Wow, so the moral of the story is when you're screwing over consumers do so openly and proudly by being even more closed off?The guardian has an interesting article. It basically boils down to Apple being completely open about their goals regarding iOS and the App store (its ours and we do what we want with it!) while Google's Play store policy is completely at odds with their otherwise open-system idea regarding Android. Their defence also proved very lackluster compared to Apple.
The curious case of Epic Games: how the developer beat Google but not Apple
The Fortnite maker filed antitrust suits against both tech companies – while one emerged victorious, the other was found at fault on 11 claimswww.theguardian.com
Apple has again emerged victorious in its legal battle with Epic Games
Astray
Member
The core idea is if you don't want those limitations (which Apple readily tells you in advance) you can just buy a non-Apple device (which is why I never bought an iPhone).
Conversely, Google did far more shady shit behind the scenes than Apple because they had to keep up the facade of being a more open ecosystem while maintaining their app store feifdom. So the evidence was far more bombastic in court.
Ironically the most fucked party beside Epic in this lawsuit is Microsoft. Getting to iOS devices via court order would have been a major, MAJOR unlock for them and would have probably increased their gaming revenues by x3 to x5 at least.
mayham2199
Member
I'm sure MS isn't happy about this.
The hate isnt for Apple its for Walled Gardens all together.
Kadve
Member
Well yea. You bought the iOS device and should know what you signed up for.
I think the main difference was likely the fact that the bombastic appealed more to a Jury whereas the Apple one was a Judge but Apples conduct would actually be more harmful to competition overall.
Last edited:
graywolf323
Member
Astray
Member
I mean even a judge trial would probably still rule for Epic after Google was caught deleting evidence and shit.
Google fucked up a ton in that trial, it's a deeply unserious company rn with dire need of a new CEO.
Magic Carpet
Gold Member
A lot of big Tech seems to be going 'unserious' lately. It's like the days of raking in the money are over. And it's all downhill from here.
ReBurn
Gold Member
At least until the law changes, anyway.
mayham2199
Member
Wasn't this case about doing just that...don't see anyone just changing the law.
ReBurn
Gold Member
With the number of known, exploited CVE's every year I'm not sure I'd trust Apple not to f it up, either.
Court rulings are one way to change the law. Another is through legislation. But with as chummy as Apple is with politicians and the millions they spend on lobbying it's probably going to be some time before new laws affecting this are written. It will probably happen at some point because it's going to have to, but the good old USA trails the world in technology governance sometimes. The model is good for creating new stuff fast, but it's kind of lacking when it comes to governing stuff after it is built.
twilo99
Member
Nah, at this point iOS should be treated as Windows as far as side loading software.
Astray
Member
There's a big difference imo between trying something and not getting it (like Meta and VR/Metaverse stuff, or Microsoft and making Xbox a thing) and Google.
Google in particular is a very inefficient company that lacks the ability to do anything that isn't Gmail or Search. It's search moat is slowly but surely getting eaten by LLMs and AI-driven search. It's not winning the Cloud computing wars for enterprise customers, it's not even winning in Phones lately (Apple eats its lunch there).
It's gotten to the point where "killed by Google" isn't a meme anymore, it's now become an inevitability and will surely tarnish all new product launches.
There's something very wrong with Google and I think it's status will diminish greatly in the coming decade or so.
twilo99
Member
They might not be winning cloud computing but they are certainly very competitive and will continue to be. I consider their cloud computing endeavor as a success.
Also, they are going to stick to making Pixel smartphones, which probably sell more than established smartphone brands like Sony.
Last edited:
twilo99
Member
Nope, big blow to Microsoft's strategy in general. They will have to pay the 30% on iOS and on their own platform if they rely on Steam, but at least on there they can have their own service/store.
Astray
Member
Watch as Satya quickly eats their lunch there. The man is a fucking shark and it's so clear that he's smelling blood in the water.
Sony is small nuts in the mobile phone business, they really fucked up bad in that arena.
twilo99
Member
I don't know, we will see I guess but I don't think Google will ever give up on cloud computing no matter what AWS and MS do ..
Otherwise I agree, they've struggled with a lot of their projects, but as long as the advertising business keeps bringing that sweet profit, it doesn't really matter.
Banjo64
cumsessed
My real life use case is the polar opposite of this.
I've owned a flagship Windows phone and Google, Samsung and LG flagship Android phones and they've all been absolutely crap in various ways.
Changed to iPhone 4 and a half years ago and couldn't be happier. The software integration destroys Android and the hardware quality is top notch.
As for Mac, I have a Windows Galaxy Book and Windows is as bad as it's ever been.
phant0m
Member
Yup. I was a long time android user before switching in 2015. I don't want options for side loading and alternate stores because even if you don't engage with them intentionally those mechanisms can be exploited and used to compromise your device.
Also I hate the idea of government getting involved in this. "No you must allow other stores and payment mechanisms on your devices." What's next, Microsoft has to let Nintendo run eShop on Xbox?
Y'all love the free market so much, let consumers vote with their wallets and tell Apple they don't like wallled garden. Oh, wait.
This isn't about consumer rights, it's megacorps fighting over your $.
darrylgorn
Member
MonkeyClaw36
Banned
Ehhhhh Apple didn't win and the judge ruled that it should allow other payment options henceforth?
www.nu.nl
Its in Dutch but it says the Supreme Court ruled that Apple can't block other payment options if developers decide to implement them.
They lost. They didnt win shit.
Apple mag appmakers in VS niet meer verbieden andere betaalwijze te promoten
Apple heeft een gevoelige nederlaag geleden bij het Amerikaanse Hooggerechtshof. De rechtbank bevestigde de uitspraak van een lagere rechter dat appmakers eigen betaalsystemen mogen aanprijzen in de VS. De iPhone-maker verbood appontwikkelaars om gebruikers te wijzen op goedkopere betaalmethoden.
www.nu.nl
They lost. They didnt win shit.
Last edited:
Comandr
Member
That's not totally accurate. Apple is required to allow outside linking to other payment options but they can still collect a commission off of that and it's still highly controlled.Ehhhhh Apple didn't win and the judge ruled that it should allow other payment options henceforth?
Its in Dutch but it says the Supreme Court ruled that Apple can't block other payment options if developers decide to implement them.Apple mag appmakers in VS niet meer verbieden andere betaalwijze te promoten
Apple heeft een gevoelige nederlaag geleden bij het Amerikaanse Hooggerechtshof. De rechtbank bevestigde de uitspraak van een lagere rechter dat appmakers eigen betaalsystemen mogen aanprijzen in de VS. De iPhone-maker verbood appontwikkelaars om gebruikers te wijzen op goedkopere betaalmethoden.
They lost. They didnt win shit.
https://www.macrumors.com/2024/01/16/us-app-store-alternative-purchase-option/
Restrictions like these are good, because it keeps things honest. Imagine if it was carte blanche allowing people to make apps that essentially just took you to outside stores. There'd be a million "TIPS AND TRICKS FOR X GAME PLUS CHEAP DIAMONDS" Where the "point" of the app is to offer some bogus hints or guides and then oh hey we also sell questionably sourced premium currency for your favorite gambling simulator just uhh.. click the link and give us your credit card.
And they'd be all over the app store. No thanks, bro.
Last edited:
ScHlAuChi
Member
This is just a Pyrrhic victory by Apple - they already lost the war.
In just a few weeks the iOS market will be opened up and they are forced to allow alternate stores/payments in the EU.
There is a few more countries that announced they will do the same thing - so it is only a matter of time before this gets more widespread.
Apple cant stop that, their gravy train is about to end.
In just a few weeks the iOS market will be opened up and they are forced to allow alternate stores/payments in the EU.
There is a few more countries that announced they will do the same thing - so it is only a matter of time before this gets more widespread.
Apple cant stop that, their gravy train is about to end.
KuraiShidosha
Member
A loss for that weasel is a smile on my face. Fuck does this guy think he is? What gives him the right to demand he can use a proprietary operating system however he pleases? I can't stand this piece of shit.
twilo99
Member
Windows is proprietary and we use that as we please ..
RoboFu
One of the green rats
and you can also with OSX but phones are different and need the most secure experience possible.
twilo99
Member
They can make sure things stay secure even with 3rd party stores.. it will be more work, but it can be done.
Windows is constantly under attack from bad characters because its used by so many corps., etc. but you don't see them using that as an excuse to close everything up
Last edited:
mayham2199
Member
Is her seriously complaining that Apple is warning their users that they are being redirected to a website Apple has nothing to do with and can't validate the safety of? I guess I'm not surprised.
ReBurn
Gold Member
The judge in the original trial was paying attention. She said that Apple's market share wasn't quite large enough overall to be considered a monopoly at the time, but she left the door open for Apple to be sued for antitrust again in the future should their market share increase. That was affirmed by the appeals court, and the Supreme Court didn't change that ruling. It somewhat came down to the fact that consumers have other options for playing Fortnite in a mobile fashion, such as Nintendo Switch or via cloud gaming options which the judge thought were currently adequate alternatives.
The Microsoft situation in the 90's is different from this situation. Apple literally never nags someone to use one of their apps or puts up unreasonable barriers to prevent use of a competing app. Apple never really did anything to prevent Fortnite from releasing on or being installed on iOS. On iOS they require distribution of apps through their App Store, which pretty much every developer including Epic was ok with.
Epic's real beef was with Apple not allowing alternative payment methods to the App Store, which is where they should have placed more focus instead of overall antitrust. The judge in the case was very clear that Apple is violating California law by not allowing developers to inform consumers of alternate payment options that bypass Apple's IAP system. If Epic had focused on that as the reason Fortnite was removed they probably could have forced Apple to allow Fortnite back onto the App Store with the ability to advertise that in-game currency was available elsewhere. But Epic went nuclear option. Apple was appealing this ruling to the Supreme Court and lost, meaning that other developers can now sue Apple under the original ruling to allow alternate payment links in-app.
Last edited:
devilNprada
Member
LOL - I read that first part and my brain went to "how the fuck did you get away with that"