gc_uk
About
- Username
- gc_uk
- Joined
- Visits
- 20
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 198
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 110
Reactions
-
Epic Games amplifies antitrust complaint against Apple in the UK
Sure, I'm fine with that. Same way as I'd accept if I download and install software from the web, or any other media, on my Mac and it crashes it's up to me to fix it. Either myself or by contacting the third party supplier. This is no different from an app downloaded from the official App Store, except I have more choice of the apps available for me to use on my device.Because Apple maintains iOS on their iOS devices. If you install an app from another store and it crashes iOS, who will fix it? YOU, LOL
This is irrelevant. iOS is not offered as a downloadable app on the store, nobody is talking about reverse engineering iOS except you. To the last part, are you suggesting Apple would troubleshoot crashes from third party developers? If that's what you're implying then I'd like to see some verifiable evidence where that is the case because I doubt that Apple is willing to support an army of tech help who have knowledge of every app on the store. If you mean they will troubleshoot an issue with iOS, then of course, that's their product. How is that any different to a third party supplier troubleshooting an issue a user has with their app, regardless of how it was installed?Apple license the software that app developers uses to get a properly working app on iOS. Apple owns the copyright to that software and can dictate in the license agreement how it can be use. Want to write an app for iOS without that software, then reverse engineer iOS. It's the only legal way to do it.
It's not that Apple owns the only store that developers can use to get their apps onto iOS, it's that Apple owns iOS and agrees to maintain iOS for the useful life of the iOS device. Even if you're not the original owner. Even in the UK. If an app in the Apple App Store crashes iOS on your device, Apple will troubleshoot and fix iOS for free.
What are you even trying to say here? This happens all the time, an app crashes and Apple will direct you to the third party developer to remedy it. Apple don't provide support for third party apps from other developers regardless of where it was purchased/installed. This is just not a thing and I don't know why you think it is. If you have an app which puts your device in a state where it stops working, if you take it to an Apple store, the most they will do is wipe the device, reinstall iOS and apply your last good backup. If they refused to do even this because I downloaded an app from an unofficial store, I accepted the risk and I'm capable of reinstalling the OS on my own device myself.How would you feel if an app you downloaded from another source, crashes iOS on your idevice and Apple tells you're on your own. That's what Microsoft does if you run a third party program that crashes Windows on your PC. They'll tell you to seek support from the third party that sold you the program.
What incentive is there for the developer of a $1.99 app to fix an iOS device if their program crashes it AND it was installed from the App Store? (Although from what you say above it seems you think they don't have to, because Apple will support it.You think the developer that sold you a $1.99 app from outside the Apple App Store, is going to fix your iOS device when their program crashes it. LOL
No, developers are paying to access the Apple Developer Program, which allows them to submit apps to be considered for inclusion in the Apple App Store among other benefits, access to WWDC, enhanced developer support etc.Developers aren't paying to have their software in the Apple App Store. They are paying to be on iOS. Apple don't have to allow anyone to use iOS for free.
-
Epic Games amplifies antitrust complaint against Apple in the UK
I’m going to skip past the majority of your post because others have addressed it as untrue or irrelevant. Going to the statement I’ve highlighted, yes I’m aware of the concept of “listing fees”. Actually, this wasn’t the previous argument. Previously it was said a store selling a product should be allowed to make a profit, through a commission or percentage of the selling price. This isn’t a listing fee, why is it necessary try and change the goalposts? I’m not arguing app stores shouldn’t be allowed to take a cut from sales made through the platform. Epic have their own store front platform to process sales on their own, for macOS, Windows and Android. Why should Apple feel entitled to a cut of those sales? This would be akin to selling your product through a store and allowing the store owner to take a commission to cover their costs of business, then deciding to open your own second channel of mail order sales and the store owner demanding the same commission from the sales YOU made.lkrupp said:Free apps are free because the developers chose to make them free, not Apple. Apple choses to make some of their own apps free, some not. As for your first argument, Epic is NOT a platform. Epic does not have a distribution network as it relies on both Apple and Google to provide access to tis products. Epic seems to think that access should be free of charge. Epic also appears to want its own App Store on Apple’s distribution network, again for free. Epic’s entire motive here is to bypass Apple’s fee for hosting their products. As has been pointed out over and over again, grocery stores charge brands a fee for providing shelf space for the product. Why can’t Apple?So to address the specific claim you make, which I’ve already demonstrated isn’t the case here, all developers pay $99 per year to access the developer program and be able to submit apps for inclusion in the App Store. Epic already pay their developer fee, which would be the equivalent of your listing fee. The question should then be, why do they think they are entitled to any other fees? To pre-empt your response, developers benefit from sales made in-app using Apple’s payment services, so you Apple get a slice of those sales? Yes, of course they should. But this isn’t the argument here, what should happen with sales made independently by a developer using their own platform? Apple wants the same percentage from those sales too, even though they aren’t involved in processing the sale. Why is that fair? Ok, to make another pre-emptive assumption, “it’s Apple’s terms and conditions, don’t like it, don’t distribute your app on their App Store”. Correct. However due to Apple’s architecture, the only way to distribute and install an app on an Apple device it must be available on the Apple App Store. Is it bad for consumers, or anticompetitive for Apple to have such control over their devices owners that consumers have no other choice than to use the App Store?
