Court orders Apple to open App Store to competition, Epic Games wins

[Megalomaniac]

Where did that comment come from? That can be said of all humans -- I guess you are singling one group out because the Iphone represents a luxury consumer device that signals status?

iPhone will NEVER lose its appeal. It stands alone in a sea of lackluster android phones.

 

[NoLifeDGenerate]

And the courts found that Apple's store policies violated the law; the government has decided that promoting competitive market places is more important than Apple's ability to collect commissions on sales that aren't even through their store front. All sorts of laws restrict what sorts of policies companies can have for their stores or products.

Competitive? You're essentially arguing that Coke should be able to force restaurants that only serve Pepsi to start offering Coke as well. This is just a digital version of the same thing. Walmart decides what Walmart sells (the government decides HOW, in the case of guns, cigarettes, etc but not what brands or IF they have departments for those at all).

 

[Cabuzzi]

No and no.

-Not "any" app can be deployed. Apple is heavily restrictive and anti-competitive (which is why they're getting hit hard as shown in the article). Apps have been denied for even hinting that Apple is being restrictive towards an apps customers.
-You have to pay yearly for a dev account.

If you're going to talk about the topic, you should at least inform yourself enough to get the 2nd point correct lol

Free? You must be ignoring the 30% commission Apple forces the developers to pay (in addition to annual membership) in order to sell an app. Where in the universe did you get free from?

 

[Cabuzzi]

There doesn't need to be. It's their hardware and their software platform. Anyone who doesn't like it is free to get an android phone instead. All this does is screw over consoles now, because Epic can use the same ruling to put their own store app on Xbox, PSN etc and make content exclusive to their own store. I can't stand that Xbox/PSN allowed all these publishers to require their own accounts on console, much less their own apps. uPlay was bad enough. It's one thing if these console companies would make it policy that everything has to be doable with only the Xobx/PSN account and everything else is optional, but they won't.

MS has owned Bethesda for like 4 years and still haven't merged Bethesda's account system with Xbox. Strangely, all the warnings on those games on the Xbox store saying they require a Bethesda account no longer state that as other company's games do. Yet, I see no indication of the account requirement having been removed from anything since the mess of complaints over the retro Doom games requiring it.

Most buyers have no idea about this kind of thing when they first decide to buy a phone, and once you buy that device, you're typically locked into the purchase depending on how you purchased it. Additionally, Apple does more than most companies to keep you locked into their ecosystem, so once you're in, it's difficult to get your stuff out of Apple's claws. The only concessions Google has made to this effect have been done by force. There have been many times when Apple blocked Google apps/services on their devices, only to be forced to do so by courts. Google doesn't do that. You can even pair an Apple watch to an Android device. Try doing that with a Google Watch, lol.

Don't take what I wrote above as a glowing testament to Google's business practices.... they're as evil as Apple, if not more so (when you consider other things they do in the ad business). I'm just saying that Apple goes out of its way to keep you from doing things that keep money out of their greasy little mitts.

 

[BuckarooBonzaii]

People need to understand that although you buy an Apple product or any product, you own the hardware but not the software platform. Software platforms are copyrighted. You are licensed to use the software under the agreement but the copyright of the software still belongs to the developer which is why Apple still provides updates on their behalf. If you truly want to own the software platform (buying the rights) then Apple no longer has to provide you updates. You may get them but Apple may now charge you for their service. Just like when you sell your car, once the ownership is transferred you don't own it.

And just like books, when you buy it you own the physical copy of it. You can lend it, sell it, but the writings in the book are copyrighted by the Author or Publishing Company.

 

[pnntmp]

Not all specific terms which a good is sold under, or contracts made between two people are legal. Plenty of laws restrict what kinds of terms a business can offer (for example, see the Magnuson-Moss warranty act restricting conditions companies can apply to warranties). If a business's terms violate the law, the law wins, and the other party is not bound by the illegal terms and conditions.

In this case Epic argued that Apple's terms were violating existing laws against anti-competitive behavior, and it looks like the courts are agreeing with Epic.

