Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Delicieuxz

Judge delivers split decision on Epic vs Apple - more positive than negative for Epic

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

apple are controlling what apps it allows ios users can install and what apps developers can sell.

They aren't controlling that any more or less than Amazon controls what amazon users buy and who can sell on their platform.

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Apple does not own your phone or the right to dictate what software you run on it, much less do they own the right to deny or force a software vendor to use their store to sell software.

they don't dictate that. you can download or not download whatever software you want that will work on the device. You aren't being forced to download or not download certain software. There are plenty of things I can't buy on amazon, for example.

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Not a valid argument, you can't expect anyone to buy a new phone just to buy software.

I don't. I expect people to buy what best suit their needs.

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Again imagine if you had to buy a new desktop because you wanted software that was only on mac, or linux, or windows?

I wouldn't. Thats exactly how gaming consoles work. I just don't buy them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, poochyena said:

They aren't controlling that any more or less than Amazon controls what amazon users buy and who can sell on their platform.

Amazon don't lock their customers to only buying from amazon. Apple are locking consumers from buying from any other store.   Why are you people being so intentionally ignorant of that fact? 

56 minutes ago, poochyena said:

they don't dictate that. you can download or not download whatever software you want that will work on the device. You aren't being forced to download or not download certain software. There are plenty of things I can't buy on amazon, for example.

I don't. I expect people to buy what best suit their needs.

They absolutely do, they dictate what apps have to include and what they can't include, They dictate that if you use an iphone you can't get software from anywhere but the app store.  That is dictating what software they can and can't buy.  you can only buy what they permit in the app store, you can't buy anything from anywhere else.

56 minutes ago, poochyena said:

I wouldn't. Thats exactly how gaming consoles work. I just don't buy them.

But it seems you are happy to advise others to do just that.  You wouldn't buy a new device because your device was locked to one store, but you argue other people should do it so you can rationalize your argument. 

 

 

 

 

 

 


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Sometimes I miss contractions like n't on the end of words like wouldn't, couldn't and shouldn't.    Please don't be a dick,  make allowances when reading my posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mr moose said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do I have to pay for the rest of the post?


I am still TechWizardThatNeedsHelp, just less of a mouthfull.

 

My beautiful, but not that powerful, main PC:

My new PC I'm saving for:

  • NZXT H1 Matte Black
    • Comes with a 650W NZXT PSU
    • NZXT AIO
  • Ryzen 5 3600
  • MSI B450i GAMING PLUS AC
  • XPG ADATA 2800Mhz
  • RX480 untill I have more for a 2060 or 2070
  • 2tb Sabrent Rocket Q PCIE gen 3 NVME SSD
  • Samsung 470 128GB SATA SSD
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

Do I have to pay for the rest of the post?

yep, and on top of that you are not allowed to use the internet except to get what I say you can. 


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Sometimes I miss contractions like n't on the end of words like wouldn't, couldn't and shouldn't.    Please don't be a dick,  make allowances when reading my posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Apple are locking consumers from buying from any other store.

they are not. I can buy from any store I want.

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

They dictate that if you use an iphone you can't get software from anywhere but the app store.  That is dictating what software they can and can't buy.

the list of options on the app store is no different than the list of products on amazon. They give you an option of what you can and can't buy, they aren't telling you what you can and can't. Its your choice.

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

but you argue other people should do it so

This is a lie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, poochyena said:

they are not. I can buy from any store I want.

WTF? Which "any store" are you going to buy your ios app from?  Are you intentionally pretending not to understand?

Quote

the list of options on the app store is no different than the list of products on amazon. They give you an option of what you can and can't buy, they aren't telling you what you can and can't. Its your choice.

The difference is there are alternatives to amazon while there are no alternatives to the app store, stop being dishonest and pretending they are the same.

Quote

This is a lie.

No it's not, you argued people can just buy a different phone if they want to use a store other than the app store.  You literally claimed they had an alternative in that they could buy android.  You know full well that buying a new device is not an alternative.  You even admitted that.

 

Don't call me a liar.

