Epic Games has filed legal papers in response to Apple [pdf]

https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-complaint-734589783.pdf

by warp • 6 years ago

674 634 6 years ago

cdn2.unrealengine.com

bpsh• 6 years ago

That was fast

uncoder03• 6 years ago

Almost like it was the plan all along. You don't write a 65 page legal filing in an hour.

qppo2• 6 years ago

Automation man, it's going to take everyone's job

R000TKIT• 6 years ago

I'd imagine Epic sitting down with 65 lawyers all tasked to draft a single page, which is then compiled into a legal doc

furyofantares• 6 years ago

Right, it looks to me like they violated Apple’s policies in order to bring this lawsuit. It isn’t the other way around. I don’t think this is primarily about the 30% cut in Fortnite — Epic wants to run their own iOS App Store.

sneak3• 6 years ago

I imagine they had this drafted prior to Epic uploading the update that included direct payments.

atarian• 6 years ago

"When you strike at a king, you must kill him." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

ceocoder• 6 years ago

"Ayo, lesson here, Bey. You come at the king, you best not miss."

-Omar Little

(I like this version better)

SllX• 6 years ago

They didn’t suddenly intentionally break App Store policies without a strategy. They think they sense blood in the water, that somehow Apple will be legally and/or politically vulnerable. They’re probably angling for a deal at the negotiating table, but they’re most likely prepared to go to trial and fight for a W, and even if they earn an L, try to use it to some kind of political advantage after the transition of power next year.

EDIT: I just checked my email, actually forgot that I once played a couple games of Fortnite and signed up, wasn’t my thing, and there’s a pretty big PR component to it as well advertising permanently discounted prices on quoting from the email. “PlayStation, Xbox, Switch, PC and Mac, and on mobile when using select payment methods.“

It also pointed me to this blog post[1] that already has an update at the top about Apple blocking “your” access complete with hashtag campaign and activist-style messaging. They’re going whole hog here, there’s nothing half hearted about this. I don’t have a horse in this race, but I respect the planning and the balls.

[1] https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-m...

merrvk2• 6 years ago

Seems like they were prepared to do this all along

detaro2• 6 years ago

their management and lawyers would have been pretty bad at their jobs if they didn't see the possibility of this happening and prepped for it.

goldfishlover• 6 years ago

This is tencent's move to counter the tiktok drama

AaronFriel• 6 years ago

Is Tencent a majority share holder in Epic Games?

jandrese3• 6 years ago

Of course they were. They knew exactly what Apple would do because Apple has never been shy about telling developers what will happen when they do stuff like this.

merrvk2• 6 years ago

Could they have been baiting it out of Apple on purpose?

akmarinov2• 6 years ago

They knew this will cost them millions until Fortnite is back on the store and they still did it.

uncoder03• 6 years ago

Sounds like they'll have lots of damages to point to.

Uhhrrr• 6 years ago

So, one presumes, they are betting that against the possibility of tens of millions of dollars in upside somehow.

iandanforth• 6 years ago

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."

colinmhayes4• 6 years ago

The only reason they created this feature is to force apple to take their app down. Now they can point to the millions in damages caused by the apps removal. Their long term goal has to be creating a competing app store since they aren't seeking damages.

minimaxir2• 6 years ago

A 65 page lawsuit? How long was Epic planning this, and how did they manage to time it right after Apple's antitrust hearing?

saagarjha5• 6 years ago

I mean, they had full control over when to release their update…

minimaxir2• 6 years ago

Right, but timing is especially important with this kind of stunt and there's a lot of variables outside of Epic's control that could have weakened it.

conradfr• 6 years ago

I guess this is the first time a legal matter goes as quick as on the show Suits.

bearjaws• 6 years ago

I feel like its only a matter of time until the EU pins something to Apple, if the US won't address this issue, the EU will.

asutekku4• 6 years ago

Wow, 65 pages in less than an hour. I knew epic was productive, but this must be a new record.

bigpumpkin• 6 years ago

They signed up for the GPT-3 beta and made an api call

jahabrewer• 6 years ago

An amazing games company files suit against an anachronistic monopoly, and their suit reads:

juskrey• 6 years ago

Yeah, you don't have to write the game engine from scratch.

Talyen426• 6 years ago

i'm sure they wrote this months ago

asutekku4• 6 years ago

That’s the joke.

echelon2• 6 years ago

Apple is about to get bitten hard for being a monopoly.

I hope the government considers the harshest punishment of all: splitting up Apple into hardware and software+services entities.

This is absurd that Apple has built a fiefdom on America's most popular generic computer device. It's a threat to freedom! We can only compute what the overlords allow and can tax? What a crock!

The fact that Apple thinks they can extort more protection money from developers than the government does in taxes is an affront. But the freedom aspect should have everyone out with their pitchforks.

This after Apple created an environment where its users, many of whom have lots of disposable income for buying goods and services, expect apps to be $0.99 and come with free updates for life. Meanwhile Apple's own products are luxury priced. And they still take 30%.

US Government, please force Apple to open up iPhone to any software we want to install. It's a generic computer. It's how we communicate, do banking, do basic shopping, dating, business ... everything. Apple can't be the gatekeepers of 21st century life. It's incredibly damaging to our ability to innovate and succeed as small business owners and entrepreneurs.

Apple, you are the tyrant king. Long have we suffered under your rule. We won't stand for it any longer and we demand our freedom.

ianmobbs• 6 years ago

You seem to have forgotten about Android. The solution to anti-trust cases is not a blanket “break them up. In this case, requiring Apple to allow third-party App Stores is going to be the key issue. The lawyers will likely take heavy inspiration from Microsoft’s antitrust suit from the early 00s

valuearb32• 6 years ago

Third party stores would be a disaster for customers and developers, even worse than the ones on Android.

paxys6• 6 years ago

Not even third-party App Stores, just third-party payments processors will be a good start.

ffggvv• 6 years ago

why do we need appstore’s at all? on my computer i can just download an executable from any website i please. i don’t need an app store intermediary

Sniffnoy• 6 years ago

Hm, wouldn't this require an overturning of Atari vs. Nintendo[0] or something like that?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_....

valuearb32• 6 years ago

Apple wins this in a walk-over.

And as an iOS developer, I get a lot of benefits from the App Store that makes their 30% more than reasonable.

paxys6• 6 years ago

Cool. I am also an iOS developer and get almost nothing for the 30% I pay Apple. It would be trivial to build my own in-app payments system using Stripe for like 3%.

Giving customers choice and encouraging competition is a good thing.

mhh__6• 6 years ago

Is 30% reasonable? I don't think anyone is arguing it should be zero, but 30% is quite a lot.

dbetteridge2• 6 years ago

Apple should either charge based on usage of their resources i.e

% charge for payments through apple pay

$ per million downloads/updates for hosting

or provide the ability to sideload or use third party app stores

That way app developers can choose whether Apples store is worth their overhead.

dylan-m2• 6 years ago

You also don't see other app stores preventing apps from including their own payment systems. Because how people pay for additional content inside an app is completely not the distributor's problem.

Sure, many other app stores provide extra value in their systems for in-app purchases and a developer might see fit to use that system since it reduces friction, but usually it is voluntary. Obviously, not every app even does in-app purchases.

This argument that Apple's rules around in-app purchases are necessary to pay for the ongoing maintenance of their platform is completely bizarre to me. That money is completely separate. What if Fortnite didn't have in-app purchases? It would cost Apple exactly the same amount of money to distribute it and to provide development tools (which, by the way, every developer pays $100 a year for up front anyway). Yet Apple wouldn't be making those juicy margins from in-app purchases. Would Apple be in the right to demand Epic add in-app purchases? Would you be making the same argument?

Anyway, if that's the argument Apple is going to use, they're fucked.

voidpointercast• 6 years ago

Something insinuates that you're not being entirely honest in your arguments.

AnimalMuppet2• 6 years ago

Could you be more specific? Or say why you think that? An accusation like that should either not be spoken, or should have something concrete to substantiate it.

sneeze-slayer• 6 years ago

The truth is, getting split up isn't even a punishment! When companies get split up for being a monopoly, they usually end up being even more valuable than when they were a monopoly. See Bell Telephone for a good example of this.

When IBM unbundled their software from their hardware in response to DoJ antitrust inquiries, it created the modern software industry.

ac296• 6 years ago

Bell isnt a great example because telephone companies are a "natural" monopoly - it doesnt really make sense to have a dozens of phone lines connected to your house in order for there to be competition in the telephone service market. That's why when it was split up, it effectively was only split up into smaller regional monopolies that didnt really compete with each other.

Smartphone applications aren't the same - but for a couple bits here, and a cryptographic signature there, any software could run on an iPhone.

Jerry2• 6 years ago

Apple is about to get bitten hard for being a monopoly.

A monopoly in what? In making their own products?

mhh__6• 6 years ago

Monopoly is the wrong word but Apple's practices are at least bordering on anti-consumer.

