This is a gross oversimplification. Microsoft was fined for leveraging its OS monopoly (95-99% marketshare) to force OEMs to distribute it's browser to the exclusion of competitors. There was much more to the story than giving away a browser for free. The situation with Apple is completely different.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Accuses Epic Games of 'Willful, Brazen, and Unlawful Conduct' in Countersuit Asking for Breach of Contract Damages
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is a gross oversimplification. Microsoft was fined for leveraging its OS monopoly (95-99% marketshare) to force OEMs to distribute it's browser to the exclusion of competitors. There was much more to the story than giving away a browser for free. The situation with Apple is completely different.
$10k in 1983 is $26k adjusted for inflation...
Makes things look so much cheaper when you look at it that way...
It's a business decision, plain and simple. Mac sales would likely plummet if the OS became closed and could only be accessed via an App store. They're in a much tighter competition for market share, and can't afford to turn anyone way from the OS. (I wonder if any open source licenses involved in parts of the OS might also affect their ability to legally close the OS without some major rewrites.) But anyway, open source aside, they should be able to lock it down as much as iOS if they want to, but it wouldn't necessarily be a wise business move. On the iOS side, they built something unique from scratch and the public liked it. They aren't feeling the same pressure from Android, and don't have the same incentives driving iOS development.
The way some folk act, he’s ascended to Mac heaven and sitteth on the right hand of dog...!
In a world of third party App Stores, should that void the users warranty if an app damages the hardware? Would you be amenable to Apple getting a share, let's say 20%, of all revenue generated as compensation for use of it's intellectual property? Or would Apple be expected to support these devices and not expect any compensation for any revenue generating leveraging their intellectual property?
The App Store does not pay for everything that Apple does, nor did Apple ever say it does. The App Store pays for the App Store, and maybe then some.
If only Apple weren’t holding a gun to your head, forcing you to buy their devices at sky-high prices!
Apple has some ****ing nerve. Their iOS monopoly is falling fast and now they pull this little stunt. The world is not fooled Apple. Your app store stranglehold is coming apart and deservedly so.
You can't have a monopoly on your own software, iOS is own and maintained by Apple...Apple App store is basically the same as everyone else's, Steam, Xbox, PS, etc...
iOS is not the same as Steam, Xbox, PS etc despite what you and others wish were true. How do I know? Simple.
1. Where can I get games for my pc, Xbox, PS, Switch etc?
2. Where can I get games for my iPhone, iPad iPod Touch?
Apple's app store monopoly is coming apart at the seams and deservedly so.
It boggles my simple little mind that people can’t understand this most basic concept.
What??? Are you for real? You really think that dapple should have stood still and not issued a counterclaim?
Pretty sure we’ve discovered one if your weaknesses - having even a rudimentary understanding of the legal system.
It was an absolute given Apple we’re going to counterclaim. You almost always have to to show strength - not doing so can lead you to losing everything.
So, either you’re clueless about the law, or you’re extremely biased towards Epic and Fortnite...
No reason it can’t be both.
I don't think it would be quite that easy. From what I got from the lawsuit, the direct payment method they used is simply an embedded web link to an extra payment processor, not any kind fancy kind of executable file. Similar to how some apps embed webpage feeds.
Where’s my ability to download Xbox games via steam or the Sony PS Store?
People always make this out to be that Epic wants to be on the App Store and not pay the fees Apple charges, but I've always seen this as Epic wanting the ability to bypass the App Store altogether and foot the bill themselves.
Wanting side-loading and not wanting to pay fees while being on the app store are not the same thing.
Wanting side-loading and not wanting to pay fees while being on the app store are not the same thing.
That analogy doesn’t even come close to making sense. Being tied to a utility company with absolutely no other option is quite different then having to specifically buy into the Apple ecosystem under your own free will. Apple is not forcing anyone, at any level, to be apart of their ecosystem.
ALL those stores charge a 30% fee online. Physical takes it down to 20% for many.
And here's something to chew on. IF Apple reduce their fees lower than Google's 30% then they are at risk of falling foul of the predatory pricing rule in the Brooke Test. As such they become at risk of being found to be operating against the Antitrust rules.
Bet you didn't know that, huh?
There's one big flaw to that... all Apple would need to do is take any insanely popular game and "promote" it to be entitled to the extra cut.
You can get XBOX, PS, Switch and iOS games from the same place: the store that was authorized by the OEM to sell them.
Apple is still footing the bill if you sideload - they just aren't getting paid.
I'll bet you can't actually define which laws you think are being broken here. Love to see you quote a District or Supreme Court case where this is clarified, or the legal statute in question.
I feel safe in this bet because you keep throwing around the word "monopoly" like it's some amazing term that proves your point.
I'll give you a hand: Apple vs Pystar.
I mean, if they really wanted to avoid a fee they could just sell postcards for whatever amount that include the equivalent amount of "free" v-bucks...
If they did that they'd be selling a "physical" item and therefore be eligible to use their own payment processor
I would disagree, if you sideload, Apple isn't paying for distributing the app, they aren't paying for app review, they aren't paying for anything about the app.
That's like saying Apple is footing the bill for Mac apps distributed outside of the app store... no, they aren't... people who buy the hardware are paying for the R&D costs of that hardware and software.
iPhones and iPads are not video game consoles sold at a loss with that recouped with future software sales, they're very expensive devices that make Apple huge amounts of profit with each one they sell.
Apple would have a much larger argument against side-loading if they sold iOS devices at a very minimal profit (or even a loss) and made their money off subscriptions and software sales.