 

 

 

 

 


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Sometimes I miss contractions like n't on the end of words like wouldn't, couldn't and shouldn't.    Please don't be a dick,  make allowances when reading my posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, mr moose said:

WTF? Which "any store" are you going to buy your ios app from? 

i mean I can buy apps on android store on an android device. i'm not forced to use and buy from ios.

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

The difference is there are alternatives to amazon while there are no alternatives to the app store

google play store

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

you argued people can just buy a different phone if they want to use a store other than the app store.  You literally claimed they had an alternative in that they could buy android. 

correct, I said they CAN, not SHOULD. I even specifically said "I expect people to buy what best suit their needs.".

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

You know full well that buying a new device is not an alternative.  You even admitted that.

I never said that. Buying a new phone, or not buying a specific phone to begin with, is absolutely an option. Is there an app you want that isn't on ios, but is on android? Get an android phone. Its not new or complicated. If you don't like the app options on apple phones... don't buy an apple phone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, poochyena said:

i mean I can buy apps on android store on an android device. i'm not forced to use and buy from ios.

google play store

correct, I said they CAN, not SHOULD. I even specifically said "I expect people to buy what best suit their needs.".

I never said that. Buying a new phone, or not buying a specific phone to begin with, is absolutely an option. Is there an app you want that isn't on ios, but is on android? Get an android phone. Its not new or complicated. If you don't like the app options on apple phones... don't buy an apple phone.

 

At this point you are just speaking nonsense.  People already have the iphone, they CANNOT just buy a new phone.  No one should.  If that is your argument then you are literally arguing for why it is a monopoly,  because if the only way to avoid the app store is to buy a new phone, then the app store is restrictive and controlling of other peoples trade PERIOD.

 

The silliest thing in these threads is that the only argument anyone has made for it not being a monopoly can only be made because it is a monopoly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Sometimes I miss contractions like n't on the end of words like wouldn't, couldn't and shouldn't.    Please don't be a dick,  make allowances when reading my posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is weird because I want users to be free to do whatever they want, but I also believe in systems made in a way that does protect users from themselves. The problem is Apple does it for the money. I think a compromise where OS is *safe*, but a user can make it more open by agreeing to certain warning messages would be alright, but what do I know....
There could be a phone(most likely based on Android) made with security in mind, using whitelist of apps and not allowing itself to be tampered with. It's a legitimate business and if someone bought such device and complained they can't play Fortnite, I'd laugh them off. Apple could argue they're the same, but I don't think that's the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Loote said:

The problem is Apple does it for the money.

It's not a crime to make money. Contrary to some beliefs, Apple is offering a service, not a charity.

 

Ask any site operator that offers "free" hosting what the catch is. Because there always is one. All ad-hosted service mines your personal information in some manner, and the rest is supported by those "premium" services.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking from perspective of two OSes that don't allow other app shops etc. when one does it because it maximises their income and the other does it to guarantee system's security, the first one sounds like a monopolistic practice and the other sounds acceptable. That's why Apple will always argue they're doing it to protect their users.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Loote said:

Looking from perspective of two OSes that don't allow other app shops etc. when one does it because it maximises their income and the other does it to guarantee system's security, the first one sounds like a monopolistic practice and the other sounds acceptable. That's why Apple will always argue they're doing it to protect their users.

 

There is no evidence that allowing users to opt out of the app store only model would reduce security for users who wish to only use the app store. Which means the whole argument that it is for security reasons is bunk from the onset.   Apple can easily make it so when you set up your phone you choose which way you want it to operate, either exclusive from app store or like a desktop where you can buy and download software from anywhere. Apple users can have can have their perceived security and those who want out of the walled garden get it too.

 

Given there is no reason to not give people the option then that reduces the practice to a monopoly.

 

 

 


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Sometimes I miss contractions like n't on the end of words like wouldn't, couldn't and shouldn't.    Please don't be a dick,  make allowances when reading my posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, mr moose said:

There is no evidence that allowing users to opt out of the app store only model would reduce security for users who wish to only use the app store.

The security of those who opt out depends on what app store they choose,it's possible to have a store that is more secure than Apple's own.


