• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Gohlad

Avenger
Oct 28, 2017
1,072
Okay and what market share do they have and how are they abusing that?
iOS has a worldwide marketshare of 26,9%, Android 72.2%.
Samsung TV has a WW marketshare of 31,9%.

Why is Apple considered a monopoly with abusing its "store policies" and, therefore, forced to open up? Why isn't Samsung and their TV division? They have higher marketshare for their segments. Why not consoles?!

See where this goes? The argument with "general purpose device" has been shut down numerous times already by the judge, there are documents you can find on The Verge from last year about that.
 
Oct 27, 2017
6,960
???
LG has a 100% monopoly on what gets distributed and how on its tv store.
Samsung has a 100% monopoly on what gets distributed and how on its tv store.
Roku has a 100% monopoly on what gets distributed and how on its app store.
BMW has a 100% monopoly on what gets distributed and how on its car dashboard.

Correct me if I am wrong, but do any of these have their own billing systems charging mandatory cut?

I have Samsung TV, and if you ever want to sign-up for anything, you go directly to the App's billing/account website.

What is more, neither of these are in the position of stifling and limiting competition by having a monopoly-like position in the market. The reason why they have 100% control over their hardware is because they are the only ones who can support it economically: nobody else can make money making storefronts on them.
 
Oct 30, 2017
614
iOS has a worldwide marketshare of 26,9%, Android 72.2%.
Samsung TV has a WW marketshare of 31,9%.

It's nearly 50% in the US and in the next year or two will be over that. The US is where this is relevant. You also didn't answer how those other companies are abusing it but I don't think you actually want to do that

In many areas of the country Comcast is literally the only ISP option you have. Baltimore city used to have a deal with Comcast for example.

Yup and this totally sucks! Don't you want that to change? The ISPs abuse the monopoly they have on Internet access (not routers). The government should absolutely step in and fix this like they did with AT&T.
 

spam musubi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,380
It's 50% in the US. That's where this is relevant. You also didn't answer how they are abusing it but I don't think you actually want to do that



Yup and this totally sucks! Don't you want that to change? The ISPs abuse the monopoly they have on Internet access (not routers). The government should absolutely step in and fix this like they did with AT&T.

I do want that to change but it's entirely irrelevant here anyway. Would apple's practices be non problematic if they had 49% market share in the US? What about 30%? What's the threshold? All of that is outside the scope of this trial anyway.
 

Kansoku

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,213
Apple is a problem where smart TV providers are not because of things like this:

The Court issued its 5–4 decision on May 13, 2019, affirming the Ninth Circuit's decision that consumers were "direct purchasers" of apps from Apple's store and had standing under Illinois Brick to sue Apple for antitrust practices. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, stated that under the test of Illinois Brick, consumers were directly affected by Apple's fee and were not secondary purchasers; that consumers could sue Apple directly since it was Apple's fee that affected the prices of the apps; and that while the structure for any damages that consumers may win in the continuing suit may be complicated, that is not a factor to determine the standing of the suit. The Court stated that Apple's interpretation of Illinois Brick "did not make a lot of sense" and served only to "gerrymander Apple out of this and similar lawsuits." Disagreeing with Apple's reasoning, the Court explained that if adopted, it would "directly contradict the longstanding goal of effective private enforcement and consumer protection in antitrust cases." Kavanaugh was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The decision remanded the class-action case to continue in lower courts but did not rule on any of the antitrust factors otherwise at the center of the case.

From

 

Mr. Mug

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
647
???
LG has a 100% monopoly on what gets distributed and how on its tv store.
Samsung has a 100% monopoly on what gets distributed and how on its tv store.
Roku has a 100% monopoly on what gets distributed and how on its app store.
BMW has a 100% monopoly on what gets distributed and how on its car dashboard.
ISP routers have a 100% monopoly on what software functions are allowed to work on their routers.

Are you just bringing up random shit here that you think does the same thing as Apple when in fact they do not? It's perfectly possible to sideload apps on Roku for example and custom firmwares for ISP routers are most definitely a thing. I don't know about the others but yes if those others companies are actively trying to prevent that then they should stop that too. Of course nobody can be forced to put something on their store (although I do think in cases like xcloud that's something that should be looked into) but to make it impossible to run/install otherwise? nope. I'd prefer for it to not be possible for companies to lock down hardware in such a way.
 

LewieP

Member
Oct 26, 2017
18,097
Yet the same problem that you complain about already exist as illustrated by my previous post. There's plenty of apps locked behind jailbreaking your phone, you have to be technically savvy to unlock them. What you're trying to prevent already exists and its by apples own doing. Heck many of the OS level features in iOS currently where previously locked behind jailbreaking. So its pretty obvious that what you want to supposedly prevent is already a thing.

The only distinction would be is this a thing because apple wants it so or because developers do. I choose to support developers.
I think it's cool that jailbreaking exists. It's madness to suggest that Apple should be forced to support it by courts.
 

Madjoki

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,230
unknown.png
 

Iron Eddie

Banned
Nov 25, 2019
9,812
Because there is zero reason to build hardware at loss, meaning it will get more expensive for the costumer.

