'Fortnite' developer Epic Games files antitrust complaint against Apple in EU

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 47
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,739member
    cropr said:
    qwerty52 said:
    AppStore is not the only place where Epic can sell their apps.
    That is a rather silly argument.  It is like saying to Epic, you are not allowed to sell in the USA, and that is OK because the rest of the world is big enough

    That's even a sillier and dumber argument. Epic is allowed to sell anywhere in the World, even to iOS users in the USA. Show me where Epic is NOT allowed to sell to iOS users, anywhere in the World. Just because they don't want to pay Apple in order to sell to iOS users, that is no where near the same as ..... NOT allowed. Apple is not stopping Epic from selling to iOS users. Epic just have to follow the rules and pay, like all developers selling to iOS users. Epic is nothing special in the World of developers. Before Epic decided to "not sell" to iOS users, they were making over $25M a month from selling to iOS users. If Epic were to use your silly argument in court, that they are not allowed to sell to iOS users, the Judge will tell Epic lawyers to stop wasting the courts time and get lost, after he/she stops laughing.    

    What Epic would need to do to show that they are "not allowed" to sell to iOS users, is to prove that the 30% "tax" that Apple charges for selling to iOS users, is something that is excessive and insurmountable. And they would not be able to stay in business if they have to paid such an excessive "tax". And that's going to be hard, if not impossible, for Epic to prove since they don't seem to have a problem staying in business paying the same 30% "tax" to Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo, in order to sell to their game console users. And most likely would pay at least a 30% "tax", if they were to package their software and sold them at any retail store.
    qwerty52watto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 47
    I want to buy alternative skins and dances from a different store in Fortnight. I demand it! Epic have a monopoly inside their own game. I'll be cheaper for customers, competition is great! /S
    edited February 2021 StrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 47
    I hope Epic will win. 
  • Reply 24 of 47
    seanjseanj Posts: 302member
    It’s good to see such important topics being passed to the courts to judge and decide.
    Except it’s not going to judges and courts.
    The complaint will judged by the bureaucrats at the EU Commission.
    edited February 2021 watto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 47
    cropr said:
    qwerty52 said:
    AppStore is not the only place where Epic can sell their apps.
    That is a rather silly argument.  It is like saying to Epic, you are not allowed to sell in the USA, and that is OK because the rest of the world is big enough
    Do you also want to remove Walmart's freedom from deciding which products get sold in Walmart's stores? If you compare Walmart to Apple, Apple is 10x more generous because Apple doesn't actually prohibit any company from selling in their stores. Apple's limits are not based on the company, but on the functionality of its product, which is very generous and fair. It's like the old adage "justice is blind." Frankly Apple would be within their rights to prohibit any products from being sold if those products started with the letter "A." But no, Apple is extremely fair and generous.
    randominternetpersonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 47
    Has the ratio of Apple to Epic proponents changed since the story first broke last summer? It seems not.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 47
    I want to buy alternative skins and dances from a different store in Fortnight. I demand it! Epic have a monopoly inside their own game. I'll be cheaper for customers, competition is great! /S
    Exactly! Epic is advocating “Rules for thee, not for me”
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 47
    Too bad Epic isn't a public company.  I'd be interested in what shareholders would think of them wasting all these resources
    Private companies also have shareholders, unless they are a sole proprietorship, in which case one person owns the whole company. 

    You might say, "aren't the owners of private companies protected information?" It can be, but it doesn't have to be. Ownership of billion dollar companies usually leaks out or is simply stated by the owners. In Epic's case, we know Tencent, which is based in Communist China, owns 40% of Epic. Although last year Sony bought a 1.4% stake in Epic. I presume Sweeney owns the other 58%. So you can ask Sony or Tencent what they think of Sweeney's actions.

    In the UK, the ownership of private companies had to be made public back in 2016. And I didn't hear of any collapse of the British economy. I think it was done to help prevent money laundering. Maybe the US should consider doing the same thing.

    https://www.retirebeforedad.com/epic-games-stock-ipo/ ;

    the company is privately owned. Founder and CEO, Tim Sweeney, owns more than 50% of the company.

