Shameless plug for my startup, popcorner.io (YC S20), which sends you weekly updates to high profile cases like this one. Administered by Top 10% law school grads with federal Appeals or Supreme court clerking experience, we send out plain-English commentary weekly by email, plus a snail-mailed new flavor of fair trade non-GMO popcorn each month.
Popcorn clubs have been springing up at many law schools with in-person classes this fall, much to our surprise. The kids get together IRL with popcorn and beer, discussing the finer points of this normally very complicated cases, and sometimes professors join in the fun.
In other news, our subreddit has been "popping" since the suit was announced last week. Hint: try the apple-cinnamon popcorn, my favorite. They finally got the Stevia optimized for microwaving.
While our Epic vs. Apple package is popular, the Trump vs. Biden Contested Election anticipatory special left us scrambling to fill orders and we're trying to find more clerks at SCOTUS who are willing to make a lateral move. paulg even helped us stuff the intro packages at our warehouse just outside of Cambridge. He was super nice and fit right in with the rest of us. Thanks, Paul!
This fake post brought to you by Covid cabin fever
I was until they saw the score here. They called me back to their Palo Alto office this afternoon, pantsed me, and covered my leased Tesla with Trump 2020 bumper stickers. At Tesla right now getting the dents taken care of along with the window damage.
I run a problem validation platform where people can post the problem/need gaps for startups to solve[1]. You're welcome to post this and perhaps someone would do it if there was enough need.
Weirdly one of my greatest pleasures in life is in fact having lunch with a brilliant lawyer friend of mine and discussing Constitutional law. It’s got real lately, and we live in Seattle. Current events weren’t like this when we started these chats a decade and a half ago...
Geez. It's pretty tasteless to compare a political freedom movement to opposing some restrictive terms of service. It's like putting a picture of Thích Quảng Đức on your blog about why DRM is bad.
I think that comparison is somewhat flawed. 1984 is a fictional novel, not a real political movement or historical event. No real people were harmed by the events in 1984.
The Arab spring started because police confiscated the produce of a street vendor operating without a permit.
Granted, there aren't many people that would self-immolate over Apple's terms of service, but the point is that economic freedom is still an important political freedom that people are willing to die over.
I'm sorry if you find this tasteless and I'll expand a bit more in case there is misunderstanding. My point is that too much power in the hands of anyone is a bad idea that should be opposed. Doesn't matter if it's a country, a political party, a company the size of a country or simply a person with huge funds. Not opposing such behavior amounts to supporting them. I don't like the way Epic does it... but I respect that they do it somehow against their best interest.
It's not an article link, so don't see how it can be editorialized. The title itself is a quote from the document as well.
> Epic fired the first shot in this dispute, and its willful, brazen, and unlawful conduct cannot beleft unchecked. Neither Mr. Sweeney’s self-righteous (and self-interested) demands nor the scale ofEpic’s business can justify Epic’s deliberate contractual breaches, its tortious conduct, or its unfair business practices. This Court should hold Epic to its contractual promises, award Applecompensatory and punitive damages, and enjoin Epic from engaging in further unfair business practices
And "Apple accuses Epic of “Willful, brazen, and unlawful” conduct" seems much more catchy while still using wording from the legal document, wouldn't you agree?
I'm sure GP would agree, as that seems to be the reason for mentioning that the title was editorialized in the first place (and probably also why OP chose the most inflammatory quote in the source rather than the more neutral document title)
Inflammatory, click-baity titles can be "catchy" for sure, but that doesn't mean we have to use them here. The fact that it uses "wording from the legal document" doesn't make it a good title, regardless of how catchy it is.
Ah, no, because in that metaphor the kettle isn't black, but is shiny and reflecting the pot's image back, which implies that Apple is the bad guy here and Epic is not.
I really wonder if there is a benefit to writing such hyperbole. I imagine a judge would just scoff at this and be a little annoyed at Apple going forward.
Your comment is probably in jest but I'm curious - when the public employees' retirement funds are tied in to the equity market and a few companies like Apple/Google drive the price movement, does it introduce adverse incentives when ruling on an anti-competitive behavior lawsuit?
I take it as a direct response to Epic argument that them being banned from App Store somehow prevents them from supporting iOS game developers and said developers going out of business.