The only monopoly apple have is over their own customers i.e. switching away from apple isn't cheap

ancorevard• 6 years ago

As an Apple product user, I find their products+services+software the most enjoyable and more importantly the most trustworthy. I happily pay more $ for that attribute. Alternatives already exist for people who have other priorities (Android etc.).

regulation_d• 6 years ago

1. It's clearly not a monopoly by any accepted definition.

2. If you don't want to pay their fees, don't use their platform.

3. If enough content providers don't use their platform, consumers we shift to a different one. I think one of the advantages that Sony has had over MSFT in the video game console space has been their exclusive content.

4. Taxes have literally nothing to do with this. The App Store has made life much easier for countless app creators. Are the fees exorbitant? Sure. Is the market capable of correcting this behavior across a reasonable timeline, also yes. I was planning to switch TV devices after Apple's tiff with Spotify. It was resolved because Apple knows that if they don't support the content providers other platforms do, they will lose market share.

UnpossibleJim• 6 years ago

By these standards, then no one should be calling for anti-trust cases to going forward against Google, Amazon or Facebook. There are alternatives to all of these, some of them large. Google has Microsoft sized competition; Amazon competes with the likes of Walmart and Target in similar shopping spaces; and Facebook competes with Reddit and has competed with Google (who is now defunct in that area).

To be honest, I'm not 100% where I stand with these considering that ISP's haven't been prosecuted for, what seem, clearly more egregious anti-trust violations. These types of cases should come up first, in my opinion, but we are where we are.

gojomo• 6 years ago

1. It's clearly not a monopoly by any accepted definition.

Apple's market power seems to fit this legal definition quite well: https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/monopoly/

Monopoly is a control or advantage obtained by one entity over the commercial market in a specific area. Monopolization is an offense under federal anti trust law. The two elements of monopolization are (1) the power to fix prices and exclude competitors within the relevant market. (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen or historical accident.

fauigerzigerk• 6 years ago

1. It's clearly not a monopoly by any accepted definition.

Depends on how you define the market. The courts will have to decide whether the iOS app distribution market and the iOS in-app payments market is a relevant market. If so then Apple clearly has a monopoly in those markets.

2. If you don't want to pay their fees, don't use their platform. 3. If enough content providers don't use their platform, consumers we shift to a different one.

The question that will have to be answered is whether that is an economically viable option for a sufficient number of content providers. If not then consumers are being harmed by Apple's anti-competitive behaviour.

stale2002• 6 years ago

If you don't want to pay their fees, don't use their platform.

Or instead of that, companies can use the law to prosecute apple for anti-competitive behavior. Anti-competitive behavior is illegal and should be prosecuted.

lostmyoldone2• 6 years ago

Apple can be said to be a monopoly according to at least some definitions of monopoly, more precisely, and at the very least - it has a legal monopoly on selling macOS due to copyright.

Since they have a legal monopoly in some sense, it's not completely unreasonable to revisit how actions potentially prohibited by antitrust laws shold interact with legal monopolies. Especially when it comes to devices where changing device mandates you also change almost all apps (Which the legal monopoly profited of.) To sometimes significant cost, and inconvenience.

It's not entirely obvious that simply because Apple isn't the only seller of smart phones, that they can't be involved in anti-competetive behavio, and/or monopolistic behavior.By using their app store to extract considerable revenue by an questionably high transaction cost. It could be obvious because of precedent, but nevertheless, unless that judgement was made in resent years, and with the soaring costs of migrating your digital life, it's only as obvious as you make it to be if you narrow the scope of monopoly for physical to that where a single worldwide monopoly is the only business there is.

One can be safe to say that in penning the dictionary definition of monopoly, the author was probably not considering entire markets that would fit in a pocket, and where the good purchased in the market can only be used on the pocket device, and impossible to extract from the market to use in another setting!

Neither did likely the lawmakers.

Mindwipe2• 6 years ago

1. It's clearly not a monopoly by any accepted definition.

The European definition doesn't require you to even have the majority of a market - just the ability to materially affect consumer pricing. Proving that in court will be fairly trivial I think.

(Note this documentation from thd EU, which states a company "probably" needs 40% share - https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/procedures_102_en...)

comboy• 6 years ago

US Government, please force Apple to open up iPhone to any software we want to install. It's a generic computer.

You have bazillion types of generic computers to choose from. People pay huge overhead to apple exactly because apple makes choices for them - regarding what settings are reasonable to have, what software they want you to use etc.

Personally I don't understand monopoly arguments. If we are talking about some ISP, something like Nestle or even social network/apps, I can somewhat understand it. But here? Users are people who bought Apple hardware to use it based on rules set up by Apple.

I'm not much fan of Apple, I sincerely want to understand the monopoly argument. It seems to me as if people would want to split BMW because .. I don't know we want to be able to install our own custom AC. Because maintenance of the stock one is too expensive.

surfpel13• 6 years ago

People pay huge overhead to apple exactly because apple makes choices for them...

That’s exactly why I use Apple products. I don’t have time to mess around with third party stores and risk security issues when I need an app that doesn’t want to be on the App Store. I’m ok with paying 30% more as a consumer for the simplicity and peace of mind.

This isn’t the consumers getting angry - it’s developers. That’s why this comment and other dissenting opinions always get downvoted on HN. Not saying devs don’t matter, but there is another side to this that people here don’t want to consider.

AnIdiotOnTheNet4• 6 years ago

Yeah, it makes no sense at all. Apple isn't even close to a majority in any markets!

Desktops? Definitely not. Laptops? No. Tablets and Phones? Haha, no (Edit: Actually yes, if one only considers the US).

mcny• 6 years ago

You have bazillion types of generic computers to choose from. People pay huge overhead to apple exactly because apple makes choices for them - regarding what settings are reasonable to have, what software they want you to use etc.

I like the Android approach. "Unknown sources" are not allowed by default but you can enable them. Doesn't mean you have to enable them and I'd be ok with a bright red bar at the top of the screen all the time that you can't disable if you have unknown sources enabled.

jefft2554• 6 years ago

I disagree. I like Apple products, own an iPhone and iPad, but I wish I could run any code on it because they are my devices. Having a streamlined experience overall shouldn’t prevent me from installing an emulator, and shouldn’t trap businesses into paying ridiculous fees. Im hesitating buying a Mac as my next computer because of their locked down attitude, which could spill to MacOS (already has to some degree).

delroth2• 6 years ago

You're generalizing your own opinion. If I could buy an iPhone and run Android on it, I would do that. Instead I'm stuck choosing between good hardware with crappy OS (Apple) vs. outdated hardware with an OS that fits my needs (all Android devices).

jedberg3• 6 years ago

I don't know we want to be able to install our own custom AC. Because maintenance of the stock one is too expensive.

You can do that actually. There are laws in places specifically that allow you to do that, because BMW would otherwise stop you.

The car industry is a perfect example. They had to put laws in place to allow you to change parts of your car, while still maintaining safety and integrity.

nabla9• 6 years ago

Personally I don't understand monopoly arguments.

Firstly, the term 'monopoly' is frequently used in the meaning of 'monopoly power' not as pure monopoly. Competition laws take effect long before full monopoly. Market failures can start appear even with 20% market share in some markets.

Secondly, I suspect that you implicitly have some narrow definition of market in mind. In competition law, defining a relevant market is essential and nontrivial. You seem to think about smartphones as "the market". iOS app distribution can be also considered a market.

Personal opinion: multiplayer game like Fortnight benefits from network effect. People are playing across devices and platforms. You could argue that Android and iPhone platforms are complement products in App Markets instead of substitutes. Restrictions in one may harm sales in the other. All game developers must sell to both platforms to be on the market. iOS App store relies on this effect. There is no choice.

grumple2• 6 years ago

You have bazillion types of generic computers to choose from. People pay huge overhead to apple exactly because apple makes choices for them - regarding what settings are reasonable to have, what software they want you to use etc.

Strongly disagree. I have 4 MBPs. I can install whatever I want on them, thankfully. I write my own code and execute it on them.

My iPhone? I don't want them telling me what I can do with it. I want the good hardware and OS compatibility with my MBPs. I also want to install whatever I want because I'm an adult and developer in a free economy.

40four• 6 years ago

With all due respect... the statement that "People pay huge overhead to apple exactly because apple makes choices for them" is very silly.

mellow20203• 6 years ago

People pay huge overhead to apple exactly because apple makes choices for them - regarding what settings are reasonable to have, what software they want you to use etc.

Well, they think it gives them quality. Instead they kinda get fleeced and pushed into a threadmill of planned obsolescence, e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2_SZ4tfLns

mortenjorck• 6 years ago

As must be repeated in every thread on antitrust:

Antitrust law is about much more than just monopoly. Apple doesn't have one, nor do they need one to be prosecuted for anticompetitive behavior and abuse of market position. If you're not familiar with the difference between the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act, this is a good primer: https://www.britannica.com/event/Clayton-Antitrust-Act

Apple is about to get bitten hard, not for being a monopoly, but for anticompetitive business practices.

bgorman2• 6 years ago

Apple can just point to mobile Safari. There is nothing stopping you from building whatever you want on the web these days.

s3r3nity2• 6 years ago

Half-true. (Source: worked at a big 4 consulting firm >a decade ago for a few projects involving significant antitrust problems in the tech industry.)

You need to have some significant market power (yes, vague) such that your elasticity of demand is steep and elasticity of supply of competitors is steep.

