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

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

Do I have to pay for the rest of the post?

yep, and on top of that you are not allowed to use the internet except to get what I say you can. 

[poochyena]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Apple are locking consumers from buying from any other store.

they are not. I can buy from any store I want.

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

They dictate that if you use an iphone you can't get software from anywhere but the app store.  That is dictating what software they can and can't buy.

the list of options on the app store is no different than the list of products on amazon. They give you an option of what you can and can't buy, they aren't telling you what you can and can't. Its your choice.

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

but you argue other people should do it so

This is a lie.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, poochyena said:

they are not. I can buy from any store I want.

WTF? Which "any store" are you going to buy your ios app from?  Are you intentionally pretending not to understand?

Quote

the list of options on the app store is no different than the list of products on amazon. They give you an option of what you can and can't buy, they aren't telling you what you can and can't. Its your choice.

The difference is there are alternatives to amazon while there are no alternatives to the app store, stop being dishonest and pretending they are the same.

Quote

This is a lie.

No it's not, you argued people can just buy a different phone if they want to use a store other than the app store.  You literally claimed they had an alternative in that they could buy android.  You know full well that buying a new device is not an alternative.  You even admitted that.

 

Don't call me a liar.

 

 

 

 

 

[poochyena]

59 minutes ago, mr moose said:

WTF? Which "any store" are you going to buy your ios app from? 

i mean I can buy apps on android store on an android device. i'm not forced to use and buy from ios.

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

The difference is there are alternatives to amazon while there are no alternatives to the app store

google play store

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

you argued people can just buy a different phone if they want to use a store other than the app store.  You literally claimed they had an alternative in that they could buy android. 

correct, I said they CAN, not SHOULD. I even specifically said "I expect people to buy what best suit their needs.".

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

You know full well that buying a new device is not an alternative.  You even admitted that.

I never said that. Buying a new phone, or not buying a specific phone to begin with, is absolutely an option. Is there an app you want that isn't on ios, but is on android? Get an android phone. Its not new or complicated. If you don't like the app options on apple phones... don't buy an apple phone.

[mr moose]

33 minutes ago, poochyena said:

i mean I can buy apps on android store on an android device. i'm not forced to use and buy from ios.

google play store

correct, I said they CAN, not SHOULD. I even specifically said "I expect people to buy what best suit their needs.".

I never said that. Buying a new phone, or not buying a specific phone to begin with, is absolutely an option. Is there an app you want that isn't on ios, but is on android? Get an android phone. Its not new or complicated. If you don't like the app options on apple phones... don't buy an apple phone.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Loote]

This is weird because I want users to be free to do whatever they want, but I also believe in systems made in a way that does protect users from themselves. The problem is Apple does it for the money. I think a compromise where OS is *safe*, but a user can make it more open by agreeing to certain warning messages would be alright, but what do I know....
There could be a phone(most likely based on Android) made with security in mind, using whitelist of apps and not allowing itself to be tampered with. It's a legitimate business and if someone bought such device and complained they can't play Fortnite, I'd laugh them off. Apple could argue they're the same, but I don't think that's the case.

[Kisai]

26 minutes ago, Loote said:

The problem is Apple does it for the money.

It's not a crime to make money. Contrary to some beliefs, Apple is offering a service, not a charity.

 

Ask any site operator that offers "free" hosting what the catch is. Because there always is one. All ad-hosted service mines your personal information in some manner, and the rest is supported by those "premium" services.

 

[Loote]

Looking from perspective of two OSes that don't allow other app shops etc. when one does it because it maximises their income and the other does it to guarantee system's security, the first one sounds like a monopolistic practice and the other sounds acceptable. That's why Apple will always argue they're doing it to protect their users.

[mr moose]

21 minutes ago, Loote said:

Looking from perspective of two OSes that don't allow other app shops etc. when one does it because it maximises their income and the other does it to guarantee system's security, the first one sounds like a monopolistic practice and the other sounds acceptable. That's why Apple will always argue they're doing it to protect their users.

 

There is no evidence that allowing users to opt out of the app store only model would reduce security for users who wish to only use the app store. Which means the whole argument that it is for security reasons is bunk from the onset.   Apple can easily make it so when you set up your phone you choose which way you want it to operate, either exclusive from app store or like a desktop where you can buy and download software from anywhere. Apple users can have can have their perceived security and those who want out of the walled garden get it too.

