Apple Seeks Early Motion to Reject Epic's Claim It's Being Denied iOS Access

[Apple Crusader]

It's funny because lots of the fanboys in a certain fruit forum will claim it's Apples platform and they can do what they want, while at the same time:

1. Complaining about Google tracking you (it's their platform fanboys, they can do what they want).
2. Complaining about Facebook tracking you(it's their platform fanboys, they can do what they want).
3. Believing that MS was at fault in the 90's antitrust lawsuits for including IE in Windows and making it uninstallable (it's their platform fanboys, they can do what they want).

Additionally, It's not biting the hand that feeds. Apple doesn't provide the ingenuity and app ideas that developers create, the app developers are the ONLY reason Apple's "app store" is successful.

Apple does nothing other than exhort developers at a 30% rate, since they don't allow any other "app stores" to be on the iPhone, which should be the basis of a major antitrust lawsuit. Developers can't even discuss the unfair policies that Apple has without fear of retribution against their apps.

TLDR: Apple virtue signals that it cares about people and developers while actively fighting against a user's right to repair, prevent developers from hosting an iPhone app somewhere else (e.g. no external app stores allowed), and using Chinese slave labor to manufacture their phones and devices.

 

[Apple Crusader]

Well, this is not true. The idea of an App Store and the basics of one from a programming standpoint are pretty straightforward but the reality of creating one is not easy.

The App Store is not essential but it’s not easy to duplicate. Apple spent years and billions of dollars turning it into what it is.

Source? I highly doubt Apple spent billions of dollars creating an app store and turning it into what it is. It is the third-party developers that turned the app store into what it is, without third party developers, the iPhone would be more useless than a $1200 flip phone.

 

[sideloader]

It's funny because lots of the fanboys in a certain fruit forum will claim it's Apples platform and they can do what they want, while at the same time:

1. Complaining about Google tracking you (it's their platform fanboys, they can do what they want).
2. Complaining about Facebook tracking you(it's their platform fanboys, they can do what they want).
3. Believing that MS was at fault in the 90's antitrust lawsuits for including IE in Windows and making it uninstallable (it's their platform fanboys, they can do what they want).

Additionally, It's not biting the hand that feeds. Apple doesn't provide the ingenuity and app ideas that developers create, the app developers are the ONLY reason Apple's "app store" is successful.

Apple does nothing other than exhort developers at a 30% rate, since they don't allow any other "app stores" to be on the iPhone, which should be the basis of a major antitrust lawsuit. Developers can't even discuss the unfair policies that Apple has without fear of retribution against their apps.

TLDR: Apple virtue signals that it cares about people and developers while actively fighting against a user's right to repair, prevent developers from hosting an iPhone app somewhere else (e.g. no external app stores allowed), and using Chinese slave labor to manufacture their phones and devices.

It’s just a stockholm syndrome in digital era.

 

[jbellanca]

Apple doesn't deserve 30%.

Whether Apple deserves 30% or not is irrelevant. It's their store, and they could charge 90% if they wanted for access. They'd have to deal with the market repercussions of doing so, but it's within their right to charge whatever they want, regardless of whether anyone outside of Apple thinks it's too high or too low. Anyone who doesn't like it, can develop for another platform. Enough people do that, and they'll either adjust their percent to pull devs back in, or stop selling devices because there won't be any apps. But it's not the governments place to tell a private company how much to charge for their services, except in very specific monopolies, which this isn't. (And before someone says they have a monopoly on iOS, that's like saying Whirlpool has a monopoly on Whirlpool refrigerators and their parts. You don't like it, by a different brand.)

 

[Apple Crusader]

And lets not forget...

What is Epic? Its a Game developer. A software company. Their very existence relies on other companies pouring millions into the development, manufacturing, and distribution of POPULAR hardware platforms.

Epic comes along.. sees that platform as an attractive one to write software for, then basically rides on the coattails of the successful hardware company for providing them the outlet to develop for and make money on.

The app store is part and parcel of that Hardware.

If iOS devices didn't exist, then Epic wouldn't be developing, distributing, and making millions from them. Dont like the terms of that platform? dont develop for it - simple. The fact they do, and did so knowing full well the terms and conditions of doing so leave me in no sympathy for them.

