I really don't agree with the idea that "alternative payment processors" are pro-consumer. This only benefits the developer, and I have huge privacy concerns with trusting third-party devs to handle my payment information. There's a 100% certainty that such payment information would be used for advertising purposes in the best-case, and rampant identity theft or mass payment security breaches in the worst-case. I'm certain Apple would also get a share of the blame for these third-party issues, which further tarnishes their platform and user experience.
For all Apple's faults, they've actually put a huge amount of effort to making payment processing seamless for the user, while also making it extremely transparent. I get regular notifications if I have a subscription trial about to expire, and it's super easy to manage ALL subscriptions through a single UI, and cancel them with a single click. This would not be possible through third-party systems, which I can guarantee would put huge effort into tricking users rather than making it easier for them. And yet again, Apple would receive the blame for allowing these Apps.
All that said I also don't agree with Apple taking a huge 30% cut, especially for subscription services that directly complete with them such as Netflix. Though obviously there are costs to run this ecosystem, so Apple also can't just charge nothing. I see both sides of this argument, and I don't see a middle ground that can please all sides. There needs to be a reasonable compromise somewhere in the middle.
>I really don't agree with the idea that "alternative payment processors" are pro-consumer. This only benefits the developer
I mean, in this case, the consumer is literally saving 20% for the same purchase. Seems good to me.
> There needs to be a reasonable compromise somewhere in the middle.
Why isn't "let other stores sell software for iOS, and the market will set the rent those stores can extract from software developers" the reasonable compromise?
People who want the ease and security of Apple and are willing to pay their extra fees can do so. Those who don't don't have to.
Not paying 30% fees to apple absolutely helps consumers. If you look at the demand elasticity on mobile payments you'll see that fee's are mostly passed on to consumers. Developers will be happy to give a 25% discount to get that extra 2-3% after credit card fees.
They can be pro-consumer in the sense that pretty much all of them charge an order of magnitude lower fees, savings that can be passed on to the consumer.
But agreed that it also could represent an increased privacy risk. I guess that could be the trade off though: if you want stronger privacy guarantees, you pay through Apple's system (and pay more); otherwise you use the cheaper, third-party option. But also agreed that issues around the third-party options would tarnish Apple's reputation, regardless of the fact that people would have a choice.
This filing is clever on Epic's part. (Or someone at Cravath, more likely.)
What Epic is asking for is an injunction. They may well get a temporary injunction quickly, compelling Apple to put their app back in Apple's store. Then the case gets litigated on the merits, but starting from a de facto win for Epic.
The standard required for a temporary injunction is low:
"To justify a temporary injunction it is not necessary that the plaintiff's right to a final decision, after a trial, be absolutely certain, wholly without doubt; if the other elements are present (i.e., the balance of hardships tips decidedly toward plaintiff), it will ordinarily be enough that the plaintiff has raised questions going to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful, as to make them a fair ground for litigation and thus for more deliberate investigation."[1]
Litigation on temporary injunctions is relatively fast. This part will be decided in weeks, not years.
Epic might only win a rollback to the last uncontroverted state, though. That is, apparently, before Epic's payment system went live on Apple platforms.
If Apple had allowed third party payments for a while, then removed the app, Epic would be in a stronger position to insist that their own payment system remain live.
Woah - Epic says they would release a competing app store if it weren't for "Apple's illegal restraints".
> But for Apple’s illegal restraints, Epic would provide a competing
app store on iOS devices, which would allow iOS users to download apps in an innovative, curated store and would provide users the choice to use Epic’s or another third-party’s in-app payment processing tool."
> Epic is not bringing this case to recover these damages; Epic is not seeking any monetary damages.
Well, that's interesting.
> But for Apple’s illegal restraints, Epic would provide a competing app store on iOS devices, which would allow iOS users to download apps in an innovative, curated store and would provide users the choice to use Epic’s or another third-party’s in-app payment processing tool
So, Epic doesn't want money, they want the ability to allow users to install an Epic App Store. They must assume there's a lot more money to be made by operating a competing store.
Exactly this. At the end of the day, Epic is a publisher. If studios can go directly to the platform they are no longer the gatekeeper and stand to lose money.
Epic wants your choice to be Apple store for non-games, and Epic store for games. Period.
