21–30 of 151 posts
While I admire the creativity of Apple's legal team to attempt to frame this as theft, I'm glad it was dismissed outright because it's beyond absurd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, I think Apple's in the right here. Every developer agrees to the App Store rules before releasing their applications. Apple created guidelines for their developers and they're simply taking advantage of that in court. Not saying I agree with it, but it doesn't go without reason.
As the judge said, that is a contract breach, which is handled by different lawsuit. In this lawsuit Apple argued it's theft, which is nonsense, and so the judge told them to go stuff it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not really the core of the argument here. Epic is arguing that Apple's terms themselves (taking a cut of the revenue that's a direct result of Epic's team's efforts with zero options to do anything else) are not fair and should be unenforceable given its market position. Basically, breach of contract is only a valid legal basis when the contract itself is deemed legally acceptable. Ex. you can't force someone…
> Where you come down on this issue should really be based on whether you think a marketplace cut of revenue with extremely onerous conditions that prevent even minor bypasses should be legal or not when distribution on said marketplace constitutes 50% of the consumer market in the sector This is a court case. Not a legislative session. Where you come down on it should be based on the law. I believe the law should be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You said you side with Apple, but why? Better analogy is that Apple is a country with a single party, no elections, that dictates who can make money and how much tax they pay. These ecosystems need regulation to enable multiple stores and open APIs.
Except Apple isn’t a country, it’s a company, so this analogy is useless.
I find it hard to side with anyone but Apple here. Apple built not only the marketplace but the actual devices themselves. Apple is giving developers a marketplace of users with powerful processors, fast internet connections, and credit cards already connected. Installing an app is easier on a smartphone than any desktop. A big cut is well worth deserved, and the contract terms seem pretty fair. I can't see how Epic…
That argument is like the railroad antitrust cases of a century ago. "The New York Central Railroad is giving shippers a marketplace of users with large freight terinals, fast locomotives, and railroad sidings already connected. A big cut is well worth deserved, and the contract terms seem pretty fair." (If you think Comcast is bad, read up on the history of railroad monopolies.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You said you side with Apple, but why? Better analogy is that Apple is a country with a single party, no elections, that dictates who can make money and how much tax they pay. These ecosystems need regulation to enable multiple stores and open APIs.
Except Apple isn’t a country, it’s a company, so this analogy is useless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That argument is like the railroad antitrust cases of a century ago. "The New York Central Railroad is giving shippers a marketplace of users with large freight terinals, fast locomotives, and railroad sidings already connected. A big cut is well worth deserved, and the contract terms seem pretty fair." (If you think Comcast is bad, read up on the history of railroad monopolies.)
One report shows Apple as having about 14% of the world smart phone market share in 2020, so I don't think that's a fair comparison. Apple's control over their App Store doesn't prevent Android users from using the Google Play Store, whereas the New York Central Railroad's ownership of freight terminals and rail lines prevents other people from building their own (because there are only so many places you can put a f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That argument is like the railroad antitrust cases of a century ago. "The New York Central Railroad is giving shippers a marketplace of users with large freight terinals, fast locomotives, and railroad sidings already connected. A big cut is well worth deserved, and the contract terms seem pretty fair." (If you think Comcast is bad, read up on the history of railroad monopolies.)
One report shows Apple as having about 14% of the world smart phone market share in 2020, so I don't think that's a fair comparison. Apple's control over their App Store doesn't prevent Android users from using the Google Play Store, whereas the New York Central Railroad's ownership of freight terminals and rail lines prevents other people from building their own (because there are only so many places you can put a f…
The market in question is the $150 billion mobile applications market, of which Apple controls 60% worldwide, well above the threshold for regulatory attention in many jurisdictions.
As for taking sides, I recommend taking the consumer's side, since the consumer is thoroughly shat upon by Apple's rules. The agreement demands that merchants on the Apple platform actively mislead the consumer about their purchasing options.
At that point, whatever one may think of Epic's preferences, motives, or ethics, becomes moot. It is not unlawful to hold market power, or to use it for profit, but it is unlawful (at least where I live) to wield market power to mislead the consumer, and that's where Apple slides off the rails. However by taking direct action, Epic have the burden of proof, unless a governmental regulator decides to shoulder it first.
Of course none of this actually relates to the judgement in the article, which is about Apple's embarrassingly nonsensical counterclaims, amounting to "competing with Apple shouldn't be allowed at all because then we make less money". I struggle to comprehend the magnitude of over-entitled, self-absorbed groupthink that could lead to making such a claim with a straight face.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, I think Apple's in the right here. Every developer agrees to the App Store rules before releasing their applications. Apple created guidelines for their developers and they're simply taking advantage of that in court. Not saying I agree with it, but it doesn't go without reason.
That's not really the core of the argument here. Epic is arguing that Apple's terms themselves (taking a cut of the revenue that's a direct result of Epic's team's efforts with zero options to do anything else) are not fair and should be unenforceable given its market position. Basically, breach of contract is only a valid legal basis when the contract itself is deemed legally acceptable. Ex. you can't force someone…
Apple’s case is arguing (at least in part) that no, epic could not have made all of that money if Apple didn’t first put a hundred billion dollars and 10 years worth of investment into iPhone and iOS.