstation or the XBox, well I'm actually ok with that.
A world where anyone could make games for these consoles, doesn't sound to bad too me.
> Apple sells a minority of smartphones worldwide and hovers around 50% in the US
I think that it is pretty clear, that Apple has quite a lot of market power. This is a legal argument, not a moral one. Market power is relevant to anti-trust.
> on the fact that MS was a software maker, forcing hardware makers into illegal contracts.
So then you unironically believe that if Microsoft created every computer in the world, at a hardware level, and owned this multi trillion dollar hardware business entirely, that they would have been allowed to engage in anti-competitive practices? Really?
I understands that microsoft got in trouble for anti-competitive practices in the hardware market. But that does not change that fact that if they owned the entire multi-trillion dollar hardware market, that they absolutely would have been also hit by anti-trust law.
In fact, they would have been hit even harder if they also owned all computer hardware in the world, and were engaging in anti-competitive actions.
its actions cause app prices to be significantly higher than they would be otherwise, if they allowed competing app stores.
I'm not so sure this is true. Historically it's far from true, but this is 2020, not 2010, so there are definitely a few examples now of companies charging more to balance out Apple's fees. That said, Apple essentially created what was decried at the time as a rush-to-zero that made mobile apps free or close to it, in turn driving down the price of many non-mobile games.
Your statement seems to take only one side into consideration, while Apple will be highlighting both sides. If Fortnite in-game currency becomes less expensive, but the average game becomes more expensive, do we win or lose?
> Actually Apple would be the biggest company, in the market of people who have smartphones in the US. They just recently have a bit over 50% of that market.
Is Epic requiring Apple to only open their stores in the US?
Shouldn't we be caring about smart phone app stores though?
From elsewhere in the thread, Apple's app store revenue is 3x Google's and they both charge about the same in fees.
The number of phones or iOS users seems irrelevant to the sales that go through the app store, and that apple is using its position as the app store owner to force app developers to use other apple products like Apple pay
Apple has essentially unlimited resources to perverse the law and that's something that needs to be stopped, whether through tighter legislation or through courts making interpretation of the law in favour of consumers. We shouldn't be supporting a company trying to exploit loopholes to their advantage.
Apple’s case is arguing (at least in part) that no, epic could not have made all of that money if Apple didn’t first put a hundred billion dollars and 10 years worth of investment into iPhone and iOS.
> Apple’s case is arguing (at least in part) that no, epic could not have made all of that money if Apple didn’t first put a hundred billion dollars and 10 years worth of investment into iPhone and iOS.
Given the runaway success on every other available platform, I'm going to have to say that's not true at all. IANAL.
Epic is trying to bring the product to the customers that want it, and if the App Store and iOS hadn't existed but everything else was mostly the same, then those iOS users would simply be using Android or another similar product.
Apple's investment in the platform benefited many (including Google and Android) but in this case Apple doesn't bring anything to Fortnite that other platforms don't. It's just the users Epic is after.
Epic themselves have a distribution method that they've developed quite successfully on every platform except mobile, where they're not even allowed to compete because of the arbitrary restrictions Apple and Google have put in place on software distribution.
I think Apple's argument is incredibly disingenuous.
They should charge Apple for wasting courts time. Imagine someone had legitimate case but had to wait for their turn as Apple clogged the court. Utterly disgusting.
Same. I don’t like Apple’s overreach in the industry, over all, but their apple store service is great, and they should be paid for it. Don’t wanna pay? Don’t go to the store.
I've said this before in previous discussions of this case -
I don't think anyone is arguing that Apple shouldn't have the right to charge companies that take advantage of the products and services that they've built in their store
I think that problem is that Apple is arbitrarily denying the ability for any other company to provide a competing product. How can you honestly evaluate the value proposition of Apple's "great" store, if they've killed all the competition?
You can't. Which is the whole damn point, because Epic HAS a store that I'm sure they'd love to release on iOS but Apple prohibits it.
Basically - Apple is the bully who's now crying foul when the competition is actually trying to enter the game.
From a monetary standpoint, I understand why Apple is doing this. As a developer and distributor of software (my day job), I cannot express clearly enough how much I'd like to see Apple lose this case. As far as I'm concerned, they can fuck right off.
