Mobile Tim Apple v Tim Epic - update: Apple has terminated Epic’s developer account lololol

[crispy4000]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

Buddy, you aren’t answering why one thing that artificially locks consumers and raises prices is different to the other artificial lock that raises prices. What is the context missing? You say they are substantively different to consumers, apples and oranges, but haven’t described how they are so. Are consumers positively affected by not being allowed to install the operating system they purchased on whatever hardware they own that can run it?

 

*waits for it now to be about developers, again*

Only one raises prices on all software sold on it.  And yes, that affects consumers and developers both.

You can buy a used iPhone and (somewhat) avoid the Apple Tax if you like.  You can’t avoid the impact of those royalties though.  It’s far reaching.

 

 

[Guest]

Just now, crispy4000 said:

Only one raises prices on all software sold on it.  And yes, that affects consumers and developers both.

You can buy a used iPhone and (somewhat) avoid the Apple Tax if you like.  You can’t avoid the impact of those royalties though.  It’s far reaching.

 

 

Artificially locking Mac OS to Apple hardware raises the cost of all hardware used with Mac OS, which affects consumers and 3rd party hardware companies. So is that bad for consumers?
 

And you do know the “Apple tax” terminology originated with Apple’s personal computers...right? Because they’ve been at this for a long time. 

[crispy4000]

25 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Artificially locking Mac OS to Apple hardware raises the cost of all hardware used with Mac OS, which affects consumers and 3rd party hardware companies. So is that bad for consumers?

That’s incorrect. One does not lead to the other other unless there isn’t the demand for the product to scale up manufacturing.  Which may be true for Apple desktops, but not so much for Apple phones.

 

Apple charges more for hardware because that’s how they run their business.  Premium brand perception and all.  iOS being closed or not has little to do with it.

 

25 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

And you do know the “Apple tax” terminology originated with Apple’s personal computers...right? Because they’ve been at this for a long time. 

Yes, this is common knowledge.

[Keyser_Soze]

The only other phone I've had was a Windows phone and the app store on it was... really bad. They had a lot of what appeared to be not legit software (Like Final Fantasy or maybe it was emulated) and apps would show up as people's names. So really I do prefer Apple's marketplace. They make sure good, legit looking stuff shows up on their store.

[Duderino]

What exactly is the legal precedence for Apple to block competing storefronts and/or in-app payment methods on iOS anyways?  
 

Seems like a good way to not just give themselves a leg up with Apple Pay and royalties, but also dictate who the winners and losers are in their sizable space in the mobile market.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

That’s incorrect. One does not lead to the other other unless the isn’t the demand for the product to scale up manufacturing.

 

Apple charges more for hardware because that’s how they run their business.  Premium brands perception and all.

 

Yes, this is common knowledge.

There is no ability to have less expensive hardware run Mac OS only because Apple artificially locks competitions hardware out. That absolutely increases the cost of entry to Mac OS. In the brief time when you could install Mac OS on non Apple hardware, less expensive options existed.

 

Apple charges significantly more for hardware only because they lock their OS to said hardware, same for their iOS hardware. 
 

If other companies could make hardware that ran iOS or MacOS, prices would not remain what they are. That’s a pretty basic concept and precisely why Apple locks out competing hardware.

[crispy4000]

9 hours ago, sblfilms said:

There is no ability to have less expensive hardware run Mac OS only because Apple artificially locks competitions hardware out. That absolutely increases the cost of entry to Mac OS. In the brief time when you could install Mac OS on non Apple hardware, less expensive options existed.

 

Apple charges significantly more for hardware only because they lock their OS to said hardware, same for their iOS hardware. 

Your idea of cause and effect is muddled here.  It’s true that Apple has more flexibility to charge what they want because they make their OS’s exclusive to their hardware and create their own bubble.  But it isn’t true that this is the cause of their hardware being more expensive.  You’re missing a step of agency in between:

 

Apple can choose to charge less.  Apple can choose to charge more.  It’s all about how they position their brand and market to their target audience.

