Well, technically, the software on your device still belongs to Apple.
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 vs. Apple Takes a Twist As 35 US States and Department of Justice Weigh in to Back 'Fortnite' Maker
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, technically, the software on your device still belongs to Apple.
It will have zero impact unless apple wants to give ground to android and other stores. The answe is to invest more to make it more competitive, not less.
Why should apple have the right to developers IP? And anyone can use apples APIs that break the sandbox, apple currently just deny them access to the store. Perhaps apple will develop better APIs and we get better apps.
Why would any of their APIs be a legal liability when they aren’t responsible for sloppy developers? Apple magic is how they do things, not the APIs
Well apple could stop developing APIs if they want iOS to stagnate, but that’s their choice.
Untill apple wins a lawsuit or legal battle in EU proving that their shrink wrap EULA have any legal merit as it’s presented after the transfer of ownership is done its 100% my device and software to do with as I wish and not licensed. Only thing apple have is copyrighted content just like any movie you buy.
No quite, Google wanted access to even more customer data. Apple wouldn’t let them, hence why Apple built their own maps.
yes it’s your device but the OS you use under license just like every other software you use.
so you are bound by the terms of the license you agreed to.
well, I guess it's a moot point either way, since we are ultimately still limited by what Apple lets us do on iOS.
Yes, context is everything so please get it right, the court case is not about Apple being a monopoly it is about the app store being a monopoly. 'Apple is a .....' and 'Apple has a .....' are entirely different.
They wouldn’t need to do any special provisions
They are legally stopped from actively preventing third party inc to with it in EU tho
Luckily we do have that in EU. And it’s not a given if it is seen as harmful to consumers and the market.
Hard to say considering both USA and EU have vastly different legal definitions for “monopolistic”
The problem isn’t that you can choose other platforms. It’s a question about apple limiting it’s platform as a dominating market for for mobile devises. Android can chose other options but iOS can’t, and this can be seen as anti competitive and anti stering.
And google didn’t want to provide some services and apple didn’t want to benefit android.
There is no legal precedent for this in EU.
Currently as all things stand if the EULA isn’t precented before the purchase, then it won’t have any legal power.
Until apple defends it in court it won’t mean anything.
So it’s my devise and my software and can legally circumvent or modify the software to remove the license agreement windows to use the software or just click it. They have the same effect.
Well this is why apple can’t legally stop jailbreaking as it’s not their device or software.
If the EULA say you aren’t allowed to jailbreak or it will void your warranty, it will not hold up in court as have been shown.
Well, jailbreaking typically involves exploiting a loophole or security flaw in the OS, so Apple is well within their right to close this loophole in the name of security.
And under the terms of the EULA, the OS does belong to Apple. Perhaps it won’t hold up in court, but that’s also for the courts to decide.
There are likely ways of getting apps onto your device while circumventing the App Store (test flight is one of them; I have helped beta-test a few apps in this way, but it’s limited to a few hundred slots at a time and is not a feasible way of distributing software at scale).
And if memory serves me right, Apple did in fact pull the rug from under Facebook a few years back when they suspected that Facebook was abusing this very system. That was a hilarious moment.
At the end of the day, Apple allowing a few select means of sideloading apps because it doesn’t pose a serious problem for them (yet) is very different from them offering an “official” way of letting users install apps outside of the App Store.
I suppose you’re referring to this:
EU highest court says software licence terms can be ignored
In 2012 the European Union's highest court, The Court of Justice for the European Union (CJEU) in the case UsedSoft v Oracle made the following…
but how does that work when it comes to api services?
OS software is no longer static. Modifications / usage of OS external api’s that do not conform to the license agreement can safely not be honoured by apple.
The EU has a habit of not thinking things through unfortunately. Also, epic has brought there case to USA and apple are still an American company. So I’m not sure EU rulings mean as much as you think they do. The EU are still trying to get apple to use micro usb I believe!
My issue with the whole thing about limiting its platform simply comes down to this:
if I make a product should I not be able to define how that product works? So if I made a new phone with a new OS to operate the phone but didn’t want apps on it should I be allowed to stop third party apps being on that OS? (Just like the original iPhone did and how most phones didn’t).
