Epic Games Sues Apple

[Armenius]

Valve isn't doing anything near Apple or Google's level in regards to abusing "monopoly" power. What Valve does to leverage their position is mostly behind the scenes hidden to the customer and public.

But to think any competitor stands a chance against Steam by simply "meeting the standards of a modern platform" is utterly retarded.

Then Epic should look at how Steam has the user retention it does. As we've seen the vast majority of Epic users are simply getting the free stuff and not interacting beyond that. You don't build a strong user base by just handing out free stuff. Quite the contrary.

 

[Tsumi]

I'm not a huge fan of Valve, but the big thing they have going for them is that they don't own the platform that their store exists on. Google, Apple, MS, and Sony all own and control the platforms that their stores exist on so they can create problems for other stores coming into existence. Nobody can create a store on Apple's phones, Microsoft's Xbox, or Sony's Playstation without their permission and so far they've not allowed that. Nobody is stopping others from competing with Steam and many are doing so right now. Steam's market position offers them little in leverage to hold back those other stores. And, frankly, I haven't heard anything about them using their market position to try to kill those other stores. They don't even come close to rising to the same level of anti-competitiveness that exists on iOS, or the PS and Xbox. Google is a little more open in that you can sideload apps, and many do. They are engaging in some anti-competitive practices by forcing phone manufacturers to include their store, though. That said, that's a step removed from what Apple is doing by preventing any other store from existing in the first place. Both can be said to be abusing a monopoly position but once is a step further down that road.

The problem is defining the scope of a monopoly. Is it truly a monopoly that even though there is a monopoly on a particular platform, the platform is one of several platforms capable of doing the same thing/fulfilling the same purpose? Especially when there is no one platform that completely dominates the others?

Those are the questions that will have to be answered in this trial, and I believe the decision will be that it is not a monopoly. A monopoly should not be defined so narrowly as control over the storefront of one product.

 

[Mystique]

The problem is defining the scope of a monopoly. Is it truly a monopoly that even though there is a monopoly on a particular platform, the platform is one of several platforms capable of doing the same thing/fulfilling the same purpose? Especially when there is no one platform that completely dominates the others?

Those are the questions that will have to be answered in this trial, and I believe the decision will be that it is not a monopoly. A monopoly should not be defined so narrowly as control over the storefront of one product.

I kind of miss the days when Bell got split up into several Telecoms because lawyer's didn't hoodwink everyone into moving the goalposts every few months on "What is a monopoly."

Basically it is right here:
mo·nop·o·ly - a commodity controlled by one party

Stuff like Steam, iOS, and Google Play are monopolies. Some of the issues can be forgone since you can easily sideload APK's and stuff (though that's becoming a PITA in A11 because userdata is jailed)

To be honest, at least Steam isn't -as bad- as the other two, since you CAN get other game clients and they perform reasonably well. That being said, they are 'the defacto' and many developers lose their shirt in the 33% + ~23% tax that stacks on each sale and profitability comes into question.

They should be regulated against their anti-consumer practices; such as a cap on what a % can be, for services that aren't freight, and not just be allowed to continue screwing over consumers because they're too big to even have a complaint box.

In Apple, Googles, Microsoft, and Amazon's case, they shouldn't be allowed to buy other companies. Period. I don't even know why T-Mobile was allowed to merge with Sprint. Money fucks with politics too bad these days.

 

[Tsumi]

I kind of miss the days when Bell got split up into several Telecoms because lawyer's didn't hoodwink everyone into moving the goalposts every few months on "What is a monopoly."

Basically it is right here:
mo·nop·o·ly - a commodity controlled by one party

Stuff like Steam, iOS, and Google Play are monopolies. Some of the issues can be forgone since you can easily sideload APK's and stuff (though that's becoming a PITA in A11 because userdata is jailed)

To be honest, at least Steam isn't -as bad- as the other two, since you CAN get other game clients and they perform reasonably well. That being said, they are 'the defacto' and many developers lose their shirt in the 33% + ~23% tax that stacks on each sale and profitability comes into question.

