Epic Sues Apple and Google due to Fortnite getting pulled [2020-08-13, 2021-05-03]

[wco81]

By that time, probably a half dozen ways. They are going to push everyone out, especially in mobile computing and online services.

I don't see their market share growing from here on out.

So Samsung will still be there and enough people will import Chinese phones.

They'll punch way above their market share weight in profits though.

As for as online services, you mean iCloud fees? I don't see that as that big. We'll see if this Apple One bundle has any traction but I don't see Apple Arcade or Apple News + or Apple TV + really becoming that big.

 

[eastmen]

Broken up in which ways though?

They've only made small acquisitions so most of the growth since 2000 was organic and through new products, like the iPod and then the iPhone.

The suit vs. FaceBook is to reverse the huge acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.

They will get broken up for the same reason amazon will get broken up.

They use their store to figure out what sells and what is popular and use the metrics and data coming in about those products to launch their own versions . Amazon is building out its large amazon brands replacing smaller brands on the way and apple has largely done it with apple music.

Now this may not be a bad thing when your a small company like say costco who does that with their kirkland brand but costco is still tiny compared to other grocery / big box stores and the krikland brand is sourced by other companies .

But with apple they are charging prices to competitors that put it at an unfair advantage. Apple charges tidal and spotify what 30% of its subscription to be on the apple store. Apple doesn't have to pay that to apple

 

[wco81]

Fine, they can either be forced to divest Apple Music or give Spotify and Tidal better deals.

Music is not that big a part of their revenues.

How about Elon Musk saying a few years ago, he wanted to approach Apple about acquiring Tesla but Tim Cook wouldn't meet with him?

 

[glow]

They will get broken up for the same reason amazon will get broken up.

They use their store to figure out what sells and what is popular and use the metrics and data coming in about those products to launch their own versions . Amazon is building out its large amazon brands replacing smaller brands on the way and apple has largely done it with apple music.

Now this may not be a bad thing when your a small company like say costco who does that with their kirkland brand but costco is still tiny compared to other grocery / big box stores and the krikland brand is sourced by other companies .

But with apple they are charging prices to competitors that put it at an unfair advantage. Apple charges tidal and spotify what 30% of its subscription to be on the apple store. Apple doesn't have to pay that to apple

How do you know that Apple's music division doesn't have to pay to 30% to Apple's store/services? In every company I've worked at, from Govt org to private, divisions do pay each other for a number of services and fees. We didn't get our laptops, equipment, or even our overhead for free. It is called a budget and we had to fight for every scrap. Well, my bosses did, and I had the side duty of being the "purser" in two of those jobs.

This is partly done for good accounting practices. I have a guess as towards the other reason (w.r.t. anti trust act), but nothing substantive on it.

 

[eastmen]

How do you know that Apple's music division doesn't have to pay to 30% to Apple's store/services? In every company I've worked at, from Govt org to private, divisions do pay each other for a number of services and fees. We didn't get our laptops, equipment, or even our overhead for free. It is called a budget and we had to fight for every scrap. Well, my bosses did, and I had the side duty of being the "purser" in two of those jobs.

This is partly done for good accounting practices. I have a guess as towards the other reason (w.r.t. anti trust act), but nothing substantive on it.

and if they pay themselves the 30% what's the difference ? Their budget is still being supplied by the 3rd party companies.

its like when I say i'm going to put money into a savings account for gaming purchases. Its still the same money i'm spending and putting on the side , i just moved it some where else

 

[glow]

and if they pay themselves the 30% what's the difference ? Their budget is still being supplied by the 3rd party companies.

its like when I say i'm going to put money into a savings account for gaming purchases. Its still the same money i'm spending and putting on the side , i just moved it some where else

Your analogy does not equate.

Here is one that works:

It's the difference between a shopkeeper just taking their store inventory for personal use, vs using their salary/pay to purchase goods at their own store. One is legal, one is not. I have both experience and audits from California (also the IRS, but their focus was on something else), when it comes to this. Sure, many try to skirt the law (in CA, at least; according to my CPA), and there are people who own small companies that have "fleet" assets that are really personal use assets (need to pay at least 40% of cost, if that is the case - mostly ignored for computers, but is not ignored for something like a car. However, during an audit, that "little" oversight is scrutinized and tax collectors made whole, with penalties).

No amount of shuffling money between bank accounts will change that. Maybe it is different in the Netherlands, where Apple had (at one point) funneled all of their digital sales.

Also, my analogy is just that, an analogy.

 

[eastmen]

Your analogy does not equate.