It's not necessarily about making more money, it's about creating persistent returns. Making games is difficult, expensive, and risky. No company can just decide to create a franchise that will be successful indefinitely.
Fortnite was a stroke of luck, the wise thing to do is not to invest that money back into the franchise, which may soon be tossed aside by the audience, nor would it be wise to undertake a massive new project.
Valve figured out a long time ago that it's much better business to just sit back and let other people make games while you rake in the cash with zero risk. Epic is in a unique position to maybe pull that off as well.
Epic appears to have retained Cravath's antitrust team; e.g. https://www.cravath.com/cvarney/, who "is the only person to have served as both the U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust and as a Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission."
Going after Apple for antitrust violations has a big hill to climb in the form of the Google Play Store.
More than that, a ruling against Apple here would have huge implications for any company running an app store on their device. Smart TV manufacturers, companies like Roku, Automobile manufacturers, etc... If you can be considered a monopolist because you control your platform then there will be a LOT of monopolies out there.
I'm not expecting Epic to get any real traction on this suit. The best they can hope for is Apple working out some system where they'll reduce their cut in certain circumstances, but given how unlikely this case is to go anywhere I don't think Apple is feeling any pressure.
I don't see how the Google Play Store is a good comparison, as you can trivially install a 3rd-party app store on an unrooted, stock Android device, and you can install things without even going through an app store.
But I agree that this suit probably isn't going anywhere, at least not to the extent that some commenters here are hoping. This will likely end with a slap on the wrist and/or some very small concessions to Epic.
I have both the Humble Bundle store and F-Droid installed on my Android devices. While their UI is inferior to the Play store and granting them permission to install isn't enabled by default like it is for the Play Store, they exist and work just fine.
>If you can be considered a monopolist because you control your platform then there will be a LOT of monopolies out there.
I think there's a fairly trivial distinction to be drawn between a general purpose computing device and a utility like a fridge or a car. (something like, is the system aided by software to operate, vs is the system a platform for executing user-software)
For something like a game console it might actually be an interesting edge case but it doesn't seem difficult to draw an approximate line.
1. Only because Google might also engages in anti-competitive practices doesn't mean that Apple is allowed to. All such behaviour needs to be curbed.
2. Anyone can install any 3rd party app on an Android device, there's even a open app store "F-Droid" for open apps that anyone can use.
3. You can still run an app store. You just have to allow other ways to install apps. That way your store would be used only if it's better than the other ways to install apps.
Apple is gatekeeping a market of their own design. I am going to try to construct (probably a poor) analogy.
It is as if Apple started a town and a bunch of people moved in establishing a new market. The only way to deliver goods to this market is via the railway Apple established. The catch, you pay Apple 30% of the revenue generated for access to this market via the railway. If you try to establish a highway system, build an airport, perform airdrops, or some other means of delivering goods and services to this market, you are no longer allowed to use the train. IMO, Apple should be able to refuse transport of anything they wish for any reason they wish.
If this was a real scenario, what was allowed in this market would be controlled by the people who make up that market. There would be some governance and laws established for fair trade practices. I would think it is up to the people to establish these alternate delivery methods, in this case, jailbreaking their iphones and installing whatever they wanted.
That's weird, I went to the Google Play store but it didn't allow me to install an app on my iPhone at all. Why on earth would you think these two are somehow in competition.
Apple is about to get bitten hard for being a monopoly.
I hope the government considers the harshest punishment of all: splitting up Apple into hardware and software+services entities.
This is absurd that Apple has built a fiefdom on America's most popular generic computer device. It's a threat to freedom! We can only compute what the overlords allow and can tax? What a crock!
The fact that Apple thinks they can extort more protection money from developers than the government does in taxes is an affront. But the freedom aspect should have everyone out with their pitchforks.
This after Apple created an environment where its users, many of whom have lots of disposable income for buying goods and services, expect apps to be $0.99 and come with free updates for life. Meanwhile Apple's own products are luxury priced. And they still take 30%.
US Government, please force Apple to open up iPhone to any software we want to install. It's a generic computer. It's how we communicate, do banking, do basic shopping, dating, business ... everything. Apple can't be the gatekeepers of 21st century life. It's incredibly damaging to our ability to innovate and succeed as small business owners and entrepreneurs.
