It’s a dark time in my life now that this lawsuit exists. Not because I’m a fan of Epic or Apple in any way, but because I work in law and have to hear my gaming friends talk about the merits of the lawsuit and have bad opinions. Over the years I’ve learned that friends in tech skipped civics 101 and gamers don’t understand economics :)

The lawsuit Epic filed was worked on and filed by a an attorney who previously worked for the justice department in the anti-trust division and also was is former commissioner of the FTC. Attorneys like that spend a long time building a reputation and are not really mercenary about what cases they sign onto. Epic has put together a serious legal team for this case and clearly had a plan that was created by their legal team.

This lawsuit is about more than entertainment and pricing. It is also harsh body check to tech companies that have adopted some of the old tactics used by the worst actors of the late 1800s(when anti trust laws came into existence). From Apple slowing down phones without disclosing it to prevent people from side loading software, it’s all about control. And, like the trusts of old, if all the big players just sort of do similar things, it is easies to keep the market locked down. And FYI: you don’t need 100% market share to violate anti trust laws. In fact, there are entire sections about exploiting a specific market. Like making a popular phone that is also a tiny computer, locking down all software that goes on that phone and then charging every 30% of all transactions on that phone.

Apple is not alone in this and the entire tech industry has been flagrantly violating laws for years. Amazon didn’t collect state sales taxes forever, exploit a fun loophole that quickly became a problem for a lot of states. Facebook allowed real estate ads to be targeted by demographic and race, which is super illegal under federal law(see redlining). And when Facebook was told about the violating ads, they didn’t correct it for years even after fully admitting they knew it wasn’t legal.

Anyway, the fact that all the major digital market places happen to take a 30% cut is pretty telling on its face. If they were competing, that number would move around and change. Like normal retail margins with vendors and stores, where the margin shifts over the years on products. But digital stores are magically locked at 30% and all stores charge similar prices for the same products. It is because they are not competing, they are just charging companies a cut to sell software to iPhone owners or whatever section of the market that company has locked down. And no one buying things should be thrilled about this. It’s bad for us over the long term. It will make games stagnant and lower the overall number of games. Why? Because that is what happened to every other industry when these sorts of anticompetitive practices were in place. Our hobby is not some magical new industry that is immune or special, not matter what tech super fans say.

It was super shitty that Epic managed to jump-start industry-wide crossplay support by showing it was simply a matter of flipping a switch and pointing the finger at Sony for disallowing it? Epic winning the OS+Appstore fight wouldn't just be a win for Epic, it would fundamentally change the way all of these platforms coexist, which has direct implications on how consumers use them and what hardware products they buy in the future.

Trying to steer the narrative and rally users to a cause that will effect them strikes me as legitimate as anything can be in marketing, especially when the status quo has had ample time to market itself in the name of security and quality (which was also the rationale that justified siloing the userbases for each console platform.)

Nothing google does is free though

By seeing both ads i realized that Epic still need to work on their physics.

@sombre: At this point, every adult that is an active user of any tech-adjacent forum / subreddit / discord group knows that Google makes money from their massive userbase. Especially if the poster in question refers to Google as one company that 'becomes orders of magnitude worse themselves'.

We don't need to pick sides. I own an Ipad and Iphone and I enjoy them. Yet I will be very happy if Epic prevails because I think the wall garden that is the app store is bad. And I don't think any online store should be making a 30% margin when brick and mortar stores make around 10-12%. Because at the end of the day, Epic winning can't really negatively impact me, but I like a lot of the developers that made fun phone games like "A Years Walk" and think they should make more money per sale.

It's inevitable that yesterday's small companies go on to become tomorrow's behemoths. It's also inevitable that industries evolve, what constitutes a "marketplace" or "monopoly" changes, and business operations that were once dictated by a single government now have to work in a global one with differing interpretations of what's anti-competitive or not. The mobile space and 3rd party applications just happens to be the latest terms that have to get hashed out in the court of law and public opinion, and it just happens to be Epic that ended up becoming large enough to test it. I really don't see anything here that's worth getting upset about from any vantage point.

I should also say that I don't really feel like I have any vested interest in this case, or at least minimal compared to most. I haven't owned a console in 25+ years, my last Apple product was an Apple2 back in the 80s, and my last Android device is ~7 years old and it's probably my last. Reflecting on my lack of engagement with those platforms, it has an awful lot to do with how locked-down they are. I don't like investing in things I can't maintain and control, and that sentiment has only hardened as my time has increasingly shifted from media consumption to coding and CAD.

