Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too

The premise that the recent ruling in the Epic v. Apple antitrust lawsuit was not the win for Epic that was widely reported is supported by a story on The Seattle Times. This states Epic is appealing the decision and that Apple is considering an appeal as well. In a court filing Sunday, Epic said it is taking the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to appeal the final judgment "and all orders leading to or producing that judgment." Here's the description of the two sides of Friday's ruling from U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers:
While parts of her decision raised questions about whether Apple’s fees were driving up prices for consumers, Gonzalez Rogers left the fee structure intact and upheld the company’s right to block other stores from offering apps for its iPhone. She sided with Apple on every other key point of the case.

But the judge did conclude Apple has been engaging in unfair competition under California law, prompting her to order the company to allow developers throughout the U.S. to insert links to other payment options besides its own within iPhone apps. That change would make it easier for app developers to avoid paying Apple’s commissions, potentially affecting billions of dollars in revenue annually.

Apple did its best to frame the decision as a complete victory, even as it acknowledged it may appeal the portion of the ruling that will make it easier for app developers sidestep Apple’s commissions.
View : : :
30 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older
30.
 
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too
Sep 14, 2021, 18:42
30.
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too Sep 14, 2021, 18:42
Sep 14, 2021, 18:42
 
I'm not claiming Apple was innovative in the way they built their walled garden. But they did build it from scratch specifically for the iPhone and purposely separate from anything else.
“Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception.” -- Carl Sagan
29.
 
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too
Sep 14, 2021, 18:03
29.
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too Sep 14, 2021, 18:03
Sep 14, 2021, 18:03
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 14, 2021, 08:15:
Benzer wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 13:55:
I feel like every ISP should be asking for a 30% cut of every business transaction that occurs over the internet service they provide.
If they thought they could get away with it, they would. That said, not the best analogy. Apple built and maintains their entire platform, can't say that for ISPs. Apple's platform is connected to the Internet, but is separate from it.
Emphasis mine; I respectfully disagree with the use of "entire" in this statement. Apple built most of their platform, but leveraged the work of giants. Many Bluesnews readers were reading this site on Matrox Millennium graphics cards when the first 3D cards started coming to the market. Hardware 3D graphics would not be where they are today without games like Quake from id Software, and Unreal from... wait for it... Epic Games. What was Apple doing when the revolution was happening? Innovating hockey pucks into mice?
28.
 
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too
Sep 14, 2021, 17:48
28.
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too Sep 14, 2021, 17:48
Sep 14, 2021, 17:48
 
RedEye9 wrote on Sep 14, 2021, 17:46:
Sepharo wrote on Sep 14, 2021, 17:44:
jdreyer wrote on Sep 14, 2021, 14:40:
Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 14, 2021, 08:24:
jdreyer wrote on Sep 14, 2021, 03:49:
Apple is a monopoly. They need to be regulated. Analysts need to go in, do a CBA, decide on a reasonable fee for payment processing and hosting (7-10%) and set it. 30% is ludicrous. In a free market with lots of app stores competing, no way this is over 5%.
I would agree the Apple Store is a monopoly on the Apple platform. And that 30% is excessive. However, since it is not the only significant platform, I don't see how anti-trust monopoly rules could apply. I've had a cell phone for over 20 years now and I have never given Apple a cent.
You're right: technically it's a duopoly with Google and Apple. But the result is the same: an industry void of competition, thus the excessive fees. Apple and Google need to be forced A) to allow other sellers and B) not have their products installed on their devices as default. Imagine if MS charged 30% of any software sold for Windows. Would PC gaming even exist?

The Microsoft Store cut is 30%
I think what JD meant is if Microsoft was the only place you could buy software for windows and they charged 30%.

Seems like the better discussion point would have been around "walled gardens".
Which yeah, is the reason I've avoided Apple for time immemorial, neither Windows nor Android has done that yet thankfully.
Avatar 17249
27.
 
