Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

courtlistener.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 121 posts

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#41

Post by rimliu »

sgtfrankieboy wrote: post #27
Hamuko wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

They showed that Apple forcing iOS apps to use their Payment Processor is bad for consumers by providing an alternative that is 20% cheaper. Which is what got them banned.

Every payment and subscription going through Apple is one of the best features for me. Especially the subscriptions.

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#42

Post by tech234a »

threeseed wrote: post #35
reissbaker wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think they were referring to the percentage taken when processing sales for other developers on the Epic Games Store and Steam.

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#43

Post by rbranson »

fatbird wrote: post #31
modeless wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This is the correct take. Generally speaking, the prices set by Epic before this stunt likely approximated the highest price which didn't reduce aggregate spending.

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#44

Post by dogma1138 »

TMWNN wrote: post #39
dogma1138 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

US is the majority of revenue sure, but there is no way that so much comes from iOS the cross platform play numbers don’t back this up you can’t just extrapolate from hypothetical app download figures.

The US is about 80% of Fortnite’s but the majority of the players are on consoles not mobile. The 80% figure will change drastically when China grants epic permission to monetize the game as the vast majority of their players are in China.

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#45

Post by mythz »

modeless wrote: post #26
Hamuko wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Of course a competing App Store can offer lower prices, they don't bear any of the costs for developing and managing the iOS ecosystem Apple spent billions over a decade building (that many other companies lost fortunes failing to compete against). They can just popup a virtual store in someone else's successful established platform and access a market of 1B+ credit cards they had no hand in creating where they can dictate their own margins for selling virtual goods - somehow feeling entitled to get a free ride on the massive development & maintenance infrastructure costs that is subsidized by the App Store.

Strange most other markets don't just let everyone to sell their products (physical or virtual) on their markets at no cost [1].

[1] https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut...

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#46

Post by scq »

threeseed wrote: post #20
modeless wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about this one: "with respect to the Unreal Engine and the developer tools, [...] the contracts related to those applications were not breached. Apple does not persuade that it will be harmed [...] Apple has chosen to act severely, and by doing so, has impacted non-parties, and a third-party developer ecosystem. In this regard, the equities do weigh against Apple. Apple's behavior here was not reasonable and defi…

Epic could have used the same developer account for both Unreal Engine and Fornite development knowing full well that Apple would have to either allow both or ban both. They had ads and lawsuits ready when they pulled the trigger on this chain of events so it wouldn't surprise me if they made sure that the Unreal Engine issue was included.

They didn't use the same developer account, if I'm reading the order correctly the developer accounts used for Unreal Engine and Fortnite did not even belong to the same legal entity.

* Epic Games, Inc. develops Fortnite and has an Apple developer account that it is released under.

* Epic Games International, S.a.r.l. develops Unreal Engine and holds its own Apple developer account.

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#47

Post by modeless »

mythz wrote: post #45
modeless wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a competing App Store can offer lower prices, they don't bear any of the costs for developing and managing the iOS ecosystem Apple spent billions over a decade building (that many other companies lost fortunes failing to compete against). They can just popup a virtual store in someone else's successful established platform and access a market of 1B+ credit cards they had no hand in creating where they can d…

Apple profits handsomely from the iOS ecosystem every time someone buys an iPhone to access it, or buys a Mac because Apple won't allow building iOS apps without one, or pays the annual developer program fee. They don't need to triple or quadruple dip to be the most valuable publicly traded company in the world.

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#48

Post by swarnie_ »

Does anyone find this whole situation very anti-consumer?

Two billion dollar tech companies have started a slap fight, both have claimed its for the benefit of their customers/users but in reality its about their own personal bottom line.

The gaming forums filling up with pre-teen twits willing to cheer lead for their respective megacorp is thoroughly depressing to look at.

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#49

Post by richrichardsson »

rimliu wrote: post #41
sgtfrankieboy wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They showed that Apple forcing iOS apps to use their Payment Processor is bad for consumers by providing an alternative that is 20% cheaper. Which is what got them banned.

Every payment and subscription going through Apple is one of the best features for me. Especially the subscriptions.

So why can't Epic (or any other company) provide you that option with a 42% premium (to cover Apple's 30% cut) and allow users to buy direct from them? Then if you wish to trust Apple more with your card details, you can pay more for the privelege. Or you can save some money, but potentially increase your risk by going direct.

I've always hated that Apple seem to think they know better than anyone else; you can't do as you wish on their platforms because you might be stupid.

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#50

Post by j-james »

supernova87a wrote: post #9

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…

> Not even Epic Games gives away its products for free...

Do... do they not?

The point being made in that paragraph seems valid regardless, but that's a strange comparison to end with - is Fortnite not free-to-play on Apple devices? It certainly is on all other platforms I've seen it on.

Post reply on HN