I saw another story detailing how Epic lost it 60% of it's iOS users, something like 20 % of total users and $29M per month over the App Store dispute. I wonder if they're having second thoughts? I'm guessing this blew up in a way they either weren't expecting, were hoping to avoid or weren't totally prepared for but now they're obligated to plow forward because they can't go back.
If that's true, I guess Epic would prefer 100% of nothing than 70% of something.
I believe Epic has a point, and don't believe Epic forfeited anything by agreeing to the original Apple contract. Contracts are re-negotiated often, even iron-clad ones. Business is often about exerting influence based on a company's popularity with consumers. Apple commands its price premium because of this.
Regardless of the proposed motives for it, Epic has a point in wanting consumers to have a choice that Apple doesn't want to give. The device isn't a rental, and without the App Store ecosystem the value of the device we are paying for is much less. They go together.
But here is where I believe Apple should get a pass. Desktop computers that Epic references are much more forgiving of any kind of program run on it. Epic is trying to get the same system applied to mobile devices which are finely-tuned for battery life, performance, and security. If Apple ever is made to allow other app stores on its devices, it should be able to indemnify itself from offering support for the device, unless the device is wiped to a factory refreshed state.
Apple's promises about its devices are based on its mobile operating system and software working exactly as Apple intended. Apple should not have to support anything it doesn't create itself, because mobile devices are different. I would not take advantage of a third-party App Store for this reason. But if others want to, and sign away their ability to have Apple fix any problems that arise, they should be allowed to do that because they bought the device outright. It's not being licensed to them.
When the App Store was first created, I can remember that a fair number of people (~30%?) were objecting to Apple having any "rules" that Apple might create and enforce. But based on what I see on these threads now it looks like 90% of people are content with the fact that Apple has rules. I don't think anyone here (who supports Apple) is actually saying that Apple's rules are 100% perfect and should never change. Indeed Apple has changed the rules, but I don't feel that Apple's rule changes have targeted any individual or company. Apple seems to have been quite evenhanded and generous, and has loosened some of its restrictions (maybe too much).
I don't have a great track record of predicting either court case decisions or elections, but this case from Epic feels extremely weak. Epic is fighting a battle uphill with a foam sword in its hands. Epic could do a better job fighting this one with me as their lawyer and public relations representative. And I'd rather enjoy the challenge. In fact, I might just take a pro-Epic position in these forums just because nobody arguing on Epic's side in these message boards is putting forth a half decent argument.
I believe Epic has a point, and don't believe Epic forfeited anything by agreeing to the original Apple contract. Contracts are re-negotiated often, even iron-clad ones. Business is often about exerting influence based on a company's popularity with consumers. Apple commands its price premium because of this.
Regardless of the proposed motives for it, Epic has a point in wanting consumers to have a choice that Apple doesn't want to give. The device isn't a rental, and without the App Store ecosystem the value of the device we are paying for is much less. They go together.
But here is where I believe Apple should get a pass. Desktop computers that Epic references are much more forgiving of any kind of program run on it. Epic is trying to get the same system applied to mobile devices which are finely-tuned for battery life, performance, and security. If Apple ever is made to allow other app stores on its devices, it should be able to indemnify itself from offering support for the device, unless the device is wiped to a factory refreshed state.
Apple's promises about its devices are based on its mobile operating system and software working exactly as Apple intended. Apple should not have to support anything it doesn't create itself, because mobile devices are different. I would not take advantage of a third-party App Store for this reason. But if others want to, and sign away their ability to have Apple fix any problems that arise, they should be allowed to do that because they bought the device outright. It's not being licensed to them.
Your position is somewhat middle of the road. Let me ask you a question. What if Apple offered a version of the iPhone which let users download ANYTHING they want, but that phone didn't come with any apps from Apple or any Apple services? In that case, would you still suggest that Apple should still be forced to open up iOS to uncontrolled apps (even though you said the warranty should be voided)? I've asked this question at least twice on AppleInsider threads and I haven't seen anyone answer it yet.
I believe Epic has a point, and don't believe Epic forfeited anything by agreeing to the original Apple contract. Contracts are re-negotiated often, even iron-clad ones. Business is often about exerting influence based on a company's popularity with consumers. Apple commands its price premium because of this.
Regardless of the proposed motives for it, Epic has a point in wanting consumers to have a choice that Apple doesn't want to give. The device isn't a rental, and without the App Store ecosystem the value of the device we are paying for is much less. They go together.
