Apple 'Playing Hard-Ball' in Appeal Against UK's Investigation Into Platform Restrictions

[d686546s]

I struggle with this too. Hopefully someone can help me understand how game console makers have restrictions much like Apple's, yet it's almost never mentioned. I assume there is an important difference but I haven't figured out what it is. And I'm serious in inviting a clear explanation from anyone.

I think on some level there's an argument to be made, but I don't think both platforms are really comparable in terms of use case and spread.

First, based on a quick search this morning, in 2020 alone Apple sold more iPhones than Microsoft and Sony had sold Xboxes and PlayStations over their entire lifespans up to that point. The install base is small in comparison and therefore the broader impact limited, although it of course sucks if you wanted to operate a store for digital games.

Second, while consoles have tried to become entertainment centres, I'm not sure how successful they've been. I don't have any figures but it feels like consoles remain mostly restricted to doing one thing and one thing alone. Microsoft or Sony aren't really in a position to gatekeep markets for such a wide range of things as Apple or Google are. Apple has repeatedly and successfully used its control over hardware and software to branch out into other markets, think Apple Pay for example, in a way that Microsoft and Sony really cannot or have not with their consoles. There's therefore much less of a reason to intervene.

 

[Lihp8270]

It's their dream scenario. In their view, if there is a used market, you are preventing their users to buy a fresh product. THIS is the real reason cellphones are rendered obsolete – so that companies will always be able to sell a shiny new phone.

Imagine if you were forced to sell your fridge every five years, or your car every five years. There would be all sorts of cries on how companies have a draconian, illegal policy – rightfully so. But with cellphones, we have just normalized we NEED new phones very 1-3 years.

Hint: we don't. Especially for making calls and texting, there's nothing that your old iPhone 5 can't do that your iPhone 14 can. The extra power is nice and convenient, but companies deny us from using it in its fullest potential – so, what's the point of having it at all?

And before you come arguing that the phone market couldn't work that way, allowing old phones to be used, it absolutely can. Before smartphones, dumb cell phones could be ages old and still do the basics. They probably still can today. It was only after smartphones that companies tried to normalize that you NEED to replace your phone.

It’s a bit much like a conspiracy theory.

“Let’s make stuff fail so they have to buy more”

The fact is that devices and products are made to budgets and constraints often dictated by the market.

If consumers are replacing phones every 2 years, why add the cost of designing and maintaining a device for 20 years?

If the market wanted repairable devices, etc. They'd buy them. But the fact is that despite there being alternatives on the market. They’d rather have an iPhone than something less fashionable but repairable.

 

[boyarka]

If Apple or Google closed their app stores for a day, what would happen?
Users might rise up and vote the overly-protective governments out...

Firstly they won't - because of $$$
Secondly - Huawei and Samsung and all the rest will get an ear-to-ear Pinocchio smile.
As for "voting them out" yeah right after pigs learn how to fly - EU is plenty happy having citizens that have rights instead of sucking up to big tech. Only americans without a decent govt and/or limited imagination think that having zero rights and having companies dictate people is something "good".

 

[boyarka]

Except that the "lawmakers" are the corporations. Their lobbyists write the laws and tell the congressmen they paid for to pass them. We are lucky to have some consumer protection laws, but corporations will always fight for them to have no real teeth (or just no enforcement resources).

Except that what you just said makes zero sense. USB-Micro and USB-C adoption as phone charger standards, along with warranty/reclamation coverage along with ever-stricter anti-monopoly laws is the exact opposite of what big companies want.
The next thing you'll say is that socialized cross-eu healthcare, free roaming and minimum wage is also a product of big corporations' lobbying, right?

 

[doobydoooby]

I hope the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)™ can look into Coca Cola and Pepsi's stranglehold over the cola market next.

Its not the same: coca-cola and Pepsi are almost perfect substitutes for each other, and the cost to switch from one to the other is tiny. That's not the case with apple: once you are embedded within their system, especially after a few years of investment, the costs to switch to an alternative (and basically there's only android) are very high, and so the monopolistic/oligopolistic provider has wiggle room to get away with things that it wouldn't if switching was cost-free. I'm not saying its all bad, we all benefit from the convenience and safety of the apple ecosystem, but we end up trapped inside it and that gives apple the freedom to start taking liberties that it wouldn't if the market were truly competitive. That's why regulators get involved: because the little guy can no longer stand up for himself. And yeah, there are other protectionist reasons why a government might intervene, but the main one is market abuse.

