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

[Ethosik]

While it may provide a comforting myth to believe that "market" is in some way inherently "smartphones as a whole", or "personal computers as a whole", and therefore by definition it is impossible for Apple to be a "monopolist" - that's really just the same logic that says "America waterboards prisoners, America doesn't torture, therefore Waterboarding isn't torture".

The more complex truth is that "market" as a definition has been developing in multiple cases, both in America, and internationally. Increasingly, it is being defined more narrowly, such that iOS itself is a market, within which Apple will face increasing scrutiny over their actions to prevent developers from using competitors to Apple's own offerings for App download hosting, and payment transaction processing.

It's ironic the more that Apple does to differentiate its own devices and platforms through unique integrations and features, the more they reinforce the impression that they are not merely players within a larger market, but constitute a market on their own.

Epic's entire case has revolved around the fact that Apple charges Epic 30% of their revenue, for a service (app download hosting, and payment processing) that Epic can provide themselves for ~1/10th of that price.

The fact that Epic also has their own app store for PC games, and could easily compete with Apple in providing an iOS-native appstore that independent developers could sell their apps through, yet is unable to, because Apple controls the iOS market in such a way as to exclude competitors, is exactly the sort of thing that antitrust legislators world-wide are currently examining.

Unlike the economies of games consoles, where console makers eat a loss on the device in order to cut the entry price for the consumer & provide the largest possible addressable market for games developers (which would justify a large cut / exclusive store position to make up for that loss), Apple makes a profit on the hardware and operating system at the cost of reducing the overall size of the addressable market for iOS developers.

As for Apple's previous conviction for antitrust violations, Apple had access to the best lawyers money could buy, and the full range of appeals in the US justice system, yet they were still convicted and sentenced, so maybe it's time for Apple fans to accept that it doesn't matter why Apple broke the law (because Amazon was a market abusing 800-pound gorilla), or who else was breaking the law, the fact is Apple DID break the law, which is why they were found guilty - Apple colluded with publishers for the purpose of raising the price of Ebooks. That's not some civil contract that two companies can disagree on in court, as per Apple Vs. Epic, that's committing a corporate felony against the citizens of America. Fundamental to any civilised system of justice, is that guilty parties are supposed to acknowledge their guilt, and reform their behaviour.

Twain remarked that if you give a man a reputation as an early riser, he can sleep in till noon without consequence. People need to stop considering Apple's actions in light of its reputation, and start reconsidering Apple's reputation in light of their actions. Apple is a convicted antitrust felon, and it is appropriate for courts to view any competition disagreement in which Apple is a participant, through that lens.

Then Sony has a monopoly on the Playstation market. Yes even releasing physical media requires some form of payment and licensing from Sony.

 

[kingfish78]

If Epic was smart, they would ask the Judge to subpoena ALL Apple internal documents that include the phrase:

Plausible Deniability​

Epic would have to show evidence for why ALL documents bearing this phrase wave validity to the case at hand. Only documents with an exhibited relevance may be subpoenaed. Asking to root through someone's garbage to try and find evidence of some crime in order to present charges is not legal.

 

[Ethosik]

The open web doesn't allow for high performance access to device features, nor does it allow access to all of the device features.

Apple needs to allow users the ability to do what they want with their device... just add in a simple "Allow software from other sources" and be done with it.

Most will prefer the App Store, but others would appreciate being able to install Kodi or some emulators, neither of which should be blocked from the App Store in my opinion.

Absolutely not. This will end up just like how Epic handled the PC market. Previous games set to be released on Steam were pulled to be an Epic Store Exclusive game. Several games, Borderlands 3 for example, were set to be an Epic Store Exclusive for some time. iOS will end up the same way. We will lose popular apps from the App Store since Epic payed for exclusivity rights on their store. I don't want dozens of stores on my iPhone.

 

[Wildkraut]

Then Sony has a monopoly on the Playstation market. Yes even releasing physical media requires some form of payment and licensing from Sony.

Yes they have, but till now nobody sued them for this, maybe somebody with enough $ should.
As you see it's not only Apple...

Sony, Xbox, Nintendo, Apple they all should be forced to open up their Systems, this would just do good to market.
It's time for a generic law for this.

 

[T-R-S]

The Apple App store creates a FAIR marketplace that keep small developers like me in business and large developers like Epic on an even playing field. Everybody must abide the the Terms of Service - this is the only thing that keeps it far to all.

 

[Ethosik]

I agree and understand what the point is, but you also need to realise that Apple has built a device that users can rely on with no viruses and non-optimized apps. MacOs is different. A computer is different than a phone, you cannot compare apple's iPhone to there mac's. The app store is a location that users can always rely on to get an app they need. Fast. Simple and easily.