A PC Enthusiast since 2011
AMD Ryzen 5 2600@4GHz | GIGABYTE GTX 1660 GAMING OC @ Core 2040MHz Memory 5000MHz
Cinebench R15: 1382cb | Unigine Superposition 1080p Extreme: 3439
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, poochyena said:

They aren't controlling that any more or less than Amazon controls what amazon users buy and who can sell on their platform.

 

they don't dictate that. you can download or not download whatever software you want that will work on the device. You aren't being forced to download or not download certain software. There are plenty of things I can't buy on amazon, for example.

I don't. I expect people to buy what best suit their needs.

 

I wouldn't. Thats exactly how gaming consoles work. I just don't buy them.

You either are working for Apple or either you're hardcore, ignorant fan of that company who refuses to see the truth.


CPU: i7 3770k 3.9GHz | COOLER: Arctic Freezer 34 eSports | GPU: GIGABYTE GTX 1070 G1 Gaming 8GB | MOTHERBOARD: MSI Z77A-G45 GAMING | RAM: G.Skill Trident X 16GB | STORAGE: Crucial M550 SSD 120GB + 2TB HDD + 4TB HDD +4TB HDD | CASE: Cooler Master HAF 912 Plus | PSU: XFX PRO1050W Black Edition (80+ Gold) | KEYBOARD: Corsair Vengeance K70 | MOUSE: Logitech G502 | MOUSEPAD: Marvo MG010 | MONITOR: Philips 298P4 29" UltraWide | SPEAKERS: Microlab Solo7C | HEADSET: Trust GXT 410 Rune Illuminated | OS: WIndows 10 64bit
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Dean0919 said:

You either are working for Apple or either you're hardcore, ignorant fan of that company who refuses to see the truth.

What truth? That Apple have a walled garden and a consumer base that decidedly appreciates that? 

 

Though I wish the poster was right,  there's so much literal scam on Amazon it's not even funny... 

 

And for the record I really dislike Apple,  if only for the inflated prices and the fact whenever I want to copy or send something to someone with an iPhone the process is tedious and ridiculously needlessly complicated (and they never seem to really get how it works lol)


RYZEN 5 3600 | MSI GTX 1060 6GB GAMING X | 16GB CORSAIR VENGEANCE LPX 3200 DDR4 | MSI B350M MORTAR | 250GB SAMSUNG EVO 860 | 4TB TOSHIBA X 300 | 1TB TOSHIBA SSHD | 120GB KINGSTON SSD | WINDOWS 10 PRO | INWIN 301| BEQUIET PURE POWER 10 500W 80+ SILVER | ASUS 279H | LOGITECH Z906 | DELL KB216T | LOGITECH M185 | SONY DUALSHOCK 4

 

LENOVO IDEAPAD 510 | i5 7200U | 8GB DDR4 | NVIDIA GEFORCE 940MX | 1TB WD | WINDOWS 10 GO HOME 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

What truth? That Apple have a walled garden and a consumer base that decidedly appreciates that? 

 

Though I wish the poster was right,  there's so much literal scam on Amazon it's not even funny... 

 

And for the record I really dislike Apple,  if only for the inflated prices and the fact whenever I want to copy or send something to someone with an iPhone the process is tedious and ridiculously needlessly complicated (and they never seem to really get how it works lol)

Check above posts, conversation between mr moose and him and you'll see what truth I'm talking about it. If you didn't find it there, then I'm afraid I can't help you to see it.


CPU: i7 3770k 3.9GHz | COOLER: Arctic Freezer 34 eSports | GPU: GIGABYTE GTX 1070 G1 Gaming 8GB | MOTHERBOARD: MSI Z77A-G45 GAMING | RAM: G.Skill Trident X 16GB | STORAGE: Crucial M550 SSD 120GB + 2TB HDD + 4TB HDD +4TB HDD | CASE: Cooler Master HAF 912 Plus | PSU: XFX PRO1050W Black Edition (80+ Gold) | KEYBOARD: Corsair Vengeance K70 | MOUSE: Logitech G502 | MOUSEPAD: Marvo MG010 | MONITOR: Philips 298P4 29" UltraWide | SPEAKERS: Microlab Solo7C | HEADSET: Trust GXT 410 Rune Illuminated | OS: WIndows 10 64bit
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mr moose said:

People already have the iphone

which they chose to buy

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

they CANNOT just buy a new phone.

they can, nothing is stopping them.

