Epic versus Apple: What's at stake if Apple loses

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 48
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,409member
    Who cares what epic wants. 
    This isn’t about making epic happy. 
    It’s about a company doing business and creating products and services people want - and profiting off of that. 
    Apple makes the rules. Partners can follow them or not be a partner. 
    Simple. 
    Apple can charge whatever it wants for anything it offers. 
    Apple can guard the quality of the products on its virtual shelves. It’s good enough for albertsons and wal mart. 
    Apple has made it easy for people to impulse buy - a boon to developers and content creators. It’s why the App Store blows everyone away in revenue. 
    You tear that down and the App Store is just like all the 2nd rate stores out there. 
    Bottom line is this lawsuit is frivolous. 
    Epic didn’t like following the rules it agreed to and violated. Epic should simply not be a partner. Boom. Done. 
    This is not just or right. It’s annoying and harmful. 
    Everything you say is good and correct. Especially that. (And of course that rule also applies to Epic and Google and everyone else.)

    But I'm sure you know that some country somewhere is essentially going to outlaw Apple's App Store practices. What then? Do you think Apple should:
     
    (a) comply with the rules in that country alone, or
    (b) apply the new rules to all countries everywhere, or
    (c) just pull the App Store out of that country?
  • Reply 42 of 48
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,586member
    Why is loss of revenue for Apple listed as a Con? Doesn't that mean increased revenue for app developers or savings for Apple customers? Couldn't that be seen as a Pro?
    Unless you are an Apple employee or shareholder, you should want lower costs for developers. That just encourages more apps to be developed. That even helps Apple as their products become more desirable. As far as loss of revenues or profits for Apple, why does it even matter at this point? Apple uses a lot of its profits to buy back its own shares in order to keep the price per share rising and make their stock options more valuable. That sounds like a Con to me. Apple should be heavily investing in new products and technologies but instead continues to hoard cash and buy back shares. A little struggle for income would do the company (and it's customers and developers) some good.
    Do yourself a favor and never try to run a business.  
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 43 of 48
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,586member
    elijahg said:
    Why is loss of revenue for Apple listed as a Con? Doesn't that mean increased revenue for app developers or savings for Apple customers? Couldn't that be seen as a Pro?
    Unless you are an Apple employee or shareholder, you should want lower costs for developers. That just encourages more apps to be developed. That even helps Apple as their products become more desirable. As far as loss of revenues or profits for Apple, why does it even matter at this point? Apple uses a lot of its profits to buy back its own shares in order to keep the price per share rising and make their stock options more valuable. That sounds like a Con to me. Apple should be heavily investing in new products and technologies but instead continues to hoard cash and buy back shares. A little struggle for income would do the company (and it's customers and developers) some good.
    This is a big point that many here miss. They defend Apple as if it's a small struggling startup, when in fact the money it's hoarding goes to shareholders or sits in the bank doing nothing whatsoever; very little goes to R&D. Many here are very selfish, and only really interested in the short term gain of their shares rather than a greater long term increase. A small revenue cut from some App Store related activity will make zero difference to Apple, but could make a huge difference to consumers and developers. More developers on a platform is always better, similarly to bigger marketshare is always better; the bigger the Mac market for example the more developers that will develop for it, else we end up back in the 1990's cycle where there weren't enough Macs for developers to bother with, and not enough apps on Macs for people to use them in the mainstream.

    This kind of thinking is one reason we have the fiscal and economic problems we do.  Leaders who agree get elected and implement wrongheaded policy as a result.  

    There is no such thing as hoarding money, unless we are talking about cash only.  The money isn't "sitting in the bank doing nothing."  Apple's cash position earns them more money.  It gives them leverage in a host of areas, including acquisitions, borrowing, etc.  That money is also managed by financial institutions who employ people.  It necessitates server space, security, people to maintain the technology, accounting, etc.  The point is that other than sticking under your mattress or Apple piling it up inside Yucca mountain, the money isn't just sitting there.   

    Many here are very selfish, and only really interested in the short term gain of their shares rather than a greater long term increase.

    Who here is selfish, specifically?  I'll start:  I am selfish when it comes to my money.  That's because me spending my money on me is the most efficient and best use for money.  There are four ways to spend money: 

    1. Spend your own money on your own needs (including family).  Cost and quality matter.  

    2. Spend your own money on others' needs.  Cost matters, quality matters less. 

    3. Spend other people's money on your own needs.  Cost doesn't matter.  Quality does.  

    4. Spend other's people's money on other people's needs. Neither cost nor quality matter.  


    Being interested in the short term is not "selfish."  It might be shortsighted (or it may not).  It depends on what someone's goals are.  Regardless, it's not clear that any of these changes would be in Apple's best interests, nor consumers, nor shareholders.  There may even be unforeseen negative consequences for developers.  

