|OT| Epic vs Apple/Google - Battle of the Tims

[Alexandros]

like em or not, epic is giving 20% off vbucks prices without the 30% platform fee. so you can't say zero. not to mention it could lead to the addition of currently blocked services on ios devices like stadia and xcloud and geforce now.

edit in case anyone gets worked up: yes that first line is a bit of a troll

Epic has demonstrated how it intends to compete in an open market. It will fuck customers over as soon as it gets the slightest chance to do so. Governments have already launched antitrust probes against big companies and there are already ongoing lawsuits regarding store policies. The only reason to root for Epic is if one wants Epic specifically to succeed. Not because of the big picture.

 

[ISee]

Everything is some kind of monopoly if you look close and narrow enough. Yes, Apple has the monopoly on selling iOS apps, but McDonalds has the monopoly on selling McDonalds Burgers. Nobody else but they can, right? So it must be a monopoly.
Calling something a monopoly if the market only exists because said brand, company or product exist is dishonest. Especially if there is a competing product/market.
There would be no monopoly on BigMac or McRib distribution if McDonalds wouldn't exist. It's the same for Apple. There would be no iOS monopoly if Apple wouldn't exist. Apple is developing the software, the hardware, heavily investing into the brand and even more in PR. This all costs money and is of value.
Selling on iOS has value, just like being allowed to call a Burger Quarter Pounder (or whatever) has value. Even selling in a McDonald's Restaurant has worth and both McDonalds and Apple deserve compensation for allowing somebody to use their brand.

I see no logical reason why McDonalds should be forced to allow Tim Sweeny to freely sell "Big Macs" or "Epic Whoppers" in a McDonalds Store, under the McDonalds brand without compensation.
Because that's what Tim wants: Being able to establish EGS on iOS and taking full effect from Apple's iOS brand, without compensating Apple for using said brand.

And while there are a lot of arguments to make for forcing Apple into a free OS, laws have to be blind and neutral. If we allow one brand to build a monopoly for their products, we need to allow other brands to do the same. I also, as stated previously, strongly believe Apple has the right to make their iOS as bad as they want to. It would definitely sell more if it was more free, but apperently that's not the strategy Apple wants to follow.

Now if McDonalds would be the only burger fast food company out there, I'd agree that something needs to be done. But that's not the case and I do not think anybody has the right to open an iOS store without Apple's agreement.

For the 30% cut? I also tend to say that Apple has the right to freely set their share based on how valuable they estimate their brand to be.
I also do not believe one second in the trickle down economy argument. There would be no consumer benefits.

 

[Wok]

Come on, you cannot compare McDonald's and Apple.

First:

Second, McDonald's is a franchise: anybody can create a McDonald's restaurant and start selling BigMacs, etc.

Ping me:

1. when there are these many competitors to Apple OS,
2. and when whichever company can create hardware, install Apple OS on it, put an Apple sticker on it and sell it as Apple-branded hardware.

Imagine what PC would be if:

1. there were no Linux distribution,
2. the only way to have access to Windows would be to purchase a computer built by Microsoft itself.

Well, this world has been Apple's ecosystem for decades, and it still is nowadays to some lesser extent (there exists dual-boot!).

laws have to be blind and neutral

Apple has the right to make their iOS as bad as they want to. It would definitely sell more if it was more free

Everything is some kind of monopoly if you look close and narrow enough.

I also disagree with all these statements.

PS: My first computer was something like a Power Macintosh 6100. It was one big disappointment due to Apple's enforced limitations which prevented me from having access to the same games as my friends, etc. The experience was really bad. I think that is what vaccinated me against Apple.

 

[ISee]

You say I can not, but why?

What's the difference between McDonald's building a brand and deciding who and under what conditions is allowed to do business with their products and Apple doing the same with iPhone and iOS?
I'm talking about the fact that brands have value, due to marketing, market position, development etc. If you want to take profit of said brand, you need to ask the brand holder what his conditions are.

As you said, anybody can create a McDonald's restaurant, but it's not free. You have to follow strict rules, policies, guidelines and pay a lot of money to McDonald's for doing so. It goes on: you aren't even free to buy ketchup from a any source you like. You are incredibly locked down and McDonald's is very much a monopoly in that regard. Which brings me back to my, everything is a monopoly if you look narrow enough argument.

It's not that much different with iOS apps. Everybody can register, pay the fees and make them. But just as in any other business relationship you need to follow policies, rules, guidelines and pay a share for using a brand, name, logo that is not yours.
You are paying for the right to publish something under or within the iOS brand, to customers that are voluntary buying Apple products.
Just like you are paying McDonalds for selling products under the McD brand. You are making the decision to target McDonald customers and for that you need to pay McDonald's.

