3rd party artists can't create anything that can be used inside Fortnite, neither inside the v-bucks store nor outside of it. There's no 3rd party "market" at all.
Apple has a market where third parties can market their apps. Apple requires a cut of all purchases made through that store, which alone is not monopolistic. Apple also requires that you sell your iOS app and any iOS in-app purchases only in their marketplace. That's the monopolistic part.
No one can create 3rd party items for Fortnite at all, so there is no monopoly on where 3rd party items for Fortnite are sold.
It's not even illegal to have a monopoly; it's illegal to use your monopoly powers to keep other parties from competing, and that's exactly what Apple has done.
1. The ability to install skins outside of the V-bucks store.
2. The ability to pay for Fortnite skins using payment methods other than V-bucks.
Alternatively, should Epic not be permitted to impose the following restrictions in their Fortnite store?
1. Skins must be approved by Epic before they can be sold. No x-rated skins, etc.
2. Epic will take a 30% cut of each skin sold.
What if I'm a skinmaker that wants to compete with Epic because I think I can provide higher quality Fortnite skins than they have made. Should I be able to demand to participate in the "Fortnite skin" market which is currently 100% controlled by Epic?
A monopoly by Standard Oil was pervasive in all of daily living because by the early twentieth century, they had control of more than 90% of the country's petroleum fuel production and logistics which they abused to keep any competition from ever gaining a foothold. By 1911, they were dissolved by the Supreme Court as per Sherman Antitrust Act.
VBucks and Fortnite are not pervasive in all of daily living, it is a tiny market and the monopoly is one which can easily be managed by society without breaking up the company.
Writing it in passive voice makes it look like there is some governmental force at play that made them license on FRAND terms. They voluntarily agreed to that in negotiations with a standards body/industry consortium which otherwise would not have agreed to utilize their technology in a communication standard. The trade-off is they benefit automatically by getting distribution and licensing the technology to a lot of people that need to implement that standard.
The key point here is that 90% market share constituted monopoly power, whereas Apple's 46% share of the smartphone market likely does not.
I'm not sure why you think this? Sure, certain Sherman Act violations (e.g. price fixing) do not require monopoly power to be considered illegal, but the specific claims in Epic's lawsuit (unlawful monopoly maintenance) definitely require proof of monopoly power.
The average American spends some what, 4-5 hours a day on their phone? Is there any even remotely comparable precedent for a company to control all trade through everything? The best I can think of is cable, imagine if there were only two cable companies and they not only had unilateral ability to control which channels appear, but also charged 30% to every channels profit.
Further, how many different commercial activities do people do every single day on their devices? This is a far, far bigger thing than any platform before it. And it’s dominated by only two companies with a history of collusion. These platforms are nothing at all like “a market” and trying to argue from narrow historical frames is poor form.
They are far bigger things. It’s more akin to a world, people use them for literally every part of their lives. I don’t think narrow precedent should ever rule our thinking and especially when it’s clear there is no historical precedent here. We need to be “courageous” enough to use moral and logical thinking and not legalistic weaseling, we need to legislate them as new types of markets far bigger and more important to every persons life than any that’s ever existed.
Proving a conspiracy claim requires two parties to knowingly participate in the conspiracy. While you may believe Apple and Google are conspiring together there is a reason Epic's lawsuit does not make any conspiracy claims - their lawyers know they'd never be able to win such a claim.
At any rate that is irrelevant to my point: Epic made several claims in their lawsuit that will require proof of monopoly power.
Sure, Epics specific case may be the only strategy they can take - they won’t find any documented collusion when there’s only two players, that’s obvious. They already colluded to suppress wages. We can all see what’s happening. You’re arguing semantics on one side then arguing generalities on the other. But let’s call a spade a spade: theres no smoking gun, but they are colluding, it’s just a silent “don’t lower yours and I won’t lower mine” nod.
Edit: further, with the amount of lock in they each have, there’s not much pressure anyway. It’s just not comparable to anything really that has existed beyond Windows/Mac which were/are entirely open. And it goes even further. Mobile phones are on people at all times. They do way way more. You have accounts with hundreds of apps, services. It’s just not a comparable thing, it’s a world with big lock-in.
