Apple Reveals Line of Attack in App Store Trial Against Epic (bloomberg.com) 90
Apple plans to argue at a trial that developers and consumers will suffer if Epic Games succeeds in upending how the iPhone maker's app marketplace is run. From a report: Apple presented a California federal judge on Thursday with a road map of how it will push back against Epic in a high-stakes antitrust fight over how much the App Store charges developers. The filing comes ahead of a May 3 trial before the judge with no jury. In a summary of its legal arguments, Apple contends the 30% commission it charges most developers isn't anticompetitive as it's a typical fee across other mobile and online platforms. Moreover, the company argues taking a share of the revenue is justified by the billions of dollars it has invested in developing the proprietary infrastructure that underpins its App Store, including software development kits and application programming interfaces. The maker of Fortnite, which Apple removed from its store last year, accuses the iPhone maker's app store of being an illegal monopoly because developers are barred from making their iPhone and iPad apps available through their own websites. On Thursday, the game studio laid out its own arguments in the dispute, saying Apple's conduct harms innovation and allows it to profit at the expense of independent developers.
Very Interesting Trial! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's going to be fascinating to see how this turns out. This is really a trial to see if walled gardens are monopolistic or not.
And if they are, holy crap will that turn the current status quo of the entire internet on its head.
I'm sure Apple will win this (Score:1)
It reminds me of the Apple patents, about a decade ago. Apple asserted that they had something unique on a phone, and judges and juries rubber-stampted their verdict. Not sure what chance Epic Games has against a company that is more powerful than all but superpower countries, and can buy whatever justice they desire.
Re:Very Interesting Trial! (Score:4, Insightful)
I am on both sides with this.
On one hand, for whatever device I choose to use, I would want to be able to choose what software I run on my device, and not be dictated by the hardware maker that said software is acceptable or not.
On the other hand, I want to be sure that stuff I download for my device which I use for a whole slew of jobs, is properly working, secure, and not trying to funnel money from me in the background.
The Walled Garden makes sure that the pretty flowers are not trampled by the normal riff-raft, but also restricts my access to go see its beauty because I may not be allowed in when I want to be their.
Re:Very Interesting Trial! (Score:5, Informative)
You can have both, though. Android already has something like this. The Play Store is a walled garden. But you can install other stores. Or install apps directly. The process would probably be more streamlined if there were regulations, but technically, the solution is straightforward.
Re: (Score:2)
You can have both, though. Android already has something like this. The Play Store is a walled garden. But you can install other stores. Or install apps directly. The process would probably be more streamlined if there were regulations, but technically, the solution is straightforward.
Not only can we have both, but we do have both. Apple has proven this to us for decades now through the Macintosh and macOS.
It's only over the past decade or so that Apple has been wanting to take that away from us.
Re: (Score:2)
Except non-Play Store offerings are more like a minefield - other than maybe FreeDroid and Amazon, are there any repositories that actually are safe? I mean, a new Android malware variant gets released almost daily and the fir
Re: Very Interesting Trial! (Score:2)
I just download software directly from github. The source is there for everybody to see.
Re: Very Interesting Trial! (Score:2)
I would rather pay $0.99 from my wallet than my time.
Re: Very Interesting Trial! (Score:2)
While time is certainly more valuable than tiny amounts of money, getting software from someone who demonstrates professionalism and transparency on github is a sign that the software will be of higher quality, and therefore a better use of your time while you use it.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact I always point out that it'd actually be better for customer safety and Apple if they did this. A business can't be both the high end luxury dealership *and* the sells everything for everyone store. The two sides just don't combine well and both sides suffer for it. Apple's walled garden would be vastly improved by being able to focus on luxury software and not being the dollar store.
On the flip side, being able to install third party stores means you can buy from that dollar store if you want.
Re: (Score:3)
I am on both sides with this. On one hand, for whatever device I choose to use, I would want to be able to choose what software I run on my device, and not be dictated by the hardware maker that said software is acceptable or not. On the other hand, I want to be sure that stuff I download for my device which I use for a whole slew of jobs, is properly working, secure, and not trying to funnel money from me in the background.
The Walled Garden makes sure that the pretty flowers are not trampled by the normal riff-raft, but also restricts my access to go see its beauty because I may not be allowed in when I want to be their.
