Apple Accuses Epic Games of 'Willful, Brazen, and Unlawful Conduct' in Countersuit Asking for Breach of Contract Damages

[kingfish78]

Also you know it's - Hardware + R&D + a little subsidising of the OS development + profit = your $1000
The 30% is - the upkeep of the app store + part of the R&D for the OS. The leftover is profit.

Let's expand that even farther...

Hardware + R&D + OS Development + Marketing + Facility Overhead + Personnel Overhead + Payroll Taxes + Destination Fees + Profit = your $1000 (There are lots and lots of people, many of them US-based engineers who touch some level of every iPhone. People cost lots of money.)

The 30% "Apple (or Google or Sony or Epic) Tax" = Software Maintenance of the App Store - Hardware Maintenance of the App Store - Physical Overhead (Energy Costs, Facility Costs, etc.) - Goodwill Overhead (Carbon Offsets, renewable energy losses, etc.) - Marketing - Internet/Bandwidth charges. Whatever is left is profit. People forget that these data centers that fuel the App Store cost Apple billions to build and hundreds of millions to maintain.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Hmmmmm that's really something to consider when reading up on this lawsuit...... Sure opened my eye.

Man, I do wish more comments are like yours, which is informative, reasonable and encouraging a healthy discussion......

Thanks, I try 🙂 Many others do as well.

And though I tend to state my opinions quite forcefully, they are just that: my opinions. And I’m wrong plenty. I don’t know as much as I think I do 🤣

 

[kingfish78]

Yes, but only if a hardware developer were to adopt the Epic Game Store as the default/sole App Store on their device. A more likely comparison would be Google, Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, etc. Those might also fall under regulation.

This would also include the Epic Game Store, should a hardware manufacturer choose to make it the sole App Store on their device. But if the software, like Fortnite, is not a marketplace then no, it would not be price regulated buy the government.

Unless Epic were to pay for exclusivity to their store - oh wait... they do. They would then be the sole outlet for particular software, thereby monopolizing that product and subject to regulation. Apple on the other hand does not enforce limitations of any vendor to remain exclusively part of their ecosystem (except for their first party products). Apple and Microsoft and Google and Sony and Nintendo only require companies who want to distribute software on their platforms to abide by distribution guidelines for their particular ecosystem. A company who doesn't want to pay Apple's asking price is certainly free to go sell on the Google Play store or the Amazon app store or wherever else.

Now... If Apple and Microsoft and Amazon and Google all sat down together and said, "Look guys, let's all agree to charge people 30% to sell in our stores - no more, no less." And, they then enacted such policies unilaterally and stifled competition and choice for both the developer and consumer - then they have abused their power through collusion and tampering with the market. (This is exactly what happened in the analogy that was posted earlier about buying oil and using my railroad to deliver it. The oil companies each developed vertically integrated supply chains - not a problem. They limited competition against their horizontal markets, however, by colluding with one another and establishing "territories" for sales. This served to drive up profits across each individual oil company AND their vertically integrated components. That was the monopoly and anti-trust violation.) There is no evidence that Apple has colluded with any other manufacturer to establish a standard market share for sales from their App Store.

More likely, their competitors have looked to Apple's fees to determine what the market will bear and they established their own transaction fee accordingly. If apple were to reduce from 30% to 25%, I expect the other big players in the phone app market (Google and Amazon) would adjust accordingly quickly. This isn't a sign of collusion, but of competition. The market has a price point it bears (currently 30%). If developers began raising costs uniformly due to the "burden" of the 30% fee, and overall sales began to dip as a result you would likely see the 30% fee reduced by some margin, the developers reduce their costs by some margin, and sales recover. If the market doesn't correct, then the margins would reduce again.

But the end game for Epic is not to reduce the 30% - it is to open the platform to other App Stores and replace Apple as the collector of the 30% fee.

 

[theotherphil]

Sure, but you don’t find it at least somewhat disconcerting that if Apple were to raise their rate to 50% basically nothing would stop them? It’s like Apple sitting on an oilfield, and yes they’ve developed that oil field and continue investing into new extraction methods, but to some degree they are just profiting from an exploding demand for oil and an accompanying rise in the price of oil.

The small detail stopping them increasing their prices is it will make devs leave Apple and move to the cheaper platforms.

