The MassivelyOP Golden Yacht was anchored someplace off the coast of Maine when the first news about Epic suing Apple hit. We had sailed north to avoid the hurricane from our normal anchorage much further south. I burst into the galley, fax bulletin clutched in my hand, and delivered the news to a bemused Bree, slowly sipping her tea and staring at me with a raised eyebrow.
“This,” I said, “this is going to make for an awesome Lawful Neutral.” Two months later, low and behold we have two companies acting like they in a schoolyard fight with enough drama to catch even Jerry Springer’s attention. With snark and sniping the likes of which we’ve seldom seen between two billion dollar companies, the Epic v. Apple fight is shaping up to be one tumultuous, and facepalm-worthy event.
Before I dive into this rat’s nest, let me make one thing abundantly clear: There are no good guys in this fight. Whether its child labor or installing tracking software of debatable origin, Apple would enslave us (more?) if it could and Epic would install eye trackers to ensure we are looking only at the things it wants us to. Neither of these companies represents the “good guys,” and I think we would hardpressed to even declare one of them the lesser of two evils. They are equally awful, just in unique ways.
But that doesn’t mean the outcome of this lawsuit doesn’t potentially benefit us. Right now, Epic’s greed aligns with gamers’ interests overall. But don’t mistake that temporary alignment for any other than that: temporary. Epic Games is not your friend and isn’t moving with your interests at heart. We good? Cool, moving on.
What’s the Issue?
What started this whole malarkey was Epic Games putting an alternative payment method into Fortnite on the AppStore after asking Apple to allow it to put in its own competing payment option. Apple was, as expected, less than receptive the request and gave what I consider to be a rather bullcrapp-y response about how denying customer choice is actually a good thing.
From there, Epic did the Thing anyway and included its own payment option in Fortnite. Apple got feisty and threatened Epic if it didn’t remove the option because (they argued) it violated the developer agreement. Epic Games, expecting this eventuality, replied with a pre-planned antitrust and monopoly lawsuit.
The software industry is watching with something akin to trepidation over the proceedings. The outcome of this case could have dramatic, far-reaching effects on everything from iOS to the PlayStation store and any other number of similar situations and platforms. The “AppStore” model is incredibly lucrative, and we’ve seen moves from every major player in the space to follow Apple’s lead. But now, the very thing that made the AppStore so successful might actually be its downfall.
The lawsuit
The lawsuit alleges 10 counts that try to establish Apple as in violation of antitrust laws through the Sherman Act and the California Cartwright act. There are two main areas of Apple and iOS that these counts target: the “market” itself (the iOS platform) and the management tie-in to the payment processor.
Counts one through three deal with the iOS AppStore as a market. The first count alleges that Apple has monopoly control over this market and is engaging in anti-competitive behavior through technical and contractual limitations.
Count two alleges that Apple has monopoly over the “essential facilities” of iOS by preventing competing AppStores from being used on iOS. Count three deals with the contractual mandates that Apple imposes on app developers to ensure their continued monopoly.
Counts four through six apply the same basic logic to the Apple payment processing. Counts seven through ten are essentially the same, just in a California jurisdiction.
The crux of the lawsuit
The funny thing here is that Apple and the AppStore do appear to meet all of the requirements to be a monopoly. They have a stranglehold over all of iOS and are making moves to start the same type of model over their desktops and laptops. They hold complete market power in the iOS market, and that aforementioned stranglehold is anti-competitive to its core.
What Epic has to prove is that iOS is a “valid antitrust market.” This gets a bit dicey because current antitrust law isn’t especially well-equipped to handle this kind of situation. Historically, courts have used a two-step approach: the Brown Shoe factors apply to demand substitution, or the “extent to which an an increase in one product’s price would cause consumers to buy another product instead,” and the SSNIP test. The Brown Shoe factors are a list of “practical indicia” to assess whether goods and services are a reasonable substitution in the definition of a market or a submarket. The Brown Shoe factors are:
1. industry or public recognition of separate markets;
2. a product’s peculiar characteristics and uses;
3. unique production facilities;
4. distinct customers;
5. distinct prices;
6. sensitivity to price changes; and
7. specialized vendors.