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too
Sep 14, 2021, 17:46
27.
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too Sep 14, 2021, 17:46
Sep 14, 2021, 17:46
 
Sepharo wrote on Sep 14, 2021, 17:44:
jdreyer wrote on Sep 14, 2021, 14:40:
Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 14, 2021, 08:24:
jdreyer wrote on Sep 14, 2021, 03:49:
Apple is a monopoly. They need to be regulated. Analysts need to go in, do a CBA, decide on a reasonable fee for payment processing and hosting (7-10%) and set it. 30% is ludicrous. In a free market with lots of app stores competing, no way this is over 5%.
I would agree the Apple Store is a monopoly on the Apple platform. And that 30% is excessive. However, since it is not the only significant platform, I don't see how anti-trust monopoly rules could apply. I've had a cell phone for over 20 years now and I have never given Apple a cent.
You're right: technically it's a duopoly with Google and Apple. But the result is the same: an industry void of competition, thus the excessive fees. Apple and Google need to be forced A) to allow other sellers and B) not have their products installed on their devices as default. Imagine if MS charged 30% of any software sold for Windows. Would PC gaming even exist?

The Microsoft Store cut is 30%
I think what JD meant is if Microsoft was the only place you could buy software for windows and they charged 30%.
,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,
jdreyer wrote on Sep 14, 2021, 14:37:
Judges at the district level get it wrong all the time, and get it overturned at the appellate level. Apple is much like pre-breakup Bell. They were charging exorbitant rates b/c they were a monopoly. After the breakup, prices fell precipitously. The same thing will happen here when regulators force Apple and Google to host alternate app stores.
^this^
- I refer to it as BC, Before Corona, and AD, After Disaster. -
Avatar 58135
26.
 
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too
Sep 14, 2021, 17:44
26.
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too Sep 14, 2021, 17:44
Sep 14, 2021, 17:44
 
jdreyer wrote on Sep 14, 2021, 14:40:
Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 14, 2021, 08:24:
jdreyer wrote on Sep 14, 2021, 03:49:
Apple is a monopoly. They need to be regulated. Analysts need to go in, do a CBA, decide on a reasonable fee for payment processing and hosting (7-10%) and set it. 30% is ludicrous. In a free market with lots of app stores competing, no way this is over 5%.
I would agree the Apple Store is a monopoly on the Apple platform. And that 30% is excessive. However, since it is not the only significant platform, I don't see how anti-trust monopoly rules could apply. I've had a cell phone for over 20 years now and I have never given Apple a cent.
You're right: technically it's a duopoly with Google and Apple. But the result is the same: an industry void of competition, thus the excessive fees. Apple and Google need to be forced A) to allow other sellers and B) not have their products installed on their devices as default. Imagine if MS charged 30% of any software sold for Windows. Would PC gaming even exist?

The Microsoft Store cut is 30%
Avatar 17249
25.
 
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too
Sep 14, 2021, 14:40
25.
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too Sep 14, 2021, 14:40
Sep 14, 2021, 14:40
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 14, 2021, 08:24:
jdreyer wrote on Sep 14, 2021, 03:49:
Apple is a monopoly. They need to be regulated. Analysts need to go in, do a CBA, decide on a reasonable fee for payment processing and hosting (7-10%) and set it. 30% is ludicrous. In a free market with lots of app stores competing, no way this is over 5%.
I would agree the Apple Store is a monopoly on the Apple platform. And that 30% is excessive. However, since it is not the only significant platform, I don't see how anti-trust monopoly rules could apply. I've had a cell phone for over 20 years now and I have never given Apple a cent.
You're right: technically it's a duopoly with Google and Apple. But the result is the same: an industry void of competition, thus the excessive fees. Apple and Google need to be forced A) to allow other sellers and B) not have their products installed on their devices as default. Imagine if MS charged 30% of any software sold for Windows. Would PC gaming even exist?
With great freedom comes great responsibility.
Avatar 22024
24.
 
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too
Sep 14, 2021, 14:37
24.
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too Sep 14, 2021, 14:37
Sep 14, 2021, 14:37
 
Kxmode wrote on Sep 14, 2021, 04:05:
jdreyer wrote on Sep 14, 2021, 03:49:
Kxmode wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 13:03:
Now you see Epic and Tim's true colors.

Judgment, page 21:
"To Mr. Sweeney and Epic Games, the metaverse is the future of both gaming and entertainment,
and Apple's policies and practices are a hurdle which pose a problem. Indeed, for Mr. Sweeney,
"reaching the entire base of Apple is 1 billion iPhone consumers is a paramount goal for our
company
, as Fortnite expands beyond being a game into this larger world of the metaverse."
Both Mr. Sweeney and Epic Games' employees and officers generally testified that "iOS is a
vital platform for a business" and that it is "the only way we can access a hundred percent of
[a platform's] users or at least have the option of accessing a hundred percent of that market."

