darkvader said:

22july2013 said:

if Apple is accurate when it says it may take months to complete, then either Apple will be in violation of a court order, or Apple will have to shut down its store to avoid being in violation of a court order. There are no other options. I'm hoping for the latter, of course.

Except Apple is lying.  It could almost certainly be implemented in less than a day.  All Apple has to do is remove the illegal language from the developer agreement and turn off any automated filters that look for links to external payment options in an app.  And if you think those filters can't be turned off with a simple change to a config file, I've got a few bridges available for sale.

Is that because you were already suckered into buying a few such "bridges" and now trying to get rid of them?

Apple can not just  ..... turn off their filters to allow links inside an app, to go to a site outside of the app ... like you claim. Where would the protection be for iOS users? Do Apple already have in place a method that would check to make sure links do not lead to installation of malware or to sites that will harvest iOS users financial and personal data? For sure Epic try to get pass the filter and did so for a while, but Epic is more or less a trusted site. So not a lot of harm done to iOS users. But there are 10's of 1000's of iOS developers that would be able to put a link in their app, if Apple were to just turned off the filter. And 1000's more that will all of a sudden "develop" for iOS, as soon as they find out that can put a link inside their app, that leads to a site outside of the app. Can Apple trust that every developers own site, can be trusted as Epic own site? People like you might end up with a few more "bridges", to try to get rid of. 

And what about Apple commission? The courts never stated that Apple was not allowed to charge and collect their commission. Do Apple already have in place a reliable non intrusive method of  collecting their commission from developers that provide iOS users with a link inside their app, to pay for their purchases outside of iTunes? And even the Judge said that Apple had a legitimate claim to providing a safe ecosystem for iOS users, in order to be competitive with stores on the Android platform.

Apple should not have to compromise security nor give up their commission, just because they can turn off a filter and allow all developers to provide a link inside their app, that leads to a payment site outside their app. And it'll take way more than a day, just to change the terms of their DPLA (Developer Product License Agreement), to reflect the turning off of their filter. 

https://www.lit-antitrust.shearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Finds-That-Antitrust-Claims-Against-Technology-Platform

>However, the court also held that defendant had shown valid pro-competative reasons for DPLA's (Developer Product License Agreement) restrictions, namely that the restrictions improved iOS security and increased inter-brand competition with Google Android platform. The court also found that protection of its intellectual property rights and ability to obtain compensation for their use also provided a valid justification for the restriction, though not necessarily to the level of commission. In the final step of the rule of reason analysis, the Court found that plaintiff failed to rebut defendant justification because its two proffered alternatives models that defendant hypothetically could use for its App Store were not proven to be as effective in the pro competitive goals of ensuring security and reliability on the defendant's platform.< 

Rogue01 said:

pulseimages said:

Shouldn’t the suit be against the artist who used the sample illegally and not Apple? 

Apple used the song in their advertisements for Apple Music.  Read the article, it is all in there.

Did you read the headline? 

Apple Music sued over track that allegedly samples an original song

AFAIK, Charming Beats has not proven in a court of law that the song by Ninho, "Caramelo", infringes upon the copyright of their work, "Anything You Synthesized" (by The American Dollar's"). A quick search doesn't turn up one result, that Charming Beats had sued Ninho for the sampling. And the song "Caramelo" by Ninho, came out in 2017.  Let alone won a case against him in court. One would think that before you can sue someone for using someone else's work that infringes on your copyright, that you must first prove that that work does indeed infringe upon your copyrighted work, in a court of law.  


Amazon is still selling the 2017 CD that the supposedly infringing track is on. And the track is still available for streaming on Amazon, Spotify, Vimeo and other sites. Why would that be the case, if Charming Beats have proven that "Ninho infringed upon their copyrighted work? 

https://www.amazon.com/Comme-Prevu-Ninho/dp/B0776K46KP/ref=sr_1_2?qid=1637457308&amp;qsid=131-9038114-5429626&amp;refinements=p_32:Ninho&amp;s=music&amp;sr=1-2&amp;sres=B07NRFGFL2,B0776K46KP,B01M1E92CT,B01LY1JG9W,B000ERU2O8,B004G5ZPV4

"The Coalition for App Fairness's Global Conference on Mobile App Ecosystem Fairness" ........ 

The conference is nothing but a clusterfuck whose attendees are hoping will end in the mother of all circle jerk. The type of ending that will surely make Sweeney happy.  

elijahg said:

jtmbin said:

MplsP said:

Does the screen include the FaceID module? If not, I can think of no reason to justify this. It’s another example of why we need right to repair laws. Ironically, it’s the type of move that makes an iphone less desirable. If you buy an iphone at your local store and the screen breaks, what do you do if there’s no ‘authorized’ service center near you? You’re stuck mailing it off, paying more money and waiting longer to get your phone back. There are thousands of independent repair shops that can replace a screen in less than a day, often in a few hours. If you’re trying to decide between an Android phone and an iPhone and the iphone is a pain in the ass to repair, it doesn’t make it more attractive.

I disagree. As an Apple user and stockholder, it is not Apple’s responsibility to design their products so that other people can make money from repairing them. That’s total nonsense. They don’t need to “justify” how or why they design and build products. It’s amazing the number of people who think that Apple should be forced to help them make money, like that fool at Epic.

