Apple wins antitrust court battle with Epic Games, appeals court rules
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
How can the app store promote competition when it is a monopoly on iOS? (I suppose they could be talking between different apps, but that isn't what this case was about)
UPDATE: The comments seem to imply I am giving my opinion on this case. I am not. I am commenting on the PR-speak given here. The app store does not, IMO, "promote" competition...it may arguably not hinder it, but given what the case is about, it is, I think, more competitive if others could use different methods of selling apps on iOS. That doesn't mean it is better, right, more fair, or anything else... just more "competitive" IMO. In short, I'm commenting on the wording in their press release only.
The court did not decide that the relevant market was iOS only, as Epic wanted.
> A threshold issue in any antitrust case is defining the “relevant market.” Here, Epic argued that the relevant market is Apple’s iOS system. Apple argued that the relevant market is the market for all digital video games, where it is one of many players. The court disagreed with both sides, and it instead defined the relevant market as “digital mobile gaming transactions.” Under this formulation, the court found that Apple has a 52–57% market share in the “digital mobile gaming transactions” market. But this was not enough for the court to conclude Apple has monopoly power.
https://www.klgates.com/Court-Issues-Mixed-Ruling-in-Epic-v-...
This article is about Epic losing their appeal of the lower court's rulings.
Also be wary of comments in this thread that don't weigh this most important element of the entire process well.
All too often these discussions on anti-trust issues become meaningless on this site because everyone involved is using a personal definition for "the marketplace".
Step one of any attempt to claim Apple holds a monopoly will require you to define exactly what the market is, in quite specific terms, and have the court agree. That didn't happen for Epic here.
If apple raised their prices for apps by 5%, clearly most users would not jump ship to android, since they have a large library of apps on iOS and significant other platform lock-in (messages, photos, subscriptions etc). So according to this test, the relevant product market would be "providing apps for iOS devices", which apple clearly has a monopoly on at the moment. I wonder if this argument came up.
Epic did raise this argument during the original trial however since they failed to establish a single-brand aftermarket they never got to the point where the SSNIP analysis would have been performed.
> If apple raised their prices for apps by 5%, clearly most users would not jump ship to android
It's actually not that clear and would need to be backed by actual evidence in court.
There are hundreds, no thousands, no tens of thousands of people creating apps for iOS.
It's not just that; most Apple users actively dislike Android, or think that only Apple makes smartphones (really, I've met people who said this).
Apple could easily raise their prices for apps by 100% and not have a significant number of users jump to Android. Apple users are happy to pay a premium to be able to carry around a device with an Apple logo on it for everyone around them to see. For the people who don't fit that description, the lock-ins you mention will keep them in line.
It’s often the first step in a whole lot of doublespeak. “This will set everybody free”, but at the same time, “this doesn’t present a security issue because nobody will use it”.
To be clear, I think that the government should storm Apple Park with buns glazing and force them to do a more reasonable degree of rent-seeking. I’m not going to pretend that this is for any reason other than “I think that 30% is a dick move”.
You don’t just get to pretend that Android doesn’t exist, or that the vast majority of ways that people communicate aren’t cross-platform, or that IOS has any material network effect whatsoever.
So you really end up with two camps, one camp who always stop short of saying “iOS is just better in my eyes, and I want to be able to do more with my phone.” And the other camp is…let’s be honest…Android users. And the mere fact that there’s so many people in this camp I think directly contradicts any assertion that there’s a monopoly in the first place.
But it said ... that Epic, regardless, had “failed to establish, as a factual matter, its proposed market definition and the existence of any substantially less restrictive alternative means for Apple to accomplish the procompetitive justifications supporting iOS’s walled-garden ecosystem.”
In other words, while these types of contracts can be within the scope of a Sherman Act claim, that wasn’t relevant to the court’s decision in this case.
Lol typo or intentional?
In some ways, from Apple's point of view, Android does not exist! Android is not the same thing Apple is, and most computer manufacturers are not doing what Apple is doing with the Mac either. Sure, a computer is a computer and a phone is a phone, but Apple has a far greater control over it's product than it's competition does, except perhaps Google.
Apple likes to sell products to people who will value them in the same way Apple does. A big part of that is Apple makes awful nice stuff! And unlike many other manufacturers, Apple asks for some money on every last bit of that value and Apple gets that money because it is all real value.
I'm typing this on an M1 Air that I got for a song. It's a sweet machine! I said the same thing about the last Mac I owned and used regularly too. Got that one for a song as well. From Apple's point of view, I might as well not exist!
I only value some of the things Apple does and that means I'm unwilling to pay what Apple asks for it's products, despite being a fan of said products.
We get along just fine too. I'm not paying what Apple wants and I almost never use the app store either. I have the software running on the machine that I want to run, and I can write the programs I want to write, use the peripherals I want to use enjoy media I want to enjoy, on the machine I want to enjoy them on. No worries.
Unlike many who disagree with Apple on value, I strongly support what Apple does and how they do it. It doesn't impact me one bit, or if it does and let's be real --it probably does, then I don't really notice. From there, it's a hop and a skip to who cares? I sure don't.
Most of the time when I see someone saying Apple is a problem, it boils down to a few great features, or how sexy the hardware is, or some other similar thing, and how that thing just should not cost as much as Apple wants to charge for it. Or I see someone point out how the BOM doesn't seem to add up in their view, and how that means over the top margins that "the market" does not support meaning something has got to be wrong, rent seeking, monopoly, SOMETHING!!!
The truth is so much more simple and I've already said it:
Apple puts value into it's products as fully as they can and Apple charges for all of that value and the fact is there are plenty of people out there who see that value and pay up.
They didn't get ripped off.
They didn't get abused.
They are not the victim in any way really.
Apple made a nice, high value product and people saw that value and paid Apple for that value.
Personally, I see it all break down this way when we look at prospective users and value:
The top isn't worried about money and they like nice stuff which makes an easy, high profit sale for Apple. Many of these people will buy all Apple.