What's to stop them using their vast cash reserves and dropping their take to 5%, 2%, 0%? That would mean devs would flock to the Apple App Store. All other App Stores wouldn't be able to compete and would likely go out of business. Oh yeah, that's called "predatory pricing" and that is an Anti-Trust violation in using your market position to stifle the competition.

 

[Arran]

And both got their cut too. Nowadays only Apple is benefitting from it, hence the dispute.

Who's getting the other 70% then?

Those who create the product/service people pay for?

I see. No change then.

 

[Alan Wynn]

As a consumer I like having more choice (the choice of a walled garden and its benefits) not less (where every device has multiple storefronts). It's anti-consumer.

But with multiple store fronts you still have that choice, no one is advocating that Apple's store front has to be removed, only that other store fronts will be allowed.

First, there are many on here (as well as in the blogosphere, government and press that do advocate for the elimination of the first party App Stores for mobile). However, I think you seem not to understand the point. Right now, as a customer, I know that everyone who wants to offer me an app has to do so with a set of rules that I trust. If alternate app stores are available, then either no one will use them at all (in which case we are where we are now), or (more likely) some like Epic (at a minimum) will use them. That means I no longer have the choice of getting all my apps from one source. Even allowing alternate app stores means weakening the security of iOS/iPadOS/tvOS/watchOS, as it means that unsigned apps have to be able to run.

You will still have the choice to stick with Apple's walled garden if you want, and others will have the choice to not to if they want.

Once there are multiple stores, some products will only be in other stores. Now, if they want to serve me, they have to be in the only store. With your solution they will have a choice and that will mean I do not have a choice.

That's real choice.

No it is not. Right now there consumers have a choice. They can adopt mobile products from several different ecosystems that have made different choices about privacy, security, convenience. That is real choice. Your solution is to take away a choice that millions of users have freely made. If they do not like it, there are easy alternatives.

Not the completely choice-less "choice" you are advocating.

Sorry, you cannot seem to grasp that people have to chose to buy these devices. Apple is unable to force anyone to purchase their hardware. That is the choice that I am advocating. Letting people decide which model they want, not letting you and people like you prevent them from having a choice.

BTW, the multiple store front model is exactly what we have with macOS.

Yup, and as such macOS is much less secure and convenient for me as a user. While much of the software I use is available on the Mac App Store, quite a few apps are not. Adobe requires something close to an always on process just to use their software. I would be much happier if I did not need to create an account on a plethora of other sites with dubious security just to use other software.

There is an Apple store that you can "safely" get software downloads from. And there is also choice to get software downloads from anyone and anywhere. As individuals, we make the choice of whether to take those non-Apple store downloads or not.

This is the point you keep missing. The choice for developers has eliminated choice for users. On iOS/iPadOS/tvOS/WatchOS, developers have one choice to make: do they want to serve me as a customer given the rules that Apple has established. Most have said yes (there are very few Android only apps that are not local services for primarily Android user bases). That lets me as a consumer choose whether I want to buy Apple’s ecosystem or Android and know what the result will be. You ‘choice’ eliminates mine as a consumer. Instead it gives choices to developers that only have to be in their interests, not in mine. If they can deliver products to iOS users that can still track their moves with not permission, require the collection of personal information, etc., by not being in the App Store, some (if not many) will do that. That eliminates my choice of using them.

Apple doesn't talk about that being a problem on macOS, simply because if they tried that on with macOS, then most of the macOS customers would abandon Apple for Windows or Linux.

It is a problem and requires things like anti-virus software as a result. Apple does not do it because the product existed for years before it was a possibility. It is a different environment and has different rules.

I regularly download software both from the Apple store and from all kinds of places.

How much of the software that you download from “all kinds of places” is commercial software that you cannot buy from the Mac App Store? If the answer to that is not “none”, you have made my case. It is not on the Mac App Store because they do not have to put it on the Mac App Store and can still sell it to you. If they did not have that option, 99% of it would be available in the Mac App Store.

I also can download things that Apple would consider not wholesome enough for it's "family" values, even though I am an adult.

Glad you want to be able to down load porn and illegal gambling apps (as those are among the only things that Apple restricts from the store). If those are that important to you and your use cannot be satisfied by the web, you are right, Apple is not the ecosystem for you.

Again, you keep saying that those of us who want the closed ecosystem can still have it, but that is simply false if you get your way.

 

[kc9hzn]

Apple makes a good point about all the promotion they’ve given Epic over the years. I remember a point where virtually every keynote had someone from Epic on-stage showing a new game or a new tech demo of something they were able to do with the new devices/APIs. They also used Apple’s professional expertise more than most developers, I’m sure. It’s not like Epic Games was just another small fries developer, they were more or less a major partner of Apple’s for several years. I’d say that Epic got more for Apple’s 30% cut over the years than just about anyone other than Adobe or Microsoft. (I’d also include Facebook, but I wasn’t even aware that Facebook offered In-App Purchases on any of their apps until today, I have no idea what stars are used for despite having used Facebook for 13 years now, and I suspect most people don’t buy Facebook’s IAP. I suspect, for the longest time, Apple didn’t make any money from Facebook aside from technical support elevation tickets and Facebook’s developer accounts.)

 

[Krizoitz]

Explain MacOS then. You don't have to put your app in the AppStore to run it on MacOS. Same is true for any Android device. You don't have to use the Play Store (or equivalent) to run an app.

Apple makes their money from hardware, that has always been their business strategy.

Apple has CHOSEN to make money from Mac hardware and use that to fund iOS development. But they are by no means obligated to follow that same model for iOS (and haven’t). With iPhone/iOS there wasn’t the literal decades of expectation that there was in the desktop world. Sticking to the same model regardless of changing situations and changing times is how companies fail. Apple decided it was smarter to diversify its revenue stream when it comes to iOS. And it was. If the cost of developing for iOS is not appealing to a developer that’s totally reasonable, they can then choose not to develop for iOS. It’s that simple. Develop for Android. Or Windows. Or make your own platform.demanding Apple be forced to do it the way you want just because you don’t like their way? That’s wrong.

 

[PSYCHO666]

Wow… I actually went through 20 pages and there is one word to describe a large portion of what I read… 'Ignorance'. Granted, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but OMG.
Let me dumb this down for some people…
Let's imaging a building called Apple and it is next to a building called Walmart. They are both in retail sales and they are both businesses there to sell and make a profit.
Wait a minute… what I'm hearing reading through this thread is, Walmart would be a monopoly because they are not allowing other retailers to come into their building and sell the same products they do. Fully cutting Walmart out of their ability to profit selling product within their own building/company… or… the manufacturers of the products should be able to open a store within Walmart to sell their product and Walmart gets nothing, zero $0.00. Sure… come on in and do whatever you want… enjoy… Really !?! Walmart's overhead and what they paid for the building does not matter.
The apple building has a large happy customer base and it benefits the product sellers to sell their product at that building, because they can make lots of money due to the large volume. Prior to them selling their product in Apple's Building, they agree to pay Apple a percentage of their profits. In this case 30%. Apple does not care if you profit $0.00 or billions, but they are entitled to their percentage based on the agreement. Simple right.
So, along comes this product manufacturer and they sell their product everywhere the product can be used, including Apple. They entered into an agreement with Apple and both companies make millions and all the users are happily using the product… everyone is happy, right? Nope… greed kicks in and the product manufacturer thinks they should be able to open their own store within the Apple building and take 100% of the profits. So, they breach the agreement and sue Apple for doing exactly what they both agreed on, in writing, legally.
For those of you that use the word 'Choice'. You are making your choice by driving to the building/store on where you want to do business. The same as pulling out your credit card making the choice to purchase Apple, Samsung, Motorola, HTC, LG, Google, OnePlus, Lenovo, Kyocera, Nokia, Sony, Razer, Etc… All of these Companies decide what to use for an OS and what to offer for services and what products will work or not work on their devices (based on OS choice).
Comparing Apple's OS/ecosystem to Mac, PC, Xbox, PS, Nintendo, Etc… You are not comparing Apples to Apples (pun intended). I have a Gaming PC, Xbox, PlayStation and Switch. I prefer PC Gaming. For some odd reason, new games always seem to be released around a price point of $60. I could download it and it is $60 or I can go to the store and buy it… $60. But wait… digital download, there is no packaging…. Why am I paying the same amount? Guess what… digital downloads are done in a virtual store and the stores get a percentage… guess what… all of the proprietary stores get around 30%. Apple… 1 proprietary store, Xbox… 1 proprietary store, PlayStation… 1 proprietary store, Nintendo… 1 proprietary store, etc. But if I do physical media, it can be sold in many stores, right? Yes, but they have to package it to the specs and agreements contracted by the hardware/OS systems… and they get some form of $$ with that process as well. IT IS ALL ABOUT MONEY!!
But wait… When I'm on the PC, I can use multiple stores!! Yes, and it sucks. Steam is the big player and they get a percentage, just like Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, etc Stores. Guess who did not want to Pay into Steam on PC and use their own store… come on guess… Yea, Epic. Having many store launchers on one device is a PITA… battle.net, uplay, Bethesda, epic, steam, etc… After they realize they are losing millions in sales, they cater to Steam's demands and they start selling their product on Steam and give the percentage. But… they annoy and frustrate the end users so they can put more profit in their pockets. It is not about YOU having a choice.
It is my 'choice' to purchase an Apple device, a PC vs. Mac, an Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo, Etc… Once I make that 'Choice', I am using the ecosystem defined by that manufacturer. If you do not like how Apple does things… go by a device using Android… simple.
The funny thing... all of you talking about choice between stores... why??? Do you think Epic is going to charge less money if you purchase direct... NO... they are going to charge the same amount and pocket more profits... so WHY are some of you so adamant about putting more money in developers pockets at the expense of the security of the device??? Oh.... I know... You live in 'MERICA, it is a free country and you can do whatever you want. Tell that to the cop when he pulls you over for speeding or running a red light.... good luck.
You have a choice in politics… you have a choice on if you do or do not wear a mask… based on that, you can choose whether you want to live or die… you can choose to be ignorant or educate yourself on a subject. Seems like too many in the US are choosing to be what I call, 'privileged-entitled-ignorance'!! Peace!

 

[123]

I see. No change then.

Read what you quote. Here's the change:

Nowadays only Apple is benefitting from it

 

[deevey]

Wow… I actually went through 20 pages and there is one word to describe a large portion of what I read… 'Ignorance'. Granted, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but OMG.
Let me dumb this down for some people…
Let's imaging a building called Apple and it is next to a building called Walmart. They are both in retail sales and they are both businesses there to sell and make a profit.
Wait a minute… what I'm hearing reading through this thread is, Walmart would be a monopoly because they are not allowing other retailers to come into their building and sell the same products they do. Fully cutting Walmart out of their ability to profit selling product within their own building/company… or… the manufacturers of the products should be able to open a store within Walmart to sell their product and Walmart gets nothing, zero $0.00. Sure… come on in and do whatever you want… enjoy… Really !?! Walmart's overhead and what they paid for the building does not matter.
The apple building has a large happy customer base and it benefits the product sellers to sell their product at that building, because they can make lots of money due to the large volume. Prior to them selling their product in Apple's Building, they agree to pay Apple a percentage of their profits. In this case 30%. Apple does not care if you profit $0.00 or billions, but they are entitled to their percentage based on the agreement. Simple right.
So, along comes this product manufacturer and they sell their product everywhere the product can be used, including Apple. They entered into an agreement with Apple and both companies make millions and all the users are happily using the product… everyone is happy, right? Nope… greed kicks in and the product manufacturer thinks they should be able to open their own store within the Apple building and take 100% of the profits. So, they breach the agreement and sue Apple for doing exactly what they both agreed on, in writing, legally.
For those of you that use the word 'Choice'. You are making your choice by driving to the building/store on where you want to do business. The same as pulling out your credit card making the choice to purchase Apple, Samsung, Motorola, HTC, LG, Google, OnePlus, Lenovo, Kyocera, Nokia, Sony, Razer, Etc… All of these Companies decide what to use for an OS and what to offer for services and what products will work or not work on their devices (based on OS choice).
Comparing Apple's OS/ecosystem to Mac, PC, Xbox, PS, Nintendo, Etc… You are not comparing Apples to Apples (pun intended). I have a Gaming PC, Xbox, PlayStation and Switch. I prefer PC Gaming. For some odd reason, new games always seem to be released around a price point of $60. I could download it and it is $60 or I can go to the store and buy it… $60. But wait… digital download, there is no packaging…. Why am I paying the same amount? Guess what… digital downloads are done in a virtual store and the stores get a percentage… guess what… all of the proprietary stores get around 30%. Apple… 1 proprietary store, Xbox… 1 proprietary store, PlayStation… 1 proprietary store, Nintendo… 1 proprietary store, etc. But if I do physical media, it can be sold in many stores, right? Yes, but they have to package it to the specs and agreements contracted by the hardware/OS systems… and they get some form of $$ with that process as well. IT IS ALL ABOUT MONEY!!
But wait… When I'm on the PC, I can use multiple stores!! Yes, and it sucks. Steam is the big player and they get a percentage, just like Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, etc Stores. Guess who did not want to Pay into Steam on PC and use their own store… come on guess… Yea, Epic. Having many store launchers on one device is a PITA… battle.net, uplay, Bethesda, epic, steam, etc… After they realize they are losing millions in sales, they cater to Steam's demands and they start selling their product on Steam and give the percentage. But… they annoy and frustrate the end users so they can put more profit in their pockets. It is not about YOU having a choice.
It is my 'choice' to purchase an Apple device, a PC vs. Mac, an Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo, Etc… Once I make that 'Choice', I am using the ecosystem defined by that manufacturer. If you do not like how Apple does things… go by a device using Android… simple.
The funny thing... all of you talking about choice between stores... why??? Do you think Epic is going to charge less money if you purchase direct... NO... they are going to charge the same amount and pocket more profits... so WHY are some of you so adamant about putting more money in developers pockets at the expense of the security of the device??? Oh.... I know... You live in 'MERICA, it is a free country and you can do whatever you want. Tell that to the cop when he pulls you over for speeding or running a red light.... good luck.
You have a choice in politics… you have a choice on if you do or do not wear a mask… based on that, you can choose whether you want to live or die… you can choose to be ignorant or educate yourself on a subject. Seems like too many in the US are choosing to be what I call, 'privileged-entitled-ignorance'!! Peace!

