omg, someone alert the Nobel committee, Apple has discovered water is wet 
5 Likes
I mean, I do want Apple to suffer. They abuse their power obtained through money way too much, trying to monopolize, but on the other hand Epic Games is a massive hypocrite because they are trying to monopolize the gaming market by enforcing exclusives on their own platform. So their argument against Apple is laughable.
4 Likes
The best outcome in my opinion is they both lose, but I really think one of them would have to win. In this case I hope it’s Apple because Epic is just throwing around their big balls of cash and really need a kick in them.
The Apple situation won’t likely change until they lose their cult following.
6 Likes
I don’t know…Apple has been getting away with a lot of stuff, like suing small businesses because they dared to have fruit based icons for their businesses. Imagine if Apple could copyright the imagery of fruit. Someone’s gotta stop em, they’ve become beasts.
6 Likes
Exactly, if Epic is able to cause some trouble for Apple I’m all for it. Fuck that company and its shady marketing and planned obsolescence.
4 Likes
These are some really terribly short sighted takes. We can all recognize that Apple is a horrible company in all sorts of ways and they sure deserve some sort of comeuppance. But it is VERY IMPORTANT how you go about something like that. You have to actually go after the real problems they’re causing. Things like refusal to let people and companies repair their products for example, now that’s a legal fight worth having, walled garden marketplace is however not. Just wishing for someone to hurt Apple in any way is both pointless and dangerous.
These suits from Epic has no positive bearing on customers, it does not address any of Apple’s actual real failures as a company. All it does is demand that Epic is allowed to exploit another company’s resources and platforms without adhering to their terms. (a horrendously brief summary)
You have a choice to not be an Apple customer, in this particular aspect Apple is not doing anything wrong.
When dealing with lawsuits in a legal system that puts so much weight on precedence you really need to look at the arguments being made and the full ramifications on everyone should one or the other party be deemed correct. Not which party you personally like or dislike more.
To summarize the positions here: If Epic wins all existing Apple customers who bought an Apple product because they wanted what Apple offered will be harmed. If Apple wins nothing changes. You can continue to not buy Apple products and those who want Apple’s walled garden can chose to buy into it.
If Epic really had the common people’s best interest in mind they’d try to force Apple to pay their taxes or to stop trying to prevent people from repairing their products or any of the actual wrongs Apple are committing. That’s not even going into the fact that Epic is just about as bad, Apple have just been doing it for longer.
7 Likes
Well, I don’t just wish it for wishing’s sake. I loathe them for their practices, their standards of human rights and their abuse of it, their abuse of money and power, their anti-consumer policies and their monopolizing. I want someone, but probably not Epic because honestly they are no better, to bring even a small measure of justice against them however they can get it.
I think that if Apple wins, it just sets another victory on their side, making it even more difficult for others to try their hand at fighting their injustices and policies. If only someone would put this kind of money and effort against Apple in cases that certainly deserve it, but that’s probably never going to happen.
4 Likes
That’s just not how it works. Court is not a point scoring game, they’re not going to pull up Apple’s record and say “Oh well, looks like Apple has 340 wins and you’ve only won twice so sorry you can’t sue them for this entirely unrelated thing never tested in court before!”
Of course if apple wins you’ll have a hard time suing them again for the same thing, that’s the point of setting precedence. Unless you think you’ve find another REALLY good argument that will change the rulings.
You bring up a lot of good reasons why someone should sue Apple, none of them even remotely related to this Epic suit. Hurting someone, or wishing for it, in a way that is entirely unrelated to their actual flaws or misbehavior is not justice. Especially not when it also stands to hurt a large number of other people.
4 Likes
It certainly isn’t supposed to be, but regardless, my intention was to mean that no one else will be willing to (sue) the more victories Apple stacks up. I never said you can’t actually start the process, only that it makes it difficult because it dissuades those willing (and any willing at this point are probably going to be those ma and pop businesses being targeted by Apple itself).
I don’t think you quite understood me. And I don’t consider a multi-billion dollar company a “someone”.
Lastly, whilst I do not think the Epic case is as important as other issues and I do think Epic is a hypocrite in this regard, that doesn’t mean what they are now trying to argue against Apple/Google isn’t a worthy cause. What you consider worthy fighting over seems to be entirely different to what I think is worth fighting over.