It's not "the courts" that are agreeing with Epic, there's one of those activist judges on a personal crusade. Even in the article there is enough of her absurd (for an unprejudiced judge) comments. So this decision will be appealed and repealed, there's nothing anyhow related to competition. it's just a waste of time and a manna for the lawyers.

 

[Loadedaxe]

And the courts found that Apple's store policies violated the law; the government has decided that promoting competitive market places is more important than Apple's ability to collect commissions on sales that aren't even through their store front. All sorts of laws restrict what sorts of policies companies can have for their stores or products.

The "Government" did not decide, a Judge did. It will get repealed.

But lets use your analogy, Adobe CC is a platform to use for Adobe software, under your logic, MS should be able to plant their services, like Word, Excel etc or hell even Sweeney and charge for them under Adobes platform and control it.

No, that's not how commerce works.

Anyone who agrees with judge, is lacking some serious knowledge in business, and software licensing, and if you agree, your either a Apple hater (don't like them myself) or have a freeloader mentality.

If...by some retarded chance this gets by, which it won't, then you can expect the door to open up to Sweeney controlling the gaming industry, and I promise you, you don't want that.

 

[Inthenstus]

Thank you Epic Games! As an iOS user, I’m very happy with this ruling. I suspect it will be fought in the supreme courts next, but, we’re finally making progress in a good direction.

 

[Porkous]

Apple should justify what price it pays back for the 30% cut it gets.

If I go to a store, I know that a price I pay has the commission of the store, to pay for the employers, brand, and low demanding hours.

But what is apple paying the developer? Is paying nothing, is slowing the competition and creativity. This is why netflix stopped getting subscriptions through their platforms. If you get lack of content on netflix, is apple gonna pay for that ? Maybe netflix needs that 12% to be extraordinary and drive demand for it's content it actually creates. Apple wants to create it's shows ? Let them try!

 

[Loadedaxe]

Apple should justify what price it pays back for the 30% cut it gets.

If I go to a store, I know that a price I pay has the commission of the store, to pay for the employers, brand, and low demanding hours.

But what is apple paying the developer? Is paying nothing, is stuffing competition and creativity. This is why netflix stopped getting subscriptions through their platforms. If you get lack of content on netflix, is apple gonna pay for that ? Maybe netflix needs that 12% to be extraordinary and drive demand for it's content it actually creates. Apple wants to create it's shows ? Let them try!

I get the frustration with Apple’s 30% cut, it’s a common debate....but let’s not pretend that developers are getting “nothing” in return. When you publish on the App Store, you're gaining access to a massive, global distribution platform with built-in payment processing, security infrastructure, device compatibility, app review for quality control, and trust with millions of users. That ecosystem doesn’t run for free.

Sure, brick-and-mortar stores have overhead costs, but so does Apple, just of a different nature. The App Store isn’t just a digital shelf, it’s the entire mall, security system, and cash register rolled into one. That doesn't come free!

Netflix opting out of in-app subscriptions is a business decision. Apple doesn't prevent them from acquiring customers on the web and redirecting them to their app. And let’s be honest...Netflix isn’t lacking content because of Apple’s cut. That’s a stretch. If Netflix needs 12% more margin to “be extraordinary,” they’ve got bigger problems.

And yes, Apple creating its own content is fair game, just like Amazon makes both a marketplace and its own products. Compete, don’t complain.

 

[Porkous]

I get the frustration with Apple’s 30% cut, it’s a common debate....but let’s not pretend that developers are getting “nothing” in return. When you publish on the App Store, you're gaining access to a massive, global distribution platform with built-in payment processing, security infrastructure, device compatibility, app review for quality control, and trust with millions of users. That ecosystem doesn’t run for free.

Sure, brick-and-mortar stores have overhead costs, but so does Apple, just of a different nature. The App Store isn’t just a digital shelf, it’s the entire mall, security system, and cash register rolled into one. That doesn't come free!

