Apple Says Epic Games 'Wants Us to Be Android, But We Don't Want to Be'

[quarkysg]

this is defeatest


we should just accept or hegemony corporate overloads because "thats the way it was"

OR

we can fight for our consumer rights

By all means, you can write to your representative and request for change if you’re so passionate about it, which it looks like you do. But as far as I know, Apple has broken no law. Kicking and screaming about it is useless. And again, this is the world that has come out of a capitalistic system, and this is the system that came out of existing legislature.

As for me, I’ve no problem with how the world is now. All these stuffs are not essential for my survival. Sometimes I find it funny that critics comes up in arms because of their supposed ideals. Well, do something constructive by initiating change properly. Just don’t organize a mob and start destroying properties.

 

[I7guy]

My hardware my choice.

EG: I use my iPad AIR offline as an RDP terminal to my windows computer. it has no internet and only works internally

12.4 was great

12.4.1 rendered it unusable (3 minutes to launch safari, 2-5 minutes to load a single page)

I Should have the right, to accept any risk involved with downgrading to 12.4 without intentially restrictions on me.

It is your hardware your choice, and you are certainly within your rights to do what you want. I was offering up an explanation of why Apple may not want to allow loading of older ios versions.

 

[LordVic]

It is your hardware your choice, and you are certainly within your rights to do what you want. I was offering up an explanation of why Apple may not want to allow loading of older ios versions.

I understand the "reason". but at the same time that "reason" is very consumer hostile.

I'm fully supporting of Apple making it DIFFICULT via warnings, popups, and even warranty restrictions.

I am NOT supporting of intentionally blocking it with zero ability to operate outside of Apple's directives. Just to also point out, Other manufacturers have started this same ******** because Apple got away with it and the entire phone ecosystem is now stuck in this very anti-consumer mindset of dictating to us what we do.

I'm pretty sure latest Samsung phones are now blocking intentionally as well. I'm not sure about pixel's (I should try on mine). it's an overall industry trend that everyone is now trying to get away with that I am vehemently against.

 

[DeepWebinar]

Look, I believe I understand that you are disenchanted with large corporations, and it’s turned you off to caring about the details of this case.

But to me, that’s all the more reason to care about the merits of this case. Because if the ruling goes against the merits, it could indicate that something else is at play. And if one of us ever got into a dispute with a large corporation due to injury or something else, we’d certainly want the merits to matter.

We’re sooo far past that. If you had a dispute with a major corporation, a lot of times you would be sent to forced arbitration and even if you did have a case that gained traction that you weren’t strong-armed to settle out of court for, you’d be up against one of the most expensive and complex legal teams in the world. Overcoming all that, there would still be people on this website and all over the Internet and media dismissing your case’s validity. There is no justice on this scale, this case is not going to be a landmark case. It’s the same thing as the old lady with the McDonalds hot coffee in her lap and I don’t get where the impulse to defend Apple comes from. If this is truly a bogus case, it will be dismissed.

Well, yes. It does mean that. In a case of "theft or murder" you bring evidence and make a case tying it to a particular person. Whether it a fictional theft/murder case or Epic vs Apple -- If you say, I don't care what evidence is presented because, "I've made up my mind (regardless of what you present)" then, yes, you don't care fairness or law.

Lol okay bud. This is so childish, so if you feel good about that comment, then I’ll leave you to it kiddo. 👍

 

[SuperMatt]

I don’t get where the impulse to defend Apple comes from.

When one supports Epic regardless of the law or evidence, they are the ones blindly defending a company. I (and many others) actually care about the particulars of the case. I’m not blindly defending either side, unlike some who want Epic to win regardless of the merits of the case.

 

[DeepWebinar]

When one supports Epic regardless of the law or evidence, they are the ones blindly defending a company. I (and many others) actually care about the particulars of the case. I’m not blindly defending either side, unlike some who want Epic to win regardless of the merits of the case.

I guess I just don’t know how else to tell you I don’t support Epic. I learned who they were from this news story. Go ahead and read my past comments if you care to know my position. This is exhausting.

 

[Maximara]

When one supports Epic regardless of the law or evidence, they are the ones blindly defending a company. I (and many others) actually care about the particulars of the case. I’m not blindly defending either side, unlike some who want Epic to win regardless of the merits of the case.

There are merits to Epic's case? 😁 Seriously I agree with you. In fact, I am surprised the case has gotten this far. Epic's argument boils down to no one can control their store tecause we say so.

 

[deckard666]

Les be perfectly honest with ourselves and the rest of the forums

There are people who hate everything Apple does here.

And there are people who do jump to defend every single thing Apple does as well.


the tricky part is using the ignore feature well to weed out these extremes and actually focus on discussing things. Criticizing where criticism is due (Anyone who says otherwise is delusional) but praising when They do things well (Anyone who says otherwise is delusional) .

Why be on an apple forum if you hate everything they do ? It’s a bit like joining a swimming club and saying you hate the water.....

