avon b7 said: As for violating a contract clause, that doesn't mean much. The presence of a clause doesn't make it legal. A clause itself can be challenged in court.
Obviously, you are not a lawyer or a Judge. Violating a contract is everything! Challenging a clause in court is different than violating it blatantly, and then launching a pre-planned marketing blitz about it. That's the very definition of 'acting in bad faith'. Courts don't look too kindly on that.
You mean like what Apple did with Qualcomm on patents?
Signing a contract, violating the terms by refusing to pay and then making a very public fuss about why it was violating the contract.
Oh dear.
Comparing two completely different cases, one of contract law, and other of intellectual property, isn't the snappy retort that you believe it is, but by all means continue your undying support of Epic.
In the midst of all this, I feel that Apple is suffering self-inflicted brand damage. Some of this is simply muscle-flexing on their part, not a good look for a company trying to convince regulators and developers worldwide that Apple is harmless.
avon b7 said: As for violating a contract clause, that doesn't mean much. The presence of a clause doesn't make it legal. A clause itself can be challenged in court.
Obviously, you are not a lawyer or a Judge. Violating a contract is everything! Challenging a clause in court is different than violating it blatantly, and then launching a pre-planned marketing blitz about it. That's the very definition of 'acting in bad faith'. Courts don't look too kindly on that.
You mean like what Apple did with Qualcomm on patents?
Signing a contract, violating the terms by refusing to pay and then making a very public fuss about why it was violating the contract.
Oh dear.
Comparing two completely different cases, one of contract law, and other of intellectual property, isn't the snappy retort that you believe it is, but by all means continue your undying support of Epic.
Sorry, the basis of this is trust.
Apple signed contracts with Qualcomm, did the resulting business (I believe for years, although I could be wrong here) and then stopped paying, told other Qualcomm customers to hold back payments too and then started a court spat spanning many jurisdictions.
In other news and related to this, the EU has asked Apple to explain itself formerly as this action could be in breach of EU.
Obviously things aren't proving to be as clear cut as some here believe.
What has trust to do with it? Either you follow the rules within the laws or not. You can’t distrust preventively without them making a mistake with their new developer account – after all I can understand.
Would your logic apply to a pedophile applying for a job as a child care worker? Past is prolog.
Except this isn’t not a pedophile applying for a job. Your comparison is not relevant legally speaking.
Also, even in your flawed comparison the person’s rights based on the past are relative. You cannot cancel someone for everything, for ever.
Why does Apple assume they have monopoly on security? It is a rather faulty assumption that none else can make a secure or even more secure App Store.
DMA will overrule this and allow fair competition on the platform.
LOL.
Look around. There is literally no one that does what apple does and keeps a commitment to security and privacy. No one. It’s a rather massive deal.
There never was unfairness in the platform. All the eu is doing is trying to force socialism in a capitalistic company. Recipe for disaster. Robbing the platform provider to pay openly hostil developers is not a viable solution to a problem that never existed.
More fascist than socialist. Socialist would be if the EU nationalized Apple and took the company away from the shareholders, making EU the owner.
Requiring a company not owned by the government to do business as the government demands is a hallmark of fascism. Benito would be proud.
Requiring a company not owned by the government to do business as the government demands is a hallmark of fascism. Benito would be proud.
Or the hallmark of one protecting its citizenry. The government demands fair treatment and wages for the company's employees. The government demands the company not utilize child labor. They demand that said company doesn't pollute the air we breath and the water we drink.
Tim Sweeney is a fine engineer but a tone deaf CEO. If he were truly smart he would move over to CTO where he belongs and hire a savvy CEO to navigate the corporate waters he clearly lacks the finesse to do himself.
Tim Sweeney is a fine engineer but a tone deaf CEO. If he were truly smart he would move over to CTO where he belongs and hire a savvy CEO to navigate the corporate waters he clearly lacks the finesse to do himself.
Right. Because the world would be much better off if every company was run by a tone-deaf profit-at-all-costs bean counter...
In the midst of all this, I feel that Apple is suffering self-inflicted brand damage. Some of this is simply muscle-flexing on their part, not a good look for a company trying to convince regulators and developers worldwide that Apple is harmless.
Interestingly, Epic is the company that has clearly demonstrated that it is not harmless. They are predatory towards their own customers. Apple has set standards for third-party app stores in the EU to preserve, to the greatest extent possible, privacy and security standards for iPhone customers that are currently upheld through the Apple App Store. Epic starts out of the gate with its predatory history and expressed intent not to abide by the standards for developing third-party app stores. If Apple did anything other than cancel Epic's account, they would be undermining their own stated standards by setting the precedent of letting a predatory company have free rein before any other players even get started.
We're in a bizarre time on many fronts as those like Epic who commit malicious acts right out in the open are portrayed as somehow being victims when held to account, and those like Apple who would seek to hold these bad actors to account are portrayed as being somehow unfair.
In the midst of all this, I feel that Apple is suffering self-inflicted brand damage. Some of this is simply muscle-flexing on their part, not a good look for a company trying to convince regulators and developers worldwide that Apple is harmless.
This week Apple detailed the software changes that will appear in an upcoming release of iOS to comply with the European Union Digital Markets Act (DMA). As I read the over 60 pages of the DMA when it was passed (and in drafts before that, little of which changed in the process) my heart sank over the complexity of a regulation so poorly constructed yet so clearly aimed at specific (American) companies and products. As I read through many of the hundreds of pages of Apple documents detailing their compliance implementation my heart sank again. This time was because I so thoroughly could feel the pain and struggle product teams felt in clinging to at best or unwinding at worst the most substantial improvement in computing ever introduced—the promise behind the iPhone since its introduction. The reason the iPhone became so successful was not a fluke. Consumers and customers voted that the value proposition of the product was something they preferred, and they acted by purchasing iPhone and developers responded by building applications for iOS. The regulators have a different view of that promise, so here we are.
What has trust to do with it? Either you follow the rules within the laws or not. You can’t distrust preventively without them making a mistake with their new developer account – after all I can understand.
Would your logic apply to a pedophile applying for a job as a child care worker? Past is prolog.
Except this isn’t not a pedophile applying for a job. Your comparison is not relevant legally speaking.
Also, even in your flawed comparison the person’s rights based on the past are relative. You cannot cancel someone for everything, for ever.
You apparently have never heard of the sex offender registry.
Really though, the more applicable comparison is credit rating. Epic has a very poor credit rating when it comes to playing by rules designed to prevent it from preying on its own customers. A properly-run bank does not, just because it's Monday morning, simply wipe the slate clean and extend credit on the best terms available to a borrower for which they have direct experience and knowledge of its propensity to willfully and recklessly default on its obligations. A properly run bank will simply deny the application and tell the applicant they can try again later after they've demonstrated behavioral changes that lead to improved credit.
Apple is correct to cancel Epic's account. They have bad credit, and they have made clear they have no intentions of abiding by Apple's requirements for creating an accountable, non-predatory third-party app store.
Why does Apple assume they have monopoly on security? It is a rather faulty assumption that none else can make a secure or even more secure App Store.
DMA will overrule this and allow fair competition on the platform.
LOL.
Look around. There is literally no one that does what apple does and keeps a commitment to security and privacy. No one. It’s a rather massive deal.
There never was unfairness in the platform. All the eu is doing is trying to force socialism in a capitalistic company. Recipe for disaster. Robbing the platform provider to pay openly hostil developers is not a viable solution to a problem that never existed.
More fascist than socialist. Socialist would be if the EU nationalized Apple and took the company away from the shareholders, making EU the owner.
Requiring a company not owned by the government to do business as the government demands is a hallmark of fascism. Benito would be proud.
It’s socialist as well. Taking ones hard work and forcibly disallowing them to fully benefit, but instead, give the rewards to others, even those who didn’t take the risks, didn’t do the work, and don’t deserve the reward - all in the name of “equity.” LOL. WHETHER CONTROLLED BY THE MOB OR BY THE GOVERNMENT, that’s what it is. Apple is a capitalist company. It does the hard work and takes the risks and earns its due. The eu gets upset at American success within its borders and steals from them in order to give a free ride to its preferred folks. Sickening.
