Bornstein says that console markets taking 30% is fundamentally different than Apple, since consoles generally operate at a loss
Why is that fundamentally different? Apple isn’t allowed to make money on the equipment and the App Store? That seems like a preference of Bornstein but nothing that would hold up in court. To me the App Store commission percentage between platforms is completely relevant and should stand on its own. If Epic is fine with Sony and Nintendo charging 30% then he must be fine with Apple doing the same. How was that not ruled on in summary judgement??
People probably don't remember that we all had to pay for OS upgrades. Mac OS was $129, and if I remember, iOS was $19.99 (or 9.99?). The advent and success of the App Store has allowed Apple to remove the need for revenue from OS upgrade sales (to sustain platform development) and that's when they started offering free upgrades. This in turn has allowed Apple to achieve the unusually high upgrade numbers and move the platform forward at a pace the industry had never seen and no one else can match.
While agree Apple does need to do something, allowing 3rd party App Stores on the platform is not one of them. I'm all for side-loading (from "identified" developers and at user's own risk), and dropping their cut from 30/15% to 20/10%.
Actually, Apple providing “free” OS upgrades has absolutely nothing to do with the App Store. When Apple made that change, I think it was around the release of “Snow Leopard”, said they were using an accounting trick to integrate all future software upgrades into the purchase cost of the Apple device.
Mac OS X Mavericks was the first free OS upgrade for users of Snow Leopard and up. Snow Leopard was the first OS with a price cut... from $129 to $29.
The value of the operating system has always been baked into the price of the device. Giving away the OS did not bring that about. The accounting "excuse" was created merely to justify the expense of developing the operating system and no longer making a profit directly from OS sales. It allowed them to continue whatever accounting practices they had used for years.
The point I was making is that Apple no longer needed direct revenue from those OS upgrades because of the revenue and profit the App Store was bringing in. For that matter, they also were able to start giving away their iWork apps (Pages, Keynote, Numbers) as well.
Bornstein says that console markets taking 30% is fundamentally different than Apple, since consoles generally operate at a loss
Why is that fundamentally different? Apple isn’t allowed to make money on the equipment and the App Store? That seems like a preference of Bornstein but nothing that would hold up in court. To me the App Store commission percentage between platforms is completely relevant and should stand on its own. If Epic is fine with Sony and Nintendo charging 30% then he must be fine with Apple doing the same. How was that not ruled on in summary judgement??
Epic really isn't "fine" with Microsoft, Nintendo & Sony charging 30% on their console's stores. When Epic says they are "fine" it is like asking another person if they are okay and they go "yeah I'm fiinnee!" They say they are fine but clearly they are not fine.
....
Apple has made it known however they can make exceptions when the exceptions benefit Apple. They want to get more people on Apple TV so the exceptions given to streaming apps benefits Apple especially when competitors do no have a particular app.
People want to compare iOS Devices to Windows, Android or even macOS, because of its reach. They don't want to compare iOS Devices to the likes of PlayStation or xBox, or even LG TV's running webOS, because of, well, their lack of reach.
People want to make the case that iOS is the product, just as Android and Windows is, but THAT'S NOT THE CASE. Android and Windows are available on devices from many OEMs... Microsoft and Google have to be more open about how their platforms work, because the end product is not theirs, it is the OEMs device. And to attract OEMs to their platform, they need to be flexible enough to allow those EOMs to make changes so their products can stand apart from competitors. Microsoft got in trouble because they tried to dictate what those OEMs could and couldn't do, specifically prohibiting them from selling devices that used other competing platforms. And since Windows was the dominant platform (an actual monopoly), it made it extremely difficult to remain in business unless you also sold Windows based systems.
Apple telling developers what they can and cannot do on iOS devices is not monopolistic behavior. If Apple were to tell a developer that if they wanted to develop apps on iOS then they couldn't write the same app on Android or Windows, then that could in fact be considered monopolistic behavior. That's Apple using their platform's power to gain leverage over a competing platform, by controlling what that developer can do outside of Apple's platform. But that's not what Apple does... they say, "This is our device/platform and this is what you can do on it. We don't care what you do anywhere else, that's not our business."
The fact is, iOS is not a product... iPhones and iPads are the product, just as Playstations, or xBoxes are. Nobody dictates what Sony or Microsoft or LG does on their respective products because they are seen in a different light. Unless and until iOS devices are the dominant mobile devices leaving little alternatives for consumers to turn to, Apple should be free to do whatever they want with their devices and platform.
After reading through, it seems the judge is so biased. Maybe (could even) be bribed by Apple in some god-knows-how way!
This is a trial of a century, it defines the fall of world largest company Apple, it should be treated with some real unbiased group of people because they will change human society forever.
This is like going to a Japanese restaurant and being mad that they don't serve Mexican food.
Ha. Yeah I've phrased it similarly -- it's like a sushi vendor being mad at McDonald's for not allowing them to set up a sushi stand in their parking lot.
Bornstein says that console markets taking 30% is fundamentally different than Apple, since consoles generally operate at a loss
Why is that fundamentally different? Apple isn’t allowed to make money on the equipment and the App Store? That seems like a preference of Bornstein but nothing that would hold up in court. To me the App Store commission percentage between platforms is completely relevant and should stand on its own. If Epic is fine with Sony and Nintendo charging 30% then he must be fine with Apple doing the same. How was that not ruled on in summary judgement??
Epic really isn't "fine" with Microsoft, Nintendo & Sony charging 30% on their console's stores. When Epic says they are "fine" it is like asking another person if they are okay and they go "yeah I'm fiinnee!" They say they are fine but clearly they are not fine.
....
Apple has made it known however they can make exceptions when the exceptions benefit Apple. They want to get more people on Apple TV so the exceptions given to streaming apps benefits Apple especially when competitors do no have a particular app.
People want to compare iOS Devices to Windows, Android or even macOS, because of its reach. They don't want to compare iOS Devices to the likes of PlayStation or xBox, or even LG TV's running webOS, because of, well, their lack of reach.
People want to make the case that iOS is the product, just as Android and Windows is, but THAT'S NOT THE CASE. Android and Windows are available on devices from many OEMs... Microsoft and Google have to be more open about how their platforms work, because the end product is not theirs, it is the OEMs device. And to attract OEMs to their platform, they need to be flexible enough to allow those EOMs to make changes so their products can stand apart from competitors. Microsoft got in trouble because they tried to dictate what those OEMs could and couldn't do, specifically prohibiting them from selling devices that used other competing platforms. And since Windows was the dominant platform (an actual monopoly), it made it extremely difficult to remain in business unless you also sold Windows based systems.
Apple telling developers what they can and cannot do on iOS devices is not monopolistic behavior. If Apple were to tell a developer that if they wanted to develop apps on iOS then they couldn't write the same app on Android or Windows, then that could in fact be considered monopolistic behavior. That's Apple using their platform's power to gain leverage over a competing platform, by controlling what that developer can do outside of Apple's platform. But that's not what Apple does... they say, "This is our device/platform and this is what you can do on it. We don't care what you do anywhere else, that's not our business."
The fact is, iOS is not a product... iPhones and iPads are the product, just as Playstations, or xBoxes are. Nobody dictates what Sony or Microsoft or LG does on their respective products because they are seen in a different light. Unless and until iOS devices are the dominant mobile devices leaving little alternatives for consumers to turn to, Apple should be free to do whatever they want with their devices and platform.
This is right. As Daringfireball's John Gruber puts it, iPhones are an "app console". A console is not limited to video games, tho those are the most popular use. iPhone is a hardware console built to run apps. He also points out that Xbox is a just a computer built with PC parts, yet you don't hear the software devs demanding to be able to release non-Xbox software on Xbox hardware. Illogical double-standard for demanding to do so on iPhone.
