Epic vs. Apple takes new turn as 34 US states & DOJ side with 'Fortnite' maker

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 78
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,829member
    Marvin said:
    DAalseth said:
    Apple has a choice. They can either keep fighting this battle to the bitter end and, if what has happened over the last year is any indication, get something really bad imposed on them. Or they can accept where this is going, get out ahead and control the result. The world has changed. Attitudes have changed. Apple needs to change too or they will have something bad for them and their customers forced upon them.

    It’s far better to control the landing than to fight to stay aloft and end up stalling and crashing. 
    The arguments against Apple amount to nothing, it doesn't matter how bitter people are about it. Apple doesn't have a majority marketshare, Android does and they allow 3rd party stores. Apple allows access to the internet unrestricted and software can run either via the web or streamed. Not that it matters, people keep making the same stupid argument about an iPhone being a general purpose product, every product is designed by its manufacturer whether it's a smart TV, a console, a phone, a PC and they have a right to design it how they want with security restrictions on native software. If a manufacturer designs a Windows PC that can only run a single store and gains a 30% marketshare, it's not anticompetitive if people can buy an alternative product. If they gained a 90% marketshare, it might be different but it likely wouldn't gain that kind of marketshare if it was restrictive.

    The original argument was about Fortnite being accessible on iOS without Apple's control, it can be accessed via the cloud, this was always an option via a browser and here it is currently running on iOS:



    Apple doesn't set the prices for in-app purchases. No developers have been monetarily harmed by Apple. Here's the letter they are presenting:

    https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/States-amicus-brief-for-Epic-v-Apple-appeal.pdf

    They talk about the ruling undermining antitrust law but they aren't being honest about what their motives are. For a lot of these politicians, this is about Parler being removed from the store, getting retribution for it and laying groundwork for it not happening again and for some it will be Apple not allowing backdoors on iPhones. They want the ability to install backdoors on iPhones without Apple's permission. There was an article today about this:

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/01/28/fbi-considered-using-pegasus-spyware-for-us-domestic-surveillance

    The proposed legislation has been specifically targeted at companies with over 50m US store users to deliberately target it at Apple and Google. If it ever moves ahead, Apple can easily block access to the store in the 34 states that pushed for this to get the number to stay below 50m. If it moves ahead and they choose to go the route of allowing 3rd party stores instead, they can just create an entirely closed off sandbox for each store possibly running a separate copy of the OS in a VM so that malware is isolated from the boot capability of the device.

    Apple has plenty of options to go for but before this is even worth considering, the complainants have to prove what they are arguing about - that Apple is stifling competition and harming developers and users. They haven't demonstrated this at all. The fact Fortnite is currently capable of running on iOS without Apple doing anything discredits the entire argument.
    Even if this lawsuit goes nowhere, there is legislation from the US, the EU, and many other countries that will force them to open up iOS and iPadOS to side loading. Apple can fight the tide and lose, or control the outcome and ride the wave. Their choice.
    williamlondonmuthuk_vanalingamavon b7
  • Reply 62 of 78
    urahara said:
    Some people STILL want to cry "get an android if you don't like it" when they don't realize the the Playstore has the same issue and these states are going to apply any possible regulation to BOTH stores. Just fanboys thru and thru. Only cry about regulation when it comes to Apple.

    What would you say if your local gas station wasn't regulated? "Just use electric cars if you don't like the outrageous prices gas station owners would surely raise their prices to, or good old fashioned horses!"
    So why then politics speak only about App Store? 
    Oh, maybe it's because it is more difficult to make a case when you have not only one but two or several stores.
    And don't forget consoles...

    Your example with gas stations is ridiculous. There are so many different brands who offer gas. Well, at least in Europe. And you have an app where you can find the cheapest one. And. yes, I just go  there. If I don't like one (price) - I find another place (gas station).


    Regulations aren't applied to brands, they're applied to industries. Mobile app stores are absolutely an industry now considering how many people rely on them for a livelihood.

