The App Store is NOT just another business, Even Walmart and Costco have far more competitors than does the App Store. The app store is the ONLY choice for people with iPhones. The only quasi alternative here would be an Android App Store. Are those very similar choices ? Practically every Apple lover here would argue “no, the Apple experience is far superior”. This is much different than being able to buy the very same identical TV at a large number of different retailers, as some have suggested.
The ultimate goal of capitalism is to become so successful, as to destroy the free market by eliminating and preventing all competition. Let that sink in because most people can’t grasp that at first, Once again, the end goal of capitalism is to destroy free markets, and create an all powerful, monopoly or all powerful, duopoly. That destroys consumer choice, which is the very goal of a free market, People often assume capitalism and free markets go hand in hand, and generally they do.... until a business grows so big that it is no longer subject to competition because it can or has effectively destroyed it,
That’s the very point of anti-trust law. To prevent the destruction of free markets,
There is a price to be paid for total success and rightly so. Once a company becomes so successful that it has essentially destroyed competition, the checks and balances of a free market are destroyed. Either the company is forcibly broken up in a way that restores a level of free market control or it becomes subject to regulations as a substitute for the loss of free market checks and balances.
is the App Store a monopoly or even just a duopoly? The argument for the latter is strong, and for the latter is almost certain,
The real question here is do you support free markets, defined as markets that encourage healthy competition for the benefit of consumers ? If so, you can’t argue that Apple should be allowed to do whatever it wants, because Apple created the App Store. As you cheer on Apple becoming a 2 trillion dollar company, remember that you are also cheering the end of a truly functional free market for mobile apps.
The United States has become a poster child for massive inequality in developed countries and is getting worse. That “American Dream” that is all but gone, was strong after world war 2. The reason the American dream was reborn was the Sherman Act.... powerful anti trust law that broke up large corporate Robber Barons, like Rockefeller. Forcing the breakup of too large and powerful corporations after world war 2 is what brought back the American dream and decades of shared prosperity.
So the larger question here is do you want to worship the control of monopolistic corporations that have grown to destroy free markets, or do you want to see the American dream restored, where the free market ensures maximum productivity and a fair chance for everyone to share in that prosperity ?
You’ve expressed some extremely uninformed opinions here.
Monopolies don’t form in free markets. This is simply historical fact. Monopolies form in regulated environments because regulations favor one form of business over another and it is common for regulations to be written in concert with people from the business sector being affected or by politicians who are funded by special interests which benefit from increased regulation.
Any and all examples of real monopolies which have existed in the US have come about due to market interference and regulation.
If Epic wins, it will turn Apple's App Store into the wild-west, malware-ridden infestation that is Android. I can't believe that anyone, including the government can force any company to open their all-in-one product to allow other companies free reign.
This is not anything remotely similar to what Microsoft did with Windows. Microsoft owned the software, but not the hardware that vendors were loading the OS onto. Microsoft was forcing PC makers to submit to its will. The iPhone is owned and made by Apple, for Apple. It's a toaster. Critics can say whatever they will to suit their narrative, but when it comes down to it, this is Apple's exclusive product and it can do whatever it wants with it.
I'm embarrassed to be a developer, with these crybabies feeling entitled to barge into someone else's house and give orders.
Is Apple required to let Epic back on the store even if Epic relents and wants to pay 30%?
The court may order it to, but as of now it has not so ordered Apple.
Apple has informed Epic that it will deny a reapplication (by Epic) for at least a year. So at this point, Epic doesn't have the option to just undo the hotfix and make Fortnite compliant.
ACTUALLY, Apple said at the court hearing (which, to be fair, was before pulling the dev license) that it would gladly put Fortnite back on the App Store as soon as Epic submits an update that doesn't violate their contract. Things may have changed since then since the judge essentially told Epic they caused the issue, which I interpret as "don't look to me for help when there's a clear remedy" and I would lay large money on Epic not getting the injunction they are looking for.