So it's almost as if life has trade-offs? ;)
Re: (Score:1)
> whole slew of jobs, is properly working, secure, and not trying to funnel money from me in
> the background.
too late [slashdot.org].
The walled garden did not deliver. So much for the "the revenue is justified by the billions of dollars it has invested in developing the proprietary infrastructure" argument.
Re: Very Interesting Trial! (Score:2)
The walled garden did not deliver. So much for the "the revenue is justified by the billions of dollars it has invested in developing the proprietary infrastructure" argument.
Oh, Really?
Where, pray tell, could Apple go and purchase off the shelf software for something that would have all of the various features of their App Store?
So, given that it is not possible (and certainly wasn't in 2008) for Apple to call up and order an "App Store", then that kinda leaves Development of one, now doesn't it?
Also, it is important to keep in mind that an "App Store" has some unique things that make it a far more complex ecommerce platform than your typical online retailer. That's what costs
Re: (Score:2)
On one hand, for whatever device I choose to use, I would want to be able to choose what software I run on my device, and not be dictated by the hardware maker that said software is acceptable or not.
On the other hand, I want to be sure that stuff I download for my device which I use for a whole slew of jobs, is properly working, secure, and not trying to funnel money from me in the background.
The presence of additional app stores does not preclude the ability for stores to review software vendors and their software. It may very well be that some stores would specialize in quality over volume or security over volume giving you higher assurances than would otherwise be possible from a single vendor controlled store.
Almost as important the technology does not exist for app stores to provide meaningful assurances of anything. Protecting devices from software while practically useful in some contex
Re: Very Interesting Trial! (Score:2)
The way forward is architecting systems to better isolate software in trust challenged environments such that running even maximally malicious software does not negatively affect operation of device nor automatically confer a capability of interfering with operation of other software.
Wow! What a great idea! Maybe we could call something like that a, a, Sandbox, or something...
But all of that falls down the instant you allow the User to let the App do things that violate that impossible-in-practice ideal, in order to actually make something that is less trouble than it is worth for anyone but the most ardent security expert to put up with.
So, one of the compromises that Apple has chosen to help balance usability and security is their App-Review and Approval process.
Perfect? No. B
Re: (Score:2)
Wow! What a great idea! Maybe we could call something like that a, a, Sandbox, or something...
The architecture needs to be changed so that jails are tractable to defend from escape. Complexity needs to look more like a hypervisor and less like a general purpose execution environment. Right now these so called sandboxes are made out of Swiss cheese for which there is an endless stream of escalation vulnerabilities to show for it.
But all of that falls down the instant you allow the User to let the App do things that violate that impossible-in-practice ideal, in order to actually make something that is less trouble than it is worth for anyone but the most ardent security expert to put up with.
The limits of constraining unnecessary damage from apps are nowhere near realized in any current mobile platform. These things do not have to increase complexity for users.
Re: (Score:2)
>The Walled Garden makes sure that the pretty flowers are not trampled by the normal riff-raft, but also restricts my access to go see its beauty because I may not be allowed in when I want to be their.
Except Apple's edition totally fails at vetting apps. There are plenty of examples of this. Just the other day someone lost 600k+ to a bitcoin theft due to a fraudulent app.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
They are though.
That was never up for discussion.
The monopolists just tried to shift the discussion.
The reason monopolism is a problem at all, is because corporations use it to blackmail people. E.g. with unacceptable prices for unacceptable products. The problem is that you don't have a choice.
With lock-in / walled gardens, it's the exact same thing, but localized to a marketplace. And the criminals think that offers them the excuse of "But they got a choice!".
Yeah, but the "choice" was made before the pro
Re: (Score:2)
And if they are, holy crap will that turn the current status quo of the entire internet on its head.
What? How? I don't even think this is about walled gardens at all. The Google Play Store is a walled garden. This is about hardware freedom. Apple prevents its users from getting software for their iPhone from anyone but Apple, and that hurts Epic.
re: hardware freedom (Score:2)
So all the game console makers should open them up so users can install software from anyone who wants to publish some for them, too?
I'm not sure that would result in much motivation to build and market any new consoles....