    Just like gas station regulations don't apply to ONE BRAND, they apply to the entire industry. Just like all the privacy laws that are being discussed are mentioning Facebook, it's not just them it applies to. But their name is used because of their market recognition. Logical discourse seems to be escaping a large swatch of the fanboys on here. I love Apple and their products, but there's simply no denying that they (along with Google) control all mobile apps on the planet. They can and DO dictate whatever they want, and society has grown far too dependent on mobile apps to allow them to continue on that path.

    And it's not just pricing. A previous developer created a keyboard on the Apple Watch before Apple did. Once apple got around to creating their own keyboard they removed his app from the store. How is that fair!?

    The argument that it's their store simply doesn't work when they've grown so large that everyone (consumers and businesses alike) rely on it for day to day life.
    Perhaps you should do your research on that statement.  There is at least one article, here on AI, that has all the details.

    The developer released an update that violated Apple's developer guidelines.  Apple refused the app.  Apple told the developer what to do to resolve the issue.  The developer whined publicly.  Eventually the developer followed Apple's developer guidelines & the app was available again (and still is).
    p-dogwilliamlondonmattinozwatto_cobra
  • Reply 63 of 78
    shareef777 said: Yep, issue has been about the 30% cut that both app stores are mandating. I get it from both sides. Both stores are ABSOLUTELY entitled to a cut and there's no denying that. What they've accomplished has changed the way we live our lives. However, they've both become such a large economy in and of themselves that they now demand regulation. Far too many developers (both small and large) rely on the the app stores to survive and the fact that it's a duopoly merits the discussion of regulation. I don't agree with Epic of allowing separate app purchases as that would mean that Apple/Google wouldn't get anything in exchange for maintaining their respective platforms. But an almost THIRD of their income is very excessive. And what's even worse is that it's not fair amongst even large companies considering apps like Amazon don't pay ANYTHING outside of the $100 dev fee.
    Apple already called the bluff on the cut by lowering it to 15% for anyone making under a million per year with their app (meaning the vast majority of developers on iOS). That should have been enough if the "issue" was really the level of cut. 15% is like a gratuity at a restaurant. 
    I think that's a HUGE step in the right direction, but that's not the only issue. There's still the aspect of them removing apps that compete against them, and then the idea that they don't treat all apps/devs equally (why doesn't Amazon pay a fee on all purchases). Why does Hey have to give a cut of their fees, but Slack doesn't? 
    Again - you are speaking about things you don't know about.  See my reply to your first post about Apple reming 3rd party apps because Apple added the feature.

    Again - you are speaking about things you don't know about.  The 15%/30% fee is for digital goods, purchased in app.  These are the contract terms the developers agree to.  Amazon digital goods are not available for purchase in any app on iOS/iPadOS.  Hey is a digital service.  Does Slack even offer their digital services for sale via iOS/iPadOS in app purchase?  I don't know - do you?
    edited January 2022 p-dogwilliamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 64 of 78
    cropr said:
    cropr said:
    Bosa said:

    Without the App Store, these developers will be selling their apps on USB sticks in front of Costco?

    These developed are just ungrateful losers
    i am a developer and I am  not a loser.   If Apple would allow, I would offer my customers the option to download my iOS apps from the secured cloud server I've set up for my other apps.  You are not only disrespectful, you should try to think before making silly remarks 
    I'm not hostile to your comment, I'm just asking if you are talking about free iOS apps or if you want to be selling apps for iOS from your own server and you want to directly charge users some money for those apps, and presumably not giving Apple any compensation for the things it provides, like all the free CloudKit services that may be compiled into your apps, for starters. If so, that wouldn't seem fair at all.
    My most popular app is an e-voting app for general assemblies of large organizations.  The voting app (iOS, Android, Web) is free of charge.  The management of the system is a separate and paid Web application that integrates with the IT system of the organization. In terms of complexity and development, the client voting app represents only around 20% of the effort.

    The Apple revenue is limited to the iOS developer license ($99 a year) and the infrastructure I need to develop and test the iOS app (3 Macbooks Pro, 2 iPads, 5 iPhones).  The voting app started as a Web app, and I only made an iOS and Android version of the app on request of a large customer.   Currenty 10% of the votes are made by the iOS app, 15% by the Android app and 75% by the Web app.    I don't use Cloudkit, because it is not cross platform, which is a hard requirement for my app.