I just want to say that is this misunderstanding about tech and law. A lot of folks have been sold this idea that online market place, built in market places and so on are these new, uncharted areas that law much figure out.

The reality that the way law is applied often in this situations, those terms don’t matter. Back in the Us vs Microsoft antristrust case they argued that emails were not documents and didn’t need to be produced in discovery. The court rules that Microsoft has to print the damn emails. A recent case ruled that storing data outside the jurisdiction of the court didn’t make it immune to being produced if the company in question operates with the court’s jurisdiction.

There is an endless line of cases and rulings where tech companies argue that their tech is so new and unheard of by law that rules cannot be applied to it. And after a protracted argument the courts consistency rule “Bitch please, you’re not magic, hand over the documents.”

PS: I strongly recommend reading up on the US vs Microsoft. Microsoft’s conduct during that case is pretty shocking and a good preview of the arrogance the tech industry will adopt over the next 30 years.

As an aside, when was the precedent set with the 30% cut for digital publishing/distribution? The earliest I recall is Steam with that percentage, but I can't recall if that was a figure determined by their expected operational costs of the service, or if it was just a ballpark flat figure they deemed fair relative to what they were losing to a traditional publisher like Sierra.

I went back and listened to Gabe's GDC talk from 2002 which I believe was the first public announcement of a "Steam" service, I couldn't recall if they covered prospective service costs at that point, or if that came several years later when they got 3rd party games. Kind of interesting hearing how much trepidation he had about whether it would all work or not. He describes it as an "experiment" several times.

It also serves as a good reminder that despite CS's booming popularity at the time, that userbase wasn't being monetized by Valve, so they were essentially eating millions in support costs and had to find some way of turning that userbase into revenue. Similar story with esports during that period, as all the early CS tournaments were independently run businesses with 3rd party sponsors and no real affiliation with Valve. It's kind of a similar situation to companies like Id, where the success of Doom and Quake and a total lack of DRM facilitated grey/black markets (map packs and mods being sold) to utilize their games.

So what's the end-game here? Is there a world where all hardware platforms have to provide the ability to side-load apps, or allow competing stores? Epic's lawsuit isn't looking for a settlement for damages, so one way or another the outcome is going to matter.

Anyone who has bought the line of Epic doing this to change Apple's policies in order to create a better playing field for everyone needs to come the fuck on. They are doing this for Epic, Epic's revenue, and Epic's shareholders. And no one else.

There is no good guy here. There is no right side, and no wrong side. Just grab a drink and enjoy the show of a bunch of terrible corporations slapping their dicks together, if you can stomach the sight of it.

@hughj: Antitrust issues arise when a dominant player in a market engages in anti-competitive conduct or when multiple parties collude or form a cartel together behind the scenes. Hardware platforms don't have to provide the ability to side-load apps, or allow competing stores as long as they are not a dominant player in the market. It will be interesting to see whether the courts agree with Epic that there should be competition in the iOS market (Where Apple is dominant) , or whether Apple operates in the smartphone market. (Where you can argue that they are not dominant at all). Or do they operate in the 'premium phone market'? That's what Epic argues in their legal papers a bunch of times.

It's perfectly fine for say, The Fairphone, to only offer access to a Fairphone store on their device if they so desire. Perhaps they could focus on the elderly and make it a crazy simple, environment-friendly and secure phone with only a handful of apps available so that the users won't get overwhelmed by the flood of trash apps that they would never use. The weather, flashlight, clock, phone, and a TV-guide. That's all you get :) Clearly this would be a very niche segment and Fairphone would probably not become a dominant player any time soon. (I'm glad for Fairphone that they don't have to follow my instructions)

But when you are talking about huge platforms like iOS and Android, The difference between being a successful mobile developer and being a failure can depend on whether you are able to launch across both platforms (and therefore reach roughly the complete mobile audience) with your app or not. Therefore, devs have to be on iOS, even if the terms of the deal are not great. You build a slack-type business app? Dead in the water unless entire teams are able to use it , no matter what phone they have. So you have to agree to the conditions of being on the Apple store, even if it's completely unreasonable in your view. The alternative is having a severely limited app that no team would want to use.

