The solution is simple. Allow people to install apps from anywhere but highlight when downloaded that Apple cannot make any guarantees to their security and user beware. Now the user gets to decide rather than a bunch of old white guys (and a few white women to be fair). Choice is good. For those of you worried about security and privacy, just stick to the Apple App Store.
You are correct, that is a 100% perfect solution for Epic, but it's a 100% lousy solution for Apple, because Apple would lose most of its $64 billion, and you have provided no alternate source of income to cover Apple's losses.
Nor would his suggestion cover the loss of privacy & security that iPhone users would have to contend with when developers abandoned the App Store and forced users to download their junk or do without. And that would put the iPhone on par with any high end Android phone --- and Apple would lose big time.
There are a number of comments here that don’t seem to understand the role of the judge in this process. The judge is supposed to ask difficult questions. Having done so means this is a good judge.
Sweeney got to go first. That may seem like an advantage, but it is not.
She sounded like an idiot with an agenda that has nothing to do with the rule of law.
Sadly that’s exactly what the judge did.
Basically made up her mind before the trial and her bias was shamelessly hanging out all over the place. She was supposed to review law and judge if someone had violated the spirit of the letter.
She did not dothis and instead only paid attention too e side of the story and plugged her ears during the other sides turn.
For a judge to tell a CEO what ways they should make their money and complain that they are making too JC money is absolutely ridiculous.
Epic makes billions and yet they breached a perfectly standard contract in order to slander Apple in hopes of extorting them into working forpeanuts to distribute epics wares. THATS where the judge should be looking. THATS who broke the law andTHATS where the “it’s also quite lucrative” statement should be directed. Thats the only place it would make sense.
You don’t go after the law abide by people. You go after the criminal
thejudgeisnustgoing on her opinion is. Not even the law at all.
Did apple break the law? No. Did epic? Yes. Case closed.
How did Epic break the law? Get a grip of your biases dude.
Epic intentionally broke its agreement with Apple -- which is why Apple kicked them off of the App Store.
I think Epic will eventually lose. They cannot call Apple a monopoly nor anti-competitive in this case. All they can do is build a better or cheaper product to compete against Apple. Good Luck with that.
Microsoft should be ashamed of itself for testifying against Apple in this case.
Microsoft ashamed?
You're talking about the people that delivered Vista having shame?
The company who makes knockoff everything Apple.
I suppose Apple have knockoffs too,
Surface Pro / iPad Pro Tile / AirTag Spotify / Apple Music Netflix / Apple TV+ Sonos / HomePod GamePass / Apple Arcade
Looks like nobody is perfect, including Apple.
iPad is not a Surface knockoff, independent of Pro or not. Pro is a natural incremental evolution of the basic model, and iPad (basic model) was the inspiration for Surface.
Apple Music is not a Spotify knockoff. But rather the opposite; Spotify = iTunes (Apple Music) + subscription model. And remember, Spotify didn’t invent the subscription model either. They just followed the trend.
Apple have been improving the iPad Pro by copying some features that have been available since the Surface Pro 4,
Keyboard + Trackpad / Magic Keyboard Pen / Pencil (Pencil 2 with replaceable tips) Windows Hello / FaceID Multitasking / Side-by-side apps Multiuser support (available in the educational environments in the iPad)
Regarding music services, I talked specifically about Apple Music, not iTunes. BTW, I agree with you that Spotify didn't invent the music subscription model we have today. There were services like Rhapsody and Zune Pass that had that model before Apple and Spotify.
Ahh, so you mean like the Sony Ericsson P800 from the year 2002? Because it ticks every single box in your list of Surface Pro 4 features. Yup, you might be right. It’s a knockoff.
The solution is simple. Allow people to install apps from anywhere but highlight when downloaded that Apple cannot make any guarantees to their security and user beware. Now the user gets to decide rather than a bunch of old white guys (and a few white women to be fair). Choice is good. For those of you worried about security and privacy, just stick to the Apple App Store.
You are correct, that is a 100% perfect solution for Epic, but it's a 100% lousy solution for Apple, because Apple would lose most of its $64 billion, and you have provided no alternate source of income to cover Apple's losses.
Whether a "solution" is lousy for Apple or not W.R.T its profit has zero bearing on the judge's eventual verdict. A judge would not be at all concerned about the reduction in profit Apple makes from the App Store if Apple is found to be breaking the law, only whether their practises are anticompetitive. If the ruling meant Apple won't make as much profit (or even a loss) that's too bad, other aspects of Apple's business could easily subsidise the App Store. Remember the App Store along with all of Apple's services and software was originally just to sell more hardware; the hardware subsidised the software. Just like free apps being subsidised by paid ones.
There are a number of comments here that don’t seem to understand the role of the judge in this process. The judge is supposed to ask difficult questions. Having done so means this is a good judge.
Sweeney got to go first. That may seem like an advantage, but it is not.
She sounded like an idiot with an agenda that has nothing to do with the rule of law.
Sadly that’s exactly what the judge did.
Basically made up her mind before the trial and her bias was shamelessly hanging out all over the place. She was supposed to review law and judge if someone had violated the spirit of the letter.
She did not dothis and instead only paid attention too e side of the story and plugged her ears during the other sides turn.
For a judge to tell a CEO what ways they should make their money and complain that they are making too JC money is absolutely ridiculous.
Epic makes billions and yet they breached a perfectly standard contract in order to slander Apple in hopes of extorting them into working forpeanuts to distribute epics wares. THATS where the judge should be looking. THATS who broke the law andTHATS where the “it’s also quite lucrative” statement should be directed. Thats the only place it would make sense.
You don’t go after the law abide by people. You go after the criminal
thejudgeisnustgoing on her opinion is. Not even the law at all.
Did apple break the law? No. Did epic? Yes. Case closed.
How did Epic break the law? Get a grip of your biases dude.
Epic intentionally broke its agreement with Apple -- which is why Apple kicked them off of the App Store.
Clauses in terms and conditions are law now are they? Funny world you live in.
I think Epic will eventually lose. They cannot call Apple a monopoly nor anti-competitive in this case. All they can do is build a better or cheaper product to compete against Apple. Good Luck with that.
Microsoft should be ashamed of itself for testifying against Apple in this case.
Microsoft ashamed?
You're talking about the people that delivered Vista having shame?
The company who makes knockoff everything Apple.
I suppose Apple have knockoffs too,
Surface Pro / iPad Pro Tile / AirTag Spotify / Apple Music Netflix / Apple TV+ Sonos / HomePod GamePass / Apple Arcade
Looks like nobody is perfect, including Apple.
iPad is not a Surface knockoff, independent of Pro or not. Pro is a natural incremental evolution of the basic model, and iPad (basic model) was the inspiration for Surface.
Apple Music is not a Spotify knockoff. But rather the opposite; Spotify = iTunes (Apple Music) + subscription model. And remember, Spotify didn’t invent the subscription model either. They just followed the trend.
Apple have been improving the iPad Pro by copying some features that have been available since the Surface Pro 4,
Keyboard + Trackpad / Magic Keyboard Pen / Pencil (Pencil 2 with replaceable tips) Windows Hello / FaceID Multitasking / Side-by-side apps Multiuser support (available in the educational environments in the iPad)
Regarding music services, I talked specifically about Apple Music, not iTunes. BTW, I agree with you that Spotify didn't invent the music subscription model we have today. There were services like Rhapsody and Zune Pass that had that model before Apple and Spotify.
Ahh, so you mean like the Sony Ericsson P800 from the year 2002? Because it ticks every single box in your list of Surface Pro 4 features. Yup, you might be right. It’s a knockoff.
P800 has no multitasking, no multiuser support, no FaceID. But it has a touchscreen, copied from others.
There are a number of comments here that don’t seem to understand the role of the judge in this process. The judge is supposed to ask difficult questions. Having done so means this is a good judge.
Sweeney got to go first. That may seem like an advantage, but it is not.
She sounded like an idiot with an agenda that has nothing to do with the rule of law.