Epic wants free access to Apple's 1 billion iPhone consumers. Like they don't want to make a merit and feature-based platform to compete against Valve. Instead, they poach customers with freebies and TP exclusives.
Apple is a monopoly. They need to be regulated. Analysts need to go in, do a CBA, decide on a reasonable fee for payment processing and hosting (7-10%) and set it. 30% is ludicrous. In a free market with lots of app stores competing, no way this is over 5%.

"Your Honor, a courtroom is a crucible; in it, we burn away irrelevancies until we are left with a pure product: the truth, for all time."

There are legal judgments, and then there are opinions. A legal ruling separates people's viewpoints from the law. Law becomes the truth. Before the decision, people called Apple a monopoly based on their beliefs. Since no legal framework existed, it could be true or false based on a person's perspective. However, now that a ruling exists, the legal law unequivocally states that Apple, for now, is not a monopoly under federal or state laws.

page 2: "Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws. While the Court finds that Apple enjoys considerable market share of over 55% and extraordinarily high profit margins, these factors alone do not show antitrust conduct. Success is not illegal."

With respect, that supersedes your opinion. However, you are more than welcome to hold to your opinion. Just realize the law states otherwise.
Judges at the district level get it wrong all the time, and get it overturned at the appellate level. Apple is much like pre-breakup Bell. They were charging exorbitant rates b/c they were a monopoly. After the breakup, prices fell precipitously. The same thing will happen here when regulators force Apple and Google to host alternate app stores.
With great freedom comes great responsibility.
Avatar 22024
23.
 
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too
Sep 14, 2021, 08:24
23.
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too Sep 14, 2021, 08:24
Sep 14, 2021, 08:24
 
jdreyer wrote on Sep 14, 2021, 03:49:
Apple is a monopoly. They need to be regulated. Analysts need to go in, do a CBA, decide on a reasonable fee for payment processing and hosting (7-10%) and set it. 30% is ludicrous. In a free market with lots of app stores competing, no way this is over 5%.
I would agree the Apple Store is a monopoly on the Apple platform. And that 30% is excessive. However, since it is not the only significant platform, I don't see how anti-trust monopoly rules could apply. I've had a cell phone for over 20 years now and I have never given Apple a cent.

This comment was edited on Sep 14, 2021, 08:42.
“Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception.” -- Carl Sagan
22.
 
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too
Sep 14, 2021, 08:15
22.
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too Sep 14, 2021, 08:15
Sep 14, 2021, 08:15
 
Benzer wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 13:55:
I feel like every ISP should be asking for a 30% cut of every business transaction that occurs over the internet service they provide.
If they thought they could get away with it, they would. That said, not the best analogy. Apple built and maintains their entire platform, can't say that for ISPs. Apple's platform is connected to the Internet, but is separate from it.
“Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception.” -- Carl Sagan
21.
 
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too
Sep 14, 2021, 04:05
Kxmode
 
21.
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too Sep 14, 2021, 04:05
Sep 14, 2021, 04:05
 Kxmode
 
jdreyer wrote on Sep 14, 2021, 03:49:
Kxmode wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 13:03:
Now you see Epic and Tim's true colors.

Judgment, page 21:
"To Mr. Sweeney and Epic Games, the metaverse is the future of both gaming and entertainment,
and Apple's policies and practices are a hurdle which pose a problem. Indeed, for Mr. Sweeney,
"reaching the entire base of Apple is 1 billion iPhone consumers is a paramount goal for our
company
, as Fortnite expands beyond being a game into this larger world of the metaverse."
Both Mr. Sweeney and Epic Games' employees and officers generally testified that "iOS is a
vital platform for a business" and that it is "the only way we can access a hundred percent of
[a platform's] users or at least have the option of accessing a hundred percent of that market."

Epic wants free access to Apple's 1 billion iPhone consumers. Like they don't want to make a merit and feature-based platform to compete against Valve. Instead, they poach customers with freebies and TP exclusives.
Apple is a monopoly. They need to be regulated. Analysts need to go in, do a CBA, decide on a reasonable fee for payment processing and hosting (7-10%) and set it. 30% is ludicrous. In a free market with lots of app stores competing, no way this is over 5%.

