Apple vs Epic lawsuit stayed by higher Appeals court

[Commodus]

5 hours ago, gjsman said:

Thirdly, according to the lawsuit at least, Apple is not a monopoly. Apple would be a monopoly if you defined Apple's own App Store as a market, which Apple is then a 100% monopoly in their own market. However, various previous lawsuits have declared that being a monopoly in your own market is legal and natural and that trying to prevent manufacturers from being monopolies in their own markets (with some exceptions like car parts) would disincentivize innovation. The judge takes a more holistic view of the situation, viewing the market primarily as iPhone vs Android manufacturers, in which case Apple is no monopoly but at most a duopoly. Ironically, the judge hinted that Google is more at risk for being a monopoly for their practices across all the Android manufacturers than Apple is.

I suspect many people understand this, but it's still baffling that others don't seem to understand what a monopoly is — more often than not it's really just a complaint that Apple isn't doing the things they want. Now, if Apple had its levels of control and a dominant share of the market, they'd have an argument... but it doesn't.

[Arika]

5 hours ago, HRD said:

preventing sideloading is not beneficial for security by preventing malware only, it also ensures that Apple continues to get paid from older hardware and continue to support.

Given that Apple have literally never made this argument when talking about sideloading, it's entirely unrelated to their ethos  of supporting older hardware and to try and claim otherwise its nothing more than disingenuous speculation. 

 

People act like the second that side loading is allowed, that every single developer will  take their app off the app store and self host or go to another store. There no official numbers or there but I would say that 99% of app downloads on Android still come from the play store. I can't imagine Apple users suddenly becoming more tech literate that suddenly they all want to start sideloading. 

[gjsman]

2 minutes ago, Arika S said:

People act like the second that side loading is allowed, that every single developer will  take their app off the app store and self host or go to another store. There no official numbers or there but I would say that 99% of app downloads on Android still come from the play store. I can't imagine Apple users suddenly becoming more tech literate that suddenly they all want to start sideloading. 

Well, then, you've actually unconsciously made the case for Apple to not open side loading. If "99% of app downloads" will not be sideloaded, the only people who benefit are nerds (who can sideload their own code and open-source projects right now with Xcode) and hackers. So... why do it?

[Arika]

1 minute ago, gjsman said:

Well, then, you've actually unconsciously made the case for Apple to not open side loading. If "99% of app downloads" will not be sideloaded, the only people who benefit are nerds (who can sideload their own code and open-source projects right now with Xcode) and hackers. So... why do it?

are you actually serious?

 

Because it gives people the OPTION to do it who want to. How do people still not understand this?

 

If you're happy to let Apple dictate what you can do with the device YOU PAID FOR and let them shit down your throat and praise them for "knowing what's best for you" them by all means, swallow away. But don't be surprised when people look at that and go "what the fuck is wrong with those people?"

[HRD]

7 minutes ago, Arika S said:

are you actually serious?

 

Because it gives people the OPTION to do it who want to. How do people still not understand this?

 

If you're happy to let Apple dictate what you can do with the device YOU PAID FOR and let them shit down your throat and praise them for "knowing what's best for you" them by all means, swallow away. But don't be surprised when people look at that and go "what the fuck is wrong with those people?"

if I want to sideload, I would have bought an android phone. there are two main options out there and I chose the one that doesn't allow sideloading. I knew that iPhones don't support sideloading and I bought it (in part) because of that. This is my choice.

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, gjsman said:

@mr moose Here's the thing: In the US, Phones, Consoles, TVs, they are all computers, and any expert would say so. They have a CPU, GPU (or integrated), RAM, they are the full core computer structure and are thus computers. 

I never said otherwise. 

 

10 hours ago, gjsman said:

Secondly, the US Law does not care what a consumer bought a product for. The law does not care that this device was purchased to be a "general purpose computing device" while this device was purchased as a "gaming device" in any way that the way these devices should operate should be different. They are all computers. If you do false advertising, then the law cares, but Apple doesn't go and announce that they are selling "general-purpose computing phones" but is very clear on their website about the App Store being the sole place for apps and games.

I don't see how that is relevant.

 

10 hours ago, gjsman said:

Thirdly, according to the lawsuit at least, Apple is not a monopoly. Apple would be a monopoly if you defined Apple's own App Store as a market, which Apple is then a 100% monopoly in their own market. However, various previous lawsuits have declared that being a monopoly in your own market is legal and natural and that trying to prevent manufacturers from being monopolies in their own markets (with some exceptions like car parts) would disincentivize innovation. The judge takes a more holistic view of the situation, viewing the market primarily as iPhone vs Android manufacturers, in which case Apple is no monopoly but at most a duopoly. Ironically, the judge hinted that Google is more at risk for being a monopoly for their practices across all the Android manufacturers than Apple is.

