You could try and argue that Apple is the payment processor, if you are using an Apple credit card, otherwise they are just the store taking the payment.
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 Wins Major Victory as Apple is Ordered to Comply With App Store Anti-Steering Injunction [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Think of the Vision Pro like Apple Pay. Back in the day I remember people scoffed at the idea. The Apple faithful will be right. Think of Vision Pro and its derivatives as Apple Pay.
Looking at it that way, Apple is the fourth or fifth or sixth or seventh party in a transaction, because payments without Apple wouldn't go directly from a customer to a developer, unless the customer is handing cash to the dev in person. Transactions without Apple would still go through my bank (or my credit card and then my bank) to the developer's payment account, bank, card or other payment account on some other platform and then to the developer.
Those otherwise uninvolved entities are also required if you want to pay some developer for their app.
So this ridiculous Apple is inserting itself into my otherwise private transactions argument is a chimera. Apple, in this case, is just one of several middlemen in any such transaction. And no one is doing it for free. They all take a slice of the pie.
I'm not taking Apple's side - far too many businesses have made being a middleman their entire business model, and I think many of them are unnecessary. But everyone is used to it because it's convenient and ubiquitous. Apple is so far from unique in this matter, and it's hilarious when I see people in these forums treat Apple like they're doing something awful that no one else does.
Every kid has to have a Microsoft account now, because they want to play Minecraft. Likewise Google and Meta have burrowed themselves into our tech lives. I wish people would spare us the reflexive Apple rage as if they're the worst thing in our lives, and the only corporation that does this.
The Vision Pro could catch on if it gets cheaper, and more importantly, much much lighter.
If I were Netflix I'd keep my app off the VP unless this ruling stands and also extends to the VP. If this ruling stands Netflix can offer their app in a way that is better for consumers as it would let them offer an in-app sign-up link as well as a subscribe link. This is better than the current situation for consumers.
I think what Apple did with the App Store was remarkable, they won by being better. They were better by doing all of what you say, safe housekeeping, free code-signing, free dev tools, etc...
All of this allowed the creation of a thriving economy of apps on iOS. However, none of this means that the power of Apple isn't much higher today than it was when iOS was young and that they aren't exploiting that power. It also doesn't mean that the relationship wasn't symbiotic. That the devs prospered because iPhone prospered and the iPhone was prospering because the devs were building apps for it.
When iOS was only 5% of the market it could be ignored by a dev and that dev would be fine. Today you can't ignore iOS, you really just can't, that is a very different dynamic. This power dynamic is why Apple is getting regulated the way they are, they are too important now.
Apple lost on this point. Period. So now the chips will fall where they may. As I said elsewhere it would be a hoot if their appeal prevailed. But I highly doubt it.
I think if there is revenue shortfall, it is going to mean higher prices for all in some ways.
The iPhone has something like 40% profit margin, Apple spent more last year on dividends and share buybacks than they did on R&D, they aren't hurting for profit margins or revenue. The only thing their rising services revenue does is help them prop up the share price without actually doing anything meaningful to earn the high share price. It's rent seeking to make them look better rather than actually making the fundamentals of the company stronger.
News flash for you: You don't own the software. What you do own, as you correctly pointed out, is the phone itself. You can take a gun to it, put it in a blender, feed it to your pet. Go ham.
You're licensing the software. You do not own it and therefore can't do whatever it is you want with it.
This is not a good thing.
The fact that we don't own copies of the software we use is not good, it is very very bad, and puts consumers and citizens at the mercy of corporations who can nuke their software on flimsy reasons at any point.
We might not own copies of our software but we should. Anyone defending otherwise is desiring of a world where citizens are forever at the mercy of corporations with no real power over the increasingly important software that impacts their lives.
News flash for you: Simply not true in most of the world. Purported "licenses" after the sale are irrelevant.
I bought a box with a phone in it. I own the phone and everything on it, purported "license" notwithstanding. I own the copy of the software that is on that phone.
It's honestly been that way forever in computing. We've never owned the operating systems computers run on. Whether we should or not is another debate entirely.
Again, not according to the agreement you willingly entered into with the phone manufacturer when you bought said phone-in-a-box.
Ok. Then let me ask you this: Did you buy your phone or did you steal it/buy it stolen?
It’s not rent seeking, it’s wealth replacement. Apples iPhones margins are not relevant.
I love how you put the blame on the wrong person. The case you are describing is parents fault, not Apple's or anyone else. If you give your credit card to a child and you expect the kid to be financially responsible than perhaps you shouldn't have kids.
Kids going wild with charges is parents fault. No one elses!
People need to stop looking for someone to blame and need to start taking responsibility for their actions.
Kids going wild with charges is parents fault. No one elses!
People need to stop looking for someone to blame and need to start taking responsibility for their actions.
no. Apple is literally the first party
example: when you discuss something like Nintendo, the platform owner is the first party. so you have first party games (mario).
you didn't succeed here.
You've always had the choice: Android.
You could have avoided all of your user problems against Apple if you just bought an Android device.
Then don't use Apple. Simple as that.
See how I used your logic against you?
You've always had the Android option. No judge ruling needed.
No, Apple is literally the third party.
Apple is the first party when the device is purchased. Apple is the third party when a transaction between Epic and the device user occurs.
Apple is ONLY the first party when the transaction is between the user and Apple. You buy Final Cut Pro, Apple is the first party. You buy in-game content from Epic, Apple is a third party. And as neither the user nor Epic benefit from Apple's participation, Apple's unlawful insistence on being a third party is why Apple is now in contempt of court.
If you haven’t seen that argument then you obviously don’t read this forum as much as me. Don’t worry, that reflects better on you than on me