It is a advantage when the rest of the humans want to freeload…The questions by the judge indicates that.
I have no idea how this judge is going to make her decision. But, if her decision is to say "I don't agree with how Apple is making its business decisions", I think she will have overstepped her judicial authority.
The judge needs can only make a decision based upon legal principles. Apple or any other business is allowed to make any business decisions it likes for the most part, with the market, only, deciding whether those decisions are reasonable or not. With Epic admitting that Apple only accounts for 7% of Epic's revenue, I would expect the judge to have difficulty justifying Apple is restricting Epic's market unfairly.
One also needs to understand the judge's limitations. The judge must also be cognizant of how the Appeals courts will view her decision. No judge wants to be smacked down by superior courts for making wholly unjustified decisions.
I think Epic will eventually lose. They cannot call Apple a monopoly nor anti-competitive in this case. All they can do is build a better or cheaper product to compete against Apple. Good Luck with that.
Microsoft should be ashamed of itself for testifying against Apple in this case.
Microsoft ashamed?
You're talking about the people that delivered Vista having shame?
The company who makes knockoff everything Apple.
I suppose Apple have knockoffs too,
Surface Pro / iPad Pro Tile / AirTag Spotify / Apple Music Netflix / Apple TV+ Sonos / HomePod GamePass / Apple Arcade
Looks like nobody is perfect, including Apple.
iPad is not a Surface knockoff, independent of Pro or not. Pro is a natural incremental evolution of the basic model, and iPad (basic model) was the inspiration for Surface.
Apple Music is not a Spotify knockoff. But rather the opposite; Spotify = iTunes (Apple Music) + subscription model. And remember, Spotify didn’t invent the subscription model either. They just followed the trend.
Apple have been improving the iPad Pro by copying some features that have been available since the Surface Pro 4,
Keyboard + Trackpad / Magic Keyboard Pen / Pencil (Pencil 2 with replaceable tips) Windows Hello / FaceID Multitasking / Side-by-side apps Multiuser support (available in the educational environments in the iPad)
Regarding music services, I talked specifically about Apple Music, not iTunes. BTW, I agree with you that Spotify didn't invent the music subscription model we have today. There were services like Rhapsody and Zune Pass that had that model before Apple and Spotify.
Ahh, so you mean like the Sony Ericsson P800 from the year 2002? Because it ticks every single box in your list of Surface Pro 4 features. Yup, you might be right. It’s a knockoff.
P800 was a Palm Pilot JV yes? Which means it was running software co-developed with the Apple Newton team.
Steve-degrees of separation - the theory that no new feature is more than 6 steps separated from an early PC pioneer named Steve.
The solution is simple. Allow people to install apps from anywhere but highlight when downloaded that Apple cannot make any guarantees to their security and user beware. Now the user gets to decide rather than a bunch of old white guys (and a few white women to be fair). Choice is good. For those of you worried about security and privacy, just stick to the Apple App Store.
You are correct, that is a 100% perfect solution for Epic, but it's a 100% lousy solution for Apple, because Apple would lose most of its $64 billion, and you have provided no alternate source of income to cover Apple's losses.
Whether a "solution" is lousy for Apple or not W.R.T its profit has zero bearing on the judge's eventual verdict. A judge would not be at all concerned about the reduction in profit Apple makes from the App Store if Apple is found to be breaking the law, only whether their practises are anticompetitive. If the ruling meant Apple won't make as much profit (or even a loss) that's too bad, other aspects of Apple's business could easily subsidise the App Store. Remember the App Store along with all of Apple's services and software was originally just to sell more hardware; the hardware subsidised the software. Just like free apps being subsidised by paid ones.
That is true for all of Apple's first party applications (ie: iWork, Garageband, iMovie) and the App Store (and still remains true). Not so for Music, ATV+, iBooks, iCloud, Fitness+, Arcade.
Epic , simply , did not act in good faith. I saw some of the trial, why is Epic worried about how much money Apple made in the App Store ? Or how it operates the store? Epic doesn’t have to be in it! They have many other Venues to sell their child game Dortnite!
