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
Related Stories
Apple's new App Store policies fight spam and abuse but also allow ads in notifications:
Earlier this week, Apple notified app developers of a revised set of App Store review guidelines—the rules by which Apple curates its iOS/iPadOS, tvOS, watchOS, and macOS App Stores.
Among many other things, the revised rules expand the definition of what constitutes a spam app, clarify that developers are able to use push notifications to serve ads to users (provided users explicitly opt in to them), and limit submissions of certain types apps to trusted organizations in regulated or sensitive industries.
The most controversial of these changes has been the clear statement that developers can serve ads to users via push notifications. At one point in the past, Apple's guidelines stated that push notifications "should not be used for advertising, promotions, or direct marketing purposes or to send sensitive personal or confidential information." Now the guidelines state:
Push Notifications must not be required for the app to function, and should not be used to send sensitive personal or confidential information. Push Notifications should not be used for promotions or direct marketing purposes unless customers have explicitly opted in to receive them via consent language displayed in your app's UI, and you provide a method in your app for a user to opt out from receiving such messages.
Pixel Envy's Nick Heer noted that Apple was already failing to enforce the original language, so this seems like capitulation to what some developers have been doing for a while, perhaps in response to difficulty policing this consistently. Heer also points out that there is not currently a pre-baked way for developers to sort between types of notifications, so the "you provide a method in your app for a user to opt out from receiving such messages" language may still curb some of this behavior.
EU launches two antitrust investigations into Apple practices:
European Union authorities Tuesday launched two antitrust investigations into Apple's mobile app store and payment platform over concerns that the company's practices distort competition, opening a new front in the EU's battle against the dominance of big tech companies.
The EU's executive arm, the European Commission, said it began a formal investigation of Apple Pay over allegations that the company refuses access to the payment system in some cases and limits access to the "tap and go" function on iPhones.
The commission opened a second investigation into the mobile App Store over concerns that Apple restricts developers from letting iPhone and iPad users know about ways to make purchases outside of apps. The investigation follows complaints from music-streaming service Spotify and an e-book distributor on the impact of the App Store's rules on the competition.
EU Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager said, "It appears that Apple obtained a gatekeeper role when it comes to the distribution of apps and content to users of Apple's popular devices."
Apple gives thumbs up to Hey email app after update rejection:
Apple approved an update for subscription-based emailing app Hey over the weekend, after rejecting one last week, developer Basecamp said on Monday. It came as Apple prepared for its Worldwide Developer Conference event on Monday.
Basecamp tweeted that updates had been rejected multiple times, as noted by TechCrunch, apparently because it didn't offer an in-app purchase for the full $99-a-year service. The app also lacked functionality when downloaded -- you have to visit the company's website to sign up.
It's not like Apple doesn't publish the do's and don'ts for applications submitted to the app store. As a developer you ignore them at your own peril. On the other hand, Apple does pretty much have a monopoly on applications for iOS devices and if you want to play, you have to give them a slice.
who am I rooting for again?
Microsoft Tells Congress That iOS App Store Is Anticompetitive:
US regulators are taking aim at big tech firms like Google, Apple, and Amazon, with the potential for antitrust cases later this year. A House committee is gearing up to question the CEOs of major technology companies, but Microsoft President Brad Smith has already chatted with the committee. Smith reportedly expressed concerns about Apple in particular, specifically when it comes to its handling of the App Store.
[...] According to Smith, the recent disagreement over the Basecamp Hey email app on iOS exemplifies the problem. The app needs a $99 annual subscription, but there was no way to purchase it in the app — users had to go to the web. That didn't please Apple, as it circumvented the 30 percent revenue charge. Apple resisted approving the app, only doing so when public pressure ramped up, and the developers added a 14-day free trial for iOS users.
[...] And that's at the heart of the antitrust probe: Is Apple harming competition with its policies now that iOS is one of two dominant mobile platforms? It might take a few years for the government to decide that one.
A Northern California federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order blocking Apple from going forward with plans to terminate Epic Games' Apple Developer Program account, which would have had a major impact on the development of Unreal Engine on iOS. At the same time, the judge left in place Apple's current blocking of Fortnite from the iOS App Store after Epic tried to insert an alternative payment platform into the mobile game.
