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

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 104
    GeorgeBMacgeorgebmac Posts: 11,421member
    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.

    Nor would his suggestion cover the loss of privacy & security that iPhone users would have to contend with when developers abandoned the App Store and forced users to download their junk or do without.  And that would put the iPhone on par with any high end Android phone --- and Apple would lose big time.
    edited May 2021
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 82 of 104
    GeorgeBMacgeorgebmac Posts: 11,421member
    crowley said:
    How did Epic break the law?  Get a grip of your biases dude.

    Epic intentionally broke its agreement with Apple -- which is why Apple kicked them off of the App Store.
    killroyDovalwatto_cobra
     3Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 83 of 104
    dope_ahminedope_ahmine Posts: 270member
    danvm said:
    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.  
    Ahh, so you mean like the Sony Ericsson P800 from the year 2002? Because it ticks every single box in your list of Surface Pro 4 features. Yup, you might be right. It’s a knockoff.
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 84 of 104
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,888member
    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.
    Whether a "solution" is lousy for Apple or not W.R.T its profit has zero bearing on the judge's eventual verdict. A judge would not be at all concerned about the reduction in profit Apple makes from the App Store if Apple is found to be breaking the law, only whether their practises are anticompetitive. If the ruling meant Apple won't make as much profit (or even a loss) that's too bad, other aspects of Apple's business could easily subsidise the App Store. Remember the App Store along with all of Apple's services and software was originally just to sell more hardware; the hardware subsidised the software. Just like free apps being subsidised by paid ones.
    muthuk_vanalingam
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 85 of 104
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,888member

    Epic intentionally broke its agreement with Apple -- which is why Apple kicked them off of the App Store.
    Clauses in terms and conditions are law now are they? Funny world you live in.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 86 of 104
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,888member
    Ahh, so you mean like the Sony Ericsson P800 from the year 2002? Because it ticks every single box in your list of Surface Pro 4 features. Yup, you might be right. It’s a knockoff.
    P800 has no multitasking, no multiuser support, no FaceID. But it has a touchscreen, copied from others.
    killroy
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 87 of 104
    danoxdanox Posts: 3,684member
    killroy said:

    She sounded like an idiot with an agenda that has nothing to do with the rule of law.
    It is a advantage when the rest of the humans want to freeload…The questions by the judge indicates that.
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 88 of 104
    larryjwlarryjw Posts: 1,038member
    I have no idea how this judge is going to make her decision. But, if her decision is to say "I don't agree with how Apple is making its business decisions", I think she will have overstepped her judicial authority. 

    The judge needs can only make a decision based upon legal principles. Apple or any other business is allowed to make any business decisions it likes for the most part, with the market, only, deciding whether those decisions are reasonable or not. With Epic admitting that Apple only accounts for 7% of Epic's revenue, I would expect the judge to have difficulty justifying Apple is restricting Epic's market unfairly. 

    One also needs to understand the judge's limitations. The judge must also be cognizant of how the Appeals courts will view her decision. No judge wants to be smacked down by superior courts for making wholly unjustified decisions. 
    killroywatto_cobra
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 89 of 104
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,608member
    Ahh, so you mean like the Sony Ericsson P800 from the year 2002? Because it ticks every single box in your list of Surface Pro 4 features. Yup, you might be right. It’s a knockoff.
    P800 was a Palm Pilot JV yes? 
    Which means it was running software co-developed with the Apple Newton team.

    Steve-degrees of separation - the theory that no new feature is more than 6 steps separated from an early PC pioneer named Steve. 
    FileMakerFellerkillroywatto_cobra
     3Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 90 of 104
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 2,784member
    elijahg said:
    Whether a "solution" is lousy for Apple or not W.R.T its profit has zero bearing on the judge's eventual verdict. A judge would not be at all concerned about the reduction in profit Apple makes from the App Store if Apple is found to be breaking the law, only whether their practises are anticompetitive. If the ruling meant Apple won't make as much profit (or even a loss) that's too bad, other aspects of Apple's business could easily subsidise the App Store. Remember the App Store along with all of Apple's services and software was originally just to sell more hardware; the hardware subsidised the software. Just like free apps being subsidised by paid ones.
    That is true for all of Apple's first party applications (ie: iWork, Garageband, iMovie) and the App Store (and still remains true).  Not so for Music, ATV+, iBooks, iCloud, Fitness+, Arcade.
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 91 of 104
    Dovaldoval Posts: 40member
    Epic , simply , did not act in good faith. I saw some of the trial, why is Epic worried about how much money Apple made in the App Store ? Or how it operates the store? Epic doesn’t have to be in it! They have many other Venues to sell their child game Dortnite!


    killroywatto_cobra
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 92 of 104
    GeorgeBMacgeorgebmac Posts: 11,421member
    elijahg said:
    Whether a "solution" is lousy for Apple or not W.R.T its profit has should have zero bearing on the judge's eventual verdict. ....
    Fixed that for you!
    This judge sounds like she may be very biased.  