Contract law is pretty straightforward, which is why Epic is going to lose this particular battle -- and Apple knows it. If Epic actually did undo the illegal "fake fix" and restore Fortnite to the last legal version, Apple would probably ignore it for a couple of days but then restore their dev license and publish the updates -- after extracting a promise that iOS users will get the same updates as everyone else until the court battle is resolved. Apple has a very clear and unequivocal upper hand here: their contract with Epic is not illegal or invalid, it's entirely legal and enforceable. Epic willingly broke the contract without cause. Apple has followed its documented procedures for dealing with the agreement breach. Emotionally, there's a lot going on there -- but legally, there's no case Epic can make: 100 percent of the "harm" they're suffering is self-inflicted.
The App Store is NOT just another business, Even Walmart and Costco have far more competitors than does the App Store. The app store is the ONLY choice for people with iPhones. The only quasi alternative here would be an Android App Store. Are those very similar choices ? Practically every Apple lover here would argue “no, the Apple experience is far superior”. This is much different than being able to buy the very same identical TV at a large number of different retailers, as some have suggested.
———-
Can people not pay amazon or eBay and selling in their store?
Can people just ask Sony or LG to put their app in their TV for free?
Yes Apple is the only store for IOS, but iOS is not biggest mobile OS. People knew they will not able to buy apps from other App Store before they pay for their iPhone. So in a way, they give their consent. If you think Apple suppress innovation, can you explain why millions of people joined the mobile app industry which did not exist before Apple’s first iPhone? Or why most app developers focus on iOS when they can make and sell their app for android, in case you don’t know there is places you can download android app for free.
Amazon is the only marketplace in Amazon ecosystem. Not to mention Amazon is the biggest e-commerce in many countries. If people can just sell for free, amazon will just shut down the 3rd party system.
Your argument is pretty much anyone can force into anyone else’s products or ecosystem for the sake of free market. So all successful company will have tons of freeloader and no pay user. I don’t think it is fair for the people who put their heart and soul to build things. As a result, this situation will actually prevent people to innovate. After all why brother the hard work if you can get a free ride.
Is Apple required to let Epic back on the store even if Epic relents and wants to pay 30%?
The court may order it to, but as of now it has not so ordered Apple.
Apple has informed Epic that it will deny a reapplication (by Epic) for at least a year. So at this point, Epic doesn't have the option to just undo the hotfix and make Fortnite compliant.
ACTUALLY, Apple said at the court hearing (which, to be fair, was before pulling the dev license) that it would gladly put Fortnite back on the App Store as soon as Epic submits an update that doesn't violate their contract. Things may have changed since then since the judge essentially told Epic they caused the issue, which I interpret as "don't look to me for help when there's a clear remedy" and I would lay large money on Epic not getting the injunction they are looking for.
Contract law is pretty straightforward, which is why Epic is going to lose this particular battle -- and Apple knows it. If Epic actually did undo the illegal "fake fix" and restore Fortnite to the last legal version, Apple would probably ignore it for a couple of days but then restore their dev license and publish the updates -- after extracting a promise that iOS users will get the same updates as everyone else until the court battle is resolved. Apple has a very clear and unequivocal upper hand here: their contract with Epic is not illegal or invalid, it's entirely legal and enforceable. Epic willingly broke the contract without cause. Apple has followed its documented procedures for dealing with the agreement breach. Emotionally, there's a lot going on there -- but legally, there's no case Epic can make: 100 percent of the "harm" they're suffering is self-inflicted.
I'm aware of what Apple previously said and what the judge wrote in her TRO order. But the situation has changed since then. When Apple terminated Epic's ('84) developer account it said "please note that we will deny your reapplication to the Apple Developer Program for at least a year considering the nature of your acts." Apple could, of course, change its mind and reinstate the ('84) account or otherwise let Fortnite back on the App Store. The judge could also order Apple to do that if Epic brings Fortnite into compliance with Apple's rules. But as it stands, Epic can't just fix Fortnite and have it back on the App Store.
That said, the antitrust issues are more complicated than I think a lot of people appreciate. I don't think Apple should be considered to have monopoly power in a relevant market or that it should be found to have used that power improperly. But it very well could. Epic has plausible arguments in this case. Based on case law (which we can get further into if you want) Apple could be found to have monopoly power in an antitrust aftermarket defined as iOS app distribution. And it could be found to have used that power in anticompetitive ways. It's also possible, though I think less likely, that the IAP market could be considered a separate antitrust market and Apple could be found to have illegally tied those separate markets.