    In the past  I developed 6 iOS apps where I paid Apple the 30% (it was still 30%):  4 were loss making and 2 were about break even (for me, not for Apple).
    So what's your problem with the current iOS/iPadOS environment or the App Store policies?

    Your current app is free - you're freeloading off of Apple.  You are certainly using their IP and paying nothing for it. 

    It's not Apple's fault that 4/6 of your previous paid for apps were money losers - you refused to set the price to allow them to be profitable.  And if you are going to say that pricing them higher would price them out of the market, then you made a mistake by developing them.  It's not Apple's problem that you did that.
    radarthekatp-dogwilliamlondonmattinozwatto_cobra
  • Reply 65 of 78
    DAalseth said:
    Marvin said:
    DAalseth said:
    Apple has a choice. They can either keep fighting this battle to the bitter end and, if what has happened over the last year is any indication, get something really bad imposed on them. Or they can accept where this is going, get out ahead and control the result. The world has changed. Attitudes have changed. Apple needs to change too or they will have something bad for them and their customers forced upon them.

    It’s far better to control the landing than to fight to stay aloft and end up stalling and crashing. 
    The arguments against Apple amount to nothing, it doesn't matter how bitter people are about it. Apple doesn't have a majority marketshare, Android does and they allow 3rd party stores. Apple allows access to the internet unrestricted and software can run either via the web or streamed. Not that it matters, people keep making the same stupid argument about an iPhone being a general purpose product, every product is designed by its manufacturer whether it's a smart TV, a console, a phone, a PC and they have a right to design it how they want with security restrictions on native software. If a manufacturer designs a Windows PC that can only run a single store and gains a 30% marketshare, it's not anticompetitive if people can buy an alternative product. If they gained a 90% marketshare, it might be different but it likely wouldn't gain that kind of marketshare if it was restrictive.

    The original argument was about Fortnite being accessible on iOS without Apple's control, it can be accessed via the cloud, this was always an option via a browser and here it is currently running on iOS:



    Apple doesn't set the prices for in-app purchases. No developers have been monetarily harmed by Apple. Here's the letter they are presenting:

    https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/States-amicus-brief-for-Epic-v-Apple-appeal.pdf

    They talk about the ruling undermining antitrust law but they aren't being honest about what their motives are. For a lot of these politicians, this is about Parler being removed from the store, getting retribution for it and laying groundwork for it not happening again and for some it will be Apple not allowing backdoors on iPhones. They want the ability to install backdoors on iPhones without Apple's permission. There was an article today about this:

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/01/28/fbi-considered-using-pegasus-spyware-for-us-domestic-surveillance

    The proposed legislation has been specifically targeted at companies with over 50m US store users to deliberately target it at Apple and Google. If it ever moves ahead, Apple can easily block access to the store in the 34 states that pushed for this to get the number to stay below 50m. If it moves ahead and they choose to go the route of allowing 3rd party stores instead, they can just create an entirely closed off sandbox for each store possibly running a separate copy of the OS in a VM so that malware is isolated from the boot capability of the device.

    Apple has plenty of options to go for but before this is even worth considering, the complainants have to prove what they are arguing about - that Apple is stifling competition and harming developers and users. They haven't demonstrated this at all. The fact Fortnite is currently capable of running on iOS without Apple doing anything discredits the entire argument.
    Even if this lawsuit goes nowhere, there is legislation from the US, the EU, and many other countries that will force them to open up iOS and iPadOS to side loading. Apple can fight the tide and lose, or control the outcome and ride the wave. Their choice.
    There have been several attempts already.  Even South Korea didn't go as far as to force side loading and every bill in the US to do this has either spectacularly failed (North Dakota), pulled from the voting calendar because it was clear it would fail (Arizona) or went to committee where 90% of all bills die.  As the EU's Digital Services Act shows such legislation is just as likely to limit customer choice as help it and it seems to be less about helping the consumers than 'let's stick it to the US Companies' ie a form of protectionism dressed up as "helping the consumer".
    edited January 2022 p-dogwilliamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 66 of 78
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    DAalseth said:
    Marvin said:
    DAalseth said:
    Apple has a choice. They can either keep fighting this battle to the bitter end and, if what has happened over the last year is any indication, get something really bad imposed on them. Or they can accept where this is going, get out ahead and control the result. The world has changed. Attitudes have changed. Apple needs to change too or they will have something bad for them and their customers forced upon them.

