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

[quarkysg]

But it’s already happening. I can buy things in the Target app using the card I have on file with them. Same with Panera and all sorts of other apps. Apple charging 30% for digital only goods isn‘t about privacy and security it’s about Apple believing they’re delivering the customers to these developers and thus deserve a cut of their revenue streams. Maybe that was the case initially but can we really say that now? Can you name the last app you installed because of Apple marketing?

It really doesn’t matter what I think. It is Apple’s platform. It’s their decision to make. I’ll leave if I don’t like it. I’m not entitled to demand that they change their business model regardless of how upset I am.

For example, I do not agree with Google and Facebook business model, so I try to avoid their services. But that doesn’t mean that I’m entitled to use the law to force them to change, just so that I reap benefits. Different companies monetize their products and services differently. As long as it’s lawful, I don’t have any issue with it in terms of how they operate. I have a choice is deciding to use their offerings. If there’s none that I like, I just don’t use any. Life goes on.

Whether Apple marketing is effective is irrelevant for me. I don’t buy apps just because I’m being marketed to. I look for what I think I needed in the iOS App Store. If I found something useful good, if not, tough luck. I do what I need some other way. That’s how it was before smartphone and I think that’s how it’ll be going forward.

There are a billion active iOS users in this world. Everyone uses their devices differently. No way any marketing will be effective for everyone. Marketing as I know it, are always focused to maximise effectiveness.

 

[SuperMatt]

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!

Sorry, your information is wrong.

Steam:

Microtransactions (In-Game Purchases) (Steamworks Documentation)

partner.steamgames.com

For any in-game purchases, you'll need to use the microtransaction API so Steam customers can only make purchases from the Steam Wallet.

Microsoft:

Microsoft Store Policies version 7.18 - Windows apps

Products on the Store must meet our certification standards, offer customers a truly useful and engaging experience, and provide a good fit for the Store.

docs.microsoft.com

10.2.5

All of your product and in-product offerings that are available to acquire from the Store must be installed and updated only through the Store.

10.8.1

You must use the Microsoft Store in-product purchase API to sell digital items or services that are consumed or used within your product. Your product may enable users to consume previously purchased digital content or services, but must not direct users to a purchase mechanism other than the Microsoft Store in-product purchase API.

It wasn’t hard to find the info on these 2 quickly. As you can see, Apple is not the only one with such policies. Your assertion is incorrect.

 

[Rogifan]

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 subscribe to the Carrot weather app. I downloaded the app once. What am I going back to Apple for?

 

[Rogifan]

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.

Don’t they shoulder all the costs of hosting Facebook, YouTube, Instagram etc. too? Honestly if Apple thinks it deserves a cut it should only get it for apps that aren’t available anywhere else and are using tools that the can’t get anywhere else.

 

[Rogifan]

It really doesn’t matter what I think. It is Apple’s platform. It’s their decision to make. I’ll leave if I don’t like it. I’m not entitled to demand that they change their business model regardless of how upset I am.

For example, I do not agree with Google and Facebook business model, so I try to avoid their services. But that doesn’t mean that I’m entitled to use the law to force them to change, just so that I reap benefits. Different companies monetize their products and services differently. As long as it’s lawful, I don’t have any issue with it in terms of how they operate. I have a choice is deciding to use their offerings. If there’s none that I like, I just don’t use any. Life goes on.

Whether Apple marketing is effective is irrelevant for me. I don’t buy apps just because I’m being marketed to. I look for what I think I needed in the iOS App Store. If I found something useful good, if not, tough luck. I do what I need some other way. That’s how it was before smartphone and I think that’s how it’ll be going forward.

There are a billion active iOS users in this world. Everyone uses their devices differently. No way any marketing will be effective for everyone. Marketing as I know it, are always focused to maximise effectiveness.

Something is lawful until it isn’t. I’d rather see Apple make changes instead of being forced to by the government.

 

[SuperMatt]

Don’t they shoulder all the costs of hosting Facebook, YouTube, Instagram etc. too? Honestly if Apple thinks it deserves a cut it should only get it for apps that aren’t available anywhere else and are using tools that the can’t get anywhere else.

If those companies decided to charge customers directly for services within their apps, they would be subject to the same fees as all other developers that do so.

