Apple must allow other forms of in-app purchases, rules judge in Epic v. Apple

[LAwLz]

9 hours ago, Video Beagle said:

There's android. There's Windows, there's MacOS, there's linux. plenty of places to compete. the iPhone is not a market. It's one place in a market.

That's ridiculous.

I seriously don't see how any rational person can look at iOS, look at the users, look at the app store and go "yeah, this is not a market".

I don't even get why it matters if it's a market or not. The fact of the matter is that iOS is such a big platform, with over 1 billion users, that it is insane how Apple are given unlimited power to restrict competitors in any way they deem fit without any repercussions.

 

The free market is built on the foundation that competitors are free to compete on the quality of their goods and services without intervention. The whole idea that Apple are the only ones who are allowed to process payments, only ones allowed to distribute software, only ones who determine what is and isn't allowed, etc, spits in the face of a free market.

[LAwLz]

5 hours ago, SlidewaysZ said:

First off Apple's app store fee is 15% for under $1 million per year otherwise it's higher. Second let's take square payments for example at only $1000 per month in sales the fee is 18.5% so in this regard Apple will win. However if you go over 250k in sales you get custom pricing for payments which I would almost guarante would be 15% or lower if you hit a million dollars in transactions it would be impossible to not find a payment processing company that will give you a better rate than 15% and that is building your payments into an existing platform. If you went with a more custom payment system it would easily beat out Apple's pricing (something epic and other large companies would be doing anyway). I'm not saying Apple doesn't have convenience for smaller companies however any decent sized mobile application will be moving (especially ones like floatplane) . As for friction while paying if a user can handle a pop-up for PayPal style payments on websites they can handle one in a app no problem. That's just my opinion though.

3 hours ago, harryk said:

Exactly, Apple's payment system is likely the best option for small developers, who are the vast majority on the App Store. The biggest players (i.e. Netflix, Spotify etc.) with existing external payment systems are going to benefit the most from this change.

 

Also worth noting that Apple only introduced the 15% fee under 1 million per as a result of this lawsuit, and that it is also not a permanent thing. It might be removed in the future, if Apple feels like it.

 

 

Also, see:

22 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Apple and their fans are speaking out of both sides of their mouths'. They always talk about how bad the competitors and alternatives are, but at the same time they are very worried that if users were given the choice, they would abandon the already established services they are used to and flock to these "inferior" competitors.

 

If it is true that Apple's payment system is superior, then Apple should not have anything to worry about with this ruling. If Apple's payment system is better then let it compete on those merits. It will still be used if it truly is better.

[Dracarris]

12 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

If it is true that Apple's payment system is superior, then Apple should not have anything to worry about with this ruling. If Apple's payment system is better then let it compete on those merits. It will still be used if it truly is better.

Well it is superior, by a lot, for the user. If you give the user the choice between Apple Pay and 3rd-party methods they will most probably always choose the former. The big question is how many sales are lost if you only offer 3rd party and depending on the payment granularity and frequency, at which percentage for Apple Pay a developer actually starts losing money.

 

If you offer both payment options to the customer but make the customer/end user eat even only a small fraction of the Apple Tax when using Apple Pay, basically no one would chose it. Again, the question is given a failed 3rd party payment, how many will cancel the purchase completely and how many will *sigh* and eat the (partial) Apple Tax.

 

Lots of unknowns here

[Dracarris]

30 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The free market is built on the foundation that competitors are free to compete on the quality of their goods and services without intervention. The whole idea that Apple are the only ones who are allowed to process payments, only ones allowed to distribute software, only ones who determine what is and isn't allowed, etc, spits in the face of a free market.

Well, playing devils advocate here. In the end iOS is a platform and the free market allows anyone to create a platform that attracts that many users. Apple having such an insane power is one of the purest realizations of the free market, capitalism without limits (U-S-A, U-S-A :P).

I also don't like what Apple is doing, but if we really want to do something about it, there needs to be a fundamental law change where we can regulate companies that have a de-facto mono- or duopoly in important markets. What many people are demanding now is nothing short of telling Apple who they have to allow in an ecosystem that they themselve created.

