app.box.com
its a brand new store imo that means that apple won't get anything except for the margin on the device and money from users whom continue to buy within the app store similar to macos
I think it's more about in app purchases.
I remember now. Thanks.
It does fundamentally come down to whether Apple is so big and aware that user lock-in is a thing (it kinda is based off the imessage emails) that it's able to abuse developers. I don't know if Apple will win this, suspect they will because the court is going to pass the ultimate decision to Congress and Epic might 'win' there in terms of getting some of the solutions it wants implemented.
Although I side with Apple in terms of it's their storefront, however opening it up would probably lead to better prices.
Nobody wants a race to the bottom, so in the end, I don't expect prices to change much at all. Epic however will offer their payment processing and other services to other apps for a modest fee.
It's definitely an alternative history that I would love to see but yeah, chrome and android would not be a thing imo if Microsoft won.
Epic can just not accept it and not sell their game on iOS.
its the opposite, apple winning sets a precedent that allows major platform holders to erect and hold onto unavoidable walled gardens, this gives windows and MacOS the legal greenlight to continue pushing for total platform control. Epic winning brings mobileOS's in line with desktops and makes it harder for, especially Microsoft to pull their UWP shit they were trying a few years back. Beyond that pushing for less rent seeking profits is beneficial to developers, consumers and the overall competitive health of the tech ecosystem. There is nothing to be gained by apple winning unless your brain is full of internet drama and you don't like Tim Sweeney's tweets.
Before the Carterphone decision it used to be against AT&T's rules to connect non-athorized devices (AKA phones not made by AT&T) to the phone network. AT&T lost. We got things like answering machines, fax machines and modems that connected directly to the phone line for faster speeds ushering us into the age of the internet.
Yeah, he's essentially asking for Apple to open up their devices which I don't think that's something you can do. What's stopping us the from asking Nintendo to let us play unauthorized games on their platform?
It has been ambiguous, Microsoft was reticent to appear like an aggressive monopoly because of their run in with the government many years prior. I don't see this situation as much different than mandating private infrastructure be accessible by competitors once it becomes large enough and important enough to the every day functioning of society and the economy. This has already happened with other industries and an argument can be made that computers are no longer a luxury and are now a necessary tool to participate in the modern economy/ society. This is just one step on a long road, epic will almost certainly loose this case because of much larger, unrelated pressures.
If Epic wins, every digital device will be fair game for other companies to demand their own payment processing system or even stores. Including Nintendo machines.
Would be a partial win for epic although I am not sure if the judge would be prescriptive in terms of how external apps would be installed aka is it closer to MacOS or android.
It's going to be an interesting one but I think epic are relying on the high switching cost of being on ios and their definitions of general computing device (on the latter, I am not 100% comfortable on that argument) suggesting it's not applicable to consoles including the switch. This is why I think they might lose this battle.
Yeah a lot of it boiled down to evidence of their behavior, and the Gates interview as far as why they actually lost.
I remember the lawsuit was about MS integrating it own software like IE, Windows Media, etc with little to no options to users download and install it own choose software.