Apple, you are the tyrant king. Long have we suffered under your rule. We won't stand for it any longer and we demand our freedom.
Antitrust law is about much more than just monopoly. Apple doesn't have one, nor do they need one to be prosecuted for anticompetitive behavior and abuse of market position. If you're not familiar with the difference between the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act, this is a good primer: https://www.britannica.com/event/Clayton-Antitrust-Act
Apple is about to get bitten hard, not for being a monopoly, but for anticompetitive business practices.
> US Government, please force Apple to open up iPhone to any software we want to install. It's a generic computer.
You have bazillion types of generic computers to choose from. People pay huge overhead to apple exactly because apple makes choices for them - regarding what settings are reasonable to have, what software they want you to use etc.
Personally I don't understand monopoly arguments. If we are talking about some ISP, something like Nestle or even social network/apps, I can somewhat understand it. But here? Users are people who bought Apple hardware to use it based on rules set up by Apple.
I'm not much fan of Apple, I sincerely want to understand the monopoly argument. It seems to me as if people would want to split BMW because .. I don't know we want to be able to install our own custom AC. Because maintenance of the stock one is too expensive.
Wow - HN reliably comes out with just incredible legal analysis, and not in a good way.
Apple delivers products that are supported FAR far longer than android.
Yes, they charge everyone a premium for this.
One reason people don't mind their kids / grandparents etc using apple is precisely because apple takes care of things.
Let's be 100% clear here - once apple allows random apps to bill you in random ways the endless scams will be here in days.
Seriously - even for subscriptions most providers you find out thing renewed after the fact when you get your statement, then have to remember to fight the auto-renew. Apple (at least for me) sends me out an email IN ADVANCE telling me what will renew.
Next, cancelling autorenews often requires phone calls. Ie, you can only cancel 90 days in advance, but have to cancel by renewal date and while you can sign up online you can't cancel online.
Apple, in the same email they send me, tells me how to cancel.
I hope folks pushing scam apps get bitten HARD for their crappy behavior.
And the idea of apple as monopoly (22% market share in phones, even less in computers) seems a total stretch.
However, because of all these policies, they might have a monpoply on very long term supported high quality devices that behave how you expect.
They even cracked down on the scam battery replacements on resale (ie, folks would put cheapo third party batteries in that made it look like battery life was good that would die in months). Again lots of complaints from HN folks, but for average users this helped them avoid the scammers.
1. It's clearly not a monopoly by any accepted definition.
2. If you don't want to pay their fees, don't use their platform.
3. If enough content providers don't use their platform, consumers we shift to a different one. I think one of the advantages that Sony has had over MSFT in the video game console space has been their exclusive content.
4. Taxes have literally nothing to do with this. The App Store has made life much easier for countless app creators. Are the fees exorbitant? Sure. Is the market capable of correcting this behavior across a reasonable timeline, also yes. I was planning to switch TV devices after Apple's tiff with Spotify. It was resolved because Apple knows that if they don't support the content providers other platforms do, they will lose market share.
You seem to have forgotten about Android. The solution to anti-trust cases is not a blanket “break them up. In this case, requiring Apple to allow third-party App Stores is going to be the key issue. The lawyers will likely take heavy inspiration from Microsoft’s antitrust suit from the early 00s
If we are being candid, many software developers helped crowned the Tyrant king.
The majority of developers focused on building for iOS and treated Android as a second class citizen.
Developers set the prices and in a race to the bottom, many developers set the price to $0.99. I remember the apps that had reasonable prices were often criticized by consumers because other developers set their prices so low.
30% take was there from the start of the app store before Apple become the most profitable smartphone maker. Developers should never have agreed to the take in the early days, but short term thinking prevailed.
If the vast majority of developers from the start refused to build for the iPhone until Apple had favorable terms or gave customers the option to allow third-party installs things would be different. Perhaps developers should work together to solve the problem they help create? Are developers want Apple to change would are they willing to coordinate a response? A coordinated response could mean the top 50 developers building mobile web apps & writing a letter to Apple that they are removing their apps from the Apps store and alerting their customers as well.
Will a web app have all the features of the iOS app? of course not, but if Apple wins the legal case, this seems like the only real option to get Apple to change. Because most of Apple costumers are not bothered by Apple developers policy.
