7 ms·

> I completely agree with it. Epic publicly and blatantly bypassed multiple App Store restrictions with their move today. App Store policy is not law - its ter

> I completely agree with it. Epic publicly and blatantly bypassed multiple App Store restrictions with their move today. App Store policy is not law - its terms are unilaterally set by Apple. Citing it as justification makes no sense.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
The law allows for Apple to do this. You don’t have to use Apple products. You don’t have to use the Apple transaction system. It is not a commons, it is not a monopoly. There are other platforms and e-commerce solutions. If you want to regulate Apple’s behavior, introduce a law (I would support a law to regulate Apple’s cut of App Store transactions). Fortnite getting booted isn’t going to get a bill sponsored or have antitrust regulators take notice. It’s a breach of contract currently, no more no less.
- aaomidi 6y ago
  Except there was literally a hearing last week, and multiple plans in EU to stop this sort of behavior, exactly because of the evidence that companies like Epic Games bring to light.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - threeseed 6y ago
    It is simply an investigation. There are no plans in place to force Apple, Google etc. to do anything. And it's not even clear what outcome the EU is even seeking.
    - aaomidi 6y ago
      If past cases are something to go by, there is a very real risk here for Apple and they're digging their own regulatory grave by behaving like this.
      - Someone 6y ago
        Not doing anything might be worse. Within a month, all major money-making apps would make a similar move, hiding the functionality from Apple’s review process and then activating it once most of their users have upgraded. Apple could spend time and money trying to find such hidden features, but that would mean many major apps would see no updates. That’s a losing game, too, even if they are successful at detecting such hidden functionality. They must have thought about this and decided this is their optimal initial response (it need not be the final one. They can put the app back in their store in seconds) I can understand that. Allowing this is guaranteeing the end of the App Store. Fighting gives them a chance salvaging it, parts of it, or at least, delay the inevitable.
        aaomidi 6y ago
        > Allowing this is guaranteeing the end of the App Store Is it though? Has the play store ended because Google allows side loading? The issue here is Apple simply doesn't really take risks and innovate to be the first in an industry. They take existing tech, polish them VERY well, and then try to make a lot of money off of it. Problem is they're trying to leverage their position to run other companies out of business (Spotify and Apple music for example, or Netflix and Apple TV+)
        Someone 6y ago
        End of the App Store because all high-grossing products would stop bringing in money. Doesn’t take risks? They spent lots of money on hardware for machining aluminium (a move that turned out good, I think), developed the Touch Bar (got mixed reviews), a new keyboard (not that successfully), decided to move to ARM CPUs in the desktop (potentially, that could bite them in the future. If x86 CPUs ever become faster than Apple ones, the speed difference with Windows may lose them customers for their high-margin devices), etc.
        aaomidi 6y ago
        None of those are really innovations with new products, but yeah. I guess this is moving away from the main conversation. But I don't really see the App Store going anywhere even if third party app stores were allowed.
- ihumanable 6y ago
  Last I checked the Sherman Antitrust Act is still a law.
jaegerpicker 6y ago
The own the platform, they designed it, built it, and maintain it. They have every right to set the rules for it.
- aaomidi 6y ago
  And they operate within the legal framework of various jurisdictions, which can and will force Apple to change their behavior.
  - macinjosh 6y ago
    Yeah! Get that government boot on their necks!! /s
    - aaomidi 6y ago
      Yes, in fact, this is one of the reasons government was created.
    - bmarquez 6y ago
      Apple's marketcap exceeds the GDP of most countries, it's hard to feel sympathetic given its size. https://www.investopedia.com/news/apple-now-bigger-these-5-things/ https://www.investopedia.com/news/apple-now-bigger-these-5-t...
- ardit33 6y ago
  Until regulations steps in, and mandates to be more fair and open, or to break up the company, or to allow multiple app stores (by competitors). At the end of the day, and iPad is a general computing device, and it will probably be treated as such in courts, where there are precedents on this.
  - aaomidi 6y ago
    And Apple markets the iPad and other various apple devices as general computing too.
  - 6y ago
ashtonkem 6y ago
Barring clauses that are deemed unenforceable, Terms and Conditions are effectively the same as the law when it comes to interacting with Apple's services. Citing them is actually fair, since the courts will uphold enforceable clauses if someone sues. If you want to argue that Apple’s TOS are unenforceable, then that’s a different argument.
natchy 6y ago
company policies are a funny thing. I know of a business that had a policy that fired someone for missing work 3 times without notice. So... an employee missed work 5+ times and then got fired. That employee sued AND WON because the company didn't fire at 3, they waited until 5. If a company has a policy or ToS they need to enforce it.