The goal of the Brown Shoe factors is to help define the market or submarkets. There’s a lot in the Brown Shoe v. United States, but salient points here are that defendants, in this case Apple, typically argue for bigger markets to show more competition, while plaintiffs argue for smaller markets to show less.
Once the market has been established, the courts then apply the SSNIP Test, which stands for “Small but Significant non-Transitory Increase in Price.” The test asks if a hypothetical monopoly could raise prices by 5% and have the consumers move to a competing product, thus making the price hike unprofitable. If a customer can’t reasonably switch in the event of a 5% price hike, the company is likely to have monopoly power in the market.
There’s a particular effective example of this in play as explained by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service in a prepared whitepaper for the U.S. Congress:
“One popular antitrust treatise illustrates the SSNIP test’s application by comparing proposed markets consisting of Ford passenger cars and all passenger cars. Because Ford—which has a “monopoly” over the sale of Ford passenger cars—would likely be unable to profitably raise its prices by 5% because of the business it would lose to other car companies, Ford passenger cars are unlikely to qualify as a properly defined antitrust market. However, because a hypothetical firm with a monopoly over passenger cars likely could profit from such a price increase, passenger cars likely qualify as a distinct antitrust market.”)
What’s happened
Well, if you imagine any sort of middle-school fight between tweens, that’s about where we are. We have the two kids (Apple and Epic) screeching more and more shrilly about who should be in trouble to the teacher, while another kid who wants to be part of the situation but isn’t chimes in with completely useless information (Microsoft), and the fourth kid is trying to quietly slide away and not also get in trouble (Google).
In non-metaphor form (and substantially more wordy), Epic released an update with its own payment processor included alongside Apple’s payment processor. Apple got upset and started threatening Epic for breach of contract, and Epic retaliated with a lawsuit and incredibly snarky video parody of an Apple commercial from the ’80s. Because of course it did.
Apple stopped updates of Fortnite from iOS, then threatened to cut off Epic’s access to iOS and Mac entirely, which would have had the downstream impact of blocking any other developer that used the Unreal engine. This was clearly just Apple trying to show how big and tough it was and to call Epic’s bluff. So Epic filed a motion to stop the blocking.
The mobile game developer community basically lost its collective shit, and then Microsoft chimed in because of course it wanted to capitalize on the mob-rage and win some brownie points with consumers by siding with Epic, thereby attempting to prove it was relevant to the conversation (Narrator: It was not).
The judge next granted the motion against blocking the Unreal engine, meaning that Apple couldn’t kick every game using the Unreal engine off of the AppStore, but she upheld the blocking of Epic-created games. True to its word, Apple blocked future updates for Epic-made games on iOS and Mac and in a fit of extreme petulance, featuring PUBG on the AppStore the day it did it. This is how mature adults act, right? Sure, Epic started the snark-war, but really Apple didn’t need to sink to the same lows.
While Apple and Epic are busy being Very Mature to each other, Google used the opportunity to try to quietly slip away from the coming altercation by also trying to dismiss the lawsuit from Epic. Google is clearly not jumping to Apple’s defense here, which makes sense considering there’s no small amount of bad corporate blood between the two giants.
Apple then filed a counter-suit for breach of contract stuffed with completely over the top eyeroll-so-hard-I-need-an-ophthalmologist language, accusing Epic of literally installing a Trojan Horse on the AppStore. Apple’s continued petulance included an attempt to turn off Apple sign-in for Fortnite, then a quick backtrack after Apple users wielded their virtual pitchforks and torches.
Meanwhile, Epic went on NPR to cast itself as a champion of the people, arguing how this is totally all about the good of the people and totally nothing to do with Epic making a crap-ton more money. Totally serial you guys. They pinky swear.
Most recently, a court date has been set for May 3rd, 2021. Who knows what’s going to happen in the meantime, but I think it’s fair to expect more tween-level interactions from these two companies along the way.
What’s the impact?
The lawsuit could have dramatic impacts across both mobile OS and gaming spaces. The assertion that Apple iOS is a market and subject to antitrust laws will have repercussions across all app stores, including PlayStation, Steam, and Microsoft, not to mention Google and iOS and beyond.