Here is one that works:

It's the difference between a shopkeeper just taking their store inventory for personal use, vs using their salary/pay to purchase goods at their own store. One is legal, one is not. I have both experience and audits from California (also the IRS, but their focus was on something else), when it comes to this. Sure, many try to skirt the law (in CA, at least; according to my CPA), and there are people who own small companies that have "fleet" assets that are really personal use assets (need to pay at least 40% of cost, if that is the case - mostly ignored for computers, but is not ignored for something like a car. However, during an audit, that "little" oversight is scrutinized and tax collectors made whole, with penalties).

No amount of shuffling money between bank accounts will change that. Maybe it is different in the Netherlands, where Apple had (at one point) funneled all of their digital sales.

Also, my analogy is just that, an analogy.

My point is if Apple is taking 30% of pandora's profits and now has that income to invest in product and apple takes 30% of apple musics subcription costs doesn't it go to the same place the30% of pandora's profits go to ? And if they go to the same place which is apple , can't apple then use that money to subsidize development and costs for apple music ?

So at the end of the day it really doesn't matter where it goes inside of apple if apple is able to profit off its competitors while driving them out of business

 

[Deleted member 2197]

Apple pelted with more and more complaints from third-party App Store devs • The Register
December 31, 2020

Swayed by the turning tide against Apple, the smaller ones are speaking out too. El Reg spoke to multiple companies on and off the record about their nightmares with the App Store. They all complained about their one-sided relationships, and their futile attempts to negotiate and reconcile with Apple after being threatened with being kicked out of the App Store.
...
Schibsted, home to the largest media group in Scandinavia, was surprised when an Apple representative suddenly demanded its apps implement the company’s in-app payment system in 2018. Up until then, Schibsted's various newspaper groups had been using another credit card processing service for years with no problems. Being forced to switch over to Apple’s payment system, however, meant that Schibsted would have to forfeit 30 per cent of all the money generated when customers sign up for subscriptions for its newspapers in its apps.
,,,
But the problems didn’t stop there. Now that Apple was processing the payments in its apps, it held all of Schibsted's customer information including people's names, addresses, credit card details, and phone numbers. It was no longer privy to these details as Apple doesn't reveal them for privacy reasons, making customer service difficult.

Since Schibsted implemented a different payment system for its newspaper websites, readers who had bought subscriptions there found that they could no longer read the news on the app. Some decided to just buy two subscriptions, one for its website and another one for its app.
...
Another app creator, who wished to remain anonymous, told us that his app was singled out after he gave users a way to access the full version of the app for free as a trial. After their time was up, they would have to wait a while before they could renew the full service again. They could keep doing this for an unlimited number of times without having to pay a single cent.

But Apple didn't like that. The creator was told he had to roll out a payment system to make users input their credit card details before signing up for the trial period. There must also be a specific time limit to the pro version of the app, and once that period was over it must charge its customers money. To get out of it, users would have to explicitly cancel their subscription or else it would keep billing them.

 

[eastmen]

Hopefully another country will take Apple to task. I doubt the USA will do anything but its obvious apple is abusing its store to prey on smaller businesses.

 

[wco81]

Which small businesses?

If the App Store fees are too much for small developers, they're free to make software for Google Play or any other computing device.

Just like if a Mercedes costs too much for my wallet, I can buy a Honda. I don't have some right to force Mercedes to sell their cars to me at a price I can afford.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Which small businesses?

If the App Store fees are too much for small developers, they're free to make software for Google Play or any other computing device.

Just like if a Mercedes costs too much for my wallet, I can buy a Honda. I don't have some right to force Mercedes to sell their cars to me at a price I can afford.

The developers aren't buying a Mercedes or any product. A subtle distinction but an important one.

 

[wco81]

The developers aren't buying a Mercedes or any product. A subtle distinction but an important one.

Some developers want Apple to lower the price to put their apps on the App Store.

They want lower prices.

If they can't afford to pay lower prices, they can't make the seller lower their price.

They have plenty of other options. They don't have some inherent right to sell on the App Store, just as I don't have some inherent right to products that I can't afford.

 

[wco81]

Zuckerberg trying to draft on developer complaints about App Store pricing. In fact he cultivated the Trump administration to try to build antitrust case vs. App Store policies.

Zuckerberg's tack here reflects that of Epic Games, Spotify, and other companies that have recently challenged Apple's tight grip on the policies and revenue moving through its own App Store on the devices it makes, markets, and sells—as well as nascent antitrust investigations of Apple in both the United States and the European Union.

"Apple has every incentive to use their dominant platform position to interfere with how our apps and other apps work, which they regularly do to preference their own," said Zuckerberg. Further, Zuckerberg believes that Apple and Facebook will become more direct competitors in what both he and Cook say they believe is "the next computing platform"—augmented reality.