Previously:
Microsoft Issues Statement in Support of Epic Games to Remain on Apple Ecosystem
Epic-Apple Feud Could Also Affect Third-Party Unreal Engine Games
Fortnite Maker Sues Apple after Removal of Game From App Store
Fortnite's Android Version Bypasses Google Play to Avoid 30% "Store Tax"
Apple threatens to boot Epic—including Unreal Engine—off Mac and iOS
The new legal battle between game developer Epic and iPhone-maker Apple continues to heat up, as Epic says Apple will be cutting it off from the developer platform for Mac and iOS before the end of this month.
Epic wrote in a court filing (PDF) that Apple said its membership in the Developer Program will be terminated as of August 28. According to Epic, Apple's move threatens not only Fortnite but also every game that uses Unreal Engine: "By August 28, Apple will cut off Epic's access to all development tools necessary to create software for Apple's platforms—including for the Unreal Engine Epic offers to third-party developers, which Apple has never claimed violated any Apple policy," Epic said.
How Apple's battle with Epic Games could affect hundreds of other games beyond Fortnite
If Apple disables Epic's developer account, then the company won't be able to maintain the Unreal Engine for iPhones and other Apple computers. Unreal is a long-standing set of technologies for displaying 3D graphics. Other game-makers license it from Epic so they don't have to re-build the same functions from scratch, and it's used in many popular games, although it's more popular on consoles and PCs than for mobile games.
Also at The Verge and VentureBeat.
Previously:
Fortnite Maker Sues Apple after Removal of Game From App Store
Apple turns post-lawsuit tables on Epic, will block Fortnite on iOS:
Weeks after Epic's apparent "win" against Apple in the Epic Games v. Apple case, Apple issued a letter denying Epic's request to have its developer license agreement reinstated until all legal options are exhausted. This effectively bans Fortnite and any other software from the game maker from returning to Apple's App Store for years.
Epic was handed an initial victory when the US District Court for Northern California issued an injunction on September 10 ordering Apple to open up in-game payment options for all developers. At the time, the injunction was something of a moral victory for Epic—allowing the developer to keep its in-game payment systems in its free-to-play Fortnite intact while avoiding paying Apple a 30 percent fee that had previously covered all in-app transactions.
But now Epic has faced a significant reversal of fortune.
The better thing would be to ban all micro-transactions. Instead this is more like a couple thieves divvying up the loot from the candy they stole from children. Sure, they didn't "steal anything", but kids aren't allowed to play the slot machines in Casinos, either.
Previously:
Apple Can No Longer Force Developers to Use In-App Purchasing, Judge Rules
Valve Gets Dragged into Apple and Epic’s Legal Fight Over Fortnite
Judge Dismisses Apple’s “Theft” Claims in Epic Games Lawsuit
Microsoft Thumbs its Nose at Apple With New “App Fairness” Policy
Your iPhone Copy of Fortnite is About to Become Out of Date [Updated]
Judge Issues Restraining Order Protecting Unreal Engine Development on iOS
Microsoft Issues Statement in Support of Epic Games to Remain on Apple Ecosystem
Epic-Apple Feud Could Also Affect Third-Party Unreal Engine Games
Fortnite Maker Sues Apple after Removal of Game From App Store
Judge dismisses Apple's "theft" claims in Epic Games lawsuit:
US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers this week threw out two Apple counterclaims stemming from the company's antitrust/breach-of-contract court battle with Epic Games over the fate of Fortnite on iOS.
[...] This week's ruling, however, deals with counterclaims filed by Apple in response to that lawsuit. In those counterclaims, Apple argued that the introduction of Epic Direct Payments (which are still available in the iOS version of the game, for people who downloaded it before the App Store removal) amounted to "intentional interference" with Apple's legitimate business. The company also sought extra punitive damages for what it considers "little more than theft" of the 30-percent commission that it is rightfully owed.
[...] "This is a high-stakes breach of contract case and an antitrust case and that's all in my view," Rogers said. And despite Apple's loss here, those two core elements of the case will continue to be argued as the case moves forward to a trial, with arguments scheduled for May.
