Apple's Past Sideloading Plans, Ecosystem Lock-in Strategy, and More Revealed in Internal Documents

[bsolar]

Obviously the more invested you are in a platform the harder it will be to switch, but it’s intrinsic to platforms not a specific company strategy, if you move from Mac/Windows to Linux, the more free platform existing, it will cost you money; if you move from Linux to Mac or Windows, it will cost you money. If you move from iOS to Android it will cost you money, sure, but the same it’s true if you want to switch from Android to iOS.

Nobody questions there are natural switching costs between platforms, but the key part is that Epic alleges that Apple enacted a strategy to artificially increase these costs above what they could otherwise be, with the explicit goal of creating lock-in. That allegation by Epic is explained in the documents I cited In the post you replied to.

Obviously Apple strongly disagrees and refutes these allegations, but no matter one's opinion it's important to understand the narrative of both sides if one wants to understand why and what relevance the statements quoted in the MacRumors article have in the court case.

 

[coachgq]

Not allow competitors to do whatever but the antitrust law actually says companies with a monopoly position have to abide by a different set of rules than companies which don't have a monopoly position. This is done to safeguard competition and prevent monopolies from leveraging their position in one market to extend their monopolies into other markets.

I understand that’s antitrust part. But where is the incentive to be the best of the laws will just make it easier for everyone to compete? Did Usain bolt get told that he had to practice less or wear shoes that he didn’t want to when he ran because he was the best? I know one is retail and one isn’t, but if you are the best, you’ve earned it. Why keep going if it’s not really in your best interest.

 

[PlayUltimate]

Yeah. Apple has “been doomed” since Tim Cook turned over. This will probably be a record breaking year in terms of revenue.

You new here. . . . Apple was always "doomed"; it started long before TC showed up.

 

[CthuluLemon]

Cook isn't squirming at all. People aren't going to give up their Apple devices over this. Besides, he's a billionaire.

Apple isn’t squirming, but Tim Cook for sure is. It’s not just about money for guys like Cook, it’s about being a center of power. All that comes with being at the center evaporates if his position at Apple disappears. No more honorary doctorates, no more awards, no more getting calls to have dinner and schmooze with the worlds power brokers. He’ll get put out to pasture by the hangers-on. If the judge rules even partially in Epic’s favor or comes to a compromise remedy, it’s a potentially huge hit to Apple’s current revenue stream. Shareholders will demand Tim Cook or someone else’s head roll, and the board will acquiesce. He doesn’t have Zuckerberg’s preferred stock safety net.

Cook is no Steve Jobs, he has nothing on the back burner to compensate for a potential loss in App Store revenue.

 

[I7guy]

Apple isn’t squirming, but Tim Cook for sure is. It’s not just about money for guys like Cook, it’s about being a center of power. All that comes with being at the center evaporates if his position at Apple disappears. No more honorary doctorates, no more awards, no more getting calls to have dinner and schmooze with the worlds power brokers. He’ll get put out to pasture by the hangers-on. If the judge rules even partially in Epic’s favor or comes to a compromise remedy, it’s a potentially huge hit to Apple’s current revenue stream. Shareholders will demand Tim Cook or someone else’s head roll, and the board will acquiesce. He doesn’t have Zuckerberg’s preferred stock safety net.

Cook is no Steve Jobs, he has nothing on the back burner to compensate for a potential loss in App Store revenue.

Cook’s not squirming. He’ll retire when he’s ready. If the judge rules for apple, apple shareholders will reap a bounty.

 

[I7guy]

Nobody questions there are natural switching costs between platforms, but the key part is that Epic alleges that Apple enacted a strategy to artificially increase these costs above what they could otherwise be, with the explicit goal of creating lock-in. That allegation by Epic is explained in the documents I cited In the post you replied to.

Obviously Apple strongly disagrees and refutes these allegations, but no matter one's opinion it's important to understand the narrative of both sides if one wants to understand why and what relevance the statements quoted in the MacRumors article have in the court case.

We won’t know the relevance of these statements, if any, until the verdict is rendered. If one is looking for damages I would think a number has to be cited about how much apple through anti-competition has increased natural switching costs. Doesn’t epic have to prove apple did and not here say?

 

[bsolar]

We won’t know the relevance of these statements, if any, until the verdict is rendered.

Again, the point is understanding how these statements are related to the case and how the two sides are likely going to deal with them. Until the verdict is rendered we are all speculating, no matter the position we are taking. This doesn't mean we cannot have a discussion on the matter.

Of course Epic has to prove it's allegations, but my point is not that Epic will win because of these statements, it's that these statements are related to the allegations they are making for the reasons I explained already.

If one is looking for damages I would think a number has to be cited about how much apple through anti-competition has increased natural switching costs. Doesn’t epic have to prove apple did and not here say?

The document from Epic I provided to you in my previous post clearly details Epic's requests for relief. If you'd have read it you'd know they are not asking for monetary damages.

