Epic accuses Apple of exercising complete control over iOS

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, May 4, 2021.

  1. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Messages:
    41,430
    Likes Received:
    9,695
    GPU:
    AMD | NVIDIA
    XenthorX and fantaskarsef like this.
  2. entr0cks

    entr0cks Active Member

    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    19
    GPU:
    GV-N660OC-2GD
    Interesting, it's Apple's creation on their phones, I mean, why wouldn't they. And people are buying their devices regardless.
    On a smaller scale would be nonsense. But with these bigger-than-nations companies...
    Epic's just poking around, trying to gain ground.
     
  3. mackintosh

    mackintosh Master Guru

    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    204
    GPU:
    Aorus 2080Ti
    What's the iOS market share, again? 15%? I'm not a fan of Apple's, and I'm all for going after monopolies, but this is ridiculous.
     
  4. Denial

    Denial Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    13,458
    Likes Received:
    2,976
    GPU:
    EVGA RTX 3080
    60% in the US, where the lawsuit is being filed. Also vertical monopolies don't need to have a large market share to be viewed as problematic under various laws. Whether or not Apple fits this is up to the courts/lawyers to decide.
     
    Dragam1337 and Embra like this.

  5. Kaarme

    Kaarme Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,441
    Likes Received:
    1,059
    GPU:
    Sapphire 390
    Apple is also being accused by the EU for making music streaming harder for competitors, with Spotify used as an example victim. So, Epic is not fighting alone, and I'd say the EU is a harder nut for Apple to crack than Epic. Especially since Apple isn't treated with nearly as much veneration in Europe, compared to the USA.
     
    Dragam1337 and rl66 like this.
  6. phoenixdot

    phoenixdot Member

    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    HIS X1950 Pro IceQ3 Turbo
    I think Apple will win this case since they sold their phone with iOS as SAS where the customer even sign the term and agreement before using it, which mean even the customer is releasing their right for having another option to purchase an app for their own phone. No one forcing Epic to create game for iOS or Android, and play store is actually is not even mandatory if Epic want to create their own Android branch version (Samsung, Huawei and Xiaomi have their own in-app store). If I were Epic I rather investing the money on Asus to create my own gaming phone and Android OS specifically for Fortnite rather than spending it for legal battle that I definitely would lose XD

    (Please don't take this comment seriously)
     
  7. Agonist

    Agonist Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,272
    Likes Received:
    515
    GPU:
    6800XT 16GB
    Personally screw Apple. Everything is so locked down and anti competitive.
     
    XenthorX likes this.
  8. H83

    H83 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,505
    Likes Received:
    887
    GPU:
    MSI Duke GTX1080Ti
    Is Epic really surprised that Apple, the creators and owners of IOS, exercise complete control over it?...

    What do they think is the point of IOS, to give money to other companies instead of Apple?...

    I really hate to see big companies like Epic pretending to be this stupid/naive and of being the victims of the bogeyman...

    And i don´t say this as someone who agrees with the BS of Apple but one thing is true, no one is forced to join their closed system.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2021
    Valken likes this.
  9. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,972
    Likes Received:
    2,339
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    What an absurd statement. Yeah, obviously Apple has full control over the store and ecosystem that they designed, built, and operate. Like them or not, Apple is well within their right to do things the way they do them.

    This is like the equivalent of Epic, dressed up in a t-shirt and shorts, trying to get into a black tie nightclub for free where Apple (the bouncer, or whatever the term is called when it's "fancy") denies access. Epic then challenges Apple to a fight, because when you're in the wrong and want to win anyway, you take what you want by force.

    Is it fair for Apple to be so greedy and restricting? No, of course not. But they're well within their right to do so. Being greedy in and of itself isn't a crime. Life being unfair is just reality.
     
    Valken and Airbud like this.
  10. Exodite

    Exodite Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    212
    GPU:
    Sapphire Vega 56
    It's 100% on i-devices, which is the relevant metric.

    Problems with your monopolistic ISP? You can always go to a library for information.

    Anyway, Apple having control of their platform isn't necessarily unreasonable. Them running an exclusive marketplace where they both profit on the competition as well as compete themselves is, however. It's not exclusively an Apple issue, there are plenty of other examples, but this fight has a narrow focus.

    While there are no good guys in this fight I do hope Epic, and the EU, defeat Apple here. Because that's inevitably the better outcome for consumers.
     
    Backstabak likes this.