Which is to say, they are monopolizing to control markets and block competition (and thieve you with an insane 30% tax on you). Which is, itself, anti-consumerism and evil. I put that on an important reason to want Apple to suffer a little bit or to even lose for, even if it isn’t as important as Apple enslaving people to make its crap products. Because any potential victory could mean a change to those things. So yes, I think that is a justice, just not for the other things you think Apple deserves to only be punished for.
(This isn’t even discussing the lawsuit against Google. They’re almost as bad.)
I’m sorry, but not suing or acting against Apple and its numerous issues because their employees could get hurt is wrong. They will also get hurt in a lawsuit over their violations of human rights, but why should it matter in the grand scheme of things? We can’t not act to change horrible policies etc simply because people within that company could be hurt by it. Is it sad? Of course it is, but things aren’t always good.
2 Likes
Again this is just not how it works. It’s their deep pockets and ability to hire the very best lawyers that makes it hard to sue them, this goes for every big company out there. Their W/L ratio has no bearing.
Every claim you have here is pretty much taken right out of Epic’s own lawsuit narrative. I have several posts in this thread that counters these points and if you want them explained in even further detail there’s videos by an actual business lawyer going through them linked as well.
Monopoly: There’s nothing wrong with having a monopoly over your own product. Nike have a monopoly on Nike shoes, Apple has a monopoly on Apple phones and Apple services. Apple’s store is an apple service other providers of both phones and service exists they have blocked no competition, you are in no way forced to turn to Apple for this service.
30%: Is industry standard, Apple took 30% when they started and did not have a massive market hold and no power to enforce anything. They have not increased the share as their power and influence has grown. You are not forced to do business with Apple, there is no moral implications in play.
And there’s the point I have tried to make you see the problem in. You’re just wishing for someone to knock Apple down a peg, you don’t care who, how or why. I’m trying to tell you that it really matters. Apple losing here wont have any bearing on any of those other things.
Again you’re showing the shortsightedness if that’s what you thought I meant by other people. This has nothing to do with Apple employees. You even forgot the one group of “others” I DID mention, Apple customers who WANT and are HAPPY with the service Apple provides. However lets try to broaden the horizon a bit then. How about every console manufacturer? You think if the law decided that Apple’s walled garden was an “illegal monopoly” do you think Nintendo’s systems wouldn’t be? How about the Playstation store? This would break those open and the law would impact them the same way Epic want to do to Apple.
Maybe you think that the consoles having rigorous testing and quality assurance of the games they’ll allow to be sold on their systems isn’t fair. Maybe you think that anyone should be able to make a switch game and have Nintendo help you sell it?
Fine, you can do that!
Actually no, of course you can’t sell it on the Nintendo switch, but you could make your own console and you could market it as the first and only free open platform console where anyone can develop and sell anything they want to. If you think that is something that would attract customers you might have a billion dollar idea on your hands there, go on dragons den or something and get that start up capital!
The point I’m trying to make here is that these are not monopolies. By trying to make walled garden against the law you are REMOVING customer choice not improving upon it. The market is open for anyone to try and supply what they believe customers want, Apple, Sony, Google or Nintendo are not preventing that from happening. Epic is trying to.
3 Likes
Reply
Okay, maybe I’m not communicating this part to you very well? I don’t know how else to explain it to you.
I don’t mean their victories play an actual part in the suing process, I just mean it makes it difficult for a plaintiff to find a lawyer that is willing to tackle a titanic sized enemy that has squashed every single enemy it has come across in court. Or do you not think such a thing happens, and at an alarming rate? So yes, of course their money and better suited lawyers are a problem, why do you think lawyers deny a job because of its difficulty (they look at the company, its victory histories etc and decide whether it is worth it or not)? What else could I have meant by the “victories” comment?
And, what if it is? Just because Epic says it doesn’t mean it isn’t true. It just has the misfortune of being said by another abusive, monopolizing company.
Monopolizing and controlling the market is very much a bad thing. This isn’t a question about Apple monopolizing its own products, which doesn’t even make sense. The issue is that Apple (and Google) is trying to control the market in which they sell their products, and their apps, forcing you into no other opportunities but them. And yes, monopolistic behavior includes forcing people to only buy through them, even if it is in an app stored on their store (for example, no other options to pay Epic except through them [Apple]). Though yes, devs (and customers) do agree to that policy through use (in this case, Epic), it doesn’t mean Apple isn’t monopolizing, or that it isn’t a bad thing. All it means is that they are getting away with it.