Upper percentiles are also not worried about money, but are more practical. "nice stuff" isn't an easy sale to them. These people may buy all Apple, but are also pickers and choosers, maybe skipping Mac computers and buying iPhones. These are the most vocal complainers.
Middle of the road prospects can be worried about money, with more worried now than we may have seen in a long time. They generally do not buy products because they are nice, though attractive to them. They do buy products because they find them useful and are always looking for deals.
Lower percentiles will not typically buy Apple products new and do worry about money.
While it's more complex than that, I find the rough brackets of people useful.
Notice one last observation made possible by looking at this through the simple lens I just made:
Apple sells most of it's products to the body of people who are willing and able to pay the most, no worries! These are the most profitable customers. Others may do twice the work Apple does to put a similar amount of money in the bank!
This can look like some sort of monopoly or aberration in the market.
I don't understand that. How is a single company controlling more than half of the entire market not monopoly power?
It's much harder to unfairly distort an open marketplace with 51% share than say 90%, most of the time. Again, this is why the marketplace definition step of this process matters so much!
Now... do buyers of third-world shitphones buy a bunch of expensive (or any) applications? Hell no. But they still count as Android "market share."
AppStore is merely a package manager for iDevices. It is not it's own market any more than YUM is for RHEL or FreeBSD Ports is for FreeBSD. The market is software. Apple does not control half the entire software market.
>the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service
What is exclusive about 52%?
I agree also the point you are making. If Apple somehow commanded 90+% of the smartphone market then they would likely face much regulation.
Is this true in the U.S.?
This seems surprising low, and I suspect there is some kind of nuance being left out or an oversight in the methods of the study that found that number.
What you're doing is assuming "the relevant market" is very narrow. In antitrust law, they say the case is won or lost on how broadly the relevant market is defined. Does Amazon compete against every brick and mortar store, or just other online merchants? The subsequent legal analysis looks very different depending on the answer to that question.
Most people who dislike Apple have already found themselves a nice Android phone on it for less money with several app stores.
This goes both ways. My corner bodega has a monopoly over its intersection.
In practice, we need legislation defining anti-competitive behavior for platforms and Thompsonian aggregators [1]. I haven't seen anyone propose a sensible, predictable framework.
Within the last few years, I've noticed a trend where questions are now interpreted as statements. I can't say I understand it. I don't think it's fair to say they were assuming anything. They were asking for help in understanding.
The second part of the question is assumed. To question that part, one would ask "how can the app store promote competition if it is a monopoly on iOS?"
Would you say that PlayStation is a monopoly? Probably not - you know they are competing with Xbox and Nintendo. Apple makes the same argument and legally it has held up - they are competing with Android and Windows and Amazon. You don't have to like the competition from Android or Amazon, but legally, there's competition and that's all that matters. At least for right now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic....
1. No one is stopping developers from selling their apps in Android markets.
2. Apple hasn't attempted to prevent android app markets from existing.
3. Apple can make the argument that they own the market on merit, therefore their monopoly on selling iOS apps is legal.
4. It has to be proven this is bad for consumers. Apple is claiming their control benefits consumers, which again justifies their monopoly.
And as mentioned elsewhere, Apple may be forced to allow side-loading, but still require their 30% on all transactions. And nothing stops Apple from enforcing security policies on things like private apis on side-loaded apps.
Unfortunately I think the likely result is going to be a partial victory no one is happy with. :(
The Play Store has almost identical rules and pricing compared to the App Store, how is that a competitor?
If you were, however, to penalize Apple; you would need to come up with a legal differentiation between a smartphone and a game console, as well as why the game console business model is moral and legal, but the locked-in smartphone market should be immoral and illegal. Considering there's no such thing as a "general purpose computing device" in the law; you would also need to come up with a pretty good explanation why Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft get to keep their exclusivity privileges but Apple loses theirs.
And that's a tricky nut to solve. Because you might say, "well, a smartphone can do way more than a game console." Well, that's only because the game console is so locked down - but a game console remains theoretically capable of anything a PC could do otherwise. If it wasn't for a lockout, you could install Windows on it and use it as a node in a supercomputer. Does that mean Apple would be legally fine if the smartphone was more locked down then? It's tricky.
Not really, they can just leave it up to the court's interpretation. "I know it when I see it" has been used in a court before. Just define it as a smartphone: No one is going to call a gaming console a smartphone, nor vice versa.
And applying a ruling to a specific industry isn't new either: see that Hollywood anti-trust case again. It was never applied to TV shows. Otherwise Netflix Exclusives wouldn't be a thing. Or any other "Only on Disney Channel/Cartoon Network/etc" show.
This is a very important point because Epic doesn’t like that either. There was very reasonable speculation that if they won this lawsuit they would immediately turn around and use it to sue the console makers.
A. There's no legally recognized market for "privacy-friendly phones."
B. "Privacy-friendly phones" is an ill-defined category, with "privacy" meaning different things to different people. Does a phone that blocks trackers qualify? Or does it have to protect me from rogue governments? There's no legal standard for what makes a device "privacy-friendly." Because of that, you are complaining that Apple has a monopoly in a market you just made up, which would be laughed out of court. You might as well claim Apple has a monopoly on phones with Lightning ports.
C. There's always GrapheneOS, which is free for anyone who wants it. There's also CalyxOS. You might claim they don't serve your purpose, but the law doesn't care an ounce about your specific purpose. There's generally-recognized competition in the vague category.
D. Having a monopoly is not illegal in the US. It's abusing your monopoly that's illegal. You would have to show Apple intentionally and specifically suppressed the development of alternative privacy-friendly phones by actively abusing their market power, which nobody is alleging.
This is probably because when phones were first introduced in the previous century, people assumed that nobody would listen in on their conversations.
By the way, who decides what a legally recognized market is?
Way to drill that category all the way down to IOS to ensure that you're able to use that "monopoly" keyword.
The deli that's in my complex has a monopoly on buying and obtaining wine if i don't want to drive anywhere or use a phone to order some via some delivery app.
