Tim Sweeney is the devil. He wants to use apples devices for free. Maybe he should develop his own device that he can sell on. or go to Walmart and ask to sell his products in all their stores for free. totally with apple.
They aren’t Apple’s devices once they are purchased by customers. We don’t rent the products.
This would be the same as a car manufacturer only allowing it to be fuelled at gas stations owned by them. Charging other cars a 30% premium to fill at their stations. Voiding the warranty and bricking the vehicle if they fill up at a different station.
It’s a monopoly. Pure and simple. We don’t allow these sorts of monopolies for numerous reasons.
If Apple was only making an insanely gross amount of money from this model - no problem. But they are rolling in astronomical insanity amounts of cash and the most valuable company in the history of the world.
The lawsuit isn’t going Apple’s way - not even close. The judge has already stated she doesn’t buy Apple’s arguments at all. There is a good article on Forbes about it.
I am willing to take the risk of installing my own software - just like I have on my Mac for 30 years with no problems. I’m an adult, I can make my own decisions. I don’t need Apple telling me what to do with my property. And it is my property. I buy it, I maintain it, I insure it, it’s mine. I can glue diamonds to it and sell it for more if I want, I can drop it from a bridge to watch it smash. Apple holds the rights to the OS and patents on the tech, that’s it. They shouldn’t have the right to tell me what I can and can’t do with it and how I use it and when.
They aren’t going to win this.
To you and everyone else with this idiotic “it’s my device” argument…
Yep, It’s your device, sure. And as long as you don’t use any of the firmware, OS, and software that are Apple’s IP and NOT yours then sure, you can do whatever you like with it.
It makes a pretty good paperweight. In exactly the right conditions it can almost work as a mirror.
The car and fuel analogy is fallacious.
You’re free to charge the device with any electricity you want from any vendor and Apple doesn’t get a cut of any of that.
You can not operate a car without the fuel. You can operate an iPhone without paying anyone anything for apps beyond those that come loaded with it, plus countless free apps that are funded by ad revenue, or subscriptions paid outside the Ap Store (eg. Netflix) that Apple gets nothing from.
Car fuel isn’t a service, it’s entirely a product. The App Store, iOS, and the entire ecosystem, are services that require maintenance and keep improving with R&D.
Car fuel doesn’t rely on the car manufacturer’s intellectual property in any way. Nearly everything on an iDevice relies on Apple’s IP.
And more.
Apple has every right to limit what you or anyone else (consumers and devs) do with their intellectual property.
When you buy an iPhone and start it up you are presented with an agreement that says if you want to use Apple’s IP (iOS, the firmware within the hardware, etc.) you need to agree to certain terms, that are almost entirely about Apple protecting their IP - which they have every right to do.
If you don’t like the terms, no problem, you can decline the agreement, keep the device without running anything on it and use it as a paperweight, or return it to Apple for a full refund no questions asked.
It’s not the iPhone App Store. It’s the iOS App Store. If you want to install anything you want from any source onto a device running iOS, you might have to successfully negotiate the ownership rights of iOS, (and the firmware, proprietary chips, etc) in the iOS device with Apple. I’m sure it will only cost you a trillion dollars or so.
Tim Sweeney is the devil. He wants to use apples devices for free. Maybe he should develop his own device that he can sell on. or go to Walmart and ask to sell his products in all their stores for free. totally with apple.
They aren’t Apple’s devices once they are purchased by customers. We don’t rent the products.
This would be the same as a car manufacturer only allowing it to be fuelled at gas stations owned by them. Charging other cars a 30% premium to fill at their stations. Voiding the warranty and bricking the vehicle if they fill up at a different station.
It’s a monopoly. Pure and simple. We don’t allow these sorts of monopolies for numerous reasons.
If Apple was only making an insanely gross amount of money from this model - no problem. But they are rolling in astronomical insanity amounts of cash and the most valuable company in the history of the world.
The lawsuit isn’t going Apple’s way - not even close. The judge has already stated she doesn’t buy Apple’s arguments at all. There is a good article on Forbes about it.
I am willing to take the risk of installing my own software - just like I have on my Mac for 30 years with no problems. I’m an adult, I can make my own decisions. I don’t need Apple telling me what to do with my property. And it is my property. I buy it, I maintain it, I insure it, it’s mine. I can glue diamonds to it and sell it for more if I want, I can drop it from a bridge to watch it smash. Apple holds the rights to the OS and patents on the tech, that’s it. They shouldn’t have the right to tell me what I can and can’t do with it and how I use it and when.
Do you also attack other companies for not letting third party app stores in their own devices, OSs and app stores? Or is your hatred directed only at Apple? Are you consistent? There's no evidence of that in your post.
I agree with you that you own the hardware, and you should be allowed to install any OS that you want on it. I'll back you up on that. But I won't back you up on your idea that Apple should have to install every single feature that you demand in its own OS which you don't own and didn't buy, but are licensing from them.
Your analogy of modifying the hardware and reselling it is bogus. You own the hardware but you don't own the software.
I like most of your posts 22july, including most of this one, though I’m going to challenge you on one thought:
I agree there’s an argument for Apple to allow other OS’s on their devices - and it could potentially put a lot of these debates to rest, except that even then you’re still using a lot of Apple’s IP (firmware, chip designs, etc.) that they still have every right to protect and put whatever limitations they want on it. The moment we’re using even the processor for anything in these devices, we’re using Apple’s IP that is not ours.
It’s for that reason if none other that Apple is pretty unlikely to ever go with allowing other OS’s on iDevices.