 

[Jury]

Epic is in a must-win situation in order for more innovation regarding the future of Apple App Store and more choice for opting third-party payment processor and more legitimate with the approval of third-party digital store for the developer to publish an application.

 

[quarkysg]

Epic is in a must-win situation in order for more innovation regarding the future of Apple App Store and more choice for opting third-party payment processor and more legitimate with the approval of third-party digital store for the developer to publish an application.

A race to the bottom is not innovation. The only outcome that I can see with multiple iOS store is more garbage apps with sleazy IAP tactics. If you think it’s bad now, then it’ll be worst when we get multiple stores. Let’s face it, the only objective for any store is profit, not user satisfaction. At least for Apple, the fear of causing users to abandon iOS en-mass is to ensure that they keep up the maintenance of the App Store, among other aspect of the eco-system.

 

[Maximara]

A race to the bottom is not innovation. The only outcome that I can see with multiple iOS store is more garbage apps with sleazy IAP tactics. If you think it’s bad now, then it’ll be worst when we get multiple stores. Let’s face it, the only objective for any store is profit, not user satisfaction. At least for Apple, the fear of causing users to abandon iOS en-mass is to ensure that they keep up the maintenance of the App Store, among other aspect of the eco-system.

It would be a repeat of the disaster that led to the console crash of 1982 where game quality had effectivelly hit rock bottom...and then ET for the 2600 came out. Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it. Heck, with the amount of loot boxes, skinner boxes, and bugginess I'm suprised the PC gaming space is still functional and the mobile space is even worse.

 

[theotherphil]

What does what MS have to do with Nintendo? The statement was "Nintendo doesn't sell at a loss." What MS does doesn't mean jack as Nintendo is also a console and fair game as a counter argument to Epic's claims.

Because if you actually follow the conversation I was replying to instead of coming out all guns blazing, the initial statement was “Consoles are sold at a loss” followed by a reply, “consoles over time become profitable“. My reply was based on the fact that, you know, MS make consoles, and their representative gave testimony on day 3 that stated that they’ve never been profitable on hardware, initially or over time.

I’m sure Nintendo may very well have a different business model but that’s not transferable to the generic statement that was made, and to which I was replying.

Apple Says Epic Games 'Wants Us to Be Android, But We Don't Want to Be'

Consoles are sold at cost as opposed to i-devices. Apple gets double margin from lemmings.

forums.macrumors.com

Apple Says Epic Games 'Wants Us to Be Android, But We Don't Want to Be'

Only sold at a loss initially as an enticement issue against their competitors. Over time, costs come down and they make a profit on the consoles too. And, not all consoles sell at a loss. Nintendo doesn't sell at a loss. Besides, what does the price point have to do with anything? You don't pay...

forums.macrumors.com

If it’s any consolation, in my eyes it doesn’t matter if they’re sold at a profit or a loss. Their business model isn’t Apples, who should be free to set their own terms and the market decides if it will bear that cost.

 

[SuperMatt]

Because if you actually follow the conversation I was replying to instead of coming out all guns blazing, the initial statement was “Consoles are sold at a loss” followed by a reply, “consoles over time become profitable“. My reply was based on the fact that, you know, MS make consoles, and their representative gave testimony on day 3 that stated it wasn’t the case.

I’m sure Nintendo may very well have a different business model but that’s not transferable to the generic statement that was made, and to which I was replying.

Apple Says Epic Games 'Wants Us to Be Android, But We Don't Want to Be'

Consoles are sold at cost as opposed to i-devices. Apple gets double margin from lemmings.

forums.macrumors.com

Apple Says Epic Games 'Wants Us to Be Android, But We Don't Want to Be'

Only sold at a loss initially as an enticement issue against their competitors. Over time, costs come down and they make a profit on the consoles too. And, not all consoles sell at a loss. Nintendo doesn't sell at a loss. Besides, what does the price point have to do with anything? You don't pay...

forums.macrumors.com

If it’s any consolation, in my eyes it doesn’t matter if they’re sold at a profit or a loss. Their business model isn’t Apples, who should be free to set their own terms and the market decides if it will bear that cost.

I agree it doesn’t matter. Just because Microsoft can’t figure out how to make hardware at an efficient price in order to get a positive margin from it has NO bearing on whether they require a mandatory 30% of game makers. Nintendo makes a profit on their hardware and charges a licensing fee too, so the argument is bunk.

 

[cmaier]

I agree it doesn’t matter. Just because Microsoft can’t figure out how to make hardware at an efficient price in order to get a positive margin from it has NO bearing on whether they require a mandatory 30% of game makers. Nintendo makes a profit on their hardware and charges a licensing fee too, so the argument is bunk.

There’s also serious reason to doubt Microsoft’s story. They were told repeatedly that they needed to produce documents proving it, and they didn’t.

 

[SuperMatt]

There’s also serious reason to doubt Microsoft’s story. They were told repeatedly that they needed to produce documents proving it, and they didn’t.

