Discussion of Apple topics here on HN almost always gets reduced to the argument that Apple is not a monopoly, so what they are doing is OK. I want to present an alternative viewpoint. It's not a monopoly issue, it is an anti-competitive issue.<p>In Canada, we have three major cell carriers. None of them has a monopoly, or anything close to it. None of them has even 50% market share.<p>You can have a 10 GB smartphone plan with Rogers for $75. If you don't like that, you can switch to Bell's 10 GB plan for $75. If you don't like Bell, of course you can switch to Telus's 10 GB plan for, wait for it, $75.<p>The Big 3 operate smaller brands with fewer bells and whistles and lower costs. You can get a 4 GB cell plan from Koodo (Telus subsidiary) for $50, or from Fido (Rogers subsidiary) for $50, or from Virgin Mobile (Bell subsidiary) for $50.<p>Sometimes one of them has promotional pricing, like $45 instead of $50 for 4GB. The other two offer the same pricing for the same duration. Sometimes one of them increases their prices by $5 a month citing reasons such as infrastructure investments, lower Canadian dollar value, or inflation. The other two increase their prices by the same amount a couple of days later.<p>And none of this is collusion in the legal sense. They don't gather in smoke-filled rooms and decide how to screw over their customers. There is not back-channel communication whatsoever. And it is not because the competition is so perfect the prices have been commoditized. In fact, Canada has some of the highest cell plan prices in the world, even adjusting for factors such as population density and GDP.<p>It's just that the big companies have decided to stop competing. If you live in, say Alberta or Ontario or BC, you have three options and they are all the same overpriced crap. Cell carriers in Canada are not a monopoly, but you don't have to be a monopoly to harm customers with anti-competitive behaviour. Apple and Google, Android and iOS do not have a monopoly or a collusion agreement. But they are harming the customers all the same.
Fortnite of course expected this: seems like they’ve prepared a short video mocking Apple’s old super bowl ad 1984 to premiere in an hour <a href="https://twitter.com/fortnitegame/status/1293984290326433792?s=21" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/fortnitegame/status/1293984290326433792?...</a>
This is not surprising to me, and I have to say, I completely agree with it. Epic publicly and blatantly bypassed multiple App Store restrictions with their move today.<p>Surely they were expecting this to happen, so what comes next? Perhaps Epic has been planning a major lawsuit and this will provide them with the reason to launch it?<p>Edit: <a href="https://twitter.com/FortniteGame/status/1293984290326433792" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/FortniteGame/status/1293984290326433792</a><p>They have an entire short prepared for this. This is nothing if not fascinating deep-level company poker.
Really hoping regulators crack down hard on Apple's clearly anticompetitive practices.<p>If Apple allowed sideloading the entire point would be, of course, moot, but Apple's continued refusal to allow this is really the biggest problem, IMO.
What is Apple’s end game here? It seems like they’re fighting a losing battle and digging their own antitrust grave.<p>Pretty clever on Epic’s part to specifically highlight how Apple’s app store fee hits the user directly. Pretty short-sighted of Apple to immediately pull an app for providing consumers with additional disclosure about where their money is going.
Apple platform is closed like gaming consoles. Epic almost certainly knew this was going to happen. I think they are trying to build a case for regulatory intervention.<p>US Antitrust is still in the 80's Chicago School era where antitrust is solely based on consumer benefit and and efficiency. EU has more broad approach where economic power in the public interest is important. It may be up to the EU to change how Apple does business.
The transparent sophistication of this ploy is strangely delightful. And very reminiscent of Steve Jobs' e-book negotiation emails, <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/the-steve-jobs-emails-that-show-how-to-win-a-hard-nosed-negotiation/276136/" rel="nofollow">https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/the-ste...</a><p>We have been given court-side seats to a sophisticated game of feints and dramatic negotiation. Pre-Game, Epic lined their shot with care. They've come prepared with media and assets, (no doubt) lawyers (and potential lawsuits?), PR strategy, regulatory strategy etc. They know the argument they would like to make. And they know <i>how</i> to make it.<p>How will Apple respond? Will Epic's strong start lead to a strong finish?<p>Their machinations have been laid scandalously bare. If you listen closely, you can hear your local business school clickety-clacking away to a ludicrously overpriced case study. And the local #hustle blogger RSI their way to a million views.<p>O'Think of the great blog posts and MBA lessons this drama will make!<p>edit: and they've filed for relief! <a href="https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-complaint-734589783.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-complaint-734589783.pdf</a>
It's interesting how the industry is shaking up in so many different ways lately.<p>1. TikTok and WeChat getting banned (This will also have a huge side effect for Apple)<p>2. Uber and Lyft regulated to classify drivers as employees<p>3. Influential companies trying to tear down the Apple payment walled garden (Last time it was Hey, but this time it's Fortnite, which is infinitely more formidable). Now the only thing left is for Google to come out and say "we're going to charge zero commission for our in-app payments", and the wall will be down pretty soon.<p>I feel like there's some pattern here that may change the overall game of the tech industry. Grabbing some popcorn and waiting for new opportunities to open up!