Why build it at a loss then, Nintendo doesn't seem to need to. Besides, acting like the consumer saves money is naive when you pay to play online and now they want you to pay $70 for new games. There was also data shown not long ago how much Sony spends on timed exclusive deals that really don't do anything for the consumer because most were going to come to PlayStation anyways. A lot of money you give them is being used for things like marketing and exclusive deals.
 

ArchStanton

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,265
Do you purchase things online at amazon or other stores? Do you have auto-payments setup for utilities or streaming services using your credit or debit card? Do you run your card to purchase gas (assuming you have a car)? Do you swipe your card at the hardware store or grocery store? Do you get your wages direct deposit? Have you used Square or Paypal?

All of these have (or are) a payment processor and gateway and they all could be a different one. They all work exactly like Apple/Apple Pay now-a-days with tokenization.

If you're worried about payment security, do you pay everything with cash then? How do you get that cash?

The analogy doesn't hold water. Those are all separate companies with their own payment methods. If they're working with a partner on additional payment methods, such as including PayPal, that's on them to figure out an equitable deal that also works for their customers.

If you (as a person or a company) build a store— physical or digital — you should set the standards on how you want your store to work. If a vendor doesn't like, then they can move on and refuse do business with that store.

Epic claims that the 30% cut for consoles is allowed to "subsidize" the current console market, but not iOS devices, and I call bullshit.

Just because one company sells a razor but only makes a profit on razor blades (consoles) shouldn't mean that another company that sells a razor and makes a profit on BOTH the razor and the blades should have to undercut itself.

Anyway, my preference for iOS goes beyond payment methods; it's value to me is because it's a closed system, not in spite of it.
 
Last edited:

Primus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,836


Lord, this Epic exec was actually doing pretty good on the stand until he almost lied about data breaches, and then did try to lie about the 88/12 split.
 

Tbm24

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,315
Yet the same problem that you complain about already exist as illustrated by my previous post. There's plenty of apps locked behind jailbreaking your phone, you have to be technically savvy to unlock them. What you're trying to prevent already exists and its by apples own doing. Heck many of the OS level features in iOS currently where previously locked behind jailbreaking. So its pretty obvious that what you want to supposedly prevent is already a thing.

The only distinction would be is this a thing because apple wants it so or because developers do. I choose to support developers.
It's been amusing to me during this whole thread that folks talk as if jailbreaking iPhones hasn't been a thing since the very beginning.
 

LewieP

Member
Oct 26, 2017
18,097
It's been amusing to me during this whole thread that folks talk as if jailbreaking iPhones hasn't been a thing since the very beginning.
I have jailbroken a variety of devices.

Demanding that courts should force manufacturers to support jailbreaking is not a particularly logical position.
 

Tbm24

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,315
I have jailbroken a variety of devices.

Demanding that courts should force manufacturers to support jailbreaking is not a particularly logical position.
The point is less that this court case should veer into supporting jailbreaking(even if I personally do), and more that there exists apps not approved by apple that are accessed via jailbreaking and this has been true since the iPhones first inception. Why? Because there exists people who want this. There are a multitude of posts in this thread alone stating folks buy iPhones for their walled gardens and if you don't like it, get an android. Ignoring that people like iPhone hardware and OS and instead have opted to jailbreak it to get more out of their device.
 

vixolus

Prophet of Truth
Member
Sep 22, 2020
54,483
Microsoft is on Steam.
I know that, but I'm not sure what would have prevented Microsoft from publishing titles (like Forza) on Steam in the first place, on the Steam side. There would be more motive for direct communication between Phil and Gabe. Games like Age of Mythology came out in 2014 on Steam.
 

poklane

Member
Oct 25, 2017
27,930
the Netherlands
So Microsoft dont like EGS either?
Not surprising because as says in the image Microsoft and Epic are effectively bidding against each other, if a game is exclusive to the EGS it can't be on PC Game Pass.
So if I understand this image correctly, Epic offered Sony $200mil for 4-6 exclusives, and also opened talks with Microsoft for similar deals? If that's not what it's saying, what is it saying?
 
Feb 26, 2021
234
I think it's cool that jailbreaking exists. It's madness to suggest that Apple should be forced to support it by courts.

To recap our combo.

You say that apple wants their users to have access to as many apps as possible. I reply by saying the app store is a curated list of what apple wants users to have. I give you examples of things not available on the app store. You say that if 3rd party apps where a thing, some apps would be locked behind peoples tech savviness, i point out that's always been a thing.

idk if i can argue with 3rd party apps being cool and your amazement at the fact that people don't want to be under apples thumbs.

Last thing before ending this conversation. Many things where developed by the Jailbreak community, including things like multitasking before apple did so themselves. Apple blocked these features and apps from the public till they launched the features themselves. It robbed hard working developers of money and success to enrich themselves. That's fine every company does this, everyone will copy good ideas and anything that will make them successful. Snapchat blew up filters and now everything has filters ect.

What i mean to say by this is, there is a reason many people dont want to be under Apples seal of approval. Arguing against something because you might not necessarily like change isnt a good reason. Like the last poster i replied to. I feel like some people have a stance that they then try to reason into instead of letting it be the other way around.