Apple's 'Fortnite' takedown will cause incalculable harm to users, says Epic

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 86
    Samsonikk said:
    What if all the other app Developers decided to do what epic is trying to do wouldn’t that ruin the App Store experience? Not to mention the possibility of what could happen to the entire IOS platform.

    It is entirely speculative that if Apple were forced to allow this, that every single company might want to instantly make 30% more money.  There’s no way we could possibly be sure that might happen...

  • Reply 22 of 86
    Let Epic fail. They are just wasting revenue on court cases.
    Beatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 86
    badmonkbadmonk Posts: 1,135member
    The judge should dismiss this with prejudice and make Epic pay for the opposing sides legal fees in its response.
    pulseimagesmdriftmeyerBeatsDogpersonmwhitewatto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 86
    dysamoria said:
    larryjw said:
    No amount of harm can ever come from not being able to play a video game.

    Get at JOB!

    Hot tip, mr superior: People with jobs play video games!

    No harm will ever come from not being able to play a specific video game, true. However, I’m sure it’s yet another irritation in a long string of daily irritations when the thing a person seeks to do as stress relief *after work* is blocked by Epic BS...
    And yet the government has no problem prohibiting that activity when the stress relief is from oh lets say snorting cocaine.
    Dogpersonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 86
    Epic has never done anything except stuff money in their pockets. Apple practically saved my life when I went blind seven years ago with the advancements they made in accessibility, advancements that would have been hindered had they not had their App Store rules in place. Epic sells games, but, for me, Aple sells life. 
    crossladspock1234tobianBeatsSpamSandwichDogpersonuraharamattinozmwhitewatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 86
    If I'm a user of something and violate the TOS service I know many companies would quickly respond and threaten termination of said service, but if I'm running my business through their portal i should get special treatment?
    Beatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 86
    The judge in the case already told Epic that all they needed to do was revert the game and that if they abided by the current terms of the agreement so it would have no impact whatsoever on their court case.

    Since Epic has refused to do so, I have to believe that their desire for publicity is more important to them than is the plight of their iOS user base.
    spock1234anantksundaramBeatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 86
    Epic has never done anything except stuff money in their pockets. Apple practically saved my life when I went blind seven years ago with the advancements they made in accessibility, advancements that would have been hindered had they not had their App Store rules in place. Epic sells games, but, for me, Aple sells life. 
    Sorry to hear about your blindness, but happy to hear about your accessibility experiences with Apple. And I noticed a little irony that your thumbnail icon on AppleInsider is a person with a patch over one eye. 
    BeatsDogpersonmwhitewatto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 86
    fordee said:
    I’m not sure how this is different from before and why a judge wouldn’t just say that to avoid the damage by reverting the app to how it was before.
     The damage is self-inflicted, and as such, can be remedied by Epic solely.
    That’s not the job of the courts. They mediate whatever the plaintiff and defendant file.
  • Reply 30 of 86
    No one needs a video game to survive. Bye-bye, Epic.
    Beatslarryjwwatto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 86
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    I carefully read the article for a change.

    I gathered,
    Epic wants to bypass Apple fees 100% but want to set up a shop on Apple products and reap 100% profit.
    Epic is complaining that Apple has a monopoly on Apple products.

    The removal of Fortnite has ""cleaved millions of users from their friends and family." "

    So... These users used Fortnite as a tool of communication between themselves and family and friends? Do they not have any way of communication outside of a game? Is Fortnite the only way you can contact mom? "WOW! Great kill grandma! Is dinner ready so I can come upstairs?"

    " "the user outcry has been deafening," 

    YOU did this. YOU deserve this.

    "There is also the claim of a loss of "goodwill" and reputation damage to Epic"

    YOU did this. YOU deserve this.

    "Aside from the loss of 60% of its daily active users, Epic also reasons this impacts heavily on the 63% of users who only access "Fortnite" via iOS and not other platforms. Its iOS app is also said to have the biggest audience across all platforms "Fortnite" exists on, with over 116 million registered users spending more than 2.86 billion hours in the app."

    But but but Apple isn't gaming!! But but Apple didn't help Fortnite become successful!
    *CALLING ALL APPLE HATING IDIOTS! REPORT TO DUTY! EXPLAIN YOURSELVES!*

    " The harm to the game "cannot be calculated in damages," Epic reckons."

    YOU did this. YOU deserve this.

    "A third point further continues the damage theme, by declaring "the balance of harms tips strongly in Epic's favor,""



    You mean biting the hand that fed you harms you most?!?!!!?!?


