Apple threatens to kill Unreal Engine on iOS, Fornite may never return

[Tieox]

 

 

I see many ways this could benefit the consumer out of this. But valid concerns should one party get total victory over the other. 

 

Meanwhile I shall drop this here - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ready-Sweet-Popcorn-Kitchen-Professional/dp/B004GSW7NU?ref_=fsclp_pl_dp_2

[Jotoco]

6 hours ago, Kisai said:

That's not true at all. You can watch Netflix on everything. Consoles with BD drives can watch BD movies and people have bought Playstations entirely for use as BD-players/Netflix players.

 

Well, either way you prove that, opposite to Apple, you can use the hardware. 

 

You can watch a BD movie that was not bought through PS store. Netflix doesn't pay 30% of their subscription to Sony. 

 

Either way you slice it apple is monopolistic and the others are not. 

[Donut417]

On 8/19/2020 at 9:19 AM, Jotoco said:

Apple is not just a walled garden. The walls are 200ft tall, electrified, with spikes, guard dogs, a moat and laser turrets. 

Don’t forget about the sharks with freaking laser beams on their heads. 
 

60 points awarded to who ever figures out the movie reference. 

[FmPhenom]

5 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Don’t forget about the sharks with freaking laser beams on their heads. 
 

60 points awarded to who ever figures out the movie reference. 

Austin powers baby ,YEAH!

[Donut417]

2 hours ago, FmPhenom said:

Austin powers baby ,YEAH!

60 points granted. 

[Kisai]

21 hours ago, Jotoco said:

Well, either way you prove that, opposite to Apple, you can use the hardware. 

 

You can watch a BD movie that was not bought through PS store. Netflix doesn't pay 30% of their subscription to Sony. 

 

Either way you slice it apple is monopolistic and the others are not. 

You can buy a BD with a Digital download code and watch it on your Apple device, and that doesn't pay 30% to Apple either.

[Kisai]

These threads are spanning like five threads, so maybe let's consolidate the Apple news about fights with other companies into one thread

 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/21/apple-says-epic-games-ceo-wanted-a-side-deal-for-fortnite.html

[Commodus]

53 minutes ago, Kisai said:

These threads are spanning like five threads, so maybe let's consolidate the Apple news about fights with other companies into one thread

 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/21/apple-says-epic-games-ceo-wanted-a-side-deal-for-fortnite.html

What's that you say? Epic wasn't entirely honest about what it wanted? Color me shocked! Yeah, it claimed it hoped this would eventually be extended to other iOS developers, but it clearly expected to get a special deal first and didn't mind too much if others were denied.

[mr moose]

33 minutes ago, Commodus said:

What's that you say? Epic wasn't entirely honest about what it wanted? Color me shocked! Yeah, it claimed it hoped this would eventually be extended to other iOS developers, but it clearly expected to get a special deal first and didn't mind too much if others were denied.

What's that taking their word for it?  Don't trust either of them.

 

 

[Mark Kaine]

I still don't really get the monopoly accusations,  if anything I could see a case being made for Google *and* Apple forming a *duopoly*

 

What's the market share of apple phones in the US? 

 

Because worldwide it's like at 25%,  they're not exactly *popular* (for obvious reasons) 

 

So that is not,  in any way shape or form a "monopoly".

 

But the situation may be different in northamerica? 

 

 

 

 

[TheSage79]

On 8/17/2020 at 1:05 PM, Pickles - Lord of the Jar said:

Source

well, that heated up quickly. I wonder how far Epic is willing to go? If they go as far as forcing apple to remove them off the Apple Store, then ALL unreal engine stuff would have to be removed... Shit. That would be really bad. However, this seems to be a tit for tat. 

If unreal is removed from the Apple Store then does that give Epic more ammo? 

Actually, it hurts Epic's legal argument. Let me explain...

 

Epic, like all developers, essentially entered into a contract with Apple when it joined Apple's iOS App Store. Remember, in the law, a contract is a contract is a contract. When Epic put that extra payment option in Fortnight, and this is key here, it *willfully* violated that contract. Apple, in response to this violation, and again that fact that it was a *willful* violation is key here, then started to enforce the terms of the contract by fulfilling the consequences laid out in the terms of the contract. Remember, due to precedent, Apple basically has to enact the consequences of its terms because if it doesn't, it *may* lose its ability to due so in the future. (Basically, this precedent protects contractees from a company having a term in a contract it does not generally enforce, but suddenly decides to enforce, by allowing the contractee to argue that the company never intended said term to be enforced in such a way because company had never enforced it that way before when given the opportunity).

