Apple now worth TWO TRILLION US$

[suicidalfranco]

3 hours ago, Kisai said:

No, they should absolutely be ignored. He claimed Apple stole his batteries when he really had counterfeits made and Apple was in the right. Why should I believe anything he has ever said about anything now. The ends do not justify the means when no life is at stake. This is just computer tech, not life saving ventilators or insulin.

ok. 

Susan B Anthony was a criminal. Never had the morale high ground. Cause she broke the law. 

[Kisai]

11 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

ok. 

Susan B Anthony was a criminal. Never had the morale high ground. Cause she broke the law. 

Susan B Anthony was arrested for voting, something that men could do. That's a completely different context. There is no right for ANYONE to produce counterfeit merchandise for any reason, except to scam people with unsafe/unsanitary products. You may as well argue that people should reuse disposable masks.

[3 Lions]

It's a shame they can't act like one half the time, pity that really. 

[Mark Kaine]

18 hours ago, vortextech77 said:

Every company has a "cult fanbase".

Yes, but not in the literal sense,  Apple actually does.  Just go into a big city 1 or 2 days before a new iphone releases.  It's most bizarre.  

[Kisai]

Let's not spread this accross 5 threads okay? The mods closed the wrong thread and should have closed the other pointless ones.

 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/21/apple-says-epic-games-ceo-wanted-a-side-deal-for-fortnite.html

Epic wanted a side deal for Fortnite.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.36.0_2.pdf

Quote

For years, Epic took advantage of everything Apple’s App Store has to offer. It availed itself of the tools, technology, software, marketing opportunities, and worldwide customer reach that Apple provided so that it could bring its creativity to iOS and games like Infinity Blade and Fortnite to the App Store. It enjoyed the tremendous resources that Apple pours into the App Store to constantly innovate to create new opportunities for developers and experiences for customers, as well as to review and approve every app, keeping the App Store safe and secure for customers and developers alike. Over time, in part because of the opportunities Apple made available, Epic grew to a multi-billion dollar enterprise with large investors like the Chinese tech giant Tencent pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the company. Now, having decided that it would rather enjoy the benefits of the App Store without paying for them, Epic has breached its contracts with Apple, using its own customers and Apple’s users as leverage.

 

In the wake of its own voluntary actions, Epic now seeks emergency relief. But the “emergency” is entirely of Epic’s own making. Epic’s agreements with Apple expressly spell out that if an app developer violates the rules of the App Store or the license for development tools— both of which apply and are enforced equally to all developers large and small—Apple will stop working with that developer. Developers who work to deceive Apple, as Epic has done here, are terminated. So when Epic willfully and knowingly breached its agreements by secretly installing a “hotfix” into its app to bypass Apple’s payment system and App Review Process, it knew full well what would happen and, in so doing, has knowingly and purposefully created the harm to game players and developers it now asks the Court to step in and remedy. Relief in these circumstances is not available under the law. And the injunction Epic seeks would threaten for everyone the benefits that Epic, developers and App Store customers have long enjoyed.

 

First, TROs exist to remedy irreparable harm, not easily reparable self-inflicted wounds, particularly under the Ninth Circuit’s exacting standard for a mandatory injunction. Here, Epic executed a carefully orchestrated, multi-faceted campaign, complete with a parody video, merchandise, hashtag, belligerent tweets and now a pre-packaged TRO. All of the injury Epic claims to itself, game players, and developers could have been avoided if Epic filed its lawsuitwithout breaching its agreements. All of that alleged injury for which Epic improperly seeks emergency relief could disappear tomorrow if Epic cured its breach. Apple has offered Epic the opportunity to cure, to go back to the status quo before Epic installed its “hotfix” that turned into its hot mess, and to be welcomed back into the App Store. All of this can happen without any intervention of the Court or expenditure of judicial resources. And Epic would be free to pursue its primary lawsuit. But Epic does not want to remedy the harm that it contends requires immediate relief because it has a different goal in mind: it wants the Court to allow it to free ride on Apple’s innovation, intellectual property and user trust.