You're completely wrong.

If iOS devices didn't exist, then Epic would be developing and distributing for whatever dominant platform exists.

You act as if Apple is G-d, worthy of worship from creating an API and then charging developers $99 a year to have access to it, plus another 30% commission. Guess what, the world doesn't work off of "Don't like the terms of the platform, don't develop for it."

We have something in the United States called anti-trust laws. They exist for a reason. Would you support Apple if the Terms and Conditions stated that people of a certain race can't develop for their platform? What about religious belief? What if Apple put a clause there stating you can't pursue any other business ventures except through them and that they will monitor your house and car for any violations?

Apple is not innovative, they are riding the Steve Jobs coat tails from the iPod and iPhone revolution and have done NOTHING special in any generation of iPhone past the 6 or 7.


I can turn the tables on your argument: Apple's very existence relies on other companies pouring billions of dollars into the development, manufacturing, and distribution of electronics components and cellular patents. Without Tesla's lifelong efforts in the experimentation of electricity, Apple would be nothing. Therefore Tesla's decedent's should get a 30% cut of Apple's revenue to be able to he theories of electricity.

 

[123]

I don’t understand how this is any different than a physical retailer. You want a product on the shelves, the retailer needs to profit from selling your item. If you try to circumvent the retailer from making money in their own store by selling it out of your own truck...

Again, look at how subscription-based games are sold in physical stores. There's the basic game, of which the retailer makes a decent cut. And then there's the subscription, which goes directly to the service provider / producer / developer.

Apple just has to come up with a better model.

 

[mzeb]

Apple's got it legally right here. They are not essential. There are plenty of other viable software platforms. I'd also argue Epic is barking up the wrong legal tree.
The issue is not with iOS it's with the business practice of only allowing one marketplace on top of iOS. They would have to chase after Apple for showing preferential treatment in a closed market. I'm not sure they'd win that either.
That said, putting on my capitalist hat, Apple should allow competing markets (app stores) to keep fair prices for developers. Don't like the 30% apple cut? Go to another cheaper market. But that would force apple to provide what developers see as enough value in the App Store and right now they don't so this is unlikely.

 

[IG88]

Essentially, Apple is saying to developers if you don’t follow the rules off with your head! And I agree. It’s their platform, their tools, their store and their rules. Maybe Epic should invest in making their own platform.

LOL. I'm sure you and the others defending Apple would feel the same way if Microsoft started blocking Firefox installs just bc they feel like it.

 

[Apple Crusader]

Whether Apple deserves 30% or not is irrelevant. It's their store, and they could charge 90% if they wanted for access. They'd have to deal with the market repercussions of doing so, but it's within their right to charge whatever they want, regardless of whether anyone outside of Apple thinks it's too high or too low. Anyone who doesn't like it, can develop for another platform. Enough people do that, and they'll either adjust their percent to pull devs back in, or stop selling devices because there won't be any apps. But it's not the governments place to tell a private company how much to charge for their services, except in very specific monopolies, which this isn't. (And before someone says they have a monopoly on iOS, that's like saying Whirlpool has a monopoly on Whirlpool refrigerators and their parts. You don't like it, by a different brand.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Predatory_pricing

 

[I7guy]

You're completely wrong.

If iOS devices didn't exist, then Epic would be developing and distributing for whatever dominant platform exists.

You act as if Apple is G-d, worthy of worship from creating an API and then charging developers $99 a year to have access to it, plus another 30% commission. Guess what, the world doesn't work off of "Don't like the terms of the platform, don't develop for it."

That's exactly the way it works.

We have something in the United States called anti-trust laws.

Apple has not violated any with regard to the app store. Can you prove they have?

They exist for a reason.

Correct, but wishing in one's mind that Apple will be found for anti-trust in this trial is well. wishful thinking.

Would you support Apple if the Terms and Conditions stated that people of a certain race can't develop for their platform?

This is really an off-the-wall analogy that has no bearing in the real world.

What about religious belief? What if Apple put a clause there stating you can't pursue any other business ventures except through them and that they will monitor your house and car for any violations?

Same.

