I don’t get the monopoly angle. I mean, of course Apple has a monopoly of Apple products, but there are a variety of smartphone platforms to chose from if you don’t like the way Apple sells and regulates theirs.
That's just the thing, saying "Apple has a monopoly on Apple products" is a nonsensical statement. You might as well say Mitsubishi has a monopoly on Mitsubishi products or something like that.
I might as well sue Epic because the game I bought from them doesn't run on Mac, only PC. I mean, they told me when I bought it that it wouldn't run on a Mac, just like Apple told them when they developed Fortnite for iOS how the in-game purchasing would work, but why should that make any difference?
He's absolute correct, Apple holds the keys to the kingdom, and to sell your wares inside its gates cough up 30% or you won't be let inside. Monopoly abuse plan and simple. This is just the beginning, antitrust charges are next.
As a developer on a few platforms, when I sign an agreement to get the source code, or to participate in a platform, I stick by the rules. If I later do not wish to follow this ageement, then I no longer will use that source code or participate in the platform. Its a matter of being honest and sticking with the agreement.
So, Epic, you can just stop being on the iOS platform. And go somewhere else to make your money. You can create your own devices, or app store, or your own means of releasing your content.
avon b7 said: Apple is very much the middleman. You can't develop for iOS device deployment without going through Apple. Apple decides what can (and can't) be present on the App Store and doesn't allow for third party stores. Apple also takes a cut of transactions.
Apple is a middleman in every sense of the word.
It's disingenuous to use the term "middleman" with the App Store because Apple designed the hardware, the SoC, the OS, the developer tools etc. that are required to run the apps being sold. They're obviously supplying much more than just a store location to the companies that develop the apps. For example, updates to the hardware and the OS can enable functions/features that weren't previously available or feasible to developers and can result in new sales opportunities. Apple isn't just passively selling apps for a platform beyond their control.
Since Apple creates the platform and tools which developers freely use to create software and since Apple creates the devices that developer can piggy back on sell their wares, it's the 3rd-party developers clearly in the middle.
I wouldn't call them a middle man in the traditional sense, but Apple clearly isn't. The definition of middle man in the Oxford English Dictionary is:
mid·dle·man | ˈmidlˌman | noun (plural middlemen) a person who buys goods from producers and sells them to retailers or consumers
Apple isn't buying the any software to resell to customers. They're not even setting a price. It would be like be calling a shopping mall the middle man for having a nice, one-stop shopping location for a large variety of sellers to to sell their wares.
Another definition:
Mirriam Webster
Definition of middleman
: an intermediary or agent between two parties especially : a dealer, agent, or company intermediate between the producer of goods and the retailer or consumer
This isn't the key point here though, as I outlined earlier.
App Store is a platform that Apple built, i don't care about your stupid game, i want my Apps to be strictly curated and I want Apple to make some money off it. If a customer disagrees with the policy and gets angry about it, then don't buy and iPhone, it's that simple.
That's fine but did you know Apple would be the middleman to everything, and that they would decide what you could download or not?
More importantly, was that made clear to you at purchase?
You may find that Apple being a middleman isn't a problem here. The root problem is on a deeper level and eventually, I don't think things will work out to Apple's liking.
Apple isn't the middleman. Apple is Apple and it's Apple's Store than they fu**ing INVENTED.
Apple is very much the middleman. You can't develop for iOS device deployment without going through Apple. Apple decides what can (and can't) be present on the App Store and doesn't allow for third party stores. Apple also takes a cut of transactions.
Apple is a middleman in every sense of the word.
Apple provides the tools, configures the downloads for the customer device, operates the backend, provides the storefront including promotion and a secure payment system, and validates and approves the apps according to published rules. It does all this to maximize the customer experience.
That isn't being a middleman.
You could make a case that Apple is the middleman to television and film media, simply because all they are doing is provide storefront, promotion, payment, and distribution of media. The studio, producers, and regulatory bodies provide all of the sales and curation tasks.
App Store is a platform that Apple built, i don't care about your stupid game, i want my Apps to be strictly curated and I want Apple to make some money off it. If a customer disagrees with the policy and gets angry about it, then don't buy and iPhone, it's that simple.
That's fine but did you know Apple would be the middleman to everything, and that they would decide what you could download or not?
More importantly, was that made clear to you at purchase?
You may find that Apple being a middleman isn't a problem here. The root problem is on a deeper level and eventually, I don't think things will work out to Apple's liking.
Apple isn't the middleman. Apple is Apple and it's Apple's Store than they fu**ing INVENTED.
Apple is very much the middleman. You can't develop for iOS device deployment without going through Apple. Apple decides what can (and can't) be present on the App Store and doesn't allow for third party stores. Apple also takes a cut of transactions.
Apple is a middleman in every sense of the word.
Apple provides the tools, configures the downloads for the customer device, operates the backend, provides the storefront including promotion and a secure payment system, and validates and approves the apps according to published rules. It does all this to maximize the customer experience.
That isn't being a middleman.
You could make a case that Apple is the middleman to television and film media, simply because all they are doing is provide storefront, promotion, payment, and distribution of media. The studio, producers, and regulatory bodies provide all of the sales and curation tasks.
You cannot get an app for consumers on iOS without going through Apple in some way or another.
Apple is a middleman in the purest sense of the word. It sits between developers and app store users and determines what can (and cannot) reach consumers, and in which conditions.
App Store is a platform that Apple built, i don't care about your stupid game, i want my Apps to be strictly curated and I want Apple to make some money off it. If a customer disagrees with the policy and gets angry about it, then don't buy and iPhone, it's that simple.
That's fine but did you know Apple would be the middleman to everything, and that they would decide what you could download or not?
More importantly, was that made clear to you at purchase?
You may find that Apple being a middleman isn't a problem here. The root problem is on a deeper level and eventually, I don't think things will work out to Apple's liking.
Apple isn't the middleman. Apple is Apple and it's Apple's Store than they fu**ing INVENTED.
Apple is very much the middleman. You can't develop for iOS device deployment without going through Apple. Apple decides what can (and can't) be present on the App Store and doesn't allow for third party stores. Apple also takes a cut of transactions.
