But more than happy to profit out of that business model.
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 to Let EU Users Set New Defaults for Multiple Apps, Delete App Store, Photos, Messages and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But more than happy to profit out of that business model.
Profit is the name of the game. If you believe a consumer ddiscretionary product is too expensive (becsuse of its margins) there are alternatives.
business "profit" seems to be a dirty word with some on here...
if there is no profit, there's no future development.
it's that simple. you'd think even they could grasp that. it's hardly a new concept.
how they think everything should be free and do what they want ... it's tiresome isn't it?
What the op means is because google is a search engine default and apple is taking money from google for the search engine default they are hypocritical. That of course is just another internet meme.
I believe I know the reason, though I am not seeing the relevance in the context of @31 Flavas overarching point.
The rationale is simple. Apple's App Store model has always been closed from the very beginning, not once have they changed the rules, and it's an indisputable fact that Epic violated the App Store rules first by trying to circumvent established payment systems. In the US, there is a precedent called "no duty to deal", which means that amongst other things, Apple is under no obligation to do business with entities who refuse to adhere to their rules, whatever their size. This means that under US legislation, it is not illegal to be a monopoly, and Apple could theoretically command the majority market share, and still refuse access to developers and businesses (within reason).
The EU is likely aware of this, has decided that while not illegal, is probably not in the business interests of the EU, and so passed legislation so no developer can ever be denied access to iOS. Even if it comes at the expense of violating Apple's property rights, which is easy to handwave away because it's clear here that nobody cares a hoot about Apple being denied their fair share of profits.
On the flip side, the problem with Google was not that their platform was open, but that Google claimed one thing (the openness of their android ecosystem), while working actively behind the scenes to undermine the popularity of third party app stores (such as by bribing phone OEMs to not pre-install or support them). This is why Google lost their lawsuit against Epic. They broke their own rules which they had publicly committed to. Conversely, Apple can't break a promise they never made.
The outcome of the 2 legal suits should not come as a surprise to anybody if only they stopped equating "closed" with "illegal" and "open" with "legitimate".
I can't follow your logic. Do you mean, that if a company consistently harms competition from the beginning, they should get a free pass? Shouldn't courts also take into account changing circumstances? When the app store was mostly about flashlights, games and fart apps it wasn't really that important for the economy. Today billions are transacted each day through apps. Would that change not warrant a changed approach to app distribution in your opinion?
Well, yes and no.
First off, it is not the place of the US courts to come up with new legislation; their duty is to solely interpret existing laws in order to adjudicate current lawsuits, and in this regard, there is no doubt that Epic broke the rules first.
You can find a pretty good analysis of the original outcome here. It explains why Apple wanted their case to be heard before a judge. They knew the facts were in their favour (regardless of what Macrumours sentiment would have you believe), and mind you, this took place on Apple’s home turf.
What Does It All Mean?: A Look at Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ Decision in the Epic Versus Apple Trial
Yesterday, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers decided Epic Games’ antitrust lawsuit against Apple, delivering a ruling in favor of Apple that comes with significant caveats. Although the Judge found that Apple‘s operation of the App Store isn’t an exercise of monopolistic power, she...
www.macstories.net
If you disagree with the outcome (and I know many people still can’t accept it), then the only solution is to push for the creation of new laws that can result in the desired outcome, not expect judges to overstep their boundaries, because that is also another slippery slope (you cannot have your legal system be run on arbitrary metrics such as “feel”).
Understanding the DOJ’s Antitrust Complaint Against Apple
Last week, the U.S. Department of Justice, 15 states, and the District of Columbia sued Apple for alleged federal and state antitrust violations. Apple issued an immediate response, and before anyone had time to read the DOJ’s 88-page complaint, the Internet was overrun with hot takes. However...
www.macstories.net
Which is also why the DoJ is currently investigating Apple over possible antitrust violations, though I don’t really expect anything to come out of this, because I find a lot of their arguments pretty weak to begin with.