"Epic enabled a feature in its app which was not reviewed or approved by Apple, and they did so with the express intent of violating the App Store guidelines that apply equally to every developer who sells digital goods and services," Apple said in a statement. "Their reckless behavior made pawns of customers, and we look forward to making it right for them in court next May."
previously:
Fortnite Maker Sues Apple after Removal of Game From App Store
Microsoft Issues Statement In Support of Epic Games To Remain On Apple Ecosystem
Earlier this afternoon, Microsoft's Executive Vice President of Gaming Phil Spencer issued a statement on Twitter declaring a desire for ongoing support for Unreal Engine within the Apple ecosystem. With many developers opting to use Unreal Engine over other proprietary development tools, suddenly shutting off access to an entire marketplace for gaming could have a huge impact with bifurcating mobile gaming in general.
The statement released today was prepared by Kevin Gammill, the General Manager for Gaming Developer Experiences for Microsoft. Kevin declared that the Unreal Engine provided by Epic Games, if not kept available on the Apple App Store for developers, would require Microsoft "to choose between abandoning its customers and potential customers on the iOS and macOS plattforms or choosing a different game engine when preparing to develop new games."
Previously: Fortnite Maker Sues Apple after Removal of Game From App Store
Epic-Apple Feud Could Also Affect Third-Party Unreal Engine Games
Epic CEO Tim Sweeney has long been an outspoken opponent of what he sees as Valve's unreasonable platform fees for listing games on Steam, which start at 30 percent of the total sale price. Now, though, new emails from before the launch of the competing Epic Games Store in 2018 show just how angry Sweeney was with the "assholes" at companies like Valve and Apple for squeezing "the little guy" with what he saw as inflated fees.
The emails, which came out this week as part of Wolfire's price-fixing case against Valve (as noticed by the GameDiscoverCo newsletter), confront Valve managers directly for platform fees Sweeney says are "no longer justifiable."
[...]
The first mostly unredacted email chain from the court documents, from August 2017, starts with Valve co-founder Gabe Newell asking Sweeney if there is "anything we [are] doing to annoy you?" That query was likely prompted by Sweeney's public tweets at the time questioning "why Steam is still taking 30% of gross [when] MasterCard and Visa charge 2-5% per transaction, and CDN bandwidth is around $0.002/GB." Later in the same thread, he laments that "the internet was supposed to obsolete the rent-seeking software distribution middlemen, but here's Facebook, Google, Apple, Valve, etc."
[...]
The second email chain revealed in the lawsuit started in November 2018, with Sweeney offering Valve a heads-up on the impending launch of the Epic Games Store that would come just weeks later. While that move was focused on PC and Mac games, Sweeney quickly pivots to a discussion of Apple's total control over iOS, the subject at the time of a lawsuit whose technicalities were being considered by the Supreme Court.
[...]
In a follow-up email on December 3, just days before the Epic Games Store launch, Sweeney took Valve to task more directly for its policy of offering lower platform fees for the largest developers on Steam.
[...]
After being forwarded the message by Valve's Erik Johnson, Valve COO Scott Lynch simply offered up a sardonic "You mad bro?"
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday August 14 2020, @02:24PM
Two corporate giants who fell backwards into stealing others' good ideas and mass marketing them more effectively squabbling about who gets to squeeze money out of the end user first.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Friday August 14 2020, @02:25PM (1 child)
Apple didn't remove Epic because of their monetization strategy of pushing gambling to children... they removed it because Apple wasn't getting a big enough cut.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Touché) by Freeman on Friday August 14 2020, @03:00PM
Which is par for the course. Would be nice, if microtransactions died an unceremonious death. Then again, that might actually be something worth celebrating. Replace Cristopher Columbus day with Microtransaction Chains day.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ilsa on Friday August 14 2020, @02:46PM (6 children)
At what point will Apple and Google be considered a duopoly that is abusing their position in the marketplace?
The amount of money they suck from the market grossly outweighs the actual value they provide.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2020, @03:06PM (1 child)
Considered by who? US regulators won't care, European ones might.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Unixnut on Friday August 14 2020, @05:12PM
> European ones might.
But they can do sweet F.A about it. You can see it with the Fines they slapped Google/Amazon with. The ink on the ruling was not even dry yet, and the US was threatening Tariffs etc... against the EU for daring to even go down this route.
Hence why the US still violates the GDPR (and other EU laws on privacy) with impunity. Apart from making a bit of noise, the EU can't actually do much without incurring the wrath of the US.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2020, @03:09PM
Perhaps the reason we have Android is because Apple had such a sweet deal G could not resist.
