It’s interesting to try to think about what it would look like if Epic to win this aspect of the suit, and Apple were forced to support third-party app stores. ... Somehow I wonder if Epic could really find themselves even more under Apple's thumb than they were before. It won’t be like in macOS, which seems to be what Sweeney is assuming. That seems like a big, BIG assumption, and possibly a fatal flaw in his thinking. Epic seems to think that Apple would be forced to allow side-loading, while more likely Epic’s store would have to conform to Apple’s requirements for such a store. Sure, they’d prevent Apple from getting a cut of their in-app purchases, but somehow I doubt the judge is going to say that Apple is supposed to provide support for Epic’s store for free!
You contradict yourself. Either you have to say Apple runs the Epic App Store rules, or Epic does. You can't have it both ways. Yet you said Epic has to conform to all of Apple's chosen requirements for an Epic App Store, then you say that those requirements don't include the 30% service fee. So tell me exactly which of the 500 rules in the Apple App Store Guidelines Epic will have to follow and which ones it won't.
Why are you always asking questions of other people that they could not possibly answer?
How the other app stores are granted permission to iOS is yet to be decided. Maybe it'll be wild west and anyone can install anything, but Apple swinging from one extreme to another seems unlikely. Most probable is that certain app stores are certified by Apple, for which they need to meet certain requirements. Apple will not have control over the other app stores, but they can still set policy for how apps are loaded, what permissions they have, and how they must declare privacy policies. Obviously that policy is going to be for Apple to decide, possibly with some consultation and/or court oversight.
Regarding para #2, I'm chuckling. You talk about "consultation" but you don't mention with whom. Then you mention courts also controlling Apple's Guidelines. Do you think a court in America even has jurisdiction over what Apple does outside of the US? So that means you are missing the whole point about who dictates the new and improved App Store Guidelines to Apple. Apple should never accept a separate App Store Guideline in every country of the world. Apple should stand firm and withdraw the third party app store from any nation which demands control over it. You want Apple to cede control of its App Store Guidelines to 200 different national courts and governments. It ain't gonna happen. You are living in a dream world.
Regarding your para #1, it's far more friendly to ask someone question than to accuse them of being wrong. You didn't even indicate which question you thought was impossible to answer.
It’s interesting to try to think about what it would look like if Epic to win this aspect of the suit, and Apple were forced to support third-party app stores. ... Somehow I wonder if Epic could really find themselves even more under Apple's thumb than they were before. It won’t be like in macOS, which seems to be what Sweeney is assuming. That seems like a big, BIG assumption, and possibly a fatal flaw in his thinking. Epic seems to think that Apple would be forced to allow side-loading, while more likely Epic’s store would have to conform to Apple’s requirements for such a store. Sure, they’d prevent Apple from getting a cut of their in-app purchases, but somehow I doubt the judge is going to say that Apple is supposed to provide support for Epic’s store for free!
You contradict yourself. Either you have to say Apple runs the Epic App Store rules, or Epic does. You can't have it both ways. Yet you said Epic has to conform to all of Apple's chosen requirements for an Epic App Store, then you say that those requirements don't include the 30% service fee. So tell me exactly which of the 500 rules in the Apple App Store Guidelines Epic will have to follow and which ones it won't.
Why are you always asking questions of other people that they could not possibly answer?
How the other app stores are granted permission to iOS is yet to be decided. Maybe it'll be wild west and anyone can install anything, but Apple swinging from one extreme to another seems unlikely. Most probable is that certain app stores are certified by Apple, for which they need to meet certain requirements. Apple will not have control over the other app stores, but they can still set policy for how apps are loaded, what permissions they have, and how they must declare privacy policies. Obviously that policy is going to be for Apple to decide, possibly with some consultation and/or court oversight.
