Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Hhhmmmm, Apple tries to limit Tim Cooks time on deposition, Apple does not want Craig Federighi to testify and tries to get Eric Neuenschwander instead. Apple tries to get documents withheld from Epic. This is not a sign that Apple is confident that it is going to win.
Um no, its a sign that Apples lawyers are doing their job. Aside from Tim Cooks time being immensely more valuable to the company when he is at work rather than wasting it in a deposition as part of a garbage (from their perspective, though I agree) lawsuit no the lawyers job is to provide as little information to the opposition as legally possible. Before you make such pronouncements you should take some time to learn a bit more about how cases like this typically work. Its not like TV dramas.
 
The REAL question is, if it doesn't go Epic's way, whether Epic will be satisfied with the court's decision, or whether Epic will call out to their fanbase to stand outside Tim Cook's house while exercising their Second Amendment rights.

Because "the only way Epic could lose is if the court(s) is (are) in cahoots with Apple".
 
Um no, its a sign that Apples lawyers are doing their job. Aside from Tim Cooks time being immensely more valuable to the company when he is at work rather than wasting it in a deposition as part of a garbage (from their perspective, though I agree) lawsuit no the lawyers job is to provide as little information to the opposition as legally possible. Before you make such pronouncements you should take some time to learn a bit more about how cases like this typically work. Its not like TV dramas.
No, it's a case of Apple's lawyers wanting to provide as little as possible to Epic because Apple want to win. If Apple had a cast iron winnable case, they would not care less what documents or information was given to Epic because they would know the outcome would still be the same, a win but when you try to prevent as little information as legally possible being given to the otherside, that means you are in doubt about a win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
The REAL question is, if it doesn't go Epic's way, whether Epic will be satisfied with the court's decision, or whether Epic will call out to their fanbase to stand outside Tim Cook's house while exercising their Second Amendment rights.

Because "the only way Epic could lose is if the court(s) is (are) in cahoots with Apple".

Epic has no army.

There was zero developer support when they introduced their own proprietary payment in fortnite. Consumer backlash over the removal of fortnite from iOS was practically non-existent as well, because they don’t care about a 30% tax they will never see, and because people actually like closed, sandboxed app ecosystems.

I don’t think antitrust arguments against Apple will ultimately hold up to scrutiny. The developer and consumer pressure that Epic hoped would pressure Apple to capitulate ultimately never materialised.

And now Apple has dug in its heels and Epic finds itself fighting an impossible legal battle.

Epic will lose. Completely and utterly.
 
Shouldn’t it be Phil “can’t innovate any more my ass” Schiller and Tim “we think you’re gonna love it” Cook? What does Craig Federighi have to do with this?
It’s all about the hair.
 
Cuz Craig is getting experience/practising these lawsuits in preparation for CEO position. CRAIG FOR THE NEXT APPLE CEO!!!
Craig is nowhere near in line for consideration, though he is of the right age. Any successor should ideally have ample experience in Apple's supply chain. Jeff Williams is too old (he's around the same age as Tim Cook), but he would be a great backup CEO in the event that something happens to Tim Cook.

That said, I think Tim Cook clearly enjoys the confidence of the board and will continue to be CEO for many years to come. The next 5 years at least. Many things can happen during that time, so maybe I am thinking too much here as well.
 
Hopefully Epic scores a resounding win so we can finally get alternative app stores.
There are alternative app stores, get an Android device.

There's no consistent logic that would force Apple to allow 3rd party app stores that doesn't also require Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft to allow 3rd party app stores on their sandboxed platforms. Forcing Apple to allow 3rd party software installs could also, very well, spill into other traditionally closed systems such as automotive ECUs and force the large auto manufacturers to allow 3rd party access to the main control systems. What about music stores? Would this force Tidal, Spotify, et al to allow 3rd party sales on their platform?

There are basic logic issues related directly to this case, then there's the slippery slope that precedent creates.
The fact is that Apple is a minority player, market share wise, (majority of profit, though) in every product category. It will be difficult to prove illegal monopoly or coercive influence from a company that doesn't even have 50%, never mind overwhelming majority, of any market.
This isn't the train, newspaper and oil magnate fights of the past, this is all plain politics.
 
Epic is already winning as Apple cuts its "cut" for apps to 15%. Did not happen until after Epic fired the first shot.

True, and good for Apple for doing it. Epic said they were doing this for smaller developers, Apple helped out smaller developers, so Epic should be happy. Buuuut Epic gets no benefit however as they're certainly over $1M in annual revenue through the app store and really this is all about Epic running their own store on iOS. They don't want to help smaller developers. They want a piece of the action.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spartan1967
Makes me wonder if Apple really has something to hide.. While this all seems like a waste of time.. Any instance you can get a company to peel the carpet back just a little more exposes something.
 
