Epic is just the new gang in town establishing themselves while trying to get some shops under their control, by playing being against the long time block owners.
Even if that's the case, a legal and economics competition between those block owners sounds like a positive thing! A more dynamic market is what I want as a developer and consumer.
Heh, I don't see anything dynamic here. You basically choose between two prison cells instead of having an open market where the platform isn't more than a side note.
You can just have no block owners at all. Having two competing kings fighting over the throne isn't "dynamic" democracy.
Let's say Epic get what they want, that would open iOS to competing app stores and/or would make rules more flexible regarding available payment systems and/or would allow applications to be side loaded. That's more dynamism, market forces can then play their role. I understand that you may want an even more open market, but that's a quite different topic.
> Having two competing kings fighting over the throne isn't "dynamic" democracy.
That would be a more dynamic kingship than just having one king with full control over the kingdom. I'm not sure what you want to say here. Dynamism doesn't transform the kingdom in a democratic system. Nor is Apple or Epic part of a democratic battle. You seem to be conflating a bunch of things IMHO.
I think what you’d see is not much in the way of price decreases or increased availability of apps, but more dark patterns, malware, and anti-privacy measures.
Apple basically collectively bargains for iPhone users via the App Store. Privacy features, sign-in with Apple, limiting tracking abuse, privacy “Nutrition Facts” and other items will go out the window. Apple will have those in their App Store, but users will make the trade off with privacy to play Fortnite or download a new social media app. Apple makes it so that trade off doesn’t have to happen.
It’s all around awful. I really hope Apple wins this court case.
> Apple will have those in their App Store, but users will make the trade off with privacy to play Fortnite or download a new social media app.
> Apple makes it so that trade off doesn’t have to happen.
That's the core of the discussion here: you seem to think that's in the interest of the user to have Apple taking all those decisions for themselves. I firmly disagree, I'm a happy user of an iOS device and do release iOS apps, in both case I would prefer to have more choice of trade-off, and to be able to decide for myself instead of Apple taking a decision for all their user base and developers.
Yea, I definitely think it's in my interest and the interest of the vast majority of iPhone users to have Apple make these decisions. I'd rather every developer leave the App Store than switch away from the current model. I'd just use Apple's built-in apps.
Your own situation wouldn't be different if you had alternatives to Apple's store. Apple can even market their own store as the one with higher quality apps and promote their safety guarantees. Applications from another store wouldn't have to be less "safe" (depending on your definition) as other iOS applications, they would still use the same sandbox system and all the other standard APIs. You can always decide to stick to one store and not care about the rest.
Considering the fact that you prefer Apple to block you from other options: it doesn't follow that they should do this to everyone, just that you would still pick that option if you had the choice.
> Your own situation wouldn't be different if you had alternatives to Apple's store.
I respectfully disagree with this statement. I think an analogous situation would be the launch of Disney+: it used to be possible to watch Disney series on Netflix, but after Disney decided to launch Disney+, these series were pulled from Netflix to push the adoption of Disney+. For a Netflix user, their situation would very much be affected by Disney+ existing.
Yeah, users have very little choice when it comes to where to get software and so "choice" in Apple's garden doesn't actually translate to user choice but developer/publisher choice since users will have to buy from wherever the software is sold.
It is an open secret that Apple cannot build secure software, that its sandboxing is subpar and that the app store compensates for its failings — kind of how a totalitarian state with weak internal structures compensates for it through inflicting violence.
Where the pedal really hits the metal is with the cost of buying zero day exploits. iOS exploits can be had for much cheaper than Android ones.
I understand that, as a consumer, you don't want to be bothered to know all the implications of your choices, if you had to make them, so you're happy to delegate them to Apple.
But who's to say that Apple has your interests in mind, and not their own, and makes a choice for you that is actually detrimental to you and beneficial to them? Let's say, by locking you in, and preventing any competition.
How would you feel if every other company you buy from did the same?
This isn't about delegating choices to Apple because without gatekeepers actually being able to enforce behavior users have no advocates and get stuck with software that toes the line of being just tolerable enough to use.
Vote with your wallets doesn't really work since people will put up with plenty of abuses for software that's useful enough to them. Vote with politics doesn't really work either because regulators are very hesitant to regulate tech and kill the cash cow.
People, like me, are so fiercely loyal to Apple because seemingly no other company has been able to strongarm developers into not being shitty to their users.
