'Apple Must be Stopped' and Google is 'Crazy' Says Tim Sweeney
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney has decided to take shots at Apple and Google once again and has said that "Apple must be stopped." Sweeney said this in an app conference in South Korea. He's also said that Google was "crazy" about how they handled app purchases.
[...] According to a report from Bloomberg, Sweeney referenced this failure in remarks that he shared in a conference.
[...] "Apple locks a billion users into one store and payment processor," Sweeney said at the Global Conference for Mobile Application Ecosystem Fairness in South Korea, home to the world's first law requiring mobile platforms to give users a choice of payment handlers. "Now Apple complies with oppressive foreign laws, which surveil users and deprive them of political rights. But Apple is ignoring laws passed by Korea's democracy. Apple must be stopped."
[...] Google also earned a strong rebuke from Sweeney, who criticized its approach of charging fees on payments it doesn't process as "crazy." Praising Korea for leading the fight against anti-competitive practices with its recent legislation, the Epic Games founder said "I'm very proud to stand up against these monopolies with you. I'm proud to stand with you and say I'm a Korean."
Previously: Apple Can No Longer Force Developers to Use In-App Purchasing, Judge Rules
Apple Turns Post-Lawsuit Tables on Epic, Will Block Fortnite on iOS
Judge Denies Apple's Request to Delay App Store Changes in Epic Games Case
Related Stories
Apple can no longer force developers to use in-app purchasing, judge rules:
A U.S. judge on Friday issued a ruling in "Fortnite" creator Epic Games' antitrust lawsuit against Apple's App Store, striking down some of Apple's restrictions on how developers can collect payments in apps.
The ruling says that Apple cannot bar developers from providing buttons or links in their apps that direct customers to other ways to pay outside of Apple's own in-app purchase system, which charges developers commissions of up to 30 percent. The ruling also said that Apple cannot ban developers from communicating with customers via contact information that the developers obtained when customers signed up within the app.
The ruling comes after a three-week trial in May before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Apple shares moved down about 2.5 percent on news of the decision.
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 Denies Apple's Request for a Stay After Epic Trial
Judge denies Apple's request for a stay after Epic trial:
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has denied Apple's request for a stay of the injunction ordering it to let app developers link to non-Apple payment options. The company has 90 days from the verdict to comply.
As part of the Epic v Apple case that went to court this year, Apple was found to be in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. A permanent injunction declared that, "Apple Inc. [...] are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from (i) including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing and (ii) communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app."
"It's going to take months to figure out the engineering, economic, business, and other issues," said Apple's attorney Mark Perry when requesting a stay on the order. "It is exceedingly complicated. There have to be guardrails and guidelines to protect children, to protect developers, to protect consumers, to protect Apple. And they have to be written into guidelines that can be explained and enforced and applied."
Epic's attorney Gary Bornstein suggested this was purely a delaying tactic. "Apple does nothing unless it is forced to do it," he said.
Judge Denies Apple's Request to Delay App Store Changes in Epic Games Case
Judge denies Apple's request to delay App Store changes in Epic games case:
Judge Rogers seems to side with Epic's interpretation of Apple's request, writing in the ruling today:
"In short, Apple's motion is based on a selective reading of this Court's findings and ignores all of the findings which supported the injunction, namely incipient antitrust conduct including supercompetitive commission rates resulting in extraordinarily high operating margins and which have not been correlated to the value of its intellectual property. This incipient antitrust conduct is the result, in part, of the antisteering policies which Apple has enforced to harm competition. As a consequence, the motion is fundamentally flawed. Further, even if additional time was warranted to comply with the limited injunction, Apple did not request additional time other than ten days to appeal this ruling. Thus, the Court does not consider the option of additional time, other than the requested ten days."
See also: Judge orders Apple to allow external payment options for App Store by December 9th, denying stay:
Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2 Original Submission #3
Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin have kept a low profile as the Big Tech firm weathers a series of critical antitrust court battles – and it’s part of a long-running pattern of avoiding federal scrutiny, experts say:
The search giant is reeling after a shocking court loss to “Fortnite” maker Epic Games that could upend its lucrative Android app store business. During that trial, US District Judge James Donato slammed what he called a “disturbing” companywide effort to destroy evidence in the high-stakes case.
Google faces yet another looming threat as it awaits a judge’s ruling on the Justice Department case alleging the company has maintained an illegal monopoly over online search. The 10-week trial concluded last month without an appearance by Page and Brin, who created Google’s search tool and held top executive roles as it rose to market dominance.
Instead, Justice Department’s antitrust lawyers grilled a number of current and former executives on Google’s payroll — as well as higher-ups from firms like Apple and Microsoft.
One prominent industry source who has been tracking the proceedings described the Justice Department’s decision not to call the founders to the stand as a “tactical mistake.” The source argued the feds missed an opportunity to grill the notoriously reclusive Page – an enigmatic figure who former friend Elon Musk once claimed has aspirations of becoming a “digital god.”
[...] The co-founders’ physical absence from the search trial, while notable and surprising to some outsiders, may have made more sense for federal antitrust lawyers aiming to build a laser-focused case about Google’s search business practices, experts told The Post.
