no! it was okay then but now it's not a lot changes in 12 years, friend.
That Apple have not increased their cut at all in this time is a strong case that they have not used any monopolistic powers to increase prices.
no! it was okay then but now it's not a lot changes in 12 years, friend.
That Apple have not increased their cut at all in this time is a strong case that they have not used any monopolistic powers to increase prices.
Judge states otherwise: YGR: If you have an iPhone you can't buy it [an app] from anyone else. You can't buy it from Google. You can't buy it from Amazon. So without competition, where is that 30% coming from? Why isn't it 10% or 15%? How is the consumer benefiting at all?That Apple have not increased their cut at all in this time is a strong case that they have not used any monopolistic powers to increase prices.
You mean the same IAP policies that are pretty much prevalent on every other online digital stores?Apple introducing IAP and restrictive policies mandating use of Apple IAP only was a substantial change and was not 12 years ago. It also changed the market as other players (Google) followed suit after seeing what Apple could get away with.
Do you actually know what the Microsoft case was about? It was never about abusing their power to artifically increase the price or get some kind of cut.I mean, that's cool that they have a different perspective. I don't agree, and if there's any implied appeal to authority I honestly do not care if that person is a lawyer or not that doesn't mean people can't have differing opinions. Just because it's not literally the same situation in that Apple isn't a monopoly, the end result for a poor person is the same - their smartphone is their only way to get to the internet. And they have to pay 30% for all store purchases to Apple or Google.
But didn't she state right after that, that 30% was the market standard elsewhereJudge states otherwise: YGR: If you have an iPhone you can't buy it [an app] from anyone else. You can't buy it from Google. You can't buy it from Amazon. So without competition, where is that 30% coming from? Why isn't it 10% or 15%? How is the consumer benefiting at all?
But didn't she state right after that, that 30% was the market standard elsewhere
You mean the same IAP policies that are pretty much prevalent on every other online digital stores?
she's going to have to weigh both arguments. she's being a good judgeBut didn't she state right after that, that 30% was the market standard elsewhere
Good point. You could say they set the precedent.It's not like Apple started with the 30% from a dominate position though, 12 years ago when Apple launched the AppStore there really was no online app market that developers needed to interact with, and Apple didn't have a "monopoly" on phones, developers could have easily ignored it and it would have died, but they instead saw an opportunity to make money, even if Apple was charging 30%, so at least at that time it wasn't seen as unreasonable.
Do you actually know what the Microsoft case was about? It was never about abusing their power to artifically increase the price or get some kind of cut.
Microsoft got sued for providing an integrated browser for free while you had to walk to your local retailer and pay $10 if you wanted a different browser option.
You know... the local actual brick and mortar stores with employees, property taxes, and utilities that do get 30% as well.
The Commission will investigate the possible impact of Apple's App Store practices in particular on competition in music streaming and e-books/audiobooks. These practices may ultimately harm consumers by preventing them from benefiting from greater choice and lower prices.
How much lower should a price go so it's below "free"? Or could you show a list of free apps that have no free alternatives?
How much lower should a price go so it's below "free"? And please provide a link about where Epic is sueing Apple for music streaming, e-books and audiobooks.
The Commission will investigate in particular two restrictions imposed by Apple in its agreements with companies that wish to distribute apps to users of Apple devices:
(i) The mandatory use of Apple's own proprietary in-app purchase system "IAP" for the distribution of paid digital content. Apple charges app developers a 30% commission on all subscription fees through IAP.
(ii) Restrictions on the ability of developers to inform users of alternative purchasing possibilities outside of apps. While Apple allows users to consume content such as music, e-books and audiobooks purchased elsewhere (e.g. on the website of the app developer) also in the app, its rules prevent developers from informing users about such purchasing possibilities, which are usually cheaper.
Following a preliminary investigation the Commission has concerns that Apple's restrictions may distort competition for music streaming services on Apple's devices. Apple's competitors have either decided to disable the in-app subscription possibility altogether or have raised their subscription prices in the app and passed on Apple's fee to consumers.
In both cases, they were not allowed to inform users about alternative subscription possibilities outside of the app. The IAP obligation also appears to give Apple full control over the relationship with customers of its competitors subscribing in the app, thus dis-intermediating its competitors from important customer data while Apple may obtain valuable data about the activities and offers of its competitors.
