That Apple have not increased their cut at all in this time is a strong case that they have not used any monopolistic powers to increase prices.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Epic vs. Apple: ”Developers are fleeing Unreal engine” says Epic to court
- Thread starter Infinity Times Two
- Start date
That Apple have not increased their cut at all in this time is a strong case that they have not used any monopolistic powers to increase prices.
Apple introducing 30% cuts on IAP and restrictive policies mandating use of Apple IAP only was a substantial change and was not 12 years ago. It also changed the market as other players (Google) followed suit after seeing what Apple could get away with.
30% for payment processing was not industry standard until Apple made it standard a few years ago.
Judge states otherwise: YGR: If you have an iPhone you can't buy it [an app] from anyone else. You can't buy it from Google. You can't buy it from Amazon. So without competition, where is that 30% coming from? Why isn't it 10% or 15%? How is the consumer benefiting at all?
oh, and the IAP policies were not initially included (probably no functionality for it at the time)???? that's gonna be hard to get around. even if the judge says "you agreed to this" it doesnt beat her other argument that there is no competition and everyone is paying apple/google.
You mean the same IAP policies that are pretty much prevalent on every other online digital stores?
Do you actually know what the Microsoft case was about? It was never about abusing their power to artifically increase the price or get some kind of cut.
Microsoft got sued for providing an integrated browser for free while you had to walk to your local retailer and pay $10 if you wanted a different browser option.
You know... the local actual brick and mortar stores with employees, property taxes, and utilities that do get 30% as well.
But didn't she state right after that, that 30% was the market standard elsewhere
Which means if it's found to be an antitrust violation with Apple...
Yes - the same IAP policies that other companies have been introducing since watching Apple get away with it.
That 30% for IAP is enriching Apple (at an insane rate) while they provide a service that costs fraction of a penny per transaction. The only one who loses is you, the consumer - as you're eating the cost.
Just wait until credit card companies decide to charge 30% and point to Apple as precedence. At least then you could use cash - competition!
Last edited:
she's going to have to weigh both arguments. she's being a good judge
How much lower should a price go so it's below "free"? Or could you show a list of free apps that have no free alternatives?
Also please provide a link about where Epic is sueing Apple for music streaming, e-books and audiobooks related stuff.
This is the comission investigation due to Spotify and other e-books companies filing a complaint, that's why they are focusing in these 2 areas but the comission is investigating these 2 points:
Which is exactly Epic's complaints
Also this:
And this comes by the EC itself:
Maybe we can put down the 'this is not like MS in the 90's' when there's already an official investigation underway about antitrust laws
Dunno. The Apple vs Epic case is either "like MS in 90s" or not. In this case it's not.
Apple should be investigated for several practices imho but constantly comparing the case to "MS in the 90s"" like it's some kind of magic buzzword is kinda stupid.
I really don't understand the argument of being a monopoly within its own platform. Like how does that even work? If Epic wins, this sounds disastrous for console makers. iOS is basically exactly like consoles platforms. If iOS is forced to open up, wouldn't every console platforms eventually also be subject to the same thing? Ugh, I personally love these platforms for their closed nature.
I mean it'll probably be referenced by epic in their trial brief and potentially during trial (if they go to trial) whether used as facts to compare or contrast with this case the analogy is close enough.
That being said I haven't taken the time to research and read any material from either cases.
Only works if customers have access to similar services from other companies. Some places have only one choice of ISP. Internet is a necessity to take part in society of today and giving one company a monopoly over that is not a good thing.
Looking at Apple vs Epic, phone model/OS market share is not really accurate, what companies need is revenue from app stores. Apple store has about 65% market share there, globally https://appleinsider.com/articles/1...-third-as-many-installs-in-first-half-of-2019
Is this particular case unfair use of a dominant market position by Apple? I'm not sure, but I think it's worth looking at.
The comparison comes from Apple, another major tech company, may be breaching antitrust laws, just like MS did back then and was hit by the EU because of that.
No.
Epic's argument hinges on being able to convince a court that Apple's closed ecosystem is bad because smartphones are essential, everyday pieces of equipment.
