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.
Epic Games v. Apple Trial Wraps Up, But We Likely Won't Know the Outcome for Months
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That is silly. I see THOUSANDS of apps that aren't listed on the App Store, based on what you are saying. The App Store gives developers 'exposure' that they wouldn't have had, and that exposure is to a captive audience, BY CHOICE.
Apple deserves *some* compensation for their work providing that exposure. I think, in the end, the argument will be over how much compensation, rather than compensation at all. For those uninformed, store chains charge brands for premium space on their shelves. Ever wonder why certain products are at eye level, and some are banished to the top of the top, or the very bottom? It often comes down to MONEY. And, on a related tangent, why are so many stores dropping name brands and attempting to funnel people into their own brands? PROFIT! MONEY! Money/greed makes bad things happen all too often.
HAH!!! I remember someone triumphantly holding their early Android phone in the air. They were so proud of 'sticking it to jobs'. They 'were not going to be controlled by the 'left coast mafia' of tech companies'.
Then the 'features' of that OS started showing up. Dropped contact lists. Dropped calls. Dropped calendars. Seizing. Malware. Refused OS updates. Vendor not approving OS updates. Oh, how quickly they came crawling to the iPhone.
Some stuck/stick it out, and it's gotten better, somewhat... The app situation for Android phones still seems to be sketchy, with reports of malware, and other maladies being served up to their users. Sure, Apple has had some 'oops' moments with their App Store, but by and large, it's been pretty much a good experience. I remember the joys of a Windows Phone. I too lost address books, and even had the whole system delete them off both ends. Yippee...
The thing is, people that want to 'stick it to Apple', can. No one is forcing people to buy an iPhone. At least the last I heard... People that want to dump the iPhone can usually get some good cash for their old iPhones (depending on age/quality).
But why contribute to this thread anymore. People here know the situation.
Buy an iPhone, and Apple helps keep you 'safe'. Buy an Android phone, and, well, you are kinda on your own. Be careful out there...
Oh cmon, it wasn't that bad of an experience, at least, it wasn't for me. I like tech just like I like video games. I'd rather own each console or one of each smart phone instead of just saying one is better than the other.
All those basic tasks have had the problems you describe on both Apple and Android devices in my experience with other users. There's many variables that cause those issues and saying it's the sole fault of Apple or Android isn't really relevant.
I've several devices for both Apple and Android and I prefer the Apple device for my everyday smartphone specifically for it's restrictive nature and ease of use, connectivity with other Apple device vs Android
Android will work but you always have to play with settings and do much more customization. If that's the sort of thing someone likes, buy that device and watch or play your content how Android says it works best
If the Apple device is your sort of thing, buy that and then follow their rules for how things work.
Epic on the other hand should have no say in how Apple or Android want to operate their nonsense, no one is buying a smartphone for Epic - Epic is the afterthought here.
Epic also has a wealth of money, so if they really wanted to have control over all of that, they could partner with a manufacturer to make a Fortnite or Epic phone if they want. The problem is, they know no one will buy it just to play Fortnite.
The lawsuit is dumb and should have been dismissed to be honest because the whole reason it exists is because Epic wants that 30% for themselves. They're not thinking of their customers, they aren't going to pass along that 30% to the customer if they win and if they do win, the damage that they do to Apple's closed ecosystem will be further lasting than the life cycle of Fortnite.
Thanks for confirming the fallout that Epic has caused by purposefully sabotaging their relationship with Apple.
The Judge can force Apple to do whatever she wants. There is no technological problem with enabling 3rd party payments.
Since the Microsoft case has been brought up multiple times, it's worth repeating that the Microsoft and Epic cases have very little in common. Microsoft was determined to be a monopoly by virtue of having some huge (96%?) of the PC market and was leveraging its OS to dictate how 3rd party vendors had to configure their systems in order to include Windows. It's really hard to see how Apple controlling its own hardware in an environment where it has a minority market share is comparable. The judge would have to accept the argument asserted here that iOS is its own market, but Epic flailed in making that case.
So Apple loses and has to allow links to outside sites. Suppose they'll charge advertising fees for including those links?
Correct, the judge will make a decision on the case points and we don't know how it will turn out and how long the entirety of this litigation will last. Could be for years.
How is the Judge “technologically inept”?
She is not there to give Apple “favours”. She is supposed to be impartial.
I’m not sure I follow. Spotify should be able to FORCE a competitor to charge more? So Jif can FORCE Kroger to change their peanut butter to $2.49?
And by the way, I still buy Jif because I find it to be a better product. If Spotify is a better product, it will do well even if it’s more expensive.
It can be appealed though. And I don’t think Apple would need to do any of that until it makes it’s way to Supreme Court.
People REALLY mess up the Microsoft case when they bring it up. Intentional sabotage via APIs being intentionally difficult, trying to force Netscape to not create it in the first place, strong arming OEMs to not include competitor browser. And more.
She's a judge. Of course she uses her opinion. Are you suggesting a separate trial with Timmy on the stand to get to the bottom on this issue?
I’d say people will flock to Apple Music simply because:
1. Better iOS integration, Spotify can’t compete on that.
2. Comparable library. This is subjective but exclusives can tilt the balance.
3. Much better negotiation power. The odds of apple inking a better deal is naturally higher.
and other reasons.
Also, good products =/= last very long.
Spotify doesn't even try with #1. There have been features that they can access for years now that they are either just now finally adding or ignore completely.
Why pay more for a service by a company that doesn't seem to care? Only reason to use Spotify that I can tell is if you want their free ad tier because you are too cheap (or poor) to pay for a music service.
And a side loaded app store where you can find what you want rather than what Apple want you to find. That would be nice too.
I have no investment financially or emotionally in Epic, I hadn’t payed them any mind before this case and I really don’t care about them. Any resulting payoff they would get from a ruling in their favor would be a parking ticket to Apple and I don’t think Apple will be forced to change anything as a direct result, so the case Epic is making may be ultimately pointless on its face.
My interest in this case lies in the potential result that a ruling in Epic’s favor would have in leading to breaking up the technocratic control companies like Apple, Google, Facebook, etc have. A win for Epic in this case would, to me, represent much needed action being taken to challenge the power these massive tech giants have.
The amount of influence tech corporations like Facebook and Apple and Google have and their ability to align thinking and policy to their interests is concerning. I have no faith in the free market to do anything but let the most profitable profit at a cost to the material conditions of people, so intervention elsewhere is necessary, and that can’t happen without public acknowledgment that there’s an issue and change is possible.
Apple is really good at positioning themselves as a corporation with a conscience by crafting a heavily curated narrative of their environmental and social impact and people are buying it, which is bizarre and scary to me. I would like people to see that this narrative is false and I’ve seen a real tide shift in that thinking lately, especially outside of these forums, and I think news stories like this case are a big reason why. A ruling in Epic’s favor can continue to legitimize the notion that these companies are less aligned to their stated values than they present themselves to be.
Don’t get me wrong, I like that at least Apple puts the effort forward to be perceived as a net-good for the world. It shows they at least acknowledge that there are values they should have and there are positive actions they have to take to at least sell that narrative, but it’s not genuine. They don’t actually have values, they’re a corporation.
Epic winning this case isn’t the way that I want these concerns addressed, but it’s a step so any port in a storm, ya know?
*Lucille Bluth voice*
I’d rather be dead and rooting against Apple than alive and pro-technocracy. 😎