Court orders Apple to open App Store to competition, Epic Games wins

[Axeia]

Why would anyone take Apple's side on this? Their practices are clearly unfair as now ruled by judges in both the EU and US.
How does this ruling negatively impact you?

You only stand to benefit. If you have for example Spotify, what are Apples costs for hosting the app and facilitating the download? One cent if even that. What do they earn if you subscribe through the app? 30% (~$3.6USD) every month!
Perhaps Spotify would like to point out that you can save money by subscribing outside the app? Nope, Apple doesn't allow you to point out better deals / link to payment methods outside the app.

But what if you don't want to deal with different payment methods and you just want to keep using Apple pay for safety/convenience. Well, nothing changes... you're still able to. You can pay $15.60 through Apple pay if you want to, or $12 on the Spotify website.

How do you actively form an opinion against your own best interest so that one of the most profitable companies in the world can... make more profit. Lunacy.

How do you pick the side of the company that wants 27% of the pay for a transaction they had nothing to do with it other than 'allowing' the developer to put a link in THEIR app to THEIR site? Because that's Apple's malicious compliance, they'll allow the link but then want 27% of the transaction. The company facilitating the payment takes 3% and you're back at 30% but with more steps effectively rendering it entirely useless.

 

[Jrfeimst2]

The whole issue is that there is no alternative (legal) to deploy an app onto Apple's iOS. Therefore it lack an avenue of choice by the users. It's a monopoly and our US government's job, which they forgot due to "donations", to limit monopolies.

Well what do you have to say about Sony and Microsoft and Nintendo? They don’t allow competition on their consoles and they aren’t getting ridiculed over it? They take 30 percent off the top as well. Are they gonna force them to open up their stores on the console? Why is Apple getting singled out here?

 

[Loadedaxe]

You dont get it.

If you're using an Apple phone, with Apple services, running Apple’s OS, yes,they get to decide how it works. That's the whole problem. IT BELONGS TO THEM and users agree to it!

If you want to install a different OS or .... make your own, go ahead. They are not telling you to not build your own phone, eco system or hell even tires. But if you use their service and agree to the terms.....why is this so hard for you to understand. It is their store!! You wouldn't open a gas station and let me move in and sell gas too would you...FFS, no you wouldnt!

Want an open eco system, buy an Android. They were designed for that, Apple wasnt and other companies benefitting off their technology is, no matter how you try to condone with your apples and oranges, make it right.

 

[pnntmp]

If you truly believe that, then you are not approaching this in good faith. Read an article or 2 that goes over all the ways that Apple is factually anti-competitive and try again with less ignorance. Maybe start with the article you are currently on?


The trillion dollar company doesn't care for you or your interests. Don't be a fanboy.

This article does not mention anything anti-competitive, it simply uses the term in a wrong way, to describe something completely different.
Very few of the apps in the AppStore have a competing Apple app. Developers are not competitors of Apple, so Apple simply can't be "anti-competitive" with regard to them.

About Epic Games mentioned in the article - they make games. Apple does not make games. Both companies are not competitors. Epic Games wants to use Apple's ecosystem for free.

It doesn't matter at all that Apple is a trillion dollar company. No company should be forced to support freeloaders.

 

[Loadedaxe]

Why would anyone take Apple's side on this? Their practices are clearly unfair as now ruled by judges in both the EU and US.
How does this ruling negatively impact you?

You only stand to benefit. If you have for example Spotify, what are Apples costs for hosting the app and facilitating the download? One cent if even that. What do they earn if you subscribe through the app? 30% (~$3.6USD) every month!
Perhaps Spotify would like to point out that you can save money by subscribing outside the app? Nope, Apple doesn't allow you to point out better deals / link to payment methods outside the app.

But what if you don't want to deal with different payment methods and you just want to keep using Apple pay for safety/convenience. Well, nothing changes... you're still able to. You can pay $15.60 through Apple pay if you want to, or $12 on the Spotify website.

