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

[kingfish78]

So you fear the competition, e.g if somebody comes up with something equally or better than your software/game has to offer, for less with better marketing and better community. Sorry, but that’s healthy competition, just how it should be. At a long run your attitude will lead to failure, betting on one horse isn’t good either. I bought all the Affinity Mac Apps extra from outside the App Store, directly from their website, easygoing. Affinity got 100% of what I paid, why give 30% to Apple for doing nothing. That’s how iOS also should work, and M1 proves it works.

If not for Apple's marketing, Apple's "Featured App" stories, etc... I would have no idea who or what Affinity was. That's part of what the 30% App Store Fee pays for. Now, I use Affinity apps on my iPad and much prefer some aspects over the Adobe counterparts that I use on my Mac.

 

[Rob_2811]

I play plenty of games, just not Fortnite which seems to have an absurdly large appeal to 13 year old boys who love mimicking the dances. Sort of a TikTok train-up I guess.

As far as why be involved in the discussion? I hope you aren't serious, because this case has much farther reaches than some video game. You have one multi-million dollar company asking the courts to invalidate a contract on the grounds of unfair business practices by another multi-billion dollar company. And the desired outcome of the plaintiff would quite literally open Pandora's (sand)Box to allow ANYONE to create a competing App Store to sell ANYTHING on iOS.

This would be terrible for those of us who prefer having a one-stop shop for all of our iPhone applications. Frankly, I hate the fact that every program on my Mac and Windows computers has its own purchase structure - Office365 (and its constantly changing identity) for MS Office, Adobe store for Creative Cloud, Imaginit and Autodesk for AutoCAD, and the list goes on. It's a mess.

I'm curious why people who want an open platform don't just buy an Android device to give you the openness you crave instead of expecting everyone who likes the sandboxed security to give their preference up?

Um no...

How 18 Malware Apps Snuck Into Apple's App Store

Sing it loud: The App Store's not perfect. Especially when it's up against click fraud code this clever.

www.wired.com

 

[kingfish78]

Um no..

Why Amazon got out of the Apple App Store tax, and why other developers won’t

It’s leverage. The reason is leverage.

www.theverge.com

If you sign up for the service using the App, then Apple gets a cut. If you sign up outside the app, Apple doesn't get a cut. If I purchase Epic's crappy fake money and silly outfits on their website, then I could load my account and have access to the content in the App without Apple making money. If I buy their crappy fake money or silly outfits through the App, then Apple gets a cut. Same for Adobe functionality, same for Autodesk, same for MS Office, and the list goes on. I cannot purchase Amazon videos from the Amazon app (or Apple would get a cut, and Amazon isn't playing that). I can't buy Kindle books in the Amazon or Kindle app (or Apple would get a cut).

 

[kingfish78]

Um no...

How 18 Malware Apps Snuck Into Apple's App Store

Sing it loud: The App Store's not perfect. Especially when it's up against click fraud code this clever.

www.wired.com

It's not perfect, but it's certainly better than the Android mess (which is 50X more likely to result in a malware infection). So... What's your point? Your response does nothing to explain why someone can't opt for a sandboxed solution.

The first sentence of the article you linked even says, "DESPITE SOME RECENT pronounced lapses, the iPhone remains one of the most secure consumer devices you can buy, thanks in large part to the locked-down ecosystem of the iOS App Store."

https://www.pandasecurity.com/en/mediacenter/mobile-security/android-more-infected-than-ios/

 

[Maximara]

Mercedes got fined just because they play monopoly on the spare parts. People who bought an iPhone still own their rights. Because they paid full price on that phone.

There was no DMCA regarding software in the 1980s so this is another totally different matter.

 

[I7guy]

So you fear the competition, e.g if somebody comes up with something equally or better than your software/game has to offer, for less with better marketing and better community. Sorry, but that’s healthy competition, just how it should be. At a long run your attitude will lead to failure, betting on one horse isn’t good either. I bought all the Affinity Mac Apps extra from outside the App Store, directly from their website, easygoing. Affinity got 100% of what I paid, why give 30% to Apple for doing nothing. That’s how iOS also should work, and M1 proves it works.

Why do you care how much Apple gets? It's irrelevant as a consumer. As a consumer, the ios app store is great. Apple does more than a reasonable job policing apps, providing marketing, control, distribution and paying taxes. Apple clearly doesn't do nothing in the ios app store. You may have a philosophical argument against the way the ios app store operates, but you will have to reconcile that.

 

[I7guy]

Um no...