  11. Kaarme

    Kaarme Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,441
    Likes Received:
    1,059
    GPU:
    Sapphire 390
    Haha, dude. Nice ending. If life being unfair is just the reality, then Apple has got nothing to complain about if it's ordered to allow outside payments in apps on iOS. In fact nobody can complain, no matter what happens.

    Although it's Epic complaining here, whenever a single corporation grows too domineering, it will gain the attention of customer/consumer protection officials in countries, which have such officials. In the Epic vs Apple case, that's also the basis for any decisions that might not go Apple's way. Fair competition is only really needed for the sake of customers. It helps innovation as well, but that's pretty abstract, and could also be considered to be to the benefit of the customers. I'm not sure if you are suggesting all such mechanisms should go away, but I hope not.
     
  12. Loobyluggs

    Loobyluggs Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,266
    Likes Received:
    1,060
    GPU:
    EVGA 1070 FTW
    I think it must be observed that the wording of lawsuits is so that a judge and jury can understand it, and; that it has the legalese needed to fulfil the requirements of a legal case, to be read in a court of law. One cannot assume anything, so, you must explicitly state that:

    A) Apple has full control and therefore is not answerable to anyone else, which has led to an anti-competitive market
    B) Apple should not have the right to remove developers who break the rules, because the rules were not created by law, but by Apples design (this is key). The implication here is Apple are trying to break the law, by altering the purpose and spirit of the law. I do agree with you, but this is a perversion of the law (protecting companies and IP) by being anti-competitive.
    C) Apple has (basically) dodged taxation, by getting the developers to pay their tax bill...think about that...30% transaction charge...that is more than AMEX, VISA and Mastercard, just for using the store. (this is also why some restaurants will not accept AMEX)

    The proportions of such wording are the beginning of the law suit, but not the end.

    I think it's a BS legal case, because Epic will win this quite easily...especially in the land of the free and the brave.

    "Nice try Apple", the judge will say, and yes, perhaps I will, too - because I do support a free market economy, yet I have to capitulate to the law when some try and push a free market beyond its limits, as the case is here clearly with Apple.
     
    Valken and XenthorX like this.
  13. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,972
    Likes Received:
    2,339
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    Very right you are. Although Apple technically shouldn't be ordered to allow such a thing, nobody is going to show them any sympathy if that's how the ruling turns out..
    I agree entirely with the principle of what you said, but I don't feel Apple is really at fault here. Apple isn't an obvious monopoly. They monopolize within their ecosystem, but that's the thing: it's their ecosystem. You don't have to be a part of it. You don't have to buy anything in it. Generally speaking, nobody is even tethered to it. The only thing the consumer loses is a little extra cash due to developers needing to compensate for Apple's cut of the sales.
    Remember, pretty much everyone partaking in Apple's ecosystem chose to be in it, whether you're a consumer, an organization, or a 3rd party developer. That is an absolutely critical detail. There is hardly anything at all where people depend on any of Apple's products for their daily lives. Compare that to Microsoft, which despite losing a lot of relevancy over the years, still has complete domination in certain markets because they have products where you won't get far in modern society without at least one of them. This is coming from someone who uses Linux exclusively.
    So, I don't see any issues with innovation here and consumers are willfully screwing themselves over. I find it really hard to hate Apple when people knowingly support their crappy business tactics and could easily go with someone else.


    Absolutely, though the thing about law that many people don't understand is it's much more subjective than the average layman thinks. It's all about persuading who is right or wrong. That's why you get so many cases of people who were so obviously guilty of a crime and in court got away with it.
    A) is true and the only reason why Apple is likely to lose against this is because they make it pretty damn hard to install anything outside the app store (on phones).
    B) I disagree; Apple definitely should have the right to remove developers based on their rules. Apple has an image they're trying to uphold, and when it comes to 3rd party marketplaces, people can install whatever stupid crap they want, where they get malware and all sorts of other problems that Apple is then expected to fix (though that gets into a right to repair discussion haha). So not only should Apple have control over their own marketplace, but it makes logical sense that part of what you're paying for is a highly regulated market to ensure a good user experience. However... I think many of Apple's rules are ridiculous and hurts their image more than they think it helps. So, it's not the fact that Apple shouldn't be able to regulate their marketplace, but rather, their rules need to be less restricting.
    C) So long as they are actually paying what taxes they owe, nothing will come of this. If it is proven that they are literally evading taxes, then I hope they get heavily penalized.
    They will only win against point A. I don't know where the court case is held, but if it's in a Republican state, Apple's chances of losing will decrease. Republicans are pro free-market. What Apple is doing is only possible in a free market. I'm not trying to get political here so I'm not saying whether a free market is right or wrong, I'm just stating the facts.
     