The solution is simple. Allow people to install apps from anywhere but highlight when downloaded that Apple cannot make any guarantees to their security and user beware. Now the user gets to decide rather than a bunch of old white guys (and a few white women to be fair). Choice is good. For those of you worried about security and privacy, just stick to the Apple App Store.
You are correct, that is a 100% perfect solution for Epic, but it's a 100% lousy solution for Apple, because Apple would lose most of its $64 billion, and you have provided no alternate source of income to cover Apple's losses.
Whether a "solution" is lousy for Apple or not W.R.T its profit hasshould have zero bearing on the judge's eventual verdict. ....
There seems to me something wrong in so many ways with this whole farce that I struggle to start with something meaningful. Maybe a good one is the fundamental clash I personally see here between capitalism and ethics. Let‘s face it, the undercurrent of the whole questioning is if Apple is violating ethical behavior. Surprise, capitalism just allows for only so much ethics, otherwise we would have very different laws i. the western world. Epic is among the ones who should be challenged to begin with, extracting money from gamers in so many questionable ways - from a pure ethical PoV to be clear. Do I like everything Apple is doing? No! Do I think a 30% cut is fair? Not really. But let‘s face it, Apple has simplified software development and consumption in so many ways, and all the developers and customers both benefit from the large customer base Apple has created with their entire ecosystem, if at the end a judge is not balancing out cost versus benefits in light of the underlying economic system, it would be a really strange result. I lived through the evolution of development environments, remember times when licensing an IDE was a really expensive exercise and software distribution required high production and distribution costs, it is really bizarre that Epic tries to further increase their margin by challenging the „partner“ which adds the whole ecosystem they benefit from with billions of dollar.
Apple certainly runs a thin line here, but to set an example with the current challenger is just wrong. Alternatives are there, so no real monopoly in sight, and the players are really on eye-level when it comes to ethics, each with different weak spots in this arena. To punish Apple just for them being so successful also seems not right. And look at nature, just because the shark is one of the most successful hunters on this planet it still has a symbiosis with the pilot fish. If one of them tries to change the rules of the symbiosis it would likely cause it to break ;-) But what does the old saying say: having right and getting right are two very different things, and in my experience this is most true in front of the court of law :-o
There seems to me something wrong in so many ways with this whole farce that I struggle to start with something meaningful. Maybe a good one is the fundamental clash I personally see here between capitalism and ethics. Let‘s face it, the undercurrent of the whole questioning is if Apple is violating ethical behavior. Surprise, capitalism just allows for only so much ethics, otherwise we would have very different laws i. the western world. Epic is among the ones who should be challenged to begin with, extracting money from gamers in so many questionable ways - from a pure ethical PoV to be clear. Do I like everything Apple is doing? No! Do I think a 30% cut is fair? Not really. But let‘s face it, Apple has simplified software development and consumption in so many ways, and all the developers and customers both benefit from the large customer base Apple has created with their entire ecosystem, if at the end a judge is not balancing out cost versus benefits in light of the underlying economic system, it would be a really strange result. I lived through the evolution of development environments, remember times when licensing an IDE was a really expensive exercise and software distribution required high production and distribution costs, it is really bizarre that Epic tries to further increase their margin by challenging the „partner“ which adds the whole ecosystem they benefit from with billions of dollar.
Apple certainly runs a thin line here, but to set an example with the current challenger is just wrong. Alternatives are there, so no real monopoly in sight, and the players are really on eye-level when it comes to ethics, each with different weak spots in this arena. To punish Apple just for them being so successful also seems not right. And look at nature, just because the shark is one of the most successful hunters on this planet it still has a symbiosis with the pilot fish. If one of them tries to change the rules of the symbiosis it would likely cause it to break ;-) But what does the old saying say: having right and getting right are two very different things, and in my experience this is most true in front of the court of law :-o
I think you're missing the main point here.
I doubt there would be the slightest problem if Apple's ecosystem were entirely self contained.
The problem is that it isn't self contained.
On top of that, it depends on outside developers. Without them the platform could still exist but likely in a vastly different manner.