 

Second, Epic has not and cannot show that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its novel antitrust claims. The App Store has exponentially increased output, reduced prices, and dramatically improved consumer choice. As the Ninth Circuit declared just last week, novel business practices—especially in technology markets—should not be “conclusively presumed to be unreasonable and therefore illegal without elaborate inquiry as to the precise harm they have caused or the business excuse for their use.” United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 91 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (quoted in Federal Trade Comm’n v. Qualcomm Inc., 2020 WL 4591476, at *9, __ F.3d at __ (9th Cir. Aug. 11, 2020)). Epic, however, does not undertake any “elaborate inquiry” in its motion. For example, it fails to enlist any economist to support its contrived market definitions and “tying” theories. It conveniently ignores that Fortnite can be played on numerous platforms with or without support from Apple, even as Epic touts that fact in its advertising and communications to users. See https:// www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/freefortnite-cupon-august-23-2020 (“Just because you can’t play on iOS doesn’t mean there aren’t other awesome places to play Fortnite.”). And it fails to contend with the fact that its logic would make monopolies of Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo, just to name a few. The lack of factual, economic, and legal support is unsurprising because Epic’s antitrust theories, like its orchestrated campaign, are a transparent veneer for its effort to co-opt for itself the benefits of the App Store without paying or complying with important requirements that are critical to protect user safety, security, and privacy.

 

Third, the public interest and the balance of hardships do not and could not weigh in favor of Epic’s decision to breach its contract because it no longer wanted to play by Apple’s longstanding rules. Injunctions do not exist to give parties the contracts they wish they had. And an injunction would set off a flood of additional requests for “emergency” relief and threaten the entire App Store ecosystem as developers see they can breach their agreements, jeopardize the security of the App Store, and circumvent payments to Apple, all without consequence. The public would not benefit, and Apple’s users would be the ultimate victims by losing the privacy, security, and quality experience of the curated App Store. 

 

Apple wants Epic on iOS. Apple wants customers to have access to the games they love from Epic and every other developer. What’s more, the success of Epic and so many other developers is exactly what Apple hoped for more than ten years ago when it opened the doors of the App Store. But Epic’s success does not entitle it to have this Court step in and remedy the harm it knowingly created, nor is there any legal basis for that. If Epic is looking for immediate relief for its customers, it can remove its “hotfix,” continue to comply with the contracts it signed and that apply to everyone else, and go on to pursue its legal challenge in this Court.

Read the rest of the document before commenting.

 

Quote

The experience of Fortnite outside of the iOS environment illustrates the importance of Apple’s approach to app review and security. In 2018, Fortnite announced that Android versions of the game would be available on the web, and immediately sites appeared that not only advertised Android Fortnite but also distributed malware in the game.9 As one commentator noted, “Unsurprisingly, malware versions of Fortnite targeted unsuspecting gamers in the months following the Android launch, which is what malicious individuals would do with any popular app that’s available from outside the app store.”10 By 2019, Epic acknowledged security vulnerabilities in non-iOS versions of Fortnite that exposed hundreds of millions of players to being hacked.11

Like, clearly that was going to happen, and that's why game consoles are reluctant to cross-play with PC and Android.

 

Quote

1. Apple Manifestly Lacks Monopoly Power Epic does not address (and asserts no likelihood of success on) its claims that Apple has a monopoly in a novel “iOS App Distribution Market” and has violated the Sherman Act by declining to facilitate the download of iOS apps other than through the App Review process. Compl. ¶¶ 184- 92, 207-15. Epic must prove the existence of such a monopoly to sustain its tying claim, because Epic alleges that iOS app distribution is the “tying” product and that Apple “wields its market power in the iOS App Distribution Market to coerce developers into using IAP.” TRO Br. at 17. Even if one was to assume that IAP is a separate “tied” product (which, as explained below, it is not), Epic’s tying claim fails because a market limited to “iOS apps” has no basis in reality. See Aerotec Int’l, Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 836 F.3d 1171, 1178 (9th Cir. 2016) (tying claim requires market power in tying market); Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 586 F. Supp. 2d 1190, 1200 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (rejecting tying claim premised on Apple’s monopoly power in supposed “Mac OS market”).