For sure. It absolutely could. That said, so far it's just been surrounding activities have been deemed anti-competitive instead of the whole practice itself. For example, Nintendo originally tied their code-lockout to exclusivity of development. That is if you wanted to sell games that ran on Nintendo hardware - the only way Nintendo would approve, would be for you to sign exclusively and only develop for Nintendo. Or agree that any port of your game (e.g. for Sega) would have to be delayed by a year or two. After review, Nintendo was fined, licensors were given restitution, and the practice banned. Epic just got to argue the case, again, for how they think Apple's use of code lockout is anti-competitive. This time around "anti-steering" rules got scoped out of legality. However, the practice of code lockout itself once again being left alone. The EU itself with the DMA could have take the opportunity to ban code lock out or maybe set some maximum on compensation (seeing as popular opinion is 30% is too much), but they didn't. More specifically, even, the requirement for 3rd party app stores, isn't universal. As the video game hardware systems (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft) are still allowed 100% complete iron fist monopoly over their respective hardware. Whether a 3rd party game developer sells the game in retail, or as a digital download, no game of theres gets approved or gets to run without 30% of the games revenue going to Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft respectively.
Again, why would that be?
First, it wasn't the judge, in Google's case, that decided they were guilty. It was 12 jurors who decided that. Google, itself, requested that Epics lawsuit against it be heard by and decided by a jury trial. Neither the judge nor Epic objected. Where as Apple, in its case, requested a bench trial instead of a jury trial. Again, neither Epic or the judge objected. So Apple's case was reviewed by the trial judge itself, were as, Googles case was reviewed by a jury. Defendants are given this choice (which the other party can object to) because bench trials are usually much quicker, less costly. (Apples case was decided much quicker then Googles was) But, also if you're delving in to heavy legalese or neuonced details maybe thats better suited in front of a judge vs a jury. Perhaps Google though it would have a better chance of convincing a jury of their innocence vs with a judge. But it was a choice they made and Epic didn't object.
But, the case against Google is pretty clear cut. Android developers have a choice to publish though Google Play, through 3rd party app stores, or to publish on their own (sideload, direct app sales). But, google has dimished those options by selecting specific developers, ones key to maintaining Google Play dominance, and offering them incentives to stay in Google Play vs use competing options. Also, Google throws road blocks infront of direct app sales. The details are of course more neuonced, but in short, Google had competition because they allowed for 3rd party app stores and sideloading, but didn't want Google Play to lose dominance to those options so when someone key decided they wanted to leave they'd make them an offer.
Where as Apple has been clear from the beginning, there are no alternatives, you work with us or you don't. The judge in Apples case reviewed the matters, as did ultimately the appellete court, and the US Supreme Court decided there wasn't any need for further review, so aside from the anti-steering rules Apple's "monopoly" was still on the legal side of things.
But, clearly the US Department of Justice think they might have a different angle that could work. So we'll see. Like I said, code lockout has been under constant, constant challenge and review.
Again, though, why uphold code lockout?
The fallout from the Atari vs Activision lawsuit where Atari was denied any remedy and Activision's actions (and effectively 3rd party development as whole) were deemed legal -- was the complete and utter annihilation of the home video game market. That's not a figure of speech. Home video games (TV based systems) experienced a 96% to 98% recession and retail stores wanted nothing to do with video games.
Now was it literally and directly, specifically, only the this Atari v Activision lawsuit that lead to the crash? No, of course not, but now anyone and their mothers uncle could sell video games if they wanted -- and they didn't have to spend money making a system. They could just exploit the Atari 2600 (or intellivision, etc).
The market was quickly flooded with dervitive low-quality content. As consumers got burned, they stopped buying games, since they weren't buying games, retail stores got burned. Although it probably happened the otherway around. Retail sales of video games were hot in the late 70's / early 80's so stores would buy up whatever video games were published. But, as gamers got burned and wise, they stopped buying meaning stores were left with unsellable stock. Atari really didn't help in the matter, either, as they printed more copies of E.T. the game (yes the Spielberg movie, E.T.) then consoles they'd created and the game itself was uninspiring, too.
