kharvel

xyzzy01 said:

That's not what I'm saying, and you know it. What I'm saying is that using a dominant position in one market (phone platforms) to gain a competitive advantage elsewhere is bad. A better comparison would be a broadband provider launching their own music streaming service and increasing the price for broadband access to streaming competitors.

The shop scenario isn't comparable as a customer can just go visit a different store.

ITGUYINSD said:

flydog said:

I for one support Epic's stance on this. I went down to my local Apple Store and asked to sell used Android tablets in a little used part of the store, and manager kicked me out. I think it's absurd that Apple is exerting its monopoly over its own retail space to exclude other sellers from offering competing products. 

I also side with Epic.  I do not buy the "Poor Apple has spent so much to develop it's ecosystem and now Epic wants to play for free" defense.  
First, the iPhone would fail if not for apps.  The iPhone does not exist for developers, the developers exist to keep the hardware fresh, new, and usable.  All the amazing things the iPhone can do is because of the developers.  Without them, would you buy a $1000 device to make calls?

Second, I think it's absolutely highway robbery to charge 30% for in-app purchases...purchases that actually have nothing to do with Apple except them processing the payment.  Thank God that when you walk into a store and whip out your CC, the store doesn't add 30% onto your purchase just for using their payment processing system.  As it is, most stores eat 3% of the purchase right there by their CC payment system.

Third, if Apple has spent so much on R&D and their ecosystem, then why do developers who offer FREE apps get a pass?  Are they not using the same marketing and distribution network as those that are charging for their apps?  (minus the payment processing system, which comes back to Apple charging 30% to process a payment vs industry standard 3%).  Is Apple losing BILLIONS in revenue by allowing free apps or are they overcharging paid app developers to make up for the free ones?

In the end, to make things fair, I think Apple needs to change the base developer rules.  Instead of charging everyone $99 to be a developer, raise the initial fee to developers who are developing an apps that they charge for.  And charge even more if your app has in-app purchases.  Then, either charge the industry-standard fee to process purchases for and IN the app, or allow the app developers to process their own IN APP payments.  

22july2013 said:

kharvel said:

I did not read your entire case in the link you posted or the feedback.  I'll respond to the main paragraph that you re-posted above.

The problem with your entire argument is that ANY mobile phone manufacturer, not just Apple, would be prohibited from creating products with curating capabilities that would maximize profits.  If I started up company XYZ LLC to create a smart phone with its own operating system and app store, then under your legal arguments, my start-up would be prohibited from adding features or hardware that would lead to curating and I would not be able to leverage those features to maximize profits for my company.  

That isn't a "problem" with my point, rather that is indeed the entire actual point I was making. That's the exact argument. You might not agree with the argument (neither do I, I was making it as an exercise) but that's the entire point. That's the argument Epic should make. They should argue to the court that no company, including Apple, has the right to restrict or monitor users on this platform, just as no other company can enforce restrictions on PCs. The comparison between PC and smartphone is intentional and identical. Nobody can force a PC user to run a specific operating system, and neither should a smartphone manufacturer be allowed to make hardware that is restricted either.

There are Supreme Court precedents to back this up. For example, Kodak was trying to build cameras that wouldn't load anyone else's film, (just as Apple won't allow others' operating systems on iPhones) but the Supreme Court made Kodak's practice illegal. It's an old court case but Epic should use this in court to back their case.

The remainder of your argument is that because Apple has competitors in the handset business, Apple should not be stopped from monitoring and restricting people because users are free to choose a different company. That would be like saying if wireless telephone companies (eg, Verizon) have competitors (eg, AT&T), they could be allowed to monitor and restrict the content of people's wireless telephone calls. Do you really believe that? You think that Verizon should be able to log, record and use the content of their users' telephone calls, just because Verizon has competition?

22july2013 said:

cornchip said:

I am not a lawyer, but I haven’t seen one of their arguments yet where I’m even remotely like “oh ok, yeah, I kinda see their point”. as another commenter noted; are they even trying to win? How could they possibly think they will? 

I did read a long document Epic submitted to the court, I think it was the original filing. And I do try my best to see things from every side. I didn't find their case very convincing. I felt that Epic was arguing that Apple has no right to control the App Store. But they didn't say who should control it. They just hate the status quo. I think they want the courts to decide what's fair and what the rules should be. I did write a pro-Epic post about a month ago just for the challenge, and as I recall I got some compliments and no criticism for my post. You can read my case and its feedback here: https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/217620/epic-says-apple-no-longer-plans-to-disable-sign-in-with-apple/p1 but let me just re-post the main paragraph here. This is what I thought Epic Software should say to the court:

In short, Epic wants phones to function like computers. As Tim Sweeney tweeted, the founding principles of general purpose computers were to give full control of the computer to the user, not to the hardware manufacturer or operating system manufacturer. Nobody at either IBM, or Microsoft, or Apple (all of which wrote operating systems for PCs) ever tried to stop anyone from running anything on their own PC hardware. There was nothing to jailbreak because all computers were delivered, essentially, jailbroken. As time progressed the dangers of malicious software increased but the defenses available to users increased in parallel. These days there are numerous different mechanisms to keep computers safe, including (a) anti-virus software; (b) firewalls; (c) file permissions; (d) digital signatures; (e) online license validation; (f) SSL-protected websites; and (g) curated app stores. Each of these defense mechanisms is mature and effective. All of these defense mechanisms put security in the hands of the user except for the last one, "(g) curated app stores." It's this one, and only this one, that introduces a sinister danger into society, not unlike the dangers in Orwell's book "1984." Because this is the only mechanism that puts your security and privacy in the hands of another person. Who is this person, and how does this person decide what you may do and what you may not do? And to whom is this person accountable, if anyone? There are several countries in the world where the government curates everything that users see and touch. We won't mention which countries here but that should be obvious to the courts. In these countries the curation has gone amok. Users are under constant scrutiny; users try to access remote data but are blocked by Great Firewalls; users do not know what the criteria of their own government's monitoring are. This curation of software in some countries has led, and is still leading, to brutal dictatorial rule. Do we want or need this sort of UNCHECKED control of our online freedoms, and all that in the hands of unaccountable private citizens? Although censorship by private companies is legal in America, it goes against the guiding principles of the Constitution. This is not just a censorship of a company's employees, which Epic would not object to, but it's a censorship of all people who use a phone. Traditional phone companies, which are private companies like Apple (and also publicly traded), have never been allowed to censor or monitor individual phone calls in America. Voice and data are just two forms of the same thing: data. "Smart phones" are the new telephones. Telephone companies may not legally monitor or curate anyone's telephone calls, and for the same reasons as that, Epic asks the court to place an injunction on Apple from being able to block or monitor any data or speech that occurs on their phones too.

I don't recall anyone responding with any arguments against this proposal. Does this argument hold water with you?

fallenjt said:

Got this 43” LG 4K monitor for $399 at Costco and love it. It can display my 4 separate HDMI sources at the same time: Mac Mini, Apple TV, Home PC and Work PC. I don’t have to use HDMI switch as with my older monitor.
Btw, it did come with a remote controller too.