Regarding para #2, I'm chuckling. You talk about "consultation" but you don't mention with whom. Then you mention courts also controlling Apple's Guidelines. Do you think a court in America even has jurisdiction over what Apple does outside of the US? So that means you are missing the whole point about who dictates the new and improved App Store Guidelines to Apple. Apple should never accept a separate App Store Guideline in every country of the world. Apple should stand firm and withdraw the third party app store from any nation which demands control over it. You want Apple to cede control of its App Store Guidelines to 200 different national courts and governments. It ain't gonna happen. You are living in a dream world.
If a court orders it and any appeal fails then it will happen. Your belligerence, even in bolded text, does not trump the law. Regarding everything else you say, obviously I don't know. I point that out in my reply, that no ones knows. The court will decide this, and if they rule against Apple it will likely come down to some sort of compromise where Apple makes an offer of how they could apply a third party app installation process, in consultation with other actors who would have an interest, and the court determines if it is acceptable. The jurisdiction of that decision will apply, but maybe Apple will make a general change to app stores in all jurisdictions in order to pre-empt further legal challenge. Obviously all of this is contingent on Apple losing the claim, and any appeals, which I doubt they will, and do not particularly want them to.
Despite your whining and pleas to the contrary, Apple is obliged to operate within the law of every country that it operates in. They won't be withdrawing from any state any time soon, that's your dream world.
Regarding your para #1, it's far more friendly to ask someone question than to accuse them of being wrong. You didn't even indicate which question you thought was impossible to answer.
You only asked one question: "So tell me exactly which of the 500 rules in the Apple App Store Guidelines Epic will have to follow and which ones it won't."
An utterly unreasonable question to ask, and you knew it.
Everyone tells me that I'm crazy for saying Apple could or should stop a third party app store in a jurisdiction if the law requires Apple to lose control over its own App Store Guidelines, but today there's a news story about Facebook permanently blocking all user links to any news site in Australia because Australia wants to introduce a 2 cent per click per link tax on any web page that links to an Australian news site. Basically Facebook would have to pay a 2 cent tax on every click on every link by a Facebook user to an Australian website. Google's payments for its own links would also be pretty steep.
So Facebook is doing nearly exactly what I'm saying Apple should do: a partial withdrawal from an international market.
Google's approach (so far) is not to pull out of Australia, but to try to negotiate a separate news deal with Australian news providers, perhaps to pre-empt the law.
I actually hope Australia passes this law, so we can see what companies like Facebook and Google do. I imagine that they will pull out of Australia. I'd like to see if the people of Australia support the removal of Google and Facebook, or if this causes the government to fail.
If a court orders it and any appeal fails then it will happen. Your belligerence, even in bolded text, does not trump the law. Regarding everything else you say, obviously I don't know. I point that out in my reply, that no ones knows. The court will decide this, and if they rule against Apple it will likely come down to some sort of compromise where Apple makes an offer of how they could apply a third party app installation process, in consultation with other actors who would have an interest, and the court determines if it is acceptable. The jurisdiction of that decision will apply, but maybe Apple will make a general change to app stores in all jurisdictions in order to pre-empt further legal challenge. Obviously all of this is contingent on Apple losing the claim, and any appeals, which I doubt they will, and do not particularly want them to.
Despite your whining and pleas to the contrary, Apple is obliged to operate within the law of every country that it operates in. They won't be withdrawing from any state any time soon, that's your dream world.
Hehe, you are constantly mis-representing what I say. I always want Apple to operate legally.
And your facts are wrong... Apple has ALREADY withdrawn or refused to enter certain countries due to the laws of that country. For example, Ethiopia, and many more.
And as I said in another post above, Facebook today has announced it is withdrawing some of its features from Australia because of an imminent law there. Although I hate Facebook, this proves that a big tech company can and should withdraw from major markets if their laws get ridiculous.
I'm still chuckling over your meaningless phrases like "in consultation with other actors who would have an interest". What does that even mean? It means nothing. That's a dream you're living in.