Bornstein says that console markets taking 30% is fundamentally different than Apple, since consoles generally operate at a loss
Why is that fundamentally different? Apple isn’t allowed to make money on the equipment and the App Store? That seems like a preference of Bornstein but nothing that would hold up in court. To me the App Store commission percentage between platforms is completely relevant and should stand on its own. If Epic is fine with Sony and Nintendo charging 30% then he must be fine with Apple doing the same. How was that not ruled on in summary judgement??
Epic really isn't "fine" with Microsoft, Nintendo & Sony charging 30% on their console's stores. When Epic says they are "fine" it is like asking another person if they are okay and they go "yeah I'm fiinnee!" They say they are fine but clearly they are not fine.
....
Apple has made it known however they can make exceptions when the exceptions benefit Apple. They want to get more people on Apple TV so the exceptions given to streaming apps benefits Apple especially when competitors do no have a particular app.
People want to compare iOS Devices to Windows, Android or even macOS, because of its reach. They don't want to compare iOS Devices to the likes of PlayStation or xBox, or even LG TV's running webOS, because of, well, their lack of reach.
People want to make the case that iOS is the product, just as Android and Windows is, but THAT'S NOT THE CASE. Android and Windows are available on devices from many OEMs... Microsoft and Google have to be more open about how their platforms work, because the end product is not theirs, it is the OEMs device. And to attract OEMs to their platform, they need to be flexible enough to allow those EOMs to make changes so their products can stand apart from competitors. Microsoft got in trouble because they tried to dictate what those OEMs could and couldn't do, specifically prohibiting them from selling devices that used other competing platforms. And since Windows was the dominant platform (an actual monopoly), it made it extremely difficult to remain in business unless you also sold Windows based systems.
Apple telling developers what they can and cannot do on iOS devices is not monopolistic behavior. If Apple were to tell a developer that if they wanted to develop apps on iOS then they couldn't write the same app on Android or Windows, then that could in fact be considered monopolistic behavior. That's Apple using their platform's power to gain leverage over a competing platform, by controlling what that developer can do outside of Apple's platform. But that's not what Apple does... they say, "This is our device/platform and this is what you can do on it. We don't care what you do anywhere else, that's not our business."
The fact is, iOS is not a product... iPhones and iPads are the product, just as Playstations, or xBoxes are. Nobody dictates what Sony or Microsoft or LG does on their respective products because they are seen in a different light. Unless and until iOS devices are the dominant mobile devices leaving little alternatives for consumers to turn to, Apple should be free to do whatever they want with their devices and platform.
This is right. As Daringfireball's John Gruber puts it, iPhones are an "app console". A console is not limited to video games, tho those are the most popular use. iPhone is a hardware console built to run apps. He also points out that Xbox is a just a computer built with PC parts, yet you don't hear the software devs demanding to be able to release non-Xbox software on Xbox hardware. Illogical double-standard for demanding to do so on iPhone.
That's a very interesting point. So would you say both a Google Pixel 4 and a Samsung Galaxy Note 20 are also an "app console"?
Bornstein says that console markets taking 30% is fundamentally different than Apple, since consoles generally operate at a loss
Why is that fundamentally different? Apple isn’t allowed to make money on the equipment and the App Store? That seems like a preference of Bornstein but nothing that would hold up in court. To me the App Store commission percentage between platforms is completely relevant and should stand on its own. If Epic is fine with Sony and Nintendo charging 30% then he must be fine with Apple doing the same. How was that not ruled on in summary judgement??
Epic really isn't "fine" with Microsoft, Nintendo & Sony charging 30% on their console's stores. When Epic says they are "fine" it is like asking another person if they are okay and they go "yeah I'm fiinnee!" They say they are fine but clearly they are not fine.
....
Apple has made it known however they can make exceptions when the exceptions benefit Apple. They want to get more people on Apple TV so the exceptions given to streaming apps benefits Apple especially when competitors do no have a particular app.
People want to compare iOS Devices to Windows, Android or even macOS, because of its reach. They don't want to compare iOS Devices to the likes of PlayStation or xBox, or even LG TV's running webOS, because of, well, their lack of reach.
People want to make the case that iOS is the product, just as Android and Windows is, but THAT'S NOT THE CASE. Android and Windows are available on devices from many OEMs... Microsoft and Google have to be more open about how their platforms work, because the end product is not theirs, it is the OEMs device. And to attract OEMs to their platform, they need to be flexible enough to allow those EOMs to make changes so their products can stand apart from competitors. Microsoft got in trouble because they tried to dictate what those OEMs could and couldn't do, specifically prohibiting them from selling devices that used other competing platforms. And since Windows was the dominant platform (an actual monopoly), it made it extremely difficult to remain in business unless you also sold Windows based systems.
Apple telling developers what they can and cannot do on iOS devices is not monopolistic behavior. If Apple were to tell a developer that if they wanted to develop apps on iOS then they couldn't write the same app on Android or Windows, then that could in fact be considered monopolistic behavior. That's Apple using their platform's power to gain leverage over a competing platform, by controlling what that developer can do outside of Apple's platform. But that's not what Apple does... they say, "This is our device/platform and this is what you can do on it. We don't care what you do anywhere else, that's not our business."
The fact is, iOS is not a product... iPhones and iPads are the product, just as Playstations, or xBoxes are. Nobody dictates what Sony or Microsoft or LG does on their respective products because they are seen in a different light. Unless and until iOS devices are the dominant mobile devices leaving little alternatives for consumers to turn to, Apple should be free to do whatever they want with their devices and platform.
This is right. As Daringfireball's John Gruber puts it, iPhones are an "app console". A console is not limited to video games, tho those are the most popular use. iPhone is a hardware console built to run apps. He also points out that Xbox is a just a computer built with PC parts, yet you don't hear the software devs demanding to be able to release non-Xbox software on Xbox hardware. Illogical double-standard for demanding to do so on iPhone.
That's a very interesting point. So would you say both a Google Pixel 4 and a Samsung Galaxy Note 20 are also an "app console"?
Don't get confused with the terms or the categories. Consoles are just a convenient metaphor for saying the platform owner can structure their platform in the manner they want. The platform is basically a set of application programming interfaces that people can use to program apps or services to run on the platform. The platform owner can choose to structure their platform so that there aren't any public APIs at all, so that there aren't any third party apps available for it like iPods, so that 3rd party apps can only be made available through platform owners app store, or a free for all like Linux or Unix. It really doesn't matter what form factor that the platform runs on. Some platforms don't even run on "hardware", like HTML/CSS/Javascript.
In the parlance that Gruber is using, since the Google Pixel and Note 20 allow arbitrary side-loading, they are not "app" consoles. He's just saying iPhones and iPads are closed platforms like Xboxes or Playstations are, and therefore is using the term "app console" to try to get the point across.
Bornstein says that console markets taking 30% is fundamentally different than Apple, since consoles generally operate at a loss
Why is that fundamentally different? Apple isn’t allowed to make money on the equipment and the App Store? That seems like a preference of Bornstein but nothing that would hold up in court. To me the App Store commission percentage between platforms is completely relevant and should stand on its own. If Epic is fine with Sony and Nintendo charging 30% then he must be fine with Apple doing the same. How was that not ruled on in summary judgement??
Epic really isn't "fine" with Microsoft, Nintendo & Sony charging 30% on their console's stores. When Epic says they are "fine" it is like asking another person if they are okay and they go "yeah I'm fiinnee!" They say they are fine but clearly they are not fine.