> But who's to say that Apple has your interests in mind, and not their own, and makes a choice for you that is actually detrimental to you and beneficial to them? Let's say, by locking you in, and preventing any competition.
If they didn't have my interests in mind I wouldn't buy their products (which is why I don't buy any more Google products, their customers are the ad companies, not the people who buy/use their products). Companies make products for their customers with the customer's interest in mind in order to make a product that sells the best.
Sometimes you get a better deal when you have fewer options.
For example, iPhone/iPad users being unable to install Adobe Flash accelerated its demise hugely, by motivating websites to remove Flash, not just add 'please install' links.
I wonder whether people's opinions about Apple's behavior here are isomorphic to their opinions about collective bargaining writ large?
If you're the sort of person who releases iOS apps, you're far more technically inclined than the median user and perhaps more willing to engage in individual negotiation of terms of service and privacy (as you'll be plausibly good at it). The median user of an iPhone is in a hopeless bargaining position in the face of dark patterns, and for that user, perhaps the collective bargaining Apple engages in is more valuable.
- I don't think it's fair to compare Apple's position to a "collective bargaining". What they are doing is defending their moat from competing offering, they are defending one of their source of control and revenue. If there would be a bargain, who would be facing them? Developers? If Apple is in position to dictate what they want with no discussions, it's not a bargain.
- Even if other app stores are available (or sideloading, or other potential outcomes that would be more open than the current situation) Apple still control the platform, thus can still impose A LOT of what is possible or not on iOS. If they want to "protect" their users they can continue to do it at that level (there would then be a debate on what is or not considered "anti-competition" at this level)
- Regarding the difference of technical level, yes, I'm more technically inclined. On other systems (such as Android, Windows, and macOS) being more technically knowledgeable means that I can gain more control over my system and take my own decisions. In the world of iOS (potentially also in the future world of macOS), that's not even close to being a possibility.
The bargaining is between users and developers. Developers have increasingly taken adversarial positions with their users, who have accepted increasingly onerous terms and privacy policies because individual users are not in a good bargaining position. Apple, in contrast, is in a bargaining position to negotiate terms of use on behalf of its users with developers.
For example, if I purchase a subscription to a language learning app on an iOS device, my ability to seamlessly cancel that subscription has been collectively bargained by Apple (via the terms of service of their payment processing system). That's valuable to me, particularly given the absurd difficulty of canceling subscriptions that are not collectively bargained like gym memberships.
How would Apple impose that same term of use, that subscriptions can be cancelled on device with one click, for a sideloaded app? If they can't do that, developers would offer their app only via sideloading so as to be able to take advantage of that stream of revenue, like gyms. Now there's less competition for language learning apps in the first party app store, and I, a user of that store, suffer.
That's not to say there aren't tradeoffs for that collective bargaining; there are. As you say, we have much less control over iOS devices than we've historically had over our computing devices. Similarly, workers who collectively bargain have much less control over their terms of employment than workers who individually negotiate. But for many workers (and many users), that tradeoff is a good one. Apple is currently the only organization offering it.
Is your gym app not available on Google store but only as a side load? Because you are imagining that because soem developers are shit then all are shit.
When I was young I could create small apps and games and share with my friends. But the future seems to be "think at the idiots that might side load malware" so our children will need to create developers accounts, provide IDs , buy certificates just to develop and share some games.
Broadly gym subscriptions aren't handled through apps. I'm assuming that there will be a tragedy of the commons, something Apple has only been moderately effective at preventing, that will reduce the quality of terms-of-service for users.
I too used to create small apps and games and share them with my friends. I still do that on a headless raspberry pi, which is a vastly superior environment than the one I had access to as a child. As the economic value of data on computers rises, I think we'll see a split between the device you use to conduct modern digital life and the device you do "old fashioned" computer stuff on. For people inclined to tinker, there will be platforms that enable that. But you won't do your banking on that platform because, as you say, idiots will side load malware. I've certainly made that split in my life (and in my classroom where we use the raspi as a teaching computer and every student has root on their own box), and it works out really well.
Now imagine my son making a small game and wants to share it with his cousin but now the cousin needs to run Linux to run code not approved by a corporation.(you need to not forget people that might not be rich and can afford many different devices).
Anyway do you have any examples (more then 1) of companies that ONLY offer side loading because they are evil and want to trick the customer (with subscriptions or to steal data).
