Epic accuses Apple of exercising complete control over iOS

Besides Epic (since they are an actual exception), how do they forbid you from taking app store customers to a 3rd party? As for the 2nd thing, I don't see the problem at all. If you walk into a supermarket, you can't just demand that they sell your product. It's their marketplace - it's their right to say what can and can't go in it (within reason).

Sure, but it's kinda a stretch to say they're a monopoly as a whole just because of payment.

Y'know this court case is held in the US, right? This is based on US law. That being said, the contract isn't "obviously disadvantageous" or else nobody would agree to it and Apple would have been sued a while ago. The contract is stupid but developers still set a net gain.

Yes, actually, you can start an app shop on iOS. Epic even did it, until they broke the rules.
Even if you couldn't, that would be deemed anticompetitive, not a monopoly. I don't know why so many people here don't know the difference. All monopolies are anticompetitive, but you can be anticompetitive without being a monopoly. Apple is not a monopoly of apps.

Yes, it absolutely is, and I can't comprehend how you would think otherwise. Nobody depends on iOS. Of apps that are only available for iOS, that was a conscious decision, as opposed to being a requirement. If people had no choice but to go with Apple (in conjunction with their other business practices), then they would be a monopoly. Otherwise, Apple is basically just an elitist club.

Yes, you are definitely right with those 2 examples.

See my comment to Loobylugs about this.

 

a rule has to not constitute an anti trust infringement for it to be legitimate.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/30/...sic-competition-commission-margrethe-vestager

 

That's EU....They fined Microsoft $731m for only having Internet Explorer with new install of windows?....Money Grab.

They should have sent windows to EU without any browser...hahaha!....but then again they would have probably got fined for that too.

 

https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#payments

By being monopolistic.

 

@schmidtbag : you wanted something incriminating on how Apple is not playing fair with everyone in regards to the rules of their app store...

https://www.techspot.com/news/89580-epic-exposes-apple-efforts-persuade-netflix-keep-app.html

Epic is just too small to be given an offer/persuaded to stay.

 

Definition of monopoly:

Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service.
A company, group, or individual having exclusive control over a commercial activity.

It will be interesting to see how monopolistic practices are demonstrated as size, influence and the level at which you exert control can be shown multiple ways.
Favouritism for certain apps as mentioned above does show that they have both disproportionate control and manipulate elements of their own market despite them stating to the contrary.
Punitive actions for businesses who have a product available on the store but offer subscriptions through other avenues punishes the business and the end user simultaneously to benefit Apple.
The fact that their profit is so disproportionately huge is not just because of success, but because of how effectively they extract money from their own market using their dominant position. Such heavy handed control is of course lucrative and resembles behaviours such as price fixing (which are generally illegal).

Lockdown has shown how digital devices can be the sole access people have to the world, many people actually still own a single device, and Apple having complete control of such a marketplace with their approach does meet the criteria of a traditional monopoly now because individual behaviours have changed as well.

The Apple situation also differs significantly to apps like WeChat and other complete app solutions available in other regions, where different marketplaces can exist on devices and they are essentially their own markets within a broader ecosystem. As Apple controls/tries to control everything within the device regardless of ownership or usage, it seems like a strong argument against them, particularly with one of monopolistic practices.

Apple is trying to present themselves as monopolistic competition and arguing that they do this to protect the end user, but actually I think they stepped into monopoly territory some time ago.
The way money is taken from every transaction is more akin to keeping the mob off your back in their territory rather than a tax or entry cost to opening a store front to operate on their devices.

Generally I am amused so many people are defending Apple, as ultimately their approach is really bad for end users and results in reduced rights and increased costs to us, whilst also setting the standard for the whole digital industry to exploit us more completely.

 

I said from the very beginning Apple isn't playing fair. I think what they're doing is terrible. What I wanted was to show how they're being monopolistic or doing something criminal. What you linked to showed how they're not a monopoly [of apps], because if they were, they wouldn't have to persuade Netflix. That isn't criminal either, it's just emphasizing how unfair their rules are.

 

I appreciate you are replying to someone else, so consider this an interjection.

Can you make purchases for the various stores they have using a different transaction method? No.
Can I walk into a shop and buy a piece of software to work on an Apple device? No.
Can I make and sell a piece of software to work on an Apple device and charge it directly to a customer? No.
Can I develop software without an SDK and, an Apple ID? No.
Can I produce a piece of software for an Apple Product, and sell it to a 3rd party? No.

This makes it a monopoly. End of. No analogies needed.

 

Y'know... you're not going to get anywhere when you make the same argument that 3 others already have, and have quoted the same things I have.
You're not a monopoly just because you do some monopolistic practices. By the logic you and others follow, that's like calling someone a gamer when the only game they play is Solitaire.

No it doesn't, because nobody is forcing you to buy an iOS device. Whether you're seeking employment, doing school work, upkeeping your social life, or seeking entertainment: you don't need to buy an iOS device. The only time when you might actually have to have one is if your employer requires one, in which case you're typically provided one by the company. In such a case, you're only using it for work, so you shouldn't be using the marketplace anyway.
I'm so sick of this stupid pity-party argument, when those who buy an iOS device are making a conscious decision to support Apple's behavior. Or, just simply doesn't care. So you're just inserting your opinions over what the customers actually care about. I've said this over and over again: You can't fault Apple's behavior when the customers encourage it. You can hate it all you want (I do too) but what you're doing is no different than PETA members protesting in front of a burger joint.