Contrary to what some seem to think, a company can be found to have monopoly power in a single brand market (e.g. iOS app distribution). There are substantial showings which have to be made to establish such a market as a relevant antitrust market. But it's possible. And Apple's situation is of the kind in which that might be established. From there, if iOS is considered a relevant antitrust market, showing that Apple has used its monopoly power in that market anticompetitively would, I think, be the easier part of the argument.
Is Apple required to let Epic back on the store even if Epic relents and wants to pay 30%?
The court may order it to, but as of now it has not so ordered Apple.
Apple has informed Epic that it will deny a reapplication (by Epic) for at least a year. So at this point, Epic doesn't have the option to just undo the hotfix and make Fortnite compliant.
The court was considering, but rejected, the idea of putting fortnite back on the store with the alternate payment system. It was not considering forcing the product back on the store if the alternate payment system was removed. I was talking about a different scenario entirely. Your second paragraph is a completely new news item to me. I find your point fascinating. I’m going to see if I can confirm that.
My question remains: can Apple stop a third-party software developer from using the App Store if it simply doesn’t like the developer? Similarly, could Walmart refuse to sell Samsung products just because they don’t like Samsung?
That's a darn good question. Could Walmart just chose to not carry Samsung TVs? Could Target just chose not to carry Levi Jeans? I want to say yes, it's a private store and in the end they should be able to say what they do or don't want to carry, and they don't have to give a reason.
Using Epic's logic should Proctor and Gamble demand Costco carry their many products but NOT take a cut because you could pick up a package of TidePods and pay over the air with your phone to P&Gs online store and skip the line? I'd say the premise is absurd. This gets back to Epic's core argument that the AppStore is a monopoly and the government should force Apple to carry anyone's product for free. It's an argument that I didn't agree with when first advanced and the more this unfolds, the more vacuous it seems.
Thanks. I was making a point, and I guess I made it successfully. My question was both rhetorical and legal. But some people here missed my point and instead responded "Why would Apple ever do that?" Indeed, I would even go so far as to say I was implying that Apple *should* hold a grudge against Epic and refuse to let either Epic's software or apps that use Epic's SDK on the App Store. Even if Apple prefers to forgive and forget, my point is that Apple is permitted to say "buh bye."
If a company had an employee that was bad-mouthing them on social media, the company would certainly be allowed to fire that employee. This sort of thing happens all the time. Freedom of speech in the US applies only to US state and federal governments restricting the free speech of others. Keeping critics like Epic off Apple's store would be akin to firing them, and perfectly legal. And, on a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate Epic's egregiousness at around 5. This isn't a 10 out of 10 on the evil scale. What Epic did was no secret and it wasn't theft, so I'm only calling it a 5, and barely that. But you can fire someone for anything above a 0.
The CEO of Facebook has been criticizing Apple lately. In my books, Apple should be allowed to ban Facebook's apps for that reason. I remember Jobs once saying, "That's not our style." I think that's very noble and magnanimous of Apple to let critics generally stay on their app store. Apple's reputation is golden as far as I'm concerned here. Actually, the fact that Apple is launching a counter suit against Epic proves that even their magnanimity has its limits.
Apple doesn't hold grudges, and I'm glad you don't, because I think I disagreed with you a few days ago on something. You should be allowed to ignore me or fire me because we disagreed, but you are being magnanimous, like Apple tends to be.
I'm not sure who responded "Why would Apple ever do that?" But I was addressing the legal aspect of your question. For now Apple could refuse to let Fortnite back on the App Store. But it's possible that the judge will order it to let Fortnite back on the App Store if Epic brings the app into compliance.
More generally, businesses often can refuse to do business with certain entities - would be customers or other businesses. But in many circumstances they can't refuse to. As with so many legal issues, the why can be important. Apple generally could refuse to let a developer like Epic develop and distribute apps through the App Store. But there are reasons which Apple might have for doing that which wouldn't be allowed and a court might order it to not do that. In this situation, if Apple is ultimately found to have violated antitrust laws (which is a possible, though I don't think that should happen), it likely wouldn't be able to refuse to let Fortnite back on the App Store. It can't, e.g., use monopoly power anticompetitively.
Is Apple required to let Epic back on the store even if Epic relents and wants to pay 30%?
The court may order it to, but as of now it has not so ordered Apple.
Apple has informed Epic that it will deny a reapplication (by Epic) for at least a year. So at this point, Epic doesn't have the option to just undo the hotfix and make Fortnite compliant.
Have you got a statement from Apple about the year-long ban? This is the se ind time I’ve heard this, and I still can’t find the original link for it.
Hopefully Apple will be hit with severe sanctions for filing this frivolous action. This may even qualify for California's SLAPP law because it's such an egregious and obvious attempt to silence Epic (and ultimately the rest of us).
This isn't really about Epic.
This is about MY right to install any software of MY choice on MY iPhone.
NOT Apple's iPhone. MY iPhone. Apple sold it to me, it's not Apple's any more. And Apple is illegally denying me the right to run software of my choice on MY iPhone.
The App Store is NOT just another business, Even Walmart and Costco have far more competitors than does the App Store. The app store is the ONLY choice for people with iPhones. The only quasi alternative here would be an Android App Store. Are those very similar choices ? Practically every Apple lover here would argue “no, the Apple experience is far superior”. This is much different than being able to buy the very same identical TV at a large number of different retailers, as some have suggested.
The ultimate goal of capitalism is to become so successful, as to destroy the free market by eliminating and preventing all competition. Let that sink in because most people can’t grasp that at first, Once again, the end goal of capitalism is to destroy free markets, and create an all powerful, monopoly or all powerful, duopoly. That destroys consumer choice, which is the very goal of a free market, People often assume capitalism and free markets go hand in hand, and generally they do.... until a business grows so big that it is no longer subject to competition because it can or has effectively destroyed it,
That’s the very point of anti-trust law. To prevent the destruction of free markets,
There is a price to be paid for total success and rightly so. Once a company becomes so successful that it has essentially destroyed competition, the checks and balances of a free market are destroyed. Either the company is forcibly broken up in a way that restores a level of free market control or it becomes subject to regulations as a substitute for the loss of free market checks and balances.
is the App Store a monopoly or even just a duopoly? The argument for the latter is strong, and for the latter is almost certain,
The real question here is do you support free markets, defined as markets that encourage healthy competition for the benefit of consumers ? If so, you can’t argue that Apple should be allowed to do whatever it wants, because Apple created the App Store. As you cheer on Apple becoming a 2 trillion dollar company, remember that you are also cheering the end of a truly functional free market for mobile apps.
The United States has become a poster child for massive inequality in developed countries and is getting worse. That “American Dream” that is all but gone, was strong after world war 2. The reason the American dream was reborn was the Sherman Act.... powerful anti trust law that broke up large corporate Robber Barons, like Rockefeller. Forcing the breakup of too large and powerful corporations after world war 2 is what brought back the American dream and decades of shared prosperity.
So the larger question here is do you want to worship the control of monopolistic corporations that have grown to destroy free markets, or do you want to see the American dream restored, where the free market ensures maximum productivity and a fair chance for everyone to share in that prosperity ?
Oh, is "the point" a bunch of gibberish that doesn't apply to the subject at hand? It seems like you don't actually know the definitions of the words "capitalism" or "duopoly". Which free market was destroyed by the App Store?
Is Apple required to let Epic back on the store even if Epic relents and wants to pay 30%?
The court may order it to, but as of now it has not so ordered Apple.
Apple has informed Epic that it will deny a reapplication (by Epic) for at least a year. So at this point, Epic doesn't have the option to just undo the hotfix and make Fortnite compliant.
Have you got a statement from Apple about the year-long ban? This is the se ind time I’ve heard this, and I still can’t find the original link for it.
The termination letter which Apple sent Epic was included as an exhibit in one of Epic's court filings.