How 18 Malware Apps Snuck Into Apple's App Store

Sing it loud: The App Store's not perfect. Especially when it's up against click fraud code this clever.

www.wired.com

Security is not binary. Having malware in the ios app store, doesn't mean Apple fell flat in the security department. The way to look at it is the relative minor number of apps that have filtered through in it's history.

 

[Rob_2811]

It's not perfect, but it's certainly better than the Android mess. So... What's your point? Your response does nothing to explain why someone can't opt for a sandboxed solution.

The first sentence of the article you linked even says, "DESPITE SOME RECENT pronounced lapses, the iPhone remains one of the most secure consumer devices you can buy, thanks in large part to the locked-down ecosystem of the iOS App Store."

The point is the fact that you, or anybody else, can't use software that isn't locked down by Apple or wouldn't actually know which app to use without Apples App Store to advertise it to you is a completely irrelevant argument.

This lawsuit is a challenge to Apples anticompetitive behaviour and its use of the App Store to neuter the competition and offer sweetheart deals to anybody who can further its business interests. (see the link I posted above about their little arrangement with Amazon).

Apple liberally interpret their 'rules' to suit themselves. There is no level playing field to be had in the app store, certainly not if you run a business that competes with Apple.

I've honestly no interest in Fortnite, I've never played it and probably never will but Epics campaign against Apple has been fantastic.

Apple are everything they use to rail against and like several of the other tech giants they need regulating before they stifle innovation and harm competition anymore that they already have.

 

[4jasontv]

What Windows PC did you get a refund for? I sure didn't get any money back from Microsoft when I purchased either of my Surface Pros. Nor did I get anything back from HP for the cost of my notebook.

Depends on the manufacture. Most require you send them the PC with the EULA unsigned. Some are easier. You can call Dell and they will usually just issue you a credit. It also depends on the country you are in. I think Italy is the best for the customer and has stated unused Windows is worth 150 euros.

It should be easier. In fact, I shouldn't have to pay for Windows if I purchased a retail copy.

 

[I7guy]

The point is the fact that you, or anybody else, can't use software that isn't locked down by Apple or wouldn't actually know which app to use without Apples App Store to advertise it to you is a completely irrelevant argument.

This lawsuit is a challenge to Apples anticompetitive behaviour and its use of the App Store to neuter the competition and offer sweetheart deals to anybody who can further its business interests. (see the link I posted above about their little arrangement with Amazon).

Apple liberally interpret their 'rules' to suit themselves. There is no level playing field to be had in the app store, certainly not if you run a business that competes with Apple.

I've honestly no interest in Fortnite, I've never played it and probably never will but Epics campaign against Apple has been fantastic.

Apple are everything they use to rail against and like several of the other tech giants they need regulating before they stifle innovation and harm competition anymore that they already have.

Don’t know how this is going to turn out. But right now everything apple goes on the iOS App Store is 100% legal. And you can be sure there will be appeal after appeal. It could take 10 years to resolve this.

Hope Epic gets their head handed to them. Would serve them right.

 

[mattspace]

That is as ridiculous as saying Nintendo has a monopoly on the Nintendo platform.

Nintendo sells single purpose games consoles. Apple sells general-purpose pocket computers. The two are not the same.

As mentioned, the economics of the Game console market are fundamentally different to those of the cellphone market, and therefore not comparable.

This is nonsensical. Car companies have been doing the same for decades.

Cars are perfectly brand interchangeable - they use the same fuel, tyres, roads etc. Apple's cellphones and computers by virtue of proprietary operating systems and bundled applications are not. Apple's entire business model is built upon ensuring their products are not brand interchangeable with those of other companies.

As I will keep pointing out 30% is the industry standard.

As been pointed out by other all this would do would be to turn the iOS market into the same kind of garbage fire Cesspool of a train wreck that the Android market is because quality control is nonexistent.

What the rest of the industry does isn't the point, Apple is being judged based on Apple's behaviour in isolation. 30% isn't the "standard", most online stores (except games consoles, which aren't representative) have moved to much lower standards.

Apple's appstores are already garbagefire cesspools, if you open your eyes to see - they're replete with scam apps, scam subscriptions services & intellectual property theft. Try listening to developers, rather than the professional sycophants in the will-say-anything-for-access Apple-centric media.

Preventing malicious apps should be done at the operating system level - by restricting and user-alerting system functionality that can be used maliciously, not at the appstore level by just pretending a malicious app can't get through app review.

There is no relationship whatsoever between Apple being the only appstore on iOS, and user security. If Epic had an appstore on iOS, Epic could just as easily ensure apps sold on their store were legitimate.