Apple is a middleman in every sense of the word.
Apple provides the tools, configures the downloads for the customer device, operates the backend, provides the storefront including promotion and a secure payment system, and validates and approves the apps according to published rules. It does all this to maximize the customer experience.
That isn't being a middleman.
You could make a case that Apple is the middleman to television and film media, simply because all they are doing is provide storefront, promotion, payment, and distribution of media. The studio, producers, and regulatory bodies provide all of the sales and curation tasks.
You cannot get an app for consumers on iOS without going through Apple in some way or another.
Apple is a middleman in the purest sense of the word. It sits between developers and app store users and determines what can (and cannot) reach consumers, and in which conditions.
You might better describe Apple as a Gatekeeper, rather than a middleman, and I would agree with that.
A Gatekeeper isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are all kinds of Gatekeepers in world that reduce chaos, and chaos is a possibility for any customer side loading apps, not to mention security risks, especially of transactions.
Essentially, Epic wants to remove Apple as the Gatekeeper, to increase Epic's take, not to create a better experience for the user. Funny that Epic doesn't feel the need to do that exact same thing with consoles, because of the different business model.
Apple users for the most part, like Apple's Gatekeeper status, and that Walled Garden.
You don't, but you are barely an Apple user anymore.
tmay said: You could make a case that Apple is the middleman to television and film media, simply because all they are doing is provide storefront, promotion, payment, and distribution of media. The studio, producers, and regulatory bodies provide all of the sales and curation tasks.
I would agree that those types of areas are where "middleman" would make more sense.
App Store is a platform that Apple built, i don't care about your stupid game, i want my Apps to be strictly curated and I want Apple to make some money off it. If a customer disagrees with the policy and gets angry about it, then don't buy and iPhone, it's that simple.
That's fine but did you know Apple would be the middleman to everything, and that they would decide what you could download or not?
More importantly, was that made clear to you at purchase?
You may find that Apple being a middleman isn't a problem here. The root problem is on a deeper level and eventually, I don't think things will work out to Apple's liking.
Apple isn't the middleman. Apple is Apple and it's Apple's Store than they fu**ing INVENTED.
Apple is very much the middleman. You can't develop for iOS device deployment without going through Apple. Apple decides what can (and can't) be present on the App Store and doesn't allow for third party stores. Apple also takes a cut of transactions.
Apple is a middleman in every sense of the word.
Apple provides the tools, configures the downloads for the customer device, operates the backend, provides the storefront including promotion and a secure payment system, and validates and approves the apps according to published rules. It does all this to maximize the customer experience.
That isn't being a middleman.
You could make a case that Apple is the middleman to television and film media, simply because all they are doing is provide storefront, promotion, payment, and distribution of media. The studio, producers, and regulatory bodies provide all of the sales and curation tasks.
You cannot get an app for consumers on iOS without going through Apple in some way or another.
Apple is a middleman in the purest sense of the word. It sits between developers and app store users and determines what can (and cannot) reach consumers, and in which conditions.
You might better describe Apple as a Gatekeeper, rather than a middleman, and I would agree with that.
A Gatekeeper isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are all kinds of Gatekeepers in world that reduce chaos, and chaos is a possibility for any customer side loading apps, not to mention security risks, especially of transactions.
Essentially, Epic wants to remove Apple as the Gatekeeper, to increase Epic's take, not to create a better experience for the user. Funny that Epic doesn't feel the need to do that exact same thing with consoles, because of the different business model.
Apple users for the most part, like Apple's Gatekeeper status, and that Walled Garden.
You don't, but you are barely an Apple user anymore.
You are barking up the wrong tree.
Yes. Apple is also a gatekeeper.
But being a middlemen or a gatekeeper or whatever you want to call it, isn't the root problem here.
The root problem is that far from a being a middleman, Apple wants to be the middleman.
There shouldn't be a problem with wanting to control access to a store you own.
The problems arrive (potentially) when you want your store to be the only one available and you didn't explicitly notify users of this fact when they bought the device.
That is where Apple is likely to find itself in trouble.
App Store is a platform that Apple built, i don't care about your stupid game, i want my Apps to be strictly curated and I want Apple to make some money off it. If a customer disagrees with the policy and gets angry about it, then don't buy and iPhone, it's that simple.
That's fine but did you know Apple would be the middleman to everything, and that they would decide what you could download or not?
More importantly, was that made clear to you at purchase?
You may find that Apple being a middleman isn't a problem here. The root problem is on a deeper level and eventually, I don't think things will work out to Apple's liking.
Apple isn't the middleman. Apple is Apple and it's Apple's Store than they fu**ing INVENTED.
Apple is very much the middleman. You can't develop for iOS device deployment without going through Apple. Apple decides what can (and can't) be present on the App Store and doesn't allow for third party stores. Apple also takes a cut of transactions.
Apple is a middleman in every sense of the word.
Apple provides the tools, configures the downloads for the customer device, operates the backend, provides the storefront including promotion and a secure payment system, and validates and approves the apps according to published rules. It does all this to maximize the customer experience.
That isn't being a middleman.
You could make a case that Apple is the middleman to television and film media, simply because all they are doing is provide storefront, promotion, payment, and distribution of media. The studio, producers, and regulatory bodies provide all of the sales and curation tasks.
You cannot get an app for consumers on iOS without going through Apple in some way or another.
Apple is a middleman in the purest sense of the word. It sits between developers and app store users and determines what can (and cannot) reach consumers, and in which conditions.
You might better describe Apple as a Gatekeeper, rather than a middleman, and I would agree with that.
A Gatekeeper isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are all kinds of Gatekeepers in world that reduce chaos, and chaos is a possibility for any customer side loading apps, not to mention security risks, especially of transactions.
Essentially, Epic wants to remove Apple as the Gatekeeper, to increase Epic's take, not to create a better experience for the user. Funny that Epic doesn't feel the need to do that exact same thing with consoles, because of the different business model.
Apple users for the most part, like Apple's Gatekeeper status, and that Walled Garden.
You don't, but you are barely an Apple user anymore.
You are barking up the wrong tree.
Yes. Apple is also a gatekeeper.
