I didn’t say they did... I was adding to the point mannyvel made.Nintendo never sells hardware at a loss
I didn’t say they did... I was adding to the point mannyvel made.Nintendo never sells hardware at a loss
Hypotheticals are fun.... Apple will get its antitrust case in fed court some day and be split just like Microsoft....
Android has security holes like swiss cheese, imo....Maybe some of those iphone users will buy an android device and find its just as secure and has better encryption than apple iphones....
Sounding like monopolistic, anti-trust behavior and being the same the two different things.... yeah that sound monopolistic to me.
Actually the fed government can take up to 37% in taxes. And as the judge acknowledged 30% is an industry standard.when the fed govt takes 10% in taxes and stores(actual store fronts have to store stuff in warehouses) 30% is not fair nor reasonable.
What does this have to do with the topic?your fine with trillion dollar companies pushing legislation and pushing reasonable repair shops out as well.
Android is not free, google charges a license fee and makes billions from it.android is a free license and is protected by open sources licensing and is built on Linux which is made by Linus tovald who created it and gave it away for free. your silly to think any one pays for linux or could sell it with out fundamentally changing the way open source licenses work...
Your entitled to your opinions, but Apple is killing it financially with their sub-par hardware, full of holes ios operating system, copied functionality etc.this is why I steer clear of apple products. its not worth it for subpar hardware and ideas that were taken from smaller devs and added to their own software to push them out. smh I hope epic kills it in a battle with an actual jury not a single judge that used to be a lying lawyer with control issues.
I agree 100%.Having all 100+ games accessible to stream in one app. Not 100+ apps.
Imagine you had a Netflix account but on iOS you needed to download an app for each movie. Each show.
Question for any lawyers on the thread: is there a legal statute that says not allowing any sort of side loading is a anti-competitive or monopolistic practice? Or is this one of those tech things where the law simply hasn’t caught up?
Wondering what the legal argument would be if Apple were sued for not allowing installations outside the App Store rather than over the 30% fee for purchases made on the store.
I understand the security arguments on the Apple side, but I’m curious as to whether or not that, for instance, not allowing people to visit a link and install an app (like downloading an apk on Android) is evidence of some illegal or questionably legal stance.
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce mong the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
The offense of monopoly under 2 of the Sherman Act has two elements: (1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.
People who are rooting for Apple on this: do you realize that if Epic loses you all get to keep paying Apple up to 30% tax every time you buy something from their App Store (even if it has nothing to do with Fortnite)? You're basically happy to pay more money to the company who has made $15 billion in revenue from the App Store alone last year. Do you actually believe it costs them $15 billion a year to run an online store?!
The fact that so many companies are charging the 30% tax while there's definitely a lot of backlash from developers (big and small) smells like some sort of price fixing to me. Maybe they're thinking: "If Apple are charging 30% and people are willing to pay why should we charge less?"
Thank you. People throw around the term “monopoly”, when it seems a stretch to consider Apple as such. Most people would assume that means they have the dominant share of the smartphone market at large, not control over the means by which apps are distributed on their own platform. The “monopoly” accusation just hasn’t felt right.
Neither / nor. There is a simple thing where this stumbles: Apple doesn't have a monopoly in any relevant market. "iPhones" is not a relevant market, "Smartphones" is. Why are "iPhones" and "Android" phones not markets? Because usually if you buy something in one market, that doesn't stop you from buying from another market. If you buy a movie ticket, that doesn't stop you from buying a CD - because cinemas and music are different markets. But if you check for "iPhones" and "Android phones" - few people buying an iPhone also buy and use an Android phone, and vice versa. That's because they are the same market, and a market where I only need one product from the whole market.Question for any lawyers on the thread: is there a legal statute that says not allowing any sort of side loading is a anti-competitive or monopolistic practice? Or is this one of those tech things where the law simply hasn’t caught up?
I want to be clear that I don't think Apple should be found to have violated antitrust laws in this way. But that is, more or less, the Section 2 argument you are asking about. It's why Apple's efforts to block side loading might, without regard to the 30% commissions it charges, be an antitrust problem. If it's decided that iOS app distribution is in itself a relevant antitrust market, then Apple could easily be found to have engaged in illegal exclusionary conduct meant to help it maintain its monopoly in that market. One question would be, does the anticompetitive conduct (i.e the technical and contractual barriers to competition) have procompetitive justifications? In other words, is Apple doing those things just to block competition in iOS app distribution? Or is it doing those things for other, legal, reasons - e.g., to provide better security for its customers.
Not trolling at all. I know what the develop experience is like across many platforms. the 30% pays for many essential iOS developer services that is lacking in other platforms. Most people who bash Apple for it have no idea what it is like to dev on this platform. That’s sad.Oh come on, gate keeping is such lazy way of trying to troll - you can do better.
