Sidebar Sidebar
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

Sophisticatednut said:
It’s not a question of “need” but a question of anti competitive. Apple can charge 9.99 and keep 100%
Spotify charge 9.99 but keeps only 6.99 And would have to have ask for 14.2$ to earn the same revenue paying their rival that came after Spotify.
Click to expand...
You think anyone's branded toothpaste, food, whatever has the same restrictions as someone else's equivalent product? Target branded peanut butter probably doesn't have the same markup as Jif.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: dk001
huge_apple_fangirl said:
In the US at least, antitrust laws are supposed to come into effect if the party has caused harm to consumers. Has Apple caused harm to consumers? I would say no. I understand why some big developers are upset at Apple, but from a consumer point of view the App Store is great. No consumer wants five different stores for all their stuff.


And that’s the issue I have with this whole thing. No one has asked iOS users if they want all these proposed changes. Do the majority of iOS users want sideloading? I personally don’t have an issue with it for apps Apple doesn’t want in the Store (emulators, adult content, etc.) but I don’t want whole alternative stores. Do the majority of iOS users want third parties to have access to the same special hardware features and private APIs that Apple does? I certainly don’t. I don’t trust any random app the way I trust Apple, especially if that App may not even be from the Store. And it’s not fair to Apple for others to be able to free load off its innovations if it doesn’t want them to. Do the majority of iOS users want Apple to be unable to bundle its default services in when you buy a device? Well, I definitely don’t want to buy a phone without a default messaging app, email client, web browser, etc.

So, if all this regulation is meant to help me, the consumer, why is no one asking me if I want the device ecosystem I paid into to be changed unilaterally? All the complaints against Apple have come from big devs, not users. Users are generally happy. I like the walled garden, I paid thousands of dollars for the walled garden, and I don’t want to see Apple’s user experience centered business model constrained for the sake of “helping” me.
Click to expand...
Thank you ??
 
  • Like
Reactions: BugeyeSTI and huge_apple_fangirl
Ethosik said:
You think anyone's branded toothpaste, food, whatever has the same restrictions as someone else's equivalent product? Target branded peanut butter probably doesn't have the same markup as Jif.
Click to expand...
I talked about revenue not profits.
And it can depend as long as they treat them equally
Surge of Anti trust enforcement of branded goods
And also EU vs amazon for using retail data for their own goods to target competitors.

I guess we Will se what happens with store brands if thery continue to undercut competition
 
Sophisticatednut said:
What we can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence

My assumption is based on the fact no such data have been presented by apple in any court data I have seen anywhere.
And as the famous saying goes absence of evidence is evidence of absence
Click to expand...
There is an old expression about assuming...
Sophisticatednut said:
It’s not a question of “need” but a question of anti competitive. Apple can charge 9.99 and keep 100%
Spotify charge 9.99 but keeps only 6.99 And would have to have ask for 14.2$ to earn the same revenue paying their rival that came after Spotify.

And can’t even refer to their homepage to pay 9.99$ because of apples anti steering rule. Or as EU said last year
https://twitter.com/x/status/1388071379094982659
Click to expand...
If Apple Music didn't exist, Spotify would still pay an IAP...so there is that. Spotify is using Apple's platform to distribute their wares and it seems fair for them to pay for that, same as other apps that use Apple's platform.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Maximara
huge_apple_fangirl said:
It’s not about being “unfair“. I fully support Apple’s right to be unfair when it benefits me, the consumer. When they start using a device I payed for to nudge me for more money, at the expense of the best experience for me, and are also screwing over third party devs in the process- yeah I’m happy to see Apple reigned in.
Click to expand...
I dont care about any developer except apple. they are the creator of the hardware and software, they own the cards and if you cant make your card fit into the game then you aren't allowed.

if you are allowed you play by the dealers hands. thats it. no arguing, the people who say "just because I dont want side loading dont mean others dont" thats true, but its literally minuscule, that small percent isnt worth jeopardizing my happiness over to appease.

I want apple to stay 100% walled garden and I would actually campaign/support/donate to the cause. vote against people opening up the beloved system. I dont want a androided iPhone, that is literally the equality of a trash phone.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Maximara
FreedomPenguin said:
if you are allowed you play by the dealers hands. thats it. no arguing, the people who say "just because I dont want side loading dont mean others dont" thats true, but its literally minuscule, that small percent isnt worth jeopardizing my happiness over to appease.
Click to expand...

Your "happiness to appease"?
What a strange way to look at this all.

And your username is "FreedomPenguin"?
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: dk001, PC_tech and Wildkraut
Wildkraut said:
Microsoft had to learn the hard way and they fully deserved it, now it’s Apple who will learn the hard way.
Click to expand...
Considering the first civil case could only find against Apple using a vague states law this is a totally different thing.
 
Maximara said:
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.
Click to expand...
It passed out of committee by an even larger margin than the previous tech bill. ???