 

[chilly willy]

To all those accusing the judge of being anti-Apple, remember that she is supposed to push both sides in order to make a fully-informed decision either way. The judge asks questions because it is a bench trial, not a jury trial. A judge can ask questions in bench trials, just as they would of attorneys making arguments in motion hearings, or appellate judges like SOCTUS would. And no litigant should expect - or imo want - a judge who does not probe perceived weaknesses in making their ruling.

 

[I7guy]

Something is lawful until it isn’t. I’d rather see Apple make changes instead of being forced to by the government.

I’d rather see the legalities spelled out. This way as bad as it could be for apple the laws are clear.

 

[Wildkraut]

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.

I wonder how they can say that 30% covers their dev costs, if they don’t have statistics about if the AppStore makes profit. 🤣
Crook caught lying.

 

[mnsportsgeek]

I wonder how they can say that 30% covers their dev costs, if they don’t have statistics about if the AppStore makes profit. 🤣
Crook caught lying.

I’m honestly surprised that was the answer they gave after having months to prepare. It’s terrible if their intent is trying to justify why some pay and some don’t. There are better arguments in this thread.

 

[kmann1983]

I did not know the Judge could take sides?

Why do people so often confuse being critical with taking a side?'

So if you don't worship Apple as your New God then you must hate Apple? That's ridiculous.

The Judge is calling out Cook for his nonsense and pointing out the obvious flaws in his arguments.

 

[kmann1983]

Apple should say that they will just disable the App Store if they cannot “make a profit.”

THIS IS CAPITALISM! Apple is not doing charity work for poor developers. Apple PROVIDED A WAY TO MAKE MONEY! They CHOSE to make an app.

Oh boy do you have some learning to do.
Look at Microsoft's phone. Excluding the issue of the Market, it had AMAZING reviews.
But when Facebook and Google didn't bring their apps to the phone it died.

If Apple is forced to open up third party appstores somehow or another, I think Apple will do just fine. I don't think, like the majority do here, that it'll doom Apple or the iPhone through voodoo or something.

And if Apple closed the store out of spite, then share holders could probably hold them responsible for that loss of profit. So... it won't end like you fantasize it will.

The problem here is Apple is abusing their power.

It's a phone. An expensive one at that. If Microsoft can be told to cooperate, then so can Apple.

Apple has a poor history with developers. So at some point, every competent person knew this problem was coming sooner or later. Now Apple is trying to slide between "poor pitiful me" and "UNLIMITED POWER".

But no, your fantasy just doesn't exist. And it doesn't exist for most people here. If Apple wins, you'll see them clamp down and it won't benefit the user. If Apple loses and is forced to implement a third-party installer or AppStore then I think it'll be just fine.

Hell, Apple could even have restrict AppStores where everyone developer ID is given their own ability to own it up. Abuse the privilege? Then it's revoked and apps those that AppStore stamp are flagged so users know. Boom, a gazillion problems resolved.

But no, Apple wants to abuse companies like it did with Amazon's Kindle app.

 

[kmann1983]

What a lousy biased judge. Apple provides a lot for it’s developers. Sometimes I think they fall short but they’ve corrected themselves (see Apple silicon DTK return credit) Apple holds WWDC, has plenty of resources, introduces new and useful APIs every year for developers to build new functionality into their apps, etc.

I love how people want a free and open market, and then want to regulate apple to their advantage. I thought the idea behind a free market is to let Apple do what Apple feels is best. If customers don’t like it, go to Android or build your own.

I’m not defending Apple here, there was a lot of damning information against them. It’s clear that they do not treat all developers equally, but I disagree with what Epic is trying to accomplish. Whether apple should allow side loading of apps is another story, but in the current situation of how things were/are being handled, I do not like Epic’s goals or values.

Apple does not do a lot. It does the bare minimum. There's a reason Apple documentation is laughed at and people reference many years old blogs to get things written -- and it's not because of amazing things Apple does for coders.

If it were literally any other company with ObjC and Swift/SwiftUI with that crap doc's, no way it would have gotten this far. Not that it's a bad language (it's meh, neither good nor bad) -- but it's immature and poorly documented. So there's not a lot of "pros" in the column and a TON of "cons" in the column.

Apple is not a developer's friend. They have never been. If you upset Apple they will go out of their way to screw you like they did with Amazon's Kindle app.

Companies are not your friend. They are not loyal to you. At any point they can shift and you are not the target audience and you will be forgotten. This is not the 60's anymore.