Personally, I think Apple is fighting a losing battle. It has exploited this loophole that the law wasn’t equipped to handle for a long time. This battle was always going to happen; it was just a question of when. Apple has always employed borderline draconian tactics in protecting its walled garden, and now it is reaping the consequences of that. Epic’s case is legally strong, and Apple has backed itself into the corner with its aggressive walled-garden approach. It’ll have a hard time arguing that it isn’t a valid antitrust market and an even harder time justifying why its payment processor is the only possible one to use on the AppStore.
While nobody can fully predict the outcome of the case, I suspect Apple will lose the case and ultimately be required to allow competing “AppStores” on iOS and competing payment processors. Other AppStore operators will have to make similar moves, including Epic itself, though the degree of impact will vary. Google already allows competing AppStores, for example.
It’s also clear that Apple is making a play to apply the AppStore model more definitely for its desktop and laptop computers. Apple Silicon, which is Apple switching from Intel chips to ARM chips, will make it easier (aka seamless) for developers to launch apps on iOS and Mac. The fun side effect will be how easy it will be to apply the AppStore lockdown on those full-fledged computers. This is purely my speculation, but I would guess Apple is going all-in on this AppStore model and planning on rolling it out wider to further lock down Mac systems with the release of Apple Silicon. This case is a huge deal for the company.
For consumers, we’ll see more diversity in games and apps on the iOS app store, along with more payment options. Google and Apple will be forced to lower their 30% charges to compete with other payment processors that will undoubtedly be lower. Consumers will likely end up paying slightly less in the long run while Apple tries to find a new way to exploit whatever new legal precedent is set.
It’s worth noting that Apple has played this game before in the eBook market – and lost. Hard. In my semi-informed opinion, this paints a bleak picture for Apple as we know it. But I think the net result will be a gradual renaissance in the binary stalemate between iOS and Android, and that can only benefit consumers.
It’s impossible to say what will come next because there’s a lot on the line for a lot of different groups. But as we’re sitting here, watching the South African coastline go by from the deck of the golden yacht, it’s guaranteed to be a fun ride.
Every other week, Andy McAdams braves the swarms of buzzwords and esoteric legalese of the genre to bring you Massively OP’s Lawful Neutral column, an in-depth analysis of the legal and business issues facing MMOs. Have a topic you want to see covered? Shoot him an email!
Just my two cents, but the name of the column and its description “esoteric legalese. . . an in-depth analysis of the legal and business issues facing MMOs” indicate that we’re getting a lawyer’s perspective. I’m not trying to knock Andy’s opinions (regardless of my opinions of his opinions), but the expectation puts a nonlawyer in a bind.
Daaaaamn, this has to be the definitive article on the subject! I feel like just reading the whole thing gave me a law degree. :D
From a CNN article about one of the hearings of this lawsuit:
So, I’m pretty sure Judge Gonzalez Rogers herself agrees that what Epic did is equivalent to a trojan horse.
I disagree. You are loosely equating “security issue” with “Trojan Malware”, which isn’t true. It’s also not a security issue, regardless of what Judge Gonzalez Rogers says. It’s a violation of ToS, but it’s not a security issue.
Additionally, the “trojan horse” verbiage is over the top, and I stand by my characterization of it. A trojan horse invariably refers to something as a gift or a benefit to one user, but is ultimately intended to harm the recipient. Regardless of Epic’s ethics and morality in what they did, their acts were not undertaken with the intent to harm.
Apple was 100% in their right to call Epic out for being shady, but calling it a Trojan Horse is sensationalist, over-the-top, and its one and only goal was to get the headlines and attempt to escalate the situation and “one-up” Epic’s equally sensational, over-the-top language.
While “Trojan Horse” certainly derives itself from the story of Troy drawing direct illusion to the original source and rather the modern equivalent that is taken over the term in regards to computing is, frankly, an odd semantics argument. We can see from Wikipedia when looking up “Trojan Virus” that it’s defined as:
Which delivering an application update that has a hidden, server side activated direct payment option is like just factually misleading that update’s true intent. Before you get too tripped up on the use of the word “malware” the Wikipedia article goes on to explain that the “payload could be anything” and at no point does it have to be something “beneficial.” If there is a more accurate term for deploying an update that contains hidden and deceptive features that can later be remotely activated by all means point it out.