 

[I7guy]

Again, the point is understanding how these statements are related to the case and how the two sides are likely going to deal with them. Until the verdict is rendered we are all speculating, no matter the position we are taking. This doesn't mean we cannot have a discussion on the matter.

Of course Epic has to prove it's allegations, but my point is not that Epic will win because of these statements, it's that these statements are related to the allegations they are making for the reasons I explained already.



The document from Epic I provided to you in my previous post clearly details Epic's requests for relief. If you'd have read it you'd know they are not asking for monetary damages.

We agree on all points said differently:

1. Because a discussion happened doesn’t mean action was taken
2. Because Epic asked for something doesn’t mean they’ll get it
3. No one is saying we can’t have a discussion
4. Epic purposefully engineered this lawsuit under false pretenses and whether that enters into any consideration we won’t know until the judge renders the decision

 

[antiprotest]

Wow! Atleast with this legal battle we’re getting to see the dirt.

Right let's see how they like it to have their privacy violated.

 

[dgdosen]

Apple, Epic and any other public company are, at best, amoral. Judge them accordingly.

Feel free to call them out on their hypocrisy when thy try to sell you they aren't...

Also, Apple's refusal to make messages cross-platform clearly demonstrates their feelings on locking in customers.

 

[PlayUltimate]

Cook’s not squirming. He’ll retire when he’s ready. If the judge rules for apple, apple shareholders will reap a bounty.

Ditto. Remember, Rockefeller did not become truly wealthy until after his oil empire was broken up.

 

[PlayUltimate]

Apple isn’t squirming, but Tim Cook for sure is. It’s not just about money for guys like Cook, it’s about being a center of power. All that comes with being at the center evaporates if his position at Apple disappears. No more honorary doctorates, no more awards, no more getting calls to have dinner and schmooze with the worlds power brokers. He’ll get put out to pasture by the hangers-on. If the judge rules even partially in Epic’s favor or comes to a compromise remedy, it’s a potentially huge hit to Apple’s current revenue stream. Shareholders will demand Tim Cook or someone else’s head roll, and the board will acquiesce. He doesn’t have Zuckerberg’s preferred stock safety net.

Cook is no Steve Jobs, he has nothing on the back burner to compensate for a potential loss in App Store revenue.

Look at the 3yr AAPL chart. I think the shareholders are happy. And we have no idea what Apple has in the wings. Further, a break up of the App Store may allow Apple to enter into markets that they may not have pursued earlier. Opening a second App platform will have many unintended consequences. Further, since this issue has been in the press for well over 1 year, I suspect there are contingency plans.

 

[PlayUltimate]

I’m puzzled as to why Apple doesn’t purge their executive conversations after some time? Maybe they talk about the real confidential topics on Signal with destruct-on-read turned on.

Is electronic communication ever really purged? Between download on device, screenshots, and corporate backups, there are lots of places for things to live outside of the normally channels. It is hard to delete all of it.

 

[0924487]

Is electronic communication ever really purged? Between download on device, screenshots, and corporate backups, there are lots of places for things to live outside of the normally channels. It is hard to delete all of it.

You can program retention policies. If they want it, it can be done.

 

[subi257]

Would be good though. Have you not stood with a cable that did not fit into one of the many ports of a computer?

EU did force “free” roaming of mobile data so traveling in EU did not not cost a fortune to use you devices. Hence EU increased tech usage but I agree they take the end users side and not the companies side. What is wrong with that?

Because the end user loses in the end. in terms of getting new products with innovation for the company that produces the newest, perhaps the best. If Apple was hobbled back at the beginning, we a consumers, we would not have the smart phone and tech that we now have.....tablets, watches, bluetooth earbuds, etc. Apple didn't come up with it all but they forced everybody else to work harder.

 

[subi257]

You’re right, but not in a anticompetitive way, simply as that! Anyway, court around the world will take care of this and fix it up by enforcing sideloading and third party payments and also opening NFC.

Ultimately as long as it doesn't get corrupted, hacked as consumer sentiment and untrusted spreads quickly and can kill systems if it becomes untrusted...by the masses not the geeks and hacker types.

 

[subi257]

Google photos, take a photo and it’s available on any device. Use signal for messaging, available anywhere. YouTube music is now really good. Available anywhere and which ever phone, computer you decide to buy and use in the future, makes no difference to the services you use as google services work fine anywhere.

Available everywhere is not the same as iCloud infrastructure ecosystem. where it is everywhere, but completely connected to each other and fully intertwined.

 

[subi257]

Lets put it this way:
How would any company go about to become a competitor to Apple and Google?
How big would the investment be to make a new OS and new hardware and try to get some traction?
Giornomous I would say. I'm not even sure Apple would pull it off, were they not in the business.
The problem with Apple and Google is that they are now so big that noone can compete, and that _is_ a problem.