Apple is not innovative,

In your own humble opinion, only.

they are riding the Steve Jobs,

Apple is riding the Steve Jobs coat tails. In your haste to criticize the current management, I believe you wanted to say Tim Cook is riding Steve Jobs coattails.

coat tails from the iPod and iPhone revolution and have done NOTHING special in any generation of iPhone past the 6 or 7.

Again, in your opinion.

I can turn the tables on your argument: Apple's very existence relies on other companies pouring billions of dollars into the development, manufacturing, and distribution of electronics components and cellular patents. Without Tesla's lifelong efforts in the experimentation of electricity, Apple would be nothing. Therefore Tesla's decedent's should get a 30% cut of Apple's revenue to be able to he theories of electricity.

Unless Tesla invented electricity, the above is just silly.

View attachment 1777154
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Predatory_pricing

In the meantime, Apple hasn't been accused, or convicted of being a monopoly in the app store or violating any anti-trust laws. That they have is in the imagination of those who wish that would happen.

 

[Apple Crusader]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...lleged-app-store-monopoly-idUSKBN28K310That's exactly the way it works.

Apple has not violated any with regard to the app store. Can you prove they have?

Correct, but wishing in one's mind that Apple will be found for anti-trust in this trial is well. wishful thinking.

This is really an off-the-wall analogy that has no bearing in the real world.

Same.

In your own humble opinion, only.

Apple is riding the Steve Jobs coat tails. In your haste to criticize the current management, I believe you wanted to say Tim Cook is riding Steve Jobs coattails.

Again, in your opinion.

Unless Tesla invented electricity, the above is just silly.

In the meantime, Apple hasn't been accused, or convicted of being a monopoly in the app store or violating any anti-trust laws. That they have is in the imagination of those who wish that would happen.

Have you read the lawsuit claim or do you just live to blindly defend Apple?

Apple is sued by rival over alleged App Store monopoly

Apple Inc was sued on Thursday by the creator of a once-popular app store that accused the iPhone maker of illegally monopolizing software distribution on its own operating system.

www.reuters.com

It's literally the basis of Epic's lawsuit: They are accusing apple of being a monopoly.

Also, whether or not it's an off the wall analogy, you did not disprove my argument. If it's Apple's platform they can refuse to allow straight developers to use their platform right? Your own words with a different example.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

Im surprised at some of the anti-apple sentiment in here - especially for an Apple centric forum.

Why? Apple's approach to prevent installing of apps outside of the app store is unheard of in the industry. Literally every other general purpose computer can install apps from any source. Microsoft and Linux have shown that you can do this securely, there's no reason for Apple to disallow it except for profits.

 

[lazyrighteye]

i agree

Im surprised at some of the anti-apple sentiment in here - especially for an Apple centric forum.

Im not defending apple as such... they are rich enough and make plenty of money to not need my defence...

However they created the iOS devices, they created the App store, and they set the terms for people to come in and use it to sell their software. Expensive? cheap? ive no idea but the developers go into it with eyes wide open and accepting the terms and conditions. In return they get the biggest global platform with the potential to earn millions in revenue - im pretty sure that Apple can and must charge what they like for the privilege.

Epic's behaviour has been childish - that anti apple ad was not just cobbled together and released the moment they ran into trouble.. no.. they preemptively picked this fight with apple... and apple made several attempts to appease the situation with the option of removing the developer account as the last resort and Epic dug their heels in and refused.

If I was Epic, and I really wanted this fight... then I would have at least acquiesced for the time being and left Fortnite on the app store without the rule-breaking code in it - and then picked the fight. They didn't do this and they are paying the price. Im pretty sure that Fortnite fans are getting their fix elsewhere on other platforms and Epic aren't really feeling much of a pinch here.

Agree. I have mentioned this in other forums on the topic: of all of the avenues Epic could have traversed to go after Apple, they chose one of the dumbest routes. I think their case is completely amateur and warrants tossing. What an epic waste of time and money.

 

[I7guy]

Have you read the lawsuit claim or do you just live to blindly defend Apple?

Apple is sued by rival over alleged App Store monopoly

Apple Inc was sued on Thursday by the creator of a once-popular app store that accused the iPhone maker of illegally monopolizing software distribution on its own operating system.

www.reuters.com

It's literally the basis of Epic's lawsuit: They are accusing apple of being a monopoly.