Tim Sweeney is the devil. He wants to use apples devices for free. Maybe he should develop his own device that he can sell on. or go to Walmart and ask to sell his products in all their stores for free. totally with apple.
They aren’t Apple’s devices once they are purchased by customers. We don’t rent the products.
This would be the same as a car manufacturer only allowing it to be fuelled at gas stations owned by them. Charging other cars a 30% premium to fill at their stations. Voiding the warranty and bricking the vehicle if they fill up at a different station.
It’s a monopoly. Pure and simple. We don’t allow these sorts of monopolies for numerous reasons.
If Apple was only making an insanely gross amount of money from this model - no problem. But they are rolling in astronomical insanity amounts of cash and the most valuable company in the history of the world.
The lawsuit isn’t going Apple’s way - not even close. The judge has already stated she doesn’t buy Apple’s arguments at all. There is a good article on Forbes about it.
I am willing to take the risk of installing my own software - just like I have on my Mac for 30 years with no problems. I’m an adult, I can make my own decisions. I don’t need Apple telling me what to do with my property. And it is my property. I buy it, I maintain it, I insure it, it’s mine. I can glue diamonds to it and sell it for more if I want, I can drop it from a bridge to watch it smash. Apple holds the rights to the OS and patents on the tech, that’s it. They shouldn’t have the right to tell me what I can and can’t do with it and how I use it and when.
Do you also attack other companies for not letting third party app stores in their own devices, OSs and app stores? Or is your hatred directed only at Apple? Are you consistent? There's no evidence of that in your post.
I agree with you that you own the hardware, and you should be allowed to install any OS that you want on it. I'll back you up on that. But I won't back you up on your idea that Apple should have to install every single feature that you demand in its own OS which you don't own and didn't buy, but are licensing from them.
Your analogy of modifying the hardware and reselling it is bogus. You own the hardware but you don't own the software.
I don’t use any other companies for software - so I have no stake in it. I’m entirely in the Apple ecosystem through my whole business and personal life. I imagine I wouldn’t be happy if I was caught up in this with any other company either... so I guess I’m consistent.
And woah... “hatred” “attack”... slow down turbo. I don’t agree with Apple’s policies on certain things, and I don’t like the leadership direction on many things - like millions of others. Has nothing to do with hatred or attacks. It’s allowed in a publicly traded company.
I have no problem with them having a store and charging a %30 premium. I have a problem with them having a monopoly so that I have no choice to pay them for anything I want to do on it.
Regarding installing features on the OS... I think you are confusing me with someone else. No idea what you are talking about.
Reselling phones happens millions of times every day - it’s not bogus. I can resell my licence on the phone any time I want. I just can’t sell the licence outside of that phone.
But here’s the thing… there is a ton of things you can do on an iOS device (a) without you or any dev paying Apple a cent and (b) without you paying any dev or anyone else anything.
All the apps that come with it are extremely useful. That’s how the original iPhone was before any of this App Store stuff — and people bought those first iPhones and appreciated them.
Then a year later iDevices arrived with the option to do a whole lot more - the birth of the App Store, And the vast majority of that “whole lot more” was and still is free: countless apps on the App Store are free because they are either loss leaders or they’re funded by ad revenue or, like Netflix, out-of-app subscriptions.
With that also came the option for it do even more than all this free functionality — if paid for.
None of that paid functionality is required for the device to still be incredibly useful. No one is forced to pay anyone anything beyond the purchase price of the device, for an enormous amount of functionality. And betond that, a lot of paid functionality exists without Apple getting any of it (again, eg. Netflix).
How is any of that unreasonable? Are you a freeloader like Sweeney who wants extra for nothing? Why is it so unreasonable to have to pay for extra functionality above and beyond the enormous amount of free functionality that comes with it?
Tim Sweeney is the devil. He wants to use apples devices for free. Maybe he should develop his own device that he can sell on. or go to Walmart and ask to sell his products in all their stores for free. totally with apple.
They aren’t Apple’s devices once they are purchased by customers. We don’t rent the products.
This would be the same as a car manufacturer only allowing it to be fuelled at gas stations owned by them. Charging other cars a 30% premium to fill at their stations. Voiding the warranty and bricking the vehicle if they fill up at a different station.
It’s a monopoly. Pure and simple. We don’t allow these sorts of monopolies for numerous reasons.
If Apple was only making an insanely gross amount of money from this model - no problem. But they are rolling in astronomical insanity amounts of cash and the most valuable company in the history of the world.
The lawsuit isn’t going Apple’s way - not even close. The judge has already stated she doesn’t buy Apple’s arguments at all. There is a good article on Forbes about it.
I am willing to take the risk of installing my own software - just like I have on my Mac for 30 years with no problems. I’m an adult, I can make my own decisions. I don’t need Apple telling me what to do with my property. And it is my property. I buy it, I maintain it, I insure it, it’s mine. I can glue diamonds to it and sell it for more if I want, I can drop it from a bridge to watch it smash. Apple holds the rights to the OS and patents on the tech, that’s it. They shouldn’t have the right to tell me what I can and can’t do with it and how I use it and when.
Do you also attack other companies for not letting third party app stores in their own devices, OSs and app stores? Or is your hatred directed only at Apple? Are you consistent? There's no evidence of that in your post.
I agree with you that you own the hardware, and you should be allowed to install any OS that you want on it. I'll back you up on that. But I won't back you up on your idea that Apple should have to install every single feature that you demand in its own OS which you don't own and didn't buy, but are licensing from them.
