Judge YGR quoted ~40% as dissatisfied & ~10% as very dissatisfied. So it adds up to about 50%
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
Judge Rogers said that Apple could monetize in other ways, pointing out that games make up most of the in-app purchases. "It's almost as if they're subsidizing everyone else,"
And that gets to the heart of the case. Why should a company like Uber get a totally free pass to have an in-app signup to their private payment system and generate literally $Billions in revenues while Epic can't? Apple is unfairly penalizing consumers in one particular market to the benefit of others.
And that gets to the heart of the case. Why should a company like Uber get a totally free pass to have an in-app signup to their private payment system and generate literally $Billions in revenues while Epic can't? Apple is unfairly penalizing consumers in one particular market to the benefit of others.
I for one and I’m sure I’m in the majority will not purchase from a 3rd party. If I can’t use Apples payment system I will look for another app or just do without. So go ahead Epic you will lose sales anyway as with any other developers that want to use another payment system.
I agree. There is a reason I need to spend $1,000+ on my Visual Studio/Azure DevOps/Pipelines setup. Not to mention I still have my CDN to deliver the end product which is about $500 a month. I do not want Xcode to end up being $1,000 a year just because of Epic.
I'm looking forward to the EU antitrust 
That's where Apple will get the second blue eye.
That's where Apple will get the second blue eye.
Because you are USING Apple's IP to create YOUR IP (using the APIs, XCode, CDN deliver Apple provides, and more).
That requirement was held to be illegal long ago. Unless the manufacturer can prove the part is what caused a subsequent failure then the warranty is still in force.
"Warrantors cannot require that only branded parts be used with the product in order to retain the warranty."
Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act - Wikipedia
So...Apple cuts its commission in half last year, and it's due to Epic's litigation...but Google does it in the last month and it's due to competition??!? WTF kind of logic is that?
In the USA, what right does a judge have to tell a company with a MINORITY share of a market how to run its business? Will she ignore McDonald's, but tell Taco Bell what prices they can charge, and how much profit they can make?
I'll say it again: Apple does not have the dominant position in mobile, Google does. It's not possible for Apple to have a monopoly in mobile when it has a smaller share than Google. What's next? Will this judge tell Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft et al how much they're entitled to profit from their stores?
In the USA, what right does a judge have to tell a company with a MINORITY share of a market how to run its business? Will she ignore McDonald's, but tell Taco Bell what prices they can charge, and how much profit they can make?
I'll say it again: Apple does not have the dominant position in mobile, Google does. It's not possible for Apple to have a monopoly in mobile when it has a smaller share than Google. What's next? Will this judge tell Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft et al how much they're entitled to profit from their stores?
Last edited by a moderator:
An. iPhone. And. The. AppStore. Are. Not. Utilities.
Also, they don’t provide for food, clothing, or shelter, so they’re not a necessity.
I don’t understand this argument of “Apple has no competition...” Neither the phone nor the store is necessary for for existing on the planet, and as has been said, there are other phones/marketplaces/ecosystems so why the hell does the government need to be involved?
Also, am I the only one who HATES in-app purchases, especially for games? I’ll gladly pay $50 for a full game, and another $50 next year for another full game/sequel. But I can’t stand the whole “Season Pass” concept for Call of Duty, and don’t get me started on the hundreds my son he spent on costumes and dance moves on Fortnite. And the Fortnite items don’t even give you an in-game advantage!
Also, they don’t provide for food, clothing, or shelter, so they’re not a necessity.
I don’t understand this argument of “Apple has no competition...” Neither the phone nor the store is necessary for for existing on the planet, and as has been said, there are other phones/marketplaces/ecosystems so why the hell does the government need to be involved?
Also, am I the only one who HATES in-app purchases, especially for games? I’ll gladly pay $50 for a full game, and another $50 next year for another full game/sequel. But I can’t stand the whole “Season Pass” concept for Call of Duty, and don’t get me started on the hundreds my son he spent on costumes and dance moves on Fortnite. And the Fortnite items don’t even give you an in-game advantage!
Last edited:
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
Judge Rogers said that Apple could monetize in other ways, pointing out that games make up most of the in-app purchases. "It's almost as if they're subsidizing everyone else,"
And that gets to the heart of the case. Why should a company like Uber get a totally free pass to have an in-app signup to their private payment system and generate literally $Billions in revenues while Epic can't? Apple is unfairly penalizing consumers in one particular market to the benefit of others
As an auto adjust they get around this by just not selling certain parts to non-certified repair facilitiesThat requirement was held to be illegal long ago. Unless the manufacturer can prove the part is what caused a subsequent failure then the warranty is still in force.
"Warrantors cannot require that only branded parts be used with the product in order to retain the warranty."
Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
so what would you do? Tell companies they can no longer offer a free app? That’s how it works in real life. Things have higher margins at stores so other things can be sold cheaper with less margin.
This case isnt about the mobile market, this case is about the iOS App market, Google is not part of this case.
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Because that wasn’t the judge’s implication. Her implication was that Apple needs paid apps to subsidize free apps, which is exactly how it works.
Just use something else like VisualStudioCode, JetBrains, Eclipse, VIM, Emacs, Clang/LLVM, Mono, GitLab, Perforce, competition is beautiful thing, you know.
Most game devs already have a CDN running for the content of their apps and games, regardless of the platform they dev for, so it's not something that worth to mention.
Correct.
And Epic is also suing Google.
So I can't wait to see hear what is said in that case.
Epic is suing both of the major mobile platform operators. Will they sue Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo too?
Introducing Phone , a pure Apple apps only for full privacy.
Well, in case of Google, Epic will have a harder route, and it's probably done already.Correct.
And Epic is also suing Google.
So I can't wait to see hear what is said in that case.
Epic is using both of the major mobile platform operators. Will they sue Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo too?
Google just announced to make the installation of third party App Stores more user friendly.
Apple's customers are not the developers, their customers are the people that line up in line to buy a new iPhone, iPad, or some other Apple product. Developers are basically mercenaries - they will go where the users and the money are, regardless of what they may say - so there is no need for Apple to "work with" developers or "change" (although it may be good if they did). As long as there are customers, there will be developers.
Focus on the customers and everything else will follow.
Focus on the customers and everything else will follow.
I think if Epic were able to win, then this would set a precedent and they would in all probability then go after Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo.Correct.
And Epic is also suing Google.
So I can't wait to see hear what is said in that case.
Epic is suing both of the major mobile platform operators. Will they sue Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo too?
You're clearly not into coding.
I use Apple products and its ecosystem exclusively for 20 years. And Apple is in the wrong here.
The more I use Apple’s ecosystem, the more I feel like I am renting their products and not owning them. If you own your house, you can do pretty much anything to it. You can remove walls, add new ones, drill holes, and nobody can say a thing to me. The person who I bought the house from cannot dictate where I can buy a paint from. That house is mine.
Come Apple, I cannot modify its hardware, nor its software. I cannot use it the way I want. I can only use it the way Apple wants. This has nothing to do with “usability.” This has nothing to do with “Apple’s customer focus.” It is control. It is dictating. It is only in Apple’s financial interests and nothing else.
Capitalism does not mean dictatorship. Let’s split them clearly.
The more I use Apple’s ecosystem, the more I feel like I am renting their products and not owning them. If you own your house, you can do pretty much anything to it. You can remove walls, add new ones, drill holes, and nobody can say a thing to me. The person who I bought the house from cannot dictate where I can buy a paint from. That house is mine.
Come Apple, I cannot modify its hardware, nor its software. I cannot use it the way I want. I can only use it the way Apple wants. This has nothing to do with “usability.” This has nothing to do with “Apple’s customer focus.” It is control. It is dictating. It is only in Apple’s financial interests and nothing else.
Capitalism does not mean dictatorship. Let’s split them clearly.
Do you have links showing the case is going poorly for apple? All ive seen is the opposite.