I'm firmly in the "Handle it like MS and IE" camp - I want a court ruling that not only prohibits Apple from stopping competition in their store space, I want a MANDATORY popup on first use that asks the user which store they'd like to use.
The counter argument is that Apple has structured the deal so that you can't avoid the store. Additionally if you're in the store, Apple forbids you from advertising cheaper alternatives to in-app purchases.
So basically if you want to sell on Apple, you must give Apple a 30% of all sales on the platform AND you're not allowed to tell users they can purchase your wares via alternatives.
If I understand correctly the "theft" was for the funds epic received from customers after adding their own payment system to the Fortnite app against Apple's TOS. But didn't Epic discount the subscription and pass most of those savings back to the customer?
So maybe Apple should really be going after the savings all of those customers have.... /s
I find it hard to side with anyone but Apple here. Apple built not only the marketplace but the actual devices themselves. Apple is giving developers a marketplace of users with powerful processors, fast internet connections, and credit cards already connected. Installing an app is easier on a smartphone than any desktop. A big cut is well worth deserved, and the contract terms seem pretty fair. I can't see how Epic wins this one -- not only did they agree to the contract, the contract isn't particularly outrageous, in my mind. Compare it to something like a movie theater. The movie theater gets almost no box-office revenue. Apple lets you keep most of it.
I say this bluntly - You sound like an apple fanboy who has no idea what the current state of software distribution is on most platforms.
That aside - You're missing the forest for the trees.
No one is saying Apple is not providing a service, no one is arguing that they shouldn't be able to charge what they want for that service.
Everyone is saying that it's bullshit that Apple is the only service you can pick if your users are on iOS.
Basically - Why is it fair for apple to arbitrarily prevent the installation of any competing distribution methods?
Because from my perspective - It doesn't matter how great you think Apple's services are, you can't have an honest and informed opinion when they only ever let you see that one walled garden.
Epic is literally in the same market - They have a store, they developed a distribution channel, they paid developers, designers, QA, support, etc. But Apple has said "Nice store you've spent all that money building, such a shame we've decided we won't allow you to use it on an iPhone."
A Nintendo Switch or PlayStation is not the modern equivalent of a PC for much of the population.
If you ignore all context, then yes, an iPhone is exactly the same as a games console.
> it is fair
Is it fair? To the companies or the consumers? These are all huge multinational companies, regulation should err on the side of the end users - not Epic either.
> Their circus, their monkeys.
Your choice of words is perhaps an argument for freedom given how the life a circus monkey is.
So what exactly does Epic want here? To force Apple to sell iOS (with configurable/multiple stores) as separate software that you might install on a separately iOS-less bought iPhone? To force Apple to sell iOS-less/unlocked iPhones?
This lawsuit is like saying that Google should be forced to allow for other browser than Chrome to be used on Chromebook devices. The whole device is a tightly integrated top to bottom solution and when you buy the device you buy the entire solution, not pieces of it. It's not an open system where you buy separate hardware/software components and some of those components aren't playing fair with the others or something.
> This lawsuit is like saying that Google should be forced to allow for other browser than Chrome to be used on Chromebook devices.
Well, yes - obviously, no? If a tech company wants to build a completely closed ecosystem they can fuck off - that includes Epic games. Epic is doing this for their pockets, but the freedom of the end user is only going to continue to be eroded as more and more software moves into the cloud. This isn't like GDPR, the marginal cost to Apple to add a sane way to load what you want on hardware you bought is almost nil.
It would be unreasonable to make Apple sell phones without an operating system, it would not, however, be unreasonable to force them to allow users to have the privilege of even running their own apps at their own risk.
It might not seem fair as a developer, but as an iPhone user, I don't have any problem with all my apps coming from one trusted store. Just compare it to Windows. Apps can still be downloaded in several inconsistent ways, and it's hard to trust applications you download arbitrarily.
So continue to use the Apple store and you have no problems.
App not on the Apple store? Don't use the app. So simple.
---
I bet your first response to that statement isn't positive - Now reflect that this is exactly what Apple is saying to developers. "Don't want to use our store? Don't release on iOS."
Because right now, if you use an application on iOS, you are not a customer of that application. You are an Apple customer who happens to use a product resold by Apple.
Now - I have no problem with you preferring that arrangement, and I'm certainly not suggesting removing the Apple app store. I'm just saying it feels a tad like bullshit. Maybe entirely like bullshit. Actually - Nope, it's just bullshit.