The law is (purposefully?) vague, as the key arguments come down to:

1) Market definition

2) Definition and analysis of price impacts on demand

3) Ease of entry into the market by competitors

Textbook example: Bing promoting Microsoft products when it was created (2009?) is not as problematic (read: won't get scrutinized by the US government) as Google promoting G Suite products.

cwhiz3• 6 years ago

That isn’t how competition law works.

From your own link:

the Clayton Act defined as illegal certain business practices that are conducive to the formation of monopolies or that result from them.

Apple doesn’t have a monopoly so the latter does not apply. Are you legitimately suggesting that Apple’s behavior is conducive toward the creation of a monopoly?? I would really like to hear some legal arguments that support this position. Apple’s market is shrinking, not growing. It will be a supremely tough court battle to prove that Apple’s behavior will lead to market consolidation in Apple’s favor.

kqvamxurcagg• 6 years ago

By their very nature, monopolies emerge in new and unexpected ways. They shouldn't have to fit an outdated definition to be fixed. Digital has changed everything, as the market capitalisation of Big Tech shows.

donor202• 6 years ago

Wow - HN reliably comes out with just incredible legal analysis, and not in a good way.

Apple delivers products that are supported FAR far longer than android.

Yes, they charge everyone a premium for this.

One reason people don't mind their kids / grandparents etc using apple is precisely because apple takes care of things.

Let's be 100% clear here - once apple allows random apps to bill you in random ways the endless scams will be here in days.

Seriously - even for subscriptions most providers you find out thing renewed after the fact when you get your statement, then have to remember to fight the auto-renew. Apple (at least for me) sends me out an email IN ADVANCE telling me what will renew.

Next, cancelling autorenews often requires phone calls. Ie, you can only cancel 90 days in advance, but have to cancel by renewal date and while you can sign up online you can't cancel online.

Apple, in the same email they send me, tells me how to cancel.

I hope folks pushing scam apps get bitten HARD for their crappy behavior.

And the idea of apple as monopoly (22% market share in phones, even less in computers) seems a total stretch.

However, because of all these policies, they might have a monpoply on very long term supported high quality devices that behave how you expect.

They even cracked down on the scam battery replacements on resale (ie, folks would put cheapo third party batteries in that made it look like battery life was good that would die in months). Again lots of complaints from HN folks, but for average users this helped them avoid the scammers.

basch2• 6 years ago

My spidey sense is screaming poes law. It's like every overly simplistic argument in one post, and no replies. Kudos to the author for encapsulating all the arguments that dont need to take place again and grouping them in one tree.

lostmyoldone2• 6 years ago

Are they an illegal monopoly in the US? Well, that's trickier. There are several reasons for and against. There are lots of phone brands, hundreds worldwide depending on how you count, and Apple are the are the largest phone and tablet brand with almost 50% of the US market.

Only Samsung is even close when it comes to phones, but afaik they have nowhere near the same profit margins.

Whether they are monopolistic or not, both Apple and Google has shown clear monopolistic behavior regarding their respective app stores, with Apple seemingly the more egregious.

nickysielicki• 6 years ago

Apple doesn’t have a majority of the marketshare in cell phones or laptops. The only market they’ve won is tablets with the iPad. The idea that Apple has a monopoly in the realm of computing is ridiculous.

I can’t tell if the level of hyperbole in your comment is sarcastic or not, so apologies if whoosh.

gruez• 6 years ago

US Government, please force Apple to open up iPhone to any software we want to install. It's a generic computer. It's how we communicate, do banking, do basic shopping, dating, business ... everything. Apple can't be the gatekeepers of 21st century life. It's incredibly damaging to our ability to innovate and succeed as small business owners and entrepreneurs.

You're going to be disappointed, if the android ecosystem is anything to go by. Of the OEMs that bother to unlock their bootloaders, only a fraction release kernel sources. Nearly all SoCs require custom kernels (which contain the requisite drivers) to run. Not having them means you're dead in the water as far as a usable system (working wifi, graphics, sound, modem, sensors, camera) is concerned. The only reason why OEMs even bother releasing kernel sources is because they're legally obligated to by GPL. Good luck getting that to happen with apple. You're almost always better off getting something like the pinephone or librem, rather than buying an iphone and hoping that the community can salvage something out of it.

edit:

Due to bootloader exploits, people were able to get alternate OSes running on iphones. As expected, the hardware support is flakey at best. https://web.archive.org/web/20110714042818/http://www.idroid...

lewiscollard• 6 years ago

Long have we suffered under your rule.

Who is this "we"? It definitely doesn't include me, as I do not own an iPhone and never will. If _you_ own one on the other hand...I presume you knew about Apple's practices and Apple's lock on their devices before you bought one. Why did you buy one?

Your reminder that iOS has 24.82% market share on mobile. That is not anything like a "monopoly" in any meaningful sense of the word. https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide

jmpman• 6 years ago

Does Microsoft take a cut when someone purchases on Xbox? Sony on the PlayStation? How is this different?

georgespencer2• 6 years ago

More importantly: can Sony sell PlayStation games on Xbox?

Seanambers• 6 years ago

But what if that is what I as an Apple customer actually pays for - a walled garden where everything is controlled? As a consumer it doesn't hurt me at all. All apps on the app store adhere to a certain set of rules and if they don't they are removed. It also means that payment is controlled by Apple, which is fine by me. I trust Apple more than I trust Epic or any other potential company that wishes to bypass App store rules wrt payments..

And i buy many Apps priced way above 99 cents.

Angeo34• 6 years ago

Your name is echeleon and you plead to the sanity and morals of the US gov for the sake of its people?

It's like asking Mao why he isn't giving the Taiwanese land for free inside the PRC

2OEH8eoCRo0• 6 years ago

Exactly what I came here to say. Epic Games is large enough to fight this. I think they purposefully chose this fight right here and now because of the looming report on anti trust violations that should be out any day.

tbrock• 6 years ago

There isn’t anything about this that’s makes it a monopoly or any different from selling items in any other marketplace. You want to sell here? There’s a cut that goes to the house.

I don’t know why people get in a tizzy about it, you knew the rules going in and they haven’t changed.

alkonaut• 6 years ago

Companies should compete IN markets, they shouldn't set up their own.

Customers aren't in a position to "just switch platforms" because they don't like what Apple or Amazon are doing.

This shouldn't be seen in the light of "is what they are doing so bad that they need to be stopped"? It should be seen as "would consumers be better off if someone intervened?".

greggman32• 6 years ago

Agreed.

Also the Supreme Court ruled that code is speech. Apple being the gatekeeper to code in an iOS device is equivalent to censorship. yes I know some people define censorship as only by the government but would you ok if you could only browse internet sites approved by Apple? Only watch videos approved by Apple? Only read books approved by Apple? Only listen to music approved by Apple?

Software is no different. It's another form of media just like books, video, music, and as such you should be just as upset that you can't run whatever you want whether it's game portals, streamed games, porn apps, dev apps, whatever.

lilyball• 6 years ago

Free Speech is strictly an issue with the government, it does not ever apply to non-governmental platforms.

sbahr001• 6 years ago

If apple makes the case that the App Store is a feature, which it is, and not a right; They can make a strong case against the monopoly(really duopoly with Google Play). People forget that the iPhone launched with no app store, and its only 3rd party app was google maps. Apple only add the app store because developers want to develop apps, and apple said okay, and provided an interface that allows them to maintain the quality of their product. Apple could kill the app store tomorrow if they wanted to, and replace them with partnerships with various companies; technically app store apps are partnerships with Apple. The iTunes music store works that way: it is a partnership with record companies, who are not required to participate; Ex. Beatles catalog was unavailable for years. Epic games does not have to participate in the iOS market, they have a "CHOICE"; similar to how a lot of game developers don't make a Mac OS version. Granted it would not be in Apple's best interest to remove the app store, but technically it is a product not a feature. The only anti-trust argument you can really make is bundled apps. Apple will disapprove apps that appear to do functionally the same thing. This is anti-competitive, and if Apple switches there stance on that then they are fine. Also, user's have a choice to remove most default apple apps, so they once again customers have a choice to use them or not.

I will say that 30% is a bit excessive, for most apps nowadays. Back in 2008 til about 2012-2014(ish) it made sense. Storage, bandwidth, and credit card processing were extremely expense. A million downloads would bankrupt small companies, especially free apps. Not only that when there were less apps in the app store, it did make marketing cheaper. That advantage is no longer the case with the oversaturation of apps. At the end of the day, Apple can do what they want to do as can developers(not provide their apps); which means that it is not anti-competitive/anti-trust. Also, iOS is such a small percentage of the market, and user's/developers have a choice to go to android.

m3kw93• 6 years ago

If you are using Apples platform, why act like you want to live rent free?

Shivetya• 6 years ago

Can is not a monopoly, you can still get all the apps you want on any other smart phone and you are not compelled to buy an iOS device.

Unless you are claiming by having the best device, the device you want, that makes it an unfair advantage because you don't want to make a different choice.