If there were multiple stores to choose from, Devs could decide whether the legitimacy and security features of the official Apple store are valuable enough to pay the 30% cut, or rather launch on a smaller app that has a smaller audience, but also takes a smaller fee. Now if it turns out that apps rather launch on this smaller store, Apple suddenly has to come up with something better to retain future apps to their store instead. That's how the stores should keep each other in check and provide their customers with a better array of options than the current situation.

And to those saying that Epic only cares about themselves, naturally that's the case. But right now they find themselves in the same position as any other app developer that wants to be on iOS. Their goals align, so naturally they frame this whole situation as Goliath Apple being unfair to Epic David (Epic Sweeney? Sweeney David?) and all the small developers he takes a stand for. After all, if they manage to build a successful case and Apple has to open it's garden, it would give all these smaller app developers options too. This case affects more parties than Apple & Epic, so it makes complete sense to paint this as a far-reaching issue that affects everyone involved. Right now all devs either agree with Apple's terms & conditions or they won't get access to the massive & well-spending Apple audience.

I will say that i predict that if they manage to convince the courts that Apple should open up, Epic will be right there with their Epic Store app as the new low-%cut alternative to the Apple store. Just like they did with Steam. Being able to publish all their mobile games for no additional cost and host other app developers on their iOS store. And naturally their Fortnite audience would immediatly make this new store a force to be reckoned with.

As for where that 30% number comes from, I don't know exactly. I have heard someone say at some point that it was the 'default rate for digital marketplaces' but i don't know who set this standard and what the reasoning behind it all was. Overhead costs can vary greatly between what kind of platform you're running. For instance, Epic set out to make quite a simple barebones store and therefore was able to attack Steam on it's 30% cut. Steam has a bunch of unique features packed into their platform that would probably warrant a slightly higher %cut than the bare-bones alternative of the EGS. But 30%? Nah, they were definitly making a very comfortable profit at that price and at low amounts of competition.

Who is "right" or "wrong" morally/ethically is up for debate, and what is legally right or wrong is going to be determined. It's worth discussing though, even if just from a user and developer standpoint, as either way it has implications far beyond people who play Fortnite on iOS devices.

From the suit (emphasis mine):

"Epic is not seeking monetary compensation from this Court for the injuries it has suffered. Nor is Epic seeking favorable treatment for itself, a single company. Instead, Epic is seeking injunctive relief to allow fair competition in these two key markets that directly affect hundreds of millions of consumers and tens of thousands, if not more, of third-party app developers."

Bemoaning and eye-rolling about the self-serving motivations of corporations seems like the most vapid take anyone could have on this, as it doesn't require an ounce of reflection to what it means and how it may change the way we use electronic devices.

mmm- i’d grant you ‘cynical,’ but an overabundance of skepticism with respect to epic’s motives isn’t exactly what i’d call ‘vapid.’

epic is still a primarily for-profit corporation, and one that‘s utterly dominant in their space- they’re not an advocacy group, charity, or fundamentally altruistic body. tim sweeney didn’t form and fund a separate entity to build a coalition of like-minded creators- this is still two massive tech players slugging it out.

it’s totally possible their best interests align with those of indie devs, the little guy, and maybe even the consumer- and maybe we get a ruling that gives back some control to the user (maybe we get EVEN CHEAPER v bucks!)...but i don’t think it’s an overly simplistic view to believe the end user is being manipulated into caring about what‘s effectively not their fight. i mean just watch that 1984 spoof again- it’s brazen.

anyway- let’s check back in 10 years when a decision actually comes down. then we can actually assess how much good came of this.

@mellotronrules: But their gameplan is very simple and extremely profitable. The smaller devs they are 'fighting for' now, these contain their new customers that get to be on the new Epic App store that features a lower cut than the Apple app store.

1. Open up iOS through the courts

2. Launch the nr 1 alternative to the Apple App store themselves

3. Distribute own software (Fortnite etc) for no additional cost instead of paying the 30% and having to go through apple's payment processor.

4. go about this the same way as they did with Steam, offering a better % cut to app developers who will therefore rather pay to be on the Epic Appstore instead of the more expensive Apple app store. Unless they value being on the official store over being on this cheaper side-store. That's the choice.