    It’s far better to control the landing than to fight to stay aloft and end up stalling and crashing. 
    The arguments against Apple amount to nothing, it doesn't matter how bitter people are about it. Apple doesn't have a majority marketshare, Android does and they allow 3rd party stores. Apple allows access to the internet unrestricted and software can run either via the web or streamed. Not that it matters, people keep making the same stupid argument about an iPhone being a general purpose product, every product is designed by its manufacturer whether it's a smart TV, a console, a phone, a PC and they have a right to design it how they want with security restrictions on native software. If a manufacturer designs a Windows PC that can only run a single store and gains a 30% marketshare, it's not anticompetitive if people can buy an alternative product. If they gained a 90% marketshare, it might be different but it likely wouldn't gain that kind of marketshare if it was restrictive.

    The original argument was about Fortnite being accessible on iOS without Apple's control, it can be accessed via the cloud, this was always an option via a browser and here it is currently running on iOS:



    Apple doesn't set the prices for in-app purchases. No developers have been monetarily harmed by Apple. Here's the letter they are presenting:

    https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/States-amicus-brief-for-Epic-v-Apple-appeal.pdf

    They talk about the ruling undermining antitrust law but they aren't being honest about what their motives are. For a lot of these politicians, this is about Parler being removed from the store, getting retribution for it and laying groundwork for it not happening again and for some it will be Apple not allowing backdoors on iPhones. They want the ability to install backdoors on iPhones without Apple's permission. There was an article today about this:

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/01/28/fbi-considered-using-pegasus-spyware-for-us-domestic-surveillance

    The proposed legislation has been specifically targeted at companies with over 50m US store users to deliberately target it at Apple and Google. If it ever moves ahead, Apple can easily block access to the store in the 34 states that pushed for this to get the number to stay below 50m. If it moves ahead and they choose to go the route of allowing 3rd party stores instead, they can just create an entirely closed off sandbox for each store possibly running a separate copy of the OS in a VM so that malware is isolated from the boot capability of the device.

    Apple has plenty of options to go for but before this is even worth considering, the complainants have to prove what they are arguing about - that Apple is stifling competition and harming developers and users. They haven't demonstrated this at all. The fact Fortnite is currently capable of running on iOS without Apple doing anything discredits the entire argument.
    Even if this lawsuit goes nowhere, there is legislation from the US, the EU, and many other countries that will force them to open up iOS and iPadOS to side loading. Apple can fight the tide and lose, or control the outcome and ride the wave. Their choice.

    Hopefully the world returns to sanity before that happens.
    If the walls of the walled garden are torn down the garden will be attacked by the rodents waiting outside for a free lunch.

    The biggest loser will be Apple's customers.
    maximarap-dogthtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 67 of 78
    urahara said:
    Some people STILL want to cry "get an android if you don't like it" when they don't realize the the Playstore has the same issue and these states are going to apply any possible regulation to BOTH stores. Just fanboys thru and thru. Only cry about regulation when it comes to Apple.

    What would you say if your local gas station wasn't regulated? "Just use electric cars if you don't like the outrageous prices gas station owners would surely raise their prices to, or good old fashioned horses!"
    So why then politics speak only about App Store? 
    Oh, maybe it's because it is more difficult to make a case when you have not only one but two or several stores.
    And don't forget consoles...

    Your example with gas stations is ridiculous. There are so many different brands who offer gas. Well, at least in Europe. And you have an app where you can find the cheapest one. And. yes, I just go  there. If I don't like one (price) - I find another place (gas station).