Now the solution if I was in charge of Apple is simple, you want a software unlocked phone then have at it, it cost double and all privacy options are absent.

dmos62• 6 years ago

That's a slippery slope. Next we'll start regulating anticompetitive practices in IT in general. /s

dillondoyle• 6 years ago

What is the argument against, and dangers, of simply maintaining their app store where they continue their strict quality control & take the fees, while also allowing 3rd party app stores?

App devs can choose to participate in Apple's store and pay fee or not or both. 3p allows users to load any apps at their own risk. Put a permissions popup explaining the danger. Maybe it would open up more jailbreaking. Don't allow drive by downloads, users would have to download the 3rd party stores from the app store. Probably only the most determined / technical users would load a 3p store thus protecting the majority

rockarage• 6 years ago

Really?

If we are being candid, many software developers helped crowned the Tyrant king.

The majority of developers focused on building for iOS and treated Android as a second class citizen.

Developers set the prices and in a race to the bottom, many developers set the price to $0.99. I remember the apps that had reasonable prices were often criticized by consumers because other developers set their prices so low.

30% take was there from the start of the app store before Apple become the most profitable smartphone maker. Developers should never have agreed to the take in the early days, but short term thinking prevailed.

If the vast majority of developers from the start refused to build for the iPhone until Apple had favorable terms or gave customers the option to allow third-party installs things would be different. Perhaps developers should work together to solve the problem they help create? Are developers want Apple to change would are they willing to coordinate a response? A coordinated response could mean the top 50 developers building mobile web apps & writing a letter to Apple that they are removing their apps from the Apps store and alerting their customers as well.

The idea is not so far fetched, see: https://deadline.com/2019/07/cbs-blackout-directv-u-verse-at...

Will a web app have all the features of the iOS app? of course not, but if Apple wins the legal case, this seems like the only real option to get Apple to change. Because most of Apple costumers are not bothered by Apple developers policy.

innagadadavida• 6 years ago

By this argument, fortnite also has a monopoly position with all things being sold in their market place - they don’t let me sell highly discounted gold skin and have it unlock features in their game.

This is just a battle between the billionaires, nothing to be gained by the rest of us.

parasubvert• 6 years ago

This is utter nonsense.

AnimalMuppet2• 6 years ago

Your comment would be more persuasive if you said why you think it's nonsense. As is, your comment is pretty worthless.

baddox5• 6 years ago

On the other hand, I like several Apple products and I'm confident their products would get much much worse if the company was effectively split up, and I suspect the vast majority of Apple customers would feel the same way. I'm not sure if people who feel very strongly as you do would consider that possibility, or if there are other principles at play that don't involve customer satisfaction.

lrvick• 6 years ago

You could just not use Apple products. Crazy talk I know, but many of us get by just fine without them.

jandrese3• 6 years ago

Going after Apple for antitrust violations has a big hill to climb in the form of the Google Play Store.

More than that, a ruling against Apple here would have huge implications for any company running an app store on their device. Smart TV manufacturers, companies like Roku, Automobile manufacturers, etc... If you can be considered a monopolist because you control your platform then there will be a LOT of monopolies out there.

I'm not expecting Epic to get any real traction on this suit. The best they can hope for is Apple working out some system where they'll reduce their cut in certain circumstances, but given how unlikely this case is to go anywhere I don't think Apple is feeling any pressure.

pgrote• 6 years ago

form of the Google Play Store.

You can get Android apps from many locations other than the Google Play Store.

metiscus2• 6 years ago

Android does not prevent you from side-loading applications from other stores either.

surfpel13• 6 years ago

Smart TV manufacturers, companies like Roku, Automobile manufacturers, etc...

It’s more than just the Google Play Store.

evgen3• 6 years ago

I look forward to being able to sue Epic for not allowing me to sell my own custom skins in fortnite.

izacus2• 6 years ago

Fortnite isn't a computer on which a majority of Americans accesses their news and other content.

dawnerd• 6 years ago

This isn't about not being able to sell something, it's about forcing them to use Apple's payment system. It's more like if you had a store in a mall and the mall said people could only pay using "Mall Pay" and would kick you out if you took direct payment. Some farmers markets actually do this though with tokens...

Barrin922• 6 years ago

If you can be considered a monopolist because you control your platform then there will be a LOT of monopolies out there.

I think there's a fairly trivial distinction to be drawn between a general purpose computing device and a utility like a fridge or a car. (something like, is the system aided by software to operate, vs is the system a platform for executing user-software)

For something like a game console it might actually be an interesting edge case but it doesn't seem difficult to draw an approximate line.

fluffy872• 6 years ago

Not really. If it’s my damn fridge, and it comes with an OS, I’d like to install whatever software I want on it, not just buy overpriced crap through the manufacturers insolence-store.

nawgz2• 6 years ago

I think there's a fairly trivial distinction

... What's the difference between my Roku TV & my iPhone? My Roku can clearly do some general purpose computing. So is it trivially a general purpose computing device or trivially not a general purpose computing device? Let's follow your workflow.

is the system aided by software to operate, vs is the system a platform for executing user-software

Hm, I think my Roku is a TV, and so someone would expect to be able to use it without additional software. Indeed, it has about 8 ports on the side I can plug game consoles & cable boxes into. Therefore the system is aided by software to operate. Therefore it is trivially not a general purpose computing device.

Now, what about my iPhone? My iPhone has phone in the name. One would expect to be able to make a phone call without additional software. That is indeed the case. Looks like my phone is trivially not a general purpose computing device.

stefan_• 6 years ago

That's weird, I went to the Google Play store but it didn't allow me to install an app on my iPhone at all. Why on earth would you think these two are somehow in competition.

dudus• 6 years ago

You had the choice to buy into apples walled garden. You could have chosen an Android phone if the app store was problematic for you. Their products are very competitive.

Pxtl• 6 years ago

I have both the Humble Bundle store and F-Droid installed on my Android devices. While their UI is inferior to the Play store and granting them permission to install isn't enabled by default like it is for the Play Store, they exist and work just fine.

valuearb32• 6 years ago

Not for developers or customers.

kelnos4• 6 years ago

I don't see how the Google Play Store is a good comparison, as you can trivially install a 3rd-party app store on an unrooted, stock Android device, and you can install things without even going through an app store.

But I agree that this suit probably isn't going anywhere, at least not to the extent that some commenters here are hoping. This will likely end with a slap on the wrist and/or some very small concessions to Epic.

Spivak5• 6 years ago

So is the “platform” the whole device or the store?

dwaite• 6 years ago

Epic side-loaded Fortnite for a while, then gave up on it in frustration. Android's side-loading was never meant for anyone but technical users like developers.

Google Play Services are also not necessarily available without going through the play store, so you lose access to a lot of functionality that people often consider part of the system (like Chromecast).

sesteel2• 6 years ago

Apple is gatekeeping a market of their own design. I am going to try to construct (probably a poor) analogy.

It is as if Apple started a town and a bunch of people moved in establishing a new market. The only way to deliver goods to this market is via the railway Apple established. The catch, you pay Apple 30% of the revenue generated for access to this market via the railway. If you try to establish a highway system, build an airport, perform airdrops, or some other means of delivering goods and services to this market, you are no longer allowed to use the train. IMO, Apple should be able to refuse transport of anything they wish for any reason they wish.

If this was a real scenario, what was allowed in this market would be controlled by the people who make up that market. There would be some governance and laws established for fair trade practices. I would think it is up to the people to establish these alternate delivery methods, in this case, jailbreaking their iphones and installing whatever they wanted.

sebmellen6• 6 years ago

Don't forget jailbreakers have been prosecuted in the past.

linuxhansl• 6 years ago

1. Only because Google might also engages in anti-competitive practices doesn't mean that Apple is allowed to. All such behaviour needs to be curbed.

2. Anyone can install any 3rd party app on an Android device, there's even a open app store "F-Droid" for open apps that anyone can use.

3. You can still run an app store. You just have to allow other ways to install apps. That way your store would be used only if it's better than the other ways to install apps.

azuriten3• 6 years ago

Looks like this was the plan all long. Now to see whether or not the risk of implementing their own payments system for V-Bucks is worth the potential revenue loss they will incur with the app being removed from the store.

azuriten3• 6 years ago

Adding to this, Epic/Fortnite are planning a short which goes live in 10mins called Nineteen Eighty-Fortnite. Most likely to be a parody of the 1984 Apple ad. Yup, it's a marketing stunt.

https://twitter.com/FortniteGame/status/1293984290326433792

dmix3• 6 years ago

Seems like it's broadcast in-game? I don't know much about Fortnite. But it's been 10mins.

pvitz• 6 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqTNO8LTggI

calcifer3• 6 years ago

If they win they could potentially claim it all back from Apple as damages.

ErikAugust2• 6 years ago

A little "speculative execution" here by Epic.