    "A supposed concern of Apple's that every developer would follow Epic's lead with direct payments is deemed "speculative and implausible," as few would be able to "risk the wrath of Apple" and wouldn't have much incentive to do so."

    So if Apple helps you become successful you have the right to fu** them over and demand special rights? What a sh*t way of doing business!



    TL;DR
    I punched myself in the face and it's cause irreparable harm!

    -Epic


    I deserve Apple's hard work and services for free!
    -Epic

    qwerty52Dogpersondhawkins541mwhitewatto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 86
    Beats said:
    I carefully read the article for a change.

    I gathered,
    Epic wants to bypass Apple fees 100% but want to set up a shop on Apple products and reap 100% profit.
    Epic is complaining that Apple has a monopoly on Apple products.


    It may be an Apple product, but it's not owned by Apple, it's owned by the user.  Epic should be free to "setup shop" on any device the owner of the device wants and Epic should not have to pay the manufacturer of the device a fee for the "privilege" of doing so.

    Did you carefully read the article?  I think not.  It literally says "That power emboldened it to design restrictions to create and maintain monopolies in app distribution and in-app payment processing."  Monopoly of distribution and payment processing, NOT Apple products.   So, you gathered wrong.  Apple does have a 100% monopoly on distribution and payment processing.  No lies there.  Is it legal?  I think that is what this is about.


    edited September 2020 Beats
  • Reply 33 of 86
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    ITGUYINSD said:
    Beats said:
    I carefully read the article for a change.

    I gathered,
    Epic wants to bypass Apple fees 100% but want to set up a shop on Apple products and reap 100% profit.
    Epic is complaining that Apple has a monopoly on Apple products.


    It may be an Apple product, but it's not owned by Apple, it's owned by the user.  Epic should be free to "setup shop" on any device the owner of the device wants and Epic should not have to pay the manufacturer of the device a fee for the "privilege" of doing so.

    Did you carefully read the article?  I think not.  It literally says "That power emboldened it to design restrictions to create and maintain monopolies in app distribution and in-app payment processing."  Monopoly of distribution and payment processing, NOT Apple products.   So, you gathered wrong.  Apple does have a 100% monopoly on distribution and payment processing.  No lies there.  Is it legal?  I think that is what this is about.



    Nope Apple owns the iPhone and iPad.

    Same as Netflix owns Netflix and Wal Mart owns Wal Mart. I can't just walk into Wal Mart and demand they paint the walls a different color and demand an organic juice bar and demand they carry my product like a crappy flea market.

    "Epic should be free to "setup shop" on any device the owner of the device wants and Epic should not have to pay the manufacturer of the device a fee for the "privilege" of doing so."

    Cool. Now go criticize Nintendo, Microsoft, Netflix, Wal Mart, Amazon. I always find it funny how Apple is always shi* on for things 99% of the industry practice.
    edited September 2020 qwerty52Dogpersonwatto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 34 of 86
    Apple owns its App Store, lock, stock, and barrel.  It set and maintains the rules by which others are allowed to access and use it.  It can charge whatever it wishes for people to participate.  Those customers can choose to pay, or go elsewhere.  Epic simply grew so large it thought it could use its size and customer base to coerce Apple into letting it set up its own pay system within its app.  Apple said no.

    This is all pretty simple.  Apple is NOT A MONOPOLY by any standard.  It created an environment to allow developers to market and sell their software creations by paying Apple a fee for that service.  No one forced those developers to use its service.  If they don’t want to abide by Apple’s rules, they can switch to another platform.  In fact, Android is arguably much larger than Apple as a game platform.

    Hubris can be a debilitating weakness.  Epic’s leadership should probably decide whether they wish to let their current leader continue with his attempted extortion.  If they do and their customer base bails, they did it to themselves.
    GabyBeatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 86
    Beats said:
    ITGUYINSD said:
    Beats said:
    I carefully read the article for a change.

    I gathered,
    Epic wants to bypass Apple fees 100% but want to set up a shop on Apple products and reap 100% profit.
    Epic is complaining that Apple has a monopoly on Apple products.


    It may be an Apple product, but it's not owned by Apple, it's owned by the user.  Epic should be free to "setup shop" on any device the owner of the device wants and Epic should not have to pay the manufacturer of the device a fee for the "privilege" of doing so.

    Did you carefully read the article?  I think not.  It literally says "That power emboldened it to design restrictions to create and maintain monopolies in app distribution and in-app payment processing."  Monopoly of distribution and payment processing, NOT Apple products.   So, you gathered wrong.  Apple does have a 100% monopoly on distribution and payment processing.  No lies there.  Is it legal?  I think that is what this is about.



