211–220 of 614 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let’s say Amazon joined in and started selling Kindle and Audible books without using Apple’s 30% digital cut. Apple would have to pull the Amazon app, possibly the Kindle app. Actually, they’d have to do that if Amazon simply said, Apple won’t let this be sold here on reasonable terms, buy from the website. Amazon would lose some, but Apple would also be crippling iOS. Then Spotify joins in, and Tinder, and Duolingo…
So what you're saying is that Apple wants to set up an example to maintain the status quo?
I really wish there was a third party - the customer - actually represented in this trial. Apple and Epic arguing over what is best for the customer, while clearly they are having their own interests in mind, screams for the actual customers to be represented. The whole argument about them promoting an app „for free“ is a bit ridiculous. They clearly knew the amount of commission they were going to earn from pushing…
> Let‘s see how valuable everybody thinks the App Store is when they actually have to pay an access fee directly to Apple They do, it’s called buying an iphone
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…
While in principle I agree with you, if Epic signed an agreement that they owed Apple a percent based on initial terms, then that is out the window.
It's called an unconscionable contract. Epic's argument is that you cannot enforce unfair things even if you signed on it. Of course, the court is going to decide if it's really unfair, neither Epic nor Apple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe Apple will win in court, but it is losing trmendously in the dev and gamer space. I'm sure this was Epic's plan all along.
Many non-Apple users are sick of Epic's wolf-crying too, and companies bigger than Epic have tried smearing Apple before (see Samsung). Meanwhile, Apple is enjoying hereto-unseen levels of financial and critical success. The only things the majority of regular people are paying attention to is when the next iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, AirPods etcetera are going to drop.
It sounds like you're saying that companies should better not mess with Apple and that financial success puts you above criticism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maybe next Toyota will decide that they deserve a percentage of Uber’s revenue because Toyota's cars help facilitate Uber’s business? There are many car manufacturers that Uber could choose from in just the same way that there are many platforms that developers can develop for. Stop trying to spread the idea that the ability to make apps for the iPhone is an inalienable right.
There aren't many platforms there are exactly two. And the costs of switching between them are significant enough that this argument holds less water by the day.
If we are talking about platforms and not codebases there are waaay more than two.
iOS (App store)
Android (Google Play)
FireOS (Amazon App Store)
LineageOS (Fdroid)
One UI (Galaxy Store)
To name a few. These all have distinct and thriving marketplaces for apps with decent market share (some can overlap). The code base they use is irrelevant for this context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what you're saying is that Apple wants to set up an example to maintain the status quo?
I’m saying Apple is inadvertently admitting that they won’t have an ecosystem if they remove the apps that create it. Allowing digital goods to be sold at market prices puts Apple’s digital goods in a bad competitive position, but wouldn’t kill iOS or iPhone sales. However, Apple removing the apps will.
:)
I really wish there was a third party - the customer - actually represented in this trial. Apple and Epic arguing over what is best for the customer, while clearly they are having their own interests in mind, screams for the actual customers to be represented. The whole argument about them promoting an app „for free“ is a bit ridiculous. They clearly knew the amount of commission they were going to earn from pushing…
If there was a way to install apps outside of the store this would not be an issue. Most users and developers would still use the app store since it provides value but devs who feel that they can supply their own marketing and payment processing can do it themselves.
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.
I for one am happy to see Apple fire back with both barrels. Epic deserves it. A message has to be sent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 it doesn't really, in general it does. You aren't obligated to sue everyone breaking the law just because you sued one person that did, which seems to be the sum of the "but Xbox and playstation" argument. In that sense, literally not at all. Intellectual consistency does matter in the sense that courts will... heavily frown upon... you arguing X in one case and not X in another. But that hasn't happened…
"Is there any difference between Apple and Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo?" is a logical sequitur to "what's your market?" and "who holds the power?".
Epic might say yes, they might say no. Either way, I'm interested to hear the reasoning.