The truth is, getting split up isn't even a punishment! When companies get split up for being a monopoly, they usually end up being even more valuable than when they were a monopoly. See Bell Telephone for a good example of this.
When IBM unbundled their software from their hardware in response to DoJ antitrust inquiries, it created the modern software industry.
Who is this "we"? It definitely doesn't include me, as I do not own an iPhone and never will. If _you_ own one on the other hand...I presume you knew about Apple's practices and Apple's lock on their devices before you bought one. Why did you buy one?
Companies should compete IN markets, they shouldn't set up their own.
Customers aren't in a position to "just switch platforms" because they don't like what Apple or Amazon are doing.
This shouldn't be seen in the light of "is what they are doing so bad that they need to be stopped"? It should be seen as "would consumers be better off if someone intervened?".
Epic has a good argument that Apple is engaging in illegal "tying" - requiring that to buy B, you must also buy A, where A and B are not inherently tied tightly together
AT&T lost that one decades ago. At one time phone users could only use a rented AT&T phone. (Or modem, and AT&Ts modems were huge, expensive, and included a dial and handset.) See "Carterphone decision".
1) iOS devices are a large market (Over 1.5 BILLION devices)
2) iOS users spend more then Android users
3) Apps must be independently developed for each platform
4) Apple’s Monopoly Power in the iOS App Distribution Market. (p20) As it is the sole means by which apps are distributed to consumers in the iOS Market.
5) Non-iOS app distribution platforms do not constrain Apple’s monopoly power
in the iOS App Distribution Market because they are not compatible with iOS devices,
they cannot provide iOS users with apps for their devices, and they do not contain iOS compatible apps.
6) Apple imposes unreasonable restraints and unlawfully maintains a
monopoly in the iOS App Distribution Market through several anti-competitive acts,
including technical restrictions
- Cannot download alternative app stores
- App store is preinstalled
- Contractual restrictions on distributing iOS apps outside the app store
- Section 3.3.2(b) of the Developer Agreement prohibits
“Application[s]” that “create a store or storefront for other code or applications”. (p25 C75)
7) Apple’s anti-competitive conduct harms all would-be app
distributors by foreclosing them from competing in the iOS App Distribution Market. (p26 D88)
8) Apple has a monopoly over the iOS In-App Payment Processing
Market and, in the alternative, over the iOS Games Payment Processing Market, as it has
a 100% market share.
9) The cost of alternative electronic payment processing tools, which
Apple does not permit to be used for the purchase of in-app digital content, can be one
tenth of the cost of In-App Purchase.
Electronic Payment Processing Tool, Base U.S. Rate
> I will say it's a VERY smart move by Epic to position Apple against customers by no longer making it "Apple is taking 30% from epic" to "Apple is taking 20% from you"
IMO The key takeaway is that developers are no longer afraid of Apple. Epic Games move would be unthinkable a few years ago. Looks like this will become common practice. Epic Games joins Spotify, what will be joined by X, Y.
Maybe at some point multiple developers will also follow and also file legal actions.
> Apple has asserted that blocking third-party app distribution platforms
is necessary to enforce privacy and security safeguards. [...] A simple comparison to how Apple handles third-party software on its Mac personal computers illustrates how baseless its justifications are.
Clever. Now Apple will either need to (1) state that Macs are insecure and bad for privacy, or (2) admit that there is no privacy/security benefit from the App Store rules.
ok am going to put a highly objectionable comment.
I buy stuff on apple store because its easy and SAFE.
That safety point is more important than ever, if there was no app store or lets say having 10 other app stores , i wont have the same level of confidence and heck i wont even be spending any dollars out there.
Over to Apple's 30 % cut, i dont know whats the call here, to make it 0%? ,10% , 20%? what if the same fortnite (or any other company) increases the bill to $9.99 next week :)
Am saying this purely from a consumer perspective that i dont care how apple and devs split the money as long as it doesnt bite me ...
Go Epicgames! The #freefortnite campaign is bold; it’ll require users being proactive for it to maintain its momentum.
I love the the things that both companies make, but I’m not in favor of the App Store’s monopoly. I’m excited to see the outcome of this lawsuit but not very excited to wait for a long, drawn out process that the US legal system lends itself to.
