Apple VP Referred for Criminal Contempt After 'Outright Lies' in Epic Games Ruling

[dannys1]

I enjoy the historical overview, and it does clarify how this fee structure originated (and what it's modeled on).

But to answer your final question, today, I would say that an iPhone is a computer — a mini-supercomputer in your pocket. It has graphics and compute power in excess of many PCs around the planet. We might consider smart phones 'conveniences' or 'appliances', but they are not thin clients, they are full-fledged systems in a tiny, fragile box meant to be mobile and with you at all times.

As much as I dislike Epic Games and Tim Sweeney, and I don't like the idea of an 'open' AppStore, or Apple being unable to control their own platform, I do think that I (and you) should be able to put any software I want on my phone. Just as I can do on my laptop or desktop or tablet (Android e-ink enote tablet!). My iPad is limited in the same way as the phone to 'apps' often forced to be dumbed-down, and worse, censored for 'adult' or non-child content.

Like seriously...I don't need 'Big Bro' Apple looking over my shoulder and warning (nagging) me about content or safety or well, anything. The fact that every single page in the Reddit app pops up a warning of 'unsafe' or 'explicit' content—even when there is none(!) is amazingly horrible as a user experience. Enough so that I avoid the app.

The only galling part of this judgement is that Epic Games is a 'winner' here. Otherwise, I do (now that I have thought about it more) agree with the ruling. Apple should not control our choices, or our ability to discover that there ARE choices. Of course, most of us are capable of finding more information about anything. But the action demanding the least friction will generally be the one people 'choose.'
[edit: fixed "AppStore"]

Good post, I do agree with basically all of it.

Most of the time here i'm just arguing the contrarian view of both sides and how Apple would see it.

If I was totally honest - I do like the idea of easily sideloading apps, though we know through Android that 100% leads to piracy - I bet the app devs complaining about the 15% cut wouldn't be as happen when their sales drop by a ton as everyone just downloaded it for free from a pirate website like you can on macOS

Multiple app-stores would be fine be me just as long as all of the apps are also in the App store so I don't have to manage multiple stores and updates. Though as you say that does leave us under Apple's whim for what content it deems unacceptable.

 

[Kal Madda]

I'm not saying it's "good" per se- although i really really don't want to see multiple app stores on my phone, UNLESS - ALL apps have to be in the official store too, i'm not up for installing and managing multiple app stores just to keep apps up to date.

However it is the defacto standard - and it was started by Value with Steam.


Also you're wrong about all the games consoles. There is no physical drive on the SteamDeck - but regardless, to release a game officially on any of the systems either by download or as a disc requires paying the 30% licensing fee. You can add 3rd party titles on SteamDeck as a non-steam game, but it's still messy compared to it all being managed and updated within the Steam store and with their features like shared 3d party libraries, shader cache sharing and exclusive patches.

You can loads 3rd party books to Kindle but not apps. There is no 3rd party book story on there you can only officially use the Kindle store. That's like Apple only letting you use Apple Music on your iPhone/iPad but saying it's fine because you can load your own Mp3s (which you can, so the iOS devices let you do the same as Kindle)

Anyway it's 15% cut for Apple for almost everyone small now - the other stores have followed suit, it's 30% on all the other digital stores mentioned. I doubt anything happening on mobile platforms would change how Steam runs - they already have Epic charging 12% instead of PC and Steam is still dominate at 30%

Personally I think 15% is fair for all digital stores. Not less - and I don't think it's fair to be able to make money from an app being in the app store and Apple make nothing from it - the same way it wouldn't be fair for someone to make money having something on sale in Target and Target make nothing.

Exactly. What regulators are trying to do in cases like this is essentially tell tech companies they have to host others apps for free in their stores, even if they don’t make a dime off of the sales of the app. This is ridiculous. It’s just like the Target example you cite, I made a similar example with Walmart. What regulators like this are trying to force on companies like Apple, is essentially a system where Target stocks the product in their stores, adds value to the product with their marketing and greater visibility to customers shopping in Target, using valuable store space to stock the product, but then product sellers can pull customers aside at checkout and have the customer pay them directly, meanwhile cheating Target out of it’s share of the profits. That’s just ridiculous…

 

[Chungry]

Nope, entitled little leaches like Tim Sweeney who think the rest of the world owe them are to blame for this clown show…

So you see nothing wrong with Apple's stewardship of the App Store? Really? Amazing....

 

[Kal Madda]

So you see nothing wrong with Apple's stewardship of the App Store? Really? Amazing....

