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.
Tim Cook, Craig Federighi, Phil Schiller and Scott Forstall to Testify in Epic v. Apple Trial
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How do you nearly get killed when walking? Unless you weren’t paying attention to your surroundings......
So the only possible solution is for third party businesses surrender 30% of their revenue to Apple. That looks like an extremely convenient starting or ending point to talk about how to improve OS security and convenience.
Last edited:
They don’t want to burn down everything just a share 30% share of the digital economy. They will stretch the opportunity under the security and privacy umbrella as much as possible. That is the end game.
Last edited:
This legal battle is very important.
It will determine if a company is legally permitted to cease the digital economy through the huge success of their devices, wether they are made with software, hardware or both. It will be indeed a miracle if that is permitted by Govs.
Tim’s Apple ambitions in that regard are way beyond Google, Microsoft and Facebook put together.
Apple App Store Revenue 2020, 72B
Facebook Revenue 2020, 85B
Google Ad Revenue 2020, 146B
Microsoft Overall Revenue 2020, 143B
By ceasing a 30% revenue share over the entire digital economy just through their phones and tablets, the Apple App Store revenue is as much as FB, and half of MS and Google. No, this is not about paying for API access, secure app distribution, payment and billing. For that matter it would cost a lot, a lot less at regular cloud service prices. It’s about selling the permission for digital services to reach their customers using the device of their choice, case in case the iPhone and the iPad.
Now imagine the future where a house, a car, a bike ... becomes a smart device. Everything will be a smart device in the near future, equipped with an OS.
It will determine if a company is legally permitted to cease the digital economy through the huge success of their devices, wether they are made with software, hardware or both. It will be indeed a miracle if that is permitted by Govs.
Tim’s Apple ambitions in that regard are way beyond Google, Microsoft and Facebook put together.
Apple App Store Revenue 2020, 72B
Facebook Revenue 2020, 85B
Google Ad Revenue 2020, 146B
Microsoft Overall Revenue 2020, 143B
By ceasing a 30% revenue share over the entire digital economy just through their phones and tablets, the Apple App Store revenue is as much as FB, and half of MS and Google. No, this is not about paying for API access, secure app distribution, payment and billing. For that matter it would cost a lot, a lot less at regular cloud service prices. It’s about selling the permission for digital services to reach their customers using the device of their choice, case in case the iPhone and the iPad.
Now imagine the future where a house, a car, a bike ... becomes a smart device. Everything will be a smart device in the near future, equipped with an OS.
Last edited:
You don't have to take it so literal, but Apple Maps did take me on paths less safe than Google Maps.
The reason that I stopped using it was that it guided me to follow a road that had no sidewalks, just ditches; meaning that I actually had to walk on the road itself. It wasn't a long stretch of road, but I hadn't allowed for 15 minutes detours because of a faulty map app; so I did walk on the road.
Of course I had judged that I could do it safely enough, but if I'd kept to using Google Maps I wouldn't have had that particular extra spice added to my life.
This might not turn out the way many are hoping. Apple created a successful, thriving digital marketplace and an adverse ruling could affect any and all digital market places.
I hope Apple prevails.
Or masterfully built a siphon on an existing global digital marketplace through their devices.
I hope it can be somewhere in between. That is maintaining the convenience for the device users, for a price of course, while having limits in the kind of intervention they can impose over third party operations when it comes accessing their customers on the devices they have chosen for their daily doings. The same to be applied to other similar practices and context of course.
Last edited:
I'm not for this type of government interference. No matter what happens there will be winners and losers. The government won't be able to address the issues of the losers. If the break-up of AT&T is any fore-warning, government should leave well enough alone.
I understand your concerns.
PS: You are talk about the losers. Who are they? The digital businesses that aren’t device manufacturers? Say, Netflix, Spotify, Youtube ... heck the Mary that makes instructional videos about maths, health and higiene, that author that sells his own ebooks on his app? ... digital business market place in general? ISPs, the people that invented the Internet tech allowing Apple devices to communicate?
You see, this is not about winners or losers.
I’m totally against breaking Apple ... but that is mostly in the hands of Apple really. I’m more interested in policies.
Last edited:
Who are the losers today? It seems according to some it's the indie developer who pays 15% or 30% for "nothing" to Apple. Should some type of action go through, it's my opinion, these same indie developers will be in the same soupy mess for different reasons.
I hope Apple brings it's A-game to the trial as I want to see this lawsuit dismissed.
Where did I bring that up? People just need to stop saying macOS is fine!!! or Windows is fine!!! The classic desktop OS is not fine. I didn't bring up 30% revenue at all in my post.
A road without a sidewalk isn‘t exactly like apple maps was asking you to traverse a treacherous mountain pass. There is an entire town over here with no sidewalks.
The losers will end up being the consumers. Take a look at what Epic Games is doing on the PC market. They want to do this same thing on iOS. Purchase exclusivity rights on very popular/high demand apps/games and only offer them on the Epic Games Store.
Google Maps handled the situation right, in a country where there are plenty of sidewalks; I don't expect to walkingly have to share roads with cars just because in your broken country there are no decent sidewalks.
the losers are the people who tried to make a fair and easier life on the middle class people from these over-bearing and tax cheating companies who get way with everything that a small business cant.
That is why the app store exists. A indie developer does not need to have a $10,000 bill every month for CDN costs, advertising, customer support for canceling their subscription/requesting a refund, and more. Bigger companies like Epic can, this is why they want to pay Apple $0.
The law suit brings that up. The issue at hand is not about security and privacy.
Consumers will not be the loosers as long as the as creators (people that create stuff) and consumer have open bidirectional channel in “equal” terms as these major OS/device providers. The moment App Store like siphons surrounding devices becomes the standard practice consumers will start loosing in many ways. Equal is in between quotes because it will never be equal, yet being able to choose the path most advantageous for both regardless of the device is a great way to assure relative parity. Instead of being cristalize on one path on top of all others. The problem aren’t so much the App Stores but their policies paired with the device market share.
Case in case the In App purchase policy. If you purchase any kind of digital good through an App, wether its served or not by the App Store, Apple gets a cut, a siphon. Think of educational content, health and security content, mail services, any app and service features, so on and so forth.
I’ve lived long enough to know that when it comes to companies, democratic principles such as the right for personal security and privacy along with many others are circumstantial.
Last edited:
We are going to find out if legally there is an issue....or not. I am so looking forward to following the trial and the outcome (the trial of the century as it were), whatever happens there will be those who will "claim" they were right all along.
So how is this going to get more game developers on board the Mac platform? PC ports aren't so bad. But now that you can't boot into windows and direct X is going in a direction that probably makes it harder to port stuff when you have to optimize everything for metal to get the best performance how are more games going to come to the Mac? Maybe Apple has a way to persuade iOS game makers to make their games work for the Mac but who cares? Those aren't enough to make the platform a legitimate competitor. Not enough return on investment if you have to divert resources to a platform with less users than your main money maker. Apple could solve the porting problem by licensing direct X to make porting a very easy process, even if they force them to go through the App Store to get those sweet profits they put above everything else. Or maybe by running the original PC games in some sort of Crossoverish wine rapper and just give up on persuading game developers to come over and letting the user use the PC version instead. If epic wins it means more game developers might try the Mac, if they lose it means less will.