Gamezone
Gold Member
Depends on how long either side feels they need to drag this out. Which I imagine will be until it becomes redundant enough that the judge tells them all to sit down.
But are we taking days, weeks, month?
Depends on how long either side feels they need to drag this out. Which I imagine will be until it becomes redundant enough that the judge tells them all to sit down.
Because some apps dont pay 30%. Like apple's own apps. or uber eats or takeaway or netflix or spotify
Can we ban this user?, hoping for the end of all consoles on a gaming forum is blasphemy what are you doing here?I hope Epic wins and the iPhone, as well as all video game consoles get opened up to 3rd parties to release software on them without the consent or support of the manufacturer. If that ends the console as we know it, then that's okay with me. The PC-ization of the console space would be good for consumers.
It’s what they agreed to when they wanted access to the user base, now that the game has grown so big they think they can go back on terms and agreements that they were happy withIs 30% fair though? That’s almost a full 1/3 of your earnings.
It’s what they agreed to when they wanted access to the user base, now that the game has grown so big they think they can go back on terms and agreements that they were happy with
doesn't apply to some real world items/services and not others, imo it's all very grey.It doesn't apply to real world items or services
You are correct. I also dislike Epic.When you get a PC and buy a game from steam, where is the microsoft cut? You are using windows aren't you?
Same thing. Phones are computers. Multipurpose devices.
i really don't get how anyone can side with apple on this. well i do understand why, because for some irrational reason people hate tim sweeney.
Comes down to this really. They were happy to pay 30% until it was 30% of billions, then it became a problem.
When you get a PC and buy a game from steam, where is the microsoft cut? You are using windows aren't you?
Same thing. Phones are computers. Multipurpose devices.
i really don't get how anyone can side with apple on this. well i do understand why, because for some irrational reason people hate tim sweeney.
Windows and IOS are not the same, this is a terrible comparison. IOS only runs on Apple products, it has aways been a walled garden. Windows as an OS for PC, holds a monopoly. There are more android users than there are IOS.
Is it a 'terrible comparison'?Windows and IOS are not the same, this is a terrible comparison. IOS only runs on Apple products, it has aways been a walled garden. Windows as an OS for PC, holds a monopoly. There are more android users than there are IOS.
Is it a 'terrible comparison'?
There is a pretty even split of users now between Windows, iOS and Android.
Android and iOS have morphed into general use devices, which can do pretty much everything Windows can.
Increasingly, there are households that don't have a WIndows device as their mobile phone/tablet can replace it for their use case/function.
I'd say at the very least, the lines are becoming blurred.
You better believe it, when it comes to justice system, the USA is generations behind the rest of the modern world. It’s flawed in so many ways it’s not even funny…He has no case. I cant believe this wasnt thrown out by the judge.
I understand that iOS is locked to Apple hardware, but is that the measure to define whether a centralized app store is allowed? That doesn't sound right to me.There aren't multiple vendors for IOS, there's only Apple. They have the smallest stake on the market in number of units, despite generating more revenue. I can't buy a Samsung IOS, and I can't build my own MAc like I can a PC.
All products, platforms, ecosystems, don't have to be the same. The market supports different approaches, as long as there isn't a monopoly. EPIC is basically trying to force Apple into turning IOS into Windows, but it's hard to see their legal argument.
Imagine thinking that's not normal.Would make things interesting if you could create a business/product and run it a certain way for over a decade then get taken to court by someone wanting to use what you have created for free. If they pull this off it could open the door so someone might almost be able to use unreal engine create a product, sell it and then not pay epic. Because they make enough money from fortnite and it's not fair having to pay epic for what they created because it's a monopoly in the engine license world.
I understand that iOS is locked to Apple hardware, but is that the measure to define whether a centralized app store is allowed? That doesn't sound right to me.
If there's a 1 billion users on Windows and 1 billion users on iOS, and for 90% of businesses they can operate on iOS. What is the legal argument that defines that Windows must be open and iOS can be walled off?