However in the home video console market you only have 3 companies and all 3 have similar, uniform policies for their online stores hence why Epic isn't doing anything there. There is no alternative way for Epic to distribute their product on Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 4 & 5 and Xbox One (X/S) & Xbox Series (X|S) without agreeing to their terms. A publisher like Epic can't skate around the console's digital storefronts in any way. To release a physical disc version (PlayStation/Xbox) or cartridge (Switch) a digital version of the game must be released either before the physical release or on Day 1 of the physical release.
Since Microsoft, Nintendo & Sony control the publishing of physical games on their platforms and do not allow third party companies to press their own game discs or cartridges to maintain quality control (to avoid what happened on the Atari 2600 in the 80s) the consoles are absolutely deadlocked.
Plus the userbase on consoles is too much to ignore. This why Microsoft never pulled Minecraft from Sony when Microsoft was going hard on cross-platform play and Sony was like "um, how about no". This is also why Epic will not force a situation where Microsoft, Nintendo & Sony have to enforce their policies that is just too much of a userbase that is way more brand loyal than the mobile phone market.
On the PC front Epic has been at war with Steam over Steam keeping 30% as well. Epic pulled their content from Steam and created the Epic Games Store and put all their content there. Epic also attracts other publishers to the Epic Game Store by offering to only take a 12% cut. They will even cover part of a game's production cost and waive licensing fees for their Unreal Engine if the game developer enters into either a timed or complete exclusivity agreement with Epic Games Store. This has created a huge amount of controversy on the PC space mainly hatred towards Epic for this.
On the Android side the primary storefront is the Google Play Store which has policies similar to Apple's App Store. However Android smartphone & tablet users can still play Fortnite and get the updates unlike their iOS & iPad OS counterparts. The reason is the Android OS allows for third party official storefronts and major device manufactures like Samsung operate their own storefronts alongside the Google Play Store.
Like on my iPad Pro I can't play Fortnite or any other Epic game even if I wanted to. On my Samsung Galaxy Note20 5G there are no Epic Games in the Google Play Store but I can download Epic's games like Fornite from the Samsung Galaxy Store. The alternate method on Android OS is you can download Fortnite directly from their website and sideload it onto your Android device.
So on the Android front there really isn't a anti-competitive case to be made. Epic has alternate ways to release their product for Android users if they don't like the Google Play Store like on PC. If Epic wants to use the Google Play Store then they need to abide by Google's rules.
Apple devices are the only non-console devices that have a complete walled garden with no other form of acquiring apps. This does give Apple way more control over apps than the Android OS and PC space. Apple can control what features an app has on their platforms and reject them or ask them to remove a feature.
Also the consoles treat all games and apps the same on their platforms. Apple does make special exemptions to their policies for streaming apps. (A big difference between the consoles and Apple here.) The only reason you don't find many streaming apps on Nintendo Switch is simply after they made the Hulu & YouTube agreements they decided they didn't want anymore streaming apps on Switch.
Apple takes a 15% cut from Prime Video in app subscriptions which Amazon used their opt-out on to prevent this. Apple doesn't collect anything from Prime Video rentals & purchases (normally Apple would collect 30% which is why Vudu opts out of allowing its customers to rent and purchase content from its app.) Apple's agreement allows them to take 15% of the revenue of Prime Video Channel subscriptions made within the app on Apple devices so Amazon disabled the feature which Apple allowed.
Netflix is given an opt-out of offering in-app subscriptions to avoid the 30% cut and also has an opt-out so they don't have to support the Apple TV app.
Spotify is given an opt-out from in-app purchases for their subscriptions because the app has a "free component" and its app can play your local audio files.
So while legally Epic may not have a leg to stand on here since they willfully agreed to and then broke the guidelines the more that comes to light about Apple's App Store practices clearly indicate not all apps are treated equally.
Apple has made it known however they can make exceptions when the exceptions benefit Apple. They want to get more people on Apple TV so the exceptions given to streaming apps benefits Apple especially when competitors do no have a particular app.
Any app can do what Netflix or Spotify do - offer a separate payment mechanism on the Web. As long as they do not link to it from their app.
Bornstein says that console markets taking 30% is fundamentally different than Apple, since consoles generally operate at a loss
Why is that fundamentally different? Apple isn’t allowed to make money on the equipment and the App Store? That seems like a preference of Bornstein but nothing that would hold up in court. To me the App Store commission percentage between platforms is completely relevant and should stand on its own. If Epic is fine with Sony and Nintendo charging 30% then he must be fine with Apple doing the same. How was that not ruled on in summary judgement??
Epic really isn't "fine" with Microsoft, Nintendo & Sony charging 30% on their console's stores. When Epic says they are "fine" it is like asking another person if they are okay and they go "yeah I'm fiinnee!" They say they are fine but clearly they are not fine.
....
Apple has made it known however they can make exceptions when the exceptions benefit Apple. They want to get more people on Apple TV so the exceptions given to streaming apps benefits Apple especially when competitors do no have a particular app.
People want to compare iOS Devices to Windows, Android or even macOS, because of its reach. They don't want to compare iOS Devices to the likes of PlayStation or xBox, or even LG TV's running webOS, because of, well, their lack of reach.
People want to make the case that iOS is the product, just as Android and Windows is, but THAT'S NOT THE CASE. Android and Windows are available on devices from many OEMs... Microsoft and Google have to be more open about how their platforms work, because the end product is not theirs, it is the OEMs device. And to attract OEMs to their platform, they need to be flexible enough to allow those EOMs to make changes so their products can stand apart from competitors. Microsoft got in trouble because they tried to dictate what those OEMs could and couldn't do, specifically prohibiting them from selling devices that used other competing platforms. And since Windows was the dominant platform (an actual monopoly), it made it extremely difficult to remain in business unless you also sold Windows based systems.
Apple telling developers what they can and cannot do on iOS devices is not monopolistic behavior. If Apple were to tell a developer that if they wanted to develop apps on iOS then they couldn't write the same app on Android or Windows, then that could in fact be considered monopolistic behavior. That's Apple using their platform's power to gain leverage over a competing platform, by controlling what that developer can do outside of Apple's platform. But that's not what Apple does... they say, "This is our device/platform and this is what you can do on it. We don't care what you do anywhere else, that's not our business."
The fact is, iOS is not a product... iPhones and iPads are the product, just as Playstations, or xBoxes are. Nobody dictates what Sony or Microsoft or LG does on their respective products because they are seen in a different light. Unless and until iOS devices are the dominant mobile devices leaving little alternatives for consumers to turn to, Apple should be free to do whatever they want with their devices and platform.
This is right. As Daringfireball's John Gruber puts it, iPhones are an "app console". A console is not limited to video games, tho those are the most popular use. iPhone is a hardware console built to run apps. He also points out that Xbox is a just a computer built with PC parts, yet you don't hear the software devs demanding to be able to release non-Xbox software on Xbox hardware. Illogical double-standard for demanding to do so on iPhone.
That's a very interesting point. So would you say both a Google Pixel 4 and a Samsung Galaxy Note 20 are also an "app console"?
Not the in way John Gruber use the term "console". Gruber was pointing out that with game "consoles", the maker of the "console" own the hardware AND the software it operates on. The maker of the hardware also owns the OS running on that hardware. Microsoft has full control of what gets to be in an X-Box because they also own the OS it runs on. Sony has full control of what get to be on a PlayStation because they also own the OS it runs on. Just like how Apple gets to have full control of what get to run on iDevices because they own iOS. In these cases, both the hardware and software that consist of the OS, are consider platforms. They are not two separate products that are sold separately. One can not buy the OS running on a game console and use it to build their own game console. Just as one can not buy iOS and use it on their own hardware.
