121–130 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)?
Such a weird argument too, as if there was a different service Epic could use to reach > 50% of the US mobile market.
I look forward to Epic's next set of suits against Sony and Microsoft, who offer basically identical terms for inclusion on the app platforms for Playstation and Xbox, respectively.
Yeah, I saw this counter argument before, and I wonder the same thing, but does intellectual consistency matter much in the court of law?
In this case, I fully expect the judges to ask some hard questions about why Epic seems so content with the consoles, while taking a bold stand for freedom on mobile, and only mobile.
I'll be up in the virtual peanut gallery munching popcorn the whole time. It's gonna be a ride.
It's as if Apple is on a mission to destroy the credibility and respect they had.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does if you’re about to declare things that have existed for decades with no problem as suddenly Anticompetitive or illegal.
Things literally do go from fine to anti-competitive or illegal over time, because context matters and both laws and circumstances change. In one case, the US fought a whole war over something that was previously legal for decades!
The lack of entrepreneurial imagination is astounding. VR and AR are coming, Facebook and Valve are poised to be the next kings of tech. The current era of Apple and Google has an obvious time limit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Therefore I should be allowed to run whatever I please on my hardware. Well, that can definitely be your opinion. But whether that's fact or supported by our current laws is not at all certain. Let's at least be clear what's fact and what's desire.
Given your first post: > ...buying the iPhone comes with access to apps through the the App Store, not any software that you like. That's clear to almost everyone I would think.... > It's a design and pricing choice. And you buy in or you don't. This follow up: > ...whether that's fact or supported by our current laws is not at all certain Appears to at least be an explicit moving of the goal posts, if not claiming a…
Right now, it's totally within a company's rights (and a consumer's rights) to review the terms of a sale of a product/service, and agree to them or not.
> it is a multi-billion dollar enterprise that simply wants to pay nothing for the tremendous value it derives from the App Store. Half true. EPIC doesn't really get any value from the App Store except data delivery, which they're more than willing to do themselves. Fortnite is popular enough that the app discovery part of the store is meaningless.
Bear in mind Apple didn’t have to do a store at all. Steve Jobs was against the idea and wanted all iPhone apps to be in house from Apple only in order to maintain quality. Alternatively Apple could have implemented APIs and services for side loading apps like on Android. They chose a middle path, and why shouldn’t they? Are the two extremes really the only options that should be tolerated?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
They prohibit the app, that is available from their store to advertise ways of bypassing that store. 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…
Let's say it's a water filter. Now it's a Walmart-specific water filter. When the filter module needs replacing, the vendor is now prohibited from selling me a replacement through any channel but Walmart, or even providing any contact details in the box to obtain a spare from them directly. You'd file that under "WTAF?" and complain to the nearest competition regulator.
So yes, this is unusual, and in my country at least, misusing your market power to force another party to mislead the consumer and distort a market is illegal.
Don't conflate the product with the platform. Otherwise you implicitly allow that you basically don't own the product even after you've bought it, which is unconscionable.
This is a very bad look on Apple. Regardless of the enforceability of their agreements, the sense of entitlement that underlies Apple’s position is shocking. 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple’s contract is completely normal though. Resale distribution channels for locked in platforms aren’t new: Ticketmaster, PlayStation, Nintendo, Xbox, etc The only difference is people want to change the rules because they feel Apple (and Google) have won the game forever and App Stores should now be regulated like utilities.
The analogy with videogame console is i think the best one. I hate Apple rules on the app store, but i’ve always wondered if they hadn’t just copied the gaming console business models. Which makes me wonder : is there any way to distribute your own game to playstation users, without having to ask or pay anything to sony ?
Same for any console, though some are very restrictive and have very specific pricing guidelines (eg. Nintendo).