It doesn't matter to me if there are 2 or 20k competitors. The relevant question is: Are there any? And how is the market split?
Because the big, evil monopoly that nobody can escape has only a global market share of 25%. That doesn't scream, everybody has to use iOS to me:

Point is: You are not publishing on iOS to reach the whole market. You are on iOS to reach the specific apple audience. Which was build by Apple and not buy your app.

 

[Wok]

You say I can not, but why?

Because, as I mentioned, the situations are nowhere comparable.

What's the difference between McDonald's building a brand and deciding who and under what conditions is allowed to do business with their products and Apple doing the same with iPhone and iOS?

I doubt McDonald's chooses with whom they work in practice. People pay a fee to have the right to use their brand, and McDonald's is happy to get the money in exchange of the necessary items and help required to open the McDonald's restaurant. You know that there are close to 38,000 restaurants, right? The brand owner must not be too strict.

From the look of it, McDonald's franchise is much closer to Steam Direct ("you pay a fee and you get access to our services which will ease your life, and you get to put the Steam logo on your website which will boost your sales") than to Apple ("you pay a fee otherwise you don't get to talk to our hardware customers").

Apple is the nightclub owner and the bouncer in front of the door.

You are incredibly locked down and McDonald's is very much a monopoly in that regard. Which brings me back to my, everything is a monopoly if you look narrow enough argument.

No. You should see that this point is nonsensical. For instance, you write that "everything is a monopoly" if you try hard enough to remodel the limits and definitions, and then you post a plot which pretty much confirms that Google/Apple are a duopoly with Android/iOS. The third actor cannot even struggle to reach 1% market share, they are at 0.21%.

turned into this

I would be willing to see how hard you would have to contortion to argue that Blackberry OS is very much a monopoly. I mean, if your point is that everything can be anything if we try hard enough to find the most convoluted lens to look at it, then you likely have no point in the first place. No, everything cannot be seen as a monopoly. Even Epic calling Apple iOS a monopoly is debatable. One would have to look closely about the context, and what it entails.

Edit: Also, your graph is about "page views". I could not find it to see where the data comes from. One should be wary that it does not directly translate into market share.

Epic Games asks court to prevent what it describes as Apple's "retaliation"

Epic Games said late on Friday that it has asked a court to stop what it saw as Apple Inc's retaliation against the "Fortnite" creator after the iPhone maker terminated Epic Games' account on its App Store.

www.reuters.com

It doesn't matter to me if there are 2 or 20k competitors. The relevant question is: Are there any? And how is the market split?

True. Another relevant point is to look at the market audience. In the case of Android/iOS, both companies are happy because they do not target the same audience anyway. You just have to look at the price of the hardware which supports iOS, and compare it to the price of hardware which supports Android.

Or the market share in the richest country which seems to be closer to 45%.

U.S. iPhone user share 2014-2022 | Statista

How many people have iPhones in the United States? In 2022, there were more than 120 million iPhone users in the United States, accounting for nearly 49 percent of all smartphone users in the country.

www.statista.com

Mobile smartphone OS market share U.S. 2012-2024 | Statista

Apple's iOS continues to hold the largest share of the smartphone operating systems market in the United States, claiming more than half of the market as of March 2024.

www.statista.com

The situation is different in Germany, no idea why. It is interesting to see how smartphone users tend to stay loyal to their first brand. It could be an explanation.

Recent figures confirm that a third of smartphone users are very unlikely to change brands once they have found their winner. Typically, a consumer will put in some time and effort researching smartphones before buying one, and once purchased, if satisfied, they will stick with their choice, keeping tabs on the next model. There are various reasons for Android’s current domination of the mobile OS market, the more obvious ones being pricing, app selection and variety, accessibility and, of course, battery life.

Android vs iOS market share Germany | Statista

iPhone and Android are the two largest operating systems when it comes to smartphones in Germany. Android, however, dominates when it comes to market share.

www.statista.com

Personally, I am all for the right of GAFAM to do whatever they please, for the right of other big companies like Epic to try to take them to court (if they survive the financial tightening around their neck performed by the GAFAM lawyers), and for the right of governments to shred any big company into pieces, if they are found to evade taxes, profit from the status quo over a long period of time, hinder competition from smaller actors, or just get too powerful so that they become an annoyance or a threat to market, democracy, etc. Everyone should be free to do as they please and then suffer the consequences if they get a bit too greedy.