To give you an idea of hypothetical regulation scenario: You want to move to an Android app. Sure you gotta need to change your phone as well. This is likely much more expensive than the app itself, thus it may make Android/iOS apps non-interchangeable. If FTC finds that this is expensive enough so most people won't make such move even if Apple decides to considerably increase the app store tax, then the App Store itself is a relevant market thus monopoly.
We don't know the legal conclusion since FTC hasn't done such study (this is a very complex process that takes several years with huge uncertainties, this is why politicians prefer direct regulation via legislation), but many experts believe that Apple is not in a very safe position.
If you try to create a third mobile platform to compete, you will fail. We know this because of Microsoft and Amazon's failed attempts at making phone OSes. In Amazon's case, they actually used the same OS Google did, but Google refused to support it. And you can't legally port licenses over from Google Play to get Google's apps running on Fire OS. So the Fire Phone - a phone running Google's OS with Amazon's tweaks - could not use any Google apps. Anything on a Google service had to be used through the web browser. Windows Mobile was even worse: nobody wanted to support it natively. And again, you can't sell something that isn't an iPhone or Google-blessed Android that lets you buy App Store or Google Play apps and run them.
This is the same situation for everything else, too. Amazon has a monopoly on books because Kindle and Audible books cannot be copied onto non-Amazon devices or reader apps. So nobody wants to buy books outside of Amazon's platform, because it'll split their collections. Nintendo spends extraordinary amounts of time and effort legally harassing anyone who publicly uses their games on non-Nintendo hardware. Same for Sony and Microsoft.
To bring this back to your deli thing, imagine if you weren't allowed to have your deli's wine and other wine in the same apartment. There's chips in the wine bottles that will poison the wine if you do that, and there's a federal law prohibiting you from removing the chip, and prohibiting even discussing how to remove the chip. So you can switch wine stores, but you have to throw out all your wine that you already have. That is the current situation of software distribution as a consumer in 2023.
but apple wasn't the one preventing these from succeeding. they failed on their own. On the other hand, it is reasonable to conclude that Netscape didn't fail on their own, but that Microsoft _prevented_ netscape from gaining marketshare by preloading a competing browser; such a preloading can only have occurred with a monopoly on operating systems.
Therefore, the monopoly abuse was to leverage its monopoly position in one market, to prevent competition a different market.
So despite the fact that I also hate the appstore and walled gardens, apple _did not_ use their apple device dominance to _prevent_ android versions of an app from existing/competing.
The complaint about walled gardens from people is that of lack of open access - not that of monopoly.
I suspect that new laws needs to be introduced to break open walled gardens - i want to call these "interoperability" laws. It's in the interest of society for systems to be interoperable.
This will not only concern apple devices, but things like EV charging networks, computer networks, and data interchange apis, and digital ownership of data. Imagine if by purchasing a CD or DVD, you are only allowed to play that disk on an authorized device! Now imagine instead of a physical disk, you buy a digital "disk" - a game, or music - but you're locked into the vendor's platform!
Is Apple a monopoly by the same definition that Windows was a monopoly? The answer is definitely no. Android has a larger global market share and it's far more accessible than iPhones in terms of pricing. Apple's US market share is in the 55-60% range depending on the source. Windows market share in 1988 when the suit began was about 90% so it's much clearer.
> The complaint about walled gardens from people is that of lack of open access - not that of monopoly.
100% this. People are just using the monopoly label because they're looking for some excuse why this shouldn't be allowed. But the reality is that probably >99% of Apple users do not care about any of this.
“Interoperability” laws are dangerous because they require lawyers to legislate how code works, and they’re not engineers. It’s in the interest of society to be interoperable , but at what costs and tradeoffs? Do I have to register my new network protocol with the Bureau of Interop Standards? If I make too much money on my platform, must I eventually cede control of that platform to a government-led utility commission? These would be nightmares and the unintended consequences of forcing laws to over-regulate how our technology platforms work and would dramatically hurt innovation.
You mention EV networks but this is a great example of the benefits of not forcing interop too soon: by far the most reliable EV charging network is Tesla’s, which has forced competition to up their game and forced competitive car brands to invest in networks. On the other hand, The CCS fast DC charging standard is a bulky design by committee standard that extended the old J1772 standard from 20 years ago. It’s inferior to Tesla’s NACS in terms of communications speeds, ease of use (NACS is far less bulky) and performance in cold weather. But we’ll have to live with it. It was a premature standard but has only minor deficiencies, luckily. EV networks themselves don’t have forced interop on the billing level and we have a handful of apps with different payment methods, some with plug and charge, some not, it’s not very intuitive. But unless you force a utility experience prematurely this is life in an evolving market.
There are 2 dominating app stores:
- Google/Android app store
- IOS app store
They have a duopoly in the mobile market, and they each have a monopoly on their platform. The deli comparison is asinine since there are millions of delis vs 2.
No, Apple is literally hard coded to be the only app store on iOS. You can not install apps not from the app store, and you cannot install other app stores. Installing your app every week by paying $99/year to be a developer is not a viable alternative.
On Android you could install another app store within the next 2 minutes if you so desired.
This is the perfect definition of a misleading argument.
But yes, I agree that Google's strategy is more open, and they allow others to use the Android source code to make their own (Amazon app store, Microsoft, etc).
Apple is more of a walled garden and a strict monopoly on their platform (and hardware).
There are several ways to install apps that do not go through the app store.
Your company can have an enterprise certificate that allows in-house apps to be run on company devices without needing to go through the app store approval process or the app store. You are not supposed to use that enterprise certificate to publish apps to the general public, although companies have been caught doing so in the past.
If you have a paid developer account, you can test your own apps on devices owned by your company and your customers.
Anyone can get a free Apple Developer account that allows you to test apps on your own device.
Better start working today because you’re gonna need to put in like 50 years.
It would take billions of dollars and 50+ years of development to have a chance. You would also need phone partners, which wouldn't go with a small OS maker. So you'd need to make the phones + the OS + the app store.
A deli can start anywhere with ~$10k and they'll have clients if they're good enough.
It's not feasible to compete with Android + IOS, even Microsoft and Amazon failed.
They therefore have a duopoly of the mobile app store market.
