davidw

randominternetperson said:

AppleZulu said:

More broadly, this raises the issue of all these terms of service agreements millions of people routinely 'click to agree' without ever reading them. At some point there will need to be a significant reform of this practice. One might argue that end users know they should read the agreements all the way through before agreeing to them, and it's their own fault if they agree without reading.

One might also argue that the companies that write and make use of these agreements have common knowledge that very, very few people actually do read them. Many are probably even in possession of data that timestamps user interactions. If the user agreement is such that a trained lawyer would reasonably take 30 minutes or an hour to read through and fully understand, but the company's data shows an average click-through time is 12.7 seconds, it would be reasonable to expect that the company is aware that virtually none of their customers have knowingly agreed to their terms. It's not quite the same thing as invalidating an agreement signed under duress, but it's not far off. 

User agreements should be simplified, shortened and written in plain language. They could also include key "I am aware that..." statements that must be checked, with built-in time delays that force the process to take sufficient time for a normal person to at least read and understand those key statements.

And we'll all be thrilled to have this extra burden added to our daily lives?  Like those stupid "accept cookies" popups that appears on nearly every site since the EU mandated that?

I think there is a middle ground on this "Buy" button question.  It comes down to corporate intent and their actual behavior.  Apple makes it clear (if you read the terms of use) that "Content may not be available for Redownload if that Content is no longer offered on our Services."  Notice they aren't saying "we reserve the right to turn off your access to content at our discretion."  They are specifically carving out an exception that says if Apple loses the right to serve the content, you'll lose access.  I am very comfortable with that restriction.  I'm pretty sure Apple will still be selling The Matrix 10 years from now, so if I buy it today Apple will be there for me.

To make this point clear, Apple is not saying that they can pull your access to The Matrix, for example, if they are still selling that movie.  So, for Apple's case at least, the "buy" button is pretty accurate.  "Rent forever" would be more accurate, but that would confuse some people.

Apple goes a step further. With any movie purchased from your iTunes account, a file is actually downloaded to your account and can be backed up to an external HD or on to a recordable disc using a Mac or PC that is logged in to your account. The steps to do this is in the iTunes menu. It's almost like buying music, that can be burned on to a CD. Only with the movie download, the DRM is not stripped out when you do the back up. So the movie download file will only play on the iTunes account that was used to purchase it. It will not play if you transfer it to any other iTunes account. But, if the movie is no longer available in the Apple Store, you can still use your back up of the movie file to re-install it back into your iTunes account and it will play.

Apple will not stop you from playing any downloaded movie files that resides in the device tied to your iTunes account. Even if the studio no longer allow Apple to sell the movie in their iTunes Store. If you make a back up of the download, it's like buying the DVD. Only you can't loan out your back up of the download and have it play on any device not tied to your iTunes account. Even if your iTunes account is in the cloud, you can use a Mac or PC, log in to your iTunes account and make a back up of all your purchased movies that was downloaded to your account. Or just load the movies file into your Mac or PC iTunes so you can watch the your iTunes movies on it while off line. Now your movie file are backed up in in your Mac or PC. Just in case it disappears from your  cloud iTunes account. Apple can't erase it from your computer. If Apple were to stop the movie from playing in iTunes, there are software (though most likely borderline illegal) that will extract the DRM so you can play the movie using just QT. The DRM is there because of the movie industry, not Apple.  

This is not too much different that when you rent a movie from the iTunes Store and have the whole movie downloaded into your laptop or iPad for later viewing, like while offline on an airplane for example. People with slow internet connections also do this, to prevent buffering while streaming. Only with the rental, I think you have like 3 days to play it, otherwise it will expire. Or once to start the movie, you can only play it for 24 hours. But with a purchased download of the movie, you can play it for as long as the download exist in your device. Even while offline and it doesn't matter if the movie is no longer available in the iTunes Store for purchase or rental streaming.     

ctt_zh said:

StrangeDays said:

mjtomlin said:

sato30 said:

greginprague said:

• Bornstein says that console markets taking 30% is fundamentally different than Apple, since consoles generally operate at a loss

Why is that fundamentally different?  Apple isn’t allowed to make money on the equipment and the App Store?  That seems like a preference of Bornstein but nothing that would hold up in court.  To me the App Store commission percentage between platforms is completely relevant and should stand on its own.  If Epic is fine with Sony and Nintendo charging 30% then he must be fine with Apple doing the same.  How was that not ruled on in summary judgement??