 

[Wok]

tl;dr:

• "What's the difference between McDonald's [...] and Apple"
  • McDonald's franchise system is akin to Steam Direct; you pay to have access to services and brand,
  • Apple is the bouncer which prevents you from accessing the loyal customers who only go to this posh nightclub,
• "Everything is a monopoly":
  • Google/Apple are a duopoly with Android/iOS,
• "How is the market split":
  • As large as 50%-50% market share in the USA between Google and Apple,
  • Android/iOS customers form two mostly non-overlapping audiences (with money being a big factor at play in my opinion),
  • smartphone users tend to stick to their original brand for some reason. Here are a few of my guesses: walled garden which prevents Android->Apple, sunken cost into the whole Apple ecosystem which prevents Apple->Android, bad looks if you go from Apple to Android in a family/work environment where people have too much money and care too much about money, etc.

 

[warp_]

The only reason to root for Epic is if one wants Epic specifically to succeed. Not because of the big picture.

i can come back with an equally silly statement if you'd like: the only reason to complain about vbucks being cheaper is because one has a hateboner for epic.

i've said it before and i'll say it again: i don't really care who is taking the fight to the walled garden, but i'm in favor of them winning the fight. in this case it is epic so i want them to succeed. doesn't mean i agree with anything else they do outside of this or even every tactic they employ in this fight.

 

[Swenhir]

I'm rather lost on the McDonald's - Apple analogy as well. It comes down to the difference between the brand's exclusivity to its products and the family of goods being sold. There's a plethora of other ways to have burgers and, more generally food. But getting a smartphone is going to be a tough affair if you don't like either Android or iOS, both of which are already little worlds of their own and don't compete with each other as much anymore given that they have segmented the market in two. McDonald's is a massive whale in a huge ocean of other alternatives, even in the world of fast-food.

I think I'm with Wok on that basis here, though I'm really not sure what we're arguing in the first place .

 

[warp_]

i remember when i was a kid there was a mcdonald's near us that sold pizza and spaghetti. not sure where that fits in the argument but i always remember it being strange cause none of the others did that.

also i'll not have too many other chances to post about mcdonald's here so i gotta take the one i have.

 

[Swenhir]

i remember when i was a kid there was a mcdonald's near us that sold pizza and spaghetti. not sure where that fits in the argument but i always remember it being strange cause none of the others did that.

also i'll not have too many other chances to post about mcdonald's here so i gotta take the one i have.

MacDonald's in India is wild, it was so weird and entertaining. I mean, it's common sense if you think about it but having a McMaharadja with chicken and not a gram of beef to be seen in the whole restaurant was quite a fun little moment.

Still the last resort when it comes to food, which tells you a lot about the monopoly discussion .

 

[fearthedawn]

If i'd want to make a comparison to food it would be:

supermarkets: food to prepare at home -> consoles/pc market
restaurants/fast food/anything to eat there or on the go: mobile market

in this case apple and google would own 99%+ of all the property suitable to sell "ready to eat"-food and be the landlords for the whole industry, apple being more restrictive in who they choose to rent property to while google has some publicly managed spaces here and there

 

[ISee]

I doubt McDonald's chooses with whom they work in practice. People pay a fee to have the right to use their brand, and McDonald's is happy to get the money in exchange of the necessary items and help required to open the McDonald's restaurant. You know that there are close to 38,000 restaurants, right? The brand owner must not be too strict.

That's incorrect. They are quiet strict and their standards would surprise you. I'm not sure why 38k is an indication that they aren't. They are operating on a world wide level,
You are making quiet a jump in thinking here. Have you ever been in a McDonald's restaurant that has McRibs that taste differently, anywhere in the world?
No? That's because they are that strict and picky when protecting their brand. I think 38k restaurants + food manufacturing plants all around the world producing the same quality and giving customers the same experience everywhere is a showcase for how strict they are.
It is an incredibly task that they are very proud of, rightly so.

Producing the same quality across different plants and regions with varying resource qualities is hard af.

From the look of it, McDonald's franchise is much closer to Steam Direct ("you pay a fee and you get access to our services which will ease your life, and you get to put the Steam logo on your website which will boost your sales") than to Apple ("you pay a fee otherwise you don't get to talk to our hardware customers").

As said, you are picturing this completely wrong. It's not just a fee that is giving you access to their products. They dictate and regulate everything down to the tiniest detail. They choose from whom you are allowed to buy your products, what products to use, they even dictate what kitchen you have to buy and how it has to be set up. If you think you can buy a McDonald'S franchise because you own a random Burger place, you are very wrong.

In the end: It is exactly how you describe Apple: You're paying fees and follow strict regulations to get access to costumer that want McDonald's branded products. You are paying for access to the customer who expect a certain brand. It's the same for Apple and McDonalds. They are both the bouncers in front of a night club aka brand.