Netflix opting out of in-app subscriptions is a business decision. Apple doesn't prevent them from acquiring customers on the web and redirecting them to their app. And let’s be honest...Netflix isn’t lacking content because of Apple’s cut. That’s a stretch. If Netflix needs 12% more margin to “be extraordinary,” they’ve got bigger problems.

And yes, Apple creating its own content is fair game, just like Amazon makes both a marketplace and its own products. Compete, don’t complain.

In theory, the ecosystem could run for free, because the customer is paying for the app, the phone, too. You really think Netflix or Amazon, for example, needs the app store ? If the app store didn't have the essentials, people wouldn't buy the phone.

You are saying Microsoft should have had their own locked system with windows, basically allowing you to download only through their store. Not allowing you to download from whenever you want? Why you are supporting this logic of yours ? Why should epic games pay apple, if they don't want to ? Not apple owns the apps store, the Devs and you, own it ! You are running the store with the money you pay, the ads you view. Apple is long ago ROI.

Btw, try view "store" in a different way.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

Just to be clear, this isn’t about defending Apple. It’s about defending our god given right to run our own systems and make those who profit, pay for using it and the choice of who uses it.

If you buy into the ecosystem, and hardware, and their services, then yes, shocking as it may be, they get to decide how it all works together. And if you want to use third-party apps or services? Absolutely, you sign a licensing deal, and abide by them.

Don’t like it? Build your own iPhone. Good luck.
I cant believe people think its ok to move into someone's home without their consent and not pay rent....

Apple and Oranges anyone?

What about defending the god given right for the ten thousand businesses that want to run their own systems how they see fit?

Your right to swing you fist stops at my nose. Apple has violated the rights of everyone on their platform and broken laws and regulations to do it. You aren't defending capitalism, you are defending Apple, and Apple is in the wrong.

 

[pnntmp]

Apple should justify what price it pays back for the 30% cut it gets.

If I go to a store, I know that a price I pay has the commission of the store, to pay for the employers, brand, and low demanding hours.

But what is apple paying the developer? Is paying nothing, is stuffing competition and creativity. This is why netflix stopped getting subscriptions through their platforms. If you get lack of content on netflix, is apple gonna pay for that ? Maybe netflix needs that 12% to be extraordinary and drive demand for it's content it actually creates. Apple wants to create it's shows ? Let them try!

Apple does not have to justify anything.
How many products have you seen where next to the price tag there is a justification statement?
Apple may ask for 90%, and they would be perfectly right to do that. It's up to you to accept that or not. There is an optimum level that leads to a maximum revenue. Apple figured out that level is 30% and set it at that.

Everyone using the App Store makes a justification for themselves and their particular case. If what the App Store offers is worth the price, they use it - otherwise not. That's universally valid for any product or service you consider paying for.

 

[pnntmp]

What about defending the god given right for the ten thousand businesses that want to run their own systems how they see fit?

Your right to swing you fist stops at my nose. Apple has violated the rights of everyone on their platform and broken laws and regulations to do it. You aren't defending capitalism, you are defending Apple, and Apple is in the wrong.

Anyone who considers using the Apple platform has only one right - to accept their offer at the proposed price, or to reject it and not use the platform. If there's an option to negotiate with Apple, they also have the right to try to negotiate a better price for themselves. That's all the rights one has on somebody else's platform - to accept the owner's terms or to reject them.

Every user of Apple's platform has explicitly accepted the terms by becoming a user. And every user is free to withdraw from the agreement at any time and stop using the platform.

It's the same with any other service, e.g. streaming. You don't have any rights in regard to Netflix, except to accept their terms and subscribe, or to not accept them and look for a better alternative or whatever. If you subscribe but feel disappointed, you're free to terminate your subscription. It's really simple.
Of course, you're also free to create a competing service and try to attract the customers of your competitors.

 

[Porkous]

Apple does not have to justify anything.
How many products have you seen where next to the price tag there is a justification statement?
Apple may ask for 90%, and they would be perfectly right to do that. It's up to you to accept that or not. There is an optimum level that leads to a maximum revenue. Apple figured out that level is 30% and set it at that.