Re: (Score:2)
So all the game console makers should open them up so users can install software from anyone who wants to publish some for them, too?
Yes. That would be better for consumers since they could do whatever they wanted with their hardware, and it would lower the cost of the software.
I'm not sure that would result in much motivation to build and market any new consoles....
Why not? Samsung doesn't get a cut of all apps that run on their phones. Dell and Microsoft don't get a cut of all sales in Windows.
A weak argument; good. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The theory is less money going to Apple means worse OS, apps, security, etc. That the costs for those other parts are subsidized or paid for by the store fees. I say to charge for them separately.
Want your iPhone to crash more often? Or have fewer features, slower? Then don't give Apple the money to do that work. And no, your $1500 or whatever purchase price does not pay enough for that all (high hardware costs for the cutting edge stuff, going to manufacturers of those parts). Especially if you keep
Re: (Score:2)
If Apple Charges less, they will have less staff to properly review the code of these 3rd party products, allowing for a lot more malicious apps to be available at the store.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because Apple does not make any profit, and could not in any way afford extra staff. If they charged less and hired more staff they probably would be bankrupt in only 50 or 100 years.
Re: A weak argument; good. (Score:1)
Justice is blind, but Apple has a loud voice. (Score:2)
While the little guy can win in our justice system, unfortunately the odds are stacked against them. Apple is a lot bigger than Epic, While Epic isn't a small fry, compared to Apple they have a real uphill battle. Apple can hire a bunch of lawyers, plus they probably already have a good legal team full time, who can spend a lot of time and effort to come up with a very solid defense, and even a slew of weak defenses.
When you have a lot of resources you can use a strategy of throwing whatever you got and s
Re: (Score:2)
Apple can hire a bunch of lawyers, plus they probably already have a good legal team full time, who can spend a lot of time and effort to come up with a very solid defense, and even a slew of weak defenses.
Epic can and does all that, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
So far as I'm aware there's no law that a device manufacturer must allow consumers to install whatever software they would like on the device. That might be a nice law to have, but we don't, so I doubt any judge will be "laughing them out of court."
I don't see the connection (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple is arguing that their fees are reasonable. Epic is arguing that they should be allowed to release apps without going through the App Store. If Apple convinces a judge that their fees are reasonable, is that sufficient to show that it's acceptable for them to lock iOS users into using the App Store?
It seems like they're arguing two different points, and that they could both be correct. As in, maybe Epic should be allowed to bypass the App Store even if App Store fees are reasonable. I'm hoping someone more in touch with the law can enlighten me.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it is a case of 'go with what ya got'. Epic's main complaint is that Apple has a 100% monopoly on retailing IOS apps, that they maintain that monopoly with technical and contractural measures, and that said monopoly is illegal under anti-trust law. Apple can't really counter any of that, so they build a strawman that the issue is the 30%, and they argue against that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But Epic is stretching of the term "monopoly". Apple has 1/3rd of the market of smartphones. Sure, they have 100% of the market of iOS phones, like Sony has 100% of the market of Playstation, Amazon 100% of the market of Kindles etc.
I use an Android exactly because of how iOS limits what I can install on it, but for iOS it's actually a feature. Most people who own iPhones do want that experience that limits what apps can do and what apps can get into your phone in exchange of less spam, malicious apps etc.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I can buy Playstation games on Amazon, at Walmart, at Best Buy, at Game Stop, etc. I can get ebooks for my Kindle from anywhere. I can buy IOS apps from ...
Re: (Score:1)
I can buy Playstation games on Amazon, at Walmart, at Best Buy, at Game Stop, etc. I can get ebooks for my Kindle from anywhere. I can buy IOS apps from ...
Eh, a physical playstation game that you can buy at Walmart requires a huge cost. Sony doesn't take a cut, as they don't help with that at all, it's up to you. If you are a small developer without a publishing house and want a digital download, the PSN store is your only choice, which takes a 30% cut.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can I write game on my PC, burn it to a blu-ray, and sell it to my friends to play on their Playstations?
According to Quora [quora.com] (risky, I know), the answer is "no." You need to sign up to be a part of their developer program and comply with their ToS. I can't do what Epic is effectively asking for, which would be to distribute software to users of the platform with no involvement from the manufacturer.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure whataboutisms are not a legal defense. Multiple parties doing something illegal does not magically make it legal. For example, the police are not restricted from ticketting YOU for speeding just because other people were also speeding.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple needs to be reigned in, for sure, but Epic is being incredibly disingenuous with their arguments here, and while your point is true, it really isn’t applicable here.
Epic is trying to argue that the App Store is abusing a monopoly position, that the fees are unjustified and usurious, and that there must be a way to bypass all of that...all of which is equally or more true of the various gaming consoles with which Epic has had business relationships for decades. If Epic actually thought this behav
Re: (Score:2)
But Epic is stretching of the term "monopoly". Apple has 1/3rd of the market of smartphones.
They do not. 30% gives Apple the power to control the market. A mobile application developer simply can't ignore iOS. For example, we're building a mobile collaboration app and we HAVE to support iOS because otherwise this app is doomed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From my limited non-legal understanding, under most anti-trust laws it's not control that is the problem, but abuse of control. One of the primary abuses that anti-trust is supposed to curb is price gouging. By arguing they offer reasonable fees, they could protect themselves from anti-trust action because they are not abusing their position.
To me it seems Apple is more exposed in areas where they have subscription services tied into their walled garden. Using one monopoly to muscle into another one is a
Re: I don't see the connection (Score:2)
The real question is whether Apple is abusing their dominant market position. They are basically in a duopoly when it comes to smartphone OSes (iOS vs Android) or digital stores on smartphones. If Apple was a tiny player there would be no legal basis to sue them on. Such a duopoly does not exist when it comes to e.g. video game consoles, since in addition to Nintendo there is also Sony, Microsoft, PC gaming platforms (Steam for example). But for smartphones they have a point. Apple should allow users to run
Re: (Score:2)
Apple argues ... (Score:2)
that without the iphone developers would not have a market, this supposedly justifies the high price for putting something in the app store. However: if there were not any apps ie the phones just had: phone, SMS, address book, camera - how many people would pay over the odds for an apple phone ? Quite apart from if the iphone did not exist then people would buy android or whatever - the mobile phone is very much a product of its time, it would have appeared even if Apple did not exist.
Re: (Score:2)
However: if there were not any apps ie the phones just had: phone, SMS, address book, camera - how many people would pay over the odds for an apple phone ?
Wait, how old are you, you don't remember? The original iPhone came out with no support for 3rd party apps. Its camera was crap (by the then standards - so was its display, my 2-years older PDA had twice the resolution). It didn't even support things standard for other phones of the time like MMS! And they tried to sell it at a stupid expensive price of $499 for the minimum version, WITH A 2 YEAR CONTRACT! And it sold like hot cakes, people formed lines outside stores waiting for its release.
Apps were not a
Re: (Score:2)
The original iPhone came out with no support for 3rd party apps.
That's not exactly true. The original iPhone expected developers to create web apps using HTML and Javascript, hosted not he developers own servers and pushed to the phone without an App Store. But there was far too much that a web app simply couldn't do, and developers pushed (hard) for Apple to provide a native SDK. That's when the App Store came to be.
The iPhone (and iPad) today still allow for running web apps, and you can still put an icon for a web app on your home page (as they originally intended
Walled Garned - nee HoA (Score:2, Insightful)
Hm.
I tend to view Apple's Walled Garden as a kind of Homeowner's Association. I bought the house, therefore I live with the T&C. If others don't want to adhere to the T&C, then they get a fine and they must rectify what they're doing. This ensures that my home isn't messed up by a neighbor who "behaves badly".
Of course, it's not a perfect analogy. But, I don't have to live there... I can risk "troublesome" neighbors if I want. I don't need to have an iPhone either.
Re: (Score:2)
It could be a better analogy if railroads charged you 30% of your sale price for delivering your goods using trains, except they do not do it. They would be out of business if
Re: (Score:2)
Legitimately asking -
On the non-Play stores on Android devices that don't charge app developers a commission, are the prices for paid apps generally 30% lower?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except it is not a good analogy. Since users do not care what Apple charges developers for being in Apple store. The better analogy is the mafia extortion - you sell on our street, you pay us "protection" money. In return we make sure that nothing bad happens to you from another mafia. Except in Apple's case there is no other mafia.