If Apple did not have the app store tax, would Android exist?
Probably, because it still gives them ownership of the customer's access device and hence an inside track on the customer's actions.
The issue here may be where to draw the line of what selling a device or service says you can say about how the new owner can use what they bought.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2020, @05:45PM
Probably about the same time Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Marand on Saturday August 15 2020, @12:30AM (1 child)
That seems to be the outcome Epic is after here. The entire thing appears to be carefully planned and timed to add fuel to the anti-trust fire:
Epic wanted the game to get pulled and was ready for it. It waited until everyone's already taking a hard look at the two companies for abusing their duopoly status, goaded both companies into doing the predictable thing within hours of each other, and then fired back. They're showing that Apple and Google control the mobile space and are both abusing their duopoly status at the detriment of others.
There's a lot of "Epic is being greedy" and "wow they're fighting Google and Apple? How stupid can they be?" commentary elsewhere online, but I don't believe people are giving this enough thought. There's a lot of well-deserved distaste for Epic, so a lot of people are just jumping on the "lol fuck Epic" bandwagon without thinking through what's happening here. They had this whole thing ready to go beforehand, and were ready for it when Apple and Google did the predictable thing. This is calculated to make the two companies look like an anti-competitive duopoly.
I don't like Epic as a company, but I hope this gambit pays off because the mobile space is fucked up and something needs to change. We have phones more powerful than some (most?) desktops (my current phone has 12GB of RAM, for fuck's sake) and yet they're barely better than toys because the Apple/Google duopoly prevents us from owning our own hardware and using it as we wish. This is especially concerning because hardware improvements are steadily pushing us toward the possibility of most traditional PCs (maybe not high-end workstations) disappearing in favour of small, powerful, portable hardware (likely with some kind of convergence feature like docking for larger screens and better input devices). With open platforms that wouldn't be such a bad idea, but when that hardware is only driven by locked-down software that can dictate how and when we use it, it becomes a frightening thought.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2020, @12:53PM
But Epics tactics only worked because Google and Apple are a duopoly, acting as expected abusing their position. Epic has just delivered a big blow on an ongoing campaign against the "Store" monopolies. This thing has been going on for months, I think it started with some social media app thing (I don't own a smartphone or use social media, so excuse my vagueness).
Apples practice with first iTunes now App Store has always been illegal and anticompetitive in the EU. They might avoid paying taxes, but this one they'll lose. Look Microsoft got a slap on the wrist because they had a pre-installed browser. They forced Microsoft to share protocol info with the Samba project. If this doesn't turn out opening up atleast Apples platform (Googles is more open, so they might go free), there is certainly some corruption going on that would explain why nothing has been done about the issue for the last decade or more.
(Score: 4, Informative) by EvilSS on Friday August 14 2020, @03:09PM (14 children)
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Friday August 14 2020, @05:30PM (13 children)
In Google's defense, you don't *need* to have your game on Google's Play Store for Android users to be able to install it. It is entirely possible to install apps through other stores (F-Droid is one famous one), or even directly with the .apk file and a USB cable. This just isn't the case with iPhones.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2020, @06:40PM (10 children)
This is, to my mind, a critical distinction. I completely understand Apple's desire to say "we don't support 3rd-party software on our devices that doesn't come through out software channels." Fine. Require users to click through 3 layers of dialogue boxes saying "Yes, I really understand this isn't officially supported, but yes, I do want to install 3rd-party apps" if you want. But to deliberately make it impossible to install 3rd-party software without their permission is surely a step too far and has been ever since this thing started well over a decade ago.
Remember the "good old days" when the very fact that Microsoft bundled a web browser into its OS [wikipedia.org] was enough to get slapped with a government antitrust suit and a settlement that (while rather weak) at least required MS to disclose details of its API for several years to ensure 3rd parties could have the freedom to do what they wanted in making software for Windows?
Microsoft wasn't trying prevent users from running 3rd-party software, much less demanding a 30% fee from them. And yet MS were viewed with suspicion. How could any reasonable person not see Apple as engaging in extreme monopolistic practices here?
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Friday August 14 2020, @06:52PM (6 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2020, @08:21PM (5 children)
From something you said in another post in this very thread.