As I’ve said, tradeoffs. The raspis I’m talking about run about $100 for a complete system. Not nothing, but accessible to many people in Apple’s target demographic. They’re ideally suited for what you’re aiming at.
One example jumps to mind - wasn’t Facebook running a side loaded VPN that was doing some unsavory things until Apple banned it? I think the place to look for that sort of thing right now would be companies abusing the enterprise development system.
Sure Apple customers have more money, but hopefully when you buy your next gadget the old one could be sold or donated to someone less wealthy.
The possible bad future I can see is this
- judge decides Apple can do whatever they want
- Google says "Great, then we can do the same" and all Android phones get locked
- Microsoft then also says thinks "Fuck, we are suckers, so they force the PC makers to DRM the computers to run only Windows and say something like "if you don't like it buy Linux"
So we will have tons of hardware that is DRMed and locked, you can run only what american companies approved and only if you have a valid user or developer accounts and maybe you need internet connection so the files are checked before you are allowed to open them.
That's a real possibility, and part of the greater tradeoff that happens with most technolgies: as they grow more powerful society applies more controls to them to prevent their ill use. Drunken horse riding is less regulated than drunken driving is less regulated than drunken nuclear submarine driving.
Happily, there's already a thriving ecosystem of alternate linux-based platforms that allow the sort of freedom that we both want and enjoy.
>my ability to seamlessly cancel that subscription has been collectively bargained by Apple
Bargained for Apple's benefit, not yours.
The end result is that if you ever for any reason want to manage the subscription without an Apple device, you can't. Which directly feeds into the premium they charge you for their devices. It also means that the vendor is forced to implement Apple Payments, and the surcharge is ultimately paid by you.
You may have lost money due to subscriptions* , but you are definitely losing money to Apple.
* It's easy where I live to call the credit company and block the charge, and the credit company doesn't take 30%.
I think that you’re reversing the power dynamics. I agree with your first sentence but in a different way: bargaining should be between users and developers.
Here Apple isn’t a benevolent user collective, they have complete control over the entire pipeline, use it to force their rules on both users and developers. Epic, Spotify and others DO WANT to negotiate with their users instead of being forced by Apple. If someone is trying to negotiate, it is Epic & Co. Apple refuses any negotiation, told them repeatedly to follow their own rules. Epic thinks that there is a case to make that Apple has too much power and control and the balance should tip a bit more to developers. And that’s where we are now.
I don’t think that the collective bargaining is a good analogy, but if you want to go with this, Epic and others ARE the bargaining collective, while Apple is the mighty entity that tries to shutdown anything remotely threatening to their current business model.
> bargaining should be between users and developers
i.e. the power dynamic should be flipped so that developers have more leverage. This is the core issue. Users have little power on their own and are largely unorganized. So software that's useful to users enables developers to get away with many many abuses before large swaths of users abandon the product. Right now Apple has an extreme amount of leverage over developers and is rich enough to not even notice if they lose even large companies as publishers.
So yes, Apple has been protecting their business model, but the secondary effect is that user's have been benefiting hugely from this since Apple makes more money when users are happy.
> Developers have increasingly taken adversarial positions with their users
And who do we have to thank for that turn? Apple's culture that "we know better" is a good part of that problem. Developers want to be Apple, and Apple is pretty abusive towards their users. They take the occasional pro-user stance where it suits them, but overall it's pretty clear that the only institutional interest for Apple is Apple's own bottom line.
Here you're effectively defending an absolutist monarch: he can take a good decision here and there, maybe even give you a decade or two of peace and prosperity, but in the long run his family will inevitably do what is good for them, not for the country. Democracy is messy, unstable, often dangerous, but in the long run is more sustainable for the ecosystem at large.
I'd say that I'm less defending absolute monarchy, and more defending the rule of law against the Hobbesean state of nature, with all its caprice and cruelty.
For example, if Apple conducted plebiscites of its users and used those plebiscites in informing its collective bargaining with developers, I think that'd be fine. That would force Apple to articulate the value proposition of the positions it takes.
I would object less to that for sure, but you have to admit that there is absolutely zero chance of that ever happening: Apple never relinquishes control. The closest to it, ironically, is to go through the actual legal system and see what judges, tasked with interpreting the people's will encoded in laws, will say. Something that they will now have to do, probably several times, until they accept that there is an easier way.
