Well that’s the question. Once an app is downloaded is it still part of Apple’s store? What does Apple consider to be it’s store - the App Store app or the iPhone itself?
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
Lets go! Hopefully Apple loses and we have options like the Mac were I can pick where to get my apps from. I can get it in the Apple Store OR through the website directly. I don’t need Apple to TELL ME how to get an app on MY iOS device.
Can’t wait to be able to get open source software for example. Apps that don’t have to follow app store rules. It should be MY choice to download such apps, I don’t need Apple to make choices for me.
This leads to more competition which always benefit consumers.
Can’t wait to be able to get open source software for example. Apps that don’t have to follow app store rules. It should be MY choice to download such apps, I don’t need Apple to make choices for me.
This leads to more competition which always benefit consumers.
I agree. Not sure why so many here need Apple to hold their hand with everything they do on their phone.
Not true. The APIs are public and the development tools are a free download. You can develop an app and put it on your iPhone without paying Apple anything.
Apple charges the $99 fee for access to the App Store. The whole signing certificates and notarization thing and probably the app review.
Full quote:
"It doesn't seem to me you feel any pressure or competition to actually change the manner in which you act to address the concerns of the developers."
BOOM!
Nice to see Timmy the Crook have his day in court!
Also, this is pure BS:
"..but the fact that 40k apps are rejected per week leads to some friction because sometimes developers and users don't have incentives that align with one another."
See what the Crook did there?
APPLE (app review) rejects apps, not users. Users only choose to buy an app or not. Crook deflects the source of developer dissatisfaction to users, when the survey was asking developers about the App Store. Yes, it's ok for Apple to be concerned for platform users, but assuming they are the sole authority of user interest is just plain maniacal. 40k rejections per week prove that.
"It doesn't seem to me you feel any pressure or competition to actually change the manner in which you act to address the concerns of the developers."
BOOM!
Nice to see Timmy the Crook have his day in court!
Also, this is pure BS:
"..but the fact that 40k apps are rejected per week leads to some friction because sometimes developers and users don't have incentives that align with one another."
See what the Crook did there?
APPLE (app review) rejects apps, not users. Users only choose to buy an app or not. Crook deflects the source of developer dissatisfaction to users, when the survey was asking developers about the App Store. Yes, it's ok for Apple to be concerned for platform users, but assuming they are the sole authority of user interest is just plain maniacal. 40k rejections per week prove that.
It's not "me" that I was referring to. If you look beyond your own smug nose, you may notice Apple tends to protect the image of the iPhone in terms of security and vulnerabilities. Having a bunch of malware running rampant is contrary to those interests.
And if you subscribe, the magazine delivers to you, you don’t go back to Walmart every month for your copy and Walmart doesn’t deliver it to you.
I think there is one thing we all can agree on, Apple can keep charging 30% unchallenged, and Google plays along just fine copying Apple, and both keep on living unchallenged. It's a duopoly in the smartphone platform. There is no driving force to compete with Apple to force that obscene 30% down.
Capitalism is great, but the monopoly law is there for a reason, to ensure capitalism works as it's intended to do, with enough viable competition.
There is no market pressure to reduce that 30%, hasn't been in 10 years. Apple lowered the cut from small businesses as judge Yvonne pointed out due to fears from lawsuits and legal pressure, but not market pressure.
That's the core of the argument, all the other excuses of security, having to pay the 150,000 APIs, dev tools etc are just decoy.
Capitalism is great, but the monopoly law is there for a reason, to ensure capitalism works as it's intended to do, with enough viable competition.
There is no market pressure to reduce that 30%, hasn't been in 10 years. Apple lowered the cut from small businesses as judge Yvonne pointed out due to fears from lawsuits and legal pressure, but not market pressure.
That's the core of the argument, all the other excuses of security, having to pay the 150,000 APIs, dev tools etc are just decoy.
Digital ps games are digital and not subject to the 30% fee. Which directly contradicts your original point. Yet another example of Apple making up the rules as they go.
Last edited:
Right. So when Apple says they charge 30% because that’s what it costs to develop the API’s and maintain them. The judge is spot on when she says that free apps with no transactions are subsidizing the cost of developing and maintaining all of Apple’s APIs.
Stupid excuse on Apple’s part in front of a judge. They walked straight into that. Surely they could have made up something better.
The part I just don't get is why Apple has to allow competition within their own ecosystem.
Keurig tried to make it so you couldn't use off-brand k-cups in their coffee makers. It wasn't the courts that stopped them.
Epson doesn't explicitly say using non Epson ink in my printer will cause radioactive feedback that will start the zombie apocalypse, but they definitely want me to get that impression. They aren't terribly excited about me using non-Epson paper either.
No one is mandating that Nikon Lenses work on Canon Cameras.
The Cel phone carriers certainly make it as difficult as possible to bring your phone to a new provider, and they don't exactly share towers nicely to make sure you have good reception.
Try walking into Walmart and suggesting you will pay at the Target register because you prefer their store policies.
If you want to run non App Store processes on your phone, you can buy Android (or Windows Hah!), or you can jailbreak. If Epic is okay paying higher rates on Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo store, why are they bent out of shape about Apple? I still think this has to do with privacy and information. Epic isn't allowed/able to scoop and sell data as easily on the Apple Store as on other platforms.