Try following your own advice sometime. At no point did I defend Google. I said that there is a critical distinction that makes Apple worse (and in my opinion significantly so). But at no point do I think of Google as a "non-evil" company nor defend them. That doesn't mean there are degrees of evil in the world.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2020, @08:25PM
(meant "aren't" in last sentence.)
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Friday August 14 2020, @09:24PM (3 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2020, @02:22PM (2 children)
I did, before I ever replied. Realize that sometimes people may actual have valid disagreements with you. It's possible.
Yes. Why? Briefly, because Apple's problem is systemic. They have set up a fascist system that has operated for more than a decade which oppresses ALL developers that want to interact with Apple products in a monopolistic fashion, exploiting them and their labor to add to their already insane profits.
Google's single action cited by you is certainly worse than any one act of oppression Apple has taken. That I agree with. Manipulating third parties in the way Google did here is certainly very wrong. And I know Google has certainly done this in other cases too.
But Apple's insidious approach creates a status quo that is evil. Both companies are very evil. But in comparing these specific acts, it's like comparing one act of extortion and bribery to another company that does shakedowns for protection money from every developer in the freakin' world.
Does sideloading apps excuse Google? Never said it did. But it at least allows an avenue around the protection racket, rather than the purely fascist and totalitarian regime one is forced into by buying an Apple product.
Never disagreed. And again, what Google did was very wrong. Never said it wasn't. They should be sued, and Google should lose. Why do you want to keep reminding me about something where I agree with you?
Which is a real shame and a blight on our legal system. As I pointed out in my first post in this thread (had you read it! ha! see what I did there!), Microsoft was successfully blamed in an antitrust action for doing something significantly less fascist. Which was my whole point here, that you seem intent on ignoring.
You want to believe Google is evil? Fine. I agree. But your posts on this story seem to come close to Whataboutism. Are you really just intent on attacking Google, or are you trying to defend Apple's fascism? Because I'm willing to attack both of these companies -- HARD. You seem to be trying to change the story, and it's troublesome.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Saturday August 15 2020, @07:31PM (1 child)
Got it, you're off your rocker. That explains everything comrade.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 23 2020, @02:03PM
Wow. Brainwashed much?
I could cite Slashdot stories from a decade ago (as SN didn’t exist yet) that say these exact same things about Apple’s AppStore and its fascist policies and lots of comments making this same criticism. It used to be a common criticism until everyone just got used to Apple’s monopolistic BS.
But now everyone must bow and prostrate themselves before Mother Apple. Anyone who disagrees is “off their rocker.” Got it.
(Score: 2, Informative) by mce on Friday August 14 2020, @08:22PM (2 children)
Have a look into Windows 10 S mode. They are again trying to prevent users from using 3rd party apps. All they had to do to legally get away with it this time was to leave a documented backdoor that you can use to escape from their prison, knowing full well that many/most people will not dare since "it would hurt the security of their computer". Hell, when they first introduced this thing, they even made you pay extra for the key to unlock the jail. Nowadays that fortunately is for free. At leas ... as long as you give them your data and soul by creating a windows account just so you can get the unlocking app from their store. Considering that all this app does seems to be to set a few registry settings (derived from the fact I escaped without getting the app just by flipping UI switches and enforcing some sane policies) ...
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday August 15 2020, @05:20PM (1 child)
A "documented backdoor"? I just ran into this crap on my mother's PC, and it was really easy to disable it when I wanted to install Firefox. Of course, it nagged me with some stupid popup about how wonderful and safe S Mode was, but it was easy enough to click on the button to disable it and turn it into a normal Windows OS.
(Score: 1) by mce on Saturday August 22 2020, @08:22PM
I called it a documented backdoor because that's what they needed in order to circumvent the earlier issue they had with the law: A way to disable it that Microsoft documented (as opposed to that some geek discovered and documented) but that they do not openly tell the user about up front - only when they have to and even then preferably not.