 

While we are at it, how about forbidding all the content restriction rules (e.g., legal pron/nudity) enforced on the App Store?

[LAwLz]

29 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Well it is superior, by a lot, for the user.

How is it superior exactly?

Remember that you have to factor in that developers have to raise prices when they choose to use Apple's payment system compared to another one, if they want to keep the same amount of revenue.

 

If I had to choose between a 10 dollar Apple payment, or an 8 dollar PayPal payment, then I don't really see how Apple's payment method is superior to me.

You have to judge the pros and cons of a system, not just the pros. The con of Apple's payment system is the huge cost compared to some other ones.

 

 

20 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Well playing devils advocate here. In the end iOS is a platform and the free market allows anyone to create a platform that attracts that many users. Apple having such an insane power is one of the purest realizations of the free market, capitalism without limits (U-S-A, U-S-A :P).

Free market does not mean "no laws or limits". One of the cornerstones of a working free market is that the market is an "open market", and one of the defining factors of an open market is that there is no external constraints on trades by the economic actors. In other words, it is not an open market if one actor (actor here means anyone, not just a country's government) is putting up restrictions for another actor, which is exactly what Apple is doing.

 

If something or someone is restricting the actions another trader wants to do, it is not an open market.

 

A free market might not be the best for everyone either. With a lot of things in life, there are more than just black and white solutions. 

 

 

20 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

I also don't like what Apple is doing, but if we really want to do something about it, there needs to be a fundamental law change where we can regulate companies that have a de-facto mono- or duopoly in important markets. What many people are demanding now is nothing short of telling Apple who they have to allow in an ecosystem that they themselve created.

Such laws already exists... We don't need law changes. We just need existing laws to be enforced.

Also, people have the right to demand Apple let in others into their ecosystem. That's exactly what has happened before. Microsoft for example used to have special APIs for Windows that only they were allowed to use. Do you want to know what happened? The US government stepped in, started enforcing the antitrust laws, and forced Microsoft to open up the APIs to other developers too.

[Dracarris]

15 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

How is it superior exactly?

You pay with a single tap without leaving the app. Superior in terms of user experience, classic Apple.

15 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

If I had to choose between a 10 dollar Apple payment, or an 8 dollar PayPal payment

Ofc given equal end-user prices and the dev eating the Apple tax. See discussion in my last post.

15 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Free market does not mean "no laws or limits". One of the cornerstones of a working free market is that the market is an "open market", and one of the defining factors of an open market is that there is no external constraints on trades by the economic actors. In other words, it is not an open market if one actor (actor here means anyone, not just a country's government) is putting up restrictions for another actor, which is exactly what Apple is doing.

The market here is not the iOS ecosystem, that is an ecosystem that Apple created within the mobile app market. Which is still open for anyone. As I said before, anyone is free to come up with a competing ecosystem, including devices.

15 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

If something or someone is restricting the actions another trader wants to do, it is not an open market.

So if Walmart refuses for company X to use their departement stores network for selling their goods for no or a very small cut, the market is not open anymore? Again, Walmart or iOS are not the free market but private ecosystems created within.

15 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Such laws already exists... We don't need law changes. We just need existing laws to be enforced.

I doubt these laws could force Apple to allow alternative app stores.

 

Disclaimer: All that playing devil's advocate. I also don't like the idea of Apple making so much money by doing basically nothing. Taking 30% off initial app download may be okay and appropriate for the reach, services and quality control they provide, similar to what Steam is doing. BUt a hard no for in-app purchases.

[hishnash]

13 hours ago, SlidewaysZ said:

You guys do know that PayPal exist right? So even small devs can setup a payment system with much lower fees than what Apple charges. If you don't think that small developers won't be more than happy to do this and maybe even give a small 5-10% discount for going out of the app store so that they only lose a few percent apposed to 30 percent then I would challenge you all to take an accounting and money management class. I predict Apple will be forced to cut dev fees at least in half or they risk losing almost all of it. 