And that's what many of these antitrust cases are going to come down to - iOS is a market, and within that market, there is no legitimate reason for Apple to prevent other companies from competing with it for any user-facing service or application. We're seeing the first cracks in the dam for this already - Apple put in user selectable default browsers and email clients, despite the arguments of past anticompetitive monopolists that "Browsers are an essential integral component of the Operating System". There's no reason to argue that an App Store App or an eBook App, or a Music Purchasing App is any different.

 

[I7guy]

[...]Cars are perfectly brand interchangeable - they use the same fuel, tyres, roads etc. Apple's cellphones and computers by virtue of proprietary operating systems and bundled applications are not. Apple's entire business model is built upon ensuring their products are not brand interchangeable with those of other companies.

Can a Toyota ECU power a Honda engine? Can a Ferrari lifter fit inside a Porsche engine? So the above isn’t exactly a great analogy.

What the rest of the industry does isn't the point, Apple is being judged based on Apple's behaviour in isolation. 30% isn't the "standard", most online stores (except games consoles, which aren't representative) have moved to much lower standards.

So 30% was the fee and some stores changed the fee. Apple is free to charge its price and developers are free to choose their platform.

Apple's appstores are already garbagefire cesspools, if you open your eyes to see - they're replete with scam apps, scam subscriptions services & intellectual property theft. Try listening to developers, rather than the professional sycophants in the will-say-anything-for-access Apple-centric media.

Baloney. Millions of apps and some bad apples...pun intended. Which developers should apple listen to? The ones that want apples services and customers for $0?

Preventing malicious apps should be done at the operating system level - by restricting and user-alerting system functionality that can be used maliciously, not at the appstore level by just pretending a malicious app can't get through app review.

If it were that easy windows would have implemented this years ago and malware would be gone.

There is no relationship whatsoever between Apple being the only appstore on iOS, and user security. If Epic had an appstore on iOS, Epic could just as easily ensure apps sold on their store were legitimate.

And that's what many of these antitrust cases are going to come down to - iOS is a market, and within that market, there is no legitimate reason for Apple to prevent other companies from competing with it for any user-facing service or application. We're seeing the first cracks in the dam for this already - Apple put in user selectable default browsers and email clients, despite the arguments of past anticompetitive monopolists that "Browsers are an essential integral component of the Operating System". There's no reason to argue that an App Store App or an eBook App, or a Music Purchasing App is any different.

Maybe or maybe not. People may try hard to bust apple open, but it’s not up for us to decide. Stay tuned.

 

[mattspace]

Can a Toyota ECU power a Honda engine? Can a Ferrari lifter fit inside a Porsche engine? So the above isn’t exactly a great analogy.

The can analogy is a poor one for technology in general, suffice to say I can buy 3rd party replacements for most factory parts on a car, and the carmaker cannot prevent me from installing them, nor can they void warranties on the factory parts due to the presence of 3rd party ones.

So 30% was the fee and some stores changed the fee. Apple is free to charge its price and developers are free to choose their platform.

Apple is not free, or at least this is what Epic's suit is seeking to establish, to force developers to do business with Apple, in order to do business with customers using iOS devices.

That's literally how competition law was first established regarding railroad access in America.

Baloney. Millions of apps and some bad apples...pun intended. Which developers should apple listen to? The ones that want apples services and customers for $0?

The presence of ANY bad apples falsifies the claim that Apple controlling the only source of apps provides user-safety. That claim implies that 3rd party app stores would be inherently less safe than Apple, and presumes that 3rd party app stores wouldn't trade on being *more* trustworthy than Apple, or on having *better* app review.

Also, the developers are complaining that they don't want Apple's services - they don't want to host their app download on Apple's servers, they don't want to use Apple for their payment processing systems, that's the point. They've paid for Apple's development resources with their Dev membership fees, they simply want to be able to sell to customers without being forced to buy Apple's expensive services in order to do so.

If it were that easy windows would have implemented this years ago and malware would be gone.

Malware exists on iOS, and comes from Apple's appstore, therefore there is no valid argument that Apple owning the only appstore on iOS is an anti-malware thing, because as a monopolist, they display the classic monopolist lethargy - they *could* eliminate all malware, IP violation, subscription fraud etc, but they are both the beneficiaries of said fraud with their 30% cut, and have no real competitive imperative to do anything about it because they don't have to compete against other app stores within the iOS market.

Maybe or maybe not. People may try hard to bust apple open, but it’s not up for us to decide. Stay tuned.