But being a middlemen or a gatekeeper or whatever you want to call it, isn't the root problem here.
The root problem is that far from a being a middleman, Apple wants to be the middleman.
There shouldn't be a problem with wanting to control access to a store you own.
The problems arrive (potentially) when you want your store to be the only one available and you didn't explicitly notify users of this fact when they bought the device.
That is where Apple is likely to find itself in trouble.
Language is important. Use better, more explanatory terms.
If you don't expect users to be able to understand the Apple ecosystem, how the fuck to you expect those same users to be able to successfully navigate a shit ton of side loaded apps from a variety of different 3rd party stores, and even more payment systems?
Seriously, you can't have it both ways, and really, are there that many users that don't understand Apple's app store when they buy Apple products, especially the iPhone?
Do users even need to be explicitly notified?
Really?
That's a pretty low bar of expectation that you have set your straw man argument on.
I do not want or need another App Store, nor do 99.99999% of the users. Do any of the complainers think Epic is going to lower their price if they can side load their app?
App Store is a platform that Apple built, i don't care about your stupid game, i want my Apps to be strictly curated and I want Apple to make some money off it. If a customer disagrees with the policy and gets angry about it, then don't buy and iPhone, it's that simple.
That's fine but did you know Apple would be the middleman to everything, and that they would decide what you could download or not?
More importantly, was that made clear to you at purchase?
You may find that Apple being a middleman isn't a problem here. The root problem is on a deeper level and eventually, I don't think things will work out to Apple's liking.
Apple isn't the middleman. Apple is Apple and it's Apple's Store than they fu**ing INVENTED.
Apple is very much the middleman. You can't develop for iOS device deployment without going through Apple. Apple decides what can (and can't) be present on the App Store and doesn't allow for third party stores. Apple also takes a cut of transactions.
Apple is a middleman in every sense of the word.
Apple provides the tools, configures the downloads for the customer device, operates the backend, provides the storefront including promotion and a secure payment system, and validates and approves the apps according to published rules. It does all this to maximize the customer experience.
That isn't being a middleman.
You could make a case that Apple is the middleman to television and film media, simply because all they are doing is provide storefront, promotion, payment, and distribution of media. The studio, producers, and regulatory bodies provide all of the sales and curation tasks.
You cannot get an app for consumers on iOS without going through Apple in some way or another.
Apple is a middleman in the purest sense of the word. It sits between developers and app store users and determines what can (and cannot) reach consumers, and in which conditions.
You might better describe Apple as a Gatekeeper, rather than a middleman, and I would agree with that.
A Gatekeeper isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are all kinds of Gatekeepers in world that reduce chaos, and chaos is a possibility for any customer side loading apps, not to mention security risks, especially of transactions.
Essentially, Epic wants to remove Apple as the Gatekeeper, to increase Epic's take, not to create a better experience for the user. Funny that Epic doesn't feel the need to do that exact same thing with consoles, because of the different business model.
Apple users for the most part, like Apple's Gatekeeper status, and that Walled Garden.
You don't, but you are barely an Apple user anymore.
You are barking up the wrong tree.
Yes. Apple is also a gatekeeper.
But being a middlemen or a gatekeeper or whatever you want to call it, isn't the root problem here.
The root problem is that far from a being a middleman, Apple wants to be the middleman.
There shouldn't be a problem with wanting to control access to a store you own.
The problems arrive (potentially) when you want your store to be the only one available and you didn't explicitly notify users of this fact when they bought the device.
That is where Apple is likely to find itself in trouble.
Language is important. Use better, more explanatory terms.
If you don't expect users to be able to understand the Apple ecosystem, how the fuck to you expect those same users to be able to successfully navigate a shit ton of side loaded apps from a variety of different 3rd party stores, and even more payment systems?
Seriously, you can't have it both ways, and really, are there that many users that don't understand Apple's app store when they buy Apple products, especially the iPhone?
Do users even need to be explicitly notified?
Really?
That's a pretty low bar of expectation that you have set your straw man argument on.
I have mentioned this in other threads and there are clear parallels involved.
When Spanish mortgage 'floor' clauses were taken up to EU courts, the clauses themselves were not outlawed.
The banks still had to return billions to users because they had not explained the clauses sufficiently clearly to the clients who were signing the contract. This, in spite of clients having the clauses in the contracts they were signing.
No such warning is provided to users prior to purchase of an iDevice.
On your other point, users would have zero issues finding and downloading apps through a different store.
App Store is a platform that Apple built, i don't care about your stupid game, i want my Apps to be strictly curated and I want Apple to make some money off it. If a customer disagrees with the policy and gets angry about it, then don't buy and iPhone, it's that simple.
That's fine but did you know Apple would be the middleman to everything, and that they would decide what you could download or not?
More importantly, was that made clear to you at purchase?
You may find that Apple being a middleman isn't a problem here. The root problem is on a deeper level and eventually, I don't think things will work out to Apple's liking.
Apple isn't the middleman. Apple is Apple and it's Apple's Store than they fu**ing INVENTED.
Apple is very much the middleman. You can't develop for iOS device deployment without going through Apple. Apple decides what can (and can't) be present on the App Store and doesn't allow for third party stores. Apple also takes a cut of transactions.
Apple is a middleman in every sense of the word.
Apple provides the tools, configures the downloads for the customer device, operates the backend, provides the storefront including promotion and a secure payment system, and validates and approves the apps according to published rules. It does all this to maximize the customer experience.
That isn't being a middleman.
You could make a case that Apple is the middleman to television and film media, simply because all they are doing is provide storefront, promotion, payment, and distribution of media. The studio, producers, and regulatory bodies provide all of the sales and curation tasks.
You cannot get an app for consumers on iOS without going through Apple in some way or another.
Apple is a middleman in the purest sense of the word. It sits between developers and app store users and determines what can (and cannot) reach consumers, and in which conditions.
You might better describe Apple as a Gatekeeper, rather than a middleman, and I would agree with that.
A Gatekeeper isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are all kinds of Gatekeepers in world that reduce chaos, and chaos is a possibility for any customer side loading apps, not to mention security risks, especially of transactions.