“In a case that’s already 10 weeks long, you really want to walk the line between providing enough information and carrying your burden of proof as the government and dragging on and boring the judge,” said Rebecca Haw Allensworth, an antitrust law expert and professor at Vanderbilt Law School.
“Especially when it’s a bench trial, you don’t want to be in a situation where you’re putting irrelevant proof. You have to pick and choose your strongest witnesses,” Allensworth added.
Related:
- "Apple Must be Stopped" and Google is "Crazy" Says Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney
- Fortnite's Android Version Bypasses Google Play to Avoid 30% "Store Tax"
See also:
- US wraps up antitrust case against Google in historic trial
- What Google Argued to Defend Itself in Landmark Antitrust Trial
- Explainer: Epic Games verdict adds to Google’s global antitrust woes
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: 5, Insightful) by weilawei on Thursday November 18 2021, @11:55AM (10 children)
Corporate personhood that allows a small number of persons, possibly even 1, to act financially and legally as though they took possession of the rights of all their employees who are not shareholders.
You can act in groups. Freedom of association. That should mean you all agree to individually donate to a campaign under your own names, rather than de facto ceding your decisions to your unaccountable boss.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by crafoo on Thursday November 18 2021, @02:53PM (3 children)
Look at this confused citizen, believing in the ideals of the old republic. Sorry my man. We like as serfs to multinational corporations. They are our sponsors into the political system and our only access to real political power. The corps answer to the politicians, although this is confusing for some because our government is an unholy matrimony of communist welfare programs and outright fascism.
The Progressives took this country about 150 years ago. They pay lip service to the Old Republic but this really is a different country. We should have renamed our country after the North passed their amendments after the civil war. Wilson and FDR pushed through huge progressive milestones, but 1860s was the turning point.
Their is no coming back from this now. The majority actually see this path as preferable, so who am I, as part of a tiny minority who loves freedom and self-determination, to demand a change of course? It's their country.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 18 2021, @03:09PM
Mr. President, Sir, did you forget to sleep again last night?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Thursday November 18 2021, @04:42PM
So let me get this straight: you're complaining about how Progressives have changed the country in the past? Complaining about amendments that enshrined into law the abolishment of slavery, giving freedom and self-determination to people who did not have them before?
There's a reason that you're part of a tiny majority. You don't care about freedom and self-determination; you only care as long as you have them.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 18 2021, @05:14PM
Jesus Fucking Christ, we knew you were a degenerate racist but godDAMN. Just full blown "I WANT SLAVES!"
You're a sick fuck man. Also you're really dumb if you think the infringements on your freedom came from liberals. Wait, in your fucked up brain you are probably "right" since you want the freedom to own black people. Hell has a special chair just for you.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Thursday November 18 2021, @02:57PM (4 children)
No. Employees have no innate right to "act financially and legally" for the company that employees them. Not even shareholders have that right, at least, not directly. An employment contract is really nothing more than a sale of services. I offer my services to a company, and the company offers me money. Why in the world would that give me (the employee) the right to "act financially and legally" for the company???
I do understand where you're coming from. Companies sometimes make sociopathic decisions, and it is difficult to hold the board and CxOs responsible for the damage they do. The solution is to make it easier to hold board members and CxOs liable for their decisions and actions.
As I've certainly mentioned before, I also consider it essential to limit the absolute size of companies. The really widespread abuses come from corporate giants that have achieved near monopoly status over some field of endeavor or group of people. Limit corporate size by limiting acquisitions and (above a certain size) forcing divestment. That would automatically limit the damage that any single company could do. Consider, for example, the reduction of Facebook's influence (ok, Meta) if they did not also own Instagram, Whatsapp, and Oculus. Or Google (Alphabet) if they did not also own DoubleClick, YouTube, Nest, and a zillion other companies.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Thursday November 18 2021, @03:36PM (3 children)
Not much has changed since stone age slavery, it's all just so much more sophisticated.
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Thursday November 18 2021, @03:40PM
The guy banging the drum is now wearing a suit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 18 2021, @07:49PM (1 child)
A lot has changed.
Slavery was a lot more honest.
Also, we did not have articles like this one where one slave owner is calling out other owners on their lack of morality.
Oh wait...my bad, that is the same too...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 19 2021, @02:28PM
It was also real slavery rather than the fake slavery we're complaining about now.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 19 2021, @02:25PM
What rights and what corporations? Sounds to me like both the above model of corporate personhood and the above rights of non-shareholder employees are imaginary. For example, I can't think of any rights that a US corporation could conceivably own from a non-shareholder employee as a property of being a corporation.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 18 2021, @12:53PM (10 children)
That's hilarious. It's like Xi Jinping or Putin calling Biden and Angela Merkel evil tyrants. He may be right but he is not one to talk.
