Judge delivers split decision on Epic vs Apple - more positive than negative for Epic

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Well of course you can, like you can put custom accessories on phones too like lenses but this in no way makes iOS it's own market not part of the same market Android is in. And often after market parts for cars are for specific platforms so an after market throttle body for Fiesta is unlikely to also work for a Civic etc.

 

But like my later edit about consoles, simply no this is not how markets work, Android and iOS are in the same market.

Back to the automotive analogy, there were attempts in the 1960’s to require OEM parts and authorized service centers for all cars.  No matter how old, and in warranty or not.  The courts got involved.  Automakers CAN require OEM parts and authorized service centers to maintain warranty, but they can’t force customers to not use parts from other manufacturers though they can void a warranty if one was in place. OSes have the whole black hat data theft thing going on though which might change the equation that made auto parts stores a thing. This lawsuit could affect more than Apple.  I don’t know if a remedy will be required or what it might be if it is.  
 

One thing I could see possibly happening for example is they could force Apple to provide a method of rooting the phone that would also automatically lock it out of the App Store and provide a warning that the phone was out of spec so it wouldn’t attach to networks that thought it was safe.  This would cause the problem of people creating systems to spoof those safety checks and thus the sound of a can of worms opening is heard...

 

Ooh! Another thought: they could force Apple to provide two versions of each phone, one with and one without the unlock feature and sell them for the same price. A business that values security could allow only non unlockable phones on its network.... unless the unlockable phones could be spoofed to appear on the network as non-unlockable ones...  argh.  They could allow the locked system thing but force apples store margin way way down. There’s probably a problem with that one too..

 

I think I hear a can opener somewhere...

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

Ooh! Another thought: they could force Apple to provide two versions of each phone, one with and one without the unlock feature and sell them for the same price. A business that values security could allow only non unlockable phones on its network.... unless the unlockable phones could be spoofed to appear on the network as non-unlockable ones...  argh.  They could allow the locked system thing but force apples store margin way way down. There’s probably a problem with that one too..

 

 

This was the entire point of sim-lock. Carriers didn't want you to leave, so they made it so your phone became garbage if you did. Carriers didn't want you to leave, so they made it so you couldn't take your number. In both cases the FCC was involved in changing this.

https://www.fcc.gov/general/cell-phone-unlocking

https://www.fcc.gov/general/wireless-local-number-portability-wlnp

 

The sim-lock (really carrier lock) was something the carriers imposed on the hardware vendors. So it's legal to unlock your phone, and carriers are required to unlock your phone upon request. At least in the US

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlocking_Consumer_Choice_and_Wireless_Competition_Act (2014)

 

So now that you're not locked to a carrier, the carrier has to compete entirely on service plans and willingness to subsidize the phone. Most carriers no longer want to subsidize the phones due to loss of being able to lock their hardware to the carrier.

 

As far as app stores go, the carriers wanted a piece of this pie too, and Apple let them, originally (AT&T's exclusivity included some of that.) Some of it did eventually manifest in other ways: https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT205102 ,mostly in countries that have existing problems with their banking systems. Note how United States, Canada and Australia aren't listed.

 

Apple however did not let AT&T, or any other carrier preload any apps/services onto the devices. So thank Apple for not having shovelware co-branded carrier models. You could absolutely be certain that if Apple let them, there would be proprietary AT&T, T-mobile, and Verizon stores that only work on their carrier's networks. No instead you can optionally download services of your carrier, but nothing "required"

 

[leadeater]

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

Competition when buying a phone is not the problem though. When they control the software market they are engaging in negative consumer practices.

Which was my point, what Apple does with iOS and their phones is not market creation like what was stated in what I originally responded to. There is no two ways about this, iOS and Android are in the same market and compete with each other, this is a fact. It worries me when people try and debate facts, not liking something doesn't make it not true or not a fact. Unless Apple does something drastic that actually moves them out of the same market this will be an ongoing truth.