How do you actively form an opinion against your own best interest so that one of the most profitable companies in the world can... make more profit. Lunacy.

How do you pick the side of the company that wants 27% of the pay for a transaction they had nothing to do with it other than 'allowing' the developer to put a link in THEIR app to THEIR site? Because that's Apple's malicious compliance, they'll allow the link but then want 27% of the transaction. The company facilitating the payment takes 3% and you're back at 30% but with more steps effectively rendering it entirely useles

Just to be clear, this isn’t about defending Apple. It’s about defending our god given right to run our own systems and make those who profit, pay for using it and the choice of who uses it.

If you buy into the ecosystem, and hardware, and their services, then yes, shocking as it may be, they get to decide how it all works together. And if you want to use third-party apps or services? Absolutely, you sign a licensing deal, and abide by them.

Don’t like it? Build your own iPhone. Good luck.
I cant believe people think its ok to move into someone's home without their consent and not pay rent....

Apple and Oranges anyone?

 

[m4a4]

This article does not mention anything anti-competitive

Then you either didn't read it, or are unable to understand it. Either way, we're done here.

 

[Dreadcthulhu]

Just to be clear, this isn’t about defending Apple. It’s about defending our god given right to run our own systems and make those who profit, pay for using it and the choice of who uses it.

If you buy into the ecosystem, and hardware, and their services, then yes, shocking as it may be, they get to decide how it all works together. And if you want to use third-party apps or services? Absolutely, you sign a licensing deal, and abide by them.

Don’t like it? Build your own iPhone. Good luck.
I cant believe people think its ok to move into someone's home without their consent and not pay rent....

Apple and Oranges anyone?

It looks like the courts are disagreeing here and saying that no, Apple does not get to decide how it works all together. Laws have been passed restricting how companies can tie their products together with other services, and Apple violated those laws. Apple does not have some inherent right to control everything done on their devices after sale; their ability only goes as far other's (through the legal system) allow them to do so.

 

[Loadedaxe]

It looks like the courts are disagreeing here and saying that no, Apple does not get to decide how it works all together. Laws have been passed restricting how companies can tie their products together with other services, and Apple violated those laws. Apple does not have some inherent right to control everything done on their devices after sale; their ability only goes as far other's (through the legal system) allow them to do so.

It isnt genius, its about THIER store, its all about Apple OWN service. Not the phone.

 

[Dreadcthulhu]

It isnt genius, its about THIER store, its all about Apple OWN service. Not the phone.

And the courts found that Apple's store policies violated the law; the government has decided that promoting competitive market places is more important than Apple's ability to collect commissions on sales that aren't even through their store front. All sorts of laws restrict what sorts of policies companies can have for their stores or products.

 

[Macar]

Bad news for Apple, good news for App devs and innovation. I think Apple has taken too much advantage of its position without ever making any concessions.

 

[pnntmp]

The whole idea that companies deserve to own/control an "ecosystem" is absurd. Once a company sells a device, well they no longer own it. The person who bought it does. That is what selling means. A software/hardware "ecosystem", belongs to the actual owners of the devices, not the company that originally sold the device. The idea that a third party wanting to sell stuff that works with a device are "freeloaders" is just silly. Basically any third-party accessory maker is a freeloader by that definitions - do you consider the people who make phone cases freeloaders? The people who make add-on window tint for cars? People who make home chargers for electric cars? People who make third party parts for tractor repair?

Edit, if anything, Apple is the freeloader here, expecting to gain profits from other's works without their involvement being required. In this case, Epic does not need Apple to run a store or payment processor, Epic can do that themselves. Epic simply wants to sell directly to the people who actually own iPhones, Apple is inserting themselves unnecessarily in that transaction so that Apple can take a cut.

Why is the idea of controlling what you have created with your own money 'absurd' ???

You seem to consider the device a collection of particular atoms that changes its owner and then exists independently of the manufacturer, like e,g, a hammer. But hammers don't get monthly updates and are not continuously improved and upgraded with new features.

