Right, there's always an agenda against Apple, they are perfect 🙄
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
How so? Best Buy sells products, they have a register you check out from when you "pay". No other vendor can setup a register in a Best Buy (that isn't explicitly allowed too) and collect the purchase price for any transaction. They most certainly can't advertise (however small) that you can purchase this same item across the street or downtown or online from anyone else. You can choose to pay with any credit card that is accepted, you're not forced to use ApplePay or Apple's credit card "only". But, like any physical store, you pay at the register on the way out.
The online realm is based on the physical. There is virtually no difference in how the process works. Fee structures are different, and they can be from store to store. But the process is the same.
What the judge will have to do is follow the law. She can have all the feelings about this or that as she likes. It's irrelevant. Is Apple a monopoly? Are they essential? No, they are not to both. Did they break any laws? No.
Can all these businesses (apps) exist without Apple? For many, the answer is YES, especially EPIC.
Does any business HAVE to allow another competitor on their platform? NO, they don't so long as they are not an essential business and or deemed a monopoly. Apple could block Spotify, Netflix, Microsoft, Amazon, etc. It would not be a wise business decision, but they could block their apps if they so choose to. Just like they block any and all "porn" related stuff. Just because you have a business you would like to have on the AppStore does not give you the right to have it.
Is Apple anti-competitive? No, you can sell your app as long as it's approved on the AppStore, or give it away for free with no fee at all to Apple. Someone else mentioned that you can go to the supermarket, say Kroger and purchase the store brand or the 3rd party brand of the same product. You most likely will pay less for the store brand, and there is nothing the 3rd party vendor can do about it. The competitor pays to be in that store, and charges more for the similar product. For the judge to side with EPIC on this, would be to change this rule for EVERYONE, physical or online store. In short, it's not happening. EPIC had to prove that Apple was acting or is a Monopoly. They didn't. The Judge can't set prices for what Apple can or could charge. If they could, it would have been done already. That is for the free market to decide. The price is always set to what the market will bare. If it is too high, people/companies don't purchase it. If it is too low, supply tends to run out as demand picks up. When it is set just right, supply meets demand and profits are generally made and everyone is generally happy. You tend to increase prices as demand picks up and supply is low. you lower prices when demand is low and supply is high. Ain't no judge going to set prices for this type of business or open the flood gates to it happening across the board.
EPIC's whole argument is based on Apples "fee" and wanting direct access to Apples customers. They are not entitled to Apple's customers. They already can sell direct via their own website and to the PC/Mac/Linux market. They already have to deal with fees when they sell through brick and mortar (Best Buy, Target, Walmart, GameStop) and or digitally via the Xbox store, Nintendo Store, PS Store, AppStore, and PlayStore. They literally have ZERO here to complain about. Every avenue of choice for them to exist is available. And if they don't like the rules of one store over the other, they can go it alone and build a store to sell direct to their customers. They want to be in the mobile space, they can work with Samsung, LG, Huawei, Motorola, Xiaomi, Nokia, BlackBerry, Asus, or even build their own.
Stop the nonsense already.
They only nonsense is you stating Apple isn't a monopoly, that's literally your opinion and the courts will determine that.
I disagree on this one. Any ruling here will be used for other cases. Whether it ends up for or against Apple. Since the business model EPIC is challenging is not exclusive to Apple. They used other cases as examples in this trail to compare Apple's practices with previous case outcomes. Not that it all applied perfectly. But, if EPIC pulls out some miracle and wins it. Even with appeals coming immediately after. Other cases will pop up.
No, but it is like Ford brining customers to gas stations. Or car tire manufactures, or car battery companies, etc.
We can't forget the fact that in the beginning, it was the iPhone and no apps. No store, no DEV's. People bought the iPhone regardless. So, it is Apple's customers we are talking about. Apple allowed and provided a means for developers to get their applications in front of Apple's customers. This is not the other way around. I can't play Halo on my iPhone and it certainly is powerful enough to do so. Because Microsoft did not see it to develop it for the iPhone. They are not forced to. EPIC is not forced to either, they choose to. If they don't like the fee's, they don't have to play in the wall garden. We can't force any company to play with Apple, and Apple is not forced to play with other companies.
You said "pay for Developer Program." That implied the program fees, not store commissions.
Even the store fees are well documented. They are listed on the that same page. Other than going down in certain programs, nothing has changed in 13 years.
Purchase - 30%
IAP - 30%
Subscription year 1 - 30%
Subscription year 2+ - 15%
Small business - 15% for purchase and IAP
Video Partner Program - 15% and allows outside payment as well
There may be another one in there, but those are the main ones with people calling Amazon out a some special negotiated developer when they are part of the same program as 130 other streaming services.
If Apple is a monopoly so is Nintendo, SEGA, SONY, Microsoft, and Google. Amongst many many others.
It is completely unprecedented to deem a company a monopoly on their own product. That would be a stretch to define the market so tightly. That could well have repercussions over all business - online and rich-and-morter.
MS has a monopoly on Xbox game distribution (physical discs don't negate that as they still pay the same store fees)
Sony has a monopoly on PS games
Costco has a monopoly on Kirkland brand merchandise distribution.
None of these are illegal. But somehow the argument is Apple cannot be allowed to hold a "monopoly" on iOS app distribution?
You saying Apple is a monopoly, and I assume you mean illegal, abusive monopoly, is also just your opinion. You are right, the courts will decide, but in the frame of the current law, I don't see your opinion being any more valid than anyone who holds the opposite.