    Nope Apple owns the iPhone and iPad.

    Same as Netflix owns Netflix and Wal Mart owns Wal Mart. I can't just walk into Wal Mart and demand they paint the walls a different color and demand an organic juice bar and demand they carry my product like a crappy flea market.

    "Epic should be free to "setup shop" on any device the owner of the device wants and Epic should not have to pay the manufacturer of the device a fee for the "privilege" of doing so."

    Cool. Now go criticize Nintendo, Microsoft, Netflix, Wal Mart, Amazon. I always find it funny how Apple is always shi* on for things 99% of the industry practice.
    You're making no sense.  Walmart doesn't own the TV that I purchased from them and walked out the store with.  They can't tell me what I can and cannot watch on MY TV once I purchase it.  Netflix?  I guess if Netflix sold a Netflix device and a service and locked the user of the device into only using Netflix then maybe we could talk similarities, but as it is, Netflix is not similar in this case.

    The other companies you listed?  How are they like Apple?  Walmart and Amazon do not force buyer or sellers to have to sell at Amazon or Walmart.  My TV example above proves once I've purchased the TV, I can do whatever I want to do with it, not what Amazon or Walmart tells me I can do with it.


    Beats
  • Reply 36 of 86
    ITGUYINSD said:
    Beats said:
    I carefully read the article for a change.

    I gathered,
    Epic wants to bypass Apple fees 100% but want to set up a shop on Apple products and reap 100% profit.
    Epic is complaining that Apple has a monopoly on Apple products.


    It may be an Apple product, but it's not owned by Apple, it's owned by the user.  Epic should be free to "setup shop" on any device the owner of the device wants and Epic should not have to pay the manufacturer of the device a fee for the "privilege" of doing so.

    Did you carefully read the article?  I think not.  It literally says "That power emboldened it to design restrictions to create and maintain monopolies in app distribution and in-app payment processing."  Monopoly of distribution and payment processing, NOT Apple products.   So, you gathered wrong.  Apple does have a 100% monopoly on distribution and payment processing.  No lies there.  Is it legal?  I think that is what this is about.



    So, if I create a company, a product, a software store on that product, and create tools to allow third parties to create software to sell in that store, it’s NOT OK to set the terms and conditions and fees for using those tools to access that store?  Is my control of my product a monopoly for users of my product?  Sure, absolutely.  Can my customers when they get big and successful come back and sue me to allow them to use my store for free, and indeed force me to maintain the infrastructure so they can avoid having to build such an infrastructure themselves, and avoid those costs for themselves?  Sure, they can sue me.  But, their case is laughable.  The judge should dismiss this case with prejudice and force Epic to pay Apple’s court costs.

    It’s Apple’s store.  They built it, they make the rules, they pay for maintaining its infrastructure, and they get to determine how much profit they can demand.  If customers don’t like that, they can resolve the issue themselves by simply leaving the platform.  Apple is not the only industry platform available to them to market and sell their products.
    BeatsDogpersonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 37 of 86
    ITGUYINSD said:
    Beats said:
    I carefully read the article for a change.

    It may be an Apple product, but it's not owned by Apple, it's owned by the user.  Epic should be free to "setup shop" on any device the owner of the device wants and Epic should not have to pay the manufacturer of the device a fee for the "privilege" of doing so.

    Why do you object to any consumer choice? I want a company, either Apple or Google, to take my money and provide a safe and managed computing environment. But you don't want me to have that choice. My choice is to pay extra to have someone help make me safe. But you don't want that to be an option for any consumer. Why are you against consumer freedom? There already is an unsafe operating system called Android with its free-for-all Side Loading features. We don't need to take away Apple's more secure offering.

    I will admit to you, though, if Google offered an operating system at a higher price for which Google implemented the same controls and privacy as Apple, I'd consider it. That's what Google should be doing. That would give us a choice, but Google opposes that choice probably because they need to take our personal information to make money. Right now the only option I have for a managed, safe computing environment is from Apple. And people like you are trying to remove that choice from me. That's what I would expect in China, but not in the free Americas. 

    I'll grant you this: the iPhone hardware is indeed owned by the end user, but the operating system is licensed. You don't own the OS and you can't install a free-for-all app store without violating the license agreement. I could quote the agreement but you already read it when you clicked on "I Accept."