They anticipated Apple's action would be to ban them, and they prepared a lawsuit and PR campaign in anticipation.

partiallypro3• 6 years ago

They absolutely baited Apple to do this, I'm actually glad they did it. It's time someone takes a stand. I think this will be more significant than people think. Remember it was Netscape that helped bring about Microsoft's anti-trust.

outworlder2• 6 years ago

It's kinda hypocritical since Epic has a very similar business model for anything that's built using the Unreal Engine.

fluffy872• 6 years ago

Apple only really had two actions, both bad for Epic. They probably prepared responses and PR campaigns against both.

enraged_camel3• 6 years ago

Yeah.

https://twitter.com/RaveofRavendale/status/12940021057374126...

outworlder2• 6 years ago

The video:

https://twitter.com/Dexerto/status/1294010838928433154?s=20

nrp• 6 years ago

I assume both Epic and Apple are playing chess here. Apple must have anticipated incoming lawsuits as they cracked down on external transactions in gaming. It will be very interesting to see where the courts land, but it sure seems like Epic and similar have the upper hand on the PR battle.

zemo• 6 years ago

they did the same thing with that manufactured dust-up between Improbable and Unity in January last year. Improbable intentionally violated Unity's terms, Unity scrapped their contract, Improbable intentionally engineered confusion among its users, Epic came out with a signed contract with Improbable and an agreement to the tune of $25m like an hour or two later. Tim Sweeney the whole time was tweeting about how big and mean Unity is. I just don't believe his act at all.

christkv• 6 years ago

What got banned by apple ?

acephal• 6 years ago

Fortnite for ducking fees

tiborsaas• 6 years ago

What's the context and TLDR?

warp2• 6 years ago

Epic bypassed Apple payments on iOS - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24143346

In response Apple removed them from the app store - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24146902

choeger• 6 years ago

Context is that Apple has two things:

A) Devices, with a large market share, restricted to a particular app store, where Apple takes a pay cut of 30%.

B) Strong restrictions on what is allowed inside this app store and no hesitation to ban anyone from that app store for sometimes the weirdest reason.

Naturally no one likes to pay apple the 30% cut and even more so no one likes to be forced to play by Apple's rules to distribute software to iPhones etc.

Now Epic Games actually tries to fight back. Study law and read the documents if you need more details ;).

My take on this: Apple is obviously acting in a manner that prevents fair competition. They have a point to be paid and they have a point to enact certain policies. But taken together with the outright ban of competing stores, this is obviously a market dominating position. I guess they can have two of the three and they should go for policies, single app store and a self-cost price. But they probably will settle for single app store and high price.

Despegar• 6 years ago

Epic is going to lose this case.

grumple2• 6 years ago

Seems unlikely. Microsoft lost with a far more open situation than what Apple's got.

threeseed5• 6 years ago

Given that you have a complete misunderstanding of why Microsoft lost their case I don't think your opinion holds much weight.

There is no law that says a platform must be open.

n42• 6 years ago

it would seem they know they do not have legal standing based on the amount of effort that went into making this a PR campaign. they seem to be attempting to force Apple's hand outside of the court.

infinityplus12• 6 years ago

It will be funny to read Apple's excuses how they are not a monopoly and how consumers are benefiting from their no competition allowed policy.

valuearb32• 6 years ago

As an iOS developer, it’s an easy argument to make because it’s true.

asutekku4• 6 years ago

How exactly Apple is a monopoly? Just because they have a “monopoly” on stores on their own platform?

partiallypro3• 6 years ago

They make up most store revenue. Android might have more installs, but Apple makes way more from their store. They are effectively a monopoly, if not a duopoly. But Android allows secondary stores...Apple doesn't.

infinityplus12• 6 years ago

If I don't make my app available on Apple's store then I lose out on a huge % of people who use iOS devices as their only general computing device. They can't simply switch to Android as they are locked-in into the iOS ecosystem (For example, they can't use iMessage on Android). Apple is effectively controlling the market access and harming competitors.

zackkitzmiller2• 6 years ago

Xfinity (in my neighborhood) is a monopoly. I literally cannot get any other fast internet service at my apartment.

I can, however, chose to buy a different phone.

sebmellen6• 6 years ago

Any other fast Internet service, or any other Internet service?

duiker1012• 6 years ago

You can also choose to buy a different apartment.

sangnoir• 6 years ago

Why not choose a new home in a location served by your preferred internet provider? What's that - you like your home, but not the service it comes with? /s

somurzakov• 6 years ago

that escalated quickly. some prominent names from the Epic side. it will be interesting to follow this

rafaelturk• 6 years ago

IMO The key takeaway is that developers are no longer afraid of Apple. Epic Games move would be unthinkable a few years ago. Looks like this will become common practice. Epic Games joins Spotify, what will be joined by X, Y.

Maybe at some point multiple developers will also follow and also file legal actions.

enraged_camel3• 6 years ago

>IMO The key takeaway is that developers are no longer afraid of Apple. Epic Games would be unthinkable a few years ago.

Well yes, Epic Games was a small and relatively unknown studio until they hit jackpot with Fortnite.

zaxu• 6 years ago

Is this sarcasm? Epic has been huge since the early 2000s.

outside1234• 6 years ago

It seems like the better approach here is to go the EU route.

They will be much more likely to act as this is anticompetitive (and plus it is a non-EU company).

catsarebetter2• 6 years ago

What if Apple already has paperwork prepared too lol

metiscus2• 6 years ago

Unless they somehow are suing Epic directly, it would be ill advised to submit paperwork in response to a claim that does not address the specific claims made.

Rebelgecko2• 6 years ago

This looks pretty similar to a lawsuit that was filed against them last year by individual developers, so they probably already do have paperwork to respond to accusations re: Sherman Antitrust Act and CA competition laws

catsarebetter2• 6 years ago

I'm not mad at this though, they really do have a monopoly with their marketplace and it's killing the growth of the mobile app industry.

artembugara2• 6 years ago

I think apple has the right to make TOS as they want.

The only way for Epic to "win" is to make others join their side and leave App Store. Then, Apple will have to decrease their cut under the pressure.

Someone• 6 years ago

I think they legally have that right, too, but the issue at hand isn’t legal. It’s whether “the public” still finds that fair. Laws exist to serve people, not the other way around. Maybe laws have to change.

That’s the nut that regulators will have to crack. Do “we” think this isn’t acceptable and if so, why? Controlling what software runs on the devices you sell can’t be the only criterion, or many other platforms would have to be opened up (smart TVs, game consoles, etc)

Dahoon3• 6 years ago

They can likely write whatever they want but (at least in the EU) by law you cannot sign away your rights, so even agreeing to whatever someone write in TOS or EULA doesn't mean it will hold up in court.

artembugara2• 6 years ago

Of course, but setting up your cut is totally legal everywhere.

So, 30% or 99%. Whatever it is. Apple put it there. It is legal. If you don’t like just don’t accept. Go distribute your app somewhere else (also, App Store does not qualify for monopoly)

nevezen2• 6 years ago

Just FYI, Tencent owns a 40% stake in Epic Games.

Dahoon3• 6 years ago

Please take the China bashing aka. racism back to Reddit.

nevezen2• 6 years ago

How is that racist?

Rebelgecko2• 6 years ago

FYI some dude named Tim owns like 55%

awinder• 6 years ago

So what does epic games do while this is being litigated? Isn’t this the cash cow, I know they’ve got other games but still (as a windows gamer I look forward to all of you who have found in Epic your David; what a bs company). Do you try to force your way back in without the offending thing or what?

This whole thing seems super coordinated but with some real confusing missing pieces, but should be fun to watch!

ErikAugust2• 6 years ago

Fortnite is multi-platform. Is Fortnite for iOS their cash cow? Maybe not.

huac• 6 years ago

Epic appears to have retained Cravath's antitrust team; e.g. https://www.cravath.com/cvarney/, who "is the only person to have served as both the U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust and as a Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission."

rvz• 6 years ago

Epic is trying to sue an near $2 trillion dollar company. It's very dangerous to sue them alone. You need Microsoft and Facebook to back you guys up given that they kicked their apps out too.

Unfortunately, this app store sheriff is unreal.

partiallypro3• 6 years ago

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Netscape sued Microsoft and got its way. Size doesn't often matter, just visibility. Apple was already under the microscope.

duiker1012• 6 years ago

I feel like this is only true if one of the two players is really small. Epic is not small by any measure. they can afford the best legal team they want, and just like programming, at some point throwing lawyers at a problem won't necessarily make it easier to win.

Talyen426• 6 years ago

Can someone explain to me why Apple's 30% tax is so different from every B&M retailer providing shelf space? I can't sell stuff in walmart without paying Walmart

"But you can't sell apps on iOS outside the app store"

I can't sell stuff on ANY platform/device without the permission of the platform/device maker. I also can't create my own platform within another platform, without permission of that platform. I can't open an Amazon store and ask Amazon to list or fulfill my goods but not charge me a fee.

Monopoly argument? with like 20-30% global user share? C'mon now

ngngngng• 6 years ago

I can install anything I want from any platform/device maker on my Windows computer, my Android phone, my Macbook, and my Linux laptop. Apple phones are the outlier here.

Talyen426• 6 years ago

yeah, I get that, and the only reason I picked an iphone for my grandpa is because it's a curated closed platform. i'm glad it exists as an option, and it's not the most popular one, but it seems insane to make it illegal to create a closed software platform

threeseed5• 6 years ago

a) Phone is not considered by most people to be a computer.

b) I can't install anything I want on my PS4, Switch, Tesla, Shopify store etc.

So actually Apple isn't the outlier at all.

babypuncher• 6 years ago

But you don't have to buy an Apple phone.

lostgame• 6 years ago

> I can't sell stuff on ANY platform/device without the permission of the platform/device maker.

