Tim Cook Ordered to Attend 7-Hour Deposition in Apple vs. Epic Games Lawsuit

[Ethosik]

Actually per U.S. v. Kramer, 631 F.3d 900, 902-03 (8th Cir. 2011) a smartphone is a computer but that means the iPhone must also be compared with an iMac which does allow side loading. Ie Epic is effectively shooting itself in the foot with a machine gun.

I was speaking in regards to why its okay for iPhones to be locked down but not macOS. I need the ability to call 911 at all times. If I have malware that prevents this, its a serious issue. iPhones need to be treated as phones first, so this is why having it locked down is the best option.

 

[Maximara]

I was speaking in regards to why its okay for iPhones to be locked down but not macOS. I need the ability to call 911 at all times. If I have malware that prevents this, its a serious issue. iPhones need to be treated as phones first, so this is why having it locked down is the best option.

I fully agree that the iPhone should be locked down but I wanted to show per U.S. v. Kramer, 631 F.3d 900, 902-03 (8th Cir. 2011) that the iPhone must also be compared with an iMac which does allow side loading. More over by Epic's loopy arguments no one (including themselves) could have "exclusive" software deals because that would be a "monopoly".

 

[kk200]

As I have pointed out again and again and again this is nonsense. Can you easily side load non-licensed programs on your X-Box? Your Nintendo? No? Then how in the name of sanity is that any way different from what Apple does with iOS?!

Console market is different. First, console vendor sells their product with a subsided price and charge license fee later from games. If Apple sells iPhone in this model, I will have zero complain on their strategy.

 

[Maximara]

Console market is different. First, console vendor sells their product with a subsided price and charge license fee later from games. If Apple sells iPhone in this model, I will have zero complain on their strategy.

What exactly do you think that $99 a year for the development certificate is for? There is your "license fee".
Doesn't address the fact that Epic's loopy arguments no one (including themselves) could have "exclusive" software deals because that would be a "monopoly".

 

[mattspace]

I was speaking in regards to why its okay for iPhones to be locked down but not macOS. I need the ability to call 911 at all times. If I have malware that prevents this, its a serious issue. iPhones need to be treated as phones first, so this is why having it locked down is the best option.

Your locked-down iPhone already lacks the ability to call emergency services anywhere it's out of cell tower range, so depending on where you live (and commute), you already lack the ability to call emergency services "at all times". Apparently Apple doesn't think that's a big enough issue to stop them selling the device, or include an EPIRB / Satellite Phone emergency uplink.

Further, the deliberate conflating of two unrelated issues - security checking for malware does not have to be the same process as processing payments. Apple could just as easily allow developers to have their own billing systems, but reserve the cryptographic hashing of the downloads for themselves, even if they didn't have to host the file downloads (after all the developers ARE paying Apple an annual fee, they should be getting some service in return for that).

 

[I7guy]

Your locked-down iPhone already lacks the ability to call emergency services anywhere it's out of cell tower range, so depending on where you live (and commute), you already lack the ability to call emergency services "at all times". Apparently Apple doesn't think that's a big enough issue to stop them selling the device, or include an EPIRB / Satellite Phone emergency uplink.

There is a reason the communication chip is called a cellular modem. The subtext for all phones that have one is “at all times” when there is cell service. If one needs 24x7 communication at all times that eliminates most “cell phones”.

Further, the deliberate conflating of two unrelated issues - security checking for malware does not have to be the same process as processing payments. Apple could just as easily allow developers to have their own billing systems, but reserve the cryptographic hashing of the downloads for themselves, even if they didn't have to host the file downloads (after all the developers ARE paying Apple an annual fee, they should be getting some service in return for that).

Developers do get some service in return for the payment. As an ex-dev I thought the $99 annual fee was cheap for the price. If you are not a dev or a dev that doesn’t think the $99 is worth It, there are certainly alternatives.

 

[mattspace]

There is a reason the communication chip is called a cellular modem. The subtext for all phones that have one is “at all times” when there is cell service. If one needs 24x7 communication at all times that eliminates most “cell phones”.

Right, the point remains, that the claim that all software has to go through Apple's retail storefront, specifically because other retailers might allow malware that disables the cell radio (even though Apple's exclusive storefront hasn't eliminated malware yet), is hardly valid given losing cell service being something that happens already.