No, but as the original question I was responding to was "why is the judge being so mean to Apple" the answer remains, because Apple is a convicted antitrust felon, who has been smacked down in multiple jurisdictions worldwide for abusing consumer laws, and the judge is therefore treating them as the recidivistic repeat-offender they are.

 

[kk200]

No. You bought hardware from Apple and the right to licence the software they create to run on said hardware.
You own the hardware. You do not own the software, you only license it from Apple.
They get to choose what is available to run on their software.
You get to pick from that list and enjoy free updates for several years.
You knew that when you bought an iPhone and into the Apple eco-system.
They have every right to their software.

Sorry, I don't accept your arguments at all.

It is apple locked the bootloader to prevent 3rd-party os.
It is apple locked the os to prevent 3rd-party market.

So it is apple blocks the software I want.

you can play terms and words, but you can not twist the fact.

 

[ArPe]

..and what if I don't want it...no alternative? What if I don't want to use the app store, still no alterative? It may be a license only but you're still forced to use it and the hardware useless without it.

What if you install a third party App Store that takes your money in their own ‘currency’ and exit scams? What if they are in another legal jurisdiction that you can’t prosecute?

What if the regime in Myanmar tells all their iPhone users they have to install their own native App Store and only buy apps from that store and it funds a military regime and their brutal murder of ethnic minorities?

There are many downside scenarios that can happen with this concept of third party app stores. It becomes a chaos that you can’t police, can’t protect users from theft or data collection.

Some things in life need to be centralized, streamlined, safe guarded and moderated.

There are plenty of crooked people, violent people, competing companies who will try to convince you that decentralization and deregulation is good. But that’s because they want power over you and are manipulating you on an emotional and psychological level.

 

[kk200]

What if you install a third party App Store that takes your money in their own ‘currency’ and exit scams? What if they are in another legal jurisdiction that you can’t prosecute?

What if the regime in Myanmar tells all their iPhone users they have to install their own native App Store and only buy apps from that store and it funds a military regime and their brutal murder of ethnic minorities?

There are many downside scenarios that can happen with this concept of third party app stores. It becomes a chaos that you can’t police, can’t protect users from theft or data collection.

Sorry, but none of the scenarios you imaged really happened on other platform. Not on android, nor on Windows. Stop to terrifying yourself.

And, even it is true. Apple do not have the right to play the court and police here.

Some things in life need to be centralized, streamlined, safe guarded and moderated.

There are plenty of crooked people, violent people, competing companies who will try to convince you that decentralization and deregulation is good. But that’s because they want power over you and are manipulating you on an emotional and psychological level.

I thought I'm reading some Chinese propaganda............

 

[PC_tech]

But that’s because they want power over you and are manipulating you on an emotional and psychological level.

Just like Apple....

 

[I7guy]

The can analogy is a poor one for technology in general, suffice to say I can buy 3rd party replacements for most factory parts on a car, and the carmaker cannot prevent me from installing them, nor can they void warranties on the factory parts due to the presence of 3rd party ones.

Yes and no. If you install third party brake pads and your power windows stop working on your Porsche, the dealer has to fix the power windows. But if you install a third party ECU and your engine blows up, the dealer is not obligated to fix your cars' engine under warranty.

Apple is not free, or at least this is what Epic's suit is seeking to establish, to force developers to do business with Apple, in order to do business with customers using iOS devices.

That's literally how competition law was first established regarding railroad access in America.

The fees are legitimate and have been a part of the software industry for years. Just like shelf space fees are a part of the supermarket industry. What the final outcome is on this we don't know. And whether you believe the ios app store should be a separate business for ios devices is not relevant. If epic decides to sue on anti-trust charges, because they believe the ios app store is a separate business, it will be up to the courts to decides (yes, playing arm chair lawyer)

The presence of ANY bad apples falsifies the claim that Apple controlling the only source of apps provides user-safety. That claim implies that 3rd party app stores would be inherently less safe than Apple, and presumes that 3rd party app stores wouldn't trade on being *more* trustworthy than Apple, or on having *better* app review.

I say as a fact this is wrong, and as an opinion this is also incorrect. This is not binary. Apple never claimed their review process is 100% and in fact when you download an app, that is between you and the developer. Apple will do it's due diligence. And yes, there are some schools of thought that do not believe the third party app stores will do as much as Apple...should they even be allowed.

