• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Dozens of States side with Epic in App Store appeal

jigglet

Gold Member
Arrested Development Tobias GIF


(yes I get that out of 51 states, "dozens" is statistically significant, but fuck it, this gif needed to be posted)

Posted from my Palm Pre.
 
Last edited:

reksveks

Member
Arrested Development Tobias GIF


(yes I get that out of 51 states, "dozens" is statistically significant, but fuck it, this gif needed to be posted)

Posted from my Palm Pre.
As mentioned before, it's 34 states so you could say the majority of US states.

The more interesting thing is the DOJ chiming in.
 
Last edited:

jigglet

Gold Member
As mentioned before, it's 34 states so you could say the majority of US states.

The more interesting thing is the DOJ chiming in.

But it's only 34 states out of the thousands and thousands across the entire universe.

(yeah I'm baiting you, let's go)
 
I get your point, but I think you are still trying to make a special case for Apple in regards to what is just normal devices with general purpose computing use which should allow general purpose software - software not made or vetted by Apple - to run on the general purpose devices.

There's nothing inherently special about any general purpose computing device IMHO, because they've all stood on the shoulders of giants to get their success - from any technology with a published RFC, specification/protocol or open source implementation. Java's windowing toolkit demonstrated 20years ago, that interfaces are relatively generic in computing and they could all be subsumed. The "Look and feel" of iOS doesn't make it exempt from needing to allow open access to run software on devices
I would say that I'm not, but there's really no avoiding the fact that the iPhone situation is unique, so far. So in a way it's a special case one way or another. The problem with saying that iOS "has" to allow open access though, is that nothing about that notion makes sense. It's proprietary software. There's nothing that is "has" to do, except sell.

My stance is basically - a product is a product. Assuming it's a product that meets the standards of safety and whatnot, a company, or individual, creating that product, cannot be forced to extend the functionality of their product - except insofar as it's by market action, such as negative consumer reactions resulting in poor sales - beyond what they intend the functionality of their product to be.

The iPhone, is not just hardware. It's not just software. It's a complete product, top to bottom made and distributed by one company. Anything that happens within that product, is therefore entirely at the discretion of the company making it. You can't tell the company that they must include such-and-such program of your making in their product, nor can you tell the company to change their rules so you get more revenue from sales the success of their product allows you to have in the first place. The rules by which the product worked stayed more or less constant across all its iterations - nothing has changed. The company didn't bait anyone into using their product, then turn around and impose new fees and obstacles.

So, when you choose what product to buy - and people buy brand new, stupidly expensive phones with a regularity that stuns me - you are either already informed of the limitations inherent to the iPhones, or you're in for a crash course in closed platforms, and can then inform your next purchase. You don't get to buy into the closed platform that only became what it is because it is closed, and then demand that it be open. It'd be like buying a Tesla and demand the manufacturer rework it to have a regular gasoline engine for you because you "like the quality, but would like to avoid having to use charging stations".
 

FStubbs

Member
Its interesting to see how everyone likes this move, but think about what will happen to switch, xbox and PlayStation. They are literally doing the same thing as apple is doing.

I wonder when they get into the same situation.
That's Tencent's end goal.
 

Unknown?

Member
Imagine if Microsoft controlled everything you could put on your computer, and Charged a fee for every purchase on their platform.



It would be broken up faster than you can say "antitrust"
They control how much telemetry your Windows operating system sends though. Even with it turned off in settings.
 

ReBurn

Gold Member
They control how much telemetry your Windows operating system sends though. Even with it turned off in settings.
As opposed to letting you choose which company to send telemetry to? If collecting telemetry against your wishes is monopolistic all of Silicon Valley is about to be broken up.
 
Last edited:

ReBurn

Gold Member
Apple allows you to put anything on their laptops. It is just their phones that are restrictive and that doesn't make them a monopoly given Android exists.
Apple doesn't allow just anything to be installed on laptops. They make you jump through hoops to install anything not distributed through their App Store and a few trusted publishers, making you dig into security settings to approve most apps they didn't serve you. Like with iOS they claim it's a security measure but it also forces independent publishers to give Apple the app store cut because not doing so makes them seem like they are distributing harmful software.
 

DaGwaphics

Gold Member
I would say that I'm not, but there's really no avoiding the fact that the iPhone situation is unique, so far. So in a way it's a special case one way or another. The problem with saying that iOS "has" to allow open access though, is that nothing about that notion makes sense. It's proprietary software. There's nothing that is "has" to do, except sell.

My stance is basically - a product is a product. Assuming it's a product that meets the standards of safety and whatnot, a company, or individual, creating that product, cannot be forced to extend the functionality of their product - except insofar as it's by market action, such as negative consumer reactions resulting in poor sales - beyond what they intend the functionality of their product to be.

The iPhone, is not just hardware. It's not just software. It's a complete product, top to bottom made and distributed by one company. Anything that happens within that product, is therefore entirely at the discretion of the company making it. You can't tell the company that they must include such-and-such program of your making in their product, nor can you tell the company to change their rules so you get more revenue from sales the success of their product allows you to have in the first place. The rules by which the product worked stayed more or less constant across all its iterations - nothing has changed. The company didn't bait anyone into using their product, then turn around and impose new fees and obstacles.

So, when you choose what product to buy - and people buy brand new, stupidly expensive phones with a regularity that stuns me - you are either already informed of the limitations inherent to the iPhones, or you're in for a crash course in closed platforms, and can then inform your next purchase. You don't get to buy into the closed platform that only became what it is because it is closed, and then demand that it be open. It'd be like buying a Tesla and demand the manufacturer rework it to have a regular gasoline engine for you because you "like the quality, but would like to avoid having to use charging stations".

Very true. All of this is just a method to extend government overreach and end free enterprise full stop. Some of the stuff going on is just ludicrous. You have Wolfire saying that Valve should separate their back-end and store (when the back-end was purpose built for the store, LOL) and that back-end integration should not require fees paid to Valve (even though that back-end has real costs for development and deployment). You can't make this shit up. But, the masses are extremely shortsighted, they haven't realized what they are giving up just yet.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
I would say that I'm not, but there's really no avoiding the fact that the iPhone situation is unique, so far. So in a way it's a special case one way or another. The problem with saying that iOS "has" to allow open access though, is that nothing about that notion makes sense. It's proprietary software. There's nothing that is "has" to do, except sell.

My stance is basically - a product is a product. Assuming it's a product that meets the standards of safety and whatnot, a company, or individual, creating that product, cannot be forced to extend the functionality of their product - except insofar as it's by market action, such as negative consumer reactions resulting in poor sales - beyond what they intend the functionality of their product to be.

The iPhone, is not just hardware. It's not just software. It's a complete product, top to bottom made and distributed by one company. Anything that happens within that product, is therefore entirely at the discretion of the company making it. You can't tell the company that they must include such-and-such program of your making in their product, nor can you tell the company to change their rules so you get more revenue from sales the success of their product allows you to have in the first place. The rules by which the product worked stayed more or less constant across all its iterations - nothing has changed. The company didn't bait anyone into using their product, then turn around and impose new fees and obstacles.

So, when you choose what product to buy - and people buy brand new, stupidly expensive phones with a regularity that stuns me - you are either already informed of the limitations inherent to the iPhones, or you're in for a crash course in closed platforms, and can then inform your next purchase. You don't get to buy into the closed platform that only became what it is because it is closed, and then demand that it be open. It'd be like buying a Tesla and demand the manufacturer rework it to have a regular gasoline engine for you because you "like the quality, but would like to avoid having to use charging stations".
As I've already said, there is nothing at all unique or special about iOS or even the iPhone for that matter when you strip away everything in the software or hardware that Apple didn't invent/gift to the world of computing or telecommunications. They just found a way to tag their iPod success - that kneecapped Walkman's DRM stance and enabled the proliferation of pirated music gain their popularity - and migrated it to a late to market smartphone, but were in the right place at the right time.