Also, whether or not it's an off the wall analogy, you did not disprove my argument. If it's Apple's platform they can refuse to allow straight developers to use their platform right? Your own words with a different example.

Turning the tables...do you just blindly criticize Apple?

Being sued is not the same as being found guilty of anti-trust regulations by the government or regulators. Anyone with $250 and enough money to cover the legal fees can sue anyone else.

Winning is another matter entirely.

 

[quarkysg]

• iMessage
• Apple Watch
• Developer needing to test with iOS
• Needing to use any app that doesn't exist on android

I see none of those as needs. Those are wants. The last one is especially sneaky on your part. If it's not available in Android it is not a necessity. It is a luxury.

If anyone wants to use iOS devices or develop apps for the devices, they have to accept the rules laid down by Apple for the eco-system.

 

[Apple Crusader]

Agree. I have mentioned this in other forums on the topic: of all of the avenues Epic could have traversed to go after Apple, they chose one of the dumbest routes. I think their case is completely amateur and warrants tossing. What an epic waste of time and money.

While I completely disagree with your argument, I love your pun.

But back on point: Apple files plenty of "fraudulent" lawsuits against companies but then wants lawsuits against them dismissed. If Apple has nothing to hide, then why are they so worried? If they win the lawsuit they can sue Epic for damages. Win win, if you actually believe Apple is the victim here, right?

 

[Apple Crusader]

I see none of those as needs. Those are wants. The last one is especially sneaky on your part. If it's not available in Android it is not a necessity. It is a luxury.

If anyone wants to use iOS devices or develop apps for the devices, they have to accept the rules laid down by Apple for the eco-system.

EDIT: This is an example, not a citation:

Apple bans developers based off race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.

Do you still stand by your argument? After all, it's their rules right?

 

[I7guy]

Apple bans developers based off race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.

Do you still stand by your argument? After all, it's their rules right?

Citation showing the above is true and not due to other app store violations.

 

[sideloader]

Winning is another matter entirely.

Let’s wish Epic to win for our smoothie-phones will turn into smartphones.

 

[quarkysg]

If Apple has nothing to hide, then why are they so worried?

Why do you think Apple is 'so worried'?

 

[quarkysg]

Apple bans developers based off race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.

Do you have proof? If so, you can raise it with your local authority.

 

[LarxJo]

To those supporting Apple.

What if:
1. I buy an iPhone, knowing Apple has some rules to reject apps for my security of because of some rules.
2. I buy many apps
3. A developer does a great app, which would make my life simpler, but Apple refuses it for arbitrary reason. The developer don't have 100 billions on his account to go against Apple, I don't either. I don't go to Android because I have an iPhone, with apps I bought. Apple behaviour tells me "no, you can't install this app, because we don't like it.". What can I do? I could buy the app from the developer directly... ha no, I CAN'T. I can't install this app only because of arbitrary rules.

And generally, many apps are currently not possible on iOS just because Apple says so.... but scams, apps with security issues, copy of apps, it is fine....

So as a customer, I'm paying the Appstore 2 times (iPhone and the App or the subscription). The developer pays as well for the AppStore. The only winner is Apple, the losers are us, customers and the developers.

 

[Apple Crusader]

Do you have proof? If so, you can raise it with your local authority.

That was an example. You have yet to disprove my argument, which means that you are not wanting an honest debate, you just want to shill for Apple.

 

[sideloader]

If Apple has nothing to hide, then why are they so worried?

They are worried for losing margins from lemmings.

I bought iPhone. I want to use own developed iOS app. I bought Mac for code and developing of my app. I want to deploy my own app on my own iPhone. But I cannot. I have to buy paid dev account for being able use my own app on my own iPhone for one year long. After one year I should repay for prolongation of using my own app on my own iPhone.

I bought iPhone. I broke it. I can fix it by myself. But I cannot buy repair parts. I have to use Apple service center and pay them.

Do you know why Apple made their AppTrackingTransparency feature? It was made by framework, not on OS level. Because Apple wants to track you and sell that data for advertisers on iOS platform. Apple want for more margins.

 

[Apple Crusader]

Why do you think Apple is 'so worried'?

Their frantic attempt to have the lawsuit dismissed is a dead giveaway.