It's actually a patent minefield.
Nobody is entitled to have an abuseable level of market dominance simply because they worked hard.
I don't recall sideloading ever being a thing iOS started out with. There was a trivial jailbreak and very easy third party app store install for jailbroken devices, but that was essentially a defect and not something iOS was designed for.
To argue that the existence of Cydia means that “Apple started out with side-loading” is intellectually dishonest. I know it, and I know that you know it. If you have a real argument, you shouldn’t need to resort to this.
Phone operating systems are the malls, and for the vast bulk of us, unfortunately the only areas in the city zoned to have commercial app buildings.
None of this has the consumer at heart at all.
They’re talking about apps. Before the App Store (and the android store etc) finding, buying and installing apps was an incredibly painful experience that few developers or users bothered with. The app stores have promoted a massive leap in the number of apps available (perhaps too many) giving small app developers the ability to publicise and publish apps competing with bigger developers.
There are a lot of areas for scrutiny. This ruling feels like the can is being kicked further down the road, and with the European regulation coming in hot I expect there to be more debate here. Separating Apple's business practices from their personal policies will probably be where this discussion ends.
Maybe they don't mean competition between app stores, but between apps within the store itself? Look at how many apps are clones of other apps. If they didn't promote competition, they would shut down all of the clones. /s
The district court analyzed anticompetitive effects
in terms of increases in the cost of mobile gaming
transactions—the court’s relevant market. But the court
could have found greater increases in costs if its analysis
concerned Epic’s markets, and this would change a properly
conducted balancing analysis. In essence, any balancing
done out of the context of a relevant market necessarily
involves putting a thumb on the balancing scale.What marketing says and what a company does don't need to align anymore sadly.
I now get bombarded with conflicting updates for apps from multiple stores. They all try to get in each others way and it's much harder to figure out what to install and from where.
I greatly prefer the Apple app store, where i can be reasonably sure that i'm not downloading a bunch of malware every time i look for an app.
The absolute king of this mess is the windows store. There is basically 50 malwares for every possible keyword in that absolute garbage patch of a store.
No need to go that far, the couple Google / Apple is a duopoly without any competition, regardless of their marketshare. So you can say that there's no competition on mobile marketplaces at all.
(I'm ignoring irrelevant marketplaces such as Samsung store or Amazon app store which are a rounding error at best)
The judge makes a decision on their interpretation of the case and the law. This is a very important distinction in decisions.
A lot of court rulings are basically come down to, "I don't like the logic but it follows" and you just have to live with them.
Yes, it is the absolute bare minimum, but you also have to remember that the standards for anti-trust enforcement in the united states are extremely low.
> The comments seem to imply I am giving my opinion on this case. I am not. I am commenting on the PR-speak given here.
> I suppose they could be talking between different apps, but that isn't what this case was about
Overall Apple is right, the App Store promotes competition and has driven a lot of innovation and expanded the opportunities of developers around the world. At the end of the day iOS could not allow third party apps AT ALL. iPhones could just be self contained devices with only the software on them which Apple has developed themselves. It would be like a smart fridge or toaster. You cannot load a different app into your smart fridge and nobody thinks this is anti-competitive. So given that not allowing any third party apps was the status quo in the early days of iPhones, the fact that Apple opened up and created a market place where developers can promote and advertise their own apps to be purchased and loaded onto people's iPhones is a HUGE STEP towards promoting competition, innovation and opportunity.
I have a monopoly on parking spots at my house, but that's not a relevant market.
I'm for right to repair, I'm agains the 30% markup on the App Store, and I think Apple in general should make it easier for pro users to customize, but you the novel legal theories to consider someone with a smaller market share than a competitor in the relevant market (unless they are colluding with them in an oligopoly) is anarchy. You can't just say something is a market. It would never end the anti-trust litigation out there.
iPhone has a 57% market share in the United States, the jurisdiction of the case.
A textbook monopoly price antitrust case involves people who are virtually the only player, or a combination of almost all or all of the players.
And the court found that they didn't do anything with whatever marketshare they had and this is obvious to people who were paying attention. What about consoles? They are even more locked down than phones, yet the Internet seems to have a lot less to say about that, even though it's been that way for decades.
You can think Apple is a bad company. You can think they are too big. But you can't just wish the antitrust laws to be completely unworkable to punish them. That's the not the rule of law. That's the rule of "I don't like them."
I didn't "cherrypick" one quarter. I'm talking about the most recent quarter.
Anyway, it wasn't a comment about the court case, it was a response to the claim "iOS doesn't have dominant market share".
Apple's US market share has been growing and growing over the years. It's only going to get higher, I think, and Apple more dominant.
You say "for better or worse" and I agree, but people don't want to hear that. They want to hear [company I don't like] should be punished and [company I like] shouldn't.
This sounds like "War is Peace", "Ignorance is Strength".
This is not a niche market and a cute little oligopoly. Tech touches, controls and even disrupts major parts of economy and social life and there is no visible counterbalance. E.g., in other recent news Apple was getting deeper into finance and banking.
Where exactly does the conglomeration stop?
Having let things reach such an advanced metastasized stage its not clear if there is a gentle way to turn things around. Which commercial entity would dare go against such a entrenched and systemically supported duopoly?
Taking the axe and creating by brute force less dominant pieces is the approach that was used in the past.
Another, maybe fanciful, idea is for governments to fund public goods that will undermine the commercial viability of certain business lines currently under the stranglehold of tech oligopolies.
As it stands, reinforcing the concept of TINA, there is no alternative, acts as a millstone around society and effectively robs us from the potential of technology.
Obviously this may sound like a marketing stunt, but you should really know there are those of us who want to see a different world.
Sure.
I still think that Apple's dictatorial grip on their platforms broadly stifles innovation and has a negative impact on competition.
That's not a monopolistic issue, that's just the systemic underregulation we have come to expect from the US.
Repeat ad nasuium for your favorite monopoly/duopoly.
Currently. one of the big dogs needs to make a big misstep in order for a smaller company to come in and win. Like car companies being complacent and Tesla seizing the opportunity. Electric cars had been around for a while, hobbyist putting them together but no capital to compete with Ford/GM. Now that Tesla has shown there is a path forward, look at all the capital that has gone to create new car companies.
Apple is not a phone or computer company. They are a luxury brand that is functional. Trying to compete with Apple is like trying to compete with Disney; you cant just be putting out a cartoon movie, you have to have the theme parks, the toys, the cruises. Maybe you can pull it off, but not very likely.
They didn't. Standard Oil was cheaper, faster, easier, higher quality, more consistent.. why use anybody else? They weren't being manipulative, they weren't strongarming competition, they just made the best product and everybody wanted it. What's wrong with that?
There'a a lot to dislike about Apple. But your friends know that airdrop will always work between each other. If Merlin appeared and made airdrop interoperable with your device... Your friends would leave Apple, because all of those experiences would become as fragmented and unreliable as open ecosystems are.
100% cool to hate Apple and wish regulatory doom on them. But don't think that Apple customers will be thankful. They will move to the next closed ecosystem that offers vertical integration and better UX. Because that's what they want.
So? There are ample ways to share a video that aren't based on single-platform features.
If Apple invents a way to do some thing X between two of its users, that's great. That's a platform advantage. There's no legal or moral standing that allows us to insist that they open that to other platforms.
Apple did what they do, but their stuff is locked to their phones.
Google made their OS free for everyone. So now a phone maker can spend a HUGE amount of money building an OS and getting apps, or they can just use Android. Spending the money to not use Android looks like a folly.
Except Google trained everyone Android comes with the Play Store.
So either a phone maker has to contribute to Google’s stranglehold on the non-Apple smartphone market, making themselves a commodity, or skip including Google services and consumers won’t accept it.
So we’re now at a place where even if an alternate OS could get applications somehow, I can’t imagine any company being willing to put the money into developing it. Only a state like China could in an attempt to force Android out of their market.
Because an open platform would need first to convince hundred millions of developper to port their App on their platform just to exist.
And the cost does not justify the benefits of that "an open platform" brings.
Apple and Google knows that very well and abuse of it.
Just as a side note I would add: There were a time where Internet explorer was a de-facto (shitty) Monopoly everywhere with terrible consequences.
Technological Freedom and the ability to have the choice brought us Firefox. It tools 10 years of competition to get there.
And The result was a better web for everybody.
Apple with its App store makes a Firefox style scenario impossible: they do decide of the life and death of everything on their platform. Including, ironically, the Web browser.
In the US however as a result of differing strategy behind text and data costs by telecom providers in the 2000s Apple were lucky that it disincentivised using data for messages, so there wasn't the same internet-based messaging app uptake that took place elsewhere globally and basic SMS remained dominant.
Then when iMessage launched in 2011 telecom providers plans had changed enough so that data wasn't as expensive, so it became seamless to keep using the default iPhone messaging app to talk to everyone.
Profit-seeking companies flocking to the most profitable jurisdiction is natural. If that jurisdiction was not available, most of them would simply go to the next most profitable one.
Also, not Brits, but without the European hardware and hard as fuck to build components in the 60's, 70's and the 80's, you would be doing... nothing today. No comms, no teleco hardware, no modern Arpanet and Internet, nothing at all.
Have a look on Siemens, or Ericsson. Or ARM. A lot of low-level teleco and electronics has an European development.
What has Europe created in the last 30 years during the Internet age and arguably the greatest period of technological advancement? Not much at all compared to the US. For every company of note, the US has a match, plus 50x more with the best in AI, self-driving, space, consumer, cloud, silicon, and so much more.
What is the point of antitrust law? Of policing anticompetitive behavior? My naive hope is that it is a service of our government to protect consumers from companies who use their considerable power and influence to otherwise abuse or extort money from them.
The way the App Store and apple’s ecosystem is structured, they are able to extort as much money out of their users as they care to.
Let’s suppose they get crazy and jack their fees up to 100%.
Will people stop buying iPhones? Not likely — many people now have a lot of their life stored on iCloud.
Will they stop buying their apps? I guess they could, but where the hell else are they going to get apps for their phone?
Will developers switch platforms or ignore iOS altogether? Probably not, since really their bottom line wouldn’t be affected. They’d just pass the fees on.
This is yet another big blow to the consumer. And I can’t understand why _populace_ isn’t the primary focus of these decisions. Companies don’t need protection. Epic is not threatening apple’s position in any way and whatever resultant requirement from the court wouldn’t have substantially hurt Apple, only made them work a bit harder. I know, boo hoo for the $3 trillion company.
Apple has no monopoly. Apple is not abusing its market dominance. It doesn't have enough of the market to come CLOSE to the kinds of chicanery that has typically generated antitrust interest from DOJ. Think back to Microsoft in the 1990s, or read up on it if it was before your time. They had a stranglehold on computing. You literally couldn't buy a PC without paying for a Windows license, even if you didn't want it.
All this grousing about Apple's closed platform is just grousing. If you want what Apple has built in their garden, work to make YOUR garden better. Most people use something else.
If you think Apple could do increase their fees to 100% without any consequences why are they not doing it? Do they not like money?
If that’s the case, where is all of the “innovation” on Android that average consumers would care about?
It's not simply an advertising premium for the App Store - it's a license to run your software on their platform period (not dissimilar to console games).
If someone wanted to produce a competitor to Netflix, YouTube, Spotify, Uber and the like - their startups could never be cost competitive on iOS because they wouldn't operate at the same scale as competitors.
The argument of "what more could you want from your device that the mega corps don't already provide" ignores the fact that you'll never know what you're missing out on because those products never got off the ground.
I'm not saying iOS is bad, it's that Apple isn't incentivised to create a marketplace that encourages competition, instead they actively hinder things that would make their platform richer for the user.
The market has demonstrated that success is contingent on such practices. Without regulators stepping in to change the rules of play, it's unlikely we will see an environment less hostile towards competition in digital products/services.
Netflix and Spotify haven’t allowed in app purchases for years and don’t give Apple any “cut”. Uber doesn’t use in app purchases. It gives you the option of using Apple Pay which charges standard credit card rates.
