davidw

dantheman827 said:

lkrupp said:

This whole dispute that’s going on about Apple worldwide relies on a convoluted definition of monopoly. How can it be construed that people have no choice in smartphones? The whole world knows by now that buying an iPhone means you knowingly agree to live in the walled garden. You have the choice not to buy an iPhone if you don't like that. To buy an iPhone and THEN start to bitch about the ‘monopoly’ of the walled garden seems irrational and petty. Then there’s fact that iOS is a minority mobile operating system worldwide. Even in the U.S. it’s market share is below 50%.

I personally reject the idea that Apple is a monopoly unto itself and I hope judges and governments come around to that opinion.

iOS has around 60% in the US last I checked.

That's about 60% based on 2020 US quarterly sales figures. It has only been in the past year that iOS has surpassed Android in US quarterly sales.  And It has only been in the last 2 quarters, that iOS sales has been 60% or above. That's because Apple released new 5G iPhones and new iPads in the last half of 2020. At the end of 2019, Android marketshare in the US stood at about  52% and iOS at about 48%. 

Since 2012, iOS has never been over 50% of quarterly sales in the US, until last year. It has been below 45% in some quarters (When Samsung releases their new line.)  Apple did not all of sudden gain over 10% marketshare in the US, in one year. They only gained 10% of the quarterly sales in that time. 

https://leftronic.com/blog/android-vs-ios-market-share/ ;   

And here's why one can't use recent quarterly sales figures, when trying to determine iOS marketshare in the US. An extreme example would be, if Apple were to all of a sudden discontinue selling iPhones and iPads with iOS, would iOS marketshare be zero? 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/07/android-market-share-smartphone-users-google-apple

So right now, I doubt if iOS is anywhere near 60% of US marketshare when using installed base. But it might be soon, if Apple can keep up their near or above 60% US quarterly sales numbers for another year or two.

And remember, "monopolies" are not illegal. It's only when one abuses their dominate market power, that it becomes a matter of anti-trust. And one don't need to have a "monopoly", to have dominate power in the market. 

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined
 
Companies that would be considered "monopolies", if they were to abuse their dominate market power, are more common than most realize. 

https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/10-companies-you-didnt-know-had-near-monopolies.html/ ;   

darkvader said:

22july2013 said:

Using your analogy, people who buy Ford vehicles should be able to install new software to replace your Ford's software. Do you really think that's safe to replace a vehicle's control software? Do you think Ford should resist that, and can Ford invalidate its warranty for people who replace its software? Or are you going to say that smartphones don't have a concept called "safety"?

People can and do replace Ford's software.  "Safe" doesn't play into it at all, they own the car, they can replace the software.  Ford should not try to resist that, and legally cannot invalidate the warranty for people who replace the software (Magnuson-Moss).  They don't have to warranty non-Ford software, nor does the warranty cover components that non-Ford software breaks, but Ford would be violating the law if they refused to honor the warranty on any other part of the car.  And yes, that law also applies to Apple.  Smartphone "safety" is limited to things like fire hazards, "I saw something I didn't want my kid to see on the intarwebs" is not a safety issue.

>"........ and legally cannot invalidate the warranty for people who replace the software (Magnuson-Moss)."<  

Of course they can. What planet do you live on? If you changed the ECU software on an auto so that the car shifts at a higher RPM and it burns out the trans, do you actually think auto manufacturer or dealer, will cover the repair cost under warranty? They can not legally void your warranty on your smog devices, instrument cluster, battery, master brake cylinder, ABS or anything else that was not affected by the change in software, but they sure as Hell can void that 100K mile warranty on your drivetrain. Including any extended warranty you may have bought for it. Change the ECU so your auto burns richer, don't expect any warranty coverage if the catalytic converter burns out, if the change is detected. That's why many auto enthusiast wait until their cars are out of warranty, before flashing the ECU to get better performance. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/44uufk/would_getting_an_ecu_tune_void_my_warranty/

https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/c7-z06-discussion/3787314-can-dealer-see-if-the-car-has-been-tuned-even-if-returned-to-stock.html

In CA at least, if you change the ECU software on an auto and it's detected when you bring the car in for a smog test, you will not be able to registered the auto and legally drive it on the public roads. Even if it might still pass the smog emission test otherwise.

BTW- Magnuson-Moss has nothing to do with modification. It only covers replacement on parts with OEM parts and it doesn't matter who performs the replacement. Replacing the ECU with OEM is OK. But modifying the software in it will void any warranty, if it causes any damage to any parts of the auto. 

avon b7 said:

EsquireCats said:

The problem is this idea of a monopoly - Apple’s  customers choose the app store over other app distribution models when they purchase the device and Apple is far from satisfying the requirements for a monopoly in smartphones in that regard. The appstore and inseparable security model is one of the many reasons why people choose Apple’s platform over competitors. Meaning that users have a choice and were never forced into the system, rather users may have deliberately chosen the device for this reason. 

Having a “monopoly” on apps differs from having a monopoly over a specific add-on service. Similar to the EU’s recent findings: where the monopoly is far more narrowly defined to a specific service sub-type. Even still that finding of a “monopoly” raises questions and may not stand to juridical scrutiny. 

Additionally the rates charged by Apple aren’t in any way out of step with similar online stores (nor retail software sales in general) and are in no way unjustified, to each of these points Apple is either the best or near-best option in the market.

This is not really true.

I'd go as far as to say that the vast majority of iPhone purchase decisions do not even touch on the App Store issue and even more literally no idea about commission, fees or whatever you wish to call them.

That is from a purely consumer perspective. From a developer, business, competition and consumer protection perspective however, things change radically and those monopolies do exist.

I can't know which was things will swing but they are being investigated with good reason.

My personal view is that Apple might be able to continue unchallenged if it lays out, in black and white, and clear language, all the restrictions that their current policies impose on users.

Only then would people be able to claim that people voluntarily buy into the restrictions. 

You would be wrong. Most iDevice purchases are by people buying an iDevice for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc., times. Most iPhone purchases are not new to iOS. The iOS Apple App Store has not change much, in over 12 years. If anything more developers are now paying a 15% commission. It's not even close to the majority, much less the vast majority, that don't know how the Apple App Store works. The vast majority buying a new iPhone every year knows exactly what they are buying into, having owned an iPhone and using iOS for a least a couple of years. And even if they were on Android, Google Play Store commission is almost exactly the same as iOS. And over 90% of the apps on Android devices were installed from the Google Play Store.  

Remember this, Sweeney uses an iPhone. So are you going to claim that his purchase decision did not touch on the App Store issue and even more, literally have no idea about commission or fees? Or just maybe, he voluntarily bought into the restrictions because he values security and privacy, way more than any restrictions that Apple imposes on their users in regards to their  App Store. Just like the vast majority of iPhone users. 

radarthekat said:

Epic doesn’t need a lawsuit to eliminate Apple’s commissions.  They simply need to setup payment outside the Apple ecosystem.  Yes, that would be tedious for both the company and its customers.  But, go to the Epic website, setup your payment option, and then go buy some Vbucks that will show up back in your iOS instance of the game.  And do this without linking out of the iOS game to get users there. 

But hey, if Apple isn’t providing value then this should be NO PROBLEM. 

Epic already has this set up and for quite awhile. Providing a direct link to their website to buy V-Bucks for mobile devices was what got Fortnight kicked out of the Apple and Google Play app stores. 

The problem is that V-Bucks must cost the same on all app stores. Just like how a Netflix subscription cost the same, no matter which platform one uses to pay. This prevent players from favoring one platform from which to purchase V-Bucks. Because even if the V-Bucks are not transferable across game console platforms, all virtual items bought with V-Bucks are accessible no matter which platform the player is playing on. A cool looking virtual outfit bought on an X-Box can still be used while playing on an iPhone or Playstation. So nothing would stop a player from buying virtual goods on the platform that has the best deal on V-Bucks.

And because all V-Bucks must cost the same on all app stores, Epic can not give iOS and Android users a discount on V-bucks when purchased from Epic website, as an incentive for them to buy their V-bucks from there. When Epic offered discounted V-Bucks at the time they got kicked out of the Apple and Google Play app stores, they offered the same  discount to all game consoles app stores, for the same period of time. They had to, V-bucks must cost the same from all app stores.

Without the discount, there would be no reason at all for a Fortnight player on a mobile device to login to their account on the Epic website with a browser, to buy V-Bucks that cost the same as if they were to buy it from the free Fortnight app on the mobile device.  

Epic knows that very few players on a mobile device will leave the app, to buy V-bucks from Epic website and Epic can not offer a discount as an incentive for them to do so. Which is why Epic wants a direct link to their website to buy V-Bucks, from inside their game app on mobile devices. Which is prohibited on both Apple and Google Play app stores. Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo would never allow this on their game console platforms. 

osmartormenajr said:

Day 2 of the proceedings, and again Epic's CEO have misplaced his foot inside his mouth...
...........

He did better than that, today he placed both foot in this mouth.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/judge-presses-epic-ceo-during-221006843.html

>Gonzalez Rogers asked Sweeney whether the company's desire to be free of Apple's in-app purchase requirements meant that it wanted the "Fortnite" user base, which includes many younger users, to have access to "what I would call, as a parent, an impulse purchase."

"What you are really asking for is the ability to have impulse purchases," she said to Sweeney through layers of plexiglass separating the witness booth from the bench.

"Yes," Sweeny replied, "customer convenience is a huge factor in this."<

If customer convenience is a huge factor in this, then there is nothing more convenient for iOS customers, than to use iTunes to pay for their app purchases. Every iOS user has an iTunes account, that is safe and can be funded by using gift cards (which can be purchased at a discount), CC, PayPal, Debit Card and ApplePay. Plus a parent can set up and fund an iTunes account for their kids, to limit their spending. (I'm sure Sweeney is against this and sees it as another way that Apple is stealing money from Epic.) 

I have no doubt that Sweeney can do even better (in making a fool of himself) in the coming days of the trial.