Oh I am sorry, you said Apple were totally open about these things...scratting around the small print at the bottom of an obscure webpage is not my definition of being open...and yes the magic keyboard “works” with new iPad Pro if you don’t mind paying $300 for something that doesn’t close properly....but you knew that already
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 Says Epic Games 'Wants Us to Be Android, But We Don't Want to Be'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Your definition doesn’t matter in a court of law… and these facts are really easy to find. Nobody is having any trouble finding them. And now you have a different definition of “works” than the rest of us too. I guess only things that work perfectly count? Apple says it will work, but may not “precisely fit” when closed.
So you want a court to mandate that apple allow others to sign apps under apple’s certificate? Seems like that would violate the first amendment, wouldn’t it?
I seem to remember Microsoft getting in a lot of trouble for anti competitive, monopolistic behavior a long time ago. They weren't even allowed to build in a robust anti-virus software into their own operating system. I'm no lawyer, but I do wonder how Apple avoided these kinds of legal problems from the feds.
Microsoft had 98% of the home computer market. 98%, being greater than 95% looked like a monopoly. Also, anyone with experience with Microsoft would probably not put a lot of stock in them building a "robust anti-virus software" for any operating system, especially Windows 95/98.
Apple, with ~50% market share is in a different boat. 50%, being less than 95%, looks less like a monopoly. You do have a viable alternative if you want a different platform. Also, with more web based services, you have lots of way to access some important applications regardless of your platform.
That's how.
Not at all, just stating that Apple has the infrastructure in place to enable this at scale or indeed build the functionality out to alternate stores if they desire. It doesn’t diminish the experience of others that want to continue using the App Store if this were to happen, as indeed it doesn’t today.
I’m certainly no expert in law, but Epic seems to have gone about this all wrong. As others have said here, they should have taken a leaf out of Spotify’s book; done things in good faith and pick the battles. As it stands it looks like they seemed to have increased the chances of losing both arguments.
I do believe these digital distribution fees need further revision across the board. Apple’s own change of stance for smaller business and Microsoft seemingly reading the room in regards to windows store purchases are an indication of this. Personally that would be a desirable outcome for me; to see more money in the hands of developers that put forth the majority of the effort in the end product. But perhaps it would be for the best if this does not come about by way of a loss to Epic in court.
If the only issue is the amount of apple’s cut, and not the fact that apple gets a cut, then there is no issue. A court is not going to change that.
Yes, I understand your analogy and I think it is misleading, and I therefore provided what I think is more appropriate, with regards to app payment. I.e. Apple wants you to pay via their payment counter, like the hypothetical Costco analogy where Costco wants payment to go thru their counter. Costco is not going to allow anyone else to setup a payment counter in their store, like Apple not allowing another party collecting payment.
Since you're quoting me, I'll just give my take. This thread is about EPIC wanting changes to the iOS App Store and they sued after breaking the contract they originally agreed to, claiming to do it for small developers, but apparently it is so that they could make more money off Apple's customer base. This is deceitful behaviour that I do not agree with. Therefore I side with Apple.
And what is your point in your reply above?
Bud… what? This comment is wild. Such a childish level of escalation of what I’m saying to make it sound absurd combined with your own projection of the tone I’m saying it in to make your weak point sound better. I’m not demanding anything, I’m not suggesting anyone be forced to do anything, I’m saying what I want to see. Chill out, we’re talking about phones.
Below is everything you said removing your bizarre projections:
My response is, I don’t care what kind of effort Apple would have to put in, I’m not worried about them. I’m saying I want to see.
That’s all I’m gonna say to you though, you don’t want to hear me and I’m not interesting in talking to such a frustrating, unreasonable person.
I’m not on their legal team, I don’t care about your GM, and I don’t feel the need to weigh in on the merits of this case. I still want to see happen what I want to see happen and if that means Epic wins this lawsuit, then I hope they win.
I guess so, but it just seems to me that Apple has total monopolist power over companies who dare try to interact with Apple ecosystem. Apple's "do what we say or else" threat seems to be prevalent. I don't care to argue about the case. Just saying how they come across to regular people who aren't that involved.
Monopolistic power on your own property sounds weird. So far accusations hurled against Apple are based on personal opinions and wants. As far as I can see, Apple has been transparent in their rules as far as allowing third parties participating in their ecosystem. Apple has a vested interest in ensuring that the ecosystem they painstakingly built up to date are what the majority of their customer base wants and will want going forward, so that they become repeat customers. You can bet that Apple will fight tooth and nail to defend their creations.
Some may complain that Apple is slow in doing certain things, and they would be right. According to reports from the Internet, Apple is still operating in startup mode, so they will focus on what is important to them. The problem is that Apple is now compared to every tech. company in the world and somehow this shows that Apple is slow. So I guess when a company is valued at $2T, they will be held at a different standard. As far as I can tell, Apple is still the same Apple I know since the 80s, just quite a bit richer and wiser now.
Honestly, I think they should break the iOS App Store for being a monopoly IF Apple had a near dominant market share like Windows does on PC but since Apple is the smaller market share hence no one is reliant on it and you can choose to go else where and people actually buy iOS because they do want the walled garden approach.
If I could choose I would choose to break it, I would buy the legit apps from Apple App Store but then the stuff that Apple controls and will not allow on on their store like Emulators and browsers with other web engines I would get from somewhere else.
Where did Epic gets the Apple emails? isn't that illegal to use internal talk against the company? internal company talks should have the protection similar to the client-lawyer relationship protection.
If I could choose I would choose to break it, I would buy the legit apps from Apple App Store but then the stuff that Apple controls and will not allow on on their store like Emulators and browsers with other web engines I would get from somewhere else.
Where did Epic gets the Apple emails? isn't that illegal to use internal talk against the company? internal company talks should have the protection similar to the client-lawyer relationship protection.
Most people will flip it to watch cat videos. Then everybody (rounded to the nearest 10%) who uses apps will have to flip it because all the useful apps will cater to people who like to watch cat videos. Ecosystem trashed.
That's a poor analogy since you conveniently leave out that there's plenty of retailers to do business with. In the mobile market, there's only 2: Android & iOs.
Yup. They want an even better deal (for themselves) than what they get on consoles. I don't know if 30% is high, but I say let the market decide. Maybe Apple will lower it to 25% or 20%. It's up to them to decide. Just like MS and Sony decide on their royalty percentages.
You can buy physical medium storage with game, wow. You can even use them without internet. You can even update their firmwares without internet, wow. i-device without internet is just a break.
That does NOT mean the developer bypasses the costs to Sony or Microsoft. Even if its physical, you still need approval from Sony/MS (so they are the gatekeeper) and a cost. Digital just doesn't add the physical store and advertising costs to the Sony/MS cut.
I wonder how much devkit’s are for the PS5 and XSX cost these days… Going physical only shifts the argument from where can you get a game, to the requirements to develop one at all.