    A small revenue cut from some App Store related activity will make zero difference to Apple, but could make a huge difference to consumers and developers. 

    Tell me, what is a small cut? What is "some app store related activity?"  Apple's gross revenue was $64 billion dollars from the app store alone last year.  Their profit is a mystery...Epic claims it's nearly 80%.  Let's say, just for argument's sake, their App store profit is equal to their highest commission...30%.  That's about $20 billion a year in profit.  Suppose Apple is forced to make some of these changes.  Commissions go to 15% and they have to allow 3rd party payment systems as well as in-app advertising for 3rd party purchases.  We'll assume that they do more business as a result of the commission reduction, so it mitigates their losses.  Being generous, let's say profit goes from $20 billion to $15 billion.  With me so far? 

    According to the kind of thinking you've illustrated, $5 billion is no big deal to Apple.  It's about 5% of their gross profit for 2020.  They've got hundreds of billions in the bank.  That money could help developers and consumers so much more!    

    Except that's not how any of this works.  Apple, as the article states, is going to make that up somewhere. They aren't just going to sit back and make less money.  They may charge developers more in fees.  They may raise app prices.  They may engage in cost cutting, perhaps even laying people off.  I read today that WWDC costs them $50 million a year to operate. Maybe they'll decide to go virtual permanently and redirect the funding.  Or maybe their'll just cancel it completely.  Imagine what that will cost the potential host venue and surrounding businesses.  Hotels, restaurants, 3rd party tech support, union lighting and stagehands, etc.  And that's just one example.  The money will come from somewhere, and a whole lot of people may not like it.  

    And shareholders? They own the company.  The want to make money, like everyone else.  You don't really think they are sticking it to developers and consumers because they are "selfish," do you?  

    More developers on a platform is always better, similarly to bigger marketshare is always better; the bigger the Mac market for example the more developers that will develop for it, 

    Yes, more developers are better. Larger marketshare tends to be better.  After that, you lose me.  Why would you assume that some of these changes would lead to more developers? There are thousands of developers under the current system, mostly due to the app store itself. How many Apple developers were there before it existed? 

     else we end up back in the 1990's cycle where there weren't enough Macs for developers to bother with, and not enough apps on Macs for people to use them in the mainstream.

    This is the part that I frankly find ridiculous.  You're claiming that unless Apple implements some of these changes, the entire iOS and Mac marketshare will or could collapse?  There is really no evidence to support that. 

    watto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 44 of 48
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,221member
    elijahg said:
    branewave said:
    Apple may be able to settle with Epic out of court and dodge any ruling requiring them to make changes for everyone. E.g., would Epic pass up a deal from Apple to let their in app purchase mechanism in? Apple wouldn’t have to offer that same agreement to everyone. 
    Yes, fair point, but that would mean Apple could no longer argue that it treats every developer equally. I think Apple thrives on being fair and bragging about it.
    But it doesn't treat them all equally, as I have told you and provided proof for. 

    Funny. I asked for proof in another thread and I’m still waiting. You have zero proof. Just rumors and hearsay. 
    Nope. As reported here, and as I linked before but you seemed to think it wasn't valid proof (in that case the onus is on you to prove it is not the case). They give special treatment to Amazon and special treatment to Netflix. And apparently some devs (Zoom) are given early access to certain APIs. If those were used by a subset of users just for testing then fine, but apparently the APIs were in the general release for everyone. The same APIs that other developers are disallowed from using.

    Edit: Ah I see Crowley provided the links again for you, and you still denying it. You're obviously just being obtuse for the sake of it.
    edited May 18 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 45 of 48
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,221member
    Mike Wuerthele said: So, like the first section and last paragraphs of the article point out: If Apple loses, it will have to make changes. Steering is the most likely thing to have to change, versus the rest of the consequences listed. 
    Regardless of whether it's a "what if" or not, any ruling would be based on prior legal precedents and the strength of Epic's case. Is there a legal precedent that says anti-steering is anti-competitive? I certainly haven't seen any reported. And Apple has provided proof that anti-steering is completely common throughout the industry. Has Epic provided evidence that there's something unique or unusual about how Apple's anti-steering clause works? Again, I haven't seen anything like that reported. So Epic is just arguing a personal preference for how they would like the App Store to work rather than demonstrating anything legally or through evidence. It's one of the weakest parts of their case, just like the commission complaints. 