Your analogy of modifying the hardware and reselling it is bogus. You own the hardware but you don't own the software.
I like most of your posts 22july, including most of this one, though I’m going to challenge you on one thought:
I agree there’s an argument for Apple to allow other OS’s on their devices - and it could potentially put a lot of these debates to rest, except that even then you’re still using a lot of Apple’s IP (firmware, chip designs, etc.) that they still have every right to protect and put whatever limitations they want on it. The moment we’re using even the processor for anything in these devices, we’re using Apple’s IP that is not ours.
It’s for that reason if none other that Apple is pretty unlikely to ever go with allowing other OS’s on iDevices.
You can install another operating system on an iDevice, Apple just don't make it easy with the bootloader, and finding a jailbreak and a build that will work can be challenging. Which makes sense, as there's a very limited market. Apple hardware comes at a significant premium over competitors, so why would anyone pay Apple prices to install a free operating system?
Tim Sweeney is the devil. He wants to use apples devices for free. Maybe he should develop his own device that he can sell on. or go to Walmart and ask to sell his products in all their stores for free. totally with apple.
They aren’t Apple’s devices once they are purchased by customers. We don’t rent the products.
This would be the same as a car manufacturer only allowing it to be fuelled at gas stations owned by them. Charging other cars a 30% premium to fill at their stations. Voiding the warranty and bricking the vehicle if they fill up at a different station.
It’s a monopoly. Pure and simple. We don’t allow these sorts of monopolies for numerous reasons.
If Apple was only making an insanely gross amount of money from this model - no problem. But they are rolling in astronomical insanity amounts of cash and the most valuable company in the history of the world.
The lawsuit isn’t going Apple’s way - not even close. The judge has already stated she doesn’t buy Apple’s arguments at all. There is a good article on Forbes about it.
I am willing to take the risk of installing my own software - just like I have on my Mac for 30 years with no problems. I’m an adult, I can make my own decisions. I don’t need Apple telling me what to do with my property. And it is my property. I buy it, I maintain it, I insure it, it’s mine. I can glue diamonds to it and sell it for more if I want, I can drop it from a bridge to watch it smash. Apple holds the rights to the OS and patents on the tech, that’s it. They shouldn’t have the right to tell me what I can and can’t do with it and how I use it and when.
Do you also attack other companies for not letting third party app stores in their own devices, OSs and app stores? Or is your hatred directed only at Apple? Are you consistent? There's no evidence of that in your post.
I agree with you that you own the hardware, and you should be allowed to install any OS that you want on it. I'll back you up on that. But I won't back you up on your idea that Apple should have to install every single feature that you demand in its own OS which you don't own and didn't buy, but are licensing from them.
Your analogy of modifying the hardware and reselling it is bogus. You own the hardware but you don't own the software.
I like most of your posts 22july, including most of this one, though I’m going to challenge you on one thought:
I agree there’s an argument for Apple to allow other OS’s on their devices - and it could potentially put a lot of these debates to rest, except that even then you’re still using a lot of Apple’s IP (firmware, chip designs, etc.) that they still have every right to protect and put whatever limitations they want on it. The moment we’re using even the processor for anything in these devices, we’re using Apple’s IP that is not ours.
It’s for that reason if none other that Apple is pretty unlikely to ever go with allowing other OS’s on iDevices.
Thanks for making my day, by complimenting me. I just noticed your post.
The idea of letting other OSs onto Apple devices has precedent: Macs and macOS. But I think you missed the main reason I tell people about this option. It's to see if they will be satisfied by the idea that Apple would allow third party app stores, and side-loading, through a choice of a different operating system. So far I haven't heard anyone answer that question. The point I'm making is that even if Apple allowed people to install any software through a separate operating system, that STILL wouldn't be good enough for Apple haters. Do you see the dishonesty in that? Tell me what Tim Sweeney would say if Apple allowed Android on iPhones which allows Epic to install third party app stores but Apple still didn't allow third party app stores on iOS? Think about that. Even with a choice for consumers for a side-loading feature, if consumers reject that feature, Sweeney would still be suing Apple, even if users didn't want Sweeney's changes.
How many Mac users install a different OS than macOS? I'm not sure, but not many. How many iPhone users would install Android if they had the option? Not many, and that would be absolute proof that Apple isn't acting like a monopoly. Apple needs goodwill from governments, and this is how they could obtain it.
Wait, does Epic make the same amount of money whether Fortnite players choose Apple's or Epic's payment processor?
Sony can take their cut, Microsoft can take their cut, but Apple and Google can't?
Epic's premeditated PR campaign to cast Apple as the bad guy by tapping into popular resentment of Apple's success is pure obfuscation. It's meant to hide that this was always about about a competing payment processor trying to use the courts to cleave its way into the App Store.
The App Store games have shifted to a "freemium" business model, in which the app is free, and revenue comes from in-game purchases. Apple's isn't allowing alternate payment processors because this loophole would result in Apple making no revenue from the app at all. I'm sure some of you would argue that an unsustainable business model is justified because Apple "is too rich and greedy."
BTW- Sorry for the format I used to reply. I still can't figure out how you (and some others here) did it, the way you did.
You can continue to tap the quote button and the forum software will paste the post again in a quote box at your cursor position in the forum post editor, with the fancy "user said" header et al. IOW, you tap quote, then delete text inside the quote box down to the point you are replying to, reply with your comments. Then, go back up to the post you're replying to, tap quote again, and the post will be pasted again in a quote box at the last cursor position. Edit, reply, go back up again, tap quote. This works for other posts. Just tap the quote button of a separate post and it will be pasted into the forum post editor.
Some people probably use the HTML code editor, but tedious. The forum post editor is bug ridden, at lease on iPad Safari, so dropping into the HTML code editor is sometimes useful.
Tim Sweeney is the devil. He wants to use apples devices for free. Maybe he should develop his own device that he can sell on. or go to Walmart and ask to sell his products in all their stores for free. totally with apple.
They aren’t Apple’s devices once they are purchased by customers. We don’t rent the products.
This would be the same as a car manufacturer only allowing it to be fuelled at gas stations owned by them. Charging other cars a 30% premium to fill at their stations. Voiding the warranty and bricking the vehicle if they fill up at a different station.
It’s a monopoly. Pure and simple. We don’t allow these sorts of monopolies for numerous reasons.
If Apple was only making an insanely gross amount of money from this model - no problem. But they are rolling in astronomical insanity amounts of cash and the most valuable company in the history of the world.
The lawsuit isn’t going Apple’s way - not even close. The judge has already stated she doesn’t buy Apple’s arguments at all. There is a good article on Forbes about it.
I am willing to take the risk of installing my own software - just like I have on my Mac for 30 years with no problems. I’m an adult, I can make my own decisions. I don’t need Apple telling me what to do with my property. And it is my property. I buy it, I maintain it, I insure it, it’s mine. I can glue diamonds to it and sell it for more if I want, I can drop it from a bridge to watch it smash. Apple holds the rights to the OS and patents on the tech, that’s it. They shouldn’t have the right to tell me what I can and can’t do with it and how I use it and when.
They aren’t going to win this.
To you and everyone else with this idiotic “it’s my device” argument…
Yep, It’s your device, sure. And as long as you don’t use any of the firmware, OS, and software that are Apple’s IP and NOT yours then sure, you can do whatever you like with it.
It makes a pretty good paperweight. In exactly the right conditions it can almost work as a mirror.
The car and fuel analogy is fallacious.
You’re free to charge the device with any electricity you want from any vendor and Apple doesn’t get a cut of any of that.
You can not operate a car without the fuel. You can operate an iPhone without paying anyone anything for apps beyond those that come loaded with it, plus countless free apps that are funded by ad revenue, or subscriptions paid outside the Ap Store (eg. Netflix) that Apple gets nothing from.
Car fuel isn’t a service, it’s entirely a product. The App Store, iOS, and the entire ecosystem, are services that require maintenance and keep improving with R&D.
Car fuel doesn’t rely on the car manufacturer’s intellectual property in any way. Nearly everything on an iDevice relies on Apple’s IP.
And more.
Apple has every right to limit what you or anyone else (consumers and devs) do with their intellectual property.
When you buy an iPhone and start it up you are presented with an agreement that says if you want to use Apple’s IP (iOS, the firmware within the hardware, etc.) you need to agree to certain terms, that are almost entirely about Apple protecting their IP - which they have every right to do.
If you don’t like the terms, no problem, you can decline the agreement, keep the device without running anything on it and use it as a paperweight, or return it to Apple for a full refund no questions asked.
It’s not the iPhone App Store. It’s the iOS App Store. If you want to install anything you want from any source onto a device running iOS, you might have to successfully negotiate the ownership rights of iOS, (and the firmware, proprietary chips, etc) in the iOS device with Apple. I’m sure it will only cost you a trillion dollars or so.
This.
You own the hardware. You don't own the software. You are licensing the software from Apple to use on the device. Read the ToS when you set it up.
You don't get to dictate to Apple what their software can and can't do. If you don't like what the software does, use different software.
The reason Epic can make so much money, is that Apple, Google, Microsoft and Sony have put a lot of R&D and marketing into iOS, Android, Xbox and Playstation. If Epic wants to sell direct to the consumer, they should make their own hardware. They want to leech off Apple and Google, but are willing to pay 30% to Microsoft and Sony (for now).
The shoplifting analogy that Apple uses isn't very good. It is more like Epic setting up shop and selling things inside an Apple Store without paying any rent; Epic cries in the store that they made the products they are selling not Apple, so Apple should let them stay there for free.
Exactly. They want to put their own shelf in Walmart while paying zilch. By their logic any storefront is a monopoly. Why don’t Epic lead the way and let Steam sell games on the Epic Store 👍
OK excuse me while I descend into simplistic and crass internet trolling. Sweeney looks a whole lot like the cartoon apple in their parody of the Apple 1984 ad, same glasses, same pointy chin.
Imagine having to rent your house from only Teo landlords available in the entire world.... How does that situation sound to you? Not great, right?
Well, that’s happening with mobile App Stores.
People are comparing this with retail publishing structures from the 90’s is just silly. And the anti-Epic rhetoric... This is bigger than Epic Games!
I am 100% behind Epic’s initiative here.
Side-loading should be possible, third party stores should be possible. If Apple indeed has the “most advanced OS” in the world they should be able to offer apps running in their own secure container.
Apple doesn’t have to curate or provide support in any way if I download my content elsewhere. They can keep running their stores and market it as a curated platform just fine. I mean, if the App Store is so great, the consumer will use it anyway. I just want to be able to work with an alternative install/download source whenever I want to.
People comparing this to PlayStation doing the same thing... Yeah sure, that’s problematic too, but the mobile space is the most clearly monopolized one due to sheer market size. If Epic would win, no doubt the entire model would change for all platform owners.
I can agree with you with exactly one condition. Apple owns (licenses to the consumer) iOS. It’s their OS, their rules. You want to side load apps? Fine, but first someone needs to build an OS to run them on, and then maybe Apple should let iPhone owners replace iOS, in its entirely on their iPhones, with that separate OS. Warranty is out the window at that point, and so is use of ALL of Apple’s APIs and libraries, and a lawsuit forthcoming from Apple to any OS maker who simple copies Apple’s copyrighted APIs. Go ahead, root your iPhone and run ACME OS on it.
But then again, there’s the issue of Trade Dress, a subset of Trademark law, that’ll get you in trouble if that OS is crashing iPhones and thereby eroding the reputation and value of Apple’s multi-hundred-billion-dollar brand image. See how quickly the rabbit hole invites you in?
Imagine having to rent your house from only Teo landlords available in the entire world.... How does that situation sound to you? Not great, right?
Well, that’s happening with mobile App Stores.
People are comparing this with retail publishing structures from the 90’s is just silly. And the anti-Epic rhetoric... This is bigger than Epic Games!
I am 100% behind Epic’s initiative here.
Side-loading should be possible, third party stores should be possible. If Apple indeed has the “most advanced OS” in the world they should be able to offer apps running in their own secure container.
Apple doesn’t have to curate or provide support in any way if I download my content elsewhere. They can keep running their stores and market it as a curated platform just fine. I mean, if the App Store is so great, the consumer will use it anyway. I just want to be able to work with an alternative install/download source whenever I want to.
People comparing this to PlayStation doing the same thing... Yeah sure, that’s problematic too, but the mobile space is the most clearly monopolized one due to sheer market size. If Epic would win, no doubt the entire model would change for all platform owners.
I can agree with you with exactly one condition. Apple owns (licenses to the consumer) iOS. It’s their OS, their rules. You want to side load apps? Fine, but first someone needs to build an OS to run them on, and then maybe Apple should let iPhone owners replace iOS, in its entirely on their iPhones, with that separate OS. Warranty is out the window at that point, and so is use of ALL of Apple’s APIs and libraries, and a lawsuit forthcoming from Apple to any OS maker who simple copies Apple’s copyrighted APIs. Go ahead, root your iPhone and run ACME OS on it.
But then again, there’s the issue of Trade Dress, a subset of Trademark law, that’ll get you in trouble if that OS is crashing iPhones and thereby eroding the reputation and value of Apple’s multi-hundred-billion-dollar brand image. See how quickly the rabbit hole invites you in?
Your key sentence is the limitation being Apple's rules. that's all. there's no technical limitation, zero effect on those who use the App Store, and mitigating most security risks for those who choose to install from "elsewhere" is absolutely possible, see Google Play Protect. https://developers.google.com/android/play-protect
Since it is just Apple's rules they can change them anytime they wish, and if they don't wish to (and they don't) they may still be forced to so that regulators and courts across several countries and continents are appeased.
Tim Sweeney is the devil. He wants to use apples devices for free. Maybe he should develop his own device that he can sell on. or go to Walmart and ask to sell his products in all their stores for free. totally with apple.
They aren’t Apple’s devices once they are purchased by customers. We don’t rent the products.
This would be the same as a car manufacturer only allowing it to be fuelled at gas stations owned by them. Charging other cars a 30% premium to fill at their stations. Voiding the warranty and bricking the vehicle if they fill up at a different station.
It’s a monopoly. Pure and simple. We don’t allow these sorts of monopolies for numerous reasons.
If Apple was only making an insanely gross amount of money from this model - no problem. But they are rolling in astronomical insanity amounts of cash and the most valuable company in the history of the world.
The lawsuit isn’t going Apple’s way - not even close. The judge has already stated she doesn’t buy Apple’s arguments at all. There is a good article on Forbes about it.
I am willing to take the risk of installing my own software - just like I have on my Mac for 30 years with no problems. I’m an adult, I can make my own decisions. I don’t need Apple telling me what to do with my property. And it is my property. I buy it, I maintain it, I insure it, it’s mine. I can glue diamonds to it and sell it for more if I want, I can drop it from a bridge to watch it smash. Apple holds the rights to the OS and patents on the tech, that’s it. They shouldn’t have the right to tell me what I can and can’t do with it and how I use it and when.
Imagine having to rent your house from only Teo landlords available in the entire world.... How does that situation sound to you? Not great, right?
Well, that’s happening with mobile App Stores.
People are comparing this with retail publishing structures from the 90’s is just silly. And the anti-Epic rhetoric... This is bigger than Epic Games!
I am 100% behind Epic’s initiative here.
Side-loading should be possible, third party stores should be possible. If Apple indeed has the “most advanced OS” in the world they should be able to offer apps running in their own secure container.
Apple doesn’t have to curate or provide support in any way if I download my content elsewhere. They can keep running their stores and market it as a curated platform just fine. I mean, if the App Store is so great, the consumer will use it anyway. I just want to be able to work with an alternative install/download source whenever I want to.
People comparing this to PlayStation doing the same thing... Yeah sure, that’s problematic too, but the mobile space is the most clearly monopolized one due to sheer market size. If Epic would win, no doubt the entire model would change for all platform owners.