Again, and I'm sorry for repeating myself. We are taking about the relevance of a brand here and not about the products itself.
Products are often irrelevant, it's the brand, the meaning and expectations that you are buying into.
You are directly buying customers that want that brand.

and then you post a plot which pretty much confirms that Google/Apple are a duopoly with Android/iOS

Mono = single
Duo indicates a plural

So yes, I've done exactly that. I've showed that iOs isn't a monopoly. I'm sorry, but I'm seriously a bit confused now.

Everyone should be free to do as they please

Exactly and laws should make no difference between entities.
If company A has the right to play the bouncer at a nightclub for their brand, than company B should have the same right.
Doesn't matter if it is a Burger or OS brand. I'm talking about brand monopoly, because that's what Apple and McDonald's have in common.
They both do not control their respective markets. They are big players in it, but somehow people want to regulate one, but not the other and I have a problem with that. Because I strongly believe the laws should be equitable.

Every brand is a monopoly in the market that brand created. Apple created the iOS market, but doesn't control the Smarthone market.
McD created the McD market, but doesn't own the Burger market.

And therefore they both have the right to chose the conditions under which they allow other entities to access their brand.

 

[Alexandros]

i can come back with an equally silly statement if you'd like: the only reason to complain about vbucks being cheaper is because one has a hateboner for epic.

i've said it before and i'll say it again: i don't really care who is taking the fight to the walled garden, but i'm in favor of them winning the fight. in this case it is epic so i want them to succeed. doesn't mean i agree with anything else they do outside of this or even every tactic they employ in this fight.

Who is complaining about vbucks being cheaper? Is this actually happening or is it a strawman?

 

[warp_]

i just think it's an equally silly statement as "The only reason to root for Epic is if one wants Epic specifically to succeed. Not because of the big picture. "

though we did just have someone last page say "it really is so transparently a pure marketing tactic" to vbucks being cheaper. yeah, that's called "every time something is on sale". welcome to marketing.

 

[Alexandros]

i just think it's an equally silly statement as "The only reason to root for Epic is if one wants Epic specifically to succeed. Not because of the big picture. "

though we did just have someone last page say "it really is so transparently a pure marketing tactic" to vbucks being cheaper. yeah, that's called "every time something is on sale". welcome to marketing.

The issue I see with your post is that you made a statement without anything to back it up while I made a statement and I backed it up with facts. During the Apple/Epic TRO hearing the judge literally said that an ongoing lawsuit that she is also presiding over covers much of the same ground as Epic so she doesn't see the point of another lawsuit on the same subject. That is a fact. Governments and institutions have started the process of investigating potential antitrust issues about Apple and Google. That is also a fact.

You can absolutely disagree with my opinion and I will gladly debate you over it but I expect proper counter-arguments. "No, you!"-style arguments have never been a good basis for discussion. So please, tell me. Why is Epic's lawsuit in particular more important than other lawsuits and antitrust probes? Why should I be rooting for Epic?

 

[warp_]

hard to speak on something that doesn't yet exist. there hasn't been a single hearing in the epic lawsuit yet so i can't really say why it is better or worse.

however i did watch the government hearings dealing with the tech companies and not a damn thing came out of them other than apple being exposed as having exceptions to their "no exceptions" policies and congresspeople whining about right wing voices being "silenced" on social media.

i have zero faith in our current congress to actually address any issues with duopolies and walled gardens and have more faith in the court system, however fucked that can be at times.

you can root for whoever you want. i just don't think it's correct to say that anyone hoping epic succeeds isn't about the big picture.

 

[Alexandros]

hard to speak on something that doesn't yet exist. there hasn't been a single hearing in the epic lawsuit yet so i can't really say why it is better or worse.

however i did watch the government hearings dealing with the tech companies and not a damn thing came out of them other than apple being exposed as having exceptions to their "no exceptions" policies and congresspeople whining about right wing voices being "silenced" on social media.

i have zero faith in our current congress to actually address any issues with duopolies and walled gardens and have more faith in the court system, however fucked that can be at times.

you can root for whoever you want. i just don't think it's correct to say that anyone hoping epic succeeds isn't about the big picture.