    IMO, the problem with the "what if" is it's not really a legal perspective at all. The judge isn't going to rule based on whether or not certain items appear easier to implement. If Epic didn't make a legal case for it, it won't matter whether something is easy or hard. 
    These antitrust cases between multi-billion dollar companies often cover new ground, much like the US vs Microsoft one in the 1990's. Not everything is based solely on legal precedent else new concepts could never be considered, and new laws would always require some precedent otherwise they'd be unenforceable, but this is not the case. Also the same action by a smaller company may not be seen as anticompetitive, but when you're a multi-trillion dollar company things are a bit different. Apple has (almost entirely) IMO got to where they are by perfectly legal and unquestionable means, but now, there are some aspects that are looking a bit fishy purely based on their size and the power they have over their massive installed base.
    edited May 18 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 46 of 48
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,221member
    elijahg said:
    branewave said:
    Apple may be able to settle with Epic out of court and dodge any ruling requiring them to make changes for everyone. E.g., would Epic pass up a deal from Apple to let their in app purchase mechanism in? Apple wouldn’t have to offer that same agreement to everyone. 
    Yes, fair point, but that would mean Apple could no longer argue that it treats every developer equally. I think Apple thrives on being fair and bragging about it.
    But it doesn't treat them all equally, as I have told you and provided proof for. 

    Funny. I asked for proof in another thread and I’m still waiting. You have zero proof. Just rumors and hearsay. 
    And he wants to put the burden on me for seeking out his proof. He doesn't say where I'm supposed to look. He is developing a history of totally ignoring my points and then not replying when I tell him that he has ignored my points. I think he's afraid.
    Nope, I have given you proof before as I did with ericthehalfbee but you apparently have your head so far up Apple's ass you don't believe it, despite it being published and sourced by AI and other outlets. You can go around with your fingers in your ears saying la la la la all day, doesn't mean these things aren't true just because you have convinced yourself they're not, with nothing to prove AI's sources are lying.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 47 of 48
    Here is what I do not like.

    I don’t like Apple’s restrictions that prevent network utilities from displaying MAC Addresses. I want Apps that allow me functionality to the outside world. The Automotive diagnostics tool market is a huge case in point. Autel, Launch, and many others release Diagnostic tools for Vehicles…..all on Android tablets. I think it would be a simple matter to fix this. That being said…. It seems as if the vendors do not want the software to be a download, but wish to sell the tablet as part of the package. THAT is something those vendors would need to correct. This ties into the fact that industrial automation is almost 100% Microsux.  Automation Direct, Rockwell, Siemens, etc all need to get off their rears and develop packages for Mac and Linux. Windows just keeps getting worse by the day. I can not fathom what Microsoft is thinking.

    Back to THIS particular point….

    Apple does things this way…partially for the money….but partly to avoid headaches. Even with that scrutiny…..things slip through.

    I am hoping (as I type this on the 2020 iPad Pro) that Apple will enable iPad Pro to run MacOS and PC programs through a sandboxed translation layer. The iPad Pro has the power to burn. It will not cannibalize a thing. It will further drive MacOS into prominence and erode Microsoft share. 

    I find it quite amazing…things I have been asking for since the first iPad have either come into fruition or are gaining momentum. I am sure Steve is rolling in his grave, but he was always a bit TOO insistent upon having his own way.

    Even as it is, I use iPad 90%+ of the time. As I said, iPad Pro is more than hardware capable…..Apple has little valid excuse.

    THIS is where I see the court case as being beneficial…..If apple wont give me what i want, someone else will. I would rather Apple do it….
    muthuk_vanalingamwilliamlondon
  • Reply 48 of 48
    VexstenVexsten Posts: 2member
    Ok so, I get that apple is a business first and Cloud gaming somehow but not really competes with the arcade and  it’s they’re store and they’re rules, but like, and I’m using this as a example, how they decided to deal with Microsoft Xbox’s X-cloud service. I’m not a developer, I don’t know the cost of development for anything surrounding it but, the way they settled it made it seem like Apple really didn’t want it on they’re platform at all, and made it indirectly hard for it to be published as a formal application. 

    Does it seem this way to anyone else?
    williamlondon
Sign In or Register to comment.