I am ignorant of the rules applying to apps with payments in the apple app store. Is it true retailers do not have to pay a percentage to Apple when people pay to reload cards through the app?<p><a href="https://twitter.com/ballmatthew/status/1293893660493455360" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/ballmatthew/status/1293893660493455360</a><p>"Wow. Epic outright promoting direct in-app payment around iOS store but in iOS apps<p>And users collect 100% of the savings. No monetary benefit to Epic.<p>Note: McDonalds, Starbucks, et al are 'allowed' to do this today - but not gaming/media cos"
Here's the short they just released making fun of Apple's 1984 commercial: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqTNO8LTggI" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqTNO8LTggI</a><p>Edit: The youtube comments are hilarious because no one knows what it's a spoof of. For those who don't know: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zfqw8nhUwA" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zfqw8nhUwA</a>
Apple and Google are able to gatekeep what you can install on entire generations of devices, from smartphones to tablets. Their power to gatekeep billion dollar markets needs to be looked at through the lens of antitrust legislation.
That was quick <a href="https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-complaint-734589783.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-complaint-734589783.pdf</a>
I feel that Apple made a mistake.<p>App store fees are on the unjustified side in the current spectrum of value assessment.<p>The more reasonable approach is to figure out ways for customers to get more values from the platform, instead of extracting more efficiently.<p>I bet this decision is some form of lower-to-middle level decision, without consulting Tim and his close subordinates. I would expect Tim and his close subordinates to be sensitive enough to at least not doing something so abruptly (not that it's not complying with the rules). I would guess this decision didn't even surfaced to VP level. AFAIK, VPs should be owning such sensitive decisions at Apple.
Has Google done anything yet? This is in violation of their guidelines as well from what I can tell. On the Google Play store only games must use the Play Store In App purchase system. Other types of apps can link to their own.
Monopoly definition is so much outdated.<p>Everything that has 10% market share should have some kind of regulation for <i>things like this</i>.<p>Defining <i>things like this</i> is hard though. What to regulate is hard too.
This is really bad for Apple users like me and ultimately for Apple.<p>People are talking anti-trust, but I don't think it'll take a legal case for them to eventually lose this broader fight. Apple has enough money they COULD do whatever they want for as long as they want, but if this grows to even more companies, Apple's negotiating position becomes weaker.
The quantity of twitter replies along these lines is sad:<p>> Why would epic even do this.... they know the rules. Why would they expect to use another companies platform for free. With apple 100% on this.<p>Use? they add value to the platform, Apple is just double dipping because crazy hardware markup wasn't enough for them. Are people really this blind?
The Verge has a statement from apple: <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21366438/apple-fortnite-ios-app-store-violations-epic-payments" rel="nofollow">https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21366438/apple-fortnite-i...</a>
I dont think people here actually understand why monopolies are bad.<p>Its not for consumers. Consumers will always feel safe with what they have.<p>Its to not stifle the competition.<p>Look what happened to vine.<p>A competitor bought it, twitter. Gutted it and left it. It could have been next tiktok in a few years. We would never know.<p>How many competitor have google and apple stiffed?
In a way this is the equivalent of an old-school carriage dispute but for apps. I wouldn't be surprised if we see more of this in the future.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carriage_dispute" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carriage_dispute</a>
Question: How is Apple's 30% cut different from the transaction fees that are charged by Visa / Mastercard and payment processors like Stripe? I can see the big percentage but is the argument in favour of removing the entirety of the cut or reducing it down?
How does it technically work? Is the app forcibly removed from every phone that has it, or is it just not downloadable/upgradable anymore.
If the latter, can people who have it already keep on playing or are there some other obstacles involved?
Epic has filed a legal complaint, according to their Twitter account: <a href="https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-complaint-734589783.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-complaint-734589783.pdf</a>
replied to another thread....<p>ok am going to put a highly objectionable comment.
