Despegar

It very much matters if the terms changed, considering that the long shot legal precedent Epic is relying on is Kodak v. Image Technical Services. Terms changing in that case was a key element of why a single brand could be considered a valid antitrust market.

Yes that's correct. Apple is basically reducing the fidelity of the rest of the ad ecosystem to the level they're already at themselves.

That's definitely not true. The only reason notarization exists is to maintain the Mac's open app ecosystem while having some improved level of security over the status quo.

It's interesting that you think this because it actually demonstrates the opposite: that Apple's control over iOS is very valuable and has many benefits to customers. Not because human app reviewers are infallible, but because a purely technical approach is simply not good enough.

Bad faith actors probably aren't going to get away with rules lawyering.

There won't be a jury trial. It will be decided in Apple's favor on summary judgement.

From Peter Kafka:

>Yes. Apple has a detailed answer but essentially says that's not so, and is a misreading of its policy.

https://twitter.com/pkafka/status/1298662980457046016

Probably because Apple's total control of the platform is why this change could happen. Their ability to not allow a developer to distribute an app update that doesn't comply with the new privacy change stems from the same power that allows them to collect 30/15% of in-app purchases.

The response to that is to just not allow them to update their app until they comply.

>We believe that industry consultation is critical for changes to platform policies, as these updates have a far-reaching impact on the developer ecosystem. We’re encouraged by conversations and efforts already taking place in the industry - including within the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and the recently announced Partnership for Responsible Addressable Media (PRAM). We look forward to continuing to engage with these industry groups to get this right for people and small businesses.

Yes they would certainly prefer a "UN of ad-tech" that doesn't do anything rather than Apple's unilateral action.

>All they are doing here is to hurt advertising so that more apps move to other models which lets Apple extract more value.

Sounds like a great business incentive to be pro-privacy to me. You can count on profit motive.

This is why it'll be both correct and just when Apple wins their antitrust cases.

When I refer to consumer welfare I'm referring to the "consumer welfare standard" that is relevant to antitrust cases. Epic's breach doesn't actually aid them in demonstrating that Apple has harmed consumer welfare. The same holds true for Spotify when they charged more on iOS to cover Apple's commission.

>Give me the ability to install apps from any store, website, or platform. Give me the ability to use a device whatever way I decide. Incentive developers to create useful, enjoyable software instead of IAP shovelware. Make it the norm and break users from depending on The One App Store.

You're continuously surprised that most people aren't ideologues about this?

These are old debates about computers. Decades ago the rift was between computer tinkerers and Apple for what they derisively called "appliances". They cared, customers didn't. The rest is history.

Then we're in agreement that Epic's breach of the developer agreement wasn't actually required to have standing or to bolster their antitrust claims.

Their stunt doesn't actually demonstrate that Apple's commission harms consumer welfare. If it did any retailer with a margin over the price of a manufacturer's goods would also be harming consumer welfare.

I really don't understand why people keep saying this. They had standing because they were a party to the Developer Program License Agreement. They would have had standing even if they weren't because they allege they're being denied use of an "essential facility".

Apple's case does not "hinge" on being consistent with all app developers. Every app that Apple distributes could in theory be the result of a one-on-one negotiation.

I'm not sure why people think this was some great legal trap pulled off here. Everyone already knows that Apple's commission is 30%. Simply charging less in the app doesn't actually show that Apple's commission is harming consumer welfare (or conversely with Spotify, charging more in iOS). Epic would have to show that Apple's alleged monopoly power is raising prices at a supracompetitive level in a relevant market.

Palestinians are an occupied people living under Israeli apartheid.

When you accept Apple's developer agreement, you're agreeing to a contract. It absolutely isn't an "open market" for any definition of what that means. Apple has exclusive control of their IP and they are offering a way for you to license it on their terms.

Apple's platforms aren't an open market either. They allow third party developers to develop for their platforms, subject to you agreeing to their terms.

As a party to the developer agreement with Apple they clearly have standing to sue. And since one of the counts in their complaint is that they're being denied use of an "essential facility", they wouldn't even need to have a contractual relationship to have standing to sue.

>(If this is correct, and I were Epic, I'd be looking to partner with other very large and peeved developers, and create a de facto app producer strike... but maybe they think they have enough market clout to go it alone.)

This would actually be a violation of the antitrust laws. And it'd be a straightforward Section 1 Sherman Act cartel case.

>Instead Epic decided to sue Apple in court.

This gives the impression that suing them is what led to Apple terminating their relationship, but that isn't the case. Epic could have sued Apple without the theatrics and they'd have been fine. They didn't even need to violate the terms of the developer agreement to bring their antitrust lawsuit, which is largely about the developer agreement.

>I believe Epic's entire case revolves around phones being a general computing device

Legally this doesn't matter at all. It's just something for people to talk about on Twitter.

Epic's antitrust case against Apple is very weak, but they're well within the right to sue Apple to resolve their dispute. The developer agreement actually stipulates the venue, Northern District of California, for any lawsuits. However, Epic demonstrated particularly bad faith in how they've dealt with this matter so I'm not surprised that Apple is terminating their relationship (which they're allowed to do under the terms of the developer agreement).

>Nope. If a person "owns" a piece of hardware, it should be legal to jailbreak it without any consequences (except perhaps lack of support for 3rd party software) and companies that sell products that build off of jailbroken products should be 100% legal.

All of those things are true today.

The question was: >Should closed hardware (that owns its entire stack) even be legal to sell?

And the answer to that is: obviously it should be, if you care about competition and innovation. The only people that disagree with this are the tech people who have had problems with Apple's business on ideological grounds for decades (people like Richard Stallman and saurik).

But outside that one particularly small constituency, there's no good public policy reason to actually make it illegal, and plenty of reasons not to.

>That means, for example, allowing purchases via webviews, particularly for products and experiences that are not zero marginal costs. Sure, that could mean less App Store revenue in the short run, but Apple would be well-served having to build more and better products to win developers over. At the end of the day, squeezing businesses that can stomach the cost of Apple development, both in terms of implementing in-app purchase and that 30%, by definition has less ultimate upside than growing the pie for everyone.

Apple shouldn't have to enable you to undermine their business with their own property. And no court would ever require them to.

The fact is that Apple hasn't changed the terms. It's been the same since the App Store began (technically it's become more generous to developers with the reduction in the fee for subscriptions after the first year). Meanwhile the iPhone installed base is magnitudes larger than it was in 2008, making it more lucrative for developers than ever. Apple would be well within their right to raise the fee, but the fee has only ever gone down.

That's addressing the moral argument of their business model. Legally, Epic has no case.

Epic is going to lose this case.