If you consider all the telecoms patented technologies of Nokia, Ericsson, Motorola, Sony (to name just a few) needed by iDevices and said it was fair for those patent holders to charge Apple a non-"fair" market price to use those technologies, then a "product" being just a "product" would be a level playing field IMHO., but regulators demand that all patented tech is supplied at a fair market price to all, which Apple are a big beneficiary of.

The recent history of telecoms - from installing internet backbone trunks throughout the world or mobile cell towers installed through compulsory land purchases, or launching satellites for ship SAT-phones, etc, etc - has been achieved through public and private partnerships across the globe and has been highly regulated by governments since the beginning of radio transmissions, and at its core the iDevices are only in people's lives because they are a telecom device first and foremost - either by using telephony networks or Comms-Over-IP, so the idea that Apple should be able to guarantee their cut on a common necessity device for telecoms is at odds with how telecoms is - and has been - regulated since the beginning. Had Bell labs (Cable & Wireless/AT&T) not been broken up in the day - with your hands-off approach - there would never have been an open market for Apple to have released an iPhone into.

On the general computing side, it is the same deal, and an iPhone or iOS devices without all the general computing stuff - they freeload on too - that the entire industry shares, if it was absent from their device would make the device unsellable in its own right, which would stop them indirectly earning the most of the smart device software market revenue of game apps - like they currently do. And even computing has been highly regulated too over the years, so much so that export prohibition of even ZX Spectrums and BBC/Acorn Computers once existed AFAIK, which IIRC was a real-world issue back in the day for the developers that eventually went on to make the original Operation Flashpoint.

The idea that this already highly regulated generic telecoms and computing technology device, gifted with over 50% of the market revenue - so at Apple's whim could put developers out of business by denying them access to a common user market - sounds ridiculous to me, as someone quite familiar with the history of telecoms and computing, and had/has detailed knowledge of both fields to appreciate just how little in an iDevice is truly invented by Apple, and just how much they freeload on the public private partnership infrastructure to have an opportunity to sell such devices.

It is merely a highly successful general purpose computing device IMO, that at the very least needs held to the same standards as Android for user access to install things, if not the standards rightfully placed on Microsoft Windows.
 
Last edited:
It is merely a highly successful general purpose computing device IMO, that at the very least needs held to the same standards as Android for user access to install things, if not the standards rightfully placed on Microsoft Windows.
Would it have been as successful if it were not a closed platform, is a good question. Because that notion in itself implies a variety of changes, to revenue models, ability to control and ascertain safety and security of the devices, and so on. My guess, is no. The primary reason why 'the iPhone' is so successful, is that it's a single product, a tightly controlled closed platform. It's not a 'general computing device' with a commercially available OS installed.

There's also the matter of a 'general computing device' being, by the metric of an iPhone being one, literally anything with a processor and IO.

One can, for example, override the firmware of their Switch, wipe the OS, install an ARM build of Linux, or Android, and use it as a tablet. Does that, in your understanding, make the Switch a general computing device too? Because it shouldn't. A hacked Switch is a general computing device, exactly because it lets you install anything you want and use it however you want. The regular Switch, is just a console. And the same goes for the iPhone. Being a "general computing device" specifically implies the device lets you install anything and use it however you like - in hardware, software, and firmware both. If the software is preventing you from having that freedom, and you cannot override it, then it's not a general computing device. If the hardware or firmware is preventing you from changing the limited software, then it's not a general computing device.

