Forced in what sense? As in someone put a gun to their head? No. As in being able to access one half of the market of mobile app consumers? Yes.
Last edited:
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 Files Appeal in Epic Games Lawsuit, Asks to Delay App Store Changes
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've said this before, but I'll state it again. Why does this matter? Business A is not in business to make business B exist. If it works out that way, great. But, it's not just because they're aren't a lot or many doesn't mean it's unfair. Other companies "can" create a mobile phone, OS, and app store if they so choose. Neither Google nor Apple is blocking them from doing so.
This requires Apple to build something for this to work. Something that doesn't currently exist. They would have to support its functionality across OS upgrades, and secure it whether you "customer" wanted it or not. This isn't a choice. As a customer the functionality is there even if I don't want it. The judge already ruled that Apple is not a monopoly. Just because they are successful doesn't make them a monopoly. But they are being treated as if they are a monopoly in this space anyway due to their success.
Also, customers are free to choose to NOT purchase an iOS device.
I think they solved this whole issue by having a walled garden of approved App Store apps.
Of Walmart’s 1.5 million employees, how many do you imagine have access to your credit card info?
Secondly, how many employees does Apple have? Are all of them honest?
You’re entirely missing the point. You have to provide billing details to every app developer…in my case that would be 50+ that would have my personal AND billing details. The vast majority of those 50+ developers would be highly unlikely to have their security aspects setup 100%. If my CC details become compromised on just one of those, my card would be cancelled and then I would need to change the details on 50+ websites.
With Apple, there is a much smaller attack surface area….1 vs 50. It is in their corporate interest to ensure that those billing details are kept secure. If there is a fraudulent purchase, I only have to change my CC info on the one store. I have a list of all my subscriptions and purchases in a single place and a single point of contact if something goes wrong….and with a company who prides itself on customer service.
I know which option I would choose 100% of the time.
Last edited:
The App Store marketplace was not worth significant regulatory resources 13 years ago. What percent of the population owned a smartphone 13 years ago? How much was being spent on apps? Governments do not have the resources to investigate every possible issue. Much like other businesses and even individuals, they have to prioritize your time and resources, they are not infinite. Apple also didn’t have this immense market power 13 years ago in the first place.
If you speed everyday for years, but finally get pulled over one day, do you tell the cop “what the hell man, nobody cared that I was speeding before” as justification for speeding?
Last edited:
If apple wanted to they could sandbox any app that does not go through its servers or pay mechanism in a way that would prevent abuse of code. Plus they could still reject the app if it does not follow the rules. So this is more about money and control than anything else. Here’s the thing though, by giving up some control they gain way more users which eventually turns into more money. But since they are control freaks they should take a big hit in both. That would be funny to see.
they are not the underdog to root for anymore. They need to take an L. Builds character.
they are not the underdog to root for anymore. They need to take an L. Builds character.
The judge has already ruled that Apple is not in violation of the Sherman act so your Standard Oil and AT&T example doesn’t apply here.
And the judge upheld every single point in Apple’s terms and conditions except anti-steering. You wishing and arguing otherwise really doesn’t change that fact. And even then, that was some obscure Californian Law which was a stretch to interpret it like she did….hence why it’s being appealed. It’s very likely that will be successfully appealed to only apply to businesses based in California instead of the entirety of the US. Don’t forget, the injunction currently applies just to the US, not worldwide.
Last edited:
Settlements happen when each side makes concessions to one another. Otherwise the plaintiff side would either drop the case or would see it through to a final decision. Feel free to read about Japan’s previous case below.
Apple Japanese antitrust investigation opens as another closes - 9to5Mac
An Apple Japanese antitrust investigation was closed last month, when the Cupertino company made a major concession. But just six weeks ...9to5mac.com
We have a basic disagreement on what this all means, what is forced, what is anti-trust etc. Obviously until all of this is settled, which may take years, the landscape could change dramatically or some minor things might happen that in the scheme of changes won't change the basic premise of the way the app store operates.
In my view, given that:
1. the apple app market place is fair/ consistently applied across an absolutely massive range of developers and
2. that few, if any, consumers are asking for this change,
3. so that there is neither demonstrable anti-competitive or consumer harm,
... these judges making business and technical decisions for software companies are outside of their appropriate role and decisions like these are vastly over-reaching.
