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

Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

macrumors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

#611

Post by save_ferris »

I did something today that I never imagined I’d do in 10 years as an exclusive Apple user: I installed Windows 10 on my iMac so I could continue playing fortnite. I’m sure Mac had one of the smallest shares of users, but I was surprised by how much more performant the game was running on Windows compared to MacOS. The difference was incredibly noticeable. It’s weird to me that Apple is risking losing users to other platforms, but I guess the 30% is worth it to them.

Between this and the fact that Apple tried to kill Unreal Engine from its platform, I’d be really nervous to be a game dev trying to rely on Apple at this moment. Regardless of the outcome of the Epic suit, Apple hasn’t really acted like they take gaming seriously on Mac or iOS, as several big iOS games would’ve suffered a similar fate to fortnite if a judge hadn’t stepped in.

Re: Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

#612

Post by nodamage »

weixiyen wrote: post #593
nodamage wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure why this fallacy continues to be repeated in every Apple thread. Apple currently has 46% US market share [1] and 14% global market share [2]. This is far from monopoly power. By contrast, Microsoft had 95% market share during their antitrust suit. [3] [1] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh... [2] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-smartphone-share... [3] https://schola…

Market share does not actually determine monopoly. You can have 100% market share and not be a monopoly. Conversely, you can have 50% market share and be a monopoly. Apple has more active users in the US than Android btw. The fallacy being repeated is actually people defining monopolies by referencing market share.

In determining whether a competitor possesses monopoly power in a relevant market, courts typically begin by looking at the firm's market share.(18) Although the courts "have not yet identified a precise level at which monopoly power will be inferred,"(19) they have demanded a dominant market share. Discussions of the requisite market share for monopoly power commonly begin with Judge Hand's statement in United States v. Aluminum Co. of America that a market share of ninety percent "is enough to constitute a monopoly; it is doubtful whether sixty or sixty-four percent would be enough; and certainly thirty-three per cent is not."(20) The Supreme Court quickly endorsed Judge Hand's approach in American Tobacco Co. v. United States.(21)

Following Alcoa and American Tobacco, courts typically have required a dominant market share before inferring the existence of monopoly power. The Fifth Circuit observed that "monopolization is rarely found when the defendant's share of the relevant market is below 70%."(22) Similarly, the Tenth Circuit noted that to establish "monopoly power, lower courts generally require a minimum market share of between 70% and 80%."(23) Likewise, the Third Circuit stated that "a share significantly larger than 55% has been required to establish prima facie market power"(24) and held that a market share between seventy-five percent and eighty percent of sales is "more than adequate to establish a prima facie case of power."(25)

It is also important to consider the share levels that have been held insufficient to allow courts to conclude that a defendant possesses monopoly power. The Eleventh Circuit held that a "market share at or less than 50% is inadequate as a matter of law to constitute monopoly power."(26) The Seventh Circuit observed that "[f]ifty percent is below any accepted benchmark for inferring monopoly power from market share."(27) A treatise agrees, contending that "it would be rare indeed to find that a firm with half of a market could individually control price over any significant period."(28)

Some courts have stated that it is possible for a defendant to possess monopoly power with a market share of less than fifty percent.(29) These courts provide for the possibility of establishing monopoly power through non-market-share evidence, such as direct evidence of an ability profitably to raise price or exclude competitors. The Department is not aware, however, of any court that has found that a defendant possessed monopoly power when its market share was less than fifty percent.(30) Thus, as a practical matter, a market share of greater than fifty percent has been necessary for courts to find the existence of monopoly power.(31)

https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-...

Re: Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

#613

Post by phendrenad2 »

mattmanser wrote: post #504
_qulr wrote: post #387

My feeling is that this whole situation is mostly going as Tim Sweeney intended. He was itching for a fight, wanted to sue Apple. The harsher that Apple retaliates, the better Epic's court case. Apple is playing right into his hands. Did Sweeney anticipate Apple's threat to Unreal Engine? Maybe, maybe not. But the temporary restraining order did block that threat, at least for now. I don't think Epic ever intended to…

I can't see how Epic wins this. If Stripe can claim Wells Fargo doesn't want to process porn payments, and that's legal, how can an American court rule for Epic? Epic are obviously going to lose, and lose hard, or set a precedent that's going to screw every payment provider in America and open a flood gate for fraudulent payments. You can't force someone to sell something they don't want to, especially because Apple…

Even if they lose, they win. "Oh you can't play Fortnite on IPhones" is a seriously bad place for Apple to be. Don't even get me started on "Oh you can't use the most popular game engine to make games for IPhone". It'll shift market share toward Android, where presumably some users will learn to sideload and save Epic some money.

Re: Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

#614

Post by commoner »

jahewson wrote: post #581
sfifs wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I think is happening is Epic is trying to force a jury trial on anti-trust and won't hold out for a settlement unlike Amazon and Netflix. At this stage all Epic's actions are geared basically around collecting arguments to bring in front of a jury composed of regular folks. I'm very confident the old Steve Jobs emails from the eBooks anti-trust case will also be brought into the trial to argue anti-trust is in A…

Epic can’t force a jury trial on anti-trust (Sherman act violations) - only the US government has standing to even file that kind of suit. What they can do is sue for damages due to breach of contract or similar bad faith which is a risky and not hugely convincing position. You’re quite right that they want a jury trial and to put on a show. But legally this is just a business dispute and arguably one that Epic engin…

> Epic can’t force a jury trial on anti-trust (Sherman act violations) - only the US government has standing to even file that kind of suit.

Are you sure? How do you explain these cases?

Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/551/877/

> PSKS filed suit, alleging, inter alia, that Leegin violated the antitrust laws by entering into vertical agreements with its retailers to set minimum resale prices. The District Court excluded expert testimony about Leegin’s pricing policy’s procompetitive effects on the ground that Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373, makes it per se illegal under §1 of the Sherman Act for a manufacturer and its distributor to agree on the minimum price the distributor can charge for the manufacturer’s goods. At trial, PSKS alleged that Leegin and its retailers had agreed to fix prices, but Leegin argued that its pricing policy was lawful under §1. The jury found for PSKS.

Copperweld v. Independence Tube, 467 U.S. 752 (1984): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/467/752/

> Thereafter, respondent filed an action in Federal District Court against petitioners and Yoder. The jury found, inter alia, that petitioners had conspired to violate § 1 of the Sherman Act, but that Yoder was not part of the conspiracy, and awarded treble damages against petitioners.

More cases are listed under "United States Supreme Court cases" in this Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890

Re: Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

#615

Post by _qulr »

ribosometronome wrote: post #578
_qulr wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple will never let them back on the AppStore. Apple's statement today: "We hope that we can work together again in the future". Also, Apple requested that Epic submit a new rule-compliant version of Fortnite. I think Apple would be happy to have Epic back and paying 30%, which is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It won't break Apple if they don't get that money, but it's still nice money, with little work r…

>with little work required from Apple. Outside of the billions of dollars and a decade spent developing and marketing a platform on which Fortnite can be consumed.

Sure, the platform takes a lot of money to create, but the marginal costs of adding or subtracting an individual developer in the App Store are almost nothing.

Re: Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

#616

Post by LanceH »

mattmanser wrote: post #504
_qulr wrote: post #387

My feeling is that this whole situation is mostly going as Tim Sweeney intended. He was itching for a fight, wanted to sue Apple. The harsher that Apple retaliates, the better Epic's court case. Apple is playing right into his hands. Did Sweeney anticipate Apple's threat to Unreal Engine? Maybe, maybe not. But the temporary restraining order did block that threat, at least for now. I don't think Epic ever intended to…

I can't see how Epic wins this. If Stripe can claim Wells Fargo doesn't want to process porn payments, and that's legal, how can an American court rule for Epic? Epic are obviously going to lose, and lose hard, or set a precedent that's going to screw every payment provider in America and open a flood gate for fraudulent payments. You can't force someone to sell something they don't want to, especially because Apple…

Epic has installs on phones which paid the iPhone tax. Those can't be updated and are made worthless, causing damage to Epic. Removing an app in violation is one thing. Removing them as a developer and preventing them from updating apps which have been paid for may violate something, somewhere. I'm sure Apple's contract absolves themselves of all responsibility, but there is at least some argument there.

That's the best I can come up with. Personally I won't run an iPhone.

Re: Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

#617

Post by kllrnohj »

burlesona wrote: post #476
pier25 wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think Epic ever intended to release the new Fortnite season on Apple platforms. Epic probably doesn't care much about Apple platforms. 80% of Fortnite players are on console. I doubt macOS accounts for more than 1-2%. https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/newzoos-battle-royale-s...

And ironically Epic is mum on all those consoles that take the exact same cut that Apple does. The iPhone is merely another console. Really hard for me to see why this is controversial, or why Epic thinks that Apple can have a monopoly over their console while somehow Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo don’t...

> And ironically Epic is mum on all those consoles that take the exact same cut that Apple does.

No, they aren't: https://mobile.twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/12732765485...

> The iPhone is merely another console.

Really hard for me to buy this is a good faith argument. The iPhone has never been marked nor positioned in any way similar to consoles. User & developer expectations are not remotely similar here.

Re: Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

#619

Post by sushshshsh »

kmonsen wrote: post #467
rumanator wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately, supporting a brand as team sports is a thing like supporting a political party as team sports is. My take is the exact opposite: this episode is an opportunity to air grievances regarding each company, which by themselves have amassed a bunch of reasons for customers and end users to dislike them. There are no good guys in this story, only bad guys whose evilness outstages the other's evilness.

I agree but here is my take: These companies don't deserve this much of your attention or feelings. I have worked for Amazon and Google, and at the end of the day neither is a place with feelings. I have a lot of love for co-workers in both places and was part of some amazing products. I think I would say the same if I ever worked at Apple. For me, like in others, Apple sure brings up a lot of feelings for some reaso…

Fortunately the US legal system does not work like that, because while the issue isn't important to you, actually it turns out the issue is important to Epic.

And I think I can sympathize with them, considering 30% of my revenue is walking out the door to a company that charges both consumers for the hardware and companies for the right to send binaries to a user.

Re: Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

#620

Post by [deleted] »

McAtNite wrote: post #555
Spivak wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple will do just fine arguing that their devices are no different from Xbox, PlayStation, Switch, Roku, Cable Boxes, Keurig, Vzw feature phones. I would be extremely surprised if the courts just up and anti-Tivo’d every device on the planet. You try to make a case about how phones are somehow special but they’re really not. You have millions of people who only have an Xbox and so you can’t reach them unless you con…

To me this is exactly where their argument falls apart. I don’t get what Epic wants exactly. Even with Android where they initially had users side load their apps they eventually gave up and put it on the Play Store after complaining that there’s too many warnings when users load third party APKs (how dare they include security warnings of un-reviewed apps!) It seems to me that Epic expects Apple and Google to offer…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN