Apple has published their email war with Epic CEO Tim Sweeney

[etempest]

He is still the major shareholder (according to himself).

40% is owned by Tencent
1.4% is now owned by Sony.

 

[quadibloc]

For Apple to remove Fortnite from their App Store because of a violation of policies is routine. Epic Games can try to convince the courts that Apple's policies violate antitrust law, but they're unlikely to succeed. Removing Epic Games' developer accounts, however, affects not only Epic Games' products on the Macintosh, but also all the other games that use the Unreal Engine.
So while it's Epic Games' own fault that Fortnite got kicked from the AppStore, Apple, by over-reacting, by punishing Epic for taking legal action against Apple, and thus attempting to insulate itself from legal scrutiny of its actions, has now made antitrust legal action, and perhaps legal action on other bases, considerably more plausible.
So Epic Games isn't the only company that has shot itself in the foot here. Apple apparently didn't want it to be lonely.

 

[Shadowboxer]

In 2019 Apple patched 185 CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures) in iPhones, an increase from 120 during the same timeframe last year. Some 62% of the CVEs were considered "critical" security risks, while 25% were considered moderate risk, and 13% were considered low risk.

Also in 2020 there were already 2 unpatchable vulnerabilities discovered in iPhones, which allow hackers to not only plant spyware on any iPhone, but also steal all the information stored on them, even if it was stored in encrypted from, including not only personal data, but also credit card, banking and logon information.

:mic drop:

No platform has no vulnerabilities. It’s about how many there are and how likely you are to be attacked. Android is awful. By comparison to anything not just to iOS. Even Windows is a lot more secure than most Android devices. The problem is that the devices don’t get updated. Especially your cheap Chinese versions. Sure you can do it yourself but would you trust your mum to do that sort of thing?

 

[Shadowboxer]

Yes you can. And the article you linked confirms that. It links to the iOS jailbreaking page on Wikipedia, which explicitly confirms that jailbreaking IS a crime on the grounds I've explained in my previous comment, in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, etc. If you post a link, at least bother to read it first!

No one has ever been arrested for jailbreaking. It doesn’t say in that article that it’s a crime to jailbreak, I’m not sure how you got there?

Basically mate, no it’s not illegal to install your own OS on an iPhone. It seems you want it to be but on planet Earth no ones going to come knocking. About the worst that happens is Apple won’t fix your device for free if it breaks..

 

[lipe123]

I think the other thing lots of people ignore is that the amazon app on the iphone does not pay the 30% tax for payments.
Because Amazon is big enough they don't have to follow the rules but other companies have to?!

It really just smells of BS that Apple can collect a 30% fixed fee for services rendered by a 3rd party.
It should at least be on a sliding scale depending on the amount spent etc.

I'm not fan of Epic games but in this case the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

 

[Shadowboxer]

I think the other thing lots of people ignore is that the amazon app on the iphone does not pay the 30% tax for payments.
Because Amazon is big enough they don't have to follow the rules but other companies have to?!

It really just smells of BS that Apple can collect a 30% fixed fee for services rendered by a 3rd party.
It should at least be on a sliding scale depending on the amount spent etc.

I'm not fan of Epic games but in this case the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I don’t like the idea of forcing devs to cough up 30%. However I do like my iPhone and my iPad and I don’t like the idea of a 3rd party setting their own standards within the operating system that currently works very well for my needs.

By the way, Epic games have been fighting your corner, I believe they only charge devs 12% where steam charges 30%. But I think most users don’t want to see steams monopoly upset because they are happy with it. I guess I feel the same about Apple, I don’t like the idea of buying things on iOS outside of the App Store. And it wouldn’t be cheaper, devs have to charge the same on iOS as they do outside of it, that’s on of their terms and conditions.

But to me, I don’t get the outrage, if you don’t like it get something that isn’t running Apples software. No one is forced to use them! Including Epic. I think they would achieve more by pulling out of the App Store and letting apples uses put pressure on Apple to allow them in. Because I can’t see Sweeneys aggressive emails getting him very far..