Everyone using the App Store makes a justification for themselves and their particular case. If what the App Store offers is worth the price, they use it - otherwise not. That's universally valid for any product or service you consider paying for.

You forgot apple lost the case. What is your opinion about that ? No! They can't charge as much as they want, for themselves, at least, it has to be cooperative with the Devs, in this case epic games

 

[bexwhitt]

Anyone who considers using the Apple platform has only one right - to accept their offer at the proposed price, or to reject it and not use the platform. If there's an option to negotiate with Apple, they also have the right to try to negotiate a better price for themselves. That's all the rights one has on somebody else's platform - to accept the owner's terms or to reject them.

Every user of Apple's platform has explicitly accepted the terms by becoming a user. And every user is free to withdraw from the agreement at any time and stop using the platform.

It's the same with any other service, e.g. streaming. You don't have any rights in regard to Netflix, except to accept their terms and subscribe, or to not accept them and look for a better alternative or whatever. If you subscribe but feel disappointed, you're free to terminate your subscription. It's really simple.
Of course, you're also free to create a competing service and try to attract the customers of your competitors.

 

[Loadedaxe]

Anyone who considers using the Apple platform has only one right - to accept their offer at the proposed price, or to reject it and not use the platform. If there's an option to negotiate with Apple, they also have the right to try to negotiate a better price for themselves. That's all the rights one has on somebody else's platform - to accept the owner's terms or to reject them.

Every user of Apple's platform has explicitly accepted the terms by becoming a user. And every user is free to withdraw from the agreement at any time and stop using the platform.

It's the same with any other service, e.g. streaming. You don't have any rights in regard to Netflix, except to accept their terms and subscribe, or to not accept them and look for a better alternative or whatever. If you subscribe but feel disappointed, you're free to terminate your subscription. It's really simple.
Of course, you're also free to create a competing service and try to attract the customers of your competitors.

They don't get it, there is a reason, painfully obvious.
For those who still don’t get it, it’s really simple... if you want to use Epic Games, you agree to their Terms of Service, just like you do with Blizzard, Microsoft, Adobe, Amazon, and countless others.

This isn’t about defending Apple. It’s about defending the basic right to own and operate a platform. That platform belongs to Apple, not the developers who make apps for it. That’s the reality. Plain and simple.

And let’s be honest, if the roles were reversed, many of you would be cheering Epic on for blocking Apple. Why? Because your dislike for Apple is so obvious. But personal bias doesn’t override the principles of free enterprise.

I will be back when this gets reversed. Will you?

 

[pnntmp]

fluffer

Fantastic! Thank you. I really like brevity. You created a single short newspeak word, namely 'fluffer' which means this very long thing:
"Anyone who considers using any platform has only one right - to accept the offer at the proposed price, or to reject it and not use the platform."

You're the master of verbal efficiency. More power to you.

 

[pnntmp]

You forgot apple lost the case. What is your opinion about that ? No! They can't charge as much as they want, for themselves, at least, it has to be cooperative with the Devs, in this case epic games

Apple lost the current iteration, not "the case".
It's practically 100% certain that this ruling of an activist judge will be repealed.

The only question of practical importance is how long it will take for the ruling of the activist judge to be repealed.

 

[highwind]

When you own a store, whether it’s physical or digital, you control the platform. You get to decide what gets sold, how it’s presented, and the terms of that arrangement. That’s part of ownership. Period!

Apple owns the Apple Store, end of story, there's no apple here to compare with oranges.
And don't get me started on the EU...really that's your argument?

Its really funny how you repeat the same nonsense again and again, obviously still completely failing to realize what competition/cartel/antitrust is even about

If Walmart acquired all local supermarktes across the whole United States and started selling all food with a 1000% surcharge, we would probably still hear your babbling „its their stores, they can sell what they want“

Dont worry, I wont get you started on the EU or any other arguments… ill just let you vegetate in your Apple bubble (which just got bursted) and lament all day - at the end of the day it wont change absolutely nothing.