No one is asking them to design phones "so that other people can make money from repairing them", but people are rightly pissed off that Apple is designing their phones with the express intent that they're harder to repair. They have intentionally added a chip to the display purely for the purpose of restricting repairs. No doubt someone will chat some crap about "security" when they have no more understanding of IC level security than a man off the street.

So much for being "green" when they do everything they can to encourage you to buy a new phone over fixing an existing one. That's the definition of talking out both sides of their mouth.

That is not the way to look at it from the average Apple consumer point of view.

What Apple is doing is protecting their average consumers. The vast majority of consumers that purchase Apple products are not like you. They do not repair their own iDevices with parts from eBay or look for the cheapest repair service on Amazon or eBay. They will bring their broken iDevice to have it repaired at a local repair shop. Be it an Apple Authorized repair shop or not.

So when these consumers bring their iDevice to a repair shop (even an Apple Authorized repair shop) for probably the most common repair, a cracked screen and pay to have it repaired with Apple OEM parts, how would they know they actually got Apple OEM parts? How would these consumers know that the repair shop didn't send their iDevice to have it repaired at Amazon for $69 but charged them $300? They would know because their iDevice would display an error message stating that its not an Apple OEM screen or certain functions would no longer work. 

What Apple is doing is making it difficult for repair shops to rip off the average iDevice owners. Even Apple Authorized repair shops might be prone to ripping off unsuspecting customers, by using non-Apple OEM parts but charging their customers for them. These are probably a much bigger problem that consumers like you, that want to repair their iDevices the cheapest way possible, using the cheapest parts. You at least know what you're paying for and willing to accept the trade off. 

So you thinking that Apple is screwing Apple iDevice users like you, by making it harder to repair their iDevices, is not the way to look at it. Apple is looking at the bigger picture and trying to prevent the vast majority of iDevice consumers from being ripped off by repair services, that might charge them for Apple OEM parts but are actually using parts bought off eBay. These consumers wouldn't know that, unless Apple some how implement a method to warn them that they might not have gotten what they paid for.   

Plus when you're paying less that $60 for a used iPhone 6 or less than $150 for a used iPhone 7 or 8, it doesn't really matter if it has an original Apple screen. But when you're paying over $500 for a used iPhone 11 or newer, it matters if the screen is original. And Apple is making it harder for sellers to duped buyers in to thinking that they are getting an iPhone with an original screen. Instead of one from a $69 repair service from Amazon.  Consumers buying and trading in used Apple iDevices is probably a way bigger market than consumers that wants to repair their iDevices themselves or the cheapest way possible. 

maximara said:

darkvader said:

How about NO.

The judge got it wrong, of course.  Apple IS a monopoly, and the app monopoly on iDevices needs to be ended.

But this injunction absolutely needs to stand.  Apple's position is unreasonable.

The judge was quite clear on what the market was: "As compared to others, in antitrust cases, courts regularly recognize global markets. See, e.g., United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 52 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (upholding relevant geographic market encompassing “the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating systems worldwide”); United States v. Eastman Kodak Co., 63 F.3d 95, 108 (2d Cir. 1995) (upholding worldwide geographic market for film). The United States antitrust laws’ concern with anticompetitive conduct, includes harm that such American businesses suffer relating to their transactions with foreign consumers. See 15 U.S.C. § 6a (Sherman Act generally applies to conduct affecting “export trade”). " Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 812 Filed 09/10/21 Page 134 of 185

Courts have to follow precedent not go off into their own little world.

You can't fix stupid. And there are more than a few people like @darkvader that thinks that anti-trust laws applies when the "relevant market" is narrowed down to a single brand. That is narrow minded thinking at its best. Thus their claim that "Apple has a monopoly on iDevices or iOS or the Apple App Store. That is not the case. Any market narrowed down to a single brand can not be used for a lawsuit claiming anti-trust violations.

Otherwise, when the "relevant market" are consumers that buy "Big Mac" burgers,  McDonalds can be sued for having a monopoly on "Big Mac" burgers and that's why "Big Mac" burgers are only available in a McDonalds. Plus McDonalds do not allow third parties like BK, to sell (or even advertise) their "Whoppers" inside a McDonalds, to McDonalds customers. 

Here's a very good write-up on how the courts ruled on this Epic/Apple case and why. And anyone with an ounce of understanding on how anti-trust laws works, will know that the Judge could not have ruled in any other way, when it comes to Epic claim of Apple having a monopoly. 

https://www.lit-antitrust.shearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Finds-That-Antitrust-Claims-Against-Technology-Platform

Notice that the one ruling against Apple, pertaining to CA Unfair Competition Law is vague. CA UCL is a catch all and the courts can interpret what they see as "unfair" practices, as a violation of CA UCL. There is no written part of the CA UCL and dictates that it's unfair competition for an entity to not allow competitors to advertise within their own stores. That is just what Judge Gonzales interpret as "unfair" when Apple do not allow developers to advertise and provide a link to a competing payment system in order to avoid paying Apple commission.  

Thus while Epic nearly has no chance of winning on appeal, base on the argument they brought forth and current anti-trust laws as written. Apple stands a good chance of winning, as the Judge ruling pertaining to CA UCL, might be way overboard with regards to the original intention and reach, of CA UCL.