4 ms·

Yes but Epic still needs those licenses to support those companies and continue to develop the engine. Regardless of the other matter going on, it looks punitiv

Yes but Epic still needs those licenses to support those companies and continue to develop the engine. Regardless of the other matter going on, it looks punitive to me. I think when we look back on this event in 5-10 years' time, we'll see this as a serious misstep by Apple.

theklr 6y ago
That’s a bold claim
kergonath 6y ago
Yes, I agree with the first half of what you said, which is not was the OP said. As for the rest, I have seen far too many “this time, Apple is doomed for real” events to agree with your last sentence. Apple could stop selling any device today and still be around in 10 years.
- gtsteve 6y ago
  To be clear, I don't think they're doomed, but I think this measure will provide ammunition to those who want to sideload apps and make their own app stores, which is presumably what Epic wants. I think this has been inevitable for some time, but I think by making this mistake they have they they've accelerated the process and damaged their monopoly far earlier than they had to. Note: Perhaps I am just seeing what I want to see here. I am hopeful that I and other independent software vendors will be able to avoid their app store one day.
  - kergonath 6y ago
    You might be right; in any case we won’t see it for a while. I think reform of the AppStore is overdue. Some of the rules are counterproductive and with enough of a grey area so that their implementation looks capricious at times. But man, Tim Sweeney is such an arsehole, and Epic’s behaviour is so self-serving...
    - gtsteve 6y ago
      I think it would have been more self serving for Epic to strike a backroom deal, they've got the clout to do so and it'd probably be better for their shareholders' blood pressure. On the other hand, if this plays out the way they want, then they get 100% of the income (less overheads) which would be an absolute win for them. I don't think their motivation matters however - as an ISV getting kicked off the app store is no longer a potential death sentence or a wasted investment; you just need to get smart about how you distribute.
      - dwaite 6y ago
        They tried striking a backroom deal first, with a 'and wouldn't it be nice if you gave this to other people as well'. It didn't seem like any sort of legitimate offer - for one, the "deal" would be that Apple would host fortnite for free, review it for free, and make 0% on in-app purchases. Epic also didn't edit the letter properly and accidentally left an "Android" in rather than changing it to "iOS", so presumably they presented Google with the same offer.
        kergonath 6y ago
        And they had the marketing machine ready the second they sued, just to remove any doubt they were acting in good faith.
    - toyg 6y ago
      > Tim Sweeney is such an arsehole, and Epic’s behaviour is so self-serving I have flashbacks of the original iPhone release and the hate it got from established gatekeeping ISPs. "Man, Steve Jobs can be such an arsehole, and Apple's behaviour is so self-serving", but in the end they did the world a favour by pushing back greedy carriers a little bit, forcing them to accept the possibility of distributing largely-untainted smartphones. Kinda the same with iTunes. Progress is made by unreasonable and often unsympathetic people who are clearly looking after their own self-interest, which ends up actually matching the general interest. I think this is one of those.
    - martin8412 6y ago
- vaxman 6y ago
  Remember when AT&T (“Ma Bell”) was broken up (“Divestiture”) into a bunch of independent companies (regional bells, RBOCs, “Baby Bells”) as Bell Labs spun off into a set of companies? Yeah, the AT&T you see today is actually the largest of those RBOCs (PacBell) that went around and reacquired all of the other RBOCS and changed its name to AT&T (leaving the original AT&T using the name for its continuing backhaul/wholesale operation). Could Apple be forced to divest the App Store and also license other qualified app stores that come along to compete with it? —and that’s just what the courts can do to them. Those koolaide brewers also have drawn the wrath of Congress and angered the Executive Branch by not being so willing to drop a half trillion to setup shop in the desert midwest instead of southeast Asia.
  - deaddodo 6y ago
    No, it didn't. Verizon is modern Bell Atlantic and also went about buying up RBOCs. Your point is valid, they did just remonopolize, but it's not like AT&T is just AT&T again.
    - vaxman 6y ago
      GTE was not an RBOC. Verizon is GTE+BellAtlantic+Vodafone-Vodafone.
      - deaddodo 6y ago
        And various smaller RBOCs.
        vaxman 6y ago
        PacBell/Tel had two competitors for the seven dwarfs (RBOCs) that Judge Green created from MaBell, those competitors were GTE and Quest. GTE did pick up Bell Atlantic (and NYNEX) while Quest picked up US West. GTE then merged with Vodafone to become Verizon (and recently bought out Vodafone). Quest became CenturyLink. PacBell simply licensed the retail rights to the original AT&T name. When the federal government breaks AppStore off of Apple and forces it to compete with qualified independent app stores, they will have learned from that fiasco and probably have language in the settlement (consent decree) that does not allow it to go around buying up the other app stores and eventually change its name back to Apple. Apple without AppStore will be a media company, since hardware sales aren't/can't be enough to sustain growth (unless we find a planet of aliens), especially if we are losing the Chinese market to another cold war. Incidentally, there is another case precedent: Disney. There is a reason Disney no longer owns Grauman's/Mann's Chinese Theater in Hollywood, its favorite venue --Disney/Paramount lost an antitrust case that prohibited them from owning both the means of production and the manner of distribution (sound familiar?); however, President Trump has recently terminated those 77 year old consent decrees meaning Disney can do what it wants now. Ironically, Disney might become a suitor for Apple's media business if it doesn't workout. For example, NASA and its contractors buy thousands of Macs from Apple but some phat idiot (won't name names) thinks it's a good idea to have an AppleTV+ series about "what if NASA didn't win the space race" wtaf?!