Epic really isn't "fine" with Microsoft, Nintendo & Sony charging 30% on their console's stores. When Epic says they are "fine" it is like asking another person if they are okay and they go "yeah I'm fiinnee!" They say they are fine but clearly they are not fine.

....

Apple has made it known however they can make exceptions when the exceptions benefit Apple. They want to get more people on Apple TV so the exceptions given to streaming apps benefits Apple especially when competitors do no have a particular app. 

People want to compare iOS Devices to Windows, Android or even macOS, because of its reach.
They don't want to compare iOS Devices to the likes of PlayStation or xBox, or even LG TV's running webOS, because of, well, their lack of reach.

People want to make the case that iOS is the product, just as Android and Windows is, but THAT'S NOT THE CASE. Android and Windows are available on devices from many OEMs... Microsoft and Google have to be more open about how their platforms work, because the end product is not theirs, it is the OEMs device. And to attract OEMs to their platform, they need to be flexible enough to allow those EOMs to make changes so their products can stand apart from competitors. Microsoft got in trouble because they tried to dictate what those OEMs could and couldn't do, specifically prohibiting them from selling devices that used other competing platforms. And since Windows was the dominant platform (an actual monopoly), it made it extremely difficult to remain in business unless you also sold Windows based systems.

Apple telling developers what they can and cannot do on iOS devices is not monopolistic behavior. If Apple were to tell a developer that if they wanted to develop apps on iOS then they couldn't write the same app on Android or Windows, then that could in fact be considered monopolistic behavior. That's Apple using their platform's power to gain leverage over a competing platform, by controlling what that developer can do outside of Apple's platform. But that's not what Apple does... they say, "This is our device/platform and this is what you can do on it. We don't care what you do anywhere else, that's not our business."

The fact is, iOS is not a product... iPhones and iPads are the product, just as Playstations, or xBoxes are. Nobody dictates what Sony or Microsoft or LG does on their respective products because they are seen in a different light. Unless and until iOS devices are the dominant mobile devices leaving little alternatives for consumers to turn to, Apple should be free to do whatever they want with their devices and platform.

This is right. As Daringfireball's John Gruber puts it, iPhones are an "app console". A console is not limited to video games, tho those are the most popular use. iPhone is a hardware console built to run apps. He also points out that Xbox is a just a computer built with PC parts, yet you don't hear the software devs demanding to be able to release non-Xbox software on Xbox hardware. Illogical double-standard for demanding to do so on iPhone.

That's a very interesting point. So would you say both a Google Pixel 4 and a Samsung Galaxy Note 20 are also an "app console"?

Not the in way John Gruber use the term "console". Gruber was pointing out that with game "consoles", the maker of the "console" own the hardware AND the software it operates on. The maker of the hardware also owns the OS running on that hardware. Microsoft has full control of what gets to be in an X-Box because they also own the OS it runs on. Sony has full control of what get to be on a PlayStation because they also own the OS it runs on. Just like how Apple gets to have full control of what get to run on iDevices because they own iOS. In these cases, both the hardware and software that consist of the OS, are consider platforms. They are not two separate products that are sold separately. One can not buy the OS running on a game console and use it to build their own game console. Just as one can not buy iOS and use it on their own hardware. 

With the Google Pixel and Samsung note 20, neither Google or Samsung own the Android OS in those devices. Though Google maintains the source code for Android, they are open source and available for anyone to use for free. Only devices that include or are compatible with Google apps, can claim to be using "Android'. "Android" is actually a trademark own by Google and can only be use on devices if the OS derived from the Android source codes is compatible with all the Google apps.

Amazon uses the open "Android" source code for their Fire devices and don't include any Google apps nor claimed to be compatible with all the Google apps. Therefore, their OS is referred to as Fire OS. Which is a fork of "Android". Though one can side load the Google Play Store into an Amazon Fire device, Amazon do not support it and offer no support if any of the apps available in the Google Play Store do not work on with their Fire OS. Amazon rather you buy apps through their own app store. And they also take a 30% cut.  

So no, most devices running "Android" are not "consoles" in the same way John Gruber uses the term "console". The Android hardware makers do not have full control of the OS as anyone can get a hold of the Android open source codes and make their own device running on "Android" or a fork of Android.  The hardware and Android are separate products, thus only Android can be considered a platform. Devices running Android is not consider a platform. The Google Pixel 4 running Android is not the same as an iPhone running iOS. One of them is like a game "console" and can be consider a platform.

Just like a Dell laptop running Windows is not a platform. The platform in this case is just Windows. Windows is a separate product that can be bought and installed on any compatible hardware.

cloudguy said:

Gaby said:

Somehow I doubt apple needs to use google trends data when it has plenty of its own from App Store activity and app usage data. 

Epic continues to insult our intelligence and disrespect the court in the same manner. It’s arguments can be described as weak at best. I really cannot abide Sweeney. He’s so disingenuous. Even his photo creeps me out

Huh? Apple's data is only relevant for users on Apple's platform. Meaning that if iOS users fell by 75% while users on all other platforms - PlayStation, XBox, Android, Windows - increased by 75%, only Epic would know this. Apple would only know about the 75% decline on iOS, iPadOS and MacOS. Since Apple has to get data on Nintendo - for example - user engagement somewhere, it would have had to have been Google or some other third party source. Like it or not, Google search and ads data is pretty much going to be the best there is for a global (sans China) multiplatform perspective. Apple's walled garden - and its hardware first services later focus - isn't cut out for that type of stuff.

And Apple don't care that maybe Fortnite players has increased on other gaming platforms. Apple is only concern that Fortnite interest has decreased by 70% on iOS devices and that's the reason why Epic is trying to boost interest on iOS devices with this planned campaign against their claimed "monopoly" that Apple has with their App Store on iDevices and an abuse of that "monopoly".

Apple is not claiming that 70% gamers on all devices, has lost interest in Fortnite, so your points are moot. But Apple knows a trend when they see it. If interest is down on iOS devices, then Apple knows from past data, that there's a good chance that the trend is happening on all gaming platforms. Apple knows whether they are a leading or trailing indicator of a trend or maybe that what's happening is isolated to just iOS. 

Epic revenue from Fortnite dropped 25% in 2019. It still $1.8B but less than the $2.4B, as it was in 2018. And all indication is that revenue is still declining even before their removal from the Apple App and Google play, stores. Epic was the number 3 game on computers and number 1 on game consoles in 2018. It is now in 2020, they are the number 6 game on game consoles and not even in the top 10 on computers. With over 70% of Fortnite players being on game consoles, only about maybe 15% of Fortnite players were on a mobile platform to begin with and my guess is because Fortnite does not have the same user experience on a small mobile device screen, as it does a large computer monitor and even larger flat screen TV.  Even though it's free, die hard Fortnite players just can't fully appreciate a $20 (in real money) cool virtual outfit and $6 (in real money) cool looking pick axe that they paid for, while playing on a small screen.  But even then, iOS Fortnite players still generated a good percentage of the revenue Epic got from players paying for virtual items in the Fortnite store. 

But for Apple, Fortnite was the number 1 game in terms of revenue generated in their App Store. And I think it was still number 1 or maybe number 2, when Apple kicked Fortnite out for violation of their developers license. And for Epic, iOS players have generated close to $1B in revenue, since being included the Apple App store in 2018. Epic has no claim or proof, that the 30% commission Apple charges for access to their platform, has harmed their ability to make money from being on the iOS platform or harmed their ability to complete. Epic is just being greedy and think they should be able to make more money, at Apple's expense. 

There are plenty of articles like this one if you do the search, where even if Fortnite players are not on the decline, how much they are spending in the Fortnite store for virtual items, definitely is.

https://www.cnet.com/news/fortnite-made-1-8-billion-last-year-but-its-still-a-game-in-decline/ ;      

https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-fortnite-ios-revenue-1148204/

Peza said:

leavingthebigg said:

sdw2001 said:

Anything can happen, but I don’t see how Epic has a leg to stand on here.  Apple’s terms are clear.  They deliberately violated them, Apple lowered the boom, and Epic *immediately* sued.   Now you have Apple’s competitors chiming in.  Who knows though.  These things go on for years and rarely have a clear outcome.  

Microsoft has officially opened the door into its business contracts with Epic Games. Is Microsoft’s participation with Epic Games predicated on Epic Games not pursuing litigation against Microsoft’s closed Xbox game store? Also, how many iOS video games based on Unreal Engine does Microsoft have on the App Store?

Let me just stop your misguided comment here..

Xbox does NOT have a closed store. You can install the EA E Shop if you want to onto your Xbox and buy and install games totally separate from the Xbox store.
And that’s not even mentioning the endless brick and mortar stores I can buy games in, I can buy a game when buying food, or the endless online retailers I can buy a game from, or the endless brick and mortar AND online stores I can buy second hand games from, or the fact I can simply borrow a game totally free from a friend to play...
So please don’t even attempt to try and out a Microsoft’s store in the same light as the iOS store as I can ONLY get iOS apps from one place and one place only, and I can buy a Xbox game from countless places and resources and that’s a hard fact!  

And let stop your misguided comment here. 

The EA store is a subscription service. It cost $4.99 a month or $29.99 a year, to download and play any of  the games in their store. And that's' just for the EA membership. You will also need to pay $9.99 a month for the X-Box Live Gold membership if you want to play online games. And Once you stop paying EA Store membership fee, all your newer games you downloaded stops working. But older X-Box 360 games is yours to keep and will keep on working after you end your membership.If you end your X-Box live Gold subscription, you can not play online. Single player mode only. 

MS is getting at least 15% of the membership fee for both the $4.99/M and $29.99/Y EA store membership fee. Plus MS is making $9.99/M for the X-Box Live Gold membership from players that wants to play games online. Plus MS will take a cut if you buy any of the games in the EAStore, through an X-Box. You can always buy the game elsewhere, but any discount coupon you earn only works if you buy from the X-Box.   

EA store is nothing more than a "Netflix", where paying members can watch as many movies available, as often as they want, but can not keep any of them and they all stop playing as soon as you end your subscription. The EA store is a way for gamers to try dozens of games, before buying the the game, either with a digital download from the EA Store or a disc from a retailer.. And if they want, they can just keep paying the membership fees, in order to keep playing all the games available to them, on their X-Box.  

With downloading games into the X-Box, there's only one place to download them, that's from the MS Store. You can buy the key code to unlock it from many retail venders. Or you can buy the physical disc, which might cost 2x as much as the digital download. But you must always go through the MS Store to download the a digital download  game into an X-Box, even if you're not paying for it there. You can not download a game into the X-Box from just anywhere. Dev. can not bypass MS rules, to load a game into an X-Box, not even with a disc. You can  not find an X-Box game on the internet and side load it into an X-Box.  Even the EA Store app must be downloaded from the MS Store. An X-Box owner can not just side load the EA store into an X-Box.  

It is totally misguided of you to compare the the EA Store on an X-Box with that of a no membership fee app store in iOS or Android. The EA Store do not get to operate in an X-Box for free. They are paying "rent" to MS. And the only games available in the EA Store are games that paid MS a license to be played on an X-Box. A game developer can not list an X-Box game in either store without paying MS for a license. You're comparing Apples to oranges. 

EsquireCats said:

georgie01 said:

EsquireCats said:

People don’t seem to recognise how poverty happens, it’s the result of exploitation. 

That’s one reason for poverty, but that’s not even the biggest reason. Many people nowadays blind themselves to the fact that all these ‘greedy rich people’ are also creating jobs for the people they’re exploiting. If you take that greedy pursuit away then the jobs will disappear, and those who are being exploited (along with everyone else) will then be worse off. Jobs don’t just appear in order to conform to ‘fairness’.

Everyone benefits from the greedy pursuits of those who make a lot to money. The ideal of socialism, however well meaning, will only ever be a short-lived dream.

That’s not meant as an excuse for the greed or the hilarious hypocrisy of Bill Gates. It’d be great if everyone could share and get along and not be greedy, but that is never ever going to happen in a large society no matter how much we want it.

The majority of employment is through small business. (80%+ job creators are small businesses not the “microsoft”s of the world. 

A "small business" is a very loose term and classified differently depending on the industry but 99.7% of all businesses in the US are classified as a "small business". There are 28M "small business" and only 630K publicly traded companies. The "Microsoft of the World" compromises less than .3% of all the businesses but employs 1/3 of the workers.   

https://www.factorfinders.com/small-business-job-creation-vs-big

https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf

https://www.nysscpa.org/news/publications/the-trusted-professional/article/more-americans-work-at-big-firms-than-small-ones-040717 ;

What would be interesting to know is, how does the government as the employer, fits into all these numbers.

https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thomas/2012/05/governments-employ-20-percent-of.html