Essentially, Epic wants to remove Apple as the Gatekeeper, to increase Epic's take, not to create a better experience for the user. Funny that Epic doesn't feel the need to do that exact same thing with consoles, because of the different business model.
Apple users for the most part, like Apple's Gatekeeper status, and that Walled Garden.
You don't, but you are barely an Apple user anymore.
You are barking up the wrong tree.
Yes. Apple is also a gatekeeper.
But being a middlemen or a gatekeeper or whatever you want to call it, isn't the root problem here.
The root problem is that far from a being a middleman, Apple wants to be the middleman.
There shouldn't be a problem with wanting to control access to a store you own.
The problems arrive (potentially) when you want your store to be the only one available and you didn't explicitly notify users of this fact when they bought the device.
That is where Apple is likely to find itself in trouble.
Language is important. Use better, more explanatory terms.
If you don't expect users to be able to understand the Apple ecosystem, how the fuck to you expect those same users to be able to successfully navigate a shit ton of side loaded apps from a variety of different 3rd party stores, and even more payment systems?
Seriously, you can't have it both ways, and really, are there that many users that don't understand Apple's app store when they buy Apple products, especially the iPhone?
Do users even need to be explicitly notified?
Really?
That's a pretty low bar of expectation that you have set your straw man argument on.
I have mentioned this in other threads and there are clear parallels involved.
When Spanish mortgage 'floor' clauses were taken up to EU courts, the clauses themselves were not outlawed.
The banks still had to return billions to users because they had not explained the clauses sufficiently clearly to the clients who were signing the contract. This, in spite of clients having the clauses in the contracts they were signing.
No such warning is provided to users prior to purchase of an iDevice.
On your other point, users would have zero issues finding and downloading apps through a different store.
Seriously.
iPhone users are too dumb to know that Apple has a single App store, but are otherwise smart enough to find, navigate, download apps, pay, and get support through any of a number of different stores, with less problems than the Apple App store, which still has minor issues?
You better be able to post supporting data, because that is just bullshit.
"“We are one of only two companies globally that can have this hardware and software solution for our own ecosystem,” Anson Zhang tells me. “Only Huawei and Apple can do this—it’s our long-term strategy.” The man leading Huawei’s U.K. consumer business—arguably its most media-critical market outside China, is bullish. “Although there are lots of challenges and rumours and pressure,” he says, “we are committed to our investments, our ecosystem… This strategy will work.”
Hidden behind the headlines there’s a basal truth with Huawei—they’re playing a long game. No shareholders, as such. A vast and generous domestic market that’s not about to turn against them anytime soon. The welcome embrace of a state sponsor that—whether or not there’s any ownership or control, which is vigorously denied—has certainly been the world’s softest landing post America’s blacklist.
Until last year, Huawei was competing with Samsung for Google Android users worldwide. But Trump’s sanctions cut the Chinese giant adrift from Google. And now, eyeing the global market, Huawei wants to carve a third-way, an alternative to both iOS and full-fat Android. But in doing so, the company finds itself much, much closer to Apple’s model than to Google’s. Huawei’s plan to beat Google, to bring Android users outside China to its own OS, is arguably be just like Apple."
Apple's iPhone market in the world is less than 30%. Epic does not want to pay 30% then go on to more than 70% of Android market. Oh.. I forgot Google also charge 30% or so.. They also ban you too.. So why Epic barking at Apple's door?
Create market, hardware and continue to success require money and time. Apple did that.. Epic create just another game and gain popularity.. How long Fortnite will continue to sell those worthless digital items? Another 10 years? Most of games are one hit wonder and less than 1 year to forgot from most of people.
Epic, you want to keep all the money then do same thing as Nintendo. Develop game console, create market, keep appeal to consumer for many years. If you think this is easy then Sony is another moron. They failed for mobile game platform.
Why people think create and maintain market share is easy and free? But game development need spend too much money and effort? iOS or Android provide instant millions of user base access. That's why they charge 30%. You don't like it then simply create own platform. The story is end here.
I'd like to know how the entity that provides at least half of everything that even makes your app possible could be called a "middleman". Talk about mischaracterization.
App Store is a platform that Apple built, i don't care about your stupid game, i want my Apps to be strictly curated and I want Apple to make some money off it. If a customer disagrees with the policy and gets angry about it, then don't buy and iPhone, it's that simple.
That's fine but did you know Apple would be the middleman to everything, and that they would decide what you could download or not?
More importantly, was that made clear to you at purchase?
You may find that Apple being a middleman isn't a problem here. The root problem is on a deeper level and eventually, I don't think things will work out to Apple's liking.
Apple isn't the middleman. Apple is Apple and it's Apple's Store than they fu**ing INVENTED.
Apple is very much the middleman. You can't develop for iOS device deployment without going through Apple. Apple decides what can (and can't) be present on the App Store and doesn't allow for third party stores. Apple also takes a cut of transactions.
Apple is a middleman in every sense of the word.
Apple provides the tools, configures the downloads for the customer device, operates the backend, provides the storefront including promotion and a secure payment system, and validates and approves the apps according to published rules. It does all this to maximize the customer experience.
That isn't being a middleman.
You could make a case that Apple is the middleman to television and film media, simply because all they are doing is provide storefront, promotion, payment, and distribution of media. The studio, producers, and regulatory bodies provide all of the sales and curation tasks.
You cannot get an app for consumers on iOS without going through Apple in some way or another.
Apple is a middleman in the purest sense of the word. It sits between developers and app store users and determines what can (and cannot) reach consumers, and in which conditions.
You might better describe Apple as a Gatekeeper, rather than a middleman, and I would agree with that.
A Gatekeeper isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are all kinds of Gatekeepers in world that reduce chaos, and chaos is a possibility for any customer side loading apps, not to mention security risks, especially of transactions.
Essentially, Epic wants to remove Apple as the Gatekeeper, to increase Epic's take, not to create a better experience for the user. Funny that Epic doesn't feel the need to do that exact same thing with consoles, because of the different business model.
Apple users for the most part, like Apple's Gatekeeper status, and that Walled Garden.
You don't, but you are barely an Apple user anymore.
