111–120 of 614 posts
“There is nothing anticompetitive about charging a commission for others to use one’s service,” Apple said in the filing. What about forcing someone or some company to use a service (apple's payment systems)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re mistaking the platform for the product. I bought an item through Amazon recently and it did come with a bunch of materials inviting me to visit the manufacturer’s website. I bought an app through the App Store and it is prohibited from inviting me to visit the vendor’s website. In contrast, I bought a MMORPG through the PlayStation store and the first thing it did was direct me to the maker's account sign-up.
It's only prohibited to invite you to visit the website whilst you're still on the Apple platform. If you bought a physical item via an in-app purchase that item could include advertising for the external site -the exact same as Amazon.
Do you think Apple own the apps that are installed on your phone? Do you think they own your phone? Your ongoing relationship with a software developer? Do you think you are the product here?
The answer for me: no, no, no, and no, respectively.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They seem not quite the same to me. A game built with Unreal Engine is essentially powered by it and would not exist otherwise. A game deployed to an iPhone could theoretically be acquired through an alternative app store or just direct download. Apple's app store provides no utility to developers other than being the forced walled monopoly that all developers must list through. The proper analogy to Epic charging fo…
It's $100 because there's no other distribution method. If tomorrow you could use Apple's libraries and distribute the App by yourself, the cost of the Libraries wouldn't be $100. It'd be $100 and 30% of your revenue. It's not meaningful to draw out 1 bill when we all know that what's important is the total cost.
The thing that really annoys me about this entire argument is that the principal of the thing isn't really controversial. Apple provides a tonne of services (SDKs, marketplace, payment processing) that other people also provide and also charge for. It's not that controversial - in fact, Epic's Unreal Engine has the exact same revenue share terms as Apple. The only thing that's really controversial here is that 30% is…
Sorry to flatly contradict you, but the size of Apple’s cut is not at all controversial. It has never been a crime to be expensive. The legal controversy is that Apple prohibit apps from advertising, linking to, or even mentioning that external account management/payment/service sign-up options are available. This forces vendors to become complicit in misleading the consumer about their options, an anti-competitive p…
I'm pretty sure Walmart doesn't sell items in its stores that have text on the packaging about how to buy the item cheaper at Target, and it isn't particularly controversial that they do things that way.
As far as I'm aware app's web pages or other communication medium aren't prohibited from advertising whatever they want. Basically Apple is saying, "don't use our platform against us" which is what every for profit platform, ever, has done.
In some platonically ideal way it would be nice that it were otherwise, but it is in no way unusual or illegal to do what it is doing. Remembering the time of Verizon flip phones with locked down video services and tiny java apps, the freedom of an iPhone (once the app store was out) was actually unprecedented from day one from a mass consumer point of view- niche Nokia/Windows CE/Pocket phones to the side.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sad part to me as an iOS developer is that Apple is essentially calling iOS a "service." I'm a huge Apple fan, but they have been digging themselves a grave in terms of developer goodwill with their reaction to these lawsuits.
This should alarm any developer. Any iOS developer could be at risk to pay Apple punitive damages whenever they determine their rules have been broken.
It's as if Apple is on a mission to destroy the credibility and respect they had.
From a contractual standpoint outside of emotion, I think Apple will absolutely destroy Epic Games' position here in court. The only think Epic Games can hope for at this point is for the court to find Apple is a monopoly and engaging in unfair business practices but I think that type of finding isn't even in the court's purview -- I think that anti-trust needs to be a suit from the US government? https://en.wikipedi…
Probably, but I'm not a legal professional. But it is has actually happened before so maybe if the case for anti-trust is clear for Apple, it 'may' escalate to the US Government.
Apple writes in their court filing: “Epic sought to enjoy all of the benefits of Apple’s iOS platform and related services while its ‘hotfix’ lined Epic’s pockets at Apple’s expense.” It seems that Apple has forgotten that each iPhone user already paid Apple hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars for the iPhone itself. It is reasonable to charge developers for development tools, but if that's what you want to do, jus…
> It is reasonable to charge developers for development tools, but if that's what you want to do, just charge them for development tools. This isn't how the software development eco-system works. There are tonnes of examples of providing free development tools with restrictions on use and revenue sharing agreements. For example, there's this little known company called Epic Games which provides the Unreal Engine for…
The "the app store pays for libraries" argument is total bullshit. Apple wants 30% of your Spotify subscription because they saw it, they wanted it, and now they're having a temper tantrum about it. Not because they laid the foundation for Spotify.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sad part to me as an iOS developer is that Apple is essentially calling iOS a "service." I'm a huge Apple fan, but they have been digging themselves a grave in terms of developer goodwill with their reaction to these lawsuits.
Yes, it is setting a dangerous precedent. A general purpose computing device is now a "service" that you need to pay for. With that logic you can call anything a service. An OS is a service that lets you stream "unlimited" video to your display. Given the level of greed displayed by Apple, they're going to setup a tollbooth at every single spot they can. Maybe Intel can setup the ultimate tollbooth on their CPU by pr…
Tolls like the above were how the mainframe started and are nothing new.
We had a historical anomaly with the PC being a hobby platform at its roots where everything felt so free. Legally it never was, that was a marketing fiction created by Apple, Microsoft, IBM and others.
If apple is countersuing for lost revenue due to fortnites in app payment system, does this mean apple will need justify the value of their 30% cut, and in turn potentially have a judge declare its too much?
The claim that Epic has “lined [its] pockets at Apple’s expense” implies that Apple deserves to sit in the middle of every transaction that happens on their devices and take a margin. This is the world’s most valuable company we’re talking about here; assertions like this demonstrate an unbelievable lack of self-awareness.
Let’s also not forget that Apple already extracts huge amounts of money from developers even if they don’t make a cent on transaction margins.
It’s not possible to develop for iOS without a Mac, and therefore even the smallest developer making free apps has paid Apple for at least: one computer, one of each device class they develop for, and the cost of their developer account subscription. Large companies like Epic buy thousands of computers and test devices from Apple. The idea that anything is happening “at Apple’s expense” is preposterous.
Maybe next Toyota will decide that they deserve a percentage of Uber’s revenue because Toyota's cars help facilitate Uber’s business?