> Because it would be inappropriate to punish a firm for its natural monopoly in its own products, courts embraced a sweeping prohibition against analyzing alleged anticompetitive activity by focusing on single-brand relevant markets: "[A]bsent exceptional market conditions, one brand in a market of competing brands cannot constitute a relevant product market." [2]
For a much more thorough explanation see my linked comment below.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24193731
[2] https://casetext.com/case/metzler-v-bear-automotive-service-...
The argument is that Apple is using their market power to set prices that seems well above the marginal cost. And they also have created policies that prevent competition in their store. Imagine Windows not allowing any apps unless they give them a 30% cut.
If skins are what I imagine they are, Epic needs oversight over which ones players are allowed to use because they affect the experience of other players. And Epic provides Fortnite gratis specifically so that they can sell premium features like skins, so it seems completely reasonable that they would take a large cut out of third-party sales of those features.
To be analagous to IOS devices, Fortnite would have to be a single-player game that players bought a copy of. In that case, I think people would be right to be upset if Epic prevented them from getting skins through some other channel.
Isn’t this like allowing mods, custom maps etc? So CounterStrike, DoTA, etc shouldn’t exist?
Honestly I started off on the fence but now I’m 100% against Apple here, and I’m an iOS dev. This is kinda crazy.
Come on - is this argument going to be used for all these too? Walmart has a monopoly on what sells in Walmart.
If there were basically only Wall-Mart and Target to buy stuff from, and you had to commit to one for 2-5 years every time, you bet they should be under heavy scrutiny.
Sony and Microsoft are a better comparison, but different because 1) their consoles are huge loss leaders, phones are not and 2) they are way less essential and used by an order of magnitude less people than phones.
Apple has become essential and trusted in part perhaps because it has exercised near iron control over almost all aspects of their platform.
This is false equivalence
2. I have installed android apps from F_-droid/Samsung app store or even Vivo app store
3. I have directly installed apks which didn't appear on play store directly from the internet
Where is my false equivalence? Pray tell me?
Google makes it impossible for apps to run without play store but I've used 0 google apps on android for 1yr and lived easily with 0 issues
Remove apple's app store, I dare you and then tell me you can live for one year.
Apple has monopoly on app store.
Walmart can't be compared.
Google has technically enforced monopoly and which I oppose. I never said google play store isn't a monopoly.
Are you sure you know what false equivalence means?
If I buy Apple phone I can't sideload app. At all.
How ia this not a monopoly.
Also why you bring xbox into picture. It's a gaming console not a general purpose device ppl use 4+hrs in a day.
They can have their cut buthe issue that you're ignoring is that they don't allow side loading and that they can randomly kill any app they want. Like they have done in the past and small developers don't have the money Epic does
That is the relevant comparison here, if Epic want to provide Fortnite on iOS they HAVE to use the app store and associated requirements. If they want to provide it on XBox, they pay a licensing cost for the proprietary tech they leverage from Microsoft. But they can choose to sell the game on Amazon if they want.
The amount of control console manufacturers exert over the games allowed on their platform is not dissimilar to the Apple and its App Store.
Look at the PS5: the ability to put a disk in is a legacy that's clearly going away by Sony making it an option you'll have to pay extra for. The entry level model is digital only, for better or worse.
Apple has a monopoly on how those products are sold and licensed because they are Apple products, in exactly the same way that Fortnite and it's marketplace are Epic products. There's no requirement for Epic to open that up, and if they do it will be on their terms. Their house, their rules.
After all, it's their house so their rules...
Apple have carved out a significant market share of mobile users. They've locked down the OS so you can't install your own apps on it and they've crippled the browser so you can't build nice web apps. For businesses like Netflix, Spotify and Epic who's userbases arguably transcend the App Store, why should they pay the Apple Tax?
Apple doesn't "own" these users. But if you want to extend your services to them you have to pony up.
The iOS operating system, developer tools, platform libraries and the App Store and distribution system are all Apple products built by them on their own dime and at their own commercial risk. On what basis do you get to dictate to them what features they must or must not develop, what services they must be coerced to provide and what contractual relationships they are required to enter into? There's just no basis for that.
Epic has a monopoly on selling items inside Fortnite.
The problem is that as soon as you allow narrowing your definition of words to whatever supports your argument, then they become meaningless.