With the Google Pixel and Samsung note 20, neither Google or Samsung own the Android OS in those devices. Though Google maintains the source code for Android, they are open source and available for anyone to use for free. Only devices that include or are compatible with Google apps, can claim to be using "Android'. "Android" is actually a trademark own by Google and can only be use on devices if the OS derived from the Android source codes is compatible with all the Google apps.
Amazon uses the open "Android" source code for their Fire devices and don't include any Google apps nor claimed to be compatible with all the Google apps. Therefore, their OS is referred to as Fire OS. Which is a fork of "Android". Though one can side load the Google Play Store into an Amazon Fire device, Amazon do not support it and offer no support if any of the apps available in the Google Play Store do not work on with their Fire OS. Amazon rather you buy apps through their own app store. And they also take a 30% cut.
So no, most devices running "Android" are not "consoles" in the same way John Gruber uses the term "console". The Android hardware makers do not have full control of the OS as anyone can get a hold of the Android open source codes and make their own device running on "Android" or a fork of Android. The hardware and Android are separate products, thus only Android can be considered a platform. Devices running Android is not consider a platform. The Google Pixel 4 running Android is not the same as an iPhone running iOS. One of them is like a game "console" and can be consider a platform.
Just like a Dell laptop running Windows is not a platform. The platform in this case is just Windows. Windows is a separate product that can be bought and installed on any compatible hardware.
After reading through, it seems the judge is so biased. Maybe (could even) be bribed by Apple in some god-knows-how way!
This is a trial of a century, it defines the fall of world largest company Apple, it should be treated with some real unbiased group of people because they will change human society forever.
Gee ... with your illogical reasoning and inflammatory opinions, you should be part of the Epic legal team.
Epic - like a lot of Apple's current crop of litigants - is just after Apple's customer base and the money they have. Anything else is just b*llsh*t.
Collecting 30% of the lucre needed to buy virtual hair dye seems fair, especially considering that Apple created, developed, and maintains the entire hardware and software stack, and they deserve to profit from anyone who wants to play in their sandbox.
Epic is perfectly free to develop their own hardware/software platform and make the rules there.
After reading through, it seems the judge is so biased. Maybe (could even) be bribed by Apple in some god-knows-how way!
This is a trial of a century, it defines the fall of world largest company Apple, it should be treated with some real unbiased group of people because they will change human society forever.
Gee ... with your illogical reasoning and inflammatory opinions, you should be part of the Epic legal team.
Epic - like a lot of Apple's current crop of litigants - is just after Apple's customer base and the money they have. Anything else is just b*llsh*t.
Collecting 30% of the lucre needed to buy virtual hair dye seems fair, especially considering that Apple created, developed, and maintains the entire hardware and software stack, and they deserve to profit from anyone who wants to play in their sandbox.
Epic is perfectly free to develop their own hardware/software platform and make the rules there.
After reading through, it seems the judge is so biased. Maybe (could even) be bribed by Apple in some god-knows-how way!
This is a trial of a century, it defines the fall of world largest company Apple, it should be treated with some real unbiased group of people because they will change human society forever.
Gee ... with your illogical reasoning and inflammatory opinions, you should be part of the Epic legal team.
Epic - like a lot of Apple's current crop of litigants - is just after Apple's customer base and the money they have. Anything else is just b*llsh*t.
Collecting 30% of the lucre needed to buy virtual hair dye seems fair, especially considering that Apple created, developed, and maintains the entire hardware and software stack, and they deserve to profit from anyone who wants to play in their sandbox.
Epic is perfectly free to develop their own hardware/software platform and make the rules there.
Bornstein says that Epic's definitions of market come from their lawyers, not an opinion of experts
That above, tells you why Epic's whole ill-conceived litigation gambit will go down in flames. The CEO wanted to conjure a legal and economic theory built out of thin air and one can always find lawyers who will gladly oblige you for a pretty penny.
The law firm that accepted Epic's retainer by spinning a case based on a ridiculously contorted redefinition of 'market' and 'monopoly' is bordering on unethical. Then again, billionaires will always pay to have their way. Maybe they figured they might as well be the ones who get paid.
People want to compare iOS Devices to Windows, Android or even macOS, because of its reach.
They don't want to compare iOS Devices to the likes of PlayStation or xBox, or even LG TV's running webOS, because of, well, their lack of reach.
People want to make the case that iOS is the product, just as Android and Windows is, but THAT'S NOT THE CASE. Android and Windows are available on devices from many OEMs... Microsoft and Google have to be more open about how their platforms work, because the end product is not theirs, it is the OEMs device. And to attract OEMs to their platform, they need to be flexible enough to allow those EOMs to make changes so their products can stand apart from competitors. Microsoft got in trouble because they tried to dictate what those OEMs could and couldn't do, specifically prohibiting them from selling devices that used other competing platforms. And since Windows was the dominant platform (an actual monopoly), it made it extremely difficult to remain in business unless you also sold Windows based systems.
Apple telling developers what they can and cannot do on iOS devices is not monopolistic behavior. If Apple were to tell a developer that if they wanted to develop apps on iOS then they couldn't write the same app on Android or Windows, then that could in fact be considered monopolistic behavior. That's Apple using their platform's power to gain leverage over a competing platform, by controlling what that developer can do outside of Apple's platform. But that's not what Apple does... they say, "This is our device/platform and this is what you can do on it. We don't care what you do anywhere else, that's not our business."
The fact is, iOS is not a product... iPhones and iPads are the product, just as Playstations, or xBoxes are. Nobody dictates what Sony or Microsoft or LG does on their respective products because they are seen in a different light. Unless and until iOS devices are the dominant mobile devices leaving little alternatives for consumers to turn to, Apple should be free to do whatever they want with their devices and platform.
Gaming consoles are very popular and have a wide reach but they are not engaging in a lot of the practices Apple is being criticized of. In the 80s Nintendo was actually using practices such as requiring exclusivity in order to publish games for the NES and threating to pull their product from retailers if the store wanted to sell anything NES related lower than the SRP. When there was a chip shortage for the game cartridges they prioritized their own games (Super Mario Bros. 2) over any third-party game. This did lead to an anti-trust case against them.
The thing is both the device and the operating system are products. Apple just choses to make the operating system exclusive to the device (which is fully within their legal rights to do so.) Any kind of exclusivity agreements when entered into mutually are not illegal. DirecTV has had the NFL Sunday Ticket exclusive to their satellite service for years because the NFL and DirecTV voluntarily agreed to that.
Also while Apple is not a leader in any category they compete in (which is a BS reason to justify some of their practices) they have the monopoly on all the devices they manufacture. So even on Macs Apple has proven they can ban developers from that platform as a retaliatory action for something that happened on the iOS App Store.
This is right. As Daringfireball's John Gruber puts it, iPhones are an "app console". A console is not limited to video games, tho those are the most popular use. iPhone is a hardware console built to run apps. He also points out that Xbox is a just a computer built with PC parts, yet you don't hear the software devs demanding to be able to release non-Xbox software on Xbox hardware. Illogical double-standard for demanding to do so on iPhone.
The thing is Microsoft, Nintendo & Sony are not making third-party game developers add or remove features from their games that would put the third party game at a disadvantage to their own first party game. All three platforms have similar guidelines that are uniform with each other and a basic quality assurance program to ensure another video game crash doesn't happen again.
The video game industry has shifted to largely a multi-platform strategy. The only companies producing "exclusive" software for an individual console are the studios owned by Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony. If any other studio produces a game exclusively for one console (either timed or lifetime) that is because the console manufacturer and the developer mutually agreed to do that.
If Nintendo wanted Super Mario Odyssey on Xbox and PlayStation they would port that game to their competitors no questions asked (Nintendo would never do that.) If Sony wanted Marvel's Spider-Man on Xbox I'm sure Team Xbox would welcome them with open arms (Sony wouldn't do that either.) Several games originally console exclusive to Xbox have now been made on Switch and PlayStation (Microsoft did do that one.) Sony & MLB are making the previously PlayStation exclusive franchise MLB The Show multi-platform next year which both Microsoft & Nintendo welcomed with open arms.
Apple is asking app developers to do things to put their third-party options at disadvantages compared to Apple's own first party solutions. Also if something happens say Microsoft or Sony delists your games and bans your developer account on their gaming consoles (for whatever reason) then they don't retaliate against you on their other products.
Also the video game console market which is made up of Microsoft, Nintendo & Sony are not experiencing developers claiming anti-trust issues. In fact that market has become more pro-consumer over the years and things people thought were impossible are now possible.
The issues with Apple is just more than the fact of a 30% revenue sharing agreement. Also because Apple has integrated their eco-system so tightly they have proven with the Epic Games-Fortnite dispute they can effectively ban developers from all products they make including the Mac. Now if Microsoft ever banned a developer from making games on Xbox then turned around and banned them from developing on Windows then there would be an anti-trust uproar with Microsoft painted as the devil.
Apple trying to ban the development account for Epic's Unreal Engine when so many mid to small & indie developers use this for their iOS, Android & console games is just wrong and puts more of an expensive burden on those developers. (Like does the indie developer try to find a new engine? If they can't can they afford making an engine for iOS? How munch money would they lose for not being on iOS if Unreal Engine was unavailable?)
Google is getting flack for their Google Play Store policies but with the Android OS it does allow for multiple storefronts (like with Samsung Galaxy Store) and the user can ultimately decide if they want an app or not by sideloading it onto their device direct from the developer. While the last option does present a genuine security concern not many people will go that far to get an app but the option is there. Google isn't doing retaliatory actions towards Epic like Apple is doing which is why it is mostly Apple taking the heat for this (again.)
Bornstein says that console markets taking 30% is fundamentally different than Apple, since consoles generally operate at a loss
Why is that fundamentally different? Apple isn’t allowed to make money on the equipment and the App Store? That seems like a preference of Bornstein but nothing that would hold up in court. To me the App Store commission percentage between platforms is completely relevant and should stand on its own. If Epic is fine with Sony and Nintendo charging 30% then he must be fine with Apple doing the same. How was that not ruled on in summary judgement??
Epic really isn't "fine" with Microsoft, Nintendo & Sony charging 30% on their console's stores. When Epic says they are "fine" it is like asking another person if they are okay and they go "yeah I'm fiinnee!" They say they are fine but clearly they are not fine.
However in the home video console market you only have 3 companies and all 3 have similar, uniform policies for their online stores hence why Epic isn't doing anything there. There is no alternative way for Epic to distribute their product on Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 4 & 5 and Xbox One (X/S) & Xbox Series (X|S) without agreeing to their terms. A publisher like Epic can't skate around the console's digital storefronts in any way. To release a physical disc version (PlayStation/Xbox) or cartridge (Switch) a digital version of the game must be released either before the physical release or on Day 1 of the physical release.
Since Microsoft, Nintendo & Sony control the publishing of physical games on their platforms and do not allow third party companies to press their own game discs or cartridges to maintain quality control (to avoid what happened on the Atari 2600 in the 80s) the consoles are absolutely deadlocked.
Plus the userbase on consoles is too much to ignore. This why Microsoft never pulled Minecraft from Sony when Microsoft was going hard on cross-platform play and Sony was like "um, how about no". This is also why Epic will not force a situation where Microsoft, Nintendo & Sony have to enforce their policies that is just too much of a userbase that is way more brand loyal than the mobile phone market.
On the PC front Epic has been at war with Steam over Steam keeping 30% as well. Epic pulled their content from Steam and created the Epic Games Store and put all their content there. Epic also attracts other publishers to the Epic Game Store by offering to only take a 12% cut. They will even cover part of a game's production cost and waive licensing fees for their Unreal Engine if the game developer enters into either a timed or complete exclusivity agreement with Epic Games Store. This has created a huge amount of controversy on the PC space mainly hatred towards Epic for this.
On the Android side the primary storefront is the Google Play Store which has policies similar to Apple's App Store. However Android smartphone & tablet users can still play Fortnite and get the updates unlike their iOS & iPad OS counterparts. The reason is the Android OS allows for third party official storefronts and major device manufactures like Samsung operate their own storefronts alongside the Google Play Store.
Like on my iPad Pro I can't play Fortnite or any other Epic game even if I wanted to. On my Samsung Galaxy Note20 5G there are no Epic Games in the Google Play Store but I can download Epic's games like Fornite from the Samsung Galaxy Store. The alternate method on Android OS is you can download Fortnite directly from their website and sideload it onto your Android device.
So on the Android front there really isn't a anti-competitive case to be made. Epic has alternate ways to release their product for Android users if they don't like the Google Play Store like on PC. If Epic wants to use the Google Play Store then they need to abide by Google's rules.
Apple devices are the only non-console devices that have a complete walled garden with no other form of acquiring apps. This does give Apple way more control over apps than the Android OS and PC space. Apple can control what features an app has on their platforms and reject them or ask them to remove a feature.
Also the consoles treat all games and apps the same on their platforms. Apple does make special exemptions to their policies for streaming apps. (A big difference between the consoles and Apple here.) The only reason you don't find many streaming apps on Nintendo Switch is simply after they made the Hulu & YouTube agreements they decided they didn't want anymore streaming apps on Switch.
Apple takes a 15% cut from Prime Video in app subscriptions which Amazon used their opt-out on to prevent this. Apple doesn't collect anything from Prime Video rentals & purchases (normally Apple would collect 30% which is why Vudu opts out of allowing its customers to rent and purchase content from its app.) Apple's agreement allows them to take 15% of the revenue of Prime Video Channel subscriptions made within the app on Apple devices so Amazon disabled the feature which Apple allowed.
Netflix is given an opt-out of offering in-app subscriptions to avoid the 30% cut and also has an opt-out so they don't have to support the Apple TV app.
Spotify is given an opt-out from in-app purchases for their subscriptions because the app has a "free component" and its app can play your local audio files.
So while legally Epic may not have a leg to stand on here since they willfully agreed to and then broke the guidelines the more that comes to light about Apple's App Store practices clearly indicate not all apps are treated equally.
Apple has made it known however they can make exceptions when the exceptions benefit Apple. They want to get more people on Apple TV so the exceptions given to streaming apps benefits Apple especially when competitors do no have a particular app.
Any app can do what Netflix or Spotify do - offer a separate payment mechanism on the Web. As long as they do not link to it from their app.
Any app is allowed to do that
Yes. This has been true since 2010 when Apple changed or instituted IAP rules. Resulted in Amazon removing IAP eBooks in their Kindle app, and Kindle app users had to buy eBooks on Amazon's website or a Kindle. It's not even remotely new and has been available to Spotify, Netflix, and anyone else. Epic can do this right now or whenever. Go advertise, you know go buy some ads, to users to buy V-bucks at their website and call it a day, but this likely removes some percentage of the impulse buyers, and they just have to have those impulse buyers, I suppose.
Also, 15% is available to all iOS subscriptions too. Their deal with Amazon which got Prime video back on Apple TV basically resulted in the cut for subscriptions dropping to 15% after one year at 30% for all developers, in 2016 I think. Overcast and Weatherline developers are getting 85% of my subscription money for their apps now.