Look up what constitutes a monopoly.   It has nothing to do with percentage of market share, it is only concerned with market power and abuse of that power.

 

I've gone over the finer details of all this too many times in this thread already. People need to read my posts and do a bit of googling before trying to educate me.

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, HRD said:

I don't see it that way. all companies are greedy and want to make as much profit as possible. When video games are sold in brick-and-mortar stores, developers and publishers jointly collect up to an estimated 45% of the retail price. The remaining 55% goes to retail and wholesale margins, other distribution costs, and royalty fees collected by console makers. By contrast, on most digital video game marketplaces, including the Apple App Store, developers and publishers receive 70% of sales, with 30% going to the digital marketplace commissions or even 85% in the case of the 15% commission smart developer's program. All of that huge savings went to increase the there margins that is true even before google play and apple's app stores.

Markups on products in order to support a business are fine, but imagine if the distributor insisted the retail store had to use only their method of payment and put a 30% transaction fee on top off all that?    This is what apple have done, you can only sell through their store and you have to pay a fee that should by all measures only be 2-3% at the most.

 

9 hours ago, HRD said:

what If I want a device that doesn't allow sideloading??

Then don't enable it.

9 hours ago, HRD said:

there are benefits of that and I will give you an example my little brother got an android phone and a few days later he came to me complaining of ads that appear suddenly from time to time. when I checked he had enabled the sideloading options and downloaded hacked games from a non-reliable source. my brother has been an iPad user for years and he never sideloads because he doesn't know how to do it and apple makes it very very difficult. we want to give him a device like the iPad so he cannot sideload. Today we have that option but you want to take it away which will result in fewer consumer choices.

Which is his fault for not reading the warnings.    It is not the side loading that was the issue there.

 

9 hours ago, HRD said:

 

 

First, most mobile users can switch easily because they don't buy many of no translated apps or features. a lot of apps will allow you to use your app using your email and password regardless of your platform. like lightroom, photoshop, Netflix, and others.

I don't know about that.  But with only anecdotal evidence I am happy to leave that argument off the table.

 

9 hours ago, HRD said:

Second, this kind of everyone responsibility not just apple in fact apple is way better than others in this regard. if you purchase a game on your iPhone 11 and you can get the game on your iPhone 13 without any problems not just that you can share with iPad or even mac (for some apps) and not forget family sharing. on the other hand, sony won't let you get your ps4 games to run on your ps5 without repurchasing. on the apple front, you will get the best latest version of the game you purchased on your new device and improve graphics quality for example if your old device did not support it. 

Android is the same, I buy an app for my motorola mobile, and I can install it on any other android device I own.  I have apps on 2 tablets and 3 different phones concurrently.  None of them are from the same maker.  I agree sony artificially not providing backwards compatibility is a shit practice.

 

9 hours ago, HRD said:

Third, it depends on the developer. you said "It does not happen with mac/windows software" which is not true. it depends. some developers allow you to use a single key to activate mac or windows versions of the software but others don't and require the purchase of different keys. on the mobile, it is the same some developers do allow you to do that easily like clash of clans, COD, PUBG, and Fortnite while others require repurchase. developers are also responsible for not allowing this.

It's not true that it "always happens" but it is true that is does happen.  And that to me is the important bit,  it does happen and it should happen all the time. The only time I don't think it should happen is if the developer did not port their software to another platform, i.e they only make an android version or they only make a macOS version. 

 

9 hours ago, HRD said:

 

 

 

I couldn't open the report but from what I understand it means 3.24% of all android users are infected and less than 1% of iOS users not in the overall market. and even if it is like what you say this is single research against many that disagree.

This market research and the evidence Arika posted seem to correlate.    If you work out the ratio of infected users to total users, it is so small that sideloading cannot be attributed to it much more than siilly users downloading random shit of the internet.  Even when you consider it is way more possible on android, yet is this not reflected in the actual figures.

 

9 hours ago, HRD said:

 

even if we say that access to the iPhone is essential (which is not) that grants compensated access to that essential facility, not free access.

Developer access to the people who have iphones is essential, owning an iphone is not. 

 

9 hours ago, HRD said:

 

 

it might be true in the case of small mobile developers but big publishers who already make billions or millions on other platforms. they definitely can not release a version for ios and release a version on android if enough of them did that apple would be under pressure to lower the commission. Also, they can release an iOS version with no option to buy directly either by relying on ads or off-app purchases, or both. for example, Netflix has no option to purchase from the app.

Netflix and few streaming services are about the only exception.  Everyone else has to do in app through the apple service.  Or at least did until this, then the stay changed that again. so who knows.  What I do know is that it is not just epic with an issue, Apple have been under fire since the day they went live.  Apple v pepper was in 2007 from what I remember adn to this day we still have thousands of developers suing for the same thing.