You are barking up the wrong tree.
Yes. Apple is also a gatekeeper.
But being a middlemen or a gatekeeper or whatever you want to call it, isn't the root problem here.
The root problem is that far from a being a middleman, Apple wants to be the middleman.
There shouldn't be a problem with wanting to control access to a store you own.
The problems arrive (potentially) when you want your store to be the only one available and you didn't explicitly notify users of this fact when they bought the device.
That is where Apple is likely to find itself in trouble.
Language is important. Use better, more explanatory terms.
If you don't expect users to be able to understand the Apple ecosystem, how the fuck to you expect those same users to be able to successfully navigate a shit ton of side loaded apps from a variety of different 3rd party stores, and even more payment systems?
Seriously, you can't have it both ways, and really, are there that many users that don't understand Apple's app store when they buy Apple products, especially the iPhone?
Do users even need to be explicitly notified?
Really?
That's a pretty low bar of expectation that you have set your straw man argument on.
I have mentioned this in other threads and there are clear parallels involved.
When Spanish mortgage 'floor' clauses were taken up to EU courts, the clauses themselves were not outlawed.
The banks still had to return billions to users because they had not explained the clauses sufficiently clearly to the clients who were signing the contract. This, in spite of clients having the clauses in the contracts they were signing.
No such warning is provided to users prior to purchase of an iDevice.
On your other point, users would have zero issues finding and downloading apps through a different store.
Seriously.
iPhone users are too dumb to know that Apple has a single App store, but are otherwise smart enough to find, navigate, download apps, pay, and get support through any of a number of different stores, with less problems than the Apple App store, which still has minor issues?
You better be able to post supporting data, because that is just bullshit.
"“We are one of only two companies globally that can have this hardware and software solution for our own ecosystem,” Anson Zhang tells me. “Only Huawei and Apple can do this—it’s our long-term strategy.” The man leading Huawei’s U.K. consumer business—arguably its most media-critical market outside China, is bullish. “Although there are lots of challenges and rumours and pressure,” he says, “we are committed to our investments, our ecosystem… This strategy will work.”
Hidden behind the headlines there’s a basal truth with Huawei—they’re playing a long game. No shareholders, as such. A vast and generous domestic market that’s not about to turn against them anytime soon. The welcome embrace of a state sponsor that—whether or not there’s any ownership or control, which is vigorously denied—has certainly been the world’s softest landing post America’s blacklist.
Until last year, Huawei was competing with Samsung for Google Android users worldwide. But Trump’s sanctions cut the Chinese giant adrift from Google. And now, eyeing the global market, Huawei wants to carve a third-way, an alternative to both iOS and full-fat Android. But in doing so, the company finds itself much, much closer to Apple’s model than to Google’s. Huawei’s plan to beat Google, to bring Android users outside China to its own OS, is arguably be just like Apple."
Your pals at Huawei want to be just like Apple...
It is not up to us to decide if people are intelligent enough to do whatever? Are you proposing that people take an exam or something to determine that?
Legislation can impose blanket requirements and it is funny that you bring the subject up because in the Spanish case that went to the EU court, the sentence made clear that the simple presence of the clause in the agreement was not enough to make it valid. The clause should have been made clear to the customer and in terms that the average customer could comprehend.
As for Zak's article, you need to re-read it.
Huawei and Apple and Samsung and Xiaomi etc are already the same.
The only difference is that macOS, iOS and iPad OS sit on top of Darwin and the others sit on top of Android.
Now, Huawei has been forced to move to HarmonyOS earlier than planned due to Trump.
Rumours say it could ship on phones far earlier than most expected. We will find out more on 5th September - less than a month away.
HarmonyOS is already on TVs, cars, routers and its kernel is in watches and laptops. Rumour has it that it will land as an OS on watches and some desktops before the end of this year.
Can you imagine the impact on Google of having the whole process brutally accelerated and the liklihood that Huawei will never go back to Android?
App Store is a platform that Apple built, i don't care about your stupid game, i want my Apps to be strictly curated and I want Apple to make some money off it. If a customer disagrees with the policy and gets angry about it, then don't buy and iPhone, it's that simple.
That's fine but did you know Apple would be the middleman to everything, and that they would decide what you could download or not?
More importantly, was that made clear to you at purchase?
You may find that Apple being a middleman isn't a problem here. The root problem is on a deeper level and eventually, I don't think things will work out to Apple's liking.
Apple isn't the middleman. Apple is Apple and it's Apple's Store than they fu**ing INVENTED.
Apple is very much the middleman. You can't develop for iOS device deployment without going through Apple. Apple decides what can (and can't) be present on the App Store and doesn't allow for third party stores. Apple also takes a cut of transactions.
Apple is a middleman in every sense of the word.
Apple provides the tools, configures the downloads for the customer device, operates the backend, provides the storefront including promotion and a secure payment system, and validates and approves the apps according to published rules. It does all this to maximize the customer experience.
That isn't being a middleman.
You could make a case that Apple is the middleman to television and film media, simply because all they are doing is provide storefront, promotion, payment, and distribution of media. The studio, producers, and regulatory bodies provide all of the sales and curation tasks.
You cannot get an app for consumers on iOS without going through Apple in some way or another.
Apple is a middleman in the purest sense of the word. It sits between developers and app store users and determines what can (and cannot) reach consumers, and in which conditions.
You might better describe Apple as a Gatekeeper, rather than a middleman, and I would agree with that.
A Gatekeeper isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are all kinds of Gatekeepers in world that reduce chaos, and chaos is a possibility for any customer side loading apps, not to mention security risks, especially of transactions.
Essentially, Epic wants to remove Apple as the Gatekeeper, to increase Epic's take, not to create a better experience for the user. Funny that Epic doesn't feel the need to do that exact same thing with consoles, because of the different business model.
Apple users for the most part, like Apple's Gatekeeper status, and that Walled Garden.
You don't, but you are barely an Apple user anymore.
You are barking up the wrong tree.
Yes. Apple is also a gatekeeper.
But being a middlemen or a gatekeeper or whatever you want to call it, isn't the root problem here.