Developers do get some service in return for the payment. As an ex-dev I thought the $99 annual fee was cheap for the price. If you are not a dev or a dev that doesn’t think the $99 is worth It, there are certainly alternatives.

Yes, it's almost as if with their developer membership they've made their contribution towards Apple's costs of providing them with developer resources, raising the question of why they should then give any money from their sales to Apple if they could DIY the billing solution, except that Apple has the power to create and maintain tollbooths.

 

[I7guy]

Right, the point remains, that the claim that all software has to go through Apple's retail storefront, specifically because other retailers might allow malware that disables the cell radio (even though Apple's exclusive storefront hasn't eliminated malware yet), is hardly valid given losing cell service being something that happens already.

It's true my post didn't reflect the quote point properly, but you're playing internet word games when you spun the "at all times" to mean satellite transmission, when that clearly wasn't what he meant.

Yes, it's almost as if with their developer membership they've made their contribution towards Apple's costs of providing them with developer resources, raising the question of why they should then give any money from their sales to Apple if they could DIY the billing solution, except that Apple has the power to create and maintain tollbooths.

Being a part of the Apple developer program is strictly voluntary. If a potential dev doesn't feel there is enough return, there are other platforms. If a potential dev goes to another platform, they will give $0 to Apple. Apple may be a huge company, lots of devices, lots of customers, but being a dev is strictly voluntary. On one hand, joining up and then complaining makes no sense.

Reminds me of the famous line from a Woody Allen movie:
- "The food in this restaurant is terrible"
- "Yeah, and such small portions"

 

[mattspace]

It's true my post didn't reflect the quote point properly, but you're playing internet word games when you spun the "at all times" to mean satellite transmission, when that clearly wasn't what he meant.

No, the point is that "losing cellphone signal in an emergency" is being relied on as a justification for why you can't allow independent sales of apps on iOS,the fact is you already have no guarantee that you'll have cellphone service at any time, so it's an invalid justification.

It presumes that independent appstores for iOS would be worse for malware, for which there's no evidence (given the Mac allows independently sold apps to have the full Apple-signed cryptographic integrity the opposite is true), and presupposes that the Apple appstore doesn't already have malware, which it does.

Being a part of the Apple developer program is strictly voluntary. If a potential dev doesn't feel there is enough return, there are other platforms. If a potential dev goes to another platform, they will give $0 to Apple. Apple may be a huge company, lots of devices, lots of customers, but being a dev is strictly voluntary. On one hand, joining up and then complaining makes no sense.

Being in the dev programme isn't voluntary in practical terms if you want to sell to users in that market. Competition law isn't a game of "gotchya!" for five year olds, it contains a much higher degree of subtlety than MR forum pundits and Youtube "actual lawyers" give credit.

The simple fact is, you can't "create" a market, and then say "we made this, therefore we set all the rules, and it's our way, or the highway". The world is not the infantile libertarian fantasy some people seem to believe.

 

[I7guy]

No, the point is that "losing cellphone signal in an emergency" is being relied on as a justification for why you can't allow independent sales of apps on iOS,the fact is you already have no guarantee that you'll have cellphone service at any time, so it's an invalid justification.

It presumes that independent appstores for iOS would be worse for malware, for which there's no evidence (given the Mac allows independently sold apps to have the full Apple-signed cryptographic integrity the opposite is true), and presupposes that the Apple appstore doesn't already have malware, which it does.

There’s a larger point being debated that you don’t agree with and as such being pedantic (imo) about this point. Using the Mac as justification is different due to the different platforms. I agree that third party app stores will be to the detriment of the iOS platform.

Being in the dev programme isn't voluntary in practical terms if you want to sell to users in that market. Competition law isn't a game of "gotchya!" for five year olds, it contains a much higher degree of subtlety than MR forum pundits and Youtube "actual lawyers" give credit.

The simple fact is, you can't "create" a market, and then say "we made this, therefore we set all the rules, and it's our way, or the highway". The world is not the infantile libertarian fantasy some people seem to believe.