As they say, epic fail
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 18 2021, @02:17PM (9 children)
As someone unfamiliar with the gaming world, please explain
(Score: 5, Informative) by looorg on Thursday November 18 2021, @02:33PM (8 children)
EPIC created their own STEAM clone and signed up a bunch of games as exclusive releases for their own digital distribution platform. Now then he (or they) have issues with that Apple and Google have a strangle hold on the phone app market. Similar to their own EPIC platform and how STEAM is on the home computer market, except on that market EPIC is tiny in comparison to STEAM. Still it's funneling users and forcing them to various platforms if they want to get their game on. In some way this is just really more or less another version of the pot calling the kettle black.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 18 2021, @03:13PM (4 children)
The only solution is to not play. Stop downloading "apps" - you know they're tracking you and selling your data, in addition to whatever cash they extract from you.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by looorg on Thursday November 18 2021, @03:42PM (3 children)
From an app perspective this might be a thing. But I guess one computers it is different. A lot of people want to play these games so just not playing might not be an option. Fortnite more or less built the entire platform and all the money they made from that allowed them to sign up more and more games to their platform. Isn't this sort of what they accuse Apple and Google of doing but instead it's hardware (phones) being more or less forced to get their apps from one place alone. EPIC is mad about the hole fortnite on mobile and how they had to give a cut of their sales to the other companies, sort of like how they undercut STEAM to bring games to their own platform by promising the developers that they would take a smaller cut of the sales compared to what STEAM takes or took.
It's sort of funny in that way how EPIC can now scream foul as they are sort of doing the same things. I'm not quite sure what EPIC has down for exclusive titles right now but I guess it's mainly Fortnite and then some other franchises such as Hitman and Division. I think the last one I cared about was Darkest Dungeon II (but after seeing how that game had changed from the previous version I guess I'm not that sad cause it didn't look that interesting anymore). I guess the more annoying aspect of it is that all the various platforms are trying to do the same thing now -- forcing users to come to their platform for one or another game locking them in and down. They all got their own platform in that regard Steam, GOG, EPIC, Blizzard etc. Forcing users that want to play games to install more and more various platforms. So sure I guess you could just stop playing but it might not be that simple or easy for some.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 18 2021, @05:18PM (2 children)
GOG lets you download offline ninstallers for every game, they shouldn't be lumped in with the rest unless they force usage of their game manager.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Thursday November 18 2021, @05:49PM
Sure GOG is somewhat better then some of the others in that regard. So it was not ment to say that they are all equal in all aspects.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 19 2021, @02:40PM
There is a reason that I get my games from GOG if at all possible.
1) see a game for sale on steam
2) check GOG to see if it offers it as well
(Score: 3, Interesting) by richtopia on Thursday November 18 2021, @03:52PM (2 children)
Not quite apples to oranges comparison. On iProduct you have a single application manager: the app store. On Windows, you aren't forced to use their Windows Store and can install both Steam and Epic (and Blizzard's Battle.net, Ubisoft, EA Origin, GOG) for your software management.
Microsoft is trying to move the Windows Store to a more Apple-like experience, however I doubt they can move 100% to the Windows store without alienating a large portion of users. Android in theory can use other app stores like Amazon, however in practicality Play is the only choice.
No love lost from me for all of the silly game application managers listed above; EA in particular has lost sales from me because EA Origin is a miserable experience.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by looorg on Thursday November 18 2021, @04:21PM
Sure. They are not exactly the same but similar enough. It's sort of like you don't have to use the appstores either, you can find some place to fetch various APK containers etc. Some of those sites might be a bit shady and it might not be for the normal or average users and it certainly isn't what Google (and Apple, perhaps not so much them I don't even know if it's even a viable alternative in the apple-verse) would like you to do. The issue here is more that if you want to get and play X you have to get Y you can't get X from some other source and then they are locking down users. EPIC are doing it themselves, I guess mainly with Fortnite but they are branching out, but are at the same time crying about Apple and Google doing it to them. I guess the main issue for them is that they can't use their own payment transaction platforms but have to run them by Apple and Google and give them a cut, but I'm not entirely sure.
I guess a lot of windows gamers have at least a couple of different of these things installed depending on what their preferred games are. But still it doesn't remove from the fact it gets quite annoying that you have to keep all these things around (they probably all want to auto-start and suck resources even when not in active use) and maintained to perhaps just play one game on each or so. In that regard it was nice when it was only stand-alone games that didn't require anything and for the rest there was just Steam (which from time to time sucked horribly but it was still ok sort of).
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 19 2021, @03:06AM
Almost true.
I'm new to Apple, but so far, I'm finding that I can find and install the things I want without the Apple store. For instance, Firefox. When I want something, I check the app store, if it's available for free, I install it. If it's not available for free, I do an internet search, and probably find it for free. If I can't find it for free, I think about it. I probably didn't need it anyway.
Microsoft store looks like a copy of the Apple store. Not to mention, the new desktop looks all Apple-y to me. Microsoft is like the Apple store, in that, they want you to pay for stuff that you know you can find online for free, or reduced prices.
I guess that's alright if you're looking for "trusted sources". If you trust the app stores. I don't, so I don't use them much.
I much prefer apt-get install $necessary-application. I actually do trust those repositories, and I don't have to shop around, trying to figure out whether the price is right.