OT - Apple's app store goes on trial in threat to 'walled garden'

Carnbot

Makes much more sense to compare to a Mac
Is a Mac so unsafe? Apple allows sideloading of apps for Mac, so why not iOS? Because they will lose a lot of money that's all.

Mac users should be worried if this is planned for Mac since they are forcing system on a chip, they appear to be moving to lock down the Mac in a similar way over time. Controlling it like a console platform ilke iOS. I don't mind so much for a gaming platform, although even these I much prefer a choice of where I can buy software from.

Apple is reporting it as a big win for Apple, but the ruling is a significant step in loosening app store restrictions which will hopefully grow in time.

Just as many and more scams go on in the App Store than Google Play for example
I prefer to make my own mind up what to install and from where and how i can back up my software etc and you should never trust a big company like Apple with controlling your choices. They are doing it for profit only and saying it's about "safety".

Poppadocrock

@klownshed said:

@Poppadocrock said:
Mixed decision delivered today.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-trial-ends-in-mixed-verdict-after-fortnite-makers-monopoly-allegations-11631289792

‘Mixed’?

That’s pretty disingenuous.

The only thing apple were found guilty of was the steering thing. There’s an injunction on that clause in Apple’s terms. But that just means they’re not allowed to stop, say Netflix, from actually letting people know how to sign up outside of the app with a link. Apple prohibited this. Which has always been a Shitty move. They’d already had to concede this point after lawsuits in other countries anyway.

Apple won on all other counts and epic even have to pay them the equivalent of 30% commission whilst they had their own payment system in place within fortnite.

rather than ‘mixed’ thats a pretty big win for Apple.

Epic won’t be allowed back on the store, Apple won’t have to allow alternative payment options, and Apple aren’t a ‘monopoly’ according to the judge.

Apple and epic have to pay their own legal bills.

Here’s the judgement summary:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17442392/814/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc/

I can’t see how it could have gone much worse for Epic.

Not even my words. That was in the Wall Street Journal Subtitle, I think, so I just added it above the link, for come Context.

klownshed

@Poppadocrock said:

Not even my words. That was in the Wall Street Journal Subtitle, I think, so I just added it above the link, for come Context.

Yeah, I was referring to the reporting. Although maybe I spoke to soon to say it was disingenuous. I'm seeing a lot of conflicting interpretations of the part of the judgement that Apple lost.

Some are reading it as similar to the judgement from Japan, in that Reader apps will be allowed to offer links to stores of their content (Netflix, Amazon Kindle, etc.) but that games and other apps offering IAPs won't. Other people are seeing that as a way for any app to be able to offer alternative IAPS.

It's confusing. What makes it extra confusing is the way it's reported by so many big news outlets. They seem to be reporting as to what they want the judgement to mean rather than what it actually does mean.

I don't really care, as long as we don't end up with alternative app stores.

I dread iOS audio apps being like Mac OS apps where you end up with things like iLok. Setting up a new iPad is so much easier and quicker than dealing with all the licensing issues with plugins on the Mac. So from a selfish point of view I like the appstore as it is.

BitterGums

What i found interesting in looking at the court documents was how such a small percentage of customers make up most of the app store sales. What they call 'high spenders' or people who spend thousands on IAP's in iOS games account for less than 1% of all apple account holders yet they generate 51% of app store sales. In fact 81% of accounts spent nothing on the app store.

It leads me to wonder if the music app market isn't similar? ..looking past the IAP thing and just at the apps downloaded.

klownshed

Here’s a really good and detailed write up of the case:

https://stratechery.com/2021/the-apple-v-epic-decision/

The summary is what I initially thought the judgement meant:

” this was a near total victory for Apple, and a devastating defeat for Epic. Not only did the Fortnite-maker not gain the opportunity to build their own app store or have their own in-app purchases, Judge Gonzales Rogers also ruled that Apple was justified in revoking the development license for not just Fortnite but all of Epic’s subsidiaries, including Unreal Engine. That means that Epic, at least for now, can’t work on its licensable engine for other developers.

More broadly, while some of Apple’s claims were curtailed, its App Store model was by-and-large found to be legal (at least for games). Even the injunction against anti-steering made clear that Apple can, if it wishes, insist that apps include its IAP system alongside links to another platform (i.e. the web). Might Apple start insisting that Netflix and Spotify re-add IAP at the same time they put in links to their websites?”

wim

@klownshed said:
Here’s a really good and detailed write up of the case:
... Might Apple start insisting that Netflix and Spotify re-add IAP at the same time they put in links to their websites?”

I doubt that would be a problem. Netflix and Spotify could just charge a higher rate for the IAP than for direct subscription.

klownshed

@wim said:

@klownshed said:
Here’s a really good and detailed write up of the case:
... Might Apple start insisting that Netflix and Spotify re-add IAP at the same time they put in links to their websites?”

I doubt that would be a problem. Netflix and Spotify could just charge a higher rate for the IAP than for direct subscription.

Those are Ben Thompson from Stratechery’s words, not mine. :-) He goes on to say why he doesn’t think it would be a good idea for Apple to do that. If you’re interested in this thread I think the Stratechery article is definitely worth a read.

It explains the implications much better than any other article I’ve read.

Carnbot

I would have liked to have seen the part when Apple convinced Judge Gonzales Rogers, app reviewers (which are basically kids with no (or very little) technical training).."provided an additional unique and valuable layer of security above-and-beyond operating system-based security measures", because there's loads of evidence they clearly do not.

wim

@Carnbot said:
I would have liked to have seen the part when Apple convinced Judge Gonzales Rogers, app reviewers (which are basically kids with no (or very little) technical training).."provided an additional unique and valuable layer of security above-and-beyond operating system-based security measures", because there's loads of evidence they clearly do not.

Humm ... I know your comment is tongue in cheek, but just because app reviewers don't "get" music apps doesn't mean they're untrained or dumb and also doesn't say anything about security.

Carnbot

@wim said:

@Carnbot said:
I would have liked to have seen the part when Apple convinced Judge Gonzales Rogers, app reviewers (which are basically kids with no (or very little) technical training).."provided an additional unique and valuable layer of security above-and-beyond operating system-based security measures", because there's loads of evidence they clearly do not.

Humm ... I know your comment is tongue in cheek, but just because app reviewers don't "get" music apps doesn't mean they're untrained or dumb and also doesn't say anything about security.

This isn't referring to knowledge of music apps at all, but about the review process being a layer of security which is very flawed as it lets many bogus apps and scams through. I'm sure if could be improved though if Apple were interested in fixing it.

NeuM

@BitterGums said:
What i found interesting in looking at the court documents was how such a small percentage of customers make up most of the app store sales. What they call 'high spenders' or people who spend thousands on IAP's in iOS games account for less than 1% of all apple account holders yet they generate 51% of app store sales. In fact 81% of accounts spent nothing on the app store.

It leads me to wonder if the music app market isn't similar? ..looking past the IAP thing and just at the apps downloaded.

Apparently I’m now in the 1%.

tahiche

@NeuM said:

@Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

@NeuM said:>
I don't agree about the so-called "steering" thing. Is Wal-Mart required to let their customers know that Target might have the same item at a lower price? Of course not. I find this part of the judgment troubling since developers/vendors get the huge benefit of Apple's global reach and pay mechanisms for more than reasonable fees and participation in their App Store market is 100% voluntary. It's troubling because it infringes on Apple's private property rights. Apple is not a charity, nor are they a monopoly. Google/Alphabet sells far, far more Android devices than Apple does, even though Apple makes the lion's share of the profits. None of that is monopolistic, nor is it abusive with regard to their market leader position (again, leader in profits, not in volume of devices sold).

Also, it would be Apple's option to appeal this to the Supreme Court and I think they should to get that "unfair competition" nonsense stricken.

Apple is running what economists call a downstream monopoly. The judge did not seem to understand this. Epic’s lawyers failed to get that argument across.

Honestly, I see no reason for anti-monopoly laws in the US to continue to exist or be enforced. The only "successful" monopolies which have ever existed are those which are protected by government. In a true free market scenario, monopolies are impossible to maintain because high profits in any sector are a signal to businesses to jump in and compete.

Additionally, who wants to talk about the corrupt business practices of other countries? Their practices make the US look like an amateur. The Chinese government owns a piece of every business in China and they have few enforceable individual private property laws. If their government wants something, they just take it. And in Korea, the chaebols are state supported and all-powerful entities which are connected to government.

Corporatism and crony capitalism are rampant everywhere, but in the US at least the corrupt occasionally get voted out of office. And the anti-monopoly regulations in the US just have the effect of making US businesses less competitive.

Anti-monopoly laws should be abolished and competition in all areas of the economy should be drastically increased by the elimination of regulations which do not cause direct environmental harm or physically harm people.

This is simply not true. It’d be debatable if the market was indeed “free” which is not.
This argument, for example…

monopolies are impossible to maintain because high profits in any sector are a signal to businesses to jump in and compete.

Is based on an old, obsolete scenario. Can you compete with Amazon?. They’re too big, there’s no way, you just concede and sell your shit there. There’s no competition. Newspapers don’t compete with Facebook. Ad agencies don’t compete with Google. Don’t call it a monopoly if you don’t want, but it’s certainly not free market.

NeonSilicon

@wim said:

@Carnbot said:
I would have liked to have seen the part when Apple convinced Judge Gonzales Rogers, app reviewers (which are basically kids with no (or very little) technical training).."provided an additional unique and valuable layer of security above-and-beyond operating system-based security measures", because there's loads of evidence they clearly do not.

Humm ... I know your comment is tongue in cheek, but just because app reviewers don't "get" music apps doesn't mean they're untrained or dumb and also doesn't say anything about security.

My last two appeals to the app review team rejections have basically said "will you please get the reviewers a copy of GarageBand and train them to use it". Both appeals were approved with no further comments from Apple. The App Store is focused entirely on games and the revenue it brings in from IAA. There was a photo going around a bit ago that was released from Apple of a standard review workstation. There were various Apple devices and a stack of game controllers.

That focus on games and IAA is the only significance of this ruling and the one from South Korea. This has the potential to impact a lot of micro-transactions for loot boxes.

Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr

@NeuM said:

@BitterGums said:
What i found interesting in looking at the court documents was how such a small percentage of customers make up most of the app store sales. What they call 'high spenders' or people who spend thousands on IAP's in iOS games account for less than 1% of all apple account holders yet they generate 51% of app store sales. In fact 81% of accounts spent nothing on the app store.

It leads me to wonder if the music app market isn't similar? ..looking past the IAP thing and just at the apps downloaded.

Apparently I’m now in the 1%.

I’ve spent around a thousand on music apps over the last four years. Do I count as a high spender?

NeuM

@Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

@NeuM said:

@BitterGums said:
What i found interesting in looking at the court documents was how such a small percentage of customers make up most of the app store sales. What they call 'high spenders' or people who spend thousands on IAP's in iOS games account for less than 1% of all apple account holders yet they generate 51% of app store sales. In fact 81% of accounts spent nothing on the app store.

It leads me to wonder if the music app market isn't similar? ..looking past the IAP thing and just at the apps downloaded.

Apparently I’m now in the 1%.

I’ve spent around a thousand on music apps over the last four years. Do I count as a high spender?

Welcome aboard!