My phone is an Yxtel Z66, it has a resistive touchscreen, a keypad, a stylus that doubles as an FM radio antenna, a variety of apps, and its own little appstore. It's very much not a "general computing device" like you'd have the iPhone be, yet the only reason for that is that it's a quirky little chinese phone with no userbase or app writers to speak of. Just like the iPhone, one could make the processor and screen inside this device theoretically do any kind of computing, but practically there is no way to actually change the firmware or OS of the phone to allow sideloading things. And that's perfectly normal, it's a perfectly normal phone. In some alternate timeline, whatever this Yxtel is, could be as big as Apple. Or Samsung at least. There'd be thousands of apps on the app store, and the stylus and touchscreen would make it perfect for light productivity work. But... it'd still not be a "general computing device", unless it actually allowed you to run arbitrary software on it like Android would. Because that, and not the "potential" to run arbitrary software, is what defines it. If you go by 'potential', you better be prepared to write thousands of lawsuits - there are many devices more ubiquitous than iPhones, that also have processors and IO in them, and no way to install arbitrary software for the average user.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
Would it have been as successful if it were not a closed platform, is a good question. Because that notion in itself implies a variety of changes, to revenue models, ability to control and ascertain safety and security of the devices, and so on. My guess, is no. The primary reason why 'the iPhone' is so successful, is that it's a single product, a tightly controlled closed platform. It's not a 'general computing device' with a commercially available OS installed.

There's also the matter of a 'general computing device' being, by the metric of an iPhone being one, literally anything with a processor and IO.

One can, for example, override the firmware of their Switch, wipe the OS, install an ARM build of Linux, or Android, and use it as a tablet. Does that, in your understanding, make the Switch a general computing device too? Because it shouldn't. A hacked Switch is a general computing device, exactly because it lets you install anything you want and use it however you want. The regular Switch, is just a console. And the same goes for the iPhone. Being a "general computing device" specifically implies the device lets you install anything and use it however you like - in hardware, software, and firmware both. If the software is preventing you from having that freedom, and you cannot override it, then it's not a general computing device. If the hardware or firmware is preventing you from changing the limited software, then it's not a general computing device.

My phone is an Yxtel Z66, it has a resistive touchscreen, a keypad, a stylus that doubles as an FM radio antenna, a variety of apps, and its own little appstore. It's very much not a "general computing device" like you'd have the iPhone be, yet the only reason for that is that it's a quirky little chinese phone with no userbase or app writers to speak of. Just like the iPhone, one could make the processor and screen inside this device theoretically do any kind of computing, but practically there is no way to actually change the firmware or OS of the phone to allow sideloading things. And that's perfectly normal, it's a perfectly normal phone. In some alternate timeline, whatever this Yxtel is, could be as big as Apple. Or Samsung at least. There'd be thousands of apps on the app store, and the stylus and touchscreen would make it perfect for light productivity work. But... it'd still not be a "general computing device", unless it actually allowed you to run arbitrary software on it like Android would. Because that, and not the "potential" to run arbitrary software, is what defines it. If you go by 'potential', you better be prepared to write thousands of lawsuits - there are many devices more ubiquitous than iPhones, that also have processors and IO in them, and no way to install arbitrary software for the average user.
I think you mis-framed what I - and most likely the authorities will - mean as a general purpose telecoms and computing device. It isn't by what you can do, but by how it is used and endorsed by the platform holder. Virtually every viable piece of general purpose computing software (open source or proprietary) that can run on an iDevice - same with Android or Blackberry before it - has been ported where Apple's cut isn't the limiting factor.

The general purpose coms and compute usage and expectation of the users defines the platform as general purpose, not the OS and not the hardware. An old Sony News MIPs unix station was very small platform, as was Dragon, etc, etc computers in the 80s, but they are all considered general purpose - unlike consoles that don't have widespread coms for Whatsapp, SMS, etc, etc that serve more than their dedicated A to AAA dedicated gaming userbase - the games that cover the loss-leading hardware sales model.

As for whether the iDevices would have been successful under a different model, it doesn't really matter when their current status-quo with vetting/profit cut blocks free market access to a userbase that only exists from the wider work of the entire world economy's collective public private creation of the telecoms and computing markets they freeload on.

