Support NeoGAF

[StreetsofBeige]

Oh shit, this thing was still going on? lol.

Would this whole debacle claimed by Epic be the same thing as a supplier getting Walmart and Amazon to carry their product, but instead of the customer buying it there where the supplier and store both make money off it, the supplier's packaging says "dont buy it here. buy it direct from our website".

Walmart and Amazon say fuck off we're delisting you. And the supplier takes them to court to force the stores to carry their product with the same purchase diversion packaging?

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Good, fuck Epic. Go make your own phone and platform morons.

Thats the software company mentality.

Let the hardware company do all the R&D, OS, dev tools etc.... then swoop in later with high margin software sales. And if a platform bombs, there's other ones they already migrated to.

 

[sainraja]

Good.

 

[BennyBlanco]

I wonder how much this has cost Epic. You still can’t get Fortnite on iOS, right?

 

[MikeM]

Fuck Apple and there Closed Garden.

#TeamSweeney

Educate me- is this a bad thing? Wouldn’t this ensure software is safer on their stores?

 

[adamsapple]

Does this mean we can get an X-Men Destiny remaster now ?

 

[ScHlAuChi]

iOS is objectively not a monopoly, in any way shape or form. Apple is exerting control over its own platform, which is a small minority of the phone market. It has the right to do that.

Apple does have the right to do that, unless they abuse their power - which they did by blocking or hindering competition - see multiple anti trust cases all over the world.
That Apple´s share of the phone market is small doesnt matter at all for such a case as they have 100% control over the Iphone App market.

 

[GMCamaro]

…….ok

 

[diffusionx]

Apple does have the right to do that, unless they abuse their power - which they did by blocking or hindering competition - see multiple anti trust cases all over the world.
That Apple´s share of the phone market is small doesnt matter at all for such a case as they have 100% control over the Iphone App market.

Explain how they are blocking or hindering competition, because we are discussing one of those types of cases that was decided for Apple lol.

Of course Apple's share of the phone market matters, because an illegal monopoly is defined as a monopoly that is engaging in illegal anticompetitive behavior. If a company does not want to engage by Apple's terms they don't have to, and then they can go to the platform with vastly more market share. They aren't cast out of the wilderness. For example, there's a company called Epic with this popular game named Fortnite that made that decision; and their game is still doing fine.

edit: if you want to see a tech company that actually engaged in illegal monopoly behavior, see MS in the 1990s. Windows had like a 90% market share, iOS, maybe 30%?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

China seething right now, their "investment" in Epic to try and break Apple isn't looking so good. Tim Sweeney gonna have to answer to Chairman Pooh

 

[ScHlAuChi]

Explain how they are blocking or hindering competition, because we are discussing one of those types of cases that was decided for Apple lol.

Antitrust: Commission sends Statement of Objections to Apple clarifying concerns over App Store rules for music streaming providers

The European Commission has sent a Statement of Objections to Apple clarifying its concerns over App Store rules for music streaming providers.

ec.europa.eu

Of course Apple's share of the phone market matters, because an illegal monopoly is defined as a monopoly that is engaging in illegal anticompetitive behavior. If a company does not want to engage by Apple's terms they don't have to, and then they can go to the platform with vastly more market share. They aren't cast out of the wilderness. For example, there's a company called Epic with this popular game named Fortnite that made that decision; and their game is still doing fine.

It does not matter what your market share is, the anti competitive behavior complaints were by companies operating in the same market as Apple - the market for iOS apps/users that Apple controls.
The enduser cant take his iOS apps/data and move over to Android. This is one of the reasons why the EU created the DMA and DSA, so they can prevent vendor lock-in.

edit: if you want to see a tech company that actually engaged in illegal monopoly behavior, see MS in the 1990s. Windows had like a 90% market share, iOS, maybe 30%?

Unsurprisingly Microsoft also had multiple anti trust cases and got in trouble with regulators.

When alternate stores open in 2024 in the EU - do you think US users will accept having to pay more - or will they demand the same treatment?
Apple might have won this battle in the US court, but they already lost the regulation war in the EU.

 

[Morrie’s wig shop]

Shit, I wish you'd been around to warn me before I wasted so much time and money buying Macs and iPhones for the last fuck-knows-how-many years! I didn't realise I'd been duped.

You sure have……Teenager Of The Year!!

No, you haven’t. I just wanted to use your avatars album title in something, sorry.