I can agree with you with exactly one condition. Apple owns (licenses to the consumer) iOS. It’s their OS, their rules. You want to side load apps? Fine, but first someone needs to build an OS to run them on, and then maybe Apple should let iPhone owners replace iOS, in its entirely on their iPhones, with that separate OS. Warranty is out the window at that point, and so is use of ALL of Apple’s APIs and libraries, and a lawsuit forthcoming from Apple to any OS maker who simple copies Apple’s copyrighted APIs. Go ahead, root your iPhone and run ACME OS on it.
But then again, there’s the issue of Trade Dress, a subset of Trademark law, that’ll get you in trouble if that OS is crashing iPhones and thereby eroding the reputation and value of Apple’s multi-hundred-billion-dollar brand image. See how quickly the rabbit hole invites you in?
Your key sentence is the limitation being Apple's rules. that's all. there's no technical limitation, zero effect on those who use the App Store, and mitigating most security risks for those who choose to install from "elsewhere" is absolutely possible, see Google Play Protect. https://developers.google.com/android/play-protect
Since it is just Apple's rules they can change them anytime they wish, and if they don't wish to (and they don't) they may still be forced to so that regulators and courts across several countries and continents are appeased.
In which case iPhone can be sure Tim will stand by his word to find another way to collect Apple’s cut. Those APIs belong to Apple, and they could monetize them directly.
Imagine having to rent your house from only Teo landlords available in the entire world.... How does that situation sound to you? Not great, right?
Well, that’s happening with mobile App Stores.
People are comparing this with retail publishing structures from the 90’s is just silly. And the anti-Epic rhetoric... This is bigger than Epic Games!
I am 100% behind Epic’s initiative here.
Side-loading should be possible, third party stores should be possible. If Apple indeed has the “most advanced OS” in the world they should be able to offer apps running in their own secure container.
Apple doesn’t have to curate or provide support in any way if I download my content elsewhere. They can keep running their stores and market it as a curated platform just fine. I mean, if the App Store is so great, the consumer will use it anyway. I just want to be able to work with an alternative install/download source whenever I want to.
People comparing this to PlayStation doing the same thing... Yeah sure, that’s problematic too, but the mobile space is the most clearly monopolized one due to sheer market size. If Epic would win, no doubt the entire model would change for all platform owners.
I can agree with you with exactly one condition. Apple owns (licenses to the consumer) iOS. It’s their OS, their rules. You want to side load apps? Fine, but first someone needs to build an OS to run them on, and then maybe Apple should let iPhone owners replace iOS, in its entirely on their iPhones, with that separate OS. Warranty is out the window at that point, and so is use of ALL of Apple’s APIs and libraries, and a lawsuit forthcoming from Apple to any OS maker who simple copies Apple’s copyrighted APIs. Go ahead, root your iPhone and run ACME OS on it.
But then again, there’s the issue of Trade Dress, a subset of Trademark law, that’ll get you in trouble if that OS is crashing iPhones and thereby eroding the reputation and value of Apple’s multi-hundred-billion-dollar brand image. See how quickly the rabbit hole invites you in?
Your key sentence is the limitation being Apple's rules. that's all. there's no technical limitation, zero effect on those who use the App Store, and mitigating most security risks for those who choose to install from "elsewhere" is absolutely possible, see Google Play Protect. https://developers.google.com/android/play-protect
Since it is just Apple's rules they can change them anytime they wish, and if they don't wish to (and they don't) they may still be forced to so that regulators and courts across several countries and continents are appeased.
Apple implementing a program like "Google Play Protect" in iOS, so to allow side loading would only make iOS just as secure as Android. Or nearly as secure as Android, if Apple own protection program is not as good as "Google Play Protection". Which is a real possibility.
A US Federal Judge in the Epic lawsuit has already ruled that ........ "However, the Court also held that defendant had shown valid pro-competiitive reasons that the DPLA's restrictions, namely that the restrictions improved iOS security and increased inter-brand competition with Google's Android platform."
So Apple would lose a competitive edge with Android devices if the Courts forced Apple to allow side loading because iOS iDevices would then only be just as secure as Android. And maybe not even that. Would that be in the best interest of the probably over 90% of iDevice consumers that have no need to ever side load and are more interested in security?
If there were 3 homes and home 1 had no doors or windows, home 2 had just a front door and home 3 had a front and back door, which is the more secure home?
The first 3 generation of the Apple TV and iPhones before the Apple App Store were built like home 1. The only way for owners to install new apps was by way of an iOS update. When the Apple App Store came along, owners were able to install apps only by way of the App Store. This would be like home 2.
Android is like home 3, where owners can install apps by way of the Google Play Store and side loading. It doesn't matter how many locks and bars one put on the back door of home 3, it will never be as secure as home 2.
Even Google admit to this with their "Advanced Protection Program" for Android users that requires the most security protection. With this program, "Google Play Protection" can not be turned off and side loading is prohibited. Why would Google prohibit side loading as a way to make Android more secure, if "Google Play Protection" could offer just as much protection with side loading, as downloading from the Google Play Store?
Think about it, neither Apple or Google can prevent all malware from entering the front door. How in the name of Hell would installing a back door be as secure as only having a front door? Plus iOS users can not be fooled into installing malware through the back door, with a phishing scam or social engineering. Security is not so much a problem with the tech-savvy users, as much as it is with the not so tech-savvy users. And most likely, the majority of mobile device users on both platform, wouldn't not be considered ..... "tech-savvy".
Apple electing to not allow side loading in iOS has nothing to do with not wanting to implement a program like "Google Play Protection", it has to do with wanting to be more secure than Android, in order to better compete with Android devices.