 

Look at the consoles.  On a hardware capability level, they typically provide a better value for gaming than a price equivalent PC rig.  The manufacturers consider royalties and subscriptions a justification to sell their hardware at a loss, to stay value competitive.  These are still closed systems.
 

There’s absolutely no reason why Apple couldn’t do the same with mobile in general.  They simply choose not to, because they don’t believe they have to compete on price.  iOS’s market share has proven them right.  Consumers will never get a hardware break as a result of their royalty cut.  It’s against their corporate culture.

It’s definitely not the bs you were pedaling earlier about them needing their current royalty policy to have reason to prioritize their mobile business.  Take that away and iPhones are still more successful than any computing device they’ve produced since the Apple II.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, crispy4000 said:

Your idea of cause and effect is muddled here.  It’s true that Apple has more flexibility to charge what they want because they make their OS’s exclusive to their hardware and create their own bubble.  But it isn’t true that this is the cause of their hardware being more expensive.  You’re missing a step of agency in between:

 

Apple can choose to charge less.  Apple can choose to charge more.  It’s all about how they position their brand and market to their target audience.

 

Look at the consoles.  On a hardware capability level, they typically provide a better value for gaming than a price equivalent PC rig.  The manufacturers consider royalties and subscriptions a justification to sell their hardware at a loss, to stay value competitive.  These are still closed systems.
 

There’s absolutely no reason why Apple couldn’t do the same with mobile in general.  They simply choose not to, because they don’t believe they have to compete on price.  iOS’s market share has proven them right.  Consumers will never get a hardware break as a result of their royalty cut.  It’s against their corporate culture.

It’s definitely not the bs you were pedaling earlier about them needing their current royalty policy to have reason to prioritize their mobile business.  Take that away and iPhones are still more successful than any computing device they’ve produced since the Apple II.

Businesses develop platforms to exert upward pressure on prices.

 

But again I ask, are consumers better off because they can’t install the boxed copy of Mac OS they purchased on whatever hardware they own that could technically run it?

[Duderino]

30 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

But again I ask, are consumers better off because they can’t install the boxed copy of Mac OS they purchased on whatever hardware they own that could technically run it?

The Mac OS platform's supported hardware limitations is entirely separate from the situation on iOS that is landing Apple in anti-trust lawsuits.

 

This tangent is not only irrelevant, it's not addressing the actual issue.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Duderino said:

The Mac OS platform's supported hardware limitations is entirely separate from the situation on iOS that is landing Apple in anti-trust lawsuits.

 

This tangent is not only irrelevant, it's not addressing the actual issue.

My question is directly connected to Crispy’s position that Apple’s App Store policies are a completely novel scheme and a divergence for Apple, when in reality it is the natural evolution of their business model.

[crispy4000]

2 hours ago, sblfilms said:

Businesses develop platforms to exert upward pressure on prices.

 

That’s an oversimplification if there ever was one.

 

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

My question is directly connected to Crispy’s position that Apple’s App Store policies are a completely novel scheme and a divergence for Apple, when in reality it is the natural evolution of their business model.

 

How many times did I say it came out of iTunes?  Apple didn’t invent the platform royalty model either.  Cut the strawmans.

 

2 hours ago, sblfilms said:

But again I ask, are consumers better off because they can’t install the boxed copy of Mac OS they purchased on whatever hardware they own that could technically run it?

 

This isn’t relevant.  

 

But to humor you, it depends what you mean by worse off.  MacOS isn’t taking developers away from Windows.  They have too small of a market share.  You’d be better off running Windows for pretty much anything beyond a personal UI preference. 
 

Now if Microsoft ever decides to close In-Windows purchases and applications exactly as Apple does on iOS, then having Mac OS be platform agnostic would be a huge boon for consumers in the same way Android is.  But currently there’s no major issue with that.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Speaking of Microsoft...

 

 

[Duderino]

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

My question is directly connected to Crispy’s position that Apple’s App Store policies are a completely novel scheme and a divergence for Apple, when in reality it is the natural evolution of their business model.

