I believe Epic has a point, and don't believe Epic forfeited anything by agreeing to the original Apple contract. Contracts are re-negotiated often, even iron-clad ones. Business is often about exerting influence based on a company's popularity with consumers. Apple commands its price premium because of this.
Regardless of the proposed motives for it, Epic has a point in wanting consumers to have a choice that Apple doesn't want to give. The device isn't a rental, and without the App Store ecosystem the value of the device we are paying for is much less. They go together.
But here is where I believe Apple should get a pass. Desktop computers that Epic references are much more forgiving of any kind of program run on it. Epic is trying to get the same system applied to mobile devices which are finely-tuned for battery life, performance, and security. If Apple ever is made to allow other app stores on its devices, it should be able to indemnify itself from offering support for the device, unless the device is wiped to a factory refreshed state.
Apple's promises about its devices are based on its mobile operating system and software working exactly as Apple intended. Apple should not have to support anything it doesn't create itself, because mobile devices are different. I would not take advantage of a third-party App Store for this reason. But if others want to, and sign away their ability to have Apple fix any problems that arise, they should be allowed to do that because they bought the device outright. It's not being licensed to them.
The difficulty is that the hardware is purchased by the user and the software is licensed to the user. Does the hardware work without the software? Unless you have a significant amount of skill and the time to apply it by installing other software (that you may well have to create), the answer is no.
This is the trade-off; software enables the modification of features available on a device after its purchase in a way that is impossible for entirely physical devices, but the hidden cost now becoming apparent is that you no longer have full ownership of a device. In some cases that is a severe drawback. In others, like a smartphone... how much of a harm is it? It is still legal to try jailbreaking an iPhone (in the US), so go for it if you've got that itch, but make sure you know the full extent of the risks. "Phones" are regulated devices and the regulations are different from "computer" devices because the feature set is different. If my desktop computer had to guarantee the success of a connection to emergency services, I fully expect I would not be able to futz around with it to my heart's content.
Epic chose to muddy the waters in this situation by breaking the terms of their contract with Apple. They could have sued Apple over the alleged illegality of the contract at any time after signing it - becoming party to a contract means you have legal standing to object to it.
Violating the contract terms after more than a decade of compliance, with net revenues of more than US$600 million over that time frame, is not simply a breach of the civil code. It prompts numerous questions, and focusses the discussion on the contract law aspect of the situation. Epic's lawyers are presumably not incompetent and would have advised the company to avoid this course of action. Therefore Epic has wilfully and knowingly embarked on a course of action to bring harm upon themselves, publicly, presumably in hope that the final outcome will outweigh the damage.
I really don't think the people who chose this approach thought all of this through carefully enough.
I believe Epic has a point, and don't believe Epic forfeited anything by agreeing to the original Apple contract. Contracts are re-negotiated often, even iron-clad ones. Business is often about exerting influence based on a company's popularity with consumers. Apple commands its price premium because of this.
Regardless of the proposed motives for it, Epic has a point in wanting consumers to have a choice that Apple doesn't want to give. The device isn't a rental, and without the App Store ecosystem the value of the device we are paying for is much less. They go together.
But here is where I believe Apple should get a pass. Desktop computers that Epic references are much more forgiving of any kind of program run on it. Epic is trying to get the same system applied to mobile devices which are finely-tuned for battery life, performance, and security. If Apple ever is made to allow other app stores on its devices, it should be able to indemnify itself from offering support for the device, unless the device is wiped to a factory refreshed state.
Apple's promises about its devices are based on its mobile operating system and software working exactly as Apple intended. Apple should not have to support anything it doesn't create itself, because mobile devices are different. I would not take advantage of a third-party App Store for this reason. But if others want to, and sign away their ability to have Apple fix any problems that arise, they should be allowed to do that because they bought the device outright. It's not being licensed to them.
I agree with your point that phones are different than PC's or even laptops in that they must be hyper optimized in order to create a good experience. Apple invests a ton of R&D to achieve that. In this sense, iPhones are closer to consoles than they are to laptops. And Tim Epic has said he's ok with paying 30% to a console company.
I disagree with your indemnity idea though. Even if users could sign a waiver and forfeit all support in order to 'root' their phone and do what they want, Apple would still get publicly raked over the coals if there was any performance decline or vulnerability exposed. App store approval is also one of the tools Apple uses to ensure apps keep current with evolving hardware and OS capabilities. An old, poorly written app downloaded from some third party store might still be 32 bit, or drain your battery, or include nefarious code, or, or, or... And the user would say "This iPhone sucks!".
Apple is getting raked over the coals right now. The Microsoft Xcloud issue comes to mind. So Apple maintaining the status quo has a downside also.
The reason I posted is I believe a consumer should have the right to use a device the way that person wants to, even to make the device worse. That's why I said Apple should have the ability to distance itself from people who use the product differently than Apple intended. Precedents are being set on the future of products with these sorts of decisions. I am going to follow manufacturers instructions 99% of the time, but having the ability to change things, or go a different way, is a key to being an owner of something.
If you are still here, why haven't you answered my question at 1:36pm? It was a sincere question to you to explain your position. I was not impolite with you. I'm just trying my best to understand you. I truly am.