A lot of good points but it's almost impossible to read without paragraphs and line spacing.

* I'm not being a grammar Nazi. A lot what you said is actually relevant to the discussion but most will not bother.

 

[manu chao]

The small detail stopping them increasing their prices is it will make devs leave Apple and move to the cheaper platforms.

Based on that measure, Apple almost certainly could increase their take before any noticeable amount of developers would leave their platform.

What's to stop them using their vast cash reserves and dropping their take to 5%, 2%, 0%? That would mean devs would flock to the Apple App Store. All other App Stores wouldn't be able to compete and would likely go out of business. Oh yeah, that's called "predatory pricing" and that is an Anti-Trust violation in using your market position to stifle the competition.

I have no idea what you are smoking. There are no competing app stores. There is only Android and Android phones are already noticeable cheaper. And cutting the 30% fee to zero alone would hardly make a dent in Android’s cost advantage.

Another analogy would be petrol/gasoline cars vs diesel cars. It’s like Apple having a patent on the production of petrol and Google one on the production of diesel. Yeah, there is competition between the two systems, but within each Apple is able to charge a 30% tax on petrol and Google is doing the same with diesel.

 

[manu chao]

It's also running on a device using ARM chip designs. How much is going to SoftBank?

Some. The value of ARM holding has multiplied over the last 15 years.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Read what you quote. Here's the change:

That doesn’t make any sense at all.

For more than a decade: Apple 30%
Now: Apple 30%

You:

And both got their cut too. Nowadays only Apple is benefitting from it, hence the dispute.

@Arran: Huh? Developer still gets 70%, nothing at all changed, right?

You: Right, nowadays only Apple benefits, because nothing changed. Before Apple took 30%, but now they take 30%. See? Like I said, nowadays only Apple is benefitting. So that’s why Epic is suing.

Everyone: 🤯🤯🤯

 

[Arran]

Read what you quote. Here's the change:

Nowadays only Apple is benefitting from it

I did, but there isn’t much to read.

I’ll try to be clearer: What’s the reasoning behind your original statement?

 

[TiggrToo]

have no idea what you are smoking. There are no competing app stores. There is only Android and Android phones are already noticeable cheaper. And cutting the 30% fee to zero alone would hardly make a dent in Android’s cost advantage.