• Novel? No
• Divergent revenue from the past? Yes
• Protected under the law?  No ( Mac OS hardware rights ruling has no application here)
• In violation of anti-trust?  TBD, but there is precidence.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

 

[crispy4000]

He makes a good point.  What’s to stop Epic from trying to turn this all around on Microsoft if they fall out of their good graces and breach contract with them?  It lacks some foresight.

[Duderino]

Epic breaking the Apple TOS will be a point of contention in this case, but the real billion dollar question is if Apple's terms and actions have violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in the first place.

 

Hoeg is obviously far from the only voice in the legal world on this matter.  Polygon reached to a few others (quoted important bits in case you want to avoid the clicks):

Quote

“Epic is going at the heart of the App Store monopoly, as well as Google’s comparable monopoly over the sale of Android apps,” Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at anti-monopoly research and advocacy group Open Markets Institute, told Polygon. “It’s challenging the practices by which [Apple and Google] acquired this dominant position and tried to leverage this dominant position into new markets. This is a major lawsuit.”

 

Vaheesan said Epic Games’ lawyers presented “detailed factual allegations” that rely on “strong legal theories,” which bodes well for the company. Epic isn’t asking the court to rewrite antitrust law as it stands — instead, it’s asking a judge to just enforce the law as it exists. It’s different, in that way, from the antitrust hearing in Congress last month, where government officials discussed potential changes to market power rules. (Epic’s lawsuit, however, is still important in that if Epic wins, it’ll make it clear that Apple’s and Google’s practices are illegal, and then those companies will be forced to change their practices.)

 

Quote

“It’ll be a test of whether the law that’s nominally on the books is actually effective in constraining the power and practices of these big tech companies,” Vaheesan said.

The problem isn’t simply that Apple and Google are monolithic companies, but that they have large monopolies over certain markets. Valarie Williams, an antitrust lawyer and partner at Alston & Bird, told Polygon that Epic Games’ basic allegation comes down to whether or not Apple (and, subsequently, Google) has a monopoly through its App Store. For Epic to succeed in its lawsuits, it has to prove the market exists — and that the companies have monopolies over them.

 

She pointed to another restriction, the “tying” arrangement, that Epic Games said is violating antitrust laws. “[Apple] is saying that if you’re going to use the App Store, then you have to use our payment processing service; you can’t use your own,” Williams said. If you don’t want to do that, then you can’t use the App Store — and that’s why Fortnite was removed.

 

“It’s not a problem to be a monopoly,” Williams said. “It’s not a problem under the law to have market power. It’s when you use that to restrain competition.” And Epic Games has alleged that that’s exactly what the restrictions do, at least in the case of Apple — you can’t just move to a different app store on iOS, because Apple doesn’t permit them to exist.

I agree.  The law on this matter is already in place.  

 

The question is if Apple and Google's lawyers can make a compelling case that their market-status and integrated App stores do not violate the same law that lost Microsoft the Windows + Interent Explorer anti-trust case.

[Ghost_MH]

1 hour ago, Duderino said:

Epic breaking the Apple TOS will be a point of contention in this case, but the real billion dollar question is if Apple's terms and actions have violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in the first place.

 

Hoeg is obviously far from the only voice in the legal world on this matter.  Polygon reached to a few others (quoted important bits in case you want to avoid the clicks):

 

I agree.  The law on this matter is already in place.  

 

The question is if Apple and Google's lawyers can make a compelling case that their market-status and integrated App stores do not violate the same law that lost Microsoft the Windows + Interent Explorer anti-trust case.

 

Apple is going to make the same argument they always do. They're going to argue they can't possibly hold a monopoly anywhere because iOS has a smaller marketshare than Android. They're going to claim that their App Store competes with Google Play. They're going to claim proof of this in Google's Play Pass as being a competitor to Apple Arcade. They'll claim they aren't Microsoft because Microsoft used the 90+% marketshare to push IE into 90+% marketshare driving a competitor out of business.