I should mention the court in the California case outline two types of security:
“Narrow” Security: Malware
"Removing app distribution restrictions could reduce this effectiveness. First, app stores often differ in the quality of app review. On Android, which allows some third-party app stores, the main Google Play app store is secure, but a variety of third-party stores allow blacklisted apps to operate. A Nokia report attributes higher malware rates on Android to Trojan app:on third-party app stores. This creates a problem because, as Dr. Rubin opined, "security is only as strong as the weakest link." 527 Decentralized distribution thus increases the risk of infection giving malware more opportunities to leak through. (..) Thus, the Court finds that centralized distribution through the App Store increases security in the “narrow” sense, primarily by thwarting social engineering attacks."
Thus, the Court finds that app distribution restrictions increase security in the “broad” sense by allowing Apple to filter fraud, objectionable content, and piracy during app review while imposing heightened requirements for privacy." Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 812 Filed 09/10/21
Hoeg Law two insanely long playlists if you want to have lawyer who won't make your eyes glaze over that to legalize explain this case: An Antitrust Epic and Epic v Apple: Just the Trial I found them very helpful at getting a more rounded idea what was going on.
EPips game plan should worry people more than anything Apple supposedly did:
"What the world really needs now is a single store that works with all platforms," Sweeney said in an interview with Bloomberg. "Right now software ownership is fragmented between the iOS App Store, the Android Google Play marketplace, different stores on Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch, and then Microsoft Store and the Mac App Store."
Epic's plan to clean up that confusion is to come up with a system enabling users "to buy software in one place, knowing that they'd have it on all devices and all platforms."
One Epic App to rule them all - a Sauron for a new age. :-)
The best solution for this problem is very simple: termination of Epic’s access to the Apple Developer Program and letting them to clean self the mess they’ve created. Let them crying and shouting outside the AppStore.
Curious how successful they will be then.
That is not just a very juvenile thing to do (Revenge! Revenge!!!), it is also very unwise from a legal point of view. If Apple would do what you suggest, they would only prove Epic’s case; that one of abuse of power.
It would also hurt all developers and customers of Epic (and Apple: iOS/iPadOS) who aren’t part of this conflict, and lead to lawsuits siding with Epic.
Regardless of the outcome of this case and regardless of our opinions, Apple better prepare for a future where nations will demand fair competition in a landscape created by only two companies. Side-loading of apps and app stores will become the norm - all the stars are aligned for that future.
What is conveniently ignored is that for many commercial businesses, landlords also stipulate rent is not only a monthly amount, but also a percentage of sales. Epic has it easy compared to others. I hope Epic fails hard.
Yep. Back in the late 70’s I managed a music store in a large mall. Not only did we pay rent based on square footage, we also had to pay a percentage of our gross income just for the privilege of being in that mall. The concept was the same as Apple. The mall developers had built the mall, maintained the mall, marketed the mall. The mall’s existence attracted foot traffic thereby increasing tenant’s access to potential customers. We had to sell a lot of pianos, organs, and guitar picks just to make rent. We could have moved outside the mall to a standalone building but that would have been the kiss of death in terms of sales.
I see no difference in what Apple does with the App Store and what every other commercial landlord has been doing forever. Epic knows full well that they will make more money within the App Store than having their own store outside it. They want their cake and to eat it too.
Your analogy fails in the sense that in this case there are only two landlords in the world (set aside China): Landlord Google and Landlord Apple. That is a problem. A big problem.
Also, no modern real estate landlord (this is not the 1970s!) is demanding a 30% fee of gross income. That entity would quickly be sued out of existence and/or quickly ignored.
Comments
Yep, It’s your device, sure. And as long as you don’t use any of the firmware, OS, and software that are Apple’s IP and NOT yours then sure, you can do whatever you like with it.
It’s not the iPhone App Store. It’s the iOS App Store. If you want to install anything you want from any source onto a device running iOS, you might have to successfully negotiate the ownership rights of iOS, (and the firmware, proprietary chips, etc) in the iOS device with Apple. I’m sure it will only cost you a trillion dollars or so.
I agree there’s an argument for Apple to allow other OS’s on their devices - and it could potentially put a lot of these debates to rest, except that even then you’re still using a lot of Apple’s IP (firmware, chip designs, etc.) that they still have every right to protect and put whatever limitations they want on it. The moment we’re using even the processor for anything in these devices, we’re using Apple’s IP that is not ours.
Then a year later iDevices arrived with the option to do a whole lot more - the birth of the App Store, And the vast majority of that “whole lot more” was and still is free: countless apps on the App Store are free because they are either loss leaders or they’re funded by ad revenue or, like Netflix, out-of-app subscriptions.
With that also came the option for it do even more than all this free functionality — if paid for.
https://projectsandcastle.org
The idea of letting other OSs onto Apple devices has precedent: Macs and macOS. But I think you missed the main reason I tell people about this option. It's to see if they will be satisfied by the idea that Apple would allow third party app stores, and side-loading, through a choice of a different operating system. So far I haven't heard anyone answer that question. The point I'm making is that even if Apple allowed people to install any software through a separate operating system, that STILL wouldn't be good enough for Apple haters. Do you see the dishonesty in that? Tell me what Tim Sweeney would say if Apple allowed Android on iPhones which allows Epic to install third party app stores but Apple still didn't allow third party app stores on iOS? Think about that. Even with a choice for consumers for a side-loading feature, if consumers reject that feature, Sweeney would still be suing Apple, even if users didn't want Sweeney's changes.