    killroy
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 93 of 104
    mylovinomylovino Posts: 24member
    There seems to me something wrong in so many ways with this whole farce that I struggle to start with something meaningful. Maybe a good one is the fundamental clash I personally see here between capitalism and ethics. Let‘s face it, the undercurrent of the whole questioning is if Apple is violating ethical behavior. Surprise, capitalism just allows for only so much ethics, otherwise we would have very different laws i. the western world. Epic is among the ones who should be challenged to begin with, extracting money from gamers in so many questionable ways - from a pure ethical PoV to be clear. Do I like everything Apple is doing? No! Do I think a 30% cut is fair? Not really. But let‘s face it, Apple has simplified software development and consumption in so many ways, and all the developers and customers both benefit from the large customer base Apple has created with their entire ecosystem, if at the end a judge is not balancing out cost versus benefits in light of the underlying economic system, it would be a really strange result. I lived through the evolution of development environments, remember times when licensing an IDE was a really expensive exercise and software distribution required high production and distribution costs, it is really bizarre that Epic tries to further increase their margin by challenging the „partner“ which adds the whole ecosystem they benefit from with billions of dollar.

    Apple certainly runs a thin line here, but to set an example with the current challenger is just wrong. Alternatives are there, so no real monopoly in sight, and the players are really on eye-level when it comes to ethics, each with different weak spots in this arena. To punish Apple just for them being so successful also seems not right. And look at nature, just because the shark is one of the most successful hunters on this planet it still has a symbiosis with the pilot fish. If one of them tries to change the rules of the symbiosis it would likely cause it to break ;-)
    But what does the old saying say: having right and getting right are two very different things, and in my experience this is most true in front of the court of law :-o
    edited May 2021
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 94 of 104
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 8,225member
    mylovino said:
    There seems to me something wrong in so many ways with this whole farce that I struggle to start with something meaningful. Maybe a good one is the fundamental clash I personally see here between capitalism and ethics. Let‘s face it, the undercurrent of the whole questioning is if Apple is violating ethical behavior. Surprise, capitalism just allows for only so much ethics, otherwise we would have very different laws i. the western world. Epic is among the ones who should be challenged to begin with, extracting money from gamers in so many questionable ways - from a pure ethical PoV to be clear. Do I like everything Apple is doing? No! Do I think a 30% cut is fair? Not really. But let‘s face it, Apple has simplified software development and consumption in so many ways, and all the developers and customers both benefit from the large customer base Apple has created with their entire ecosystem, if at the end a judge is not balancing out cost versus benefits in light of the underlying economic system, it would be a really strange result. I lived through the evolution of development environments, remember times when licensing an IDE was a really expensive exercise and software distribution required high production and distribution costs, it is really bizarre that Epic tries to further increase their margin by challenging the „partner“ which adds the whole ecosystem they benefit from with billions of dollar.

    Apple certainly runs a thin line here, but to set an example with the current challenger is just wrong. Alternatives are there, so no real monopoly in sight, and the players are really on eye-level when it comes to ethics, each with different weak spots in this arena. To punish Apple just for them being so successful also seems not right. And look at nature, just because the shark is one of the most successful hunters on this planet it still has a symbiosis with the pilot fish. If one of them tries to change the rules of the symbiosis it would likely cause it to break ;-)
    But what does the old saying say: having right and getting right are two very different things, and in my experience this is most true in front of the court of law :-o
    I think you're missing the main point here.

    I doubt there would be the slightest problem if Apple's ecosystem were entirely self contained.

    The problem is that it isn't self contained. 

    On top of that, it depends on outside developers. Without them the platform could still exist but likely in a vastly different manner. 

    When you have a billion dollar bridge leading in and out of your ecosystem, new rules apply. You may get away with falling under the radar but as you go and industry changes you run the risk of being investigated. 

    Of course they wouldn't apply only to Apple, but to anyone in a similar situation assuming things don't go Apple's way.

    Those rules can't be set by the gatekeepers to the ecosystems. The rules currently require competition. 

    There are several investigations currently in process to determine precisely if competition and consumers are being harmed. Some have already deemed competition has been impacted and consumers have been harmed.

    I see a few ways Apple could avoid these problems and all of them would probably be considered just fine by many posting here but none of them would be fine for Apple. Of that I am sure. That is telling. 

    As are many of the comments and emails that have emerged as a result of the this particular trial. 

    I definitely haven't been convinced by anything I've seen so far (although admittedly I haven't really been following all the proceedings). 

    Logically Apple is trying to show things in a different light but I have yet to see anything that really makes me think, 'they have point there'. 



    muthuk_vanalingam
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 95 of 104
    dope_ahminedope_ahmine Posts: 270member
    elijahg said:
    P800 has no multitasking, no multiuser support, no FaceID. But it has a touchscreen, copied from others.
    I agree, I agree. We are on the same side here. My point was not that the P800 was first, but rather that there are many devices with these features that predate the Surface, eg the P800 …or Newton.
    elijahgkillroywatto_cobra
     3Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 96 of 104
    dope_ahminedope_ahmine Posts: 270member
    mattinoz said:
    P800 was a Palm Pilot JV yes? 
    Which means it was running software co-developed with the Apple Newton team.