It’s pretty amazing that you can create something, foster this creation into this super user friendly interface a walled garden if you will, for a desktop computer all the down to this amazing device that I can hold in my hand and look up anything about the history of mankind going back tens of thousands of years. Oh yeah, I can make a phone call with it also.
And there’s people who say that’s not fair? You can’t do with what you created? Is it just because they don’t want to pay a fee to the entity that created this OS that you so desperately want to be apart of.
It just all comes down to greed.

 

[SportsFan581]

Not really one to want to agree with Apple on this one, but at the same time...Epic's argument always seemed like bull shit to me. Being on iOS devices was never a right, you either wanted to be on there and let them take their cut, or you didn't want to do that. It was their choice. It's a closed system, what made them think they had any right to debate it. They aren't forced to be on there.

I'm in full agreement here. It isn't just the app developers it's the end-users as well. Everyone involved chose to use Apple products. If Apple's practices cause them to lose access to apps and in turn that causes them to lose users, so be it.

 

[diffusionx]

Antitrust: Commission sends Statement of Objections to Apple clarifying concerns over App Store rules for music streaming providers

The European Commission has sent a Statement of Objections to Apple clarifying its concerns over App Store rules for music streaming providers.

ec.europa.eu

Well, I agree with the EU on this, devs should be able to tell their customers that they can subscribe in multiple ways. That one never sat well with me.

On the store thing though, I vehemently disagree with this idea that Apple has to let any asshole set up any store and freeload off the platform they developed. Whether someone thinks Apple is lying or whatever on the reasons why they do it, is irrelevant. The advantages of the "walled garden" are real for some people and they choose Apple for that reason, just like people chose and choose Android because it allows that stuff. I don't think that limits competition at all, either.

The enduser cant take his iOS apps/data and move over to Android. This is one of the reasons why the EU created the DMA and DSA, so they can prevent vendor lock-in.

They're two different platforms, lol. I've never heard of such a demand. When I bought a Mac way back when, I couldnt take the stuff I bought for Windows. Like what insanity is this? Is the Xbox app obligated to acknowledge my Steam purchases if I dont want to use Steam anymore? Think this through.

 

[Kdad]

Apple does have the right to do that, unless they abuse their power - which they did by blocking or hindering competition - see multiple anti trust cases all over the world.
That Apple´s share of the phone market is small doesnt matter at all for such a case as they have 100% control over the Iphone App market.

That is anti trust behaviour, still doesn't make them a monopoly.

 

[In Cold Blood]

I'm kinda with Apple. They built this OS and made it successful. Then once it becomes successful, they have to allow other companies to use their platform for free so they can make more money themselves?

This goes back to the bullshit that MS copped over including Internet Explorer in Windows.

 

[Rush2112]

win or lose, they still both make more money than i ever will.

 

[kikkis]

Antitrust: Commission sends Statement of Objections to Apple clarifying concerns over App Store rules for music streaming providers

The European Commission has sent a Statement of Objections to Apple clarifying its concerns over App Store rules for music streaming providers.

ec.europa.eu

It does not matter what your market share is, the anti competitive behavior complaints were by companies operating in the same market as Apple - the market for iOS apps/users that Apple controls.
The enduser cant take his iOS apps/data and move over to Android. This is one of the reasons why the EU created the DMA and DSA, so they can prevent vendor lock-in.


Unsurprisingly Microsoft also had multiple anti trust cases and got in trouble with regulators.

When alternate stores open in 2024 in the EU - do you think US users will accept having to pay more - or will they demand the same treatment?
Apple might have won this battle in the US court, but they already lost the regulation war in the EU.

In free market monopolies are good for the consumer, you are literally getting the best for the best price.

Eu has to do these pr campaigns against evil American corporations, so they have more leeway to push things like chat control 2.0.

 

[Griffon]

Morons cheering for Apple's blatant antitrust behaviors.

I'm not a fan of Epic, but it's not about them.

 

[Nydius]

Morons cheering for Apple's blatant antitrust behaviors.

The only morons are the ones regurgitating the supposed "anti-trust" behaviors of a company merely protecting their own marketplace.

Not a single one of y'all have been able to point to an actual instance of anti-trust behavior, and courts have routinely sided with Apple.

27% marketshare worldwide. Apple's walled garden has minimal impact on any competition. You just want to hate on Apple and this is a convenient excuse. At least have the balls to admit it instead of repeating "anti-trust" without even understanding what it means.

 

[anothertech]

I prefer melons. Two large melons to be exact. I love stuffing my face with them.

Peaches is my preference. Peaches all day and night

 

[demigod]

Morons cheering for Apple's blatant antitrust behaviors.

I'm not a fan of Epic, but it's not about them.