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. I answered your question by saying I didn't understand the question. Why would you need to sell a device that doesn't have access to the App Store. Google doesn't block access to the play store because you have other apps on your device. You're creating an arbitrary situation in my opinion.
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. I answered your question by saying I didn't understand the question. Why would you need to sell a device that doesn't have access to the App Store. Google doesn't block access to the play store because you have other apps on your device. You're creating an arbitrary situation in my opinion.
If you examine the time stamps, you will see that your answer was posted 60 seconds before mine. That's why I didn't read your post. I will read it now.
Your position is somewhat middle of the road. Let me ask you a question. What if Apple offered a version of the iPhone which let users download ANYTHING they want, but that phone didn't come with any apps from Apple or any Apple services? In that case, would you still suggest that Apple should still be forced to open up iOS to uncontrolled apps (even though you said the warranty should be voided)? I've asked this question at least twice on AppleInsider threads and I haven't seen anyone answer it yet.
Instead of middle of the road, how about reasonable.
I don't understand your question. Why would a person who has downloaded third-party apps from a different store be blocked from the App Store. How is Apple being hurt by allowing apps for a phone that also has sideloaded or other apps on it. That phone can't corrupt the App Store. I'm not seeing what would be gained except for Apple to punitively keep customers who go elsewhere from downloading from their store.
Very few people want a third-party App Store. My post was about the right for an owner of a device to be able to do different things with it than the manufacturer wants. It's a principle thing right now which could lead to policy on future products made by many companies. Like the right to fix laws, the right to use software on devices is a potential right that we all might want in the future. That's all my post was about.
Your suggestion would segregate Apple devices on the used market. And it would be hard to know if you were buying a device that had App Store access or not. It would be pretty confusing and not what I think anybody would want.
AN EXAMPLE TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND:
If I asked you, "if Apple made pink phones, would people buy it?" Would your response be: "Why would Apple make pink phones?"
MY ACTUAL QUESTION WAS:
"If Apple made phones that didn't come with iOS or Apple Apps or Apple Services, would people buy it?" Yet your response was: "Why would a person be blocked from the App Store?"
...BECAUSE THAT WAS MY PREMISE!! Now do you understand? I asked you a hypothetical question and the only thing you said in response was to deny the question. That's called avoiding the question. Nobody is willing to answer my question, and this is the core of the issue. Are you willing to try again?
Then you went on to say that any phone Apple created that didn't allow access to the App Store would be confusing to consumers. Really? Even if Apple coloured it in Orange and rebranded it as "uPhone"? You aren't very imaginative.
Sorry, I'm a bit frustrated because nobody has answered my simple question in days. But you aren't the only one is not answering. So I'm not frustrated because of you. It's the whole world that's refusing to answer this simple question.
I saw another story detailing how Epic lost it 60% of it's iOS users, something like 20 % of total users and $29M per month over the App Store dispute. I wonder if they're having second thoughts? I'm guessing this blew up in a way they either weren't expecting, were hoping to avoid or weren't totally prepared for but now they're obligated to plow forward because they can't go back.
If that's true, I guess Epic would prefer 100% of nothing than 70% of something.
I'm guessing they would prefer 70% of something but gambled and guessed wrong so now the only way forward is a lawsuit.
Comments
This is the trade-off; software enables the modification of features available on a device after its purchase in a way that is impossible for entirely physical devices, but the hidden cost now becoming apparent is that you no longer have full ownership of a device. In some cases that is a severe drawback. In others, like a smartphone... how much of a harm is it? It is still legal to try jailbreaking an iPhone (in the US), so go for it if you've got that itch, but make sure you know the full extent of the risks. "Phones" are regulated devices and the regulations are different from "computer" devices because the feature set is different. If my desktop computer had to guarantee the success of a connection to emergency services, I fully expect I would not be able to futz around with it to my heart's content.
Violating the contract terms after more than a decade of compliance, with net revenues of more than US$600 million over that time frame, is not simply a breach of the civil code. It prompts numerous questions, and focusses the discussion on the contract law aspect of the situation. Epic's lawyers are presumably not incompetent and would have advised the company to avoid this course of action. Therefore Epic has wilfully and knowingly embarked on a course of action to bring harm upon themselves, publicly, presumably in hope that the final outcome will outweigh the damage.
I really don't think the people who chose this approach thought all of this through carefully enough.
AN EXAMPLE TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND:
MY ACTUAL QUESTION WAS:
...BECAUSE THAT WAS MY PREMISE!! Now do you understand? I asked you a hypothetical question and the only thing you said in response was to deny the question. That's called avoiding the question. Nobody is willing to answer my question, and this is the core of the issue. Are you willing to try again?
Then you went on to say that any phone Apple created that didn't allow access to the App Store would be confusing to consumers. Really? Even if Apple coloured it in Orange and rebranded it as "uPhone"? You aren't very imaginative.
Sorry, I'm a bit frustrated because nobody has answered my simple question in days. But you aren't the only one is not answering. So I'm not frustrated because of you. It's the whole world that's refusing to answer this simple question.