It’s censorship story of Parler, haha. Also like for gab, HKmap and more others.
I use telegram app and this app can suffer the same fate.
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 Seeks Early Motion to Reject Epic's Claim It's Being Denied iOS Access
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I use telegram app and this app can suffer the same fate.
Ahh, good counterargument. You showed me!
/s
Thank G-d the legal system works off laws, including antitrust laws, and not fanboy fanaticism.
What Apple deserves is a matter of opinion. And people can express that opinion by using or not using the services offered. If developers don't think Apple merits that % or they don't see a path to profitability with Apple's 30% cut, then they can opt out. But I don't buy into the notion that developers have an inalienable right to place their products wherever they want.
Each party can make an offer and try to persuade the other that it's in their best interest, but ultimately each party should be free to enter or not enter into an agreement.
It just feels like Epic and others are saying "But there's so many potential customers on iOS that we'd really hate not being able to sell them our products...but we're not willing to pay for access to that platform."
Agreed. And thus far Apple has not shown to be in violation of anti-trust laws, and critic fanaticism no matter how many times that is repeated on the interwebs.
I presume if Epic wins then every app store and walled garden, hello Sony, Nintendo and MS will fall too....
Not shown just like Microsoft did not violate in the 90’s with their IE.
There is a gaming consoles. Not essential devices.
And you always can buy physical medium with needed game and use it without internet.
I agree. I can’t believe Apple lawyers haven’t been making this argument.
I can’t walk into a supermarket, put my meat on the shelf, no care for safety protocols, and then put in my own cash register to collect all the money. I can’t put a package of cookies on the shelf which has a big sticker saying to buy from a competitor for a lower price.
The courts can never allow this precedent, allowing any supplier to do what they want with someone else’s store.
And to expand your example further, the store also sets up as farmers market, aka the open web, where you can sell whatever you want, free of charge. Sure, you don’t have refrigeration and lighting, but you don’t have to pay for it either.
This is such a simple case. Use the web or use their store. If you use their store, follow the rules and pay their share.
Do you think that Sony does not see a dime for any copy sold that does not go through their digital store?
Do you think that if all the PS game developers were to stop doing digital distribution and only physical, Sony would not see a dime?
What about the new digital PS5? Do you think that Sony is going to allow a non Sony store in the PS5?
I think it's also very revealing that Epic admitted that had Apple offered them an exclusive discount, they'd have happily accepted the terms, with no qualms about Apple's position as gate keeper.
Why is that? Just wondering. If you claim that is because a feature does not exist in "the other side", why not sue the other side because it does not have said feature?
I'd argue that it's more like taking customer's payment in the store's parking lot, but still having the customer pick up the product from the store, bypassing the store's ability to make money, treating them as a free warehouse.
No we don’t, by default the Apple Watch only lets you use half the storage on it for media, I can only use 16g or less out of the 32gb, a fact that apple doesn’t mention at all until you talk to their customer support and switch out multiple Apple watches thinking is a software defect. I want full control of the device, sometimes you can only do like 4-5 full albums and have to focus on playlists that you can’t add since the song limit is reached.
you can make your own ring tones using garage band but I also wish they sold us more wallpapers and the fact that you need to use iTunes on a computer to directly add music to your iCloud music makes it a bit complicated executing minute tasks that used to be fairly easy back in the day.
this is coming from the guy who grew up using Archos media players that did all, in the times of iPods 15 years ago, using Apple always feels like they hold us by the hand too much.
To flesh out the analogy, you could specify that Apple's rail line only serves half the country, and Android's rail line only serves the other half of the country. So, sure, you could boycott one rail line, but then you'd lose access to half the market. The "just use Android" argument only makes sense in a world where most people routinely use both platforms.
The ability to handle billing issues myself is one reason I've avoided using IAPs for my apps. If a user wants a refund, I don't want to tell them "you have to contact Apple," and they don't like hearing it. In contrast, handling this myself allows me to give partial refunds, discounts, free months, etc. For example, if a user is particularly helpful in troubleshooting a bug, I'll add a few free months to their subscription. That helps build relationships with customers and is good for my business. So this is an example of an App Store service that some developers don't want or don't need, but Apple still wants developers to pay for.
Last edited:
Those examples that you gave in paragraph 4 are just asking for attention. There are laws indeed and the T's&C's are all done (for all companies) with all the other laws in mind - otherwise they would be unconstitutional - and that applies to any area of the society.
Regarding the components argument, doesn't Apple pay for all the components in their phone? For those that Apple builds, don't they spend money on R&D? Why would Apple allow a third party to make money of them without getting paid? There are no such thing as free lunches.