I understand. Below are two court case that are ongoing against Apple, one from app buyers and one from app developers.

iOS Developers Sue Apple over App Store Fees in New Class-Action Lawsuit | Hagens Berman

SAN JOSE, Calif. – iOS developers today hit Apple with a class-action lawsuit claiming the tech giant has cornered the iOS app market with its App Store and knowingly used its monopoly to implement “profit-killing” commissions and fees on the very developers who bring Apple’s products to life...

www.hbsslaw.com

How Apple’s Supreme Court loss could change the way you buy apps

Tipping the balance of power between people and app platforms.

www.theverge.com

If you read the articles and the legal documents you'll see that these cases are very similar to Epic. What is the importance of Epic's case specifically?

 

[warp_]

hard to tell with just those overview articles but what i immediately notice is that both suits seem to seek only monetary compensation for devs and app buyers rather than an actual change to how the ios app store operates, at least for the second suit. the first article touts that that firm won a monetary settlement from apple previously so i assume they want the same for their current suit.

the second article does point out that if apple were to lose apple vs pepper they could then be the target of more suits challenging them, like perhaps one from epic too!

in their suit, epic is specifically asking for the ios ecosystem be opened to alternate app stores which imo would be a better result than $5 per person in a class action suit or something similar.

the downside of the epic suit is that the law firm epic is using is somewhat famous for a big fat settlement in the qualcomm vs apple case, which mainly just resulted in a multi billion dollar payment to qualcomm and not much else. however that was also over patents and not really similar other than apple being involved.

 

[Alexandros]

hard to tell with just those overview articles but what i immediately notice is that both suits seem to seek only monetary compensation for devs and app buyers rather than an actual change to how the ios app store operates, at least for the second suit. the first article touts that that firm won a monetary settlement from apple previously so i assume they want the same for their current suit.

the second article does point out that if apple were to lose apple vs pepper they could then be the target of more suits challenging them, like perhaps one from epic too!

in their suit, epic is specifically asking for the ios ecosystem be opened to alternate app stores which imo would be a better result than $5 per person in a class action suit or something similar.

the downside of the epic suit is that the law firm epic is using is somewhat famous for a big fat settlement in the qualcomm vs apple case, which mainly just resulted in a multi billion dollar payment to qualcomm and not much else. however that was also over patents and not really similar other than apple being involved.

Thank you for replying, this is an actual argument. This is the level of discourse we should be aiming for, especially because most people on this site are clearly fans of open platforms. That said, I firmly remain in the "fuck them both" camp.

 

[warp_]

that's a real solid camp to be in and i'm like 75% in that camp but with the caveat of "i hope something happens to open this up a bit". pretty sure i posted it before but this definitely defines how i feel about epic in the suit:

Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point

A heartbreaking story is currently unfolding that’s sure to have devastating ramifications for years to come. Just moments ago, without any warning, the worst person…

clickhole.com

 

[Wok]

Have you ever been in a McDonald's restaurant that has McRibs that taste differently, anywhere in the world?
No? That's because they are that strict and picky when protecting their brand.

I don't have enough experience in this matter, but I would not be surprised if this were true: as far as I am concerned, the taste of MacDonald's food does not come from the food, but from the sauce which is added on the steak below the top bun. Ensuring the food tastes the same all over the world would only be impressive if the quality of the food was high, say bringing French gastronomie in the USA.

So yes, I've done exactly that. I've showed that iOs isn't a monopoly. I'm sorry, but I'm seriously a bit confused now.

1) Your argument was that everything can be a monopoly (iOS and McDonald's).
2) We are on page 11, and If you go to page 3 (post #101), "duopoly" is mentioned. No need to prove that now.
3) If there is barely any customer moving from one brand to another, I think it could be argued that there are 2 distinct market audiences, one per company.

Exactly and laws should make no difference between entities.
If company A has the right to play the bouncer at a nightclub for their brand, than company B should have the same right.

We will disagree here.

Scale matters. There are power dynamics between companies, and the biggest actors have to be scrutinized with greater care, otherwise they will get rid of the competition through means which do not benefit the rest of us. In how many countries does the company work? The more, the more legal loopholes and tax evasion schemes. How large is their legal team? How deep are their pockets? The more, the stronger the strangulation, the more intimidating for others.

Context matters. How many customers are there? Billions? How important is the product? How does the product impact the customers' lives? Etc.
If their job is to sell low-priced sandwiches, the risk for consumers is low (bad hygiene, high minimal price which excludes poor people, deforestation, etc.).
If their job is to sell a whole ecosystem of products, including the computer which you carry around all day in your hand, and spend 6 hours per day looking at or touching its screen, which also happens to be your main way to inform yourself, consume leisure digital goods, and nowadays is also used as a credit card, the risk that the company will abuse its power to generate more profit (or a stronger position in any issue of interest) is pretty high.

