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

2456

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 104
    gilly33gilly33 Posts: 375member
    You know where this is headed with this line of questioning. Epic 1 Apple 0. And that’s the game. Have a safe ride home folks. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 22 of 104
    baconstangbaconstang Posts: 796member
    I think Epic will eventually lose.  
    They cannot call Apple a monopoly nor anti-competitive in this case.
    All they can do is build a better or cheaper product to compete against Apple.  Good Luck with that.

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

    You're talking about the people that delivered Vista having shame?
    edited May 21 BeatsradarthekatmeterestnzFidonet127dope_ahmineFileMakerFellerjony0watto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 23 of 104
    gc_ukgc_uk Posts: 110member
    To paraphrase the judge. What’s wrong with Amazon providing a link to allow customers cheaper option to buy stuff elsewhere?   Wait that doesn’t make any sense here either
    Amazon lists vendors who are not Amazon and are selling goods cheaper than Amazon. 
    williamlondonelijahg
  • Reply 24 of 104
    gilly33gilly33 Posts: 375member
    williamh said:
    A lot of people here are inferring that a hostile question from a judge means that the judge's decision will reflect her questions. This is a presumptuous belief. Many judges ask difficult questions so that their opinions, which are going to be favourable to the person being spoken to, have all the possible angles covered. I learned this from reading the US Supreme Court transcripts.

    Or maybe she's an idiot judge. Both explanations are possible.
    Ok, you make sense.  But why is this even in front of a judge? The only party to have violated an agreement is epic and Apple didn’t sue them. 
    It’s not that really. Just that judging (no pun intended) from recent history this kind of thing doesn’t seem to  pan out in Apple’s favor. Admittedly, I’m no expert on these matters like some of you here. Just a layman’s observation. 
    edited May 21
  • Reply 25 of 104
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,559moderator
    The hole I see that may cost Apple this car is that free apps are serviced for nothing. That kind of negates Apple’s contention it needs to get a cut to support the work it does. I don’t agree with this, but Apple’s is arguing as if they have to justify their fees. They shouldn’t have to at all. 
    Tim Cook answered this by saying free apps attract users to the store, which increases the traffic for all apps. It's the same way the ad revenue model works where Google and Facebook offer free services in order to attract a high volume of users and they monetize it by showing ads on the same platform. If you take away the monetization, there's no platform for anyone. This is what Evan Spiegel from Snapchat said when questioned about the 30% cut - without Apple's platform, there would be no Snapchat at all.

    Most of the questions this judge is asking are attacks on capitalism. How dare Apple monetize their IP in a way that they see fit to get the best return on investment. If Apple had 95%+ marketshare and they charged 70%+ fees then it might have some merit but this isn't the case. They have a 15-30% commission and a minority marketshare and they don't set the prices. If a developer wants to make 100% of their revenue, they charge what they want times 10/7. If Epic wants $7.99, then they charge $11.99. It's the user that pays the extra, not the developer.

    So many stores operate this way. Amazon hosts 3rd party sellers, they wouldn't be allowed to just put up a direct payment and bypass all fees by Amazon. Amazon made the platform and attracts the huge volume of users and they take a commission on every sale.
    Beatsradarthekatd_2williamlondondope_ahminebloggerblogjony0
  • Reply 26 of 104
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 5,762member
    I'd question the agenda of the judge and think she should be excused.  It's not the court's business to be telling any company what business model is better.  It's either legal, or illegal and stick with that.

    Makes me wonder if all she wanted to do was do a pissing-contest with Tim Cook.
    Beatsradarthekatd_2dope_ahminebloggerblogjony0watto_cobrabaconstang
  • Reply 27 of 104
    Her argument is that Apple makes money. 

    It’s not her job to tell Apple how to make money. 

    Apple is not doing anything illegal or anticompetitive. 

    They are simply making a commission on the services and shelf space + marketing. 

    You don’t tell someone “oh that doesn’t matter”  “you can find another way yo make money.”

    what the heck? How is she even a judge. You do t come down on Apple just because they are good at what they do and profit from it. 