And that's even after Cook went out to bat and Apple wrote the committee their little letter.

www.cnbc.com

Senate committee advances bill targeting Google and Apple's app store profitability

The legislation addresses key gripes app developers including Spotify, Epic Games, Basecamp and others have raised about Apple and Google.
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech and turbineseaplane
vipergts2207 said:
It passed out of committee by an even larger margin than the previous tech bill. ???

And that's even after Cook went out to bat and Apple wrote the committee their little letter.

www.cnbc.com

Senate committee advances bill targeting Google and Apple's app store profitability

The legislation addresses key gripes app developers including Spotify, Epic Games, Basecamp and others have raised about Apple and Google.
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com
Click to expand...
why is it always the demoncrats that are pushing for these ridiculous bills? shame
 
FreedomPenguin said:
they are traitors. all of em. they should keep their nose out of private companies.
Click to expand...
Seriously?

This idea that there is some conspiracy against Apple, it’s just…

It’s funny, because the criticism of Apple is by far the least politically motivated part of the “anti-big tech” movement.

A lot of the anger against Facebook (sorry, Meta) comes from the role it played in the 2016 and 2020 elections, not its business practices. To some extent the same applies to Google’s YouTube. For Amazon a lot of the anger is tied to its labor practices and animus towards Jeff Bezos.

Meanwhile, there is no deeper political agenda against Apple. No one wants to hurt them. This bill is purely about specific issues in one of Apple’s businesses. Many of the legislators themselves probably use and enjoy Apple products and want to see Apple continue to succeed. Even the CEOs of Spotify and Epic use Apple products- they don’t want Apple to fail, just change its business practices.

This idea that Apple’s position is pure and just and that all opponents are enemies trying to hurt it will not help Apple. The best thing they can do is recognize that things have to change and cooperate with regulators. Again, no one (well except maybe a few EU nationalists) wants to hurt them. If Apple voluntarily changed its policies in a settlement with regulators and devs, lawmakers would be thrilled. Much easier to take credit for something a company is already doing than pass a bill that could have side effects. And Apple could benefit by avoiding too broad legislation that could end up affecting more than the App Store.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: PC_tech, vipergts2207 and turbineseaplane
PC_tech said:
What the hell does Rogan or Neil young have jack **** to do with canceling service? What is with the making up stuff to try to defend Apple? It’s gross ???
Click to expand...
mmm...

all over the news was the story of people trying to cancel their account and are unable to.
The JR issue just gave a glimpse into the process... sorry for offending you jack ****
 
AppliedMicro said:
What are you trying to prove or suggest there?

Spotify's cancellation process could easily be the easiest and smoothest in the industry and Apple Music's an absolute abomination. If they aren't today, then it could change any time.

Are you suggesting any self-respecting judge will base his decision in such a high-profile case on his personal cancellation experience at one single point in time?


Why doesn't it have that?

Could that be exactly because Apple doesn't allow Spotify to sign up users in-app in the first place?

...unless, of course, Spotify submits to Apple's - notably a direct competitor in the music streaming space - onerous terms, conditions and fees?
Click to expand...
when people argue that this will improve the user experience, reduce costs etc., I think there is more to it.
And you are entitled to your opinion of course.

for me, I have one place to see all my purchases, what I want to keep, what I want to cancel.
If I was charged accidentally, apple steps in and mediate the situation.

Sideloading will remove that centralised option. multiple app stores will impede that too. you will have to read all the contracts in order to understand your cancellation, your rights and who knows what your data will be used for.
It will allow any developer to create an app and push it to you in any which way he chooses to.

personally, I do not think this is a good thing and I don't think most users want that. but good luck to you.

In addition, the app store fees will turn into licensing to the code and SDK. don't kid yourself. Apple will just introduce (rightfully) another revenue line into the app store to offset the cost of their R&D.
the question is the advantage to the user or the effect on us and other than the theoretical slightly cheaper service (which will probably not happen...) i fail to see the advantage.
 
aka20p said:
mmm...

all over the news was the story of people trying to cancel their account and are unable to.
The JR issue just gave a glimpse into the process... sorry for offending you jack ****
Click to expand...
And them not being able to cancel again, has to do with what exactly? Nothing.
 
aka20p said:
It will allow any developer to create an app and push it to you in any which way he chooses to.
Click to expand...

Whereas I do think it's a great thing for a developer to have some choices on where and how their iOS IP is getting distributed and used.
 
Epic’s argument is that Apple is illegally “tying” IAP and the App Store to iOS and needs to allow competition. I’m curious if one could make the same argument over the relationship between iOS and the iPhone- that is, if the court rules in Epic’s favor, could Apple be forced to unlock the iPhone boot loader and allow for directly booting other OS’s, so as not to be “illegally tying” iOS and the iPhone. Sounds silly but it’s related to what Epic is arguing here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back