 

Given there is no reason to not give people the option then that reduces the practice to a monopoly.

 

 

 

[Vishera]

41 minutes ago, mr moose said:

There is no evidence that allowing users to opt out of the app store only model would reduce security for users who wish to only use the app store.

The security of those who opt out depends on what app store they choose,it's possible to have a store that is more secure than Apple's own.

[Mark Kaine]

28 minutes 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.

What truth? That Apple have a walled garden and a consumer base that decidedly appreciates that? 

 

Though I wish the poster was right,  there's so much literal scam on Amazon it's not even funny... 

 

And for the record I really dislike Apple,  if only for the inflated prices and the fact whenever I want to copy or send something to someone with an iPhone the process is tedious and ridiculously needlessly complicated (and they never seem to really get how it works lol)

[pas008]

fortnite wont be crossplatform play i guess now with apple products

this might be another restriction apple has done

https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/26/21402547/fortnite-epic-games-apple-ios-macos-two-different-games

[poochyena]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

People already have the iphone

which they chose to buy

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

they CANNOT just buy a new phone.

they can, nothing is stopping them.

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

If that is your argument then you are literally arguing for why it is a monopoly

You don't know what a monopoly is then. There being alternatives people can buy specifically makes it not a monopoly.

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

Apple can easily make it so when you set up your phone you choose which way you want it to operate, either exclusive from app store or like a desktop where you can buy and download software from anywhere

And they choose not to, which is their right and any other business owner's right. No business owner should be forced to sell products they don't want to.

4 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.

I've explained the truth thoroughly.

[pas008]

2 hours ago, poochyena said:

You don't know what a monopoly is then. There being alternatives people can buy specifically makes it not a monopoly.

 

defintion the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service

A monopoly refers to when a company and its product offerings dominate one sector or industry. Monopolies can be considered an extreme result of free-market capitalism and are often used to describe an entity that has total or near-total control of a market.

 

ios and the apple app store has exclusive control of that market

tell me where this is anywhere else? windows? linux? andriod? please tell me

 

geez the word monopoly means single seller

which is what is happening they are the only seller

 

[Kisai]

45 minutes ago, pas008 said:

defintion the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service

A monopoly refers to when a company and its product offerings dominate one sector or industry. Monopolies can be considered an extreme result of free-market capitalism and are often used to describe an entity that has total or near-total control of a market.

 

ios and the apple app store has exclusive control of that market

tell me where this is anywhere else? windows? linux? andriod? please tell me

 

geez the word monopoly means single seller

which is what is happening they are the only seller

 

If you've paid attention to the last, oh 8 or so threads on this topic, Mr.Moose ignores the definition of Monopoly and substitutes his own. Everyone has been telling him that.

 

The only defintion of monopoly that matters in the context of this case is the one defined in the Sherman act.

 

https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-1

 

And because people in the Apple threads have very poor reading comprehension of legal terms, note what it says right after the bolded part. 

 

Quote

Regarding the first element, it is "settled law" that the offense of monopolization requires "the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market."⁽⁵⁾ As discussed in chapter 2, monopoly power means substantial market power that is durable rather than fleeting--market power being the ability to raise prices profitability above those that would be charged in a competitive market.⁽⁶⁾

Apple has never raised prices on App store. And the "competitive market" is for software. Period. It does not matter what the device is. As long as you can buy software somewhere else, there's a competitive market.

 

 

 

This is where the entire "Microsoft bundling MSIE/WMP" part comes up, because Microsoft has the dominant OS on hardware that runs software, at the time at least, any software bundled is anti-competitive with other software vendors, even if that other software is free, because the bundled software is ALWAYS the default on the OS. The mobile phone manufacturers get away with doing the same thing because they are not in a dominant position in the software market.

 

 

And this is why I don't see the court case ending with any win for EPIC. At best it's a contract dispute between EPIC and Apple Inc. At worst it's a competitor that has failed to compete in the software market and is now trying to use the legal system to redefine the market that Apple is in, and thus by extension make them a Monopoly of their own product which they aren't.

