Microsoft joins Epic on the fight against Apple

[LAwLz]

2 minutes ago, Kisai said:

No you can create documents without ever logging in. The App behaves slightly differently from the web version in this regard since there is no place to save on the iPhone but "on the phone" thus making sharing it kinda less intuitive than simply saving to onedrive.

 

... and I jumped the gun a little. Looks like you can create, but you can't edit it again.

 

-snip-

 

Nah, this is something you kinda have to read between the lines. The iPad is exactly the size of the screen mentioned, but the iPad Pro is not. As I don't have an iPad Pro, I could not confirm this.

So what have we have concluded? That there are very valid reasons* for why someone with an iOS device would buy Office 365 and once they do that, if they do it through the app which is the more convenient thing, then Apple gets a 30% cut that I am sure Microsoft aren't happy with, so it makes sense that they would also want Apple to loosen up their rules on the platform.

 

 

*"reasons" being things like:

1) Wanting to use the app on your large size iPads, where Office 365 is not free.

2) Wanting to actually edit a document you have created.

3) Want Cloud storage.

4) Possibly wanting some of the premium, non-free features, like some paragraph tools, image manipulation tools, change tracking, etc. (Not sure about this one).

[paeschli]

Just a little story for a bit of perspective:

We're in the late 90s, Microsoft makes IE the default in their OS. They are not preventing any third party software, they don't demand a 30% cut of whatever software is downloaded through IE and they are not the gatekeeper of anything. 

They are completely trashed by the media and every tech guy on earth. This ended up with Microsoft being found guilty of abusing their monopoly position by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

 

Now we have Apple only allowing their own app store to be present on their OS, and they demand a 30% cut on everything that is downloaded through it. And yet this thread is full of iToddlers defending them.
 

[Mark Kaine]

27 minutes ago, paeschli said:

Just a little story for a bit of perspective:

We're in the late 90s, Microsoft makes IE the default in their OS. They are not preventing any third party software, they don't demand a 30% cut of whatever software is downloaded through IE and they are not the gatekeeper of anything. 

They are completely trashed by the media and every tech guy on earth. This ended up with Microsoft being found guilty of abusing their monopoly position by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

 

Now we have Apple only allowing their own app store to be present on their OS, and they demand a 30% cut on everything that is downloaded through it. And yet this thread is full of iToddlers defending them.
 

The *difference* however is MS actually had like 95% market share (for consumer PC OS's) at the end of the 90s.

 

That's insane (and they probably still have) 

 

 

I'm not saying there can't anything come out of this current dispute ( I expect at least a slap on the wrist for Apple) but to really go through with what Epic wants they'd need to rewrite and redefine what a "monopoly" is,  and I just don't see "them" doing this. ("them" being judges,  governments) 

 

It would basically also mean the end of "walled gardens"  which I also find very unlikely, as it would have many negative consequences,  especially economically - the last thing we need right now. 

 

Also note - I'm saying this as objectively as possible,  I personally wouldn't really mind the end of walled gardens (and by proxy how "capitalism" works) I'm just saying I don't see it happening at all.

 

 

Also don't tell me "but Apple has a monopoly on Apple"  because yes, they do, but that's not how a monopoly is defined - you need to be the biggest player by far (apple is not) and there can't be any viable alternatives (there are)  thus it's legally not a monopoly,  not even close. It's a walled garden, nothing else,  nothing more. 

 

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

 

It would basically also mean the end of "walled gardens"  which I also find very unlikely, as it would have many negative consequences,  especially economically - the last thing we need right now.

But that's exactly the point, any walled garden that is used to the advantage of one company and disadvantages either other trade or consumers is by definition a monopoly.     Also why would it be economically negative?  Lack of walled gardens haven't impacted development or tech advancement so far.

[LAwLz]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

But that's exactly the point, any walled garden that is used to the advantage of one company and disadvantages either other trade or consumers is by definition a monopoly.     Also why would it be economically negative?  Lack of walled gardens haven't impacted development or tech advancement so far.

I'd even say the opposite. That a lack of walled gardens have tremendously helped the economy.

Microsoft got slapped hard because they saw the rise of the Internet as a threat and wanted to control it. I don't think it's too far fetched to argue that it's because of the US regulating Microsoft with their push of Internet Explorer that we have a (somewhat) open Internet and stuff like Android and iOS. There is a very likely chance that of those things, nor Amazon would exist in their current shape if Microsoft had been allowed to control the Internet like they were on their way of doing.

 

 

I mean, right now we have a handful of companies controlling basically the world. They are worth trillions of dollars. To argue that they should be allowed to disadvantage competitors because "otherwise these companies might not make as much money" is kind of ludicrous. Making this handful of companies lose some control over the markets they currently dominate would most likely give rise to competitors which would help the economy, not harm it.

[Lord Vile]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

nope

I suggest you look into how those companies make their money.  The data you get for free is nothing but the most superficial.  Which is why people like you don't seem to understand it and think it is contradictory or wrong (except when you think it supports your argument of course).   

Actually they only sell analysis to businesses to pick apart their individual traffic which aside from a few minor things like google keywords is pretty much the same stats you can see for free. Oh and you get a much bigger sample size of 100,000 vs 500 page views. 

 

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Lack of walled gardens haven't impacted development or tech advancement so far.

You... don't even know that... So far "walled gardens" have always existed (and arguably pushed tech)

 

Also,  again,  it isn't technically a monopoly if you sell goods in your store that you can only get in your store (exclusivity happens all the time) 

It's only a monopoly when there are like no alternatives - that's the point.  Apple has literally nothing that's not available elsewhere - except hilarious pricing for subpar products (also not illegal btw) 

 

I could see them being forced to allow side loading, but no way that they open up their own store for "anyone" there's no legal basis for that and it doesn't make sense either (*if* there are other options) 

 

(and yes, side loading would mean you can install as many storefronts you wish,  Apple would have no control over that) 

 

PS: im very doubtful something like that will happen because apple will do everything to keep their walled garden / almost a monopoly but not really business concept,  but it could be - similar to how car companies can't say you voided your warranty because you used the "wrong" oil brand. 

 

That's just illegal - but not because BMW has a monopoly on BMW... that's just not how it works lol.

[mr moose]

11 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

Actually they only sell analysis to businesses to pick apart their individual traffic which aside from a few minor things like google keywords is pretty much the same stats you can see for free. Oh and you get a much bigger sample size of 100,000 vs 500 page views. 

 

They sell it to any one who is willing to pay.   The whole reason business buys it is because it is good data that helps them design and market their products.

 

10 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

You... don't even know that... So far "walled gardens" have always existed (and arguably pushed tech)

The first personal computer to ever exists was not a walled garden, personal computers have NEVER been walled gardens. 

 

10 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

Also,  again,  it isn't technically a monopoly if you sell goods in your store that you can only get in your store (exclusivity happens all the time) 

It's only a monopoly when there are like no alternatives - that's the point.  Apple has literally nothing that's not available elsewhere - except hilarious pricing for subpar products (also not illegal btw) 

You clearly don't understand what constitutes a monopoly.   There are NO alternatives to the app store. so half the mobile population has no choice over where to buy their apps and developers have NO option other than apple policy.

 

 

10 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

I could see them being forced to allow side loading, but no way that they open up their own store for "anyone" there's no legal basis for that and it doesn't make sense either (*if* there are other options) 

You clearly haven't been reading any of the posts if you think people are forcing them open there store to anyone.  They are being asked to allow other stores to open.  That is a very different thing.  Honestly when you buy a phone you should be able to simply select where you buy your software from exactly like you can with a desktop. Again, no one is asking apple to change their store, they are asking for the ios to permit alternatives.   Thatuis not unreasonable .

 

10 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

(and yes, side loading would mean you can install as many storefronts you wish,  Apple would have no control over that) 

 

PS: im very doubtful something like that will happen because apple will do everything to keep their walled garden / almost a monopoly but not really business concept,  but it could be - similar to how car companies can't say you voided your warranty because you used the "wrong" oil brand. 

Apple will do everything to hold onto it,  and convince you you want it also.  Doesn't make it right or legal.

 

10 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

That's just illegal - but not because BMW has a monopoly on BMW... that's just not how it works lol.

If BMW were making consumers buy a whole new car in order to repair it anywhere else or buy fuel from anyone other than BMW it would be a monopoly.  

 

All these silly analogies that fail to account for the fact apple won't let their customers shop elsewhere.

 

 

[Lord Vile]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

They sell it to any one who is willing to pay.   The whole reason business buys it is because it is good data that helps them design and market their products.

Which is more down to location, age groups etc vs what OS people are on... It has conflicting data so the method they're using in regards to manufacturer and OS is clearly wrong. 

[mr moose]

10 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Which is more down to location, age groups etc vs what OS people are on... It has conflicting data so the method they're using in regards to manufacturer and OS is clearly wrong. 

You tried to use the data to prove a point, Then when you realize the data doesn't say what you want you attack the data.

 

Good job.

 

 

[Mark Kaine]

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The first personal computer to ever exists was not a walled garden, personal computers have NEVER been walled gardens. 

That's nice. I haven't said otherwise however? 

 

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

There are NO alternatives to the app store.

Yes, there is.  It's called Google play store. 

 

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You clearly don't understand what constitutes a monopoly

Clearly. 

 

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

If BMW were making consumers buy a whole new car in order to repair it anywhere else or buy fuel from anyone other than BMW it would be a monopoly. 

So you don't know what a monopoly is.

Got it. I can help:

Quote

Monopoly 

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.

I  do get the feeling you're just arguing for arguings sake - which is whatever, but please come at least up with some more convincing and more educated arguments, there really is no basis for an argument when you *apparently* do not know what the definition is of what we're *trying* to discuss or argue about. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lord Vile]

13 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You tried to use the data to prove a point, Then when you realize the data doesn't say what you want you attack the data.

 

Good job.

 

 

Which data did I try to use again because I didn't post a link to GS. It was the tech wizard guy who posted stats by manufacturer not OS which clash which draws the validity of the data into question.

[Lord Vile]

3 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

That's nice. I haven't said otherwise however? 

 

Yes, there is.  It's called Google play store. 

 

Clearly. 

 

So you don't know what a monopoly is.

Got it. I can help:

I  do get the feeling you're just arguing for arguings sake - which is whatever, but please come at least up with some more convincing and more educated arguments, there really is no basis for an argument when you *apparently* do not know what the definition is of what we're *trying* to discuss or argue about. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He'll cut whatever you say to suit what he wants to argue, no matter what point you make. 

[bcredeur97]

We’re seeing the downside to walled gardens unfold. 
 

just open up the platform let me use my phone like it’s a computer. Let me turn the “protect me” mode switch off if I want to. Just Make it my fault. 
 

that’s pretty much the only reason jailbreaking exists lol. People just want to be able to do whatever. And security researchers want to be able to do their research with an opened up platform. 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Mark Kaine said:

That's nice. I haven't said otherwise however? 

You also haven't shown an example of how not having a walled garden is going to be economically dangerous.  Especially given that nearly all tech developed without them.

 

1 minute ago, Mark Kaine said:

Yes, there is.  It's called Google play store. 

 

Not an alternative, apple won't let google sell directly to iphone and iphone owners can;t access it because of apples anti trust.  AND NO, YOU CANNOT JUST BUY A NEW PHONE.  That is the whole reason it is anti trust. 

 

1 minute ago, Mark Kaine said:

Clearly. 

 

So you don't know what a monopoly is.

Got it. I can help:

I  do get the feeling you're just arguing for arguings sake - which is whatever, but please come at least up with some more convincing and more educated arguments, there really is no basis for an argument when you *apparently* do not know what the definition is of what we're *trying* to discuss or argue about. 

 

 

 

Actually, given you keep repeating yourself and haven;t actually addressed anythign I have said ir asked why would you be so hypocritical?

 

You claimed a walled garden is better for the economy, I asked you to prove it and you haven't yet you keep banging on about it.

I have demonstrated how it is a monopoly, using the FTC's definition and the fact several judges have now permitted such cases to move forward (one of the prerequisite for a judge to allow a case to go to trial is proving that such a case is substantial and rests on substantial evidence.   You'll note specifically that apple trued to use the Illinois brick precedent to avoid one of the trials,  The Illinois brick precedent can only be used to defend a monopoly that exists.  Ergo by using it they are admitting they have a monopoly but want to argue they aren't using it to their advantage.

 

So far you have just kept repeating yourself and presented nothing. 

 

 

 

 

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Which data did I try to use again because I didn't post a link to GS. It was the tech wizard guy who posted stats by manufacturer not OS which clash which draws the validity of the data into question.

you tried to use ios market share.

5 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

He'll cut whatever you say to suit what he wants to argue, no matter what point you make. 

I'll cut down unqualified rhetoric that lacks any supporting evidence.  Just making claims is not enough, you have to reason them against known facts.   Claiming walled gardens are better for the economy require evidence to support it, not just telling the other person they are arguing for the sake of it.

 

 

 

 

[Lord Vile]

Just now, mr moose said:

you tried to use ios market share.

With validated sales numbers not internet activity ripped from random websites that contradicts itself.

Just now, mr moose said:

I'll cut down unqualified rhetoric that lacks any supporting evidence.  Just making claims is not enough, you have to reason them against known facts.   Claiming walled gardens are better for the economy require evidence to support it, not just telling the other person they are arguing for the sake of it.