"Your Honor, a courtroom is a crucible; in it, we burn away irrelevancies until we are left with a pure product: the truth, for all time."

There are legal judgments, and then there are opinions. A legal ruling separates people's viewpoints from the law. Law becomes the truth. Before the decision, people called Apple a monopoly based on their beliefs. Since no legal framework existed, it could be true or false based on a person's perspective. However, now that a ruling exists, the legal law unequivocally states that Apple, for now, is not a monopoly under federal or state laws.

page 2: "Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws. While the Court finds that Apple enjoys considerable market share of over 55% and extraordinarily high profit margins, these factors alone do not show antitrust conduct. Success is not illegal."

With respect, that supersedes your opinion. However, you are more than welcome to hold to your opinion. Just realize the law states otherwise.
"What is the most resilient parasite? Bacteria? A virus? An intestinal worm? An idea. Resilient... highly contagious. Once an idea has taken hold of the brain it is almost impossible to eradicate."
Avatar 18786
20.
 
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too
Sep 14, 2021, 03:49
20.
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too Sep 14, 2021, 03:49
Sep 14, 2021, 03:49
 
Kxmode wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 13:03:
Now you see Epic and Tim's true colors.

Judgment, page 21:
"To Mr. Sweeney and Epic Games, the metaverse is the future of both gaming and entertainment,
and Apple's policies and practices are a hurdle which pose a problem. Indeed, for Mr. Sweeney,
"reaching the entire base of Apple is 1 billion iPhone consumers is a paramount goal for our
company
, as Fortnite expands beyond being a game into this larger world of the metaverse."
Both Mr. Sweeney and Epic Games' employees and officers generally testified that "iOS is a
vital platform for a business" and that it is "the only way we can access a hundred percent of
[a platform's] users or at least have the option of accessing a hundred percent of that market."

Epic wants free access to Apple's 1 billion iPhone consumers. Like they don't want to make a merit and feature-based platform to compete against Valve. Instead, they poach customers with freebies and TP exclusives.
Apple is a monopoly. They need to be regulated. Analysts need to go in, do a CBA, decide on a reasonable fee for payment processing and hosting (7-10%) and set it. 30% is ludicrous. In a free market with lots of app stores competing, no way this is over 5%.
With great freedom comes great responsibility.
Avatar 22024
19.
 
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too
Sep 14, 2021, 03:49
Kxmode
 
19.
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too Sep 14, 2021, 03:49
Sep 14, 2021, 03:49
 Kxmode
 
RedEye9 wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 17:30:
Foxtrot2Nov wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 16:23:
RedEye9 wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 16:18:
That change would make it easier for app developers to avoid paying Apple’s commissions, potentially affecting billions of dollars in revenue annually.

Except it doesn't. Not going to belabor the point or go into an in-depth explanation further, just watch: https://youtu.be/nZU_7f91ZDo
Linking a mini movie w/out a relevant time stamp is useful. /s
Blue linked A COMPREHENSIVE BREAKDOWN OF THE EPIC V. APPLE RULING which covers what could happen with payments etc.

Thank you!

I watched most of Virtual Legality's two-hour "review." All I'll say is it is not for the faint of heart. I laud the guy for his passion, but my brain turned to mush around the hour, 45-minute mark.

I feel like he gets way too hung up in the details. It would better serve him to produce 30-40 minute videos that summarize the ruling akin to the Verge. People don't need to know how the sausage is made. Just tell them the available flavors.
"What is the most resilient parasite? Bacteria? A virus? An intestinal worm? An idea. Resilient... highly contagious. Once an idea has taken hold of the brain it is almost impossible to eradicate."
Avatar 18786
18.
 
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too
Sep 13, 2021, 17:30
18.
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too Sep 13, 2021, 17:30
Sep 13, 2021, 17:30
 
Foxtrot2Nov wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 16:23:
RedEye9 wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 16:18:
That change would make it easier for app developers to avoid paying Apple’s commissions, potentially affecting billions of dollars in revenue annually.

Except it doesn't. Not going to belabor the point or go into an in-depth explanation further, just watch: https://youtu.be/nZU_7f91ZDo
Linking a mini movie w/out a relevant time stamp is useful. /s
Blue linked A COMPREHENSIVE BREAKDOWN OF THE EPIC V. APPLE RULING which covers what could happen with payments etc.
- I refer to it as BC, Before Corona, and AD, After Disaster. -
Avatar 58135
17.
 