 

[Ethosik]

Problem is, once I download an app from the App Store to my iPhone, the app is running on my iPhone, not on the App Store, and it's not Apple's business what I do on an app on my iPhone.

And how does that app get updated? Through the App Store.

 

[Ethosik]

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

The point is that you replied that you can buy the game elsewhere. But it still costs money to do so DO THE GAME MANUFACTURER. What Epic wants is to sell elsewhere, and Apple gets NOTHING.

 

[derekamoss]

The point is that you replied that you can buy the game elsewhere. But it still costs money to do so DO THE GAME MANUFACTURER. What Epic wants is to sell elsewhere, and Apple gets NOTHING.

Once again if you read my earlier posts I said we SHOULDN'T be relating the game console market to the epic vs apple case because of the thing you said above. I'm not taking a stance on the epic vs apple trial and nothing in my posts have appeared to be. I'm just trying to tell people that PC and console gaming should not be used as an example. In that space there are multiple options to purchase things through and multiple products to play them with without ever having a someone take 30/15% cut on every transaction. On iOS this isn't possible. Once again I say this not to compare consoles and PC games to iOS VS epic. I say it for why people should quit using as an example.

 

[SuperMatt]

Oh boy do you have some learning to do.
Look at Microsoft's phone. Excluding the issue of the Market, it had AMAZING reviews.
But when Facebook and Google didn't bring their apps to the phone it died.

If Apple is forced to open up third party appstores somehow or another, I think Apple will do just fine. I don't think, like the majority do here, that it'll doom Apple or the iPhone through voodoo or something.

And if Apple closed the store out of spite, then share holders could probably hold them responsible for that loss of profit. So... it won't end like you fantasize it will.

The problem here is Apple is abusing their power.

It's a phone. An expensive one at that. If Microsoft can be told to cooperate, then so can Apple.

Apple has a poor history with developers. So at some point, every competent person knew this problem was coming sooner or later. Now Apple is trying to slide between "poor pitiful me" and "UNLIMITED POWER".

But no, your fantasy just doesn't exist. And it doesn't exist for most people here. If Apple wins, you'll see them clamp down and it won't benefit the user. If Apple loses and is forced to implement a third-party installer or AppStore then I think it'll be just fine.

Hell, Apple could even have restrict AppStores where everyone developer ID is given their own ability to own it up. Abuse the privilege? Then it's revoked and apps those that AppStore stamp are flagged so users know. Boom, a gazillion problems resolved.

But no, Apple wants to abuse companies like it did with Amazon's Kindle app.

Apple wants to abuse companies? Quite a statement. Any support for this statement? Or is it just your opinion? Are you saying Apple abused Amazon? That’s pretty laughable.

Apple will ”clamp down” if they win this case? That is a fantasy by definition, as you don’t know what might happen in the future.

As for Windows phone’s demise, come on. Here’s some light reading if one is interested in the many reasons why it failed. BTW - with the windows phone 8.1 release (supposedly the “good” one) Facebook was available as an app. TLDR? They were 4 years behind Apple, and their first try was based on the horrific Windows CE. Then they tried charging phone manufacturers licensing fees while Android was being handed out for free, so they were almost totally reliant on Nokia as the only manufacturer. Microsoft alone is to blame for the failure of Windows phone.

Here are the real reasons Windows Phone failed, reveals ex-Nokia engineer

Windows Phone might have survived if Microsoft hadn't make these mistakes, says a former Nokia engineer.

www.zdnet.com

TechRadar | The source for tech buying advice

The latest technology news and reviews, covering computing, home entertainment systems, gadgets and more

www.technobuffalo.com

Why Did The Windows Phone Fail?

Because of Microsoft’s blatant arrogance

medium.com

Microsoft's Terry Myerson reveals why Windows Phone failed

Windows Phone is dead. Everybody knows that. There are still a lot of people who use Windows Phones as their daily drivers but Microsoft has confirmed that Windows 10 Mobile will not get any more features or hardware updates. So that makes the platform dead. But why did this happen? Why did an...

www.windowslatest.com

 

[fbr$]

And how does that app get updated? Through the App Store.

So Apple should charge the app creator for what happens on the App Store, not charge the app creator for transactions that occur in my iPhone outside the realm of the App Store.

Whatever happens on an app installed on my iPhone outside the App Store is not Apple's business.

 

[MRrainer]

It would indeed be nice if there were "alternative app-stores" - but who should run them?
The reality is that most consumers aren't able to make an informed decision as to when a web-page asking for payment information is "legit" and when not.
In the end, it would all get blamed on Apple.