 

[BaldiMac]

Its not the same: coca-cola and Pepsi are almost perfect substitutes for each other, and the cost to switch from one to the other is tiny. That's not the case with apple: once you are embedded within their system, especially after a few years of investment, the costs to switch to an alternative (and basically there's only android) are very high, and so the monopolistic/oligopolistic provider has wiggle room to get away with things that it wouldn't if switching was cost-free. I'm not saying its all bad, we all benefit from the convenience and safety of the apple ecosystem, but we end up trapped inside it and that gives apple the freedom to start taking liberties that it wouldn't if the market were truly competitive. That's why regulators get involved: because the little guy can no longer stand up for himself. And yeah, there are other protectionist reasons why a government might intervene, but the main one is market abuse.

Are the costs high to switch for most people? I'd maybe have to pay for a few apps and move my data from iCloud. It would probably cost me less to switch to Android than buying my next iPhone.

 

[mrochester]

Its not the same: coca-cola and Pepsi are almost perfect substitutes for each other, and the cost to switch from one to the other is tiny. That's not the case with apple: once you are embedded within their system, especially after a few years of investment, the costs to switch to an alternative (and basically there's only android) are very high, and so the monopolistic/oligopolistic provider has wiggle room to get away with things that it wouldn't if switching was cost-free. I'm not saying its all bad, we all benefit from the convenience and safety of the apple ecosystem, but we end up trapped inside it and that gives apple the freedom to start taking liberties that it wouldn't if the market were truly competitive. That's why regulators get involved: because the little guy can no longer stand up for himself. And yeah, there are other protectionist reasons why a government might intervene, but the main one is market abuse.

Is that really true? The only cost I can think of is having to purchase the same apps again on a different platform but that'll always be the case when switching platforms. App developers could get around this by offering their apps for free and selling access to the service/app via means of a subscription, and that way you as a consumer can move your apps over without cost. But the onus is on app developers to offer that service.

 

[wbeasley]

There's just a small difference: everyone can make a cola soda. It's much less complex to replicate than a digital device (obviously).

And if Coca Cola went away tomorrow, it wouldn't cause such a big disruption as Apple or Microsoft.

If Coke or Pepsi went away there would be huge changes - they own a lot more than the brand name. Have fingers in many pies and the distribution deals and transport sectors would be shaken up. These guys always knew a time was coming when sugary drinks werent going to cut it anymore. They diversified and leveraged the skills they learnt along the way.

 

[wbeasley]

I already own all the cartridges I want to play. I've backed up the ROM images from the cartridges myself.

Though if Nintendo did offer those same games for sale on the App Store I probably would buy them. I've already bought most of these games multiple times over the years.

The games I want to play are Sim City for the SNES, Mario All Stars, Chrono Trigger (which is on the App Store and I have already bought, and I own it on PC/DS/SNES/PSX). The SNES version of Harvest Moon.

Lucky you to own the games you want.

Not eveyone has that ability and kids today know they can just download old ROMs...
They dont like buying things. Not hold in your hand items. All subscriptions. Probably why vinyl had a resurgence - the joy of holding physical product you own rather than the sound quality which isnt always great on lofi record players...

 

[Joe Dohn]

If Coke or Pepsi went away there would be huge changes - they own a lot more than the brand name. Have fingers in many pies and the distribution deals and transport sectors would be shaken up. These guys always knew a time was coming when sugary drinks werent going to cut it anymore. They diversified and leveraged the skills they learnt along the way.

When we were discussing, we were only considering their flagship product (as we're comparing Coke and Pepsi).

The industry would be shaken up at first, but everything they own would probably be absorbed by other industries. Chances are their Coke soda would be bought too.

But assuming it wouldn't, it's very easy to make their flagship product even at home. Their formula is a secret, but large companies can get very close enough without knowing it. Contrast that to CPUs. They're so hard to make that you don't see every country having their own CPU.