 

Quote

Nearly a century ago, in Standard Oil, one of the Supreme Court's first monopolization cases, the Court observed that the Act does not include "any direct prohibition against monopoly in the concrete."⁽³⁷⁾ The Court thus rejected the United States's assertion that section 2 bars the attainment of monopoly or monopoly power regardless of the means and instead held that without unlawful conduct, mere "size, aggregated capital, power and volume of business are not monopolizing in a legal sense."⁽³⁸⁾

 

United States v. Aluminum Co. of America re-emphasized Standard Oil's distinction between the mere possession of monopoly and unlawful monopolization as a key analytical concept.⁽³⁹⁾ Writing for the Second Circuit, Judge Hand reasoned that, simply because Alcoa had a monopoly in the market for ingot, it did "not follow" that "it [had] 'monopolized'" the market: "t may not have achieved monopoly; monopoly may have been thrust upon it."⁽⁴⁰⁾ The court determined that mere "size does not determine guilt" under section 2 and that monopoly can result from causes that are not unlawful, such as "by force of accident" or where a market is so limited it can profitably accommodate only one firm.⁽⁴¹⁾ Further, the court observed that monopoly can result from conduct that clearly is within the spirit of the antitrust laws. Where "[a] single producer may be the survivor out of a group of active competitors, merely by virtue of his superior skill, foresight and industry," punishment of that producer would run counter to the spirit of the antitrust laws: "The successful competitor, having been urged to compete, must not be turned upon when he wins."⁽⁴²⁾

 

Twenty years after Alcoa, and more than fifty years after Standard Oil, the Supreme Court articulated in Grinnell⁽⁴³⁾ what remains the classic formulation of the section 2 prohibition. Drawing from Alcoa, the Court condemned "the willful acquisition or maintenance of [monopoly] power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident."⁽⁴⁴⁾

So Apple's "monopoly" on it's own device and services is a consequence of a superior product. There are other Mobile devices (of which many failed, like the Windows Phone, Linux phones like Plasma, PureOS, Tizen and Firefox OS) which gained no traction. There are game consoles that compete in the exact same space, particularly the Nintendo Switch is in the exact same market segment that the iPad is in (passive consumer entertainment devices that aren't mobile phones.) The game consoles and Steam all operate their stores and IAP's the same way with the same commission rates. Complaining that Apple has a monopoly on iPhones is like complaining that Sony has a monopoly on Playstations, or Nintendo has a monopoly on Nintendo Switch's. You can not be a "monopoly" of your own product.

 

If you look at the broader mobile phone ecosystem, you'll find that Apple iPhones are not the majority of the global market, Samsung is.

https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/worldwide

In the US, is where the iPhone is significantly higher than the rest of the world.

https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america

For legal purposes this is the only market that matters in the US. This pattern also exists in Canada and the UK. If you look at poorer countries, like India, the iPhone is barely on the list, with the Chinese Xiaomi phones being the top, pushing out Samsung since 2019.

 

Has Apple done anything to gain more market share for itself? No. All competitors either offer inferior products and make no headway in the mobile space, or they ceased to make any compelling product.

 

You can also go back and look at the Browser share to get a better idea of where Apple vs Android exist.

https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/all/united-states-of-america

Chrome is around 50%, which is the default browser on Android, and more popular on desktop/laptop computers. Safari is 36% which is the default browser on iPhone/iPad and MacOS X.

 

https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america

Now if you narrow it to just mobile, you get 55% Safari and 37% Chrome.

 

For the purposes of the legal jurisdiction, Apple may have a monopoly over it's own Apple-branded products, but it does not have a monopoly over the broader computer market, portable computer market or entertainment device market.

 

 

That last point has more to do with the Unreal Engine than Fortnite does. If Apple unilaterally banned Unreal Engine, because of Epic's disregard for Apple's ToS, that would have been fine... but only for games produced by Epic. As Unreal engine can be used by third parties, it does potentially make it so that Epic is harmed by having third parties shun the Unreal engine because of Epic's unwillingness to play by the rules everyone else agreed to to have their software in Apple's store. Because a ban on Unreal Engine by disabling their developer account also disables any possibility of using Unreal on both devices running iOS/iPadOS and MacOSX, and potentially AppleTV devices or any future product from Apple.

 

[pas008]

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

If you've paid attention to the last, oh 8 or so threads on this topic, Mr.Moose ignores the definition of Monopoly and substitutes his own. Everyone has been telling him that.

 

The only defintion of monopoly that matters in the context of this case is the one defined in the Sherman act.

 

https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-1

 

And because people in the Apple threads have very poor reading comprehension of legal terms, note what it says right after the bolded part. 

 

Apple has never raised prices on App store. And the "competitive market" is for software. Period. It does not matter what the device is. As long as you can buy software somewhere else, there's a competitive market.