They should be regulated against their anti-consumer practices; such as a cap on what a % can be, for services that aren't freight, and not just be allowed to continue screwing over consumers because they're too big to even have a complaint box.

In Apple, Googles, Microsoft, and Amazon's case, they shouldn't be allowed to buy other companies. Period. I don't even know why T-Mobile was allowed to merge with Sprint. Money fucks with politics too bad these days.

Define commodity in the context of software and consumer electronics.

If the devs weren't making money through Steam, they wouldn't sell through Steam, end of story. They sell through Steam because the advantages Steam provides outweighs the 30% cut. Taxes are 100% irrelevent in this discussion, and the devs/publishers aren't paying taxes on that 30% anyways.

Anti-consumer how? Who gets to define the proper percentage level? How do you know how much it costs to build and maintain a storefront like Steam?

Complain about Disney if you want to complain about large companies eating up small companies. It is also a very real practice to start up a small company for the sole purpose of selling an idea/product to a larger one.

 

[Ididar]

The problem is defining the scope of a monopoly. Is it truly a monopoly that even though there is a monopoly on a particular platform, the platform is one of several platforms capable of doing the same thing/fulfilling the same purpose? Especially when there is no one platform that completely dominates the others?

Those are the questions that will have to be answered in this trial, and I believe the decision will be that it is not a monopoly. A monopoly should not be defined so narrowly as control over the storefront of one product.

I had a lot more typed but erased it all. My point ultimately boils down to this:

The regulators are going to define a market more based on number of consumers or sellers involved in that market than they are the technological description of the market itself. If there's a billion transactions a year then it doesn't matter much to them if that's on one device or ten. They're going to look based on how many people participate in that market as a share of the country's population and how much of a given market that company controls, or has influence over. Apple gets a bit more attention in the USA than it does other many countries because its market share there is higher and therefore the number of transactions on its iOS app store is higher. Google seems to get smacked around more in European mobile markets because its share of the market there is way ahead of Apple (70+%) but in the USA, last I checked, they're fairly close to 50/50.

 

[Ranulfo]

Via court docs... Epic has/had plans to "disrupt Steam's organic traffic coverage" via paying influencers aka streamers/youtubers. This has been rather obvious given the creator code referrals they've given streamers for over a year but court confirmation by Epic they were paying to push people to Epic, targeting Steam specifically.

 

[OutOfPhase]

This really does feel like Aliens Vs. Predator all over again.

"No matter who wins, we lose"

 

[Deleted member 89018]

Sigh.

you guys remember when you could just buy a game and that was it? None of this in-app purchases, buy hats for your avatar nonsense?

I'm getting old, I know, but I keep thinking about how this only became an issue when companies started turning every possible game they could into something with regular recurring revenue.

and even then we still have to deal with in-app ads. Remember when you could pay a few bucks to get the ad-free version? Now it’s pay regularly and have ads.

sigh.

 

[Gorankar]

Sigh.

you guys remember when you could just buy a game and that was it? None of this in-app purchases, buy hats for your avatar nonsense?

I'm getting old, I know, but I keep thinking about how this only became an issue when companies started turning every possible game they could into something with regular recurring revenue.

and even then we still have to deal with in-app ads. Remember when you could pay a few bucks to get the ad-free version? Now it’s pay regularly and have ads.

sigh.

Yeah, but we have no one to blame but ourselves. When they stuck their toe in the door with micro transactions like horse armors, we should have stomped on that toe with steel cleats. We didn't. We said, well, it's just cosmetics, or it's just a bit of extra storage, and then when they expanded it bit by bit, item by item, nickel by nickel, we put up token resistance at best. We let them move it inch by inch into this monstrosity we now have. We allowed this. We said too little, and kept paying too much. And now, here we are. P2W and or multiple revenue streams of a single game is the norm. Paying 50-60+ for a game then another 20, 40, or more, for cosmetics, Xp boosters, in game items/money, special dance moves / body gestures for cringing out loud. (yes cringing) Why just sell the whole game for $60, when you can sell it in pieces for $120 after all.

It is no surprise that everyone wants a piece of that pie. Epic, Apple, Steam, all the rest. We are talking big money. It's not a surprise they are willing to sue each other over it.