If I in turn strike up a deal with a friends company to allow them to make apps for the OS and device I made, should I be not allowed to do this? why should I be legally forced to allow anyone to upload apps to the device I made? It makes no sense. If it’s not a safety issue or your not a monopoly for a product the whole world generally needs I see no reason why a capitalist country should force and entrepreneur to provide business opportunities for other businesses!
it’s that simple with me. Apple is not a charity or an ngo. It’s a for profit business.
using its dominance is the whole point of making a successful business. You think Microsoft are not “using their dominance” to spend 75b on activision in order to weaken Sony? Of course they are. But MS are taking advantage of the power they created over 40ys. That is business.
so the things that EU, Spotify, Epic are doing create a whole new narrative in terms of what capitalism actually means. I don’t understand it. They keep saying it’s to help consumers but consumers arent The ones bringing these lawsuits. It’s other billion dollar companies. It’s million dollar lobbyists. It feels like the basic rules of capitalism are Being redrawn to enrich other rich entities in my opinion. And the public are being used as pawns to achieve this.
Minor correction the Judge ruled that Epic's definition didn't apply:
==begin Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 812 Filed 09/10/21 quotes==
A plaintiff cannot ignore economic reality and “arbitrarily choose the product market relevant to its claims”; rather, the plaintiff must “justify any proposed market by defining it with reference to the rule of reasonable interchangeability and cross-elasticity of demand. Buccaneer Energy (USA) v. Gunnison Energy Corp., 846 F.3d 1297, 1313 (10th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The proper market definition “can be determined only after a factual inquiry into the commercial realities faced by consumers.” High Tech. Careers v. San Jose Mercury News, 996 F.2d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). - pg 119
Epic Games constructs a framework to argue that there are three separate product markets at issue. In the foremarket, Epic Games identifies the product market as one for “Smartphone Operating Systems.”
Epic Games contends in turn that there are two derivative and relevant aftermarkets that flow from this initial foremarket, including the “iOS App Distribution” market and “iOS In-App Payment Solutions.”
Epic Games logic flows as follows: the iOS in-apppayment solutions market is an aftermarket of the iOS app distribution market which is further an aftermarket of the smartphone operating systems foremarket. - pg 120-121
The Court begins with Apple’s product market definition as it more closely aligns with the Court’s conclusion. Then the Court discusses the reasons why Epic Games has not properly defined the relevant product market. - pg 121
==End Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 812 Filed 09/10/21 quotes==
The reasons Epic's definition spectacularly failed begins on pg 128 and goes on to page 134 and here for the people who, by their comments, clearly are not clicking and reading the blasted thing are the TL;DL points:
"In short, there is no evidence in the record demonstrating that consumers are unaware that the App Store is the sole means of digital distribution on the iOS platform." (sic)
"Epic Games’ sole focus on iOS devices simply ignores the market reality that is available to consumers."
"Importantly here, the question focuses on the area of effective competition, not the reach of United States antitrust laws which is addressed elsewhere.
Having found the relevant product market to be that of mobile gaming transactions, the Court finds the area of effective competition in the geographic market to be global, with the exception of China. As discussed in the findings of facts, see supra Facts § III, Apple’s engagement in that market does not change based on national borders. Developers globally access the platform based on the same set of rules and agreements. Even here, Epic Games’ related entity was bound by the exact same set of rules and agreements. Given the current record, the Court discerns no meaningful difference for digital mobile gaming transactions domestically than globally."
Replace "digital mobile gaming transactions" with "all mobile app" and the whole United States argument falls to pieces.
Shrink wrap EULAs even under US law have been a gambling house of enforceable. IMHO all this will result to is a greater move server based DRM which if handled poorly (SimCity) can been a boondoggled but if handled properly (City of Heroes) no olefin except a few diehard give a flying fig about. Why do you think MS was pushing 360 so hard?
Raising the minimum wage isn’t something that has bipartisan support. I can see this bill getting bipartisan support for different reasons. Democrats would be for it because it regulates big business. Republicans would be for it because they don’t want big tech having such immense control over free speech. Read some responses from Republicans when Apple, Google, and Amazon banned Parler below. Forcing Apple to allow side-loading would fix their issue very easily because Apple and others would no longer be allowed to decide who is allowed access to their platforms. I see that the committee is meeting on the bill this week, so it will be interesting to see what, if anything, happens there. Based on the committee vote on the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, Republicans certainly don't appear to be afraid of passing new legislation aimed at big tech.The Open App Markets Act is in Committee which, as I keep telling people, see 90% of bills die.
Until a bill actually gets out of committee it doesn't mean jack. Raise the Wage Act (S.53; H.R. 603) case in point. Both went into committee (01/26/2021 and 01/28/2021 respectively) and I bet you didn't know/remembered they even existed. And how long has the public been crying for a raise in the Federal minimum wage?
If a bill to raise the Federal Minimum, which would effect near every working American every working day, has been sitting in committee for over year why do your precious (done in a Gollem voice) Open App Markets Act bill is actually going to get to a vote much less pass?
Heck, even Schoolhouse Rock (I'm Just a Bill) of the 1970s understood that the majority of bill's die in committee.
If bills that effects more people in the US than Apple have basically sat gathering dust then going into committee doesn't mean anything; only when they get out of committee do does a bill really matter. Also if there was really this public grounds swell for change Epic would not have hidden the fact it was behind that North Dakota bill which I might add died a pathetic in a 11-36 vote on the state Senate floor.
Arizona's House Bill 2005 just disappeared right before to a scheduled vote that could have sent it straight to the governor’s desk to be signed into law. (I suspect they didn't want a repeat of the North Dakota fiasco; "It seems committed members weren’t sure the bill could stand the trial of votes."). Minnesota House Bill HF 1184 went to its committee Feb 18, 2021 and hasn't been seen from since. New York Senate Bill S4822 went to committee February 12, 2021 and so far nothing. Illinois SB2311 different date same fate. (hey that rhymes)
North Dakota's bill went down in flames and Arizona's bill is the other only one that got through committee and yet it went walkabout because the state senate wasn't sure it could get the needed votes. After a while you have to ask who really wants this law - small developers or big multimillion dollar companies who want a free ride and are wrapping it in "helping the little guy"?
The 30% Fee Epic Is Fighting Apple Over Began With Nintendo means that Apple was simply following an existing console model so how consoles do it does count.
Parler app risks charges of selling out with Apple return
Parler is returning to Apple’s App Store after making some changes demanded by the company, but the social media platform popular with conservatives is facing accusations of selling out to Big Tech…
thehill.com
Fuming Republicans find themselves powerless over tech clampdown
Parler sued and GOP lawmakers screamed as tech giants pulled the plug on the president and a favorite platform of conservatives.
Last edited:
I don’t understand your point. PS5 games will never be compatible with 3/4.
Sony may set the suggested retail but the retailer can change that. These places don’t sell on a consignment model. Don’t confuse game launch pricing with stock.
Huge? Just what do you think is the percentage that would sideload? Globally try well under 1%. This side load OMG privacy / security rhetoric isa red herring if you look at the numbers who actually sideload on Android or jailbreak on iOS.
if you can hack an iPhone its not illegal for you to put software on it. Cydia App Store isn't illegal.
The issue would be Apple making special provision for third party stores to exist on their OS.
Canon are not legally forced to allow third parties to make accessories, people just do it. I think there's a big difference there.
Also, are you infringing IP in making third party accessories etc.
There was a case years ago of Atari reverse engineering Nintendo's NES system so they could be their own games on the Nintendo system (Tengen/Tetris was one I think). Atari lost the case.
In the USA there is precedent for companies have exclusive eco-systems where they are sole supplier.
The "monopoly" argument (of which Apple isn't) only applies when consumers have no choice and the market is distorted because of that lack of choice.
If I want to use Word on a mobile device I can buy devices from several manufacturers with various OS' (Amazon tablets, Samsung phones, One Plus, Apple etc..) I dont see anything a consumer couldn't meaningfully do if they didnt buy an Apple device.
App Store monopoly claim rejected by federal court; Apple wins - 9to5Mac
A class action lawsuit alleging that Apple has an App Store monopoly has been rejected by a federal court judge, in a 34-page ruling ...9to5mac.com
I think she kind of did…
Gotta read the narrow scope that was claimed in and the additional clarifying comments.
Been covered here repeatedly.
So the judge is saying that users are happy with the fact that there aren’t alternative app stores and don’t care. And if they did care enough they know they can buy another device where there are alternative app stores. So users are not being harmed?
is my understanding correct here?
if it is, then I suppose it ties in with my view that its generally other competing businesses that are upset with Apple and not consumers. So why are so many people siding with billion dollar for profit businesses over this whole issue?
I can only speak for me in that I am against this legislation. Lawsuits are one thing. For the scope of the epic vs apple lawsuit apple walked away as Epic failed to prove it's case. Let's see where the appeals process goes.
Apple will keep investing. But this is effectively a constraint on a core part of Apple’s business model- tying together software and hardware to create a better experience than what anyone else can make.
Why should developers be mandated access to APIs that Apple wrote, or hardware features that Apple paid for?
You can make the argument that for the App Store, Apple has already created a market when they allowed third party apps at all, and because of that they can’t monopolize it. But for private APIs, Apple has never opened anything- they only ever used it for themselves. Why should they not be allowed to keep their IP for themselves to benefit from, just as others can?
So now Apple should be forced to let them into the store? And how can Apple develop better API with regard to sandboxing if they just have to let devs use them all?
If every developer is supposed to have equal access to Apple‘s own platforms as Apple, of course that’s a liability! Just about anything Apple does as the OS developer can be construed as favoring themselves. Things like Universal Clipboard involve access to things Apple doesn’t let devs use- should they be required to? Now every new feature, Apple will have to dedicate engineering hours to publicly documenting private APIs and making sure they are completely ready ( Apple often keeps APIs to itself initially, and then makes them public), which could slow new features. And Apple will have to balance new features with the security risks that come with all devs being given access to them.
Apple already develops many public APIs for iOS. That wouldn‘t change.
I agree with most of this, but not the conclusion you draw in your last paragraph. Nothing would stop independent and small developers from using the App Store -- in fact, it might be cheaper for them to use if it wasn't the only option such developers had. In fact, the rest of your post points out the many advantages the App Store offers. These are real advantages that would continue to exist.Yes I am considering this situation from my own perspective, but I am also an independent developer in my own right, as well as working in software development. I was developing software long before app stores existed. Prior to the release of xCode it was perfectly normal to have to spend hundreds of dollars for a compiler, and hundreds more on other parts of the development process, linker, assembler, etc. Yes, this is going back quite some time, but the App Store for me has been truly liberating as an independent developer.
The reality is that you don’t get something for nothing, and if developers can free themselves from the Apple payment system, then they should expect that Apple will find a different way to charge them for the considerable investment that Apple makes to keep its ecosystem running.
The iOS App Store is the one stop shop, as an independent developer, and also for small developers, I know that if I do a good job and create a worthwhile product, it will be seen by users. The fact my App has made it through the many hurdles required on the App Store gives users the confidence to download and try my software without fear of malware.
The fact my app must use the Apple Payment system gives my users the reassurance that the purchase they are making is guaranteed my Apple and they can be confident that if there are problems they won’t just be dealing with a small company.
iOS vs Android Apps: Which Should You Build Your Mobile App on First
Now that it is time to build your app, choosing which operating system to launch on can be difficult. Learn the difference between iOS vs Android apps.buildfire.com
In the above link there is a graph that shows you the percentage of paid vs free apps on each system. It’s clear that if you want to monetise your software, iOS is the place to start. Why is this? It’s because people are much more confident about spending their hard earnt money in this fenced off system where they have the reassurances both in terms of quality, security and payment. This is what is at risk with this action, and this is the ‘market’ you want to tap into if you are a smaller developer.