 

A “manufacturer’s own products do not themselves comprise a relevant product market” and a “company does not violate the Sherman Act by virtue of the natural monopoly it holds over its own product.” Psystar, 586 F. Supp. 2d at 1197-98 (quoting Green Country Food Market, Inc. v. Bottling Group, 371 F.3d 1275, 1282 (10th Cir. 2004)). Courts routinely “‘reject the argument that a single branded product constitutes a relevant market.’” Id.; see also id. at 1198 (“Singlebrand markets are, at a minimum, extremely rare”). For this reason, the Psystar court held that a relevant market limited to the Mac OS was an improper, single-brand market, and dismissed tying claims based on Apple requiring only the Mac OS to be used on Apple computers. Id. at 1193, 1197-98. The only authority Epic offers in support of its single-brand iOS Mobile App Distribution and iOS In-App Payment Processing markets is an administrative decision of the European Commission—which interprets only “European competition law.” TRO Br. at 15.

 

An antitrust market must include services “reasonably interchangeable by [developers] for the same purposes,” United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377, 395 (1956)— here, getting their games in front of millions. Fortnite has achieved success by taking advantage of the multiple distribution channels available to gamers, including other mobile app marketplaces, video game consoles, and personal and laptop computers. See Hicks v. PGA Tour, Inc., 897 F.3d 1109, 1111, 1120 (9th Cir. 2018) (dismissing antitrust claim when relevant market ignored multiple ways that advertisers reached consumers, including through television, radio, podcasts, and magazines); Psystar, 586 F. Supp. 2d at 1199 (rejecting tying claim because “Mac OS performs the same functions as other operating systems”). Epic claims to exclude these competitors because they “are not compatible with iOS and do not offer iOS-compatible apps.” Compl. ¶ 54. But, while that may be factually true, it says nothing about whether the iOS platform is interchangeable for other outlets in the eyes of developers and consumers. See Queen City Pizza, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 124 F.3d 430, 437 (3d Cir. 1997) (“interchangeability” means that “one product is roughly equivalent to another for the use to which it is put”).

 

There is substantial evidence of competition among platforms on which Fortnite is played. Fortnite achieved enormous popularity and attracted tens of millions of users before it launched on iOS.22 Fortnite was among the first games to offer “cross-platform” play; and still today, consumers have ready access to Fortnite through “Sony’s PlayStation 4, Microsoft’s Xbox One and the Nintendo Switch, personal computers and Macs [and] certain Android mobile devices.” TRO Br. at 5. Under Epic’s theory, each of these platforms with millions of users based on their own technology would be a monopoly. Epic’s position on market definition is particularly startling given Epic’s own admission that most people play Fortnite through platforms other than iOS, see Sweeney Decl. ¶ 12 (iOS “will be unable to play Fortnite with most other players” (emphasis added)), not to mention the fact that, of the more than $1.8 billion earned by Fortnite in 2019, less than 12% came from iOS.23

Apple says they are not a monopoly.

[Mark Kaine]

On 8/20/2020 at 4:19 PM, WikiForce said:

they make decent quality products but they have a monopoly

I mean we will see how this all turns out but this claim always strikes me as soooo weird,  they have a monopoly on decent quality products lol what. 

 

In all seriousness though, do you know what a "monopoly" is? 

 

Do you also know apple has a market share of only 25 something % worldwide? 