The value of iOS devices being entirely Apple controlled is precisely because it enables Apple to bully developers into behaving. Alternative stores aren’t about user choice; software is in most cases non-fungible. If I need OneNote there is one company that sells it and I must go to a store where it’s offered. Today if Microsoft doesn’t want to follow Apple’s rules they can pound sand and lose out on the whole iOS market. Tomorrow they will just go to another store and user has gained zero choice.
Like it sucks that it takes a trillion dollar company and total control of the platform to get developers to sorta kinda not mistreat their users but the “the individual right to not use bad apps” has done exactly nothing.
My gut reaction to "app not on Apple store" is -- that's life, isn't it? Not every program is available on every store. I can't get Halo on my PlayStation. I can't get certain video editing tools on my PC. I can't get certain productivity software on my Mac.
Disjointed app stores are annoying at worst, but I don't really see why there's any legal problem with that.
Legally, we're clearly still in a grey area for this.
Ethically... I find it fairly immoral to intentionally prohibit users who have bought your product from using it in ways you don't like. Courts also tend to look poorly on this, but there's a narrow path to walk between enforcing interoperability and allowing innovation.
I guess I'd say the concepts "sale" and "ownership" are at stake here. If I buy something, I expect to be able to extend/modify/repair/dismantle that device in any way I choose. I OWN it.
In the physical world, it's nearly impossible to put some sort of non-electronic lock on a device that would prevent the user from doing just that. There's no reasonable way to make a cup that could only hold Sprite.
So that status quo up until the last 70 years or so has been "buy means buy" and you own the thing.
Now we have products with incredibly complicated digital locks, though.
It turns out you can prevent users from putting something other than sprite in their cups with a complicated enough digital enforcement mechanism. The question is "should you be allowed to?".
And that's actually a hard question - The answer depends a lot on how many people need to interoperate with you and your products (your marketshare and possible monopoly status), as well as whether you have a genuine benefit you're providing your consumer by limiting that cup to just Sprite.
So legally speaking, Keurig just settled a case about this exact issue (they're out 31 million, btw). This is not nearly as "problem free" as you so clearly want it to be.
I do think there’s a bit of absurdity to this, though. I have a smart fridge. Is LG unethical for not letting me run Android apps on the little LCD? I have a right to that, don’t I?
The answer seems to become, I own the fridge, I can change it how I want, it I can figure out how, I can put whatever software I want on it.
Same with an iPhone—it’s my device, I can use it as a paperweight if I want, if I want, I can run Doom directly on it if I can figure out how.
Not sure why LG or Apple have an obligation to make sure their devices can run arbitrary programs.
I think the question here is whether the arbitrary restrictions dissuade you from performing the primary function of the device. For the fridge, not having android apps does not stop your using it as a fridge, which was what it was made for. For the iPhone, not letting apps run without going through the Appstore is a direct hindrance to the function of a smartphone, which is to run apps.
Except on Windows, you can establish that trust level with stores as you go along, instead of having just one store.
For example, I trust Steam, GOG, Epic's store (though I don't use Epic's because I don't want to fragment my library), and a whole assortment of developers specifically.
Also, it's not 2007 anymore, if you trust a developer you can almost always guarantee the app came from the trusted source through code signing. Almost everything is code-signed nowadays. If it isn't, Windows lets you know about it. If it's also not a popular app, the platform actively alerts you about it. VirusTotal and other reputation services also help you make an informed decision on whether an app is trustworthy or not.
There is no problem with multiple stores existing as a model. In fact, on android you can have that. If you like multiple stores, and you want the hassle of using reputation services to manage which things you trust, that's fine. Nobody is saying that you can't.
But by going against Apple's store as part of the platform model, you want to stop people from having a simpler option.
They are deciding that simpler option when they buy into the platform. My mum HATES PCs but loves her iPad because she doesn't have to deal with antivirus updates or downloading dodgy software. She doesn't have to understand multiple stores.
With a multi store model, there is an incentive for competition on store pricing. How do you compete on pricing alone with other stores? You reduce the quality of your review process. It's the only way to compete on cost. And that's what forcing multiple stores does.
That argument is like the railroad antitrust cases of a century ago. "The New York Central Railroad is giving shippers a marketplace of users with large freight terinals, fast locomotives, and railroad sidings already connected. A big cut is well worth deserved, and the contract terms seem pretty fair."
