foregoneconclusion

Anti-steering is standard throughout the e-commerce industry. Amazon, EBay, and Etsy don't allow sellers to communicate alternate places of purchase on their sites and neither do gaming stores like Steam on PC or the Playstation Store on Sony consoles. You basically have to pretend that the average iPhone customer is unaware of what the internet is or that they can access it on their phones in order to think companies don't have alternate ways of communicating different places of purchase.

omar morales said: The the trashcan Mac Pro when unchanged for about that amount of time and Apple never lowered the price. 

Yeah, you can find some individual items here and there in Apple's lineup that work like that, but the lawsuit is focusing on iOS/iPhone. Prior models will either get discontinued or discounted by Apple annually.  

Smart move on Apple's part. From what I've seen reported by the video game industry in the past, both Sony and MS had adopted hardware strategies post PS3/360 where they tried to come relatively close to break even on hardware at launch. Taking a modest loss at that point was acceptable, but they expected to start generating a profit with hardware after a couple of years of manufacturing. That's the thing that makes Wright's testimony so questionable: console hardware doesn't change, so it gets cheaper every year to produce. Imagine if the hardware spec for the iPhone never changed in 6 years with Apple continuing to charge the same price for it year after year. 

Not sure why Epic thinks this helps their case. An email where Schiller expressed indifference about scam apps is what they needed, not one where he's upset that scam apps were getting through. The latter supports Apple's stance that the App Store is intended to enhance security.

xyzzy01 said: Second: In the context of Android, you clearly have a choice - you don't have to pay the 30% - you can sideload the app, or even install another app store. "Oh, but then my customers won't find my app or install it" - great, you've now proven that there is value to being in that store and can absolutely get off your high horse and follow the terms and conditions.

From a consumer perspective (not a developer perspective), it's already known that Android mobile users prefer the Play Store approach. So arguing that side loading etc. should be forced onto iOS is not really a consumer based argument. That's a problem from the anti-trust side of things since consumers are supposed to be the focus with those kinds of issues.