Imagine Facebook forcing users to install their own App Store to install Messenger. I think such outcomes are quite apocalyptic if you see what road that leads down.
I trust the iphone with my medical information because Apple has controls in place in their App Store review process to prevent that data being leaked out of the phone.
I do not trust Facebook to avoid leaking that data out of my phone.
Apple makes sure an app cannot get data outside its sandbox without your permission, but it has no control over what the app does with its own data. For example, I've backed up and synced data with a server on iOS apps without needing any special permission from Apple or infringing AppStore policies.
What you're describing here is not really related to the App Store policies but your trust on the Apple apps themselves.
What road would that lead down to? Seems like users could enjoy a whole new app store where developers preferred dealing with facebook instead of Apple.
Even if true, Epic does not owe it to Apple to take care that they don't disturb their business. They are, after all, competing companies, and I haven't heard any compelling reason why a court should protect Apple's business.
Most large companies still eat the 30% and launch on Google Play Store anyways, even with alternative app stores or just shipping .apk files.
I don't know why, but my guess is updates. They've probably done some user research and decided it's easier to deliver updates that install in the background. Since the .apk update method is just reinstalling the app, it's very annoying if you ship freqeuent updates.
"Unlawful" is a very broad term that could mean nothing more than "We had a contract and we believe you violated that contract (which is unlawful) and we therefore want civil restitution". The way it's phrased though it almost sounds like they're accusing Epic of a crime, which just isn't the case here; it's nothing more than possibly breach of contract.
The pot calling the kettle black. Obviously epic did this all on purpose, but that purpose is for good reason, to show that mobile software can no longer be entirely controlled by singular entities with significant conflicts of interest.
The natural market of mobile software is choked out by Apple and Google. Theyre not accepting that the market they originally created has now gone significantly further than what they can and should control. They impliment anti competitive practices, removing apps that may compete with them, where they can completely bankrupt multi million dollar companies based on good mobile software.
30% commission, no alternative store(s), $99/year developer subscription, only seven days side loading on person device if not paying the aforementioned fees, Apple have for long stockpiled reasons for developers and hobbyists to dislike how they treat developers. I’m siding 100% with Epic on this.
As opposed to all the other stores that ... charge 30% or so, but don’t host free software as well?
Seriously, I need someone to explain what makes this any different from The google store or consoles? I mean aside from consoles not supporting free (as in price) software either
They're asking the court to give them all the commissions Epic failed to pay while their direct payment system was online, going out of their way to describe it as theft.
> Award restitution and disgorgement of all earnings, profits, compensation, benefits, and other ill-gotten gains obtained by Epic as a result of its conduct inviolation of the UCL
I find it interesting that subscription services (Spotify
or Netflix for example) can have multiple channels for subscription and get away with it. What part of this am I missing that makes Epic's use case unique.
Epic also barely uses any of the toolkit stuff and has their own UI. They may use Metal, but I don't think there is a Vulkan option from Apple on iOS. They probably only have native widgets where mandated (text entry, etc.).
If I recall correctly, “Reader” apps and “TV” apps have different rules available to them, video games and in-game purchases are not eligible under those rules...
It would be perfectly fine with Apple for Epic to sell Vbucks on their own web site, or through other platforms (which they do), and Apple would not ask for, nor would it have a right to, a cut of the fees.
What you can not do in an iOS app is direct someone to another payment processing platform to purchase digital goods to be consumed within the app. Customers have to figure it out on their own.
You can't actually sign up and pay for Spotify premium inside the iOS app, and I believe Netflix and Amazon Prime Video fall into a different "streaming video" category where they pay 15% instead of 30%, with some caveats: they must support both Airplay and AppleTV (exposing their entire video catalogues to Apple), and some other smaller things.
It's all silly and arbitrary, and video game creators have been understandably upset for a long time.
Epic is disingenuous. They could totally transform the mobile market by investing in IOS alternatives. If you don't like what/how someone is doing something, don't cry about it. Do it better.
This is simply a political gamble. They are hoping that the publicity gained results in politicians opening up the app store to favor app creators (epic) through regulation. It's a pathetic move.
I understand. My point is that epic has a very high valuation. Their money is of course focused on gaming, but they could branch into the mobile market. When the iPhone came out Apple had, what 5% share of the desktop market and no phones?
Yet they managed to dominate the mobile market. Nothing in this world is static.
Just fork Android and ask Asus or whatever to launch a phone with that OS preinstalled with the Epic App Store as the default app store. Like Amazon Fire OS.
> Epic claims that Google forced phone manufacturer OnePlus to break off a deal that would have seen a special Fortnite launcher preinstalled on OnePlus phones — and demanded that another Android phonemaker, LG, abandon any plans to do the same.
If Amazon tried and wasn't successful, I doubt Epic would. The market is meant to be taken by a few players, it's such a huge undertaking. The hope is that those few players play fair.
Apply that same logic to Tesla ten years ago. Arguably they aren't competing with the big auto manufacturers on a production level, but market cap may change that.
this got me to thinking of the alternatives. Android. that's all i could come up with that are viable.
out of curiosity, has anyone attempted to install Android on a jailbroken iPhone?
Edit: quick search makes it look like it is possible on certain devices. i haven't followed through them yet to see success rate, but if you don't like iOS there you go
Innovation is the word that comes to my mind. In 20 years we may not even be using phones. Why? Because a wealthy company like Epic can find a niche, throw some money at R&D and create a new system. There is a reason we are not riding horse and buggy anymore.
If Epic were going to do that, they would have already done it. Why would they though? They've seen other vendors come and go. They'll just sit back making money by utilizing other people's platforms, and then complain about it. They knew the terms of the contract they agreed to, and are being little babies about it now.
They clearly enjoy the money they make through iDevice users, enough that they don't just abandon the platform. Agree or not with Apple's control, but if you agree to their terms that's on you. You can complain all you want, but break their terms and it is again on you. (royal you, not specific you)
Epic's claim is (I believe) that Apple is using its monopoly to unfairly compete. If you believe anti-trust is appropriate, asking a court to enforce it isn't crying about it, it's asking for the law to be followed. If Apple doesn't like the laws of the land, they should make their own.
That's not to say I think Epic's case is clear. I think it's a worthy legal question. I don't own any Apple devices from this century, so the result either way wouldn't directly affect me (but certainly ecosystem effects would).
"For years, Epic took advantage of everything the App Store had to offer. It availed itself of the tools, technology, software, marketing opportunities, and customer reach that Apple provided" - I laughed quite hard at this one.
I think on some level Apple is happy to have this lawsuit at this time. The App Store revenue has become more significant and also presents big opportunities for growth. Especially with the arrival of ARM macs, the future points to a world where the “Apple Tax” might be a literal 30% cut on all transactions conducted through an Apple device. So for Apple it would be good to get some legal clarity before they make such moves. Sure, it would be painful if they lost, but it could be much more so later on. According to a study cited by Apple, they took a cut on only $61B of the $519B of total sales generated by the App Store. They’ve got to be salivating at that latter figure. If they could get 30% of $500B+, it would be more than half of their current annual revenue.
97 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 155 ms ] threadPopcorn clubs have been springing up at many law schools with in-person classes this fall, much to our surprise. The kids get together IRL with popcorn and beer, discussing the finer points of this normally very complicated cases, and sometimes professors join in the fun.
In other news, our subreddit has been "popping" since the suit was announced last week. Hint: try the apple-cinnamon popcorn, my favorite. They finally got the Stevia optimized for microwaving.
While our Epic vs. Apple package is popular, the Trump vs. Biden Contested Election anticipatory special left us scrambling to fill orders and we're trying to find more clerks at SCOTUS who are willing to make a lateral move. paulg even helped us stuff the intro packages at our warehouse just outside of Cambridge. He was super nice and fit right in with the rest of us. Thanks, Paul!
This fake post brought to you by Covid cabin fever
I'd pay $5/month.
[1]https://needgap.com
And relive all the early-2000 SCO drama at your leisure: http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2003083117...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Albizu_Campos
Granted, there aren't many people that would self-immolate over Apple's terms of service, but the point is that economic freedom is still an important political freedom that people are willing to die over.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/9/20907228/apple-quartz-app...
Also, editorialized title.