(If you think Comcast is bad, read up on the history of railroad monopolies.)
I know a ton of poor people who use an iPhone, including a lot of wage workers at McDonald's. I also know a ton of rich people who won't use anything less dated than a Blackberry (including a lot of my former Wall street MDs).
One report shows Apple as having about 14% of the world smart phone market share in 2020, so I don't think that's a fair comparison. Apple's control over their App Store doesn't prevent Android users from using the Google Play Store, whereas the New York Central Railroad's ownership of freight terminals and rail lines prevents other people from building their own (because there are only so many places you can put a freight terminal or a rail line).
The handset market is a bogus statistic. Epic are not selling phones or phone accessories.
The market in question is the $150 billion mobile applications market, of which Apple controls 60% worldwide, well above the threshold for regulatory attention in many jurisdictions.
As for taking sides, I recommend taking the consumer's side, since the consumer is thoroughly shat upon by Apple's rules. The agreement demands that merchants on the Apple platform actively mislead the consumer about their purchasing options.
At that point, whatever one may think of Epic's preferences, motives, or ethics, becomes moot. It is not unlawful to hold market power, or to use it for profit, but it is unlawful (at least where I live) to wield market power to mislead the consumer, and that's where Apple slides off the rails. However by taking direct action, Epic have the burden of proof, unless a governmental regulator decides to shoulder it first.
Of course none of this actually relates to the judgement in the article, which is about Apple's embarrassingly nonsensical counterclaims, amounting to "competing with Apple shouldn't be allowed at all because then we make less money". I struggle to comprehend the magnitude of over-entitled, self-absorbed groupthink that could lead to making such a claim with a straight face.
They have more than 50% in the US. And it's important to note that antitrust law doesn't just cover monopolies, as people endlessly bring up in google related threads. These laws also cover the abuse of market power, which while related to monopoly is not exclusively derived from monopoly.
Apple has 60% of revenue on phone marketplaces even if it only sell 14% of phones. Let alone that changing between phones has friction and can have significant costs.
Also by comparison consider the statement: "The New York Central Railroad's 'monopoly' of railway access between 14% of the worlds cities doesn't stop anyone traveling by road or doing business between any of the other cities in the world so clearly it' not a monopoly".
Having said that of course Apple is no where near as egregious a monopoly. However you'd have to agree any profit focused mobile app simply must (if it can) be available on iPhone and that does give Apple a monopoly position. It's only a question of if Apple is abusing that position.
This is the thought process I somewhat have of the issue as well. It's as if Comcast tried charging web businesses for the privilege to serve their customers. Meanwhile, they wouldn't be allowed to charge them if these sites didn't exist in the first place.
Apple made the platform, but they can't piss off the developers. Otherwise they're just going to alienate people and possibly major players to challenge them more or invest in other areas that don't take so much off of them. Apples Appstore becomes worthless the moment nobody supplies any worthwhile software...WHICH Apple needs.
Netflix could've easily gotten a coalition to fight that in court. They didn't because they're a major player in the market. Doing this helps drive out competitive streaming platforms when the cable providers begin gouging them. That's why they also coughed up to the others access providers without them doing the same thing as Comcast.
They're just playing pretend as a victim. They want people to believe what they're doing is right. In actuality their hedging to become the next version of Cable TV. With how bad Disney's revenue has been going this year, I wouldn't be surprised that if they keep taking hits like this, we could potentially see an acquisition or merger between the two.
You said you side with Apple, but why? Better analogy is that Apple is a country with a single party, no elections, that dictates who can make money and how much tax they pay. These ecosystems need regulation to enable multiple stores and open APIs.
I don't necessarily agree with App store policies, especially when it comes to transparency/consistency of decisions, but you can always choose not to operate/do business in said country.
I understand what an analogy is, I also understand that not all analogies are valid, usually when the pretence is so heavily flawed that the analogy crumples. The analogy must be coherent, but a country and company are as alike as a fish sandwich and a turd. The usefulness of the analogy is stretched to the point of uselessness as it is here.
> a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
the dictionary definition of the word analogy does not include those stipulations that you stated.
Any explanation that compares two things meets the definition of analogy. I think you're being pedantic. You can disagree with the comparison, but that doesn't mean it can't be called an analogy.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to call Apple a country.. there's alternatives out there and nobody is forcing you to use an iPhone, which is vastly different from a country, where you are forced to abide by its laws and pay its taxes. It's almost an absurd analogy.
If I was to make an analogy, I might say Walmart is a better analogy. Walmart is the biggest store in town, but you do have alternatives and nobody is forcing you to shop there, even if it's kind of hard not to. Walmart does all the legwork of getting customers into the shop, then puts other companies' products on its shelves and sells them for a markup. Their markup? Pretty similar to Apple's fee, roughly 25%.
> there's alternatives out there and nobody is forcing you to use an iPhone
In what way is this different than a country or a state? Nobody is forcing you to live in California, you could sell your house and get a different job and a different social cohort and move to Florida. Nobody is forcing you to use an iPhone, you could sell your phone and replace all your apps and convince everyone you know to switch away from iMessage.
> where you are forced to abide by its laws and pay its taxes.
How are you distinguishing the app store rules and fees from laws and taxes?
> Walmart is the biggest store in town, but you do have alternatives and nobody is forcing you to shop there, even if it's kind of hard not to.
Walmart doesn't own all the real estate for a hundred miles and then prohibit anyone else from building a store that people who shop at Walmart could reasonably patronize. They don't condition your use of their store on buying their car, which in turn refuses to let you drive to any other store, so that if you want/need any product from Walmart you have to get every product from there.
> Their markup? Pretty similar to Apple's fee, roughly 25%.
For a brick and mortar store which is paying for local real estate, physical inventory and human cashiers, none of which Apple does and yet they're still charging higher fees.
It's a bit of a stretch to be comparing using a different smartphone (you don't even need to use ANY smartphone) and moving the place where you live, work, etc.
Next, we'll see people complaining how google.com should be displaying alternative search engine links on their frontpage because it's too hard for people to type bing.com.
You don't even need to live indoors either. You don't need a telephone, you don't need oil, you don't need to make things out of steel. You can live without any of it.
Antitrust isn't about how much you need something, it's about competition. It's illegal to abuse a monopoly on cotton candy, regardless of the fact that nobody actually needs cotton candy.
Moreover, the point of the analogy is to demonstrate switching costs. Phone platform transitions are costly. You not only have to replace your device but all your apps, your operating system (which incurs training costs), any services that are only supported or well-supported on one platform including those with network effects that are used by other people, etc. It's not at all trivial and can involve tens of hours of labor. So if that's what you have to do in order to have a choice in where you can buy a $1 app, that isn't really a choice. It's not anywhere close to cost effective to do it even if the competitor is charging $0.70 for the app instead of $1.
And you would have to do it every time. Even if you switched to Android, now you're stuck in a different market -- Google Play doesn't have to worry about you buying the next app from Apple, because to do that you would have to pay to switch back.
> Next, we'll see people complaining how google.com should be displaying alternative search engine links on their frontpage because it's too hard for people to type bing.com.
Does Android only work with Google and if I want to use Bing I have to buy an iPhone? How many hours does it take to type bing.com?
This wouldn't be an issue if Apple wasn't taking a flat cut of 30% off of everything. It doesn't matter what they provide. 30% is like a government level tax. That should just scream how much influence and power Apple has if they can charge something so egregious.
Take away the apps/services not created by Apple and the value of the platform drops considerably. Whole market is in a big catch 22 position. It is nearly impossible to compete and create a new smartphone platform, because even if a new player creates superior products compared to Apple, they don't have all the apps. They can't create the whole ecosystem by themselves, as the costs would be insane. Software developers also don't have much choice. There are two platforms that control all the market share. They have to accept the rules given to them or leave the industry (one they helped create).
Saying things like that every developer agrees to the App Store rules before releasing their applications is a major oversimplification of a complex situation. Apple can change the rules and they might not be the same at the time when developer makes an major investment to develop an app and when they release it. And rules might change again after they release it.
Apple did not create this whole virtual ecosystem, just the platform on which it is build upon. And this ecosystem has outgrown Apple. It's got so big, that Apple's contribution is only a part of it. Apple has been generously repaid for their efforts, and will continue to be so in the future. But maybe they shouldn't have a complete control over a virtual ecosystem this big, where their investments no longer represent the majority of it's value.