How many Mac users install a different OS than macOS? I'm not sure, but not many. How many iPhone users would install Android if they had the option? Not many, and that would be absolute proof that Apple isn't acting like a monopoly. Apple needs goodwill from governments, and this is how they could obtain it.
Sony can take their cut, Microsoft can take their cut, but Apple and Google can't?
Epic's premeditated PR campaign to cast Apple as the bad guy by tapping into popular resentment of Apple's success is pure obfuscation. It's meant to hide that this was always about about a competing payment processor trying to use the courts to cleave its way into the App Store.
The App Store games have shifted to a "freemium" business model, in which the app is free, and revenue comes from in-game purchases. Apple's isn't allowing alternate payment processors because this loophole would result in Apple making no revenue from the app at all. I'm sure some of you would argue that an unsustainable business model is justified because Apple "is too rich and greedy."
Some people probably use the HTML code editor, but tedious. The forum post editor is bug ridden, at lease on iPad Safari, so dropping into the HTML code editor is sometimes useful.
You own the hardware. You don't own the software. You are licensing the software from Apple to use on the device. Read the ToS when you set it up.
You don't get to dictate to Apple what their software can and can't do. If you don't like what the software does, use different software.
https://developers.google.com/android/play-protect
Since it is just Apple's rules they can change them anytime they wish, and if they don't wish to (and they don't) they may still be forced to so that regulators and courts across several countries and continents are appeased.
A US Federal Judge in the Epic lawsuit has already ruled that ........ "However, the Court also held that defendant had shown valid pro-competiitive reasons that the DPLA's restrictions, namely that the restrictions improved iOS security and increased inter-brand competition with Google's Android platform."
https://www.lit-antitrust.shearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Finds-That-Antitrust-Claims-Against-Technology-Platform
So Apple would lose a competitive edge with Android devices if the Courts forced Apple to allow side loading because iOS iDevices would then only be just as secure as Android. And maybe not even that. Would that be in the best interest of the probably over 90% of iDevice consumers that have no need to ever side load and are more interested in security?
If there were 3 homes and home 1 had no doors or windows, home 2 had just a front door and home 3 had a front and back door, which is the more secure home?
The first 3 generation of the Apple TV and iPhones before the Apple App Store were built like home 1. The only way for owners to install new apps was by way of an iOS update. When the Apple App Store came along, owners were able to install apps only by way of the App Store. This would be like home 2.
Android is like home 3, where owners can install apps by way of the Google Play Store and side loading. It doesn't matter how many locks and bars one put on the back door of home 3, it will never be as secure as home 2.
Even Google admit to this with their "Advanced Protection Program" for Android users that requires the most security protection. With this program, "Google Play Protection" can not be turned off and side loading is prohibited. Why would Google prohibit side loading as a way to make Android more secure, if "Google Play Protection" could offer just as much protection with side loading, as downloading from the Google Play Store?
https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/18/googles-advanced-protection-program-for-high-risk-users-now-includes-malware-protection/
Think about it, neither Apple or Google can prevent all malware from entering the front door. How in the name of Hell would installing a back door be as secure as only having a front door? Plus iOS users can not be fooled into installing malware through the back door, with a phishing scam or social engineering. Security is not so much a problem with the tech-savvy users, as much as it is with the not so tech-savvy users. And most likely, the majority of mobile device users on both platform, wouldn't not be considered ..... "tech-savvy".
Apple electing to not allow side loading in iOS has nothing to do with not wanting to implement a program like "Google Play Protection", it has to do with wanting to be more secure than Android, in order to better compete with Android devices.
“Narrow” Security: Malware
"Removing app distribution restrictions could reduce this effectiveness. First, app stores often differ in the quality of app review. On Android, which allows some third-party app stores, the main Google Play app store is secure, but a variety of third-party stores allow blacklisted apps to operate. A Nokia report attributes higher malware rates on Android to Trojan app:on third-party app stores. This creates a problem because, as Dr. Rubin opined, "security is only as strong as the weakest link." 527 Decentralized distribution thus increases the risk of infection giving malware more opportunities to leak through. (..) Thus, the Court finds that centralized distribution through the App Store increases security in the “narrow” sense, primarily by thwarting social engineering attacks."
“Broad” Security: Privacy, Quality, Trustworthiness(...)
Thus, the Court finds that app distribution restrictions increase security in the “broad” sense by allowing Apple to filter fraud, objectionable content, and piracy during app review while imposing heightened requirements for privacy." Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 812 Filed 09/10/21
Hoeg Law two insanely long playlists if you want to have lawyer who won't make your eyes glaze over that to legalize explain this case: An Antitrust Epic and Epic v Apple: Just the Trial I found them very helpful at getting a more rounded idea what was going on.
EPips game plan should worry people more than anything Apple supposedly did:
"What the world really needs now is a single store that works with all platforms," Sweeney said in an interview with Bloomberg. "Right now software ownership is fragmented between the iOS App Store, the Android Google Play marketplace, different stores on Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch, and then Microsoft Store and the Mac App Store."
Epic's plan to clean up that confusion is to come up with a system enabling users "to buy software in one place, knowing that they'd have it on all devices and all platforms."
One Epic App to rule them all - a Sauron for a new age. :-)
Regardless of the outcome of this case and regardless of our opinions, Apple better prepare for a future where nations will demand fair competition in a landscape created by only two companies. Side-loading of apps and app stores will become the norm - all the stars are aligned for that future.
Also, no modern real estate landlord (this is not the 1970s!) is demanding a 30% fee of gross income. That entity would quickly be sued out of existence and/or quickly ignored.