Press F for Fortnite - Apple AND GOOGLE remove Fortnite from the App Store - Epic Sues Apple

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

My family only gets 1st party repair if we have apple Care +, and 3rd party any other time. Also, you can probably trip water damage if you leave it in the bathroom and take a shower, because of humidity.

Last time I looked into those water indicators there were quite a few articles, lawsuits and complaints showing the moisture in the air in some places cause them to change.   

[Helpful Tech Witch]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Last time I looked into those water indicators there were quite a few articles, lawsuits and complaints showing the moisture in the air in some places cause them to change.   

I believe most from people in north-west United States have changed water indicators by now.

[mr moose]

51 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

I believe most from people in north-west United States have changed water indicators by now.

I'd love to see a map of warranty rejections by location.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I'd love to see a map of warranty rejections by location.

Ohh... That would be cool. Dry areas such as Arizona, probably low,but humid areas like California probably high.

[Lord Vile]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

The lawsuit is integral to showing it was a monopoly practice,  there was nothing special about that.  It highlights perfectly why what apple are doing is also a monopoly practice.  Intel told OEM they would suffer lack of sales if they didn't exclusively buy INtel,  Apple are telling customers they'll lose sales to IOS customers if they don't agree tot all the terms of the app store.  Exactly the same thing.

But the content of the lawsuit was very case specific and was also about hardware and was an actual example of a company trying to monopolise and industry vs this which just flat out isn't. No apple is saying they can agree to the ToS of THEIR platform or they don't get to sell stuff on it. 

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

Only after major changes to the way the OS works.  And they are still in hot water about frequently.

Apart from they didn't make any changes to the OS

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

Ahh,  so you do understand at least some of the problem, you just don't think it applies to apple. 

So you also agree apple is a closed system, a closed system that developers are held ransom too,  I mean if it is bad for sony then it has to bad for apple too right?  Or are you only paying the whataboutism game?  What about sony?  who cares, they could be breaking 50 more laws right this second and that doesn't make what apple are doing any more just.

Point is it's fairly standard in the industry, it's also not monopolistic. 

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

I have addressed all your points.  I even addressed the sony points right back at the start.

No you're just ignoring them even though they're doing EXACTLY the same thing. Sony also has a much larger share of the console market than Apple does of the mobile phone market so they are definitely a monopoly right? 

[maartendc]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

This is the crux of the issue, I have zero problem with using ios or itunes or any of apples products,  I would like to say the same about android but I just can't,  I have no problem with the concept of android and the general usage.   But with both of them it's the companies behind them that aggravate me as a consumer.   Turn of GPS and google play has a conniption (we all know why),  Have a problem with your ipad and they tell you the water indicators mean it isn't covered by warranty or they tell you "it's cheaper to buy another one".  Both answers drive me nuts. Both companies are evil.

I kind of feel the same way.

 

I am in the market right now for a new phone, but can't decide if I want an iPhone, with great software support, good device, but Apple walled-garden. Hardware support has been good for me personally.

Or

a Google Pixel, with good, but not great software support, (so less longevity), more reasonable cost, but supporting the Google giant.

 

Neither option appeals to me right now. I do think Apple is better when it comes to protecting your data / privacy than Google.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

But the content of the lawsuit was very case specific and was also about hardware and was an actual example of a company trying to monopolise and industry vs this which just flat out isn't.

monopoly law doesn't care what the product type is.  When a company uses it's market power unfairly

it is guilty of anti trust.  Intel did this, and now apple are.  

 

2 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

 

No apple is saying they can agree to the ToS of THEIR platform or they don't get to sell stuff on it. 

and when that platform  is a substantial part of the market t is called anti trust.  You literally just explained anti trust.  When any company has sufficient market power to be able to say our way or the highway it is a monopoly.

 

 

The rest of your post isn't worth responding to as anyone who read the first 2 pages of this 16 page thread would already have worked out it is wrong.

 

[Delicieuxz]

10 hours ago, Arika S said:

This isn't a defense. in fact you should more pissed off at them for effectively saying "you don't own this phone you just bought" and giving you two middle fingers.

 

Also to bring the ToS into this discussion is pointless, ToS's are not ironclad, ever, they get challenged in courts all the time. In fact, i would suggest you read this amazing write up from @Delicieuxz regarding software ownership

 

 

 

By using the ToS as a shield to hide behind and the stupid "their platform their rules" you've effectively relegated yourself to a position where you're not allowed to criticize any company ever or any of their products.

 

Consumers should be the ones telling companies what to do, not the other way around... because without us, they have no money.

 

I don't own an iPhone and I haven't looked into how they're marketed and sold, but I'm guessing that with iPhones and Android phones it's the same and that the phone is advertised for sale and sold, while the OS and preinstalled software are just freebies that come on it and so a person doesn't become owner of those things because they didn't buy them.

 

But software bought through an app store does become owned by the purchaser because they bought them: You buy and own the phone. The OS and pre-installed software are freebies and you didn't pay for them and so you don't own them. People buy and own the software they purchase through app stores.

 

An Apple ToS claim that people don't own the software they purchase through an app store would be rendered null and void in the face of the actual exchange of money for a software item through the Apple store. It would be like a sign you see after walking through a doorway that says "you didn't walk through the doorway" - it's simply denying reality.

 

Apple also doesn't own any of the 3rd-party software they sell through their store, they merely provide the medium for developers and publishers to host and sell their software and Apple gets a cut after a copy of software is sold, and so Apple has no authority to set terms over buyer rights anyway.

 

Because Apple owns their app store, they can set terms over the usage of their store that developers have to follow in order to be able to market their software through the store, or for customers to have an account with their store and make purchases. But the terms they can set are limited to how people use their store and not to things beyond the store such as what their ownership rights are over purchased software. And because Apple never come into ownership of the 3rd-party apps that are sold through their store, they aren't in a position to even claim to set terms over them for the buyer.

 

 

I've just added a section to the "You own the software that you purchase" post to clarify the difference between an EULA and a ToS.

 

• An EULA and a Terms of Service (ToS) are not the same thing. An EULA purports to apply to a good you've purchased and own, to impose conditions on how you use your own property, and so is invalid. A Terms of Service applies to a service, owned by someone else, that you use via a subscription license or a free account, and so a ToS can be valid. Someone else isn't entitled to set terms for your usage of your own property, which is what an EULA tries to do. But they are entitled to set the terms over your usage of their own property, which is what a ToS aims to do. However, a ToS can still be invalid depending on what terms it claims. And if a ToS tries to add in conditions about your usage of your own property, such as software you've purchased or perhaps modification of your hardware, then at least that part of it is invalid. Just as how some perpetual-license software might include a component that requires a subscription-license for its typical usage (as with some MMOs), a software good that you own might have an online component to which a ToS applies for the sake of accessing 3rd-party servers, with those 3rd-party servers not being a part of your ownership of the base game software you purchased.

[Lord Vile]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

monopoly law doesn't care what the product type is.  When a company uses it's market power unfairly

it is guilty of anti trust.  Intel did this, and now apple are.  

But it does care about context. Intel allowed AMD to essentially copy the architecture when they first brought out x86 until it established industry dominance then tried to cut AMD off to gain a monopoly over a business sector. The App store has always been the app store with similar TOS, doesn't have market dominance and has viable competition from the likes of android it's a completely different scenario.

Quote

 

and when that platform  is a substantial part of the market t is called anti trust.  You literally just explained anti trust.  When any company has sufficient market power to be able to say our way or the highway it is a monopoly.

Android has more market share than iOS, PS has a near monopoly on games consoles, Google has basically a monopoly on web browsers etc etc. The 30% fee is pretty much industry standard and it is in no way a monopoly because you can literally just buy ANY other phone that's not made by apple. If it truly were a monopoly like the one intel tried to engineer you would have no choice but to use the app store because there would only be iPhones, a monopoly cannot exist when there is viable competition and choice. 

Quote

 

 

The rest of your post isn't worth responding to as anyone who read the first 2 pages of this 16 page thread would already have worked out it is wrong.

 

No you just can't answer it

[Helpful Tech Witch]

1 hour ago, Delicieuxz said:

OS and preinstalled software are just freebies that come on it and so a person doesn't become owner of those things because they didn't buy them.

no, you own a licence to use those OSes, like it is with a windows laptop. You buy the laptop, with windows preinstalled,and then you own a windows licence.

