GeorgeBMac

DAalseth said:

Marvin said:

DAalseth said:

Apple has a choice. They can either keep fighting this battle to the bitter end and, if what has happened over the last year is any indication, get something really bad imposed on them. Or they can accept where this is going, get out ahead and control the result. The world has changed. Attitudes have changed. Apple needs to change too or they will have something bad for them and their customers forced upon them.

It’s far better to control the landing than to fight to stay aloft and end up stalling and crashing. 

The arguments against Apple amount to nothing, it doesn't matter how bitter people are about it. Apple doesn't have a majority marketshare, Android does and they allow 3rd party stores. Apple allows access to the internet unrestricted and software can run either via the web or streamed. Not that it matters, people keep making the same stupid argument about an iPhone being a general purpose product, every product is designed by its manufacturer whether it's a smart TV, a console, a phone, a PC and they have a right to design it how they want with security restrictions on native software. If a manufacturer designs a Windows PC that can only run a single store and gains a 30% marketshare, it's not anticompetitive if people can buy an alternative product. If they gained a 90% marketshare, it might be different but it likely wouldn't gain that kind of marketshare if it was restrictive.

The original argument was about Fortnite being accessible on iOS without Apple's control, it can be accessed via the cloud, this was always an option via a browser and here it is currently running on iOS:



Apple doesn't set the prices for in-app purchases. No developers have been monetarily harmed by Apple. Here's the letter they are presenting:

https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/States-amicus-brief-for-Epic-v-Apple-appeal.pdf

They talk about the ruling undermining antitrust law but they aren't being honest about what their motives are. For a lot of these politicians, this is about Parler being removed from the store, getting retribution for it and laying groundwork for it not happening again and for some it will be Apple not allowing backdoors on iPhones. They want the ability to install backdoors on iPhones without Apple's permission. There was an article today about this:

https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/01/28/fbi-considered-using-pegasus-spyware-for-us-domestic-surveillance

The proposed legislation has been specifically targeted at companies with over 50m US store users to deliberately target it at Apple and Google. If it ever moves ahead, Apple can easily block access to the store in the 34 states that pushed for this to get the number to stay below 50m. If it moves ahead and they choose to go the route of allowing 3rd party stores instead, they can just create an entirely closed off sandbox for each store possibly running a separate copy of the OS in a VM so that malware is isolated from the boot capability of the device.

Apple has plenty of options to go for but before this is even worth considering, the complainants have to prove what they are arguing about - that Apple is stifling competition and harming developers and users. They haven't demonstrated this at all. The fact Fortnite is currently capable of running on iOS without Apple doing anything discredits the entire argument.

Even if this lawsuit goes nowhere, there is legislation from the US, the EU, and many other countries that will force them to open up iOS and iPadOS to side loading. Apple can fight the tide and lose, or control the outcome and ride the wave. Their choice.

crowley said:

22july2013 said:

cropr said:

retrogusto said:

I feel like there are infinite analogies that show why this whole Epic thing is ridiculous. Here’s one:
The best nightclub in town charges a cover at the door, and the entertainment and overall experience they provide is the best anywhere. They provide complimentary water and soft drinks, included in the price of admission, and sell alcoholic drinks at industry-standard prices. I own a champagne producer, and I determine that customers would buy more of my champagne if the price were lower, but rather than lower my own wholesale price to the club, I try to legally force the club to reduce their markup, arguing that once a customer pays the cover, the club has a monopoly on all products sold there. 

As long as the Apple App Store is the only distribution point of iOS apps, your analogy is incorrect.    Keeping the analogy, this would mean that the night club owner does not allow the champagne producer to sell to other night clubs.    

But Apple does not prohibit anyone from selling their apps to users on Android or any other OS.

I guess you are one of those people who thinks that Apple has an obligation to let anyone sell anything on iOS for free. How is Apple supposed to recoup its expenses for things like CloudKit services that are included in everyone's apps? Or do you think Apple is not allowed to charge for its services? How would you propose Apple get paid for its services?

Not every app uses CloudKit, and Apple can charge developers or users directly for its use if they want to, or they can provide it as a free platform feature to add value to the iPhone as a product.  Either is fine.

That's the answer to the first question, the second question is straw man junk, and the third is the same as the first.  Try to ask one question at a time and keep it sensible if you want respectful responses.

blastdoor said:

larryjw said:

When they tell you we’re the good guys, remember.

there are no good guys. 

That’s stupid. If you really believe that then why bother posting or even getting out of bed?