What makes it OK for the EU to fine Windows having IE and Windows Media Player pre-installed as anti-competitive, but iOS having Safari, Apple Maps pre-installed is fine?
Who said they were fine. They simply weren't big enough to have any chance in court against Apple.Why didn't Epic have this problem many years ago when they were happy telling us how great infinity blade (or whatever it was called) worked on iphone because oh how great apples dev environment was. Why was 30% fine back then but not now for Epic? Judging by the financials released this whole thing is pointless as far as fortnite is concerned. I suspect Tencent probably has a bunch of mobile shit that would benefit more though.
Forcing Apple to turn iOS into MacOS.There aren't multiple vendors for IOS, there's only Apple. They have the smallest stake on the market in number of units, despite generating more revenue. I can't buy a Samsung IOS, and I can't build my own MAC like I can a PC.
All products, platforms, ecosystems, don't have to be the same. The market supports different approaches, as long as there isn't a monopoly. EPIC is basically trying to force Apple into turning IOS into Windows, but it's hard to see their legal argument.
Put aside your feelings and look at it from a market point of view. The only thing EPIC might accomplish with this lawsuit is force Apple to take a cut from Netflix. Just think of it, of course Microsoft would love to be able to put an executable on IOS that bypasses the rules of the service, and that way they can sell you MTX through Xcloud being played on a Iphone and not have to pay a cent to Apple. Build your own userbase.
It's even not only pre-installed. You can't have different web browser. Every other "web browser" on iOS is just reskinned Safari.What makes it OK for the EU to fine Windows having IE and Windows Media Player pre-installed as anti-competitive, but iOS having Safari, Apple Maps pre-installed is fine?
Netscape should have built it's own userbase?
Steam?It's not the same.
Steam?
'Build your own userbase'. Windows as a platform launched the success of many apps, all without Microsoft ever splitting their revenue.What about?
Are people missing the point that EPIC basically has to prove that they have no alternative in what is a fragmented market? This is flying over people's heads it seems. How will EPIC prove that Apple has a monopoly on the mobile space? The concept of monopoly will have to be redefined in court.
Well not entirely, js engine has to be from safari the rest can be what ever you want it to be. This way apple can diminish the web browsing experience and increase app purchases.It's even not only pre-installed. You can't have different web browser. Every other "web browser" on iOS is just reskinned Safari.
'Build your own userbase'. Windows as a platform launched the success of many apps, all without Microsoft ever splitting their revenue.
I just don't understand...
In TODAY'S iOS and Android devices and capabilities, what makes Windows a monopoly? If iOS and Android level the playing ground so that 'computing devices' market share is now 'fragmented', then are you going to change what Windows can pre-install?
Can we ban this user?, hoping for the end of all consoles on a gaming forum is blasphemy what are you doing here?
I'm sure someone will correct my numbers soon.Because windows doesn't have competition in the PC space. They represent over 70% of the market, and that my friend... is a monopoly. Victims of their own success.
Then we can say that iOs represents the 100% of the market in the iPhone space, thus a monopoly. Likewise we can say that windows represents only a part of general computing devices, thus not a monopoly.Because windows doesn't have competition in the PC space. They represent over 70% of the market, and that my friend... is a monopoly. Victims of their own success. If IOS represented over 70% of the mobile space, it would be the same.
I'm sure someone will correct my numbers soon.
So there's roughly 1.5 billion Windows devices in the wild, 1 billion iOS devices and 3 billion Android.
Would you agree that what you can do on iOS and Android has increased in the last decade to put them somewhat more evenly positioned as general computing devices?
Then we can say that iOs represents the 100% of the market in the iPhone space, thus a monopoly.
You didn't answer my question really. But at least you "sort of" admit that a PC is an "open platform."
Now why are mobile personal computers not "open platforms"?
