If you have only 16 GB out of 32 available something is wrong. Out of the 32 GB, about 25 should be available to the user.
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
100% agree with you. The fact that Epic is trying to argue against the fact that they should not be barred from accessing the platform *EVEN THOUGH THEY DELIBERATELY BROKE THE TOS* in the first place, was just baffling to read.
None of this is Apples' issue.
You're blindly criticizing a company's lawful business practices. You may not like those practices but they are not illegal.
You might have a leg to stand on if the physical store didn’t invent and provide the intellectual property in the form of developer tools and APIs for the product-makers selling in their store to build their products in the first place.
So Nintendo has a monopoly on their platform, and Microsoft has a monopoly on theirs, Sony on theirs, and Google on theirs, and so on, and so on? Companies should not be allowed to make money, and must open source everything? Developers have the sole right to use all of Apple’s developer tools, APIs, and installed base, free of charge? Got it.
Google’s Android is not gaming console. It’s essential system. You can install any app without Google’s allowing.
It’s different in that Apple has 5 letters and starts with A. That’s pretty much it!
Apple, as a company, has a lot of people that don’t like that so many “sheeple” like their products and have made them one of the most valuable companies in the world. They want to see something, ANYTHING detrimental happen to Apple for the lulx, because Apple discontinued their Thunderbolt monitor, because the MacPro’s too expensive, whatever.So much so that they would be in favor of ANYTHING that would make their feelings justified, regardless of if what they think is true or what they want to happen is legal. So, when you read the analogies that don’t really apply, and the logical statements that are almost, but not quite, entirely unlike logic, just read in it’s place “I DON’T LIKE APPLE THEY ARE POOPYHEADS AND ALL THE APPEL PEOPLE ARE POOPYHEADS AND THEY’RE STUPID AND DUM AND YURE GONNA GET IT.” it’s effectively the same thing.
It has been explained quite a few times on here.
A retailer isn't something you buy like an iPhone.
It would be like a retailer saying to a customer, you spend $699 and you can only shop with us and when you buy anything from us we charge you an extra 30%.
Oh trust me, I'm happy that Netflix one upped Apple. Apple got what they deserved with that one and they lost LOTS of potential revenue, while Netflix saw reduced cancellations.
The model does need to change and I strongly believe in a tier system based on volume (preferably based on price tiers combined with active subscriptions. E.g.: Apps over $10 have a percent rate of this, plus a percent based on number of subscriptions for that app).
No matter how you cut it, Apple demanding 30% is unethical, but I guess the company that uses [near] slave labor to produce a phone doesn't have much morals to begin with.
Uh, yes, it is Apple's issue, which is why they are getting sued. Next fallacy? Or do you just want to do what my avatar is doing?
Not sure of where you're getting your information from, but getting sued is not equivalent to breaking the law. One can (attempt to )sue for any reason. All it takes is $250 and a court filing.
Yes, you said that already. And once again, Apple does have a problem and they are afraid of going to trial because they know they will lose, which is why they are trying to have the lawsuit dismissed before any evidence and case can be made.
From what I hear, Epic has found some interesting things during the discovery process, none of which are favorable to Apple.
I didn't say any of those things. I suggested a fairer pricing model for Apple's services, but didn't say "free," "not allowed to make money," "open source" or anything remotely like that. 🤷
There are things a computer can do that an iPhone can't, but there are also things many people use an iPhone for that they wouldn't use a computer for, like phone calls, photos, GPS navigation, home security/automation, etc. So in the sense that matters here, I'd say smartphones are more broadly functional than computers.
This. I would actually say that an iPhone is even more general purpose than a computer because of the vast amount of functionality built into it.
I would also say that since iPhones are a phone and thus an essential communication device, Apple blocking apps in the store AND not allowing apps to be hosted in a third-party store interferes with the user's ability to communicate.
Epic's goal is to try and break Apple's reign. It's been done before. When a company gets too large, the govt steps in and break it apart to allow for more competition which lower the cost for consumers. Look up AT&T and Pacbell.
You don’t think Apple has spent billions of dollars on iPhones and iOS over the past 16 years (assuming Apple started working on the iPhone in 2005)? Those are a major part of what makes the App Store great. Programming costs are only a part of the overall costs of making the App Store.
Other stores could be developed for the iOS ecosystem if Apple allowed it (they shouldn’t) but they could only be successful because of all the money Apple has dumped into the ecosystem of iPhones, iOS, and the App Store.
App developers add so much utility to iPhones, which users and Apple benefit from, but Apple keeps it an attractive and safe market for consumers and attractive ecosystem for developers.
MacRumors wrote: “In the court filing, Apple says that the iOS App Store can easily be replicated and duplicated”
That’s not true. Replicating the App Store is not easy. It would require developing an OS, a phone, etc. Design and programming might be easy but replicating the success of the iOS App Store? Ask Samsung how their Galaxy Store is doing relative to Google Play.
That may very well be. But it's not over until it's over. Even if the judgement is favorable to Epic, there will be an appeals process.
From what I can gather in my online snippets, Epic has an epic fail on it's hands with this lawsuit.
I guess there are two points. 1) getting an app store to market and 2) having your newly created app store be a success. I don't think Apple is guaranteeing success, but for a large (or larger) corporation and app distribution shouldn't be too difficult to develop.
Well done. Arguing after the fact that it was an example is an honest debate? I view this as throwing stuffs on the wall and see what sticks.
Let’s just stick to the facts.
As of now, Apple has not been found to have violated any laws. Just a lot of civil lawsuits from some big corporate (and I’ll add greedy) type.
Apple built the entire iOS eco-system and have every rights to dictate terms of use for their creation. Nobody has any rights to demand anything from Apple unless Apple did not deliver on what they claim their products and services do.
It looks like you’re quite agitated. Chill. Calling everyone who defends Apple a shill doesn’t make you look good.
It’s a debate. Let’s have some fun debating.