 

[Joelist]

Lots of fun arguing but it is all wide of the underlying point. Epics entire lawsuit is moot unless they can get not just this judge but all appeals courts up to and including the Supreme Court to agree to the proposition that iOS is a market and Apple thus is a monopolist. If they take the viewpoint that the market is smartphones then it all dies - if they in fact take ANY other definition of the market than it being iOS it dies.

The Microsoft antitrust lawsuit defined its market as PC Operating Systems and said Microsoft's (at the time) 90% + market share meant it was a monopoly. So it did not do what Epic is asking for which would be a first - single out a particular product which has readily identifiable competitors and does not have a dominant marketshare and define that product as a market.

 

[rkuo]

Lots of fun arguing but it is all wide of the underlying point. Epics entire lawsuit is moot unless they can get not just this judge but all appeals courts up to and including the Supreme Court to agree to the proposition that iOS is a market and Apple thus is a monopolist. If they take the viewpoint that the market is smartphones then it all dies - if they in fact take ANY other definition of the market than it being iOS it dies.

The Microsoft antitrust lawsuit defined its market as PC Operating Systems and said Microsoft's (at the time) 90% + market share meant it was a monopoly. So it did not do what Epic is asking for which would be a first - single out a particular product which has readily identifiable competitors and does not have a dominant marketshare and define that product as a market.

Market domination - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

• A company, brand, product, or service that has a combined market share exceeding 60% most probably has market power and market dominance.
• A market share of over 35% but less than 60%, held by one brand, product or service, is an indicator of market strength but not necessarily dominance.
• A market share of less than 35%, held by one brand, product or service, is not an indicator of strength or dominance and will not raise anti-competitive concerns by government regulators.

What is Apple's smartphone market share in the United States?

 

[I7guy]

Market domination - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

• A company, brand, product, or service that has a combined market share exceeding 60% most probably has market power and market dominance.
• A market share of over 35% but less than 60%, held by one brand, product or service, is an indicator of market strength but not necessarily dominance.
• A market share of less than 35%, held by one brand, product or service, is not an indicator of strength or dominance and will not raise anti-competitive concerns by government regulators.

What is Apple's smartphone market share in the United States?

Irrelevant if the market is defined as all smartphones. Otherwise, it depends.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Since you are a developer maybe you can answer something. Suppose the judge says Apple has to allow outside stores. How do you expect them to then charge for developer access? I would expect the their $99 a year for access would change (could be wrong on the amount but last time I check this was it)? Should they charge a fee for use of certain APIs? How

No. The SDK needs to exist either way for Apple to make their own software for their own OS. They benefit by having developers make apps for their OS - it doesn’t make sense that Apple would change developers for that.

The way Apple makes money is by selling hardware at ludicrously marked up prices (phones that cost about $400 to make being sold for $1600). Every iOS developer owns an abnormally large number of iOS devices so that they can test that their apps work on all of them. Apple makes a lot more money off of having developers buy all these devices they don’t otherwise need than they do off the $99/year membership.

See macOS, for example. People are free to developer for macOS without paying Apple a cent for anything but the Mac.

And actually, if I’m not mistaken, you can develop iOS apps without paying the $99/year fee - you just can’t distribute the app until you pay that fee.

 

[quarkysg]

Something is lawful until it isn’t.

Agreed, tho. IMHO, nothing will change with this lawsuit. I don’t see EPIC having a case.

I’d rather see Apple make changes instead of being forced to by the government.

I’m giving Apple the benefit of the doubt that they will strategise their product roadmaps with improving customer satisfaction in mind, but not so much pleasing developers. They have consistently demonstrated this trait, which is why they have a large returning customer base, which I admit to being one of them. Well, I guess, if you do it right, the money will follow. No point pleasing everyone as that’s an impossibility.

Unless laws are passed forcing Apple to change, this lawsuit is unlikely to change anything, IMHO.

 

[DummyFool]

It really doesn’t matter what I think. It is Apple’s platform. It’s their decision to make. I’ll leave if I don’t like it. I’m not entitled to demand that they change their business model regardless of how upset I am.

That's your opinion but that's not what the law says. Hence that's why we have that trial and why there are many anti monopolistic investigations against Apple and other big techs. The fact that it's their platform is irrelevant, there as to be fair competition.