    Because it’s more effective to target one entity - in the end it’s a case of Entity A versus Entity B. Once won, the same arguments will be used against Google. 

    Your analogy makes no sense btw.
    edited January 2022 maximara
  • Reply 68 of 78
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,829member
    maximara said:
    DAalseth said:
    Marvin said:
    DAalseth said:
    Apple has a choice. They can either keep fighting this battle to the bitter end and, if what has happened over the last year is any indication, get something really bad imposed on them. Or they can accept where this is going, get out ahead and control the result. The world has changed. Attitudes have changed. Apple needs to change too or they will have something bad for them and their customers forced upon them.

    It’s far better to control the landing than to fight to stay aloft and end up stalling and crashing. 
    The arguments against Apple amount to nothing, it doesn't matter how bitter people are about it. Apple doesn't have a majority marketshare, Android does and they allow 3rd party stores. Apple allows access to the internet unrestricted and software can run either via the web or streamed. Not that it matters, people keep making the same stupid argument about an iPhone being a general purpose product, every product is designed by its manufacturer whether it's a smart TV, a console, a phone, a PC and they have a right to design it how they want with security restrictions on native software. If a manufacturer designs a Windows PC that can only run a single store and gains a 30% marketshare, it's not anticompetitive if people can buy an alternative product. If they gained a 90% marketshare, it might be different but it likely wouldn't gain that kind of marketshare if it was restrictive.

    The original argument was about Fortnite being accessible on iOS without Apple's control, it can be accessed via the cloud, this was always an option via a browser and here it is currently running on iOS:



    Apple doesn't set the prices for in-app purchases. No developers have been monetarily harmed by Apple. Here's the letter they are presenting:

    https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/States-amicus-brief-for-Epic-v-Apple-appeal.pdf

    They talk about the ruling undermining antitrust law but they aren't being honest about what their motives are. For a lot of these politicians, this is about Parler being removed from the store, getting retribution for it and laying groundwork for it not happening again and for some it will be Apple not allowing backdoors on iPhones. They want the ability to install backdoors on iPhones without Apple's permission. There was an article today about this:

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/01/28/fbi-considered-using-pegasus-spyware-for-us-domestic-surveillance

    The proposed legislation has been specifically targeted at companies with over 50m US store users to deliberately target it at Apple and Google. If it ever moves ahead, Apple can easily block access to the store in the 34 states that pushed for this to get the number to stay below 50m. If it moves ahead and they choose to go the route of allowing 3rd party stores instead, they can just create an entirely closed off sandbox for each store possibly running a separate copy of the OS in a VM so that malware is isolated from the boot capability of the device.

    Apple has plenty of options to go for but before this is even worth considering, the complainants have to prove what they are arguing about - that Apple is stifling competition and harming developers and users. They haven't demonstrated this at all. The fact Fortnite is currently capable of running on iOS without Apple doing anything discredits the entire argument.
    Even if this lawsuit goes nowhere, there is legislation from the US, the EU, and many other countries that will force them to open up iOS and iPadOS to side loading. Apple can fight the tide and lose, or control the outcome and ride the wave. Their choice.
    There have been several attempts already.  Even South Korea didn't go as far as to force side loading and every bill in the US to do this has either spectacularly failed (North Dakota), pulled from the voting calendar because it was clear it would fail (Arizona) or went to committee where 90% of all bills die.  As the EU's Digital Services Act shows such legislation is just as likely to limit customer choice as help it and it seems to be less about helping the consumers than 'let's stick it to the US Companies' ie a form of protectionism dressed up as "helping the consumer".
    Those were at the state level. There's several bills that are getting bipartisan support at the federal level. Federal legislation would also be less susceptible to legal challenge. Apple needs to start doing more than just saying no. Work with them to stave off the worst of the proposals.

    DAalseth said:
    Marvin said:
    DAalseth said:
    Apple has a choice. They can either keep fighting this battle to the bitter end and, if what has happened over the last year is any indication, get something really bad imposed on them. Or they can accept where this is going, get out ahead and control the result. The world has changed. Attitudes have changed. Apple needs to change too or they will have something bad for them and their customers forced upon them.