But here is where I believe Apple should get a pass. Desktop computers that Epic references are much more forgiving of any kind of program run on it. Epic is trying to get the same system applied to mobile devices which are finely-tuned for battery life, performance, and security. If Apple ever is made to allow other app stores on its devices, it should be able to indemnify itself from offering support for the device, unless the device is wiped to a factory refreshed state.
Apple's promises about its devices are based on its mobile operating system and software working exactly as Apple intended. Apple should not have to support anything it doesn't create itself, because mobile devices are different. I would not take advantage of a third-party App Store for this reason. But if others want to, and sign away their ability to have Apple fix any problems that arise, they should be allowed to do that because they bought the device outright. It's not being licensed to them.
My goodness you're an idiot. Half the things you said weren't even true.
Does this man live in some sort of delusional world where tech was founded on anything besides generating a profit margin from a product that people want to buy?
The tech industry was founded on the principal of selling products to consumers, not some pie in the sky ideal of "freedom".
Orwell's 1984 reference is completely wrong. The correct reference should be Animal Farm. Tim Sweeney (aka Napoleon the pig) is urging young kids to fight injustice, when it fact it is a cynical ploy to get the Epic App platform side loaded on the Apple App Store. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
I believe Epic has a point, and don't believe Epic forfeited anything by agreeing to the original Apple contract. Contracts are re-negotiated often, even iron-clad ones. Business is often about exerting influence based on a company's popularity with consumers. Apple commands its price premium because of this.
Regardless of the proposed motives for it, Epic has a point in wanting consumers to have a choice that Apple doesn't want to give. The device isn't a rental, and without the App Store ecosystem the value of the device we are paying for is much less. They go together.
But here is where I believe Apple should get a pass. Desktop computers that Epic references are much more forgiving of any kind of program run on it. Epic is trying to get the same system applied to mobile devices which are finely-tuned for battery life, performance, and security. If Apple ever is made to allow other app stores on its devices, it should be able to indemnify itself from offering support for the device, unless the device is wiped to a factory refreshed state.
Apple's promises about its devices are based on its mobile operating system and software working exactly as Apple intended. Apple should not have to support anything it doesn't create itself, because mobile devices are different. I would not take advantage of a third-party App Store for this reason. But if others want to, and sign away their ability to have Apple fix any problems that arise, they should be allowed to do that because they bought the device outright. It's not being licensed to them.
I agree with your point that phones are different than PC's or even laptops in that they must be hyper optimized in order to create a good experience. Apple invests a ton of R&D to achieve that. In this sense, iPhones are closer to consoles than they are to laptops. And Tim Epic has said he's ok with paying 30% to a console company.
I disagree with your indemnity idea though. Even if users could sign a waiver and forfeit all support in order to 'root' their phone and do what they want, Apple would still get publicly raked over the coals if there was any performance decline or vulnerability exposed. App store approval is also one of the tools Apple uses to ensure apps keep current with evolving hardware and OS capabilities. An old, poorly written app downloaded from some third party store might still be 32 bit, or drain your battery, or include nefarious code, or, or, or... And the user would say "This iPhone sucks!".
Epic made a gangsta move and got smacked back. While no company is perfect and Apple has had its share of "wtf" decisions, it is clear that Apple thinks through the decisions they make. If Epic has a legit issue with the App Store, then why didn't they provide an alternative scheme that would have benefitted ALL iOS developers instead of trying to get special treatment only for Epic? A truly meaningful App Store for any platform really didn't exist prior to Apple's entry into the smartphone market.
If you as a consumer like Apple's value proposition, you buy an iPhone. If you don't like or feel Apple's value proposition is not you cup of tea, then you buy a different smartphone. If a developer doesn't think Apple's value proposition doesn't meet their business goals, then go develop for another platform. According to an article in the WSJ Hauwei is working hard on a mobile OS for their smartphones. Perhaps Epic would like to develop for that platform.
I believe Epic has a point, and don't believe Epic forfeited anything by agreeing to the original Apple contract. Contracts are re-negotiated often, even iron-clad ones. Business is often about exerting influence based on a company's popularity with consumers. Apple commands its price premium because of this.
Regardless of the proposed motives for it, Epic has a point in wanting consumers to have a choice that Apple doesn't want to give. The device isn't a rental, and without the App Store ecosystem the value of the device we are paying for is much less. They go together.
But here is where I believe Apple should get a pass. Desktop computers that Epic references are much more forgiving of any kind of program run on it. Epic is trying to get the same system applied to mobile devices which are finely-tuned for battery life, performance, and security. If Apple ever is made to allow other app stores on its devices, it should be able to indemnify itself from offering support for the device, unless the device is wiped to a factory refreshed state.