This is not to downplay either side’s use of rhetoric in their opening statements, I mean that’s basically what that whole section is for, but calling it a Trojan isn’t really as sensationalist as you guys think. It’s just what it’s called.
Also by the literary/social definition Andy supplies, the term is still accurate. It clearly deprives Apple of revenue (harm) to Epic’s benefit.
And arguably a game update would generally fall under “beneficial” as you’re either updating new content, fixing bug issues, or generally improving upon an existing product that is bringing in income/revenue. So arguably they did deliver something beneficial which in turn ended up being quite harmful as it allowed them collect direct payments.
PS: I meant “allusion” not illusion as well in my reply above :/
You know Andy, disagreeing when you’re wrong just proves you’re a lawyer.
I teach cybersecurity, I’ve been a practitioner for nearly two decades, and an app that says it does one then and instead does another is the textbook definition of “Trojan Horse”. Don’t believe me? Fine, let’s go dig into the published subject matter on the topic. It’s an App Store app. Apple has spent over a decade defining what the behavior of that software should look like.
You know, and I hope Bree is reading this, I thought adding columnists to the site was going to add depth and richness. And instead I continually read stuff like this that tries to hedge the argument with “both sides are out to screw you”, and then adds in “but Epic has your best interests at heart.” I love MOP, but I continually find these types of discussions frustrating.
This entire opinion should have been about the real problem that when you own a device, you are not licensing access to it, and what you put on that device is your choice. And it’s like an afterthought at the end.
Epic is going to lose this fight because they’re fighting the wrong enemy on the wrong terrain at the wrong time. At the worst it’s a breach of contract (and c’mon man, you’re a lawyer, those should have been the FIRST words out of your mouth) and at best they’ll get a settlement because Apple is tired of fighting the Chinese Communist Party, er, TenCent, er Epic.
But given Jobs’s legacy, I’d put my money on Apple fighting. Sort of the entire tradition of the company, you know.
Andy isn’t a lawyer and he’s never represented himself that way in any of his columns. He’s in software security, as it happens.
Andy also never said Epic has your best interests at heart. He literally said the opposite – “Epic Games is not your friend and isn’t moving with your interests at heart” – and the article hits that drum all the way through, that neither side is wholesome regardless of how he thinks the suit will turn out. I’m baffled how you came away from the article thinking otherwise and misquoting him this way.
Right before that he said: “Right now, Epic’s greed aligns with gamers’ interests overall. ”
Does it? It sets the tone for the entire piece. “Whatever I say after this, Epic ultimately is the enemy of your enemy and therefore your friend.”
Apologies for the misunderstanding of the author’s background. My mistake, I was wrong and I retract the comment. I’ll make the necessary edits.
I went out of my way to set to the stage that Epic is not our friend. Gamers’ interest here is not in Epic sticking it to Apple, but in the changing of stanglehold two major companies have on the mobile market. More diversity and competition benefits consumers, which is where the “interests align here.”
In the grand scheme, Epic is immaterial to everything here outside of the fact that they are the plaintiff in this fight. This fight was *always* going to happen, it was just a question of who the players are in it.
And right before that, he said “we would hardpressed to even declare one of them the lesser of two evils” and that “they are equally awful, just in unique ways.” He never said or implied the enemy of your enemy is your friend. He said that both companies are bad and that gamers might stand to benefit more (meaning in terms of cheaper prices) through an Epic win but that Epic isn’t doing what it’s doing with gamers in mind in spite of its overtures and therefore people shouldn’t confuse that with allyship. It seems pretty clear to me as someone with no dog in the fight – I’m not an Apple or Epic fan to begin with.
Appreciate the perspective and understand where you’re coming from. I’m getting stuck on word choice and phrases. As an opinion, I think the article skews pro-Epic because of that sentence and also the assertion that Epic is going to win, suggesting that an outcome that favors Epic would favor the community and the conclusion is obvious. I just do not believe there’s sufficient evidence to support those positions.
Such is the way with opinion pieces. Nothing much to be done at this point, it is what it is.
I will say that one of the things that I most appreciate about MOP is the ability to dialog with you and Andy on this. I’m not typically an asshat, but sometimes things just rub my rhubarb the wrong way.