    It’s far better to control the landing than to fight to stay aloft and end up stalling and crashing. 
    The arguments against Apple amount to nothing, it doesn't matter how bitter people are about it. Apple doesn't have a majority marketshare, Android does and they allow 3rd party stores. Apple allows access to the internet unrestricted and software can run either via the web or streamed. Not that it matters, people keep making the same stupid argument about an iPhone being a general purpose product, every product is designed by its manufacturer whether it's a smart TV, a console, a phone, a PC and they have a right to design it how they want with security restrictions on native software. If a manufacturer designs a Windows PC that can only run a single store and gains a 30% marketshare, it's not anticompetitive if people can buy an alternative product. If they gained a 90% marketshare, it might be different but it likely wouldn't gain that kind of marketshare if it was restrictive.

    The original argument was about Fortnite being accessible on iOS without Apple's control, it can be accessed via the cloud, this was always an option via a browser and here it is currently running on iOS:



    Apple doesn't set the prices for in-app purchases. No developers have been monetarily harmed by Apple. Here's the letter they are presenting:

    https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/States-amicus-brief-for-Epic-v-Apple-appeal.pdf

    They talk about the ruling undermining antitrust law but they aren't being honest about what their motives are. For a lot of these politicians, this is about Parler being removed from the store, getting retribution for it and laying groundwork for it not happening again and for some it will be Apple not allowing backdoors on iPhones. They want the ability to install backdoors on iPhones without Apple's permission. There was an article today about this:

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/01/28/fbi-considered-using-pegasus-spyware-for-us-domestic-surveillance

    The proposed legislation has been specifically targeted at companies with over 50m US store users to deliberately target it at Apple and Google. If it ever moves ahead, Apple can easily block access to the store in the 34 states that pushed for this to get the number to stay below 50m. If it moves ahead and they choose to go the route of allowing 3rd party stores instead, they can just create an entirely closed off sandbox for each store possibly running a separate copy of the OS in a VM so that malware is isolated from the boot capability of the device.

    Apple has plenty of options to go for but before this is even worth considering, the complainants have to prove what they are arguing about - that Apple is stifling competition and harming developers and users. They haven't demonstrated this at all. The fact Fortnite is currently capable of running on iOS without Apple doing anything discredits the entire argument.
    Even if this lawsuit goes nowhere, there is legislation from the US, the EU, and many other countries that will force them to open up iOS and iPadOS to side loading. Apple can fight the tide and lose, or control the outcome and ride the wave. Their choice.

    Hopefully the world returns to sanity before that happens.
    If the walls of the walled garden are torn down the garden will be attacked by the rodents waiting outside for a free lunch.

    The biggest loser will be Apple's customers.
    Agreed. Some of the proposals are downright scary from a data security point of view. 
    p-dogGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 69 of 78
    p-dogp-dog Posts: 131member
    maximara said:
    Dogperson said:
    List all the states so people can contact their representatives. Actually do something about this BS.
    Or go on your state gov website and look at pending legislation!
    "Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C. (I’m not taking a position on the controversial question of statehood here), Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah (submitter), Vermont, and Washington" - White House and 35 US states support Epic Games antitrust appeal against Apple
    I find it interesting that Epic’s home state of North Carolina is not on that list. 
    williamlondonGeorgeBMacwatto_cobra
  • Reply 70 of 78
    p-dogp-dog Posts: 131member
    docbburk said:
    Make these AGs wear sponsorship patches like nascar drivers. 
    Hands down the best political idea I’ve heard in a long time!  Congress people too…imagine a representative railing against a bill to negotiate drug prices with a huge blinking “sponsored by Merck” sign on their chest.
    Or Joe Manchin with big coal mining companies’ patches all over his jacket…
    williamlondonGeorgeBMacwatto_cobra
  • Reply 71 of 78
    Epic is attempting to argue in their appeal that the judge should have interpreted Apple not allowing competing stores on iOS as an unreasonable restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. That's despite the fact that Epic can release their apps on iOS for free and then have players do all the V-Bucks purchasing outside the App Store. That's despite the fact that Epic can also release their apps on iOS through cloud based internet services. That's despite the fact that Epic is free to sell the same apps on a wide variety of other hardware platforms.