 

9 hours ago, HRD said:

 

it is problematic to make it easy to make a single brand market monopoly argument because if that is the case every single company has monopoly power over its own product.

sony has a monopoly over PS, tesla over their cars, and the list will never end.

That's the thing though, Sony and tesla should not have the power they do when it has a detrimental effect on other business.  In the beginning when they have no market power it is neither a monopoly nor is it abuse of market power.   And also if companies aren't held to account then what we end up with is literally products you never own.    Market power and abuse of it covers everything from right to repair through software as a service to how and what you pay for a product.   It is fine when a small corner shop over charges for a hotdog, we just go to the next store, but what happens when that corner shop has nearly all the shops that sell hotdogs?  Then you are forced to buy from them.

 

9 hours ago, HRD said:

 

sorry for the late reply but I was a bit busy.

 

no problem, it gives me time to mull over what you have said.

[Kisai]

8 hours ago, HRD said:

I am not taking about new version which usually come with many new feature. I am talking about the same software maybe with minor tweaks and fixes. 

Anyway this proof my point that greed is not only on apple side but developers as well.

 

Let me reframe this, since you might not know/care what geek bench is.

 

Geekbench 5 is the current version. Not "5.0", 5. If you go to the iOS store, only 5 is listed.

 

Yet if you have had an older iPhone or iPad at some point and downloaded earlier versions:

 

 

You can neither update it or launch it. GB4 will still run however.

 

This is not the first program that I've seen this happen with, there was an SSH program that pulled exactly what I mentioned, it shows the above message, but instead says something like "this version is no longer supported, purchase (2 version)", which is 20x the price.

 

I'm sure many developers took advantage of the "apple store will only accept 64-bit builds" to release version-inflated otherwise-same builds with a new price, since many apps were originally 99 cents.

 

[HRD]

19 hours ago, mr moose said:

Markups on products in order to support a business are fine, but imagine if the distributor insisted the retail store had to use only their method of payment and put a 30% transaction fee on top off all that?    This is what apple have done, you can only sell through their store and you have to pay a fee that should by all measures only be 2-3% at the most.

you are making the same mistake as epic did in the trial and the judge's response was "Epic Games ignores this other functionality to argue that Apple merely “matches” developers to consumers; a “matching” service. 332 This statement is partially true, but Apple has never argued that it levies a commission merely because it matches the developers with the customers. Apple argues that it uses this model to monetize its intellectual property against the entire suite of functions as well as to pay for the 80% of all apps which are free and generate no direct revenue stream from the developers other than the annual $99.00 developer fee." 

even epic games' own store takes more than 3%, do you think Apple should give the tools for free and host all these apps for free and only take a 3% payment processing fee to give it to visa or Mastercard? Apple is a company, not a charity

 

 

20 hours ago, mr moose said:

Then don't enable it.

20 hours ago, mr moose said:

Which is his fault for not reading the warnings.    It is not the side loading that was the issue there.

I already responded to I would like to add part of the court decision which supports my opinion "It also adopts the stricter privacy policies required by the European Union worldwide, including user opt-out. Not all developers like these requirements; presumably because it impacts their own bottom line. Thus, privacy concerns may be more at risk with loosened app distribution restrictions. Under the current model, large developers who rely on advertising for monetization must comply or leave the App Store to avoid these requirements. 531 Accordingly, privacy, more than other issues, likely benefits from some app distribution restrictions.532"

people who want that should have that choice why do you want to take it away from them? if you want to sideload go to android

 

 

20 hours ago, mr moose said:

Android is the same, I buy an app for my motorola mobile, and I can install it on any other android device I own.  I have apps on 2 tablets and 3 different phones concurrently.  None of them are from the same maker.  I agree sony artificially not providing backwards compatibility is a shit practice.

 

yes, android is not that bad in that regard but still, Apple is superior. There are apps that I bought on my iPad running on my mac without repurchasing.

 

 

20 hours ago, mr moose said:

It's not true that it "always happens" but it is true that is does happen.  And that to me is the important bit,  it does happen and it should happen all the time. The only time I don't think it should happen is if the developer did not port their software to another platform, i.e they only make an android version or they only make a macOS version.

I do agree that it should be for all apps and games once you bought it it is yours to use on all the supported platforms. Developers are preventing that from happening not apple. There are other platforms that act against that like Sony and Nintendo. they don't support cross wallet. for example, if you buy V-bucks using PlayStation you have to use it there. while with apple you can buy from an iPhone and use it using a PC and vice versa. the record showed that epic had difficulty implementing cross-play with other platforms while apple welcomed it. Some other platforms refuse to this day to support cross-wallet. in fact, Sony did not agree to support cross-play without compensation. up to 15% of the payment made on other platforms (the rate depends on how much he spend on PlayStation v the other platform + how much time he spends on ps v the other platform.)