So as Bree said, I’m not a lawyer – nor have I EVER claimed to be and go out of my way to make sure I’m not representing myself as a lawyer. I enjoy law, legal opinions, and dissecting legal issues.
I also work in cybersecurity. You are right in that a trojan is an app that claims to do one thing, and then does another. But let’s be clear here – the issue isn’t that Fortnite claims to be a game and is instead a blockchain-mining front. Epic claims that Fortnite is a game, and Fortnite is a game. They added an additional option to the game that doesn’t fundamentally change the game, or what the game was attempting to do.
Furthermore, the intent was not to hurt Apple but rather provider greater benefit to Epic by providing the exact same service. Any attempt to classify Fortnite as malware because it adds a new payment option is going to fail.
As for breach of contract, obviously that a piece of this but Antitrust law supercedes contract law and is therefore not material in the discussion about the antitrust suit against Apple and Google.
For me the issue was more the dedication to both-sideism and insist both parties were making fantastic claims for the benefit of the press. It isn’t there, at least in this instance, and we’re on day 2 or 3 of this and it seems that if you could explain why apple’s argument is “completely over the top eyeroll-so-hard-I-need-an-ophthalmologist language” you could, you know explain why in a few seconds if it’s that obvious. Instead you’re hiding behind wild hyperbole, for the clicks, maybe.
It’s kept me coming back, at least.
I also think that “I’m not a lawyer” should be clear in these pieces, and maybe it was in the past. It should certainly be in the tag for the columns, which gives the most overt cause for confusion.
Frankly, I thought “the federal judge don’t know shit about the case she’s managing” (paraphrased!) was a sign he was a lawyer. That he isn’t puts the statement in a worse light. Alongside this, the so far refusal to acknowledge Epic’s intent to harm apple when the actual evidence is overwhelming, and not just by denying Apple revenue. We even have the preplanned PR campaign and you know, the entire lawsuit seeking to destroy the business model of not just apple but the entire industry which the article itself acknowledges, but still isn’t evidence of intent to harm for some reason.
Going forward, what I’d really like to see is an article on what people thinks the gaming industry will look like if Epic does win. This may not be the opportune venue for this because the site is still clearly pc focused but when the industry is based on barely making a profit on the hardware (or even taking a loss on it) most of these companies aren’t going to make consoles at all if you can’t make the money back out of the software end.
Nintendo in particular would be screwed, and it would be the biggest loss because they actually care about and drive user level hardware innovation whereas the other companies just add more pixels and processing power. Epic winning this would actually make things worse and almost certainly result in less competition. And that is still Epic’s ultimate endgame here.
Finally, if you want a potential antitrust case with a better chance of success, look at this week’s Facebook/Oculus news. That’s an obvious one, now new and improved with a prepackaged illegal tying complaint in the light of the mandatory “you must also use facebook” requirement.
Andy already explained his security-based opinion on the trojan horse verbiage a few comments up. It wasn’t hyperbole just because you disagree with it.
Both parties are making fantastic claims for the benefit of the press (and the court and the audience); that is how these types of lawsuits work. Apple’s lawyers aren’t stupid and knew exactly how that loaded phrase would read to the non-tech public, just as Epic’s lawyers aren’t stupid and knew how the propaganda video would read for the gaming public. It’s not both-sidesing when both sides actually are awful.
Andy didn’t say the judge doesn’t know shit; he said she was wrong about the one security vs. TOS issue (in the pre-trial Zoom patter where she was grilling Epic to draw out their argument). Given that some people seem to have not read his opinion and leaped to the comments to defend a trillion-dollar company and paraphrase him into things he didn’t say, it seems worth reiterating.
And Andy is relying entirely on whether Fortnite is a trojan horse. That’s not actually at issue. You can see that where he states:
“But let’s be clear here – the issue isn’t that Fortnite claims to be a game and is instead a blockchain-mining front. Epic claims that Fortnite is a game, and Fortnite is a game. They added an additional option to the game that doesn’t fundamentally change the game, or what the game was attempting to do.”
The issue is that the update is the trojan horse and you can see that clearly in Apple’s filings. Insisting on the pretense that the game is a game and you can still play the game so its a game and not a trojan or malware is not a defense. And they’re not remotely mutually exclusive.