theklr 6y ago

That’s a bold claim

kergonath 6y ago

Yes, I agree with the first half of what you said, which is not was the OP said. As for the rest, I have seen far too many “this time, Apple is doomed for real” events to agree with your last sentence. Apple could stop selling any device today and still be around in 10 years.

gtsteve 6y ago
To be clear, I don't think they're doomed, but I think this measure will provide ammunition to those who want to sideload apps and make their own app stores, which is presumably what Epic wants. I think this has been inevitable for some time, but I think by making this mistake they have they they've accelerated the process and damaged their monopoly far earlier than they had to. Note: Perhaps I am just seeing what I want to see here. I am hopeful that I and other independent software vendors will be able to avoid their app store one day.
- kergonath 6y ago
  You might be right; in any case we won’t see it for a while. I think reform of the AppStore is overdue. Some of the rules are counterproductive and with enough of a grey area so that their implementation looks capricious at times. But man, Tim Sweeney is such an arsehole, and Epic’s behaviour is so self-serving...
  - gtsteve 6y ago
    I think it would have been more self serving for Epic to strike a backroom deal, they've got the clout to do so and it'd probably be better for their shareholders' blood pressure. On the other hand, if this plays out the way they want, then they get 100% of the income (less overheads) which would be an absolute win for them. I don't think their motivation matters however - as an ISV getting kicked off the app store is no longer a potential death sentence or a wasted investment; you just need to get smart about how you distribute.
    - dwaite 6y ago
      They tried striking a backroom deal first, with a 'and wouldn't it be nice if you gave this to other people as well'. It didn't seem like any sort of legitimate offer - for one, the "deal" would be that Apple would host fortnite for free, review it for free, and make 0% on in-app purchases. Epic also didn't edit the letter properly and accidentally left an "Android" in rather than changing it to "iOS", so presumably they presented Google with the same offer.
      - kergonath 6y ago
        And they had the marketing machine ready the second they sued, just to remove any doubt they were acting in good faith.
  - toyg 6y ago
    > Tim Sweeney is such an arsehole, and Epic’s behaviour is so self-serving I have flashbacks of the original iPhone release and the hate it got from established gatekeeping ISPs. "Man, Steve Jobs can be such an arsehole, and Apple's behaviour is so self-serving", but in the end they did the world a favour by pushing back greedy carriers a little bit, forcing them to accept the possibility of distributing largely-untainted smartphones. Kinda the same with iTunes. Progress is made by unreasonable and often unsympathetic people who are clearly looking after their own self-interest, which ends up actually matching the general interest. I think this is one of those.
  - martin8412 6y ago
vaxman 6y ago
Remember when AT&T (“Ma Bell”) was broken up (“Divestiture”) into a bunch of independent companies (regional bells, RBOCs, “Baby Bells”) as Bell Labs spun off into a set of companies? Yeah, the AT&T you see today is actually the largest of those RBOCs (PacBell) that went around and reacquired all of the other RBOCS and changed its name to AT&T (leaving the original AT&T using the name for its continuing backhaul/wholesale operation). Could Apple be forced to divest the App Store and also license other qualified app stores that come along to compete with it? —and that’s just what the courts can do to them. Those koolaide brewers also have drawn the wrath of Congress and angered the Executive Branch by not being so willing to drop a half trillion to setup shop in the desert midwest instead of southeast Asia.
- deaddodo 6y ago
  No, it didn't. Verizon is modern Bell Atlantic and also went about buying up RBOCs. Your point is valid, they did just remonopolize, but it's not like AT&T is just AT&T again.
  - vaxman 6y ago
    GTE was not an RBOC. Verizon is GTE+BellAtlantic+Vodafone-Vodafone.
    - deaddodo 6y ago
      And various smaller RBOCs.
      - vaxman 6y ago
        PacBell/Tel had two competitors for the seven dwarfs (RBOCs) that Judge Green created from MaBell, those competitors were GTE and Quest. GTE did pick up Bell Atlantic (and NYNEX) while Quest picked up US West. GTE then merged with Vodafone to become Verizon (and recently bought out Vodafone). Quest became CenturyLink. PacBell simply licensed the retail rights to the original AT&T name. When the federal government breaks AppStore off of Apple and forces it to compete with qualified independent app stores, they will have learned from that fiasco and probably have language in the settlement (consent decree) that does not allow it to go around buying up the other app stores and eventually change its name back to Apple. Apple without AppStore will be a media company, since hardware sales aren't/can't be enough to sustain growth (unless we find a planet of aliens), especially if we are losing the Chinese market to another cold war. Incidentally, there is another case precedent: Disney. There is a reason Disney no longer owns Grauman's/Mann's Chinese Theater in Hollywood, its favorite venue --Disney/Paramount lost an antitrust case that prohibited them from owning both the means of production and the manner of distribution (sound familiar?); however, President Trump has recently terminated those 77 year old consent decrees meaning Disney can do what it wants now. Ironically, Disney might become a suitor for Apple's media business if it doesn't workout. For example, NASA and its contractors buy thousands of Macs from Apple but some phat idiot (won't name names) thinks it's a good idea to have an AppleTV+ series about "what if NASA didn't win the space race" wtaf?!