 

 

 

This is where the entire "Microsoft bundling MSIE/WMP" part comes up, because Microsoft has the dominant OS on hardware that runs software, at the time at least, any software bundled is anti-competitive with other software vendors, even if that other software is free, because the bundled software is ALWAYS the default on the OS. The mobile phone manufacturers get away with doing the same thing because they are not in a dominant position in the software market.

 

 

And this is why I don't see the court case ending with any win for EPIC. At best it's a contract dispute between EPIC and Apple Inc. At worst it's a competitor that has failed to compete in the software market and is now trying to use the legal system to redefine the market that Apple is in, and thus by extension make them a Monopoly of their own product which they aren't.

 

So Apple's "monopoly" on it's own device and services is a consequence of a superior product. There are other Mobile devices (of which many failed, like the Windows Phone, Linux phones like Plasma, PureOS, Tizen and Firefox OS) which gained no traction. There are game consoles that compete in the exact same space, particularly the Nintendo Switch is in the exact same market segment that the iPad is in (passive consumer entertainment devices that aren't mobile phones.) The game consoles and Steam all operate their stores and IAP's the same way with the same commission rates. Complaining that Apple has a monopoly on iPhones is like complaining that Sony has a monopoly on Playstations, or Nintendo has a monopoly on Nintendo Switch's. You can not be a "monopoly" of your own product.

 

If you look at the broader mobile phone ecosystem, you'll find that Apple iPhones are not the majority of the global market, Samsung is.

https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/worldwide

In the US, is where the iPhone is significantly higher than the rest of the world.

https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america

For legal purposes this is the only market that matters in the US. This pattern also exists in Canada and the UK. If you look at poorer countries, like India, the iPhone is barely on the list, with the Chinese Xiaomi phones being the top, pushing out Samsung since 2019.

 

Has Apple done anything to gain more market share for itself? No. All competitors either offer inferior products and make no headway in the mobile space, or they ceased to make any compelling product.

 

You can also go back and look at the Browser share to get a better idea of where Apple vs Android exist.

https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/all/united-states-of-america

Chrome is around 50%, which is the default browser on Android, and more popular on desktop/laptop computers. Safari is 36% which is the default browser on iPhone/iPad and MacOS X.

 

https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america

Now if you narrow it to just mobile, you get 55% Safari and 37% Chrome.

 

For the purposes of the legal jurisdiction, Apple may have a monopoly over it's own Apple-branded products, but it does not have a monopoly over the broader computer market, portable computer market or entertainment device market.

 

 

That last point has more to do with the Unreal Engine than Fortnite does. If Apple unilaterally banned Unreal Engine, because of Epic's disregard for Apple's ToS, that would have been fine... but only for games produced by Epic. As Unreal engine can be used by third parties, it does potentially make it so that Epic is harmed by having third parties shun the Unreal engine because of Epic's unwillingness to play by the rules everyone else agreed to to have their software in Apple's store. Because a ban on Unreal Engine by disabling their developer account also disables any possibility of using Unreal on both devices running iOS/iPadOS and MacOSX, and potentially AppleTV devices or any future product from Apple.

 

oh wow

they are the sole seller on ios

meaning they have a monopoly on ios

if they allowed some 3rd party ones and they beat them out naturally then yes thats a natural monopoly

but they dont allow anyone which is anti competitive

 

amazon  allow 3rd party, how about newegg walmart android windows etc?

 

so with your logic ms could make all surfaces require ms store only

or samsung do the same with their phones

making users use their store only with all those devices?

 

 

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, pas008 said:

oh wow

they are the sole seller on ios

meaning they have a monopoly on ios

if they allowed some 3rd party ones and they beat them out naturally then yes thats a natural monopoly

but they dont allow anyone which is anti competitive

 

amazon  allow 3rd party, how about newegg walmart android windows etc?

 

so with your logic ms could make all surfaces require ms store only

or samsung do the same with their phones

making users use their store only with all those devices?

 

 

Again. iOS is not the market. Computing devices are, specifically "computing devices containing a cellular modem" (which includes tablet computers, and Windows laptops that are convertible into tablets.) Having a monopoly on the thing you invented is something that is legally allowed, and that's the entire basis of the patent system.

 

The thing that really harms all these narrow definitions in the first place is that the average person is encouraged to replace their mobile computer every two years. So you can't even say Apple has a monopoly on phones because otherwise people would not readily switch phones to other brands. Or lest y'all forgot about the reason Local Number Portability exists.