And yet, you don't seem to realize that is a selling point of using iOS. Many people deliberately buy Apple because of their control. This goes back to my example of a black-tie nightclub: not just anybody is supposed to be allowed in. You have to act a certain way, pay a certain amount, and look a certain way. You're not required to like it and you're also not required to get in. But those who do get in like the fact that it's strict. The nightclub is elitist and snobbish but that's how they and the customers like it.

Yes, I agree with that. But as I've said over and over again, some monopolistic tendencies doesn't make you a full-blown monopoly. They're not quite there yet. If they keep this up, they could be. They're already a monopoly in the music industry.

Who said I'm defending Apple? The reason you're amused is because you're not getting the big picture here: being selfish and greedy isn't illegal. I've said before that I would love to see Apple's empire crash and burn. I hate them for reasons beyond what Epic is complaining about. But unlike you and apparently a few others here, I can separate my emotions from reality. It is our (yes, meaning me and you) opinion that Apple should stop doing this. But objectively, according to the law, they are permitted to continue until they become a monopoly of apps. That will not happen until they prevent all 3rd party sales, and, when they dominate a majority of the app market.

 

For the millionth time: monopolistic tendencies doesn't make them a full-blown monopoly.
Does Apple control a majority of the global mobile marketshare? No.
Does Apple determine the price of apps? No (they influence it but they don't determine it).
Do app developers depend on iOS to make a living? No (see the post by @Clouseau ).
Does Apple prevent 3rd party stores from existing on iOS? Not if they follow the rules.
Does Apple hide alternatives from customers? Not as far as I'm aware.
Do consumers depend on iOS? No.
Does Apple have the leverage to effectively blackmail a dev in order to attain iOS support? No.
Is smartphone synonymous with iPhone? No (if it did, that would suggest a domineering market).

According to this, the only thing Apple is doing is maximizing profits:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Characteristics
You could argue that they have a "high barrier to entry" but that barrier is the way they maximize profits. Otherwise, Apple isn't preventing competitors from joining the market. Remember, Google is a competitor, and most apps that exist on iOS also exist on Android (or, there's an equivalent).

 

You can enter a store and buy an android phone.

Apple controlling their software and hardware doesn't make it a monopoly.

 

This case is more of an example of a vertical monopoly. The whole "you can go buy a different phone" argument doesn't apply when the antitrust case is specifically about a market within the product.

That being said, while I dislike Apple's practice, I don't think they have a monopoly over their store for the reasons @schmidtbag is explaining. I think there should be laws put in place to make these markets more fair - but that needs to come from regulatory bodies of government and not a lawsuit from Epic.

 

Well, it does still somewhat apply, because that market only matters within the product. If Apple's marketplace existed outside of iOS, then things would get a bit more complicated.

 

The article stated that Apple was not wanting Netflix to conduct their study of seeing how stripping out in-app payments from their app would impact their business. Apple was willing to go as far as trying punitive measures to make sure this did not happen; coercion of types. That their shows they believe they have the influence and ability to do so...they just chose not to. Choosing not to act is as incrementing as having followed through with the act. Therefore they need to be treated as being a monopoly even though they may not be. Current rules do not allow for this but need to be changed and this kind of action draws enough attention to this fact that the laws will change. Does not matter how this case turns out. If Epic obtains a favorable judgement, Apple will appeal and Epic will loose the appeal since there is no current law against how Apple is conducting business currently. I have no doubt Epic will lose this case and Epic knows they will too. This case is about drawing attention to this way of conducting business and getting the laws to change. The ground work is being laid now. Getting the conversation started requires the first instigating party be willing to loose the first argument.

https://www.phonearena.com/news/apple-iphone-record-sales-us-december-2020_id129957

This kind of shows that they are in fact a monopoly of sorts. This case was filed in the U.S. Therefore Global statistics do not apply. Sad fact is that Epic will still lose.

 

Ah ok, I see better what you're saying now. Though, it still seems to me Apple didn't have much leverage in this situation. A true monopoly would be like "do things our way or else lose business" but in this case Apple was trying to sweeten a deal.
Still shady though, no doubt about that.

Yes, that is a good point. The thing is, Epic could actually accomplish more had they chose to lobby for changing laws, as opposed to attacking a giant.

Fair point.

 

Times have changed to where a court case like this is being used as marketing as well. Lobbying for changing the rules, to me, does not have the same ring that a David vs Goliath story is able to provide.

It's bad but had to try...oof (ring)

 

I was referring to the transactions, which is what this case primarily is about. They have monopolised the transactions, as detailed in the link above from Apple themselves.

 

Not the same, epic want a store inside apples store. It’s more akin to me going into movie theater with 100 bags of popcorn and trying to sell them.

 

Laws are only created when the legal process is utilised and demonstrated to have shortcomings that prevent it from effectively regulating, these demonstrations are either projected hypothetically where a (group of) lawmaker(s) see potential of an issue and address it, or when matters are brought up in court when a company feels slighted or impaired by that of another.

Tech laws are usually the latter because lawmakers are often technologically ignorant, even today.

 

I love that heading - it is.... well, it speaks for itself. I mean - anyone else read it, chuckle and think to themselves "well... yeah that's the point eh?" hehe I know I did