Judge in Epic v. Apple trial presses Tim Cook on App Store model, competition

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 104
    danoxdanox Posts: 679member
    The hole I see that may cost Apple this car is that free apps are serviced for nothing. That kind of negates Apple’s contention it needs to get a cut to support the work it does. I don’t agree with this, but Apple’s is arguing as if they have to justify their fees. They shouldn’t have to at all. 
    Tim Cook is a hired hand, the owner/founder/CEO has long ago left the building at Apple, the current management will only fight to a certain level and that’s it. When Epic violated the agreement Apple should have kicked them out without anyway back at all for Epic, by wincing Apple may have doomed itself. When someone steals from you simply show them the door nothing else needs to be said…. (If you found someone under your car with a power saw? You don’t give them a hand and thank them for the removal of your catalytic converter).
    Beatswilliamlondonaderutterwatto_cobra
  • Reply 42 of 104
    danoxdanox Posts: 679member
    gilly33 said:
    williamh said:
    A lot of people here are inferring that a hostile question from a judge means that the judge's decision will reflect her questions. This is a presumptuous belief. Many judges ask difficult questions so that their opinions, which are going to be favourable to the person being spoken to, have all the possible angles covered. I learned this from reading the US Supreme Court transcripts.

    Or maybe she's an idiot judge. Both explanations are possible.
    Ok, you make sense.  But why is this even in front of a judge? The only party to have violated an agreement is epic and Apple didn’t sue them. 
    It’s not that really. Just that judging (no pun intended) from recent history this kind of thing doesn’t seem to  pan out in Apple’s favor. Admittedly, I’m no expert on these matters like some of you here. Just a layman’s observation. 

    Remember Java? Google copied the parts needed to make Android work sooner (Google was on a deadline) and got away with it. Apples lawyers aren’t as good as some of other tech companies Google, Qualcomm and Samsung have had better lawyers by far in the big cases. 
    Beatswilliamlondonjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 43 of 104
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,657member
    flydog said:
    genovelle said:
    If Apple is forced to remove their revenue stream. Expect the App Store to be disinvested in. I would expect Apple to heavily invest in games by taking on several gaming partners that directly compete with Epic and spend billions promoting them. They may even decide to do That first party game console using the M2 chip and invest in it like they are with Apple TV+.  Microsoft would then regret joining in this mess. They don’t realize the last thing they want is Apple to suddenly get serious about gaming. Remember the iPhone was going to fail, the iPad was a joke, and Apple should have given shareholders all their money back in 1997 and closed shop. 
    Ummmm no. Regardless of the outcome Apple could still collect money from developers, for example, for using its APIs and SDKs, iCloud, Push, etc.

    Can you enlighten me and tell me how Apple could collect money from developers if some software that I purchased from a developer makes an API call to the Apple iCloud to get a service? There is no way for Apple to know the product that I own which made the API call (depending on what the call is.) So there's no way for Apple to know who to charge. And even if Apple knew which app made the API call, do they send a bill a month after the API call and hope that the developer is honest enough to pay his bills? If the developer doesn't pay his bills, does Apple revoke the certificate of the app that the buyer obtained so that the buyer can no longer run the app? I don't think you've thought this all through.
    CheeseFreezewatto_cobra
  • Reply 44 of 104
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,600member
    Judge seems to dislike capitalism 
    williamlondonGeorgeBMacwatto_cobra
  • Reply 45 of 104
    jd_in_sb said:
    Judge seems to dislike capitalism 
    did you mean ‘anti monopoly’?

    Because she seems pro-capitalism to me, considering the fact the feels there needs to be more options when it comes to parties making money. Which sparks competition, more consumer choice, more incentives to innovate…


    gc_ukwilliamlondonelijahg
  • Reply 46 of 104
    gc_ukgc_uk Posts: 110member
    gc_uk said:
    To paraphrase the judge. What’s wrong with Amazon providing a link to allow customers cheaper option to buy stuff elsewhere?   Wait that doesn’t make any sense here either
    Amazon lists vendors who are not Amazon and are selling goods cheaper than Amazon. 
    Yes, Amazon does do that… and they take a cut of the business too. After all, it is Amazon’s customer and their platform. 
    So how can Amazon do it and Apple can’t?
    avon b7GeorgeBMackillroy
  • Reply 47 of 104
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,374member
    Wow. She sounds entirely ignorant of how the platform works and where the competition is. If Xbox and Nintendo charge, so should Apple. If not, should McDonalds have to start publishing Whopper or sushi vendor menus in their stores?
    The judge is not suggesting that Apple shouldn’t charge. She’s implying that there would be more competition in iOS if Apple opened it up to side loading apps or 3rd party app stores. I personally disagree with it. Sure Apple’s policies can be improved but opening up the entire platform is not the way. 
    That would be like saying ...... There's should be more competition in Costco. When I pay for my Costco membership and shop in a Costco, I should be able to buy products from competitors like Walmart and pay them directly, from in a Costco.

