Sidebar Sidebar
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

nylon said:
This is faulty logic. Blocking side loading has a significant security implication as well as ensuring monetization. They are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
They want their forced cut. He just said it. It's about monetization whether it's blocking sideloading or a forced take of in app purchases.

That they STILL allow sideloading on MacOS is what walks all over your take. If they wanna claim side loading is about security only and nothing else, then they need to lock down MacOS tomorrow and see where that gets them.
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: peanuts_of_pathos, PC_tech, driveparty and 2 others
bg1419 said:
Are you unfamiliar with bakeries?
Click to expand...
The vast majority of bakers that are found in grocery stores act as wholesalers who sell directly to said retailers. And if a bakery wanted to put “visit www.xyz.com to save 10%” Walmart wouldn’t give a crap because 99.9% of consumers aren’t going to drive 50 miles to the nearest bakery or wait for the bakery to ship their bread in order to save 50 cents.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: peanuts_of_pathos, cyb3rdud3 and rafark
Was the fortnite app free to download? When talking about epic I only hear about in app purchases. If it was free, epic shouldn’t complain at all for Apple hosting a store and not being able to get a part of the money.
 
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: peanuts_of_pathos and driveparty
IG88 said:
They want their forced cut. He just said it. It's about monetization whether it's blocking sideloading or a forced take of in app purchases.

That they STILL allow sideloading on MacOS is what walks all over your take. If they wanna claim side loading is about security only and nothing else, then they need to lock down MacOS tomorrow and see where that gets them.
Click to expand...

Indeed they do want their cut and why not. If I create/popularize an entire new industry of computing device and a new platform and ecosystem for developers to flog their wares I too would want my cut.

A desktop/notebook computer is a system which can promiscuously install software from any source. That's always been the expectation of the customer.

A device like a games console is limited to only run signed software from the vendor. When buying the device, we agree that the software comes only from approved sources.

iOS devices are sold like the latter. This path was chosen because it allows the manufacturer to control which software runs, and thereby prevent the problems which are associated with promiscuity.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: AdonisSMU, peanuts_of_pathos, moulderine and 1 other person
Trenches said:
[...] Walmart shouldn’t get a cut of every slice of bread I buy for the toaster I bought there.[...]
Click to expand...
No but the bread manufacturer pays a shelving fee upfront. Apple requires no upfront investment other than $99. Developer is free to set any price for the app.
Trenches said:
This isn’t black and white; it is serving Apple to mislead us into thinking it is. They can spin off the App Store, remove in-app purchase restrictions (or make their in-app offering more competitive to where developers will use it out of desire rather than force), and they can provide the same security benefits to iOS without being anticompetitive. You heard it in plainspeak straight from the source; in-app purchase restrictions are about Apple’s money only, competition be damned.
Click to expand...
It's actually black and white. We have been hammered into thinking apple is monopolistic, when in fact it may not be. Not liking Apples' app store policies is not the same as the anti-competitive, anti-monopolistic rhetoric. Now, if in fact that is a finding, it's a finding. But it's not a finding today as this is written.

What matters is the outcome. The judges opinion, the appeals, the eventual journey to the Supreme Court, if that is where this is going to go.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: AdonisSMU, peanuts_of_pathos, secretbum and 5 others
Trenches said:
The judge needs to dig into the meat of the arguments, and her point about no in-app purchase competition is valid. Apple is running within the parameters of a monopolistic market at best (either App Store or Google Play) and a monopoly when it comes to iOS/iPadOS apps they did not create.

Most arguments on the forums I see are just people who are OK with Apple’s monopoly. No one said monopolies were automatically bad in all ways. They can provide higher consistency, quality, and customer satisfaction than the open market. But they exert domineering control over choice, market entrance, and customer relationships.

As for Tim’s point: why is Apple’s return on its IP any more important than a developer’s return in its IP? At some point, the outlet of purchase has to shut up and go away. Walmart shouldn’t get a cut of every slice of bread I buy for the toaster I bought there.

This isn’t black and white; it is serving Apple to mislead us into thinking it is. They can spin off the App Store, remove in-app purchase restrictions (or make their in-app offering more competitive to where developers will use it out of desire rather than force), and they can provide the same security benefits to iOS without being anticompetitive. You heard it in plainspeak straight from the source; in-app purchase restrictions are about Apple’s money only, competition be damned.
Click to expand...
They are not exerting anything. Developers "choose" to develop on the platform. They aren't forced to. They can choose to just develop on the PC/Mac/Xbox/PS/Nintendo/Linux/Android if they so choose too. Just like Apple can choose to not even have an AppStore, which in the beginning they did not have an AppStore.