    I'll bet if Apple introduced a new phone called uPhone with a new OS called uOS which allowed you to download any software you wanted EXCEPT software from the Apple App store, I suspect that hardly anyone would buy it. But doing this would probably get the regulators off Apple's back.
    edited September 2020 BeatsDogpersonRayz2016watto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 38 of 86
    I've been reading about this topic here as well at other sites and I'd like to add some thoughts:

    When you buy a smartphone, you do in fact own the phone, but you don't own the operating system. Before Apple, you had Windows Mobile, Nokia, Palm and BlackBerry. As I recall, the enduser agreed to the terms and conditions to the use of operating system. If the enduser didn't like them, then the only option was to return the device and get their money back.

    Installing apps on these devices was hit or miss at best. Some carriers restricted what apps were available and where you could get them. If an app bricked your phone, you had to deal with the developer directly and often the app may be in conflict with another app and you'd end up going down a rabbit hole trying to resolve the issue.

    Apple came up with another model which basically tells the carriers "you manage your network and we'll take care of the phone." At the time, this was unheard of.
    Then, Apple leveraged its success with iTunes to develop the iOS App Store which is a huge success. 

    From a developers perspective, Apple provides the development tools, support, hosting and a curated potential customer base which minimizes the potential for credit card fraud, removes the need for each developer to have a CC merchant account and presumably pays the developer on time. For this, Apple charges 30% on the app purchase and 30% on in app purchases. The developer gets to decide what price to charge for their app, as well as in app purchases. I would presume the developer knows his cost structure and would price their app so the developer can make a profit. The developer doesn't have to deal with all the other issues of running an online store and can concentrate on developing apps.

    I would think that developers have read and understood the terms and conditions of their developer agreement as well as the implications that agreement entails. If it makes business sense to them, they move forward; if not then they would find another venue for app development.

    Epic is just a bunch of greedy folks who are willing to renege on their agreement to make some extra coin, and really don't care about the consumers.

    Do I have issues with the App Store? You bet. I'd like to get my money back from several apps I've bought that, IMHO, did not deliver what was advertised. My recourse is to review the app and express my dissatisfaction and think twice before I purchase another app from that developer.

    What I like most about Apple's approach is I don't have to be concerned with an app stealing my data, bricking my phone. At the end of the day while it is a "computer in your pocket" its primary function is a phone.

    Thanks for reading.



    Beatsqwerty52DogpersonhammeroftruthRayz2016mwhitedave marshwatto_cobra
  • Reply 39 of 86
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,924member
    Sorry, Epic, your wound is self inflected. 
    Beatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 40 of 86
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    ITGUYINSD said:
    Beats said:
    ITGUYINSD said:
    Beats said:
    I carefully read the article for a change.

    I gathered,
    Epic wants to bypass Apple fees 100% but want to set up a shop on Apple products and reap 100% profit.
    Epic is complaining that Apple has a monopoly on Apple products.


    It may be an Apple product, but it's not owned by Apple, it's owned by the user.  Epic should be free to "setup shop" on any device the owner of the device wants and Epic should not have to pay the manufacturer of the device a fee for the "privilege" of doing so.

    Did you carefully read the article?  I think not.  It literally says "That power emboldened it to design restrictions to create and maintain monopolies in app distribution and in-app payment processing."  Monopoly of distribution and payment processing, NOT Apple products.   So, you gathered wrong.  Apple does have a 100% monopoly on distribution and payment processing.  No lies there.  Is it legal?  I think that is what this is about.



    Nope Apple owns the iPhone and iPad.

    Same as Netflix owns Netflix and Wal Mart owns Wal Mart. I can't just walk into Wal Mart and demand they paint the walls a different color and demand an organic juice bar and demand they carry my product like a crappy flea market.

    "Epic should be free to "setup shop" on any device the owner of the device wants and Epic should not have to pay the manufacturer of the device a fee for the "privilege" of doing so."

    Cool. Now go criticize Nintendo, Microsoft, Netflix, Wal Mart, Amazon. I always find it funny how Apple is always shi* on for things 99% of the industry practice.
    You're making no sense.  Walmart doesn't own the TV that I purchased from them and walked out the store with.  They can't tell me what I can and cannot watch on MY TV once I purchase it.  Netflix?  I guess if Netflix sold a Netflix device and a service and locked the user of the device into only using Netflix then maybe we could talk similarities, but as it is, Netflix is not similar in this case.

    The other companies you listed?  How are they like Apple?  Walmart and Amazon do not force buyer or sellers to have to sell at Amazon or Walmart.  My TV example above proves once I've purchased the TV, I can do whatever I want to do with it, not what Amazon or Walmart tells me I can do with it.



    You're moving the goalposts now.

    Apple owns their technology. End of story.
    mwhitewatto_cobraDetnator
Sign In or Register to comment.