Again, if it’s only Apple, why wouldn’t all of these “innovations” be happening on Android.
> We now turn to Apple’s cross-appeal, beginning with its arguments concerning the UCL. The district court found that Epic suffered an injury sufficient to confer Article III standing, concluded that Apple’s anti-steering provision violates the UCL’s unfair prong, and entered an injunction prohibiting Apple from enforcing the anti-steering provision against any developer. Apple challenges each aspect on appeal. We affirm.
i.e., the District Court found Apple to be violating CA Unfair Competition Law which Apple had appealed and the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concurs with the district court.
Consequence of this ruling is limiting the ability of app developers to communicate the availability of alternative payment options to iOS device users is unlawful. As a result, alternate payment methods can no longer be restricted by Apple.
The question of commission (30%) still remains because the ruling is silent on it except for observing what the district court said.
> Because the district court accepted only a general version of Apple’s IP-compensation rationale (that Apple was entitled to “some compensation”), Epic at step three needed only to fashion a less-restrictive alternative calibrated to achieving that general goal, instead of one achieving the level of compensation that Apple currently achieves through its 30% commission.
My reading of this is that the 30% commission can come under challenge from another plaintiff. Epic took a different tactic on this specific argument and failed to establish it. However, the Appeals court's observaton seems to indicate there is legal room for a challenger to attack this.
[1]: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/04/24/2...
That sounds like a major win against Apple.
So, if the Netherlands dating apps case ruling is any indication (Apple discounted the 30% to 27% for dating apps in Netherlands for using alt payment methods in that suit), Apple is likely to do something similar here in cases where their In-app-payments are not used.
In this case, anti-steering stops Apple from preventing mobile apps from mentioning the mere _existence_ of other platforms. This doesn't have to be an embedded "pay with Epic" link, it could be a text blurb that says "Save 30% by buying on epic.com", might not even be a link. How could Apple possibly demand a fee in that scenario?
The only possible way to handle this would be to renegotiate terms to split payments by-platform for players regardless of where they make the purchase. But why would Epic ever negotiate terms like that when a court just threw out the anti-steering provisions universally?
The DPLA provides the devs with access to Apple IP.
The courts have ruled that Apple is entitled for some compensation under the IP compensation legal theory. The Appeals court left what some means as ambiguous.
Until some jurisdiction finds the Apple app store as a monopoly and forces Apple to open up ios app distribution to 3rd party app stores, the Netherlands situation is likely to continue where Apple takes the stance that the value of ios distribution for apps is 27% to 30%; 27% for alt payment methods and 30% for using Apple in-app payments. Apple's stance is ios distribution is worth at least 27% of app revenues.
As a very specific case, an app developer targeting the India market could now use the UPI payment method (which is free for up to approx. $1500 per transaction) and pay only 27% or use an alternate payment provider that charges 1.5% transaction fee for a total cost of 28.5% instead of 30% and being forced to use Apple in-app-payments. [This is assuming Apple amends their DPLA with the 27% similar to Netherlands for alternate payment methods around the world].
In the olden days, other browsers were ported to Cydia, the jailbreak store.
And there is tons of cool stuff people did, you can look back through the history of jailbreaking to see what sideloading would open up.
That means there is no way to do things current apps can’t. You can’t make a JIT, so no good alternate browsers. You can’t install other apps, so no making your own store. You can’t make background services like a web server that will always run. You can’t make widgets that are more interactive than what exists now. Nor can you get GPS data without or force the microphone on, the user still has to agree.
Side loading gets you side loading. You don’t get expanded privileges without exploits. And expect Apple to be working really hard right now at putting stronger enforcement on private APIs and preventing sandbox escape or limiting access if you do.
> [...]Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services. - Digital Markets Act
That seems to be the only restriction being lifted.
Nothing in there seems to say any of the other stuff has to be allowed for side loaded apps. As long as Apple doesn’t let App Store apps do it, they don’t appear to have to allow any new functionality outside that necessary to allow working app stores.
Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 7:
> The gatekeeper shall not require end users to use, or business users to use, to offer, or to interoperate with, an identification service, a web browser engine or a payment service, or technical services that support the provision of payment services, such as payment systems for in-app purchases, of that gatekeeper in the context of services provided by the business users using that gatekeeper’s core platform services.
Section 43 :
> Certain services provided together with, or in support of, relevant core platform services of the gatekeeper, such as identification services, web browser engines, payment services or technical services that support the provision of payment services, such as payment systems for in-app purchases, are crucial for business users to conduct their business and allow them to optimise services. In particular, each browser is built on a web browser engine, which is responsible for key browser functionality such as speed, reliability and web compatibility. When gatekeepers operate and impose web browser engines, they are in a position to determine the functionality and standards that will apply not only to their own web browsers, but also to competing web browsers and, in turn, to web software applications. Gatekeepers should therefore not use their position to require their dependent business users to use any of the services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services by the gatekeeper itself as part of the provision of services or products by those business users. In order to avoid a situation in which gatekeepers indirectly impose on business users their own services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, gatekeepers should also be prohibited from requiring end users to use such services, when that requirement would be imposed in the context of the service provided to end users by the business user using the core platform service of the gatekeeper. That prohibition aims to protect the freedom of the business user to choose alternative services to the ones of the gatekeeper, but should not be construed as obliging the business user to offer such alternatives to its end users.
Disentangling JIT surely hasn't been an easy task, but they have had years to prepare and I don't think Apple will risk a recurring 20% annual global revenue fine.
Are there first-party apps that are allowed the JIT entitlement? If the answer is yes, they're done.
All you need is a framebuffer, network access, and some form of user input to produce a usable web browser, and they are all there in iOS.
Without using JIT (just-in-time compilation), your browser’s JavaScript will be terribly slow. But allowing JIT compilation (allowing an app to mark memory pages as executable, i.e. turn data into machine code) will also allow an app to introduce arbitrary new behavior after the app review and make it much easier for it to break out of the iOS sandbox.