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

But it does care about context. Intel allowed AMD to essentially copy the architecture when they first brought out x86 until it established industry dominance then tried to cut AMD off to gain a monopoly over a business sector.

No, AMD paid for a license to x86 architecture just like the other chip makers in the early days.  Intel did not try to cut AMD of to gain a monopoly . They used their existing monopoly to cut AMD off.   If you are going to argue there is a difference in the law and/or the case then you should first familiarize yourself with the case.

14 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

The App store has always been the app store with similar TOS, doesn't have market dominance and has viable competition from the likes of android it's a completely different scenario.

Android has more market share than iOS,

Why are you still saying the same thing?  later in this post you say I never address these but I have addressed them several times,  1. numbers don't mean anything for a monopoly to occur, 2. apples app store is market dominance as it controls a significant part of the market.

14 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

PS has a near monopoly on games consoles, Google has basically a monopoly on web browsers etc etc. The 30% fee is pretty much industry standard and it is in no way a monopoly because you can literally just buy ANY other phone that's not made by apple.

you've already said that, but you aren't comprehending why it doesn't change anything.  Google does have a monopoly and the EU has already hit them for it, maybe PS does have a monopoly, who cares as it doesn't change the fact that apple IS a monopoly.

14 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

If it truly were a monopoly like the one intel tried to engineer

Intel have a monopoly, they didn't try to engineer it, they already had it.  Are you just trolling now or what?

14 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

you would have no choice but to use the app store because there would only be iPhones, a monopoly cannot exist when there is viable competition and choice. 

Again you are not understanding, you think because android exists that apple can;t be a monopoly,  that is false, several articles have been linked showing that it is false.  there are alternatives to windows but that is still a monopoly, there were alternatives to intel when they were done for anti trust (monopoly).  The existence of alternatives does not automatically make a monopoly impossible. 

14 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

No you just can't answer it

I have answered,  and I have answered again in this post. 

 

It really is pointless trying to explain  this to someone who refuses to give any thought to the rational.  feel free to have the last word if that's what you need.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Delicieuxz]

33 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

no, you own a licence to use those OSes, like it is with a windows laptop. You buy the laptop, with windows preinstalled,and then you own a windows licence.

Like I said, in my post, I haven't looked into how Apple handles their OS licensing. But you can have a license without ownership over the related software, and you can have a license with ownership over the related software.

 

Buying a Windows license, which is a right to use the Windows IP via your purchased copy of it, involves becoming owner over your copy of Windows, because a copy is what you bought and your ownership over your copy is your license to use the IP for the purpose of using your copy. But using software that is free to use via a GNU General Public License, or other free-use licensing system, doesn't confer any ownership over a copy of the software that is free to use, because nothing was bought.

 

Android uses free licensing, so anyone can use it (though some components need to be licensed from Google by phone manufacturers), but, AFAIK, people who buy phones with it pre-installed don't own a copy of the OS because they didn't pay for a copy, it just came pre-installed and is free to use. I assumed that iOS on mobile phones is handled the same way, but I could be wrong.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Like I said, in my post, I haven't looked into how Apple handles their OS licensing.

 

I think for the purposes of the thread and the context of 3rd party software ownership it probably doesn't matter.

 

No one buys a phone based on whether or not they own the OS. No one even thinks about where the software comes from. 

[Delicieuxz]

48 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

no, you own a licence to use those OSes, like it is with a windows laptop. You buy the laptop, with windows preinstalled,and then you own a windows licence.

 

21 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I think for the purposes of the thread and the context of 3rd party software ownership it probably doesn't matter.

 

No one buys a phone based on whether or not they own the OS. No one even thinks about where the software comes from. 

 

It sounds like iOS is free software that anyone can freely use, distribute, and modify, and so it isn't something end users own because they don't pay for the copy of it on their iPhones or their usage of it:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS

 

"It is proprietary software under the Apple Public Source License."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Public_Source_License

[Delicieuxz]

I think that the Wikipedia information is wrong, or I've read it incorrectly, because the license agreements on Apple's website for iOS sound very different and don't sound like free software at all.