When you have a billion dollar bridge leading in and out of your ecosystem, new rules apply. You may get away with falling under the radar but as you go and industry changes you run the risk of being investigated.
Of course they wouldn't apply only to Apple, but to anyone in a similar situation assuming things don't go Apple's way.
Those rules can't be set by the gatekeepers to the ecosystems. The rules currently require competition.
There are several investigations currently in process to determine precisely if competition and consumers are being harmed. Some have already deemed competition has been impacted and consumers have been harmed.
I see a few ways Apple could avoid these problems and all of them would probably be considered just fine by many posting here but none of them would be fine for Apple. Of that I am sure. That is telling.
As are many of the comments and emails that have emerged as a result of the this particular trial.
I definitely haven't been convinced by anything I've seen so far (although admittedly I haven't really been following all the proceedings).
Logically Apple is trying to show things in a different light but I have yet to see anything that really makes me think, 'they have point there'.
I think Epic will eventually lose. They cannot call Apple a monopoly nor anti-competitive in this case. All they can do is build a better or cheaper product to compete against Apple. Good Luck with that.
Microsoft should be ashamed of itself for testifying against Apple in this case.
Microsoft ashamed?
You're talking about the people that delivered Vista having shame?
The company who makes knockoff everything Apple.
I suppose Apple have knockoffs too,
Surface Pro / iPad Pro Tile / AirTag Spotify / Apple Music Netflix / Apple TV+ Sonos / HomePod GamePass / Apple Arcade
Looks like nobody is perfect, including Apple.
iPad is not a Surface knockoff, independent of Pro or not. Pro is a natural incremental evolution of the basic model, and iPad (basic model) was the inspiration for Surface.
Apple Music is not a Spotify knockoff. But rather the opposite; Spotify = iTunes (Apple Music) + subscription model. And remember, Spotify didn’t invent the subscription model either. They just followed the trend.
Apple have been improving the iPad Pro by copying some features that have been available since the Surface Pro 4,
Keyboard + Trackpad / Magic Keyboard Pen / Pencil (Pencil 2 with replaceable tips) Windows Hello / FaceID Multitasking / Side-by-side apps Multiuser support (available in the educational environments in the iPad)
Regarding music services, I talked specifically about Apple Music, not iTunes. BTW, I agree with you that Spotify didn't invent the music subscription model we have today. There were services like Rhapsody and Zune Pass that had that model before Apple and Spotify.
Ahh, so you mean like the Sony Ericsson P800 from the year 2002? Because it ticks every single box in your list of Surface Pro 4 features. Yup, you might be right. It’s a knockoff.
P800 has no multitasking, no multiuser support, no FaceID. But it has a touchscreen, copied from others.
I agree, I agree. We are on the same side here. My point was not that the P800 was first, but rather that there are many devices with these features that predate the Surface, eg the P800 …or Newton.
I think Epic will eventually lose. They cannot call Apple a monopoly nor anti-competitive in this case. All they can do is build a better or cheaper product to compete against Apple. Good Luck with that.
Microsoft should be ashamed of itself for testifying against Apple in this case.
Microsoft ashamed?
You're talking about the people that delivered Vista having shame?
The company who makes knockoff everything Apple.
I suppose Apple have knockoffs too,
Surface Pro / iPad Pro Tile / AirTag Spotify / Apple Music Netflix / Apple TV+ Sonos / HomePod GamePass / Apple Arcade
Looks like nobody is perfect, including Apple.
iPad is not a Surface knockoff, independent of Pro or not. Pro is a natural incremental evolution of the basic model, and iPad (basic model) was the inspiration for Surface.
Apple Music is not a Spotify knockoff. But rather the opposite; Spotify = iTunes (Apple Music) + subscription model. And remember, Spotify didn’t invent the subscription model either. They just followed the trend.