In the midst of all this, I feel that Apple is suffering self-inflicted brand damage. Some of this is simply muscle-flexing on their part, not a good look for a company trying to convince regulators and developers worldwide that Apple is harmless.
In the midst of all this, I feel that Apple is suffering self-inflicted brand damage. Some of this is simply muscle-flexing on their part, not a good look for a company trying to convince regulators and developers worldwide that Apple is harmless.
Out of curiosity, what is Apple's "brand"?
??
Well, if you are stating "self-inflicted brand damage", then it is implied that you have a good understanding of what Apple's brand is, hence why I asked what Apple's brand is.
You don't know? You must be one of the only members here who doesn't understand what it is.
Assuming you were being honest with the question, It would be better for you, and coming with with less distrust of the messenger, if you looked for yourself. Here's some starting places, first from Apple itself.
What is Apple's brand identity?
Simplicity. Creativity. Humanity. They call these their three lenses, and, according to Tor Myhren, VP of Marketing Communications at Apple, “If a product is not made up of these things, it's not Apple”.
There's a finely crafted and highly favorable emotional connection that I believe Apple management is currently harming. Much, maybe most, of Apple's consumer value is based on brand perception.
You don't know? You must be one of the only members here who doesn't understand what it is.
Assuming you were being honest with the question, It would be better for you, and coming with with less distrust of the messenger, if you looked for yourself. Here's some starting places, first from Apple itself.
What is Apple's brand identity?
Simplicity. Creativity. Humanity. They call these their three lenses, and, according to Tor Myhren, VP of Marketing Communications at Apple, “If a product is not made up of these things, it's not Apple”.
There's a finely crafted and highly favorable emotional connection that I believe Apple management is currently harming. Much, maybe most, of Apple's consumer value is based on brand perception.
Thank you,
I posted Steve Sinofsky because he had previously dealt with the EU, and understood developing operating systems.
The EU DMA is arguably not finely crafted, so is anti ethical to Apple.
Steve Sinofsky,
Android has the kind of success Microsoft would envy, but not Apple, primarily because with that success came most all the same issues that Microsoft sees (still) with the Windows PC. The security, privacy, abuse, fragility, and other problems of the PC show up on Android at a rate like the PC compared to Macintosh and iPhone. Only this time it is not the lack of motivation bad actors have to exploit iPhone, rather it is the foresight of the Steve Jobs vision for computing. He pushed to have a new kind of computer that further encapsulated and abstracted the computer to make it safer, more reliable, more private, and secure, great battery life, more accessible, more consistent, always easier to use, and so on. These attributes did not happen by accident. They were the process of design and architecture from the very start. These attributes are the brand promise of iPhone as much as the brand promise of Android is openness, ubiquity, low price, choice.
I give credit to Google for attempting to recreate some of the same brand promise of iPhone with the Pixel.
Steve Sinofsky,
The lesson of the first two decades of the PC and the first almost two decades of smartphones are that these ends of a spectrum are not accidental. These choices are not mutually compatible. You don’t get both. I know this is horrible to say and everyone believes that there is somehow malicious intent to lock people into a closed environment or an unintentional incompetence that permits bad software to invade an ecosystem. Neither of those would be the case. Quite simply, there’s a choice between engineering and architecting for one or the other and once you start you can’t go back. More importantly, the market values and demands both.
That is unless you’re a regulator in Brussels. Then you sit in an amazing government building and decide that it is entirely possible to just by fiat declare that the iPhone should have all the attributes of openness. By all accounts there seemed to be little interest in the brand promise that presumably drew a third of the market to iPhone. In the over 60 pages of DMA, there’s little mention of privacy (just 7 times), security (9 times), performance (3), reliability (once), or battery life (0), or accessibility (just 3). I would acknowledge one section about halfway through the 100 goals of one part of the DMA there is deference to these issues though note the important caveat about defaults:
(50) Furthermore, in order to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not undermine end users’ security, it should be possible for the gatekeeper to implement strictly necessary and proportionate measures and settings, other than default settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security in relation to third-party software applications or software application stores if the gatekeeper demonstrates that such measures and settings are strictly necessary and justified and that there are no less-restrictive means to achieve that goal. The gatekeeper should be prevented from implementing such measures as a default setting or as pre-installation.
Why does Apple assume they have monopoly on security? It is a rather faulty assumption that none else can make a secure or even more secure App Store.
DMA will overrule this and allow fair competition on the platform.
LOL.
Look around. There is literally no one that does what apple does and keeps a commitment to security and privacy. No one. It’s a rather massive deal.
There never was unfairness in the platform. All the eu is doing is trying to force socialism in a capitalistic company. Recipe for disaster. Robbing the platform provider to pay openly hostil developers is not a viable solution to a problem that never existed.
More fascist than socialist. Socialist would be if the EU nationalized Apple and took the company away from the shareholders, making EU the owner.
Requiring a company not owned by the government to do business as the government demands is a hallmark of fascism. Benito would be proud.
It’s socialist as well. Taking ones hard work and forcibly disallowing them to fully benefit, but instead, give the rewards to others, even those who didn’t take the risks, didn’t do the work, and don’t deserve the reward - all in the name of “equity.” LOL. WHETHER CONTROLLED BY THE MOB OR BY THE GOVERNMENT, that’s what it is. Apple is a capitalist company. It does the hard work and takes the risks and earns its due. The eu gets upset at American success within its borders and steals from them in order to give a free ride to its preferred folks. Sickening.
Oy. This situation is neither socialism nor fascism. This is the EU implementing poorly thought out regulation, based on an understanding of the term monopoly that's about as willfully misguided as y'all's understanding of the terms socialism and fascism.
You don't know? You must be one of the only members here who doesn't understand what it is.
Assuming you were being honest with the question, It would be better for you, and coming with with less distrust of the messenger, if you looked for yourself. Here's some starting places, first from Apple itself.
What is Apple's brand identity?
Simplicity. Creativity. Humanity. They call these their three lenses, and, according to Tor Myhren, VP of Marketing Communications at Apple, “If a product is not made up of these things, it's not Apple”.
There's a finely crafted and highly favorable emotional connection that I believe Apple management is currently harming. Much, maybe most, of Apple's consumer value is based on brand perception.
Thank you,
I posted Steve Sinofsky because he had previously dealt with the EU, and understood developing operating systems.
The EU DMA is arguably not finely crafted, so is anti ethical to Apple.
Steve Sinofsky,
Android has the kind of success Microsoft would envy, but not Apple, primarily because with that success came most all the same issues that Microsoft sees (still) with the Windows PC. The security, privacy, abuse, fragility, and other problems of the PC show up on Android at a rate like the PC compared to Macintosh and iPhone. Only this time it is not the lack of motivation bad actors have to exploit iPhone, rather it is the foresight of the Steve Jobs vision for computing. He pushed to have a new kind of computer that further encapsulated and abstracted the computer to make it safer, more reliable, more private, and secure, great battery life, more accessible, more consistent, always easier to use, and so on. These attributes did not happen by accident. They were the process of design and architecture from the very start. These attributes are the brand promise of iPhone as much as the brand promise of Android is openness, ubiquity, low price, choice.
I give credit to Google for attempting to recreate some of the same brand promise of iPhone with the Pixel.
Steve Sinofsky,
The lesson of the first two decades of the PC and the first almost two decades of smartphones are that these ends of a spectrum are not accidental. These choices are not mutually compatible. You don’t get both. I know this is horrible to say and everyone believes that there is somehow malicious intent to lock people into a closed environment or an unintentional incompetence that permits bad software to invade an ecosystem. Neither of those would be the case. Quite simply, there’s a choice between engineering and architecting for one or the other and once you start you can’t go back. More importantly, the market values and demands both.
That is unless you’re a regulator in Brussels. Then you sit in an amazing government building and decide that it is entirely possible to just by fiat declare that the iPhone should have all the attributes of openness. By all accounts there seemed to be little interest in the brand promise that presumably drew a third of the market to iPhone. In the over 60 pages of DMA, there’s little mention of privacy (just 7 times), security (9 times), performance (3), reliability (once), or battery life (0), or accessibility (just 3). I would acknowledge one section about halfway through the 100 goals of one part of the DMA there is deference to these issues though note the important caveat about defaults:
(50) Furthermore, in order to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not undermine end users’ security, it should be possible for the gatekeeper to implement strictly necessary and proportionate measures and settings, other than default settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security in relation to third-party software applications or software application stores if the gatekeeper demonstrates that such measures and settings are strictly necessary and justified and that there are no less-restrictive means to achieve that goal. The gatekeeper should be prevented from implementing such measures as a default setting or as pre-installation.