 

https://www.apple.com/ca/legal/sla/

https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iOS13_iPadOS13.pdf

https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iOS12.pdf

 

"2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions. (a) Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to use the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded Device. Except as permitted in Section 2(b) below, and unless as provided in a separate agreement between you and Apple, this License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one Apple-branded Device at a time, and you may not distribute or make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple Devices at the same time."

 

"This License does not allow you to update or restore any iOS Device that you do not control or own, and you may not distribute or make the iOS Software Updates available over a network where they could be used by multiple devices or multiple computers at the same time. If you download an iOS Software Update to your computer, you may make one copy of the iOS Software Updates stored on your computer in machinereadable form for backup purposes only, provided that the backup copy must include all copyright or other proprietary notices contained on the original."

 

 

So, I have no idea what the situation is with iPhone OS licensing.

[Lord Vile]

54 minutes ago, mr moose said:

No, AMD paid for a license to x86 architecture just like the other chip makers in the early days.  Intel did not try to cut AMD of to gain a monopoly . They used their existing monopoly to cut AMD off. 

As I said they had a deal with AMD that allowed AMD to use x86 and clone intel chips until intel decided they were going to end the deal to secure a monopoly. 

54 minutes ago, mr moose said:

If you are going to argue there is a difference in the law and/or the case then you should first familiarize yourself with the case.

Maybe you should

54 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Why are you still saying the same thing?  later in this post you say I never address these but I have addressed them several times,  1. numbers don't mean anything for a monopoly to occur, 2. apples app store is market dominance as it controls a significant part of the market.

Can you make up your mind. Either numbers matter or they don't. Market share is a number. Also what are we called significant? Apple current has 20-25% market share depending on source. 

54 minutes ago, mr moose said:

you've already said that, but you aren't comprehending why it doesn't change anything.  Google does have a monopoly and the EU has already hit them for it, maybe PS does have a monopoly, who cares as it doesn't change the fact that apple IS a monopoly.

Apart from apple has max 25% of the market and sony has around 70% of current gen home consoles... 

 

Bringing up the google Eu fine also invalidates your point as one of the points found by the EU antitrust investigation was:

The Commission decision concludes that Google is dominant in the markets for ...licensable smart mobile operating systems...

 

So how can Apple and google both have a monopoly have market dominance in the same field, especially when one has 3x the marketshare.

54 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Intel have a monopoly, they didn't try to engineer it, they already had it.  Are you just trolling now or what?

They didn't with at the launch of x86 and up to their attempted axing of AMD they didn;t have a monopoly, x86 did and still does but since AMD could make the chips too and had a decent amount of marketshare then it wasn't a monopoly for intel. 

54 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Again you are not understanding, you think because android exists that apple can;t be a monopoly,  that is false, several articles have been linked showing that it is false.  there are alternatives to windows but that is still a monopoly, there were alternatives to intel when they were done for anti trust (monopoly).

Except there wasn't VIABLE competition whereas android is the marketshare leader so is more than viable competition, Intel and AMD made x86 the industry standard meaning if AMD couldn't make x86 chips anymore then Intel controlled and was the sole manufacturer of the x86 based chips. Also around W7 which is the monopoly case for Microsoft you're talking about there weren't and still aren't any alternatives to windows for the vast majority of usecases just down to software compatibility and ubiquity. 

54 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

 

  The existence of alternatives does not automatically make a monopoly impossible. 

Viable alternatives make it impossible. Please look up the word viable in a dictionary because you seem to be either ignoring the word or ignoring it.

54 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I have answered,  and I have answered again in this post. 

54 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

It really is pointless trying to explain  this to someone who refuses to give any thought to the rational.  feel free to have the last word if that's what you need.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No you're still ignoring my points and making up ones you want to answer.

[pas008]

@mr moose

why try arguing with these guys they want mafia style business operations no matter how you look at it

they think tos is end all be all to their mafia

they think these companies should be able to take over a quarter cut from everyone because its their territory and then they can work together to fuck over everyone by keeping it this way of business

just by hosting an app on their store and not letting any other store there plus the app developer has to take of the expenses and control what they can do with said app

they dont think this needs to change and cant see the end result

 

 

 

 

[SansVarnic]

-= Topic Locked =-

 

Topic has run its course.