Lmao
Microsoft got sued for providing an integrated browser for free while you had to walk to your local retailer and pay $10 if you wanted a different browser option.
Dunno. The Apple vs Epic case is either "like MS in 90s" or not. In this case it's not.Maybe we can put down the 'this is not like MS in the 90's' when there's already an official investigation underway about antitrust laws
I mean it'll probably be referenced by epic in their trial brief and potentially during trial (if they go to trial) whether used as facts to compare or contrast with this case the analogy is close enough.Dunno. The Apple vs Epic case is either "like MS in 90s" or not. In this case it's not.
Apple should be investigated for several practices imho but constantly comparing the case to "MS in the 90s"" like it's some kind of magic buzzword is kinda stupid.
Cool, and it'll be within the company's rights to disconnect your service. Let's not pretend otherwise. There is also zero reason to believe this case will be won in Epic's favor and that Apple is actually doing anything illegal.
Dunno. The Apple vs Epic case is either "like MS in 90s" or not. In this case it's not.
Apple should be investigated for several practices imho but constantly comparing the case to "MS in the 90s"" like it's some kind of magic buzzword is kinda stupid.
No.If iOS is forced to open up, wouldn't every console platforms eventually also be subject to the same thing?
I don't think it's the same. You can buy games at retail for consoles, but you can't buy any app for iOS outside of the App Store. Even if you just think of digital edition consoles, they can get away with being able to buy codes from other digital stores, which is already happening.I really don't understand the argument of being a monopoly within its own platform. Like how does that even work? If Epic wins, this sounds disastrous for console makers. iOS is basically exactly like consoles platforms. If iOS is forced to open up, wouldn't every console platforms eventually also be subject to the same thing? Ugh, I personally love these platforms for their closed nature.
Excuse me, but my switch was my plus one at a wedding last year.No.
Epic's argument hinges on being able to convince a court that Apple's closed ecosystem is bad because smartphones are essential, everyday pieces of equipment.
I'm not sure why it should matter where the 30% comes from, I thought the US practiced a free market where prices are set by demand and not some sort of combination of component-labor.
According to this lawyer, it was unnecessary for an antitrust lawsuit:Yes there was. They needed to show damages and that Apple would, in fact, react the way they did.
My guess is they expected exactly what happened - that Apple would abuse its market position in retaliation, which would help Epic win a TRO.
Although I expect they were hoping for a TRO on both Unreal and Fortnite - which might have happened with a more sympathetic judge.
Exactly.I really don't understand the argument of being a monopoly within its own platform. Like how does that even work? If Epic wins, this sounds disastrous for console makers. iOS is basically exactly like consoles platforms. If iOS is forced to open up, wouldn't every console platforms eventually also be subject to the same thing? Ugh, I personally love these platforms for their closed nature.
I really don't understand the argument of being a monopoly within its own platform. Like how does that even work? If Epic wins, this sounds disastrous for console makers. iOS is basically exactly like consoles platforms. If iOS is forced to open up, wouldn't every console platforms eventually also be subject to the same thing? Ugh, I personally love these platforms for their closed nature.
Yeah. So basically judge is saying there are valid points to consider on both sides of the issue and that the case will not be thrown out as frivolous. The fact that the judge appears to be willing to at least look into Apple's potential monopoly and/or anti-competitive behavior could have major repercussions.She then later called the 30% industry standard so could go either way.
But it seems wholly arbitary right? Feels like something that Epic could just expand to consoles with new definitions in the future to include consoles as well?No.
Epic's argument hinges on being able to convince a court that Apple's closed ecosystem is bad because smartphones are essential, everyday pieces of equipment.
But aren't retail games also subject to licensing fees from console makers? The format is different but aren't developers also subject to paying platform holders something? Feels like the platform holders still have a "monopoly" over their platform based on these arguments and definitions.I don't think it's the same. You can buy games at retail for consoles, but you can't buy any app for iOS outside of the App Store. Even if you just think of digital edition consoles, they can get away with being able to buy codes from other digital stores, which is already happening.
Also, consoles are usually sold at a loss. iPhones and iPads are not.
Exactly.
If you want to preserve how consoles work, don't cheer for Epic lol. If Epic wins, consoles will basically become a PC.
According to this lawyer, it was unnecessary for an antitrust lawsuit:
Obviously that's just one dude and I'm not a lawyer either, but my limited understanding is that it wasn't necessary.