A new report in The Information today further fleshes out Facebook's potential strategy. The Information's sources say that Facebook has been working for several months to build a legal case challenging Apple's control of its App Store and that it has also assisted the US Department of Justice antitrust investigation into how Apple manages the iOS App Store. (Facebook itself has also recently been the subject of antitrust investigations and lawsuits.)

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/01/why-facebook-and-apple-are-going-to-war-over-privacy/

That is probably one of the reasons FaceBook was friendly to Trump and to right-wing propaganda spread through FB, why he was unwilling to try to curb such disinformation. Because he was trying to kiss up to the Trump administration, hoping they'd take action vs. Apple, which is on the verge of restricting FB personal data tracking through more transparency via the IDFA permissions change.

Because Zuck knows, if iOS users are thrown a warning with "FaceBook" and "tracking" in the language, he knows most users will decline to give tracking permission to FB apps.

 

[MfA]

Bringing Trump and advertising into the discussion of monopoly gating of platform access is irrelevant, just trying to play to emotion ... that kind of arguing is a bit fanboy'ish.

I think Epic would have more success bringing suit in Europe than the US. The US generally doesn't punish monopolies based on success, the EU is more proactive in creating competitive environments.

 

[zed]

Bringing Trump and advertising into the discussion of monopoly gating of platform access is irrelevant, just trying to play to emotion ... that kind of arguing is a bit fanboy'ish.

Yeah one could counter with, trump giving the first mac pro to trump (back in 2014 before he was president) I wonder was tim cook responsible for the rise of trump, did he hope to install trump in the whitehouse wco81? Perhaps you can look into this some more. But I would never cast bad light on tim cook by countering with that

 

[wco81]

Advertising is very much relevant since Zuckerberg is trying to use the Epic/Apple dispute to try to bring regulatory trouble to Apple, because new iOS may impact targeted advertising on iOS.

As for Trump, it's no secret that Zuck tried to stay close to Trump, tried to placate him. Now it's clear that he wanted something out of the Trump administration, specifically make Apple change policies to make iOS more favorable to Facebook's business interests.

 

[wco81]

App Store guideline updates, including the long-awaited requirement that Apps get explicit opt-in from users for any IDFA tracking. That is the one Zuckerberg has been screeching about. FB has been testing a more company-friendly dialog -- i.e. that is outright lies -- to try to get people to opt-in to tracking.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/202...es-with-tracking-opt-in-requirement-and-more/


Some clarification about game streaming apps and prohibitions on promotions of liquor, alcohol, vaping products. Yes they want to be the new Disney, though they will protect your privacy, as long as that privacy doesn't include common vices.

 

[eastmen]

https://9to5mac.com/2021/02/01/tim-cook-epic-games-deposition-apple-fortnite/

According to Judge Thomas S. Hixon, however, “this dispute is less than meets the eye.” Hixon writes that the apex doctrine “limits the length of a deposition, rather than barring it altogether,” and that given the circumstances, the dispute is a question of whether Cook should be deposed for “four hours, eight hours, or some length of time in between.” Hence, Hixon’s ruling that Cook should be deposed for seven hours.

As for where Hixon got seven hours from, the judge writes it’s the default rule for “how long a witness must suffer being deposed.” Hixon also argues that the apex doctrine focuses on whether a witness has a “unique, non-repetitive knowledge of the facts of the case.” When it comes to Apple’s app store policies—which are at the center of this seemingly never-ending case against Epic—Hixon writes “there is really no one like Apple’s CEO who can testify about how Apple views competition in these various markets that are core to its business model.”

wow that is a long time

 

[wco81]

So FB is on warpath vs. Apple.

The change in app tracking policies is not the only or first skirmish.

Turns out Zuckerberg took offense to Cook's comments about invading privacy as business models from years ago.

Zuck wants to inflict pain.

So it turns out FB may have been aiding Epic on the "anticompetitive" claims regarding the App Store.

Further, Facebook has explored filing a lawsuit against Apple, alleging that the smartphone maker's policies are anticompetitive.

The Wall Street Journal story also notes that Facebook has directly aided Epic Games' battle against Apple over a separate but loosely related battle over Apple's grip on its App Store and that Facebook has been "waging a campaign against Apple" with government officials and antitrust regulators.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/202...les-privacy-policies-we-need-to-inflict-pain/


So Zuckerberg has been pulling the strings behind the scenes on this whole App Store is a monopoly and anticompetitive thing?

 

[manux]

I don't see how apple is in wrong when giving users the choice on how much they are tracked. It's for facebook&co to make tracking so useful people want to opt in. And this is me owning ton of facebook stock saying this despite this could potentially make me loose money. If apple is forced to back peddle on this I think it might be time to uninstall apps from iphone to prevent said tracking that way.