>you can't bring an antitrust lawsuit unless you show evidence of harm (aka, lost Fortnite sales) I thought the point of antitrust is that it brings harm to the consumers and not just some lesser company?
The harm to consumers is the higher price that they have to pay. Epic didn't just keep the 30% all for themselves, they lowered prices.
They lowered prices as part of a calculated stunt. If Apple is suddenly turning over 20% of the purchase price to devs, why would the devs lower the price when they're getting an extra 20% at the same price point?
Some choice sections: "...On Thursday, August 13, 2020, Epic Games made the calculated decision to breach its allegedly illegal agreements with Apple by activating allegedly hidden code in Fortnite allowing Epic Games to collect IAPs directly. In response, Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store, where it remains unavailable to the date of this Order. Later that same day, Epic Games filed this action and began a pr…
The harm to consumers is the higher price that they have to pay. Epic didn't just keep the 30% all for themselves, they lowered prices.
Of course they lowered the prices. It was a PR exercise to show the world the wondrous benefits of a potential Epic Games Store on iPhone/Android. And of course once they had such a store they pinky promise to never increase the prices in the future.
I think the point is that competition will prevent them from doing that. And it worked: in response to Epic's lower rates, Steam also cut their rates. If Epic raises the rate to 30% they'll be more expensive than Steam, and won't be able to compete.
The harm to consumers is the higher price that they have to pay. Epic didn't just keep the 30% all for themselves, they lowered prices.
They lowered prices as part of a calculated stunt. If Apple is suddenly turning over 20% of the purchase price to devs, why would the devs lower the price when they're getting an extra 20% at the same price point?
Of course they lowered the prices. It was a PR exercise to show the world the wondrous benefits of a potential Epic Games Store on iPhone/Android. And of course once they had such a store they pinky promise to never increase the prices in the future.
I think the point is that competition will prevent them from doing that. And it worked: in response to Epic's lower rates, Steam also cut their rates. If Epic raises the rate to 30% they'll be more expensive than Steam, and won't be able to compete.
I just checked and Fornite is not available on Steam.
So all that will happen is that certain games will exist only in one store and not be subject to competition.
Or they will secretly sell your data to third parties which Apple won't do.
"...Epic Games moves this Court to allow it to access Apple’s platform for free while it makes money on each purchase made on the same platform. While the Court anticipates experts will opine that Apple’s 30 percent take is anti-competitive, the Court doubts that an expert would suggest a zero percent alternative. Not even Epic Games gives away its products for free..." Apple is arguing as if accessing their platform…
It being a walled garden is the only way I’m willing to trust it for accessing all my account recovery emails, my 2FA SMSes, my bank details, and the sensor package that can listen to everything I do while GPS tracking me and monitoring my heart rate and gaze if I happen to be holding it where I can see the screen. Of course, that doesn’t mean I like being stuck with an American cultural hegemony that says sexual con…
The walled garden is not what protects your email, 2FA SMSes or bank details. The OS sandboxing and permissions system do that. The two are often conflated, but the two concerns are orthogonal really.
Heck, you could easily imagine a system where software distributed outside the app store can only access a subset of perms if security is such a concern, and that'd still be less anti-competitive
>you can't bring an antitrust lawsuit unless you show evidence of harm (aka, lost Fortnite sales) I thought the point of antitrust is that it brings harm to the consumers and not just some lesser company?
You would think so, but actually a company can't sue another for antitrust violations unless they show evidence that they were injured — and the injury has to pass a two-prong test [1] to be covered. That being said, the government can investigate without a lawsuit. But just because the government investigates, that doesn't guarantee the government will prosecute; a lawsuit guarantees prosecution, unless it's so base…
It being a walled garden is the only way I’m willing to trust it for accessing all my account recovery emails, my 2FA SMSes, my bank details, and the sensor package that can listen to everything I do while GPS tracking me and monitoring my heart rate and gaze if I happen to be holding it where I can see the screen. Of course, that doesn’t mean I like being stuck with an American cultural hegemony that says sexual con…
The walled garden is not what protects your email, 2FA SMSes or bank details. The OS sandboxing and permissions system do that. The two are often conflated, but the two concerns are orthogonal really. Heck, you could easily imagine a system where software distributed outside the app store can only access a subset of perms if security is such a concern, and that'd still be less anti-competitive
It's possible that revenue has fallen off, but it appears that Fortnite Mobile revenue has been at least $500 million per year. If this trial goes on for two years, that's potentially a billion dollars in lost revenue. https://sensortower.com/blog/fortnite-mobile-revenue-1-billi...
Those estimates are utterly out of touch with reality to the point of being a straight fabrication. Fortnite brought Epic £1.8b in revenue for 2019, there is no way that 25% of that came from iOS based on actual player data and experience, if their iOS revenue is 10% of the total I will be in shock.
The US is disproportionately iOS compared to the entire world, and especially US teens (I've seen estimates of something like 90%). iOS, the US, and US teens are all disproportionately important to digital sales. Although the US is 10% of TikTok's user base, it provides 50% of TikTok's revenue, nd from Charli D'Amelio on down the most-followed TikTok accounts are almost entirely American. That's why everyone expects TikTok's US (and possibly global) operations to be soon sold; the US is the tail that wags the dog.
It being a walled garden is the only way I’m willing to trust it for accessing all my account recovery emails, my 2FA SMSes, my bank details, and the sensor package that can listen to everything I do while GPS tracking me and monitoring my heart rate and gaze if I happen to be holding it where I can see the screen. Of course, that doesn’t mean I like being stuck with an American cultural hegemony that says sexual con…
The walled garden is not what protects your email, 2FA SMSes or bank details. The OS sandboxing and permissions system do that. The two are often conflated, but the two concerns are orthogonal really. Heck, you could easily imagine a system where software distributed outside the app store can only access a subset of perms if security is such a concern, and that'd still be less anti-competitive
Due to the way iOS works (dynamic dispatch) private APIs can only be prevented through an App Store review process.
And many of those APIs can be used to extract enough information to fingerprint the device, determine your location or steal your data e.g. accessing the list of WiFi networks or browser history.