People who are rooting for Apple on this: do you realize that if Epic loses you all get to keep paying Apple up to 30% tax every time you buy something from their App Store (even if it has nothing to do with Fortnite)? You're basically happy to pay more money to the company who has made $15 billion in revenue from the App Store alone last year. Do you actually believe it costs them $15 billion a year to run an online store?!
The fact that so many companies are charging the 30% tax while there's definitely a lot of backlash from developers (big and small) smells like some sort of price fixing to me. Maybe they're thinking: "If Apple are charging 30% and people are willing to pay why should we charge less?"
It’s funny, cause if you consider the gaming console market, which Epic argues are sold at cost/at a loss (and therefore them taking a cut is ok), that argument fits way better; why would console makers be ok with selling with low/no margins? Because the games are the primary market, and applying Epic’s logic, any DLC/in-game purchase would be secondary market. So the reason why Epic is fine with Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo’s 30% cut is also what makes these same companies an even better and clearer representation of that primary/secondary market distinction Epic is trying to attribute to Apple.To be fair, when Epic defended it actions, YGR noted that it provided "good evidence" that the App Store (primary market) is separate and distinct from IAP (aftermarket), running counter to Apple's longstanding claims that the two are integrated (both aftermarket, hardware being primary market) - a fact that Epic could not have otherwise proved. This has important implications for its anti-trust claims.
I'd like to direct your attention to the FTC's own Guide to Antitrust wherein they explicitly state: "it is not illegal for a company to have a monopoly, to charge "high prices," or to try to achieve a monopoly position by what might be viewed by some as particularly aggressive methods." So your maxim of "any monopoly is illegal, mkay" is just flat out wrong. That said, as far as a businesses monopoly is concerned, what matters to the FTC is whether, "The law is violated [section 2, Sherman Act] only if the company tries to maintain or acquire a monopoly through unreasonable methods."Hmm ... we need alternative App stores.
Strange how she's asking when Apple became a monopoly -does it matter? They were a monopoly from day 1
Actually, I can agree with you here. It is your hardware and you can do whatever you want with it. But, Apple has no obligation to allow arbitrary code execution. So if you can jailbreak it, that is fine and legal and your right to do so. Your hardware you can do what you want with it. But, where we differ is that Apple in no way has to make it easy for you to run code on it.My device I can install whatever the hell I want on the hardware that I bought. No?
They have no reason, especially when I tried buy a Wii 1-2 YEARS after launch and ended up getting an Xbox because they were never in stock. I'm amazed they didn't up the price to balance supply and demand.Nintendo never sells hardware at a loss
Let's take this to it's logical extent. Would Epic be willing to offer it's own store space, free of charge, to anyone that wants to not pay Epic the 12% cut they ask for?
They have no reason, especially when I tried buy a Wii 1-2 YEARS after launch and ended up getting an Xbox because they were never in stock. I'm amazed they didn't up the price to balance supply and demand.
Epic does not want to use Apple's store. Epic wants to use their own store. Every other OS with a web browser allows for applications to be installed via it. Permitting this requires negative effort on Apple's part - they're actively blocking it right now, all they have to do is start permitting it.
If they'd like, they could copy over the security settings from macOS where you have to go into settings and explicitly permit apps to be downloaded in Safari.
Not trolling at all. I know what the develop experience is like across many platforms. the 30% pays for many essential iOS developer services that is lacking in other platforms. Most people who bash Apple for it have no idea what it is like to dev on this platform. That’s sad.
The changes that happen might not benefit the small developer and even cause them to leave this market. But having any positive outcome from Epic is far from assured. Epic could have accomplished the same thing without being dishonest and that killed their credibility in court.
And it's a far cry from a slam-dunk that Apple will be found to have a "monopoly" in the app store, which is what Epic wants to cause.
Apple likely made a good amount of money from Epic's IAP as well as Epic raking in the $$$. Yet Apple kicked them out of the app store. Now google is joining the bandwagon. This is going to be interesting.
Epic does want to use Apple’s App Store. It has asked to be able to use the App Store to distribute apps but have its own payment system within the apps. It’s also asked to be able to have its own Epic Games Store distributed through the App Store and having access to the same OS installation features that the App Store does.
Could you list some of those services? I'm not one to deny your own personal experiences but am skeptical. I'll be surprised if StoreKit is in that list, recent improvements aside.
Also, the 30% isn't the big deal for me (as I do find some of the App Store services like international distribution & tax management) to be good value alone. It's more the control Apple has and how they can easily use this to their own competitive advantage but you assumed I was focused on the 30% anyway. I don't like the idea that one day Apple might reject my app update because they have something in the works, for example.
Also, fundamentally, competition is good. It took them years to make IAP sandbox testing actually reasonable. Can you imagine if there was another App Store in iOS, for example? I'd still 100% stick with the App Store (as both a developer and a user) as I prefer the quality of apps that comes out of it but if it meant Apple actually improved their turnaround time for such developer tools I'd be 100% for it.