[storkhill]

Honestly, I think Apple's in the right here. Every developer agrees to the App Store rules before releasing their applications. Apple created guidelines for their developers and they're simply taking advantage of that in court. Not saying I agree with it, but it doesn't go without reason.

[mdorazio]

That's not really the core of the argument here. Epic is arguing that Apple's terms themselves (taking a cut of the revenue that's a direct result of Epic's team's efforts with zero options to do anything else) are not fair and should be unenforceable given its market position. Basically, breach of contract is only a valid legal basis when the contract itself is deemed legally acceptable. Ex. you can't force someone to sign a ridiculous contract at gunpoint and then sue them for breach later.

Where you come down on this issue should really be based on whether you think a marketplace cut of revenue with extremely onerous conditions that prevent even minor bypasses should be legal or not when distribution on said marketplace constitutes 50% of the consumer market in the sector (mobile gaming in this case). Whether or not someone previously agreed to the terms is not the issue.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Where you come down on this issue should really be based on whether you think a marketplace cut of revenue with extremely onerous conditions that prevent even minor bypasses should be legal or not when distribution on said marketplace constitutes 50% of the consumer market in the sector

This is a court case. Not a legislative session.

Where you come down on it should be based on the law. I believe the law should be changed. But based on existing law, it is difficult to find for Epic. Epic's strategy is, in effect, a high-risk lobbying endeavor.

[kube-system]

The Sherman Act is pretty general in phraseology[0] -- it is a courts job to determine if that description of forbidden business practices from the year 1890 apply to the specific actions Apple is taking today.

[0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1

[warent]

Courts can and do make new laws and undo laws all the time. Whether or not they should is another matter entirely, but it is well within the court's power to reinterpret laws quite liberally.

[stale2002]

> Where you come down on it should be based on the law.

The comment that you responded to included facts that would support the idea that Apple's behavior is against the current law.

When they said that " said marketplace constitutes 50% of the consumer market"

This is a reason as for why Apple is breaking the law. It is an argument that Apple has significant market power, and is engaging in anti-competitive actions, which is illegal.

[pwinnski]

What courts will need to decide is what constitutes a "market."

The arguments against Apple all seem to hinge on the market being "people who own iOS devices," while the argument in favor of Apple all seem to hinge on the market being "people who own a smartphone."

In one of those, Apple is a monopolist. In the other, Apple isn't even the biggest company.

[stale2002]

> In the other, Apple isn't even the biggest company.

Actually Apple would be the biggest company, in the market of people who have smartphones in the US. They just recently have a bit over 50% of that market.

Also, Apple does not need to be a literal, singular company for its actions to be illegal. Instead, it only needs to have significant market power. It doesn't even need to have a majority of the market.

> the argument in favor of Apple

Actually, no. Apple is making a much more silly argument that the market should be defined as "Things that can run video games", which can include things such as the XBox.

If the market is instead defined as the % of people who own an apple smartphone, in the US, then Apple is ~50% of that market.

[pwinnski]

This is my point exactly. What the judge in each case has to determine is how best to define the market. Whether "smartphone owners" or "devices that play videogames" or "App Store users" or "iOS devices" or "computers" or "phones" or any number of other ways. Do you determine it in the US only, or world-wide? (US courts have jurisdiction only here, but can determine a market based on any parameters) Do you determine the majority player based on units, or gross revenue, or profits? Is your primary concern when it comes to damages companies (like Epic) or end users? And so on.

People are blithely making cases here like all of these things are simple, but they're the key to this and all other similar cases, and it's not as clear as people seem to assume. Different judges might decide different things on different days, and none are necessarily wrong... or right!

[d1zzy]

> Actually Apple would be the biggest company, in the market of people who have smartphones in the US. They just recently have a bit over 50% of that market.

Is Epic requiring Apple to only open their stores in the US?

[8note]

Specifically for Epic's case, thing that run video games makes sense. I don't think epic has standing to argue something more generic?

[8note]

Shouldn't we be caring about smart phone app stores though?

From elsewhere in the thread, Apple's app store revenue is 3x Google's and they both charge about the same in fees.

