
Microsoft Statement in Support of Epic [pdf] - jarsin
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21810025/statement_support_microsoft.pdf
======
quelsolaar
I'm extremely surprised that Apple would engage in something that could in
court be perceived as retaliatory against someone who is filing a complaint
regarding anti competitive behavior.

The definition of anti trust is to use your position in one market to gain an
unfair advantage in an other market. By denying Epic access in the game engine
market, Apple is trying to get Epic to fold in the game distribution market.
Thats text book antitrust behavior.

It is shocking to me that Apples lawyers, would allow Apple to so blatantly
threaten Epic in this way. They are providing a clear example of anti
competitive behavior, for Epic to use in future litigation. You would think
Apple has good enough lawyers to put a stop to this self defeating behavior.

~~~
DethNinja
Technically, Apple is completely in the wrong here and in any country with a
sane justice system they would lose this case due to blatant anticompetitive
behaviour.

However, Apple is also one of the largest companies of USA and a quite
successful one. At that size they must have considerably good lobbying
efforts, political class might also have connections to Apple through shares
etc. They might go and say that enabling third party vendors will cause
thousands to lose their jobs at Apple. They basically got a huge amount of
political influence and I’m sure they will use it for this case.

How much political influence Epic games have? Zero? Perhaps not zero but
definitely not at the level of Apple. Hence, this case might not be a
straightforward win for Epic.

It is good though, perhaps some of the fortnite players will understand why
antitrust laws are needed and perhaps influence the justice system once they
grow up.

~~~
s279
Why should a court intervene in the contracting of two private parties? Epic
started this fight by _intentionally_ breaching an _existing_ contract with
Apple, only so they can get better terms.

Microsoft does the same as Apple, it makes money off micro-transactions and
the ability for its competitors to sell on Xbox/Microsoft store, use trade
dress, and be included in those hideous green media cases.

Last I checked Epic, Steam, Origin, uPlay, Google, Amazon, SetApp, most
retailers, etc... do the same practice to varying degrees. Shrewd business
practice != injustice/anticompetitive practices, just because a company has a
large market share or is _personally_ abhorrent to you.

~~~
gizmo686
The entire purpose of civil courts is to mediate disputes between private
parties. Courts are also the mechanism that give private contracts any
authority.

Civil suits are also one of the mechanisms by which government regulation is
enforced. The alternative to that would be the government inserting itself
into private relations even when there is no dispute between the parties;
which is even more heavy handed (albeit somewhat justified).

It is a weird quark that you often have to violate the terms of a contract in
order to get standing to challenge it; but that is the procedural rules we
have.

~~~
WorldMaker
The weird quirks are acerbated by Arbitration clauses designed to keep
disagreements from ever going to court and instead being handled by "closed
door, opaque third party negotiators". Until Apple closed the contract
indicating a breach, Epic would have been forced to go to Arbitration to
settle the matter, rather than get their day in court.

~~~
slaymaker1907
Good point, and I assume that mediators probably can’t consider anti-trust
matters while courts can.

------
fxtentacle
I'm extremely glad to see that Microsoft is publicly stating in court what
many indie developers already thought: Apple is throwing millions of unrelated
game companies under the bus, just to get their revenge on Epic.

In my opinion, it doesn't get any more retaliatory than that, which means
Apple is most likely very far down the wrong side of antitrust law.

------
Someone
It may be (and, I guess, probably is) written with Microsoft’s help or even be
mostly written by them, but I think that’s a personal statement by somebody
who claims authority by specifying his job.

I also do not read anything there that will affect this round of this fight,
which is about the question whether an urgent ruling has to be made that Apple
should _now_ be forced to chance its stance.

~~~
microtherion
> I think that’s a personal statement

I doubt that a major company would let someone at this level of management
make such a "personal statement" without signing off on it internally. Even as
an individual contributor at such a company, you would invite quite a bit of
trouble with this.

~~~
hnick
Yes zero chance. As a lowly developer, even if I get asked a question directly
by the media about something the company did I'm not allowed to answer per the
stated rules. I have to direct them to the department of spin or whatever it's
called.

------
misnome
I still don't understand what "Denying access to the SDK" is supposed to mean.
Aren't the iOS and Mac development tools free to download without a developer
account? Isn't publishing on the app stores the only thing that not having an
active corporate account prevents? Apple haven't said that they'll block
anyone using Unreal Engine, right? I thought this was just about signing keys,
in which case other people using the engine should be fine...

In fact, does anyone else who deliberately tries to sneak things past the
review process get to keep their developer account _and_ the offending version
of the app available? Couldn't this just be Apple going "see, we treat them
the same as everyone else"?

~~~
smileybarry
They're free to download, but IIRC you're still abiding by their EULA. Apple
are threatening to revoke Epic's EULA license. If that happens, Epic would be
using the SDK "illegally". (This is all speculation, IANAL, feel free to
correct me if you have a better legal understanding of this)

------
EricE
If they feel so strongly about it let Epic open a store inside the Xbox.

What? Didn’t think so.

~~~
SheinhardtWigCo
The Xbox isn’t marketed as a general purpose computer, nor is it integral to
the economy.

~~~
api
I have always seen iOS devices as consoles, or at least closer to consoles
than PCs. Anything with a locked App Store and a locked boot loader is a
console by definition. MacOS is a general purpose computer OS.

Considered as a console iOS is actually more open and capable than most.

~~~
ctvo
You should let Apple in on that definition so they’ll stop marketing and
selling the iPad as a general computing device.

~~~
pier25
Exactly. How many times has Apple said the iPad is a laptop replacement?

~~~
api
It is for a subset of the market that only uses the web and a few apps.
Otherwise, no, and Apple knows it which is why they are sticking their ARM
silicon in Macs and continuing to evolve MacOS.

~~~
anoncake
That is not a subset. Running programs is what computers are for.

------
danielscrubs
Apple succeeded in what Google has failed with, namely to put value on quality
apps. A few small missteps and it will become like Android or Windows Phone.

~~~
dybber
Quality and crap can’t coexist?

They should only be vetting the privacy and security of apps, and let users
decide what is crap.

~~~
danielscrubs
It can’t because marketing lies and flooding the market with semi functional
apps is the end result. The app market is spread out economically but neither
users (has to buy a lot of apps to try them out, and because it’s a risk will
lower the amount willing to pay) nor developers becomes happy (no clear path
through the bad apps).

