Epic Games Setting Up Webshops for iOS Developers to Offer Users Out-of-App Purchases

[I7guy]

The payment links won’t get overturned because Apple don’t have a legitimate argument to not allow a developer have a link in there app.

You can’t possibly foresee how this will turn out.

Regarding the commission she has already said do one regarding the 27%
So Apple needs to come back with a legitimate figure that the judge will accept and Apple as a company are not willing to do that so she will more than likely set a figure

You can’t possibly foresee how an appeal will turn out. Sure you can hypothecate, but this could take years.

 

[I7guy]

Yeah that report by the pew research center might say that dependence is under 20% & under for all age groups
However that is not a true reflection in today’s working society in the world
Because context is everything

If context is everything so are opinions. Whether “smart” phones should be regulated or not are just opinions. So far in the US smartphones are not regulated and hopefully will stay that way.

 

[Stuwil]

You can’t possibly foresee how this will turn out.

You can’t possibly foresee how an appeal will turn out. Sure you can hypothecate, but this could take years.

Because common sense comes into it
So Apple are going to have to make the case why payment links affects their business model without sounding greedy

Then if it takes years the damage will already be done to IAP because once developers start putting links in their apps it will start affecting IAP on iOS
This could easily all go away if Apple says here’s a realistic fee & it will probably get accepted

 

[Stuwil]

If context is everything so are opinions. Whether “smart” phones should be regulated or not are just opinions. So far in the US smartphones are not regulated and hopefully will stay that way.

if smartphones aren’t regulated in the USA
Then why are Apple now getting told to put payment links in their operating system
So is that not regulation then telling a private company that your rules & regulations now need to change?

The reason your pew report is not really correct is they are not factoring in people’s living conditions in the USA

 

[I7guy]

if smartphones aren’t regulated in the USA
Then why are Apple now getting told to put payment links in their operating system
So is that not regulation then telling a private company that your rules & regulations now need to change?

The reason your pew report is not really correct is they are not factoring in people’s living conditions in the USA

That’s a total mischaracterization. This is punitive specifically to apple, not smartphones, and it is being appealed. I hope there is an understanding of the difference.

With respect to the Pew report, unless you have a “better” source, that’s what has been reported.

 

[I7guy]

Because common sense comes into it
So Apple are going to have to make the case why payment links affects their business model without sounding greedy

Then if it takes years the damage will already be done to IAP because once developers start putting links in their apps it will start affecting IAP on iOS
This could easily all go away if Apple says here’s a realistic fee & it will probably get accepted

My point was you can’t foresee how this will possibly turn out. So feel free to hypotheticate. I may even join the hypothetication.

 

[Stuwil]

That’s a total mischaracterization. This is punitive specifically to apple, not smartphones, and it is being appealed. I hope there is an understanding of the difference.

With respect to the Pew report, unless you have a “better” source, that’s what has been reported

Because in the west there are only two mobile OS
One that is android where you can if you choose download apps outside of the play store
The other is iOS and you can’t do that so that is why Apple is getting this regulated more than android

Because if you have millions upon millions of people living in poor conditions plus retirement people then that report is not 100% accurate in regards to actual reality
Because you could for example survey 50 million people & if 20 million are living in poor conditions then your going to get a response like the one done in that report for example

Where as in the uk the population is about 60 million so you don’t have as many in poor conditions so then smartphone dependence would naturally be higher

 

[I7guy]

Because in the west there are only two mobile OS
One that is android where you can if you choose download apps outside of the play store
The other is iOS and you can’t do that so that is why Apple is getting this regulated more than android

To me this statement above is irrelevant to the judges orders.

Because if you have millions upon millions of people living in poor conditions plus retirement people then that report is not 100% accurate in regards to actual reality
Because you could for example survey 50 million people & if 20 million are living in poor conditions then your going to get a response like the one done in that report for example

The report is the report. You can’t foresee certainly elaborate your own opinions on it or discount it completely. But you have nothing else to offer up, so I’ll use that.

Where as in the uk the population is about 60 million so you don’t have as many in poor conditions so then smartphone dependence would naturally be higher

Seems to me the above is hypothetical.

 

[surferfb]

Why didn't Apple ever use this argument to get rid of Cydia? In fact, it was Cydia's creator that sued Apple for blocking alternative App Stores. Cydia didn't lose on the grounds of API ownership.

Cydia distributed apps, for money, that use those APIs, if I, as an end consumer, have not purchased a legal copy of the iOS software how were they able sell those apps for money?