Finally, let me ask what you think of this situation. I can download the Microsoft Office suite for iOS through the App Store for free, and have use of the app. I can also unlock more features if I subscribe to Office 365 using the in-app purchase. I assume Apple get 30% of the sales Microsoft receive with this method. I can also purchase the same subscription through Microsoft’s website, or indeed a number of other retailers. I assume Apple don’t get a percentage of those sales. The app is available on the App Store so we can assume Apple is happy with this arrangement. Before it was removed from the App Store, I could download the Fortnite app, use the app for free, and if I want to unlock features, extra weapons, skins etc, I can do so using the in-app purchase. We know Apple are taking 30% from those sales. I can also purchase those same features through the Epic web store. This is unacceptable to Apple and Fortnite is removed from the app store. How are these two examples so different that one is allowed and the other isn’t? -
Epic Games amplifies antitrust complaint against Apple in the UK
As has been pointed out previously, if you have the ability to build your own it’s irrelevant because the option to install from another source isn’t an option.nicholfd said:
YES - Apples platform, Apple's rules. Don't like it, build your own or use a different one.gc_uk said:Did you support Apple denying their users access to alternative stores on the users devices? Do you use any of the applications thrown off the App Store? If the answer to either question is no, you aren’t part of the group I’m commenting on.
YOU - Name the apps removed from Apple's App Store that you use and have issue with Apple removing them! If you name any at all (which I doubt), I would bet they all violated the terms of the contract they agreed to, or local law, when they published the app on Apple's App Store.The apps I use isn’t relevant to the argument. Firstly, I’m addressing people who were affected by the situation I described, second Apple are not a law enforcement agency. Laws differ across different jurisdictions so while you could argue Apple could be liable to legal action for hosting content which violates local laws it says nothing to whether the app should exist and people should be able to install it or not.
-
Epic Games amplifies antitrust complaint against Apple in the UK
Why should it matter, if people can choose to install apps from a difference source? If an app doesn’t comply with Apple’s rules, nobody needs to call for limits on Apple’s controls as a gatekeeper to be investigated. You just install the app from another source.chadbag said:
I didn’t realize Twitter, Facebook, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, etc have been thrown off the App Store.launfall said:
I feel fine about it. It's about time apps that support lies and insurrection are thrown out.gc_uk said:I wonder how people who defended Apple for not allowing applications being installed from different App Stores feel now the apps for the social media platforms they love are being kicked off the store?
-
Epic Games amplifies antitrust complaint against Apple in the UK
You’re missing the point of my post, again. This seems to be a theme with you? If apple’s customers were free to install apps from a source other than the Apple App Store, why should it matter if an app is approved by Apple or not? If they can distribute it themselves without using the App Store then Apple’s rules aren’t being violated and people can choose if they want to use the app or not.nicholfd said:
LOL - the "social media platform" you are referring violated Apple's terms of agreement. Read up on contracts. You agree to them and you either follow them or you suffer the consequence - "being kicked off".gc_uk said:I wonder how people who defended Apple for not allowing applications being installed from different App Stores feel now the apps for the social media platforms they love are being kicked off the store?