The more powerful the company, the bigger the risk of abuse, the more law is needed to protect smaller companies and customers/citizens. If the legislator and the judge choose to be blind and ignorant of context, then they choose a side, which is to protect the strongest entity and thus the least in need of laws.

 

[Alexandros]

Apple will seek damages from Epic Games for breach of App Store contract

A new front in the ongoing Fortnite fight

www.theverge.com

More lawsuits!

 

[fantomena]

Apple will seek damages from Epic Games for breach of App Store contract

A new front in the ongoing Fortnite fight

www.theverge.com

More lawsuits!

From the court filing

Epic’s lawsuit is nothing more than a basic disagreement over money. Although Epic portrays itself as a modern corporate Robin Hood, in reality it is a multi-billion dollar enterprise that simply wants to pay nothing for the tremendous value it derives from the App Store.

damn

 

[Alexandros]

From the court filing


damn

 

[lashman]

 

[Nyarlathotep]

If McDonalds owned the biggest shopping mall in your town, set the rates which all businesses in that mall had to pay to stay in business while also having its own store that was exempt from those rates, justified those rates by claiming none of those businesses would even have a business if it wasn't for the shopping mall (even if they had very successful businesses before that particular shopping mall even opened), on top of charging all those businesses an annual fee to be allowed into the mall and requiring them to buy all their equipment from McDonalds, aggressively litigating other businesses that are similar to McDonalds for "look and feel" because they make their hamburgers with rounded edges while avoiding paying copyright and trademark fees to the (now closed) hamburger restaurants that existed before McDonalds while still technically not being a monopoly in that town, because a bunch of unconnected stores exist outside of that shopping mall, and also you can just move to another town, then sure.

Apples just like McDonalds.

 

[Ge0force]

Apple's latest court filing is complete nonsense, but I don't have a single bit of sympathy for Epic. The way they are trying to be the Robin Hood for game developers in order to take control of games distribution is disgusting.

 

[ISee]

If McDonalds owned the biggest shopping mall in your town,

If the shopping mall is equal to the McDonald's brand. Than yeah that's exactly how it is.
If you want to get access to their brand, than you have to negotiate with McDonalds.
Just like you have to negotiate with Apple if you want access to the Apple brand and Apple costumers.

It's not a mall Apple is selling. It's access to costumers and a brand that they invested billions to build. If you want to profit from that, you have to pay them.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

If the shopping mall is equal to the McDonald's brand. Than yeah that's exactly how it is.
If you want to get access to their brand, than you have to negotiate with McDonalds.
Just like you have to negotiate with Apple if you want access to the Apple brand and Apple costumers.

It's not a mall Apple is selling. It's access to costumers and a brand that they invested billions to build. If you want to profit from that, you have to pay them.

Yes, that is what Apple believes.
That all apps on iDevices owe their success to Apple.

Meanwhile in the real world, you buy a phone for whatever reasons that you buy a phone.
If you want access to an existing service that you already use on that phone, then that existing service then has to give Apple money to allow its customers something they desire.

e:
To extend the metaphor; people don't move to a town just because of who owns the shopping mall.

 

[ISee]

Meanwhile in the real world, you buy a phone for whatever reasons that you buy a phone.

I disagree. People have a choice when buying a phone. They do not go into a store and flip a coin.
They deliberately choose to buy an iPhone because it is associated with Apple. Either it is because they like the OS, the messenger, the safety, the ability to control tracking features, perceived better performance, better battery life, apple cloud features, the "classy" feel or any other reason they come up with in their mind. It doesn't matter what reason there is, what matters is that Apple's incredible marketing and branding is making people choose an iPhone over any Android device.
Apple is making people buy Apple systems. I have this discussion every time when people ask me why I do not use apple laptops or iPhones. Personally I hate closed off systems and I find Apple's PR to be disingenuous, but their customers seem to think it's a worthwhile, better experience over Android. Some even think a closed of system is better or at least that the other "positives" apple is bringing to the table are worth it.

With Apple products people very much move to the town, because it has that apple shopping mall. The shopping mall makes for a better neighborhood in their opinion. Doesn't matter if it's true or just good marketing. Them believing in the additional value Apple is giving them over the competition is the deciding factor.

 

[Stone Ocean]

People value the perception of status some brands offer. My older brother would often look at me funny when I'd say I preferred Android phones over iPhones.

iPhone reveals are newsworthy events. People make payment plans so they can get a new iPhone. It's very clear that whatever snake oil shit Apple is selling is specifically wanted.

 

[Swenhir]

People value the perception of status some brands offer. My older brother would often look at me funny when I'd say I preferred Android phones over iPhones.

iPhone reveals are newsworthy events. People make payment plans so they can get a new iPhone. It's very clear that whatever snake oil shit Apple is selling is specifically wanted.