The number of phones or iOS users seems irrelevant to the sales that go through the app store, and that apple is using its position as the app store owner to force app developers to use other apple products like Apple pay

[intricatedetail]

Apple has essentially unlimited resources to perverse the law and that's something that needs to be stopped, whether through tighter legislation or through courts making interpretation of the law in favour of consumers. We shouldn't be supporting a company trying to exploit loopholes to their advantage.

[ryanlol]

> Apple has essentially unlimited resources to perverse the law

As does Epic, the other party to this case.

[judge2020]

> that's a direct result of Epic's team's efforts

Apple’s case is arguing (at least in part) that no, epic could not have made all of that money if Apple didn’t first put a hundred billion dollars and 10 years worth of investment into iPhone and iOS.

[reificator]

> Apple’s case is arguing (at least in part) that no, epic could not have made all of that money if Apple didn’t first put a hundred billion dollars and 10 years worth of investment into iPhone and iOS.

Given the runaway success on every other available platform, I'm going to have to say that's not true at all. IANAL.

Epic is trying to bring the product to the customers that want it, and if the App Store and iOS hadn't existed but everything else was mostly the same, then those iOS users would simply be using Android or another similar product.

Apple's investment in the platform benefited many (including Google and Android) but in this case Apple doesn't bring anything to Fortnite that other platforms don't. It's just the users Epic is after.

[horsawlarway]

And I think this is clearly false.

Epic themselves have a distribution method that they've developed quite successfully on every platform except mobile, where they're not even allowed to compete because of the arbitrary restrictions Apple and Google have put in place on software distribution.

I think Apple's argument is incredibly disingenuous.

[senko]

As the judge said, that is a contract breach, which is handled by different lawsuit.

In this lawsuit Apple argued it's theft, which is nonsense, and so the judge told them to go stuff it.

[storkhill]

Ah okay. I apologize, I didn't catch that the first time.

[intricatedetail]

They should charge Apple for wasting courts time. Imagine someone had legitimate case but had to wait for their turn as Apple clogged the court. Utterly disgusting.

[judge2020]

This is why court fees exist, there’s always a losing side so almost any case could be interpreted as the losing side “wasting the court’s time”.

[intricatedetail]

Apple has virtually unlimited money, so fees are irrelevant.

[felipellrocha]

Same. I don’t like Apple’s overreach in the industry, over all, but their apple store service is great, and they should be paid for it. Don’t wanna pay? Don’t go to the store.

[horsawlarway]

I've said this before in previous discussions of this case -

I don't think anyone is arguing that Apple shouldn't have the right to charge companies that take advantage of the products and services that they've built in their store

I think that problem is that Apple is arbitrarily denying the ability for any other company to provide a competing product. How can you honestly evaluate the value proposition of Apple's "great" store, if they've killed all the competition?

You can't. Which is the whole damn point, because Epic HAS a store that I'm sure they'd love to release on iOS but Apple prohibits it.

Basically - Apple is the bully who's now crying foul when the competition is actually trying to enter the game.

From a monetary standpoint, I understand why Apple is doing this. As a developer and distributor of software (my day job), I cannot express clearly enough how much I'd like to see Apple lose this case. As far as I'm concerned, they can fuck right off.

I'm firmly in the "Handle it like MS and IE" camp - I want a court ruling that not only prohibits Apple from stopping competition in their store space, I want a MANDATORY popup on first use that asks the user which store they'd like to use.

[cptskippy]

The counter argument is that Apple has structured the deal so that you can't avoid the store. Additionally if you're in the store, Apple forbids you from advertising cheaper alternatives to in-app purchases.

So basically if you want to sell on Apple, you must give Apple a 30% of all sales on the platform AND you're not allowed to tell users they can purchase your wares via alternatives.

[pixl97]

>Don’t wanna pay? Don’t go to the store.

Is this supposed to be an ironic comment? Because if it is not, I'm concerned for your knowledge about the situation.

[JohnJamesRambo]

Don’t wanna use Standard Oil, don’t use oil. See how that works?

[stale2002]

That doesn't mean this is "theft" though.

Even if Apple ultimately is found to not be a monopoly, this particular action would be a simple contract breach. Not theft.