It is because of these anti-consumerism and monopolizing behavior that apps have abandoned Apple to begin with. You used to have to pay Apple to get a Netflix subscription, so that they [Apple] could get a hefty cut out of Netflix purchases. Now you can argue it is their service, and iOS apps are their creation, but it doesn’t mean the policies they enforce are not monopolizing and abusive. They are doing exactly what it entails; profit killing cuts, increased app prices, app price enforcements, prohibiting developers to put their iOS apps on any other store but their own, and, worst of all, threatening to void the warranties of iOS devices which downloaded an app from any other store but its own. And because Apple is a distributor, people will always have the right to sue Apple for alleged acts of monopolizing.
If you do not think that sort of practice is wrong, or that it isn’t worth fighting over in courts or heck, if it isn’t even monopolizing, that’s perfectly fine. But it isn’t something a share an opinion of.
That doesn’t mean it isn’t a monopoly, just because others have done so? It is that Apple enforces developers to sell their content only with them. When the first lawsuit came, one of the plaintiff’s lawyers made a good analogy. Apple analogizes itself to a shopping mall which leases physical places to sell your content, but rather than giving you the option to lease someplace else, they forbid you from selling anywhere else but their “shopping mall” and punish people should they find other means of acquiring said content elsewhere. This isn’t about Apple selling its own products, that wouldn’t be monopolistic behavior.
That’s just it. Apple prohibits any other means of selling iOS apps. You are stuck with them if you desire to sell on their devices) You are right though, you do not have to sell iOS apps, but not needing to or having the ability altogether to not share your content at a reasonable rate within the iOS app store is a problem. Controlling the market in the ways that they [devs] produce and sell, the prices that they must set and prohibiting (to the point of voiding warranties) selling or distributions to other “stores” is, in fact, a monopoly.
I have made it clear numerous times now I don’t want them to suffer just to suffer. I think Epic’s argument is valid and is worthy of being pursued, it just comes from a unsavory and hypocritical place. The difference is that you do not think it is. And this isn’t the first time Apple has faced these allegations, and it won’t be the last. Epic may not be any better, but their point in what Apple practices is very much so valid despite their own flaws.
Just as a bad person can do good and a good person can do bad, a flawed company can still speak a truth.
I think the one being shortsighted here is you. You have refused any ground in which Apple is at fault here, and even deny that Apple is monopolizing. With the excuse that it shouldn’t be done because it may harm others (others of which, in my defense, you never clarified as to who they were). Where is this concern for those Apple is harming right now with their practices? You may disagree entirely with Epic, and them being the representative of Apple’s behavior as being wrong, but Apple’s practices hurt all sorts of people–including developers who are no where near as big as Epic and just want to make a healthy profit to continue their products and developments (that isn’t even discussing how these practices hurt other sorts of people, like customers). Do they matter less than the customers who appreciate Apple and have no care in the world in about how Apple conducts its business? How could enforcing Apple to have healthier policies for the consumer be a bad thing for the customers who enjoy Apple, and why shouldn’t it be done simply because they love and use Apple without an issue?
You’re under the false assumption I do not harbor ill thoughts about Nintendo or Sony, but the thing that is flawed with your argument is that Sony, and Nintendo, allows the right of the producer to sell elsewhere (Amazon, Ebay, Wal-mart, Humblebundle (when they can buy them), Target and any number of other stores that I have no idea about and are authorized to sell at. Whereas Apple does not. This isn’t to say that said companies do not have their own variations of predatory and monopolistic behavior (for example, they still do the 30% cut and Sony itself has restricted code distrubtation to itself as of 2019), just that the two situations are completely different and isn’t the argument being presented by Epic (and others).
But I’m curious…even if they were similar, how could setting a healthier environment for the consumer be a bad thing? If Apple losing also means that Sony and Nintendo and Xbox have to be more fair in the way that they sell and maintain games, or even are forced to allow a developer to sell that game through their own website, how is that a loss/bad? And again, this isn’t about forcing Apple/Sony/etc to allow them to sell iOS apps/Sony/Nintendo games on other platforms, but just through their own means to the platform it targets (such as a personal store). And if, at the end of the day, Apple is only forced to change its predatory policies to stop choking the life out of devs etc, than that is also good.