I mean, even the fricking wooden horse was still a wooden horse (and didn’t claim to be anything different) so that means you can’t sue for all the people that jump out and burn your city to the ground? This is honestly monty python dead parrot territory.
Why are we waiting for hackers to target our hospital equipment or other infrastructure and hold it for ransom if, by this logic, the people that make the EKG machine or whatever can release an update that disables it or reports the results directly to the manufacturer and doctors can’t access them until you send the company more money? I mean, it is still an EKG machine and didn’t claim to be anything different.
Roll your eyes so hard you need to go to a doctor is hyperbole.
It is both sidesing when one party makes 100 false claims with impunity and then one party makes 1 false claim or 1 *maybe* false claim and the media claims both sides do it.
I can’t believe i’m sinking so low to defend the idea that companies have rights regardless of their market valuation, but they do so I’ll make it the only way I can without feeling dirty:
https://simpsonswiki.com/wiki/So_You%27ve_Decided_to_Steal_Cable
“The pamphlet states stealing cable is allowed because the cable company corporations are big and faceless. Upon reading this, Homer no longer felt bad about stealing cable.”
I mentioned this in the other thread (https://massivelyop.com/2020/10/27/epics-latest-legal-clapback-says-it-couldnt-steal-from-apple-something-apple-never-owned/) but we don’t actually know the facts about what exactly Epic did. Apple does, and Epic does. I do however find it highly likely to frankly certain that Epic isn’t the only entitity capable of using Epic’s method to breach Apple’s systems, and yes, security.
I already acknowledged that I was paraphrasing Andy. My point was that trashing the judge reads completely differently when you have the knowledge that he isn’t a lawyer or doesn’t have legal expertise in this aspect of the law (which I didn’t assume that last point anyway). For what it’s worth I give the judge credit so far for actually being quite savvy about the technical aspects of the case. She clearly isn’t illiterate about the state of the industry, and that wasn’t necessarily a given.
This isn’t a “simple” antitrust case. Andy is right when he says it could upend the industry. One of the problems is it will almost certainly upend it for the worse. Worse for Apple, worse for its customers, worse for people that aren’t apple’s customers, and worse for everyone who actually makes both hardware and software, including, in actuality, Epic itself. Right now epic and its supporters and others trashing the trillion dollar company see only the upside.
Sadly I realize I didn’t actually make this point even given the wall of text: Apple contending it is a trojan horse isn’t laugh out loud my eyeballs popped out and were eaten by the cat hyperbole just because Andy or anyone else disagrees with it.
Several times, for several threads now, both Andy and Bree are saying that this shitstorm is idiotic, Epic is not your friend, nor should you defend this garbage, and while the idea of stopping Apple being a garbage control-freak company is good, it’s not even what Epic is doing.
You’re also under the impression that Andy is a lawyer, which again: He mentioned in other threads: He isn’t. So did Bree. Numerous times.
Sooo,..i’ll give you a tip then, from someone who’s just an artist:
Maybe stop focusing on the cyber part, and focus more on the reading part.
Let the dog pile begin? Guess this is going to be the hill I die on.
As an artist, you should know the importance and value that each piece should stand alone. Guess I’m a shit reader, and you’re a shit artist, huh.
Andy is wrong in his approach, conclusions, and especially in the assessment of the software classification as a Trojan.
But it’s his opinion, I’m fine with that. His Editor backed him up on that position, and I’m fine with that too – that’s what good leaders do. They back up their people especially when it comes down to a difference of opinion.
I was wrong in assuming that his position suggested he knew law in a professional manner. I have had since retracted that position, but couldn’t edit the original post (my guess being that I need to be publically shamed, I suppose).
And seriously, don’t read too much into this. With the singular exception that you felt the need to suggest that I should focus on my reading comprehension, I was over this about five hours ago.
Not really. I wasn’t attacking you. I just sound like that because this shitshow has been gone for quite long, and we all could use better news than Apple and Epic fighting like little kids using what is ungodly ammounts of money.
That being said, expect to be criticized when you criticize someone. Don’t go down to play if you can’t withstand the game. Specially when your criticism is calling someone’s work ethics into question.