This is a bit cynical of me but I thought it was interesting: In the PDF their legal says this:
> in the years since, Fortnite has topped 350 million players and has become a global cultutral phenomenon.
Interestingly, this 350 million players number appears to have been announced back in May [0]. Of course it is somewhat likely that their legal team just Googled this number instead of sourcing an updated figure from Epic, but could it potentially be that Fortnite's growth has stagnated? It definitely feels as though it has left the zeitgeist compared to years gone by, and it could be that Epic has calculated that the payoff of this suit could exceed the amount of V-Bucks they were expecting to sell through the iOS version of Fortnite. Certainly a big gamble, but it's possible that the situation may be dire enough to make it worth it. Of course they attempt to make it look like this isn't what they want by not demanding a cash payoff, but the obvious play is that if they win then a) they will be able to sell V-Bucks again for presumably a higher margin, and b) they will launch their own Epic app/game store and take a small cut of those transactions.
[+] [-] BluSyn|5 years ago|reply
For all Apple's faults, they've actually put a huge amount of effort to making payment processing seamless for the user, while also making it extremely transparent. I get regular notifications if I have a subscription trial about to expire, and it's super easy to manage ALL subscriptions through a single UI, and cancel them with a single click. This would not be possible through third-party systems, which I can guarantee would put huge effort into tricking users rather than making it easier for them. And yet again, Apple would receive the blame for allowing these Apps.
All that said I also don't agree with Apple taking a huge 30% cut, especially for subscription services that directly complete with them such as Netflix. Though obviously there are costs to run this ecosystem, so Apple also can't just charge nothing. I see both sides of this argument, and I don't see a middle ground that can please all sides. There needs to be a reasonable compromise somewhere in the middle.
[+] [-] ianferrel|5 years ago|reply
I mean, in this case, the consumer is literally saving 20% for the same purchase. Seems good to me.
> There needs to be a reasonable compromise somewhere in the middle.
Why isn't "let other stores sell software for iOS, and the market will set the rent those stores can extract from software developers" the reasonable compromise?
People who want the ease and security of Apple and are willing to pay their extra fees can do so. Those who don't don't have to.
[+] [-] colinmhayes|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _qulr|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kelnos|5 years ago|reply
But agreed that it also could represent an increased privacy risk. I guess that could be the trade off though: if you want stronger privacy guarantees, you pay through Apple's system (and pay more); otherwise you use the cheaper, third-party option. But also agreed that issues around the third-party options would tarnish Apple's reputation, regardless of the fact that people would have a choice.
[+] [-] pier25|5 years ago|reply
They have +20M devs paying $100 per year.
[+] [-] ajkjk|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bgorman|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] diebeforei485|5 years ago|reply
I think Apple would have a lot more goodwill if they reduced their take. It's unlikelybanyone would sue over 10-15%.
[+] [-] Animats|5 years ago|reply
What Epic is asking for is an injunction. They may well get a temporary injunction quickly, compelling Apple to put their app back in Apple's store. Then the case gets litigated on the merits, but starting from a de facto win for Epic.
The standard required for a temporary injunction is low:
"To justify a temporary injunction it is not necessary that the plaintiff's right to a final decision, after a trial, be absolutely certain, wholly without doubt; if the other elements are present (i.e., the balance of hardships tips decidedly toward plaintiff), it will ordinarily be enough that the plaintiff has raised questions going to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful, as to make them a fair ground for litigation and thus for more deliberate investigation."[1]
Litigation on temporary injunctions is relatively fast. This part will be decided in weeks, not years.
Epic might only win a rollback to the last uncontroverted state, though. That is, apparently, before Epic's payment system went live on Apple platforms. If Apple had allowed third party payments for a while, then removed the app, Epic would be in a stronger position to insist that their own payment system remain live.
[1] https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...
[2] https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wiwd.39930/...
[+] [-] xendipity|5 years ago|reply
> But for Apple’s illegal restraints, Epic would provide a competing app store on iOS devices, which would allow iOS users to download apps in an innovative, curated store and would provide users the choice to use Epic’s or another third-party’s in-app payment processing tool."
Part 16, in the Intro.
[+] [-] Osiris|5 years ago|reply
Well, that's interesting.