This isn’t about Apple wanting to “just ensure” that the quality it sells is up the highest quality. Come on now. This is why they take such a massive cut, this is why they refuse to allow apps to sell content directly to the customers. This isn’t about Apple wanting to make sure the apps you install are “okay” because not even now are they like this (I should know–both me and my mother have worked at Apple support). This about Apple enforcing itself to make money. If they cared about the consumer–which is ridiculous–they would allow self repair (which doesn’t cost $1000s). They wouldn’t encode their devices to stop performing at a certain point passed their production date. They wouldn’t void your warranty if you managed a way to install an app not through their store. This is about control, and money. And it is naive to think otherwise.
This isn’t the same thing whatsoever. Epic (and other plaintiffs) complaints isn’t that they should be able to sell or maintain their own iOS apps on another device entirely, it is the freedom to sell those apps themselves to avoid predatory behavior within the market. It is beyond frustrating that you think these two situations are similar.
The point is not valid. Nintendo, Sony, Xbox etc allow the usage of product distribution as they will. They do not lock PS products to a Sony owned store which has various policies designed to restrict you to only buying from their Sony branded store. They allow the selling of products in multiple methods (again, till not without its flaws and predatory behavior), which as previously stated, is not something Apple even allows–forcing the developers to either abandon that audience entirely to avoid that monopolistic behavior or decide to get over that behavior.
Wait, are you actually serious with that part about choice? Are you really citing customer choice with Apple? How can you reasonably say something like that when Apple’s entire policy is anti-choice?
You seem to also incorrectly think that just because you could say “Hey, whatever, I just won’t deal with it” it means Apple or any other company could not be monopolizing simply because an option to just walk away exists, but that is the furthest thing from the truth. Preventing the distribution of a product beyond anything else but one place is anti-choice and anti-consumerism, and it is a monopoly. And Sony and Nintendo selling platform specific titles on their own system is a completely different thing than Apple refusing to allow its apps to be sold and maintained off iOS app page…
But this is your opinion, and one that you quite clearly feel strongly about, so I won’t try to anymore. But neither will I agree that Apple isn’t in the wrong simply because that wrong is being discussed by another powerful, abusive entity or that they are not monopolizing.
3 Likes
without joining in the debate, please try and explain to me how apple is “monopolizing” when it’s their own product - and different than how Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft “monopolizes” their own product in this case console, it’s their hardware, their software, their RND and effort that went into it, and you are basically just “leasing” storespace on their property - it is the exact same thing
it’s not a monopoly, developers are free to put apps on iOS, Android and Windowsoops you died as they please, they are even free to do their own phone and OS. Apple is not, (unlike epic), prohibiting them from doing business elsewhere(as i understand)
^this is not what a monopoly is - even remotely
4 Likes
Summary
I did explain how they are an abusive monopoly, and why the situation between Nintendo etc is different.
First, let’s define a broad definition of “monopolizing” (there is a legal definition often used too):
verb
- an organization or group obtaining exclusive possession or control of a (trade, commodity, or service)
- have or take the greatest share of
- get or keep exclusivity to oneself
Now let’s try and put that into perspective against Apple (and keep in mind that Apple did not say it wasn’t doing what it is alleged for, only that they tried to justify it by likening themselves to a mall, ignoring the flaw of their own analogy).
If Apple holds 25% of global smartphone markets and let’s say the rest is all Microsoft’s Windows phones (again, example), that means over a billion people (with, last I checked, is like 50% within the U.S). All of those people are forced to install apps for their device solely within the Apple App store. This alone stifles competitiveness and consumerism because Apple’s influences through hard policy the way in which software is made and consumed around the world.
But let’s discussion the 30% tax on developers (which is then forced on the consumer to pay), which is pretty important here as it is the foundation of Epic’s lawsuit (and all others before it, like the EU one). How can one become or even stay competitive if they are forced to pay 30% of all their earnings? In order to compete, they have to keep raising prices.
Now, yes, it isn’t a problem for Apple to own a “store” and “rent” its space out, and it isn’t a problem for Apple to own the only “store” to do so. But it is a problem in that fact that it is the only “store” in which you can sell your product by means of exploitation of extensive pricing and punishments—which harms competitors (think of Proton). If you do not believe me on this, feel free to google it up or ask a lawyer. I guarantee you there will liken it to a protection racket.