Stuff like calling private iOS APIs or security sensitivity APIs using machine code downloaded from an external source that an app reviewer will have no way of foreseeing. This isn’t possible otherwise.
Even if the app/browser with JIT permissions isn’t malicious, it still opens up way more attack surface area. (Of course Safari already has the same risk)
That said, I of course really want more genuine browser options on iOS. But there are real security reasons for Apple’s reluctance, though I’m sure this can solved. But alternative browsers come with different security concerns that don’t apply to just allowing app side-loading (since even now side-loaded apps can’t implement JIT compilation)
Which is the reason the JIT runs in its own sandbox connected through IPC IIRC.
Breaking the JIT isn’t supposed to even get you access to the parent process (Safari), let alone anything more, assuming you don’t have a kernel exploit too.
Apple is perfectly well aware of this and in “lockdown mode”, Apple disabled JIT for Safari.
It’s mostly developers who care about the engine, end users are going to care far more about the performance.
They'll work, just more slowly --- and if that encourages less abuse of JS, maybe that's a good thing.
https://twitter.com/TedMielczarek/status/1176864567118483457
the biggest possibility i see is chrome 99% market share.
It first will weaken security and privacy for common users. Walled garden is doing pretty good job at maintaining this.
I'd argue that legislation like GDPR had more positive impact on user privacy than any walled garden managed by any for-profit entity. See Uber using the device ID even against App Store policy for years and not getting immediately kicked out after discovery [1]
Apple's clampdown on Facebook came after GDPR and apparently wasn't a problem for years until Apple decided it was beneficial to their marketing and a way to push their own ads better.
Rule of thumb is: when you are big enough, you can do basically anything you want when you don't talk about it.
1: https://appleinsider.com/articles/17/04/23/after-tricking-go...
Apple was forced to allow third party payment systems. And they did.
But they were still allowed to keep their commission and in fact no regulator or court anywhere has said otherwise.
[1] https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl...
Okay cool you can have alternative app stores, you still need a business relationship with Apple, have to submit your apps for review to get your app signed, and turn over I guess 27% of all digital goods sold. But you can have your own storefront and downloader. Congrats.
The iPhone is a coin-operated software runtime. You pay for it at the register and buy the right to own the phone, but your ownership of the software is constantly jeopardized. Everything you use for free you take for granted, and everything you pay for is rent-extracted by the world's largest company.
It's a harmful business. You can argue there are benefits, but the surcharge for simply using the Apple runtime is asinine. It should be loathed and shunned from the highest court, rendered unconscionable for any company of any size. Apple and Google can charge a 90% tax on their app stores for all I care. Those stores simply need competition to compel non-harmful practice. Otherwise, they're completely unaccountable. They've already proven this with their non-cooperation in the browser industry.
All I know is iOS/iPadOS have made it possible for my parents and all the non native English literate, mostly uneducated elders in my family able to use modern computing devices without me ever having to worry about malware.
And there is no alternative.
Same for the unreal engine...
The 30% is the max they charge, so it's not a completely fair number. After a year it's 15%, of which about 2-3% is card fees, and they handle taxes.
This is power abuse and it's a shame that the judges let it pass.
Am I missing a point?
If you distribute via sideloading - Apple cannot claim that they had to incur the costs of vetting each update, distribution, payment processing, security, server maintenance, etc.
- Notifications (similar to the early sim-hacks when iPhone didn't sell everywhere)
- iCloud (storage, etc)
- Many of the platform services such as location, contacts, calendar.
To bypass their commission you'd have to make a web app and not a native iOS app, which is something developers have been able to do since the beginning of the iPhone.
Definitely less convenient and more risky for sure, but technically no problem at all.
So they can easily tie it back to the developer and simply bill them.
And if they fail to pay the bill, Apple can (a) disable their developer account so they can't sign new apps or (b) add them to the server-side block list that they have been using for spam/malware on OSX for years now.
Step 1: Go to the Apple store and ask to unlock the bootloader, they give you a form to void the warranty and Apple Care, they then unlock the bootloader.
Step 2: Wait for the Asahi Linux, Valve/Steam Proton, Google, and the Pinephone teams to showcase their skills.
- the war in Ukraine is significantly less deadly / destructive / etc than basically every other major war in the last 100 years.
- not even sure where to start with this one? Downfall of women's rights... where?
- LGBT+ are more accepted globally (and in the US) than they've ever been.
- Income inequality is a silly metric to care about when actual poverty is going down.
- More people and companies care about climate change than at any other point in history.
Are you seeing the trend? Just because some things might be "bad" by your standards doesn't mean they're not the best they've ever been, and doesn't mean they're not getting better.
All of those things you’ve mentioned have not gotten worse and generally keep improving (except income inequality and climate change of course..)
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/04/24/2...
“The entire U.S. advertising market is $150 billion. And global advertising is a $495 billion market. So even if Google completely monopolized U.S. search engine advertising, it would own just 3.4% of the global advertising market. From this angle, Google looks like a small player in a competitive world.”
“What if we frame Google as a multifaceted technology company instead? This seems reasonable enough; in addition to its search engine, Google makes dozens of other software products, not to mention robotic cars, Android phones, and wearable computers. But 95% of Google’s revenue comes from search advertising; its other products generated just $2.35 billion in 2012, and its consumer tech products a mere fraction of that. Since consumer tech is a $964 billion market globally, Google owns less than 0.24% of it—a far cry from relevance, let alone monopoly. Framing itself as just another tech company allows Google to escape all sorts of unwanted attention.”
Excerpt From Zero to One: Notes on Startups, or How to Build the Future Peter Thiel
Change the law.
>> Even after the Epic v Apple court case, Apple unfortunately still wins. Don't like it?, Maybe use PWAs or failing that build an alternative. Good luck.
A predictable Epic failure and Apple still collects the 30% commission regardless.
Obviously the markets aren't functioning properly because of these massive monopolies hoarding wealth and controlling everything.
Proper tech feudalism.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/04/24/2...