You should not use paypal the API is disgusting, devs will use tools like stripe but remember the this order does not permit you to embed this within your app you will need to link out to a website, that then handles the payment, so you will need to setup a server to handle the payment and you will then need to have that server issue some form of license back to the app so as to unlock the item or have a server side user account that you update.  Depending on your app this is a lot of extra work to do. 

Given that apple will do a very good job of pushing users to not open that link, such as presenting a warning informing users that they are about to be subject to a scam were apple can't refund you etc. I would expect very few apps to bother with this solution. Apple will also require you to use a form of site verification for the link (eg you can't just link out to a third party website that handles this for you) as you will need to include some signatures in the root of the domain name you are linking to. 

The only apps that will really make use of this are apps at the moment that do not offer any IAP. Such as netflix, spotify etc but the other change apple announced last week already covers these apps.  

One important factor of the wording means that this change will not have a big impact on the gaming market, the reason being it is lining out to a webpage, most $ in the gaming space are impulse buys, if to do this you need tap ok on a scary system warning that opens a web page and then there you will need to login/enter your card details etc ... well your going to lose most of your impulse buys that way.  Remember if apple force you to still support IAP (the court order does not say apple can't force you to also offer IAP) so users will get the scary promot and have 2 options, pay with IAP (safely) or go to unverified unsafe ... web page. 

The simple fact that Epic are appealing this tells you everything.  Remember Epic want to have users tapping button in app and having a card charged in the background without any warnings or parental controls prompts (this is the best way to get children  to spend all the money linked to that Epic Games account). 

 

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Dracarris said:

You pay with a single tap without leaving the app. Superior in terms of user experience, classic Apple.

Could be done with for example PayPal as well, if Apple allowed it.

 

1 hour ago, Dracarris said:

Ofc given equal end-user prices and the dev eating the Apple tax. See discussion in my last post.

But that's not how it will work in the real world. You can't just say "well Apple's system is better if we ignore the drawbacks of it".

Of course it will be better if we ignore the drawbacks, but that's not how you should do a comparison. You have to compare one system with its pros and cons, vs another system with its pros and cons.

 

1 hour ago, Dracarris said:

The market here is not the iOS ecosystem, that is an ecosystem that Apple created within the mobile app market. Which is still open for anyone. As I said before, anyone is free to come up with a competing ecosystem, including devices.

That's just like, your opinion man. You could have made the same argument for Windows back when the US government punished them for running a monopoly.

iOS is a market in and of itself since it is so big. I don't understand why people have such a hard time understanding that. It was the same with Windows. There were other OSes as well, but it was still illegal for Microsoft to give themselves special access to APIs that other developers couldn't use.

The whole "well there are other OSes so it's not a monopoly" is so ridiculously stupid I can't actually fathom that someone can seriously hold that opinion. It's laughable. 

By the same logic, you might as well say the Internet isn't a market because books competes with it.

 

 

1 hour ago, Dracarris said:

So if Walmart refuses for company X to use their departement stores network for selling their goods for no or a very small cut, the market is not open anymore? Again, Walmart or iOS are not the free market but private ecosystems created within.

No, because Walmart is not a monopoly or even a duopoly.

If Walmart owned 55% of the stores in the US (iOS has 55% market share in the US) then yes, them refusing to carry some products because it would create competition with their own items would be anti-competitive and thus illegal as well.

That's something that some people seem to have a very hard time understanding. The more power and control you got, the more rules applies to you. The whole "well should stores have to carry product X even if they don't want to?!" is such a ridiculous argument because no store chain has anywhere near as big market share as iOS has.

 

And yes, if there were only 2 brands of stores in the entire world and both of them constantly harmed competitors to ensure only those two chains existed, then yes regulation would be required in order to keep them from using their enormous power to stifle competition and harming consumers.

 

 

1 hour ago, Dracarris said:

I doubt these laws could force Apple to allow alternative app stores.

They could, just like the exact same laws forced Microsoft to disclose and give access to their private APIs. If Microsoft were forced to hand over documentation and access to their private APIs in the past, I don't see why Apple can't be forced to do it again.

I understand that you find it hard to believe, but the laws truly do exist to force Apple to do this. It's only a matter of enforcing them.

 

 

 

 

 

  

8 minutes ago, hishnash said:

The simple fact that Epic are appealing this tells you everything.  Remember Epic want to have users tapping button in app and having a card charged in the background without any warnings or parental controls prompts (this is the best way to get children  to spend all the money linked to that Epic Games account).

Oh fuck off with the fear mongering.

How do you know Epic is doing this just to fool children into buying more stuff in Fortnite? Maybe they would actually implement parental control for their payment system if Apple allowed them to?

[Dracarris]

14 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Could be done with for example PayPal as well, if Apple allowed it.

Then PayPal needs to be baked deeply into the OS. Can't see that happening or anyone forcing Apple to do it.

14 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Of course it will be better if we ignore the drawbacks, but that's not how you should do a comparison. You have to compare one system with its pros and cons, vs another system with its pros and cons.

The Con/Drawback of Apple Pay is the higher fees which are usually eaten by the developer, just as different CCs have different fees, yet a restaurant won't charge you different prices depending on the CC you use. Seeing the higher fees as a con for the end user is a very weird way to look at it. That being said, my original argument was based on the ease of use for the end user with two different scenarios for who eats the cost, a discussion which you ignored and picked the version that suits your view.

14 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

You could have made the same argument for Windows back when the US government punished them for running a monopoly.

iOS is a market in and of itself since it is so big. I don't understand why people have such a hard time understanding that. It was the same with Windows.

And that's just your opinion. Windows was back then and still is much closer to a monopoly than iOS.

14 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

No, because Walmart is not a monopoly or even a duopoly.

If Walmart owned 55% of the stores in the US (iOS has 55% market share in the US) then yes, them refusing to carry some products because it would create competition with their own items would be anti-competitive and thus illegal as well.

You are walking on thin ice here. Your argument is only upheld by whether Walmart holds 30% or 50% of the market? The principle is pretty much the same, they are a giant among very few players that together rule the majority of the market. And I highly doubt that they could be forced to offer product X under conditions that they don't set themselves, even if they were to rule over 50% of the market.

14 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I understand that you find it hard to believe, but the laws truly do exist to force Apple to do this. It's only a matter of enforcing them.

If we have all the tools and Apple has competitors: Why did so little happen in all those years?

[Mark Kaine]

Its funny because I can see Epic appealing this more than apple... but yes, this is an unsatisfying result , a good result would be a #righttosideloading  (i still wouldn't use an apple device as long they have proprietary connectors tho...)

[hishnash]

23 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Oh fuck off with the fear mongering.

How do you know Epic is doing this just to fool children into buying more stuff in Fortnite? Maybe they would actually implement parental control for their payment system if Apple allowed them to?

The Judge will likely be very happy when apple propose that the opening of the third party payment system should be required to be gated by the parental controls system of the OS. And epic will not want that since it will impact sales, this is also a reason epic is going to appeal this ruling.

If epic cared about parental controls then they would have implemented this themselves, remember they do not just sell games on iOS, iOS is in fact a small market for them. If they cared about parental controls more than money they would have already impended these features within the Epic Games store, made a way for the parents to have an app install that sent them a push notification to confirm a child's purchase request is not that hard for a massive company like epic. Thus it is clear they do not care about parental controls if these controls limit the purchase of v-bucks.  

[Mark Kaine]

34 minutes ago, hishnash said:

The simple fact that Epic are appealing this tells you everything.  Remember Epic want to have users tapping button in app and having a card charged in the background without any warnings or parental controls prompts (this is the best way to get children  to spend all the money linked to that Epic Games account). 

But how is that an issue? There's ways around that. Have an epic account,  load it up with money once in a while on an external website,  impulse buy ahoy!

