mylovino

docbburk said:

Is it raising prices as new customer growth wanes, or potential customers deciding they didn’t want to even start a relationship with a company that hikes rates so fast?  Their moves to split current subscribers plans to sap state disc and download plans that would cost more, if they wanted both quickly followed by the increase in rates to cover the cost of streaming rights for Europe and other regions, was enough to turn me away.  Why on earth should US customers pay more so they can stream movies in Europe?  They should take out a loan, and let the European customers fees cover the cost of the rights.  Seems like they were putting a lot of the financial heavy lifting on the backs of the US customers, to artificially keep the prices low in Europe, to corner the European market as much as they can, then raise prices in Europe. Netflix, get a loan, don’t abuse your US customers. 

avon b7 said:

mylovino said:

There seems to me something wrong in so many ways with this whole farce that I struggle to start with something meaningful. Maybe a good one is the fundamental clash I personally see here between capitalism and ethics. Let‘s face it, the undercurrent of the whole questioning is if Apple is violating ethical behavior. Surprise, capitalism just allows for only so much ethics, otherwise we would have very different laws i. the western world. Epic is among the ones who should be challenged to begin with, extracting money from gamers in so many questionable ways - from a pure ethical PoV to be clear. Do I like everything Apple is doing? No! Do I think a 30% cut is fair? Not really. But let‘s face it, Apple has simplified software development and consumption in so many ways, and all the developers and customers both benefit from the large customer base Apple has created with their entire ecosystem, if at the end a judge is not balancing out cost versus benefits in light of the underlying economic system, it would be a really strange result. I lived through the evolution of development environments, remember times when licensing an IDE was a really expensive exercise and software distribution required high production and distribution costs, it is really bizarre that Epic tries to further increase their margin by challenging the „partner“ which adds the whole ecosystem they benefit from with billions of dollar.

Apple certainly runs a thin line here, but to set an example with the current challenger is just wrong. Alternatives are there, so no real monopoly in sight, and the players are really on eye-level when it comes to ethics, each with different weak spots in this arena. To punish Apple just for them being so successful also seems not right. And look at nature, just because the shark is one of the most successful hunters on this planet it still has a symbiosis with the pilot fish. If one of them tries to change the rules of the symbiosis it would likely cause it to break ;-)
But what does the old saying say: having right and getting right are two very different things, and in my experience this is most true in front of the court of law :-o

I think you're missing the main point here.

I doubt there would be the slightest problem if Apple's ecosystem were entirely self contained.

The problem is that it isn't self contained. 

On top of that, it depends on outside developers. Without them the platform could still exist but likely in a vastly different manner. 

When you have a billion dollar bridge leading in and out of your ecosystem, new rules apply. You may get away with falling under the radar but as you go and industry changes you run the risk of being investigated. 

Of course they wouldn't apply only to Apple, but to anyone in a similar situation assuming things don't go Apple's way.

Those rules can't be set by the gatekeepers to the ecosystems. The rules currently require competition. 

There are several investigations currently in process to determine precisely if competition and consumers are being harmed. Some have already deemed competition has been impacted and consumers have been harmed.

I see a few ways Apple could avoid these problems and all of them would probably be considered just fine by many posting here but none of them would be fine for Apple. Of that I am sure. That is telling. 

As are many of the comments and emails that have emerged as a result of the this particular trial. 

I definitely haven't been convinced by anything I've seen so far (although admittedly I haven't really been following all the proceedings). 

Logically Apple is trying to show things in a different light but I have yet to see anything that really makes me think, 'they have point there'. 

I think you got me wrong here ;-) - Apple is for sure using all its power to max top and bottom line, and certainly there is a lot negative to say about it. But at the end its a choice I as consumer make, and Epic is not a pin better than Apple in this game. If there is anybody out there seriously believing that this trial is about the greater good, please dream on! I have ample opportunity as consumer, and do not tell me that there is one premium business out there that is not using similar mechanisms. That’s what I meant with rules in need to change, any car, and media device, every service would need to offer a similarly self-contained environment…but guess what, if you temper with any other device, and do not get distracted by the fact that we discuss software here, you lose any warranty. Apple is just so on top of doing it that the spotlight is naturally on them.

So if it would be David vs. Goliath here I would have more sympathy for David, but in this case I just can’t find a lot of positive vibes for Epic impersonating David. But hey, I am not here to fight for sympathies for one party or the other, everybody has the right to like one player more than the other ;-)