 

This isn't a "monopoly"  in any way not even close,  more like underdog (who nobody likes) 

 

I get it tho,  in America the situation is different,  they still don't have a vast majority of market share... If anything a case could be made that Google and Apple form a duopoly (which very well could be illegal) 

 

 

We will see,  and sorry, no offense but blatantly saying apple has a "monopoly"  (on what exactly?)  is flat out wrong.

 

Quote

Definition: A market structure characterized by a single seller, selling a unique product in the market. In a monopoly market, the seller faces no competition, as he is the sole seller of goods with no close substitute.

 

[Mark Kaine]

17 hours ago, Kisai said:

Let's not spread this accross 5 threads okay? The mods closed the wrong thread and should have closed the other pointless ones.

So you're saying apple reaching a milestone of "2 trillion" dollarios and the whole "epic vs apple vs google"  fiasco should be discussed in the same thread,  because they're the same thing? 

Yes there are obviously some points both topics share but putting everything "apple" into one mega thread doesn't strike me as very reasonable currently, especially since you're probably well aware how things go on this forum and mods will close threads at any point because they've "run their course" even when they apparently didn't because they're about an *on-going* situation. 

 

 

Now I'm not saying that's a bad thing necessarily but I do think separate news and discussions should definitely have separate topics (especially but not only because of above outlined reasons) 

[Kisai]

4 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

So you're saying apple reaching a milestone of "2 trillion" dollarios and the whole "epic vs apple vs google"  fiasco should be discussed in the same thread,  because they're the same thing? 

Yes there are obviously some points both topics share but putting everything "apple" into one mega thread doesn't strike me as very reasonable currently, especially since you're probably well aware how things go on this forum and mods will close threads at any point because they've "run their course" even when they apparently didn't because they're about an *on-going* situation. 

 

 

Now I'm not saying that's a bad thing necessarily but I do think separate news and discussions should definitely have separate topics (especially but not only because of above outlined reasons) 

Because it's the same people in each thread and we're literately repeating the same arguments 5 times across 5 threads, and moderators haven't decided to fold any of them. The news item in the first post may be different but it's all in the same theme of "whoa Apple did a bad, what else did apple do in the last 12 months"

[Mark Kaine]

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

Because it's the same people in each thread and we're literately repeating the same arguments 5 times across 5 threads, and moderators haven't decided to fold any of them. The news item in the first post may be different but it's all in the same theme of "whoa Apple did a bad, what else did apple do in the last 12 months"

Well I agree I wasn't entirely "on topic" either  but I'd like to discuss the subject of this thread as much as the whole epic vs the world shenanigans, so I really think at least some topics should be allowed to exist - because a hypothetical mega thread would only make things worse (though I don't think it's that bad either from what I've been seeing tbh) 

[mr moose]

11 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

I mean we will see how this all turns out but this claim always strikes me as soooo weird,  they have a monopoly on decent quality products lol what. 

 

In all seriousness though, do you know what a "monopoly" is? 

 

Do you also know apple has a market share of only 25 something % worldwide? 

 

This isn't a "monopoly"  in any way not even close,  more like underdog (who nobody likes) 

 

I get it tho,  in America the situation is different,  they still don't have a vast majority of market share... If anything a case could be made that Google and Apple form a duopoly (which very well could be illegal) 

 

 

We will see,  and sorry, no offense but blatantly saying apple has a "monopoly"  (on what exactly?)  is flat out wrong.

 

 

As I pointed out in the other thread, that is not the definition of a monopoly in legal terms.  A monopoly (anti trust) is a company using its market power to control trade.

 

Numbers by themselves don't mean anything. 

[Ertman]

On 8/21/2020 at 1:28 PM, Mark Kaine said:

Yes, but not in the literal sense,  Apple actually does.  Just go into a big city 1 or 2 days before a new iphone releases.  It's most bizarre.  