It was only after Nintendo introduced their code lockout CIC chip, mandated quality games, and (for retailers) avoided the term "video", that the market recovered. Again, am I saying, literally directly, was it only Nintendo itself and only their "code lockout" chip, that is the only reason the market recovered? No. But, limits on what could be made and sold and commitment to quality were needed to restore confidence to retailers (largely) and consumers (lesser).
In general, the decision from Atari v Activision was the only outcome that could have come out of it. Unless, you'd like that "You will own nothing and like it" start back in the late 1970's instead of the 2020's. But, regardless, consumers and retail and, even Atari -- were harmed by the decision.
So, in general, code lockout is regarded as benficial and pro-consumer -- whether you like that thought or not. Likely this is why the EU itself has not prohibited the use of code lockout or mandated that Apple can't collect any compensation from 3rd party App store sales.
Does the PC market "survive" without any code lockout whatsoever -- no guardrails, no protection, no limits, no quality requirements, with 100% of everything being 100% sideload and 100% of revenue going 100% to the publisher. Yes, it does. But, completely different market too.
I appreciate the detailed explanation and history lesson. I'm still not convinced though, that a precedent from the 70/80s can teach us a lot about today's situation, and that lockout is somehow the only reason that secures a healthy business case for the market participants.
Most people could not live without a smartphone even if they wanted to, which means that sales are not going to collapse any time soon. The replacement rate for obsolete or broken hardware and higher incomes in developing nations should provide for healthy revenue for decades to come.
I still hope, that the DOJ case will be more successful than the Apple Epic trial. If not, every country still can decide what's best for them.
Oh, come on! It's the tactic of locking out apps from third party sources that is what would/could constitute anti-competitive behavior.
How bizarre. Laws concerning anti-competitive practices don't "take away" business and then "give it for free" to others.
They take away intellectual property from Apple by forcing them to give it to others for free.
I'n afraid you don't understand what IP covers. "Locking down devices to only run signed code" is not under it.
Requiring Apple to provide iOS at terms it absolutely doesn’t want to offer it at, and then in top of that saying “you can’t charge a license fee (I.e., the CTF) either” is absolutely taking away Apples’a IP and “nationalizing” (continentalizing?) it. Apple owns iOS. The rest of us just license it.
Have you read the DMA? Because it absolutely is.
Forcing Apple to open up their App Store and allow sideloading and third party app stores against Apple's wishes is almost certainly a violation of Apple's property rights, however much people attempt to justify that this is being done with the greater good in mind. The EU will never admit to this, but it does not mean that it's not happening.
This is why I want to see Apple continue to push against the DMA and force the EU to say the ugly part out loud. This way, even if Apple does ultimately capitulate, even as users in the EU celebrate being able to sideload Fortnite and Clips, they will not be able to sweep away this aspect of the DMA under the rug, or ignore what the EU had to do to make it possible.
The law just prevents Apple from locking down devices, i.e., it stops them from engaging in a certain action, like laws against murder or assault. That doesn't concern property. If this argument from ownership made any sense, then laws against software spying on users would also "violate property rights".
I don't know what you're talking about regarding the "CTF".
See above.
That is not happening. The App Store is not implicated by rules forbidding device lockdown.
Requiring Apple to not lock down *my* device...concerns *their* property?
It's not a "greater good" argument. It's a "user freedom" argument.
Because they don't operate with the same way of viewing things that you do, yes.
???
odd how members that have been around more than a decade, only a handful of comments over the years, and now suddenly every second post...
you'd almost think they were sleeper IDs that some people switch between when their regular account gets too many warnings or booted
you'd almost think they were sleeper IDs that some people switch between when their regular account gets too many warnings or booted
People can do what they want if they have passion. But it doesn't apply to all of us. To each their own. Having done sideloading for years etc. I have better things to do in my life now. It's not life or death