 

And even if Apple wanted to be considered their own market they don't actually get to decide that, the market does or we do not them. Unless we consider them something different, of their own market for what ever reason then and only then it will be the case and there is not that wider majority opinion that it is the case because it's simply illogical to treat Apple and iOS in this way. You also will not see Apple make such an assertion either, at least I doubt it because then if they are a market then they are a monopoly on it which when they legally have defended themselves in the past they have never argued, nor will ever, that they are a monopoly. That would be scoring an own goal, you generally don't want to do that.

 

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

warranty doesn't change the practice of software control.  The debate has been shifted back to hardware, it is a software market problem.  All phones have warranty that are void if you go elsewhere,  which is a crazy notion because either you don't care about the warranty being void or you will use the warranty because you don't want to pay for repairs you don't have to.

 

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

I still don't think it works as an analogy.

 

It works and it is both hardware and software. Cars also have infotainment centers and proprietary software for that and car control itself too. The only difference is we consider cars an asset and something with long term life and serviceability, that is the difference between a phone and a car. These things are not that dissimilar and the difference are only born from that difference in how we treat and view the product, as soon as a phone is treated as an asset and we expect serviceability and long term life then it will change. While people want to swap phones every year to two years, bundle them in to plans and not actually "own" the phone things will be as they are. The phone itself is nothing more than a mechanism to bring the consumer on to the software platform, on the Android side the hardware manufacturers do not mind this as it spurs perpetual rotating sales of the devices and they financially benefit from it. Almost nothing about the mobile market favors the consumer, Apple or Android, and there doesn't seem to be any significant effort to change this and the ones with the real power don't want it to change.

 

Android isn't going to "save" the mobile market and actually isn't really any better than iOS for the consumer.

 

Because of this disparity in power the only effective method to drive change is, for some, the dreaded regulation. Also a monopoly is not a requirement for needing regulation in a market, there is no need to talk about iOS and the App Store as it's own market to justify the desire for change or regulation from perceived anti consumer or anti competitive practices because this applies regardless of that being the case or not.

[Bombastinator]

3 hours ago, Dean0919 said:

I saw some people stated that they dislike Epic Games & called it evil, I don't remember if it was in this thread or in another one. I don't understand why they hate Epic Games. I think they are very cool company. They give us free giveaways on AA games very often, something that no other big game companies does, well at least not as often as Epic Games. I'm getting some nice collection of big AAA games for free on Epic Games. I'm really grateful. Right now they have Hitman giveaway for free. I wanted this game, had it in my wishlist on Steam and now, I got it for free on Epic Games. That's amazing. If Epic Games continues like this, it will be my favorite gaming platform.

 

Apple, on the other hand, would never give up anything for free, not even anything worth a penny. They're determined to get as much money as possible from customers instead. They'll die than giveaway anything for free. I think title of "evil"  or "greedy" company suits Apple more than Epic Games.

So epic ran sales to drum up customers because it was new, and unlike epic, Apple has been around for a long time so they don’t do that much anymore and this is the argument?

[dizmo]

I don't see how it really favors Epic. What it does do, is prevent collateral damage to the people that use the Unreal Engine.

It's really a pretty fair ruling.

 

On 8/25/2020 at 1:00 PM, Vishera said:

Well,that was expected since a retaliatory reaction to a lawsuit is illegal,and the Fortnite app was removed before Epic filed the lawsuit.

I hope Apple's Monopolistic behavior will be stopped by the anti-trust laws they violate.

But remember that Epic are only doing that because it serves their interests,not paying Apple to have higher profit margins.

So Apple's monopolistic behavior and Epic's breach of contract are both violation of the law at the end of the day.

It's not really a monopoly. They own the app store. It's theirs. They're welcome to allow what they want on it or don't.
Don't like it? Choose Android.

Don't like that? Buy a feature phone.

No one's forcing people to use apps.

On 8/25/2020 at 1:05 PM, Ashley said:

maybe because android is a privacy hellhole and a buggy mess but other than that i don't get it either.

It's really not that buggy, and if you can't exercise privacy measures on any OS, well that's kind of on you

On 8/25/2020 at 12:54 PM, Delicieuxz said:

If that's the case, then I'd wonder why people use iPhones. But what about with one of these methods?

 

https://7labs.io/mobile/iphone/install-apps-without-app-store.html

https://drfone.wondershare.com/iphone-tips/how-to-install-apps-on-iphone-without-itunes.html

I don't see how that statement makes any sense. Most people don't care about side loading, so it doesn't matter to them if it's not available.

On 8/25/2020 at 9:36 PM, mr moose said:

Maybe a better way to put it, the problem is not with their app store or what they do with the app store, the problem is they don't permit iphone owners or app developers to go anywhere else.

You can go to a different platform.

On 8/26/2020 at 4:20 PM, mr moose said:

It is, apple are controlling what apps it allows ios users can install and what apps developers can sell.  Apple does not own your phone or the right to dictate what software you run on it, much less do they own the right to deny or force a software vendor to use their store to sell software.

 

Not a valid argument, you can't expect anyone to buy a new phone just to buy software.   Again imagine if you had to buy a new desktop because you wanted software that was only on mac, or linux, or windows?  Its a crap argument and the reasons it is crap is also the reason it is a monopoly for apple to limit ios to their app store.

Uh, what? They own the OS. If you've purchased an iOs device, you've accepted that they own the OS.

If you want to use something else, then yes, you can buy a different phone. No one's forcing you to buy an Apple device.

16 hours ago, mr moose said:

At this point you are just speaking nonsense.  People already have the iphone, they CANNOT just buy a new phone.  No one should.  If that is your argument then you are literally arguing for why it is a monopoly,  because if the only way to avoid the app store is to buy a new phone, then the app store is restrictive and controlling of other peoples trade PERIOD.

 

The silliest thing in these threads is that the only argument anyone has made for it not being a monopoly can only be made because it is a monopoly.

Yes, they can. They can absolutely go buy another device. No one has a gun to your head and is forcing you to purchase an iPhone.

People decide to make apps for the Apple app store. Otherwise they could go make it for Android. Or design their own phone OS. No one is saying "if you don't make your product for Apple, you can't make anything." THAT is a monopoly. You clearly just don't understand what a monopoly really is.

11 hours ago, Dean0919 said:

You either are working for Apple or either you're hardcore, ignorant fan of that company who refuses to see the truth.

Or you see logic. I don't like Apple, but I don't agree with Mr Moose's view of the situation either.

[Bombastinator]

7 minutes ago, dizmo said:

I don't see how it really favors Epic. What it does do, is prevent collateral damage to the people that use the Unreal Engine.

It's really a pretty fair ruling.

 

It's not really a monopoly. They own the app store. It's theirs. They're welcome to allow what they want on it or don't.
Don't like it? Choose Android.

Don't like that? Buy a feature phone.

No one's forcing people to use apps.

It's really not that buggy, and if you can't exercise privacy measures on any OS, well that's kind of on you

I don't see how that statement makes any sense. Most people don't care about side loading, so it doesn't matter to them if it's not available.

You can go to a different platform.

Uh, what? They own the OS. If you've purchased an iOs device, you've accepted that they own the OS.

If you want to use something else, then yes, you can buy a different phone. No one's forcing you to buy an Apple device.

Yes, they can. They can absolutely go buy another device. No one has a gun to your head and is forcing you to purchase an iPhone.

People decide to make apps for the Apple app store. Otherwise they could go make it for Android. Or design their own phone OS. No one is saying "if you don't make your product for Apple, you can't make anything." THAT is a monopoly. You clearly just don't understand what a monopoly really is.

Or you see logic. I don't like Apple, but I don't agree with Mr Moose's view of the situation either.

re: Ruling:

I concur

 

re: monopoly status

i refer you to the earlier car analogy.  It’s in the grey zone apparently.  It could go either way.  It has gone either way in the past. 

 

re: opinions

I think mr moose’s view is opinion oriented, and it seems that pushing that opinion occasionally creates complications in logic. That is true of all the posts about this subject though. In this particular case it is my opinion that the truth is not out there. 

 

[Vishera]

36 minutes ago, dizmo said:

It's not really a monopoly. They own the app store. It's theirs. They're welcome to allow what they want on it or don't.
Don't like it? Choose Android.

Don't like that? Buy a feature phone.

No one's forcing people to use apps.

They curb the flow of commerce - and that's a violation of antitrust laws.