[SansVarnic]

-= Cleaned =-

Civil conversation please.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

3 hours ago, pas008 said:

so with your logic ms could make all surfaces require ms store only

They used to. Before. In the dark times.

[TheSage79]

Actually. this decision favors Apple more than Epic, although it doesn't actually mean much. Allow me to explain:

 

Generally speaking, courts will try to maintain the status-quo as much as possible unless someone is getting irreparably harmed. In the case of the restraining order against Apple, the court found that Apple could, in theory, irreparably harm third parties if they banned Epic from using their developer account to develop the Unreal engine. As Apple had not banned Epic's account yet, the court didn't actually do anything but tell Apple "you can't go any further for now". Which brings us to Epic...

 

The judge actually smacked Epic pretty hard here. If you read the actual decision, the judge had some politely pointed remarks against Epic - which is never a good sign. The judge essentially ruled that Epic is not being irreparably harmed by Apple because Epic, knowing full well the consequences, chose to break its agreement with Apple - a self inflicted wound if you will. The court noted that Epic is fully capable of stopping any harm it is suffering by bringing itself back into compliance with its contractual agreement with Apple - the status quo if you will. 

 

So long story short, Apple took two steps forward and the court told them to take one step back. Since this still leaves Apple one step forward, it can't really be said Apple "lost" in any way. Epic is the one that lost its App from the App store, and Apple gets to keep it that way as long as Epic keeps the "hotfix" in Fortnite. However, it should be noted that TRO's, as the name would suggest, are quite temporary, and really mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. They don't mean a single thing as far as the overall case goes, and can't be used as any sort of guidepost as to how the court will rule in the end. They are basically the legal equivalent of a parent breaking up a fight between two siblings while the parent tries to figure out what on earth is going on. It's a temporary (30 days I think) measure in what will most likely be a years long legal case. So sit back, relax, and enjoy the show. Popcorns on the house!

[Bombastinator]

On 8/25/2020 at 1:52 PM, Ashley said:

you can't sideload on iOS so nope.

You can if you root the thing.  Very few people do that though and the last root exploit was killed by the latest update.  So effectively nope for anyone who keeps their iPhone updated.

[mr moose]

44 minutes ago, TheSage79 said:

In the case of the restraining order against Apple, the court found that Apple could, in theory, irreparably harm third parties if they banned Epic from using their developer account to develop the Unreal engine.

So the question is, how can apple do irreparable harm if they do not have market power or a monopoly?  According some people the effected developers can just move to android. 

 

No they can't, that is why it is a monopoly.  It's right there in the judges call in black and white.  The only way apple could retaliate to cause harm would be if they had enough control over the platform that it adversely effects another persons business or potential to compete, I.E anti trust.

 

If there are suitable alternatives and they do not have a monopoly then they would also lack the ability to retaliate by locking out UE.

[Kisai]

44 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So the question is, how can apple do irreparable harm if they do not have market power or a monopoly?  According some people the effected developers can just move to android. 

 

No they can't, that is why it is a monopoly.  It's right there in the judges call in black and white.  The only way apple could retaliate to cause harm would be if they had enough control over the platform that it adversely effects another persons business or potential to compete, I.E anti trust.

 

If there are suitable alternatives and they do not have a monopoly then they would also lack the ability to retaliate by locking out UE.

That is misrepresenting the facts again.

 

Apple does not have a monopoly because Unreal Engine users can go elsewhere. Apple locking Epic out of the iOS platform does not remove iOS games using Unreal Engine from the device. Rather it's Epic losing access to the developer information, which includes iOS, iPad, AppleTV and Mac OSX.

 

https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/tech-blog/integrating-unreal-into-apple-s-mac-ecosystem

 

The vast majority of games out there, do not re-version their game engines. Either it works on the platform they targeted, or they need the engine developer's support for new platforms on the existing version. 

 

So this argument fails because:

a) Developers are not required to use Unreal Engine on iOS, iPad, MacOS, AppleTV. 

b) Developers who use Unreal Engine aren't required to port their games to iOS,iPad,MacOS or AppleTV, and indeed most Unreal Engine games do not, because they're often too big for the vast majority of mobile phones.