Allowing users to use other app-stores than the AppStore just makes apple non-secure and possibly unoptimized for its devices allowing possible viruses onto the device and leaving the user experience to nothing. I would compare google or Samsung and say what if they started using a 3rd party webstore on their devices? But no other company cares enough for there webstores enough like apple does. Those other competitors rely on other devices and extra features to encourage the user to go download stuff from the internet onto the device (Phone) instead of focusing on improving there appstore as apple has over the years.

YES! Also, does a Mac need to be readily available to call 911 (what whatever emergency number in your country is) at all times? Oh but a phone does.

 

[Ethosik]

Yes they have, but till now nobody sued them for this, maybe somebody with enough $ should.
As you see it's not only Apple...

Sony, Xbox, Nintendo, Apple they all should be forced to open up their Systems, this would just do good to market.
It's time for a generic law for this.

I disagree but we are in an agreement with the context of the message. I don't want this to be going after Apple just because its Apple. If market is defined as narrow as iOS apps, then we severely need to rethink many other businesses. Like you mentioned, the market on game consoles are the game consoles themselves. I disagree that we should force all those companies to open up, but I agree that if Apple is required to change, those other companies should. Otherwise it will just send a message that this is just signaling out Apple.

 

[Td1970]

Why not just purchase the correct phone that "other OS" is designed to work with?

It's on that "other OS" to be fully and 100% compatible with Apple's hardware architecture, design, security, specifications, and feature set of its phone.

I was answer i7 about his car analogy. It wouldn’t be that hard for a mechanic to put a Honda motor is a Toyota. 100% functional.

Good luck with replacing iOS. Not that I would want to. I love iOS. Just not all of Apple business decisions. They are frequently the biggest bully in the room because of their $$$$$$.

 

[WiseAJ]

A “failure” like Airpods is not only the most popular wireless headphones sold out there but also revolutionized the headset market when it comes to seamless connectivity

as of M1 people have praised the chip and it has Intel engineers on edge because of how Apple did it so well. I can tell your a die hard Intel Fan, luckily die hard Intel fans are in a small small minority.

How the hell is the M1 a failure? It’s been very successful and popular. I don’t get your point?
Even with the AirPods comment, they’re everywhere. I get the AirPods Max aren’t that popular and overpriced but the other AirPods and AirPods Pro are extremely successful.

whoosh, way to miss the joke.

the original post was clearly a sarcastic response to someone else.

 

[Wildkraut]

I disagree but we are in an agreement with the context of the message. I don't want this to be going after Apple just because its Apple. If market is defined as narrow as iOS apps, then we severely need to rethink many other businesses. Like you mentioned, the market on game consoles are the game consoles themselves. I disagree that we should force all those companies to open up, but I agree that if Apple is required to change, those other companies should. Otherwise it will just send a message that this is just signaling out Apple.

Yeah, many business types needs to be overhauled, specially in the technology sector.
Personally I find, as soon as a company reaches a critical public mass(this needs to be defined), they should not be allowed to offer fully closed systems, these systems must be fully owned by the customer, and serve their public purpose. That's why it's about time for courts around the world generally start looking at this issue.

iOS and iPhone are two different things, but they are essential to each other, the one does not work without the other.
E.g. If I agree to current license terms, but don't agree to the next one, I get automatically dragged into a dead end road. In short term I'll end up with a unusable device, unable to install new software, because at some point developers also aren't allowed to offer app updates to older iOS versions. That's just the shady Apple way to enforce people to upgrade their systems, buy new hardware, and keep the money making machinery symbiosis running. Thats a classy modern well done mafia, and not only Apple does this.

Apple Silicon M1 shows this can be done differently.

 

[koruki]

Tim cook sense Siri to 7 hour deposition.

every question asked
Siri: This is what I found online...

 

[KILLASAURUSFLEX]

Clearly you dont understand the difference between rejecting a request aka a bid and making a ruling on a case. Gonzalez made no rulings on this case and has no bearing on the case at all. The only call she made was to no force Apple into putting the game back up.

As for you other people acting like Apple is in the right here, I'm truly amazed at how brainwashed you all sound. Apple doesn't get to offer zero alternatives and then dictate everything that you do on a device you paid for. Imagine if your car was restricted by the manufacturer to only go a certain speed and use a specific stations gas. Thats exactly what Apple is doing here.

 

[theotherphil]

...because Apple is an abusive monopolist, with prior convictions for antitrust violation, and has been convicted in multiple international jurisdictions of deceiving customers with regards to their rights under various consumer laws.

Citation needed.

 

[kingfish78]

I was answer i7 about his car analogy. It wouldn’t be that hard for a mechanic to put a Honda motor is a Toyota. 100% functional.

Good luck with replacing iOS. Not that I would want to. I love iOS. Just not all of Apple business decisions. They are frequently the biggest bully in the room because of their $$$$$$.