IMHO and supposedly most states in the US, free market access is more important than what may or may not be fair to Apple as single business in the world, just like it wasn't fair to giants like Bell Labs, but their breakup served the world better in the long run (IMO). However, if that was a cornerstone argument of Apple's defence then we only need look at the iPod success or look at the timeline and how other smartphones like the Nokia communicator, Texas instruments (can't remember the model), the Sony Ericsson P800 or Blackberries that all preceded the iPhone faired when Apple transitioned their popular iPod userbase. I would say it was the targeting of the iTunes consumer and the consistent look-and-feel from iPod touch that paved the way for iDevice to reach critical mass success. And I doubt most of the iPhone users even know about how Android is different in allowing users to bypass the PlayStore to install things. This is largely an argument about market opportunities for businesses on a general purpose device using common computing and coms technologies, not whether or not users know or would instantly change behaviour. They probably won't, but with sideloading access entirely blocked, we don't know if Google or Samsung or Microsoft, or Sony or Valve could provide suitable store competition on an iDevice to keep Apple's cut in check.
 
I think you mis-framed what I - and most likely the authorities will - mean as a general purpose telecoms and computing device. It isn't by what you can do, but by how it is used and endorsed by the platform holder. Virtually every viable piece of general purpose computing software (open source or proprietary) that can run on an iDevice - same with Android or Blackberry before it - has been ported where Apple's cut isn't the limiting factor.

The general purpose coms and compute usage and expectation of the users defines the platform as general purpose, not the OS and not the hardware. An old Sony News MIPs unix station was very small platform, as was Dragon, etc, etc computers in the 80s, but they are all considered general purpose - unlike consoles that don't have widespread coms for Whatsapp, SMS, etc, etc that serve more than their dedicated A to AAA dedicated gaming userbase - the games that cover the loss-leading hardware sales model.

As for whether the iDevices would have been successful under a different model, it doesn't really matter when their current status-quo with vetting/profit cut blocks free market access to a userbase that only exists from the wider work of the entire world economy's collective public private creation of the telecoms and computing markets they freeload on.

IMHO and supposedly most states in the US, free market access is more important than what may or may not be fair to Apple as single business in the world, just like it wasn't fair to giants like Bell Labs, but their breakup served the world better in the long run (IMO). However, if that was a cornerstone argument of Apple's defence then we only need look at the iPod success or look at the timeline and how other smartphones like the Nokia communicator, Texas instruments (can't remember the model), the Sony Ericsson P800 or Blackberries that all preceded the iPhone faired when Apple transitioned their popular iPod userbase. I would say it was the targeting of the iTunes consumer and the consistent look-and-feel from iPod touch that paved the way for iDevice to reach critical mass success. And I doubt most of the iPhone users even know about how Android is different in allowing users to bypass the PlayStore to install things. This is largely an argument about market opportunities for businesses on a general purpose device using common computing and coms technologies, not whether or not users know or would instantly change behaviour. They probably won't, but with sideloading access entirely blocked, we don't know if Google or Samsung or Microsoft, or Sony or Valve could provide suitable store competition on an iDevice to keep Apple's cut in check.
None of it really explains why Apple "must" change iOS to suit the needs of a theoretical userbase that wants an open device. Open devices exist on the market, yet are obviously not attractive enough if iOS devices are so popular. To say that some higher governing body would "know best" what is better for the existing userbase of iDevices is presumptuous to the highest degree. A lot of people, don't want "freedom" - they want security, or predictability, or consistency. If the vast majority of iOS users is better served by iOS remaining closed, should it really be opened up for the sake of the few? Especially when it's the likes of Epic Games and Microsoft comprising the "few".
 

PaintTinJr

Member
None of it really explains why Apple "must" change iOS to suit the needs of a theoretical userbase that wants an open device. Open devices exist on the market, yet are obviously not attractive enough if iOS devices are so popular. To say that some higher governing body would "know best" what is better for the existing userbase of iDevices is presumptuous to the highest degree. A lot of people, don't want "freedom" - they want security, or predictability, or consistency. If the vast majority of iOS users is better served by iOS remaining closed, should it really be opened up for the sake of the few? Especially when it's the likes of Epic Games and Microsoft comprising the "few".
Apple won't change it, they are - almost certainly - at some point, assuming they continue to grow in wealth and prominence with iOS - so the situation gets more acute are - going to be forced to change by world authorities, or be broken up by the US.