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

If that is your argument then you are literally arguing for why it is a monopoly

You don't know what a monopoly is then. There being alternatives people can buy specifically makes it not a monopoly.

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

Apple can easily make it so when you set up your phone you choose which way you want it to operate, either exclusive from app store or like a desktop where you can buy and download software from anywhere

And they choose not to, which is their right and any other business owner's right. No business owner should be forced to sell products they don't want to.

4 hours ago, Dean0919 said:

You either are working for Apple or either you're hardcore, ignorant fan of that company who refuses to see the truth.

I've explained the truth thoroughly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, poochyena said:

You don't know what a monopoly is then. There being alternatives people can buy specifically makes it not a monopoly.

 

defintion the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service

A monopoly refers to when a company and its product offerings dominate one sector or industry. Monopolies can be considered an extreme result of free-market capitalism and are often used to describe an entity that has total or near-total control of a market.

 

ios and the apple app store has exclusive control of that market

tell me where this is anywhere else? windows? linux? andriod? please tell me

 

geez the word monopoly means single seller

which is what is happening they are the only seller

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, pas008 said:

defintion the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service

A monopoly refers to when a company and its product offerings dominate one sector or industry. Monopolies can be considered an extreme result of free-market capitalism and are often used to describe an entity that has total or near-total control of a market.

 

ios and the apple app store has exclusive control of that market

tell me where this is anywhere else? windows? linux? andriod? please tell me

 

geez the word monopoly means single seller

which is what is happening they are the only seller

 

If you've paid attention to the last, oh 8 or so threads on this topic, Mr.Moose ignores the definition of Monopoly and substitutes his own. Everyone has been telling him that.

 

The only defintion of monopoly that matters in the context of this case is the one defined in the Sherman act.

 

https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-1

image.thumb.png.343de198bad3ad7663e30587297d74b4.png

 

And because people in the Apple threads have very poor reading comprehension of legal terms, note what it says right after the bolded part. 

 

Quote

Regarding the first element, it is "settled law" that the offense of monopolization requires "the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market."(5) As discussed in chapter 2, monopoly power means substantial market power that is durable rather than fleeting--market power being the ability to raise prices profitability above those that would be charged in a competitive market.(6)

Apple has never raised prices on App store. And the "competitive market" is for software. Period. It does not matter what the device is. As long as you can buy software somewhere else, there's a competitive market.

 

image.thumb.png.3d04e4e7f5488a3bdc0ff9d2049c96af.png

 

 

This is where the entire "Microsoft bundling MSIE/WMP" part comes up, because Microsoft has the dominant OS on hardware that runs software, at the time at least, any software bundled is anti-competitive with other software vendors, even if that other software is free, because the bundled software is ALWAYS the default on the OS. The mobile phone manufacturers get away with doing the same thing because they are not in a dominant position in the software market.

 

image.thumb.png.4e444b8f70daf6af5675e5e88122cb92.png

 

And this is why I don't see the court case ending with any win for EPIC. At best it's a contract dispute between EPIC and Apple Inc. At worst it's a competitor that has failed to compete in the software market and is now trying to use the legal system to redefine the market that Apple is in, and thus by extension make them a Monopoly of their own product which they aren't.

 

Quote

Nearly a century ago, in Standard Oil, one of the Supreme Court's first monopolization cases, the Court observed that the Act does not include "any direct prohibition against monopoly in the concrete."(37) The Court thus rejected the United States's assertion that section 2 bars the attainment of monopoly or monopoly power regardless of the means and instead held that without unlawful conduct, mere "size, aggregated capital, power and volume of business are not monopolizing in a legal sense."(38)

 

United States v. Aluminum Co. of America re-emphasized Standard Oil's distinction between the mere possession of monopoly and unlawful monopolization as a key analytical concept.(39) Writing for the Second Circuit, Judge Hand reasoned that, simply because Alcoa had a monopoly in the market for ingot, it did "not follow" that "it [had] 'monopolized'" the market: "t may not have achieved monopoly; monopoly may have been thrust upon it."(40) The court determined that mere "size does not determine guilt" under section 2 and that monopoly can result from causes that are not unlawful, such as "by force of accident" or where a market is so limited it can profitably accommodate only one firm.(41) Further, the court observed that monopoly can result from conduct that clearly is within the spirit of the antitrust laws. Where "[a] single producer may be the survivor out of a group of active competitors, merely by virtue of his superior skill, foresight and industry," punishment of that producer would run counter to the spirit of the antitrust laws: "The successful competitor, having been urged to compete, must not be turned upon when he wins."(42)