Couldn't have said it better and it's my fundamental issue with Jobs. He was a narcissist, meaning deeply wounded and abused which resulted in toxic behaviors of his own. He turned what should have tools into objects of luxury, into brand-heavy items and outward signs of status and ego.

That can be fine functionally, as unhealthy as it is, if those had remained tools for the people buying them. Walled Gardens are a perversion of what these devices should be in my opinion. I wish Apple had had more of Wozniak and less of Jobs.

 

[curi0usBystander]

Back when the first iPhone launched, I knew this guy who was really invested in Apple.

The first iPhone (the one that didn't even have the Appstore) didn't even launch here, and yet he got it throught a friend who went to the US. So he spend like months with a glorified iPod touch, since the Sim was locked to an US carrier (probably AT&T) he couldn't even phone (I remember that he eventually could unlock the sim).

He spent months with a Phone that couldn't even make calls, it didn't even have the AppStore but the guy was happy. He was like the only person he knew with an iPhone (not like it made any sense for anyone to buy one ...). And that was back in 2007-8.

 

[Stone Ocean]

Couldn't have said it better and it's my fundamental issue with Jobs. He was a narcissist, meaning deeply wounded and abused which resulted in toxic behaviors of his own. He turned what should have tools into objects of luxury, into brand-heavy items and outward signs of status and ego.

That can be fine functionally, as unhealthy as it is, if those had remained tools for the people buying them. Walled Gardens are a perversion of what these devices should be in my opinion. I wish Apple had had more of Wozniak and less of Jobs.

To be fair, this isn't something Apple invented. People buy leather bags that are the same price as some cheaper cars because it has the little Louis Vuitton logo on the front. It's a bag, it has the same function as a $30 bootleg leather bag, but it's Louis Vuitton so it's worth like 3 grand.

Back when the first iPhone launched, I knew this guy who was really invested in Apple.

The first iPhone (the one that didn't even have the Appstore) didn't even launch here, and yet he got it throught a friend who went to the US. So he spend like months with a glorified iPod touch, since the Sim was locked to an US carrier (probably AT&T) he couldn't even phone (I remember that he eventually could unlock the sim).

He spent months with a Phone that couldn't even make calls, it didn't even have the AppStore but the guy was happy. He was like the only person he knew with an iPhone (not like it made any sense for anyone to buy one ...). And that was back in 2007-8.

Literally my brother lmao

 

[Swenhir]

To be fair, this isn't something Apple invented. People buy leather bags that are the same price as some cheaper cars because it has the little Louis Vuitton logo on the front. It's a bag, it has the same function as a $30 bootleg leather bag, but it's Louis Vuitton so it's worth like 3 grand.

Absolutely, but I think it's one of the most toxic happenstances of it yet. Phones are really, really important now. I've had to go without one for a few weeks and the dread of not being able to even authenticate against my email or bank was terrifying.

Admittedly, it's not that bad for consumers yet. I mean, other than the inability to repair, to install things at their leisure or have any amount of control. But for developers and the health of the ecosystem in general, it's a big yikes.

 

[Alexandros]

If McDonalds owned the biggest shopping mall in your town, set the rates which all businesses in that mall had to pay to stay in business while also having its own store that was exempt from those rates, justified those rates by claiming none of those businesses would even have a business if it wasn't for the shopping mall (even if they had very successful businesses before that particular shopping mall even opened), on top of charging all those businesses an annual fee to be allowed into the mall and requiring them to buy all their equipment from McDonalds, aggressively litigating other businesses that are similar to McDonalds for "look and feel" because they make their hamburgers with rounded edges while avoiding paying copyright and trademark fees to the (now closed) hamburger restaurants that existed before McDonalds while still technically not being a monopoly in that town, because a bunch of unconnected stores exist outside of that shopping mall, and also you can just move to another town, then sure.

Apples just like McDonalds.

I'd like to play devil's advocate and ask, why do you have to open your shop in that shopping mall?

 

[LEANIJA]

Absolutely, but I think it's one of the most toxic happenstances of it yet. Phones are really, really important now. I've had to go without one for a few weeks and the dread of not being able to even authenticate against my email or bank was terrifying.

Admittedly, it's not that bad for consumers yet. I mean, other than the inability to repair, to install things at their leisure or have any amount of control. But for developers and the health of the ecosystem in general, it's a big yikes.

I'd argue its not bad because there are multiple companies selling Android phones, so there's competition - and incentive to make a better product for the people. And Google has the incentive to make Android good as well, I'd say, so companies keep licensing it - and of course to keep it ahead of iOS in terms of functionality and featureset.