A phone is a complex hardware-software-services bundle. You buy it at the terms the manufacturer sells it. Don't like the terms - don't buy it.
It's absurd to try to change the terms after the purchase. But nobody actually wants that, what we have here is many orders of magnitude greater absurdity - we have a third party, some game company that's neither the manufacturer nor a customer, that pretends all that should change to their advantage.

 

[NoLifeDGenerate]

Once Apple sells a device it is not their hardware & software platform anymore. It belongs to the person who actually owns the device. Consoles too should be opened up in the same way. The idea that a device manufacturer can artificially block or prevent the actual owner of the device from doing business with another party regarding the device is both hostile to the owners of said devices, and to competition in general. Let companies get away with that sort of thing and before you know it we will have tractor companies that stop farmers from fixing their own machines, or train companies bricking locomotives if they detect third party repair services being used.

The problem is it only makes it less convenient for the users. PC is "open." Look at the **** show of launchers and storefronts people have to deal with because Epic buys exclusivity on some stuff, and others is only available on the Windows/MS store etc. Compared to being all in one place on console.

 

[Dreadcthulhu]

Why is the idea of controlling what you have created with your own money 'absurd' ???

You seem to consider the device a collection of particular atoms that changes its owner and then exists independently of the manufacturer, like e,g, a hammer. But hammers don't get monthly updates and are not continuously improved and upgraded with new features.

A phone is a complex hardware-software-services bundle. You buy it at the terms the manufacturer sells it. Don't like the terms - don't buy it.
It's absurd to try to change the terms after the purchase. But nobody actually wants that, what we have here is many orders of magnitude greater absurdity - we have a third party, some game company that's neither the manufacturer nor a customer, that pretends all that should change to their advantage.

Because once you sell something you lose control of it. That is what selling means. The existence of after-sale updates does not change the fact that ownership has changed. I think the right of people to actually own devices is vastly more important than the right of device manufactures to be able to milk their customers after the sale has occurred. And the right of a third party (Epic in this case) to freely do business with the owners of the devices without Apple demanding a cut is required for the actual owners to well actually own their devices.

 

[Dreadcthulhu]

The problem is it only makes it less convenient for the users. PC is "open." Look at the **** show of launchers and storefronts people have to deal with because Epic buys exclusivity on some stuff, and others is only available on the Windows/MS store etc. Compared to being all in one place on console.

Less "convenient" is required for a competitive marketplace. Consider buying physical goods online; it would be more "convenient" if Amazon was the only option and you didn't have to worry about managing logins for other web stores that may have items Amazon does not carry, but would you really want that?

 

[highwind]

You dont get

After reading both, the EU courts and the US courts decision, it is absolutely obvious that the person „not getting it“ is you, not him…

 

[Loadedaxe]

What?

OMG lol

 

[Loadedaxe]

When you own a store, whether it’s physical or digital, you control the platform. You get to decide what gets sold, how it’s presented, and the terms of that arrangement. That’s part of ownership. Period!

Apple owns the Apple Store, end of story, there's no apple here to compare with oranges.
And don't get me started on the EU...really that's your argument?

 

[pnntmp]

Because once you sell something you lose control of it. That is what selling means. The existence of after-sale updates does not change the fact that ownership has changed. I think the right of people to actually own devices is vastly more important than the right of device manufactures to be able to milk their customers after the sale has occurred. And the right of a third party (Epic in this case) to freely do business with the owners of the devices without Apple demanding a cut is required for the actual owners to well actually own their devices.

Once you sell something under specific terms to which the other party agrees, these terms remain in effect. If the mutually agreed upon terms say the manufacturer loses control, then it loses control - however there's no such clause, every customer knows that perfectly well, and accepts it with the act of purchase.

Then some third party pops from somewhere, pretending all that should change because reasons.

If someone wants to own a device and control every aspect of it 100%, they are free to buy any such device offered on the market. Just Apple won't be one of the available options.