 

Twenty years after Alcoa, and more than fifty years after Standard Oil, the Supreme Court articulated in Grinnell(43) what remains the classic formulation of the section 2 prohibition. Drawing from Alcoa, the Court condemned "the willful acquisition or maintenance of [monopoly] power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident."(44)

So Apple's "monopoly" on it's own device and services is a consequence of a superior product. There are other Mobile devices (of which many failed, like the Windows Phone, Linux phones like Plasma, PureOS, Tizen and Firefox OS) which gained no traction. There are game consoles that compete in the exact same space, particularly the Nintendo Switch is in the exact same market segment that the iPad is in (passive consumer entertainment devices that aren't mobile phones.) The game consoles and Steam all operate their stores and IAP's the same way with the same commission rates. Complaining that Apple has a monopoly on iPhones is like complaining that Sony has a monopoly on Playstations, or Nintendo has a monopoly on Nintendo Switch's. You can not be a "monopoly" of your own product.

 

If you look at the broader mobile phone ecosystem, you'll find that Apple iPhones are not the majority of the global market, Samsung is.

https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/worldwide

StatCounter-vendor-ww-monthly-201907-202007.thumb.png.a7d00a133f3bce437be886b005aad361.png

In the US, is where the iPhone is significantly higher than the rest of the world.

https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america

StatCounter-vendor-US-monthly-201907-202007.thumb.png.fc9a241efd9c33a79a48301439c751b7.png

For legal purposes this is the only market that matters in the US. This pattern also exists in Canada and the UK. If you look at poorer countries, like India, the iPhone is barely on the list, with the Chinese Xiaomi phones being the top, pushing out Samsung since 2019.

 

Has Apple done anything to gain more market share for itself? No. All competitors either offer inferior products and make no headway in the mobile space, or they ceased to make any compelling product.

 

You can also go back and look at the Browser share to get a better idea of where Apple vs Android exist.

https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/all/united-states-of-america

Chrome is around 50%, which is the default browser on Android, and more popular on desktop/laptop computers. Safari is 36% which is the default browser on iPhone/iPad and MacOS X.

 

https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america

Now if you narrow it to just mobile, you get 55% Safari and 37% Chrome.

 

For the purposes of the legal jurisdiction, Apple may have a monopoly over it's own Apple-branded products, but it does not have a monopoly over the broader computer market, portable computer market or entertainment device market.

 

image.thumb.png.083df3597b0acda831f50a058a844cc5.png

 

That last point has more to do with the Unreal Engine than Fortnite does. If Apple unilaterally banned Unreal Engine, because of Epic's disregard for Apple's ToS, that would have been fine... but only for games produced by Epic. As Unreal engine can be used by third parties, it does potentially make it so that Epic is harmed by having third parties shun the Unreal engine because of Epic's unwillingness to play by the rules everyone else agreed to to have their software in Apple's store. Because a ban on Unreal Engine by disabling their developer account also disables any possibility of using Unreal on both devices running iOS/iPadOS and MacOSX, and potentially AppleTV devices or any future product from Apple.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kisai said:

If you've paid attention to the last, oh 8 or so threads on this topic, Mr.Moose ignores the definition of Monopoly and substitutes his own. Everyone has been telling him that.

 

The only defintion of monopoly that matters in the context of this case is the one defined in the Sherman act.

 

https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-1

image.thumb.png.343de198bad3ad7663e30587297d74b4.png

 

And because people in the Apple threads have very poor reading comprehension of legal terms, note what it says right after the bolded part. 

 

Apple has never raised prices on App store. And the "competitive market" is for software. Period. It does not matter what the device is. As long as you can buy software somewhere else, there's a competitive market.