 

[warp_]

google also threatens and bullies companies to not include alternate app stores if they want to keep google play services in their phones, so it's not like competition means as much when that is happening.

 

[curi0usBystander]

Answer to Complaint – #66 in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Cal., 4:20-cv-05640) – CourtListener.com

ANSWER to Complaint with Trial by jury on all issues so triable, COUNTERCLAIM against Epic Games, Inc. byApple Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Boutrous, Theodore) (Filed on 9/8/2020) (Entered: 09/08/2020)

www.courtlistener.com

By 2019, Epic acknowledged security vulnerabilities in non-iOS versions of Fortnite that exposed hundreds of millions of players to being hacked.15 Although Apple does not leave it to any developer to keep the iOS platform safe and secure, Epic in particular had demonstrated that it could not be entrusted with this type of responsibility

 

[Alexandros]

google also threatens and bullies companies to not include alternate app stores if they want to keep google play services in their phones, so it's not like competition means as much when that is happening.

It's the kind of competition that Tim Sweeney champions. Corporate warfare over who gets to screw over customers more.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I disagree. People have a choice when buying a phone. They do not go into a store and flip a coin.

I didn't say they did; I said there are a myriad of reasons people buy a phone.
The fact that the appstore is exactly how it is is not one of the major compelling reasons.
Customers could not give a shit how apple structures their revenue model in such a way that in order for Netflix or Spotify to provide their customers with a feature their customers want, they have to pay Apple to do so, even though their success is entirely independent of Apples existence as a handset manufacturer.
Customers want Spotify and Netflix on their phone.

I'd like to play devil's advocate and ask, why do you have to open your shop in that shopping mall?

Are you asking why companies who don't exactly like those policies have to put up with them for their customers sakes?

google also threatens and bullies companies to not include alternate app stores if they want to keep google play services in their phones, so it's not like competition means as much when that is happening.

tbh, saying "if you want Youtube and GMail you have to take the Play store and Hangouts too" isn't exactly nuking your entire corporate developer account because one branch of your company broke TOS.

 

[warp_]

they aren't saying that. they are saying "if you want our services you can't preload other app stores or make deals with other companies"

 

[Nyarlathotep]

they aren't saying that. they are saying "if you want our services you can't preload other app stores or make deals with other companies"

I mean... you go buy a Samsung phone, you've got the Samsung store right there preloaded, and the Play Store is in a folder called Google with the rest of the G-suite...

 

[warp_]

I mean... you go buy a Samsung phone, you've got the Samsung store right there preloaded, and the Play Store is in a folder called Google with the rest of the G-suite...

samsung is a monolith that google can't trifle with or bully in that way. their size and power across multiple industries cannot be understated.

oneplus and lg are the two mentioned in the epic lawsuit that were bullied by google into cancelling deals with epic to preload their launcher.

 

[Swenhir]

It's the kind of competition that Tim Sweeney champions. Corporate warfare over who gets to screw over customers more.

I'm a bit too tired to synthesize my thoughts on this but yeah, that's the feeling I get when it comes to mobile. It's a shitheap of anti-consumer versions of Android that, in the most hypocritical and transparent show of corporate attempt at control, never get any further updates once the new model rolls out.

But on Windows 10, of course you need to have mandatory updates. Of course it's for security reasons, nevermind that there are easily hundreds of millions of devices that haven't received updates in years and are an IoT nightmare waiting to happen.

I love how corporate is obsessed with updates and security when it affords them control, but is completely comfortable dropping devices in the wild the second they no longer have an interest in the capability itself.

 

[curi0usBystander]

 

[lashman]

 

[Nyarlathotep]

samsung is a monolith that google can't trifle with or bully in that way. their size and power across multiple industries cannot be understated.

oneplus and lg are the two mentioned in the epic lawsuit that were bullied by google into cancelling deals with epic to preload their launcher.

I'm not entirely sure I'll take Epics word at face value tbh - most chinese android phones come with their own setups preloaded, and most US carriers chuck their own crap on preloaded.
the most common Android complaint is that handset manufacturers don't just run stock android, but bloat it up with their own crap.

 

[warp_]

i find it unlikely they would lie about a business deal in a public document when any of the involved companies could easily disprove that assertion at any time.

the specific assertion is that google is blocking manufacturers from putting on alternate app stores, not carriers and their own apps.

 

[NarohDethan]

People value the perception of status some brands offer. My older brother would often look at me funny when I'd say I preferred Android phones over iPhones.

Tell him to buy a Z Flip 2 for you and have him put his money where his mouth is,