If you want to publish an app you have to get their permission,if Apple doesn't approve your app then it directly curbs the flow of commerce,so the app doesn't reach to the consumer.

Also they are indeed a monopoly,they control the entire iOS market (It's a market),doesn't matter if the platform belongs to them,they have no right to prevent trade between the publishers and the consumers.

There is plenty of evidence that Apple stifle competition,if it's the recent disappearance of parent control apps after Apple launched their own,or the refusal of cloud gaming apps like Microsoft's xCloud because they want their users to use Apple arcade,and there are many more examples.

 

The commerce is the app obviously,

Apple are violating all sections of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

 

 Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890:

 

Section 1:

Quote

Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.

 

 Section 2:

Quote

Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony

 

Legal Definition of restraint of trade

Quote

1: an act, fact, or means of curbing the free flow of commerce or trade covenant not to compete with an employer after leaving is in restraint of trade and must be reasonable to be enforced

2: an attempt or intent to eliminate or stifle competition, to effect a monopoly, to maintain prices artificially, or otherwise to hamper or obstruct the course of trade and commerce as it would be if left to the control of natural and economic forces

the Sherman Antitrust Act declared every contract, combination, and conspiracy in restraint of trade to be illegal

 

  

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

Yeah, but they still offered payment through App Store or not?

Yes,They did offer payment through the App Store.

[Vishera]

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

what Apple does with iOS and their phones is not market creation like what was stated in what I originally responded to. There is no two ways about this, iOS and Android are in the same market and compete with each other,

Both iOS and Android compete in the smartphone market,

But both platforms have their own software market,just like Windows has it's own software market and MacOS has it's own software market,

Just like you can't install Final Cut Pro on Windows,You can't use software from a different market unless it was made available in that market,of course that with emulation,virtualization and translation layers you can use software from different markets,because that gives you access to those markets.

And iOS users don't have access to the Android software market from their iOS devices.

[Mark Kaine]

33 minutes ago, Vishera said:

They curb the flow of commerce - and that's a violation of antitrust laws.

If you want to publish an app you have to get their permission,if Apple doesn't approve your app then it directly curbs the flow of commerce,so the app doesn't reach to the consumer.

Also they are indeed a monopoly,they control the entire iOS market (It's a market),doesn't matter if the platform belongs to them,they have no right to prevent trade between the publishers and the consumers.

There is plenty of evidence that Apple stifle competition,if it's the recent disappearance of parent control apps after Apple launched their own,or the refusal of cloud gaming apps like Microsoft's xCloud because they want their users to use Apple arcade,and there are many more examples.

 

The commerce is the app obviously,

Apple are violating all sections of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

 

 Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890:

 

Section 1:

 

 Section 2:

 

 

Legal Definition of restraint of trade

 

  

Yes,They did offer payment through the App Store.

So then explain to me why, for example  Sony, is allowed to have a walled garden with the "psn store"? It's exactly the same,  they make the device,  they control who gets on their store and who doesn't. 

 

How is this not a violation of the Sherman act? Or are you of the opinion, in this example Sony,  does indeed violate the Sherman act?

 

Honest question, because I fail to see how it would be any different.

[Vishera]

12 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

So then explain to me why, for example  Sony, is allowed to have a walled garden with the "psn store"? It's exactly the same,  they make the device,  they control who gets on their store and who doesn't. 

Yes,it's very similar,Microsoft are doing the same with XBOX,and Nintendo are doing the same with their devices as well.

12 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

How is this not a violation of the Sherman act? Or are you of the opinion, in this example Sony,  does indeed violate the Sherman act?

It is indeed a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act,the problem is that nobody thought of suing companys in the tech industry for that shameful practice,

Nor the FTC had it cross in it's mind.

12 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Honest question, because I fail to see how it would be any different.

Congrats,You need a sharp mind to figure it out on your own 

[Kisai]

6 minutes ago, Vishera said:

Both iOS and Android compete in the smartphone market,

But both platforms have their own software market,just like Windows has it's own software market and MacOS has it's own software market,

Just like you can't install Final Cut Pro on Windows,You can't use software from a different market unless it was made available in that market,of course that with emulation,virtualization and translation layers you can use software from different markets,because that gives you access to those markets.