    This wouldn't make a bit of sense coming from a Judge. Unless she already has in her mind that iOS is a monopoly. When I walk into a McDonalds, I can't bitch that I can't order a Whopper directly from BK. Nor can BK complain that they can't put up any signage to "steer" McDonalds customers to walk next door and order a burger with fries, for less.   

    Competition exist for iOS, the same as it does for a Costco. Both companies compete for customers to buy their products or shop in their stores. Once a customer buy an iDevice or shop at a Costco, Apple and Costco have done what was needed to compete. They should not have compete again for the customers that already made their choice to buy an iDevice or shop at Costco. Unless their customers had no other choice but to buy an iDevice or shop at a Costco. 

    Did you know that Epic made available a "side loaded" Fortnight app on Android, before it was available in the Google Play Store?  Hardly anyone "side load" apps into their Android devices. Over 90% of all installed apps on Android device are from the Google Play Store. Fortnight was not a big money maker on Android until it was available in the Google Play Store. (Even after paying the 30% commission.) This is why Epic is also claiming Google has a "monopoly" with their app store. They have control of over 90% of the installed apps.

    Epic's true goal is not to be allowed to "side load" a Fortnight app or have their app in a 3rd party app store. Their true goal is to keep their free app in the Apple App Store (or Google Play Store) but want to process their own in-app payments, in order to bypass any commission.   
    GeorgeBMacFileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 48 of 104
    sirlance99sirlance99 Posts: 1,278member
    Beats said:
    danvm said:
    Beats said:
    I think Epic will eventually lose.  
    They cannot call Apple a monopoly nor anti-competitive in this case.
    All they can do is build a better or cheaper product to compete against Apple.  Good Luck with that.

    Microsoft should be ashamed of itself for testifying against Apple in this case.
    Microsoft ashamed?

    You're talking about the people that delivered Vista having shame?

    The company who makes knockoff everything Apple. 
    I suppose Apple have knockoffs too, 

    Surface Pro / iPad Pro
    Tile / AirTag
    Spotify / Apple Music
    Netflix / Apple TV+
    Sonos / HomePod
    GamePass / Apple Arcade

    Looks like nobody is perfect, including Apple.  

    You can’t be that stupid are you?

    If you wanna move the goalposts and call all speakers a knockoff you’re gonna have to go way back in history. Idiot. 
    What about the rest of the things this person talked about that is a direct copy? Apple copies too, everyone does. 
    elijahg
  • Reply 49 of 104
    "what's the problem with allowing users to have a cheaper option for content?" this question should be addressed to the content maker, that is, Epic. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 50 of 104
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,374member
    gc_uk said:
    gc_uk said:
    To paraphrase the judge. What’s wrong with Amazon providing a link to allow customers cheaper option to buy stuff elsewhere?   Wait that doesn’t make any sense here either
    Amazon lists vendors who are not Amazon and are selling goods cheaper than Amazon. 
    Yes, Amazon does do that… and they take a cut of the business too. After all, it is Amazon’s customer and their platform. 
    So how can Amazon do it and Apple can’t?
    Because whenever Amazon steer a customer to a store with a lower price, that store is still inside Amazon ecosystem. Amazon do not steer a customer outside of Amazon ecosystem (like eBay) where there's no way for Amazon to collect a commission on any sales. Epic wants their game players with in-app purchases, to buy from outside of Apple ecosystem, for the very same reason.   

    Plus there is a big difference between Amazon listing other stores to buy from and Epic wanting to list other stores to buy from. Epic do not own the platform, Amazon does. What you don't see Amazon doing is allowing their sellers to list other stores to buy from. Which would be the equivalent of Epic listing other stores to buy from. Which Apple, like Amazon, do not allow. 
    Rayz2016watto_cobra
  • Reply 51 of 104
    gradlygradly Posts: 15member
    Apple makes a ton of money because it’s a successful company not because it charges more. If Apple’s business model was like Google or Amazon or Facebook, they can sell theirs devices for cheap and even offer free services as long as they sell your data. This is why it’s hard for people to understand the difference.

    Selling you data makes a ton of money for Facebook and Google. So when the judge tells Tim Cook to find other ways to make money basically is to turn their business model just like Google. No sorry I buy Apple products for a reason. 
    baconstangkillroywatto_cobra
  • Reply 52 of 104
    There are a number of comments here that don’t seem to understand the role of the judge in this process. The judge is supposed to ask difficult questions. Having done so means this is a good judge.