The people who stand to benefit from this are not the independent and small developers, they will end up being suffocated by the bigger companies, and struggle to get users to spend on their programs, just like what happens on Android. Rather it is the large software houses that have the capital to invest in development tools, marketing and finance systems who will reap all the benefits.
Also, you make an important point in your second paragraph, which is that Apple may have other ways to charge developers for its ecosystem investments. Antitrust law would prohibit some of these, as the alternative would allow monopolization, but it may be possible for Apple to create an alternative mechanism for, say, security approvals for app developers that do not wish to use the App Store. Although that won't necessarily be the result, companies often do quite well after losing antitrust lawsuits. Look at Microsoft, for example, which (like Apple) argued that the way Microsoft Explorer was linked to Windows was fundamental to the Windows experience. In retrospect, it wasn't at all, and the company found ways to achieve its objectives without the improper tying at issue in that lawsuit.
More likely most people have no idea what sideloading is nor how it would work. The only alternative store on Android most know of is if the OEM provides it already installed on the device.
Right. As I pointed out a long time before at the University of Utah in the 1980s we had this sweetheart deal where we got a three meals buffet style for a set per quarter price. Well some vocal 'I want choice' nimrods who were in the minority yells and stamped their little feet and got the University to change to where the card functioned like a debit card and we got less and spent more.
Much the same thing has happed with streaming services where the big multimillion dollar companies have locked up their streaming programs to point to see what was once available on Netflix you wind up paying more than you did before - all under the guise of "choice".
As Jim Sterling said it is the Brixit bus feeding the people on a happy little fairy tale so they do something that is actually not in their best interest to do. A certain German did that in the 1930s and an American politician did the same thing in the 1950s and their "popular" actions have cast a long shadow into the 21st century. Those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it - often with horrid results.
No the judge is saying that the users are not unaware that iOS is a "walled garden" and Android is not when they choose the platform they want. Much the same they are not unaware to that to play a Mario title they have to get Nintendo.
Last edited:
No, she kind of didn’t….if you can hack an iPhone its not illegal for you to put software on it. Cydia App Store isn't illegal.
The issue would be Apple making special provision for third party stores to exist on their OS.
Canon are not legally forced to allow third parties to make accessories, people just do it. I think there's a big difference there.
Also, are you infringing IP in making third party accessories etc.
There was a case years ago of Atari reverse engineering Nintendo's NES system so they could be their own games on the Nintendo system (Tengen/Tetris was one I think). Atari lost the case.
In the USA there is precedent for companies have exclusive eco-systems where they are sole supplier.
The "monopoly" argument (of which Apple isn't) only applies when consumers have no choice and the market is distorted because of that lack of choice.
If I want to use Word on a mobile device I can buy devices from several manufacturers with various OS' (Amazon tablets, Samsung phones, One Plus, Apple etc..) I dont see anything a consumer couldn't meaningfully do if they didnt buy an Apple device.
App Store monopoly claim rejected by federal court; Apple wins - 9to5Mac
A class action lawsuit alleging that Apple has an App Store monopoly has been rejected by a federal court judge, in a 34-page ruling ...
I think she kind of did…
Back on Planet Reality I see such a bill failing - because it has failed at the state level when it actually got to a vote. If it was this bipartisan support thing it would not have
1). Failed in North Dakota 36-11, when it came out that the supporters, Coalition for App Fairness which Apple would later claim was little more than a front for Epic-Spotify-Tile which is why the Ninth Circuit denied their brief
2) Arizona's House Bill 2005 would have not just disappeared right before to a scheduled vote that could have sent it straight to the governor’s desk to be signed into law. - "It seems committed members weren’t sure the bill could stand the trial of votes." ie we didn't want a repeat of the North Dakota fiasco.
3) Minnesota House Bill HF 1184, New York Senate Bill S4822, and Illinois SB2311 would have actually gotten a vote as they have been around since Feb 2021.
4) The US government is less than thrilled with the EU's Digital Markets Act as the Parliament wants to include virtual assistants, web browsers and connected TVs.