And yes, developers who bring in tons of revenue get treated better than other people. That is how it works. If I complain that the Gibson Les Paul is a heavy guitar, Gibson USA will point me to an SG or tell me to hit the gym. If SLASH says it or Guitar Center says it, Gibson is going to have a look at taking their premier model to Jenny Craig and trimming it down a bit because those entities affect revenue directly.
You think the President of the USA ever walks into a restaurant and gets told, "it'll be about 30-45 minutes before we can seat you," EVERY? No. Important customers get special treatment. That isn't rocket science.
Keurig tried to make it so you couldn't use off-brand k-cups in their coffee makers. It wasn't the courts that stopped them.
Epson doesn't explicitly say using non Epson ink in my printer will cause radioactive feedback that will start the zombie apocalypse, but they definitely want me to get that impression. They aren't terribly excited about me using non-Epson paper either.
No one is mandating that Nikon Lenses work on Canon Cameras.
The Cel phone carriers certainly make it as difficult as possible to bring your phone to a new provider, and they don't exactly share towers nicely to make sure you have good reception.
Try walking into Walmart and suggesting you will pay at the Target register because you prefer their store policies.
If you want to run non App Store processes on your phone, you can buy Android (or Windows Hah!), or you can jailbreak. If Epic is okay paying higher rates on Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo store, why are they bent out of shape about Apple? I still think this has to do with privacy and information. Epic isn't allowed/able to scoop and sell data as easily on the Apple Store as on other platforms.
And yes, developers who bring in tons of revenue get treated better than other people. That is how it works. If I complain that the Gibson Les Paul is a heavy guitar, Gibson USA will point me to an SG or tell me to hit the gym. If SLASH says it or Guitar Center says it, Gibson is going to have a look at taking their premier model to Jenny Craig and trimming it down a bit because those entities affect revenue directly.
You think the President of the USA ever walks into a restaurant and gets told, "it'll be about 30-45 minutes before we can seat you," EVERY? No. Important customers get special treatment. That isn't rocket science.
If you consider me the expert in the finer points of the App Store tos, I’m not. I only know the general nature of how things work. So, to me whether I’m on point for all the nuisances makes no difference (to me). Apple has thought this through and if one doesn’t like their rules, they can take up with them…or file a lawsuit.
I didn’t say you were the expert, but the mental gymnastics that the self proclaimed experts in this thread have to do in order to make sense of Apple’s arbitrary rules is insane and they are blind to how ridiculous they sound defending it.
And not saying you did this, but others have. Baselessly questioning the integrity of a judge for doing her job and asking questions is as stupid as claiming the presidential election results were rigged.
It’s no worse than the mental gymnastics of the arm-chair lawyers who have proclaimed apple violating anti-trust and monopolistic practices, when legally in the US that is not the case.
Apple may not be perfect and people may tear at Tim Cook’s testimony, however I’m sure he has been coached in the message to be conveyed, since their business is on the line.
Whatever the outcome, we’ll see and we’ll see if there are appeals and if this goes to the Supreme Court.
Apple probably vets all changes with the attorneys to ensure the rules are not arbitrary; have some teeth will last through legal challenges and they can’t be sued because of being claimed to be arbitrary.
I see a free trial button when I tried the app. I’m not interested, so I didn’t go further. Lots of other apps have a free trial too.
Why would they? They can list the app for free, then use their own IAP. Apple shoulders all the costs, and gets no money. What a great system… for everybody but the company that actually created the platform.
How does that have anything to do with what I'm talking about. That doesn't even relate to my point of being able to buy a console game from numerous places, a lot being third party places, unlike Apple and iOS where if you want a game on their platform you HAVE to buy it on iOS store. The whole point about physical copies are that after purchased new, the developers nor xbox, Playstation or nintendo get any money of the reselling of the game, where with Apple you cant resale a game or let a friend play it on their ipod/ipad, they have to buy it full price again
First off, welcome to the 21st century but on my Xbox, I can actually run Microsoft edge and go to anywebsite and purchase anything from a third party store. I don't have a playstation but i'm sure they have a browser as well. and believe it or not. A game developer could put a link to a website in the cames menu that launches a web browser to that link. I know, pretty wild stuff right?
A big difference here is on consoles the developer can put in the in game store that you can also buy vbucks from our own website, or go get gift cards redeemable from stores etc. Apple not allowing developers to simply do this is retarded.
Look as I said you keep trying to argue gaming consoles in anyway relate to the iOS store and i have pointed out numerous reasons why they dont.
Ok…
1. It doesn’t matter where you buy the console game from. The console manufacturer gets a cut of the sale of the physical game. This has been the case for decades. And most console games are bought online now anyway.
2. You mention buying stuff through a web browser on a console. You know iPhones have a web browser too, right? They are not stopping people from going to the game maker’s website and buying in-game currency. They are disallowing a link directly from the game while you’re playing it to the company’s e-commerce site.
So, there is no difference at all, since your examples are incorrect.
That is literally the point I was making except when it comes to physical games "Johnny" can go to gamestop and buy a game used and their is no cut to the console manufacturer.
That literally is ALL THE DIFFERENCE
"They are disallowing a link directly from the game while you’re playing it to the company’s e-commerce site."
NOBODY but Apple does this. Not Nintendo, not Microsoft, not Sony, not Android, only Apple!
But they were “purchased” through the app
tangible or not, both are “value” to the user. The logic doesn’t apply