 

I think the biggest thing Epic had going for themselves is that the rules are unevenly enforced and that really messes with competition within the App Store. Microsoft can provide Office 365 on iOS when the subscription is managed on the web, but Hey gets in trouble over it. Amazon doesn't pay the same 30% tax everyone else does on digital goods. Services like Uber and Door Dash don't pay any fee at all. I guess it's because they offer a service that isn't digital. What would you call what steamers offer? YouTube and Twitch tips are subject to a 30% cut. How different is that from Patreon? As far as I'm aware, Patreon doesn't have to give Apple a 30% cut. I think Apple says it's because the service being rendered isn't within the app, but I watch videos and comics within the app, itself, so I'm not sure how that works.

 

Google's biggest issue here is going to be enforcement of their own rules as well. If Google stopped Epic from offering Fortnite pre-installed on phones outside of the app store, then that's going to be a big problem. All the Samsung apps on my Galaxy S10 are controlled by Samsung's own competing app store that was pre-installed on my phone. There's no reason Epic shouldn't be allowed to negotiate with phone manufacturers to get Fortnite of the Epic Game Store pre-installed on Android phones. As far as I'm aware, the only rule here was supposed to be that you have to pre-install Google's software suite to gain access to the Play Store. That shouldn't stop anyone from being able to pre-install any other game, apps, or app stores.

[Keyser_Soze]

Microsoft just wants in so they can get their Xcloud stuff on apple.

[Spork3245]

8 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

Microsoft just wants in so they can get their Xcloud stuff on apple.

[Keyser_Soze]

11 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

I was wondering when you were going to show up. @sblfilms has been taking your place.

[Spork3245]

3 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

I was wondering when you were going to show up. @sblfilms has been taking your place.

No, he’s doing his weird circular troll thing.

[Keyser_Soze]

1 hour ago, Spork3245 said:

No, he’s doing his weird circular troll thing.

 

You're a circular troll thing

[Spork3245]

33 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

You're a circular troll thing

Only for your circular hole

[crispy4000]

 

 

[crispy4000]

 

 

[Ghost_MH]

Again, Apple is giving themselves more trouble by messing with Epic's ability to support apps on macOS. If Epic were to win this, I can't see how a part of it wouldn't come down to this nice by Apple. That said, I'm not at all convinced Epic will win their car against Google. Even if Google got in the way of Epic's dealings with other phone manufacturers, I could see a scenario where Google would no longer be allowed to do that, but still be allowed their 30% cut.

[crispy4000]

4 hours ago, Ghost_MH said:

Again, Apple is giving themselves more trouble by messing with Epic's ability to support apps on macOS. If Epic were to win this, I can't see how a part of it wouldn't come down to this nice by Apple. That said, I'm not at all convinced Epic will win their car against Google. Even if Google got in the way of Epic's dealings with other phone manufacturers, I could see a scenario where Google would no longer be allowed to do that, but still be allowed their 30% cut.

iOS you mean?  (Or maybe it’s both?)

 

As expected, Epic just won the temporary reprieve from Apple blocking Unreal Engine development.  That’s going to help many devs sleep better at night.  Not Fortnite though.  I doubt that’s ever coming back to iOS legitimately.

 

Epic’s beef with Google is less pointed because of side loading.

[Ghost_MH]

5 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

iOS you mean?  (Or maybe it’s both?)

 

As expected, Epic just won the temporary reprieve from Apple blocking Unreal Engine development.  That’s going to help many devs sleep better at night.  Not Fortnite though.  I doubt that’s ever coming back to iOS legitimately.

 

Epic’s beef with Google is less pointed because of side loading.

 

Yes, both. Apple was going to block UE development on macOS and iOS. Epic had just released a new face tracking tool for iOS, too.

[crispy4000]

 

[TwinIon]

Here's an article about the TRO the judge issued.

 

Basically, Apple had two agreements with two different Epic companies. One is Epic games, the other is Epic the developer of Unreal Engine. Apple argued that the latter is effectively a shell company for the former, but the judge decided that the two operate differently enough, and have separate contracts and developer accounts with Apple, and therefore Apple's attempt to shut down UE was retaliatory. 

 

The judge also seemed to make it clear that this ruling has nothing to do with the merits of the case, so don't read too far into it.