Hhhmmmm, Apple tries to limit Tim Cooks time on deposition, Apple does not want Craig Federighi to testify and tries to get Eric Neuenschwander instead. Apple tries to get documents withheld from Epic. This is not a sign that Apple is confident that it is going to win.
blanket statements.

Just cause their blocking documents doesn't mean Apple is not confident. There are documents that are non-related to this case and shouldn't be accessed by Epic or the courts, some maybe specific to new product launches - not software, hardware and thus Epic doesn't need to know about it as it's not affecting this case.
 
world does not revolve around fortnite/epic
many other alternatives to enjoy
pubg, cod warzone, apex legends, valorant, overwatch, et al
 
Nice, way to literally copy and paste @derekamoss’s post for the first part there 😂 your argument didn’t make sense though, to get on the marketplace/store in the first place (on Xbox, for example, since you brought them up) you have to pay that same fee. Of course the apps are available elsewhere. That’s what I’m saying. Apple’s App Store isn’t the only place to get Netflix or Microsoft Edge browser or many many other apps/games. That’s why the App Store is not a monopoly.

Gluing phones together is for waterproofing. Without that adhesive it would be much less water resistant than it is now. Every time someone opens the phone, the water resistance rating is reliant on how well that technician puts the phone back together. Hence why of course Apple would want to be the one to fix it. It’s so heavily in the spotlight that even if it was the fault of a third party repair place, the media would have an uproar claiming that Apple’s phones aren’t waterproof.

Soldering the storage and memory down, yeah it’s inconvenient but that’s the price that we all have to pay for people clamoring for thinner and lighter machines. (There are plenty of people out there, I know the MR forums are full of people with the opposite view). Doesn’t make it a monopoly.

Future proofing a device is a result of soldering it down, so it’s the same point.

Buying up companies? Do you know how many other companies do that? That’s sometimes the GOAL of a business owner. To get big enough to be noticed and then aim to be bought out to get an early retirement. Those people are then either brought over into the parent company or payed a significant chunk for compensation. It’s not the buyer’s responsibility to make sure that smaller company’s ceo takes care of his/her employees.
Yeah I totally copied and pasted, why would I duplicate the work.

I'm talking about laptop parts being glued and soldered. Pure greed.

I don't know who is clamouring for thinner and lighter laptops to the point of not being able to self upgrade SSD and RAM. Certainly not me. And I am far from alone. Pure greed.

Your buying companies argument sure is a twisted justification of evil.
 
Is it the App Store fees? Nope, can’t be because every other “store” charged the same 30%.
That's something the EU and Australia were objecting to: Australia got further with their investigation, but the EU is less likely to get bored or give up. When every software platform was charging 30% whether or not the store was cross-subsidising the associated hardware or anything else along those lines, it rather suggests that the companies were not trying very hard to compete (or not competing at all).
 
Hhhmmmm, Apple tries to limit Tim Cooks time on deposition, Apple does not want Craig Federighi to testify and tries to get Eric Neuenschwander instead. Apple tries to get documents withheld from Epic. This is not a sign that Apple is confident that it is going to win.

Nope. This is standard in any lawsuit - it’s called the apex doctrine. If a CEO or other important executive at a company like apple had to spend 2 days preparing, and another day being deposed, every time Apple was sued, even if lower level employees had just as much information and could testify instead, they’d never get any work done. Apple gets sued a hundred times a year, after all.
 
Epic has no army.

There was zero developer support when they introduced their own proprietary payment in fortnite. Consumer backlash over the removal of fortnite from iOS was practically non-existent as well, because they don’t care about a 30% tax they will never see, and because people actually like closed, sandboxed app ecosystems.

I don’t think antitrust arguments against Apple will ultimately hold up to scrutiny. The developer and consumer pressure that Epic hoped would pressure Apple to capitulate ultimately never materialised.

And now Apple has dug in its heels and Epic finds itself fighting an impossible legal battle.

Epic will lose. Completely and utterly.
I was being facetious and equating the Epic situation with recent (unrelated) American events. ;)

I agree that Epic should and will lose this fight.
 
The contract for Fortnite on the App Store is with Epic Games, while the contract for the Unreal Engine is with Epic Games International S.a.r.l.

Two separate entities that Apple treated as one, which is why the judge granted the restraining order.
Correct but Apple has done this for past corporations who have violations The parent corporation loses it's certs as well as all the other d.b.a. certs.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.