This is kind of pedantic. There’s a massive difference between the kinds of restrictions Apple is placing on you, vs. your ability to grab a copy of Visual Studio Community for free, write an app for Windows, and sell it on your web site.

If I make a game in Unity, besides incredibly minor changes, I write my code and game once, hit a button, and get the same result for many platforms.

However, virtually the same product on Apple’s iOS platform vs. others, nets me 30% less profit per sale, simply because we aren’t allowed to side load apps without paying Apple $99/year and those apps needing to be open source.

People aren’t arguing Apple has a monopoly over mobile software, they’re pointing out the fact that due to a lack of side loading Apple has a monopoly on iOS software, which is obviously true. It is the principle of not really owning your device and freedom of use issues that have made even the EU start an investigation.

Talyen426• 6 years ago

the only reason I recommend iphones to family members is because they are closed platforms, why are we trying to take away that option, a valid option to want to exist in an open marketplace, to make sure developers get more cash?

there's no inherent reason all platforms must allow arbitrary code to be executed, that's a very draconian rule to impose on the software world (ironically)

Animats3• 6 years ago

Epic has a good argument that Apple is engaging in illegal "tying" - requiring that to buy B, you must also buy A, where A and B are not inherently tied tightly together

AT&T lost that one decades ago. At one time phone users could only use a rented AT&T phone. (Or modem, and AT&Ts modems were huge, expensive, and included a dial and handset.) See "Carterphone decision".

BluSyn3• 6 years ago

I really don't agree with the idea that "alternative payment processors" are pro-consumer. This only benefits the developer, and I have huge privacy concerns with trusting third-party devs to handle my payment information. There's a 100% certainty that such payment information would be used for advertising purposes in the best-case, and rampant identity theft or mass payment security breaches in the worst-case. I'm certain Apple would also get a share of the blame for these third-party issues, which further tarnishes their platform and user experience.

For all Apple's faults, they've actually put a huge amount of effort to making payment processing seamless for the user, while also making it extremely transparent. I get regular notifications if I have a subscription trial about to expire, and it's super easy to manage ALL subscriptions through a single UI, and cancel them with a single click. This would not be possible through third-party systems, which I can guarantee would put huge effort into tricking users rather than making it easier for them. And yet again, Apple would receive the blame for allowing these Apps.

All that said I also don't agree with Apple taking a huge 30% cut, especially for subscription services that directly complete with them such as Netflix. Though obviously there are costs to run this ecosystem, so Apple also can't just charge nothing. I see both sides of this argument, and I don't see a middle ground that can please all sides. There needs to be a reasonable compromise somewhere in the middle.

ajkjk• 6 years ago

Well the argument is they're pro-consumer in that the things you buy would end up costing less.

bgorman2• 6 years ago

Theoretically some of the cost saving from an alternative payment processor would be passed on to the consumer.

BluSyn3• 6 years ago

While that would certainly be true for indie developers, I think it's laughable to suggest a company like Epic would lower their prices in response. They want that 30% for themselves. So I would take any claims from Epic that they are doing this purely for the benefit of the consumer as just pure marketing.

Though assuming that is true, there's an argument to be made that some consumers are willing to pay a premium for privacy. Though 30% is probably too high of a premium for most.

kelnos4• 6 years ago

They can be pro-consumer in the sense that pretty much all of them charge an order of magnitude lower fees, savings that can be passed on to the consumer.

But agreed that it also could represent an increased privacy risk. I guess that could be the trade off though: if you want stronger privacy guarantees, you pay through Apple's system (and pay more); otherwise you use the cheaper, third-party option. But also agreed that issues around the third-party options would tarnish Apple's reputation, regardless of the fact that people would have a choice.

ianferrel4• 6 years ago

I really don't agree with the idea that "alternative payment processors" are pro-consumer. This only benefits the developer

I mean, in this case, the consumer is literally saving 20% for the same purchase. Seems good to me.

There needs to be a reasonable compromise somewhere in the middle.

Why isn't "let other stores sell software for iOS, and the market will set the rent those stores can extract from software developers" the reasonable compromise?

People who want the ease and security of Apple and are willing to pay their extra fees can do so. Those who don't don't have to.

Spivak5• 6 years ago

Are you okay with Apple requiring that if you offer services on their devices not through Apple Pay or sell your app via a 3rd party store that you must also offer them at the same price using Apple Pay and on the App Store?

It has to be this way because otherwise you can force someone to use your 3rd party processor by making the Apple price 100x or something. If your payment processor is better than Apple you can pocket the 30%.

Because why people are so quick to defend Apple out of a fear that if this crap is allowed then it will become the only option and users will wind up with less control and choice.

jdminhbg5• 6 years ago

I mean, in this case, the consumer is literally saving 20% for the same purchase. Seems good to me.

In this case, you have to let your kid take your credit card and input it into any sketchy gaming company's web form. What happens from there?

BluSyn3• 6 years ago

I mean, in this case, the consumer is literally saving 20% for the same purchase. Seems good to me.

I find it hard to believe a company like Epic would lower prices in response. They want that 30% for themselves. Their claims of corporate altruism here are clearly overstated.

That said, this might be true for indie developers that would like to charge less to increase their user base, so I think Apple should probably lower fees to 10-15%. I think that's far more reasonable.

Why isn't "let other stores sell software for iOS, and the market will set the rent those stores can extract from software developers" the reasonable compromise?
People who want the ease and security of Apple and are willing to pay their extra fees can do so. Those who don't don't have to.

I agree with the premise that competition can lower prices, which is very pro-consumer. That said, I don't think a degraded UX, and potentially huge privacy disaster would be great for consumers. Cost isn't the only factor. In a third-party App scenario, Apple wouldn't be in a position to prevent privacy violations. The amount of data siphoned from this third-party store is likely to be game changing. Facebook could ask users to use their own store so they can track everything you do, and majority of users won't understand that difference. Not to mention countries like China would then likely demand all citizens use the app store full of spyware.

Once again it comes down to security vs. usability debate that I think will always be at the heart of these issues.

colinmhayes4• 6 years ago

Not paying 30% fees to apple absolutely helps consumers. If you look at the demand elasticity on mobile payments you'll see that fee's are mostly passed on to consumers. Developers will be happy to give a 25% discount to get that extra 2-3% after credit card fees.

Spivak5• 6 years ago

If you can get away with charging $5.99 for an app today why would you charge less on a 3rd party store?

pier253• 6 years ago

so Apple also can't just charge nothing

They have +20M devs paying $100 per year.

MichaelApproved• 6 years ago

Wow, 20 million developers paying $100. I had no idea it was that high. So they make $2 billion a year in just dev fees?

Do you have a source for that?

_qulr3• 6 years ago

This doomsday scenario is completely refuted by the longtime existence of the Apple Mac and third-party Mac software.

diebeforei485• 6 years ago

Apple makes exceptions for payment processing on apps already (for example Amazon Video).

I think Apple would have a lot more goodwill if they reduced their take. It's unlikelybanyone would sue over 10-15%.

haunter• 6 years ago

Saw on reddit and agree 100%

I will say it's a VERY smart move by Epic to position Apple against customers by no longer making it "Apple is taking 30% from epic" to "Apple is taking 20% from you"

xendipity• 6 years ago

Woah - Epic says they would release a competing app store if it weren't for "Apple's illegal restraints".

But for Apple’s illegal restraints, Epic would provide a competing app store on iOS devices, which would allow iOS users to download apps in an innovative, curated store and would provide users the choice to use Epic’s or another third-party’s in-app payment processing tool."

Part 16, in the Intro.

maps7• 6 years ago

I hope Apple are forced to allow this

viro8• 6 years ago

why? so epic can make more money? they don't care about you ... they just want more money

Talyen426• 6 years ago

I don't.

I really don't want to troubleshoot my parents iPhones after they install arbitrary code from the Alternative App Store #12 after clicking on a banner ad run by an anonymous chinese entity. Holy shit.

Macha• 6 years ago

I mean, they already have the infrastructure on PC, and third party app stores exist on Android already (most notably Amazon's).

mike_d6• 6 years ago

Which holds zero legal weight, because Apple can point to them doing exactly that on Android to avoid paying Google Pay fees. They abandoned the plan about a year later because consumers didn't want to use it.

discardable_dan• 6 years ago

To be fair, if Epic does this I won't want to use it (just like with their desktop client).

supermatt• 6 years ago

They abandoned the plan about a year later because consumers didn't want to use it.

Due to high friction caused by android treating third party stores (and the apps instalkled through them) differently to the google play store - which will most definitely be an upcoming complaint...

Osiris5• 6 years ago

Epic is not bringing this case to recover these damages; Epic is not seeking any monetary damages.

Well, that's interesting.

But for Apple’s illegal restraints, Epic would provide a competing app store on iOS devices, which would allow iOS users to download apps in an innovative, curated store and would provide users the choice to use Epic’s or another third-party’s in-app payment processing tool

So, Epic doesn't want money, they want the ability to allow users to install an Epic App Store. They must assume there's a lot more money to be made by operating a competing store.

napolux• 6 years ago

And have their slice of the cake, which makes a lot of sense.

mike_d6• 6 years ago

Exactly this. At the end of the day, Epic is a publisher. If studios can go directly to the platform they are no longer the gatekeeper and stand to lose money.

