SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Fortnite maker sues Apple after removal of game from App Store:
Apple Inc on Thursday removed popular video game "Fortnite" from its App Store for violating the company's in-app payment guidelines, prompting developer Epic Games to file a federal lawsuit challenging the iPhone maker's rules.
Apple cited a direct payment feature rolled out on the Fortnite app earlier on Thursday as the violation.
Epic sued in U.S. court seeking no money from Apple but rather an injunction that would end many of the company's practices related to the App Store, which is the only way to distribute native software onto most iPhones.
[...] Apple takes a cut of between 15% and 30% for most app subscriptions and payments made inside apps, though there are some exceptions for companies that already have a credit card on file for iPhone customers if they also offer an in-app payment that would benefit Apple. Analysts believe games are the biggest contributor to spending inside the App Store, which is in turn the largest component of Apple's $46.3 billion-per-year services segment.
In a statement, Apple said Fortnite had been removed because Epic had launched the payment feature with the "express intent of violating the App Store guidelines" after having had apps in the store for a decade.
"The fact that their (Epic) business interests now lead them to push for a special arrangement does not change the fact that these guidelines create a level playing field for all developers and make the store safe for all users," Apple said in a statement.
[...] Epic's lawsuit, however, argues that app distribution and in-app payments for Apple devices constitute their own distinct market for anti-competition purposes because Apple users rarely leave its "sticky" ecosystem, according to Epic's filing.
[...] Google also removed "Fortnite" from its Play Store.
"However, we welcome the opportunity to continue our discussions with Epic and bring Fortnite back to Google Play," Google spokesman Dan Jackson said in a statement. Jackson said Epic had violated a rule requiring developers to use Google's in-app billing system for products within video games.
Recently:
(2020-07-22) Microsoft Tells Congress That iOS App Store is Anticompetitive
(2020-06-24) Apple Gives Thumbs Up to Hey Email App After Update Rejection
(2020-06-17) EU Launches Two Antitrust Investigations Into Apple Business Practices
(2020-03-07) Apple's New App Store Policies Fight Spam and Abuse but Also Allow Ads in Notifications
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 14 2020, @05:36PM (6 children)
So, I create some product. And, I want to sell it at Walmart. But, Walmart declines to carry my product. Doesn't much matter why Walmart declines, they simply won't purchase and stock my product. Can I sue Walmart for not carrying my product?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2020, @06:19PM
Bad analogy.
What you're missing here is that there's a device in the middle that you supposedly purchased (i.e., an iPhone or iPad). Walmart refusing to carry a product doesn't generally infringe on your rights to use a device you already own.
Let's try to modify your analogy to make it more accurate. It's not exact, but let's try.
Suppose that to buy a selection of products at Walmart, you had to purchase a cabinet to install in your house. The cabinet had various appliances pre-installed, which you could use freely (as they were approved by Walmart). To get other appliances in this cabinet, you had to pay Walmart, who would come to your house, put in the appliance, and give you the key to unlock it. For this they would charge a 30% fee on top of the 3rd-party who actually manufactured the appliance.
Suppose some 3rd-party manufacturers wanted to market appliances directly to the consumer. Further, suppose that these particular types of appliances only work on certain special kinds of electrical current (I know I'm reaching here), so there are only 2 major companies that produce 99% of the cabinets capable of running these appliances.
But Walmart refuses to give keys to unlock any of the alcoves to 3rd-party installers or manufacturers. You need to pay their 30% fee just to put something into the cabinet you already purchased which lives in your house.
Now, you might say that this is your fault for buying the cabinet, when you knew the restrictions. But if there are only a few models of cabinet available that have the ability to use these 3rd-party appliances, we may reasonably start to say that Walmart is adopting a monopolistic policy.
In fact, that's pretty much the definition of monopolistic behavior. A lot of people think a "monopoly" is just about controlling the market for one particular product or service. But the issue with many monopolies (and what led to anti-trust legislation in the U.S. originally) is when monopolistic companies seek to control other industries and companies by manipulating the markets beyond their basic original product or service. They use a monopoly in one sector to force monopolies in others. Just because Apple makes decent hardware doesn't mean they should get a license to control not just the OS but the entire application industry. All of this was supposedly settled in lawsuits against people like IBM and Microsoft decades ago.
The issue isn't just about one party refusing to sell another's wares. It's about restricting the purchaser from using and purchasing those wares, even by using products they've already bought. (Again, I know this analogy is far-fetched, but it's closer to what's actually going on here using the Walmart scenario you postulated.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2020, @11:49AM
To add to the other AC reply, in the Google case it is like Walmart went around and leaned on Home Depot and Best Buy to not sell your product either.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday August 15 2020, @05:25PM (3 children)
If there were only two retailers in the world, with Walmart being one of them, you'd have a good analogy here.
However, this simply isn't the case.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday August 15 2020, @05:37PM (2 children)
So, you are suggesting that there are only two game platforms in the world?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 16 2020, @08:04AM
I think he was suggesting that there are only two mobile phone platforms. The Android/Apple duopoly has a higher market share than Microsoft had at the time of its anti-trust case. But that's not important, it's what you do with a monopoly that counts. Apple/Google are saying "Nice little business you got there, be a shame if something happened to it. You want to sell here, our cut is 30%"
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Sunday August 16 2020, @04:04PM
I know there aren't. However, are you implying any of these?
In suing Google and Apple, Epic may be trying to set a precedent that it can use against Microsoft and Nintendo should they not play ball.