I don't see why anyone would ever bring up such a bad analogy especially in court because they share literally no similarties at all.I mean it'll probably be referenced by epic in their trial brief and potentially during trial (if they go to trial) whether used as facts to compare or contrast with this case the analogy is close enough.
That being said I haven't taken the time to research and read any material from either cases.
The suit accused Microsoft of illegally protecting its operating-system monopoly and seeking a new monopoly for its own browser, Internet Explorer. The fear was that Microsoft would kill Netscape, monopolize the browser market and use that point of control to dominate the coming age of the web.
Microsoft was accused of trying to create a monopoly that led to the collapse of rival Netscape by giving its browser software for free.
The suit was brought following the browser wars that led to the collapse of Microsoft's top competitor, Netscape, which occurred when Microsoft began giving away its browser software for free.
That sounds absolutely amazing.Exactly.
If you want to preserve how consoles work, don't cheer for Epic lol. If Epic wins, consoles will basically become a PC.
Exactly.
If you want to preserve how consoles work, don't cheer for Epic lol. If Epic wins, consoles will basically become a PC.
Are those quotes from the actual case?I don't see why anyone would ever bring up such a bad analogy especially in court because they share literally no similarties at all.
The MS anti-trust case was about:
I don't understand how someone can look at those quotes and having the first reaction beeing a "Yeah! Exactly like Apple vs Epic!".
If they win here, they cannot expand the results of this case (based on smartphones being ubiquitous and essential) to include consoles (which flatly do not meet that definition). They would need to file an entirely new suit with new and different arguments and win based on those.But it seems wholly arbitary right? Feels like something that Epic could just expand to consoles with new definitions in the future to include consoles as well?
Er, maybe you can just buy some other phone or a portable PC? Lol. Imagine if every phone that you buy you have to go through some tedious shit of setting up all the stores? I mean, I get some people hates Apple, but come on, this is an awful user experience through and through.Force Apple to open up iOS to any store that wants to open, make it that they can't pre-install the App store on their phones and give the consumer the choice. Then let the open market work out how much Apple can get away with charging.
According to this lawyer, it was unnecessary for an antitrust lawsuit:
Obviously that's just one dude and I'm not a lawyer either, but my limited understanding is that it wasn't necessary.
If they win here, they cannot expand the results of this case (based on smartphones being ubiquitous and essential) to include consoles (which flatly do not meet that definition). They would need to file an entirely new suit with new and different arguments and win based on those.
No this isn't correct because nothing I have seen in Epic's filings detail how consoles would be excluded from this.
Those quotes are from articles reviewing the case.
Sure but all Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft need to say is people don't NEED consoles.This does nothing to exclude consoles though. An antitrust violation is an antitrust violation, regardless of the role the device plays in the market.
I might be remembering wrongly, but wasn't this the same general argument about Steam before they launched EGS? Like Steam being a monopoly or some shit and charging too much? Feels like only time before Epic targets every other platform if they win this. Lol. I mean it's their rights to fight for more money, but as a consumer who loves these closed platforms, it really sucks. Have the existence of EGS really made the PC a better platform? Feels like Epic is just changing the narrative to whatever best suit their current needs.If they win here, they cannot expand the results of this case (based on smartphones being ubiquitous and essential) to include consoles (which flatly do not meet that definition). They would need to file an entirely new suit with new and different arguments and win based on those.
Brick and mortar stores do not get 30% on video games. They're usually lucky to even get 20-25% and it varies by supplier.Do you actually know what the Microsoft case was about? It was never about abusing their power to artifically increase the price or get some kind of cut.
Microsoft got sued for providing an integrated browser for free while you had to walk to your local retailer and pay $10 if you wanted a different browser option.
You know... the local actual brick and mortar stores with employees, property taxes, and utilities that do get 30% as well.
Software developers still really could as well if we see changes to the fee structure. If Apple loses, everybody wins.If the murmurings from the judge pan out consumers could end up the only winners in this case. I'm down.
The size and necessity of the market (and the position of a company within that market) are crucial factors in determining whether a particular practice is an antitrust violation. What might be an antitrust violation in one market can be fine in another, depending on context. That's why these trials are necessary in the first place.This does nothing to exclude consoles though. An antitrust violation is an antitrust violation, regardless of the role the device plays in the market.