Even if I did, it’s irrelevant to whether or not Apple has the right to manage their store and their platform and charge developers percentage commissions for their hosting service and marketing platform that brings developers apps greater visibility to a larger number of customers, providing value to the product. This would be like saying Target should be required to allow product manufacturers to pull customers aside at checkout and pay them directly, after Target has put in all of the work in marketing/hosting, and has provided their valuable store shelf-space to the product. It cheats them out of their commission. The same is true with this and the App Store. Apple puts in the effort to host/market developers apps on the App Store, they provide greater access to their clientele. That’s a valuable service, and developers shouldn’t be able to benefit from that service and then cheat Apple at checkout. That isn’t fair business… And this whole thing would constitute major government overreach…

And I think there are some areas Apple could improve with the kinds of apps they allow in the App Store and some of their policies. But that is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand…

 

[rjp1]

My counter argument is that multiple app stores are horrible to manage. I know through game management on the PC, with just three Steam, Epic and Xbox Game Pass it's not a nice experience at all.

But I don't mind people have choice so long as ALL apps are also in the official app store as well, even if that means they're cheaper elsewhere, i'll pay more to have them all in one place managed by Apple.

As an occasional gamer - I agree. I honestly just don't even consider any other store, but Steam at this point. I know sometimes games may be chaper on other ones, but I like having everything in one place.

 

[turbineseaplane]

As an occasional gamer - I agree. I honestly just don't even consider any other store, but Steam at this point. I know sometimes games may be chaper on other ones, but I like having everything in one place.

Just as a counterpoint, I don’t care at all about the multiple store thing and I go seek out the lowest price

 

[rjp1]

Just as a counterpoint, I don’t care at all about the multiple store thing and I go seek out the lowest price

Fair enough - I'm all about choice.

 

[d686546s]

My counter argument is that multiple app stores are horrible to manage. I know through game management on the PC, with just three Steam, Epic and Xbox Game Pass it's not a nice experience at all.

But I don't mind people have choice so long as ALL apps are also in the official app store as well, even if that means they're cheaper elsewhere, i'll pay more to have them all in one place managed by Apple.

As an occasional gamer - I agree. I honestly just don't even consider any other store, but Steam at this point. I know sometimes games may be chaper on other ones, but I like having everything in one place.

As a consumer you're always free to just not buy a game if it's not available on the store of your choice. In this space competition actually works and various publishers have come back to Steam because that's where the customers are.

But I still don't see a reason why anyone should be forced to release their game on Steam or, in this case, on the App Store.

 

[macfacts]

Exactly. What regulators are trying to do in cases like this is essentially tell tech companies they have to host others apps for free in their stores, even if they don’t make a dime off of the sales of the app. This is ridiculous. It’s just like the Target example you cite, I made a similar example with Walmart. What regulators like this are trying to force on companies like Apple, is essentially a system where Target stocks the product in their stores, adds value to the product with their marketing and greater visibility to customers shopping in Target, using valuable store space to stock the product, but then product sellers can pull customers aside at checkout and have the customer pay them directly, meanwhile cheating Target out of it’s share of the profits. That’s just ridiculous…

iOS alternative app stores are not using Apple's payment processing, nor online hosting, nor Apple's online marketing, so why should apple get any cut ? Apple is not being cheated.

 

[dannys1]

iOS alternative app stores are not using Apple's payment processing, nor online hosting, nor Apple's online marketing, so why should apple get any cut ? Apple is not being cheated.

He's not talking about the alternative stores though.

 

[rjp1]

As a consumer you're always free to just not buy a game if it's not available on the store of your choice. In this space competition actually works and various publishers have come back to Steam because that's where the customers are.

But I still don't see a reason why anyone should be forced to release their game on Steam or, in this case, on the App Store.

Completely agree. I just ignore games that don't come to Steam. The same way I'd ignore apps not on the App Store. I don't care if others use these other stores though.

 

[Kal Madda]

iOS alternative app stores are not using Apple's payment processing, nor online hosting, nor Apple's online marketing, so why should apple get any cut ? Apple is not being cheated.

That’s not what the US judge is talking about, she’s basically allowing apps to use the App Store and then skirt paying Apple’s commission…

 

[BaldiMac]

iOS alternative app stores are not using Apple's payment processing, nor online hosting, nor Apple's online marketing, so why should apple get any cut ? Apple is not being cheated.

Same reason Microsoft gets a cut when an Xbox game is sold by Target or Walmart. They license their platform, tools, and services for a commission.