> Epic fired the first shot in this dispute, and its willful, brazen, and unlawful conduct cannot be left unchecked.
> Epic fired the first shot in this dispute, and its willful, brazen, and unlawful conduct cannot beleft unchecked. Neither Mr. Sweeney’s self-righteous (and self-interested) demands nor the scale ofEpic’s business can justify Epic’s deliberate contractual breaches, its tortious conduct, or its unfair business practices. This Court should hold Epic to its contractual promises, award Applecompensatory and punitive damages, and enjoin Epic from engaging in further unfair business practices
> APPLE’S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO EPIC’S COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Inflammatory, click-baity titles can be "catchy" for sure, but that doesn't mean we have to use them here. The fact that it uses "wording from the legal document" doesn't make it a good title, regardless of how catchy it is.
".. please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
In any case it's a dupe as GP correctly pointed out while linking to the existing and more substantial discussion.
Correct.
A bit apocalyptic, no Apple?
Apple's multiple shrinking would cause inordinate pain in a lot of places.
I do not trust Facebook to avoid leaking that data out of my phone.
What you're describing here is not really related to the App Store policies but your trust on the Apple apps themselves.
Most large companies still eat the 30% and launch on Google Play Store anyways, even with alternative app stores or just shipping .apk files.
I don't know why, but my guess is updates. They've probably done some user research and decided it's easier to deliver updates that install in the background. Since the .apk update method is just reinstalling the app, it's very annoying if you ship freqeuent updates.
(Note the HN title is editorialized as sibling comments point out.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euiSHuaw6Q4
https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic
The natural market of mobile software is choked out by Apple and Google. Theyre not accepting that the market they originally created has now gone significantly further than what they can and should control. They impliment anti competitive practices, removing apps that may compete with them, where they can completely bankrupt multi million dollar companies based on good mobile software.
Markets belong to everyone, praise be capitalism.
Seriously, I need someone to explain what makes this any different from The google store or consoles? I mean aside from consoles not supporting free (as in price) software either
IOS has a complete monopoly on their mobile vertical.
They're asking the court to give them all the commissions Epic failed to pay while their direct payment system was online, going out of their way to describe it as theft.
> Award restitution and disgorgement of all earnings, profits, compensation, benefits, and other ill-gotten gains obtained by Epic as a result of its conduct inviolation of the UCL
What you can not do in an iOS app is direct someone to another payment processing platform to purchase digital goods to be consumed within the app. Customers have to figure it out on their own.
It's all silly and arbitrary, and video game creators have been understandably upset for a long time.
lol wat
This is simply a political gamble. They are hoping that the publicity gained results in politicians opening up the app store to favor app creators (epic) through regulation. It's a pathetic move.
Why didn't they think of that? /s
Yet they managed to dominate the mobile market. Nothing in this world is static.
Thanks for the laugh man
Just fork Android and ask Asus or whatever to launch a phone with that OS preinstalled with the Epic App Store as the default app store. Like Amazon Fire OS.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368395/fortnite-epic-ga...
this got me to thinking of the alternatives. Android. that's all i could come up with that are viable.
out of curiosity, has anyone attempted to install Android on a jailbroken iPhone?
Edit: quick search makes it look like it is possible on certain devices. i haven't followed through them yet to see success rate, but if you don't like iOS there you go
If Epic were going to do that, they would have already done it. Why would they though? They've seen other vendors come and go. They'll just sit back making money by utilizing other people's platforms, and then complain about it. They knew the terms of the contract they agreed to, and are being little babies about it now.
They clearly enjoy the money they make through iDevice users, enough that they don't just abandon the platform. Agree or not with Apple's control, but if you agree to their terms that's on you. You can complain all you want, but break their terms and it is again on you. (royal you, not specific you)
That's not to say I think Epic's case is clear. I think it's a worthy legal question. I don't own any Apple devices from this century, so the result either way wouldn't directly affect me (but certainly ecosystem effects would).
Would use it initially as the perfect portable gaming device, which alone is enough to get Epic 100mns+ of distribution.
Epic can subsidise the cost of the smartphone as they would make money from apps and games. They can set their example by taking 5-12% commission.
And after hitting Epic scale and by practicing the principles it preaches Sweeney can show the world a better way.