Judge in Upcoming Epic v. Apple Trial to Limit In-Person Attendees

[subi257]

Not if what they're doing violates the law. Anti-trust?



If there's another app store or a way to install apps outside of Apple's app store, it doesn't mean you have to get the app through them. Don't feel comfortable getting an app from the developer or another app store? Then get it directly from Apple.

Clearly you don't like having options and competition.



Violating a contractual agreement.... You mean like that time Apple reneged on their Qualcomm contract and continued to use and benefit from Qualcomm's patents without paying them? Is that the kind of "fairness and dignity" you're referring to?

Qualcomm sues Apple over 'breached' mobile chips contract

Apple is accused of leaking Qualcomm tech knowledge to competitor Intel

www.itpro.co.uk

Epic breaches contract with Apple? Epic is evil.

Apple breaches contract with Qualcomm? Qualcomm is evil.

?‍♂️

No, if they reneged then they should be held responsible...But...if I remember correctly the validity of some of the patents that Qualcom were being questioned by the USPO... new sure where that ever landed.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

So should iOS be forced to open up and be like every other platform?

Or should they be allowed to do their own thing?

I'm saying iOS should be like macOS. Apple's idiotic choice with iOS has lead to a platform that is less secure than macOS.

Everyone was just forced to update iOS because Apple had a security vulnerability in WebKit. It's not a big deal anywhere else - on any other platform, you just switch to using another browser. On iOS, Apple has idiotically dictated that every single app which wants to run javascript or display HTML has to use WebKit to do so. This means many thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) of apps had a vulnerability which wouldn't have happened on any other platform. On any other platform, there would have been other apps using Gecko or Chromium and people could ahve just stopped using WebKit based apps for awhile.

On a more sinister note here, this gives Apple a further monopoly. People argue "Oh, just don't have a native app - have a web app." That's what I'm doing. Guess what? I'm forced to make my app work with WebKit. I can test it on my iPhone, but the iPhone doesn't have a debugger on it. Apple stopped putting WebKit on Windows, which means the only way one can debug a WebKit app is with a Mac. This wouldn't be a big deal except WebKit sucks at actually implementing web standards. WebKit/Safari has become the new Internet Explorer, but whereas Internet Explorer was available for the Mac and was just one of many browser engines available, WebKit is neither. I can't just tell my users to go download Firefox or Chrome instead because those have better engines - those apps on iOS are still using WebKit, which means the same stuff that won't work in Safari also won't work in any other browser. And I can't just download Safari for my Windows laptop the way a Mac based developer could have used IE.

Apple's monopoly today is far worse than the one we used to argue that Microsoft had.

 

[I7guy]

[...]

Apple's monopoly today is far worse than the one we used to argue that Microsoft had.

Apple does have several legal monopolies:
1. monopoly on iphone production
2. monopoly on ios development
3. monopoly on icloud, wearables and services(including the app store)
4. monopoly on apple music and apple tv

And sure at any time these monopolies can be regulated away, but for right now they are all legal.

 

[Naraxus]

Your sense of entitlement is astounding and not at all supported by case law. No one, not Apple, not Google, not Microsoft, not Bethesda, not Bungie, not Activision, etc. has to give you what you want when you want from wherever you want. Thats just ridiculous.

Its also completely false that this is true on your Mac or your windows PC or your Android device. There are numerous games (and apps) that are exclusive to certain platforms. There are apps that are only available from certain sources. There are apps you can install only on specific devices. Your entire argument is factually, logically, and legally unsupported. Just because you WANT something doesn't mean someone else has to provide it to you or that they should be compelled by law to do so.

But if you REALLY believe thats the way the world should work, fine, put your money where your mouth is, I WANT every single thing you own. Now give it to me. Oh, what's that? You don't like that idea? Too bad, it doesn't matter, its what I WANT therefore I should be able to have it. Not so much fun when its you being forced to do something is it?

If I've paid for something it's not entitlement.

I'll address the rest of your post when you act a bit more rational and on topic

 

[Naraxus]

As I said before by your logic no one should have exclusives ala Origin, Epic, whatever and we should be able to download any game from any service. You cannot have it both ways.

You're conflating two separate issues. Get back to me when you figure it out

 

[I7guy]

If I've paid for something it's not entitlement.

I'll address the rest of your post when you act a bit more rational and on topic

You paid for a product you went in knowing it did a, b, c, and d. You now want the product to do e. You have two choices:
1. Find a way to make the product do e. But the manufacturer is not obligated to help you find a solution, but if you can on your own, then great.
2. Buy a product that does: a, b, c, d, and e.

The third choice, which is:
3. "Sue the manufacturer to force them to make the product do e", is risky, in that if you succeed many people who wanted the product to do e, will now be grateful. But if you lose, the manufacturers legal limit on what they can enforce on their own products is now strengthened.

 

[Maximara]

You're conflating two separate issues. Get back to me when you figure it out

There is no conflating of two separate issues as exclusives ala Origin, Epic, whatever are doing the exact same thing Apple is doing ie restricting the access of software.

 

[Maximara]

You paid for a product you went in knowing it did a, b, c, and d. You now want the product to do e. You have two choices:
1. Find a way to make the product do e. But the manufacturer is not obligated to help you find a solution, but if you can on your own, then great.
2. Buy a product that does: a, b, c, d, and e.

The third choice, which is:
3. "Sue the manufacturer to force them to make the product do e", is risky, in that if you succeed many people who wanted the product to do e, will now be grateful. But if you lose, the manufacturers legal limit on what they can enforce on their own products is now strengthened.

The third choice also involves appeals and as the situation between Netscape and Microsoft shows by the time you truly win the world has moved on. Never mind that per the old "owner reserves the right to refuse service" I think the thing will not survive appeal...assuming it gets that far.

 

[DeepIn2U]

Go Epic! Thanks for fighting the fight, for the fairness and dignity of all developers big and small, and for an OS that allows installing everything we want, as it should be.

then use an Android phone. Why are you still here on iOS and macrumors forums?!

 

[GeoStructural]

Why are you still here on iOS and macrumors forums?!

Because I can.

 

[Krizoitz]

If I've paid for something it's not entitlement.

I'll address the rest of your post when you act a bit more rational and on topic

It’s 100% entitlement. You paid for a device that is doing exactly what it was advertised as doing. You didn’t like that deal? You should have bought something else.

Also, thanks for confirming you have no defense for the rest of your argument. I appreciate you acknowledging you’ve got no logic or facts to back you up.

 

[Krizoitz]

Apple's monopoly today is far worse than the one we used to argue that Microsoft had.

Except Apple doesn’t have a monopoly, it doesn’t come anywhere close to having a monopoly. A quick web search for Android phones proves that.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Except Apple doesn’t have a monopoly, it doesn’t come anywhere close to having a monopoly. A quick web search for Android phones proves that.

The argument was that Microsoft had a monopoly on the web because they included Internet Explorer with Windows.

Apple has much worse today with WebKit. It wasn't actually all that big a deal that IE was preinstalled with Windows - it continues to be the case and most people just install Chrome or Firefox ASAP.

iOS + App Store + WebKit is a much worse situation. You have the illusion of freedom of downloading Chrome or Firefox for iOS via the App Store, but Apple dictates that there can be no alternatives to WebKit. This gives Apple immense control not just over the App Store, but over the internet. People setting up a website can't just ignore iOS/WebKit - they have to actually make it work. And since Apple sucks at implementing standards or documenting WebKit, it means that to see if it works, you need to buy a pile of Apple devices, because WebKit isn't available for Windows. It's not good enough to just buy iOS devices for testing - you'll see that they don't work, but you won't have access to a debugger. You have to go and buy a Mac just to debug your website. Safari/WebKit are the new IE - entire offices of developers have Macs, not because of any actual competitive advantage, but because it's required for them to support WebKit. Chrome/Firefox/Edge might add new features that developers want to use, but they can't, because Apple won't support them in WebKit, which means the feature can never be on iOS.

Besides all that, you end up with major security issues like last week where Apple had to push out an emergency patch for WebKit, and everyone had to install it. Imagine if Apple hadn't caught that. Literally every browser for iOS was susceptible to the issue, because literally every browser was forced to use WebKit. On macOS, it wasn't a big deal - just switch to Firefox, Chrome, or Edge (is Opera still an option). This is just an enormous security risk because of this policy.

These policies don't exist because it's beneficial to the end user or to developers or anyone else. It's nothing but a monopoly. Apple controls a large segment of the market, and they use that to impose anticompetitive tactics that strengthen their position without actually having to make a superior product.

Having a theoretical competitor doesn't make you a monopoly. You can't say "Android" competes with anything Apple makes - Android is an OS, and I can't swap from Android to iOS or vice versa. The iPhone competes with a whole variety of other phones and devices - nobody is arguing that Apple has a monopoly with the iPhone. The argument is that Apple has a monopoly with the App Store and with WebKit on iOS. If either relaxes, the entire thing falls apart. Apple will fight tooth and nail to make sure it doesn't change - an alternative browser would mean people could have more functional web apps and not need the app store. Another app store would end the need for the iOS App Store. Apple can't compete, and so instead they just make a rule saying that they won't compete (which, the fact they have the market clout to do that means they have a monopoly.)

 

[Maximara]

I'm forced to make my app work with WebKit.

You do know that WebKit is open source, right?

 

[I7guy]

[...]

These policies don't exist because it's beneficial to the end user or to developers or anyone else. It's nothing but a monopoly. Apple controls a large segment of the market, and they use that to impose anticompetitive tactics that strengthen their position without actually having to make a superior product.[...]

These policies exists exactly because they are beneficial to the end-user. Having all browsers use the same webkit, absolutely benefits the consumer.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

These policies exists exactly because they are beneficial to the end-user. Having all browsers use the same webkit, absolutely benefits the consumer.

No, it really doesn't.

WebKit isn't documented, doesn't comply with standards, and has major vulnerabilities. It's ironic - when Apple first debuted it as an alternative to IE, it was supposed to be so great because it would comply with standards and it wouldn't be vulnerable in contrast to IE. But with time, that stopped. Really, I think WebKit kept being great because Chrome was using it. Once Google forked it to make Chromium, WebKit started degrading.

Chromium and Gecko are the only two good web engines but neither are available on iOS, to the detriment of everyone.

 

[Maximara]

No, it really doesn't.

WebKit isn't documented, doesn't comply with standards, and has major vulnerabilities. It's ironic - when Apple first debuted it as an alternative to IE, it was supposed to be so great because it would comply with standards and it wouldn't be vulnerable in contrast to IE. But with time, that stopped. Really, I think WebKit kept being great because Chrome was using it. Once Google forked it to make Chromium, WebKit started degrading.

Chromium and Gecko are the only two good web engines but neither are available on iOS, to the detriment of everyone.

"Chromium is an Google's open-source browser project that aims to build a safer, faster, and more stable way for all Internet users to experience the web. Using chromium, you can build browser iOS app" - Building Chromium for iOS

Then there is "iOS Gecko".

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

"Chromium is an Google's open-source browser project that aims to build a safer, faster, and more stable way for all Internet users to experience the web. Using chromium, you can build browser iOS app" - Building Chromium for iOS

Then there is "iOS Gecko".

You can download the source for Chromium and compile it yourself to use it on iOS. That can't be distributed via Apple's App Store, though, as Apple explicitly prohibits it. If I'm not mistaken, distributing this source also violates the agreements one has to make when downloading the iOS SDK, although I"m not certain of that.

Virtually nobody is going to go through all this effort though (except perhaps Google's own employees).

 

[Maximara]

You can download the source for Chromium and compile it yourself to use it on iOS. That can't be distributed via Apple's App Store, though, as Apple explicitly prohibits it. If I'm not mistaken, distributing this source also violates the agreements one has to make when downloading the iOS SDK, although I"m not certain of that.

Virtually nobody is going to go through all this effort though (except perhaps Google's own employees).

But it exist for those who want to go through the hassle without jailbreaking the phone. As for the agreement itself...I'm normally able to read legalese but Thring to figure out exactly what is and what is not allowed by that thing makes my head hurt.

It doesn't help that where the boundary between a iPhone, iPad, and Mac is in the legal sense is confusing at best. For example, Luppino v Fisher in Australia rules that a smart phone is not a computer but left the question of what mobile devices like a iPad up in the air. More over I found Bluestacks for iOS which shoots about every argument anyone had down as you are effectively running Android apps on your iPhone and iPad effectively bypassing the Apple store.