Apple's promises about its devices are based on its mobile operating system and software working exactly as Apple intended. Apple should not have to support anything it doesn't create itself, because mobile devices are different. I would not take advantage of a third-party App Store for this reason. But if others want to, and sign away their ability to have Apple fix any problems that arise, they should be allowed to do that because they bought the device outright. It's not being licensed to them.
I agree with your point that phones are different than PC's or even laptops in that they must be hyper optimized in order to create a good experience. Apple invests a ton of R&D to achieve that. In this sense, iPhones are closer to consoles than they are to laptops. And Tim Epic has said he's ok with paying 30% to a console company.
I disagree with your indemnity idea though. Even if users could sign a waiver and forfeit all support in order to 'root' their phone and do what they want, Apple would still get publicly raked over the coals if there was any performance decline or vulnerability exposed. App store approval is also one of the tools Apple uses to ensure apps keep current with evolving hardware and OS capabilities. An old, poorly written app downloaded from some third party store might still be 32 bit, or drain your battery, or include nefarious code, or, or, or... And the user would say "This iPhone sucks!".
Apple is getting raked over the coals right now. The Microsoft Xcloud issue comes to mind. So Apple maintaining the status quo has a downside also.
The reason I posted is I believe a consumer should have the right to use a device the way that person wants to, even to make the device worse. That's why I said Apple should have the ability to distance itself from people who use the product differently than Apple intended. Precedents are being set on the future of products with these sorts of decisions. I am going to follow manufacturers instructions 99% of the time, but having the ability to change things, or go a different way, is a key to being an owner of something.
I believe Epic has a point, and don't believe Epic forfeited anything by agreeing to the original Apple contract. Contracts are re-negotiated often, even iron-clad ones. Business is often about exerting influence based on a company's popularity with consumers. Apple commands its price premium because of this.
Regardless of the proposed motives for it, Epic has a point in wanting consumers to have a choice that Apple doesn't want to give. The device isn't a rental, and without the App Store ecosystem the value of the device we are paying for is much less. They go together.
But here is where I believe Apple should get a pass. Desktop computers that Epic references are much more forgiving of any kind of program run on it. Epic is trying to get the same system applied to mobile devices which are finely-tuned for battery life, performance, and security. If Apple ever is made to allow other app stores on its devices, it should be able to indemnify itself from offering support for the device, unless the device is wiped to a factory refreshed state.
Apple's promises about its devices are based on its mobile operating system and software working exactly as Apple intended. Apple should not have to support anything it doesn't create itself, because mobile devices are different. I would not take advantage of a third-party App Store for this reason. But if others want to, and sign away their ability to have Apple fix any problems that arise, they should be allowed to do that because they bought the device outright. It's not being licensed to them.
Your position is somewhat middle of the road. Let me ask you a question. What if Apple offered a version of the iPhone which let users download ANYTHING they want, but that phone didn't come with any apps from Apple or any Apple services? In that case, would you still suggest that Apple should still be forced to open up iOS to uncontrolled apps (even though you said the warranty should be voided)? I've asked this question at least twice on AppleInsider threads and I haven't seen anyone answer it yet.
Instead of middle of the road, how about reasonable.
I don't understand your question. Why would a person who has downloaded third-party apps from a different store be blocked from the App Store. How is Apple being hurt by allowing apps for a phone that also has sideloaded or other apps on it. That phone can't corrupt the App Store. I'm not seeing what would be gained except for Apple to punitively keep customers who go elsewhere from downloading from their store.
Very few people want a third-party App Store. My post was about the right for an owner of a device to be able to do different things with it than the manufacturer wants. It's a principle thing right now which could lead to policy on future products made by many companies. Like the right to fix laws, the right to use software on devices is a potential right that we all might want in the future. That's all my post was about.
Your suggestion would segregate Apple devices on the used market. And it would be hard to know if you were buying a device that had App Store access or not. It would be pretty confusing and not what I think anybody would want.
I believe Epic has a point, and don't believe Epic forfeited anything by agreeing to the original Apple contract. Contracts are re-negotiated often, even iron-clad ones. Business is often about exerting influence based on a company's popularity with consumers. Apple commands its price premium because of this.
Regardless of the proposed motives for it, Epic has a point in wanting consumers to have a choice that Apple doesn't want to give. The device isn't a rental, and without the App Store ecosystem the value of the device we are paying for is much less. They go together.
But here is where I believe Apple should get a pass. Desktop computers that Epic references are much more forgiving of any kind of program run on it. Epic is trying to get the same system applied to mobile devices which are finely-tuned for battery life, performance, and security. If Apple ever is made to allow other app stores on its devices, it should be able to indemnify itself from offering support for the device, unless the device is wiped to a factory refreshed state.