When huge companies like that spread into more areas to keep expanding, the market power they possess becomes a huge problem.

Lets put it this way:
How would any company go about to become a competitor to Apple and Google?
How big would the investment be to make a new OS and new hardware and try to get some traction?
Giornomous I would say. I'm not even sure Apple would pull it off, were they not in the business.
The problem with Apple and Google is that they are now so big that noone can compete, and that _is_ a problem.

When huge companies like that spread into more areas to keep expanding, the market power they possess becomes a huge problem.

That applies to all industries. Here in the US, how would you become a competitor to Ford, Chevrolet, etc. How would you become a computer to Microsoft (windows) ? Windows is almost the defacto OS for embedded devices and systems. The closest thing to competing in the car world with the big boys (big 2) American and I will leave Chrysler off because they are no longer an American brand, but Stellatis (Italy) is Tesla and they are nothing compared to Ford, GM. They have legitimized plug-in hybrids to the point that now everybody else is scrambling to play in the realm....kind of what Apple did to the smartphone world.

How do you control it in a capitalist country/ecomomy....Do an Airbus/EU thing and have the government subsidize your company so that you can compete on the global stage? The reality is...it's complicated to do without possibly stifling innovation and companies. EU is pushing USB-C, I think they suck, they are fragile, I just had the USB-C fail on an iPad pro that is out of warranty. Lightning is sooo much better.

 

[Frustratedperson]

Available everywhere is not the same as iCloud infrastructure ecosystem. where it is everywhere, but completely connected to each other and fully intertwined.

Spoken with such grace. Apples marketing works wonders for some.

 

[subi257]

Spoken with such grace. Apples marketing works wonders for some.

And Apple's Technology and engineering design works for others, except the complainers and haters 🤣

 

[Frustratedperson]

And Apple's Technology and engineering design works for others, except the complainers and haters 🤣

Yep engineering design that only favours Apple. My fully stacked 2020 iMac 5k in Davinci Resolve played 4K footage, graded with noise reduction, at 3fps. Sold it recently and built a pc for similar money (AMD 5950x, 6800XT, 32GB Ram etc) and it plays back in real time 24fps. Rendering out on the iMac was approx 4-7fps on the same timeline, graded 4K with noise reduction. The PC renders out at 40ish fps. That’s between 6 and 10 times faster. I’ve just spent £3.5k on the PC and an Asus ProArt professional 4K monitor that would destroy a Mac Pro costing twice as much and the Mac Pro had no monitor. Time people vote with their wallet and actually realise that a pc is far, far faster for less money. Who cares if an Apple product has genethically modified goats ear wax for a coating. People need products that perform. The m1 is just a joke. Gimped purposely to 16gb ram. Youtubers raving that they render faster than a Mac Pro. Maybe they do but it takes you 1000x longer to make the video whilst waiting for effects, titles, noise reduction, colour grading etc to render so you can preview it before exporting LOL.

 

[subi257]

Yep engineering design that only favours Apple. My fully stacked 2020 iMac 5k in Davinci Resolve played 4K footage, graded with noise reduction, at 3fps. Sold it recently and built a pc for similar money (AMD 5950x, 6800XT, 32GB Ram etc) and it plays back in real time 24fps. Rendering out on the iMac was approx 4-7fps on the same timeline, graded 4K with noise reduction. The PC renders out at 40ish fps. That’s between 6 and 10 times faster. I’ve just spent £3.5k on the PC and an Asus ProArt professional 4K monitor that would destroy a Mac Pro costing twice as much and the Mac Pro had no monitor. Time people vote with their wallet and actually realise that a pc is far, far faster for less money. Who cares if an Apple product has genethically modified goats ear wax for a coating. People need products that perform. The m1 is just a joke. Gimped purposely to 16gb ram. Youtubers raving that they render faster than a Mac Pro. Maybe they do but it takes you 1000x longer to make the video whilst waiting for effects, titles, noise reduction, colour grading etc to render so you can preview it before exporting LOL.

Hey, that's your choice. I work with a number of freelance editors and shooters that have done the same. However they never stop complaining about having to deal with and use f'n windows. A "fully stacked" iMac 5K is not the computer to be using for Resolve or Avid, etc. That is a consumer grade computer...it's not even an iMac Pro. We use full blown Mac Pro's and HP Z8's in all of the edit suites running 10GB/s over optical fiber back to a server with 814TB storage. The Z8's are in the $25k range and the Mac Pro's are in the $21K range. They are all connected to 65" Plura Broadcast 4K monitors in each suite and dual 30" 4K monitors for timeline. As I said earlier, a few freelance editors built PC's and hate using windows. they are fast, cheap and flashy with LED lights everywhere. They using GPU's that are fast, but they are gaming cards not precision cards like the Quadro M8000 and for color grading, I would expect the you want/need the best, most precise calibrateable card.