 

Simply put, the fact that Epic *willfully* violated the contract, and not Apple, means that this is a situation is entirely of Epic's own creation. (I might add, the fact they had a publicity campaign and a 60 page legal document prepared before hand really doesn't help them here). Since there is nothing stopping Epic from suing Apple for anti-trust, while adhering to its legal obligations under the contract with Apple, the courts will generally consider this is a self inflicted wound if you will. In almost all circumstances I am aware of, Courts have never allowed for injunctions to stop self inflicted wounds by the litigants. In fact, if anything, any company who stands to suffer harm due to Epic's breach of contract, including Apple, stands a decent (though not certain) chance of getting an injunction against Epic, forcing Epic to stop willfully violating its contract. Apple, in its own court response to Epic's injunction request, even said it would allow all of Epic's properties back on the App store, even during the entirety of the lawsuit, so long as Epic stopped willfully violating its legal obligations under the contract - thus giving Epic a perfect remedy to the situation. Because this situation is entirely of Epics own creation, and because Apple has offered Epic a perfect remedy, I give this injunction about a 5% chance of success - though no one knows for certain how any judge will rule. 

 

Not taking sides here, just throwing out some legal insight. 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

So, I thought that I should add this. Apple is claiming that “the developer has removed this app from the AppStore” They, so clearly thought that no one would defy them, that there isn’t a “we have removed this app from the AppStore for violating our tos” notice for them to put up.

[KaitouX]

6 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

I still don't really get the monopoly accusations,  if anything I could see a case being made for Google *and* Apple forming a *duopoly*

So that is not,  in any way shape or form a "monopoly".

If you have an IOS device, can you access/sell apps without using the App Store? That's the monopoly, it isn't a monopoly on hardware or OS, it is on software distribution. There's the option of jailbreak, but that's obviously something that would be considered unreasonable for most people, and Apple obviously doesn't support it.

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, KaitouX said:

If you have an IOS device, can you access/sell apps without using the App Store? That's the monopoly, it isn't a monopoly on hardware or OS, it is on software distribution. There's the option of jailbreak, but that's obviously something that would be considered unreasonable for most people, and Apple obviously doesn't support it.

That's not a monopoly on anything

 

Quote

Second, Epic has not and cannot show that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its novel antitrust claims. The App Store has exponentially increased output, reduced prices, and dramatically improved consumer choice. As the Ninth Circuit declared just last week, novel business practices—especially in technology markets—should not be “conclusively presumed to be unreasonable and therefore illegal without elaborate inquiry as to the precise harm they have caused or the business excuse for their use.” United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 91 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (quoted in Federal Trade Comm’n v. Qualcomm Inc., 2020 WL 4591476, at *9, __ F.3d at __ (9th Cir. Aug. 11, 2020)). Epic, however, does not undertake any “elaborate inquiry” in its motion. For example, it fails to enlist any economist to support its contrived market definitions and “tying” theories. It conveniently ignores that Fortnite can be played on numerous platforms with or without support from Apple, even as Epic touts that fact in its advertising and communications to users. See https:// www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/freefortnite-cupon-august-23-2020 (“Just because you can’t play on iOS doesn’t mean there aren’t other awesome places to play Fortnite.”). And it fails to contend with the fact that its logic would make monopolies of Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo, just to name a few. The lack of factual, economic, and legal support is unsurprising because Epic’s antitrust theories, like its orchestrated campaign, are a transparent veneer for its effort to co-opt for itself the benefits of the App Store without paying or complying with important requirements that are critical to protect user safety, security, and privacy.

...

1. Apple Manifestly Lacks Monopoly Power Epic does not address (and asserts no likelihood of success on) its claims that Apple has a monopoly in a novel “iOS App Distribution Market” and has violated the Sherman Act by declining to facilitate the download of iOS apps other than through the App Review process. Compl. ¶¶ 184- 92, 207-15. Epic must prove the existence of such a monopoly to sustain its tying claim, because Epic alleges that iOS app distribution is the “tying” product and that Apple “wields its market power in the iOS App Distribution Market to coerce developers into using IAP.” TRO Br. at 17. Even if one was to assume that IAP is a separate “tied” product (which, as explained below, it is not), Epic’s tying claim fails because a market limited to “iOS apps” has no basis in reality. See Aerotec Int’l, Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 836 F.3d 1171, 1178 (9th Cir. 2016) (tying claim requires market power in tying market); Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 586 F. Supp. 2d 1190, 1200 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (rejecting tying claim premised on Apple’s monopoly power in supposed “Mac OS market”).