Let's see.
In my analogy, I care what the HoA charges, because the cost is always passed onto the buyer. If the landscaper charges the HoA more, that cost is passed on to me.
I'm hiring Apple to protect me with the walled garden. If I don't like it, I move on. If I stay, I presume the added cost for Fortnite is passed on to me.
It could be a better analogy if railroads charged you 30% of your sale price for delivering your goods using trains, except they do not do it. They would be out of business if they did.
Re: (Score:2)
What a terrible analogy. First, your analogy only has two parties, you and the HOA. Second, your HOA is not a business. Third, your HOA has sway on only a minuscule fraction of homes in the world.
So let's fix your analogy. Your HOA controls between 1/3 and 1/2 of all homes in the entire world. Your HOA is a business, and operates a store. Your HOA restricts you, through contracts and technology, to only purchasing products through their store. Think some third parties (retailers, manufacturers, etc)
Re: (Score:2)
What a terrible analogy. First, your analogy only has two parties, you and the HOA. Second, your HOA is not a business. Third, your HOA has sway on only a minuscule fraction of homes in the world.
So let's fix your analogy. Your HOA controls between 1/3 and 1/2 of all homes in the entire world. Your HOA is a business, and operates a store. Your HOA restricts you, through contracts and technology, to only purchasing products through their store. Think some third parties (retailers, manufacturers, etc) would have a problem with that?
First, I could move.
Second, there are whole businesses around HoAs. And boards. And politics. And operations. To say it's "not a business" suggests that all the companies that offer property management is... ahem... "not a business".
Third, I don't have to play apps and games on my iPhone. I could play them on my Switch. Or my PS4. Or my Xbox. Do you think those others offer a "fairer" deal than Apple?
Re: (Score:2)
No part of this case concerns the USERs of Apple products. Your ability to move does absolutely NOTHING for the retailers who are unable to sell to people whose property is controlled by the HOA. Property management companies are not ... ahem... HOAs. HOAs may HIRE a property management company. And no property management company is mandating that all products used by households in the HOA must be purchased from them.
Again, it doesn't matter one iota whether or not YOU have multiple options for playing
Re: (Score:2)
No part of this case concerns the USERs of Apple products. Your ability to move does absolutely NOTHING for the retailers who are unable to sell to people whose property is controlled by the HOA. Property management companies are not ... ahem... HOAs. HOAs may HIRE a property management company. And no property management company is mandating that all products used by households in the HOA must be purchased from them.
Again, it doesn't matter one iota whether or not YOU have multiple options for playing games. Neither you nor any other USER is involved in this case. It is purely about THIRD PARTIES and their access to people who use IOS products.
The HOAs you deal with differ greatly from the ones I deal with. Many dictate what products are allowed to be installed onto my house, dictates colors, and dictates locations. If that doesn't affect "the user" then I guess I need more information from you.
Since I'm the user it affects me. If I want to play Fortnite but Apple and Epic have a tiff, I can get a different phone. Epic doesn't like what they contractually agreed to, so that's on them. I have to decide if my iPhone is an impediment to my joy.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you being deliberately obtuse? I already said your analogy sucked, and you keep proving it. Yes, an HOA can make those rules, and nobody is claiming otherwise. However, your decision to live there and abide by those rules is between YOU and the HOA. There is no third party involved. But the actual case (not your stupid analogy) is ENTIRELY about how third parties are impacted by your decision to live there and abide by those rules, not how YOU are impacted.
Furthermore, even though the HOA says what
Re: (Score:2)
Are you being deliberately obtuse? I already said your analogy sucked, and you keep proving it.
Well, if YOU say so, then it MUST be true.
Yes, an HOA can make those rules, and nobody is claiming otherwise. However, your decision to live there and abide by those rules is between YOU and the HOA. There is no third party involved. But the actual case (not your stupid analogy) is ENTIRELY about how third parties are impacted by your decision to live there and abide by those rules, not how YOU are impacted.
Furthermore, even though the HOA says what products, colors, etc are allowed, that is not anti-competitive. Why? Because the HOA is not (exclusively) selling you those products.