    The definition of business is to profit. 

    “It’s also quite lucrative..” of course it is lady! That’s business! 

    She needs to be canned. No fair play here. Super ghetto. 
    Beatsdope_ahminejony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 104
    fizzmasterfizzmaster Posts: 100member
    gc_uk said:
    To paraphrase the judge. What’s wrong with Amazon providing a link to allow customers cheaper option to buy stuff elsewhere?   Wait that doesn’t make any sense here either
    Amazon lists vendors who are not Amazon and are selling goods cheaper than Amazon. 
    Yes, Amazon does do that… and they take a cut of the business too. After all, it is Amazon’s customer and their platform. 
    Beatsradarthekathcrefugeed_2dope_ahminejony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 104
    teejay2012teejay2012 Posts: 298member
    Given the complexity and the implications for other than Apple, the judge could simply make a ruling, knowing it will be challenged and possibly  overturned. This is a hot potato case. Maybe she is opening the door to bumping this to the supreme court.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 104
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,015member
    To paraphrase the judge. What’s wrong with Amazon providing a link to allow customers cheaper option to buy stuff elsewhere?   Wait that doesn’t make any sense here either
    What makes zero sense is your comment.  Unlike apps on the App Store, everything sold on Amazon (aside from Amazon's own products) can be purchased from other retailers.  That's precisely what Epic is asking for. 
    edited May 21 elijahg
  • Reply 31 of 104
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,015member
    genovelle said:
    If Apple is forced to remove their revenue stream. Expect the App Store to be disinvested in. I would expect Apple to heavily invest in games by taking on several gaming partners that directly compete with Epic and spend billions promoting them. They may even decide to do That first party game console using the M2 chip and invest in it like they are with Apple TV+.  Microsoft would then regret joining in this mess. They don’t realize the last thing they want is Apple to suddenly get serious about gaming. Remember the iPhone was going to fail, the iPad was a joke, and Apple should have given shareholders all their money back in 1997 and closed shop. 
    Ummmm no. Regardless of the outcome Apple could still collect money from developers, for example, for using its APIs and SDKs, iCloud, Push, etc.

    And even if the judge orders Apple to allow other app stores or to allow third-party payments, Apple could still charge a fee based on gross revenues.  The only thing that changes is the flow of money. 

    Which is precisely why neither consumers nor developers will benefit if Epic wins. The only winners will be the largest developers who already rake in billions of dollars.
    radarthekatFileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 104
    williamhwilliamh Posts: 804member
    flydog said:
    To paraphrase the judge. What’s wrong with Amazon providing a link to allow customers cheaper option to buy stuff elsewhere?   Wait that doesn’t make any sense here either
    What makes zero sense is your comment.  Unlike apps on the App Store, everything sold on Amazon (aside from Amazon's own products) can be purchased from other retailers.  That's precisely what Epic is asking for. 
    Somebody needs to break the news to Epic that Fortnite is, in fact, already available outside the Apple AppStore. https://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/fortnite
    Beatsradarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 104
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 2,539member
    gc_uk said:
    To paraphrase the judge. What’s wrong with Amazon providing a link to allow customers cheaper option to buy stuff elsewhere?   Wait that doesn’t make any sense here either
    Amazon lists vendors who are not Amazon and are selling goods cheaper than Amazon. 
    Doubt it.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 104
    The hole I see that may cost Apple this car is that free apps are serviced for nothing. That kind of negates Apple’s contention it needs to get a cut to support the work it does. I don’t agree with this, but Apple’s is arguing as if they have to justify their fees. They shouldn’t have to at all. 
    Not true the developers sign agreement that if they eventually charge for the app or in app purchases ,Apple will get the 30%,  in a way Apple is making an investment on new developers fronting them to the service hoping they eventually are able to be successful and monetize, and that every investment it works out.

    That is how Apple helped Epic become a billion dollar company. Now Epic stabs them in the back

    there will be karma for Epic, you watch . Sleeze
    companies like this will not end well.






