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

1246

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 104
    aderutteraderutter Posts: 486member
    Apple should ban in-app purchases and free apps. 
    danox
  • Reply 62 of 104
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,713member
    To me the question is simple:
    it is no more right for Apple to open up their store to others to sell their wares from than it would be for Macy's to open their stores to others to sell from (commission free).

    And, to make matters worse, this judge sounds like she is mainly concerned with profit and who pays -- which has nothing to do with monopolistic behaviors.

    This judge needs to stay in her lane.
  • Reply 63 of 104
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,713member
    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…



    No, that's not capitalism.   Carnegie, Edison, Rockefeller and others were the captains of industry who built this capitalistic nation as we know it today -- and they detested competition and stamped it out whenever they detected it.
    killroyrobabawatto_cobra
  • Reply 64 of 104
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,713member
    davidw said:
    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. 

    True!  except the part about EBay.
    EBay does not allow it either.   While Best Buy can sell from their own sites and/or from EBay, EBay controls and charges for anything they sell from their platform.

    That's pretty equivalent to what Epic is doing:  They both sell directly and from Apple's App store.
    killroywatto_cobra
  • Reply 65 of 104
    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.  

    iPad is not a Surface knockoff, independent of Pro or not. Pro is a natural incremental evolution of the basic model, and iPad (basic model) was the inspiration for Surface.

    Apple Music is not a Spotify knockoff. But rather the opposite; Spotify = iTunes (Apple Music) + subscription model. And remember, Spotify didn’t invent the subscription model either. They just followed the trend.
    killroywatto_cobra
  • Reply 66 of 104
    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. 
    Don’t even try to insinuate that all companies are equally bad. Being fair, honest and user friendly does pay off.
    edited May 22 killroyGeorgeBMacwatto_cobra
  • Reply 67 of 104
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,787member
    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.
    Epic also has a lawsuit against Google also alleging monopoly.  So Epic has two lawsuits accusing two intense competitors in the market for smartphone apps as being monopolies in that market.  You can't have two monopolists in one market.  You can allege collusion, but of course that's hard to prove for the simple reason that it isn't going on.  So the lawyers are trying to prove that the same app sold through Android is in a different relevant market as the same app sold through iOS.  I think that would be quite a change in antitrust case law because it has always been the product characteristics itself and maybe their geographical availability (irrelevant in downloadable apps)  that determines what is the relevant market.  This will have to go all the way to the Supremes for it to stick.  And I think given the conservative majority, that's a fool's errand.  But very lucrative for the lawyers involved, so I expect years of futile litigation by Epic (subtly egged on by their lawyers).
    edited May 22 watto_cobra
  • Reply 68 of 104
    danoxdanox Posts: 679member
    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?

    Amazon is run by a owner founder still, a cut throat one at that, which means Amazon will fight to death in all things.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 69 of 104
    danoxdanox Posts: 679member
    aderutter said:
    Apple should ban in-app purchases and free apps. 
    Yes they should it’s time is over, it is slowly killing the small to medium size developers, also those nice sweetheart deals with Facebook, Google, and Microsoft aren’t helping either.
    killroycanukstormcrowleyelijahgwatto_cobra
  • Reply 70 of 104
    doggonedoggone Posts: 307member
    For me, the fact that platforms like Xbox charge the same rates and don't allow competing stores makes this argument moot.  Also the fact that the iPhone platform represents only 7% of their revenue means that the 30% charge has a minor impact on their business.  It would make more sense if this case was against the gaming platforms that account for 70% of their revenue.

    I found Federighi statements key where he explained that the iOS platform needs to be more secure than the Mac due to the large number of apps that users download and the fact that a lot more information is captured on the phone.  He also said that the Mac has malware issues due to the more open nature of the platform.  Users have to be far more careful in order on a Mac when downloading apps.
    edited May 22 watto_cobra
  • Reply 71 of 104
    The money argument is a loser regardless of who makes it. Epic says that 30% is unacceptable but 15% is perfect. Why? Apple says that they need the revenue from app sales. Why? People are buying iPhones and Apple makes a huge profit on those so more app sales equals more iPhone sales and more profits. The real argument is about the user's right to install whatever software they want on their devices. It doesn't matter that Apple thinks they shouldn't. It doesn't matter that you think they shouldn't. They have an absolute right to use their own property however they wish. That's why Apple could not legally prevent users from jailbreaking their iPhones regardless of what their license agreement said. It's risky and users should have to agree to take on that risk but it's their choice to make, not Apple's and not yours.
    edited May 22 GeorgeBMacelijahgFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 72 of 104
    killroykillroy Posts: 167member
    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. 

    She sounded like an idiot with an agenda that has nothing to do with the rule of law.
    9secondkox2GeorgeBMacwatto_cobra
  • Reply 73 of 104
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 952member
    killroy said:
    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. 

    She sounded like an idiot with an agenda that has nothing to do with the rule of law.
    Sadly that’s exactly what the judge did. 