 

A “manufacturer’s own products do not themselves comprise a relevant product market” and a “company does not violate the Sherman Act by virtue of the natural monopoly it holds over its own product.” Psystar, 586 F. Supp. 2d at 1197-98 (quoting Green Country Food Market, Inc. v. Bottling Group, 371 F.3d 1275, 1282 (10th Cir. 2004)). Courts routinely “‘reject the argument that a single branded product constitutes a relevant market.’” Id.; see also id. at 1198 (“Singlebrand markets are, at a minimum, extremely rare”). For this reason, the Psystar court held that a relevant market limited to the Mac OS was an improper, single-brand market, and dismissed tying claims based on Apple requiring only the Mac OS to be used on Apple computers. Id. at 1193, 1197-98. The only authority Epic offers in support of its single-brand iOS Mobile App Distribution and iOS In-App Payment Processing markets is an administrative decision of the European Commission—which interprets only “European competition law.” TRO Br. at 15.

 

An antitrust market must include services “reasonably interchangeable by [developers] for the same purposes,” United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377, 395 (1956)— here, getting their games in front of millions. Fortnite has achieved success by taking advantage of the multiple distribution channels available to gamers, including other mobile app marketplaces, video game consoles, and personal and laptop computers. See Hicks v. PGA Tour, Inc., 897 F.3d 1109, 1111, 1120 (9th Cir. 2018) (dismissing antitrust claim when relevant market ignored multiple ways that advertisers reached consumers, including through television, radio, podcasts, and magazines); Psystar, 586 F. Supp. 2d at 1199 (rejecting tying claim because “Mac OS performs the same functions as other operating systems”). Epic claims to exclude these competitors because they “are not compatible with iOS and do not offer iOS-compatible apps.” Compl. ¶ 54. But, while that may be factually true, it says nothing about whether the iOS platform is interchangeable for other outlets in the eyes of developers and consumers. See Queen City Pizza, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 124 F.3d 430, 437 (3d Cir. 1997) (“interchangeability” means that “one product is roughly equivalent to another for the use to which it is put”).

 

There is substantial evidence of competition among platforms on which Fortnite is played. Fortnite achieved enormous popularity and attracted tens of millions of users before it launched on iOS.22 Fortnite was among the first games to offer “cross-platform” play; and still today, consumers have ready access to Fortnite through “Sony’s PlayStation 4, Microsoft’s Xbox One and the Nintendo Switch, personal computers and Macs [and] certain Android mobile devices.” TRO Br. at 5. Under Epic’s theory, each of these platforms with millions of users based on their own technology would be a monopoly. Epic’s position on market definition is particularly startling given Epic’s own admission that most people play Fortnite through platforms other than iOS, see Sweeney Decl. ¶ 12 (iOS “will be unable to play Fortnite with most other players” (emphasis added)), not to mention the fact that, of the more than $1.8 billion earned by Fortnite in 2019, less than 12% came from iOS.23

. 

[HenrySalayne]

11 minutes ago, Kisai said:

That's not a monopoly on anything

 

. 

Just a friendly reminder: don't copy large parts of someone else's intellectual property and always include the source.

[Kisai]

12 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

Just a friendly reminder: don't copy large parts of someone else's intellectual property and always include the source.

Don't be a backseat moderator, you would have realized that the source was on the same page.

[Mark Kaine]

5 hours ago, KaitouX said:

If you have an IOS device, can you access/sell apps without using the App Store? That's the monopoly, it isn't a monopoly on hardware or OS, it is on software distribution. There's the option of jailbreak, but that's obviously something that would be considered unreasonable for most people, and Apple obviously doesn't support it.

 

 

"A manufacturer’s own products do not themselves comprise a relevant product market” and a “company does not violate the Sherman Act by virtue of the natural  monopoly it holds over its own product.”

 

 

This would be very different if Apple was the only company making cellphones,  but thankfully the reality is far from it... 

 

 

Also 99% of the people I know who have an iPhone (like all 10 of them) have their phone rooted... They say they'd never use a non hacked iPhone with how locked down they are (which by the way any potential buyer should be and most likely is aware of , and nobody is forced to buy an apple product either,  there are usually better alternatives)

 

You (or anyone else) simply don't have a case saying there's a monopoly when there literally is none in the legal sense. 

 

 

 

[Kisai]

58 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

 

 

"A manufacturer’s own products do not themselves comprise a relevant product market” and a “company does not violate the Sherman Act by virtue of the natural  monopoly it holds over its own product.”

 

 

This would be very different if Apple was the only company making cellphones,  but thankfully the reality is far from it... 

 

 

Also 99% of the people I know who have an iPhone (like all 10 of them) have their phone rooted... They say they'd never use a non hacked iPhone with how locked down they are (which by the way any potential buyer should be and most likely is aware of , and nobody is forced to buy an apple product either,  there are usually better alternatives)

 

You (or anyone else) simply don't have a case saying there's a monopoly when there literally is none in the legal sense. 