The car analogy isn't a good one for this case. The question is very much how you define the market - logic says the market is "Smartphones with Operating Systems that Support 3rd Party Applications." In this case, Apple is not a monopoly (because Android exists as an alternative OS for competing hardware). But, the courts could find that Apple still exhibits unfair business practices in relation to promoting its own software applications at the expense of competing products. Of that, Apple was certainly guilty. They've made internal "adjustments to their algorithm" to avoid legal ramifications of this; however, the courts will have to decide whether those changes are satisfactory.

This is the very situation Microsoft found itself in back in the late 90s. It unfairly used its position of influence as developer of the Windows operating system to promote Internet Explorer and hinder distribution of Netscape Navigator. Coincidentally, Microsoft was found to not be in a true monopoly position because there was a competing (not niche) OS/hardware alternative in the market (defined as personal computers with operating systems that support 3rd party applications). That alternative was Apple, and keeping Apple afloat as a viable "competitor" became a very important thing for Microsoft - thus the Bill Gates rescue and commitment to maintain MS Office support on the OS.

What will become tricky is how the court evaluates an App Store within the market. Historically, the OS developer has been allowed to legally "sandbox" development and distribution of applications. (This is true on pretty much every game console, most every non-smartphone, smart TVs, etc.) Sandboxing is not illegal on its own. The legal question is whether Apple is abusing its position of power as the owner of the App Store and developer of the OS/hardware platform. This is a VERY slippery slope that could change the way OS, software, and hardware is legally licensed across every market.

And at the end of the day - its all about Epic wanting more money. They're willing to slowly kill their golden goose if it produces a few more eggs in the short term.

 

[kingfish78]

Imagine if your car was restricted by the manufacturer to only go a certain speed and use a specific stations gas. Thats exactly what Apple is doing here.

Most vehicles include speed limiters that do just that. The engines are also developed to use a particular octane of fuel for continued proper performance. And a diesel won't run on gasoline.

 

[theotherphil]

You paid for you phone in full price. It is not a rent-phone. Apple has no right to tell you what you can use an what you cannot

The phone is yours and you can do with it as you please. Apple licence their free OS to you and you agree to the terms and conditions when you first turn it on. If you don’t agree with them, you can return it or install whatever alternative OS you wish…but Apple isn’t compelled to help you do so.

 

[theotherphil]

Here in the US there is Buyers Remorse Law at both the Federal (FTC) and state level. Since this is a US case in a US court what other countries do isn't relevant.

And the fact that Apple specifically state that if you don’t agree to their licence terms, you can return it for a full refund.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Your comment compares to “don’t like our laws go to another country.” That’s not how things work.

No. Stupid analogy. You weren't BORN into the App Store. You chose the App Store. The 30% fee has remained generally consistent since inception and has gotten relaxed over time.

 

[GizmoDVD]

Epic keeps digging that hole.

 

[Wildkraut]

And the fact that Apple specifically state that if you don’t agree to their licence terms, you can return it for a full refund.

Apple does not have the power to fulfill that statement, e.g if I buy an iPhone at some unknown non-Apple mobile shop.

 

[farewelwilliams]

The open web doesn't allow for high performance access to device features, nor does it allow access to all of the device features.

Oh, you want full access to device features? Gotta play nice with Apple then. Same with Sony Playstation. Same with Microsoft Xbox. Same with Nintendo Switch. It is to protect the user and provide better UX.

Apple needs to allow users the ability to do what they want with their device...

No they don't. It's not what Apple "needs" to do. This is more of what you "want".

Most will prefer the App Store, but others would appreciate being able to install Kodi or some emulators, neither of which should be blocked from the App Store in my opinion.

Catering to the 0.5% (not a literal number) userbase is something that Apple rarely does (exception is the handicapped).

 

[theotherphil]

Wrong. I’m sure many mechanics could put a Toyota engine in a Honda.
None can run other OS’s on a iPhone

But you can’t buy it like that from toyota and they’re under no obligation to help you install the Honda engine. Just like you can’t demand a Whopper in Macdonalds or a Big Mac in Burger King. This isn’t an all you can eat buffet where you can have it your way.

This is the problem with the current generation….they want everything right now, have never been told “no” and everybody gets an award.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Fortunately, the "fairness" of the App Store is not for you to judge

Of course. It's not for you, me, or Epic to judge. Obviously.

 

[Wildkraut]

No. Stupid analogy. You weren't BORN into the App Store. You chose the App Store. The laws of the 30% fee has remained generally consistent since inception and has gotten relaxed over time.

PS: Don't confound agreement with laws

 

[farewelwilliams]

PS: Don't confound agreement with laws

When you sign the App Store agreement, you're agreeing to the laws of the App Store.