It should be noted that Valve's 30% existed since the earliest days when Steam was far more barebones than the current EGS is. Granted, I suspect almost every component of their operation has changed by orders of magnitude (plus and minus) since the early 2000s. In Gabe's GDC talk he mentions a previous patch for HL cost them $500k in bandwidth to distribute. Bandwidth is obviously cheaper now, but a big patch for a game these days isn't ~20MB like HL/TFC/CS was.

The fact that so many disparate major storefronts happened to settle on and stick to that 30% does imply that the price is not subject to market forces. In any other sales context that would probably give people pause? Are there other major industries where rates like that are static across different companies and market segments for over a decade? I honestly don't know.

I suppose the argument could be made that companies like Google and Apple aren't really in a position of having to compete for developers such that their revenue split is used to market their storefronts to developers. Although having a lack of competition is maybe not a good argument to make if you're being accused of being a monopoly.

@hughj: Oh yeah, you're totally right. This 30% was a market standard that no one was offering better rates for and therefore never had to be changed. And it could well have been a very reasonable number to settle on for a certain service at a certain point in time, but in Steam's case, they clearly had enough headroom to be more flexible about that cut, once Epic put the fire to their shins. But if competition is low, naturally they're not turning the knob down a bit out of the kindness of their hearts ;)

A related question: What is the current state of third-party application distribution within Apple's OSX/macOS market? I assume that's not nearly as locked down as iOS is? With Apple moving away from x86 and to their in-house CPU in the coming years, will that be a step towards unifying the terms and conditions across all their products?

How much inertia is there within the Apple macOS world for third-party apps and services? Or does Apple already make a cut from services like Adobe Cloud? Would macOS users care if their computing environment became more like their mobile environment?

@hughj: I don't use Apple products, so i'm out of my depth here. All i can say is that this screen shows the 3 options available to Mac users. That said, the last 'anywhere' option has to be enabled through a terminal command before it shows up as an option in this menu. But i believe that is a more recent development (Catalina? Earlier? Someone knows?) , and that in earlier versions all 3 options were visible from the start and they were throwing up some scary warnings pop ups if people decided to download from unknown sources.

From what i can gather, with Catalina (October 2019) Apple implemented more stringent security options. Before this, anyone could bypass these settings by launching apps straight through the terminal. Now their 'Gatekeeper' will also check whether apps that are run via the terminal are lining up correctly with the security setting in this image. But it seems like if you are somewhat of a power user, you can type 'sudo spctl --master-disable' in the terminal to unlock the anywhere option that lets you download from any source you want. The more stock-users are nudged to stick to apple approved programs, and the malware scan, signature check, and local security policy checks that Apple's Gatekeeper provides to these Apple approved apps. (That was satisfying to type)

I straight up don't have an answer to your other questions.

The ship already sailed for the personal computer because it predates the commercial internet. Both Apple and Microsoft never had the ability to lock down the Mac OS or Windows to the degree that is possible with the Smart phones.

Not that they didn’t try. Again, I recommend reading up on the US vs Microsoft. During it, the government proved Microsoft was designing Windows to bury to Netscape(back when you had to pay for an internet browser) and make it hard to use to drive people to Internet Explorer. If Microsoft could have prevented you from installing the program at all, they would have. They would have forced you to only use Microsoft products. Which frankly seems quant when you think about it. At last they weren’t trying to extract a 30% cut just for the privilege of having software on windows.

That is the reason Apple hasn’t tried to lock down the Mac OS more. There is already solid case law out there and a market that expects an open OS. But if they could, they would. The IPhone is sort of the natural progression of that goal. People forget that Apple actively opposes “right to repair” laws and filed(and hilariously lost) a lawsuit against the first person to jail brake an IPhone. The arguments about “security” are all a smoke screen to cover for their real goal, to control the phone you buy from them.

Thanks for the research :)

Let’s not forget they stole PUBGs ideas. I’m sure when blue hole was on the customer service line with epic games for technical support using unreal engine Epic was like “tell me more about your issues. You say 100 people dropped onto an island. Let me run some test and get back to you.” Skeezy... I’m not even going to download Total War on the epic store. I might could.

@hughj: I don't argue that changes to pricing structures won't potentially benefit others than Epic, but that would entirely be a cast-off effect of this fight between mega-corps. Epic is not fighting for the little guy here even though their lawsuit does have implications for everyone. Epic's moves thus far in pre-prepared PR stunts like the 1984 "FreeFortnight" trailer shows that they know this, and are making sure everyone else knows it too; through optics and PR moves.