Apple's promises about its devices are based on its mobile operating system and software working exactly as Apple intended. Apple should not have to support anything it doesn't create itself, because mobile devices are different. I would not take advantage of a third-party App Store for this reason. But if others want to, and sign away their ability to have Apple fix any problems that arise, they should be allowed to do that because they bought the device outright. It's not being licensed to them.
I agree with your point that phones are different than PC's or even laptops in that they must be hyper optimized in order to create a good experience. Apple invests a ton of R&D to achieve that. In this sense, iPhones are closer to consoles than they are to laptops. And Tim Epic has said he's ok with paying 30% to a console company.
I disagree with your indemnity idea though. Even if users could sign a waiver and forfeit all support in order to 'root' their phone and do what they want, Apple would still get publicly raked over the coals if there was any performance decline or vulnerability exposed. App store approval is also one of the tools Apple uses to ensure apps keep current with evolving hardware and OS capabilities. An old, poorly written app downloaded from some third party store might still be 32 bit, or drain your battery, or include nefarious code, or, or, or... And the user would say "This iPhone sucks!".
Apple is getting raked over the coals right now. The Microsoft Xcloud issue comes to mind. So Apple maintaining the status quo has a downside also.
The reason I posted is I believe a consumer should have the right to use a device the way that person wants to, even to make the device worse. That's why I said Apple should have the ability to distance itself from people who use the product differently than Apple intended. Precedents are being set on the future of products with these sorts of decisions. I am going to follow manufacturers instructions 99% of the time, but having the ability to change things, or go a different way, is a key to being an owner of something.
If you are still here, why haven't you answered my question at 1:36pm? It was a sincere question to you to explain your position. I was not impolite with you. I'm just trying my best to understand you. I truly am.
Oh, you know. The ones about how clever people should be able to do whatever they want, that big corporations are stifling the freedoms of the little guy, that the profit motive doesn't result in the best technical outcome, that... sorry, what's that? I can make how much money? And I don't have to wear a suit? OK, you plebs all need to do what you're told!
Comments
Regardless of the proposed motives for it, Epic has a point in wanting consumers to have a choice that Apple doesn't want to give. The device isn't a rental, and without the App Store ecosystem the value of the device we are paying for is much less. They go together.
But here is where I believe Apple should get a pass. Desktop computers that Epic references are much more forgiving of any kind of program run on it. Epic is trying to get the same system applied to mobile devices which are finely-tuned for battery life, performance, and security. If Apple ever is made to allow other app stores on its devices, it should be able to indemnify itself from offering support for the device, unless the device is wiped to a factory refreshed state.
I don't have a great track record of predicting either court case decisions or elections, but this case from Epic feels extremely weak. Epic is fighting a battle uphill with a foam sword in its hands. Epic could do a better job fighting this one with me as their lawyer and public relations representative. And I'd rather enjoy the challenge. In fact, I might just take a pro-Epic position in these forums just because nobody arguing on Epic's side in these message boards is putting forth a half decent argument.
My goodness you're an idiot. Half the things you said weren't even true.
Does this man live in some sort of delusional world where tech was founded on anything besides generating a profit margin from a product that people want to buy?
The tech industry was founded on the principal of selling products to consumers, not some pie in the sky ideal of "freedom".
B. The Prime Directive?
C. The Ten Commandments?
D. The Laws of Robotics?
E. Truth, Justice and the American Way?
I disagree with your indemnity idea though. Even if users could sign a waiver and forfeit all support in order to 'root' their phone and do what they want, Apple would still get publicly raked over the coals if there was any performance decline or vulnerability exposed. App store approval is also one of the tools Apple uses to ensure apps keep current with evolving hardware and OS capabilities. An old, poorly written app downloaded from some third party store might still be 32 bit, or drain your battery, or include nefarious code, or, or, or... And the user would say "This iPhone sucks!".
If you as a consumer like Apple's value proposition, you buy an iPhone. If you don't like or feel Apple's value proposition is not you cup of tea, then you buy a different smartphone. If a developer doesn't think Apple's value proposition doesn't meet their business goals, then go develop for another platform. According to an article in the WSJ Hauwei is working hard on a mobile OS for their smartphones. Perhaps Epic would like to develop for that platform.
Instead of middle of the road, how about reasonable.
Your suggestion would segregate Apple devices on the used market. And it would be hard to know if you were buying a device that had App Store access or not. It would be pretty confusing and not what I think anybody would want.