 

image.thumb.png.3d04e4e7f5488a3bdc0ff9d2049c96af.png

 

 

This is where the entire "Microsoft bundling MSIE/WMP" part comes up, because Microsoft has the dominant OS on hardware that runs software, at the time at least, any software bundled is anti-competitive with other software vendors, even if that other software is free, because the bundled software is ALWAYS the default on the OS. The mobile phone manufacturers get away with doing the same thing because they are not in a dominant position in the software market.

 

image.thumb.png.4e444b8f70daf6af5675e5e88122cb92.png

 

And this is why I don't see the court case ending with any win for EPIC. At best it's a contract dispute between EPIC and Apple Inc. At worst it's a competitor that has failed to compete in the software market and is now trying to use the legal system to redefine the market that Apple is in, and thus by extension make them a Monopoly of their own product which they aren't.

 

So Apple's "monopoly" on it's own device and services is a consequence of a superior product. There are other Mobile devices (of which many failed, like the Windows Phone, Linux phones like Plasma, PureOS, Tizen and Firefox OS) which gained no traction. There are game consoles that compete in the exact same space, particularly the Nintendo Switch is in the exact same market segment that the iPad is in (passive consumer entertainment devices that aren't mobile phones.) The game consoles and Steam all operate their stores and IAP's the same way with the same commission rates. Complaining that Apple has a monopoly on iPhones is like complaining that Sony has a monopoly on Playstations, or Nintendo has a monopoly on Nintendo Switch's. You can not be a "monopoly" of your own product.

 

If you look at the broader mobile phone ecosystem, you'll find that Apple iPhones are not the majority of the global market, Samsung is.

https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/worldwide

StatCounter-vendor-ww-monthly-201907-202007.thumb.png.a7d00a133f3bce437be886b005aad361.png

In the US, is where the iPhone is significantly higher than the rest of the world.

https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america

StatCounter-vendor-US-monthly-201907-202007.thumb.png.fc9a241efd9c33a79a48301439c751b7.png

For legal purposes this is the only market that matters in the US. This pattern also exists in Canada and the UK. If you look at poorer countries, like India, the iPhone is barely on the list, with the Chinese Xiaomi phones being the top, pushing out Samsung since 2019.

 

Has Apple done anything to gain more market share for itself? No. All competitors either offer inferior products and make no headway in the mobile space, or they ceased to make any compelling product.

 

You can also go back and look at the Browser share to get a better idea of where Apple vs Android exist.

https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/all/united-states-of-america

Chrome is around 50%, which is the default browser on Android, and more popular on desktop/laptop computers. Safari is 36% which is the default browser on iPhone/iPad and MacOS X.

 

https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america

Now if you narrow it to just mobile, you get 55% Safari and 37% Chrome.

 

For the purposes of the legal jurisdiction, Apple may have a monopoly over it's own Apple-branded products, but it does not have a monopoly over the broader computer market, portable computer market or entertainment device market.

 

image.thumb.png.083df3597b0acda831f50a058a844cc5.png

 

That last point has more to do with the Unreal Engine than Fortnite does. If Apple unilaterally banned Unreal Engine, because of Epic's disregard for Apple's ToS, that would have been fine... but only for games produced by Epic. As Unreal engine can be used by third parties, it does potentially make it so that Epic is harmed by having third parties shun the Unreal engine because of Epic's unwillingness to play by the rules everyone else agreed to to have their software in Apple's store. Because a ban on Unreal Engine by disabling their developer account also disables any possibility of using Unreal on both devices running iOS/iPadOS and MacOSX, and potentially AppleTV devices or any future product from Apple.

 

oh wow

they are the sole seller on ios

meaning they have a monopoly on ios

if they allowed some 3rd party ones and they beat them out naturally then yes thats a natural monopoly

but they dont allow anyone which is anti competitive

 

amazon  allow 3rd party, how about newegg walmart android windows etc?

 

so with your logic ms could make all surfaces require ms store only

or samsung do the same with their phones

making users use their store only with all those devices?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pas008 said:

oh wow

they are the sole seller on ios

meaning they have a monopoly on ios

if they allowed some 3rd party ones and they beat them out naturally then yes thats a natural monopoly

but they dont allow anyone which is anti competitive

 

amazon  allow 3rd party, how about newegg walmart android windows etc?