Using the fact that Epic is not looking for a dollar value settlement as some sort of indicator of them holding a more virtuous stand in this fight to make more money is an.... interesting position to take?? To me, Epic not looking for a dollar-value settlement only speaks to their privileged position of still making millions of dollars daily on microtransactions in a video game. Them also looking to weaponize their fanbase indicates to me that they are just looking to pull out all the PR stops on this legal battle.

....but thanks a bunch for calling me vapid, my dude!

Not seeking monetary is a legal strategy. It is called “seeking specific relief”, when the plaintiff requests the court orders the defendant to do something. In this case, stop what Epic argues are practices the violate anti trust laws.

On a broader note, people should not try to leverage the language of legal pleadings in arguments like the one about. Legal pleadings are specifically crafted to comply with legal standards, not for PR purposes. One legal standard is that the plaintiff must be extremely clear on the relief they are seeking from the court. Which means saying “we don’t want money.” Because another legal standard is that the court will only grant the relief you ask for. This often means the Plaintiff is best served by “shooting the moon” and ask for a staggering amount of money in damages.

It's not like Epic are the first ones to revolt against this ridiculously high "tax". Netflix, Spotify, Amazon and others have used various methods to bypass Apple's stranglehold.

I have no doubts that Epic would love to be in Apple's shoes (and indeed, they are building the foundations for EGS/Unreal to be a platform onto itself, and positioning themselves to become a big player in digital entertainment production), but for now this is putting some small pressure on Apple, and I welcome that.

A number of Epics choices about how to go about this (the ad, inciting a fan base in the games space) are really poor ones to have made. My singular hope in all of this is that it does result in a change that benefits smaller developers and doesn't result in the kinds of shitty behavior that comes from riling up game fans. If paid games start to become more common and successful due to getting a better cut that would be a fantastic turn of events.

Again -- I do not fucking care what their motivations are. I'm here discussing what the outcome may be. Getting hung up on the PR stunt is vapid. Bigger issues are at stake here.

It's not just smartphones, but tablets as well. What legal precedent distinguishes a macbook from an ipad with an attached keyboard? It strikes me that the only technical distinction at the moment is the fact that the operation system and CPU architecture are different, but that's likely to fade away as Apple makes them increasingly similar to their mobile system architecture.

@hughj: I really don't get what your problem is. Never did I say anyone is not allowed to discuss their opinion on this.

Maybe dial it back a notch.

Now apple is retaliating by threatening to kick unreal off the platform which would affect a lot of developers besides epic, epic is apparently asking the courts to stop them from doing so.

Honestly, never understood apples popularity, i've always hated their closed , lack of customizable systems. I wonder if this will affect Apple's brand at all? This is going to be a really big deal for mobile game and app development.

i mean- i think that's part of the reason why apple is responding so harshly to epic.

epic literally compared them to a totalitarian nation state using their own 1984 ad against them. that's a play against the brand and cultural/public perception more than app store policy- so it makes sense for apple, which places immeasurable value on their brand-identity, to go nuclear in response.

i don't have a personal investment in either company...but if i were to hazard a guess, i think over the long term the patrons of fortnite would sooner find a new F2P game to play than an alternative to imessage or iphones. i think apple has the enviable position in terms of average joe street cred, and it would be a long uphill battle to try to convince most people to ditch their apple devices.

Apparently they are also going to kick Unreal off of Mac OS as well. Or at least no longer support any development on Mac OS for all Unreal. This is some real wild shit and I'm shocked Apple went down this path. This doesn't really help their whole anti-trust argument if they can effectively ban the use of an engine whatever massive section of the market they have. Not what I would call a move that will endear them to the court.

I have also enjoyed gamers who dislike Epic saying "They violated the Apple's TOS, so this is what happens when you break the rules" like Apple's TOS is the law of the land. If you violate Apple's TOS, Tim Cook gets to kick your ass too. Don't like it, don't make software for Apple products.

seems odd to counter a critique of being totalitarian by committing a totalitarian act lol.

Yeah, I'm having a hard time seeing the upside to this. The only thing they can hope for is to force Epic to settle. But Epic has already filed for an injunction. The first think you need to prove to get an injunction granted is "irreparable harm", which is pretty much a give in.