Not much different then when used to see people lining up for days for console releases. People used to do that kind of thing for just about anything, concert tickets, movie premiers,  or anything where there’s a limited supply and high demand that required you to be a specific location to get your hands on it. Concert tickets and movie premiers are different now as the internet took away the need to be physically in a location to get tickets. Apparently sneakers is a big thing in some communities. Consoles are still kinda big for hype and people waiting in line. I am sure there are many others.

I guess if Apple has licensed their tech away and there were several iOS phones being launched throughout the year then there would be relatively no lineup for an Apple phone. 

[Kisai]

8 minutes ago, Ertman said:

Not much different then when used to see people lining up for days for console releases. People used to do that kind of thing for just about anything, concert tickets, movie premiers,  or anything where there’s a limited supply and high demand that required you to be a specific location to get your hands on it. Concert tickets and movie premiers are different now as the internet took away the need to be physically in a location to get tickets. Apparently sneakers is a big thing in some communities. Consoles are still kinda big for hype and people waiting in line. I am sure there are many others.

I guess if Apple has licensed their tech away and there were several iOS phones being launched throughout the year then there would be relatively no lineup for an Apple phone. 

Guess you've never seen adult "collectors" line up an hour before a store that sells toys opens to raid the hotwheels and diecast cars before the kids get to it. I hadn't realized people were into that stuff at the time, and wondered why we didn't put the collectible stuff out in the morning. Oh right, then there were the notorious beyblades that everyone called the store about.

 

The thing is, ultimately you can't really predict what people will want to collect. The iPhone's you can also just pre-order online, and get around the same time the store gets it. Not that I think it's ever a wise idea to be the first in line for a product. That's almost a guarantee you get the models with the minor engineering defects as people get up to speed on the manufacturing lines. Never again I say.

 

[Ertman]

42 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Guess you've never seen adult "collectors" line up an hour before a store that sells toys opens to raid the hotwheels and diecast cars before the kids get to it.

...

The iPhone's you can also just pre-order online, and get around the same time the store gets it. 

Sure have, well maybe not those specific items. I am the one saying that it’s not and Apple-centric thing and that this happens all the time with many different products, events or even services.
 

Sure you could preorder online, until they sell out, but there is still the few that gets to you local store. Honestly the lineups have shrunk drastically compared to what they once were because of the preorders, the yearly releases, and greater supply.

[Spindel]

4 hours ago, CircleTech said:

Tesla

Didn’t want to mention them because they have the absolute worst fan base of all time and you get jumped imediatley if you mention anything negative.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Spindel said:

Didn’t want to mention them because they have the absolute worst fan base of all time and you get jumped imediatley if you mention anything negative.

I hear tesla has a few negative battery terminals.  The engineering flaw is so prevalent you can't get a tesla without them.

[Quinnell]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I hear tesla has a few negative battery terminals.  The engineering flaw is so prevalent you can't get a tesla without them.

Well after hearing what Linus had to say about their...unique...way of handling quality control, I am even more anti-Tesla than I used to be.  And the environmental footprint of their battery factories kinda washes away the gains they make by not using fossil fuel engines.

 

That said, I am not a blind hater of anything Elon does.  I think his rocket program has definite promise and great benefits to mankind.  His Tesla program...eh, feels like it could've been done better I guess.

 

_{sorry for going a bit off-topic!}  

Edited August 23, 2020 by Quinnell
environmental, not economic. doh.

[lil5]

On 8/21/2020 at 3:59 AM, Kisai said:

No, they should absolutely be ignored. He claimed Apple stole his batteries when he really had counterfeits made and Apple was in the right. Why should I believe anything he has ever said about anything now. The ends do not justify the means when no life is at stake. This is just computer tech, not life saving ventilators or insulin.

After the global warming apocalypse hits us/kin I wonder at what social ladder a computer repair shop will be placed compared to Apple?

 

I’m not sure which to place higher or lower myself but there are definitely good answers for either and neither.