Image that indeed Apple has to allow a third party store and that means that Apple does not get a dime. So apple keeps building phones and putting phones in peoples pockets and someone keeps using that success to make money.
One problem with this constantly-repeated analogy is that some developers don’t want to be in this store in the first place. But they basically have to be there because the store has set it up so its customers aren’t allowed to shop anywhere else. Nobody is “forcing” the developers to distribute through the App Store, but that’s how monopolies work: there is no practical alternative because the market leader prohibits it.
If a developer is capable of marketing their apps, finding customers, processing payments and offering support, it makes sense to use their own infrastructure as much as they can, and use the App Store only for the part for which Apple absolutely allows no alternative: as a download site.
This isn’t developers taking advantage of Apple by luring customers out of the App Store, it’s Apple taking advantage of developers by collecting a 15% or 30% commission for a set of services that they don’t need.
P.S. What if Apple split its developer service into three tiers:
- Gold - 15% commission - developer tools, app hosting with public listing, app review with an "approved by Apple" badge, payment processing
- Silver - 5% commission - developer tools, app hosting with public listing
- Bronze - 1% commission or flat annual fee - developer tools, app hosting with private listing
Then developers could pay only for what they need, Apple could retain exclusivity and customers could give preference to apps that use Apple's review process and payment system if that's important to them. That's the kind of evolution I'd like to see.
Last edited:
Good job intentionally ignoring the point and drawing a false conclusion for the sake of dishonestly pretending to debate:
High barriers to entry such as large upfront investment, notably named sunk costs, requirements in infrastructure and exclusive agreements with distributors, customers, and wholesalers ensure that it will be difficult for any new competitors to enter the market, and that if any do, the trust will have ample advance warning and time in which to either buy the competitor out, or engage in its own research and return to predatory pricing long enough to force the competitor out of business.
Apple exclusively requires you to have your app on the Apple App store (aka requiring the use of Apple's infrastructure), for the app to be available on one of them most used devices in the world (that has a freely available API). You know this, but you choose to blindly defend a multi-billion dollar company's anticompetitive business practices.
What if that app is available in another platform? What stops you from getting a phone that works with the app?
Netflix gets their money from you without apple - they are just not allowed to put in the app "go somewhere else to get your subscription".
You do understand that the issue here is that Apple charges for Inn-App Purchases an not that the only way to spend money in an app is via Apple? Look at Netflix. The app is free. You just have to subscribe in the Netflix's website. Then login in the App. Any other app can do the same.
I understand that if there is a monopoly, actions have to be taken from a regulator. And I 100% stand by it.
But until that is a fact that has been confirm by the court, Apple is free to do whatever they want as long as it is lawful.
"Apple exclusively requires you to have your app on the Apple App store" this is correct. But life does not require me to have an iPhone in my pocket to start with.
But to use your argument - lets use milk as the product. It is essential and there are lots of brands out there. If I have a company full of cash that can buy everyone else and sell milk at a loss to then raise the prices of milk and make then a profit and where there is not other option to get milk other than my companies' milk, the regulator would stop me. Is this what is happening with Apple? Is the iPhone an essential? If so, why aren't we fighting about the price of the iPhone to start with?
I'm not trying to defend Apple because it's Apple but what in my opinion is correct. Specially when there is a way for EPIC to not use In-App Purchases (like Netflix does).
We could argue all day about what is right or wrong but Apple needs to be paid for it offers. You cannot expect Apple to not get paid when these apps use the hardware that was paid by Apple, the system that was built by them and so on.
Is Apple charging too much? Maybe, maybe not.
Or that time when Apple decided when apps related to vapes aren't allowed any more. I think an app-controller vape is stupid, but whatever.
1.) Developer makes a useful app
2.) Customer wants to get the app
3.) Apple decides you can't have the app
4.) Developer & Customer are harmed due to reduced functionality of the product
Who is being protected? No - "make you own phone" is not a solution here. Lack of sideloading must be addressed.
Apple only charges the 30% for IAP. Look at Netflix that does not pay to Apple. The only thing is that you have to know to go to Netflix's website to purchase your subscription instead of doing it via Apple.
You can argue that the 30% is too much and it wouldn't trigger me to reply because I don't want to argue if it is too much or too little.
But without the IAP charges and allowing redirect to another website, Apple would not see much money (app free and IAP right in the app without a charge).
Maybe the model needs to change - maybe after $10K in IAP, apple gets 5%. After $1M, gets 10%. Or some other way.