Walmart gets a cut of every loaf of bread sold in Walmart. Same as Apple or any store gets a cut of anything they sell in their store. There is no difference just cause one is digital and one is physical. BestBuy and Walmart have both physical and digital stores. If you buy a vBUCKs gift card from any of those stores, they get a cut of the sale.

They don't have to spin anything off. Why do people thing there is a "have to" anything. They can create anything they want, it's a free world. They have to convince the consumer they are the best of the bunch, and work towards that end in order to PROFIT. That's what a business does. Again, they are not preventing anyone from buying outside of their platform. You just can't make them do what you want the way you want it. That's cause voting with your dollars and not buying anything they sell. Clearly, Apple has the customers to bring to the table for all these developers to sell stuff to. No Apple, no store, no business. You can still go to Google, and Microsoft, and Blackberry, and whatever else in the Asian market. Apple is not a monopoly. They don't even have the dominate marketshare to even be considered it.

It is truly astounding that people think they can make a business do something they want. They do what they want to do. So long as it is within the law to do so. Can a developer sell their stuff elsewhere? If that answer is YES, then we have no case here. Don't like Apples rules, don't play by them, don't sell there. And stop complaining. The market will decide if they should stay in business or not. If customers leave then it's game over. If they say, then EPIC is not the big money driver they think they are. People can play fort nite on any number of other platforms. Amazon will continue to sell direct, the world will still turn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: peanuts_of_pathos, loby, secretbum and 4 others
alex2792 said:
Imagine if apps like Netflix, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter etc. could just move to an alternative App Store. Do you seriously think that Apple wouldn’t change their policies pronto in order to keep that from happening?
Click to expand...
If it came to that, the train has already left the station.
 
  • Like
Reactions: peanuts_of_pathos
NotTooLate said:
Dude , they are targeting kids in a VERY obvious way to spend virtual bucks on cosmetics and they are making 4x the money then their unreal engine and all the rest of their business together , you took some games they made ages ago and put them up as an example of what exactly unreal tournament , that far ha ?!?!?! unreal engine monetization scheme is bad for game developers , which is why the big game developers are opting out of using the unreal engine and doing their own thing , RAGE from rockstar , CDProjectREd , Bethesda and many more of the top dogs , the medium/smaller size developers have no option but to go with it as Unity and Unreal are basically the iOS & Android of the game engine world today.

Their Epic store basically brought the "console" style of gaming to the PC world (sad sad day), in which they pay for exclusive titles for their store , so that Valve wont be able to offer them in their own store , so competing in the worst way possible from the CONSUMER POV , as I , the consumer cant choose which store to buy my games at , so their **** store with **** features is now the only place I can get some of the games , just because they bought exclusive distribution rights for it , what happens to fair competition ? put the games in all the stores and let me decide which store is the best , he is a visionary no doubt .... a true gamer at heart!!! sold his souls years ago , peddling virtual coins to kids , talk about hitting rock bottom.
Click to expand...
"...which is why the big game developers are opting out of using the unreal engine and doing their own thing"

There are plenty of AAA Games currently being developed with Unreal Engine, for PS, Xbox, Win, and usually 3-4 years later they show up on macs, when their hardware spec finally catches up.

These Devs/Publishers you named didn't opt out...
These bigger game developers are old just like EPIC, and they started to build their engine many years ago just like EPIC. It takes +-10 years with multiple devs to build an engine like UE, they were always doing their own thing.
Even CD Project is 27 years old, their RedEngine was first used in the Witcher 2, which was 2011, so they must have started to code the RedEngine around 7-10 years earlier.

And there are uncountable smaller Games build with UE on iOS and Android.
 
  • Like
Reactions: peanuts_of_pathos, Mal Blackadder and rjohnstone
Freida said:
The article sounds one sided. The questioning was long and if the writer picks just these than of course it sounds like that. I think it would be fair to read the whole transcript and then see if it was really one sided
Click to expand...
MacRumors has been incredibly biased in their coverage in favor of Apple throughout this entire trial.

Every mainstream news organization suggested this trial was going poorly for Apple. This is the first article on MacRumors that exposes how poorly something went for Apple. People who have been only following MacRumor's coverage of the trial are now in shock because they didn't bother actually looking elsewhere.

Of course, they could have just asked the 40% of dissatisfied developers cited in the article - many of us are on the MacRumors forums. It should be noted that in a properly functioning market, the number of dissatisfied people should be somewhere around zero - if you don't like a relation, you'd end it. But the millions of developers of iOS apps don't have that choice - their option is to not develop apps at all, or to be forced into this relationship with Apple.

When do we get to hear the results of this case?
 