I’m a passable artist. I don’t know if you are a shit reader. In this stance, you were pretty lackluster.
I don’t think you understand much about art either, going from what you just said. “Each art stands alone” doesn’t exist. That “value of each piece” philosophy doesn’t fly in the real world. Artists make money and living out of reputation and no piece stands on it’s own. Ask Loish, Ilya or Piccolo if any of them would trade their reputation and safety nets for the chance of “every piece speaking for itself.” They wouldn’t. There’s a reason why most professional artists are extremely dependant and invested in their social medias: Because you build a following of clientele based on your reputation too.
Opinionated. You say he is. He also has the cybersecurity credentials and he says he isn’t.
Who’s right? The guy who spent his entire column breaking down his thought process? Or the person who tried first to bring some kind of armchair authority before criticizing MOP in it’s entirety for “bringing columnists”?
I’m betting on the first.
You were wrong because it showed you didn’t read his column. You claimed you saw them side with one side. That’s the part you were wrong. You basically called their morals into question. Stop prentending denseness, you wanted to criticize them because you didn’t read entirely.
You should. Next time, read the thing entirely and we won’t be having this discussion where if you should actually pay attention before putting someone’s work ethics under review.
“and we all could use better news than Apple and Epic fighting like little kids”
Technically Bruno, this is the better news! If you look outside the window it’s much worse!
Like I said, this needs to be made clear in the articles or in the tag for the articles. There’s a really trashy and obvious trend (which I don’t and would never hold massively responsible for, and hopefully not a part of) where we’re relying on online doctor clowns or or lying-financial-authors-who-fabricate-sources-turned-white-house-advisors-who-claim-they-can “read a medical journal” for medical advice or taking online legal advice from people who don’t know what they’re talking about (“you’re a publisher not a platform, so you’re going to section 230 jail, neener neener!”).
So when it’s not clear in the article what’s happening it undermines credibility. I truly do not mean this as an attack on andy or bree or massively, but would you trust someone who’s not a lawyer to explain “esoteric legalese” and “in depth analysis of legal issues” as this here article states? As I explained earlier, I wouldn’t even trust that if they were a lawyer but had had no relevant experience. Now there aren’t any legal ramifications here but this isn’t bird law either. They really do need to say that they’re not written by a lawyer and are for entertainment/informational purposes only or something.
It’s going to be hard to prove that Apple has a monopoly on anything. It’s running its own market on its own devices. If you want to give people space on your land to sell some of their produce, and you charge each user a fee for setting up a stand, you can do that because it’s your property. This case is akin to one of those users suing you, the property owner, by alleging that you have a monopoly because you control your own private land. It’s absurd.
Microsoft has it’s own storefront on its devices. Google has a storefront on its devices. Samsung does, too. There are simply too many digital storefronts from too many companies to claim that Apple has a monopoly over anything. It is controlling what it makes available and how on its own products. If Epic wins this case, then it could be construed that companies lose the right to control software on their own devices when they put them in the public space.
Imagine booting up your Xbox or Playstation, and having 20 different stores to sort through. Some games would be available on certain stores and not others. Microsoft or Sony would have to capitulate and allow these stores to function because a court said that if they don’t, they’re monopolizing their own ecosystem. Spreading all these products out and complicating software stores would not be a benefit to consumers. This is what Epic is trying to do with this lawsuit. This is ALL Epic is trying to do in this lawsuit.
I mean, I agree with you, but what Epic is doing is treating apple’s customers as its own subset of people distinct and trapped and segregated from the population at large.
See, people that own an ipad don’t have an xbox where they can play fortnite on. they certainly don’t have a pc or god forbid a mac where they can play fortnite on.
To continue your analogy lets say you have an apple orchard where you also sell apples. Great, right? Well epic drives onto your orchard with its trojan station wagon, pops open the back door and demands to sell its own fruit (apples/oranges?) on your land using its own payment processor. And it undercuts your price just to screw you some more. And when you object it files an antitrust lawsuit against you. Why? because Dranadin has an orchard and Epic doesn’t, that’s why.
