2 ms·

So that means third parties have the legal right to put on Apple phones whatever they please? I think not. As such, the contract between the companies is the l

So that means third parties have the legal right to put on Apple phones whatever they please? I think not. As such, the contract between the companies is the legally binding method to access Apple hardware. Apparently Apple has designed the contract so millions of apps got developed for the phones. Epic wanted different terms, but has no legal right to unilaterally break contracts to do so. The courts will likely side with Apple. There’s ample precedent for platform owners to have wide latitude on fees to publish.

kohtatsu 6y ago
I want to believe I own this phone, not Apple, despite them trying their darnedest to keep me out.
Barrin92 6y ago
>So that means third parties have the legal right to put on Apple phones whatever they please? I think not. It just means that the argument was terrible because Apple didn't 'built the market themselves'. Developers and third parties are what made smartphones so valuable, and Apple is a part of that, but not some sort of messiah, and not even the major contributor. the market value of everything that runs on the phone is much larger than the phone. As to what should be the case, yes I think people should have the right to run on their phone whatever software they want. If they only want to run Apple software they can do that no problem, there is no downside here. What are you afraid of, too much competition and freedom? If the Apple experience is so great they've got nothing to lose. Also applies to game consoles in my opinion. I'd love freely moddable console games and if developers could publish on a playstation without paying fees to sony or being limited by them. I'd love to see platforms unlocked so that there is a maximum amount of opportunity for everyone to do what they want with it. That's how creative things are made.
- ChrisLomont 6y ago
  > the market value of everything that runs on the phone is much larger than the phone. Not by any metric I can find. Apple has a market cap of 2 trillion; half their revenue of 260B is phone. The market cap of all mobile companies is dwarfed by Apple.... Mobile app sales total 76B a year, including both iOS and Android. The iOS part is around half of that value. So by one simple metric, Apple revenue on phones is around 130B a year, mobile revenue on iOS is around 38B..... What metric did you base this "much larger" claim? Did you base it on market numbers or make it up? >I'd love freely moddable console games and if developers could publish There's plenty of such platforms. They don't take off. Ask yourself why. Conspiracy stuff like "the big men stop them" is not the answer. Even huge players like Steam have tried - and they certainly have the resources to push such a thing. It failed. Why didn't developers rush to these free to publish on platforms? Maybe you are missing important things about the value of the platform versus the value of the software. >What are you afraid of, too much competition and freedom? Competition is not breaking contracts as you see fit. Competition will not exist without rule of law - this is basic econ. You'll end up with chaos and theft when contracts cannot be enforced. And you're welcome to do whatever you want. Buy other hardware if you don't like Apple's terms of service. Build a product and sell it if you think there's demand for a different product. People buy Apple because they find more value in it, as is, than their other choices. The same as people who value freedom and openness are allowed to buy other products as they see fit. I don't understand why people continually think they have some rights they simply don't historically, legally, or even morally. Just like I'd expect you to claim it's immoral for some other entity to force things you created to adhere to their whims, or hand over value to you because you demand it, you have no moral right to do that to others. I guess we just see it differently on the morality of forcing others to bend their work to our whims. You also forget that once Atari did let developers publish will nilly on Atari 2600, and there was such a deluge of crap, that the market and platform crashed. Nintendo and all following companies learned that lesson: everyday consumers don't have the skill to protect themselves from crap, so to make a solid consumer platform, the owner of the hardware should provide significant protection for users.

kohtatsu 6y ago

I want to believe I own this phone, not Apple, despite them trying their darnedest to keep me out.

Barrin92 6y ago

>So that means third parties have the legal right to put on Apple phones whatever they please? I think not. It just means that the argument was terrible because Apple didn't 'built the market themselves'. Developers and third parties are what made smartphones so valuable, and Apple is a part of that, but not some sort of messiah, and not even the major contributor. the market value of everything that runs on the phone is much larger than the phone. As to what should be the case, yes I think people should have the right to run on their phone whatever software they want. If they only want to run Apple software they can do that no problem, there is no downside here. What are you afraid of, too much competition and freedom? If the Apple experience is so great they've got nothing to lose. Also applies to game consoles in my opinion. I'd love freely moddable console games and if developers could publish on a playstation without paying fees to sony or being limited by them. I'd love to see platforms unlocked so that there is a maximum amount of opportunity for everyone to do what they want with it. That's how creative things are made.

ChrisLomont 6y ago
> the market value of everything that runs on the phone is much larger than the phone. Not by any metric I can find. Apple has a market cap of 2 trillion; half their revenue of 260B is phone. The market cap of all mobile companies is dwarfed by Apple.... Mobile app sales total 76B a year, including both iOS and Android. The iOS part is around half of that value. So by one simple metric, Apple revenue on phones is around 130B a year, mobile revenue on iOS is around 38B..... What metric did you base this "much larger" claim? Did you base it on market numbers or make it up? >I'd love freely moddable console games and if developers could publish There's plenty of such platforms. They don't take off. Ask yourself why. Conspiracy stuff like "the big men stop them" is not the answer. Even huge players like Steam have tried - and they certainly have the resources to push such a thing. It failed. Why didn't developers rush to these free to publish on platforms? Maybe you are missing important things about the value of the platform versus the value of the software. >What are you afraid of, too much competition and freedom? Competition is not breaking contracts as you see fit. Competition will not exist without rule of law - this is basic econ. You'll end up with chaos and theft when contracts cannot be enforced. And you're welcome to do whatever you want. Buy other hardware if you don't like Apple's terms of service. Build a product and sell it if you think there's demand for a different product. People buy Apple because they find more value in it, as is, than their other choices. The same as people who value freedom and openness are allowed to buy other products as they see fit. I don't understand why people continually think they have some rights they simply don't historically, legally, or even morally. Just like I'd expect you to claim it's immoral for some other entity to force things you created to adhere to their whims, or hand over value to you because you demand it, you have no moral right to do that to others. I guess we just see it differently on the morality of forcing others to bend their work to our whims. You also forget that once Atari did let developers publish will nilly on Atari 2600, and there was such a deluge of crap, that the market and platform crashed. Nintendo and all following companies learned that lesson: everyday consumers don't have the skill to protect themselves from crap, so to make a solid consumer platform, the owner of the hardware should provide significant protection for users.