I buy stuff on apple store because its easy and SAFE.<p>That safety point is more important than ever, if there was no app store or lets say having 10 other app stores , i wont have the same level of confidence and heck i wont even be spending any dollars out there.<p>Over to Apple's 30 % cut, i dont know whats the call here, to make it 0%? ,10% , 20%? what if the same fortnite (or any other company) increases the bill to $9.99 next week :)<p>Am saying this purely from a consumer perspective that i dont care how apple and devs split the money as long as it doesn't bite me ...
The problem are not the rules on the App Store (that Epic actually breached), but the App Store having a monopoly as you can't easily install external apps or stores like you can on Android.
Apple famously makes its money on the hardware; if they claim the cut is for the app store tools, then they better start charging less for the hardware. If the tools are indeed paid for by the hardware sales, they should reduce or eliminate the cut they take.<p>Based on the reports of how hard it is to develop for the app store and all the third party tools to help deal with signing apps, I have a hard time believing the self-proclaimed greatness of the tools Apple provides.<p>Apple claims level playing field, but that's obviously nonsense.
This is great news, it will take a handfull of 'killer apps' to possibly move the needle.<p>App makers could start to 'play games' like trying different pricing models that 'go outside the bounds' and the 'come back' - making sure to blame Apple for the problems.<p>App makers could group together and 'go black' for a few days in protes.<p>App makers could group together and all circumvent the rules at the same time.
I find it obscene that Apple feels it deserves a third of each and every microtransaction.<p>I also find out obscene that Epic tried to used its size to circumvent that when its smaller competitors wouldn't dream of doing so.<p>But I'm more annoyed by the first bit. It's such an obscene cut to take when it's clear you are only facilitating the transaction by choice instead of by necessity.
People will take sides in this and I think they will be missing the point. These are just 2 greedy corporations strong-arming each other and trying to win some hearts in the public space.
Epic would do the same if they were in Apple's position and Apple would do the same if they were in Epic's position. This is just 21st century politics and it’s all about money.
Reading the announcement post on HN: "This will surely piss of Google and Apple"...<p>Then I read the title to this post... directly under it.<p>What a day
In all this dick-measuring, the people that lose out are the consumers.<p>Apple maintaining a stupid and unjustifiable premium forced higher prices.<p>Companies retaliating with this sort of posturing from Epic forces App Store removals and worse.<p>Epic are hypocrites. Apple are greedy. I’ll back the horse that’s neither
This is about nothing, folks.<p>Literally.<p>Epic sells usage ("v-bucks") which would cost them nothing to supply 'unlimited'.<p>Apple, having a standard of "in-app sales, we get 30%", wants their cut of making a bundle via the Apple ecosystem.
This is one of the games Apple likes to “feature” regularly. They basically strongly encouraged people to buy this game one week, and yanked it from the store the week after. The game “owners” should be livid.
If any company then I think Tencent has the money and will to bring Apple to the court (they have 40% share in Epic). And won't be surprised if this will be a new chapter in the US v China trade fight.
So, what is Epic's plan?<p>I have to assume they fully expected removal. So they must have some next step in mind.<p>Some kind of legal action? A complaint to regulators or a lawsuit? Are either of those likely to work?
Remarkable that TikTok is still available on the App Store, despite the risk it poses to national security. I guess Apple and China sleeping together is truly a case of friends with benefits. Maybe Epic Games should please Apple more often?
I sometimes wonder why app makers don't "unionize", to collectively threaten to boycott the Apple ecosystem, to pressure Apple into reducing its cut. An iPhone without apps is much less valuable than an iPhone with apps.
This is a highly technical forum so I really think all of the "Apple is within their rights to determine what software users can run" folks should think about how they would feel if Windows could only run software that Microsoft publishes. Are you okay with that? Does the fact that Linux exists make this okay? It sounds like the answer from a lot of people is "Yes, of course" which baffles me.<p>It doesn't take much imagination to see how different the world would be if a single corporation decided what software was allowed to be used by society. Anything that is the least bit controversial wouldn't exist. Napster, Torrents, Emulators etc are obvious and people would no doubt argue they shouldn't exist anyway, but I imagine even web browsers themselves (Apple already doesn't allow them on iOS), networking tools like IPFS, game streaming services (also banned by Apple), etc just wouldn't exist in that world. I could go on with examples but that's the point, there's a LOT of creativity and complexity out there and it's impossible for a single gatekeeper to do a good job of deciding what has a right to exist.