Apple have been improving the iPad Pro by copying some features that have been available since the Surface Pro 4,
Keyboard + Trackpad / Magic Keyboard Pen / Pencil (Pencil 2 with replaceable tips) Windows Hello / FaceID Multitasking / Side-by-side apps Multiuser support (available in the educational environments in the iPad)
Regarding music services, I talked specifically about Apple Music, not iTunes. BTW, I agree with you that Spotify didn't invent the music subscription model we have today. There were services like Rhapsody and Zune Pass that had that model before Apple and Spotify.
Ahh, so you mean like the Sony Ericsson P800 from the year 2002? Because it ticks every single box in your list of Surface Pro 4 features. Yup, you might be right. It’s a knockoff.
P800 was a Palm Pilot JV yes? Which means it was running software co-developed with the Apple Newton team.
Steve-degrees of separation - the theory that no new feature is more than 6 steps separated from an early PC pioneer named Steve.
Nah, it was a Symbian/UIQ smart phone and it was not co-developed with the Newton. But it doesn’t matter. I get what you mean, and we are both on the same side. My point was just that there are numerous devices that vastly predate the Surface, thus not making the iPad Pro any Microsoft knockoff.
Apple has simplified software development and consumption in so many ways, and all the developers and customers both benefit from the large customer base Apple has created with their entire ecosystem, if at the end a judge is not balancing out cost versus benefits in light of the underlying economic system, it would be a really strange result. I lived through the evolution of development environments, remember times when licensing an IDE was a really expensive exercise and software distribution required high production and distribution costs, it is really bizarre that Epic tries to further increase their margin by challenging the „partner“ which adds the whole ecosystem they benefit from with billions of dollar.
Epic is absolutely the wrong company to be bringing this case but lets face it, it probably takes someone a little crazy / reckless to take on the most valuable company in the world that has the power to destroy the businesses of other companies that are reliant on being available on mobile devices.
I have no problem with Apple collecting a decent-sized commission on apps and they absolutely did/do provide value. Where the whole argument for Apple falls apart is for digital content or external services. Their IDE, their APIs, etc... have nothing to do with the creation of things like eBooks, videos, dating services, online classes, etc... They don't provide discovery like they do with an app. They don't host the digital content like they do with apps. They don't provide the distribution or storage for digital content like they do with apps. But they still feel entitled to 30%.
Imagine if other stores tried to implement the same rules the App Store has and it becomes clear how outrageous some of the policies are. Tim Cook used the strawman argument:
“It would be akin to Apple down at Best Buy saying ‘Best Buy, put in a sign there where we are advertising that you can go across the street and get an iPhone.'”
Of course, no one was saying that app developers should be allowed to put in their App Store listing alternative ways to purchase. But Apple goes further and prevents a companies app from doing so. So imagine for a moment that Best Buy had Apple's approach. You go to a Best Buy and buy an iPad. Apple couldn't offer you the option to sign up directly from Apple for iCloud or Apple Music or any other service - for as long as you use that iPhone you'd have to go back to Best Buy to get any of those services. Everyone recognizes that would be insane but for some bizarre reason we will go as far as defending the same behavior when Apple does it.
Apple has simplified software development and consumption in so many ways, and all the developers and customers both benefit from the large customer base Apple has created with their entire ecosystem, if at the end a judge is not balancing out cost versus benefits in light of the underlying economic system, it would be a really strange result. I lived through the evolution of development environments, remember times when licensing an IDE was a really expensive exercise and software distribution required high production and distribution costs, it is really bizarre that Epic tries to further increase their margin by challenging the „partner“ which adds the whole ecosystem they benefit from with billions of dollar.
... Imagine if other stores tried to implement the same rules the App Store has and it becomes clear how outrageous some of the policies are. Tim Cook used the strawman argument:
....
You mean like if i set up a fresh produce stand in a Krogers -- and then complained that their policies weren't fair to me?
Apple has simplified software development and consumption in so many ways, and all the developers and customers both benefit from the large customer base Apple has created with their entire ecosystem, if at the end a judge is not balancing out cost versus benefits in light of the underlying economic system, it would be a really strange result. I lived through the evolution of development environments, remember times when licensing an IDE was a really expensive exercise and software distribution required high production and distribution costs, it is really bizarre that Epic tries to further increase their margin by challenging the „partner“ which adds the whole ecosystem they benefit from with billions of dollar.