 

[Dreadcthulhu]

When you own a store, whether it’s physical or digital, you control the platform. You get to decide what gets sold, how it’s presented, and the terms of that arrangement. That’s part of ownership. Period!

Store owners do not have full control over their "platform". The government can and does stop stores from selling certain kinds of items, even if the store owner really wants to carry them. Some items do have rules on how they can be marketed and presented to customers(cigarettes being required to be behind counters for example). Some business arrangements are not legal; for example if you sell something with a warranty you are not allowed to require 1st party maintenance on that item for the warranty to be valid. See the Magnuson-Moss act. This has been well established, for decades at this point.

 

[Dreadcthulhu]

Once you sell something under specific terms to which the other party agrees, these terms remain in effect. If the mutually agreed upon terms say the manufacturer loses control, then it loses control - however there's no such clause, every customer knows that perfectly well, and accepts it with the act of purchase.

Then some third party pops from somewhere, pretending all that should change because reasons.

Not all specific terms which a good is sold under, or contracts made between two people are legal. Plenty of laws restrict what kinds of terms a business can offer (for example, see the Magnuson-Moss warranty act restricting conditions companies can apply to warranties). If a business's terms violate the law, the law wins, and the other party is not bound by the illegal terms and conditions.

In this case Epic argued that Apple's terms were violating existing laws against anti-competitive behavior, and it looks like the courts are agreeing with Epic.

 

[Megalomaniac]

This sums it up perfectly.

I hope they also lose their appeal.

So long as women are greedy, materialistic and vain, iPhone will be a highly-desired luxury device till the end of the smartphone.

 

[Megalomaniac]

I used to be a die-hard fan of the 14th Amendment (private contracts clause), Capitalism and Apple's rights to make their products the way they want....

But with the communists of the EU forcing them to go USBC, and rulings like this which will open up the platform for even more apps I might want but otherwise wouldn't have had, I suppose my viewpoints are antiquated?

 

[Megalomaniac]

The whole idea that companies deserve to own/control an "ecosystem" is absurd. Once a company sells a device, well they no longer own it. The person who bought it does. That is what selling means. A software/hardware "ecosystem", belongs to the actual owners of the devices, not the company that originally sold the device. The idea that a third party wanting to sell stuff that works with a device are "freeloaders" is just silly. Basically any third-party accessory maker is a freeloader by that definitions - do you consider the people who make phone cases freeloaders? The people who make add-on window tint for cars? People who make home chargers for electric cars? People who make third party parts for tractor repair?

Edit, if anything, Apple is the freeloader here, expecting to gain profits from other's works without their involvement being required. In this case, Epic does not need Apple to run a store or payment processor, Epic can do that themselves. Epic simply wants to sell directly to the people who actually own iPhones, Apple is inserting themselves unnecessarily in that transaction so that Apple can take a cut.

Do I believe that every company has a right to control its product designs and the user experience?

Do I believe that every consumer has a right to buy the product - accepting their design, limitations and restrictions - or refuse to buy it and buy something else?

Do I believe that apple should have threatened NOT to sell in certain territories if its rights weren't upheld - instead of capitulating?

YES.

 

[uzerlinux8]

Great win for corporate greed -- rather than give you hard-earned money to a trillion-dollar corporation, another multi-billion dollar company deserves it just as much. And this was after 6+ years of litigation that required billions in legal fees and tax dollars. What if an independent developer tried to go this route ? Too bad -- don't publish on the Apple store.

Apple makes so much money on the Apple store that they can sell their hardware at a loss and still be the most profitable company on Earth. Its like shooting fish in a barrel. And don't forget about the phone plans and contracts with telcos that is basically collusion to rig the market.

 

[uzerlinux8]

So long as women are greedy, materialistic and vain, iPhone will be a highly-desired luxury device till the end of the smartphone.

Where did that comment come from? That can be said of all humans -- I guess you are singling one group out because the Iphone represents a luxury consumer device that signals status?