 

so with your logic ms could make all surfaces require ms store only

or samsung do the same with their phones

making users use their store only with all those devices?

 

 

Again. iOS is not the market. Computing devices are, specifically "computing devices containing a cellular modem" (which includes tablet computers, and Windows laptops that are convertible into tablets.) Having a monopoly on the thing you invented is something that is legally allowed, and that's the entire basis of the patent system.

 

The thing that really harms all these narrow definitions in the first place is that the average person is encouraged to replace their mobile computer every two years. So you can't even say Apple has a monopoly on phones because otherwise people would not readily switch phones to other brands. Or lest y'all forgot about the reason Local Number Portability exists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

-= Cleaned =-

Civil conversation please.


Tech News Posting Guidelines - READ BEFORE POSTING | Community Standards | Forum Staff

LTT Folding Users Tips, Tricks and FAQ | F@H Contribution | My Rig | Project Steamroller

 

Spoiler

 †  

 

Character is like a Tree and Reputation like its Shadow. The Shadow is what we think of it; The Tree is the Real thing.  ~ Abraham Lincoln

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.  ~ Winston Churchill

Docendo discimus - "the best way to learn is to teach" ~ Benjamin Jantz

 

I am a StarCitizen are you? My ships: Aegis Eclipse, Aegis Sabre, Aegis Gladius, Aopoa Nox, KI P52 Merlin, KI P72 Archimedes and the RSI Constellation Aquila.

 

My Phones are a Nokia Lumia 925 with WM10 and a Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with WM10 running the Fast Ring insider updates. Broke :(

Samsung Note 9 and a Samsung S9+

 

About Myself:   https://linustechtips.com/main/profile/229093-sansvarnic/?tab=field_core_pfield_46

 

 CHRISTIAN MEMBER 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, pas008 said:

so with your logic ms could make all surfaces require ms store only

They used to. Before. In the dark times.


I am still TechWizardThatNeedsHelp, just less of a mouthfull.

 

My beautiful, but not that powerful, main PC:

My new PC I'm saving for:

  • NZXT H1 Matte Black
    • Comes with a 650W NZXT PSU
    • NZXT AIO
  • Ryzen 5 3600
  • MSI B450i GAMING PLUS AC
  • XPG ADATA 2800Mhz
  • RX480 untill I have more for a 2060 or 2070
  • 2tb Sabrent Rocket Q PCIE gen 3 NVME SSD
  • Samsung 470 128GB SATA SSD
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually. this decision favors Apple more than Epic, although it doesn't actually mean much. Allow me to explain:

 

Generally speaking, courts will try to maintain the status-quo as much as possible unless someone is getting irreparably harmed. In the case of the restraining order against Apple, the court found that Apple could, in theory, irreparably harm third parties if they banned Epic from using their developer account to develop the Unreal engine. As Apple had not banned Epic's account yet, the court didn't actually do anything but tell Apple "you can't go any further for now". Which brings us to Epic...

 

The judge actually smacked Epic pretty hard here. If you read the actual decision, the judge had some politely pointed remarks against Epic - which is never a good sign. The judge essentially ruled that Epic is not being irreparably harmed by Apple because Epic, knowing full well the consequences, chose to break its agreement with Apple - a self inflicted wound if you will. The court noted that Epic is fully capable of stopping any harm it is suffering by bringing itself back into compliance with its contractual agreement with Apple - the status quo if you will. 

 

So long story short, Apple took two steps forward and the court told them to take one step back. Since this still leaves Apple one step forward, it can't really be said Apple "lost" in any way. Epic is the one that lost its App from the App store, and Apple gets to keep it that way as long as Epic keeps the "hotfix" in Fortnite. However, it should be noted that TRO's, as the name would suggest, are quite temporary, and really mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. They don't mean a single thing as far as the overall case goes, and can't be used as any sort of guidepost as to how the court will rule in the end. They are basically the legal equivalent of a parent breaking up a fight between two siblings while the parent tries to figure out what on earth is going on. It's a temporary (30 days I think) measure in what will most likely be a years long legal case. So sit back, relax, and enjoy the show. Popcorns on the house!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×