Plenty of developers love Apple ways, since the Mac classic.
And it is hardly any different from any other platform.
Classical PCs are the exception here due to IBM's failure to secure their golden eggs, had they succeed and PCs would have been just as like.
It is no surprise that with the rise of laptop and tablets, the classical desktop PC is an species facing extinction, with pizza boxes for server room being the only ones left.
I shiver to think what a IBM success "to secure their golden eggs" in the way Apple does today, would have meant for the world at large. P2P or the browser would have never been invented, you wouldn't have been allowed to install anything without IBM approving... brrr
> And who do we have to thank for that turn? Apple's culture that "we know better" is a good part of that problem.
This culture did not start at Apple. It has been predominant tech culture since at least the early 2000s and is absolutely pervasive in the Linux Desktop community.
Well, they have a good enough track record so far. If you feel the iPhone is unsafe, you're free to buy a different phone or not use one at all.
Why would Apple be less incentivized than another company, like Epic, to protect your data? Apple sells the iPhone and markets it toward pro-privacy and security. Going against that is not in their own best interest. It's in Epic's interest to break through that, because then they can use dark patterns and break privacy restrictions (as other companies will and intend to do).
Again, it's no surprise that as Apple has been more user-focused and privacy-focused in their continued iPhone and iOS development that developers are feeling the squeeze when they want to use dark patterns, so naturally they'll try and break out of that so they can go back to their old bad habits again.
>Why would Apple be less incentivized than another company, like Epic, to protect your data?
Probably because their store doesn't have to compete? I would say they really are not doing a good job at this considering their track record contains plenty of dark patterns, privacy violations, tracking, data mining, censorship, and so on. If you don't believe me I can provide plenty of examples. The situation might be marginally better than a low-end Android device that typically comes loaded with OEM malware, but that's not saying much.
I would rather that the industry adopt higher standards for itself or the government play a regulatory role (or that everyone spontaneously develops a higher level of morality and social responsibility). Putting all of our trust into one corporation, no matter how big its market cap, is just asking for a single point of failure. Not to mention, Apple can always change its attitudes toward security, and then there wouldn’t be anyone left to speak for you.
This, except unironically. I am just one person, who has no leverage whatsoever against companies using dark patterns and scamware. I like having someone with sufficient leverage fighting in my corner.
If you don't want that, that's totally fine: Android is right over there.
I would think that people who care about their privacy, would be anti anything that reminds them of totalitarianism and therefore would also not like that Apple can decide what they can install on their devices. It's curious to see that people care about their privacy/data are fine with the control Apple has over their devices.
I think that reality is more nuanced. Totalitarianism is type of government and in such a situation you have no choice over types of government so totalitarianism has no driving factor to ever work in your favor. Additionally they have control not over just your phone but your entire being which in the hierarchy of needs is significantly higher. However in a hypothetical environment where you can pick between multiple different totalitarian states and the totalitarian states have no control over your entire being (and cannot ever become so) the totalitarian states have to compete with each other to attract people to live under them.
On the privacy/data aspect, if Apple forced data to be uploaded to the cloud, I would care. If it was "privacy" where the "privacy" is protected by apple keys I wouldn't really call that privacy. However that's not what Apple does in general where it can avoid it.
For example, in the new iOS version they're adding offline language translation functionality rather than uploading your voice snipets to the cloud to translate them. This is substantially harder engineering problem than doing it in the cloud as it requires significantly more turning to run on a constrained platform like a phone. If Apple actually didn't care about privacy they'd do what basically everyone else does.
There's more to shitty app behavior than just hardware-dependent data like location, and some of the enforcement can't really be done in software. Especially when it comes to workarounds/exploiting private APIs. Right now Apple can yank an app pretty much immediately if it's found to be doing that; if the app were in an alternate App Store, a much slower OS update would be Apple's only option.
Payments also come to mind: Apple has strict standards for what you have to explain to users before you take their money. (Granted they're not always perfectly enforced.) And some of the terms (like easy, clear cancellation) are enforced simply by the fact that you must use Apple's payment system. With another App Store, that goes out the window.
Ok, but do we agree that Epic getting what they want would result in a more open platform than what we currently have? Because the alternative to what Epic want (so the current situation) isn't a completely open platform but one where Apple is the only boss and can do almost whatever they want. Having more bosses in competition for parts of the market is an improvement toward a more open system.