> But for Apple’s illegal restraints, Epic would provide a competing app store on iOS devices, which would allow iOS users to download apps in an innovative, curated store and would provide users the choice to use Epic’s or another third-party’s in-app payment processing tool
So, Epic doesn't want money, they want the ability to allow users to install an Epic App Store. They must assume there's a lot more money to be made by operating a competing store.
[+] [-] mike_d|5 years ago|reply
Epic wants your choice to be Apple store for non-games, and Epic store for games. Period.
[+] [-] gridlockd|5 years ago|reply
Fortnite was a stroke of luck, the wise thing to do is not to invest that money back into the franchise, which may soon be tossed aside by the audience, nor would it be wise to undertake a massive new project.
Valve figured out a long time ago that it's much better business to just sit back and let other people make games while you rake in the cash with zero risk. Epic is in a unique position to maybe pull that off as well.
[+] [-] napolux|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ErikAugust|5 years ago|reply
They anticipated Apple's action would be to ban them, and they prepared a lawsuit and PR campaign in anticipation.
[+] [-] huac|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jandrese|5 years ago|reply
More than that, a ruling against Apple here would have huge implications for any company running an app store on their device. Smart TV manufacturers, companies like Roku, Automobile manufacturers, etc... If you can be considered a monopolist because you control your platform then there will be a LOT of monopolies out there.
I'm not expecting Epic to get any real traction on this suit. The best they can hope for is Apple working out some system where they'll reduce their cut in certain circumstances, but given how unlikely this case is to go anywhere I don't think Apple is feeling any pressure.
[+] [-] pgrote|5 years ago|reply
You can get Android apps from many locations other than the Google Play Store.
[+] [-] kelnos|5 years ago|reply
But I agree that this suit probably isn't going anywhere, at least not to the extent that some commenters here are hoping. This will likely end with a slap on the wrist and/or some very small concessions to Epic.
[+] [-] Pxtl|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Barrin92|5 years ago|reply
I think there's a fairly trivial distinction to be drawn between a general purpose computing device and a utility like a fridge or a car. (something like, is the system aided by software to operate, vs is the system a platform for executing user-software)
For something like a game console it might actually be an interesting edge case but it doesn't seem difficult to draw an approximate line.
[+] [-] linuxhansl|5 years ago|reply
2. Anyone can install any 3rd party app on an Android device, there's even a open app store "F-Droid" for open apps that anyone can use.
3. You can still run an app store. You just have to allow other ways to install apps. That way your store would be used only if it's better than the other ways to install apps.
[+] [-] evgen|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sesteel|5 years ago|reply
It is as if Apple started a town and a bunch of people moved in establishing a new market. The only way to deliver goods to this market is via the railway Apple established. The catch, you pay Apple 30% of the revenue generated for access to this market via the railway. If you try to establish a highway system, build an airport, perform airdrops, or some other means of delivering goods and services to this market, you are no longer allowed to use the train. IMO, Apple should be able to refuse transport of anything they wish for any reason they wish.
If this was a real scenario, what was allowed in this market would be controlled by the people who make up that market. There would be some governance and laws established for fair trade practices. I would think it is up to the people to establish these alternate delivery methods, in this case, jailbreaking their iphones and installing whatever they wanted.
[+] [-] stefan_|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] echelon|5 years ago|reply
I hope the government considers the harshest punishment of all: splitting up Apple into hardware and software+services entities.
This is absurd that Apple has built a fiefdom on America's most popular generic computer device. It's a threat to freedom! We can only compute what the overlords allow and can tax? What a crock!
The fact that Apple thinks they can extort more protection money from developers than the government does in taxes is an affront. But the freedom aspect should have everyone out with their pitchforks.
This after Apple created an environment where its users, many of whom have lots of disposable income for buying goods and services, expect apps to be $0.99 and come with free updates for life. Meanwhile Apple's own products are luxury priced. And they still take 30%.
US Government, please force Apple to open up iPhone to any software we want to install. It's a generic computer. It's how we communicate, do banking, do basic shopping, dating, business ... everything. Apple can't be the gatekeepers of 21st century life. It's incredibly damaging to our ability to innovate and succeed as small business owners and entrepreneurs.