 

[SoldOnApple]

Lucky you to own the games you want.

Not eveyone has that ability and kids today know they can just download old ROMs...
They dont like buying things. Not hold in your hand items. All subscriptions. Probably why vinyl had a resurgence - the joy of holding physical product you own rather than the sound quality which isnt always great on lofi record players...

Sure, but just because you can use an app to play pirated ROMs doesn't mean that app should be banned. You can use the Kindle app to read pirated books. The VLC app can be used to watch pirated movies. AutoCAD app can be used to view pirated designs.

 

[strongy]

Sure, but just because you can use an app to play pirated ROMs doesn't mean that app should be banned. You can use the Kindle app to read pirated books. The VLC app can be used to watch pirated movies. AutoCAD app can be used to view pirated designs.

The emulators exclusive use is to enable you to use illegal content the others have other uses

 

[mrochester]

Sure, but just because you can use an app to play pirated ROMs doesn't mean that app should be banned. You can use the Kindle app to read pirated books. The VLC app can be used to watch pirated movies. AutoCAD app can be used to view pirated designs.

Isn’t the issue with emulators that they run arbitrary code? Apple‘s solution would be for each individual ROM to be submitted to the App Store for approval.

 

[strongy]

Isn’t the issue with emulators that they run arbitrary code? Apple‘s solution would be for each individual ROM to be submitted to the App Store for approval.

They have actually approved apps like this but they also need to prove you have the copyright holders approval which 99% of people do not

 

[Joe Dohn]

The emulators exclusive use is to enable you to use illegal content the others have other uses

You've never heard of homebrew code, have you?

The sole purpose of emulators is to replicate another device in software.
What you do with the emulator is up to you.

Which is why we can conclude that arguing the exclusive use of emulators is to "enable you to use illegal content" is dangerously wrong. First of all, because if you already have the game, running it under an emulator is not considered illegal. That's like arguing that cars are illegal because some people hit and run others with their cars, therefore the sole purpose of having a car could only be hitting and running over people.

Second, because emulators themselves have already been judged legal in courts, and they help with history preservation. FPGA consoles (hardware replicas of old consoles) could only be created because the way old consoles work has been widely documented with emulation.

 

[jlc1978]

You've never heard of homebrew code, have you?

True, but what percentage of emulator users actually run home-brew code? I suspect it is very small.

The sole purpose of emulators is to replicate another device in software.
What you do with the emulator is up to you.

Also true, but Apple probably doesn't want to get into a fight with game developers and copyright owners when they want them to develop games for their platforms. Letting emulators in would diminish teh potential market for paid versions of the games.

Which is why we can conclude that arguing the exclusive use of emulators is to "enable you to use illegal content" is dangerously wrong. First of all, because if you already have the game, running it under an emulator is not considered illegal.

But how many people actually own the arcade game, vs say a cartridge version, but still run the arcade game?

That's like arguing that cars are illegal because some people hit and run others with their cars, therefore the sole purpose of having a car could only be hitting and running over people.

The same argument is made for guns.

Second, because emulators themselves have already been judged legal in courts, and they help with history preservation. FPGA consoles (hardware replicas of old consoles) could only be created because the way old consoles work has been widely documented with emulation.

As a fan of arcade games, I am glad emulators exist and keep them alive. I would like Midday, Sega, et.al. to release the games for more modern devices, such as Apple TV and the Mac, just as they used to for the PC and consoles.

 

[Joe Dohn]

True, but what percentage of emulator users actually run home-brew code? I suspect it is very small.

Because the percentage of people who run emulators is very small to begin with. Many of them either prefer modern games, or feel intimidated to run emulators.

We're talking about Average Joe here – the guy who has trouble understanding software.

Also true, but Apple probably doesn't want to get into a fight with game developers and copyright owners when they want them to develop games for their platforms. Letting emulators in would diminish teh potential market for paid versions of the games.

Except it wouldn't. Many franchises are alive BECAUSE fans have been running old games in emulation and making fan games.

The biggest example is Sonic the Hedgehog. Fans go as far as to buy multiple copies of the game (Sonic 1 for the Genesis) in multiple platforms because they love it so much. Some of those copies run on emulators.