    Beatshcrefugeewatto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 104
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,550member
    I think Epic will eventually lose.  
    They cannot call Apple a monopoly nor anti-competitive in this case.
    All they can do is build a better or cheaper product to compete against Apple.  Good Luck with that.

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

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

    The company who makes knockoff everything Apple. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 36 of 104
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,550member
    gc_uk said:
    To paraphrase the judge. What’s wrong with Amazon providing a link to allow customers cheaper option to buy stuff elsewhere?   Wait that doesn’t make any sense here either
    Amazon lists vendors who are not Amazon and are selling goods cheaper than Amazon. 

    And they get a cut.

    Apple also lists 3rd party developers and allows Fortnite and Spotify to sell in their store.

    what’s your point?

    gc_uk said:
    To paraphrase the judge. What’s wrong with Amazon providing a link to allow customers cheaper option to buy stuff elsewhere?   Wait that doesn’t make any sense here either
    Amazon lists vendors who are not Amazon and are selling goods cheaper than Amazon. 
    Doubt it.

    They do and Amazon collects a fee. When he says “vendors” he means sellers using the Amazon platform not Wal Mart.

    it’s no different from Apple allowing Fortnite and Spotify on their store. 

    radarthekat
  • Reply 37 of 104
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,171member
    genovelle said:
    If Apple is forced to remove their revenue stream. Expect the App Store to be disinvested in. I would expect Apple to heavily invest in games by taking on several gaming partners that directly compete with Epic and spend billions promoting them. They may even decide to do That first party game console using the M2 chip and invest in it like they are with Apple TV+.  Microsoft would then regret joining in this mess. They don’t realize the last thing they want is Apple to suddenly get serious about gaming. Remember the iPhone was going to fail, the iPad was a joke, and Apple should have given shareholders all their money back in 1997 and closed shop. 
    Apple is already serious and investing in gaming, and what we have is Apple Arcade.  They don't even have a game controller for the ATV, the closest thing Apple have to a console. 

    And do you really think that the M2 chip will suddenly change things?  You should consider how the Nintendo Switch have been selling even though they have the weakest system.  There are more important things in gaming than a CPU.

    You gave the examples of the iPhone and iPad.  In both cases Apple was better than the competition.  In this case, ATV, Apple Arcade and macOS are behind the competition in the gaming market.  Could Apple make a turn around?  Of course. But as today, I don't see them succeeding just because they have the M2 chip. 
    elijahgdope_ahmine
  • Reply 38 of 104
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,398moderator
    gc_uk said:
    To paraphrase the judge. What’s wrong with Amazon providing a link to allow customers cheaper option to buy stuff elsewhere?   Wait that doesn’t make any sense here either
    Amazon lists vendors who are not Amazon and are selling goods cheaper than Amazon. 
    Truly?  Amazing will direct me to another vendor without taking any commission, affiliate fee
    or otherwise getting a piece of the action?  How altruistic of them.  But I’m highly skeptical that’s the case.  
    baconstangBeatsRayz2016jony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 39 of 104
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,171member
    Beats said:
    I think Epic will eventually lose.  
    They cannot call Apple a monopoly nor anti-competitive in this case.
    All they can do is build a better or cheaper product to compete against Apple.  Good Luck with that.

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

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

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

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

    Looks like nobody is perfect, including Apple.  

    Beatselijahgavon b7
  • Reply 40 of 104
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 2,539member
    flydog said:
    To paraphrase the judge. What’s wrong with Amazon providing a link to allow customers cheaper option to buy stuff elsewhere?   Wait that doesn’t make any sense here either
    What makes zero sense is your comment.  Unlike apps on the App Store, everything sold on Amazon (aside from Amazon's own products) can be purchased from other retailers.  That's precisely what Epic is asking for. 
    Developers can sell their apps on Android, Linux, Windows, Tizen. Apple is not stopping them from doing that. 
    aderutter
Sign In or Register to comment.