Sorry, but no amount of weaseling answers will change reality on this one. Mobile devices are personal computers now and are the most important consumer product that anyone in society owns. You can destroy entire businesses by simply removing an app from either store. All of this power is in the hands of two of the largest corporations to ever exist and the business has no recourse to argue against these decisions. And they do happen.
Things change over time, as is this case with our mobile devices. What was once a luxury novelty is now practically required for day to day living. They have moved into a position of such wide reaching importance AND lack of choice that they absolutely need to be opened up, either by choice, or force of law if it comes to it. These are computing platforms and need to be on equal ground with Windows, MacOS, and Linux.
If epic gets to ride free on Apples billions of R&D for chips and devices yearly then then Apple should be able to give away epic MTX for free two way street the way I see it. If epic wants 0 cut build thier own phone and have a epic store spend the money on hardware.
Absolutely ridiculous. Consoles have to allow for competing stores then, as every closed system is its own monopoly. That's not what a monopoly is.
Monopoly: "A monopoly refers to when a company and its product offerings dominate a sector or industry. Monopolies can be considered an extreme result of free-market capitalism in that, absent any restriction or restraints, a single company or group becomes large enough to own all or nearly all of the market (goods, supplies, commodities, infrastructure, and assets) for a particular type of product or service. The term monopoly is often used to describe an entity that has total or near-total control of a market. "
Apple doesn't have a monopoly, they just make a lot of money. Epic believes they are entitled to more of it, they have to prove why.
Then we can say that iOs represents the 100% of the market in the iPhone space
It's just a joke, i thought the blasphemy part gave that away.Asking for a ban? is that not a bannable offence?
And yet it's exactly as valid as a definition as yours, with an arbitrary "desktop" market chosen purposefully to define windows as a monopoly, despite having many devices with different OS, even portable ones, that can do more or less the same things.This is a non starter, and you're coming at this from a place of ignorance. That you don't understand what such definition of a monopoly would entail, is honestly mind boggling.
Because windows was always a open platform and Microsoft never was the R&D driver behind the hardware and sales. They let others spend that money. Epic is just looking for a free ride while getting protections for thier work lol. Apple you can't get protection for the billions you spend annually but we want our protections. They want to give software makers all the power and protections let hardware makers fend for themselves. The second a shady store shows up on Apple IOS giving away epic games you can guess who epic would drag to court .Try to apply this logic to PCs and see why it’s shit.
Competing with the gatekeeper of the store which can make rules up on the spot to give themselves special treatment is one of the cases where consumers’ are under served and competition completely fails at letting the best app win. Being constantly told your app can have a certain UI but not another one, down to having categories or carousels, etc… or being requested to observe conditions Apple does not respect (ask yourself how they can ship Xcode on the Mac App Store for example…) also gets quite tiresome.This is a non starter, and you're coming at this from a place of ignorance. That you don't understand what such definition of a monopoly would entail, is honestly mind boggling.
It is not that simple and the relationship between Apple and third party devs is symbiotic… Apple’s is treating all devs as beggars they are doing charity work for… ask Windows Phone what it means to have few third party apps or shitty ones in your store only (the OS and the HW in those phones was NOT bad at all, yet they still sunk…).Because windows was always a open platform and Microsoft never was the R&D driver behind the hardware and sales. They let others spend that money. Epic is just looking for a free ride while getting protections for thier work lol. Apple you can't get protection for the billions you spend annually but we want our protections. They want to give software makers all the power and protections let hardware makers fend for themselves. The second a shady store shows up on Apple IOS giving away epic games you can guess who epic would drag to court .
This is a non starter, and you're coming at this from a place of ignorance. That you don't understand what such definition of a monopoly would entail, is honestly mind boggling.
sacrilegeIt's just a joke, i thought the blasphemy part gave that away.
I don't think i have to explain that gaming is not a religion.