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too
Sep 13, 2021, 17:22
17.
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too Sep 13, 2021, 17:22
Sep 13, 2021, 17:22
 
Foxtrot2Nov wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 16:59:
Beamer wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 16:46:
Foxtrot2Nov wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 16:00:
Cutter wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 13:05:
Apple *may* appeal? I don't think that was ever in doubt.

I still don't understand how a company can sidestep Apple's commission regardless of the payment system they choose. In effect these are just digital consignment stores. If it was a physical store that's like saying someone can bring their own shit in, use your space and resources and not have to give you a dime for it. In what universe would that be remotely fair?

The ruling doesn't allow developers to bypass Apple's commission; in fact the Judge reasserts Apple's right to receive a commission for their IP. The news is spinning things hard, or massively misreading the ruling.

All a developer is allowed to do is bring up links/information to other payment methods outside of the App, alongside Apple's In-App Purchases. Apple isn't precluded from changing their DPLA and/or TOS to say "you owe us 30% of any transactions you make through this links to other payment processors" or whatever the commission rate ends up being either.

All the ruling does is remove the anti-steering rules Apple had in place, so now developers can say "Hey we have other places you can buy our digital stuff at."

And of course Epic hates it: Epic wants access to all of Apple's customers for free, and they want to be able to open the Epic Games Store on the App Store so they can bring their exclusive-buying bullshit to that market. That's the only way Epic knows how to compete: Don't provide a better service with better features, just buy exclusives in an attempt to force consumers to use your barebones store.
Wait, how would Epic "compete" if Apple is totally locked off from them competing?

What you're saying, but I'm not sure if you realize you're saying, is Epic cannot compete with Apple due to Apple's restrictions. You're framing it as if Epic is bad for giving things for free, or having exclusives, all while not acknowledging that every Apple user is exclusive to Apple.

Not to mention, I really want to play the sequel to Mini Metro, but Apple paid for that to be an iOS exclusive. At least I can play Tony Hawk, an Epic exclusive, just by downloading something. Apple wants me to pay hundreds or thousands to play their exclusive games.

Walled gardens will be walled gardens. Nintendo, Playstation, and Xbox all work the same way. None of those platforms will allow you to open a store inside of their store and not pay any commission to them, and even more so they won't let you open a store inside their store, not pay any commission to them for doing so, AND steal away products that would otherwise give them money by making them exclusives.

Apple is perfectly free to run their business the way they want to - a walled garden is not illegal. It just isn't what a chunk of the marketbase wants - including, it sounds like, you. That's fine, the market will regulate it based on what consumers want. Don't like Apple not allowing sideloading of other app stores, like you mention? Don't buy an Apple product. I don't like it, and I don't like how Apple runs their walled garden and how it restricts the ability for me to use my devices the way I want to - so I don't buy Apple products.

Nothing says anyone is entitled to be able to force their way into the market Apple created, particularly and especially in Apple's instance where they built it as a Walled Garden to begin with and have always advertised it as such. Under the law, what would have been illegal is if Apple was open when it first launched the App Store, and once it gained a billion customers then shuttered its doors and prevented anyone from competing. It didn't; Apple has actually glacially opened access to the App Store to developers.

What Epic and your argument is implying to support is: X company makes a product, gains a billion customers who like that product; now Y company wants to sell things to that billion customers using X company's store, infrastructure, and work without paying or doing anything for X company. No different from wanting to open a store inside of Giant using Giant's shelf space, advertising, and employees but not wanting to pay Giant anything while doing so. No company would do so. Epic's Store is only doing some opposite practices because it is entirely subsidized by Fortnite and they're trying to force ways to gain marketshare; guaranteed that if and when they have that majority marketshare their business model will change to enable it to be profitable. Just look at Epic's Unreal licensing and commission terms/model: they absolutely build it to make a profit, and will not allow you to use Unreal Engine for free to access Unreal Engine customers.

If you search my posts, I never had an issue with the walled garden. I said the steering rules would likely come down, and I was right. That, to me, feels fair.

But you criticized Epic at the tail end of your post, saying the only way they know how to compete with a store is via exclusives.