And, since these fees are imposed on the developers, they are thereon forced to impose it on the consumers to cover that (outrageous) fee Apple charges. Which, again, harms the consumers. Which is, of course, anti-consumerism and predatory.
The ability to not sell on the App Store doesn’t mean it isn’t monopolizing it. Yes, developers could ditch the market altogether, but the fact that Apple controls it down to a void ruining punishment is a monopoly. So to answer the “they can just go somewhere else, no one is forcing them” argument: just because you can move out of your house, it doesn’t mean the person burning it down isn’t doing something illegal.
And once again, I am not here to argue what Epic is or is not doing. My argument lies solely on what Apple is “guilty” of.
Now, onto the monopolizing bit. I’ll put in some reasons why it categorizes as a monopoly (and thus abuses it):
Apple monopolizes through various means, such as 1) hardware restricted incentives to throw away “broken” devices in order to buy a new one, and directly monopolizes repairs itself for hundreds of dollars more than it should (such as prohibiting even using third-party hardware and services) 2) its environment is excessively controlled to maintain self interest and earnings, all off the backs of devs and consumers, which means they use their position of control with the app store to enforce higher earnings and hurt other competitors 3) expensive and destructive policies which stifle innovation and gain 4) it owns nearly (may be more now) half of the global smartphone market, abusing that position through anti-consumerism and monopolizing policies and 5) influences price hiking through its market share and policy (such as taking 30% which forces devs to hike prices to compensate).
And to explain a bit more, a (legal) monopoly power refers to an entity’s ability to charge a price higher than its marginal cost (which Apple does). These monopolistic powers typically exist where there is low elasticity of demand and significant barriers to entry (Low demand? Apple controls iOS. Check. Significant barriers to entry? Extensive, punishing policies to make and sell a product. Check).
Let’s compare it to AT&T. It used to control all of the landline telephone services within the U.S but it was forced to separate into six regional subsidiaries. Now, it wasn’t being targeted because it was the sole provider of a service (that isn’t illegal/wrong), but when they abused its position to use unfair practices (again, Apple does with its policies) to main and expand its monopoly position? That’s when it was put to a stop. This is what Apple is doing. There is nothing wrong with Apple being the monopoly of its market–especially since it created it–but when it abuses its standing to practice unfair policies to enforce itself that position (which it does through control of the iOS app store, global market share of mobile phones etc), it is a problem.
This is why the judge allowed the lawsuit to happen, because despite Apple’s excuse, they said Apple is not a middleman/retailer (“mall” as Apple had said) because Apple >forces< all apps to go through their own store (itunes and iOS app store). Which is unlike Android, for example, because it allows people to install apps from outside the Google Store, circumventing Google’s store and its price cuts etc etc. Of course, they didn’t rule that they were monopolizing, only that Apple can faces these claims in court because it is in that position.
Now, if you do not think these things are monopolizing and anti-consumerism, I would request that you look up what happened with Microsoft. The same situation, different names basically (all falls under Tech). They were forced to open up Windows and unbundle Internet Explorer—even though they created both the OS and the browser (just like with Apple). Essentially, Microsoft was forced to offer computers a choice in rival web browsers and allow the disabling of said browser, no longer forcing consumers to use their products within their own products (in EU).
(we should also take a look at Apple’s monopolizing claims against Samsung and Motorola through use of patents, whilst creating extensive and harmful patents of their own. Also Apple’s blocking of Steam Link because it threatens Apple’s monopoly over selling games on their platform. So if that, itself, cannot convince you of anti-competition and monopolizing policies I guess I’m stumped.)
Now, about Nintendo and Sony… as I said, they still have their problems, but the situations are different in this regard because Nintendo and Sony allows the use of selling their games through other markets, such as Amazon etc etc. They (well I don’t know about Nintendo anymore) have their own brand store, but they do not limit the consumer to buy only from their branded stores. So in this regard–the claim made by Epic and others–is invalid because said companies are not enforcing their market control in the same way.
Now they are monopolistic in other ways, just not in the way that Apple is or the subject of this lawsuit. And, because I think it needs to be said again; yes, Epic is also in the wrong for many reasons, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t speaking the truth about Apple simply because they also practice anti-choice, anti-consumerism and monopolistic policies. Which they definitely do.