Or have the app open a PayPal link in browser,  done. If Apple says PayPal is scam they're in hot water!

 

Or, you just put in an activation code (gift card etc) directly in the epic app.  Why wouldn't that work?

 

 

[hishnash]

9 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Its funny because I can see Epic appealing this more than apple... but yes, this is an unsatisfying result , a good result would be a #righttosideloading  (i still wouldn't use an apple device as long they have proprietary connectors tho...)

Apple is not going to appeal, they new this was coming and likely were quite happy with it, given the wording it is the best possible outcome and likely something they were already ready to do. Just see the other things they have traded with other cases, and movements recently all line up wit this change. 

The thing is due to the fact Epic also opens a case against google the judge would never have offered side loading as a solution as it is clear epic would just open another case against apple for not having ifphoens ship with the EpicGame/Tencent store pre installed. The actions of Epic in this case and agaist google make it clear that side loading is not a good solution, by opening a case against google they highlight all the issues with side loading (eg the number of closed of fortnight with viruses embedded that users downloaded)  they themselves gave evidence that this was not good.

[Blademaster91]

41 minutes ago, hishnash said:

The simple fact that Epic are appealing this tells you everything.  Remember Epic want to have users tapping button in app and having a card charged in the background without any warnings or parental controls prompts (this is the best way to get children  to spend all the money linked to that Epic Games account). 

Thats on the parents, Epic games isn't to blame if they're allowed to charge a card with in app purchases.

21 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

You are walking on thin ice here. Your argument is only upheld by whether Walmart holds 30% or 50% of the market? The principle is pretty much the same, they are a giant among very few players that together rule the majority of the market. And I highly doubt that they could be forced to offer product X under conditions that they don't set themselves, even if they were to rule over 50% of the market.

Marketshare is a valid argument, because in the US iOS has a 55% share of the market, of which apple controls themselves with no option to install apps from anywhere else, that obviously is a monopoly over the market and not free market competition.

23 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

If we have all the tools and Apple has competitors: Why did so little happen in all those years?

Those laws probably aren't enforced because the US legal system likes to side with apple, as they did with the result of this lawsuit.

[hishnash]

3 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

But how is that an issue? There's ways around that. Have an epic account,  load it up with money once in a while on an external website,  impulse buy ahoy!

Or have the app open a PayPal link in browser,  done. If Apple says PayPal is scam they're in hot water!

 

Or, you just put in an activation code (gift card etc) directly in the epic app.  Why wouldn't that work?

So remember the current app store rules do not just permit but in fact require that if a user already has digital currency purchased on another platform they can use it on iOS (eg if they have already purchased v-buck they must be permitted to use that within the iOS app). This has been in the rules for years already.

Appel will likely not permit lining out to a page that is not cross signed by them, this will likely require the same restrictions as universal-links (this lets the OS check that the page you are loading is managed by the app developer).  https://developer.apple.com/documentation/Xcode/supporting-associated-domains  in short your going to need to have your own domain name. 

Activate codes gift cards etc are also currently permitted, non of these are good for impulse buy.  

[Dracarris]

1 minute ago, Blademaster91 said:

Marketshare is a valid argument, because in the US iOS has a 55% share of the market, of which apple controls themselves with no option to install apps from anywhere else, that obviously is a monopoly over the market and not free market competition.

55% is a strange definition of monopoly. Literally nobody is forcing you to enter the iOS ecosystem, there are plenty other options available.

[hishnash]

Just now, Blademaster91 said:

Thats on the parents, Epic games isn't to blame if they're allowed to charge a card with in app purchases.

25 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Well, its clear they do not want to develop any solutions that would let parental control this (eg let the child buy some thing but not other things).  They could, it would not be much work but it would limit the spending of children that do end up with epic games accounts with linked cards (that might be legit since the parent does want their child to be able to purchase some things sometimes). 

I understand them, doing this would reduce the money they make. 