So the HOA can control what I can buy, but that's not anticompetitive. Gotcha. Pray tell, in this Epic case, how is Apple telling me what I can and cannot buy? Epic is the one that pulled out of the App Store. From my seat, Epic made the decision for me. Not Apple, and not any other third party.
In addition, even if the HOA WAS selling those products, the HOA is such a relatively tiny market as to have no real impact on any would-be competitors.
So back to what the analogy SHOULD be. The HOA controls 1/3 to 1/2 of ALL HOMES in the world. The HOA runs a store, and says that any product brought onto HOA controlled property MUST be purchased through their store. I, a farmer, wish to sell you some corn. I have only two choices, ignore the 1/3 to 1/2 of the households under control of your HOA, or agree to whatever terms your store offers, no matter how onerous they may be. Oddly enough, I do not expect you to move to a new home just so I can sell some corn. But that is EXACTLY what you expect app developers to do.
So you agree, there are choices, and Apple isn't the only choice. And your new analogy is way worse than mine... corn, houses, farming? Please....
Re: (Score:2)
Do you even have a clue what anti-competitive means? It means denying others from entering a market where you have a dominant position. What market, exactly, do you think your HOA is in? Who is a would-be competitor to your HOA? How, exactly, is your HOA keeping them from competing in that market?
And, for the umpteenth time, the caase has NOTHING TO DO with Apple controlling what YOU can BUY. Stop making up strawmen. The case is completely about Apple controlling WHO CAN SELL and HOW THEY CAN SELL. R
Re: (Score:2)
Do you even have a clue what anti-competitive means? It means denying others from entering a market where you have a dominant position. What market, exactly, do you think your HOA is in? Who is a would-be competitor to your HOA? How, exactly, is your HOA keeping them from competing in that market?
And, for the umpteenth time, the caase has NOTHING TO DO with Apple controlling what YOU can BUY. Stop making up strawmen. The case is completely about Apple controlling WHO CAN SELL and HOW THEY CAN SELL. Repeat that a billion times until it sinks into your thick skull.
Have we met? Do we know each other? For some reason, you seem very upset at me. Why resort to ad-hominim attacks?
Are you hangry?.. if so, eat a snickers so and we can talk after you feel better.
In the meantime, I am very aware of what anti-competitive means. I am also aware of what a strawman is, and you're definition misses the mark.
If I want to sell via the Apple App store, there are very few barriers. I submit that - other than having to code up a workable app - the barriers are lower than starting a bri
Re: (Score:2)
You must buy Comcast and as we very kid friendly hear
adult PPV is blocked
adult VOD is blocked
PPV events must be approved one by one.
R rated movies must be approved one by one.
Out of market Sports packages have an added 30% fee to cover the HOA access fee.
We only have FOX news and locals as you news channels.
Good luck Epic! (Score:2)
While I don't own an iphone nor am I likely to make an app for the iphone, it does seem like they have a monopoly on what apps you are allowed to load on the device.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you can't side load on iphones making apple the sole arbiter of what can be loaded onto the iphone that a customer bought.
This also seems like an Apple only problem because in Android land you can use different app stores and side load apps. You don't have to ever go out of the Google Play store but you are not lock
Re: (Score:2)
I can't load arbitrary apps onto a Playstation, XBox, or Kindle either. Nor do I expect do, because, just as with iOS devices, it was never advertised that such a thing was possible. It certainly doesn't seem like there's any law indicating that it has to be.
The amount charged by apple is only high given the fact that they have zero competition.
Google Play charges the same commission despite the fact that there's competition, so that really doesn't seem to be the case.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't load arbitrary apps onto a Playstation, XBox, or Kindle either. Nor do I expect do, because, just as with iOS devices, it was never advertised that such a thing was possible. It certainly doesn't seem like there's any law indicating that it has to be.
The issue isn't advertised capabilities. The problem flows from the creation of a totally captive market consisting of millions of independent vendors.
If a console platform vendor wants to write all if its own software, contract it out or partner with third parties on any terms the parties agree to then god bless all of them. None of this is a problem.
However the second a marketplace exists so do commensurate anti-trust interests in regulating said market.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose this all really comes down to how we define the bounds of "the market." Is "the market" composed of "users of personal computing devices"? If so, it seems absurd to claim that Apple has monopolistic control given desktops/laptops. Is it "users of smartphones"? Still seems like a stretch, given that Android has a larger market share. Or, is the market to be regulated "people using an iPhone"? Who decides where we draw these boundaries, and how?