Store Brands and name brands are literally the exact same product.
Name brands permit it because it gives them a way to sell the batches that don't quite pass quality checks. Stores want them because they can advertise lower prices to get people in the door + they now have an ad in your pantry.
I don't think comparing name brand vs store brand is a good way of comparing Spotify vs Apple Music. It would imply that Apple is bringing absolutely nothing to the table and that it's nothing more than a rebranded Spotify.
But... this could actually be a super interesting thing to look into. What is Google taking from Apple for Apple Music subscriptions on Android vs what is Apple taking from Google for YouTube Music subscriptions on iOS?
Why would Epic have more staying power than id did?You should read about the history of Epic Games.
Epic Games - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
They are not going anywhere.
It seems to me that the real proof that a company will remain relevant is if they can keep on growing after they lose their founding members.
Microsoft has proven that they'll stick around, I think. Gates left quite awhile ago, and they're having success with Satya Nadella.
Apple... not so much. Apple appears to be coasting nearly entirely on stuff that was either released or in the works under Jobs. Tim Cook is perhaps a mildly better CEO than Steve Ballmer was, mostly just because Ballmer was such an arogant hothead who made a lot of comments that made Microsoft seem stupid... and really, Gates never handed Ballmer full control of the company... he remained as the company president up until 2014 when Satya Nadella took over as CEO.
A lot of companies just crumple and fade from relevance once they lose their founders. It happened to id. It happened to Blizzard. It could happen to Epic. I'm not convinced it hasn't happened to Apple.
If a Judge decides that going forward, Apple has to allow redirects or whatever you want to call it, another Judge could not block the same request for another store. They could, but the Supreme Court would have to rule in favour. Or revoke the original ruling. You cannot have your cake and eat it to.
That’s not at all how the law works. The Supreme Court doesn’t force other judges to rule a certain way just because a district court judge in california ruled a certain way. And a judge in another district could absolutely “block the same request for another store” based on the specific facts of that other case.
The Kroger brand is not Jif but some other company. It’s still under cutting the Jif product.
AFAIK, Judges don't write law. They uphold the law, interpret the law in order to render judgment. So, anything you or I don't like about existing law is not up to them to "fix". That's what our government is supposed to do.
I disagree. As long as the tech companies are operating within the law, consumers are free to use/buy their products or not. Having the government interfere is a lose-lose all the way around. For a good example, the AT&T break-up didn't really result in the US getting ahead of the curve with cell phone service compared to a lot of the world. (However, AT&T at the time was as monopolistic as a company could get)
The influence can also push the boundaries in a very positive sense.
I don't agree.
I believe Apple is aligned with it's public facing policy statements.
Epic may win a point or two, who knows. But will they win where it matters. Epic should be smacked down, imo, for basically staging a disingenuous fight. But we will see where the dust settles.
Kroger brand is generic. Everyone knows that. Are you saying Apple music is the generic brand of Spotify? lol
No I am saying Kroger is not a repackaged Jif. Its some other company. Therefore, the $1.00 Kroger brand is undercutting the Jif brand because its 1) cheaper and 2) does not need to pay the stocking and other fees Jif does.
Very insightful post. I agree with everything you have said. Apple is coasting and has become a mediocrity.
The SC does not but the law does. And if the judge rules on a certain way, it then opens a precedent that can be used for another trials. That is how it works. Sure, the judge could disregard like I said and rule differently, but the appeals would go all the way to the SC which then would have a decision to make. And like I said before, it would trigger laws to be written to avoid this going forward - which then would trigger judges and store owners to obey by. There is always a consequence to a ruling when there are uncharted waters. If there is enough law to make a ruling, no problem. But if it is new - the judge is "making law" by ruling.
I think the bottom line is this. Apple is making a massive profit for doing minimal work here. It's estimated they profited $360,000,000 so far and their only contribution was to allow the app to be download. People didn't download fortnight because Apple promoted it, they downloaded it because they had an iPhone and the appstore is the only store available on that platform. The idea that it's not anticompetitivebecause you could go buy another $1000 phone to use a different app store is ludicrous. If Apple allowed competitors to host their own stores it would not reduce security one bit for those who didn't want to enable 3rd party apps. let the person who buys the phone be an adult and weigh the risks. Those who like the walled garden would be welcome to continue to enjoy the peace of mind that provides if they so choose. there's no reason outside of maintaining ridiculously high profit margins that this couldn't work.
You ”that is how it works” but that is not at all how it works. There is a hierarchy of courts, that determines precedence. District courts are on the bottom of that hierarchy. Not to mention that, again, there will be nothing precedential in any case - once again, the closing arguments make very clear that the whole case will turn on facts specific to Apple, its particular rules, its particular market power, and its particular method for arriving at the system it arrived at. Those facts are not the same for any other company. Moreover, the judge hinted that she may base her ruling on California law, not federal law, and these other companies you are so worried about wouldn’t be sued in California.
I suggest a few years in law school might make the rules of precedence clearer.
The other way of looking at this:
- Apple spent r&D creating the app store, development tools, testing, management and easy access to hundreds of millions of potential customers?
That counts for nothing?
They download that app and others because it's a very sophisticated and safe distribution system. Developers signed up because they knew they could sell their creations.
Why? How many of these apps are cross-platform?
It would reduce the overall ecosystem though.
Epic made millions on fortnight. It cost Epic $99 for the developer license, blood sweat and tears for the app and $0 to host and distribute. Apple is clearly allowed to make money on it's app store investment.