[Mark Kaine]

12 minutes ago, hishnash said:

So remember the current app store rules do not just permit but in fact require that if a user already has digital currency purchased on another platform they can use it on iOS (eg if they have already purchased v-buck they must be permitted to use that within the iOS app). This has been in the rules for years already.

Appel will likely not permit lining out to a page that is not cross signed by them, this will likely require the same restrictions as universal-links (this lets the OS check that the page you are loading is managed by the app developer).  https://developer.apple.com/documentation/Xcode/supporting-associated-domains  in short your going to need to have your own domain name. 

Activate codes gift cards etc are also currently permitted, non of these are good for impulse buy.  

Ok, i admit i don't really know how impulse buys work,  i always thought you need to top up the account somehow...the only other thing is a credit card I guess,  but then they could link that to the account...

 

I mean i get it apple would want to make this as difficult as possible when they don't get a cut. 

But the reason epic would want to appeal is because they don't have an app at all right now!

 

Kinda got what they wanted but backfired on them, is how I understand this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Arika]

26 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Then PayPal needs to be baked deeply into the OS. Can't see that happening or anyone forcing Apple to do it.

??????? android and Windows can do. If Apple's OS is so closed off that they can't implement something as simple as the paypal one touch payment, then you must think their OS engineers are all morons

 

 

[HRD]

I think most of you ignored some parts of the judge decision. Apple is entitled to 30% of epic direct payment revenue.

Also, in page 67 of the decision “Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional.” Not using IAP does not mean apple would not have the right to take a commission.

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, Dracarris said:

55% is a strange definition of monopoly. Literally nobody is forcing you to enter the iOS ecosystem, there are plenty other options available.

I think the problem is the definition of monopoly.

 

"mono" - one

"poly" - many.

 

Basically, a Monopoly is a bad thing when:

- the monopolist actively prevents competition by buying up competition (such as facebook buying up various text and image services)

- the monopolist actively sets the price by which all competition must adhere to (price fixing when the companies actually collaborate to set the price)

 

But there are also duopolies and regional mono/duopolies like with internet, television, phone and wireless services. Where the incumbent phone company and the incumbent cable company collude to prevent competition, and to prevent VPOP/MVNO services from running over their last-mile copper/fiber connections.

 

In the case of Apple, Apple could be claimed to colluding with Steam, Sony, Nintendo etc in having 30% commissions, because otherwise the developers would only distribute on the platform that offers the lowest commission rate. They didn't come to this 30% rate out of nowhere, they came to it because they know they can ask for it because their competition is also asking for it.

 

Independent of everything else, Apple should not be punished for developing a superior device and software platform. If we always punished the most successful product in the market, there would be nothing but trash. 

[hishnash]

12 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Kinda got what they wanted but backfired on them, is how I understand this.

 

They did not get what they wanted, what the really wanted was to be able to put the Epic Games store on iOS to compete directly with the AppStore. Then pressure game devs (like they have been doing on PC) to move to it. The fortnight payment stuff was just a way to get a court case.   The judge even noted this in the judgement about it being clear this case was part of epic plan to pull the game store from just being PC only to being mobil as well. 

 

 

12 minutes ago, Arika S said:

??????? android and Windows can do. If Apple's OS is so closed off that they can't implement something as simple as the paypal one touch payment, then you must think their OS engineers are all morons

 

They could do it for sure but will not do it, the court judgement does not require them to do it, all it requires them to do is let devs link out (to a webpage) and likely will also let apple warn users when they do this with a system UI asking them to confirm that they understand apple is not liable... apple could make that wording quite scary (for the avg consumer), and also from the wording it sounds like apple will also be able to require that you offer IAP as well (without that scary wording). 

[RedRound2]

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

That's ridiculous.

I seriously don't see how any rational person can look at iOS, look at the users, look at the app store and go "yeah, this is not a market".

I don't even get why it matters if it's a market or not. The fact of the matter is that iOS is such a big platform, with over 1 billion users, that it is insane how Apple are given unlimited power to restrict competitors in any way they deem fit without any repercussions.