3 Likes
… sigh, i’m not gonna go over the whole thing, because it’s too much and redundant repetition.
i’ll just say again, it’s not a monopoly, in any way shape or form - those customers, voluntarily, chose, to buy Apple’s product and be part of of their chain of products -supply. Apple did not have a market share big enough to “force” them to their product (this is where your Microsoft IE eu analogy falls short)
Iphones, apple products, whatever, is exactly the same as ex construction - i build a structure, i own it, i dictate the rent and who i rent to - this is not a monopoly or monopolistic, because you are free to not rent/set up shop in my building, you can build your own building, or rent/set up shop somewhere else, i do not own 90% of construction/structures, therefor it’s by any definition not a monopoly when there exist a competitive market and choice - you have alternatives - but if you decide to set up shop in my building; i have every right to dictate price and terms
your analogy about consoles not monopolizing because you can buy from a different store, ignores the fact they still get their license share no matter where you buy it from, and that you are still “forced” to use their hardware to run the game.
-apple doesn’t allow side loading apps for “security reasons” iirc - whether or not this is utter bs and just a means to funnel purchases through their store is essentially irrelevant: it’s still their product, and they can set eeeevery hootenanny crazy ridiculous terms they will; as long as there is competition (and Android has the vast market share lets not forget) - then it will never be monopolistic because you can just chose to get your product elsewhere - unlike Demon Souls/BOTW where i have to buy XYZ console (but since it’s their product it’s still not unfair/monopolistic). you don’t have to buy an iphone to get a phone, you don’t have to get an iphone to get apps, - you only have to buy an iphone if you want apple’s features. By any definition, this is not a monopoly. It’s regular ol retail, “you want what i have, you buy mine, if i’m not offering what you want you get it somewhere else”
i’m personally not interested in the Apple-Epic debate/argument itself myself, for me the sole interest was the difference perceived in these “monopolies” -of which i don’t agree and don’t agree more after the explanation either.
Thankful you indulged me, also since it was way longer/in depth than i had expected.
7 Likes
Well, I didn’t make anyone respond to me. 
If you don’t want to respond to my entire argument and its contents, fine, but it doesn’t seem exactly fair to jump in and present half counters that I ultimately will not be able to argue against because you won’t read and respond to whatever I post…
As I have said and is defined by the word and legal definition, a monopoly can still exist in the existence of alternative choice. It can be defined by the practices and actions taken by the monopoly, and “criminalized” based off of that (e.i, predatory and self sustaining action). So I say again: alternative choice does not mean it isn’t a monopoly and that is exactly why I presented to you the AT&T case (in which alternative choices were available, but AT&T monopolized its position in a predatory fashion), but alas, it seems to be have been ignored completely.
And since the subject is dragging on, I’ll say once more and duck out: a monopoly itself is not a bad thing, so Apple being one isn’t necessarily a problem. It is just about what they do with that position.
No, it doesn’t ignore it, I even pointed out that they still get their share. I said they aren’t comparable because at least those consoles allow selling products outside of their own store, granting more agency to the developers/publishers, which allows for greater discounts in the help of the consumer (provided a sale is made possible by said dev). And in that, it is very much different than Apple.
I have provided why it is an abusive monopoly and is predatory using definitions of monopolies and assigning Apple policies to those definitions, as well as giving examples of Tech related companies being (successfully sued) over monopolistic practices extremely similar if not identical in many ways to Apple (the strongest, most relevant being Microsoft’s bundling of EI). I don’t know how else it can be explained beyond that to convince people that Apple is a (predatory) monopoly, so if no one wants to believe with that being pointed out, that’s perfectly fine. But there’s a reason why the Supreme Court allowed through this, because the grounds are there that they are a predatory monopoly…
Have a good day! 
4 Likes
which is not remotely the same since apple does not have the “presence” AT&T does in the telecom infrastructure
there is a literal difference between “owning all the houses and the patents for staircases and elevators” - vs “i’m offering you shoes to wear with blinking laces to walk around in those houses”
except what nintendo and ms and sony does with digital sales - and digital only consoles
-and that again apple has no obligation to not take a share, or freely allow devs access or free “rent” choices/sideloading -it’s their product they have the right to dictate what goes on it and how - because there are alternative choices - unlike in the MS case, which had a literal dominant monopoly.