 

[Krazy925]

But mate, look around! Everyone is bloody trippoi g about all these cosmetics nd whatnot! Just look at youtube trending in games, titles: OMG!! THIS GOLDEN PURPLE GUN IS INSANE!!! or FLYING BACKPACK WITH ORA GE STRIPES!!!

this makes taco go bonkers everyone is so mindlessly into this stupid bloody stuff!! Everyone wants these micro transactio s nd other cosmetic or nncosmetic stuff!! Wjo should put up resistance?!

Adults. Kids want every stupid thing. Adults need shut this down.

They won’t but they should.

 

[Tsumi]

Sigh.

you guys remember when you could just buy a game and that was it? None of this in-app purchases, buy hats for your avatar nonsense?

I'm getting old, I know, but I keep thinking about how this only became an issue when companies started turning every possible game they could into something with regular recurring revenue.

and even then we still have to deal with in-app ads. Remember when you could pay a few bucks to get the ad-free version? Now it’s pay regularly and have ads.

sigh.

The old days also had people hosting multiplayer games with the central servers providing the minimal support of connecting players. The landscape has changed to where now the server is hosting the game, thus the server requirements are much higher.

Have you looked at games that are exclusively single player? There are many examples out there that do not have some sort of regular recurring revenue, unless you count expansions via paid DLCs recurring revenue. Any game that does have some sort of multiplayer component will almost always have some sort of recurring revenue.

Sigh.Yeah, but we have no one to blame but ourselves. When they stuck their toe in the door with micro transactions like horse armors, we should have stomped on that toe with steel cleats. We didn't. We said, well, it's just cosmetics, or it's just a bit of extra storage, and then when they expanded it bit by bit, item by item, nickel by nickel, we put up token resistance at best. We let them move it inch by inch into this monstrosity we now have. We allowed this. We said too little, and kept paying too much. And now, here we are. P2W and or multiple revenue streams of a single game is the norm. Paying 50-60+ for a game then another 20, 40, or more, for cosmetics, Xp boosters, in game items/money, special dance moves / body gestures for cringing out loud. (yes cringing) Why just sell the whole game for $60, when you can sell it in pieces for $120 after all.

It is no surprise that everyone wants a piece of that pie. Epic, Apple, Steam, all the rest. We are talking big money. It's not a surprise they are willing to sue each other over it.

The thing is, the people that cried out loudly against such practices... aren't the target consumers of such practices.

The targets are the whales. The ones that will willingly spend $1000 to boost a 5 minute raid. The ones that will spend the money to get a skin the instant it comes out. The rich/distracted parents that have no problem throwing away $20 bucks to get their kids to shut up for a day or two.

For games that have a central server for multiplayer games, it makes sense to try and maintain some sort of constant revenue stream, as maintaining the server costs money. Rather than a subscription model (aka WoW), some developers have found that it can be easier to generate the income by making the game free (easy to pull in players and build the player base) but having a lot of things to purchase (loot boxes, for example). It can be hard for a subscription-based model to attract new players.

 

[DukenukemX]

But mate, look around! Everyone is bloody trippoi g about all these cosmetics nd whatnot! Just look at youtube trending in games, titles: OMG!! THIS GOLDEN PURPLE GUN IS INSANE!!! or FLYING BACKPACK WITH ORA GE STRIPES!!!

this makes taco go bonkers everyone is so mindlessly into this stupid bloody stuff!! Everyone wants these micro transactio s nd other cosmetic or nncosmetic stuff!! Wjo should put up resistance?! Very little mates against all this. No possible resistance.

The reality is that people put up with it because they still want to play the game. Blizzard has done a lot of horrible things, and push micro-transactions up everyone's ass but people still play their games.

 

[Mystique]

And that reality is not so real, because blizzard has lost 30% of their playerbase across their titles.

https://www.pcgamer.com/blizzard-is-losing-millions-of-players-across-all-of-its-games/

The bleeding will continue as long as they continue to cash out on remakes of nostalgia rides instead of making something halfway decent. Diablo 4 already looks like D3, which is already much less fun than F2p path of exile, so..... uh yeah, I wouldn't expect anything to improve on that front.