    Steve-degrees of separation - the theory that no new feature is more than 6 steps separated from an early PC pioneer named Steve. 
    Nah, it was a Symbian/UIQ smart phone and it was not co-developed with the Newton. But it doesn’t matter. I get what you mean, and we are both on the same side. My point was just that there are numerous devices that vastly predate the Surface, thus not making the iPad Pro any Microsoft knockoff.
    edited May 2021
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 97 of 104
    mylovino said:
    Apple has simplified software development and consumption in so many ways, and all the developers and customers both benefit from the large customer base Apple has created with their entire ecosystem, if at the end a judge is not balancing out cost versus benefits in light of the underlying economic system, it would be a really strange result. I lived through the evolution of development environments, remember times when licensing an IDE was a really expensive exercise and software distribution required high production and distribution costs, it is really bizarre that Epic tries to further increase their margin by challenging the „partner“ which adds the whole ecosystem they benefit from with billions of dollar.
    Epic is absolutely the wrong company to be bringing this case but lets face it, it probably takes someone a little crazy / reckless to take on the most valuable company in the world that has the power to destroy the businesses of other companies that are reliant on being available on mobile devices.

    I have no problem with Apple collecting a decent-sized commission on apps and they absolutely did/do provide value.  Where the whole argument for Apple falls apart is for digital content or external services.  Their IDE, their APIs, etc... have nothing to do with the creation of things like eBooks, videos, dating services, online classes, etc...  They don't provide discovery like they do with an app.  They don't host the digital content like they do with apps. They don't provide the distribution or storage for digital content like they do with apps.  But they still feel entitled to 30%.  

    Imagine if other stores tried to implement the same rules the App Store has and it becomes clear how outrageous some of the policies are.  Tim Cook used the strawman argument:

    “It would be akin to Apple down at Best Buy saying ‘Best Buy, put in a sign there where we are advertising that you can go across the street and get an iPhone.'”
    Of course, no one was saying that app developers should be allowed to put in their App Store listing alternative ways to purchase.  But Apple goes further and prevents a companies app from doing so.  So imagine for a moment that Best Buy had Apple's approach.  You go to a Best Buy and buy an iPad.  Apple couldn't offer you the option to sign up directly from Apple for iCloud or Apple Music or any other service - for as long as you use that iPhone you'd have to go back to Best Buy to get any of those services.  Everyone recognizes that would be insane but for some bizarre reason we will go as far as defending the same behavior when Apple does it.

    avon b7elijahg
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 98 of 104
    GeorgeBMacgeorgebmac Posts: 11,421member
    ...
    Imagine if other stores tried to implement the same rules the App Store has and it becomes clear how outrageous some of the policies are.  Tim Cook used the strawman argument:

    ....
    You mean like if i set up a fresh produce stand in a Krogers -- and then complained that their policies weren't fair to me?

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 99 of 104
    You mean like if i set up a fresh produce stand in a Krogers -- and then complained that their policies weren't fair to me?

    Not sure if you were trying to make the point for me or if it just a happy accident choosing Kroger as the answer to your questions is absolutely yes.  The Kroger grocery chain has engaged in some egregious business practices over the past several years.  Suppliers rightfully complained.  Courts and state governments got involved and Kroger had to make some changes in the way they do business.  The difference is there aren't a lot of Kroger fans running around defending Krogers behavior.
    GeorgeBMacelijahg
     1Like 0Dislikes 1Informative
  • Reply 100 of 104
    mylovinomylovino Posts: 24member
    avon b7 said:
    I think you're missing the main point here.

    I doubt there would be the slightest problem if Apple's ecosystem were entirely self contained.

    The problem is that it isn't self contained. 

    On top of that, it depends on outside developers. Without them the platform could still exist but likely in a vastly different manner. 

    When you have a billion dollar bridge leading in and out of your ecosystem, new rules apply. You may get away with falling under the radar but as you go and industry changes you run the risk of being investigated. 

    Of course they wouldn't apply only to Apple, but to anyone in a similar situation assuming things don't go Apple's way.

    Those rules can't be set by the gatekeepers to the ecosystems. The rules currently require competition. 

    There are several investigations currently in process to determine precisely if competition and consumers are being harmed. Some have already deemed competition has been impacted and consumers have been harmed.

    I see a few ways Apple could avoid these problems and all of them would probably be considered just fine by many posting here but none of them would be fine for Apple. Of that I am sure. That is telling. 

    As are many of the comments and emails that have emerged as a result of the this particular trial. 

    I definitely haven't been convinced by anything I've seen so far (although admittedly I haven't really been following all the proceedings). 

    Logically Apple is trying to show things in a different light but I have yet to see anything that really makes me think, 'they have point there'. 
    elijahg
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.