... Imagine if other stores tried to implement the same rules the App Store has and it becomes clear how outrageous some of the policies are. Tim Cook used the strawman argument:
....
You mean like if i set up a fresh produce stand in a Krogers -- and then complained that their policies weren't fair to me?
Not sure if you were trying to make the point for me or if it just a happy accident choosing Kroger as the answer to your questions is absolutely yes. The Kroger grocery chain has engaged in some egregious business practices over the past several years. Suppliers rightfully complained. Courts and state governments got involved and Kroger had to make some changes in the way they do business. The difference is there aren't a lot of Kroger fans running around defending Krogers behavior.
There seems to me something wrong in so many ways with this whole farce that I struggle to start with something meaningful. Maybe a good one is the fundamental clash I personally see here between capitalism and ethics. Let‘s face it, the undercurrent of the whole questioning is if Apple is violating ethical behavior. Surprise, capitalism just allows for only so much ethics, otherwise we would have very different laws i. the western world. Epic is among the ones who should be challenged to begin with, extracting money from gamers in so many questionable ways - from a pure ethical PoV to be clear. Do I like everything Apple is doing? No! Do I think a 30% cut is fair? Not really. But let‘s face it, Apple has simplified software development and consumption in so many ways, and all the developers and customers both benefit from the large customer base Apple has created with their entire ecosystem, if at the end a judge is not balancing out cost versus benefits in light of the underlying economic system, it would be a really strange result. I lived through the evolution of development environments, remember times when licensing an IDE was a really expensive exercise and software distribution required high production and distribution costs, it is really bizarre that Epic tries to further increase their margin by challenging the „partner“ which adds the whole ecosystem they benefit from with billions of dollar.
Apple certainly runs a thin line here, but to set an example with the current challenger is just wrong. Alternatives are there, so no real monopoly in sight, and the players are really on eye-level when it comes to ethics, each with different weak spots in this arena. To punish Apple just for them being so successful also seems not right. And look at nature, just because the shark is one of the most successful hunters on this planet it still has a symbiosis with the pilot fish. If one of them tries to change the rules of the symbiosis it would likely cause it to break ;-) But what does the old saying say: having right and getting right are two very different things, and in my experience this is most true in front of the court of law :-o
I think you're missing the main point here.
I doubt there would be the slightest problem if Apple's ecosystem were entirely self contained.
The problem is that it isn't self contained.
On top of that, it depends on outside developers. Without them the platform could still exist but likely in a vastly different manner.
When you have a billion dollar bridge leading in and out of your ecosystem, new rules apply. You may get away with falling under the radar but as you go and industry changes you run the risk of being investigated.
Of course they wouldn't apply only to Apple, but to anyone in a similar situation assuming things don't go Apple's way.
Those rules can't be set by the gatekeepers to the ecosystems. The rules currently require competition.
There are several investigations currently in process to determine precisely if competition and consumers are being harmed. Some have already deemed competition has been impacted and consumers have been harmed.
I see a few ways Apple could avoid these problems and all of them would probably be considered just fine by many posting here but none of them would be fine for Apple. Of that I am sure. That is telling.
As are many of the comments and emails that have emerged as a result of the this particular trial.
I definitely haven't been convinced by anything I've seen so far (although admittedly I haven't really been following all the proceedings).
Logically Apple is trying to show things in a different light but I have yet to see anything that really makes me think, 'they have point there'.
I think you got me wrong here ;-) - Apple is for sure using all its power to max top and bottom line, and certainly there is a lot negative to say about it. But at the end its a choice I as consumer make, and Epic is not a pin better than Apple in this game. If there is anybody out there seriously believing that this trial is about the greater good, please dream on! I have ample opportunity as consumer, and do not tell me that there is one premium business out there that is not using similar mechanisms. That’s what I meant with rules in need to change, any car, and media device, every service would need to offer a similarly self-contained environment…but guess what, if you temper with any other device, and do not get distracted by the fact that we discuss software here, you lose any warranty. Apple is just so on top of doing it that the spotlight is naturally on them.