 

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/hello-neighbor/id1386358600

"Hello Neighbor" is available on iOS and Android, and uses UE4

 

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/life-is-strange/id1180101534

"Life is Strange" is available on iOS and Android, and uses UE4

 

And both of those games are also on Steam, PlayStation, Xbox and Nintendo Switch.

 

So the immediate consequence to Epic is that should apple lock them out of the developer SDK's (Rather than say, just make access to the SDK's free of charge) https://developer.apple.com/ios/ , click "download" you'll be asked to login.

 

 

And the SDK's are part of XCode. Just like with every game engine out there. No license, no distribution. If you use Unity, or Gamemaker as an example, they make you pay more to get those export modules and require the developer licence key to be placed somewhere for it to be packaged.

 

https://help.yoyogames.com/hc/en-us/articles/115001368747-Setting-Up-For-iOS-Including-iPadOS-

 

https://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/iphone-GettingStarted.html

 

So why is this important at all?

 

https://www.apple.com//ios/ios-14-preview/

 

iOS 14 comes out next month. Supposedly. Which means that everyone who updates their device to iOS 14 may experience problems with software that isn't aware of new features in iOS, explicitly towards privacy controls, but also changes to game center that players of UE games might actually want. Then there is support for any new Apple device, and the new ARM Mac whatever it's going to be.

 

The problem for Epic (Fortnite) is that it made a calculated move to injure itself to make it look like a victim of anti-competitive behavior, when really Epic staged everything, at their own peril. Apple is not Microsoft here, Apple isn't going to make one change to their API just to screw Fortnite players so it won't run on iOS 14.

 

But with saying that, there is in fact a pattern of abuse by software developers who release a product onto the App store, either at a low-cost, or no-cost, but then put the entire purchase price into the IAP, which means the IAP is just the initial purchase to begin with. Some developers withdraw their cheaper versions of games and applications and replace them with ones that are free to download but significantly more expensive than the original price. Even some developers so far to release a "new version" and make the previous version not work on the current OS on purpose, with Apple having done nothing in the process. It would not surprise me if Epic landmined the fortnite game to stop working after a set period of time without a new update.

 

As Unreal is the sole developer of the Unreal Engine, and the source code to the engine is available to Unreal developers, there is nothing preventing a developer outside of Epic from compiling the game engine themselves without Epic involved. So no. No existing game developers are locked out, nor are any UE games on iOS or MacOS locked out. It's only Epic, and specifically only Epic's Fortnite that they staged this circus act with.

 

[TheSage79]

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So the question is, how can apple do irreparable harm if they do not have market power or a monopoly?  According some people the effected developers can just move to android. 

 

No they can't, that is why it is a monopoly.  It's right there in the judges call in black and white.  The only way apple could retaliate to cause harm would be if they had enough control over the platform that it adversely effects another persons business or potential to compete, I.E anti trust.

 

If there are suitable alternatives and they do not have a monopoly then they would also lack the ability to retaliate by locking out UE.

Keep in mind the purpose of a Temporary Restraining Order. It is to prevent possible irreparable harm while the court sorts the case out. Remember, this case is barely weeks old, and the judge has not had enough time to fully process the complaint. TRO's are designed to stop any bleeding if you will while the courts process all the administrative stuff. Judges are aware that the legal process can take time, and that various parties may be put in a position where they will suffer irreparable harm during that time. The court wants to avoid that, so the judge is going to do her best try to maintain a status quo during the initial proceedings so that the legal process itself doesn't harm anyone. In the case of Apple and Epic, the status quo between Apple and Epic before Epic broke their contract was not harming either company. because of this, she essentially told Apple to stop escalating things and told Epic that if they wanted Fortnite back on the store, all they had to do was to come back into compliance with the App store rules - AKA the status quo before all the drama. The judge didn't actually make any sort of anti-trust finding against Apple, it's far far far too early for those kinds of findings (years too early), she only halted any further escalation. She may very well still allow Apple to ban Epic from the developer program once she has had time to investigate the case further. TRO's are really only bandaids... they are not meant to be permanent. 