Apple's customers won't get a say in things - going by history of how other companies like Bell labs customers didn't - and if that means a perceived worsening of their Apple owned products, then that's probably going to be collateral damage IMHO.

Who stands to gain from opening up sideloading on iOS is an open ended question. That company may not even exist as yet, today. Apple have dug their own grave in my opinion with the general purpose computing issue with their ..."There's an app for that!" tag line. Gamepass, etc on iOS? There's an app fooorrrr ....oh wait, there isn't, is there?
 
Gamepass, etc on iOS? There's an app fooorrrr ....oh wait, there isn't, is there?
Which just proves that it's a closed, console-like platform.

Look, I'm not saying Apple shouldn't be dinged for having their cake and eating it too. If they're forced to lower profit margins on their phones so that they actually need the revenue from software sales to support the platform, like consoles do, I'll be perfectly fine with that. But a device like this should be allowed to exist.

I'm very curious what the response would be, from Apple and people like... well, you, both, to the proposal that Apple should just... offer another device line. One that is more or less like the iPhones and iPads, but has all the advantages and drawbacks of being open. No security, no extra safety offered by the 'shell' of the closed platform, but you're able to sideload things on it. Clearly marked and marketed as such. Otherwise no differences in hardware. OEMs could preload other storefronts, only on these devices.

How would that work? And would it? Would the broad mass of users typically following Apple's design doctrine, even consider these new devices, even if they're coming from Apple itself?
 

graywolf323

Member
honestly while I get the reasoning from some people, if you don't like how Apple manages iOS then just get an Android phone

this very much feels like a slippery slope where this is going to cause a massive disruption in the market as we know it if Epic/Tencent succeed here

That's Tencent's end goal.
honestly it's likely Microsoft's goal here too, if Apple loses it'll be easier for MS to then argue this to get GamePass on more platforms which they care much more about than keeping Xbox closed off
 

DaGwaphics

Gold Member
Apple's customers won't get a say in things - going by history of how other companies like Bell labs customers didn't - and if that means a perceived worsening of their Apple owned products, then that's probably going to be collateral damage IMHO.

You keep using the Mamma bell example, but unless Apple starts to impose any pressure on the use of these devices for communication, or the networks they run on, I don't see any relevance. AT&T being the only provider of phone service with complete control of pricing was quite different, they were a literal monopoly.
 

FStubbs

Member
Apple won't change it, they are - almost certainly - at some point, assuming they continue to grow in wealth and prominence with iOS - so the situation gets more acute are - going to be forced to change by world authorities, or be broken up by the US.

Apple's customers won't get a say in things - going by history of how other companies like Bell labs customers didn't - and if that means a perceived worsening of their Apple owned products, then that's probably going to be collateral damage IMHO.

Who stands to gain from opening up sideloading on iOS is an open ended question. That company may not even exist as yet, today. Apple have dug their own grave in my opinion with the general purpose computing issue with their ..."There's an app for that!" tag line. Gamepass, etc on iOS? There's an app fooorrrr ....oh wait, there isn't, is there?
Tencent among others - once Apple, Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft are basically third parties on their own hardware.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
Tencent among others - once Apple, Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft are basically third parties on their own hardware.
Apple aren't in the same situation as the others, because none of the others want "an App for that" general computing sales pitch for their hardware- and eventually(less than 15years from now) they'll only be PC and smart devices so the point would be moot anyway.

Apple won't get a free pass IMHO - especially in Europe and the UK - on having a dictatorship in their part of a telecoms general computing market - that's normally free and open - just because one company might get an advantage, whether that's Tencent or anyone else. You only need look at how home manufactured products migrated to China in the 80's and 90's and now no one bats an eyelid to realise that consumers and businesses are price sensitive led.
 
Top Bottom