toomuchtodo 6y ago

The law allows for Apple to do this. You don’t have to use Apple products. You don’t have to use the Apple transaction system. It is not a commons, it is not a monopoly. There are other platforms and e-commerce solutions. If you want to regulate Apple’s behavior, introduce a law (I would support a law to regulate Apple’s cut of App Store transactions). Fortnite getting booted isn’t going to get a bill sponsored or have antitrust regulators take notice. It’s a breach of contract currently, no more no less.

aaomidi 6y ago
Except there was literally a hearing last week, and multiple plans in EU to stop this sort of behavior, exactly because of the evidence that companies like Epic Games bring to light.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- threeseed 6y ago
  It is simply an investigation. There are no plans in place to force Apple, Google etc. to do anything. And it's not even clear what outcome the EU is even seeking.
  - aaomidi 6y ago
    If past cases are something to go by, there is a very real risk here for Apple and they're digging their own regulatory grave by behaving like this.
    - Someone 6y ago
      Not doing anything might be worse. Within a month, all major money-making apps would make a similar move, hiding the functionality from Apple’s review process and then activating it once most of their users have upgraded. Apple could spend time and money trying to find such hidden features, but that would mean many major apps would see no updates. That’s a losing game, too, even if they are successful at detecting such hidden functionality. They must have thought about this and decided this is their optimal initial response (it need not be the final one. They can put the app back in their store in seconds) I can understand that. Allowing this is guaranteeing the end of the App Store. Fighting gives them a chance salvaging it, parts of it, or at least, delay the inevitable.
      - aaomidi 6y ago
        > Allowing this is guaranteeing the end of the App Store Is it though? Has the play store ended because Google allows side loading? The issue here is Apple simply doesn't really take risks and innovate to be the first in an industry. They take existing tech, polish them VERY well, and then try to make a lot of money off of it. Problem is they're trying to leverage their position to run other companies out of business (Spotify and Apple music for example, or Netflix and Apple TV+)
        Someone 6y ago
        End of the App Store because all high-grossing products would stop bringing in money. Doesn’t take risks? They spent lots of money on hardware for machining aluminium (a move that turned out good, I think), developed the Touch Bar (got mixed reviews), a new keyboard (not that successfully), decided to move to ARM CPUs in the desktop (potentially, that could bite them in the future. If x86 CPUs ever become faster than Apple ones, the speed difference with Windows may lose them customers for their high-margin devices), etc.
        aaomidi 6y ago
        None of those are really innovations with new products, but yeah. I guess this is moving away from the main conversation. But I don't really see the App Store going anywhere even if third party app stores were allowed.
ihumanable 6y ago
Last I checked the Sherman Antitrust Act is still a law.

jaegerpicker 6y ago

The own the platform, they designed it, built it, and maintain it. They have every right to set the rules for it.

aaomidi 6y ago
And they operate within the legal framework of various jurisdictions, which can and will force Apple to change their behavior.
- macinjosh 6y ago
  Yeah! Get that government boot on their necks!! /s
  - aaomidi 6y ago
    Yes, in fact, this is one of the reasons government was created.
  - bmarquez 6y ago
    Apple's marketcap exceeds the GDP of most countries, it's hard to feel sympathetic given its size. https://www.investopedia.com/news/apple-now-bigger-these-5-things/ https://www.investopedia.com/news/apple-now-bigger-these-5-t...
ardit33 6y ago
Until regulations steps in, and mandates to be more fair and open, or to break up the company, or to allow multiple app stores (by competitors). At the end of the day, and iPad is a general computing device, and it will probably be treated as such in courts, where there are precedents on this.
- aaomidi 6y ago
  And Apple markets the iPad and other various apple devices as general computing too.
- 6y ago

ashtonkem 6y ago

Barring clauses that are deemed unenforceable, Terms and Conditions are effectively the same as the law when it comes to interacting with Apple's services. Citing them is actually fair, since the courts will uphold enforceable clauses if someone sues. If you want to argue that Apple’s TOS are unenforceable, then that’s a different argument.

natchy 6y ago

company policies are a funny thing. I know of a business that had a policy that fired someone for missing work 3 times without notice. So... an employee missed work 5+ times and then got fired. That employee sued AND WON because the company didn't fire at 3, they waited until 5. If a company has a policy or ToS they need to enforce it.