So if it would be David vs. Goliath here I would have more sympathy for David, but in this case I just can’t find a lot of positive vibes for Epic impersonating David. But hey, I am not here to fight for sympathies for one party or the other, everybody has the right to like one player more than the other ;-)
Comments
Nor would his suggestion cover the loss of privacy & security that iPhone users would have to contend with when developers abandoned the App Store and forced users to download their junk or do without. And that would put the iPhone on par with any high end Android phone --- and Apple would lose big time.
Epic intentionally broke its agreement with Apple -- which is why Apple kicked them off of the App Store.
The judge needs can only make a decision based upon legal principles. Apple or any other business is allowed to make any business decisions it likes for the most part, with the market, only, deciding whether those decisions are reasonable or not. With Epic admitting that Apple only accounts for 7% of Epic's revenue, I would expect the judge to have difficulty justifying Apple is restricting Epic's market unfairly.
One also needs to understand the judge's limitations. The judge must also be cognizant of how the Appeals courts will view her decision. No judge wants to be smacked down by superior courts for making wholly unjustified decisions.
Which means it was running software co-developed with the Apple Newton team.
Steve-degrees of separation - the theory that no new feature is more than 6 steps separated from an early PC pioneer named Steve.
Apple certainly runs a thin line here, but to set an example with the current challenger is just wrong. Alternatives are there, so no real monopoly in sight, and the players are really on eye-level when it comes to ethics, each with different weak spots in this arena. To punish Apple just for them being so successful also seems not right. And look at nature, just because the shark is one of the most successful hunters on this planet it still has a symbiosis with the pilot fish. If one of them tries to change the rules of the symbiosis it would likely cause it to break ;-)
But what does the old saying say: having right and getting right are two very different things, and in my experience this is most true in front of the court of law :-o
I doubt there would be the slightest problem if Apple's ecosystem were entirely self contained.
The problem is that it isn't self contained.
On top of that, it depends on outside developers. Without them the platform could still exist but likely in a vastly different manner.
When you have a billion dollar bridge leading in and out of your ecosystem, new rules apply. You may get away with falling under the radar but as you go and industry changes you run the risk of being investigated.
Of course they wouldn't apply only to Apple, but to anyone in a similar situation assuming things don't go Apple's way.
Those rules can't be set by the gatekeepers to the ecosystems. The rules currently require competition.
There are several investigations currently in process to determine precisely if competition and consumers are being harmed. Some have already deemed competition has been impacted and consumers have been harmed.
I see a few ways Apple could avoid these problems and all of them would probably be considered just fine by many posting here but none of them would be fine for Apple. Of that I am sure. That is telling.
As are many of the comments and emails that have emerged as a result of the this particular trial.
I definitely haven't been convinced by anything I've seen so far (although admittedly I haven't really been following all the proceedings).
Logically Apple is trying to show things in a different light but I have yet to see anything that really makes me think, 'they have point there'.
I have no problem with Apple collecting a decent-sized commission on apps and they absolutely did/do provide value. Where the whole argument for Apple falls apart is for digital content or external services. Their IDE, their APIs, etc... have nothing to do with the creation of things like eBooks, videos, dating services, online classes, etc... They don't provide discovery like they do with an app. They don't host the digital content like they do with apps. They don't provide the distribution or storage for digital content like they do with apps. But they still feel entitled to 30%.
Imagine if other stores tried to implement the same rules the App Store has and it becomes clear how outrageous some of the policies are. Tim Cook used the strawman argument:
Of course, no one was saying that app developers should be allowed to put in their App Store listing alternative ways to purchase. But Apple goes further and prevents a companies app from doing so. So imagine for a moment that Best Buy had Apple's approach. You go to a Best Buy and buy an iPad. Apple couldn't offer you the option to sign up directly from Apple for iCloud or Apple Music or any other service - for as long as you use that iPhone you'd have to go back to Best Buy to get any of those services. Everyone recognizes that would be insane but for some bizarre reason we will go as far as defending the same behavior when Apple does it.