And iOS users don't have access to the Android software market from their iOS devices.

 

The complexities of the hardware are irrelevant, especially in a legal context, because Apple has run their OS's on three different CPU types, and you can't run PPC OSX software on 10.7 Intel OSX versions, and the same will likely be true with the ARM mac's.

 

Apple chooses not to make Final Cut Pro available to Windows, just like it chooses not to make iOS or MacOS X available for whitebox computers or third party phone manufacturers. If Apple make FCP available for Windows, or even the Safari browser, it would have to support it beyond simply making it run, and anyone who has ever built any cross-platform software will tell you that it's not that simple. Adobe can do it because they've been doing it for literal decades and have built their own middleware for it, but it also meant that they only implement platform-specific optimizations kicking and screaming, with 64-bit support being extremely late for their software, full GPU support only having come this year (despite some partial support being in the software for the last 8 years.) Likewise Unity only put 64-bit support in kicking and screaming only after Android became 64-bit only, and a lot of other cross-platform middleware for games lack a lot of os-specific features because those os-specific features only work on one OS, or there is no equivalent for their html5 export compiler. You can run a "HTML5" version of Microsoft Word, you can not run a HTML5 version of Adobe Premiere.

 

Like if this honestly was intended to be a government rule-making anti-trust case, the best we could hope for is Apple to either:

a) Make their software available to be licensed to other platforms (be that OSX to generic wintel PC's, or iOS to Samsung and LG), under some narrow hardware profile to not put a support burden on Apple. (eg Apple can licence Dell or Lenovo to make an OSX PC, but only for OS X server-level configurations, and only for a hardware profile equal to the Mac Pro or MacMini, no laptops or All-in-Ones), thus the Apple "app stores" are available for these platforms by extension

b) Make their hardware able to run third party operating systems, which includes ARM systems without locking any legally obtained OS out. Support is therefor on the OS vendor, and pirate/cracked versions of iOS/OSX are still forbidden. Thus third party app stores only work with the third party OS and Apple doesn't have to support it beyond authorizing a third party OS's bootloader. And to be fair, it's always been possible to run Linux on Mac hardware, even PPC hardware. However ARM devices tend to be boot-loader locked by design.

 

I do not see "make in-app purchases cheaper" happening. That would be akin to requiring gas stations to always sell gas at $1.00/Gal because that's what the government wants. Nobody would be in the gas business if they had to make a loss due to inflation or market conditions, and is why price controls tend be regulations for utilities that users need, not services that users can do without. Otherwise utilities would just raise prices until people can no longer afford it. 

 

What I would like to see come from this is some kind of price disclosure, like some gas station operators do. 

 

At least then there's transparency between app stores on any platform about what the true price is.

 

 

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, Vishera said:

It is indeed a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act,the problem is that nobody thought of suing companys in the tech industry for that shameful practice,

Yeah, I agree, which is why this lawsuit from Epic certainly is very interesting, as it may change how the whole "digital market" works... 

2 hours ago, Vishera said:

Congrats,You need a sharp mind to figure it out on your own 

Well, thanks, same to you I guess!

 

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, Vishera said:

Both iOS and Android compete in the smartphone market,

But both platforms have their own software market,just like Windows has it's own software market and MacOS has it's own software market,

Just like you can't install Final Cut Pro on Windows,You can't use software from a different market unless it was made available in that market,of course that with emulation,virtualization and translation layers you can use software from different markets,because that gives you access to those markets.

And iOS users don't have access to the Android software market from their iOS devices.

That's not a market, that's simply a trait of the product and it's platform on offer in the market. If you are going to say it's a market then it needs to fit all legal and non legal definitions of it because in saying it is a market then everything about that applies, which is not the case.

 

Not having cross compatibility between products in a market literally has nothing to do for whether or not it's a market of it's own, if that were the case then almost every single product ever in the history of the world is it's own market which just is not the case.

 

Like I've said iOS being it's own market is totally irrelevant to the suitability and ability to take legal action against the perceived anti consumer or antitrust practices, it is not a requirement for litigation nor proposing regulations in to the market. And I say perceived because without a ruling it is only opinion.