The entire thing looks like a successful attempt to get standing to sue Apple for their anti-competitive actions, and you know, get some free PR while you do what you need to do to make millions more dollars because why not.
At the end of the day Fortnite/Epic is just trying to maximize their shareholder value in leveraging lower/no fees from Apple for a revenue source for them that is frankly optional (iOS/Google Play are just two platforms they can choose to offer their app, and there is competition from the Windows and macOS platforms as well which do not charge these fees). Even if Epic wins you're still not going to jailbreak your phone and install malware the way you really want to.
The "anti-competition" platform is great because consumers just want to install random apps on their phones, but we bought our iPhones/Google phones knowing the app store was restricted to those who paid... we still did it.
Google Play doesn't compete with Apple's app store or Apple's payment processing... since you can't install Google Play on IPhones.
Fortnite does compete with Apple, in terms of payment processing. Fortnite chose to do it themselves (to get standing), and were promptly banned from operating on IPhones. Epic Games distributes Fortnite themselves in their own app store, but apple has prevented that app store from being installed on IPhones.
> In an actual court of law (rather than court of public opinion) there is no way Epic will win especially since Google took the same stance.
You definitely shouldn't be stating this this strongly. You might think it's a weak argument (I don't), but it's certainly far from hopeless.
If you'll excuse the appeal to authority (since repeating the fine legal arguments in the brief seems pointless, you can read them better written there). Look at who has signed onto this complaint for a moment. The lawyers representing Epic Games include a former Federal Trade Commissioner and senate confirmed assistant Attorney General heading the anti-trust division (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_A._Varney) and a former judge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_B._Forrest). You don't get people like this to represent you if they don't agree with you.
They are trying to create a level playing field for all developers on the App Store. I get that Epic would be unhappy that they don't have the weight to force Apple to bend to their whim, and App Store policies are by and far non-negotiable.
I don't understand the anti-competitive angle here, if anything Apple is promoting competition. Furthermore, Apple's AppStore policies have created a very high quality marketplace.
Apple is being investigated by numerous governments around the world [1][2] for antitrust regarding their app store, and just lost an antitrust case in Russia [3]. Epic Games simply adds a big name to the list.
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_...
[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/13/supreme-court-rules-against-...
[3] https://www.engadget.com/apple-russia-fas-rulling-203806171....
Not to mention Apple is charging the standard rate similar platforms are charging.
Listen, I get there’s a whole legal world you can argue around this, but really if I consider Apple + Google together, the lump sum of all their anti-competitive practices are enormous. In fact, they sort of thrive off each other.
For example: you can’t change the default search engine on iOS to anything but the four that come built in. How this isn’t anti-competitive is beyond me. But it’s because “the other half” of the oligarchy avoids monopoly. But is duopoly really tangibly different when they both have a sort of “agree not to infringe on each other” deal. Google basically stays out of the premium device market, and Apple stays out of search and advertising.
They literally got caught for agreeing not to poach each other’s employees. They both basically are acting together to preserve the golden cows, respectively, while both implementing a wide variety of truly despicable policies designed to further entrench their moats, suffocating whole swaths of startups along the way. Look no further than AMP and the ever-expanding google inline search answers and widgets, or on Apples side the complete lockdown of third party apps and unchangeable search engine. Then add the huge cut of app payments for both which mysteriously neither seems to think they need to compete on the cut they take? Somethings not right there. Especially given they both make more profit than just about any other company on earth.
It’s tiring to see all the legal-first thinkers who love to jump in and show how they aren’t monopolies... well, sure. But they are coordinating their efforts. The day Apple launches a search engine or Google actually attempts to build out a premium line of laptops (no the Pixel notebooks don’t count, they dropped those immediately), I’d have a little more faith.
People need to make the argument that they are coordinating and in effect acting as a monopoly because of it.
Google and Apple should not be allowed to act in as coordinated a manner as they do.
Two changes that would immediately make the world a better place. First, mandating that search engines cannot be locked down, and must be presented as a choice at setup without pre-determined order. Second, mandating that alternative app stores be allowed with no extra overhead. The second I don’t see how it happens legally, but outside that, it would absolutely be good for the world, no doubt at all it would increase competition dramatically.
For anyone who is wondering, Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm and eBay all colluded with each other[1] in order to keep tech employee compensation below market rate.
Also, it's worth mentioning that the layman discussion around whether Apple and/or Google fits the dictionary definition definition of a monopoly is a red herring. The government doesn't determine whether or not a trust is a monopoly based on that definition[2]:
> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
[2] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
I disagree. The market power test is an objective measure of exactly what the dictionary definition of monopoly is. The problem in lay discussions isn't the definition of monopoly but that markets in lay discussion are delineated by descriptive boundaries of markets rather than objective measures of actual competition like the market power test.