We've seen on Android that the practical effects of competing app stores are basically zero. There's too much advantage to controlling the OS and being the default. Epic getting a store on iOS is likely to be a moral victory at best.
The effective solution is stopping dominance in one area from spilling over into another. Can't use iOS control to gain control of app sales and you can't use control of app sales to gain control of payments.
The fact that F-Droid exists is a huge deal. Yeah, not everyone uses it. There isn't an app for everything (by design) but the apps are way more trustworthy than anything you can get out of the iOS or Android stores.
Let’s say competing app stores won’t be used. Then why is it an issue for Apple to allow them, given that they know they would still be the default and have the advantage? Apple is in this situation at where control the platform completely, and could have the default store. But somehow that’s not enough for them to consider opening the app market a little bit.
Using that reasoning, they are in the best position to actually open to competition.
Google has been closing down Android with each release exactly because that gets abused.
To the point that Linux fans that keep pointing to Android as "Desktop Linux" miss the point that no Linux APIs are part of official Android APIs and depending on the Android version, apps get killed when trying to be smart reaching for private APIs.
> Ok, but do we agree that Epic getting what they want would result in a more open platform than what we currently have?
I think Epic getting what they want will slowly hollow out the available market for smaller indie developers who can't compete with with the scale of the big boys. Insofar as Apple's app store falls short, it's often in the various ways it fails at providing a truly even playing field between Joe Random and the Amazons and Epics of the world. Take the Apple intermediation out of it and the big stores can bring the strength of their reputations and the scale of their logistical capabilities to bear in ways that will make it much more difficult for small, independent developers to thrive.
You can see it in comparing the iOS app economy to the Android one. Even though the vast majority of app installs in Android come through the Play store, the more lax standards and availability of sideloading seems to make people much less trustful of anything they get and, consequently, much less likely to spend any money.
I think it will just offer alternative places where you might get attention that you otherwise wouldn't. Apple already has extremely restrictive and garbage discovery mechanisms on the App Store, and up until now has squashed all app-based attempts to make it better or provide an alternative discovery mechanism.
If alternatives were allowed to exist, those stores could be built with better discovery mechanisms or allow a smaller pond where you might be able to be the big fish.
As opposed to a vast ocean (App Store) where you've got to be damn lucky or have major connections to be anything more than a minnow as an independent.
Android phones come with multiple stores, you can side load apps and you could launch your own store any time you like. You could launch a new phone without the Google Play store, such phones exist anyway though.
The plain fact is that isn't what the vast majority of customers want. They have time and again showed that what they want is one place where they can all get their apps, and that will also be on their next phone. Google didn't decide that for them, nor did Samsung which has it's own store on it's phones. It's what customers want and have chosen, whether you like that or not.
Yes Google used unsavoury practices, they ran afoul of the EU and were fined Billions, but that's a footnote. We'd be where we are anyway, and stoping those anticompetitive practices hasn't slowed down the consolidation because this is driven by user preference.
This. Actions speak louder than words and Epic's anti-Linux actions with their store are extremely telling that their rhetoric about supporting open platforms is purely self-serving.
Valve has had a lot more Linux support, but it seems like they just want Steam to be "Google Play Services" for desktop Linux. GPL software can't even communicate with friends on Steam, isolating the open source community and ultimately turning their devs, if they want to be part of Steam's extensive gaming social network, into serfs for the store.
Huh? In what way is Steam on Linux in any way similar to Google Play Services on Android?
Steam on Linux is mostly compatibility hacks so people can play the games they bought. Some games have decent Linux support, but the real value I see in Steam on Linux is all the proton/wine magic/hacks to make games work relatively well without any changes, and frankly it's great.
The rate at which Wine/Proton et al., and Linux gaming in general, has improved in the last few years is staggering.
> GPL software can't even communicate with friends on Steam, isolating the open source community and ultimately turning their devs, if they want to be part of Steam's extensive gaming social network, into serfs for the store.
I have no idea what you mean by this, but I also don't see what the GPL has to do with it. You can easily write GPL software that you sell on Steam which uses all of Valve's features.
> In what way is Steam on Linux in any way similar to Google Play Services on Android?
Steamworks.