Apple, you are the tyrant king. Long have we suffered under your rule. We won't stand for it any longer and we demand our freedom.
[+] [-] mortenjorck|5 years ago|reply
Antitrust law is about much more than just monopoly. Apple doesn't have one, nor do they need one to be prosecuted for anticompetitive behavior and abuse of market position. If you're not familiar with the difference between the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act, this is a good primer: https://www.britannica.com/event/Clayton-Antitrust-Act
Apple is about to get bitten hard, not for being a monopoly, but for anticompetitive business practices.
[+] [-] comboy|5 years ago|reply
You have bazillion types of generic computers to choose from. People pay huge overhead to apple exactly because apple makes choices for them - regarding what settings are reasonable to have, what software they want you to use etc.
Personally I don't understand monopoly arguments. If we are talking about some ISP, something like Nestle or even social network/apps, I can somewhat understand it. But here? Users are people who bought Apple hardware to use it based on rules set up by Apple.
I'm not much fan of Apple, I sincerely want to understand the monopoly argument. It seems to me as if people would want to split BMW because .. I don't know we want to be able to install our own custom AC. Because maintenance of the stock one is too expensive.
[+] [-] donor20|5 years ago|reply
Apple delivers products that are supported FAR far longer than android.
Yes, they charge everyone a premium for this.
One reason people don't mind their kids / grandparents etc using apple is precisely because apple takes care of things.
Let's be 100% clear here - once apple allows random apps to bill you in random ways the endless scams will be here in days.
Seriously - even for subscriptions most providers you find out thing renewed after the fact when you get your statement, then have to remember to fight the auto-renew. Apple (at least for me) sends me out an email IN ADVANCE telling me what will renew.
Next, cancelling autorenews often requires phone calls. Ie, you can only cancel 90 days in advance, but have to cancel by renewal date and while you can sign up online you can't cancel online.
Apple, in the same email they send me, tells me how to cancel.
I hope folks pushing scam apps get bitten HARD for their crappy behavior.
And the idea of apple as monopoly (22% market share in phones, even less in computers) seems a total stretch.
However, because of all these policies, they might have a monpoply on very long term supported high quality devices that behave how you expect.
They even cracked down on the scam battery replacements on resale (ie, folks would put cheapo third party batteries in that made it look like battery life was good that would die in months). Again lots of complaints from HN folks, but for average users this helped them avoid the scammers.
[+] [-] regulation_d|5 years ago|reply
2. If you don't want to pay their fees, don't use their platform.
3. If enough content providers don't use their platform, consumers we shift to a different one. I think one of the advantages that Sony has had over MSFT in the video game console space has been their exclusive content.
4. Taxes have literally nothing to do with this. The App Store has made life much easier for countless app creators. Are the fees exorbitant? Sure. Is the market capable of correcting this behavior across a reasonable timeline, also yes. I was planning to switch TV devices after Apple's tiff with Spotify. It was resolved because Apple knows that if they don't support the content providers other platforms do, they will lose market share.
[+] [-] ianmobbs|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rockarage|5 years ago|reply
If we are being candid, many software developers helped crowned the Tyrant king.
The majority of developers focused on building for iOS and treated Android as a second class citizen.
Developers set the prices and in a race to the bottom, many developers set the price to $0.99. I remember the apps that had reasonable prices were often criticized by consumers because other developers set their prices so low.
30% take was there from the start of the app store before Apple become the most profitable smartphone maker. Developers should never have agreed to the take in the early days, but short term thinking prevailed.
If the vast majority of developers from the start refused to build for the iPhone until Apple had favorable terms or gave customers the option to allow third-party installs things would be different. Perhaps developers should work together to solve the problem they help create? Are developers want Apple to change would are they willing to coordinate a response? A coordinated response could mean the top 50 developers building mobile web apps & writing a letter to Apple that they are removing their apps from the Apps store and alerting their customers as well.
The idea is not so far fetched, see: https://deadline.com/2019/07/cbs-blackout-directv-u-verse-at...
Will a web app have all the features of the iOS app? of course not, but if Apple wins the legal case, this seems like the only real option to get Apple to change. Because most of Apple costumers are not bothered by Apple developers policy.
[+] [-] sneeze-slayer|5 years ago|reply
When IBM unbundled their software from their hardware in response to DoJ antitrust inquiries, it created the modern software industry.