 

[Tsumi]

And that reality is not so real, because blizzard has lost 30% of their playerbase across their titles.

https://www.pcgamer.com/blizzard-is-losing-millions-of-players-across-all-of-its-games/

The bleeding will continue as long as they continue to cash out on remakes of nostalgia rides instead of making something halfway decent. Diablo 4 already looks like D3, which is already much less fun than F2p path of exile, so..... uh yeah, I wouldn't expect anything to improve on that front.

Yep... You either make a trash game that appeals to the instant gratification types, or a real game that appeals to real gamers. Trying to appeal to both in a single game just means alienating both. Just look at what happened to Star Wars Battlefront 2.

 

[DukenukemX]

Yep... You either make a trash game that appeals to the instant gratification types, or a real game that appeals to real gamers. Trying to appeal to both in a single game just means alienating both. Just look at what happened to Star Wars Battlefront 2.

Blizzards games fail because they push hard for micro-transactons. It's pretty clear that micro-transactions hurt the adoption of new games. The question is does it hurt it enough to become unprofitable? For ever player you lose, you gain a whale that pays far more money. The loss of players is just part of Blizzards financial plan. The only reason Blizzard makes games like Classic WoW or Warcraft 3 Reforged is because players like me know that Blizzards new games are specifically for whales. If they want me as a customer they need to go back before micro-transactions were a thing, and even there they fuck up.

 

[Usual_suspect]

I hope Apple wins. Not because I’m an apple fanboi, but because people do have a choice-when they buy their phones they can choose between iOS and Android. To me there’s no monopoly, especially when the App Store in question exists on a platform Apple currently works on and maintains.

I don’t know about anyone else but if spend my money operating a business I wouldn’t want some other business setting up shop within something I pay for and maintain.

Yes, I understand they prohibit side loading and limit their user base to just their store but that’s what those people signed up for when they opted to go with iOS. It’s not like we live in a society where information isn’t available to educate consumers. Just look at buying a new car, you essentially are forced to go through the brands dealership/partners for anything, and not doing so could potentially void your warranty.

Is this a draconian way of looking at things? Yes, but it’s the truth. I see it all over the net: you want choices and customization go with Android, you want a locked down ecosystem that works seamlessly with your other apple devices go with iOS.

To add: Apple does all the legwork for app developers, all the devs have to do is code an app, put it through its tests, and pay the 30% and they’re done, outside of keeping the apps up to date the devs don’t have to do much of anything.

While yes, Apple makes money hand over fist, it’s not because of their good looks and charm. The company itself had to build up their image to the point to where they could do this it’s not like Apple became an overnight trillion dollar company. Ow Epic wants to set a precedent that after years of maintaining their image, supporting their products, and paying for the infrastructure to make developers lives a lot easier Apple shouldn’t be allowed to charge 30% on their own platform? That they should instead allow devs to have their own payment system after they used Apples system to give them access to the user base on iOS?

Yeah… no. The only way I could see that being okay is if Apple were to charge a licensing fee, akin to Microsoft’s server licensing fee and make goddamn sure they’re playing by Apples privacy rules.

 

[sc5mu93]

I hope Apple wins. Not because I’m an apple fanboi, but because people do have a choice-when they buy their phones they can choose between iOS and Android. To me there’s no monopoly, especially when the App Store in question exists on a platform Apple currently works on and maintains.

I don’t know about anyone else but if spend my money operating a business I wouldn’t want some other business setting up shop within something I pay for and maintain.

Yes, I understand they prohibit side loading and limit their user base to just their store but that’s what those people signed up for when they opted to go with iOS. It’s not like we live in a society where information isn’t available to educate consumers. Just look at buying a new car, you essentially are forced to go through the brands dealership/partners for anything, and not doing so could potentially void your warranty.

Is this a draconian way of looking at things? Yes, but it’s the truth. I see it all over the net: you want choices and customization go with Android, you want a locked down ecosystem that works seamlessly with your other apple devices go with iOS.