    Valken and Airbud like this.
  14. Loobyluggs

    Loobyluggs Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,266
    Likes Received:
    1,060
    GPU:
    EVGA 1070 FTW
    A) yup
    B) Then, you must concede that the rules also allow for anyone to take you to court for any reason. And that case must be heard.
    C) Oh, it's worse than that. Too much to list here, run a few searches on how companies that are IP-rich, shuffle money around the planet, by operating different companies as a quasi-conglomerate which own different elements of IP. This money has not actually "landed" yet, on any one tax system, and just waits for a law to apply to a country somewhere which allows them to not pay tax. It's very interesting how these tech companies (typically the ones with the most IP) are shuffling their money about in the billions, yet, "Bobs computer shop" has to pay 30%...up front...

    You say point A only...hard to say at the moment, but Epic are backed by some serious cash, and this court case will probably go all the way.
     
    Backstabak and Valken like this.
  15. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,972
    Likes Received:
    2,339
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    Why? It's their rules for their product and you must agree to the ToS. If you don't like them, leave. Nobody is forcing Epic to sell their games on iOS. Epic broke the ToS contract, so they have no legal ground. Unless the ToS has something blatantly illegal in it (which to my knowledge, it doesn't in the US, where the case is held), this won't go anywhere.
    Again: being greedy and unfair isn't illegal.
    I'll take your word for it - I don't know better and I'm not going to pretend to. It's just a matter of whether such facts are laid out in court and taken seriously. Let's hope that is the case.
    Well if you go by that logic, Epic is sure to lose, because Apple is quite the behemoth.
     
    Valken and Airbud like this.

  16. tsunami231

    tsunami231 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,989
    Likes Received:
    893
    GPU:
    EVGA 1070Ti Black
    seriously it there OS they dont have right for complete over it? Law suit in states are just ridulous

    If apple is force to open there store to allow APP to have ther OWN APP STORE iOS will becoming as bad and Andriod in reguards malware and virus which. the fact iOS isnt like selling point for alot people seing it more secure in that regard

    I will never use Mobile device that use Windows cause yay just no. Next windows Android is next worse in regard to malware and virus.

    Apple full control over atlest less likely cuase it has to get pass them in firstplace. which less likely then if what ill happen if anyone can open app store on iOS.
     
  17. waltc3

    waltc3 Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,290
    Likes Received:
    433
    GPU:
    AMD 50th Ann 5700XT
    I hope EPIC succeeds in opening up Apple's closed shop as consumers stand only to benefit. Apple's position is simply this: it reserves the right not to have to compete whenever it can. I don't own an Apple product, and likely I never will, thankfully. My disdain for the company goes back thirty years.
     
    JAMVA likes this.
  18. Kool64

    Kool64 Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,100
    Likes Received:
    424
    GPU:
    Gigabyte RTX2070S
    I've had an iPhone since 2007(before the app store even) When Androids at the time had their infancy in games and what not. I still don't miss the Android openness because there is little I would want to do on a small phone screen.
     
  19. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,972
    Likes Received:
    2,339
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    Huh? There are Androids out there with screens as large as 6.9 inches, or even larger if you account for foldable phones.
     
    Airbud likes this.
  20. Kaarme

    Kaarme Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,441
    Likes Received:
    1,059
    GPU:
    Sapphire 390
    Nah, the app developers are dependent on Apple. They can't just leave. They only develop apps, not phones and operating systems. Thus the application market for an existing system is the only place where they can do business. It's just so happens that vital ecosystem is another company's property, which was created in a way that specifically made it such an ecosystem. Cars, for example, are also such an ecosystem for myriad third party component/accessory manufacturers. However, cars are physical objects, so car manufacturers can't do anything if someone doesn't want to buy Toyota windshield wipers, desiring Bosch ones instead. When that person goes to "Jacques' Car and Bike Store" and buys the Bosch wipers, it's not like Toyota would magically get 30% of the price, either. Who knows, maybe 20 years from now all cars have absurd AIs, which recognise any and all parts that aren't from the car manufacturer, including the Wunderbaum, and will reject them, unless the seller had transferred 30% of the price to the car manufacturer. I don't see that pleasing the competition/consumer protection authorities either, though.
     
    moo100times likes this.

Share This Page