Not that this has to do with anything. The platform owner is basically free to do any business deal they want with developers, consumers, service companies, etc. The "treat all customers the same" is a kind of strawman that immediately is burnt whenever a good deal appears. It's not a binding rule of business nor of business ethics, and really doesn't mean much. Even so, Apple appears to be abiding to it remarkably well imo.
If you want shenanigans, go look Google's use of Youtube to bludgeon Windows Phone and Amazon tablets to irrelevancy. Whatever deal MS should have done to get Youtube on Windows Phone, they should have. We could have had a viable 3rd phone platform. Fire tablets only remain as they are basically sold at cost to sell Amazon's services.
People want to compare iOS Devices to Windows, Android or even macOS, because of its reach.
They don't want to compare iOS Devices to the likes of PlayStation or xBox, or even LG TV's running webOS, because of, well, their lack of reach.
People want to make the case that iOS is the product, just as Android and Windows is, but THAT'S NOT THE CASE. Android and Windows are available on devices from many OEMs... Microsoft and Google have to be more open about how their platforms work, because the end product is not theirs, it is the OEMs device. And to attract OEMs to their platform, they need to be flexible enough to allow those EOMs to make changes so their products can stand apart from competitors. Microsoft got in trouble because they tried to dictate what those OEMs could and couldn't do, specifically prohibiting them from selling devices that used other competing platforms. And since Windows was the dominant platform (an actual monopoly), it made it extremely difficult to remain in business unless you also sold Windows based systems.
Apple telling developers what they can and cannot do on iOS devices is not monopolistic behavior. If Apple were to tell a developer that if they wanted to develop apps on iOS then they couldn't write the same app on Android or Windows, then that could in fact be considered monopolistic behavior. That's Apple using their platform's power to gain leverage over a competing platform, by controlling what that developer can do outside of Apple's platform. But that's not what Apple does... they say, "This is our device/platform and this is what you can do on it. We don't care what you do anywhere else, that's not our business."
The fact is, iOS is not a product... iPhones and iPads are the product, just as Playstations, or xBoxes are. Nobody dictates what Sony or Microsoft or LG does on their respective products because they are seen in a different light. Unless and until iOS devices are the dominant mobile devices leaving little alternatives for consumers to turn to, Apple should be free to do whatever they want with their devices and platform.
Gaming consoles are very popular and have a wide reach but they are not engaging in a lot of the practices Apple is being criticized of. In the 80s Nintendo was actually using practices such as requiring exclusivity in order to publish games for the NES and threating to pull their product from retailers if the store wanted to sell anything NES related lower than the SRP. When there was a chip shortage for the game cartridges they prioritized their own games (Super Mario Bros. 2) over any third-party game. This did lead to an anti-trust case against them.
The thing is both the device and the operating system are products. Apple just choses to make the operating system exclusive to the device (which is fully within their legal rights to do so.) Any kind of exclusivity agreements when entered into mutually are not illegal. DirecTV has had the NFL Sunday Ticket exclusive to their satellite service for years because the NFL and DirecTV voluntarily agreed to that.
Also while Apple is not a leader in any category they compete in (which is a BS reason to justify some of their practices) they have the monopoly on all the devices they manufacture. So even on Macs Apple has proven they can ban developers from that platform as a retaliatory action for something that happened on the iOS App Store.
This is right. As Daringfireball's John Gruber puts it, iPhones are an "app console". A console is not limited to video games, tho those are the most popular use. iPhone is a hardware console built to run apps. He also points out that Xbox is a just a computer built with PC parts, yet you don't hear the software devs demanding to be able to release non-Xbox software on Xbox hardware. Illogical double-standard for demanding to do so on iPhone.
The thing is Microsoft, Nintendo & Sony are not making third-party game developers add or remove features from their games that would put the third party game at a disadvantage to their own first party game. All three platforms have similar guidelines that are uniform with each other and a basic quality assurance program to ensure another video game crash doesn't happen again.
The video game industry has shifted to largely a multi-platform strategy. The only companies producing "exclusive" software for an individual console are the studios owned by Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony. If any other studio produces a game exclusively for one console (either timed or lifetime) that is because the console manufacturer and the developer mutually agreed to do that.
If Nintendo wanted Super Mario Odyssey on Xbox and PlayStation they would port that game to their competitors no questions asked (Nintendo would never do that.) If Sony wanted Marvel's Spider-Man on Xbox I'm sure Team Xbox would welcome them with open arms (Sony wouldn't do that either.) Several games originally console exclusive to Xbox have now been made on Switch and PlayStation (Microsoft did do that one.) Sony & MLB are making the previously PlayStation exclusive franchise MLB The Show multi-platform next year which both Microsoft & Nintendo welcomed with open arms.
Apple is asking app developers to do things to put their third-party options at disadvantages compared to Apple's own first party solutions. Also if something happens say Microsoft or Sony delists your games and bans your developer account on their gaming consoles (for whatever reason) then they don't retaliate against you on their other products.
Also the video game console market which is made up of Microsoft, Nintendo & Sony are not experiencing developers claiming anti-trust issues. In fact that market has become more pro-consumer over the years and things people thought were impossible are now possible.
The issues with Apple is just more than the fact of a 30% revenue sharing agreement. Also because Apple has integrated their eco-system so tightly they have proven with the Epic Games-Fortnite dispute they can effectively ban developers from all products they make including the Mac. Now if Microsoft ever banned a developer from making games on Xbox then turned around and banned them from developing on Windows then there would be an anti-trust uproar with Microsoft painted as the devil.
Apple trying to ban the development account for Epic's Unreal Engine when so many mid to small & indie developers use this for their iOS, Android & console games is just wrong and puts more of an expensive burden on those developers. (Like does the indie developer try to find a new engine? If they can't can they afford making an engine for iOS? How munch money would they lose for not being on iOS if Unreal Engine was unavailable?)
Google is getting flack for their Google Play Store policies but with the Android OS it does allow for multiple storefronts (like with Samsung Galaxy Store) and the user can ultimately decide if they want an app or not by sideloading it onto their device direct from the developer. While the last option does present a genuine security concern not many people will go that far to get an app but the option is there. Google isn't doing retaliatory actions towards Epic like Apple is doing which is why it is mostly Apple taking the heat for this (again.)
Apple did not ban Epic from their Mac or prevented Epic from providing Mac users with the Fortnite game install software on the Mac or prevented Mac users from playing Fortnite if they already had the game installed. All Apple did was to notify Mac users that wanted to download Fortnite, that they were about to download software from an unknown developer. All a Mac user had to do was to acknowledge that and the download will proceed and the software will install and run. This warning appears on all Mac OS X downloads that are from developers unknown to Apple or not licensed by Apple. Apple does not prevent software from unlicensed or unknown sources from being downloaded and installed on a Mac. This is no different that Google posting a message warning about malware, when downloading an app from a source outside the Google Play Store. (Epic also sued Google over that message, as it served to discourage Android gamers from side loading Fortnite into their device.) ,
Of course Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo companies would welcome any popular games on their platform, so long as they get their 30% sales commission or the licensing fee to produce a retail disc. But see if Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo would welcome any games on their gaming platforms from developers that don't want to pay the usual 30% sales commission or the license to sell a retail disc. Microsoft and Sony would have no problem with not having Super Mario on their consoles, if Nintendo refuses to pay the 30% commission for any sales on their platforms or if Nintendo installed a link in their games to circumvent that 30% commission or if Nintendo do not want to pay for the license to sell a retail disc.