    It really is surprising that so many state AGs would buy into Epic's interpretation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. It's an incredibly flimsy interpretation with multiple gaping holes in just the "restraint" part alone, much less the "unreasonable" part. 
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 72 of 78
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,919member
    What is wrong with American political system ? Lot and this one is one of them.
    GeorgeBMacwatto_cobra
  • Reply 73 of 78
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,074member
    Epic is attempting to argue in their appeal that the judge should have interpreted Apple not allowing competing stores on iOS as an unreasonable restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. That's despite the fact that Epic can release their apps on iOS for free and then have players do all the V-Bucks purchasing outside the App Store. That's despite the fact that Epic can also release their apps on iOS through cloud based internet services. That's despite the fact that Epic is free to sell the same apps on a wide variety of other hardware platforms.

    It really is surprising that so many state AGs would buy into Epic's interpretation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. It's an incredibly flimsy interpretation with multiple gaping holes in just the "restraint" part alone, much less the "unreasonable" part. 

    >" Alongside the attorneys general, Reuters reports that activist groups and academics have been filing legal arguments in support of the developer of "Fortnite."

    Key to the states' argument is that the court decided that Apple's non-negotiable contracts with developers were not covered by antitrust law. Epic Games itself made similar claims when it began filing its appealon January 20, 2022.

    "Paradoxically, firms with enough market power to unilaterally impose contracts would be protected from antitrust scrutiny," continued the attorneys general letter, "precisely the firms whose activities give the most cause for antitrust concern.""< 


    Not only that, the States AG are falling for Coalition of App Fairness insane idea that because Apple can enforce non-neogiatable contracts with developers, that they must have "market power" that should be subject to anti-trust violations. "Market power" is the ability to raise prices above competitive level, without losing sales to competitors. It has nothing to do with the ability to enforce non-neogoiatable contracts. Plus, in order to have "market power", one do not need to have a monopoly as defined under anti-trust.  Apple have "market power", to a certain degree, with the pricing of their iPhones due to brand loyalty. But Apple don't have a monopoly in the smartphone market. And Apple commission is right in line with competing app stores and is no indication of "market power".   

    Going by what Epic lawyers claimed in their epic loss with their lawsuit against Apple, when trying to prove Apple have a monopoly with iOS in a "market" that only includes Apple, this claim must have been Epic lawyers idea.

    It's the other way around. If Apple have a monopoly, then non-neogiatable contracts might or can be, subject to anti-trust violations. Having the power to have non-neogoiable contracts in itself, are not anti-trust violations and are not any indication that there is a monopoly involve that might require any anti-trust scrutiny. And surely not an indication of "market power", as defined in anti-trust. 

    https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-2

    >Market power and monopoly power are related but not the same. The Supreme Court has defined market power as "the ability to raise prices above those that would be charged in a competitive market," and monopoly power as "the power to control prices or exclude competition."<

    Since a Federal Judge threw out the Epic claim that Apple have a monopoly with iOS and the Apple App Store because they were using a "market" that only included Apple, Sweeney is desperately trying anything, to prove that Apple have a monopoly, with whatever sticks. Without that proof, Epic and the Coalition of App Fairness lawsuits are going no where, with their anti-trust claims.   

    And actually, non-neogoiatble contracts, when the same contract is fairly applied to all, levels the playing field for developers. For example, developers that don't have or can't afford to have, their own payment system or web server, would be put at a big disadvantage of those developers that do (when selling the similar apps, for the same price), if large developers negotiated contract rights to use their own payment system with-in their app, to bypass or greatly reduce  Apple's commission. Which is what Epic wants.  


    foregoneconclusionwatto_cobra
  • Reply 74 of 78
    Some people STILL want to cry "get an android if you don't like it" when they don't realize the the Playstore has the same issue and these states are going to apply any possible regulation to BOTH stores. Just fanboys thru and thru. Only cry about regulation when it comes to Apple.