Sure, nothing bad will happen; the EU has this...
Sinofsky gets at the heart of the issue here. Consumer choice is protected only when the two business models remain available to the consumer. Apple's closed system is a feature, not a bug. The iPhone is the first personal computing device designed to be always connected to the network. PCs and Macs were created prior to the internet, and although Mac was always a tighter, more proprietary system, neither Windows nor MacOS were designed for the kind of security concerns introduced by connecting the device to an always-on, worldwide computer network.
The iPhone was designed with that issue addressed at its core. The original iPhone was such a closed system thst it didn't even include an App Store. There was no way to add third-party software at all. When the App Store was introduced, it was as a tightly controlled, sandboxed and pre-screened portal for the introduction of third-party apps. The design was not a monopoly, it was to create a fully secure networked personal computing device.
While Android followed on seeking to replicate the look and features of an iPhone, they at the same time chose to follow the MS Windows model of creating an operating system that would run on an unlimited number of third-party hardware devices. That model by default must be open to third-party developers of both hardware and software. That opens the gates for both innovation of new features, bells and whistles and also stripped-down, cost-cutting hardware, but it comes at the cost of lowered device and system security and increased possibilities for compatibility issues, crashes, etc.
By having both, this offers consumers the choice of which they'd prefer.
Forcing Apple to become like Android by switching to open architecture takes away consumer choice. The same would be true if regulators looked at Android's security flaws and forced them to close their system so that apps could only go through the Google Play store, and Android would only work on Google phones. Forcing one to become the other reduces consumer choice. Full stop.
Why does Apple assume they have monopoly on security? It is a rather faulty assumption that none else can make a secure or even more secure App Store.
DMA will overrule this and allow fair competition on the platform.
LOL.
Look around. There is literally no one that does what apple does and keeps a commitment to security and privacy. No one. It’s a rather massive deal.
There never was unfairness in the platform. All the eu is doing is trying to force socialism in a capitalistic company. Recipe for disaster. Robbing the platform provider to pay openly hostil developers is not a viable solution to a problem that never existed.
More fascist than socialist. Socialist would be if the EU nationalized Apple and took the company away from the shareholders, making EU the owner.
Requiring a company not owned by the government to do business as the government demands is a hallmark of fascism. Benito would be proud.
It’s socialist as well. Taking ones hard work and forcibly disallowing them to fully benefit, but instead, give the rewards to others, even those who didn’t take the risks, didn’t do the work, and don’t deserve the reward - all in the name of “equity.” LOL. WHETHER CONTROLLED BY THE MOB OR BY THE GOVERNMENT, that’s what it is. Apple is a capitalist company. It does the hard work and takes the risks and earns its due. The eu gets upset at American success within its borders and steals from them in order to give a free ride to its preferred folks. Sickening.
Oy. This situation is neither socialism nor fascism. This is the EU implementing poorly thought out regulation, based on an understanding of the term monopoly that's about as willfully misguided as y'all's understanding of the terms socialism and fascism.
It’s not complex. Either are clearly defined. I think you misunderstand the issue entirely. However, on the initial face of it, we agree that the EU is making decisions based on incompetence of understanding the market, preexisting law, and business fairness/ethics. That’s where things get into a government worldview because it doesn’t majj oh e sense how they’ve gone about this.
If the iOS platform is to maintain integrity, yes. Epic has a solid history of bad credit. If the EU's intent is to strip Apple of all control of its own platform and to force them to let thieves and child predators set up shop there, then it may come to a point where Apple would be better off withdrawing from that market, and EU can make its own phones.
You’re a brainwashed zombie.
Ditto, buddy. Ditto. This is the way the world works.