1. the apple app market place is fair/ consistently applied across an absolutely massive range of developers and
2. that few, if any, consumers are asking for this change,
3. so that there is neither demonstrable anti-competitive or consumer harm,
... these judges making business and technical decisions for software companies are outside of their appropriate role and decisions like these are vastly over-reaching.
It only takes one or maybe walmart.com was hacked. This goes back to my comment about attack surface, I already have to trust Apple because there are currently 16 Apple devices in use in my house.
I’m not referring to Apple, but to your statement that “a choice not to use a product/ service is still a choice.” That is not true as an absolute, hence why I said you may wish to qualify that statement.
What do you imagine I’m arguing? Where did I wish or argue that Apple lost on any of the other points? Apple’s loss on the tenth point is a big deal, however.
Apple should just change its app store name to "Web Apps Plus" highlighting the fact that the App Store is a premium product for better performance on apple products and that EPIC and all developers already have a free, alternative means by which to access and develop for apple devices.
You can disagree all you want, but Japan and South Korea have already forced Apple to make changes.
I have a question. A what if scenario. Say 13 years ago, Apple entered the market with an iPhone. But, in this market there was:
1) Palm
2) Microsoft
3) Blackberry
4) Nokia
5) Motorola
6) Sony
7) Ericsson (I feel like I spelt that wrong)
8) 6 & 7
9) Google with HTC
They all had a mobile device, and they all did their own things however they saw fit. Some had stores, some could just download apps from the internet no restrictions, some had zero apps, etc. Then, as time passes. Most of them fail. Not because Apple and or Google stopped them. But because people made a choice. They picked Google Android and or iPhone iOS.
There are no laws broken, and no illegal means in which either became as successful as they are today.
Now, 13 years later. Neither has been declared a monopoly. Neither have don't anything to prevent another business from starting up a mobile device company with a competing OS and AppStore.
They just don't want someone else's store within "their" store. I don't think it would be fair to force another store within another store that didn't want it.
Nah, As a Californian, I think people in states like Ohio should be forced to follow California Law. /s
It doesn’t matter that things used to be a certain way. Regulators and judges look at the market as it exists today. Additionally, one need not be a monopoly to be subject to regulation, as we’ve already seen in fact.
States already do in some cases actually. See California’s waivers on the Clean Air Act. Twelve states adopt whatever standards California decides to.
How would they have any control over the app if it was not coming from the AppStore? Let alone sandbox it. What would they be sandboxing it from? Would the app even work if Apple sandboxed it?
This sounds like "if" apple could just sandbox a side loaded app. Which they do already by simply not allowing it to install in the first place.
If they thought that way, they would be Google or Microsoft. And they are not. They are Apple, and they have been happy to be Apple for many decades now. They are also between the first or second most valuable company in the world. So, their business decisions so far have worked out pretty well.
They will take an L when they do things that people (customers) don't want anymore. Not because someone sued them for some ridiculous reason.
So we all where born yesterday and everything that happened is irrelevant to what exists today? That doesn't sound right to me.
In the case of the Clean Air Act waiver, other states decide to join. They aren’t forced to do it.
That doesn’t work out like you think it does. The courts weigh precedents that have accumulated over the years that really pull in the reigns and scope of antitrust laws. Companies are gaining more and more rights under the laws. Markets are now capable of being defined as multi-sided with the interests of companies and consumers being weighed to the detriment of suppliers. Remedies are no longer extreme. Breakups and reorganizations are almost entirely off the table. Regulators are very cautious about pressing too hard because they run the risk of having established regulatory powers overturned. It basically takes one case before SCOTUS that grants corporations equal protection under the law (and there are a lot of good candidate cases out there) to gut all but the most general of regulations on the books.
I think the end result will not be what they hoped either. In a global economy the entire market place is only as regulated as the weakest regulations for the most desirable market. Apple can simply tell Korean, Japanese or even EU-based developers, if the time comes, that they can have third-party payments, but they are only available to those developers based in those markets selling apps and services in their repective stores. If they want acces to the US appstore or appstores in any of the hundred-plus other countries, they wil have to use Apple in-app purchases and play by the store rules Apple sets. The same way California sets emission standards for most of the auto industry. The idea that some foreign regulatory body is going to come in like a deus ex-machina and bring Apple to its knees is pure fantasy. There will be some concessions by Apple where they make sense and some political grand-standing when domestic politics demand it, but for the most part, the only reason Apple will or should change their business model is if business conditions demand it.
Last edited: