flydog

GeorgeBMac said:

According to Reuters, Apple got blasted for its App Store policies in "terse" exchanges between the judge and Apple's lawyer:

"During a terse exchange with Apple counsel Richard Doren at a hearing on Monday, the judge said she saw “no competition” to Apple’s App Store on the iPhone.

“The question is, without competition, where does the 30% (App Store commission) come from? Why isn’t it 10? 20? How is the consumer benefiting?” she asked.

Doren replied that consumers had choices when deciding to buy an Android device or an iPhone.

“The competition is in the foremarket,” he said, reiterating an argument that has been central to Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook’s defense during Congressional antitrust hearings.

Gonzalez Rogers replied that there was “plenty of economic theory” to show that switching brands imposed costs on consumers.

She at one point muted Doren in the virtual proceedings."

Essentially the judge called Bull on what she sees as Apple's bullshit contention that the iPhone has not created a monopolistic market that it exploits with the App Store.

My personal thoughts on it are that Apple needs to go beyond (or drop) its claim that it has not created any sort of monopoly and iPhone users are free to go over to Android and claim (correctly) that the Apple Store is an integral part of what makes the iPhone private, secure and stable.

All the judge did was note that that reasonable minds could disagree as to whether there were triable facts.  In the order, however, she states:

Based on a review of the current limited record before the Court, the Court cannot conclude that Epic has met the high  burden of demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits, especially in the antitrust context

If Epic had any facts or law to support its ridiculous antitrust claim, it would have included them in the application for a TRO. The odds of Epic winning this lawsuit are about the same as Elvis singing at your birthday.

mike1 said:

What would be the real or perceived benefits of changing the connector on the iPad to USB C compared to Lightning?

Other than making the multitude of charging cables I already own useless, of course?

Reversible 

Supports 100 watts vs 12 watts 

Simultaneous power and video

Double the data transmission speed

Supports USB PD

Common port means you can plug in external hard drives, monitors, and other devices

rain22 said:

This isn't going to bode well for Apple. They just proved the case them for anti-competitive practices. 
Epic's strategy seems too well planned. I wouldn't be surprised if there are other financial and political supporters behind them. 
That or they are stupid. But I have a feeling Apple is getting gamed here somehow. 

Epic admits that it breached the developer agreement, and the agreement states that it may be terminated for any breach.  Terminating a contract when the other party breaches the contract is not "anti-competitive."   

Rayz2016 said:

Epic should sell actual tokens that gamers receive through the post. 

Apple doesn’t apply fees to physical sales. 

You may want to actually read the App Store Guidelines.

• 3.1.5(a) Goods and Services Outside of the App: If your app enables people to purchase goods or services that will be consumed outside of the app, you must use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments, such as Apple Pay or traditional credit card entry.

• 5.3.3 Apps may not use in-app purchase to purchase credit or currency for use in conjunction with real money gaming of any kind, and may not enable people to purchase lottery or raffle tickets or initiate fund transfers in the app.

gerard said:

It’s ironic the about face that the U.S. public school system has taken  Just a few years back they claimed using iPads was not benefiting students. Now Apple is making a killing selling them to schools. 

The State of California school system has never claimed iPads don’t benefit students.