Just because Apple didn’t sue Cydia for IP infringement doesn’t mean they couldn’t have sued them. Jailbreakers were a tiny market and maybe the cost wasn’t worth it. Maybe they were worried about bad press (ok, I suspect that’s unlikely given recent events 🤣)

So you admit you don't want consumers to own anything anymore, happy to know you are cheering for the wonderful dystopian future in which corporations run the world...

When did I ever say that?

 

[AppliedMicro]

Government shouldn’t restrict Apple above and beyond the laws in the books. I think we agree we pretty much disagree on this.

We do.
And I’ll tell you the answer to why I disagree is this - and

Technological “progress” has enabled companies like Apple to act as anticompetitive as never seen before.
Namely cryptographic signing of software application.

Twenty years ago, anyone could write, develop and distribute an application for a personal computer - such as a Mac. Using an IDE and compiler from either Apple or a third party.

You owned a computer - you decided what software to run on it. And so did developers. They didn’t depend on Apple. Even if Apple didn’t “like” their third-party app - they couldn’t stop it from running on iOS.

👉 This “ownership” and (at least the potential for) interoperability has been eroded by dominant operating systems requiring apps be cryptographically signed.

On the other had, Apple has begun competing with non-computing products/services (such as music streaming) and leveraging their power to decide what software consumers can run on their devices in anticompetitive ways.

👉 That’s why there’s a need for laws (and legal rulings) to evolve and ensure fair competition.

 

[Stuwil]

To me this statement above is irrelevant to the judges orders.

The report is the report. You can’t foresee certainly elaborate your own opinions on it or discount it completely. But you have nothing else to offer up, so I’ll use that.

Seems to me the above is hypothetical.

Because how can you regulate android with payment links if you can download apps outside of the play store
That is why Apple are getting regulated differently compared with android so that is why it’s relevant

Yeah the report is the report
Yeah I can because not once does it mention that there is over 50 million Americans that are retired
Or the 20 million in poor conditions
Plus the amount of low income families
All it mentions is age groups not the context behind it.

 

[bcortens]

The Pew Research Center says the dependence on smartphones is 20% and under for all age groups. Possibly because a smartphone is a form factor and not a unique computing device.

Let's assume that 20% is accurate. Does that mean you believe that 20% of people who actually depend on a smartphone should be at the mercy of the decisions of Apple and Google? That there is no government interest in ensuring that apps that try to sell to these people are available in a fair and competitive market?

that’s a different discussion than can you use an Apple Watch without an iPhone.

You still require an iPhone, which means that the Watch is not a standalone device that can replace smartphones in function. I doubt that the marketing states

A flip phone with a camera could read a QR code. And that is not a situation that goes into the decision making of regulating smartphones.

Only some flip-phones can read a QR code. If the QR code takes you to an app (rather than website) that flip-phone remains useless.

It’s a red-herring. Cellular companies get you on the bandwidth. They didn’t start their business with iap. Nor do they pretend to be marketplaces. I want to know why you believe this is an apt analogy?

Apple also makes money from phone sales.

Cell companies did try and collect a commission on ringtones (can't remember if they tried to get a commission on apps) but they did try and dictate which apps could be installed. Carriers absolutely tried to be the marketplace for Apps.

This power of the carriers was broken because Apple used its market power to negotiate with cell companies.

Similarly Netflix and Amazon have used their market power to negotiate so that they don't have to pay Apple a single penny while having apps that require a subscription on the iPhone. Smaller and less prestigious devs do not have this power to negotiate (game devs that make up the majority of Apple's IAP revenue are definitely smaller and less prestigious than Netflix). As such they are forced to resort to other methods (lawsuits, courts) to try and get Apple to change their ways.

Cell phone companies absolutely could try and go back to this model, the only reason they wont is because the likely loss of the iPhone on their networks is a bigger deal than gaining some share of the transactions that flow through the iPhone. As I said above, these market forces don't work for developers because they lack negotiating power as individuals and only in aggregate would they have any power, but they also lack the correct incentives to actually form something like a developers union.

However, if the carriers were to start taking a share of each transaction on their network I have no doubt the government would step in.

Try to buy bandwidth from the government to form your own cellular company and then come back and tell us how competitive the market is.

Ah, but that as you keep trying to say, it doesn't matter if one side of the relationship is competitive, only if the consumer side is competitive. From a consumers perspective it is very easy to switch carriers and the cell phone carrier market is quite competitive (especially in Europe and other places).

Further, just like it is very hard to start a new carrier it is very hard to start a new smartphone platform, perhaps even impossible due to network lock-in effects. After all MS tried and failed even when trying to pay devs to build for their platform. There just doesn't seem to be enough developer time and money in the market to support more than 2 platforms.