    Sweeney got to go first. That may seem like an advantage, but it is not. 
    williamlondongc_ukwatto_cobra
  • Reply 53 of 104
    bulk001bulk001 Posts: 665member
    The solution is simple. Allow people to install apps from anywhere but highlight when downloaded that Apple cannot make any guarantees to their security and user beware. Now the user gets to decide rather than a bunch of old white guys (and a few white women to be fair). Choice is good. For those of you worried about security and privacy, just stick to the Apple App Store. 
    elijahgkillroygc_uk
  • Reply 54 of 104
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,746member
    danox said:
    gilly33 said:
    williamh said:
    A lot of people here are inferring that a hostile question from a judge means that the judge's decision will reflect her questions. This is a presumptuous belief. Many judges ask difficult questions so that their opinions, which are going to be favourable to the person being spoken to, have all the possible angles covered. I learned this from reading the US Supreme Court transcripts.

    Or maybe she's an idiot judge. Both explanations are possible.
    Ok, you make sense.  But why is this even in front of a judge? The only party to have violated an agreement is epic and Apple didn’t sue them. 
    It’s not that really. Just that judging (no pun intended) from recent history this kind of thing doesn’t seem to  pan out in Apple’s favor. Admittedly, I’m no expert on these matters like some of you here. Just a layman’s observation. 

    Remember Java? Google copied the parts needed to make Android work sooner (Google was on a deadline) and got away with it. Apples lawyers aren’t as good as some of other tech companies Google, Qualcomm and Samsung have had better lawyers by far in the big cases. 
    You’re basing the assertion that Apple’s lawyers aren’t as good on….what?  How about the lawyers who secured the original, billion dollar verdict in Apple v. Samsung?  
    williamlondonkillroywatto_cobra
  • Reply 55 of 104
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,746member
    I have a feeling we have a judge who isn’t interested in deciding cases on matters of law, but on her personal judgement.  After all, she’s a judge and she thinks it’s her job.  I’m not surprised if Tim was taken aback.  She was questioning not the legality of Apple’s actions, but its business judgement.  That is unless it’s a dog and pony show, and she wants to be seen as being tough on Apple before ruling for them.  
    williamlondonGeorgeBMackillroywatto_cobra
  • Reply 56 of 104
    crossladcrosslad Posts: 526member
    Next I hope the judge summonses Tesla to ask why their cars are more expensive than Kia, Louis Vuitton to explain how they dare charge £2000 for a handbag and Ralph Lauren as to why his polo shirts cost 10 times as much as the ones from Primark. 
    aderutterhydrogenbaconstangkillroywatto_cobra
  • Reply 57 of 104
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,179member
    Beats said:
    danvm said:
    Beats said:
    I think Epic will eventually lose.  
    They cannot call Apple a monopoly nor anti-competitive in this case.
    All they can do is build a better or cheaper product to compete against Apple.  Good Luck with that.

    Microsoft should be ashamed of itself for testifying against Apple in this case.
    Microsoft ashamed?

    You're talking about the people that delivered Vista having shame?

    The company who makes knockoff everything Apple. 
    I suppose Apple have knockoffs too, 

    Surface Pro / iPad Pro
    Tile / AirTag
    Spotify / Apple Music
    Netflix / Apple TV+
    Sonos / HomePod
    GamePass / Apple Arcade

    Looks like nobody is perfect, including Apple.  

    You can’t be that stupid are you?

    If you wanna move the goalposts and call all speakers a knockoff you’re gonna have to go way back in history. Idiot. 
    I was talking about smart speakers, not dumb speakers.  BTW, for some reason I forgot about the Amazon Echo, which was the one who innovate and still lead in this market.  
    elijahgmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 58 of 104
    crowleycrowley Posts: 9,114member
    JFC_PA said:
    Lucrative is hardly against the law, in fact it’s a fiduciary responsibility. Odd observation. 
    There is no fiduciary responsibility to be lucrative.  Don't make shit up.
    elijahgmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 59 of 104
    One supposes that all the prep in the world still can leave you surprised. 
    elijahg
  • Reply 60 of 104
    jd_in_sb said:
    Judge seems to dislike capitalism 
    A completely nonsensical and reactionary response (read: standard techie boi reply). One *needs* a judge, who is going to rule on a point of law, to ask difficult questions. The fact that you don't like it, well, let me guess: you also didn't like the result of the last election, so therefore there must have been widespread fraud, right? 
    gc_ukelijahgmuthuk_vanalingam
Sign In or Register to comment.