The root problem is that far from a being a middleman, Apple wants to be the middleman.
There shouldn't be a problem with wanting to control access to a store you own.
The problems arrive (potentially) when you want your store to be the only one available and you didn't explicitly notify users of this fact when they bought the device.
That is where Apple is likely to find itself in trouble.
Language is important. Use better, more explanatory terms.
If you don't expect users to be able to understand the Apple ecosystem, how the fuck to you expect those same users to be able to successfully navigate a shit ton of side loaded apps from a variety of different 3rd party stores, and even more payment systems?
Seriously, you can't have it both ways, and really, are there that many users that don't understand Apple's app store when they buy Apple products, especially the iPhone?
Do users even need to be explicitly notified?
Really?
That's a pretty low bar of expectation that you have set your straw man argument on.
I have mentioned this in other threads and there are clear parallels involved.
When Spanish mortgage 'floor' clauses were taken up to EU courts, the clauses themselves were not outlawed.
The banks still had to return billions to users because they had not explained the clauses sufficiently clearly to the clients who were signing the contract. This, in spite of clients having the clauses in the contracts they were signing.
No such warning is provided to users prior to purchase of an iDevice.
On your other point, users would have zero issues finding and downloading apps through a different store.
Seriously.
iPhone users are too dumb to know that Apple has a single App store, but are otherwise smart enough to find, navigate, download apps, pay, and get support through any of a number of different stores, with less problems than the Apple App store, which still has minor issues?
You better be able to post supporting data, because that is just bullshit.
"“We are one of only two companies globally that can have this hardware and software solution for our own ecosystem,” Anson Zhang tells me. “Only Huawei and Apple can do this—it’s our long-term strategy.” The man leading Huawei’s U.K. consumer business—arguably its most media-critical market outside China, is bullish. “Although there are lots of challenges and rumours and pressure,” he says, “we are committed to our investments, our ecosystem… This strategy will work.”
Hidden behind the headlines there’s a basal truth with Huawei—they’re playing a long game. No shareholders, as such. A vast and generous domestic market that’s not about to turn against them anytime soon. The welcome embrace of a state sponsor that—whether or not there’s any ownership or control, which is vigorously denied—has certainly been the world’s softest landing post America’s blacklist.
Until last year, Huawei was competing with Samsung for Google Android users worldwide. But Trump’s sanctions cut the Chinese giant adrift from Google. And now, eyeing the global market, Huawei wants to carve a third-way, an alternative to both iOS and full-fat Android. But in doing so, the company finds itself much, much closer to Apple’s model than to Google’s. Huawei’s plan to beat Google, to bring Android users outside China to its own OS, is arguably be just like Apple."
Your pals at Huawei want to be just like Apple...
It is not up to us to decide if people are intelligent enough to do whatever? Are you proposing that people take an exam or something to determine that?
Legislation can impose blanket requirements and it is funny that you bring the subject up because in the Spanish case that went to the EU court, the sentence made clear that the simple presence of the clause in the agreement was not enough to make it valid. The clause should have been made clear to the customer and in terms that the average customer could comprehend.
As for Zak's article, you need to re-read it.
Huawei and Apple and Samsung and Xiaomi etc are already the same.
The only difference is that macOS, iOS and iPad OS sit on top of Darwin and the others sit on top of Android.
Now, Huawei has been forced to move to HarmonyOS earlier than planned due to Trump.
Rumours say it could ship on phones far earlier than most expected. We will find out more on 5th September - less than a month away.
HarmonyOS is already on TVs, cars, routers and its kernel is in watches and laptops. Rumour has it that it will land as an OS on watches and some desktops before the end of this year.
Can you imagine the impact on Google of having the whole process brutally accelerated and the liklihood that Huawei will never go back to Android?
LOL,
It is not up to us to decide if people are intelligent enough to do whatever? Are you proposing that people take an exam or something to determine that?
You were the one that stated that Apple needed to tell buyers that there was only the Apple store to purchase apps from. I mean, it's been that way since 2008, so someone would either have to been in coma, or completely oblivious to the world of smartphones.
I don't think anyone should claim those others as "the same" since Apple actually has a mature development platform and the core OS Darwin, that spans a wide range of hardware and ecosystem, all of which Apple has complete control of with the move to ASi. Hence why I mentioned that Huawei wants to be like Apple, yet Huawei hasn't actually demonstrated the maturity of their development system, nor the maturity of their underlying Harmony OS, which is still very much a work in process, nor even the maturity or breadth of their own underlying silicon.
I don't know what the impact on Google will be in any of this, but Huawei has a long way to go to match Google's services in those countries that Huawei sells into.
App Store is a platform that Apple built, i don't care about your stupid game, i want my Apps to be strictly curated and I want Apple to make some money off it. If a customer disagrees with the policy and gets angry about it, then don't buy and iPhone, it's that simple.
That's fine but did you know Apple would be the middleman to everything, and that they would decide what you could download or not?
More importantly, was that made clear to you at purchase?
You may find that Apple being a middleman isn't a problem here. The root problem is on a deeper level and eventually, I don't think things will work out to Apple's liking.
Apple isn't the middleman. Apple is Apple and it's Apple's Store than they fu**ing INVENTED.
Apple is very much the middleman. You can't develop for iOS device deployment without going through Apple. Apple decides what can (and can't) be present on the App Store and doesn't allow for third party stores. Apple also takes a cut of transactions.
Apple is a middleman in every sense of the word.
Apple provides the tools, configures the downloads for the customer device, operates the backend, provides the storefront including promotion and a secure payment system, and validates and approves the apps according to published rules. It does all this to maximize the customer experience.
That isn't being a middleman.
You could make a case that Apple is the middleman to television and film media, simply because all they are doing is provide storefront, promotion, payment, and distribution of media. The studio, producers, and regulatory bodies provide all of the sales and curation tasks.
You cannot get an app for consumers on iOS without going through Apple in some way or another.
Apple is a middleman in the purest sense of the word. It sits between developers and app store users and determines what can (and cannot) reach consumers, and in which conditions.
You might better describe Apple as a Gatekeeper, rather than a middleman, and I would agree with that.