Based on the above wording being a dev is strictly opt-in, no coercion required. It’s just that you are tap dancing around the point by saying if somebody wants apples market they have no choice but to enroll. That sounds like opt-in to me. And when one opts-in they are bound by the t&c of the platform. So opt-in, get the benefits of having access to billions of devices and don’t complain apple should be regulated. And that is a different point than saying the platform is perfect.

 

[mattspace]

There’s a larger point being debated that you don’t agree with and as such being pedantic (imo) about this point. Using the Mac as justification is different due to the different platforms. I agree that third party app stores will be to the detriment of the iOS platform.

Well I disagree, and I think the fact that the Mac, which has Apple security notarisation for independent apps is not suffering from the malware apocalypse doomsayers suggest will be iOS' fate with 3rd party, or developer-direct sales, is clear proof that developer direct sales will have no significant detrimental effect upon iOS.

1. There is already malware getting through Apple's iOS App Review - so the claim that Apple keeping billing and downloads as an exclusive to their iOS App Store is inherently responsible for safety, is demonstrably false.
2. There is a disingenuous conflating of developers having non-Apple billing, with Apple not reviewing / hosting the downloads - these are totally unrelated functions and services. Apple already offers hosting and download bandwidth for free to free apps, which undermines the argument that Apple needs to get a revenue cut to meet their costs from doing so.

So basically you agree that being a dev is strictly opt-in. It’s just that you are tap dancing around the point by saying if somebody wants apples market they have no choice but to enroll. That sounds like opt-in to me. And when one opts-in they are bound by the t&c of the platform. So opt-in, get the benefits of having access to billions of devices and don’t complain apple should be regulated. And that is a different point than saying the platform is perfect.

Again, that Apple using its monopoly gatekeeper control of access to the iOS App Store, to gain, or design-in a monopoly on an unrelated function within that App store (billing methods) falls squarely within existing definitions of anti-monopoly laws. Competition law is not based on a simplistic framing of the situation - it looks at the effective power imbalances, and how it's used.

Just because a company creates Terms & Conditions, does not mean those Terms & Conditions are legal, or enforceable. Hence the utter worthlessness of "enter at your own risk" or "this shop is not wheelchair accessible, so shop somewhere else that is".

 

[I7guy]

Well I disagree, and I think the fact that the Mac, which has Apple security notarisation for independent apps is not suffering from the malware apocalypse doomsayers suggest will be iOS' fate with 3rd party, or developer-direct sales, is clear proof that developer direct sales will have no significant detrimental effect upon iOS.

Well it’s clear we disagree. Mac and iOS are different platforms and I dont agree the two can be compared.

1. There is already malware getting through Apple's iOS App Review - so the claim that Apple keeping billing and downloads as an exclusive to their iOS App Store is inherently responsible for safety, is demonstrably false.

This is a prime example of binary thinking, security is not binary it’s a process.

1. There is a disingenuous conflating of developers having non-Apple billing, with Apple not reviewing / hosting the downloads - these are totally unrelated functions and services. Apple already offers hosting and download bandwidth for free to free apps, which undermines the argument that Apple needs to get a revenue cut to meet their costs from doing so.

Apple is entitled to its fees. The App Store is not a regulated forced monopoly and as such has not changed its fee structure, in years, except to lessen it.

Again, that Apple using its monopoly gatekeeper control of access to the iOS App Store, to gain, or design-in a monopoly on an unrelated function within that App store (billing methods) falls squarely within existing definitions of anti-monopoly laws. Competition law is not based on a simplistic framing of the situation - it looks at the effective power imbalances, and how it's used.

Apple has not been determined to be a monopoly. If the argument is about apples monopolist behavior it falls flat because the premise is false.

Just because a company creates Terms & Conditions, does not mean those Terms & Conditions are legal, or enforceable. Hence the utter worthlessness of "enter at your own risk" or "this shop is not wheelchair accessible, so shop somewhere else that is".

Well Epic and the legal system seems to disagree with you in the enforcement of the terms and conditions.

While there are pending legal proceedings using a presumed outcome that Epic will prevail is fallacious.

 

[kk200]

What exactly do you think that $99 a year for the development certificate is for? There is your "license fee".
Doesn't address the fact that Epic's loopy arguments no one (including themselves) could have "exclusive" software deals because that would be a "monopoly".

where is the subsided iphone then?