Developers are always free to band together and tell Apple to piss off and treat us better to. Hold apps off the store like windows phone. With out revenue of a store your discouraging hardware in certain markets and creating new markets in the future. I don't want a 1500 consoles because Sony no longer makes money from the store. If epic wins here that is next for them and others. Valve would have nothing to lose taking Sony to court to get their store on the PlayStation.It is not that simple and the relationship between Apple and third party devs is symbiotic… Apple’s is treating all devs as beggars they are doing charity work for… ask Windows Phone what it means to have few third party apps or shitty ones in your store only (the OS and the HW in those phones was NOT bad at all, yet they still sunk…).
I disagree… look at Spotify’s lawsuit and if there is a weakness in their armour and more devs are emboldened to show how Apple has been abusing their control of the App Store against devs and especially against devs making things Apple felt would be competing against their services… well, that will have tons of people joining up.even IF epic can get the court to agree Apple has a monopoly, they still have an uphill battle
The IAP mandate, which is not even consistently applied (see Amazon Prime having a special deal, look at all apps where you can purchase things without IAP’s too), is another mechanism where they give themselves a 15-30% advantage in profit margins: they could allow developers like Epic and many others to just use the very secure Apple Pay mechanism to pay for content inside the app… but nope… you must use IAP for subscriptions and consumables and only that and give Apple an extra cut.
Apple have a monopoly of app payments in the the iOS device market. Epic are arguing that the size of that market is so significant and that for various reasons users are so unlikely to switch platforms that no real choice exists. Remains to be seen if that reaches the legal definition of a monopoly I guess.If you can prove that iOS is now replacing Windows in the workplace, then you have a strong case. Are iOS devices meant for Maya 3d artists? This is a big challenge to prove in court.
Absolutely ridiculous. Consoles have to allow for competing stores then, as every closed system is its own monopoly. That's not what a monopoly is.
Monopoly: "A monopoly refers to when a company and its product offerings dominate a sector or industry. Monopolies can be considered an extreme result of free-market capitalism in that, absent any restriction or restraints, a single company or group becomes large enough to own all or nearly all of the market (goods, supplies, commodities, infrastructure, and assets) for a particular type of product or service. The term monopoly is often used to describe an entity that has total or near-total control of a market. "
Apple doesn't have a monopoly, they just make a lot of money. Epic believes they are entitled to more of it, they have to prove why. They will also have to prove how Apple's rules stiffle innovation, which will be pretty hard to do since... Fortnite was swimming in the billions, and they are fighting over MTX percentage. They won't even be able to prove Apple was using leverage to stifle competition, since they don't have a product that competes with Fortnite. Spotify is the one with the better legal argument, and even then... it's hard when spotify is available everywhere else and being competitive and lucrative.
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (1992), is a 1992 Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that even though an equipment manufacturer lacked significant market power in the primary market for its equipment—copier-duplicators and other imaging equipment—nonetheless, it could have sufficient market power in the secondary aftermarket for repair parts to be liable under the antitrust laws for its exclusionary conduct in the aftermarket.[1] The reason was that it was possible that, once customers were committed to the particular brand by having purchased a unit, they were "locked in" and no longer had any realistic alternative to turn to for repair parts.
Some of the buyout prices are fucking awful. $45k for Rime... Jesus.
If you imagine that MS offer comparable numbers for GP, it paints a grim picture for the future.
I think the difference from what I gather Sweeney is arguing is that the Apple store is unique because; -
- iOS is found on general computing devices (not single-purpose gaming consoles)
- Apple devices are sold at a high profit.
- Dedicated gaming consoles are sold at razor-thin margins or even loss-leaders (thus relying on app revenue)
- There are over 1 billion iOS users.
So I don't believe a court ruling in favor of Epic means applying a blanket rule for all digital stores.
It is an extra 15-30% compared to the subscriptions they sell and to their mandate not allowing devs to use alternative payment methods (which is BS as plenty of examples show).I agree that Apple shouldn't be allowed to undercut competing services for the end user on their device. I don't understand what you mean with in app purchases giving them an extra 15% to 30%, or how it's any different from PlayStation, where 30% is taken from every purchase.