Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
By that same token, Netflix being allowed could open the gate for pr0n hub. But it hasn't.
That’s primarily because pornography apps are not allowed on the service, streaming video, interactive or otherwise.
I do know, did a minor college paper on Rockefeller and his involvement shaping the us economic landscape. So I didn’t just toss it out for no reason 🤔
Oh. Then, after my googling, I guess I don’t see as much connection between the repeated activities of Standard Oil to controll the oil market and Apple. I mean, maybe if Apple purchased or were in control of Microsoft, Sony, Android, Nintendo and pretty much any other application delivery platform such that you literally could not buy an application without, in some way, doing business with Apple.
 
That’s not a comparable example. Apple entered the market with their own phones. Microsoft entered the market with their own phones.
Microsoft entered the market as an OS vendor, like they did with PC’s. That’s just how they always did business. Apple initially entered the market with ROKR phones.
Because, according to prevailing wisdom, mobile phones was a “solved” problem, so the only way you were going to be able to enter that market (that Apple thought might one day make the iPod irrelevant) is through the established companies who knew how the business worked. According to those who’ve seen it, it left a LOT to be desired. BUT, at the time that’s how everyone made phones, including those companies using Microsoft CE. That’s just how things were expected to work.

Less than 18 months later, the iPhone was introduced. Unlimited data (prior assumption, “cell phones don’t need unlimited data”), able to view actual html pages, (prior assumption “cell phones only use .mobi sites”), syncing with your computer (prior assumption, “you know, we should charge to send music to the phone”), smart software keyboard (prior assumption, “no one wants to type on a screen”), etc. If Apple had NOT decided to “go their own way” the mobile phone landscape would look VERY different from today.

I’m pretty sure we could find a LOT of articles from 2007 that say “Apple’s unwise to enter the phone market”. Still, they tried and they were wildly successful. I just don’t believe that “no one can beat the iPhone” (especially when, day after day, Android outsells them).
 
  • Like
Reactions: jhollington
Apple initially entered the market with ROKR phones.
Yup, the ROKR and the RAZR V3i. I remember them both well. In fact, I still have a pair of V3i's in my desk drawer.

Of course, that was arguably Apple just barely dipping its toes into the market. These things were glorified iPod shuffles that really did far more for Motorola than they did for Apple, and there was no way any one of them would have been a replacement for even an iPod nano.

Because, according to prevailing wisdom, mobile phones was a “solved” problem, so the only way you were going to be able to enter that market (that Apple thought might one day make the iPod irrelevant) is through the established companies who knew how the business worked.
I don't know if I'd go so far as to say they were a solved problem, but it was clear that market was stagnant and ripe for disruption. It's just that nobody really knew how to do it. Basically, on one side you had companies like Motorola and Nokia making "feature phones" and then you had the Palm, iPad, Treo, Symbian, and Blackberry devices which were made entirely for techie power users.

Only Apple could have have come up with the idea of making a smartphone for everyone.

I’m pretty sure we could find a LOT of articles from 2007 that say “Apple’s unwise to enter the phone market”. Still, they tried and they were wildly successful.
Many, many, many articles. I was in the press gallery at MWSF 2007 when Steve Jobs unveiled the iPhone. I remember being floored by the device, but I also remember asking myself lots of pointed questions after the legendary Reality Distortion Field wore off. I had been a user of smartphones, and I really pondered how well an on-screen keyboard would work, and how the device would function without the ability to use real apps, and so forth. I was skeptical, but I was happy to be proven wrong, and I quickly came to the realization that the first iPhone wasn't designed to compete with the smartphones of that era (which only made up 5% of the market anyway, and was filled with demanding power users), but rather as an answer to the "feature phones" of the day — the 95% of the cell phone users who were intimidated by iPaqs and BlackBerries.

Many other tech pundits, however, didn't get it at all, and repeatedly compared the iPhone to the other smartphones of the era, focusing on what it couldn't do in comparison to those, rather than on what it could do compared to a Motorola RAZR.

I just don’t believe that “no one can beat the iPhone” (especially when, day after day, Android outsells them).
Exactly. There's always room for market disruption, and Apple has lost much of the vision that created the iPhone in the first place. That doesn't mean it's not still a great product, but it's become evolutionary rather than revolutionary. The problem is, however, that most of us won't recognize the next big thing until it's already happened. Certainly very few of us would have predicted the iPhone back in 2006 — even those who suspected Apple was working on an iPhone had a lot of crazy ideas of what it would look like (and I have a gallery of concept artwork that shows just how wild some of those ideas were).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Unregistered 4U
That is a complete parody of their position. Epic are in the business of selling games, not hardware or ecosystems. From their point of view, selling their work on iOS gives them a big market, but their essential argument is that it is punishingly expensive to sell it there. They are entitled to have an opinion.

"Punishingly expensive" means that your profit margin is extremely low or even sustain losses per sale. Epic is selling vBucket, a virtual currency that all its value in game is 100% determined by Epic alone, not some real world merchandise. They have zero costs except their cross platform marketing campaign to attract more cash cows.

Their essential argument is that they feel it not enough to milk real money from iOS players. They can have their opinion, but Apple and the rest of us have full rights to threat them as monkey business.
 
For no good reason, is the answer.

By the time they were broken up, competition had also replicated their business model and was beating them at their own game...
Not to mention Rockefeller got even richer from all the controlling shares he has from all the split entities
 
That’s primarily because pornography apps are not allowed on the service, streaming video, interactive or otherwise.

Oh. Then, after my googling, I guess I don’t see as much connection between the repeated activities of Standard Oil to controll the oil market and Apple. I mean, maybe if Apple purchased or were in control of Microsoft, Sony, Android, Nintendo and pretty much any other application delivery platform such that you literally could not buy an application without, in some way, doing business with Apple.
Not changing the goal post, but if epic wins this it could set precedent for the rest of the industry on the 30 percent rule
 
That’s not a comparable example. Apple entered the market with their own phones. Microsoft entered the market with their own phones.

You’re ignoring the fact that Microsoft tried in the same way Apple tried just as much as Apple did.

Microsoft peddled Windows CE, Pocket PC, Windows Mobile and a bunch of different smartphone options since the early 2000's. As linked in my previous reply to you, Microsoft was the largest smartphone platform in 2007 when the iPhone launched. At launch Ballmer laughed at the iPhone and said that Microsoft had "great Windows Mobile devices in the market today" and Ballmer went on to say "I like our strategy, I like it a lot."

Microsoft then went on to fumble things. Windows Phone 7 in 2010 replaced Windows Mobile 6 but Windows Phone 7 removed so many features that Wikipedia has a massive section on what versions they added features from Windows Phone 6 back in. Windows Phone 8 in 2012 then changed it's underpinnings from Windows CE which made it incompatible with all of the Windows Phone 7 devices. To juxtapose, iOS 6 released in 2012 supported back to the iPhone 3GS released in 2009. You were the sucker for buying a Windows Phone 7 device.

Microsoft didn't make the phones originally either, they continued their operating system release and then partnered with Nokia to make the phones and as that became a losing prospect for Nokia's existence they eventually got bought by Microsoft (it should be noted as a move current MSFT CEO Satya Nadella objected to at the time) in 2013. Microsoft effectively gave up on the platform in 2016 having alienated it's developer community (UWP anyone?) and faltered compared to Apple for device longevity.

Microsoft didn't compete with Apple head on for the longest time, were slow to address the concerns and acquired a phone manufacturer that was already struggling. They made a less compelling product that had multiple backwards compatible break points, worse when compared to Apple and to an extent Android at the time.

Unless somebody can revolutionise the smartphone space (doubtful, I think smartphones are a “solved” problem now), EPIC Games would be unwise to enter the phone market, unless it was with Android.

I agree that Epic should copy the Google approach, find some open source technology, claim it as your own and build a phone around it. Android would be a good choice and they might even properly license the services from Google (Google refusing to license their services would easily raise to a monopoly situation given that Google owns all of the smartphone operating system market for OEMs for lack of real competitors). Then they could have Epic Store and even Google Play store on the same device and truly see who wins.
[automerge]1599015214[/automerge]
Not changing the goal post, but if epic wins this it could set precedent for the rest of the industry on the 30 percent rule

If Epic wins this then the console market is dead.
 
You are 100% correct, and that is exactly what has happened. However, it is a lose-lose-lose situation, as Epic has lost revenue, Apple has lost revenue, and the users are denied access to Epic games on the iOS/iPadOS platform. The "bit greedy" has caused all of this, so the ball is in Apple's court.

Nope, it's Epics move. Hence why the judge denied the TRO.

It never ceased to surprise me folk who replace facts with spin.

Epic caused all this with a deliberate action - they broke it, they need to fix it.
 
Nope, it's Epics move. Hence why the judge denied the TRO

They are suing Apple; that’s their move. They clearly believe it’s better to forgo the revenue and see the lawsuit out for the immediate future.

It’s interesting that fortnite was the first game nvidia discussed in today’s presentation - it’s as if the game is relevant still.
 
I am kind of convinced thats the best video ad in history, I wish Apple would gain back that spirit. Apple has become the IBM, in fact, they are bigger than IBM!
 
Could be. Would be interesting to see what legal theory would make it illegal to sell appliance computers, though.

I don't think it'd be illegal to sell them, just illegal to require fees to put apps (in the console case, games) onto the device. Since the devices are normally sold at or below cost of production with the bulk of the profit made from the licenses on the game sales then that would signal the death of that business model. Now it could just mean that the consoles stop selling in the US but internationally they continue to be sold.

They are suing Apple; that’s their move. They clearly believe it’s better to forgo the revenue and see the lawsuit out for the immediate future.

It’s interesting that fortnite was the first game nvidia discussed in today’s presentation - it’s as if the game is relevant still.

The judge told Epic that per their own testimony that Epic could restore Fortnite to the App Store and hence they were denied that aspect of their restraining order. Epic have taken this rather clear statement and kept on their own path, which is their own choice. However the move to direct folk to contact AppleCare I don't feel will be received well by the judge.
 