To add: Apple does all the legwork for app developers, all the devs have to do is code an app, put it through its tests, and pay the 30% and they’re done, outside of keeping the apps up to date the devs don’t have to do much of anything.

While yes, Apple makes money hand over fist, it’s not because of their good looks and charm. The company itself had to build up their image to the point to where they could do this it’s not like Apple became an overnight trillion dollar company. Ow Epic wants to set a precedent that after years of maintaining their image, supporting their products, and paying for the infrastructure to make developers lives a lot easier Apple shouldn’t be allowed to charge 30% on their own platform? That they should instead allow devs to have their own payment system after they used Apples system to give them access to the user base on iOS?

Yeah… no. The only way I could see that being okay is if Apple were to charge a licensing fee, akin to Microsoft’s server licensing fee and make goddamn sure they’re playing by Apples privacy rules.

Can't wait until MS requires all application installations to be through MS Store/UWP. After all, MS did build the platform, and if you want to customize, you can just go to Linux.

 

[1_rick]

I hope Apple wins. Not because I’m an apple fanboi, but because people do have a choice-when they buy their phones they can choose between iOS and Android.

"If you don't like the Delco radio that came with your Camaro, you can always buy a Jaguar instead. No, you can't replace it with an aftermarket part."

 

[JayteeBates]

"If you don't like the Delco radio that came with your Camaro, you can always buy a Jaguar instead. No, you can't replace it with an aftermarket part."

Not a good comparison. You aren't buying a replacement radio for Tesla for example. Apple has every right IMO to restrict the software they allow onto their walled-garden. You can always jail-break the iPhone if you want...and isn't that what Apple is saying..."We provide a curated service with defined standards" If you don't want those standards, get an Android or jailbreak.

 

[sc5mu93]

Not a good comparison. You aren't buying a replacement radio for Tesla for example. Apple has every right IMO to restrict the software they allow onto their walled-garden. You can always jail-break the iPhone if you want...and isn't that what Apple is saying..."We provide a curated service with defined standards" If you don't want those standards, get an Android or jailbreak.

Unless they are monopolists and hurting consumers via anticompetitive practices. the latter of which sounds like what Mr. Cook wants to avoid due to "business judgment" and he made it sound like the current system is working out pretty well for them. (no reason to compete unless forced by investigations or adjudications)

The IAP exclusivity via apple payments (of which they eat 30%) is absolute BS. (and that was the point that Epic made by passing that apple tax back to fornite players via cheaper VBucks - consumers benefit) I expect that to be killed. As far as sideloading, marketplace options - I think that is more debatable.

As far as OS portability, i think vendor lockin is an important factor. Telling someone "just go to Android" after Apple has taken documented steps to lock them into the ecosystem, is disingenuous. Many just CANT leave by design. That harms competition and consumers.

 

[JayteeBates]

There is nothing stopping anyone from going Android or Jailbreaking an iDevice. Just because Apple makes it a PITA doesn't mean it is illegal and a monopoly. A walled-garden is just that...you play in their sand-box by their rules. Apple app store isn't the only sand box around.

I make no illusion that Apple isn't making money hand over fist by controlling this - however it does provide some benefits...you only have to have your CC info with Apple App Store not 50 different app vendors. It is slightly more secure given that it is a reduced attack surface. Apple could retaliate in many ways if it was a true monopoly.

If they were truly being monopolistic, Epic isn't publicly traded but they do have private investors who certainly would prefer to work with Apple over Epic and those firms could call in capital. Apple could put out a few feelers with various venture capitalist firms and start making Epic really hurt. Apple could potentially even buy those firms stakes in Epic - it isn't like they don't have the money. That would be monopolistic.

 

[sc5mu93]

There is nothing stopping anyone from going Android or Jailbreaking an iDevice. Just because Apple makes it a PITA doesn't mean it is illegal and a monopoly.

But if it is determined that they have abused their market clout to achieve this, then yes - it very well can be illegal.
The trick will be for the judge to determine what the relevant market is. And this the main point of this trial. It is a much more difficult question to answer vs Standard Oil and AT&T.

