Judge Grills Tim Cook on App Store Policies as End of of Epic Games v. Apple Trial Approaches

If a judge forces Apple to make another App Store possible, Apple might disable all sorts of APIs for that App Store in the name of security. Thus, apps using that secondary App Store will have fewer features, less access to the system, etc. They will be 2nd-class apps. To make apps that have all the best features of iOS, developers will still have to use the Apple store.
 
SuperMatt said:
If a judge forces Apple to make another App Store possible, Apple might disable all sorts of APIs for that App Store in the name of security. Thus, apps using that secondary App Store will have fewer features, less access to the system, etc. They will be 2nd-class apps. To make apps that have all the best features of iOS, developers will still have to use the Apple store.
Click to expand...

Way to prove the power that Apple really has. Y’all are really playing right into the whole monopoly deal with comments like this LOL
 
Cosmosent said:
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 !
Click to expand...
Are you assuming that the app devs would somehow pass on their savings onto the end user? I'm not taking a side here, I just do not see any kind of win-win for consumers no matter who wins. Everyone here including the devs are in the business of making money, no one leaves money on the table. I just hate the idea that somehow all of this is for the benefit of the consumer.
 
RedRage said:
Way to prove the power that Apple really has. Y’all are really playing right into the whole monopoly deal with comments like this LOL
Click to expand...
It's irrelevant what we say, speculate or opine. The judge will make the decision as she sees fit. Sure we can have an opinion on the trial, lawsuit, Epics' conduct or Apples' conduct...but thankfully that's where it ends.
 
I7guy said:
It's irrelevant what we say, speculate or opine. The judge will make the decision as she sees fit. Sure we can have an opinion on the trial, lawsuit, Epics' conduct or Apples' conduct...but thankfully that's where it ends.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know the judge will rule on the case. I read more than I post. I can see some folks here nervous already. Not as confident as they were 3 weeks ago.
 
Cosmosent said:
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 !
Click to expand...
Well nothing may happen. I'm confident Epic will lose many of the points in the lawsuit. Will Apple be forced to change? Only time will tell. Glad the judge asked the right questions. That doesn't mean there will be findings against Apple in all of the points of the lawsuit.
 
LonerATO said:
Are you assuming that the app devs would somehow pass on their savings onto the end user? I'm not taking a side here, I just do not see any kind of win-win for consumers no matter who wins. Everyone here including the devs are in the business of making money, no one leaves money on the table. I just hate the idea that somehow all of this is for the benefit of the consumer.
Click to expand...

The huge question in any situation involving a 'savior' is always 'Who saves you from them'!!!

So, Epic wins. They get cocky. But isn't that what the courts agreed to? A money grubbing Epic is unleashed? So how much is that going to cost the parents across the country (and world). Hmm... And how long are they going to wait to do something about it, and how long until Epic is chastised by the courts, and brought to heel.

For what it's worth, I'd trust Apple a lot farther than I would trust a stupid game company that has already broken several agreements they signed, and then sued because they were punished for breaking those agreements AND then sue over it. Good grief... The future, with them in charge, sure looks to be dark, and expensive...
 
PinkyMacGodess said:
But a user downloading the WF app is just getting the app. Someone getting a gaming app needs updates, and there is the idea that the app is likely 20 times the size of the WF app. Just saying...
Click to expand...

WF app is updated more than many gaming apps, and it’s also about 1/2 the size of many popular games. Nowhere near 1/20th.

Gaming apps don’t need updates anymore than a banking app. Apple just arbitrarily chooses to tax gaming apps instead of streaming or lifestyle apps.

Apple’s response admits as much. They have gaming apps subsidize “free” apps because the free apps draw users to their App Store.
 
Ebarella said:
That's the thing that baffles me. Everyone celebrated the antitrust legislation that hit Microsoft back then, and looking back they (and the software business as a whole) didn't placed that many restrictions to competitors
Click to expand...
You really need to read the case. Microsoft bundled IE in such a way that it was an integral part of Windows. Remember, Internet Browsers were not free or bi=undled at the time. Microsoft made it impossible to uncouple IE. Then they threatened all their licensees (PC makers) from preinstalling the Netscape browser. Anyone preinstalling Netscape would lose the right to purchase OWN Windows licenses.

Basically, Microsoft took the 90+% (true by legal definition) monopoly in PC operating systems to corner another market (internet browsers). They actively used their position to try to put Netscape out of business.

So, yes, they did but many restrictions on their competitors by making it impossible for them to play. And they used their market position and the leverage they had over the PC makers to do so.
 
The comparison to the WF app seems rather silly. The comparisons in this thread to Uber seem more appropriate. Are Uber ride payments an in-app purchase? If not, why not?
 
xWhiplash said:
Why do you think Macs are more expensive? I mean I am not the CFO of Apple and have a breakdown of what their finances go to. But if I can get a similar/better system that is NOT apple for half the cost, I would think part of that is to cover part of the macOS itself. After all, who pays the developers of macOS? Who paid the people that made macOS Big Sur and where did that money come from?
Click to expand...
The Macbook Air starts at $999. The 12.9” iPad Pro and iPhone 12 Pro Max start at $1099.
 