    What would you say if your local gas station wasn't regulated? "Just use electric cars if you don't like the outrageous prices gas station owners would surely raise their prices to, or good old fashioned horses!"
    I have news for you. Your local gas station ISN'T regulated on a pricing level. They have to put all the required taxes, but they can set the price and the profit margin they want. So if they feel like charging 30¢ more per gallon and give out free hot dogs with every fill, they can.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 75 of 78
    DAalseth said:
    Marvin said:
    DAalseth said:
    Apple has a choice. They can either keep fighting this battle to the bitter end and, if what has happened over the last year is any indication, get something really bad imposed on them. Or they can accept where this is going, get out ahead and control the result. The world has changed. Attitudes have changed. Apple needs to change too or they will have something bad for them and their customers forced upon them.

    It’s far better to control the landing than to fight to stay aloft and end up stalling and crashing. 
    The arguments against Apple amount to nothing, it doesn't matter how bitter people are about it. Apple doesn't have a majority marketshare, Android does and they allow 3rd party stores. Apple allows access to the internet unrestricted and software can run either via the web or streamed. Not that it matters, people keep making the same stupid argument about an iPhone being a general purpose product, every product is designed by its manufacturer whether it's a smart TV, a console, a phone, a PC and they have a right to design it how they want with security restrictions on native software. If a manufacturer designs a Windows PC that can only run a single store and gains a 30% marketshare, it's not anticompetitive if people can buy an alternative product. If they gained a 90% marketshare, it might be different but it likely wouldn't gain that kind of marketshare if it was restrictive.

    The original argument was about Fortnite being accessible on iOS without Apple's control, it can be accessed via the cloud, this was always an option via a browser and here it is currently running on iOS:



    Apple doesn't set the prices for in-app purchases. No developers have been monetarily harmed by Apple. Here's the letter they are presenting:

    https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/States-amicus-brief-for-Epic-v-Apple-appeal.pdf

    They talk about the ruling undermining antitrust law but they aren't being honest about what their motives are. For a lot of these politicians, this is about Parler being removed from the store, getting retribution for it and laying groundwork for it not happening again and for some it will be Apple not allowing backdoors on iPhones. They want the ability to install backdoors on iPhones without Apple's permission. There was an article today about this:

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/01/28/fbi-considered-using-pegasus-spyware-for-us-domestic-surveillance

    The proposed legislation has been specifically targeted at companies with over 50m US store users to deliberately target it at Apple and Google. If it ever moves ahead, Apple can easily block access to the store in the 34 states that pushed for this to get the number to stay below 50m. If it moves ahead and they choose to go the route of allowing 3rd party stores instead, they can just create an entirely closed off sandbox for each store possibly running a separate copy of the OS in a VM so that malware is isolated from the boot capability of the device.

    Apple has plenty of options to go for but before this is even worth considering, the complainants have to prove what they are arguing about - that Apple is stifling competition and harming developers and users. They haven't demonstrated this at all. The fact Fortnite is currently capable of running on iOS without Apple doing anything discredits the entire argument.
    Even if this lawsuit goes nowhere, there is legislation from the US, the EU, and many other countries that will force them to open up iOS and iPadOS to side loading. Apple can fight the tide and lose, or control the outcome and ride the wave. Their choice.
    Three short sentences to sum up the inevitable.
  • Reply 76 of 78
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    wood1208 said:
    What is wrong with American political system ? Lot and this one is one of them.

    The main thing wrong with it is:    Starting with an ideologically (or self-promoting) agenda and then backing into whatever arguments support that agenda -- regardless of their validity.

    Hitler is a good example:  He made, by today's standards, a very valid argument:  That humanity will be better off if we rid the world of defectives -- so he pursued his agenda full steam ahead.  He ignored other arguments that those genes were being carried by human beings whose lives deserved to be respected and who, in fact, didn't think they were defective at all.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 77 of 78
    The real problem here is that these various Attorneys General aren't getting the cut they think they deserve, so of course they have to punish Apple.

    Typical protection racket.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.