Epic wants your choice to be Apple store for non-games, and Epic store for games. Period.

gridlockd5• 6 years ago

It's not necessarily about making more money, it's about creating persistent returns. Making games is difficult, expensive, and risky. No company can just decide to create a franchise that will be successful indefinitely.

Fortnite was a stroke of luck, the wise thing to do is not to invest that money back into the franchise, which may soon be tossed aside by the audience, nor would it be wise to undertake a massive new project.

Valve figured out a long time ago that it's much better business to just sit back and let other people make games while you rake in the cash with zero risk. Epic is in a unique position to maybe pull that off as well.

dmix3• 6 years ago

Can you create a platform then have a monopoly over various sub-operations within your own platform (specifically both payment processing and controlling internal app distribution) Or is it just a piece of the wider mobile apps market?

The modern digital economy is so much different than the Oil giants of the late 1800's, for which the Sherman Act was written in 1890. I doubt this will be an easy case for Epic or government lawyers.

This would be a landmark case even it ever goes anywhere (not so much this injunction as a wider anti-trust move).

totaldude87• 6 years ago

ok am going to put a highly objectionable comment.

I buy stuff on apple store because its easy and SAFE.

That safety point is more important than ever, if there was no app store or lets say having 10 other app stores , i wont have the same level of confidence and heck i wont even be spending any dollars out there.

Over to Apple's 30 % cut, i dont know whats the call here, to make it 0%? ,10% , 20%? what if the same fortnite (or any other company) increases the bill to $9.99 next week :)

Am saying this purely from a consumer perspective that i dont care how apple and devs split the money as long as it doesnt bite me ...

detaro2• 6 years ago

Not all that objectionable IMHO, even if you think Apple should allow other app sources. Of course an app store having clear policies and a good reputation is an important factor for users installing apps from there - and thus for vendors picking one to sell in. You see that in action on Android to some degree.

EDIT: In some ways the best option IMHO would be a package-manager like design, where the system is responsible for fetching and updating packages, verifying signatures, security prompts, ... and "app stores" just feed information into that, but I doubt we'll see that anywhere.

contextfree• 6 years ago

that's roughly how Windows works with MSIX?

sparker72678• 6 years ago

The alternative is to let developers offer other modes of payment, and let people choose whether or not to use them.

Even if Apple required you to offer IAP in addition to any third party service, it’d be an improvement.

wpurvis• 6 years ago

If Epic somehow takes Apple to court and wins this you can still use the Apple app store. They could just do what android does and have the App store as default and have a toggle for 3rd-party stores if you're interested.

colinmhayes4• 6 years ago

Pretty sure Epic is angling to create their own app store. Consumers can continue to use apple's store and pay 30% fees or they can switch and pay whatever epic charges. The 30% fee is by definition biting you, so not sure what your point is there.

kelnos4• 6 years ago

That's great, and I'm glad that works for you. Allowing 3rd-party app stores would not require you to install and use them. But it would offer more choice -- and likely lower prices -- for people who do want that choice.

The only issue becomes if companies stop listing their apps on Apple's main app store, and if you want it, you have to install their 3rd-party store. If that starts happening, I bet Apple will react appropriately, and make it more attractive to developers to list on their app store. Y'know, how healthy competition is supposed to work.

neo2006• 6 years ago

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... I'm reading this and thinking, is just the fact that an iphone do not allow you to install another OS is considered as an infringement of the anti trust law?

megakwood• 6 years ago

The arguments aren't good ones, and I won't be surprised if Apple knocks this down easily.

Epic is arguing here that Apple is charging them 30% for payment processing. They're not, they're charging them for a return on the billions of dollars they spend developing the OS, developer APIs and tools that Epic builds on.

Most egregious is the fact that is is Epic's very business model! They provide a game engine, SDKs and tools to third parties and draw a % of the sales of those games. How would Epic like it if some of their customers stopped paying them? Their customers can make the same bad arguments: It's too expensive, and it's a monopoly because the switching costs are too high!

Sure, the difference it's the users that are captive on the Apple ecosystem rather than the developer, but it's pretty easy to argue that the users choose the platform because of it's quality, and a large part of that quality is driven by the massive investment Apple makes into the ecosystem, for which it deserves a fair share.

All that said, I really wish Apple would drop their cut to 15% or 20% which would do a lot relieve the bad taste in everyones mouth.

klik99• 6 years ago

This is bigger than Apple, it would be a massive precedent if they pull it off. And it gets to my major concern with the possible merging of iOS and MacOS. I don't mind curation on my phone, but it's a deal breaker for my PC

sebmellen6• 6 years ago

The day Apple does this is the day they lose every developer in the MacOS ecosystem to Linux/maybe Windows.

snazz• 6 years ago

I highly doubt they’d do this in the first place, but even if they did, iOS developers would still be using Macs.

warp2• 6 years ago

They've now posted an FAQ site to ask their fans to complain to Apple with the #FreeFortnite hash tag.

https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/freefortnite

(this beef is fascinating to watch)

aurizon• 6 years ago

This will prove to be the straw that broke the camel's back. I hereby demand that everyone who read this send me one micro-bitcoin....;)

Talyen426• 6 years ago

Can't wait to troubleshoot my parents iphones after courts force them to allow arbitrary code installs from any source without apple's curation.

The whole value proposition of iOS is they BLOCK CRAP.

justizin• 6 years ago

It is painfully clear that almost nobody, if anybody commenting here, actually read the fairly clearly written complaint. :)

young_unixer• 6 years ago

As someone without legal knowledge, it surprised me that the NATURE OF THE ACTION section reads more like a blog post than what I would expect in a legal document.

coded• 6 years ago

Go Epicgames! The #freefortnite campaign is bold; it’ll require users being proactive for it to maintain its momentum.

I love the the things that both companies make, but I’m not in favor of the App Store’s monopoly. I’m excited to see the outcome of this lawsuit but not very excited to wait for a long, drawn out process that the US legal system lends itself to.

heimatau• 6 years ago

I'm curious how this will shake out.

On one hand Epic (and any developer) is building their business on Apple's property/ecosystem. On the other hand, Apple has demonstrated anti-competitive behavior in numerous instances.

Due to all the political turmoil in the USA with the technology industry, I don't think Apple has enough political capital to prevent a massive/historic prohibitive ruling against Apple.

colechristensen• 6 years ago

Apple’s property?

This computer in my hand is mine, that argument works if you’re building your business on top of somebody else’s SaaS or social network, even then it has limitations.

jasonhansel• 6 years ago

Apple has asserted that blocking third-party app distribution platforms is necessary to enforce privacy and security safeguards. [...] A simple comparison to how Apple handles third-party software on its Mac personal computers illustrates how baseless its justifications are.

Clever. Now Apple will either need to (1) state that Macs are insecure and bad for privacy, or (2) admit that there is no privacy/security benefit from the App Store rules.

AcerbicZero• 6 years ago

I have zero interest in replacing one tyrant with another. Epic games doesn't care about what Apple is doing, they just want to do it themselves.

They keep trying to buy the PC gamer market, and it doesn't take much of an imagination to guess what they'd do if they got control of it.

Apocryphon2• 6 years ago

It's good to remember that Apple isn't just a potential monopoly, but a monopsony-

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22051915

dbetteridge2• 6 years ago

Summary

1) iOS devices are a large market (Over 1.5 BILLION devices)

2) iOS users spend more then Android users

3) Apps must be independently developed for each platform

4) Apple’s Monopoly Power in the iOS App Distribution Market. (p20) As it is the sole means by which apps are distributed to consumers in the iOS Market.

5) Non-iOS app distribution platforms do not constrain Apple’s monopoly power in the iOS App Distribution Market because they are not compatible with iOS devices, they cannot provide iOS users with apps for their devices, and they do not contain iOS compatible apps.

6) Apple imposes unreasonable restraints and unlawfully maintains a monopoly in the iOS App Distribution Market through several anti-competitive acts, including technical restrictions - Cannot download alternative app stores

- App store is preinstalled

- Contractual restrictions on distributing iOS apps outside the app store

- Section 3.3.2(b) of the Developer Agreement prohibits “Application[s]” that “create a store or storefront for other code or applications”. (p25 C75)

7) Apple’s anti-competitive conduct harms all would-be app distributors by foreclosing them from competing in the iOS App Distribution Market. (p26 D88)

8) Apple has a monopoly over the iOS In-App Payment Processing Market and, in the alternative, over the iOS Games Payment Processing Market, as it has a 100% market share.

9) The cost of alternative electronic payment processing tools, which Apple does not permit to be used for the purchase of in-app digital content, can be one tenth of the cost of In-App Purchase.