 

the court acknowledged that "Although Epic Games has had disputes and discussions with other platform owners as to cross-play policies (including cross-platform, cross-progression, and cross-wallet), originally it did not encounter any such difficulty with Apple."

 

 

 

20 hours ago, mr moose said:

Developer access to the people who have iphones is essential, owning an iphone is not. 

the judge discussed that with evidence even epic own expert refuse that theory when he was asked under oath.

"Epic Games has failed to prove this claim for myriad reasons, but most convincingly for two. First, for the reasons set forth above, Epic Games has failed to prove that Apple is an illegal monopolist in control of the iOS platform. This alone is sufficient to defeat the claim. Second, the claim would still fail because Epic Games failed to prove that the iOS platform is an essential facility. The best evidence of this is Epic Games’ own expert, Dr. Evans, who refused to endorse the argument that the iOS platform is an essential facility. 625 On this issue, he and Professor Schmalensee agree.626"

 

"To constitute an essential facility, “access to the facility or resource must be truly ‘essential’ in the sense that competitors cannot simply duplicate it or find suitable alternatives"

 

"Obviously, under its theory, given the proprietary nature of iOS, plaintiff could not replicate iOS. However, as defined by the Court, in terms of distribution of mobile apps, multiple avenues do exist to distribute the content to the consumer. Distribution can occur through web apps, by web access, and through other games stores. This doctrine does not require distribution in the manner preferred by the competitor, here native apps. The availability of these other avenues of distribution, even if they are not the preferred or ideal methods, is dispositive of Epic Games’ claim. The doctrine does not demand an ideal or preferred standard."

 

 

20 hours ago, mr moose said:

Netflix and few streaming services are about the only exception.  Everyone else has to do in app through the apple service.  Or at least did until this, then the stay changed that again. so who knows.  What I do know is that it is not just epic with an issue, Apple have been under fire since the day they went live.  Apple v pepper was in 2007 from what I remember adn to this day we still have thousands of developers suing for the same thing.

The stay maintains the status quo the injunction did not go to effect it was supposed to on December 9.

 

21 hours ago, mr moose said:

That's the thing though, Sony and tesla should not have the power they do when it has a detrimental effect on other business.  In the beginning when they have no market power it is neither a monopoly nor is it abuse of market power.   And also if companies aren't held to account then what we end up with is literally products you never own.    Market power and abuse of it covers everything from right to repair through software as a service to how and what you pay for a product.   It is fine when a small corner shop over charges for a hotdog, we just go to the next store, but what happens when that corner shop has nearly all the shops that sell hotdogs?  Then you are forced to buy from them.

who much they can affect or destroy competition is the question not because they harm competitors. that is basically competition you harm your competitor and advantage yourself and your competitors will harm you and advantage themselves. for example, tesla releasing a truck will harm ford. Ford releasing an electric car would harm tesla. harming competitors is different than harming competition. I do agree with you on the right to repair issue. 

how hard is it to open a hotdog store and compete? it is not just about the market power. "This evaluation includes whether (i) new rivals are barred from entering the market (i.e., the degree of entry barriers) and (ii) whether existing competitors lack the capacity to expand their output to challenge the predator’s high price." 

 

21 hours ago, mr moose said:

no problem, it gives me time to mull over what you have said.

 

[HRD]

20 hours ago, Kisai said:

 

Let me reframe this, since you might not know/care what geek bench is.

 

Geekbench 5 is the current version. Not "5.0", 5. If you go to the iOS store, only 5 is listed.

 

Yet if you have had an older iPhone or iPad at some point and downloaded earlier versions:

 

 

You can neither update it or launch it. GB4 will still run however.

 

This is not the first program that I've seen this happen with, there was an SSH program that pulled exactly what I mentioned, it shows the above message, but instead says something like "this version is no longer supported, purchase (2 version)", which is 20x the price.

 

I'm sure many developers took advantage of the "apple store will only accept 64-bit builds" to release version-inflated otherwise-same builds with a new price, since many apps were originally 99 cents.

 

this is different than having a version of the exact same app compatible with your device but you need to pay again. I would expect to pay for a remastered version of a game I bought. but if it is the exact same game I think it should be free since I already bought it on my previous device. if it is not compatible with my new device it is ok. the problem is if it is compatible and you ask me to repurchase it.

 

[Kisai]

2 hours ago, HRD said:

this is different than having a version of the exact same app compatible with your device but you need to pay again. I would expect to pay for a remastered version of a game I bought. but if it is the exact same game I think it should be free since I already bought it on my previous device. if it is not compatible with my new device it is ok. the problem is if it is compatible and you ask me to repurchase it.