PinkyMacGodess said:
I mean, out of all the monopolies that exist in America, WHY THE HECK KILL APPLE? Because they are for keeping government out of our stuff? Given the last two inhabitants, keeping government out of our stuff seems like a damn good idea to me. *shrug*
Click to expand...
This I agree with. Apple is in NO WAY a monopoly since Android exists. But going after the true monopolies gets ignores. Hmm perfect example is Spectrum. That is the ONLY ISP in my area. And I absolutely cannot stand spectrum. I have nothing but issues with them. Why don't we go after that type of monopoly?
 
I7guy said:
Well nothing may happen. I'm confident Epic will lose many of the points in the lawsuit. Will Apple be forced to change? Only time will tell. Glad the judge asked the right questions. That doesn't mean there will be findings against Apple in all of the points of the lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Sometimes judges, and your own council, will ask questions to draw out the ideas for the case. They are *supposed* to enter the case as if they do not have an opinion (except for precedent), and ask questions, depending on the trial, to inform themselves (the court). I'd be far more worried about a judge, in a trial like this, that didn't ask any questions.
 
Hey Judge… Wells Fargo’s app isn’t their product. But a game is the product.

To argue Apple should offer the games for free so Epic can then charge you later is to argue that a brick and mortar store should just provide shelf space for locked products that you can register with the store when you leave, take home without paying, and then at home pay the manufacturer a fee to unlock. Why would any store “sell” your product when they can’t make a profit from it?
 
triptolemus said:
The comparison to the WF app seems rather silly. The comparisons in this thread to Uber seem more appropriate. Are Uber ride payments an in-app purchase? If not, why not?
Click to expand...
Uber, Amazon, Best Buy, etc not having to pay is clearly an issue.

But the judge cleverly used WF as an example because Apple came out and said the reason they charge is because of all the API’s they develop and maintain.

Well, apps that don’t have any transactions whatsoever use those API’s too. The cost of a developer license should cover the costs associated with running the App Store. Right now, it’s essentially given away for pennies and gaming apps are stuck subsidizing everyone else.
 
Amazing Iceman said:
Shopping Malls are like a Monopoly: if you want to do business inside them, you have to pay rent.
If they find you selling your stuff without a permit, you'll be escorted by security and eventually banned from going inside.
Apple is not a monopoly. You are selling in their mall. If you don't follow their rules, they have the right to kick you out.
You don't pay a monthly rent, but a percentage of your sells. If you don't sell anything or have a bad month, you don't have to pay a penny. You only pay based on your success. How difficult to understand is this?
BTW... are you a developer (selling in an App Store)?
Click to expand...
One an app is installed on someone’s device are they still in Apple’s mall? Is Apple’s mall the iPhone or the App Store? One doesn’t have to go to the App Store to complete an IAP.
 
PinkyMacGodess said:
The huge question in any situation involving a 'savior' is always 'Who saves you from them'!!!

So, Epic wins. They get cocky. But isn't that what the courts agreed to? A money grubbing Epic is unleashed? So how much is that going to cost the parents across the country (and world). Hmm... And how long are they going to wait to do something about it, and how long until Epic is chastised by the courts, and brought to heel.

For what it's worth, I'd trust Apple a lot farther than I would trust a stupid game company that has already broken several agreements they signed, and then sued because they were punished for breaking those agreements AND then sue over it. Good grief... The future, with them in charge, sure looks to be dark, and expensive...
Click to expand...
This will also set a precedent for Epic to go after the gaming consoles. Epic is not doing this for the consumer, I can bet you if Epic wins next up will be consoles. They basically have apps/music/tv and more not just games.
 
mnsportsgeek said:
WF app is updated more than many gaming apps, and it’s also about 1/2 the size of many popular games. Nowhere near 1/20th.

Gaming apps don’t need updates anymore than a banking app. Apple just arbitrarily chooses to tax gaming apps instead of streaming or lifestyle apps.

Apple’s response admits as much. They have gaming apps subsidize “free” apps because the free apps draw users to their App Store.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of paid apps that are not games.
 
triptolemus said:
The comparison to the WF app seems rather silly. The comparisons in this thread to Uber seem more appropriate. Are Uber ride payments an in-app purchase? If not, why not?
Click to expand...
Because Uber rides are tangible things. They aren’t virtual rides in an Uber app.
 
xWhiplash said:
This will also set a precedent for Epic to go after the gaming consoles. Epic is not doing this for the consumer, I can bet you if Epic wins next up will be consoles. They basically have apps/music/tv and more not just games.
Click to expand...
The difference between Apple/Google and game consoles is that stores on gaming consoles charge everyone the same fee, and there aren’t thousands of free games that don’t ever have to pay anything.

Apple and Google arbitrarily choose who pays and who free loads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top