 

[yabeweb]

I actually do oppose similar kinds of things that have been lobbed against Microsoft and Google. I’m opposed in general to this so-called “anti-trust” legislation against our tech companies by regulators who clearly don’t understand that business’s have rights to manage their properties as they see fit, and who are clearly ignorant about how the tech they’re regulating works. That includes such regulators in the EU and the US. It’s overreach for the government to tell a business they can’t charge rent for leasing space in their store… So I’m opposed to this kind of stuff on principle no matter which tech company is being targeted…

Kudos to you, but you are the minority.

 

[Ethosik]

No it isn’t, you can totally heat with wood, propane, etc… it’s not ‘required’ but like electricity, at some point we stop accepting that people should be expected to not have smartphones.

Edit; even if I were to grant that electricity is essential, it is still true that there was a time it wasn’t, and as time passed it came to be an expected part of modern life, smartphones are so ubiquitous that they too are becoming an expected part of modern life.

This isn’t relevant to the conversation. Bringing up electricity as a “gotcha” regarding the REQUIREMENTS of cell phones to survive is just ridiculous.

Taking this all the way to conclusions. Banks aren’t required. Jobs aren’t required. Vehicles aren’t required. Nothing is required. Just live in a cave back in the old hunter gather days.

Not relevant to the discussion that Apple is required to be used to live. Therefore needs to be treated as such.

Which leaves to the counter argument that iPhones are required for banking and payments. No, live in a cave and it’s not required.

See why electricity doesn’t add any value to the discussion?

 

[bcortens]

This isn’t relevant to the conversation. Bringing up electricity as a “gotcha” regarding the REQUIREMENTS of cell phones to survive is just ridiculous.

Taking this all the way to conclusions. Banks aren’t required. Jobs aren’t required. Vehicles aren’t required. Nothing is required. Just live in a cave back in the old hunter gather days.

Not relevant to the discussion that Apple is required to be used to live. Therefore needs to be treated as such.

That is exactly my point! None of these things are required but they are expected in a modern society.

We regulated banks, we regulate jobs, we regulate vehicles, we regulate electricity, and now, we regulate smartphones. Because just as with all the previous examples (electricity, vehicles, etc...) there was a time in the past where they weren't important enough or widely used enough to regulate. As time marches on and they become important and expected features of everyday life they become important enough to regulate.

 

[I7guy]

What’s essential?

Good air, edible food, potable water and shelter plus the things that providen a decent life for society in the 21st century. A Samsung tv is not essential, a galaxy phone, sub-zero refrigerator are not essential.

 

[I7guy]

That is exactly my point! None of these things are required but they are expected in a modern society.

We regulated banks,

Banks are regulated to ensure depositors funds safety. Imagine losing your life savings to a bank who played fast and lose with your money.

we regulate jobs,

Jobs aren’t regulated. Employment and hiring practices, minimum wage, workplace conduct and safety are regulated. But the type of job one does is not regulated.

we regulate vehicles,

Vehicles are regulated due to safety and pollution on the road and to safety to others. Seat belt laws are an example of that. Distracted driving laws another example.

we regulate electricity,

Electricity is regulated to ensure safety to the occupants and protect the grid and to ensure standards of interface for safety.

and now, we regulate smartphones.

Smartphones are regulated for safety to the consumer ie SAR. The functions of the smartphones are not regulated and have no bearing on safety to the consumer.

Because just as with all the previous examples (electricity, vehicles, etc...) there was a time in the past where they weren't important enough or widely used enough to regulate. As time marches on and they become important and expected features of everyday life they become important enough to regulate.

I think this isn’t circular argument. Smartphones are critical and should be regulated. Regulations should apply to smartphones because they are important.

 

[bcortens]

Banks are regulated to ensure depositors funds safety. Imagine losing your life savings to a bank who played fast and lose with your money.

Jobs aren’t regulated. Employment and hiring practices, minimum wage, workplace conduct and safety are regulated. But the type of job one does is not regulated.

Jobs was a shorthand for safety, hiring practices etc...

Vehicles are regulated due to safety and pollution on the road and to safety to others. Seat belt laws are an example of that. Distracted driving laws another example.

Electricity is regulated to ensure safety to the occupants and protect the grid and to ensure standards of interface for safety.

Smartphones are regulated for safety to the consumer ie SAR. The functions of the smartphones are not regulated and have no bearing on safety to the consumer.

I think this isn’t circular argument. Smartphones are critical and should be regulated. Regulations should apply to smartphones because they are important.