This was an odd gripe. For one, they literally cannot compete with the Apple store, so you can't say they only know one way when they are blocked from competing. And it felt odd to single them out for exclusives when several companies you mention pay for exclusives (Apple, Microsoft, Sony) and all of them require new hardware to get around, which, to me as a consumer, is infinitely more bothersome.
16.
 
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too
Sep 13, 2021, 17:11
Kxmode
 
16.
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too Sep 13, 2021, 17:11
Sep 13, 2021, 17:11
 Kxmode
 
Foxtrot2Nov wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 16:59:
Beamer wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 16:46:
Foxtrot2Nov wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 16:00:
Cutter wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 13:05:
Apple *may* appeal? I don't think that was ever in doubt.

I still don't understand how a company can sidestep Apple's commission regardless of the payment system they choose. In effect these are just digital consignment stores. If it was a physical store that's like saying someone can bring their own shit in, use your space and resources and not have to give you a dime for it. In what universe would that be remotely fair?

The ruling doesn't allow developers to bypass Apple's commission; in fact the Judge reasserts Apple's right to receive a commission for their IP. The news is spinning things hard, or massively misreading the ruling.

All a developer is allowed to do is bring up links/information to other payment methods outside of the App, alongside Apple's In-App Purchases. Apple isn't precluded from changing their DPLA and/or TOS to say "you owe us 30% of any transactions you make through this links to other payment processors" or whatever the commission rate ends up being either.

All the ruling does is remove the anti-steering rules Apple had in place, so now developers can say "Hey we have other places you can buy our digital stuff at."

And of course Epic hates it: Epic wants access to all of Apple's customers for free, and they want to be able to open the Epic Games Store on the App Store so they can bring their exclusive-buying bullshit to that market. That's the only way Epic knows how to compete: Don't provide a better service with better features, just buy exclusives in an attempt to force consumers to use your barebones store.
Wait, how would Epic "compete" if Apple is totally locked off from them competing?

What you're saying, but I'm not sure if you realize you're saying, is Epic cannot compete with Apple due to Apple's restrictions. You're framing it as if Epic is bad for giving things for free, or having exclusives, all while not acknowledging that every Apple user is exclusive to Apple.

Not to mention, I really want to play the sequel to Mini Metro, but Apple paid for that to be an iOS exclusive. At least I can play Tony Hawk, an Epic exclusive, just by downloading something. Apple wants me to pay hundreds or thousands to play their exclusive games.

Walled gardens will be walled gardens. Nintendo, Playstation, and Xbox all work the same way. None of those platforms will allow you to open a store inside of their store and not pay any commission to them, and even more so they won't let you open a store inside their store, not pay any commission to them for doing so, AND steal away products that would otherwise give them money by making them exclusives.

Apple is perfectly free to run their business the way they want to - a walled garden is not illegal. It just isn't what a chunk of the marketbase wants - including, it sounds like, you. That's fine, the market will regulate it based on what consumers want. Don't like Apple not allowing sideloading of other app stores, like you mention? Don't buy an Apple product. I don't like it, and I don't like how Apple runs their walled garden and how it restricts the ability for me to use my devices the way I want to - so I don't buy Apple products.

Nothing says anyone is entitled to be able to force their way into the market Apple created, particularly and especially in Apple's instance where they built it as a Walled Garden to begin with and have always advertised it as such. Under the law, what would have been illegal is if Apple was open when it first launched the App Store, and once it gained a billion customers then shuttered its doors and prevented anyone from competing. It didn't; Apple has actually glacially opened access to the App Store to developers.

Agreed. All of that aligns with the judgment (page 2).

"Having defined the relevant market as digital mobile gaming transactions, the Court next
evaluated Apple’s conduct in that market. Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately
conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws. While the Court
finds that Apple enjoys considerable market share of over 55% and extraordinarily high profit
margins, these factors alone do not show antitrust conduct. Success is not illegal.
The final trial
record did not include evidence of other critical factors, such as barriers to entry and conduct
decreasing output or decreasing innovation in the relevant market. The Court does not find that
it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal
monopolist."
"What is the most resilient parasite? Bacteria? A virus? An intestinal worm? An idea. Resilient... highly contagious. Once an idea has taken hold of the brain it is almost impossible to eradicate."
Avatar 18786
15.
 
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too
Sep 13, 2021, 17:01
Kxmode
 
15.
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too Sep 13, 2021, 17:01
Sep 13, 2021, 17:01
 Kxmode
 
Benzer wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 13:55:
I feel like every ISP should be asking for a 30% cut of every business transaction that occurs over the internet service they provide.

Not an equal comparison.

1. Businesses pay ISPs a flat-rate fee for business-level Internet. It comes with SLAs like a dedicated account manager and quick response time to service outage issues. What a company does with its Internet bandwidth is the business's decision, but it typically uses it for business-related things like email, Teams, and the like.
2. Large companies don't use ISPs to host their eCommerce sites. They use services like Akamai, Azure, and AWS. Many small and medium-sized businesses use flat-rate monthly services like Wix.com to host their eCommerce website.
"What is the most resilient parasite? Bacteria? A virus? An intestinal worm? An idea. Resilient... highly contagious. Once an idea has taken hold of the brain it is almost impossible to eradicate."
Avatar 18786
14.
 
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too
Sep 13, 2021, 16:59
14.
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too Sep 13, 2021, 16:59
Sep 13, 2021, 16:59
 
Beamer wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 16:46:
Foxtrot2Nov wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 16:00:
Cutter wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 13:05:
Apple *may* appeal? I don't think that was ever in doubt.

I still don't understand how a company can sidestep Apple's commission regardless of the payment system they choose. In effect these are just digital consignment stores. If it was a physical store that's like saying someone can bring their own shit in, use your space and resources and not have to give you a dime for it. In what universe would that be remotely fair?

The ruling doesn't allow developers to bypass Apple's commission; in fact the Judge reasserts Apple's right to receive a commission for their IP. The news is spinning things hard, or massively misreading the ruling.

All a developer is allowed to do is bring up links/information to other payment methods outside of the App, alongside Apple's In-App Purchases. Apple isn't precluded from changing their DPLA and/or TOS to say "you owe us 30% of any transactions you make through this links to other payment processors" or whatever the commission rate ends up being either.

All the ruling does is remove the anti-steering rules Apple had in place, so now developers can say "Hey we have other places you can buy our digital stuff at."

And of course Epic hates it: Epic wants access to all of Apple's customers for free, and they want to be able to open the Epic Games Store on the App Store so they can bring their exclusive-buying bullshit to that market. That's the only way Epic knows how to compete: Don't provide a better service with better features, just buy exclusives in an attempt to force consumers to use your barebones store.
Wait, how would Epic "compete" if Apple is totally locked off from them competing?

What you're saying, but I'm not sure if you realize you're saying, is Epic cannot compete with Apple due to Apple's restrictions. You're framing it as if Epic is bad for giving things for free, or having exclusives, all while not acknowledging that every Apple user is exclusive to Apple.

Not to mention, I really want to play the sequel to Mini Metro, but Apple paid for that to be an iOS exclusive. At least I can play Tony Hawk, an Epic exclusive, just by downloading something. Apple wants me to pay hundreds or thousands to play their exclusive games.

Walled gardens will be walled gardens. Nintendo, Playstation, and Xbox all work the same way. None of those platforms will allow you to open a store inside of their store and not pay any commission to them, and even more so they won't let you open a store inside their store, not pay any commission to them for doing so, AND steal away products that would otherwise give them money by making them exclusives.

Apple is perfectly free to run their business the way they want to - a walled garden is not illegal. It just isn't what a chunk of the marketbase wants - including, it sounds like, you. That's fine, the market will regulate it based on what consumers want. Don't like Apple not allowing sideloading of other app stores, like you mention? Don't buy an Apple product. I don't like it, and I don't like how Apple runs their walled garden and how it restricts the ability for me to use my devices the way I want to - so I don't buy Apple products.

Nothing says anyone is entitled to be able to force their way into the market Apple created, particularly and especially in Apple's instance where they built it as a Walled Garden to begin with and have always advertised it as such. Under the law, what would have been illegal is if Apple was open when it first launched the App Store, and once it gained a billion customers then shuttered its doors and prevented anyone from competing. It didn't; Apple has actually glacially opened access to the App Store to developers.