Well if you overlay the stock price of Apple or Sony which both operate walled garden systems and the NASDAQ they pretty much mirror each other. So walled gardens = good for the economy I guess? 

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

With validated sales numbers not internet activity ripped from random websites that contradicts itself.

Random internet activity.  Someone doesn't understand statistical analysis.

 

Quote

Well if you overlay the stock price of Apple or Sony which both operate walled garden systems and the NASDAQ they pretty much mirror each other. So walled gardens = good for the economy I guess? 

Um, not exactly how evidence works,  your evidence needs to prove a link with a substantial effect size to justify the claim.  That, I am afraid, is less than a correlation that can literally be made by comparing any two companies.

 

apples products have been the result of open market places and free trade,  Sony's products are also the result of an open market place.  The fact they are trying to move into a walled garden doesn't make it better for the economy,  it only makes it better for them. You are now confusing where they are now with how they got there.

 

Apple didn't just pop up out of nowhere, in fact there initial products were founded on not being a walled garden.  The fact you could buy music on itunes DRM free and put it on ANY device, the fact anyone could program for the apple and the apple mac and sell their software without providing apple a cut, the fact the iphones development itself was all based on technology that was paid for buy open markets.  All show open markets are what developed the tech and made it big, not walled gardens, walled gardens are what tech companies do when they can no longer compete in an open market.

 

 

[Mark Kaine]

37 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I'll cut down unqualified rhetoric that lacks any supporting evidence

The irony. 

 

[Mark Kaine]

48 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

He'll cut whatever you say to suit what he wants to argue, no matter what point you make. 

Yeah,  I know  I can quote the official,  legal definition of monopoly a million times,  he'll just go "unqualified rethoric"

 

 

Problem is I have no time for that. 

 

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Yeah,  I know  I can quote the official,  legal definition of monopoly a million times,  he'll just go "unqualified rethoric"

 

 

Problem is I have no time for that. 

 

Do you really believe that?   You haven;t linked to anything let alone quoted something that actually says what you think it does.

 

I'm still waiting for evidence to your claims.

 

 

 

 

[Lord Vile]

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

Random internet activity.  Someone doesn't understand statistical analysis.

But it's not random they're casting the net as wide as they can and measuring everything that comes through all the time. For example search results different OS' might churn out different results, even factoring the type of website you're monitoring for example say 9to5Mac there's probably going to be some leaning to iOS in those figures. It's an incredibly flawed way to find that particular stat.

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

Um, not exactly how evidence works,  your evidence needs to prove a link with a substantial effect size to justify the claim.  That, I am afraid, is less than a correlation that can literally be made by comparing any two companies.

More than you've shown

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

apples products have been the result of open market places and free trade,  Sony's products are also the result of an open market place.  The fact they are trying to move into a walled garden doesn't make it better for the economy,  it only makes it better for them. You are now confusing where they are now with how they got there.

How is it not a walled garden exactly? Digital game sales have outpaced physical for near a decade now and the PS4 has sold more digital games than physical since 2019. If Apples products operate in an open market which policy terms that haven't been changed in years and marketshare that hasn't changed in years how are they suddenly a monopoly? 

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

Apple didn't just pop up out of nowhere, in fact there initial products were founded on not being a walled garden.  The fact you could buy music on itunes DRM free and put it on ANY device, the fact anyone could program for the apple and the apple mac and sell their software without providing apple a cut, the fact the iphones development itself was all based on technology that was paid for buy open markets.  All show open markets are what developed the tech and made it big, not walled gardens, walled gardens are what tech companies do when they can no longer compete in an open market.

 

 

You do know that if you buy music on iTunes you can literally just put in on any device still right? I can literally just go into my iTunes files and copy across music files. 

 

The app store cut has always been 30%

 

What open market tech? 

[Lord Vile]

12 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

Yeah,  I know  I can quote the official,  legal definition of monopoly a million times,  he'll just go "unqualified rethoric"

 

 

Problem is I have no time for that. 

 

Apparently now you can't get DRM free music from iTunes. Not that I can't just slide across any music file from iTunes I want. I'm sure I could send a screen recording to him of me doing it and he'd say it was edited or something

[mr moose]

18 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

You do know that if you buy music on iTunes you can literally just put in on any device still right?

 

now I know you aren't reading my posts.

18 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

. I'm sure I could send a screen recording to him of me doing it and he'd say it was edited or something

now I am certain you are just trolling. 

[Lord Vile]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

now I know you aren't reading my posts.

" The fact you could buy music on itunes DRM free and put it on ANY device" Hmmm you can still do that. 

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

now I am certain you are just trolling. 

No you just don't understand, well anything pretty much.