> I have no idea what you mean by this, but I also don't see what the GPL has to do with it. You can easily write GPL software that you sell on Steam which uses all of Valve's features.
Steamworks is needed for that and isn't GPL compatible. You can sell GPL software on Steam, but can't use many features and are isolated from most social/friend stuff.
> Which Open Source licenses are compatible with the Steamworks SDK?
In general, permissive licenses that do not put any requirements on you to redistribute your modifications under an open source license work fine.
This is borderline FUD. You don't need to use Steamworks to publish a Steam game. With respect to games, most commercial licenses also have these same restrictions, e.g. Unreal Engine.
This seems fine, GPL is probably not suitable here. I don't think Valve is going out of their way to harm anyone's freedoms.
If you really want to release your game as GPL, then do the usual workarounds: use a shim which RPC's to the proprietary bit.
Not current numbers but some old projections put 2020 projected android users would be around 127 million users in US. iOS projected 110 million in 2021 in US. Does 50% market share when achieved even equal a monopoly?
The switching cost between launchers on PC is negligible, compared to phones where it's a massive undertaking. That said, in the context of user freedoms I think it's fair to not support Epic (in part, for their actions towards exclusive games) at the same time as supporting Epic (in part, for their actions on mobile platforms).
I don't think it is. While I may agree with the goal of open platforms, I don't for one moment believe that Epic cares at all about that goal and I do not believe their method of intentionally violating TOS and using propaganda to direct a raging horde of children at Apple is the right way to go about it.
It's funny that people gang up on Epic Game Store exclusives when Steam has been doing exclusives for over a decade. Not only Valve games, but almost every AAA game that isn't made by Ubisoft or EA is basically just a code to unlock the game on Steam. You need to run all the updates through Steam, microtransactions through Steam, start the game each time by Steam. You can't live without Steam for most AAA games.
That's on the companies making those games, Valve doesn't pay them for exclusives and even allows developers to sell Steam keys on other storefronts without taking a cut.
No sane app development business would do this when half of their potential customers are on an iPhone.
I'd rather vote in legislators that will maintain the existing laws of the land, which state that you can't use your Apple-sized market power to keep competitors from doing business.
They're trying to establish a precedent that would limit all monopolistic behaviour, including theirs. Obviously their motivations are to make it easier for them to compete, but it won't make it easier for them to become a monopoly.
What part of the law forces companies to sell things they don’t want to? Or to force the creation of a retail marketplace on their own ecosystem?
It will likely require a new legislation to force the regulation of App Stores as public utilities.
Violating the Sherman act requires demonstration of monopoly or restraint of trade. Any ISV has many channels and platforms with which to sell its wares, so this will be hard to prove. Asking for a retail cut % isn’t restraint of trade.
The ISVs like Epic want more profit for themselves by forcing the regulation of app stores as public utilities, so that like a power generation company, they can compete separately from the distribution system. That is a tall order to prove that it’s more in the public interest than in the ISV’s interest.
If you've read the law, you'll note that you are not required to have a monopoly to fall afoul of the antitrust laws. The usual proviso is along the lines of "X is prohibited where the effect of X is to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce." (see, e.g., 15 USC §13).
If your customers made a choice to choose a platform with a highly-controlled walled garden as the only means of installing software then you should respect that and either adhere to the terms of said garden or not enter that market.
You're thinking like a company that cold calls people on the do-not-call registry or something.
This assumes people buying Apple devices did it because they want a walled garden. I don't think that's true, I think it's the opposite. Most users dislike it.
Obtuse example: I think the vast majority of Fortnite players would have (much) preferred to pay Epic's cheaper rate.
Doesn't matter, the behaviour is still monopolistic, but even if we cede that point it's absolutely a duopoly. Fortnite is also banned on Google play, they've lost access to over 90% of the mobile market. The Sherman Act isn't about being a monopoly, it's about exploiting an unfair degree of leverage.
But either way that's not my point. Epic establishing a precedent that restricts the degree to which companies can dominate a supply line and then use that position to skim isn't going to make it easier for Epic to dominate you, the consumer. That's not their objective. That is Apple's objective.
They absolutely do have standing. 15 U.S.C. §15 allows for injured parties of anti-trust violation to sue for treble damages. This is separate to and beyond any criminal charges the DOJ can bring.
If courts determine that Apples behavior violates anti-trust laws, it is unlikely that they would find that Epic was not an injured party.