Oh and Amazon doesn’t pay Apple for prime subscriptions because they have a deal with Amazon that allows Apple to sell the prime subscription and allow full Apple TV controls through the tv app. It’s a corporate deal, I’m not saying it’s ok but that doesn’t mean Apple have to give one to everyone. It makes me wonder why Sweeney doesn’t try and strike a similar deal to allow Epic games to be sold via Apple Arcade, it doesn’t fit exactly now but it could be made to and I imagine it would benefit both Apple and Epic to do this.

 

[jpuroila]

I've been saying it over and over and I'll say it again. Abide by Apple's rules and increase your prices so the Apple tax is passed onto their customers. If they can afford an iPhone, they can afford the extra dollar or whatever it'll be on top for App payments.

Nobody complains about Console games having these extra licensing fees on top, it's just passed onto the customers instead.

Apple are providing the platform just like Sony and Microsoft do with their console ecosystems, it's no different here. Google did the exact same thing and kicked Fortnite off their own App Store, Difference is Android has alternative ways of installing Apps, iOS doesn't, that's what Apple customers bought into and prefer.

Because screwing over customers should take priority over providing good products at competitive prices?

Thanks for the info! I'll be very shocked if this is the case though. That's a bit like Tesco's telling all the different toothpaste manufacturers that they can't charge more at Tesco's than they do on Amazon. The EU would have been all over this I would have thought.

If legit this is a rule Apple put in though, I hope they get sued off this planet, what an absolutely garbage rule which I'm surprised is even legal.

Most tech giants(with commanding market position) have similar rules, I believe. I know Amazon doesn't allow you to distribute e-books for cheaper elsewhere if you also want to sell them through Amazon.

Again, this is false. Apple doesn't restrict you from buying parts or services for your iPhone, or from installing whatever software you wish on it. They simply refuse to aid you in the process. A critical distinction.

They don't SIMPLY refuse to help you, they do their utmost to hinder you within the limits of the law. Which, in most jurisdictions, stops just short of making it effectively impossible.

 

[duckofdeath]

No. For the DOJ to bring a Sec. 2 Sherman Act violation, they must establish what the relevant geographic market is, which can and has been a single U.S. city, the nation at large, or the entire world. The presumption is the entire market in which the entity does business. If the DOJ wishes to argue for a tighter restriction, they must do so based on factors such as geographic barriers, transportation costs, consumer ability to purchase outside their defined area, etc.

In the case of cell phones, in which any US consumer can easily purchase and use any phone produced or sold globally, with little overhead in transport costs compared to the cost of the phone itself, the DOJ would have a great deal of difficulty in convincing any federal judge that Apple's market share should be restricted to the US itself, especially since Apple's pricing model is as high or even higher in markets where it has less market share. This is a primary prong often used to disprove that a company has the ability to exert monopoly control over price.

That's a nice spin attempt, taken apart by simply looking at how Apple segments markets. Software, hardware, apps, everything, is regionally restricted. This is a US-only market thing. I know, Apple wants to argue African market shares are more important in this case, but that is like most other things coming from Apple's spin department, a lie.

 

[Endymio]

That's a nice spin attempt, taken apart by simply looking at how Apple segments markets. Software, hardware, apps, everything, is regionally restricted. This is a US-only market thing. I know, Apple wants to argue African market shares...

We are speaking of the App store. I don't buy Apple products, so perhaps you know something I don't, but I was under the impression that, if you are here in the US, you can purchase apps developed and sold anywhere in the world, including Africa. If I am incorrect, please advise.

Apple [doesn't] SIMPLY refuse to help you, they do their utmost to hinder you within the limits of the law.

That's the essential distinction. As long as they stay within the limits of the law, they -- no different than you, me, or anyone else -- should remain free of government-imposed penalty.

 

[jpuroila]

We are speaking of the App store. I don't buy Apple products, so perhaps you know something I don't, but I was under the impression that, if you are here in the US, you can purchase apps developed and sold anywhere in the world, including Africa. If I am incorrect, please advise.


