Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case

Re:Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case by tshaddox on Friday September 10, 2021 @05:58PM (#28487367)

I don't really see why there would be any expectation of that from the legal system or for ordinary people, other than that Apple obviously shouldn't drastically reduce functionality of iPhones which they have already sold. But again, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Apple might stop having an App Store altogether, or that the outcome of any of these legal battles would be that iPhone users would have significantly reduced access to third-party software. You're just talking about who ought to pay for the costs of distributing third-party software to iPhones.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case by ethbr0 on Friday September 10, 2021 @07:27PM (#28487994)

Summerlight's point was that if you take Apple's argument at face value (that iOS and the App Store are so tightly integrated as to be indivisible), then it boggles the mind that Apple could then turn around and sell you iOS (via an iPhone purchase) but not include the App Store in that same transaction.

Or, in a sentence: you can't claim something is indivisible, and then charge for its pieces separately and at separate times.

Your point is probably that developers and customers are two separate groups, and there's a history of making a thing free to customers (the App Store) while charging vendors (developers) for the privilege.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case by tshaddox on Friday September 10, 2021 @09:10PM (#28488588)

> Summerlight's point was that if you take Apple's argument at face value (that iOS and the App Store are so tightly integrated as to be indivisible), then it boggles the mind that Apple could then turn around and sell you iOS (via an iPhone purchase) but not include the App Store in that same transaction.

I just don't see how your "then" follows from your "if" at all! The integration of iOS and the App Store is from a user's perspective. No one seriously believes that Apple is claiming that the two things are literally physically impossible to split up technically. You might as well be arguing that it boggles the mind for the calculator app to be free, but for iCloud storage to cost money!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case by summerlight on Friday September 10, 2021 @09:53PM (#28488799)

> No one seriously believes that Apple is claiming that the two things are literally physically impossible to split up technically.

Except Apple in the court does. That is the exact stance why they cannot allow third party stores and browser engines since those are technically a part of indivisible OS services. Of course, this is obviously BS and inconsistent to many other Apple's business practice, anyway it's their official legal stance in nearly all of its antitrust lawsuits.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case by dpkonofa on Wednesday September 15, 2021 @10:49PM (#28547360)

That's not true at all. They're not claiming they can't split it up technically. They're claiming that part of the end-to-end user experience is that users trust the App Store because Apple has oversight into the entire chain from downloading apps to the OS to taking payment information on their devices. If they have to open it up to other parties, then that chain of trust is broken.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case by tshaddox on Friday September 10, 2021 @11:33PM (#28489225)

I find that extremely hard to believe. Can you provide a source for this interpretation of Apple’s argument?

[ Parent | on HN ]