 

The problem is that particularly in platform shifts, companies force you to buy the EXACT SAME product again.

 

There's two categories of this:

a) New version of old version - Eg Office, Autocad, Adobe Creative Cloud, etc. Prior to their "cloud" versions, the perpetual licensed versions of all these products could only be purchased for ONE computer, on one architecture (eg Windows/MacOS, 32-bit/64-bit, Intel/Arm), you were not free to switch platforms, ever. This is what happens with games built on the same engine as well. You can buy the game for your iOS or Android device, but you're not free to switch between the two. Emulated copies are particularly egregious. (eg purchasing a NES/SNES/N64 game on the Wii, WiiU, and not being able to bring it to the Switch), I already purchased the game twice on the Wii/WiiU, and now (Nintendo) won't let me play it on the Switch despite the game being ON the switch under the cloud NES/SNES/N64 emulator.

b) New version, replacing old version - This is where things like the above mentioned GeekBench, Square-Enix updates to old games (I've purchased Final Fantasy 6 on the SNES, Wii, WiiU, iOS and Steam, and then the pixel remaster) Why am I paying, yet again, especially since the previous Steam version was withdrawn?

 

I do not object to paying for an "upgrade" cost if there is actually significant differences, but in general, these companies are selling you the same product or game with trivial changes, or running them on half-baked emulators, and the game has not changed, only the emulator.

 

I think the most hilarious example of this is that people reverse engineered Mario 64 into a native PC port, yet Nintendo has yet to do this, or make a native port of Mario64 for any of their own platforms other than the DS version.

 

 

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, HRD said:

you are making the same mistake as epic did in the trial and the judge's response was "Epic Games ignores this other functionality to argue that Apple merely “matches” developers to consumers; a “matching” service. 332 This statement is partially true, but Apple has never argued that it levies a commission merely because it matches the developers with the customers. Apple argues that it uses this model to monetize its intellectual property against the entire suite of functions as well as to pay for the 80% of all apps which are free and generate no direct revenue stream from the developers other than the annual $99.00 developer fee." 

even epic games' own store takes more than 3%, do you think Apple should give the tools for free and host all these apps for free and only take a 3% payment processing fee to give it to visa or Mastercard? Apple is a company, not a charity

It has very little to do with matching though, it is a simple fact that apple stands between all app developers and half the app market.  It would not be a problem if they had reasonable policies, but to levee a 30% transaction fee when a 3% would cover the costs and provide profit is abuse of market power.    Take what they are doing and apply it to any other industry and we would not be having this discussion.  ISP's are the best example, the internet infrastructure in the US is theirs, their IP, their hardware and their product.  The average cost of internet in the US something like $80 a month for 25Mb if they are lucky.  it is that high because there are only 2 or 3 choices for internet in most cities.   Apple is doing the same thing here,  developers only have 2 choices if they want to sell mobile apps, google and apple.  and when you can't avoid apple, that leaves half of google being only accessible through their app store and all of apple through theirs.  Again, this would not be a problem if their app stores operated openly and with only the charges and fees necessary.

 

 

3 hours ago, HRD said:

 

I already responded to I would like to add part of the court decision which supports my opinion "It also adopts the stricter privacy policies required by the European Union worldwide, including user opt-out. Not all developers like these requirements; presumably because it impacts their own bottom line. Thus, privacy concerns may be more at risk with loosened app distribution restrictions. Under the current model, large developers who rely on advertising for monetization must comply or leave the App Store to avoid these requirements. 531 Accordingly, privacy, more than other issues, likely benefits from some app distribution restrictions.532"

people who want that should have that choice why do you want to take it away from them? if you want to sideload go to android

 

The bit in bold is a very big issue,  how an app earns money from advertising should be solely between the app developer and the advertiser.  No one should be able to force any business to comply with standards.  Business should always have an alternative to the advertising system or an alternative way to reach the same customers. 

 

Again, just because someone buys an apple phone, doesn't mean that apple get to choose which developers/advertisers get to access those customers.  Apple does not own the customer.

 

3 hours ago, HRD said:

 

 

 

I do agree that it should be for all apps and games once you bought it it is yours to use on all the supported platforms. Developers are preventing that from happening not apple. There are other platforms that act against that like Sony and Nintendo. they don't support cross wallet. for example, if you buy V-bucks using PlayStation you have to use it there. while with apple you can buy from an iPhone and use it using a PC and vice versa. the record showed that epic had difficulty implementing cross-play with other platforms while apple welcomed it. Some other platforms refuse to this day to support cross-wallet. in fact, Sony did not agree to support cross-play without compensation. up to 15% of the payment made on other platforms (the rate depends on how much he spend on PlayStation v the other platform + how much time he spends on ps v the other platform.)