 

The free market is built on the foundation that competitors are free to compete on the quality of their goods and services without intervention. The whole idea that Apple are the only ones who are allowed to process payments, only ones allowed to distribute software, only ones who determine what is and isn't allowed, etc, spits in the face of a free market.

Apple's ecosystem and/or products aren't basic life necessities. One can easily do well with Apple-free products.

They've built an ecosystem of where they have control over their own hardware/software stack and so far, after 14 years since the first iPhone it's been a huge success that they're so big. But I repeat, nobody needs to be in the Apple ecosystem. They choose to be because that's what works for them.

 

And it was never about Apple payments being superior. It's no secret that if another App store appears on iOS with flat almost 15-20% cheaper rates than the official app store, im sure 90% of people will opt in to get through the cheaper app store - because we as people are cheap, giving up potentially to much reduced standards of security, privacy, etc. Best example for this is how facebook and its products are still relevant today despite their privacy mishaps. People just like to rather have ease today, than taking care of themselves from a potetial future threat. That's just dumb human nature

 

Apple acts as it's own governement with their platforms with their tagline being that they care about important issues like privacy and security like no one else does. And if you don't agree with it, you can leave the platform. Them allowing things that epic wanted like having another app store or sideloading apps will compromise Apple and it's products on both those fronts and they would be no different from other platforms. And if you actually ask a non techy iPhone user on what they want, they prefer it the way it currently is rather than them thinking about all these other stuff

[Zodiark1593]

5 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

 

Those laws probably aren't enforced because the US legal system likes to side with apple, as they did with the result of this lawsuit.

Another potential factor is that the courts could be limited in their ability to force the matter as well via the nuclear option of a break-up, and are reluctant to push the bounds. 
 

Apple has structured their ecosystem in such a way that their products are very tightly intertwined, from software, app store, development tools, to hardware, silicon, and have even modified the ARM ISA with custom extensions that aren’t even fully documented. This is on top of the culture of secrecy Apple keeps among its own employees. Attempting a breakup would be messy, time consuming, and likely disastrous in the end result for all involved, so it’s unlikely courts would be enthused to try. A corporate breakup forms clear boundaries between the new corporations created, but given the extent of apple’s vertical integration and secrecy, how could this be done without the offspring companies imploding?

 

 

While threat of imprisonment for executives can push Apple and other such corporations in line and discourage open and willful contempt, there’s little to actually dissuade them from toeing the line where they can. 

Big tech in general seems to be the hot potato courts and lawmakers want little to do with, and understandably so. Accurately and fairly regulating modern corporations takes a high degree of technical knowledge that many lawmakers and judges simply lack, leaving an exploit for technically advanced corporations to make use of of. 
 

 

Kind of my brief insight and opinion piece here. 

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, Zodiark1593 said:

While threat of imprisonment for executives can push Apple and other such corporations in line and discourage open and willful contempt, there’s little to actually dissuade them from toeing the line where they can. 

Big tech in general seems to be the hot potato courts and lawmakers want little to do with, and understandably so. Accurately and fairly regulating modern corporations takes a high degree of technical knowledge that many lawmakers and judges simply lack, leaving an exploit for technically advanced corporations to make use of of. 

Yes, but couldn't this all be rectified by allowing side loading? I mean despite Apple obviously being against it, it works on Android,  i don't see huge waves of security/ hacking incidents on the platform?

 

And by proxy, this would also mean sideloading on stuff like consoles etc - even though that would have to be another case i guess. 

 

2 hours ago, hishnash said:

They did not get what they wanted, what the really wanted was to be able to put the Epic Games store on iOS to compete directly with the AppStore. Then pressure game devs (like they have been doing on PC) to move to it. The fortnight payment stuff was just a way to get a court case.   The judge even noted this in the judgement about it being clear this case was part of epic plan to pull the game store from just being PC only to being mobil as well. 

Yeah, that's why I said kinda... and I understand why a judge wouldn't want to make this decision due to the huge implications (see above)