Let us know if you can go to Walmart or any B&M store and set up shop inside them selling your goods without paying rent.

 

[Griffon]

The only morons are the ones regurgitating the supposed "anti-trust" behaviors of a company merely protecting their own marketplace.

Not a single one of y'all have been able to point to an actual instance of anti-trust behavior, and courts have routinely sided with Apple.

27% marketshare worldwide. Apple's walled garden has minimal impact on any competition. You just want to hate on Apple and this is a convenient excuse. At least have the balls to admit it instead of repeating "anti-trust" without even understanding what it means.

Apple is dominant in the US.

Besides, it's about the principle: you should be able to make and distribute software however the fuck you want on any general purpose computer. iPhones absolutely qualify as general purpose computers. Having to pay a toll to the manufacturer to distribute any software is antitrust behavior.

 

[azertydu91]

I still prefer oranges!!!

And you know damn well that you can't compare apple to orange.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

Apple is dominant in the US.

Besides, it's about the principle: you should be able to make and distribute software however the fuck you want on any general purpose computer. iPhones absolutely qualify as general purpose computers. Having to pay a toll to the manufacturer to distribute any software is antitrust behavior.

If you want to be free there is Android. You enter a walled garden by your own will. Iphone is not in fact a general purpose computer, it is the Apple ecosystem. If you want to hate Apple for it then fine, but don't keep using their hardware that has benefits from that level of control. Just stop using Apple products. I don't and i am still alive.

 

[Lasha]

I'll never get the cheerleading for walled gardens. Having the option to side load apps or use a different app store on a device you own is unambiguously beneficial to a user. Thankfully EU regulators are forcing the issue where the US is failing.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

I'll never get the cheerleading for walled gardens. Having the option to side load apps or use a different app store on a device you own is unambiguously beneficial to a user. Thankfully EU regulators are forcing the issue where the US is failing.

I don't cheer for it, but I see it as the same as private property rights. If you don't like it then don't enter it. You can own a device but you don't own the store, you might as well say that having a Costco membership card means you own the Costco building.

The benefits of Apple devices is linked to their closed nature. You need one to get the other. If you don't want to be retricted then use an unrestricted product alternative.

 

[Lasha]

I don't cheer for it, but I see it as the same as private property rights. If you don't like it then don't enter it. You can own a device but you don't own the store, you might as well say that having a Costco membership card means you own the Costco building.

The benefits of Apple devices is linked to their closed nature. You need one to get the other. If you don't want to be retricted then use an unrestricted product alternative.

I think that analogy is a stretch too far. A Costco membership card only exists to allow you access to Costco. It's purely an access token unlike a mobile device which has myriad uses.

 

[diffusionx]

I'll never get the cheerleading for walled gardens. Having the option to side load apps or use a different app store on a device you own is unambiguously beneficial to a user. Thankfully EU regulators are forcing the issue where the US is failing.

Nobody is cheerleading it, just saying that Apple has the power to do it on a platform the build and maintain. The "option to side load apps or use a different app store" is a completely arbitrary thing that is being demanded of a platform that never had it and has found the audience it has found without it. Presumably the people who use it do not feel it is important or even desired. As a million other people have said, if it is important to you, there is a platform that lets you do that, and it has a MUCH bigger userbase than Apple's does.

 

[brian0057]

Fuck Apple and there Closed Garden.

#TeamSweeney

Fuck Sweeney and his closed ecosystem and moneyhats

#teamapple

The duality of man.

 

[Lasha]

Nobody is cheerleading it, just saying that Apple has the power to do it on a platform the build and maintain. The "option to side load apps or use a different app store" is a completely arbitrary thing that is being demanded of a platform that never had it and has found the audience it has found without it. Presumably the people who use it do not feel it is important or even desired. As a million other people have said, if it is important to you, there is a platform that lets you do that, and it has a MUCH bigger userbase than Apple's does.

Apples lock on iOS stems from regulatory lag. Tablets and smart phones are general purpose computers by any reasonable definition. Lobbying and regulator ignorance have kept smart devices under the radar and regulated like old feature phones or toys. The EU has already caught up which is why side-loading and alternate payment systems and app stores are coming within the next year or so.

Forcing apple to open up is a good thing for consumers. IPhone owners happy with the status quo are free to continue enjoying the benefits of a closed ecosystem. Owners who want alternatives or to add features that apple refuses to allow now have the option without compromising the security of their device by jailbreaking. Companies can choose to offer their products directly to consumers without paying rent to apple instead of forcing users off device/into a browser to get a better price.

 

[bender]

The duality of man.

Fuck man and his duality.