 

As I said earlier (and in another thread),  I can't consciously hold developers to account when they are held captive in a locked environment..  Once apple permit business to use their own method of payments, then I will blame any and all developers who do not treat the customer fairly.  A developer cannot make an app free on IOS if the customer has paid for it elsewhere. 

 

3 hours ago, HRD said:

the court acknowledged that "Although Epic Games has had disputes and discussions with other platform owners as to cross-play policies (including cross-platform, cross-progression, and cross-wallet), originally it did not encounter any such difficulty with Apple."

 

 

 

the judge discussed that with evidence even epic own expert refuse that theory when he was asked under oath.

"Epic Games has failed to prove this claim for myriad reasons, but most convincingly for two. First, for the reasons set forth above, Epic Games has failed to prove that Apple is an illegal monopolist in control of the iOS platform. This alone is sufficient to defeat the claim. Second, the claim would still fail because Epic Games failed to prove that the iOS platform is an essential facility. The best evidence of this is Epic Games’ own expert, Dr. Evans, who refused to endorse the argument that the iOS platform is an essential facility. 625 On this issue, he and Professor Schmalensee agree.626"

The issue here is that they seem to be being asked to prove something non related.   It seems pretty obvious that apple controls the platform,  it is also in contract apple make all developers sign that states they have no alternatives to payment or the app store.  If that doesn't make the app store an essential  facility to accessing half the market then I don't know what does.

 

3 hours ago, HRD said:

"To constitute an essential facility, “access to the facility or resource must be truly ‘essential’ in the sense that competitors cannot simply duplicate it or find suitable alternatives"

 

I would simply argue that trying to make an iphone competitor and market it to win over majority of apple customers is not a suitable alternative (being the only way to sell apps to those people).  In fact I would argue it is not up to developers to persuade people what phone to buy at all, just like it should not be up to apple or google to decide which customers can have what apps based on policies and fees they make money on.

3 hours ago, HRD said:

"Obviously, under its theory, given the proprietary nature of iOS, plaintiff could not replicate iOS. However, as defined by the Court, in terms of distribution of mobile apps, multiple avenues do exist to distribute the content to the consumer.

But only one unavoidable avenue exists for half the market.  That is the problem.

 

3 hours ago, HRD said:

Distribution can occur through web apps, by web access,

Not all apps can be web based, many for security reasons.

 

3 hours ago, HRD said:

and through other games stores.

 

Not permitted on apple devices.

 

3 hours ago, HRD said:

This doctrine does not require distribution in the manner preferred by the competitor, here native apps. The availability of these other avenues of distribution, even if they are not the preferred or ideal methods, is dispositive of Epic Games’ claim. The doctrine does not demand an ideal or preferred standard."

I really don't think the core of the issue is that they are demanding perfect, they are not even demanding free, they are demanding alternatives to the high fees and unnecessary advertising policies.   Personally I can understand why there is a rule that says all in app purchases must be through the app store.  That to me is wrong form the get go.

 

3 hours ago, HRD said:

 

The stay maintains the status quo the injunction did not go to effect it was supposed to on December 9.

 

who much they can affect or destroy competition is the question not because they harm competitors. that is basically competition you harm your competitor and advantage yourself and your competitors will harm you and advantage themselves. for example, tesla releasing a truck will harm ford. Ford releasing an electric car would harm tesla. harming competitors is different than harming competition. I do agree with you on the right to repair issue. 

how hard is it to open a hotdog store and compete? it is not just about the market power. "This evaluation includes whether (i) new rivals are barred from entering the market (i.e., the degree of entry barriers) and (ii) whether existing competitors lack the capacity to expand their output to challenge the predator’s high price." 

 

 

But that is the thing, harm you do to your competitor is supposed to be harm that they can mitigate or avoid,  when they can't it is abuse of market power.

 

 

I guess, all the to and fro aside, my personal issue with it is simply the fact developers have no options outside of the app store for customers using ios.  And the app store accounts for a huge portion of the market.  

[HRD]

22 hours ago, mr moose said:

It has very little to do with matching though, it is a simple fact that apple stands between all app developers and half the app market.  It would not be a problem if they had reasonable policies, but to levee a 30% transaction fee when a 3% would cover the costs and provide profit is abuse of market power.    Take what they are doing and apply it to any other industry and we would not be having this discussion.  ISP's are the best example, the internet infrastructure in the US is theirs, their IP, their hardware and their product.  The average cost of internet in the US something like $80 a month for 25Mb if they are lucky.  it is that high because there are only 2 or 3 choices for internet in most cities.   Apple is doing the same thing here,  developers only have 2 choices if they want to sell mobile apps, google and apple.  and when you can't avoid apple, that leaves half of google being only accessible through their app store and all of apple through theirs.  Again, this would not be a problem if their app stores operated openly and with only the charges and fees necessary.