Also, the developers are complaining that they don't want Apple's services - they don't want to host their app download on Apple's servers, they don't want to use Apple for their payment processing systems, that's the point. They've paid for Apple's development resources with their Dev membership fees, they simply want to be able to sell to customers without being forced to buy Apple's expensive services in order to do so.

With millions of developers, it's inevitable there is a subset (1 to how many) that don't like the current setup. Tough. Let them go somewhere else to make money. What these developers want is irrelevant. The best way to show Apple one means business is to pick up their toys and go somewhere else. These devs want access to Apples' customers for $0.

Malware exists on iOS, and comes from Apple's appstore, therefore there is no valid argument that Apple owning the only appstore on iOS is an anti-malware thing, because as a monopolist, they display the classic monopolist lethargy - they *could* eliminate all malware, IP violation, subscription fraud etc, but they are both the beneficiaries of said fraud with their 30% cut, and have no real competitive imperative to do anything about it because they don't have to compete against other app stores within the iOS market.

Again, it's not binary. The argument is better control over malware. Just because you believe in your opinion above, does not make it doable. Nobody said there needed to be competition, it's apples platform. Sure all arm-chair lawyers will weigh in on this, but I'm guessing this case will go to the Supreme Court if needed (and if they take the case).

No, but as the original question I was responding to was "why is the judge being so mean to Apple" the answer remains, because Apple is a convicted antitrust felon, who has been smacked down in multiple jurisdictions worldwide for abusing consumer laws, and the judge is therefore treating them as the recidivistic repeat-offender they are.

Sure, you could hold that view, but that's not the reality of how Apple is viewed by the universe. But good luck in getting the universe to adopt that position.

Sorry, I don't accept your arguments at all.

It is apple locked the bootloader to prevent 3rd-party os.
It is apple locked the os to prevent 3rd-party market.

So it is apple blocks the software I want.

you can play terms and words, but you can not twist the fact.

Apple is under no obligation to make it easy for you to hack their device. But it is yours to do so as you wish. You can hack it, throw it against a wall, throw it in the sink etc.

 

[theotherphil]

Apple is not free, or at least this is what Epic's suit is seeking to establish, to force developers to do business with Apple, in order to do business with customers using iOS devices.

That's literally how competition law was first established regarding railroad access in America.

It’s almost as if people haven’t watched any of the videos that I linked earlier in this thread where an actual corporate lawyer addresses all this. This is nothing like railroad access or what MS did with IE and Windows.

This one is a good starter….scrub to 26mins:

 

[Shirasaki]

I will patiently wait for the trial result if it ever goes public. I just hope lawyers and judges know what they are doing.
Whatever the trial result will be, it will reshape the digital app market forever.

 

[I7guy]

I will patiently wait for the trial result if it ever goes public. I just hope lawyers and judges know what they are doing.
Whatever the trial result will be, it will reshape the digital app market forever.

Sure and it could be that nothing changes and apples strategy is deemed totally legal.

 

[Seoras]

Sorry, I don't accept your arguments at all.

It is apple locked the bootloader to prevent 3rd-party os.
It is apple locked the os to prevent 3rd-party market.

So it is apple blocks the software I want.

you can play terms and words, but you can not twist the fact.

Yet you miss the most important fact of all - if you aren't happy with how Apple chooses to implement IT'S software you are free to buy a competitors platform instead.
You have no right to dictate to Apple, and everyone else who is happy with Apple's software, to change things just to suit your wishes.
Purchasing hardware from Apple does not give you veto or voting rights on their software.

 

[Rob_2811]

What if you install a third party App Store that takes your money in their own ‘currency’ and exit scams? What if they are in another legal jurisdiction that you can’t prosecute?

What if the regime in Myanmar tells all their iPhone users they have to install their own native App Store and only buy apps from that store and it funds a military regime and their brutal murder of ethnic minorities?

There are many downside scenarios that can happen with this concept of third party app stores. It becomes a chaos that you can’t police, can’t protect users from theft or data collection.

Some things in life need to be centralized, streamlined, safe guarded and moderated.

There are plenty of crooked people, violent people, competing companies who will try to convince you that decentralization and deregulation is good. But that’s because they want power over you and are manipulating you on an emotional and psychological level.

This happens with the App Store 👍

 

[I7guy]

This happens with the App Store 👍

What happens with the App Store? Apps steal your money? Got any citations for that, that amount to anything over some grousing on the internet?

 

[Rob_2811]

What happens with the App Store? Apps steal your money? Got any citations for that, that amount to anything over some grousing on the internet?

Nobody has said anybody steals money. Apps have been removed from the app store at the behest of foreign governments who persecute minorities.