(likewise we are not allowed to “sideload” games for consoles - you are literally not allowed to even develop for it without their say so or licensing, just modding is violating tos potentially illegal depending on area)
except that’s not what USSC decided, they merely decided that anti trust suits could proceed and that apple’s counter was bs - not the same as saying there are grounds for them being a predatory monopoly, merely that “you saying they can’t sue doesn’t mean they can’t sue” pretty significant distinction.
(qualifier: when they only have a 50% marketshare, there exist multiple alternative choices, the service is not essential), imo they have every right to charge whatever exorbitant fees they want, just like a landlord can charge you through the roof when there is no rent control, or dictate who he rents to.
apple is predatory alright, but by any definition they are not a monopoly/monopolistic
-until a verdict states in the eyes of the law they are, and i’d be kinda surprised if they lost/were told they couldnt’ dictate terms over their own product. (not saying that it would be a bad thing if they lost, just saying it wouldn’t make sense, “it’s theirs”)
…and i lost track… see i told you this could go on and on - i agree they are scum, i just can’t agree on the monopoly aspect 
6 Likes
@Rhyagelle
You have pretty much just ignored the arguments and points I’ve made and restated your own assertions. Even posed questions to me that were already answered. @Gnuffi has shot down most of your points in his excellent rebuttal to your ideas on monopolies so there’s not much left for me to respond to other than your assumptions that would differentiate consoles to Apple’s store.
Sure you can buy a Nintendo game in a lot of different stores. But that game would never be on sale anywhere if Nintendo had not allowed it to be sold and they still take a cut of the profits from each sale, that’s pretty much where the 30% came from.
As for your one expression of incredulity that Apple is providing market choice, you’ve turned my argument upside down. I said Epic is attempting to LIMIT the choice available. Apple is offering one product and service combination among all other possible product and service combinations. Epic seeks to wield law so as to remove THAT choice from the market.
If you really truly think Epic’s claim is one of merit and believe yourself to have understood all the ramifications, although what you’ve been writing makes me believe you do not. This simply leaves us at a point of fundamental disagreement. I’ve made my arguments as to why I think you’re wrong (referring also to all previous posts I’ve made here) and you have either ignored or rejected them so we shall just remain in disagreement.
Addendum: Also yeah no Lawyers do not care about W/L ratios either. If you can pay them they’ll help you write up and file whatever crazy BS you want them to. They might advice against doing so but pretty much anything goes as long as you pay them for their time.
5 Likes
After finally reading through all this, I think I figured out the crux of Rhyagelle’s argument, and a better comparison would be with Steam.
See, Steam (like Apple’s app store) also deals exclusively with selling digital games/apps and gets a 30% cut of profits through their store, but Steam lets developers generate keys and sell them elsewhere (Humble, Fanatical, etc.) and receives a grand total of 0% profits from keys sold. In other words, if you want to buy a game on Steam, you don’t have to use Steam’s store. Of course, if devs want to put their game on Steam in the first place, they still have to go through Steam’s curation process (or lack thereof, 'cuz Steam), so this wouldn’t affect the “walled garden” service if applied to the app store; instead, it would merely give iOS devs more places to sell their apps.
@Rhyagelle Did I get that right?
4 Likes
the flaw in that argument and line of thought is that apple is in no way is obligated to do that
-until a court finds that they are an “essential service” or have a large enough influence/command to do that (which imo i think is unlikely)
it’s like saying to any other store/business - oh btw, you have to sell our goods/rent space to us, and you have to do it in a manner where you also don’t even get paid
-steam does it because it increases userbase for their platform, thus potentially increase direct sales on their own store/marketplace
apple allowing sideloading apps would not give them the same benefit/userbase increase - since there is a (expensive) purchase to entry to begin with for an iphone, and people don’t pick an iphone because of apps, but apple’s XYZ feature/brand bs - but remove their store’s only avenue of revenue
it’s apples “stuff”, they have the right to decide what they wanna deal with/what goes on it, and charge a price for that service - there is no law or obligation to allow access to their platform or apps without charge.
you can’t just walk into Walmart and set up your own banana stand, they have the right to dictate what goes on what they sell and what they charge, it’s their place.
(+ sideloading apps, would indeed mean being able to entirely skip the “curation process” they have with their store - hence their whole bs “security” argument that force funnels ios devs through their store.)
6 Likes
The soap opera between Epic and Apple continues, with the later counter-attacking again.
4 Likes