 

[bcortens]

Just because Apple didn’t sue Cydia for IP infringement doesn’t mean they couldn’t have sued them. Jailbreakers were a tiny market and maybe the cost wasn’t worth it. Maybe they were worried about bad press (ok, I suspect that’s unlikely given recent events 🤣)

Apple failing to sue Cydia actually does mean that they are devaluing their own IP. Lawyers could absolutely argue that because they didn't defend their IP in this case that Apple was pricing the IP used on iOS into the price of the phone. Companies are supposed to defend their IP especially if they know it is being violated, and Apple absolutely knew that Cydia was violating their IP.

When did I ever say that?

You said that I rent iOS. That amounts to a world in which technology becomes more and more important and in which more and more of our lives are mediated by technology but in which we never actually own the software we buy. This is a very very dystopian position.

 

[surferfb]

You said that I rent iOS. That amounts to a world in which technology becomes more and more important and in which more and more of our lives are mediated by technology but in which we never actually own the software we buy. This is a very very dystopian position.

I said you license iOS, which you do. That confers no judgement on whether I think that is the way things should work, but it is how things do work.

 

[I7guy]

Let's assume that 20% is accurate. Does that mean you believe that 20% of people who actually depend on a smartphone should be at the mercy of the decisions of Apple and Google? That there is no government interest in ensuring that apps that try to sell to these people are available in a fair and competitive market?

There are already existing laws notebooks to handle anticompetitive situations. It’s my opinion more aren’t needed.

You still require an iPhone, which means that the Watch is not a standalone device that can replace smartphones in function. I doubt that the marketing states

Right but the goalposts were moved to add “in setup”. After setup an iPhone isn’t needed.

Only some flip-phones can read a QR code. If the QR code takes you to an app (rather than website) that flip-phone remains useless.

Edge case being made the overall necessary case.

Apple also makes money from phone sales.

Cell companies did try and collect a commission on ringtones (can't remember if they tried to get a commission on apps) but they did try and dictate which apps could be installed. Carriers absolutely tried to be the marketplace for Apps.

They did at one time, but the market place decided. Not the government. Hint: same for Apple.

This power of the carriers was broken because Apple used its market power to negotiate with cell companies.

Apple popular company used its popularity to get a sweet deal with ATT. Popular, influential companies who also bring in lots of money can navigate sweet deals. Once again proving your largest customers get treated differently.

Similarly Netflix and Amazon have used their market power to negotiate so that they don't have to pay Apple a single penny while having apps that require a subscription on the iPhone.

No That’s the end result. Not the beginning or middle.

Smaller and less prestigious devs do not have this power to negotiate (game devs that make up the majority of Apple's IAP revenue are definitely smaller and less prestigious than Netflix). As such they are forced to resort to other methods (lawsuits, courts) to try and get Apple to change their ways.

Since when does a customer have the right to bargain like a world class corporation. That’s entitlement. Not that apples terms of agreements were that terrible.

Cell phone companies absolutely could try and go back to this model, the only reason they wont is because the likely loss of the iPhone on their networks is a bigger deal than gaining some share of the transactions that flow through the iPhone. As I said above, these market forces don't work for developers because they lack negotiating power as individuals and only in aggregate would they have any power, but they also lack the correct incentives to actually form something like a developers union.

And the point of this hypothetical is? Developers aren’t entitled to market forces. If they don’t want to be at someone’s behest, they can use their ingenuity.

However, if the carriers were to start taking a share of each transaction on their network I have no doubt the government would step in.

Yes, because until now they didn’t.

Ah, but that as you keep trying to say, it doesn't matter if one side of the relationship is competitive, only if the consumer side is competitive. From a consumers perspective it is very easy to switch carriers and the cell phone carrier market is quite competitive (especially in Europe and other places).

Further, just like it is very hard to start a new carrier it is very hard to start a new smartphone platform,

It’s easier to start a smartphone platform. You’re not dependent on a government to open the airwaves or new spectrum. One can get started in a cell phone platform at any time.

perhaps even impossible due to network lock-in effects. After all MS tried and failed even when trying to pay devs to build for their platform. There just doesn't seem to be enough developer time and money in the market to support more than 2 platforms.

Yeah. MS was competing against a popular option back then and they didn’t see it through and they had the wrong licensing model imo.

 

[bcortens]

I said you license iOS, which you do. That confers no judgement on whether I think that is the way things should work, but it is how things do work.

A fair point - I withdraw my previous statement.

 

[surferfb]

A fair point - I withdraw my previous statement.

All good! As I am sure @AppliedMicro can tell you, I've certainly made similar mistakes in the past 😂