    Tencent Holdings (TCEHY), the Chinese conglomerate and largest video game company worldwide, purchased a 40% equity stake in Epic Games in 2012. 

    Other shareholders include early investors, employees, and venture capital firms, including Baillie Gifford, Fidelity, Lightspeed Venture Partners, the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board, T. Rowe Price, Blackrock, David Tepper, KKR, and Smash Ventures.


  • Reply 29 of 47
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,815member
     Wants to ride the Apple horse and inflict the pain Bring the Epic down !!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 47
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,167member
    I like how Sony, MS, and Nintendo are silent on this. The outcome of this will affect their console platforms as well. I suspect that Epic plan is to go after Apple first and if they succeed to go after console platforms.
    tenthousandthingswatto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 47
    dewmedewme Posts: 4,637member
    "If you can't innovate, you've got to litigate." - Epic's new mission statement.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 47
    dewme said:
    "If you can't innovate, you've got to litigate." - Epic's new mission statement.
    Or how about this sign in Epic's offices, above Tim Sweeney's desk:
    Skate to where the puck has been, not where it is going.

    The real joke here is that that's kinda how it came out of Wayne Gretzky's mouth when he first said it. He bungled the quote himself. Then he corrected himself.

    edited February 2021
  • Reply 33 of 47
    GabyGaby Posts: 184member
    No matter how Epic tries to confuse and obfuscate, to control and maintain the narrative that they are a victim while they take this little sideshow on a worldwide tour, dragging this out in the hope that someone takes the bait and people forget how it all really began. The facts are thus: Epic harmed themselves, and intentionally I might add. They made a hot-fix altering the app’s behaviour without AppStore approval, and against developer guidelines in full knowledge of the consequence. And no matter how they try to spin it or if what they allege has truth in it - and I don’t doubt for a second that Apple has other motivations for some of the things it does, and is motivated by $$ but ultimately though, and some can argue it is reductive, but Apples “retaliation” was for breach of contract. It’s very simple, and legally I don’t see how it can be viewed any other way. So whether any of the other arguments have merit in respect of competition etc, that is for other government agencies to decide but in terms of Epics’ legal proceedings it is irrelevant. 
    edited February 2021 watto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 47
    It’s interesting to try to think about what it would look like if Epic to win this aspect of the suit, and Apple were forced to support third-party app stores. ... Somehow I wonder if Epic could really find themselves even more under Apple's thumb than they were before. It won’t be like in macOS, which seems to be what Sweeney is assuming. That seems like a big, BIG assumption, and possibly a fatal flaw in his thinking. Epic seems to think that Apple would be forced to allow side-loading, while more likely Epic’s store would have to conform to Apple’s requirements for such a store. Sure, they’d prevent Apple from getting a cut of their in-app purchases, but somehow I doubt the judge is going to say that Apple is supposed to provide support for Epic’s store for free!
  • Reply 35 of 47
    It’s interesting to try to think about what it would look like if Epic to win this aspect of the suit, and Apple were forced to support third-party app stores. ... Somehow I wonder if Epic could really find themselves even more under Apple's thumb than they were before. It won’t be like in macOS, which seems to be what Sweeney is assuming. That seems like a big, BIG assumption, and possibly a fatal flaw in his thinking. Epic seems to think that Apple would be forced to allow side-loading, while more likely Epic’s store would have to conform to Apple’s requirements for such a store. Sure, they’d prevent Apple from getting a cut of their in-app purchases, but somehow I doubt the judge is going to say that Apple is supposed to provide support for Epic’s store for free!
    You contradict yourself. Either you have to say Apple runs the Epic App Store rules, or Epic does. You can't have it both ways. Yet you said Epic has to conform to all of Apple's chosen requirements for an Epic App Store, then you say that those requirements don't include the 30% service fee. So tell me exactly which of the 500 rules in the Apple App Store Guidelines Epic will have to follow and which ones it won't.

    I appreciate everyone who is trying to come up with a compromise, but none of the compromises I have seen make sense yet.