I don't think it's the same. You can buy games at retail for consoles, but you can't buy any app for iOS outside of the App Store. Even if you just think of digital edition consoles, they can get away with being able to buy codes from other digital stores, which is already happening.
Also, consoles are usually sold at a loss. iPhones and iPads are not.
There is no truly free market economy anywhere in the world. All economies are either command or some portion of mixed command and market. The US used to exert a huge amount of control over their economy... look back at the anti-trust suits in the late 1800 early 1900s.
That attitudes changed a lot as time has gone on both from government and citizens. The western desire to level out peaks and valleys in economic growth and contraction inherently bias us towards large stable companies versus more dynamic and vulnerable alternatives.
People felt like the Great Depression made a good case for less command and more free market. Living in 2020 with the benefit of hindsight and current outcomes I think it gets a lot easier to put a "yes but" in front of that line of thinking.
According to this lawyer, it was unnecessary for an antitrust lawsuit:
Obviously that's just one dude and I'm not a lawyer either, but my limited understanding is that it wasn't necessary.
Exactly.
If you want to preserve how consoles work, don't cheer for Epic lol. If Epic wins, consoles will basically become a PC.
Opening up does not mean allowing unsigned code to run on the systems. You can open up the storefront without harming the closed nature of the platform.
Yeah. So basically judge is saying there are valid points to consider on both sides of the issue and that the case will not be thrown out as frivolous. The fact that the judge appears to be willing to at least look into Apple's potential monopoly and/or anti-competitive behavior could have major repercussions.
But it seems wholly arbitary right? Feels like something that Epic could just expand to consoles with new definitions in the future to include consoles as well?
But aren't retail games also subject to licensing fees from console makers? The format is different but aren't developers also subject to paying platform holders something? Feels like the platform holders still have a "monopoly" over their platform based on these arguments and definitions.
Give me the time stamp where this attorney specifically says that.
I don't see why anyone would ever bring up such a bad analogy especially in court because they share literally no similarties at all.
The MS anti-trust case was about:
I don't understand how someone can look at those quotes and having the first reaction beeing a "Yeah! Exactly like Apple vs Epic!".
Not sure they'd become like PCs, I think you might see one or more console manufacturer exit the market.
The revenue model would be all fucked up without the 30% cut they take of software.
If they win here, they cannot expand the results of this case (based on smartphones being ubiquitous and essential) to include consoles (which flatly do not meet that definition). They would need to file an entirely new suit with new and different arguments and win based on those.
Er, maybe you can just buy some other phone or a portable PC? Lol. Imagine if every phone that you buy you have to go through some tedious shit of setting up all the stores? I mean, I get some people hates Apple, but come on, this is an awful user experience through and through.
I meant that it was necessary for their strategy.
Otherwise yes, that is correct - they didn't NEED to do that to file the lawsuit.
No this isn't correct because nothing I have seen in Epic's filings detail how consoles would be excluded from this.
The judge in the TRO is straight up comparing the 30% revenue share on consoles to Apple's model.
Good it sounds like Unreal and the many devs who have nothing to do with this shitshow will be spared. The play-by-play is kinda great, the Judge isn't having any of their bullshit.
This does nothing to exclude consoles though. An antitrust violation is an antitrust violation, regardless of the role the device plays in the market.
Sure but all Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft need to say is people don't NEED consoles.
I might be remembering wrongly, but wasn't this the same general argument about Steam before they launched EGS? Like Steam being a monopoly or some shit and charging too much? Feels like only time before Epic targets every other platform if they win this. Lol. I mean it's their rights to fight for more money, but as a consumer who loves these closed platforms, it really sucks. Have the existence of EGS really made the PC a better platform? Feels like Epic is just changing the narrative to whatever best suit their current needs.
Brick and mortar stores do not get 30% on video games. They're usually lucky to even get 20-25% and it varies by supplier.
Software developers still really could as well if we see changes to the fee structure. If Apple loses, everybody wins.
The size and necessity of the market (and the position of a company within that market) are crucial factors in determining whether a particular practice is an antitrust violation. What might be an antitrust violation in one market can be fine in another, depending on context. That's why these trials are necessary in the first place.