1. The first reason involves Epic's attempt to define the relevant antitrust market as "iOS app distribution".
Courts do not allow you to simply declare an arbitrarily narrow market consisting of a single company in order to claim that company has a monopoly over the distribution of its own product. In antitrust law these are known as "single-brand aftermarkets" and are generally considered the exception rather than the rule. There are very specific criteria that need to be met in order for a "single-brand aftermarket" to be allowed:
> "In sum, to establish a single-brand aftermarket, a plaintiff must show: (1) the challenged aftermarket restrictions are “not generally known” when consumers make their foremarket purchase; (2) “significant” information costs prevent accurate life-cycle pricing; (3) “significant” monetary or non-monetary switching costs exist; and (4) general market-definition principles regarding cross-elasticity of demand do not undermine the proposed single-brand market."
The burden of proof was on Epic to provide evidence for all four criteria, and they failed at step (1). In order for "iOS app distribution" to qualify as a "single-brand aftermarket", Epic would need to prove that consumers were unaware that they would be limited to purchasing apps from the App Store when they originally bought their iPhones. Because if they knew about that restriction ahead of time and bought iPhones anyway, then they did so willingly, despite having the option to purchase smartphones on the marketplace without such restrictions.
2. The second reason involves Epic's failure to prove that Apple's app distribution restrictions were unreasonable.
Courts use a three-step process to analyze whether a competitor's behavior is considered an unreasonable restraint of trade:
Step 1: The plaintiff first has to show that the restraints have an anti-competitive effect.
Step 2: The defendant is then given the opportunity to show a pro-competitive justification for the restraint.
Step 3: The plaintiff then has to show that those pro-competitive justifications could have been achieved via less restrictive alternatives.
In this case, the court agreed with Epic that the constraints were anti-competitive. However, they also agreed with Apple that the restraints were justified because a) Apple is entitled to compensation for the use of their IP, and b) the restraints increase the security and privacy of their platform. At that point the burden is shifted back to Epic to show how (a) and (b) could have been achieved through less restrictive alternatives, which Epic failed to do.
for fellow uMatrix users (with a selection by me)
https://www.macworld.com/article/1794764/sorry-u-s-iphone-us...
I’m not saying it’s a certainty. I don’t think it would be fair to do to EU citizens traveling in the US on vacation, eg.
Can you buy a cheap DVD somewhere in Asia, and play it at home in the US? No, because the DVD has a region, and the player has a region, and so, you also have to buy a player where you buy the DVD.
Netflix has another system, it checks in real time. You get the content of the region your client connects from. If you fire up a VPN, you get the catalogue of the region your VPN server is in (if Netflix lets you connect, that is).
I'm sure Epic would be super excited to implement all of Unreal Engine in WebGPU.
https://www.google.com/search?q=webgpu+unreal+engine
The top result there is a third party trying to achieve this. Not Epic themselves.
It's not that much different from Vulkan.
b) It's already implemented in Safari Technology Preview.
c) No browser other than Chrome desktop supports it: https://caniuse.com/webgpu
I bet the judge doesn't "own" an iPhone.
A lot of current law around things like app stores is existing in the liminal space of "Are these restrictions legal? Nobody knows. Do you want to be the one who stakes all your company's money and your investors' money and your entire business model on finding out?"
Epic did the calculus and seemed to conclude they wanted to be the ones to take the hit (possibly because since they also own their own app store, the math was a little win-win: any lock-in the courts find Apple has applies to the way Epic runs their store also). It hasn't worked out the way they'd hoped (though the anti-steering decision was interesting and a little surprising).
I think the most generous interpretation of this lawsuit is that it's a publicity stunt from Epic, not for consumers, but to pressure legislators.
Perhaps not a likely scenario, but US law is highly path-dependent and at the end of the day, judges' interpretations of law and precedent are all that matters regarding the correctness of a court decision.
If they had just sued without changing the iOS app to allow in-app purchases without using Apple's IAP, then Apple would likely have been punished if they still suspended Epic's account.
They basically are whining and complaining they have to pay the 30% fee for making more than $1 million sales, even though other stores are already doing that.
To me, this was never about consumer freedom. This was about lost revenue to Epic.
The big issue is Apple is the only platform that's completely locked down. If Fortnite was kicked off of the Google Play store it'd be no big deal since they could simply tell users how to install it. On PC, it's not even offered on Steam. It's only Apple where getting kicked off the App Store is a death sentence, because they make it practically impossible for their users to install software otherwise.
This is almost certainly why Apple is set to start allowing sideloading. Regardless of how this case turns out, Apple obviously knows they're walking on very thin ice over something really quite silly. I expect on Android > 99% of installs are still driven by the App Store. Sideloading is a liberty very few will take advantage of, so long as your main terms for developers are reasonably fair.
As long as you don’t include consoles who Epic didn’t go after.
Tons of people here hate Apple, but the GP’s point that Epic is not a very sympathetic defendant is very true.
They’re not some small developer losing 30% that could help feed their family, they’re a huge company that is (arguably) exploiting children. They weren’t hurt by a sudden Apple price hike, they agreed to all the terms fairly then unilaterally said “screw you, my money!” In about the most blatant way possible.
And it’s pretty obvious this isn’t because they want to save 30%, it’s because they want to be the store charging others a big percentage and taking game sales revenue. The moment they win this they would have launched suits against the console makers to try to get their way there too.
Epic clearly only cared about themselves and only wrapped themselves in the cloak of “help all developers” for PR purposes.
I suspect a lot of people don’t care one bit about Epic. They just happen to be the name on the plaintiff’s chair.
It's just that it will move from being taken automatically by the company to a model where third party App Stores/developers will need to pay it back to Apple on an ongoing basis.
Apple already has a system in place that captures which applications are being launched.
We need to remember when Epic was engaged is scanning your computer for steam data. Leaving it up to individual companies, they’ll definitely try and do much more damage. And it gets especially worse when the devs are some obscure company in the corner of the world.
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/epic-promises...
There should be regulations requiring that cancelling subscriptions be as easy as starting them is, with a readily visible button on each platform the service is available for that cancels with a single click and no further fuss. There should never be a need to hunt down an obscure link or worse.