Smartphone regulations w.r.t. to fair market access and fair interoperability have come in the EU and could come in other countries, the US is I believe still conducting an anti-competitive investigations w.r.t. the Apple Watch. These regulations, around market competition, apply to smartphones because they are important. If smartphones weren't important they wouldn't have been found to be subject to such regulatory interest.

Critical things should be regulated -> smartphones are critical -> smartphones should be regulated.
That's not a circle.

 

[bcortens]

Good air, edible food, potable water and shelter plus the things that providen a decent life for society in the 21st century. A Samsung tv is not essential, a galaxy phone, sub-zero refrigerator are not essential.

A smartphone is more essential than a TV in the 21st century. Every year more and more of life goes online, I don't personally think this is a good thing, but given that we are becoming an ever more online species Smartphones are going to be more and more essential going forward.

The line where it becomes expected to live a decent life is fuzzy but at some point I expect we will all agree that having a smartphone is essential.

Maybe it isn't today, maybe it's not even smartphone that crosses that line, but some kind of personal internet connected device is going to be deemed essential at some point.

 

[I7guy]

Jobs was a shorthand for safety, hiring practices etc...

Smartphone regulations w.r.t. to fair market access and fair interoperability have come in the EU and could come in other countries, the US is I believe still conducting an anti-competitive investigations w.r.t. the Apple Watch. These regulations, around market competition, apply to smartphones because they are important. If smartphones weren't important they wouldn't have been found to be subject to such regulatory interest.

Critical things should be regulated -> smartphones are critical -> smartphones should be regulated.
That's not a circle.

Smartphones are not critical. Many people survive just fine without one. This entire argument about the criticality of various consumer products is a red herring. If you feel a certain way about Apples IOS app store, an opinion can be formulated to back into that argument. But it doesn't make it a fact.

 

[bcortens]

Smartphones are not critical. Many people survive just fine without one. This entire argument about the criticality of various consumer products is a red herring. If you feel a certain way about Apples IOS app store, an opinion can be formulated to back into that argument. But it doesn't make it a fact.

Sure some people don't own a smartphone, that number shrinks every year. 91% of US adults own one today. Over half of all adults start and end their day by interacting with their smartphone.

I feel that any business that comes to dominate society should be left alone so long as no one complains, developers are complaining that Apple is acting in unfair ways. Therefore Apple gets investigated, Apple has been found to been behaving in unfair ways, thus Apple gets told these regulations apply to them.

Your opinion that smartphones aren't critical isn't fact either. You want smartphones to be unimportant luxury items because it means Apple and Google can keep doing whatever they want. But that isn't the world we live in anymore.

 

[I7guy]

Sure some people don't own a smartphone, that number shrinks every year. 91% of US adults own one today. Over half of all adults start and end their day by interacting with their smartphone.

I feel that any business that comes to dominate society should be left alone so long as no one complains, developers are complaining that Apple is acting in unfair ways. Therefore Apple gets investigated, Apple has been found to been behaving in unfair ways, thus Apple gets told these regulations apply to them.

Your opinion that smartphones aren't critical isn't fact either. You want smartphones to be unimportant luxury items because it means Apple and Google can keep doing whatever they want. But that isn't the world we live in anymore.

These are all opinions that are debatable until the cows come home. App stores have been around for a long time. My old flip phone could load apps from the Verizon App Store. Did that make them a smartphone?

You want smartphones to be critical because it bolsters your argument they should be regulated. Yes the health and safety aspect definitely should be. The fact is Apple lost this one point and is appealing. And as the saying goes: “it ain’t over until it’s over”.

 

[bcortens]

These are all opinions that are debatable until the cows come home. App stores have been around for a long time. My old flip phone could load apps from the Verizon App Store. Did that make them a smartphone?

You want smartphones to be critical because it bolsters your argument they should be regulated. Yes the health and safety aspect definitely should be. The fact is Apple lost this one point and is appealing. And as the saying goes: “it ain’t over until it’s over”.

The data supports the ever growing importance of smartphones. How much business has to be conducted with a smartphone before you admit that they are an essential part of modern society? Do you have a number? Or could it reach 100% and the government still has no interest in regulating it?

 

[I7guy]

The data supports the ever growing importance of smartphones. How much business has to be conducted with a smartphone before you admit that they are an essential part of modern society? Do you have a number? Or could it reach 100% and the government still has no interest in regulating it?

What’s important and what’s necessary is the cellular infrastructure. A smartphone is a form factor not a new device. An arm laptop with a cellular chip can perform the same business functions. Without cellular connective the world economy dies. Without Apple google makes it it big.