PC Gaming Epic Games Vs. Apple

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
In this case its a "both sides are terrible for different reasons" situation. Let's remind ourselves where does Apple manufactures their goods...


That's ridiculous.
f67c2bf2-ae77-4c84-a0ab-f9957ead85f6.png

Android-vs-iOS-1.png


How can they argue that its a monopoly when it has almost 50% of market share in US and almost 25% worldwide?
Yeah, this is the big flaw in Epic's argument. While they have a good case that the "Mobile Video Games Market" is a different market than the "Video Games Market" (meaning Console+PC), the fact is Android is a huge share of the market and totally allows exactly what Epic wanted to do (have its own discrete app market).

I do think that in general, Apple is more in the right than Epic (though I still say a Pox on both of them), just that as far as seeing Mobile as as a distinct market they have a fair point.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Yeah, there is a good argument that its a separate market, if it wasn't, mobile games couldn't afford to suck so hard - but they do, because of device limitations and much lower standards of most of the customer base. What's considered a great game on mobile and often, as such, gets away with ridiculous MtX farming, compared to what's available on PC would generally be considered mediocre at best.

However, creating some confusion, there is in fact market sharing, but it is one way only.
You can easily emulate most mobile games on PC with free tools like Bluestacks, however doing the reverse is very hard to impossibly unpractical due to phone's inherent limitations in software support, hardware capabilities, and often underrated, input devices - if not for that one, theoretically any good modern phone could run all games that can run on a cheap PC from 5-10 years ago, and in fact some phones with the right OS can kinda pull it off to some degree... but only if you connect a normal PC keyboard, mouse and monitor, and between the inconvenience of that and very finicky nature of the software compatibility issues this is beyond 99.999% of users.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
How can they argue that its a monopoly when it has almost 50% of market share in US and almost 25% worldwide?

Because the "mobile gaming is a distinct entity from PC gaming" argument is ultimately a legal red herring which is used to shore up the superficially parallel argument that "iOS gaming is a distinct entity from mobile gaming". This allows Epic to argue that iOS is its own separate market, a market that Apple has "total monopoly" control over.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Haven't been following the case, but new court documents revealed Google apparently pondered purchasing Epic in an effort to contain the "contagion."

PC Gamer said:
An Epic victory would almost certainly spark wholesale changes on the App Store and Google Play that would cost Apple and Google significant amounts of money. Neither company wants that, naturally, and according to an updated filing based on newly unredacted information, Google even went so far as to contemplate buying some or all of Epic to eliminate the "threat" of competition.

"Not content with the contractual and technical barriers it has carefully constructed to eliminate competition, Google uses its size, influence, power, and money to induce third parties into anticompetitive agreements that further entrench its monopolies," the updated complaint, available via The Verge, says.

"For example, Google has gone so far as to share its monopoly profits with business partners to secure their agreement to fence out competition, has developed a series of internal projects to address the 'contagion' it perceived from efforts by Epic and others to offer consumers and developers competitive alternatives, and has even contemplated buying some or all of Epic to squelch this threat."

(The original filing, with redactions intact, can be seen here.)

It's not known when exactly all of this happened, and apparently even Epic wasn't aware of it. "This was unbeknownst to us at the time, and because of the court’s protective order we’re just finding out now about Google’s consideration of buying Epic to shut down our efforts to compete with Google Play," CEO Tim Sweeney said on Twitter. "Whether this would have been a negotiation to buy Epic or some sort of hostile takeover attempt is unclear."

 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Judge rules in favor of Epic Games, awarding them a permanent injunction regarding the allowance of in-app purchases seperate from Apples 'Walled Garden.'

Twinfinite said:
Judge Gonzalez-Rogers, the judge presiding over the Epic v. Apple lawsuit issued a permanent injunction against Apple, forcing them to allow developers, such as Epic Games, to offer in-app purchasing if they so choose.

The Judge stayed that in this case Apple wasn't acting monopolistic according to AntiTrust Law but was acting against competition laws.


Apple of course is expected to appeal.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
Wow, this is a huge deal if its upheld. It could lead to billion-dollars losses in revenue at both Apple and Google.

True, but it's also a win for Apple on the most serious charge of monopolistic behavior. For Epic, failing to get Apple declared a monopoly is very much "winning the battle but losing the war".
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Yeah, I can't see how Apple could be declared a Monopoly unless you define "Monopoly" as "selling iPhones", which is an overly narrow product niche. The simple fact of the matter is while they are the largest SINGLE manufacturer of Smart Phones, the Smart Phone market is very diverse and highly competitive, even within the niche of "Premium Smartphones" that Apple operates.

That said, I've also always disliked the "walled garden" approach Apple takes to things, mostly because it's led to so many false elitist assumptions about Apple. You still run into people today who will claim, with straight faces, that Apple computers are better than PCs, more powerful, more secure, etc. tracking back to those highly deceptive "I'm a Mac and I'm a PC" ads. When in reality PCs have consistently had higher performance, been more secure in actual practice*, and always been much more affordable.

----------------
* So, to explain this slightly, from an IT Security perspective attempting to program viruses or hack Apple computers has always been pointless. They're niche computers, only a handful of industries prefer them over PC hardware (and even those have shifted towards PC), and so they were rarely targeted by hackers and virus coders. PC, meanwhile, being the vast bulk of computers used by industries, governments, and home users, were attacked with much more frequency. What this ended up meaning was that ANY exploit for PCs, no matter how minor, tended to be found and used as attack vectors, pushing PC manufacturers and software companies to fix those security issues ASAP and aggressively. Meanwhile similar exploits on Macs could go longer periods without discovery or if discovered they were unlikely to be taken advantage of as aggressively, meaning Apple had less incentive to patch out problems. However, due to the install base difference people tend to hear about more attacks on PC based systems
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Yeah it's surprising outcome because I feel most of the Court Watchers were assuming that Apple had this lawsuit in the bag. Obviously Apple is likely to appeal but still, the fact it passed the initial test in court is interesting and surprising for many. Yeah, they didn't get the Courts to declare Apple a monopoly which I guess, kinda makes sense. It's only a monopoly in its own Walled Garden after all.
 

ShadowsOfParadox

Well-known member
Judge rules in favor of Epic Games, awarding them a permanent injunction regarding the allowance of in-app purchases seperate from Apples 'Walled Garden.'
Inaccurate.

Epic lost on everything that mattered to them, including getting Fortnite back on the App Store, or protecting Unreal Engine for that matter. What they "won" was "Apple can't bar App owners from telling people about their presence on other platforms" BUUUUUT. Apple's Cut isn't just NOT "Payment Processor Fee" Apple's Cut is a "Commission".

In other words, if someone goes from the iOS App to your own store and buys stuff there to then use on the iOS App, Apple has an argument that you owe them a 30% cut on that sale.

Apple won on all counts that mattered. They might appeal anyway because trying to police getting a commission from someone else's store would actually be pretty hard in a number of cases, but Epic is the one who's promised to appeal and Tim Sweeney has straight out called this a loss.

EDIT: Apple has appealed, and a key part of their appeal is "The Media is saying this is waaaay broader than we think you meant".
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top