I really do hope this goes to all the way to trial. I want to read Apples internal emails on these subjects. I want to see the flaming hot terrible emails that I know exist.

@oursin_360: for sure, but that's corporate logic for you.

The post before about Gatekeeper was pretty good but I would add is that you can enable unverified apps to install/run on a case-by-case basis as well (a pop-up will say "hey this is from an unknown source so we're blocking it" but then you just go into system preferences and there's a button you can click to allow the app to be installed anyway). You don't have to go nuclear and completely turn the security stuff off. I leave it on since, unless you are getting into incredibly low level stuff, it doesn't ever really get in the way, and it actually prevents you from accidentally shooting yourself in the foot (it blocks you from uninstalling system-level software in usr/bin and the like. They instead give you your own directories to install whatever you want in). The majority of programs/apps you would ever use on a Mac don't tend to cause the security stuff to trigger when being installed unless they are quite niche.

As for how much inertia there is for third-party software, the answer is a lot. The extreme majority, as in probably the high 90 percentile range, of applications used on Macs are not from the App Store. Some applications, like the Adobe Creative Cloud stuff, have App Store versions, but you don't have to use them. As a person who does software development on a Mac, literally none of the software I use regularly is from the App Store. The App Store never has really caught on in MacOS. It was added and then immediately seemed like it was an afterthought that Apple didn't actually care about. It's barely been updated over the years.

There is a large degree of pushback against Apple ever locking down MacOS like iOS and so far, Apple has rejected any suggestion that they would put in place iOS-level restrictions. This makes sense. Macs are only a tiny portion of Apple's revenue these days, and most of the fields they are commonly used in (software development, creative fields like music and movie production, etc.) heavily rely on software that is not available in the Mac App Store and would be tricky to manage within a closed-down environment. There are also a lot of popular Mac software makers who outright refuse to ever allow their applications to get on the App Store.

For the question of do third party game/app services exist, the answer is yes. If Epic wanted their own store on Mac, they could easily make and run one. Steam, GOG, and other stores already exist and work just fine. There's no restrictions for this kind of thing at all. It's just like Windows or Linux in that regard.

As for whether ARM will bring with it iOS-like restrictions, I highly doubt it. I already mentioned that the Mac user base relies upon the openness of the OS but also Apple's switch to ARM happened for other reasons and they have made explicit efforts to make sure all software that runs on current Macs will work on ARM Macs (they have provided an x86 emulator that apparently works quite well and have given developers easy ways to recompile their stuff for ARM).

Here's my worthless two cents:

• These are all impossibly large companies dueling over not our privacy/safety/etc but for roughly 30% of billions of dollars a year. That's it.

For what it's worth, I'd love to have Stadia on iOS. However, if the only way to do so was via side loading? Nope. Not gonna happen on a device that has all of my personal information.

My PC has all my personal information on it and I “side load“ stuff onto it all the time. Same with my laptop. My work PC too, which has more then just my personal info on it.

Apple has sold a lot of people on the idea that if they control everything we are safer. But here is the thing, there some truth to that. How much safer? Who knows? But one thing is for sure, they don’t want us making decisions on what software to put on our phones on our own. Or buying anything on our phone where they can’t get a 30% cut.

@ben_h: a lot of good information here. Thanks for weighing in!

@mellotronrules

Epic is launching a straight up attack against their business model. Everything that gets bought on iOS enriches Apple. Epic wants to put an end to that being the only way business can be done on iOS. And they're not just some anti-iOS blogsite calling Apple out, this is a big business that was able to become a significant force in the game platform market, despite the existence of a deeply entrenched dominant player (Steam). Now they want to enter the iOS space and open up their own shop and stop paying Apple by default for the grace of being allowed on iOS. This has to be taken very seriously.

I think that's more the reason that they're responding so harshly to Epic. More so than this 'you've become the monster you were railing against!' spoof. This is a threat to the purity of the Apple ecosystem. A call to open up the walled garden that they have had so much success with. If a person is already in the ecosystem, they probably value how well all the apple products integrate with each other, the software that is available and how familiar they are with the way Apple products work. Epic pointing out that Apple is not being fair to other companies and could offer a better service to their consumers in an alternative competitive reality, would probably not deter them from buying a new iOS device. They might even disagree with the idea that competition on iOS is desirable, when they look over at Android and absolutely don't want their phone to be more like that.

If the courts agree that Apple should open up it's gates to competing stores and competing payment processers, that would be a huge blow to the company. No longer would everything on the phone be there at the grace, and enrichment of Apple.

Naturally there will always be a prominent place for the official Apple app store on the official Apple phone. Plenty of people would never install a different appstore if all they need is already in the stock-store. But for those that do want that, suddenly they could pop over to the Epic appstore for all their gaming needs. Plenty of devs would want to hop on there on the cheap, knowing that Epic can already draw a crowd through Fortnite or by offering free games to the iOS community. There could be an appstore a la F-droid aimed at power users. Apps like Netflix and Spotify can offer in-app subscriptions and compete with Apple TV and Apple music without the significant price disadvantage of having to pay Apple. Game streaming services like Stadia and Xcloud could find a home on iOS.

If those stores are able to draw a significant amount of paying customers away from the Appstore, the official Appstore has to make moves to stop the bleeding and improve to woo the customers. That's what competition is all about, yet they haven't been subject to these market forces because there was no one to compete with on iOS.

At the same time, breaking open the walled garden is something that could really mess up the whole 'Apple is extremely secure & cares about your privacy' angle. Apple can make these guarantees in a walled garden, but can they also provide that in an competitive environment where 3rd parties are able to sell their wares? Would customers hold Apple responsible for security concerns when a third party store offers malware to be sold on iOS? Can Apple make the case that their key selling point of excellent privacy and security can only exist by the grace of having a walled garden in place? Can they make the case that customers and devs that don't want to be constrained by Apple's TOS could have bought an Android device instead and are not entitled to have access to Apple's userbase just because it's a big & well-paying segment of the market?

Find out next time, in another exciting episode of Dragon Ball Z!

It would definitely be a really big blow to Apple and one im not sure i would be super psyched about. As a person that dislikes Android phones a whole lot and actually enjoys the walled garden approach of the iphone I wouldn't want them to turn iOS into the wild west of Android. I also say this as someone that has a fairly strong PC desktop and incidentally would not want a walled garden there. For folks that want the customization options and open ended OS there are dozens of Android phones out there to choose from. The iPhone is the only one offering iOS in it's current form and it would be a shame if they forced them to become like every other phone on the market. Of course this a very selfish consumer point of view. I like MY thing and I don't want my thing to change. I realize many smaller devs would benefit from this and those are the only people I sympathize with - couldn't care less about giants like Spotify or Epic having to pay a bigger cut.

I was listening to Waypoint today and Rob Z made a point that stuck with me. Apple is a nearly 2 trillion dollar company, with market power so strong it is hard to wrap your brain around. From all reports they have 60% of the phone market. Even though Epic is a huge company, they are not even in the same league as Apple. And I've seen that massive market control shape the way people think about smart phones.

Having come up through the same era as Brad Shoemaker and Will Smith in computers, I remember how much push back there was to Microsoft's efforts to control PCs and the resistance to DRM of any sort. Because people understood that the more control we gave over to Microsoft, the fewer options we would have. And that it would limit was people would develop for PCs.

Over the years I've watched that erode to the point where people are now saying they don't want the option to side load apps on an Iphone. Just the option. The Iphone, a thing that we can reset to factory settings at any time. Folks don't want to have the option to put software on the phone, that they own outright, unless it is provided to them by Apple.

Now its fine that folks want this, but it really makes me wonder if the dominance of Google and Apple limiting future tech development. Because everything seems to be traveling in the direction of being more locked down, controlled and rent seeking. So I that Epic's challenge to this business structure is good, if only to force everyone to look at the buisness practice of one of the most dominate tech companies in the world and ask "If every company going forward did this, would it be good?" Because, to be clear, if there is no push back or repercussions, that is the path we are on.

I assume you're referring to the premium smartphone revenue.

From the epic complaint:

And in the first quarter of 2020, Apple was able to capture approximately 60% of global premium smartphone revenue (IDC data)

Now the question is, will the courts agree that with a dominant position in the 'premium smartphone' market, is Apple denying third parties to sell things at their platform, enough to be considered an antitrust issue?

One quick peek at statcounter. shows that the global 'Mobile Operating System Market Share' is dominated by Android 3 to 1. Which market parameters will the court consider? This matters, especially because some of Epic's arguments revolve more around how important mobile devices are in general. Or compared to desktops. Not why it's extremely important to be able to offer alternatives in the premium smartphone market.

Mobile device users, including iOS device users, desire and use a number of apps in connection with their devices. Apps—software programs designed to run on smartphones and tablets—facilitate and magnify the full range of the device’s functionality. For example, apps support consumers’ shopping, social networking, food ordering and delivery, personal email, newspaper subscriptions, video and music streaming, or playing mobile games like Fortnite. Smartphones and tablets are also a ubiquitous tool for conducting business, and many consumers consult work calendars, draft work emails, edit work documents, and perform other work functions on their mobile device.The ability to access these smart functions “on the go” forms part of the distinct value-add of apps to many consumers and businesses. For instance, the portability of smartphones, in conjunction with certain apps, enable uses that could not be replicated by a desktop computer—e.g., real-time GPS-based driving directions,entering meal orders tableside, processing payments at open-air markets and craft fairs,or taking photos and instantly posting them to social media. In short, apps permit the customization of a user’s device to cater to the user’s specific interests and needs

And yes, i agree that mobile devices are very important and can't always be replicated by a computer, but at the same time my 100$ android phone is able to do most of that stuff too. Hell, the court could even come to the conclusion that if Epic wants to conduct business in the premium phone market, without appearing in the App store and using Apple pay, they could do this already. On premium android phones.

This is nothing but greedy, bloodsucking corporations duking it out with armies of lawyers and trying to win the public to their side with stupid and disingenuous shenanigans, and I am all for it because it is highly entertaining to watch.

@onemanarmyy: agreed to everything you wrote! that's a well-considered read of the situation, and i think the thoughts on an epic iOS store are particularly significant.

this is part of the reason i find this situation so fascinating. i'd argue that the walled-garden that epic is now threatening is as crucial to the apple brand-identity as privacy and quality are.

when you buy an apple product- you're not just buying a device that's expensive, thoughtfully designed, privacy-focused and pervasive...you're also buying into a product line that i think most people understand is 'managed' (insofar as the consumer understands apple is controlling nearly every piece of the user experience).

the thing is- i think many people prefer it that way...which is why if things go in epic's favor, it will be a real brand-identity-crisis for apple.

because what is apple if they become a company that designs great hardware and a solid OS but ultimately needs to open up on the software end? suddenly they're not so easy to distinguish from other premium computing brands.

FYI - What the court considers dominant market position is fleshed out in case law and it is a nuanced and complex topic. In general(from my quick reading), 55%-70%(depending on the circuit) or over is considered prima facie(on its face evidence) of dominate market power.

There is also a bunch of rulings and briefs about the pitfalls of using this metric and should not be considered the be all end, end all. But given the price of entry for even getting into the smart phone OS buisness and the fact that only two exist in any measurable way in the current market, it is hard to see how Apple isn't considered to be dominant in the market.

@mellotronrules - you have it right that Apple's marketing and design ethos is running up against the fact that they make up a huge section of the market. That sort of closed design is fine when you are one of 10 different phones out there. But now that Apple is the one of two types of phones, being so closed off runs a risk violating laws that wouldn't apply to them if they were smaller.

Is my understanding correct here that, before the app was taken down, Epic effectively put methods in place such that they could subvert the Apple payment processing? Leaving Apple in a position where they are hosting perhaps the most popular gaming app, which is also free, but without any income? If so, Epic's "monetary compensation" and "injuries" suffered might be very minor, so their inclusion in the suit does make Epic sound like some kind of 'greater good' martyr that perhaps they aren't.

The most pro-consumer thing here that I could see would be to be compliant with the App Store rules - so players can still play the game - whilst at the same time filing this suit to have your day in court about the fairness of these policies.

To allow the app to be removed due to violation of a terms of service and then effectively hold the game hostage to the player to try and additionally motivate change that way seems very disingenuous to me. But perhaps Epic feels painted into a corner here as they have probably lobbied Apple/Google before with no traction? Or it could be that filing the suit is also against the App store policy and would likely mean Apple would remove Fortnight anyway...

Still, it feels crappy to deliberately impact the player here, where both companies are still doing incredibly well from us, despite any revenue share deal they may have in place. Even if Epic only made 50% of the money from iOS microtransactions on Fortnite, they would likely still be making a mint.