Apple built this ecosystem and the ticket to enter it is buying an iPhone. many people love this ecosystem and are not leaving it. you want to enter and sell your product to these customers you have to pay the owner. you cannot go to Disneyland Park and sell whatever you want to the people there without Disney's approval. it is not that it is there and I should have access to it. Apple built it and it is a huge investment to build such an ecosystem and maintain it. the record showed that apple spent over 100 billion $ on research and development since the original iPhone. you cannot just come and use apple patents and IP for free.

you cannot reach these consumers through apple without apple approval but that doesn't mean you cannot reach them. you can make a web progressive app or reach them through other platforms. epic games retained most of the revenue after the hotfix because of that.

 

"First, Dr. Evans’ decision to limit his analysis to iOS-only Fortnite players is questionable because it ignores other market evidence that iOS players engaged in substitution before and after the hotfix. Dr. Evans cites evidence that 90.9% of iOS Fortnite players play only on iOS. This is consistent with general statistics that 82.7% of Fortnite players play on a single platform. That said, Dr. Hitt’s data shows that 35.9% of iOS Fortnite players multi-home. This is consistent with evidence that between 32% and 52% of all Fortnite players multi-home. Moreover, Dr. Hitt cites evidence that the iOS multi-homers account for 85% of Fortnite revenue from iOS in the first half of 2020, which makes them particularly important."

 

"Second, and ironically, the Fortnite data does show substitution. Dr. Hitt, analyzing the same data, found that 22% to 38% of strict iOS-only—users who never accessed Fortnite on a non-iOS platform before—shifted their game time and spending to other platforms after the iOS hotfix. Significantly, after accounting for iOS users who already played on other platforms (of whom up to half increased their spending on other platforms), Dr. Hitt shows that Epic Games retained 81% to 88% of its iOS player revenue after Project Liberty."

 

this is not a case where the only way to reach these consumers is iOS and the app store.

 

 

 

 

22 hours ago, mr moose said:

The bit in bold is a very big issue,  how an app earns money from advertising should be solely between the app developer and the advertiser.  No one should be able to force any business to comply with standards.  Business should always have an alternative to the advertising system or an alternative way to reach the same customers. 

 

Again, just because someone buys an apple phone, doesn't mean that apple get to choose which developers/advertisers get to access those customers.  Apple does not own the customer.

the antitrust laws are concerned about competition and end consumers, not competitors or developers if apple is harming and forcing requirements on developers for the benefit of consumers it is ok. Apple here is giving consumers a different option and more choices 

 

 

22 hours ago, mr moose said:

As I said earlier (and in another thread),  I can't consciously hold developers to account when they are held captive in a locked environment..  Once apple permit business to use their own method of payments, then I will blame any and all developers who do not treat the customer fairly.  A developer cannot make an app free on IOS if the customer has paid for it elsewhere. 

they can make it free and you have to log in with your account so wherever you buy the purchases will appear on all platforms. 

 

some developers already did offer a free version on android but not on iOS due to the high piracy rate.

 

https://www.theverge.com/2016/2/3/10871616/altos-adventure-android-free-release-date

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/appsblog/2012/jul/23/dead-trigger-android-free-piracy

 

22 hours ago, mr moose said:

The issue here is that they seem to be being asked to prove something non related.   It seems pretty obvious that apple controls the platform,  it is also in contract apple make all developers sign that states they have no alternatives to payment or the app store.  If that doesn't make the app store an essential  facility to accessing half the market then I don't know what does.

epic games' own economic expert refused this theory under oath. epic can survive and even grow without access to iOS.

 

22 hours ago, mr moose said:

I would simply argue that trying to make an iphone competitor and market it to win over majority of apple customers is not a suitable alternative (being the only way to sell apps to those people).  In fact I would argue it is not up to developers to persuade people what phone to buy at all, just like it should not be up to apple or google to decide which customers can have what apps based on policies and fees they make money on.

sell apps to those people using other platforms. maybe it is not preferred or ideal but it is an option. even if we say it is an essential facility that will grant you access (apple cant deny access to the facility) but that access is compensated not free.

 

22 hours ago, mr moose said:

But only one unavoidable avenue exists for half the market.  That is the problem.

 

Apple built it, invested in it, and advertise it until it became half of the market. you cannot just come and take advantage of all of that and use apple's patents for free.

 

22 hours ago, mr moose said:

Not all apps can be web based, many for security reasons.

so? invest and spend money to solve these issues or pay apple and get access to its API and secure store.

 

[HRD]

22 hours ago, mr moose said:

Not permitted on apple devices.

that doesn't mean there are not competing. for example, you could buy Vbucks on the Xbox and use it on the iPhone so they are competing for these transactions.