    My conclusion is that if Apple wins, then all apps sold on iOS remain under the jurisdiction of the Apple App Store Guidelines. But if Epic wins, none of the Apple App Store Guidelines apply to any software that is sold on other app stores. Basically the choice will result in a complete victory for Epic or a complete victory for Apple. Otherwise who decides which rules Apple's and Epic's stores must both adhere to? The government? The courts?

    And if Apple suffers a complete defeat, then I think Apple would be wise to no longer support ANY third party app stores in iOS because it's just not profitable. Just like Walmart shuts down any stores that vote to unionize because Walmart claims that they are no longer profitable. How do you force a company to offer a service that it doesn't want to provide? You can't. When people realize this is the choice, they will beg lawmakers to allow OS providers to build walled gardens and charge people to be in them. But by then Apple may have permanently given up on a third party App Store. The irony is that if Apple completely loses this case and shuts down the third party app store, it gives Apple MORE control over its own software, which is exactly what Epic supporters don't want.
  • Reply 36 of 47
    It’s interesting to try to think about what it would look like if Epic to win this aspect of the suit, and Apple were forced to support third-party app stores. ... Somehow I wonder if Epic could really find themselves even more under Apple's thumb than they were before. It won’t be like in macOS, which seems to be what Sweeney is assuming. That seems like a big, BIG assumption, and possibly a fatal flaw in his thinking. Epic seems to think that Apple would be forced to allow side-loading, while more likely Epic’s store would have to conform to Apple’s requirements for such a store. Sure, they’d prevent Apple from getting a cut of their in-app purchases, but somehow I doubt the judge is going to say that Apple is supposed to provide support for Epic’s store for free!
    You contradict yourself. Either you have to say Apple runs the Epic App Store rules, or Epic does. You can't have it both ways. Yet you said Epic has to conform to all of Apple's chosen requirements for an Epic App Store, then you say that those requirements don't include the 30% service fee. So tell me exactly which of the 500 rules in the Apple App Store Guidelines Epic will have to follow and which ones it won't.

    I appreciate everyone who is trying to come up with a compromise, but none of the compromises I have seen make sense yet.

    My conclusion is that if Apple wins, then all apps sold on iOS remain under the jurisdiction of the Apple App Store Guidelines. But if Epic wins, none of the Apple App Store Guidelines apply to any software that is sold on other app stores. Basically the choice will result in a complete victory for Epic or a complete victory for Apple. Otherwise who decides which rules Apple's and Epic's stores must both adhere to? The government? The courts?

    And if Apple suffers a complete defeat, then I think Apple would be wise to no longer support ANY third party app stores in iOS because it's just not profitable. Just like Walmart shuts down any stores that vote to unionize because Walmart claims that they are no longer profitable. How do you force a company to offer a service that it doesn't want to provide? You can't. When people realize this is the choice, they will beg lawmakers to allow OS providers to build walled gardens and charge people to be in them. But by then Apple may have permanently given up on a third party App Store. The irony is that if Apple completely loses this case and shuts down the third party app store, it gives Apple MORE control over its own software, which is exactly what Epic supporters don't want.
    I’m not talking about a “compromise.” I’m talking about the reality of what Epic is asking for, if they win.

    The Apple App Store rules wouldn’t apply to third-party app stores. But Apple would still have rules for how third-party app stores interact with iOS. Apple would not be revenue sharing with these third parties, but nobody is going to say Apple should not be paid by these developers for the work that will be required to make third-party app stores happen. iOS features don’t just appear out of thin air. It’s a massive and expensive project, and it will be costly to maintain. So how will Apple get paid for the work Epic wants it to do? 

    Do you think the judge/jury would say the developers and customers of Apple's own App Store should pay for it? No. I believe it’s likely Epic knows this and still thinks it’s to their advantage, because their whole business model is in-app purchases. Sweeney is a jackass, but he’s no fool, and surely they have thought this through. But there are very few others for whom it would make any sense. 

