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

[dumastudetto]

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.

Were you the head of strategy at Windows Phone?

 

[Wildkraut]

And this is why my computer has dozens of launchers/updaters whereas my iPhone only has one - App Store.

I have no problem having extra updaters, works wonderful here with Affinity Photo, Affinity Designer, Affinity Publisher, AndroidStudio, UnrealEngine, Houdini, Maya, Blender, ZBrush, VisualStudioCode, Firefox, etc.
That way I can chose a version of an App that is Project related, or rollback to an older Version. or even skip a version because of project compatibility/coworking reasons. And since Apple advertises the iPad as a PC alternative, it should handle these situations like a PC or Mac. Reversed conclusion, If the iPad should, iOS can/should, too.

 

[falainber]

Its actually not lower. He got that number from his engineering team.

What do you call an "API"? It's an application programming interface. Interface usually refers to a big facility. For example Win32 API covers a significant part of programming for Windows but there are extras. These APIs contain thousands of methods each. An example of Apple API would be "App Store Connect API". How many of the APIs like that does Apple have? Dozens. Hundred(s) at most.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

I disagree with this statement. Epic has plenty of capital to invest in their own hardware and platform if they would like to.

What is preventing Epic from reaching out to another manufacturer that is not part of the major competition, such as maybe Blackberry or Microsoft, acquiring their mobile phone division, and making their own phone and App store to compete?

Apple is not forcing them to use the Apple platform. Epic chose to use Apple's platform because they want to make money using Apple's successful product. They are not choosing to litigate because they want to avoid paying for the privilege to use Apple's platform as they would be more profitable!

They could also choose to compete by doing what every other competitor has done thus far such as negotiate better deals and acquire companies in that space to develop their own platform with their own rules and in fact, if that was their true motive, in doing so, could prompt Apple and other owners of an App Store to compete harder for that space.

This illustrates to me that their true motive is not competition but profit.

Keep in mind that Microsoft attempted to compete with iOS, and failed. I don't know that anyone could compete with the Apple/Google duopoly at this point.

 

[MRrainer]

Would you also prefer that all e-commerce websites be shut down, except Amazon and maybe one other? Or would you concede that in most cases consumers can make informed decisions and avoid major problems when shopping online?

Only the illegitimate ones or those with a bad security track-record.
;-)

Note: I buy very, very little from Amazon.

 

[One2Grift]

These WalMart, Best Buy, etc. analogies are all based on a flawed premise.

Apple does not operate like any of these stores. Once the product is purchased from a store, that is the end of the relationship between the customer and the store.
Say I want to buy a prepaid cell phone from WalMart. I can do that and WalMart gets a cut of that initial sale. From that point on, I can buy minute refills from ANYWHERE, including the carrier directly. I have no obligation to return to WalMart to purchase any refill cards.

In the App Store's case, Apple requires any purchases made after I've already downloaded the game, to be completed through them. Whether app is a paid app or free app is moot.
My relationship with Apple is no longer required once the app is installed on my phone. All the online components are hosted on the developers servers, not Apple's. Apple's requirement to be the middle man for future purchases unrelated to Apple is purely for their own profit and they can do so because they don't allow alternative stores.

If I don't like WalMart's store policies, I can go to another store to do my business. There is no such option for iPhone/iPad users.

yes there is, go with the myriad number of non Apple phone/tablet options available to consumers. enjoy.

Yes there is still a relationship based on what and how Apple positions their offering to you, the consumer. It’s Walled and therefore quantifiably safer than it’s competition (the haters really hate that reality). Also a Tight engineering loop to make the world’s leading ‘it just works’ devices. Again go to a competitor and go with that platform (Android) versus buying a known tightly walled product then whining about it being tightly walled.

seriously, the haters here are delusional. The judge isn’t going to tell Apple they must open up their own App Store just as the judge isn’t going to make Apple open the iPhone to app loads from other app stores. On the wild unlikelihood she does, it’ll get struck down. It’s comical (and you may want to read everything the judge said including to Fortnite). This trial was more about advertising than anything, and media ate it up to FN’s delight.