An example of what monopolists do: Once they enter a market, they don't compete based on the features of the product (Apple music) they bring their other power to bear (App store listings).
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/09/technology/apple-app-store-competition.html

I'm not sure Apple is a monopoly, but they sure seem to want to act that way.

 

[Ranulfo]

Can't wait until MS requires all application installations to be through MS Store/UWP. After all, MS did build the platform, and if you want to customize, you can just go to Linux.

And their market share would plummet, certainly in the gaming market. It might take 5-10 years but they would be likely done. One, because no one sane has any faith in MS making a working system given past experience. Two, because the windows platform's success has been built upon that option to customize and not being a walled garden.

Look at how much flack MS got for all the Windows' store exclusive talk starting in Win8. Steam created the SteamOS and then Proton fork of Wine. Tim Sweeny even made waves about it before jumping in with his Epic store exclusives 6-7 years later.

 

[AzixTGO]

I hope Apple wins. Not because I’m an apple fanboi, but because people do have a choice-when they buy their phones they can choose between iOS and Android. To me there’s no monopoly, especially when the App Store in question exists on a platform Apple currently works on and maintains.

I don’t know about anyone else but if spend my money operating a business I wouldn’t want some other business setting up shop within something I pay for and maintain.

Yes, I understand they prohibit side loading and limit their user base to just their store but that’s what those people signed up for when they opted to go with iOS. It’s not like we live in a society where information isn’t available to educate consumers. Just look at buying a new car, you essentially are forced to go through the brands dealership/partners for anything, and not doing so could potentially void your warranty.

Is this a draconian way of looking at things? Yes, but it’s the truth. I see it all over the net: you want choices and customization go with Android, you want a locked down ecosystem that works seamlessly with your other apple devices go with iOS.

To add: Apple does all the legwork for app developers, all the devs have to do is code an app, put it through its tests, and pay the 30% and they’re done, outside of keeping the apps up to date the devs don’t have to do much of anything.

While yes, Apple makes money hand over fist, it’s not because of their good looks and charm. The company itself had to build up their image to the point to where they could do this it’s not like Apple became an overnight trillion dollar company. Ow Epic wants to set a precedent that after years of maintaining their image, supporting their products, and paying for the infrastructure to make developers lives a lot easier Apple shouldn’t be allowed to charge 30% on their own platform? That they should instead allow devs to have their own payment system after they used Apples system to give them access to the user base on iOS?

Yeah… no. The only way I could see that being okay is if Apple were to charge a licensing fee, akin to Microsoft’s server licensing fee and make goddamn sure they’re playing by Apples privacy rules.

the choice is not that easy. Especially if you already have a base in apple ecosystem. Are you going to go to android to play one game?

Coding an app is a lot of work as well. They also put in a lot of work to build up the game to what it is. Apple basically hosts a store front and storage for apps that aren't that large. Now they can threaten all these companies livelihoods at as they wish? If they didn't have the control over that ecosystem they couldn't extract the $ they currently do from developers. They would have to deal with pricing competition.

 

[JayteeBates]

The App Store is not required. I use a work iPhone. I have zero apps from the App Store. That said, I am not a normal use case, in fact likely very small.

Saying that I am charging you a cut to sell your software in my store is not monopolistic. You don't have a "right" to sell in my store. We are simply arguing over what % whoever decides to chime in with thinks is "fair". I offer you the opportunity to sell in my store based on guidelines I set down. Don't like it - go sell on Android, PC, Xbox, Playstation, or like in Epic's case a service you launch yourself.

Monopoly is a term reserved for something like the phone company (or better yet in todays parlance - the cable company). They fight tooth and nail to prevent a local government from standing up it's own ISP. They only want to provide service where there is no competition. You never see multiple cable companies in an area. You might f you are super lucky have a pair of broadband providers. Their service cost to the end user will amazingly be fairly on par with one another if you look at standard rates not intro pricing.

 

[AzixTGO]

it might be possible to be a monopoly by locking complete control over a subset of the market. Apple could be said to have a monopoly over distribution of apps on the iphone (hackey stuff aside). Is this not sort of what microsoft lost on? Monopolizing certain aspects within their OS.