    Finally, the judge has said there are three separate anti-trust issues in this case. It’s not singular. The likelihood of all three challenges going one way seems unlikely, unless Apple wins. If Epic wins, it will be a split decision of some sort. Apple is on firm legal ground. 
  • Reply 37 of 47
    cropr said:
    That is a rather silly argument.  It is like saying to Epic, you are not allowed to sell in the USA, and that is OK because the rest of the world is big enough
    It’s like Epic suing EU, because it has to pay VAT for every single purchase in EU.
    Apple kicked them out of their stores for not paying, in EU they would have been put in jail.
    edited February 2021 watto_cobra
  • Reply 38 of 47
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    It’s interesting to try to think about what it would look like if Epic to win this aspect of the suit, and Apple were forced to support third-party app stores. ... Somehow I wonder if Epic could really find themselves even more under Apple's thumb than they were before. It won’t be like in macOS, which seems to be what Sweeney is assuming. That seems like a big, BIG assumption, and possibly a fatal flaw in his thinking. Epic seems to think that Apple would be forced to allow side-loading, while more likely Epic’s store would have to conform to Apple’s requirements for such a store. Sure, they’d prevent Apple from getting a cut of their in-app purchases, but somehow I doubt the judge is going to say that Apple is supposed to provide support for Epic’s store for free!
    You contradict yourself. Either you have to say Apple runs the Epic App Store rules, or Epic does. You can't have it both ways. Yet you said Epic has to conform to all of Apple's chosen requirements for an Epic App Store, then you say that those requirements don't include the 30% service fee. So tell me exactly which of the 500 rules in the Apple App Store Guidelines Epic will have to follow and which ones it won't.
    Why are you always asking questions of other people that they could not possibly answer?

    How the other app stores are granted permission to iOS is yet to be decided.  Maybe it'll be wild west and anyone can install anything, but Apple swinging from one extreme to another seems unlikely.  Most probable is that certain app stores are certified by Apple, for which they need to meet certain requirements.  Apple will not have control over the other app stores, but they can still set policy for how apps are loaded, what permissions they have, and how they must declare privacy policies.  Obviously that policy is going to be for Apple to decide, possibly with some consultation and/or court oversight. 


    And if Apple suffers a complete defeat, then I think Apple would be wise to no longer support ANY third party app stores in iOS because it's just not profitable. Just like Walmart shuts down any stores that vote to unionize because Walmart claims that they are no longer profitable. How do you force a company to offer a service that it doesn't want to provide? You can't. When people realize this is the choice, they will beg lawmakers to allow OS providers to build walled gardens and charge people to be in them. But by then Apple may have permanently given up on a third party App Store. The irony is that if Apple completely loses this case and shuts down the third party app store, it gives Apple MORE control over its own software, which is exactly what Epic supporters don't want.
    Everyone knows how much of a stiffy you get for these fantasies, but they have little resemblance to reality.  Practically these third party app stores would likely have little to no impact on Apple at all.  Most users will continue to use the Apple App Store and barely even be aware that Epic Games Store and others even exist.  Apple make a lot of money from the App Store, and that's likely to continue; they won't shut it all down, piss off their customers and throw revenue away just out of spite.
  • Reply 39 of 47
    doggone said:
    Instead of "What's at stake here is the very future of mobile platforms." it is what's at stake here is the security of mobile platforms.  Apple has excelled at providing a secure and stable mobile experience for billions of users.  That costs money and that is why Apple charges developers for using their platform.  In return the developers get a broad potential customer base and excellent development tools.
    Many developers, including Epic, wouldn't be around if Apple hadn't released the iPhone.  Epic is just getting greedy.
    Epic is to 10cent what Trump is to Russia—just a puppet.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 40 of 47
    crowley said:
    Apple make a lot of money from the App Store, and that's likely to continue; they won't shut it all down, piss off their customers and throw revenue away just out of spite.
    I guess you haven't read any of my posts, because I repeatedly said two different solutions to this:
    1. people ask the government to change the law to overturn the court decision
    2. Apple could get companies like Epic to become subcontractors for Apple so Apple could sell "Apple Fortnite" on a first party app store.
    So it's not a case of throwing revenue away, as you say. Sometimes to win a fight you have to stand strong and be willing to walk away from a table. And then the other party agrees to your terms. It's part of negotiations.
Sign In or Register to comment.