Man I dunno every lawyer I’ve listened to on this topic actually says the case against Apple is pretty weak because Apple hasn’t abused their position in their market. Even if you concede the point that Apple is a monopoly just having a monopoly isn’t just outright illegal it’s what you do with your position in the market when you do have a monopoly that is illegal. We can easily point to numerous other examples and see a 30% revenue share is the standard just about everywhere with the most notable exception being at Epic itself. We can also see that even with reduced revenue share there’s almost no benefit to consumers as a $60 game on Steam is still $60 on Epic Game Store. The bulk of anti-trust lawsuits are more concerned with the impact to the consumer which in the gaming world just isn’t there. Most of your predictions on this just aren’t backed up at all by how things have played out elsewhere.
Also you guys really seem to take special affront to the term”trojan horse” but it’s kinda the most accurate term in a technical setting. Epic submitted an update that allowed them to later enable direct payment options on a server side setting without notifying Apple such things were in that update. They purposely deceived Apple to deliver an update that allowed them to enable in app features at a later date. Kinda the textbook definition of what a Trojan is in the app world.
The idea of a US court telling a company it has to redesign it’s products and offerings in a particular way seems extremely strange to me. Maybe there’s legal precedent where they’ve done it before but I just don’t know about all that. Usually we only see that kind of thing when public/consumer safety is concerned and so far Epic has done an extremely bad job at making the case that consumers are harmed by the current setup.
This is what Epic is saying – that Apple (and Google) have abused their position in the market by preventing other payment options, controlling the essential facilities for the market, and several other counts according to the Sherman Act. The case is not clear here because there is no precedent and existing antitrust law has never been tested here.
Apple’s behavior here is pretty textbook monopolistic behavior coupled with the other requirement – the anti-competitive practices. The crux of this issue is going to come down whether the AppStore and Play Stores constitute valid antitrust markets. If Epic successfully argues that point, the rest of it falls into place and will have dramatic repercussions across the entire gaming ecosystem.
I mean of course Epic is saying that but actually proving that Apple has abused it’s position as a monopoly within the market it created is the criteria here. According to most legal breakdowns of the Sherman Act that means they have to show Apple is doing something different here that is ultimately hurting consumers because that’s what the bulk of what Sherman is looking to protect. Which again according to most legal breakdowns Epic has done an extremely bad job at showing how consumers are hurt in the current setup. They can’t even do a good job at showing that Epic is hurting without doing business on the Apple platform because of how successful they are elsewhere.
Your assertion in the article that lower cuts would force Apple to also lower their cut which you also assert consumers will see lower prices. However we can objectively see this is not the case with the Epic Game Store vs Steam scenario where Epic is charging less than half (per link in my post above) but the prices for the games are identical. All that’s happening is the devs/publishers are pocketing that extra dollar savings as profits and the consumers don’t win at all. It’s kinda an interesting Catch-22 when you think about it because Epic heavily favors developers over consumers with their lower revenue splits but in doing so they don’t show any tangible benefits for consumers and if they tried to get developers to sell for less the Devs would have no incentive to be on their EGS platform.
Apple is a walled garden. It’s always been a walled garden. At no point in it’s design was there even the option for competition. So you’re taking something that inherently has no option for competition and saying that’s anti-competitive because other companies can’t compete in it. This is the “can’t open up a shop inside of Walmart” argument people have returned with. It’s an extremely strange argument to make that they should be forced to redesign their entire product and business model to allow for competitors on their product that was never designed to allow for competitors. It’s like criticizing MOP for not allowing anyone’s blog on here. This website was never designed to serve that function even if, theoretically, it could.
That’s what has never been tested before: whether or not product designers have to design all products in such a way as to allow competitors. There’s no part in the Sherman Act or any other legal matters where if you design a product that can function as a platform in which commerce and products can be offered upon that you have to design it in such a way that all people can. The legal implications of forcing a company to operate that way are staggering and far reaching beyond the realm of video games as many industrial, medical and other devices also all have proprietary software and systems as well.
Explain to me how “this is stuffed with completely over the top eyeroll-so-hard-I-need-an-ophthalmologist language, accusing Epic of literally installing a Trojan Horse on the AppStore.” is accurate? You just insist that it laughable and provide no evidence, as if it is some sort of fait accompli.
It may be debatable but it is certainly a reasonable charge to make and not completely over the top.