[+] [-] lewiscollard|5 years ago|reply
Who is this "we"? It definitely doesn't include me, as I do not own an iPhone and never will. If _you_ own one on the other hand...I presume you knew about Apple's practices and Apple's lock on their devices before you bought one. Why did you buy one?
Your reminder that iOS has 24.82% market share on mobile. That is not anything like a "monopoly" in any meaningful sense of the word. https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide
[+] [-] alkonaut|5 years ago|reply
Customers aren't in a position to "just switch platforms" because they don't like what Apple or Amazon are doing.
This shouldn't be seen in the light of "is what they are doing so bad that they need to be stopped"? It should be seen as "would consumers be better off if someone intervened?".
[+] [-] Animats|5 years ago|reply
AT&T lost that one decades ago. At one time phone users could only use a rented AT&T phone. (Or modem, and AT&Ts modems were huge, expensive, and included a dial and handset.) See "Carterphone decision".
[+] [-] dbetteridge|5 years ago|reply
1) iOS devices are a large market (Over 1.5 BILLION devices)
2) iOS users spend more then Android users
3) Apps must be independently developed for each platform
4) Apple’s Monopoly Power in the iOS App Distribution Market. (p20) As it is the sole means by which apps are distributed to consumers in the iOS Market.
5) Non-iOS app distribution platforms do not constrain Apple’s monopoly power in the iOS App Distribution Market because they are not compatible with iOS devices, they cannot provide iOS users with apps for their devices, and they do not contain iOS compatible apps.
6) Apple imposes unreasonable restraints and unlawfully maintains a monopoly in the iOS App Distribution Market through several anti-competitive acts, including technical restrictions - Cannot download alternative app stores
- App store is preinstalled
- Contractual restrictions on distributing iOS apps outside the app store
- Section 3.3.2(b) of the Developer Agreement prohibits “Application[s]” that “create a store or storefront for other code or applications”. (p25 C75)
7) Apple’s anti-competitive conduct harms all would-be app distributors by foreclosing them from competing in the iOS App Distribution Market. (p26 D88)
8) Apple has a monopoly over the iOS In-App Payment Processing Market and, in the alternative, over the iOS Games Payment Processing Market, as it has a 100% market share.
9) The cost of alternative electronic payment processing tools, which Apple does not permit to be used for the purchase of in-app digital content, can be one tenth of the cost of In-App Purchase.
Electronic Payment Processing Tool, Base U.S. Rate
PayPal 2.9%
Stripe 2.9%
Square 2.6%-3.5%
Braintree 2.9%
[+] [-] haunter|5 years ago|reply
> I will say it's a VERY smart move by Epic to position Apple against customers by no longer making it "Apple is taking 30% from epic" to "Apple is taking 20% from you"
[+] [-] rafaelturk|5 years ago|reply
Maybe at some point multiple developers will also follow and also file legal actions.
[+] [-] jasonhansel|5 years ago|reply
Clever. Now Apple will either need to (1) state that Macs are insecure and bad for privacy, or (2) admit that there is no privacy/security benefit from the App Store rules.
[+] [-] totaldude87|5 years ago|reply
I buy stuff on apple store because its easy and SAFE.
That safety point is more important than ever, if there was no app store or lets say having 10 other app stores , i wont have the same level of confidence and heck i wont even be spending any dollars out there.
Over to Apple's 30 % cut, i dont know whats the call here, to make it 0%? ,10% , 20%? what if the same fortnite (or any other company) increases the bill to $9.99 next week :)
Am saying this purely from a consumer perspective that i dont care how apple and devs split the money as long as it doesnt bite me ...
[+] [-] merrvk|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] minimaxir|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coded|5 years ago|reply
I love the the things that both companies make, but I’m not in favor of the App Store’s monopoly. I’m excited to see the outcome of this lawsuit but not very excited to wait for a long, drawn out process that the US legal system lends itself to.
[+] [-] AcerbicZero|5 years ago|reply
They keep trying to buy the PC gamer market, and it doesn't take much of an imagination to guess what they'd do if they got control of it.
[+] [-] infinityplus1|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] figgyc|5 years ago|reply
https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/6/21249497/fortnite-350-mill...