Electronic Payment Processing Tool, Base U.S. Rate

PayPal 2.9%

Stripe 2.9%

Square 2.6%-3.5%

Braintree 2.9%

figgyc• 6 years ago

This is a bit cynical of me but I thought it was interesting: In the PDF their legal says this: > in the years since, Fortnite has topped 350 million players and has become a global cultutral phenomenon. Interestingly, this 350 million players number appears to have been announced back in May [0]. Of course it is somewhat likely that their legal team just Googled this number instead of sourcing an updated figure from Epic, but could it potentially be that Fortnite's growth has stagnated? It definitely feels as though it has left the zeitgeist compared to years gone by, and it could be that Epic has calculated that the payoff of this suit could exceed the amount of V-Bucks they were expecting to sell through the iOS version of Fortnite. Certainly a big gamble, but it's possible that the situation may be dire enough to make it worth it. Of course they attempt to make it look like this isn't what they want by not demanding a cash payoff, but the obvious play is that if they win then a) they will be able to sell V-Bucks again for presumably a higher margin, and b) they will launch their own Epic app/game store and take a small cut of those transactions.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/6/21249497/fortnite-350-mill...

calcifer3• 6 years ago

I think you are reading wayyy too much into this. The most likely explanation is that the document was being worked on for a long time and the figure was added back then.

m3kw93• 6 years ago

Epic just want more profits, making things very inconvenient for users but having to sign up for their own payment processing. Once they got enough users on the platform they want to cut Apple out.

Osiris5• 6 years ago

It was never mentioned in the complaint, but I thought Apple also had a policy that required in-app purchases to be priced the same or lower than prices offered outside the store...

I found an article from 2011 saying they tried to do this but backed away. Are apps allowed to price, say subscriptions, higher on iOS than on the web? And if they aren't allowed to advertise the lower price on the web, isn't that anti-competitive, forcing iOS uses to pay more?

rednerrus4• 6 years ago

Does this mean we'll get buying options on the Switch, Xbox, and Playstations?

Animats3• 6 years ago

This filing is clever on Epic's part. (Or someone at Cravath, more likely.)

What Epic is asking for is an injunction. They may well get a temporary injunction quickly, compelling Apple to put their app back in Apple's store. Then the case gets litigated on the merits, but starting from a de facto win for Epic.

The standard required for a temporary injunction is low:

"To justify a temporary injunction it is not necessary that the plaintiff's right to a final decision, after a trial, be absolutely certain, wholly without doubt; if the other elements are present (i.e., the balance of hardships tips decidedly toward plaintiff), it will ordinarily be enough that the plaintiff has raised questions going to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful, as to make them a fair ground for litigation and thus for more deliberate investigation."[1]

Litigation on temporary injunctions is relatively fast. This part will be decided in weeks, not years.

Epic might only win a rollback to the last uncontroverted state, though. That is, apparently, before Epic's payment system went live on Apple platforms. If Apple had allowed third party payments for a while, then removed the app, Epic would be in a stronger position to insist that their own payment system remain live.

[1] https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...

[2] https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wiwd.39930/...

calcifer3• 6 years ago

Epic might only win a rollback to the last uncontroverted state, though. That is, apparently, before Epic's payment system went live on Apple platforms.

IIUIC the app itself wasn't updated, only the webview for payments was updated on the server side.

Animats3• 6 years ago

Interesting. If that's correct, Epic is in an even stronger position. They can claim that Apple retaliated against them for a competitive move which had no bearing on the activities taking place in the arena Apple claims to control.

lousken2• 6 years ago

I don't understand - epic deliberately chooses to avoid the most open platform (Linux) and yet they don't like being wall gardened? Quite ironic

fareesh• 6 years ago

You are framing the issue with one variable only (openness of platform)

There are a multitude of variables to consider before deciding to release a product on a particular platform.

bob1029• 6 years ago

Epic's reasons for avoiding Linux are substantially different from their reasons for circumventing Apple's restrictions.

See examples such as: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18845205

I do not think the irony holds in this case.

lousken2• 6 years ago

If this was true why would Steam even bother? Secondly, Nvidia and AMD both invested tons of money into fixes for games in their drivers for windows and it just shows. Also epic is spending money left and right, why couldn't they invest into the platform just like steam? And even with that little investment steam put into linux(compared to windows) it shows a really good potential.

TheRealSteel• 6 years ago

I have zero sympathy for a corporation that thinks everyone should have to pay them a 30% cut of everything, but that they shouldn't have to pay any tax themselves.

redm• 6 years ago

Maybe I'm missing something, but why can't Epic and other developers just raise the price of the games on the App Store by 30% and pass the cost along to customers. Customers on Apples Ecosystem will just need to pay a premium, just like they do for their devices.

"When you choose to use Epic direct payments, you save up to 20% as Epic passes along payment processing savings to you."

Apparently they already were, they just want to lower the price for consumers.

Cu3PO422• 6 years ago

This is correct. Earlier today they pushed a Fortnite update adding the option to use "Epic direct payment" which charged 20% less. In response Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store, which then triggered this law suit to be filed.

ss7pro• 6 years ago

So they should remove Google drive as they also skip apple payments ...

klelatti• 6 years ago

Most of the focus on the legal position but the damage to Apple's brand shouldn't be underestimated here. Hey was a big deal for a small group but Fortnite will hit a much, much wider audience.

The 1984 video was a clever and calculated move.

Simulacra• 6 years ago

It’s about time someone is standing up to apples smug anticompetitive behavior. Hopefully more major developers and game platforms will join suit.

shmerl• 6 years ago

Simple solution. Require Apple to allow alternative stores. That's a basic anti-trust issue. Not that Epic is much better in the sense of doing anti-competitive shenanigans, but Apple is simply infamous in that regard.

NicoJuicy• 6 years ago

So, this is obvious that they knew they were violating terms and conditions.

How can they win? It's so clear that they have been preparing for this. The ad in-game in fortnite makes it too obvious.

rdiddly• 6 years ago

I've reached point 7 and so far I'm seeing a lot of demagoguery. Not that I'm in love with Apple or its business practices, but for example is "tax" the right word for something that isn't a government entity? Or e.g. does a judge care what happened in 1984 or what that ad campaign looked like? That one's in there (point 1, right at the top) for the press, I suppose.

Demonstrate some relevant facts and just let them be what they are, and if they aren't how you want, that's called being "wrong?" I dunno, maybe I'm being naive or maybe my courtroom (if I were a judge) would be a hell of a place to try that horseshit.

camhart2• 6 years ago

How did this drop off the front page so fast?

_qulr3• 6 years ago

It looks like the HN moderators have kicked this out of #1, indeed all the way off the front page, and are starting to do the same with related stories too.

Welp, it was fun while it lasted (a few hours).

camhart2• 6 years ago

Why are they doing that?

_qulr3• 6 years ago

"certain stories routinely get tons of upvotes regardless of how good they are for HN—e.g. anything sensational, indignant, or meta. If we didn't have a compensating factor, those stories would dominate the front page every day"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13857086

davidjade• 6 years ago

I choose Apple devices because I believe Apple looks out for my interests. I say that as a consumer and a developer who publishes on the App Store as a business. I've seen the kind of nightmare that Android can be and no thanks. If this requires 30% for Apple to afford to keep the review bar high then so be it. But even if it doesn't, its their platform - their rules. If I didn't like it I'd switch to something else but I am thankful that iOS devices for my family aren't a risky proposition to use because app developer are reasonably restricted in what they can do.

My worry is, if the doors get opened to non-Apple app stores and non-Apple reviewed apps, what happens when enough of the top tier apps like Facebook, IG, etc.. move to a store that has less oversight and restrictions? Users essentially get forced to give up what Apple gives them (and what they may have chosen Apple devices for) in terms of oversight and privacy control to use those apps. You can say, "just don't use those apps or stores" but that doesn't match the reality when your friends and family expect you to be connected because they use those apps. So while this may be about fees now, what's to stop if from being about privacy and other bad behavior that Apple doesn't currently allow?

dzonga• 6 years ago

in seeking moderate profits, apple has put themselves into a corner. they literally sold the cow, to pay for the donkey's medicine. apple can't argue that users having alternative means to install apps is insecure, as they allow to that on the mac. they also can't argue about anti-competitive practices and monopoly tendencies e.g 30% cut. only way out was if the 30% was a cut directly to the gvt. whoever is running apple services is one of the most sighted exec's in history.

scarlac• 6 years ago

apple can't argue that users having alternative means to install apps is insecure, as they allow to that on the mac

I don't agree with this evaluation. They can argue it, as all macs are shipped with only access to the app store. You need to specifically opt out.

macOS does have security issues, perhaps moreso than iOS, and that's an argument they could make: Allowing Epic to run a store would compromise the phones of kids and open them up to tracking, aggressive adware, etc. I think it's a fair argument, even if I think 30% is a steep price to pay for what they provide.

rednerrus4• 6 years ago

It'll be interesting to see how much revenue Forknife has generated in the app store.

javieranton• 6 years ago

Let's all go on strike and make our apps unavailable for 24 hrs

patal• 6 years ago

What's up with the layout though? For one, the text alternates between serif and sans-serif fonts, like someone came in and edited the prewritten complaint, but didn't care about formatting. Second, they have problems matching the text to the line number template, e.g. on pages 31, 38, 42, etc.

Is that common for complaints, or is this just hastily written? I remember reading others and noticed peculiar layouts there, too.

Epic Games has filed legal papers in response to Apple [pdf]

Related Stories