 

[sc5mu93]

The App Store is not required. I use a work iPhone. I have zero apps from the App Store. That said, I am not a normal use case, in fact likely very small.

Saying that I am charging you a cut to sell your software in my store is not monopolistic. You don't have a "right" to sell in my store. We are simply arguing over what % whoever decides to chime in with thinks is "fair". I offer you the opportunity to sell in my store based on guidelines I set down. Don't like it - go sell on Android, PC, Xbox, Playstation, or like in Epic's case a service you launch yourself.

Monopoly is a term reserved for something like the phone company (or better yet in todays parlance - the cable company). They fight tooth and nail to prevent a local government from standing up it's own ISP. They only want to provide service where there is no competition. You never see multiple cable companies in an area. You might f you are super lucky have a pair of broadband providers. Their service cost to the end user will amazingly be fairly on par with one another if you look at standard rates not intro pricing.

But the cable company worked hard for their platforms. They should be able to do what they want. You don't like cable tv, you can go OTA or satellite TV. Enjoy your dialup, DSL or 4GLTE. Cable TV should be able to do what they want on their platform. </s>

That is the same argument you are providing in defense of apple. Cable companies use their market clout to stifle competition (your local govt standing up ISP example) - while Apple uses their control and dominance of the market (appstore) to stifle competition (see NYTimes article above).

As I said before, they may not be a traditionally defined monopoly but they sure want to act like they are. And that is what is coming to a head with all of these tech giants. I expect there to be some new precedent set in antitrust.

 

[KarsusTG]

As a developer I honestly hope Epic wins this, however I really feel that their argument is mostly nonsense. Apple only has something like 20% market share and their store charges virtually identical fees as the other stores. Yes apple is a monopoly of the apple store, but so is microsoft of its store and so on and so forth.

 

[cybereality]

Not sure if this is touched on in the trial, but Apple's policies are kind of unfair and not consistent.

For example, do they take 30% from Netflix or Spotify subscriptions? 30% of any book you buy on Amazon Kindle? What about 30% from every taxi ride you take via Lyft or Uber? If I send my friend $100 on Venmo, does Apple get 30%?

Why is it that these big companies get special deals or a free pass, while game developers have to pay 30% across the board?

 

[JayteeBates]

That is the same argument you are providing in defense of apple. Cable companies use their market clout to stifle competition (your local govt standing up ISP example) - while Apple uses their control and dominance of the market (appstore) to stifle competition (see NYTimes article above).

We will just have to disagree. There are thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of apps in the app store. Curating what is sold in their app store is not monopolistic. IMO.

 

[cybereality]

I think people are getting caught up on the word "monopoly" when I don't think that is the point of the suit. A company can act in anti-competitive ways, or exert unfair influence over the market without having 51% market share.

Also, we are talking about the 30% but that is not really the point either. The point is that users should have a choice, and developers should have a choice. Right now, there is no choice. It is the Apple Way or the highway. That is the problem.

 

[Ocellaris]

I think people are getting caught up on the word "monopoly" when I don't think that is the point of the suit. A company can act in anti-competitive ways, or exert unfair influence over the market without having 51% market share.

Also, we are talking about the 30% but that is not really the point either. The point is that users should have a choice, and developers should have a choice. Right now, there is no choice. It is the Apple Way or the highway. That is the problem.

how is there no choice when android exists?

 

[Newbie_52]

Not sure if this is touched on in the trial, but Apple's policies are kind of unfair and not consistent.

For example, do they take 30% from Netflix or Spotify subscriptions? 30% of any book you buy on Amazon Kindle? What about 30% from every taxi ride you take via Lyft or Uber? If I send my friend $100 on Venmo, does Apple get 30%?

Why is it that these big companies get special deals or a free pass, while game developers have to pay 30% across the board?

I believe the devs who make less than 1 million per year only pay 15%. Which is the vast majority, according apple.

 

[cybereality]

I believe the devs who make less than 1 million per year only pay 15%. Which is the vast majority, according apple.

This was changed very recently, maybe because of the lawsuit, but it doesn't change my point.