It's called "predatory pricing" and can potentially be used to claim Apple is running an Antitrust operation.

You should read up on such concepts before posting. There's a large amount of resources online.

And there are multiple competing stores: Google Play. Amazon App Store, Samsung etc.

The fact the others are on Android is pretty irrelevant - they are still the competition.

 

[manu chao]

It's called "predatory pricing" and can potentially be used to claim Apple is running an Antitrust operation.

You should read up on such concepts before posting. There's a large amount of resources online.

And there are multiple competing stores: Google Play. Amazon App Store, Samsung etc.

The fact the others are on Android is pretty irrelevant - they are still the competition.

Apple lowering their percentage would have zero effect on those other app stores. What do think would happen? A public outcry forcing Google to lower their cut? Nobody will care. Do you really think any Android user would switch to iPhone because of that?

 

[I7guy]

Apple lowering their percentage would have zero effect on those other app stores. What do think would happen? A public outcry forcing Google to lower their cut? Nobody will care. Do you really think any Android user would switch to iPhone because of that?

If the price of $100 vbucks were reduced to $60 maybe. But that wouldn't happen...Epic would pocket the difference feeding into the app store doesn't cause harm to the consumer.

 

[TiggrToo]

Apple lowering their percentage would have zero effect on those other app stores. What do think would happen? A public outcry forcing Google to lower their cut? Nobody will care. Do you really think any Android user would switch to iPhone because of that?

Your opinion only. However the definition of predatory pricing is just that.

In addition, lowered commissions is exactly what people are calling for.

 

[Colonel Blimp]

Apple lowering their percentage would have zero effect on those other app stores. What do think would happen? A public outcry forcing Google to lower their cut? Nobody will care. Do you really think any Android user would switch to iPhone because of that?

It's called "predatory pricing" and can potentially be used to claim Apple is running an Antitrust operation.

Hmm, well let’s imagine then that Epic win their case and the court orders Apple to allow the Epic Games Store onto iOS. Let’s further imagine that Epic charge, say, a 12% commission on sales in the Epic Games Store on iOS. Now what happens if Apple lower their own commission on App Store sales to only 0%, undercutting the Epic Games Store in what would undeniably be the same market?

So far, in this scenario, Epic would have gotten both of the things they’ve said they want: the Epic Games Store on iOS, and 100% of app prices going to developers. Can they sue Apple for predatory pricing then?

 

[123]

Some. The value of ARM holding has multiplied over the last 15 years.

Your in-app purchase went to the stock market?

 

[123]

because nothing changed.

Yes, everything has changed. They (Epic) are not benefitting any more in the way we were discussing (which you didn't read even though there really wasn't much to read). It wasn't about percentages, and I suggest, if you don't follow a discussion just don't participate.

 

[123]

What’s the reasoning behind your original statement?

The original discussion was about both benefitting from each other in non monetary terms (Apple promoting Epic, but also Epic showing Apple's device superiority over Android phones). And my comment was that at that time they also both got a cut from the sales, which was OK, then. Epic has grown, as Apple would say, by the help of Apple, but Epic also has paid hundreds of millions for that already. Nowadays, however, Epic doesn't benefit from Apple at all. And hence the whole "we gave you this" argument is moot as it is already paid for many times.

 

[Arran]

The original discussion was about both benefitting from each other in non monetary terms (Apple promoting Epic, but also Epic showing Apple's device superiority over Android phones). And my comment was that at that time they also both got a cut from the sales, which was OK, then. Epic has grown, as Apple would say, by the help of Apple, but Epic also has paid hundreds of millions for that already. Nowadays, however, Epic doesn't benefit from Apple at all. And hence the whole "we gave you this" argument is moot as it is already paid for many times.

Ah, okay. I kind-of see where you're coming from now.

So when you say "Nowadays, however, Epic doesn't benefit from Apple at all", why doesn't Epic ditch Apple and go their own way? There's nothing holding them, right?

 

[123]

So when you say "Nowadays, however, Epic doesn't benefit from Apple at all", why doesn't Epic ditch Apple and go their own way? There's nothing holding them, right?

They don't need iOS and they don't need the AppStore and they don't need Apple marketing efforts. But they want people on iPhones to run their software. On hardware that for the most part is not by Apple, and is definitely no longer owned by Apple. But that has been argued to death.