[TwinIon]

On 8/23/2020 at 8:18 PM, Ghost_MH said:

 

Apple is going to make the same argument they always do. They're going to argue they can't possibly hold a monopoly anywhere because iOS has a smaller marketshare than Android. They're going to claim that their App Store competes with Google Play. They're going to claim proof of this in Google's Play Pass as being a competitor to Apple Arcade. They'll claim they aren't Microsoft because Microsoft used the 90+% marketshare to push IE into 90+% marketshare driving a competitor out of business.

 

I think the biggest thing Epic had going for themselves is that the rules are unevenly enforced and that really messes with competition within the App Store. Microsoft can provide Office 365 on iOS when the subscription is managed on the web, but Hey gets in trouble over it. Amazon doesn't pay the same 30% tax everyone else does on digital goods. Services like Uber and Door Dash don't pay any fee at all. I guess it's because they offer a service that isn't digital. What would you call what steamers offer? YouTube and Twitch tips are subject to a 30% cut. How different is that from Patreon? As far as I'm aware, Patreon doesn't have to give Apple a 30% cut. I think Apple says it's because the service being rendered isn't within the app, but I watch videos and comics within the app, itself, so I'm not sure how that works.

 

Google's biggest issue here is going to be enforcement of their own rules as well. If Google stopped Epic from offering Fortnite pre-installed on phones outside of the app store, then that's going to be a big problem. All the Samsung apps on my Galaxy S10 are controlled by Samsung's own competing app store that was pre-installed on my phone. There's no reason Epic shouldn't be allowed to negotiate with phone manufacturers to get Fortnite of the Epic Game Store pre-installed on Android phones. As far as I'm aware, the only rule here was supposed to be that you have to pre-install Google's software suite to gain access to the Play Store. That shouldn't stop anyone from being able to pre-install any other game, apps, or app stores.

You're right about Apple, because we already saw Apple's argument at the recent antitrust hearings, where they argued that they compete not only with Google Play but also with the Xbox/Playstation storefronts, and the Amazon App store and all sorts of smaller ones.

 

The question isn't really about that though, it's about how the market is defined. If Epic can convince the court that the market in question is "iOS apps," and not software in general, all those arguments quickly get brushed aside. Then Apple's defense isn't so much, "competition exists" as it is "we have a right to prevent competition on our platform" which is a much less appealing argument to make in an anti-trust setting.

 

I also thought that Epic had a rather novel argument here, when they said that there is no market force which exists to push back against Apple's alleged abuse of power. Even if customers could save money if they owned an Android phone, the switching costs between platforms is so high (both monetarily and otherwise), and is so high largely because of Apple's choices, there's no way that customers switch over something so small. Therefore you can't see people leaving iOS because of Apple's abuses, and therefore this market is effectively limited to iOS apps and not any wider consideration of games or software.

 

[Ghost_MH]

Here's a move that is sure to engender Apple with the EU in regards to their antitrust case. Apple is going to switch user tracking for ads in iOS to opt-in for everyone but themselves. Here's The Verge's summary of what's going on here.

 

 

Quote

Apple says it’s applying one standard everywhere. The IDFA restrictions apply only for developers who want to move data between companies; all developers can get access to the data generated from within their own apps. But this neatly sets aside the fact that Apple doesn’t have to move data between companies to run its ad business — because it owns the device, the operating system, the App Store, the data, and the advertising network.

 

This move will, magically, make Apple's own advertising network far more lucrative for app developers than anyone else's advertising network on iOS.

 

Here is my shocked face.

[Brian]

Apple terminated Epic Games Developer account

[foosh]

On 8/27/2020 at 9:24 AM, Ghost_MH said:

Here's a move that is sure to engender Apple with the EU in regards to their antitrust case. Apple is going to switch user tracking for ads in iOS to opt-in for everyone but themselves. Here's The Verge's summary of what's going on here.

 

 

 

This move will, magically, make Apple's own advertising network far more lucrative for app developers than anyone else's advertising network on iOS.

 

Here is my shocked face.

Apple doesn’t really have their own advertising network

[Duderino]

Apple is also blocking Facebook from notifying users within their App about the 30% cut.