Makes you wonder about the real reason agreed to testify. Seems like they want their Xbox cloud service on iOS free of fees as well. FAR from an uninterested party.

To be honest, I don’t doubt they lose money on the Xbox. The other console manufacturers created custom systems built just for games, and figured out ways to really cut costs while providing a good experience. Microsoft basically built a windows box with all its inefficiencies and spent on higher-specced chips to make up the difference.

 

[cmaier]

Makes you wonder about the real reason agreed to testify. Seems like they want their Xbox cloud service on iOS free of fees as well. FAR from an uninterested party.

To be honest, I don’t doubt they lose money on the Xbox. The other console manufacturers created custom systems built just for games, and figured out ways to really cut costs while providing a good experience. Microsoft basically built a windows box with all its inefficiencies and spent on higher-specced chips to make up the difference.

Could be. But when you go to court and admit there are documents that would prove the point, but refuse to provide them, it does raise questions.

 

[Maximara]

Could be. But when you go to court and admit there are documents that would prove the point, but refuse to provide them, it does raise questions.

I'm surprised the court allowed that nonsense.

 

[cmaier]

I'm surprised the court allowed that nonsense.

Not clear yet whether she will allow it. There is a motion on the table that she hasn’t yet ruled on.

 

[laptech]

"Epic wants us to be Android, but we don't want to be," said Apple lawyer Karen Dunn, referring to the ability to sideload apps outside of the Google Play store on Android devices. "Our consumers don't want that either," she added.

I wonder which customers Apple have been speaking too because there is a large number of Apple ios members in here who over the years have commented on the fact they would like to have the ability to side load apps onto their phone.

What Apples lawyer has neglected to point out is the fact that many ios users have said they would like the ability to sideload apps as long as Apple can can provide secure enclaves where the apps are to be hosted. The fact Apple refuses to do so is why ios users do not want to sideload apps into their iphone.

 

[cmaier]

I wonder which customers Apple have been speaking too because there is a large number of Apple ios members in here who over the years have commented on the fact they would like to have the ability to side load apps onto their phone.

What Apples lawyer has neglected to point out is the fact that many ios users have said they would like the ability to sideload apps as long as Apple can can provide secure enclaves where the apps are to be hosted. The fact Apple refuses to do so is why ios users do not want to sideload apps into their iphone.

It really doesn’t matter what ios users want. Apple is under no legal obligation to give them anything beyond what they promise.

Second issue is it is mathematically impossible to allow “Sideload apps” while maintaining the same level of security that ios currently has.

 

[Maximara]

Not clear yet whether she will allow it. There is a motion on the table that she hasn’t yet ruled on.

When I say "allowed that nonsense" I mean even having this motion on the docket - with no actual documentation to back it up it is would seem to fall under hearsay and not beallowed. IMHO the judge should have ruled right than and there that without the documents the statement was inadmissible.

 

[cmaier]

When I say "allowed that nonsense" I mean even having this motion on the docket - with no actual documentation to back it up it is would seem to fall under hearsay and not beallowed. IMHO the judge should have ruled right than and there that without the documents the statement was inadmissible.

If she has personal knowledge it isn’t hearsay. The problem here is that Apple requested the documents during the case and they were never provided. So the problem is less evidentiary and more one of fairness and violation of discovery rules.

 

[pasamio]

When I say "allowed that nonsense" I mean even having this motion on the docket - with no actual documentation to back it up it is would seem to fall under hearsay and not beallowed. IMHO the judge should have ruled right than and there that without the documents the statement was inadmissible.

The judge probably permitted the line of questioning, some of which I believe actually was done by Apple's counsel, to continue through to conclusion so that it was on the record. If Apple had issues with the testimony then it file accordingly which they have. Since this is a bench trial, the judge gets to decide if the testimony is credible enough to accept (again, it's under oath) or if the concerns Apple pointed out that they were requested to provide during discovery but failed to do so is problematic. It's not a good look for Epic and from what I've seen the judge seemed less than impressed that the compelled documentation wasn't made available.

 

[cmaier]

The judge probably permitted the line of questioning, some of which I believe actually was done by Apple's counsel, to continue through to conclusion so that it was on the record. If Apple had issues with the testimony then it file accordingly which they have. Since this is a bench trial, the judge gets to decide if the testimony is credible enough to accept (again, it's under oath) or if the concerns Apple pointed out that they were requested to provide during discovery but failed to do so is problematic. It's not a good look for Epic and from what I've seen the judge seemed less than impressed that the compelled documentation wasn't made available.

Judge also suggested that Epic is wasting her time with irrelevant testimony, and that maybe she shouldn’t have given each side so much time to make their cases.

 

[Maximara]

Judge also suggested that Epic is wasting her time with irrelevant testimony, and that maybe she shouldn’t have given each side so much time to make their cases.

So Epic is potentially ticking off the judge. Brilliant What are they doing? Trying to intentionally loose this case?