Speaking specifically to this and as someone who has owned both a Nintendo and an Xbox, they really aren’t comparable. The graphics on the Xbox are orders of magnitude better and those graphics cost a ton. If Nintendo put the same GPU capability in their boxes as Xbox or PS5, they’d have to raise prices dramatically to even come close to break-even.
Today was the last day of the trial:
I don’t see Epic getting any wins at all from this.
Yeah, that was my take. I was actually doing a comb back through the case and refreshing all the details. Now this comes from Apple Insider, so wouldn’t say it is unbiased, but if you need a good step-through, it’s a good read.
After going back through it, it definitely seems this was a very premeditated setup to challenge Apple rather than a response to the removal from the App store. And it really, really looks like several of those who are backing Epic are aiming to take Apple down a peg (I’m looking at you Samsung). And of course, it does confirm my feeling that both parties are . . . traditional capitalistic weenies arguing about who gets the $$$, while dressing it up in terms of ‘freedom/open markets/competition’ and ‘security/safety/essential brand’.
Oh well, since the judge indicates it will be August at earliest before we have a verdict, lots of time for the ripples to spread. But don’t see this case succeeding on it’s current merits.
While we’re still waiting on the judge’s verdict in the US, the battle is ongoing in a Rumble Down Undah.
In November, Epic brought the issue to Australia, initiating proceedings against Apple by arguing that the iPhone-maker’s practices contravene Australia’s Competition and Consumer Act. Apple was able to appeal against the suit in April, arguing that the case should be settled in the US District Court. Epic quickly counter-appealed, arguing that public policy concerns justify a separate trial. Australia’s Federal Court ruled in favor of Epic on Thursday.
So the challenges continue. Since I am not a lawyer, nor particularly familiar with Australian law, I have no idea about the merits of the case. But felt I’d toss the thread an update while we keep waiting on the US verdict.
No news on this lawsuit, but there is bipartisan Senate legislation proposed to restrict the ability of app stores to demand royalties from developers. No clue if it will go anywhere, but it suggests an interest in giving developers more rights.
yeah, there’s a feeling in Washington that although big tech is more liberal some of the l lawmaking types think they still need it to stick it to em to keep them grounded … and this is one of the ways
An update, but not really resolving anything, even before the appeals (of course).
So, very mixed bag, but other than the headline (Apple must allow other forms of in-app purchases), the greater question of trust/monopoly issues did not come to any sort of final conclusion. Per the article:
In the full ruling, Judge Gonzalez Rogers explained her thinking on the issue in greater detail. Notably, the judge rejected both parties’ definition of the marketplace at issue in the case. “The relevant market here is digital mobile gaming transactions, not gaming generally and not Apple’s own internal operating systems related to the App Store,” Gonzalez Rogers wrote.
Under that market definition, “the court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws,” she continued. “Nonetheless, the trial did show that Apple is engaging in anti-competitive conduct under California’s competition laws.”
So IMHO, they’re going for a (reasonably?) narrow focus on the details of the specific challenge, rather than trying to expand for generalities. So both sides are claiming partial victory, and we’ll be seeing years of appeals. Not to mention, Epic (in a related but separate decision) was found in breach of contract for their attempts to bypass said store and is liable for a few million there.
Another update, although not substantial in terms of resolutions, but sure looks like Apple is happy to make things difficult for Epic -
If the link doesn’t load, Apple is keeping Fortnite out of the App store until the legal struggle is completely over - appeals and all. Which will likely take years. Not sure how much this will hurt them ultimately, but is probably a suitably irritating option. Epic certainly is crying to high heaven, but I don’t see why Apple would want to give them a money stream until the battle is done.
I realized I hadn’t updated the thread in a while, so here’s the March update on the (long expected) appeals.
Short short version is that Epic is appealing the ruling, and that Apple says Epic failed to prove it’s case on points of law so the appeal has no merit. Meanwhile, Apple is still appealing the points where the judge brought up it’s anti-competitive conduct (mentioned in my snip from 9/10/2021) in order to maintain it’s de facto monopoly.
So, yeah, update probably wasn’t truly needed, but figured I started it, I should update it.
I hope the mods will forgive me for bumping this thread again, but the ongoing court battle between OS providers regarding their practices has a new update:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/11/tech/google-app-store-epic-games/index.html
Google’s app store practices violate US antitrust law and the search giant has illegally operated a monopoly in Android app distribution, a federal jury said Monday evening.
The verdict in a years-long battle between Epic Games — maker of the hit video game “Fortnite” — and the technology giant marks a significant victory for critics of Google’s app store terms and practices.
Which is interesting, since it’s largely the opposite result of the Apple lawsuit I previously reported, which indicated Epic failed to prove it’s case - but the actions by both Apple and Google are largely similar IMHO.
And of course, Apple appealed, and Google will appeal. Probably need to update again in another 12-18 months.
Well, I think one of the reasons the case landed the way it did may be because the actions of Apple and Google weren’t largely similar. From The Verge article linked above:
But Epic v. Google turned out to be a very different case. It hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. It showed that Google was running scared of Epicspecifically. And it was all decided by a jury, unlike the Apple ruling.
Then there’s the part where the jury was instructed that they may assume that the internal messages Google was found to have deleted were not favorable to Google’s case. That’s a big ouch.
What’s weird about this ruling is that there actually are multiple thriving app stores in Android land – Samsung has two – one for apps and one for its wearables, Amazon for its tablets, Garmin has an app store, and it’s really easy to use F-Droid to install open source apps.
Is there anything like that in Apple land?
Yes, at the time I updated the thread I hadn’t found a good, detailed article, mostly the CNN which was entirely too short on details. I’m glad @PastTense linked the considerably more detailed option.
Outside iPhones that have been jailbreaked, no.
According to evidence given during the trial, the Samsung Galaxy Store — despite being preloaded on almost 40% of Android phones — made up one percent of Android downloads. It might be a large market, but I’m not really sure “thriving” is the way to describe it.
OK, but Google doesn’t stop Samsung from providing their own store, nor Amazon from providing theirs. And, F-Droid is simple to install on non-jailbreak phones.
Apples have to broken to do any of that. Anyway, weird.
Which might just be a sign that the Galaxy Store isn’t doing a good job of meeting customers’ needs. Having a monopoly isn’t (so far as I know) illegal-- The problem just comes when there are barriers to entry for competitors.
Hm… Is it available from the Google app store?
Haha! Nope, and neither is Samsung’s. Easier to install than jailbreaking an iPhone, though.
They didn’t stop it, but the evidence showed that they effectively tried to and Samsung itself sure thought that’s what Google’s aim was. That’s what Project Banyan and Project Hug were all about, incentivizing other companies to keep their games on Google Play, keep their app stores out of Google Play’s way or at least minimizing their competitive effects. It might not have been a straight up bribe, but apparently at least 20 developers thought it would be better for them financially to go along with it rather than offer their own competing stores.
It really isn’t weird. The jury, it would seem by their verdict, believed that Google actively tried to nerf other app stores.