The App Store is NOT just another business, Even Walmart and Costco have far more competitors than does the App Store. The app store is the ONLY choice for people with iPhones. The only quasi alternative here would be an Android App Store. Are those very similar choices ? Practically every Apple lover here would argue “no, the Apple experience is far superior”. This is much different than being able to buy the very same identical TV at a large number of different retailers, as some have suggested.
The ultimate goal of capitalism is to become so successful, as to destroy the free market by eliminating and preventing all competition. Let that sink in because most people can’t grasp that at first, Once again, the end goal of capitalism is to destroy free markets, and create an all powerful, monopoly or all powerful, duopoly. That destroys consumer choice, which is the very goal of a free market, People often assume capitalism and free markets go hand in hand, and generally they do.... until a business grows so big that it is no longer subject to competition because it can or has effectively destroyed it,
That’s the very point of anti-trust law. To prevent the destruction of free markets,
There is a price to be paid for total success and rightly so. Once a company becomes so successful that it has essentially destroyed competition, the checks and balances of a free market are destroyed. Either the company is forcibly broken up in a way that restores a level of free market control or it becomes subject to regulations as a substitute for the loss of free market checks and balances.
is the App Store a monopoly or even just a duopoly? The argument for the latter is strong, and for the latter is almost certain,
The real question here is do you support free markets, defined as markets that encourage healthy competition for the benefit of consumers ? If so, you can’t argue that Apple should be allowed to do whatever it wants, because Apple created the App Store. As you cheer on Apple becoming a 2 trillion dollar company, remember that you are also cheering the end of a truly functional free market for mobile apps.
The United States has become a poster child for massive inequality in developed countries and is getting worse. That “American Dream” that is all but gone, was strong after world war 2. The reason the American dream was reborn was the Sherman Act.... powerful anti trust law that broke up large corporate Robber Barons, like Rockefeller. Forcing the breakup of too large and powerful corporations after world war 2 is what brought back the American dream and decades of shared prosperity.
So the larger question here is do you want to worship the control of monopolistic corporations that have grown to destroy free markets, or do you want to see the American dream restored, where the free market ensures maximum productivity and a fair chance for everyone to share in that prosperity ?
Thanks for the lecture.
I think I prefer Apple's version of the American Dream™️.
Hopefully Apple will be hit with severe sanctions for filing this frivolous action. This may even qualify for California's SLAPP law because it's such an egregious and obvious attempt to silence Epic (and ultimately the rest of us).
This isn't really about Epic.
This is about MY right to install any software of MY choice on MY iPhone.
NOT Apple's iPhone. MY iPhone. Apple sold it to me, it's not Apple's any more. And Apple is illegally denying me the right to run software of my choice on MY iPhone.
Is Apple required to let Epic back on the store even if Epic relents and wants to pay 30%?
The court may order it to, but as of now it has not so ordered Apple.
Apple has informed Epic that it will deny a reapplication (by Epic) for at least a year. So at this point, Epic doesn't have the option to just undo the hotfix and make Fortnite compliant.
The court was considering, but rejected, the idea of putting fortnite back on the store with the alternate payment system. It was not considering forcing the product back on the store if the alternate payment system was removed. I was talking about a different scenario entirely. Your second paragraph is a completely new news item to me. I find your point fascinating. I’m going to see if I can confirm that.
My question remains: can Apple stop a third-party software developer from using the App Store if it simply doesn’t like the developer? Similarly, could Walmart refuse to sell Samsung products just because they don’t like Samsung?
Well, yes, They’ve been doing it for years by not allowing apps into the store that overlap existing functionality.
Is it legal? Yup. Last year Walmart stopped selling certain types of guns and ammunition in its stores.
Now where it gets murky is when religion and homosexuality clash:
In both cases, the final verdict found that you can refuse to sell a cake emblazoned with “gayness” if it clashes with your beliefs.
I support LGBTQ+ rights and I’m not religious, but I was backing the religious nuts on this one. Why? Because how would gay bakers feel if someone demanded they bake a cake with “homosexuality is a sin” written on the top in fondant icing?
If Epic wins, it will turn Apple's App Store into the wild-west, malware-ridden infestation that is Android. I can't believe that anyone, including the government can force any company to open their all-in-one product to allow other companies free reign.