If a court orders it and any appeal fails then it will happen. Your belligerence, even in bolded text, does not trump the law. Regarding everything else you say, obviously I don't know. I point that out in my reply, that no ones knows. The court will decide this, and if they rule against Apple it will likely come down to some sort of compromise where Apple makes an offer of how they could apply a third party app installation process, in consultation with other actors who would have an interest, and the court determines if it is acceptable. The jurisdiction of that decision will apply, but maybe Apple will make a general change to app stores in all jurisdictions in order to pre-empt further legal challenge. Obviously all of this is contingent on Apple losing the claim, and any appeals, which I doubt they will, and do not particularly want them to.
Despite your whining and pleas to the contrary, Apple is obliged to operate within the law of every country that it operates in. They won't be withdrawing from any state any time soon, that's your dream world.
Hehe, you are constantly mis-representing what I say. I always want Apple to operate legally.
And your facts are wrong... Apple has ALREADY withdrawn or refused to enter certain countries due to the laws of that country. For example, Ethiopia, and many more.
And as I said in another post above, Facebook today has announced it is withdrawing some of its features from Australia because of an imminent law there. Although I hate Facebook, this proves that a big tech company can and should withdraw from major markets if their laws get ridiculous.
I'm still chuckling over your meaningless phrases like "in consultation with other actors who would have an interest". What does that even mean? It means nothing. That's a dream you're living in.
It doesn't mean nothing, it means that I don't know the names of every company that would want to run an app store and would have a commercial interest in the outcome of this complaint. Unlike you I don't claim knowledge or insight that I don't have.
If a court orders it and any appeal fails then it will happen. Your belligerence, even in bolded text, does not trump the law. Regarding everything else you say, obviously I don't know. I point that out in my reply, that no ones knows. The court will decide this, and if they rule against Apple it will likely come down to some sort of compromise where Apple makes an offer of how they could apply a third party app installation process, in consultation with other actors who would have an interest, and the court determines if it is acceptable. The jurisdiction of that decision will apply, but maybe Apple will make a general change to app stores in all jurisdictions in order to pre-empt further legal challenge. Obviously all of this is contingent on Apple losing the claim, and any appeals, which I doubt they will, and do not particularly want them to.
Despite your whining and pleas to the contrary, Apple is obliged to operate within the law of every country that it operates in. They won't be withdrawing from any state any time soon, that's your dream world.
Hehe, you are constantly mis-representing what I say. I always want Apple to operate legally.
And your facts are wrong... Apple has ALREADY withdrawn or refused to enter certain countries due to the laws of that country. For example, Ethiopia, and many more.
And as I said in another post above, Facebook today has announced it is withdrawing some of its features from Australia because of an imminent law there. Although I hate Facebook, this proves that a big tech company can and should withdraw from major markets if their laws get ridiculous.
I'm still chuckling over your meaningless phrases like "in consultation with other actors who would have an interest". What does that even mean? It means nothing. That's a dream you're living in.
It doesn't mean nothing, it means that I don't know the names of every company that would want to run an app store and would have a commercial interest in the outcome of this complaint. Unlike you I don't claim knowledge or insight that I don't have.
I think it’s likely to be mostly companies that rely on in-app purchases for their revenue, like Epic does. But I’m having a hard time thinking of other types of apps that rely on in-app revenue. I’m sure they must exist, but I’m drawing a blank. I feel like I’m forgetting something...
It’s interesting to try to think about what it would look like if Epic to win this aspect of the suit, and Apple were forced to support third-party app stores. ... Somehow I wonder if Epic could really find themselves even more under Apple's thumb than they were before. It won’t be like in macOS, which seems to be what Sweeney is assuming. That seems like a big, BIG assumption, and possibly a fatal flaw in his thinking. Epic seems to think that Apple would be forced to allow side-loading, while more likely Epic’s store would have to conform to Apple’s requirements for such a store. Sure, they’d prevent Apple from getting a cut of their in-app purchases, but somehow I doubt the judge is going to say that Apple is supposed to provide support for Epic’s store for free!