Oh btw:
Looks like Apples Alex Roman commited perjury in that lawsuit.

 

[Loadedaxe]

Its really funny how you repeat the same bullsht again and again, obviously still completely failing to realize what competiotion/cartel/antitrust is about

If Walmart acquired all local supermarktes across the whole United States and started selling all food with a 1000% surcharge, we would probably still hear your babbling „its their stores, they can sell what they want“

Dont worry, I wont get you started on the EU or any other arguments… ill just let you vegetate in your Apple bubble (which just got bursted) and lament all day, as it wont change anything.

Oh btw:
Looks like Apples Alex Roman commited perjury in that lawsuit.

Ah, the irony of accusing others of repeating themselves while regurgitating the same tired analogies as everyone else that does not understand business.

Yes, owning a store means you control what’s sold there, that’s not controversial, it’s just how property rights work. And no, invoking “antitrust” doesn’t magically turn every business practice you don’t like into illegal behavior as clearly you do not like Apple and had you read all my repetitive nonsense you would know that I am not a fan either. The law doesn't punish success or market dominance unless it's abused in a way that actually harms consumers or competition key distinction you have a hard time understanding. People do not HAVE to use it!

Comparing Apple’s App Store to Walmart acquiring every supermarket in the U.S. is as exaggerated as it is flawed. Apple doesn’t own “all” mobile platforms, there’s Android, multiple app stores on Android, web apps, and even regulatory bodies who keep a close eye on them (as you just reminded everyone, with your EU shoutout). That alone undercuts the idea of a monopoly. Try again, Business 101 seems to escape you.

If you genuinely believe Alex Roman committed perjury, might want to let the court know instead of throwing it out in a forum post like it's a mic drop. Otherwise, it's just noise with you pounding your chest.

We can debate policies, laws, and platforms all day. Will you be back regurgitating the same nonsense when this gets overturned? I bet not.

 

[The Gr8t 1]

Hello all,

Food for thought..... lets say we sell a product in all Costco stores at whatever price and Costco takes their cut (by negotiating before they buy and put them on their shelves) now I'm the maker/seller of such product to Costco but I decide to put a sticker on the package stating my product can be bought at a cheaper price elsewhere all while using Costco massive store chain to do so. How do you think Costco would react?

See to me they made the "App Store" that serves billions and other want the same benefits as the maker of such store without doing the work/investment..... Doesn't make sense to me. They want to have their cake and eat it too if you know what I mean. One example from another person on here was Spotify. They totally took advantage and made a killing on Apple's backs while using their App Store but now because they built such a big brand they don't want to play nice anymore and pay Apple because they believe its their product which Apple help build that deserves all the credit.

All and all they are all welcome to start making their own hardware and own ecosystems or go somewhere else but in the long run if Apple and any other big Corp has to compile they will just built the cost into their hardware so we will all pay and it will stifle innovation.....

That's my take.

Enjoy the rest of your day everyone.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

Anyone who considers using the Apple platform has only one right - to accept their offer at the proposed price, or to reject it and not use the platform. If there's an option to negotiate with Apple, they also have the right to try to negotiate a better price for themselves. That's all the rights one has on somebody else's platform - to accept the owner's terms or to reject them.

Every user of Apple's platform has explicitly accepted the terms by becoming a user. And every user is free to withdraw from the agreement at any time and stop using the platform.

It's the same with any other service, e.g. streaming. You don't have any rights in regard to Netflix, except to accept their terms and subscribe, or to not accept them and look for a better alternative or whatever. If you subscribe but feel disappointed, you're free to terminate your subscription. It's really simple.
Of course, you're also free to create a competing service and try to attract the customers of your competitors.

First off, none of those are "rights".

Secondly, businesses have to comply with the law. Apple does not have the "right" to do illegal things just because it's their platform. You trying to rationalize otherwise doesn't change the legality.