A Gatekeeper isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are all kinds of Gatekeepers in world that reduce chaos, and chaos is a possibility for any customer side loading apps, not to mention security risks, especially of transactions.
Essentially, Epic wants to remove Apple as the Gatekeeper, to increase Epic's take, not to create a better experience for the user. Funny that Epic doesn't feel the need to do that exact same thing with consoles, because of the different business model.
Apple users for the most part, like Apple's Gatekeeper status, and that Walled Garden.
You don't, but you are barely an Apple user anymore.
You are barking up the wrong tree.
Yes. Apple is also a gatekeeper.
But being a middlemen or a gatekeeper or whatever you want to call it, isn't the root problem here.
The root problem is that far from a being a middleman, Apple wants to be the middleman.
There shouldn't be a problem with wanting to control access to a store you own.
The problems arrive (potentially) when you want your store to be the only one available and you didn't explicitly notify users of this fact when they bought the device.
That is where Apple is likely to find itself in trouble.
Language is important. Use better, more explanatory terms.
If you don't expect users to be able to understand the Apple ecosystem, how the fuck to you expect those same users to be able to successfully navigate a shit ton of side loaded apps from a variety of different 3rd party stores, and even more payment systems?
Seriously, you can't have it both ways, and really, are there that many users that don't understand Apple's app store when they buy Apple products, especially the iPhone?
Do users even need to be explicitly notified?
Really?
That's a pretty low bar of expectation that you have set your straw man argument on.
I have mentioned this in other threads and there are clear parallels involved.
When Spanish mortgage 'floor' clauses were taken up to EU courts, the clauses themselves were not outlawed.
The banks still had to return billions to users because they had not explained the clauses sufficiently clearly to the clients who were signing the contract. This, in spite of clients having the clauses in the contracts they were signing.
No such warning is provided to users prior to purchase of an iDevice.
On your other point, users would have zero issues finding and downloading apps through a different store.
Seriously.
iPhone users are too dumb to know that Apple has a single App store, but are otherwise smart enough to find, navigate, download apps, pay, and get support through any of a number of different stores, with less problems than the Apple App store, which still has minor issues?
You better be able to post supporting data, because that is just bullshit.
"“We are one of only two companies globally that can have this hardware and software solution for our own ecosystem,” Anson Zhang tells me. “Only Huawei and Apple can do this—it’s our long-term strategy.” The man leading Huawei’s U.K. consumer business—arguably its most media-critical market outside China, is bullish. “Although there are lots of challenges and rumours and pressure,” he says, “we are committed to our investments, our ecosystem… This strategy will work.”
Hidden behind the headlines there’s a basal truth with Huawei—they’re playing a long game. No shareholders, as such. A vast and generous domestic market that’s not about to turn against them anytime soon. The welcome embrace of a state sponsor that—whether or not there’s any ownership or control, which is vigorously denied—has certainly been the world’s softest landing post America’s blacklist.
Until last year, Huawei was competing with Samsung for Google Android users worldwide. But Trump’s sanctions cut the Chinese giant adrift from Google. And now, eyeing the global market, Huawei wants to carve a third-way, an alternative to both iOS and full-fat Android. But in doing so, the company finds itself much, much closer to Apple’s model than to Google’s. Huawei’s plan to beat Google, to bring Android users outside China to its own OS, is arguably be just like Apple."
Your pals at Huawei want to be just like Apple...
It is not up to us to decide if people are intelligent enough to do whatever? Are you proposing that people take an exam or something to determine that?
Legislation can impose blanket requirements and it is funny that you bring the subject up because in the Spanish case that went to the EU court, the sentence made clear that the simple presence of the clause in the agreement was not enough to make it valid. The clause should have been made clear to the customer and in terms that the average customer could comprehend.
As for Zak's article, you need to re-read it.
Huawei and Apple and Samsung and Xiaomi etc are already the same.
The only difference is that macOS, iOS and iPad OS sit on top of Darwin and the others sit on top of Android.
Now, Huawei has been forced to move to HarmonyOS earlier than planned due to Trump.
Rumours say it could ship on phones far earlier than most expected. We will find out more on 5th September - less than a month away.
HarmonyOS is already on TVs, cars, routers and its kernel is in watches and laptops. Rumour has it that it will land as an OS on watches and some desktops before the end of this year.
Can you imagine the impact on Google of having the whole process brutally accelerated and the liklihood that Huawei will never go back to Android?
LOL,
It is not up to us to decide if people are intelligent enough to do whatever? Are you proposing that people take an exam or something to determine that?
I don't know what the impact on Google will be in any of this, but Huawei has a long way to go to match Google's services in those countries that Huawei sells into.
Agreed, they are not there YET. But they can take their time to reach there (with a dedicated home market to cater to for 1 or 2 years if needed), unlike Microsoft or Samsung who tried to push their own smartphone OSes and failed because of lack of time. And that should be of concern to Google. Because once Huawei reaches a good-enough level, Google will lose their stranglehold on Android pretty fast, with other Chinese OEMs (BBK's subsidiaries, Xiaomi, Lenovo etc) joining Huawei and will move away from Google fairly quickly. Google will lose its relevance in smartphone world within few years.
Mr. Tim Sweeney, don't be hypocrite. You are not fighting for unjust but your own interest. So, shut up, Make your own App Store and stick your App there. Make your own phone or console so you don't have to deal with IOS or Android platform.
That's not the only reason he's a hypocrite. Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo all have the same deal on their consoles, yet he's content with that. Somehow, the rules are different for them than they are Apple and Google.
Comments
I might as well sue Epic because the game I bought from them doesn't run on Mac, only PC. I mean, they told me when I bought it that it wouldn't run on a Mac, just like Apple told them when they developed Fortnite for iOS how the in-game purchasing would work, but why should that make any difference?
Epic's games are tedious anyway so no great loss.
So, Epic, you can just stop being on the iOS platform. And go somewhere else to make your money. You can create your own devices, or app store, or your own means of releasing your content.
Mirriam Webster
Definition of middleman
especially : a dealer, agent, or company intermediate between the producer of goods and the retailer or consumer
This isn't the key point here though, as I outlined earlier.