You contradict yourself. Either you have to say Apple runs the Epic App Store rules, or Epic does. You can't have it both ways. Yet you said Epic has to conform to all of Apple's chosen requirements for an Epic App Store, then you say that those requirements don't include the 30% service fee. So tell me exactly which of the 500 rules in the Apple App Store Guidelines Epic will have to follow and which ones it won't.
I appreciate everyone who is trying to come up with a compromise, but none of the compromises I have seen make sense yet.
My conclusion is that if Apple wins, then all apps sold on iOS remain under the jurisdiction of the Apple App Store Guidelines. But if Epic wins, none of the Apple App Store Guidelines apply to any software that is sold on other app stores. Basically the choice will result in a complete victory for Epic or a complete victory for Apple. Otherwise who decides which rules Apple's and Epic's stores must both adhere to? The government? The courts?
And if Apple suffers a complete defeat, then I think Apple would be wise to no longer support ANY third party app stores in iOS because it's just not profitable. Just like Walmart shuts down any stores that vote to unionize because Walmart claims that they are no longer profitable. How do you force a company to offer a service that it doesn't want to provide? You can't. When people realize this is the choice, they will beg lawmakers to allow OS providers to build walled gardens and charge people to be in them. But by then Apple may have permanently given up on a third party App Store. The irony is that if Apple completely loses this case and shuts down the third party app store, it gives Apple MORE control over its own software, which is exactly what Epic supporters don't want.
If that is the case, the best thing apple could do would be to close the App Store in its current format and have a system whereby they offer to pay developers a licensing fee to host and have a commission based model similar to music streaming. That would be the tactic I would take in those circumstances rather than being dictated to by greedy people like Sweeney.
Comments
Regarding para #2, I'm chuckling. You talk about "consultation" but you don't mention with whom. Then you mention courts also controlling Apple's Guidelines. Do you think a court in America even has jurisdiction over what Apple does outside of the US? So that means you are missing the whole point about who dictates the new and improved App Store Guidelines to Apple. Apple should never accept a separate App Store Guideline in every country of the world. Apple should stand firm and withdraw the third party app store from any nation which demands control over it. You want Apple to cede control of its App Store Guidelines to 200 different national courts and governments. It ain't gonna happen. You are living in a dream world.
Regarding your para #1, it's far more friendly to ask someone question than to accuse them of being wrong. You didn't even indicate which question you thought was impossible to answer.
Despite your whining and pleas to the contrary, Apple is obliged to operate within the law of every country that it operates in. They won't be withdrawing from any state any time soon, that's your dream world.
You only asked one question: "So tell me exactly which of the 500 rules in the Apple App Store Guidelines Epic will have to follow and which ones it won't."
An utterly unreasonable question to ask, and you knew it.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/australia-internet-law-tim-berners-lee-b1803988.html <--
So Facebook is doing nearly exactly what I'm saying Apple should do: a partial withdrawal from an international market.
Google's approach (so far) is not to pull out of Australia, but to try to negotiate a separate news deal with Australian news providers, perhaps to pre-empt the law.
I actually hope Australia passes this law, so we can see what companies like Facebook and Google do. I imagine that they will pull out of Australia. I'd like to see if the people of Australia support the removal of Google and Facebook, or if this causes the government to fail.
And your facts are wrong... Apple has ALREADY withdrawn or refused to enter certain countries due to the laws of that country. For example, Ethiopia, and many more.
And as I said in another post above, Facebook today has announced it is withdrawing some of its features from Australia because of an imminent law there. Although I hate Facebook, this proves that a big tech company can and should withdraw from major markets if their laws get ridiculous.
I'm still chuckling over your meaningless phrases like "in consultation with other actors who would have an interest". What does that even mean? It means nothing. That's a dream you're living in.