Basically, this is a good shot at stopping Apple in it’s venture of being as anti-competitive as can be. They can crush any app they like in the App Store with no repercussion - that’s dangerous. Now, not to say that epic is the angelic hero here as they brought this on themselves, but this is the best shot we have.
So is Apple being anti-competitive by removing developers that violate their App Store terms and break contracts? How is it anti-competitive to enforce the rules you made in your own store?
 
Crush any app they like in the App Store with no repercussions?

Did you miss it that Epic's app broke the Terms of use that all developers agree to when they sign up? How is Apple at fault here, someone broke the rules, consequences happened.

If I break the rules on Squarespace by starting to post x-rated content, they are free to take my website down because it is against their rules.

Where did I say they would crush Epic? I think you’re the one who missed something here. Also, the guidelines are forever changing. It’s entirely possible that my app I’m working on could be rejected for business reasons despite me having confirmed it doesn’t violate any rules. This is a huge risk that stifles innovation.
 
So is Apple being anti-competitive by removing developers that violate their App Store terms and break contracts? How is it anti-competitive to enforce the rules you made in your own store?
No, they’re being anti-competitive by rent seeking for digital gym classes (for example, which is interesting considering rumours of apple’s own digital fitness service) and changing the rules whenever they like to suit them. It happens and will continue to happen because no one can stop them.
We also saw the trouble with Hey, where they had successfully submitted the app only to be stopped in their tracks suddenly.
If Hey hadn’t spoken out their business could have ended. What about the companies and individuals that can’t afford to speak out?
 
If Epic wins this then the console market is dead.

If Epic wins this, the concept of 'profit/margin' is blown out the water. Imagine no company could decide to charge a fee for the service they are providing.
You could walk into Macca's and when told the Burger you want, which was advertised outside for $4, is $4, you state that you are not paying $4 as you don't think you should have to pay for the effort Macca's went to, to buy the ingredients et al, and to pay the staff and all the other incidentals.
In reality, this court case could have particulary major implications.
 
Epic could release their own Android based handset which has their store built in. Then remove their titles from all other mobile marketplaces. But, I think that they are well aware that move would fall on its face due to low sales etc.

I think it’s about time regulating bodies stepped in to control freemium games and their virtual currencies. That sort of regulation would put Epic in its place (and others).

If Epic win then Apple should open their own store in the Epic store and not pay Epic commission.
 
I don't understand that argument. Perhaps it would help to know how much Epic would have to spend if they distributed their games through Game Stop or Target or Walmart. They'd need to provide physical copies with packaging. They'd need to ship the packages to the stores. They'd need to monitor the sales. Apple handles all of that for them virtually in the App Store, and Epic has so far done quite well that way. Epic's argument looks to me like greed. They want the benefits of the App Store but want to keep all the revenue for themselves.

As far as their "monopoly" argument, there are (as others have said) plenty of other outlets for their games. If they want access to iOS users, then Apple is within its rights to charge for that access.

So it seems that we are the product, Apple is the seller, and Epic is the customer.
 
You make a good point. Developers can ONLY profitably develop for devices that allow development to occur AND have a way for the developer to protect their investment. IF the platform provider doesn’t make the effort, then they can still sell closed devices, much like Apple did initially. And, if the device is compelling enough, it doesn’t matter that Nokia, Palm, and Windows CE had FAR more developer support AND software available for purchase, people WANTED the iPhone and bought it with no expectation that there would ever be an App Store.

Would they be AS successful? It’s hard to say, but let’s assume that Apple and Google wouldn’t be AS successful. Apple would still be successful, the iPhone would still be a hit BUT the $120 billion worldwide that Apple paid out to developers just wouldn’t have happened. Given that Android has much greater marketshare but doesn’t pay out as much to developers, that would be a serious hit to developers worldwide. That’s why it’s nice to think that they need each other, in my mind the reality is that there are millions of developers that would never have been able to see success without Apple, while Apple would surely have still seen somewhat less successful, but still massively successful.

They don’t get exceptions to the rules, the rules are amended to in a way that both parties can agree to. So, if anyone else comes along with the same sort of business, AND they go by the same rules, they get the same benefit as the big guys, no negotiation required.

It's indeed hard to speculate about how successful the iPhone would be because it alone did bring industry-changing features to the market. It's true that people wanted the iPhone (even me, despite being a student at the time) and I agree it would have been successful. However if someone else came along, copied the iPhone and then offered an App Store I think we'd have seen a significantly different trajectory for the iPhone's success.

On the other hand it would encourage Apple to ensure their software offerings are better than ever so it could work, but with more lock in. Interesting thought experiment.
[automerge]1599044370[/automerge]
No, they can’t.

You could put more effort in your argument, otherwise I can just say "Yes, they can."
 
Any way you swing it the current iPhone prices are high. The £400 jump from the iPhone 7 to the X made no sense whatsoever other than greed.
You are being daft here. The X is a completely different phone. A huge improvement over the 7. That's why it costs more. At the same time the iPhone X was released, _all iPhones_ without any exception dropped in price. That's like when BMW started its 7 series cars. They were more expensive than the 5 series. And they were worth a lot more money.

BTW. Samsung is now selling a $3,300 phone.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.