 

 

 

And 0% of the people I know with an iPhone have it rooted. It's far more likely that 99% of iPhone users do not have it rooted since that requires doing something that could wreck the device. The difference between replacing a radio in a car with an aftermarket one versus putting speed holes in the hood.

[pas008]

4 hours ago, Kisai said:

That's not a monopoly on anything

 

. 

Its mafia style shit 

You run your business and take all the expenses but we take more than a quarter cut

No matter what call this protection lol

This is our territory you have no other option

 

Think this will result in amazon like dea of 15%

 

Epic can argue no other means to on ios

And point out amazon and other free apps that don't post 30%

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

 

 

"A manufacturer’s own products do not themselves comprise a relevant product market” and a “company does not violate the Sherman Act by virtue of the natural  monopoly it holds over its own product.”

 

 

This would be very different if Apple was the only company making cellphones,  but thankfully the reality is far from it... 

 

 

Also 99% of the people I know who have an iPhone (like all 10 of them) have their phone rooted... They say they'd never use a non hacked iPhone with how locked down they are (which by the way any potential buyer should be and most likely is aware of , and nobody is forced to buy an apple product either,  there are usually better alternatives)

 

You (or anyone else) simply don't have a case saying there's a monopoly when there literally is none in the legal sense. 

 

 

 

That quote from the sherman act does not say what you think it does.  As I have said several times before in this thread, the numbers don't dictate the monopoly, and your quote proves that.  Having all the numbers does not = a monopoly, and by the same same tenet not having all the numbers does not = not having a monopoly.   Please people stop relying on numbers as the only reasoning for it being a monopoly.

 

The courts have deemed that a monopoly must control trade rather than be based on a percentage of market ownership:

 

In a failed monopoly suit against sugar refiners who owned 98% of the refineries in the US, the court deemed owning that much did not constitute a monopoly because they did not control trade.  Had they control trade they would have lost.

 

Quote

The Court opinion reasoned that the company’s control of manufacture did not constitute a control of trade.

 

Monopoly is purely defined as a market power that gives a single company or small number of colluding companies control over others that results in unfair advantage. 

 

Putting that intr perspective of this case,  apple not giving developers an option to put their apps on iphone another way than through the phone manufacturers own store is a control of trade.

 

Just to add some background here is a link to a gov site explaining the sherman act in its application over time through the legal system.  Note the last case was in the 90's when the government sued microsoft using the sherman act:

 

Quote

In the late 1990s, in another effort to ensure a competitive free market system, the Federal Government used the Sherman Act, then over 100 years old, against the giant Microsoft computer software company

https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=51

 

 

Essentially when a company controls the trade of any other entity using its market power (there is a reason the law uses the term market power and not dominance) then it becomes anti trust.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kisai]

28 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That quote from the sherman act does not say what you think it does.  As I have said several times before in this thread, the numbers don't dictate the monopoly, and your quote proves that.  Having all the numbers does not = a monopoly, and by the same same tenet not having all the numbers does not = not having a monopoly.   Please people stop relying on numbers as the only reasoning for it being a monopoly.

 

Please just read https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.36.0_2.pdf , something that is actually written by lawyers.

 

Also go read the emails.

https://www.scribd.com/document/473210410/Email-exhibits-from-Epic-v-Apple#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1514734Xe01f595970f976031056d501e668df08&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Please just read https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.36.0_2.pdf , something that is actually written by lawyers.

 

 It's their job to say that.   Just like its the job of Epics lawyers to say it does. 

 

 

[Snadzies]

When Epic, a monolithic, money grubbing company with a strong communist ties, is the lesser of two evils, you know you have seriously effed up

[Helpful Tech Witch]

7 hours ago, Snadzies said:

When Epic, a monolithic, money grubbing company with a strong communist ties, is the lesser of two evils, you know you have seriously effed up

When did all this start? Because if you claim the Epic that created fortnite is the same Epic that created UT2k4 there will be problems.

[Commodus]

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

 It's their job to say that.   Just like its the job of Epics lawyers to say it does. 

 

 

Here's the thing, though: Apple may have a stronger legal precedent on its side. That Psystar case in particular may be an ace in the hole. Apple wasn't dealing with app developers at the time, but it's true that you can't simply claim that a company has a monopoly over its own platform; monopolies are defined in broader market terms. I could see Epic making a stronger case for that at trial, but right now it's behaving more like Psystar than it would care to admit... that is, arguing that a company shouldn't have control over its own platform.