Nintendo do not need to have their Super Mario games on other gaming platforms, if it means having to pay a 30% commission to be on them. Nintendo have their own gaming consoles and Super Mario provides gamers an incentive to buy a Nintendo game console. Exclusive games on game consoles serves to reward people that purchase and play games on that console. If all games were available on all game consoles, then how would Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo differentiate their consoles from the others. Why would one buy an X-Box over a PlayStation over a Switch? Epic is not in that position. Epic do not have a gaming console on which they can sell their games. Epic has to pay the commission or for a license to be on any of the gaming consoles stores and on mobile devices stores.
No way that Epic should be treated like any of the gaming console platform owners that also develop games exclusively for their own consoles. Epic is no different than Coca Cola selling their soft drinks in a third party supermarket. Coca Cola can not complain about the disadvantage they have with having to supply their soft drinks to the supermarket at whole sale price, along with having to compete with the supermarket own brand of soft drinks that sells for $.99 for 2 litters (even when not on sale). (And neither can Spotify for that matter.) So long as Coca Cola was still making enough of a profit selling their soft drinks at the supermarket.
Bornstein says that console markets taking 30% is fundamentally different than Apple, since consoles generally operate at a loss
Why is that fundamentally different? Apple isn’t allowed to make money on the equipment and the App Store? That seems like a preference of Bornstein but nothing that would hold up in court. To me the App Store commission percentage between platforms is completely relevant and should stand on its own. If Epic is fine with Sony and Nintendo charging 30% then he must be fine with Apple doing the same. How was that not ruled on in summary judgement??
People probably don't remember that we all had to pay for OS upgrades. Mac OS was $129, and if I remember, iOS was $19.99 (or 9.99?).
I never heard of Apple ever charging for iOS upgrades. When was that?
Bornstein says that console markets taking 30% is fundamentally different than Apple, since consoles generally operate at a loss
Why is that fundamentally different? Apple isn’t allowed to make money on the equipment and the App Store? That seems like a preference of Bornstein but nothing that would hold up in court. To me the App Store commission percentage between platforms is completely relevant and should stand on its own. If Epic is fine with Sony and Nintendo charging 30% then he must be fine with Apple doing the same. How was that not ruled on in summary judgement??
People probably don't remember that we all had to pay for OS upgrades. Mac OS was $129, and if I remember, iOS was $19.99 (or 9.99?).
I never heard of Apple ever charging for iOS upgrades. When was that?
My bad... iPhone users got it for free, but they did charge iPod touch users for the first couple of upgrades.
Bornstein says that console markets taking 30% is fundamentally different than Apple, since consoles generally operate at a loss
Why is that fundamentally different? Apple isn’t allowed to make money on the equipment and the App Store? That seems like a preference of Bornstein but nothing that would hold up in court. To me the App Store commission percentage between platforms is completely relevant and should stand on its own. If Epic is fine with Sony and Nintendo charging 30% then he must be fine with Apple doing the same. How was that not ruled on in summary judgement??
People probably don't remember that we all had to pay for OS upgrades. Mac OS was $129, and if I remember, iOS was $19.99 (or 9.99?).
I never heard of Apple ever charging for iOS upgrades. When was that?
My bad... iPhone users got it for free, but they did charge iPod touch users for the first couple of upgrades.
Gotcha. I wasn't 100% sure but didn't think iOS updates were ever pay-to-upgrade
Bornstein says that Epic's definitions of market come from their lawyers, not an opinion of experts
That above, tells you why Epic's whole ill-conceived litigation gambit will go down in flames. The CEO wanted to conjure a legal and economic theory built out of thin air and one can always find lawyers who will gladly oblige you for a pretty penny.
The law firm that accepted Epic's retainer by spinning a case based on a ridiculously contorted redefinition of 'market' and 'monopoly' is bordering on unethical. Then again, billionaires will always pay to have their way. Maybe they figured they might as well be the ones who get paid.
Epic's legal theory didn't come out of thin air. I don't think Epic should win and I hope it doesn't win. But its legal arguments relating to market definition are based on case law. I'd bet against it winning those market definition arguments, but it has a realistic chance of winning them. We can dive further into the case law if you want.
Comments
Mac OS X Mavericks was the first free OS upgrade for users of Snow Leopard and up. Snow Leopard was the first OS with a price cut... from $129 to $29.
The value of the operating system has always been baked into the price of the device. Giving away the OS did not bring that about. The accounting "excuse" was created merely to justify the expense of developing the operating system and no longer making a profit directly from OS sales. It allowed them to continue whatever accounting practices they had used for years.
The point I was making is that Apple no longer needed direct revenue from those OS upgrades because of the revenue and profit the App Store was bringing in. For that matter, they also were able to start giving away their iWork apps (Pages, Keynote, Numbers) as well.
People want to compare iOS Devices to Windows, Android or even macOS, because of its reach.
They don't want to compare iOS Devices to the likes of PlayStation or xBox, or even LG TV's running webOS, because of, well, their lack of reach.
People want to make the case that iOS is the product, just as Android and Windows is, but THAT'S NOT THE CASE. Android and Windows are available on devices from many OEMs... Microsoft and Google have to be more open about how their platforms work, because the end product is not theirs, it is the OEMs device. And to attract OEMs to their platform, they need to be flexible enough to allow those EOMs to make changes so their products can stand apart from competitors. Microsoft got in trouble because they tried to dictate what those OEMs could and couldn't do, specifically prohibiting them from selling devices that used other competing platforms. And since Windows was the dominant platform (an actual monopoly), it made it extremely difficult to remain in business unless you also sold Windows based systems.
Apple telling developers what they can and cannot do on iOS devices is not monopolistic behavior. If Apple were to tell a developer that if they wanted to develop apps on iOS then they couldn't write the same app on Android or Windows, then that could in fact be considered monopolistic behavior. That's Apple using their platform's power to gain leverage over a competing platform, by controlling what that developer can do outside of Apple's platform. But that's not what Apple does... they say, "This is our device/platform and this is what you can do on it. We don't care what you do anywhere else, that's not our business."
The fact is, iOS is not a product... iPhones and iPads are the product, just as Playstations, or xBoxes are. Nobody dictates what Sony or Microsoft or LG does on their respective products because they are seen in a different light. Unless and until iOS devices are the dominant mobile devices leaving little alternatives for consumers to turn to, Apple should be free to do whatever they want with their devices and platform.
In the parlance that Gruber is using, since the Google Pixel and Note 20 allow arbitrary side-loading, they are not "app" consoles. He's just saying iPhones and iPads are closed platforms like Xboxes or Playstations are, and therefore is using the term "app console" to try to get the point across.
Any app is allowed to do that
With the Google Pixel and Samsung note 20, neither Google or Samsung own the Android OS in those devices. Though Google maintains the source code for Android, they are open source and available for anyone to use for free. Only devices that include or are compatible with Google apps, can claim to be using "Android'. "Android" is actually a trademark own by Google and can only be use on devices if the OS derived from the Android source codes is compatible with all the Google apps.
Amazon uses the open "Android" source code for their Fire devices and don't include any Google apps nor claimed to be compatible with all the Google apps. Therefore, their OS is referred to as Fire OS. Which is a fork of "Android". Though one can side load the Google Play Store into an Amazon Fire device, Amazon do not support it and offer no support if any of the apps available in the Google Play Store do not work on with their Fire OS. Amazon rather you buy apps through their own app store. And they also take a 30% cut.
So no, most devices running "Android" are not "consoles" in the same way John Gruber uses the term "console". The Android hardware makers do not have full control of the OS as anyone can get a hold of the Android open source codes and make their own device running on "Android" or a fork of Android. The hardware and Android are separate products, thus only Android can be considered a platform. Devices running Android is not consider a platform. The Google Pixel 4 running Android is not the same as an iPhone running iOS. One of them is like a game "console" and can be consider a platform.