 

[ScHlAuChi]

In free market monopolies are good for the consumer, you are literally getting the best for the best price.

Interesting claim, I´m sure you have the data to back that claim up and prove nobel prize winner in economics - Jean Tirole - who says otherwise, wrong.

 

[Lasha]

Interesting claim, I´m sure you have the data to back that claim up and prove nobel prize winner in economics - Jean Tirole - who says otherwise, wrong.

A monopolist provides the best price, the worst price, and the only price simultaneously. Great benefit to consumers!

 

[vaibhavpisal]

Let the hardware company do all the R&D, OS, dev tools etc.... then swoop in later with high margin software sales. And if a platform bombs, there's other ones they already migrated to.

Customer has already paid for all this in $1000 sticker price.

That's the argument Epic used in court. Apple is extracting too much profit from the ecosystem.

 

[Kdad]

Apples lock on iOS stems from regulatory lag. Tablets and smart phones are general purpose computers by any reasonable definition. Lobbying and regulator ignorance have kept smart devices under the radar and regulated like old feature phones or toys. The EU has already caught up which is why side-loading and alternate payment systems and app stores are coming within the next year or so.

Forcing apple to open up is a good thing for consumers. IPhone owners happy with the status quo are free to continue enjoying the benefits of a closed ecosystem. Owners who want alternatives or to add features that apple refuses to allow now have the option without compromising the security of their device by jailbreaking. Companies can choose to offer their products directly to consumers without paying rent to apple instead of forcing users off device/into a browser to get a better price.

Does the EU stipulate that the sideloaded software must be given access to all hardware hooks etc at no cost...i can see Apple simply putting the hardware behind a subscription wall for any software not bought through the store....how would that fly. (ie...software that uses certain sensors but sold through apple store doesn't pay the hardware garden tax...non apple store software must pay a subscription to Apple to gain access to sensors).

 

[Kdad]

Customer has already paid for all this in $1000 sticker price.

That's the argument Epic used in court. Apple is extracting too much profit from the ecosystem.

"too much profit" ... says who?

 

[Lasha]

Does the EU stipulate that the sideloaded software must be given access to all hardware hooks etc at no cost...i can see Apple simply putting the hardware behind a subscription wall for any software not bought through the store....how would that fly. (ie...software that uses certain sensors but sold through apple store doesn't pay the hardware garden tax...non apple store software must pay a subscription to Apple to gain access to sensors).

The regulation includes a provision to allow developers fair access to all functionality of a device.

 

[kikkis]

Interesting claim, I´m sure you have the data to back that claim up and prove nobel prize winner in economics - Jean Tirole - who says otherwise, wrong.

It's just basic 60iq logical deduction. If competitors can't provide similar quality or price products then obviously they die away. And only one remains. If they raise prices or lower quality above market equilibrium then obviously competitors arise.

 

[Kdad]

The regulation includes a provision to allow developers fair access to all functionality of a device.

So 'fair' doesn't mean 'free' or are you using loose wording ? So apple can still extract rents. If Apple rewrites its fee structure that includes a cost to access this sensor or that sensor etc for Apple store listed software...it would only be 'fair' that these same rents get paid by alternative stores...it might not help them with the cut of subs they'll lose but there should be someway to monetize access to the hardware instead of the store.

 

[diffusionx]

Apples lock on iOS stems from regulatory lag. Tablets and smart phones are general purpose computers by any reasonable definition. Lobbying and regulator ignorance have kept smart devices under the radar and regulated like old feature phones or toys. The EU has already caught up which is why side-loading and alternate payment systems and app stores are coming within the next year or so.

Forcing apple to open up is a good thing for consumers. IPhone owners happy with the status quo are free to continue enjoying the benefits of a closed ecosystem. Owners who want alternatives or to add features that apple refuses to allow now have the option without compromising the security of their device by jailbreaking. Companies can choose to offer their products directly to consumers without paying rent to apple instead of forcing users off device/into a browser to get a better price.

I assume you are referring to that law that was passed by the EU. As I said in this thread, it is one I disagree with. I don't see why Apple, or anyone else, should be forced to offer the benefits of their platform to anybody for free if they don't want to. Microsoft did it with Windows, Google with Android, etc., because they felt it was their advantage to do so, and the market played out the way it did. It is not some general natural law that says "general purpose computers" need to allow any app on it or any jerkoff app store. The first time some virus transmits on IOS because of some sketchy sideloaded app all hell will be broken loose.