What Epic and your argument is implying to support is: X company makes a product, gains a billion customers who like that product; now Y company wants to sell things to that billion customers using X company's store, infrastructure, and work without paying or doing anything for X company. No different from wanting to open a store inside of Giant using Giant's shelf space, advertising, and employees but not wanting to pay Giant anything while doing so. No company would do so. Epic's Store is only doing some opposite practices because it is entirely subsidized by Fortnite and they're trying to force ways to gain marketshare; guaranteed that if and when they have that majority marketshare their business model will change to enable it to be profitable. Just look at Epic's Unreal licensing and commission terms/model: they absolutely build it to make a profit, and will not allow you to use Unreal Engine for free to access Unreal Engine customers.
13.
 
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too
Sep 13, 2021, 16:46
Kxmode
 
13.
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too Sep 13, 2021, 16:46
Sep 13, 2021, 16:46
 Kxmode
 
Cutter wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 13:05:
I still don't understand how a company can sidestep Apple's commission regardless of the payment system they choose. In effect these are just digital consignment stores. If it was a physical store that's like saying someone can bring their own shit in, use your space and resources and not have to give you a dime for it. In what universe would that be remotely fair?

It's not. Epic's goal is full access to Apple's one billion iPhone users without paying Apple for the access (similar to when Epic shopped on Steam for indie developers to poach, until Valve clamped down on that). Companies pay a flat-rate premium to access services in a business-to-business world, and it's not cheap. For example, our company pays $3,000 a month for a chatting service regardless of how successful it is for that month. Apple doesn't charge Epic or any other developer a flat monthly fee for their apps on the App Store. Instead, they charge 30% per transaction. And as court documents revealed, 10% of all App Store consumers represented 70% of the revenue generated for Apple. (Judgement, page 2) Essentially 10% of IOS consumers is covering the costs for the remaining 90%.
"What is the most resilient parasite? Bacteria? A virus? An intestinal worm? An idea. Resilient... highly contagious. Once an idea has taken hold of the brain it is almost impossible to eradicate."
Avatar 18786
12.
 
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too
Sep 13, 2021, 16:46
12.
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too Sep 13, 2021, 16:46
Sep 13, 2021, 16:46
 
Foxtrot2Nov wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 16:00:
Cutter wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 13:05:
Apple *may* appeal? I don't think that was ever in doubt.

I still don't understand how a company can sidestep Apple's commission regardless of the payment system they choose. In effect these are just digital consignment stores. If it was a physical store that's like saying someone can bring their own shit in, use your space and resources and not have to give you a dime for it. In what universe would that be remotely fair?

The ruling doesn't allow developers to bypass Apple's commission; in fact the Judge reasserts Apple's right to receive a commission for their IP. The news is spinning things hard, or massively misreading the ruling.

All a developer is allowed to do is bring up links/information to other payment methods outside of the App, alongside Apple's In-App Purchases. Apple isn't precluded from changing their DPLA and/or TOS to say "you owe us 30% of any transactions you make through this links to other payment processors" or whatever the commission rate ends up being either.

All the ruling does is remove the anti-steering rules Apple had in place, so now developers can say "Hey we have other places you can buy our digital stuff at."

And of course Epic hates it: Epic wants access to all of Apple's customers for free, and they want to be able to open the Epic Games Store on the App Store so they can bring their exclusive-buying bullshit to that market. That's the only way Epic knows how to compete: Don't provide a better service with better features, just buy exclusives in an attempt to force consumers to use your barebones store.
Wait, how would Epic "compete" if Apple is totally locked off from them competing?

What you're saying, but I'm not sure if you realize you're saying, is Epic cannot compete with Apple due to Apple's restrictions. You're framing it as if Epic is bad for giving things for free, or having exclusives, all while not acknowledging that every Apple user is exclusive to Apple.

Not to mention, I really want to play the sequel to Mini Metro, but Apple paid for that to be an iOS exclusive. At least I can play Tony Hawk, an Epic exclusive, just by downloading something. Apple wants me to pay hundreds or thousands to play their exclusive games.
11.
 
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too
Sep 13, 2021, 16:23
11.
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too Sep 13, 2021, 16:23
Sep 13, 2021, 16:23
 
RedEye9 wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 16:18:
That change would make it easier for app developers to avoid paying Apple’s commissions, potentially affecting billions of dollars in revenue annually.

Except it doesn't. Not going to belabor the point or go into an in-depth explanation further, just watch: https://youtu.be/nZU_7f91ZDo
30 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older