Just like a Dell laptop running Windows is not a platform. The platform in this case is just Windows. Windows is a separate product that can be bought and installed on any compatible hardware.
Epic - like a lot of Apple's current crop of litigants - is just after Apple's customer base and the money they have. Anything else is just b*llsh*t.
Collecting 30% of the lucre needed to buy virtual hair dye seems fair, especially considering that Apple created, developed, and maintains the entire hardware and software stack, and they deserve to profit from anyone who wants to play in their sandbox.
Epic is perfectly free to develop their own hardware/software platform and make the rules there.
Epic - like a lot of Apple's current crop of litigants - is just after Apple's customer base and the money they have. Anything else is just b*llsh*t.
Collecting 30% of the lucre needed to buy virtual hair dye seems fair, especially considering that Apple created, developed, and maintains the entire hardware and software stack, and they deserve to profit from anyone who wants to play in their sandbox.
Epic is perfectly free to develop their own hardware/software platform and make the rules there.
Epic - like a lot of Apple's current crop of litigants - is just after Apple's customer base and the money they have. Anything else is just b*llsh*t.
Collecting 30% of the lucre needed to buy virtual hair dye seems fair, especially considering that Apple created, developed, and maintains the entire hardware and software stack, and they deserve to profit from anyone who wants to play in their sandbox.
Epic is perfectly free to develop their own hardware/software platform and make the rules there.
That above, tells you why Epic's whole ill-conceived litigation gambit will go down in flames. The CEO wanted to conjure a legal and economic theory built out of thin air and one can always find lawyers who will gladly oblige you for a pretty penny.
The law firm that accepted Epic's retainer by spinning a case based on a ridiculously contorted redefinition of 'market' and 'monopoly' is bordering on unethical. Then again, billionaires will always pay to have their way. Maybe they figured they might as well be the ones who get paid.
The thing is both the device and the operating system are products. Apple just choses to make the operating system exclusive to the device (which is fully within their legal rights to do so.) Any kind of exclusivity agreements when entered into mutually are not illegal. DirecTV has had the NFL Sunday Ticket exclusive to their satellite service for years because the NFL and DirecTV voluntarily agreed to that.
Also while Apple is not a leader in any category they compete in (which is a BS reason to justify some of their practices) they have the monopoly on all the devices they manufacture. So even on Macs Apple has proven they can ban developers from that platform as a retaliatory action for something that happened on the iOS App Store.
The thing is Microsoft, Nintendo & Sony are not making third-party game developers add or remove features from their games that would put the third party game at a disadvantage to their own first party game. All three platforms have similar guidelines that are uniform with each other and a basic quality assurance program to ensure another video game crash doesn't happen again.
The video game industry has shifted to largely a multi-platform strategy. The only companies producing "exclusive" software for an individual console are the studios owned by Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony. If any other studio produces a game exclusively for one console (either timed or lifetime) that is because the console manufacturer and the developer mutually agreed to do that.
If Nintendo wanted Super Mario Odyssey on Xbox and PlayStation they would port that game to their competitors no questions asked (Nintendo would never do that.) If Sony wanted Marvel's Spider-Man on Xbox I'm sure Team Xbox would welcome them with open arms (Sony wouldn't do that either.) Several games originally console exclusive to Xbox have now been made on Switch and PlayStation (Microsoft did do that one.) Sony & MLB are making the previously PlayStation exclusive franchise MLB The Show multi-platform next year which both Microsoft & Nintendo welcomed with open arms.
Apple is asking app developers to do things to put their third-party options at disadvantages compared to Apple's own first party solutions. Also if something happens say Microsoft or Sony delists your games and bans your developer account on their gaming consoles (for whatever reason) then they don't retaliate against you on their other products.
Also the video game console market which is made up of Microsoft, Nintendo & Sony are not experiencing developers claiming anti-trust issues. In fact that market has become more pro-consumer over the years and things people thought were impossible are now possible.
The issues with Apple is just more than the fact of a 30% revenue sharing agreement. Also because Apple has integrated their eco-system so tightly they have proven with the Epic Games-Fortnite dispute they can effectively ban developers from all products they make including the Mac. Now if Microsoft ever banned a developer from making games on Xbox then turned around and banned them from developing on Windows then there would be an anti-trust uproar with Microsoft painted as the devil.
Apple trying to ban the development account for Epic's Unreal Engine when so many mid to small & indie developers use this for their iOS, Android & console games is just wrong and puts more of an expensive burden on those developers. (Like does the indie developer try to find a new engine? If they can't can they afford making an engine for iOS? How munch money would they lose for not being on iOS if Unreal Engine was unavailable?)
Google is getting flack for their Google Play Store policies but with the Android OS it does allow for multiple storefronts (like with Samsung Galaxy Store) and the user can ultimately decide if they want an app or not by sideloading it onto their device direct from the developer. While the last option does present a genuine security concern not many people will go that far to get an app but the option is there. Google isn't doing retaliatory actions towards Epic like Apple is doing which is why it is mostly Apple taking the heat for this (again.)
Also, 15% is available to all iOS subscriptions too. Their deal with Amazon which got Prime video back on Apple TV basically resulted in the cut for subscriptions dropping to 15% after one year at 30% for all developers, in 2016 I think. Overcast and Weatherline developers are getting 85% of my subscription money for their apps now.
Not that this has to do with anything. The platform owner is basically free to do any business deal they want with developers, consumers, service companies, etc. The "treat all customers the same" is a kind of strawman that immediately is burnt whenever a good deal appears. It's not a binding rule of business nor of business ethics, and really doesn't mean much. Even so, Apple appears to be abiding to it remarkably well imo.
If you want shenanigans, go look Google's use of Youtube to bludgeon Windows Phone and Amazon tablets to irrelevancy. Whatever deal MS should have done to get Youtube on Windows Phone, they should have. We could have had a viable 3rd phone platform. Fire tablets only remain as they are basically sold at cost to sell Amazon's services.
,
Of course Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo companies would welcome any popular games on their platform, so long as they get their 30% sales commission or the licensing fee to produce a retail disc. But see if Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo would welcome any games on their gaming platforms from developers that don't want to pay the usual 30% sales commission or the license to sell a retail disc. Microsoft and Sony would have no problem with not having Super Mario on their consoles, if Nintendo refuses to pay the 30% commission for any sales on their platforms or if Nintendo installed a link in their games to circumvent that 30% commission or if Nintendo do not want to pay for the license to sell a retail disc.
Nintendo do not need to have their Super Mario games on other gaming platforms, if it means having to pay a 30% commission to be on them. Nintendo have their own gaming consoles and Super Mario provides gamers an incentive to buy a Nintendo game console. Exclusive games on game consoles serves to reward people that purchase and play games on that console. If all games were available on all game consoles, then how would Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo differentiate their consoles from the others. Why would one buy an X-Box over a PlayStation over a Switch? Epic is not in that position. Epic do not have a gaming console on which they can sell their games. Epic has to pay the commission or for a license to be on any of the gaming consoles stores and on mobile devices stores.
No way that Epic should be treated like any of the gaming console platform owners that also develop games exclusively for their own consoles. Epic is no different than Coca Cola selling their soft drinks in a third party supermarket. Coca Cola can not complain about the disadvantage they have with having to supply their soft drinks to the supermarket at whole sale price, along with having to compete with the supermarket own brand of soft drinks that sells for $.99 for 2 litters (even when not on sale). (And neither can Spotify for that matter.) So long as Coca Cola was still making enough of a profit selling their soft drinks at the supermarket.
My bad... iPhone users got it for free, but they did charge iPod touch users for the first couple of upgrades.