osmartormenajr

avon b7 said:

Beats said:

ALL companies, Nintendo, Ubisoft, Adobe and even copycats like Sony and Microsoft need to speak up against Epic. This is dangerous for their businesses.

If an idiotic judge(knock on wood) mandates that companies need to advertise 3rd party alternatives this could cost companies their livelihood.

Another reading could be that consumers in general may benefit from potentially increased competition. 

Anyone who believe that is welcome to check AppleInsider archives about the iBookStore intervention. That was about 10 years ago. The DoJ intervened to curb Apple "anti-competitive" arrangements with publishers. That only managed to consolidate Amazon monopoly on ebooks.

This is not about consumers, much less competition. If you believe that, may I be so bold as to ask your age? Given in days.

Epic's true intentions have been apparent from the very beginning. A $9.99 purchase without the 30 % commission for Apple should have cost $6.99, not $7.99.

This is not about the consumer, period. That this charade got this much traction within the judicial and regulatory sphere, as a consumer cause, is a shambles in and on itself.

This is just about a billion dollar corporation demanding a free ride from a trillion dollar one, while its CEO makes a fool of himself in public court!

I find it funny that any reasonable person would take their $1000 buck iPhone (or whatever other Apple device) to some 3r party repair shop because their service is like a 100 bucks cheaper. That's being penny wise, buck fool...

I know out of warranty repairs by Apple are costly, and cumbersome to use if you don't happen to live nearby an Apple Store (or an authorized repair center), but IMHO they are well worth the cost and hassle. Last time I had trouble with any Apple hardware, it was 8 years ago with a 2 year old iPhone 4S. The nearest Apple Store is 500 miles from where I live, so I had to send the device by mail. It got misplaced in transit, and Apple simply sent over a new one. Now that's quality service and guaranteed satisfaction. Quite different from some horror stories I've heard from some colleagues that got their "top tier" Android to some local shops. They were the ones that ended having to purchase a new device.

InspiredCode said:

This argument breaks down with in-app purchase. In-app purchase is for a store inside your own app. In this case the customer in *your* store may have become a customer somewhere outside the App Store, but the App Store still gets to be the middle man. Apple essentially gets to steal your customers in this scenario.

This is where things get complicated. This is why there is a lot of debate over market power and this needs to be hashed out within the public and courts to make sure it is fair. I think Apple could make things less complicated on their own (and they have in some ways) to make it more obvious that they are being fair and competitive. I love Apple, but I don't think they are at an ideal place yet on the store rules.

That’s because it’s just an analogy. All analogies break down if you look close enough. My only argument was at the very last sentence: this lawsuit is motivated by Apple financial success.

I also like Apple, that’s why a frequent this forums and engage with other people that hold similar tastes—if you ignore the trolls. But that is neither here nor there.

If not Apple, and by extension their customers, who “vote” with their wallets, who should get to make this decisions? Tech illiterate politicians, voicing the interest of lobbyists? Public servants that never have run any business whatsoever (I know, I’m a public servant myself)? Sorry to disagree, but my bet is on Apple itself. Remember the iBookStore case? That only helped consolidate Amazon monopoly.

Finally, I agree that commissions could be lower than 30 %. I think that’s a pretty popular opinion. Trouble is finding agreement in any other percentage whatsoever. Given the reported effective commission of less than 10 %—as we came to know because of the trial—which is a healthy profit for a high volume business, I’d say that Apple’s commissions are pretty much where they should be.

mr lizard said:

Just let developers link out to their own website from the app for payments already. If Apple’s confident in their IAP platform, then they won’t be concerned that customers won’t use it over the developers own system. 

Not being able to link out, and not even being able to tell the customer where to go to make payments outside of the app, is just childish and petty.  

For the sake of the argument, let’s say you have a clothing store and one of your providers is a well known brand that does a lot of business.

Yours is a boutique shop, with all the amenities for higher spending customers. For that, you must have higher margins to maintain profitability.

Now imagine that big name provider is advertising in the very labels of their products that YOUR customers—they are in your store—could get a better deal (like 5 % off) on the store next doors! How would you react to that, as the competing store owner?

By your argument, there should be no trouble at all. You should be happy to build and maintain a higher end store, while your providers use your product placement to point out that there are better deals just around the corner.

Now answer me: what (if any) other company is expected to do business that way? This lawsuit, like so many others, is rooted in a very simple fact: Apple is worth trillions and have hundreds of billions sitting in the bank.