My experience: The machine stubbornly refused to let me set a non-MS browser (that I had installed while not being connected to the net - an important detail, the impact of which I was not aware of at that time). It did not in any way tell me why or what to do about that. As it was late that day, I left it as was and went to bed. The next day I continued flipping all sorts of registry settings and policies into sanity. Somehow, that enabled switching the default browser, but I still don't know exactly what did the trick. Then some time later I wanted to install another piece of non-standard software, this time while I was connected to the net, but I was forbidden from doing so. Looking into this, I discovered S mode, and was told "Go to the Store and download the unlocker app". Yeah great... the whole idea was that I do not want to create a MS account, but in order to get that app one needs ... an MS account. Also, the instructions I was now being given did not work (go to Update , then click on Store (or something like that - don't remember exactly), then... EXCEPT that there was not Store link to click on on the update settings panel). Going to the Store directly, I was then told that I was in S mode and could unlock by getting the app. But sure as hell I was not going to register an MS account... After more registry and policy sanitizing actions, the Store started saying that I did not need the app, as I was not in S mode. Hurrah... But why did it have to be so complicated? And why was I not told from the start about S mode? Of course I know why: they want me to create an account at all cost. Not with me, however!
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Friday August 14 2020, @06:50PM
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Marand on Saturday August 15 2020, @12:03AM
Except, according to Epic's lawsuit against Google, when Epic attempted to make deals with OEMs to make the game more widely available to end-users without using the Play store, Google actively put pressure on OEMs to prevent it. This is similar to Intel's actions against other CPU makers that also led to lawsuits. Google also gives its own app store a privileged status, where it can do things like auto-updates that other stores and side-loaded applications cannot by design.
The situation isn't as dire on Android as on iOS, but really, Google only looks good in this regard because it's being compared to Apple, not because it's actually being good.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Friday August 14 2020, @03:10PM (2 children)
Or how about they just fuck Apple's stupid retarded "app" store?
Oh, right, they can't because those toy cell phones are locked down so you can't do anything with them that is not approved by Apple Nazis.
On the other hand, "in-app payment"? This is why I don't touch games, even with a ten foot poll, these days. Penises everywhere.
(Score: 2) by helel on Saturday August 15 2020, @02:26PM (1 child)
This is definitely one of those cases where the ideal outcome would be both sides losing...
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday August 15 2020, @05:22PM
There isn't enough of this IMO. I'd love to see both Apple and Epic get judgments against them (in this same case) for billions, because they both suck.
Then again, I'm also the person who would love it if professional sports games could have outcomes where both sides lose, and all the fans have to go away miserable.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by EJ on Friday August 14 2020, @04:06PM (5 children)
Apple REALLY needs to lose this one because there is NO way to install an app on a consumer's phone without that app going through Apple's app store and giving them a cut of the profits. That is straight-up anti-competitive business practice.
As for Android, you can install any APK you want without it having to go through Google's Play Store. Amazon has their own Android store, so I'm not sure why Epic couldn't create their own too. I don't really know why they're suing Google when they appear to have the ability to do what they want already.
Apple's business model is like Walmart locking down any console you buy from them to only work with games you buy from Walmart. If you bought a PS5 from Walmart, you wouldn't be able to buy games from Amazon, Best Buy, GameStop, etc. if they had Apple's business model. That's the big issue here.
(Score: 3, Informative) by EvilSS on Friday August 14 2020, @04:48PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by EJ on Friday August 14 2020, @04:58PM (1 child)
In that case, I hope Google loses BIG-TIME and gets fined over $1 billion or whatever punitive damages cause some real pain rather than a simple wrist-slap.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by EvilSS on Friday August 14 2020, @05:08PM
If they win these, I really hope they go after Microsoft and Sony next over their stores on their consoles as well. If they win against Apple, it's a slam-dunk.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Friday August 14 2020, @06:58PM
Now that they've put the hammer down, we'll have to wait and see who shall prevail [youtube.com].
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Sunday August 16 2020, @03:53PM
This has been the case since fourth quarter 1985, over two decades before iPhone OS 2.0 introduced the App Store. The Nintendo Entertainment System would only run Game Paks manufactured by Nintendo, using a pair of synchronized random number generators in the Control Deck and Game Pak continually cross-checking each other's output. Every Nintendo console since then has implemented the same whitelist policy, as have PlayStation and Xbox consoles. Game consoles' software whitelisting policy was ostensibly a response to a flood of poorly balanced software for Atari 2600 sold in 1983 and 1984 that harmed the reputation not only of Atari in particular but of video games as a medium.
(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?
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(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?
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(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.