  • Like
  • Wow
  • Disagree
Reactions: peanuts_of_pathos, PC_tech, moulderine and 9 others
I’ve seen a lot of comments about having an alternative but at the end of the day what does the average consumer want? I know with the 6 in my family on family sharing unless there was no other choice we would stick with the Apple App Store due to the ease of family sharing apps, subscriptions, movies etc. I feel like having more options may be great for some but to the average person it is not going to change their habits. We just had a new Aldi and Amazon Fresh open here. But I still shop at the Jewel. Choice is great some will take advantage but I would expect most will stay with the store they know and likely trust by this point.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: iOS Geek, peanuts_of_pathos and tann
Funny how some many comments here are now suddenly up in arms thinking the judge is unfair pointing out some of the huge flaws with the way the store operates, calling her biased, one sided, unfair… yet when she calls out Tim Sweeney the other week, in the same sort of manner, people praise her for pointing out some serious issues with arguments made.

This trail more than anything shows the sheer extent Apple seems to have brainwashed their legions of fans to argue for Apple regardless of what it’s about. Kind of like how people were pointing out the Epic “fans” were being previously.
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Angry
Reactions: jacksam, peanuts_of_pathos, PC_tech and 13 others
NotTooLate said:
Dude , they are targeting kids in a VERY obvious way to spend virtual bucks on cosmetics and they are making 4x the money then their unreal engine and all the rest of their business together , you took some games they made ages ago and put them up as an example of what exactly unreal tournament , that far ha ?!?!?! unreal engine monetization scheme is bad for game developers , which is why the big game developers are opting out of using the unreal engine and doing their own thing , RAGE from rockstar , CDProjectREd , Bethesda and many more of the top dogs , the medium/smaller size developers have no option but to go with it as Unity and Unreal are basically the iOS & Android of the game engine world today.

Their Epic store basically brought the "console" style of gaming to the PC world (sad sad day), in which they pay for exclusive titles for their store , so that Valve wont be able to offer them in their own store , so competing in the worst way possible from the CONSUMER POV , as I , the consumer cant choose which store to buy my games at , so their **** store with **** features is now the only place I can get some of the games , just because they bought exclusive distribution rights for it , what happens to fair competition ? put the games in all the stores and let me decide which store is the best , he is a visionary no doubt .... a true gamer at heart!!! sold his souls years ago , peddling virtual coins to kids , talk about hitting rock bottom.
Click to expand...
1. Here‘s a partial list of Unreal Engine games. Just take a look. Also, can you even count? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unreal_Engine_games
2. You accuse Epic of peddling skins. Yet, Apple was fine taking 30% like the local mobster. Guilt by association, innit?
3. Epic Games essentially funded and covered costs upfront. Also, waived the 5% unreal engine fee if the game‘s sold on EGS. Developers wons, PC elitists started whining that they didn’t get the ‘choice’ to buy it on steam.
4. Whether you like it or not, Fortnite is the biggest game (in terms of reach) ever made by any developer. if you love Gears of War, Epic sold the rights to Microsoft who still continues to make Gears of war. If you love Unreal tournament, nobody stops you from buying those timeless games.
What you want doesn’t matter. Face the reality.
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: peanuts_of_pathos, IG88, Mal Blackadder and 2 others
Analog Kid said:
I don’t understand why the answer to this wasn’t, “we seem to be doing just fine without Fortnite, so if the implication is that we’re dependent on them in some way, no. They have the freedom to leave our platform, and we’re still doing ok.”
Click to expand...
Yes, Epic, as the largest game developer and a private company, is free to make such a decision.

The judge cited the 40% of developers who despise Apple but have to work with the company anyways, because they have no other options. Suggesting they stop selling on the App Store is like me telling you to just never work again. That's not an actual option.
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: peanuts_of_pathos, PC_tech, moulderine and 4 others
tann said:
Funny how some many comments here are now suddenly up in arms thinking the judge is unfair pointing out some of the huge flaws with the way the store operates, calling her biased, one sided, unfair… yet when she calls out Tim Sweeney the other week, in the same sort of manner, people praise her for pointing out some serious issues with arguments made.

This trail more than anything shows the sheer extent Apple seems to have brainwashed their legions of fans to argue for Apple regardless of what it’s about. Kind of like how people were pointing out the Epic “fans” were being previously.
Click to expand...
Clearly you are unfamiliar with humanity. 🤣
 
  • Like
Reactions: peanuts_of_pathos
deevey said:
No, you "think" it "might" drop prices. There is no evidence to suggest it would or would not actually happen.
Click to expand...
There is plenty of evidence to show that prices can drop with competition when the customer is allowed to buy from elsewhere, in the UK today Adobe Photoshop Elements 2021 is cheaper to buy from Amazon than it is to buy from the Mac App store, Many Mac games are cheaper on Steam than they are from the Mac app Store, all of these programs can be installed on the Mac without negatively affecting security, why can't it be the same for iOS devices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tann, RedRage, EyeTack and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back