AppleZulu made a relevant point. People and companies with a history of breaking contracts and other malfeasance should be penalized. Far too often high net worth individuals and critical businesses get to skirt this. Sweeney and Epic have earned the extra scrutiny and need for contractual reassurances to use the IP that belongs to others (and not to the purchaser of a finished product).
I shouldn’t have to spell that out. But your ad hominem made it kind of necessary.
And Apple isn’t required to let Epic have their own store. They just have to let SOME company do it to comply. SetApp is supposedly planning on doing this so if they are allowed to open one then that’s all Apple needs to do.
Apple still have every right to keep Epic out based on past behavior and for the protection of their users should absolutely do so. Sweeney COULD have taken Apple to court and won without trying to circumvent the App Store policies but didn’t, now he will pay the price for the deception.
Comments
Comparing two completely different cases, one of contract law, and other of intellectual property, isn't the snappy retort that you believe it is, but by all means continue your undying support of Epic.
Apple signed contracts with Qualcomm, did the resulting business (I believe for years, although I could be wrong here) and then stopped paying, told other Qualcomm customers to hold back payments too and then started a court spat spanning many jurisdictions.
In other news and related to this, the EU has asked Apple to explain itself formerly as this action could be in breach of EU.
Obviously things aren't proving to be as clear cut as some here believe.
We're in a bizarre time on many fronts as those like Epic who commit malicious acts right out in the open are portrayed as somehow being victims when held to account, and those like Apple who would seek to hold these bad actors to account are portrayed as being somehow unfair.
Edit,
Added link to Steve Sinofsky;
https://hardcoresoftware.learningbyshipping.com/p/215-building-under-regulation?r=3y2k4&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
You apparently have never heard of the sex offender registry.
Really though, the more applicable comparison is credit rating. Epic has a very poor credit rating when it comes to playing by rules designed to prevent it from preying on its own customers. A properly-run bank does not, just because it's Monday morning, simply wipe the slate clean and extend credit on the best terms available to a borrower for which they have direct experience and knowledge of its propensity to willfully and recklessly default on its obligations. A properly run bank will simply deny the application and tell the applicant they can try again later after they've demonstrated behavioral changes that lead to improved credit.
Assuming you were being honest with the question, It would be better for you, and coming with with less distrust of the messenger, if you looked for yourself. Here's some starting places, first from Apple itself.
Then these descriptions pertain to how those outside of Apple perceive it:
https://www.bynder.com/en/blog/the-worlds-most-valuable-brand-apples-secret-to-success/
https://medium.com/@hmmd.yousuf/is-apples-brand-identity-a-blueprint-for-modern-marketing-success-cb6c5c5f1d47
https://www.amati-associates.com/digital-products/brand-positioning/apple/
There's a finely crafted and highly favorable emotional connection that I believe Apple management is currently harming. Much, maybe most, of Apple's consumer value is based on brand perception.
I posted Steve Sinofsky because he had previously dealt with the EU, and understood developing operating systems.
The EU DMA is arguably not finely crafted, so is anti ethical to Apple.
Steve Sinofsky,
I give credit to Google for attempting to recreate some of the same brand promise of iPhone with the Pixel.
Steve Sinofsky,
Sure, nothing bad will happen; the EU has this...
The iPhone was designed with that issue addressed at its core. The original iPhone was such a closed system thst it didn't even include an App Store. There was no way to add third-party software at all. When the App Store was introduced, it was as a tightly controlled, sandboxed and pre-screened portal for the introduction of third-party apps. The design was not a monopoly, it was to create a fully secure networked personal computing device.
While Android followed on seeking to replicate the look and features of an iPhone, they at the same time chose to follow the MS Windows model of creating an operating system that would run on an unlimited number of third-party hardware devices. That model by default must be open to third-party developers of both hardware and software. That opens the gates for both innovation of new features, bells and whistles and also stripped-down, cost-cutting hardware, but it comes at the cost of lowered device and system security and increased possibilities for compatibility issues, crashes, etc.
By having both, this offers consumers the choice of which they'd prefer.
Forcing Apple to become like Android by switching to open architecture takes away consumer choice. The same would be true if regulators looked at Android's security flaws and forced them to close their system so that apps could only go through the Google Play store, and Android would only work on Google phones. Forcing one to become the other reduces consumer choice. Full stop.