Third, TOS are BS. Much like the waivers you sign before go karting, bungee jumping, etc. that say you can't sue because "you knew the risk" are largely unenforceable BS designed to make you think you can't sue because "you gave up your rights". The same is true for TOS.

Don't believe me? Then believe Apple's lawyers who never brought up TOS once to defend the 30% cut in their prolonged court battle. (Because everyone in the room understood the law)

 

[ScottSoapbox]

Hello all,

Food for thought..... lets say we sell a product in all Costco stores at whatever price and Costco takes their cut (by negotiating before they buy and put them on their shelves) now I'm the maker/seller of such product to Costco but I decide to put a sticker on the package stating my product can be bought at a cheaper price elsewhere all while using Costco massive store chain to do so. How do you think Costco would react?

See to me they made the "App Store" that serves billions and other want the same benefits as the maker of such store without doing the work/investment..... Doesn't make sense to me. They want to have their cake and eat it too if you know what I mean. One example from another person on here was Spotify. They totally took advantage and made a killing on Apple's backs while using their App Store but now because they built such a big brand they don't want to play nice anymore and pay Apple because they believe its their product which Apple help build that deserves all the credit.

All and all they are all welcome to start making their own hardware and own ecosystems or go somewhere else but in the long run if Apple and any other big Corp has to compile they will just built the cost into their hardware so we will all pay and it will stifle innovation.....

That's my take.

Enjoy the rest of your day everyone.

Spotify made a killing on Apple's backs! LOL! And here I thought Spotify became one of the world's biggest streaming services because they made a product their customers wanted. Oh and Apple is only dominant in the US. It's Android everywhere else so how does that global success track with your logic?

Second, Apple began competing with Spotify with an inferior service (given it's much smaller to this day subscribers) while charging Spotify a monthly fee. There is an argument for an initial "referral" fee, but Apple gets a cut of Spotify's streaming fees forever while demonstrating that keeping streaming customers is hard (in their own streaming services), that's crazy.

Your Costco example doesn't work because it is one of many competing stores. Governments intervene when you get to a few dominate companies because monopoly power takes away the choice from negotiations and choosing to use someone else. Which is your entire argument. Imagine if we didn't regulate power companies and then they could charge whatever and "customers could just move if they didn't like it" or "negotiate a better price on power" because that's how these things work.

 

[The Gr8t 1]

Spotify made a killing on Apple's backs! LOL! And here I thought Spotify became one of the world's biggest streaming services because they made a product their customers wanted. Oh and Apple is only dominant in the US. It's Android everywhere else so how does that global success track with your logic?

Second, Apple began competing with Spotify with an inferior service (given it's much smaller to this day subscribers) while charging Spotify a monthly fee. There is an argument for an initial "referral" fee, but Apple gets a cut of Spotify's streaming fees forever while demonstrating that keeping streaming customers is hard (in their own streaming services), that's crazy.

Your Costco example doesn't work because it is one of many competing stores. Governments intervene when you get to a few dominate companies because monopoly power takes away the choice from negotiations and choosing to use someone else. Which is your entire argument. Imagine if we didn't regulate power companies and then they could charge whatever and "customers could just move if they didn't like it" or "negotiate a better price on power" because that's how these things work.

Ah I thought I would get a response like this. Spotify the Billion dollar company has "the customers" best interest at heart........ Doubt that my friend. Do a bit of research and see how well they actual pay their artists compare to other platforms. With your logic we should hold them accountable and stop the big, bad company from having an monopoly and pay a fair price/wage for the music they offer.

Also if you do some more research on the fact that app devs make way more $ on Apples IOS platform compared to android. Its not only about total users its about how much each user spends per app on the different platforms. Quick search for you "Spending on iPhone users accounted for 68.13% of all consumer spending on mobile apps, while Android remained with a 31.87% share of app spending worldwide in 2024." - https://backlinko.com/iphone-vs-android-statistics

Best part Spotify doesn't break down their revenue by platforms in their financials at least from what I have seen......

As for the Costco comment I will leave that one for another day.

Anyway you all have a great day.