 

[DaleinCalgary]

Besides, it's about the principle: you should be able to make and distribute software however the fuck you want on any general purpose computer. iPhones absolutely qualify as general purpose computers. Having to pay a toll to the manufacturer to distribute any software is antitrust behavior.

Apple isn't a general use computer, its hardware they specifically made and designed and people bought because of this.

What we have in phones on IOS and Android you can thank Apple first then use an Android or PC later on your own later.

 

[ScHlAuChi]

It's just basic 60iq logical deduction. If competitors can't provide similar quality or price products then obviously they die away. And only one remains. If they raise prices or lower quality above market equilibrium then obviously competitors arise.

Competitors cant compete if the platform holder hinders competition - which is illegal - hence competitors complaining and all the anti trust cases against Apple happening worldwide. It is economics 101, read up on the Standard Oil and AT&T cases.

 

[diffusionx]

Competitors cant compete if the platform holder hinders competition - which is illegal - hence competitors complaining and all the anti trust cases against Apple happening worldwide. It is economics 101, read up on the Standard Oil and AT&T cases.

Have you ever heard of Android?

 

[Lasha]

So 'fair' doesn't mean 'free' or are you using loose wording ? So apple can still extract rents. If Apple rewrites its fee structure that includes a cost to access this sensor or that sensor etc for Apple store listed software...it would only be 'fair' that these same rents get paid by alternative stores...it might not help them with the cut of subs they'll lose but there should be someway to monetize access to the hardware instead of the store.

One of the relevant sections of the DMA:

7. The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability
with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via
the operating system or virtual assistant listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9) as are available to services
or hardware provided by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of
services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and
access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of
whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing
such services

Theres other sections defining everything and an entire portion of the document devoted to dealing with attempts to circumvent the rules like you described. Apple monetizes access to its hardware through the sale of the device. Apple devices have the highest margin in the industry at over 100%. Other stores shouldn't be forced to pay economic rent to Apple because other stores operating on the device incur no additional cost to Apple.

 

[DaleinCalgary]

Competitors cant compete if the platform holder hinders competition - which is illegal - hence competitors complaining and all the anti trust cases against Apple happening worldwide. It is economics 101, read up on the Standard Oil and AT&T cases.

If you walk into a phone store you will find 5 different iPhones and 100 android phones.

edit: and you don't take that in Economics 101

 

[Dr. Claus]

Competitors cant compete if the platform holder hinders competition - which is illegal - hence competitors complaining and all the anti trust cases against Apple happening worldwide. It is economics 101, read up on the Standard Oil and AT&T cases.

Seems more like wishful thinking on your part than any case of reality.

 

[Lasha]

I assume you are referring to that law that was passed by the EU. As I said in this thread, it is one I disagree with. I don't see why Apple, or anyone else, should be forced to offer the benefits of their platform to anybody for free if they don't want to. Microsoft did it with Windows, Google with Android, etc., because they felt it was their advantage to do so, and the market played out the way it did. It is not some general natural law that says "general purpose computers" need to allow any app on it or any jerkoff app store. The first time some virus transmits on IOS because of some sketchy sideloaded app all hell will be broken loose.

A person who buys an iPhone and exclusively uses third party apps isn't using the benefits of iOS. They are paying Apple a fair price for a device then using it as they see fit. Apple's platforms now have to compete based on price and functionality rather than purely on the basis of Apple being a gatekeeper to the users of the device.

Viruses aren't a concern because Apple is still allowed to enforce reasonable restrictions to protect the integrity of the operating system. Stuff like root access disabled by default, segmentation of files related to apples own services. Gatekeepers can no longer use "security" as a blanket excuse to block competing apps or services without any justification.

Windows and OS are open because Microsoft lost an anti-trust case for trying to bundle software and IE. Existing regulation is why Mac remains open right down to enabling the root user if one is so inclined. Smart Devices spread rapidly and more quickly than regulators to digest. The DMA and DSA represent regulators catching up. I can respect that you disagree with the laws but I am baffled why you would be against regulation which increases competition and benefits you as a user.

 

[ScHlAuChi]

Have you ever heard of Android?

Did you read the anti trust documents and fail to understand them?
Android does NOT matter for the EU´s case - as I have already mentioned!
Android is no competitor in the "iOS market" which is what the EU regulators looked at.
Spotify for example complained that Apple has different rules for Apple music giving it an unfair advantage over Spotify in the iOS market.

You saying - well buy an Android phone then, is not an argument the regulators will care about, as it does not fix the competition problem!
They are looking at the iOS app market - and nothing else! Is that so hard to understand?

 

[TheGrat1]

Peaches is my preference. Peaches all day and night