 

As far as monopolies go, I think you have a misunderstanding. Every company is a monopoly if you define a market tightly enough. Linus Tech Tips has a monopoly over LTT content if you tighten online video market to include only LTT videos. Best Buy has a monopoly on best buy sales if you tighten the Electronics Store market to include only Best Buy stores. Apple *absolutely* has a monopoly on iOS if you tighten the smart phone market to include only iPhones. It was never a question of whether Apple had a monopoly on iOS, it absolutely does, its a question if Apples specific control of iOS constitutes an illegal anti-competitive monopoly - and it probably doesn't. Just as Best Buy has absolute control over what goes on its own store shelves, Apple also has complete control over what goes on its App store. Just as Best Buy has total control over how sales work in its own stores, Apple has total control over how sales work in its own store. Just as Best Best is under no obligation to allow other Electronics Stores to setup kiosks in its own stores, Apple is under no obligation to allow Epic to have its own App store. Just a Best Buy is under no obligation to help say, Samsung or any company that uses Samsung technologies in their products, Apple is under no obligation to help Epic, or any companies that use Epic's technology in their products. 

 

I am not trying to take sides here, but legally speaking it is Epic who has the uphill battle here. There are legal precedents for all of this, and Epic is essentially using a novel argument to try and change the law using the courts. It certainly *is* possible that could happen, but it is very unlikely. Most likely, the result will be some sort of adjustment to the 30% cut Apple gets and nothing more. 

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, TheSage79 said:

Keep in mind the purpose of a Temporary Restraining Order. It is to prevent possible irreparable harm while the court sorts the case out. Remember, this case is barely weeks old, and the judge has not had enough time to fully process the complaint. TRO's are designed to stop any bleeding if you will while the courts process all the administrative stuff. Judges are aware that the legal process can take time, and that various parties may be put in a position where they will suffer irreparable harm during that time. The court wants to avoid that, so the judge is going to do her best try to maintain a status quo during the initial proceedings so that the legal process itself doesn't harm anyone. In the case of Apple and Epic, the status quo between Apple and Epic before Epic broke their contract was not harming either company. because of this, she essentially told Apple to stop escalating things and told Epic that if they wanted Fortnite back on the store, all they had to do was to come back into compliance with the App store rules - AKA the status quo before all the drama. The judge didn't actually make any sort of anti-trust finding against Apple, it's far far far too early for those kinds of findings (years too early), she only halted any further escalation. She may very well still allow Apple to ban Epic from the developer program once she has had time to investigate the case further. TRO's are really only bandaids... they are not meant to be permanent. 

 

As far as monopolies go, I think you have a misunderstanding. Every company is a monopoly if you define a market tightly enough. Linus Tech Tips has a monopoly over LTT content if you tighten online video market to include only LTT videos. Best Buy has a monopoly on best buy sales if you tighten the Electronics Store market to include only Best Buy stores. Apple *absolutely* has a monopoly on iOS if you tighten the smart phone market to include only iPhones. It was never a question of whether Apple had a monopoly on iOS, it absolutely does, its a question if Apples specific control of iOS constitutes an illegal anti-competitive monopoly - and it probably doesn't. Just as Best Buy has absolute control over what goes on its own store shelves, Apple also has complete control over what goes on its App store. Just as Best Buy has total control over how sales work in its own stores, Apple has total control over how sales work in its own store. Just as Best Best is under no obligation to allow other Electronics Stores to setup kiosks in its own stores, Apple is under no obligation to allow Epic to have its own App store. Just a Best Buy is under no obligation to help say, Samsung or any company that uses Samsung technologies in their products, Apple is under no obligation to help Epic, or any companies that use Epic's technology in their products. 

 

I am not trying to take sides here, but legally speaking it is Epic who has the uphill battle here. There are legal precedents for all of this, and Epic is essentially using a novel argument to try and change the law using the courts. It certainly *is* possible that could happen, but it is very unlikely. Most likely, the result will be some sort of adjustment to the 30% cut Apple gets and nothing more. 

 

A monopoly exists everywhere, sure, but it becomes anti trust when that monopoly is used in a way that disadvantages another business or effects the ability for others to participate in trade.  That is the definition.  Yes LTT has a monopoly over he ltt forums, but that monopoly does not effect anyone else's ability to create a forum or for people to move between forums or even use multiple forums. 

 

This is the crux of the issue here,  apple can control another persons business,  as the judge has decreed, by apple banning UE on ios they have the ability to do irreparable damage to countless businesses.  That can only happen in a situation of antitrust which is a result of using a monopoly.

 

The problem many people have understanding this is they can't get their heads around the concept of a monopoly. Having a monopoly in and of itself is not illegal, using that monopoly to further your own business by controlling other business is antitrust.  Like what apple are doing here, they are using their monopoly of the app store to control other business (threatening to ban UE).