This is not anything remotely similar to what Microsoft did with Windows. Microsoft owned the software, but not the hardware that vendors were loading the OS onto. Microsoft was forcing PC makers to submit to its will. The iPhone is owned and made by Apple, for Apple. It's a toaster. Critics can say whatever they will to suit their narrative, but when it comes down to it, this is Apple's exclusive product and it can do whatever it wants with it.
I'm embarrassed to be a developer, with these crybabies feeling entitled to barge into someone else's house and give orders.
The iPhone is owned by the person who buys it.
Yes, but the operating system isn’t. You have a license to use it, but you certainly don’t own it.
And since most phones come as part of a contract, you don’t own the phone until you’ve paid it off.
And as more people take advantage of Apple’s loan scheme, then fewer people will actually own the phone until that’s paid off too.
And once Apple starts providing the device as part of the subscription …
I remember a mac world where Nvidia jumped the gun about there great graphic cards that would be the next mac. It ended with Nvidia no longer showing up in a mac officially. Apple has a we will never forget attitude. Apple almost never licenses software from a company that took them to court. It’s often petty on apples part they should be bigger than that but they seldom are. Epic killed it’s golden goose. They might as well move on.
Your explanation is incorrect. It is actually Nvidia who has chosen not to support Apple's macOS Metal API in their graphics cards. The moment Nvidia hardware supports Metal, Apple will sign their drivers. Nvidia won't cooperate. I presume the reason Apple wants direct support for Metal is so that the system works faster as a whole, but Nvidia couldn't care less if Macs are slowed down by two levels of driver conversion. I think Apple has the right to insist on efficiency, and since Nvidia won't play ball, but AMD did, Apple was forced to go only with AMD. Now that the new Mac Pro has PCIe slots, it's possible that Nvidia will reconsider their intransigence.
Comments
Monopolies don’t form in free markets. This is simply historical fact. Monopolies form in regulated environments because regulations favor one form of business over another and it is common for regulations to be written in concert with people from the business sector being affected or by politicians who are funded by special interests which benefit from increased regulation.
Any and all examples of real monopolies which have existed in the US have come about due to market interference and regulation.
That said, the antitrust issues are more complicated than I think a lot of people appreciate. I don't think Apple should be considered to have monopoly power in a relevant market or that it should be found to have used that power improperly. But it very well could. Epic has plausible arguments in this case. Based on case law (which we can get further into if you want) Apple could be found to have monopoly power in an antitrust aftermarket defined as iOS app distribution. And it could be found to have used that power in anticompetitive ways. It's also possible, though I think less likely, that the IAP market could be considered a separate antitrust market and Apple could be found to have illegally tied those separate markets.
Contrary to what some seem to think, a company can be found to have monopoly power in a single brand market (e.g. iOS app distribution). There are substantial showings which have to be made to establish such a market as a relevant antitrust market. But it's possible. And Apple's situation is of the kind in which that might be established. From there, if iOS is considered a relevant antitrust market, showing that Apple has used its monopoly power in that market anticompetitively would, I think, be the easier part of the argument.
More generally, businesses often can refuse to do business with certain entities - would be customers or other businesses. But in many circumstances they can't refuse to. As with so many legal issues, the why can be important. Apple generally could refuse to let a developer like Epic develop and distribute apps through the App Store. But there are reasons which Apple might have for doing that which wouldn't be allowed and a court might order it to not do that. In this situation, if Apple is ultimately found to have violated antitrust laws (which is a possible, though I don't think that should happen), it likely wouldn't be able to refuse to let Fortnite back on the App Store. It can't, e.g., use monopoly power anticompetitively.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.63.8.pdf
Thanks for the lecture.
Well, yes, They’ve been doing it for years by not allowing apps into the store that overlap existing functionality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/10/uk-supreme-court-backs-bakery-that-refused-to-make-gay-wedding-cake
In both cases, the final verdict found that you can refuse to sell a cake emblazoned with “gayness” if it clashes with your beliefs.
No, you did. Monopolies are not illegal. Never have been. If they were then you’re basically punishing companies for being successful.