 

"With cross-platform games like Fortnite available on multiple devices, these platforms are truly competing against one another for these in-app transactions. For instance, an internal Epic Games email from September 2018 notes that “purchase behavior may have changed with the addition of mobile, especially Apple and more recently Android, where users are just logging onto their mobile app to purchase.” In other words, “most players are still playing on PC/Epic platform as they did before, but purchasing on other platforms like mobile because it may be easier and more convenient"

22 hours ago, mr moose said:

I really don't think the core of the issue is that they are demanding perfect, they are not even demanding free, they are demanding alternatives to the high fees and unnecessary advertising policies.   Personally I can understand why there is a rule that says all in app purchases must be through the app store.  That to me is wrong form the get go.

the judge did say that the 30% seems inflated but epic did not argue that epic case is against the presence of a commission, not the number which is problematic if they have chosen to fight the number they could have won.

 

"Indeed, while the Court finds no basis for the specific rate chosen by Apple (i.e., the 30% rate) based on the record, the Court still concludes that Apple is entitled to some compensation for use of its intellectual property. As established in the prior sections, see supra Facts §§ II.C., V.A.2.b., V.B.2.c., Apple is entitled to license its intellectual property for a fee, and to further guard against the uncompensated use of its intellectual property. The requirement of usage of IAP accomplishes this goal in the easiest and most direct manner, whereas Epic Games’ only proposed alternative would severely undermine it. Indeed, to the extent Epic Games suggests that Apple receive nothing from in-app purchases made on its platform, 618 such a remedy is inconsistent with prevailing intellectual property law."

 

22 hours ago, mr moose said:

But that is the thing, harm you do to your competitor is supposed to be harm that they can mitigate or avoid,  when they can't it is abuse of market power.

 

 

I guess, all the to and fro aside, my personal issue with it is simply the fact developers have no options outside of the app store for customers using ios.  And the app store accounts for a huge portion of the market.  

so if I win market share by normal fair competition I am an illegal monopolist?

 

as the court found "Having defined the relevant market as digital mobile gaming transactions, the Court next evaluated Apple’s conduct in that market. Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws. While the Court finds that Apple enjoys considerable market share of over 55% and extraordinarily high profit margins, these factors alone do not show antitrust conduct. Success is not illegal."

 

 

Also, from the US justice system website, "Section 2 also advances its core purpose by ensuring that it does not prohibit aggressive competition. Competition is an inherently dynamic process. It works because firms strive to attract sales by innovating and otherwise seeking to please consumers, even if that means rivals will be less successful or never materialize at all. Failure--in the form of lost sales, reduced profits, and even going out of business--is a natural and indeed essential part of this competitive process. "Competition is a ruthless process. A firm that reduces cost and expands sales injures rivals--sometimes fatally."(28)  While it may be tempting to try to protect competitors, such a policy would be antithetical to the free-market competitive process on which we depend for prosperity and growth."

 

 

 

saying that the harm you do to your competitor is supposed to be harm that they can mitigate or avoid is a new theory that I just read from you. imagine that I have an amazing product that will destroy my competitors but I can't release it.

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, HRD said:

snip

 

I think we are going to have to agree that we disagree on what constitutes abuse of market power.

 

If as you point out, 85% of fortnights revue comes from ios, then what we are basically debating is whether or not apple should be allowed to gatekeep a market so large it is a single developers main mobile revenue.   I personally see nothing that apple does to make fortnight earn that much, they only created the OS.   Would we be just as correct in claiming that MS deserves a 30% slice of all cs:go revenue because it was their OS that made it possible?

 

 

[HRD]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

I think we are going to have to agree that we disagree on what constitutes abuse of market power.

 

If as you point out, 85% of fortnights revue comes from ios, then what we are basically debating is whether or not apple should be allowed to gatekeep a market so large it is a single developers main mobile revenue.   I personally see nothing that apple does to make fortnight earn that much, they only created the OS.   Would we be just as correct in claiming that MS deserves a 30% slice of all cs:go revenue because it was their OS that made it possible?

 

 

no, you misunderstood 85% of iOS Fortnite revenue that epic was going to lose after the ban. but that didn't happen because the players switch to other platforms and pay their which shows substitution between these platforms.

let's say epic is making 100 million $ on iOS after the ban instead of losing the 100 they only lost 15 which means people went to other platforms that they already have access to like a pc.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, HRD said:

no, you misunderstood 85% of iOS Fortnite revenue that epic was going to lose after the ban. but that didn't happen because the players switch to other platforms and pay their which shows substitution between these platforms.

let's say epic is making 100 million $ on iOS after the ban instead of losing the 100 they only lost 15 which means people went to other platforms that they already have access to like a pc.

My bad, I take it back.