To be honest, I would still buy an iPhone if third party apps weren't an option. I don't use many, and they could be easily replaced by stock apps.
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.
Judge Grills Tim Cook on App Store Policies as End of of Epic Games v. Apple Trial Approaches
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
it's hilarious to watch salaried costumers defend a billionaire company for the sake of capitalism.
After a careful review of today's events, I can say with some confidence that Apple will be forced to accept some level of competition.
Precisely what is that will be is strictly up to the Judge, & she gave NO direct hints of what it could be.
Here ruling is expected no later than mid-August, but I think it could occur within 30-45 days.
She appeared to be well-prepared for over-seeing the trial, & did a good job of beating-up Cook today on Apple's lack of competition, & thus NOT having any incentive to improve.
IMO, "App Discovery" App Stores would be a good first step !
Such app stores would compete head-on with Apple in App Discovery, & (naturally) get a cut of Apple's action for ALL transactions that they are responsible for (a 1/3 cut would be a good starting point).
In a perfect world, Apple would set its cut in the Mac App Store @ 10% for ALL financial transactions, AND @ 15% in the iOS App Store for ALL financial transactions.
That, combined, with third-party "App Discovery" App Stores, would, IMO, be ideal for both End Users & App Devs !
And, very-likely eliminate the need for New Law, which is almost certainly coming if Apple isn't pro-active !
Precisely what is that will be is strictly up to the Judge, & she gave NO direct hints of what it could be.
Here ruling is expected no later than mid-August, but I think it could occur within 30-45 days.
She appeared to be well-prepared for over-seeing the trial, & did a good job of beating-up Cook today on Apple's lack of competition, & thus NOT having any incentive to improve.
IMO, "App Discovery" App Stores would be a good first step !
Such app stores would compete head-on with Apple in App Discovery, & (naturally) get a cut of Apple's action for ALL transactions that they are responsible for (a 1/3 cut would be a good starting point).
In a perfect world, Apple would set its cut in the Mac App Store @ 10% for ALL financial transactions, AND @ 15% in the iOS App Store for ALL financial transactions.
That, combined, with third-party "App Discovery" App Stores, would, IMO, be ideal for both End Users & App Devs !
And, very-likely eliminate the need for New Law, which is almost certainly coming if Apple isn't pro-active !
IMO, nothing beats Visual Studio Professional/Enterprise for me (on Windows, I do NOT like Visual Studio for Mac). Visual Studio + ReSharper is a killer combo. ReSharper is less relevant with Visual Studio having some of the critical features build in, but I still use it.
I think you are mistaken if you think this isn't about the bottom line for Epic as well. Sweeney even admitted it under oath on the stand in court. They fronted that it was about principle but then admitted all they want is a better deal with Apple.
I feel like the better answer for competition on the in-app market would be to say that users can buy v-bucks elsewhere and use them on the version of the app on their phone: not all platform allow cross platforms things like that… and then when asked about the prohibition of links to an external website for payment, I’d say that Apple can’t check the security or legitimacy of those payment methods and doesn’t want to appear like they are approving of a website that could end up being a phishing scheme or just not secure.
Apple has gone so far ahead of time, even arguing what they create becomes controversial and messy. I did not see the transcript, but based on some comments I think this case basically just mirrors macrumors comment section of related articles professionally: pointless back And forth, no solid argument on either side, and certainly no clear picture, as every argument can be interpreted in a million ways. Whether the ruling favour apple or epic is not as relevant as to realise how messy this “App Store” thing actually is.
This is where we just need to leave things be. Apple is not doing what Microsoft did in the 90s. You cannot call them anti-competitive behavior when we have Xbox, Playstation and Nintendo Switch do the same (yes even for physical media you still need to pay the company to get it licensed). And contrary to some people, a smartphone is not an essential device to live.
How about because that is a way of finding out what developers think and it they are satisfied? Why does Apple conduct surveys on customer satisfaction of iPhones? Huh?
That is not really the right analogy. That would be more akin to a developer advertising the lower price or web download within the App Store.
The more analogous question would be: should Walmart be allowed to keep a Bread company from advertising a lower price by buying directly from the bakery, or adding a coupon, inside the packaging that you only see after you open the bread?
“Let the next generation clean up all the mess for us while we sit back enjoying our retirement life.”
Thankfully, the environmental impact of this mess is not as significant as others.
It's a real pity the court is not fact checking the statements made by all parties.
Also, I still think devs should pass on whatever commission apple charged to the consumer on day 1, however minuscule amount it might be. If They choose not to do so, then there is no ground for them to complain 30% commission is too much. That commission is NOT supposed to be paid by developer, but by customers.
Well Apple is not doing anything illegal, the same type of structure exists on consoles. Epic has MANY other options for players to play Fortnite - Any of the Playstation, Xbox, Nintendo, Android, PC, Mac. So its not like Apple is preventing them from even existing. They can also just do what Netflix does with a splash screen. But no, I think Epic does not want to do that because they want to get kids to operate on impulse. If they ask their parents to get V-Bucks card, it will no longer be an impulse purchase.
She isn’t biased, she’s just being a perfectly reasonable human of above average intelligence that has been specifically trained in logical reasoning skills. She just sees through Tim’s ********.
The reasoning here is perfectly straightforward: charge for the services you provide, not for the services that you don’t.
Thank goodness. Let us hope DC also takes action that is pro consumer.
Depends on the context they are making. Are there 150,000 methods/endpoints that is available to use? There are similar amount of methods/APIs/features available in .NET. So Tim might be be adding up function by function level.
But it's a distinction with no merit. So, if I carry a gun into a university, and am caught. I am likely to be arrested, and spend time in jail, go to court, and likely go to prison.
And try to take a bag of food into a movie theatre (when they come back). They can forbid you from bringing in food from outside. Airplanes can forbid you from bringing in your own booze, AND deny you passage.
Either Apple can control their system, or no one can.
So, what about medical licenses? You can't practice medicine in a state that hasn't extorted 'fees' from a person. And those 'fees' are hefty too.
This case, if it spanks Apple and ends the App Store, could set a painful precedent that could ripple through a lot of areas, industries, sacred cows.
So, if someone sets up a 'store' to sell access to Epic games, and undercuts their price, would Epic be angry, assuming Epic becomes its own game hosting company.
Apple can flip the script and make the tools $99 for users that do not have in-app purchase options. If those developers will not pay for the skim for having their app in the store then they can pay with exorbitant development fees.
No, shopping malls aren't like monopolies. There's a legal argument against monopolies, and understanding that is table stakes for making any sort of cogent argument.