    Basically made up her mind before the trial and her bias was shamelessly hanging out all over the place. She was supposed to review law and judge if someone had violated the spirit of the letter. 

    She did not dothis and instead only paid attention too e side of the story and  plugged her ears during the other sides turn. 

    For a judge to tell a CEO what ways they should make their money and complain that they are making too JC money is absolutely ridiculous. 

    Epic makes billions and yet they breached a perfectly standard contract in order to slander Apple in hopes of extorting them into working forpeanuts to distribute  epics wares. THATS where the judge should be looking. THATS who broke the law andTHATS where the “it’s also quite lucrative” statement should be directed. Thats the only place it would make sense. 

    You don’t go after the law abide by people. You go after the criminal 

    thejudgeisnustgoing on her opinion is. Not even the law at all. 

    Did apple break the law? No. Did epic? Yes. Case closed. 
    GeorgeBMackillroywatto_cobra
  • Reply 74 of 104
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,179member
    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.  

    iPad is not a Surface knockoff, independent of Pro or not. Pro is a natural incremental evolution of the basic model, and iPad (basic model) was the inspiration for Surface.

    Apple Music is not a Spotify knockoff. But rather the opposite; Spotify = iTunes (Apple Music) + subscription model. And remember, Spotify didn’t invent the subscription model either. They just followed the trend.
    Apple have been improving the iPad Pro by copying some features that have been available since the Surface Pro 4,

    Keyboard + Trackpad / Magic Keyboard
    Pen / Pencil (Pencil 2 with replaceable tips)
    Windows Hello / FaceID
    Multitasking / Side-by-side apps
    Multiuser support (available in the educational environments in the iPad)

    Regarding music services, I talked specifically about Apple Music, not iTunes.  BTW, I agree with you that Spotify didn't invent the music subscription model we have today.  There were services like Rhapsody and Zune Pass that had that model before Apple and Spotify.  
  • Reply 75 of 104
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 2,557member
    davidw said:
    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.   
    I don't disagree with this but that's what the judge was implying.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 76 of 104
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,657member
    aderutter said:
    Apple should ban in-app purchases and free apps. 
    Apple should just ban all third party apps, if the courts stop Apple from making profit from apps. Apple has no legal requirement to allow any apps in the first place.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 77 of 104
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,657member
    bulk001 said:
    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. 
    You are correct, that is a 100% perfect solution for Epic, but it's a 100% lousy solution for Apple, because Apple would lose most of its $64 billion, and you have provided no alternate source of income to cover Apple's losses.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 78 of 104
    crowleycrowley Posts: 9,114member
    killroy said:
    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. 

    She sounded like an idiot with an agenda that has nothing to do with the rule of law.
    Sadly that’s exactly what the judge did. 

    Basically made up her mind before the trial and her bias was shamelessly hanging out all over the place. She was supposed to review law and judge if someone had violated the spirit of the letter. 

    She did not dothis and instead only paid attention too e side of the story and  plugged her ears during the other sides turn. 

    For a judge to tell a CEO what ways they should make their money and complain that they are making too JC money is absolutely ridiculous. 

    Epic makes billions and yet they breached a perfectly standard contract in order to slander Apple in hopes of extorting them into working forpeanuts to distribute  epics wares. THATS where the judge should be looking. THATS who broke the law andTHATS where the “it’s also quite lucrative” statement should be directed. Thats the only place it would make sense. 

    You don’t go after the law abide by people. You go after the criminal 

    thejudgeisnustgoing on her opinion is. Not even the law at all. 

    Did apple break the law? No. Did epic? Yes. Case closed. 
    How did Epic break the law?  Get a grip of your biases dude.
    elijahg
  • Reply 79 of 104
    gc_ukgc_uk Posts: 110member
    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. 
    Exactly. If the arguments for Apple winning the case had absolutely clear merit there would be unequivocal answers to her questions to prove that. 
    elijahg
  • Reply 80 of 104
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,506member
    killroy said:
    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. 

    She sounded like an idiot with an agenda that has nothing to do with the rule of law.
    Sadly that’s exactly what the judge did. 

    Basically made up her mind before the trial and her bias was shamelessly hanging out all over the place. She was supposed to review law and judge if someone had violated the spirit of the letter. 

    She did not dothis and instead only paid attention too e side of the story and  plugged her ears during the other sides turn. 

    For a judge to tell a CEO what ways they should make their money and complain that they are making too JC money is absolutely ridiculous. 

    Epic makes billions and yet they breached a perfectly standard contract in order to slander Apple in hopes of extorting them into working forpeanuts to distribute  epics wares. THATS where the judge should be looking. THATS who broke the law andTHATS where the “it’s also quite lucrative” statement should be directed. Thats the only place it would make sense. 

    You don’t go after the law abide by people. You go after the criminal 

    thejudgeisnustgoing on her opinion is. Not even the law at all. 

    Did apple break the law? No. Did epic? Yes. Case closed. 
    What law did Epic break, exactly? Because I didn't know that clauses in terms of service are actually laws.
    edited May 22
Sign In or Register to comment.