My opinion is that it should be up to consumers -
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-trust laws are not 'supposed to be protecting' consumers. They are supposed to be protecting competition (which may not directly affect consumers for a long time).
As for letting the consumers decide - how many people put ANY thought into whether or not a developer has mulitple outlets for his product when they decide what phone to buy? Very, very few if any. This gives APPLE, not the consumer, enormous power over the developers because there is no competetion allowed. This is what anti-trust laws a
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose this all really comes down to how we define the bounds of "the market." Is "the market" composed of "users of personal computing devices"? If so, it seems absurd to claim that Apple has monopolistic control given desktops/laptops. Is it "users of smartphones"? Still seems like a stretch, given that Android has a larger market share. Or, is the market to be regulated "people using an iPhone"? Who decides where we draw these boundaries, and how?
The market in this case is software sales to iPhone users. It was decided by Apple when they created the marketplace.
My opinion is that it should be up to consumers - the ones who these anti-trust laws are supposed to be protecting.
If the means of production amounted to slave laborers and subhuman working conditions should it be up to the consumers to decide if this is ok?
No of course not this whole concept is preposterous. For one the consumer has no access to underlying details and the consumer is NOT the entity being harmed. The consumer is irrelevant.
The same applies here. Those selling software are the party be
Re: (Score:2)
At one point, we could put linux on a playstation. The xbox hard drive can be taken out and the whole hardware repurposed if you so desired.
Both console and ereaders are very purpose made devices. Our handheld computers with speakers, microphones, gps, storage and network connectivity along with at least one app store can do so many things it boggles the mind. Quite silly to compare an ereader to your phone.
Also, some ereaders actually let you use multiple ebook formats. Other vendors only let you use their
Re: (Score:2)
Sony removed the ability to run Linux on the PS3 (and then got sued for it, because it was a previously advertised capability). According to Quora [quora.com] (risky, I know) and some Googling it does not seem possible to run an arbitrary OS on an Xbox. It seems arbitrary to consider either of those devices more "purpose-made" than a smartphone. They're basically just PCs whose creators impose very strict requirements so that all the software that might run on them is highly optimized.
Fuck walled gardens.
For better or for worse, that p
Apples arguments are irrelevant (Score:2, Informative)
The entitled to what percentages arguments are an irrelevant distraction. They could charge 1% instead of 30% and it would make no difference. The issue at hand is Apples intentional maintenance of a captive market.
Google nullifies Apple's argument. (Score:2)
The fact that Google charges similar amounts, has similar expenses, and yet allows third party apps, completely nullifies this argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Google nullifies Apple's argument. (Score:2)
Apple also makes a huge amount of money via adverts. It's why every iPhone is affiliated with an advertising ID. Apple also forces all app developers to use their ad platform.
However this is not relevant to this discussion which is about app store royalties. Apple's argument is bogus because Google has the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Google nullifies Apple's argument. (Score:2)
Apple also forces all app developers to use their ad platform.
Apple closed-down their Ad Platform (iAd), in 2016.
Do try to keep up!
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly , it was another complete failure by apple.
Wrong.
Not that your cyberstalking little Trollish ass deserves a response; but Apple closed iAd down because they decided to move away from anything that even tangentially resembled Google's business model of "the Customer is the Product".
Load of B.S. (Score:2)
Moreover, the company argues taking a share of the revenue is justified by the billions of dollars it has invested in developing the proprietary infrastructure that underpins its App Store, including software development kits and application programming interfaces.
What a load of B.S.
Apple is giving away their software development kits and application programming interfaces for free
Per Apple's Developer Program [apple.com]:
"If you’re new to development on Apple Platforms, you can get started with our tools and resources for free."
And there are literally thousands upon thousands of free apps (Netflix, Amazon, Bank of America, Starbucks, etc) on their app store where Apple doesn't see any cent beyond the Apple Developer Program membership fee. If the annual $99 developer fee
End Epics Monoply. (Score:2)
I should be able to copy any Epic game and sell it without paying any remuneration to Epic. Their monopoly over the games they have produced should be broken!!!