It has to be one of the most ported games ever.

SEGA went as far as hiring fans to make Sonic Mania, and giving them a more proper budget to make an official game. Everyone loved it – so much it actually obfuscated one of the releases done by the official team, Sonic Forces.

Oh, and do you know Nintendo's Virtual Console service? How do you think they achieve that? Are the games individually ported?

Of course not. They use emulators to run those old games. And Nintendo's service is doing very well, thank you very much – even though you can actually play those games for free on your browser VERY easily.

But how many people actually own the arcade game, vs say a cartridge version, but still run the arcade game?

Many, actually. See above. Fans will buy multiple versions of the game sometimes because they love comparing them.

This YouTube channel is specialized in comparing different versions of the same game in different platforms, and it is a hit:

Developers porting their games to multiple platforms is a reality, by the way, because it means they will have more opportunities to be seen.

The same argument is made for guns.

I thought you would say that.But the comparison is not fair at all, because emulators don't have the potential to kill people en mass like guns do. In fact, emulators can save lives if the hardware is important, no one sells it, and you need to have it replicated. Think of a specialized medical device that stopped being sold.

As a fan of arcade games, I am glad emulators exist and keep them alive. I would like Midday, Sega, et.al. to release the games for more modern devices, such as Apple TV and the Mac, just as they used to for the PC and consoles.

It seems you're out of touch with the game industry. Because they do exactly that.
You CAN buy old games on your iPhone, where they are sold individually, or on Steam, where they are packaged in emulators that are disguised and have a simplified interface.

On the iPhone / iPad, some of the games that can be bought individually are:

* Golden Axe
* Sonic 1
* Sonic CD
* Kid Chameleon
* Streets of Rage
* Crazy Taxi
* Vector Man
* Chrono Trigger

 

[strongy]

You've never heard of homebrew code, have you?

The sole purpose of emulators is to replicate another device in software.
What you do with the emulator is up to you.

Which is why we can conclude that arguing the exclusive use of emulators is to "enable you to use illegal content" is dangerously wrong. First of all, because if you already have the game, running it under an emulator is not considered illegal. That's like arguing that cars are illegal because some people hit and run others with their cars, therefore the sole purpose of having a car could only be hitting and running over people.

Second, because emulators themselves have already been judged legal in courts, and they help with history preservation. FPGA consoles (hardware replicas of old consoles) could only be created because the way old consoles work has been widely documented with emulation.

seriously i bet you less than 1% of people on the board want to run homebrew code in the emulator and you know that
companies running emulation for games they licensed or created is totally different to you using it

 

[Joe Dohn]

and you know that companies running emulation for games they licensed or created is totally different to you using it

Here's a little secret for you: many of those companies actually use free emulators to get their old games working. They may use an open source version of the emulator legally or illegally for that. So one hand borrows from the other.

 

[jlc1978]

Because the percentage of people who run emulators is very small to begin with. Many of them either prefer modern games, or feel intimidated to run emulators.

We're talking about Average Joe here – the guy who has trouble understanding software.

Given teh small market companies not letting emulators on their store has no impact on teh overall market.

Except it wouldn't. Many franchises are alive BECAUSE fans have been running old games in emulation and making fan games.

The biggest example is Sonic the Hedgehog. Fans go as far as to buy multiple copies of the game (Sonic 1 for the Genesis) in multiple platforms because they love it so much. Some of those copies run on emulators.

Running software you own on an emulator is different than using an emulator for pirating games.

It has to be one of the most ported games ever.

SEGA went as far as hiring fans to make Sonic Mania, and giving them a more proper budget to make an official game. Everyone loved it – so much it actually obfuscated one of the releases done by the official team, Sonic Forces.

Oh, and do you know Nintendo's Virtual Console service? How do you think they achieve that? Are the games individually ported?

Of course not. They use emulators to run those old games. And Nintendo's service is doing very well, thank you very much – even though you can actually play those games for free on your browser VERY easily.