That's the essential distinction. As long as they stay within the limits of the law, they -- no different than you, me, or anyone else -- should remain free of government-imposed penalty.

Just because something is technically legal doesn't mean it should remain legal.

 

[Endymio]

Just because something is technically legal doesn't mean it should remain legal.

One, you didn't address my point. I was disputing your assertion that Apple apps form a "US only" market, with consumers somehow prevented from buying apps elsewhere.

Two, in this case what is legal can and should remain legal. We have countless data demonstrating that the market resolves these sorts of issues far better than government regulation.

Because screwing over customers should take priority over providing good products at competitive prices?

The mere fact that millions of consumers purchase at said prices is indisputable proof that those prices are "competitive". Apple competes for consumers and, in the US at least, wins more than any other manufacturer.

 

[duckofdeath]

We are speaking of the App store. I don't buy Apple products, so perhaps you know something I don't, but I was under the impression that, if you are here in the US, you can purchase apps developed and sold anywhere in the world, including Africa. If I am incorrect, please advise.


That's the essential distinction. As long as they stay within the limits of the law, they -- no different than you, me, or anyone else -- should remain free of government-imposed penalty.

Apps are often extremely regionally restricted. They're often sold at different prices in different markets, offering different content.
The antitrust issue is about the US market. Not about 50 dollar phones in other parts of the world.

 

[Endymio]

Apps are often extremely regionally restricted...

By Apple?

They're often sold at different prices in different markets, offering different content...

By Apple's decision .... or by the app developer?

 

[duckofdeath]

By Apple?

By Apple's decision .... or by the app developer?

Yes, also by Apple. For instance the 6 months free music streaming they offered in the states last year.
You can keep spinning but the reality is, this is a lawsuit about US antitrust.

 

[Endymio]

Yes, also by Apple. For instance the 6 months free music streaming they offered in the states last year.

Nice try, but the discussion involves the iPhone and Apple's app store, not Apple Music. Different product, different market-- especially when Apple Music can be downloaded and played on Android, not just iOS.

Secondly, Apple Music has an even smaller market share than the iPhone, something like 25% -- far from a monopoly. Thirdly, Apple Music is offered pretty much globally, just as the iPhone is -- the mere fact that Apple may make special offers to customers in some countries doesn't change that. Fourthly, Apple music was offered for six-month free in many different countries, and that decision was driven more by copyright restrictions in certain areas, rather than Apple's attempting to monopolize a market.

As I said earlier, iPhone sales constitute a global market, not a national one. Globally, Apple has a very small market share, and even here in the US, their market share does not constitute monopoly power.

 

[duckofdeath]

Your question was is Apple sells things at different prices in the US compared to the world. Now you try to spin again and make it about the specific app compared to its segment. Keep spinning as hard as you can, you know you're wrong.

 

[Endymio]

Your question was is Apple sells things at different prices in the US compared to the world.

No, that wasn't the argument at all, nor does any statement about Apple Music have any bearing on the smartphone market segment. Try reading the thread again.

 

[duckofdeath]

Stop it. You know that attempt failed.
If you want to talk antitrust and Apple Music, that's a completely different upcoming trial next year. Apple charging its competitors 30% taxes on their services while Apple gives their own away for free to undermine the entire streaming service segment.

This is however about Apple's abuse of power to take the majority of the profits from developers, under the executed threat of destroying developers income over night, if they don't pay up.

 

[mailpup]

That's enough off topic arguing. Back on topic please.

 

[jpuroila]

One, you didn't address my point. I was disputing your assertion that Apple apps form a "US only" market, with consumers somehow prevented from buying apps elsewhere.

Two, in this case what is legal can and should remain legal. We have countless data demonstrating that the market resolves these sorts of issues far better than government regulation.

The mere fact that millions of consumers purchase at said prices is indisputable proof that those prices are "competitive". Apple competes for consumers and, in the US at least, wins more than any other manufacturer.

One, I never spoke a word about that.

Two, that's blatantly false.

And lastly, we were talking Apple's blatantly anti-consumer, anti-developer and anti-third-party-service practices. Pricing is not the issue here.