That isn't being a middleman.
You could make a case that Apple is the middleman to television and film media, simply because all they are doing is provide storefront, promotion, payment, and distribution of media. The studio, producers, and regulatory bodies provide all of the sales and curation tasks.
Apple is a middleman in the purest sense of the word. It sits between developers and app store users and determines what can (and cannot) reach consumers, and in which conditions.
A Gatekeeper isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are all kinds of Gatekeepers in world that reduce chaos, and chaos is a possibility for any customer side loading apps, not to mention security risks, especially of transactions.
Essentially, Epic wants to remove Apple as the Gatekeeper, to increase Epic's take, not to create a better experience for the user. Funny that Epic doesn't feel the need to do that exact same thing with consoles, because of the different business model.
Apple users for the most part, like Apple's Gatekeeper status, and that Walled Garden.
You don't, but you are barely an Apple user anymore.
Yes. Apple is also a gatekeeper.
But being a middlemen or a gatekeeper or whatever you want to call it, isn't the root problem here.
The root problem is that far from a being a middleman, Apple wants to be the middleman.
There shouldn't be a problem with wanting to control access to a store you own.
The problems arrive (potentially) when you want your store to be the only one available and you didn't explicitly notify users of this fact when they bought the device.
That is where Apple is likely to find itself in trouble.
If you don't expect users to be able to understand the Apple ecosystem, how the fuck to you expect those same users to be able to successfully navigate a shit ton of side loaded apps from a variety of different 3rd party stores, and even more payment systems?
Seriously, you can't have it both ways, and really, are there that many users that don't understand Apple's app store when they buy Apple products, especially the iPhone?
Do users even need to be explicitly notified?
Really?
That's a pretty low bar of expectation that you have set your straw man argument on.
When Spanish mortgage 'floor' clauses were taken up to EU courts, the clauses themselves were not outlawed.
The banks still had to return billions to users because they had not explained the clauses sufficiently clearly to the clients who were signing the contract. This, in spite of clients having the clauses in the contracts they were signing.
No such warning is provided to users prior to purchase of an iDevice.
On your other point, users would have zero issues finding and downloading apps through a different store.
iPhone users are too dumb to know that Apple has a single App store, but are otherwise smart enough to find, navigate, download apps, pay, and get support through any of a number of different stores, with less problems than the Apple App store, which still has minor issues?
You better be able to post supporting data, because that is just bullshit.
I couldn't resist posting this;
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2020/08/15/huawei-apple-iphone-google-android-update-release-beat-china-ban/#81b66427cc00
"“We are one of only two companies globally that can have this hardware and software solution for our own ecosystem,” Anson Zhang tells me. “Only Huawei and Apple can do this—it’s our long-term strategy.” The man leading Huawei’s U.K. consumer business—arguably its most media-critical market outside China, is bullish. “Although there are lots of challenges and rumours and pressure,” he says, “we are committed to our investments, our ecosystem… This strategy will work.”
Hidden behind the headlines there’s a basal truth with Huawei—they’re playing a long game. No shareholders, as such. A vast and generous domestic market that’s not about to turn against them anytime soon. The welcome embrace of a state sponsor that—whether or not there’s any ownership or control, which is vigorously denied—has certainly been the world’s softest landing post America’s blacklist.
Until last year, Huawei was competing with Samsung for Google Android users worldwide. But Trump’s sanctions cut the Chinese giant adrift from Google. And now, eyeing the global market, Huawei wants to carve a third-way, an alternative to both iOS and full-fat Android. But in doing so, the company finds itself much, much closer to Apple’s model than to Google’s. Huawei’s plan to beat Google, to bring Android users outside China to its own OS, is arguably be just like Apple."
Your pals at Huawei want to be just like Apple...
Oh.. I forgot Google also charge 30% or so.. They also ban you too..
So why Epic barking at Apple's door?
Create market, hardware and continue to success require money and time.
Apple did that.. Epic create just another game and gain popularity..
How long Fortnite will continue to sell those worthless digital items? Another 10 years?
Most of games are one hit wonder and less than 1 year to forgot from most of people.
Epic, you want to keep all the money then do same thing as Nintendo. Develop game console, create market, keep appeal to consumer for many years.
If you think this is easy then Sony is another moron. They failed for mobile game platform.
Why people think create and maintain market share is easy and free? But game development need spend too much money and effort?
iOS or Android provide instant millions of user base access. That's why they charge 30%. You don't like it then simply create own platform. The story is end here.
Legislation can impose blanket requirements and it is funny that you bring the subject up because in the Spanish case that went to the EU court, the sentence made clear that the simple presence of the clause in the agreement was not enough to make it valid. The clause should have been made clear to the customer and in terms that the average customer could comprehend.
As for Zak's article, you need to re-read it.
Huawei and Apple and Samsung and Xiaomi etc are already the same.
The only difference is that macOS, iOS and iPad OS sit on top of Darwin and the others sit on top of Android.
Now, Huawei has been forced to move to HarmonyOS earlier than planned due to Trump.
Rumours say it could ship on phones far earlier than most expected. We will find out more on 5th September - less than a month away.
HarmonyOS is already on TVs, cars, routers and its kernel is in watches and laptops. Rumour has it that it will land as an OS on watches and some desktops before the end of this year.
Can you imagine the impact on Google of having the whole process brutally accelerated and the liklihood that Huawei will never go back to Android?
You were the one that stated that Apple needed to tell buyers that there was only the Apple store to purchase apps from. I mean, it's been that way since 2008, so someone would either have to been in coma, or completely oblivious to the world of smartphones.
I don't think anyone should claim those others as "the same" since Apple actually has a mature development platform and the core OS Darwin, that spans a wide range of hardware and ecosystem, all of which Apple has complete control of with the move to ASi. Hence why I mentioned that Huawei wants to be like Apple, yet Huawei hasn't actually demonstrated the maturity of their development system, nor the maturity of their underlying Harmony OS, which is still very much a work in process, nor even the maturity or breadth of their own underlying silicon.
I don't know what the impact on Google will be in any of this, but Huawei has a long way to go to match Google's services in those countries that Huawei sells into.