Nothing wrong with the IP owners using emulators, it’s a time proven way to run old codes on new machines. The OP was about emulators being available to run games you do not own, which has nothing to do with teh legality of emulActors. Given the desire to protect relationships with teh IP owners, who as you point out, can release teh games; it makes sense not to allow alternative ways to run teh games without paying the IP owners.

I thought you would say that.But the comparison is not fair at all, because emulators don't have the potential to kill people en mass like guns do. In fact, emulators can save lives if the hardware is important, no one sells it, and you need to have it replicated. Think of a specialized medical device that stopped being sold.

Still, the logic is the same. As for medical devices, an emulator would have to meet some stringent requirements to be used as a medical device. Whole different ballgame.

It seems you're out of touch with the game industry. Because they do exactly that.
You CAN buy old games on your iPhone, where they are sold individually, or on Steam, where they are packaged in emulators that are disguised and have a simplified interface.

On the iPhone / iPad, some of the games that can be bought individually are:

* Golden Axe
* Sonic 1
* Sonic CD
* Kid Chameleon
* Streets of Rage
* Crazy Taxi
* Vector Man
* Chrono Trigger

However, there are many classic arcade games that aren’t. Like I said, I wish teh IP owners would release copies that ran today using emulation.

Here's a little secret for you: many of those companies actually use free emulators to get their old games working. They may use an open source version of the emulator legally or illegally for that. So one hand borrows from the other.

As long as they comply with any license for teh code, they are free to run their games using it. Nothing is wrong with emulation, I have even used it in an engineering setting. The question is whether app stores should allow emulators; given they will support piracy, even if all users do not pirate games.

 

[Joe Dohn]

Given teh small market companies not letting emulators on their store has no impact on teh overall market.

I'm not sure if I clearly understand your sentence, but I suppose you mean "not allowing small companies to run emulators on their store has no impact on the overall market".

Against that, I'll just argue that Google DOES allow emulators on its app store, and they're doing absolutely fine. And by the way, Microsoft's game streaming service is available on the Google Play Store too as a native app, whereas on the iPhone, you have to sign in in your browser, because Apple wanted to approve every game in the catalog and force Microsoft to release all of them as single apps – which is not viable.

 

[Scoob Redux]

Except that what you just said makes zero sense. USB-Micro and USB-C adoption as phone charger standards, along with warranty/reclamation coverage along with ever-stricter anti-monopoly laws is the exact opposite of what big companies want.

Anti-monopoly laws are not getting stricter. In addition, the DOJ has consistently approved anti-consumer monopoly mergers because the government either doesn't have the desire to stop them (they are paid by corporations for making these decisions). Yes, some pro-consumer laws are introduced and even passed, but usually they are modified through lobbying to reduce their benefit to consumers.

The next thing you'll say is that socialized cross-eu healthcare, free roaming and minimum wage is also a product of big corporations' lobbying, right?

Yes, the stagnation of minimum wages is the product of massive corporate lobbying over several decades! This is well documented. That's why inflation-adjusted minimum wage in the U.S. has declined 40% from 1970 to 2022. That's a huge reduction in working people's quality of life. Meanwhile, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio is 670:1.

 

[boyarka]

Anti-monopoly laws are not getting stricter. In addition, the DOJ has consistently approved anti-consumer monopoly mergers because the government either doesn't have the desire to stop them (they are paid by corporations for making these decisions). Yes, some pro-consumer laws are introduced and even passed, but usually they are modified through lobbying to reduce their benefit to consumers.

In USA - like with the neutered right to repair law - yes.
In EU and now even India - no!

 

[jlc1978]

I'm not sure if I clearly understand your sentence, but I suppose you mean "not allowing small companies to run emulators on their store has no impact on the overall market".

Against that, I'll just argue that Google DOES allow emulators on its app store, and they're doing absolutely fine. And by the way, Microsoft's game streaming service is available on the Google Play Store too as a native app, whereas on the iPhone, you have to sign in in your browser, because Apple wanted to approve every game in the catalog and force Microsoft to release all of them as single apps – which is not viable.

Eats shoots and leaves. Commas count. I should have written:

Given the small market, companies not letting emulators...

My point was emulators, as a small market, have little impact on App Store volume and thus banning them to avoid upsetting the IP owners makes economic sense.