 

[sc5mu93]

We will just have to disagree. There are thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of apps in the app store. Curating what is sold in their app store is not monopolistic. IMO.

Until you use your control of the appstore (which is the ONLY means to get an app on the platform) to push direct competitors out of the picture. That is truly anti-competitive and monopolistic. Using one product to prop up another. (remember MS tying IE to Windows to the detriment of Netscape etc, same thing!)

 

[Tsumi]

Until you use your control of the appstore (which is the ONLY means to get an app on the platform) to push direct competitors out of the picture. That is truly anti-competitive and monopolistic. Using one product to prop up another. (remember MS tying IE to Windows to the detriment of Netscape etc, same thing!)

A little bit of an unfair comparison because Windows had absolute PC dominance at the time. Linux? What was that? MacOS? Barely a speck on the radar.

On the other hand, iOS has a significant competitor in Android. Also, you buy an iPhone because it has iOS, not because an iPhone has significant hardware advantages over Android phones.

 

[sc5mu93]

....

Also, you buy an iPhone because it has iOS, not because an iPhone has significant hardware advantages over Android phones. ...

In the 90s, you buy a Windows PC because it has Windows. and you get IE bundled by default.
Now, you buy iPhone because it has iOS and you get iMessage, iMusic etc by default or directed by Appstore download to the detriment of direct application competitors.

It is the same behavior. You can argue the market size (which I have said is the true focal point of this trial) but the behavior of Apple is absolutely anti-competitive and like that of a monopolist.

 

[PepeLePew]

I kind of miss the days when Bell got split up into several Telecoms because lawyer's didn't hoodwink everyone into moving the goalposts every few months on "What is a monopoly."

Basically it is right here:
mo·nop·o·ly - a commodity controlled by one party

Stuff like Steam, iOS, and Google Play are monopolies. Some of the issues can be forgone since you can easily sideload APK's and stuff (though that's becoming a PITA in A11 because userdata is jailed)

To be honest, at least Steam isn't -as bad- as the other two, since you CAN get other game clients and they perform reasonably well. That being said, they are 'the defacto' and many developers lose their shirt in the 33% + ~23% tax that stacks on each sale and profitability comes into question.

They should be regulated against their anti-consumer practices; such as a cap on what a % can be, for services that aren't freight, and not just be allowed to continue screwing over consumers because they're too big to even have a complaint box.

In Apple, Googles, Microsoft, and Amazon's case, they shouldn't be allowed to buy other companies. Period. I don't even know why T-Mobile was allowed to merge with Sprint. Money fucks with politics too bad these days.

I'm no lawyer, but since Valve doesn't own the operating system it runs on, how exactly is it a monopoly?

 

[sc5mu93]

I'm no lawyer, but since Valve doesn't own the operating system it runs on, how exactly is it a monopoly?

It isn't. Steam is a dominant player in an open system. Competition still affects their business. For example, EGS entered the fray offering better terms to developers, and Steam changed their terms for developer payouts based on revenue. First move in a while based on competition (not court order or investigation or regulation), because of their dominant position. Very clear evidence that the market still affects Valve's decisions.

 

[JayteeBates]

In the 90s, you buy a Windows PC because it has Windows. and you get IE bundled by default.
Now, you buy iPhone because it has iOS and you get iMessage, iMusic etc by default or directed by Appstore download to the detriment of direct application competitors.

It is the same behavior. You can argue the market size (which I have said is the true focal point of this trial) but the behavior of Apple is absolutely anti-competitive and like that of a monopolist.

You buy an apple device you get apple software - kinda makes sense. That is why Grandma can actually do a video call with the grandkids. You can choose to do otherwise jailbreak for example but it then doesn't play with apple stuff on everyone elses phone. You are effectively saying that you want an to change a closed system to an open system. It exists - it's perfectly viable and available Android. This isn't 1990's MS where MS literally ran every mainstream PC device.

Choice is great - until there are so many choices it's a pain to get things to work. You have zoom, I have teams, they have skype, grandma has Magic Jack, Aunt Mary has Google Voice - yeah works perfect right?